or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II - Page 15

post #561 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

the issue is whether or not there was "any evidence" of a link, and there clearly was.

Where?
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 #562 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not going to link to what is common knowledge. It was claimed dozens of times.

You are clearly too biased to care enough to separate the concept of "common knowledge" from "common conjecture".
Quote:
However, the issue is whether or not there was "any evidence" of a link, and there clearly was.

Again... WHERE?

You haven't shown any evidence in your quote. You've shown someone (biased) who is claiming there was evidence. That is not evidence. It is hearsay.

Where is the evidence?
post #563 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I know, this has become a worthless waste of time with you.

End of thread...for me at least. \

It has become that. You are absolutely convinced that the Administration lied to take us to war. But the evidence does not bear that out.

1. It's already been demonstrated that intelligence analysts were not pressured.

2. It has not been proven to any degree of satisfaction that Bush and company knowingly presented false information.

3. The collective judgment of the US and world intelligence communities was that Saddam had WMD.

4. Other high profile government officials, seeing the exact same intelligence Bush did, thought Saddam had WMD as well. I point you again to this.


So that's the end of the "lying" point. Let's address the "cherry picking" point. Of course they selected certain pieces of intel to present to the public. Should they have presented all of it? None of it? Are you honestly pretending that members of Congress were duped? It's pure absurdity to think that.

Let me tell you what actually happened: Bush and company knew Saddam was a shithead from the day they took office. Within his administration, there were those that believed Saddam could only be contained for so long, and that we was going to have to be dealt with decisively. We had been selectively attacking him for violating the ceasefire and UN resolutions for some time. In addition, they felt the projection of American power for the purpose of installing a Democracy in that part of the world would be a good thing. These were the "neocons" if you will. Their motives were not as sinister as you'd like to think, but they did want to get rid of Saddam.

Then 9/11 happened. Those at the highest levels of government decided we were no longer going to take our chances with people like Saddam Hussein. Given the horror of 9/11, it occurred to both Bush and others in the government that given Saddam's use and development of WMD in the past, he might decide to use AQ or another terrorist organization as a proxy to attack us. After all, Saddam openly praised 9/11. To my knowledge he was the only world leader to do so. Even Libya condemned the attacks. So did North Korea. And Cuba. And every other "enemy" of the United States.

In any case, the decision was made that we simply were not going to fool with Saddam anymore...not with what had happened. Consider for a moment how things looked from Bush's chair:

1. There was overwhelming evidence Saddam possessed and was developing WMD.

2. There was evidence that Saddam had some ties to AQ.

3. There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam had other terror ties, such as his payments to Palestinian suicide bombers. In the least, he tolerated terrorism and tacitly encouraged it.

4. Saddam violated the 1991 ceasefire almost daily.

5. Saddam had disobeyed over a dozen UN resolutions.

6. Saddam had used WMD on his own people.

7. Saddam openly praised 9/11

8. Saddam tortured, raped and murdered his own people.

9. The United States had just suffered the worst terror attack in history, and Bush was committed to not letting something like it happen again.

10. There were those in the administration that believed we were going to have to deal with Saddam at some point anyway, and that the projection of American military power in that region of the world would lead to a transformation of the middle east.

Really...what would you have done in his position? Ignore Saddam? As I've said many times, prior to 9/11 that was a fine option. But after?
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 #564 of 685
OMG we're back in 2003 and SDW2001 is cutting and pasting from Groverat's posts.
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 #565 of 685
Bush "regrets" his rhetoric regarding the war:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...d=networkfront

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #566 of 685
Saddam was not a real and present danger to the US. A nuisance, yes, but not a danger.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #567 of 685
Not directly on topic, but the Bush Admin., Inc., has lost another legal battle over Gitmo.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

Seems that they have tried a third time (and lost a third time) to get a free pass to do as they will in Gitmo (as they have elsewhere). The SC didn't go for it.

The enemy combatants have rights under the Constitution.

Expect to see a continuation of the status quo and utter contempt for the SC.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #568 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Where?

Uh:

Quote:
Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff's finding, noting that the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, agrees with the administration on key points. "Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You are clearly too biased to care enough to separate the concept of "common knowledge" from "common conjecture".


Again... WHERE?

You haven't shown any evidence in your quote. You've shown someone (biased) who is claiming there was evidence. That is not evidence. It is hearsay.

Where is the evidence?

You're playing games. Unless you're calling Kean a liar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Saddam was not a real and present danger to the US. A nuisance, yes, but not a danger.

That's not clear at all. He wasn't a danger in the conventional sense. But given the environment after 9/11, we believed there was a possibility he may pass off WMD to a proxy. We thought he had them. There was some evidence at the time that terrorists were operating in Iraq, and that in the least...Saddam was tolerating them. We knew he hated the United States with the fire of 1,000 red suns. It's not hard to understand why we thought he was a threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Not directly on topic, but the Bush Admin., Inc., has lost another legal battle over Gitmo.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

Seems that they have tried a third time (and lost a third time) to get a free pass to do as they will in Gitmo (as they have elsewhere). The SC didn't go for it.

The enemy combatants have rights under the Constitution.

Expect to see a continuation of the status quo and utter contempt for the SC.

I saw that. All I can say is I totally disagree with the court's decision. Enemy combatants should not have access to the civilian court system. Period.
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 #569 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh my God.

Yeah! Where's the beef???
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 #570 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is an entirely subjective interpretation.



Uh...he said that specifically. What should he have done, come out and say "to please jimmac, I should be clear Iraq doesn't have ICBMs?"



I'm not going to link to what is common knowledge. It was claimed dozens of times.



My opinions are not based on the number of people agree with me, unlike yours. I know it's comforting to have 80% of the board agree with you. It doesn't make you right.




That's a fair point. I stand corrected. However, the issue is whether or not there was "any evidence" of a link, and there clearly was.

" I'm not going to link to what is common knowledge. It was claimed dozens of times. "

So it should be super easy for you. Either that or this is a cop out to use a phrase from long ago.

" My opinions are not based on the number of people agree with me, unlike yours. I know it's comforting to have 80% of the board agree with you. It doesn't make you right. "

Well I'm all for the underdog and someone who stands up against impossible odds. It's just that you're so totally wrong about all of this. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Also I just love it when you play amature psychologist. You haven't a clue on how I form my opinions. I have tried to tell you.



Like I've said before you sound like a mad scientist from an old movie. " They're all wrong I tell you! Wrong! I'll show them! "

So again a linked quote from before the war will help your argument. Because like all the other shifting " facts " from The Bush administration about this war I don't believe they claimed this until later.
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 #571 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're playing games. Unless you're calling Kean a liar.

He's no more a liar than you are, or than Colin Powell was when he said Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs. Kean was TOLD there was evidence. You were TOLD there was evidence. Powell was TOLD there was evidence.

That's not evidence.
post #572 of 685
post #573 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" I'm not going to link to what is common knowledge. It was claimed dozens of times. "

So it should be super easy for you. Either that or this is a cop out to use a phrase from long ago.

I'm not playing your game. Sorry. Think whatever you want.

Quote:

" My opinions are not based on the number of people agree with me, unlike yours. I know it's comforting to have 80% of the board agree with you. It doesn't make you right. "

Well I'm all for the underdog and someone who stands up against impossible odds. It's just that you're so totally wrong about all of this. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Also I just love it when you play amature psychologist. You haven't a clue on how I form my opinions. I have tried to tell you.

Actually, I think it might do you some good to examine why you form opinions. Clearly they are not based on facts. We've seen that in your argument that Obama is going to win the general election. I used exit polls, demographics and the electoral college. You said "Change!"

Quote:


Like I've said before you sound like a mad scientist from an old movie. " They're all wrong I tell you! Wrong! I'll show them! "

Isn't it you that just posted this:

Quote:
It's just that you're so totally wrong about all of this. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Hmmm. Back to the lab, jimmac.

Quote:

So again a linked quote from before the war will help your argument. Because like all the other shifting " facts " from The Bush administration about this war I don't believe they claimed this until later.

I linked to a quote from a 9/11 commission member. I really don't see the problem, unless you're saying the quote is inaccurate, or you're calling him a liar. Either that, or you're claiming Kean was simply wrong. The problem there is you and others have embraced other aspects of the panel's findings, one's that follow your point of view more closely. In that case you're cherry-picking your findings. How convenient.
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 #574 of 685
Militants attack Afghan prison, freeing hundreds of inmates

Quote:
Taliban militants attacked the main prison in southern Afghanistan late Friday, exploding a car bomb at the main gate in a multi-pronged assault that freed hundreds of militant prisoners, officials said.

The complex attack included a car bomb, suicide bombers who entered the prison and rockets fired from outside it. The attack rattled the southern city of Kandahar with loud booms and set hundreds of Taliban insurgents fleeing into the night.

"All the prisoners escaped. There is no one left," said Wali Karzai, the brother of President Hamid Karzai and the president of Kandahar's provincial council.

Militants first exploded a water tanker near the entrance to the gate of the Kandahar prison, then several suicide bombers entered and exploded themselves, crumbling two prison walls, Karzai said. Many police were killed, Karzai said, but he did not immediately know how many.

The prison holds several hundred inmates, including at least 350 Taliban fighters who went on a hunger strike in May, Karzai said. He did not immediately know exactly how many prisoners escaped.
post #575 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I

You?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

linked

Oh yeah? Prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

to a quote

You've got to be kidding me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

from a 9/11 commission member.

Are you joking?

post #576 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

You? Oh yeah? Prove it. You've got to be kidding me!

Are you joking?


It would be difficult to find a more perfect example of begging the question.
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 #577 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not playing your game. Sorry. Think whatever you want.



Actually, I think it might do you some good to examine why you form opinions. Clearly they are not based on facts. We've seen that in your argument that Obama is going to win the general election. I used exit polls, demographics and the electoral college. You said "Change!"




Isn't it you that just posted this:



Hmmm. Back to the lab, jimmac.



I linked to a quote from a 9/11 commission member. I really don't see the problem, unless you're saying the quote is inaccurate, or you're calling him a liar. Either that, or you're claiming Kean was simply wrong. The problem there is you and others have embraced other aspects of the panel's findings, one's that follow your point of view more closely. In that case you're cherry-picking your findings. How convenient.

" I'm not playing your game. Sorry. Think whatever you want. "

Ok you can't. I understand. You're wrong about your claim and you know it.

Gotcha.

In the mean time here's a nice site where they've collected Bush's lies about Iraq.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html

You won't like it of course.

I like this quote : " “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on evidence for Iraq’s non-existent nukes. "


This :

" Actually, I think it might do you some good to examine why you form opinions. Clearly they are not based on facts. We've seen that in your argument that Obama is going to win the general election. I used exit polls, demographics and the electoral college. You said "Change!" "

is just a laugh! It is you who is not basing things on facts. And now we have established that. If you want to ignore the human element that's ok with me. McCain might win but I thnk the republicans have had their time in the sun for now. And I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to see it.

And of course there's this :

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...4-over-mccain/

And that's without choosing Hillary as his VP.

" Isn't it you that just posted this: "

By the way there's a difference between saying one individual is wrong as opposed to many being wrong. Usually those mad scientists were talking about many.

Which means you should be questioning yourself more closely if it's the opinion of many that you're wrong. It's much more likely they're right. When the Iraq war started my opinions about this whole thing weren't so much in the majority on this forum. People were still stirred up by 911. At the time I even had to turn my private messages off because a certain conservative member ( not you ) would continually send me intimidating messages to try to get me to shut up. I left them off for a long time for that reason. However here we are years later and things have become alot more apparent to everyone. I've always felt this way because Bush's " facts " just didn't make sense. This was me ( and a few others ) against many opinions. However as time went on their opinions changed to be more like mine. This just hasn't happened with you. And after repeated attempts by you to convince other people. See the difference?

Bush used 911 to sell his case for war. Yes Bush used this psychology well.

In the end I form my opinions by looking at the facts objectively and then seeing what others think ( but I don't just go with what everyone thinks ). Then I collate with my own life experiences.
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 #578 of 685
Interesting video.
Quote:
"We didn't go to war because we wanted to bring democracy to the Iraqi people," - Doug Feith.
post #579 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Interesting video.


Right on! Everyone should watch that video.

Of course I'm sure that certain parties here would try to make it into something else. I think it's interesting that those parties don't question the fact that the reason we're in Iraq keeps shifting to fit the argument.
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 #580 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Right on! Everyone should watch that video.

Of course I'm sure that certain parties here would try to make it into something else. I think it's interesting that those parties don't question the fact that the reason we're in Iraq keeps shifting to fit the argument.

Ah yes, the "shifting" argument. First, it was "shifting justifications for war." Now it's the same for staying. It's really quite amusing. Asked for the reasons we needed to go to war, the admin listed many. When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" So the admin then pointed out the other ten or so reasons. Critics responded "see...now you're shifting justifications!"

So now, critics ask why we're staying. The reasons are presented. The critics first dismiss those reasons, then accuse the administration of...wait for it....shifting justifications for staying.
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 #581 of 685
Hold this up and see if it helps, SDW:

post #582 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ah yes, the "shifting" argument. First, it was "shifting justifications for war." Now it's the same for staying. It's really quite amusing. Asked for the reasons we needed to go to war, the admin listed many. When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" So the admin then pointed out the other ten or so reasons. Critics responded "see...now you're shifting justifications!"

So now, critics ask why we're staying. The reasons are presented. The critics first dismiss those reasons, then accuse the administration of...wait for it....shifting justifications for staying.

" When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" "

Sigh! SDW we've been through this a billion times now!

There's a big difference between reasons that were presented for going there before the war and things he emphasized later like " Iraqi freedom ".

Iraqi freedom would have never got the support of the american people or anyone else to go to war over! There are many little regimes just like this all over the world that have thumbed their nose at us and treat their people in a dispicable manner.

Of course if you'd like to present a link to support your argument about Bush saying Saddam would sell or give one of his nonexistant WMD to a terrorist to attack us before the war as support for the same. Go right ahead.
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 #583 of 685
Isn't pre-emptive strike and homicide a Harvard Law School thing? Who cares about the surge at this point? It didn't work. It won't work, anymore than putting a security fence around California will work. Washington is loaded with stupids bastard pretending to know something about the world.
post #584 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post

Isn't pre-emptive strike and homicide a Harvard Law School thing? Who cares about the surge at this point? It didn't work. It won't work, anymore than putting a security fence around California will work. Washington is loaded with stupids bastard pretending to know something about the world.

Hey, now! SDW2001 cares about The Surge so much that six months ago he was saying that we needed to begin drawing down in 6 months and now that it's six months he's saying that as long as we begin drawing down within 6 months he's cool.
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 #585 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ah yes, the "shifting" argument. First, it was "shifting justifications for war." Now it's the same for staying. It's really quite amusing. Asked for the reasons we needed to go to war, the admin listed many. When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" So the admin then pointed out the other ten or so reasons. Critics responded "see...now you're shifting justifications!"

So now, critics ask why we're staying. The reasons are presented. The critics first dismiss those reasons, then accuse the administration of...wait for it....shifting justifications for staying.

So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those that would note that our justifications for invading Iraq and the expectations for the subsequent occupation have been all over the map, are themselves all over the map! Indeed, awareness of duplicity is the most duplicitous thing of all! It's really quite amusing! I am amused! The headaches are getting worse!
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 #586 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those that would note that our justifications for invading Iraq and the expectations for the subsequent occupation have been all over the map, are themselves all over the map! Indeed, awareness of duplicity is the most duplicitous thing of all! It's really quite amusing! I am amused! The headaches are getting worse!

It's not the headaches that you have to watch out for.

It's the voices.
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 #587 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" When we didn't find WMD, critics said "see...that was the only reason! You lied!" "

Sigh! SDW we've been through this a billion times now!

Yes, and you still don't get it.

Quote:

There's a big difference between reasons that were presented for going there before the war and things he emphasized later like " Iraqi freedom ".

The operation was called Iraqi Freedom, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Quote:

Iraqi freedom would have never got the support of the american people or anyone else to go to war over!

That might be true, but it doesn't mean it was based on lies. As I've said, one of the administration's mistakes was not focusing on the other, very real reasons for going into Iraq. But that's another matter.

Quote:
There are many little regimes just like this all over the world that have thumbed their nose at us and treat their people in a dispicable manner.

Ahh..that's a fun argument. Tell me then...should we have invaded one of those regimes instead? Would you have supported invading North Korea or Iran?

Quote:

Of course if you'd like to present a link to support your argument about Bush saying Saddam would sell or give one of his nonexistant WMD to a terrorist to attack us before the war as support for the same. Go right ahead.

Wait...are you serious? I mean, if you honestly don't remember, I'll go look for the quote. But are you actually saying you don't recall Bush saying we were concerned Saddam would hand off WMD to terrorists?

In the meantime, please enjoy watching and reading these quotes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post

Isn't pre-emptive strike and homicide a Harvard Law School thing? Who cares about the surge at this point? It didn't work. It won't work, anymore than putting a security fence around California will work. Washington is loaded with stupids bastard pretending to know something about the world.

The surge has lowered violence in Iraq considerably. You're wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Hey, now! SDW2001 cares about The Surge so much that six months ago he was saying that we needed to begin drawing down in 6 months and now that it's six months he's saying that as long as we begin drawing down within 6 months he's cool.

What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those that would note that our justifications for invading Iraq and the expectations for the subsequent occupation have been all over the map, are themselves all over the map! Indeed, awareness of duplicity is the most duplicitous thing of all! It's really quite amusing! I am amused! The headaches are getting worse!

I take it duplicity is now defined as "having more than one reason for war."
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 #588 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down?

well, first it was that if we're at June and they're still saying "6 more months" you would be pissed. Then, when I started to point out that nothing was changing at that the surge hadn't worked, it was "surge til the end of spring, then negin drawing down." Then when I started to point out that we were nearing the end of spring, it was "sometime this year," which, as I have pointed out, means that YOU are now saying "give it six more months."

It's all here in this thread.

PS

Spring ends today.
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 #589 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, and you still don't get it.



The operation was called Iraqi Freedom, so I'm going to have to disagree with you there.



That might be true, but it doesn't mean it was based on lies. As I've said, one of the administration's mistakes was not focusing on the other, very real reasons for going into Iraq. But that's another matter.



Ahh..that's a fun argument. Tell me then...should we have invaded one of those regimes instead? Would you have supported invading North Korea or Iran?



Wait...are you serious? I mean, if you honestly don't remember, I'll go look for the quote. But are you actually saying you don't recall Bush saying we were concerned Saddam would hand off WMD to terrorists?

In the meantime, please enjoy watching and reading these quotes.




The surge has lowered violence in Iraq considerably. You're wrong.




What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down?



I take it duplicity is now defined as "having more than one reason for war."

No. no SDW! I'm waiting for a very specific quote. I mean you are always so specific about my spelling. And it's not good enough if he sort of said it.

And remember that's before the war. As in support of. I'll keep repeating it because I know I've got you by the short hairs. Sorry but you've already lost.

This : " What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down? " is just lame and pathetic. I told I'd have more time to spend on this.

Saddam may have had some WMD in 1998. What does that have to do with a war that was waged in 2003? No war was started then because of it. Bush did that later. Also the others as I've said before based their opinions on info that came from your lord and savior George W. Bush. Who was wrong it turns out.

But we've already been over this several times.


Also you're the one who doesn't get it. The same old bag of tricks just don't work anymore. That was a part of another age. Bush and the neocon's little house of cards is about to fold and you're still acting like it's yesterday. Come on SDW! Correct my spelling some more.

Honestly you'll say anything or make up anything to try to bolster your argument. But by all means get it in while you can.

You can keep on trying to start old arguments you lost a long time ago but in the end Bush is going out and he's not being replaced by John McCain.

In the end SDW Bush will take the place in history he deserves. The Worst President In History. A lesson for all to never vote for someone like that again.
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 #590 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

well, first it was that if we're at June and they're still saying "6 more months" you would be pissed. Then, when I started to point out that nothing was changing at that the surge hadn't worked, it was "surge til the end of spring, then negin drawing down." Then when I started to point out that we were nearing the end of spring, it was "sometime this year," which, as I have pointed out, means that YOU are now saying "give it six more months."

It's all here in this thread.

PS

Spring ends today.

How does it feel to be a liar?
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 #591 of 685
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No. no SDW! I'm waiting for a very specific quote. I mean you are always so specific about my spelling. And it's not good enough if he sort of said it.

You remember it, as does everyone else, you intellectually dishonest hack. I'm not playing your game.
Quote:

And remember that's before the war. As in support of. I'll keep repeating it because I know I've got you by the short hairs. Sorry but you've already lost.

You've got nothing. Nothing. I mean shit...I can't believe you are ACTUALLY claiming Bush didn't talk about Saddam handing off WMD to terrorist groups before the war. It's laughable, as are you.

Quote:

This : " What...do you just get bored? Instead of reposting it, I'll ask you: What has been my position on drawing down? " is just lame and pathetic. I told I'd have more time to spend on this.

My position is that we should start drawing down this year in a responsible fashion. How is that lame and pathetic?

Quote:

Saddam may have had some WMD in 1998. What does that have to do with a war that was waged in 2003?

Because there was no evidence he had destroyed them. He was required by your friend, Mr. International Law, to provide that evidence.

Quote:
No war was started then because of it. Bush did that later.

Irrelevant, especially because democrats argued in 2002 and 2003 that he had them and that we had to act to disarm him.

Quote:


Also the others as I've said before based their opinions on info that came from your lord and savior George W. Bush. Who was wrong it turns out.

Bullshit. Fucking total and utter bullshit. It's the "Bush Tricked Me" defense.

Quote:

But we've already been over this several times

Another jimmacism and I could do without.

Quote:


Also you're the one who doesn't get it. The same old bag of tricks just don't work anymore. That was a part of another age. Bush and the neocon's little house of cards is about to fold and you're still acting like it's yesterday. Come on SDW! Correct my spelling some more.

If there has been more empty rhetoric here on AI, I've never seen it. Seriously...that paragraph you posted doesn't mean anything.

Quote:

Honestly you'll say anything or make up anything to try to bolster your argument. But by all means get it in while you can.

You mean like "Bush Tricked Me?"

Quote:

You can keep on trying to start old arguments you lost a long time ago but in the end Bush is going out and he's not being replaced by John McCain.

Right, because you're the arbiter of winning and losing arguments. Your definition of winning is "several liberals on the internet agree with me."

Quote:

In the end SDW Bush will take the place in history he deserves. The Worst President In History. A lesson for all to never vote for someone like that again.

Time will tell.
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 #592 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You remember it, as does everyone else, you intellectually dishonest hack. I'm not playing your game.


You've got nothing. Nothing. I mean shit...I can't believe you are ACTUALLY claiming Bush didn't talk about Saddam handing off WMD to terrorist groups before the war. It's laughable, as are you.



My position is that we should start drawing down this year in a responsible fashion. How is that lame and pathetic?



Because there was no evidence he had destroyed them. He was required by your friend, Mr. International Law, to provide that evidence.



Irrelevant, especially because democrats argued in 2002 and 2003 that he had them and that we had to act to disarm him.



Bullshit. Fucking total and utter bullshit. It's the "Bush Tricked Me" defense.



Another jimmacism and I could do without.



If there has been more empty rhetoric here on AI, I've never seen it. Seriously...that paragraph you posted doesn't mean anything.



You mean like "Bush Tricked Me?"



Right, because you're the arbiter of winning and losing arguments. Your definition of winning is "several liberals on the internet agree with me."



Time will tell.


Still can't come up with that quote?

Oh well I'll give you two points for being stubborn. About history and the election you know I'm right.

And the thing is so do most of the american people SDW. Who also are voters.


Hmmm? On alot of those other threads people seem to asking you for data and links also.

Hmm?

By the way. My definition of winning is when the opposition can't come up with a good counter argument or facts ( links / data ) to back their argument up. Things you seem to be in short supply of.
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 #593 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How does it feel to be a liar?

To be called a liar by someone who has admitted that they're a water-carrier? Pretty fucking funny, honestly. To be called a liar by someone who has admitted that they're a water-carrier and who is denying that they've said things in this thread that they've said? Even fucking funnier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

As for waiting a few more months: I for one said that if the surge didn't help matters I would call for us to pull out. I don't know as I thought about it in these terms before it started, but my feeling was actually that it wouldn't work, or stood less chance of working than it did failing. In percentage terms, I'd say I was about 60/40 against thinking it would work. Honestly. So yes, I am willing to wait a few more months and see what can be done. After mid-2008, enough is enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Given that we will hit a deployment crunch withe military next spring, we're going to have to start bringing the troops home around then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

There is no reason to think that such improvement won't continue in the next few months, where can begin to draw down the right way...in a slow and deliberate fashion as Iraqi units take over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm saying that by mid-2008 it would seem we'd be at a point where we can safely start to draw down. And yes, personally, I think 5 years is enough already. But that's just my feeling about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

My hope would be that by mid-2008 we'd be drawing down. If not, I'm going to want to know why, and what we plan to get to the point where we can. We can't just have an endless cycle of "6 months more."

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'll say this again: If next Spring we are told we need another 6 months to decide, I am going to have a fit. Mark my words.

And now, of course, SDW2001, you are the one saying we need to give it another 6 months.

And then I prophesied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwiner

Here's what's going to happen, SDW2001, you mark my words: when, next summer, we come to June and the question comes up—"is our children surging?"—there will be furious debate between YOU and the 75% of America who see this for what it is. And what will the debate be about? How we define "results." How we define "progress."

And then you moved the goalposts from Spring to "sometime in 2008":

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

There will be NO debate offered [about how we define progress]. I want troops to start drawing down in 2008 and continue gradually until the vast majority of American forces are out of there. The ones that do remain need to transition to non-combat roles and act in an advisory capacity. I'm quite serious. I will be furious if we're not on our way out of there.

And now we're being flatly told that we're not drawing down this year. And you're not furious.

And then I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

If, in June of 2008, you are screaming bloody murder about withdrawal, I'll certainly not complain and may even start a thread in praise of your sensiblenessissitudeicity.

I may have to start a thread before June runs out.

After Patronus said we need 6 more months to decide whether we need to begin thinking about drawing down, you said

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'll be pretty pissed, really. If we get more "6 more months" talk, I will not be amused.

And yet here you are. Still amused.

And then you said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Say we get to June 2008 and he violence has gotten worse and AQI has gained more ground. That would indicate that everything we've tried has not helped. The only thing left at that point (in my view) is to withdraw and do what some have advocated for years now....let the Iraqi's fix it themselves. What would the other options be?

Keep in mind that in the event the surge showed no progress, I felt we should pull out (as I said, I was not at all sure it was going to work...I hoped it would, of course, but I had serious doubts). So what I'm saying is not inconsistent.

And here we are. But you're still not furious, like you promised.
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 #594 of 685
Holy mackerel, that's one of the more epic takedowns we've seen, e'er these parts. I think SDW is under the impression this is all one long, drunken bull session, and he's free to change it up as he goes along without fear of being caught out. Or maybe he just figures being consistently belligerent is all the consistency you need?

But you're wrong about one thing, Mid-- SDW is furious. At you, me, Obama, the Democrats, hippiedom in general, and anyone who notices the complete bankruptcy of what passes for his ideology. Intellectually dishonest, one and all, and liars, to boot.

I know they say the best defense is a good offense, but if you don't have any game at all, that just makes you look like a particularly energetic lunatic.
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 #595 of 685
Can hardly wait for SDW's rebuttal.
post #596 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Holy mackerel, that's one of the more epic takedowns we've seen, e'er these parts. I think SDW is under the impression this is all one long, drunken bull session, and he's free to change it up as he goes along without fear of being caught out. Or maybe he just figures being consistently belligerent is all the consistency you need?

Indeed.
Bravo midwinter.



Quote:
But you're wrong about one thing, Mid-- SDW is furious. At you, me, Obama, the Democrats, hippiedom in general, and anyone who notices the complete bankruptcy of what passes for his ideology. Intellectually dishonest, one and all, and liars, to boot.

We are at fault too. All politicians misguide us, betray us and when the truly honest, determined ones do try to stand up for Americans, they are ridiculed, slandered and even killed.

Quote:
I know they say the best defense is a good offense, but if you don't have any game at all, that just makes you look like a particularly energetic lunatic.

I'm waiting for SDW's new thread on the new Iraqi peace and calm "teh surge" has brought, why we should stay there and how great Bush is. Because honestly, it seems to have progressed there. But again it will be for all the wrong reasons. Also, in many ways, it just could only be the calm before the storm.
post #597 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Indeed.
Bravo midwinter.





We are at fault too. All politicians misguide us, betray us and when the truly honest, determined ones do try to stand up for Americans, they are ridiculed, slandered and even killed.



I'm waiting for SDW's new thread on the new Iraqi peace and calm "teh surge" has brought, why we should stay there and how great Bush is. Because honestly, it seems to have progressed there. But again it will be for all the wrong reasons. Also, in many ways, it just could only be the calm before the storm.



" Also, in many ways, it just could only be the calm before the storm.[/QUOTE] "

Well it could happen but who's going to start it? Bush? He's shot his wad! If he tried this I think he would be impeached ( or hung in the town square ). Iran would have to do something pretty bad and if I'm right most of those countries are also waiting for Bush to be out of office so at least they have someone they can talk to ( this is not saying they're nice reliable people either but we're supposed to be the ones that are the reasonable good guys ).

Devil's Advocate Part :
On the other hand maybe they're dreading Bush leaving office. I mean look at what chaos it's brought to the united states.
Just what terrorists want. It's kind of like having a drunk at the wheel!
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 #598 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Devil's Advocate Part :
On the other hand maybe they're dreading Bush leaving office. I mean look at what chaos it's brought to the united states.
Just what terrorists want. It's kind of like having a drunk at the wheel!

Saber rattling...

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win'

Quote:
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.

However, "if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

------------------
Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be Delighted

Quote:
I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President. I dont think they will do anything before our election because they dont want to affect it. And theyd have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bushs term in office or wait for his successor.
...
I dont think youd hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

The Surge: Part Trois
post #599 of 685
Heh. I like that bombing Iran is now "following through on a policy."

Does Kristol think he's being helpful? And why doesn't his every appearance on the TV include a chyron stating "has been wrong about everything for as long as anyone can remember"?
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 #600 of 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Heh. I like that bombing Iran is now "following through on a policy."

Does Kristol think he's being helpful? And why doesn't his every appearance on the TV include a chyron stating "has been wrong about everything for as long as anyone can remember"?

Good thing he was wrong about Burma and China...

Kristol is a neoconservative main stream media mouthpiece. He was also a co-founder of the PNAC which defined much of the Bush foreign policy under their first term.

Let us just say that if we bomb Iran prior to the election it sets McCain up to be the de-facto person to deal with Iran's reprisals and sets Obama up to fail. According to the neo-cons, we're up to WW4 now. Those guys would be happy to push it to 5 or 6.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II