THEIR ABOUT TO GET CAUGHT OVER IRAQ

I'm not one to run away from a good argument, and I hate to do this, but I have to go pick up my axles from the shop. I will check this thread when I get back though.

 

Let's look at what I referred to and slice and dice it according to your criteria:

The Bush camp bleated on and on about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. VERIFIABLE FACT

The weapons were used in the 1980s. VERIFIABLE FACT

They were verifiably eliminated in the 1990s. VERIFIABLE FACT

Bush invaded in 2003! VERIFIABLE FACT

And he invaded in retaliation for an attack by AQ. That's the same as invading Mexico in retaliation for Pearl Harbour. Don't say it wasn't, because America's tacit acceptance was based on this administration's tireless efforts to create a link between 9/11 and Iraq and sell the invasion as the only solution. VERIFIABLE FACT

They couldn't fool the international community, but 70% of America bought it. VERIFIABLE FACT

It was pure fabrication of course, and he has recently admitted that there was no such link. VERIFIABLE FACT (AND HIS ADMISSION PROVES THAT THE EARLIER LINKAGE WAS A LIE)

The new party line is that it was all done to make Iraq a better-off place. VERIFIABLE FACT - EVEN POWELL SAID THIS AS THE IRAQI REPORTERS WALKED OUT ON HIM

Perhaps one day Iraq will be a better off place, but America's battle was with terrorism. MAYBE YOU DON'T AGREE?

Noone ever tasked Bush with the mission of improving the life of the average Iraqi, and I doubt Americans would be willing to sacrifice 500+ lives to do so. OK, THIS MIGHT HAVE TO BE VERIFIED BY A POLL. HANDS UP ALL THOSE WHO THINK SACRIFICING HUNDREDS OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN'S LIVES FOR IMPROVING IRAQIS', IRANIANS', LIBYANS', KOREANS' STANDARD OF LIVING, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT COME ABOUT, IS WORTHWHILE.

By the time it's over, that number will be in the thousands. And that's not counting the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead--I am sure they and their families appreciate the favour. EDUCATED GUESS. BUT EVEN IF IT TOPS OUT AT 999, IS THAT MUCH BETTER? WAIT ONE YEAR AND SEE IF THE NUMBER IS ABOVE 1,000 OR NOT. THAT WOULD BE SPRING 2005.

Bush invaded Iraq on the pretext that there was a link between Iraq and Sept. 11, between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and between Iraq and WMD. VERIFIABLE FACT

All three were outright lies. Now that WMD have not been found, the "logic" has changed to "well, Iraq can definitely not produce WMD now and that has made the US safer." VERIFIABLE FACT. THERE'S EVEN A VIDEO CLIP OF THIS ON THE WEB.

Further, by focusing on Iraq, and not deploying a large force to Afghanistan immediately after Sept. 11, Bush enabled OBL and his cronies to escape (VERIFIABLE FACT), and for Al Qaeda operatives to think they were "successful". VERIFIABLE FACT THROUGH INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

Although he declared the Taliban a rogue government, he continued to negotiate with them for OBL, signalling US intentions and giving everyone plenty of time to escape. VERIFIABLE FACT. AND THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING.

What's forgotten is how poorly executed the Afghanistan strategy was in the aftermath of 9/11. VERIFIABLE FACT- ASK THE SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIERS WHO WERE SENT THERE WITHOUT SUPPORT. ASK THE FAMILIES AND COMRADES OF THOSE WHO DID NOT RETURN.

But the world has felt the ramifications, from Bali to Madrid. VERIFIABLE FACT

Then, by invading Iraq with ZERO justification, Bush actually reinforced OBL's claims that the US is an imperialist crusader and the enemy of Islam. He played right into AQ's hands with that move. VERIFIABLE FACT-THIS IS A COMMON TENET OF AQ RECRUITING LITERATURE AND AUDIO PROPAGANDA TODAY.

Instead of focusing on Al Qaeda and wiping it out, Bush focused on Iraq. VERIFIABLE FACT

This gave AQ a whole new breeding ground and and helped it recruit new converts. VERIFIABLE FACT

And it mired the US down on yet another battleground, a very costly one, VERIFIABLE FACT and unfortunately one that was completely avoidable. VERIFIABLE FACT-NUMEROUS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILES EXIST ON SADDAM HUSSEIN, ALL OF THEM CONCLUDING HE DIDN'T LIKE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND DID NOT LIKE DEALING WITH TERRORISTS.

It was sheer lunacy to focus on Iraq when it posed NO threat, and to treat AQ as a minor irritant even AFTER 9/11. VERIFIABLE FACT BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO DO SOME READING.

The rhetoric changed immediately, but actions did not. VERIFIABLE FACT

And strategy is still misguided and largely ineffective. VERIFIABLE FACT

America's number one enemy has grown stronger. It's bigger, more spread out, and ever harder to penetrate. VERIFIABLE FACT CONFIRMED BY PUBLIC STATEMENTS MADE BY VIRTUALLY ALL THOSE ENGAGED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERROR.

Most damning of all is how Bush has handled the administration and security of the US. His government is composed of fiefdoms and cronies. VERIFIABLE FACT

Important projects and objectives are routinely sacrificed for pork. VERIFIABLE FACT

Nepotism runs amok. VERIFIABLE FACT

Public outcry has forced a couple of such appointees from office, but many remain, screwing things up colossally because they have zero understanding, experience, or ability to fulfill their job functions. VERIFIABLE FACT

Sadly, many of these functions relate to security. VERIFIABLE FACT

FOR THE ABOVE FOUR, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO SOME READING AND RESEARCH. I CAN HELP, BUT IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME. MAYBE IN A FEW HOURS I WILL FIND SOME TIME TO POST SPECIFICS.

Anyone who dares question the status quo is instantly labeled a traitor and vilified. VERIFIABLE FACT

Your allies in Europe tried to voice valid concerns, but were shouted down. VERIFIABLE FACT

They are still being shouted down. VERIFIABLE FACT

Did you see that mad dog Rumsfeld lecturing the Germans and calling their behavior "shocking"? VERIFIABLE FACT

One wonders what the correct term for his would be. NOT STATED AS A FACT.

Some people claim that Clinton was soft on terrorism and Bush is much more effective. Read Clarke's book. You will see that Clinton treated it far more seriously and took far more effective action against it, and was prepared to go after it much more decisively than Bush ever was. VERIFIABLE FACT

Some people say that the Clarke book's publication was timed for the election. But he submitted it to the White House for approval (as required by US law) much before so that it could have been published earlier. The White House sat on it for far longer than anticipated. If anyone is to blame for the timing, it's the White House. VERIFIABLE FACT

Hope you don't end up with "axles of evil"...!

 

The more enlightened way to view an argument is as a chance to challenge one's own viewpoints. It is not about trying to sway the others' thinking: it is about prompting your adversary to lay their point of view and supporting evidence on the table and then using what they have said to evaluate one's own opinions and see if we feel we are still correct or not. Some of us are simply not thought-fascists and are simply not interested in imposing our viewpoints on others. Nothing I have ever said on this board has been designed to change any of your viewpoints: if what you believe works for you, and you are honest about it, then fine.

That may be the way it works for you, and for most people. However, the more evolved individual realizes that it is more important to discover what one doesn't know than to shout about what he thinks he already does. Exchanges of the latter sort are more civilized, less apt to digress into shouting matches and name calling. Let's try it sometime.

 

Umm...no. You place so much faith in Clarke's fish wrapper try reading it. And Clarke stated, in his own words on audio tape, that the Bush admin. did more to combat terrorism in the FIRST DAYS of their admin and ramped up the fight, to quote Clarke, "five fold" over what Clinton had done in 8 years.

What is unprecedented about Clarke's book, regardless of WHEN it was submitted to the White House is that NEVER BEFORE has a member of a SITTING president's advisors written a book discussing or divulging current strategies and/or policies. THAT is the true head scratcher here!

 

I did read it. Bush did not even meet with him to discuss terrorism until Sept. 4th. He did meet with him on three occasions, but to discuss other matters (cyber security, I think). He was not allowed to put terrorism on the agenda. Could you please cite the page number where you are taking that quote from? I am 100% sure it's out of context, since one of his main points is that Clinton took decisive action, whereas Bush didn't.

He retired before he wrote the book. Nothing unprecedented about that. Plenty have done so before him. He did not divulge any secrets. Nothing unprecedented about that either. He had it vetted by the current administration. Nothing unprecedented about that either. What is it that seems "unprecedented" to you?

As for discussing strategy and policy, they are a matter of public record. Always have been. It's not treason to discuss that. Do you not believe in an open, representative government that is accountable to the public?

Be careful not to scratch your brain.

 

Wow! I'm gone 30min and look what happens! Judging by the length of Zacks rant I must have struck a nerve and Slims comments indicate that he thinks he is the only one that knows how to have a civilized debate. Well let's see now, have I been put in my place or are these two just full of it! Well Slim here we go again. I'm not exactly sure why you would say such a thing but I guess it is good for your ego to believe you are more evolved so I'll just let that go. I don't know if you have been at this argument thing for very long but assuming you have I would guess that like most arguments you have had, you probably had them more than once. In fact you probably debated some of these very subjects numerous times. Most of them start out as disscusions which is what this so called enlightened way you refer to is. There is a big difference between that and arguing. Arguing takes place after each side has made up thier mind that what they think is right. Disscusion on the other hand is completely different. Let's face it, we all have opinions about things that we think are true. We base them on numerous disscussions, debates, and various other sources. I think they call that experience. Granted there are usually not many absolutes as it would appear Zach thinks there are but there are some things I think we could both say we are never going to change our minds about. That being the case, when I get to the point were I am arguing rather than discussing something, I am usually doing it because the other parties view is somehow effecting me. Case in point, our previous Argument about taxes and welfare. Both of those things directly effect me so of course I want to sway the other side over to my way of thinking. I think your point is fine for Arguments like the one this thread is about since it is really just pure partisanism. There are times though when the whole pupose of an argument is to change the way the other party thinks. I too realize that a good disscusion is a learning tool. Don't pretend that you have not formed some opinions of your own. To say that every argument you have is for the purpose of evaluating your viewpoint is to say that you really don't have one at all.

 

I am not ranting. I presented some facts. You called them opinions. So I dissected my post and showed you how it was 99% factual, and verifiably so.

Nothing wrong with holding a firm belief, unless it's wrong. You have not presented any evidence to support your belief. I have. Your response to that has been to call it partisanship. Since I belong to neither party, it's a ludicrous statement.

Stick to the debate/argument/discussion, and provide something, anything, that supports your viewpoint.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Just because one isn't interested in changing other's viewpoints doesn't mean he doesn't have a viewpoint of his own! Some people want to be in charge (what was your point about ego again?) and others just want to be in charge of themselves and absolutely comfortable with their beliefs. This requires reevaluation on a continuous benefit.

In fact, it could be argued that those who are most comfortable with their own viewpoints are least likely to want to push those viewpoints onto others. Psychology, pop-psychology at least, seems to say that about bullies and their self-esteem, after all.

You are correct that I am familiar with arguments, discussions, whatever you want to call them. My degree is in Philosophy after all!

 

Hmm, not sure I agree with your post entirely. While you make some good points about how to discuss matters in a civilized manner, I think one chief aim always is to convert the other participants' opinion to match your own. Especially if they are diametrically opposed, and especially if the actions predicated on these opinions can mean life or death, pain or pleasure, prosperity or poverty, openness or insularity, reaching out or withdrawing, furthering of trade or protectionism, good relations or acrimony, mutual benefit or strife, ad infinitum.

Also, what is "reevaluation on a continuous benefit?"

 

tifosi69, you have not replied to my post...number 181. Please do.

 

oops. i was thinking about something else while writing and a word snuck in, ha! it was supposed to say "on a continuous basis" or continuing basis or whatever would mean to always be evaluating our beliefs.

 

Sorry, was out and just got back. An absolute lie. He stated on audio, in his own voice, that they had implemented strategies on April 5 2001.

Retirement is IRRELEVANT, the fact that he wrote the book AT ALL while the Bush admin is still in offuce is the unprecedented part. It has never been done before to the best of my knowledge. That fact alone casts a stink of partisanship on the whole affair. As to the guys who say he worked for 3 repubs and only 1 dem he is a registered dem.

 

In case all you Clarke-o-philes missed it, he did an interview on Meet the Press yesterday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608698/
I watched a large portion of the interview. Some of his statements didn't jive in my opinion. The problem with these interview shows is that you never really have an interviewer who will REALLY ask the tough questions and stay after them. Probably because when two strangers meet face to face, it's just human nature to be cordial to each other. That's why these TV interviews never really turn into the true debating match that they could be. Clarke just seemed TOO ready with every answer to any contradiction that was laid in front of him. But many of his answers didn't satisfy me, and Tim Russert was polite enough to apparently not continue to dig after more contradictions. Clarke repeatedly said that this entire issue was not about HIM, it was about the way the Bush administration was handling things. But I couldn't help but notice that, despite Clarke's contention that it was not about Clarke himself, it was indeed Clarke himself that was writing a book, selling a book, hitting the news talk show circuit, etc, etc.
For a situation that was not about Clarke, we sure seem to be seeing a whole bunch of Clarke in the media.

 

Sure, because it's Clarke who is raising the issue, Clarke who was in the hot seat, and Clarke who would make the best interviewee about the subject. Does not take away from his credibililty one bit. I am not a Clarke-o-phile, but I read his book and he comes across as 100% credible. There is not an ounce of partisanship in his writing--even if there was, it would not detract from the message.

I don't think your observations are valid. What else do you have besides your feeling about the answers not "jiving?" Which answers did not jive? What did they not jive with? You are suspicious because a distinguished career diplomat seems well-prepared for an interview? And the questions not being probing enough are somehow his fault?

Honestly, have you read the book?

 

All administrations have strategies that they implement. This is not the point of contention. What was recommended, when was it recommended, and when was it implemented? Why was he not given an audience as chief of the Counter-Terrorism Strategy Group? Even if he was not given a direct audience, but had his recommendations implemented, what were they, how many of them were implemented, and how did they rank on his list of priorities? That would give a much more complete picture. Your answer is a very weak attempt to deflect the issue.

Just because Bush occupies a certain office does not make him immune to criticism. Or that he is infallible. Just because he is the president does not mean that people who served under him have to wait until he is out of office before writing their memoirs. And anyone can criticize him at anytime. Whether they work for him, used to work for him, or are uninvolved with his administration.

And in no way is it unprecedented. Numerous officials served under US presidents and retired and wrote their memoirs before the end of the presidential term. You are wrong if you think this is the only case or if you think this is a requirement. Clearly it is not a requirement or this book would not exist. As for whether it is a precedent, sorry, it's not. George Stephanopoulos' All Too Human and Behind the Oval Office by Dick Morris come immediately to mind. They both camne out while he was in office. Condoleezza Rice already has a biography out as well.

And the fact that, as a registered Democrat, he held such high ranks in three Republican administration should tell you how competent he is.

 

QUOTE=Zack]
I don't think your observations are valid. What else do you have besides your feeling about the answers not "jiving?" Which answers did not jive? What did they not jive with? You are suspicious because a distinguished career diplomat seems well-prepared for an interview? And the questions not being probing enough are somehow his fault?

Honestly, have you read the book?[/QUOTE]

No, I have not read the book because I have no intention of spending $24.95 or whatever for the book. If what he has to say is so UTTERLY important in order for people to understand the motives of the administration, why doesn't he put the text of his book on a website so that everybody can learn from his valuable information? And we must assume that he DOES have a message of UTTER importance because he is doing all the news talk shows. If he is so interested in getting out the "facts", why not put everything on a website or in a major magazine so that all Americans can learn from his valuable expertise as an insider in the administration? After all, didn't he say himself that it was NOT about himself, it was about the facts? Well, then let's hear all the facts during a nightly news cast or in a major publication available to everybody, and NOT in a $24.95 hard cover book available to the coffee sipping crowd at Barnes & Noble.

 

You could make that argument about any book. Clearly invalid.

If you don't want to pay for it, send me an address and I will send out a copy as long as you promise to a) read it, and b) pass it on.

 

My argument is valid. Any OTHER book by some OTHER author is not necessarily addressing the alledged inefficiencies of our government in fighting terrorism. Therefore, his book is much more important than Martha Stewart's latest guide to prison cell decorating techniques. So therefore, in the interest of national security and the well being of all Americans, one would think that Mr. Clarke would want everybody to read and understand his book. But alas, this vital information is only available for $24.95. I'll pass.

 

There are all sorts of books. Yes, books on decorating would not be a valid analogy. But other exposes about crises, published during the crisis, would be of equal importance. Would all such information only be valid if it's provided for free and/or online?

Are you passing on the opportunity to read it for free? You did not address that specifically. Please do.

 

Don't get your panties in a wad Zack! You might notice that I did not even get envolved in this disscusion until you said what you said about Ross's post. I am not particularly interested in the subject matter here. I was mearly trying to make a point. That is that things like this are not as cut and dried as you see them.

 

Now look at that, we can agree on something! That is basicaly how I see it. You argue when you need to change someones thinking, and you discuss when you are trying to sort things out. Good one Zack!

 

Now I understand were the "more evolved" coment comes from. Look Slim, I don't think you realize that most of us are quite capable of reading between the lines. The thing I said about ego is directly related to your comments which indicate a somewhat superior attitude. When you say things like "the more evolved person" or "some of us have higher reasons", come on slim give me a break. Don't pretend those kind of comments aren't meant to try to boost your own ego. Believe me when I tell you that I am constantly reevaluating my position. You are not the only one that does that. I do not think I am smarter, or am as up call it "more evolved" than anyone else here. There are plenty of times that I sit back and listen to these disscusions just to learn from the people who are more knowledgable in them. I did not mean to say that you do not have a view point, I am sure you do. That is why I said to quit pretending that you haven't formed some opinions of your own. What I was trying to say is that there is a time for discussion and a time for argument. I argue when I think the other persons views are somehow effecting me. You and I have been down this road before and we promised each other that we would debate in a civil manner. I am trying to adhere to that as it appears you are also but give up on the "I'm more evolved bit". Put that philosophy degree to some good use and try a little humility. I'm sure it suits you better than arogance anyway! BTW, if I have read you wrong, please except my apologie.

 

You may not be interested, but you do have an opinion. One proven to be based on erroneous information leading to erroneous conclusions. Why bother to go so far if you are not interested?

As for your cheap shot tactics, I am not falling for them. First you accuse me of posting opinions when what I wrote was factual. I refute you sentence by sentence and you take another cheap shot by accusing me of ranting. Nice dodge, but I wasn't ranting. Now you accuse me of having my "panties in a wad" and extricate yourself from the argument by saying the subject doesn't interest you much. Another dodge. Things are not cut and dry? Who said they were? Dodge, twist, turn, cheap shot, move on. Whatever.

Let's get back on topic. As Art said, the issue is the war on Iraq--the US president's focus on this exercise in sheer pointlessness, the lies made up to support it, it's cost, it's ramifications, the harm it has caused--to the war on terror, and to the thousands of individuals killed and wounded over nothing.

 

Well, I can see how you may have taken it that way, now that I think about it. By more evolved or whatever, I was expressing my opinion that I feel that is a more civilized way to behave than arguing for the sake of getting others to change their own thinking. I think perhaps you would agree, when put that way, and if so, there is no reason to assume I was insulting you. But if I did, I'm sorry and I'll watch it in the future.

But I should say that I really do not understand the need to "win" arguments, where "win" means that others change their viewpoints to match our own. It seems that humility is exactly what is responsible for my approach. I realize that there is more I don't know than I do know. I realize that what is right for me, may not work for others. I just get a bit worked up when others behave as if they do not realize that about themselves and seek to impose their will upon others.

What is the motivation for trying to make everyone else the same as we are? What a boring world it would be if we succeeded...