What Has Gone Right In Iraq

[Tim47SIP]

Typh

Tell me, blueridge, where is the lie in these two statements? In both cases, Clinton spoke of the importance of preventing Saddam from acquiring these weapons.



There is no lie at all. As blue provides, those individuals also thought he had WMD.

That's a far cry from insisting that Saddam actually had the weapons. I don't deny Clinton's a liar. All presidents are, to a certain degree. But let's not take 'mission statements' like the two above and try to twist them into lies.

I think if you look up the word "deminish" you might find that you have to have something to deminish it. Blue did not spin anything here, Clinton stated these which he thought were facts. Mission statements? Is a mission statement different from a regular statement?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Tim, let's be fair. Read Clinton's statements. In the first, he says we must deny Saddam the ability to build W'sMD. In the second, he says we must diminish (not "deminish" ) the threat posed by Saddam's WMD program. (Read the whole sentence, Tim.) In neither statement does he say Saddam already has these weapons.

As jarhead implied in our talk about Korea, if W's administration really believed Saddam had these weapons, we wouldn't have rushed headlong into Iraq. Some finesse would have been required to take out those weapons before they could be used against our forces.

(It's just possible that such a mission was indeed carried out and us Joe Blows don't know about it. Maybe--just maybe--there's no evidence of W'sMD because we already blew them up with Tomahawks...or covert operatives.)

In any case, my point is that if you're going to call someone a liar, you should reference an actual lie, don't you think?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Typh

Mission statements? Is a mission statement different from a regular statement?

Sorry for confusing you. I'll explain:

"Mission statement" is more specific than "statement." It's simply a way of specifying a goal. While a "mission statement" is a "statement," a "statement" isn't always a "mission statement." Just as while a DC-6 is an airplane, an airplane isn't necessarily a DC-6. Follow?

Let me know if there're any other language issues I can help with...

 

[Tim47SIP]

Thyph

"Mission statement" is more specific than "statement." It's simply a way of specifying a goal. While a "mission statement" is a "statement," a "statement" isn't always a "mission statement." Just as while a DC-6 is an airplane, an airplane isn't necessarily a DC-6. Follow?
Wow!

Being in (or just recently retired) from the mil, a mission statement that I am used to is a little more complicated than the statement Clinton made.

In the second, he says we must diminish (not "deminish" ) the threat posed by Saddam's WMD program. (Read the whole sentence, Tim.) In neither statement does he say Saddam already has these weapons.

I thought I did

OK, you got me if you are trying to state that the term program is not the same as actually having them. I think you are splitting hairs here, as that does sound like debating the definition of "is". That to me is one in the same whether the actual weapon has been completed or is still in the procurement phase. Makes no difference when we are trying to alter the end result of any WMD program that he may have had or may have been working on. One other word that is very important in this sentence is the word "threat". This implies that the "program" was a threat and had to be dealt with. So by using his words exactly as they are written, he implies that there were WMD's or SH was very close to completion of WMD. I know this thinking will make you again bring up NK. But there are some checks and ballances there. Iraq was a different story.

I never said that I could spell! So you also got me there.

 

[fugghedabowdit]

I don't buy this argument that, "at least were killing them over there, before they can get here." Most of who we're fighting at this point are disenchanted locals who are getting all gussied up by a few radical Clerics and too much time off. If we had stayed out of Iraq these people would not be finding passage to the US. If you want to "get them before they get here", you'd be better off invading Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 9-11 terrorists came from.

All in all, were creating more terrorists than we're killing right now. Remember, Osama Bin Ladens hatred of America is an unfortunate by-product of our occupation of Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. A war that was much more popular in the region and the world. This is a complicated situation with no easy answers, but I feel we will be dealing with negative consequences of this for a long time.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Thyph

...you got me if you are trying to state that the term program is not the same as actually having them. That to me is one in the same whether the actual weapon has been completed or is still in the procurement phase.

Remember those French clowns who came out and announced they'd produced the first human clone? They had a program intended to pursue human cloning, and apparently decided that was close enough to announce success.

Interesting that you think the same way those folks do.

At any rate, neither of the statements made by Clinton and cited in this thread are lies. The Nazis had a nuclear program too...that doesn't mean they were close to actually producing a weapon.

Now--and this is important--this has nothing to do with whether or not I think Saddam needed to be dealt with. He did! But let's try and remember who was lying about what!

 

[blueridge71]

Typhoon,

I agree with Tim that you are splitting hairs.

If Saddam had a WMD program then he had the capacity to produce weapons and there is no way that we could know in real time when he was producing them. The safe course of action is to deny him the ability to produce weapons, which we did.

Now a question for you:

Where is the evidence that Bush lied?

Assuming that the WMDs are not there, that is still not evidence of a lie. It would be evidence of incorrect intelligence, but to prove a lie you have to show an intent to deceive. If that evidence exists, it has not been presented.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I agree with Tim that you are splitting hairs.

Well, you're both wrong.

Where is the evidence that Bush lied? Assuming that the WMDs are not there, that is still not evidence of a lie. It would be evidence of incorrect intelligence...

Granted. And as I stated previously, it's possible that the problem was dealt with early in the war and that's why there's no evidence of W'sMD today.

But since integrity and honesty are rare commodities in any Bush administration, it's difficult to tell what W is lying about and what he's being straight about. Consider this remark made by the President during an interview with CNN:

Well, Jordan , you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

This is an interesting statement considering that (1) there was no live televised footage of the first impact, and (2) there was no T.V. in the classroom. Why would he lie about something like this?

I'm not sure even he knows.

 

[TonyC]

No, just frustrated. You're an intelligent guy--and an airline pilot, no less--who likes George Bush. That's like a fitness buff that only eats at McDonalds.

I don't get it.

Again, I must caution you to read more carefully. I did not even mention a political party, or political persuasion, or a political preference when I questioned the flaw in your logic. I'm content to deal with facts. Are you?

 

[TonyC]

Thanks, Tony,

Was a great evening. Loved the stories about the Paris air show. Folks, if I ever go to Paris for the air show, I'm going with TonyC. THIS man really knows how to work the perks. I'm talking about front row seats on the flightline, unlimited free booze. Musta kissed the Blarney stone somewhere along the way!

It was my pleasure, A Squared. It's not that often I get to hear stories about the older Douglas products. It made watching the C-47 and DC-6 takeoff the next afternoon that more interesting. It's hard to believe those things had the required climb gradient!

Next time you'll have to twist Mar's arm and get him in there, too.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Simple view for me and bottom line.

What about Supreme Court APPOINTED PRESIDENTS?

(Relax, I'm not one of those Gore nuts. I think there's definitely a 60% chance our last election was valid.)

And speaking of intelligent...

The Supreme Court ruled that the Democrat Party could not cherry-pick districts to recount votes. That sounds so unfair to me...

 

[Typhoon1244]

When 100LL... Again! said "you" - - he meant YOU. The pronoun in this case was second person, meaning he was referring to the party he was addressing. Just trust me here--he didn't mean "anyone" as you concluded. He meant you, Typhoon1244.

Tony, all this proves is your inability to read and comprehend a couple of paragraphs. If "you" referred to me specifically, then why the use of the plural word "cowards?"

Now, I realize that when you misquote someone, it makes it easier to criticize what they said (didn't say).

This is why I took great care in quoting him exactly. You're lying, Tony. Why?

If you can't deal logically with the words he speaks, you should back off. When you twist his words in order to attack him, you have already conceded defeat.

100LL said: "Bush did the right thing, and you only hate him because in your cowardice you fear that angering these arab nutcases further will disturb your pleasant little life. Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for."

In other words, those who "hate" Bush for invading Iraq are "cowards."

This isn't hard, Tony. 100LL said something inflammatory and inaccurate, and I called him on it. The idea that anyone who believes Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time is a coward is asinine.

Finally, are you 100LL's father? Big brother? Mentor? Is there some reason he's unable to discuss this himself, and relies on you to trump up some contorted defense for his statement?

 

[TonyC]

You're lying, Tony. Why?

You know what? It's probably not worth my time to discuss this any further, but I don't take too kindly to being called a liar. It's pretty pathetic that you can't carry an argument on facts and logic and that you're small enough of a person to resort to namecalling and personal attacks.

Let's review.

Listen you sophists:

If a cop asks you to submit to a breathalyzer and you refuse, they are allowed to assume you were drinking, and you will be penalized to a sometimes greater degree than if you took the test and failed.

Saddam refused to submit to real inspections.

Therefore we are allowed to assume he had them.

Therefore Bush was justified. Besides, it needed doing anyway.

Final score, Bush did the right thing, and you only hate him because in your cowardice you fear that angering these arab nutcases further will disturb your pleasant little life.

Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for.

100LL says that anyone who disagrees with the President is a moron and a coward...

OK. Now let's do a little work here. Find the word "anyone" in 100LL's post. (It's not there.)

Find the word "disagree" in 100LL's post. (It's not there.)

Find the word "moron" in 100LL's post. (It's not there.)

You misquoted 100LL... Again! and then have the audacity to call ME a liar! ? !

This is why I took great care in quoting him exactly.

Is this one of those "it depends on the definition of the word 'exactly'" moments?

100LL said: "Bush did the right thing, and you only hate him because in your cowardice you fear that angering these arab nutcases further will disturb your pleasant little life. Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for."

In other words, those who "hate" Bush for invading Iraq are "cowards."

This isn't hard, Tony. 100LL said something inflammatory and inaccurate, and I called him on it. The idea that anyone who believes Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time is a coward is asinine.

Another exercise:

Find the word "anyone" in 100LL's post. (It's not there.)

Find the phrase "wrong war" in 100LL's post. (It's not there.)

Find the phrase "wrong time" in 100LL's post. (It's not there.)

There IS something asinine here, and it involves the way you distort the truth. If this is the way you go about "correcting" inaccuracies, it's no wonder you're so confused.

Finally, are you 100LL's father? Big brother? Mentor? Is there some reason he's unable to discuss this himself, and relies on you to trump up some contorted defense for his statement?

What difference does it make? Do you and 100LL have some sort of ownership of this thread whereby other parties are not allowed to participate? Does the truth so boldy spoken make you so uncomfortable that you must question the credentials or motivations of others who disagree with you?

I am an advocate for truth and logic, and you encroached upon both. That's why I spoke up. Remember it was you that implied that 100LL... Again! had no right to use the word "coward" unless he had served in the military. Hogwash! If you 've ever followed my posts you might notice I don't play favorites, and I don't keep score. I'll just as soon take up for anybody that speaks the truth as I will shine the light of truth on that very same person should he/she try to pull some silly stunt like you just did. I try to refrain from attacking people - - stick to the ideas. You and I might share some of the same ideas - - and there are certainly some we don't. I can deal with that. Being called a liar is a whole different ballgame.

And I don't keep track of where 100LL... Again! (or anyone else) is or why they don't post. Who knows, maybe he's a pilot and he's been working for the past few days. Who cares?

 

[Typhoon1244]

...I don't take too kindly to being called a liar.

Nor do I take too kindly to being called a coward.

And I've got to be honest, I'm not at my best when I'm pissed, so hear me out:

If you've read 100LL's posts over the last year, then you know he is a far-right-wing conservative. I honestly think he believes that anyone who disagrees with G.W.B. is a coward and a moron. This was on my mind when I replied to his "cowards" speech, and--I'll fess up--I paraphrased his post. So you're right, I did misquote him. Guilty.

To be honest, I wasn't thinking about that particular post when I accused you of lying about it. You weren't, and I apologize.

I stand by this, however: 100LL's post suggests that if "you" dislike the President because of his Iraq policy (and I have other, more important reasons for disliking the President), then "you" are a coward. Can we agree on that?

 

[Typhoon1244]

I guess Lord Helmet was right: "...Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb."

 

[TonyC]

If you've read 100LL's posts over the last year, then you know he is a ...

Like I said, I don't keep track of everyone's political or religious or airline affiliations or leanings. I don't have a database that I consult to determine how I should fashion a response to any particular post. I respond to what's said, and not who said it. I believe I can be more objective that way. There are a few cases where I have engaged in a long series of posts exchanged between myself and another where I've been given more insight into the individual on particular subjects - - such as Super 80 and Timebuilder - - but those are rare exceptions. What 100LL says is what he says, and it's not biased in my mind by what I think he believes.

I honestly think he believes that anyone who disagrees with G.W.B. is a coward and a moron. This was on my mind when I replied to his "cowards" speech, and--I'll fess up--I paraphrased his post. So you're right, I did misquote him. Guilty.

Perhaps that perception affected your ability to understand what he was trying to say. This type of communication makes it difficult, at best, to exchange ideas, and we should always be aware of the inherent obstacles of this method. Perhaps he is frustrated that intelligent people can think the way you do? I’m not trying to put words in his mouth, but I’m sure you can understand that sentiment, right?

To be honest, I wasn't thinking about that particular post when I accused you of lying about it. You weren't, and I apologize.

Apology accepted.

I stand by this, however: 100LL's post suggests that if "you" dislike the President because of his Iraq policy (and I have other, more important reasons for disliking the President), then "you" are a coward. Can we agree on that?

No, not really. In the first place, there’s a wide spectrum of emotions between “like” and “hate,” and it looks to me like he’s speaking to people that appear to “hate” President Bush because they’re afraid of their own lives being upset. He didn’t say anybody has to like President Bush.

For the record, I have not defended the position that 100LL… Again! took, nor have I professed an undying and unconditional love for the President. I don’t agree with everything he has done, but I do agree that taking the war against terrorism into Iraq was the right thing to do, and I think it would be wrong to walk out now and leave a power vacuum (hey, look Mar, I got it right this time! ) behind. It’s our responsibility now to insure that some sort of stable government is in place before we abandon the cause.

The only reason I spoke up is I felt like you misrepresented what 100LL… Again! said, and now that we can agree on that point, it’s probably time for me to bow out of the discussion. As upset as I got about being called a liar, I think I must be taking this too seriously, and I need a hiatus.

Y’all have fun.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Apology accepted.

Very gracious of you.

I am learning that conservatives, regardless of their twisted morality, will almost always win this type of argument because their technical debating skills are superior. Like I said: "...Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb."

 

[Benhuntn]

Wrong again

Evil won't triumph!!! Because of people like me and the 4 million members of our armed forces that will stand and oppose it. Not because we are better debaters... We aren't better debaters we just aren't appeasers. God I hate this debate...let's move on to something like life on Mars.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Wrong again

Evil won't triumph!!! Because of people like me and the 4 million members of our armed forces that will stand and oppose it.

Steady...that's not the kind of evil I was talking about.

 

[blueridge71]

Typhoon,

Regarding the Bush quote: Why would he lie about something so easily provable? That makes no sense. There is no valid reason for him to lie about how he found out about the attacks.

First, I'm not sure the quote is authentic. The only places that I have found it are on the web sites of Bush haters. I can't find it on a reputable, neutral site.

Second, even if he did say it, it wouldn't be a lie if that is how he remembered it. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously erroneous. 9-11 was probably the highest stress day in Bush's life. His memories of that day are probably a whirlwind of images that may have meshed together inaccurately.

But frankly, I don't think that he said it. If he had, the mainstream press would have picked up on it. I mean, you're claiming he said it on CNN.