Two More Army Divisions?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Wouldn't it be nice for you if you got to referee from the strip? You'd be sure to win every bout. But alas....

It puts a whole different angle on 'self directing'.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yeah, that's a fair cop. &etc

Understood. It does take a lot of time, and I'm hopelessly swamped just with the new posts myself... I like to tell myself that this makes me a better citizen because it forces me to do the appropriate research. Now, don't forget the Economics thread, y'hear!

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Iraq doesn't have to be part of the terrorist attack. But if an attack on Iraq could have been considered a possible deterrent, then it would easily fall under the War on Terror.

If I had ham, then I could have ham and eggs, if I had eggs... Oh, where was I? We would have had to have made that case, but rather we conflated Iraq with the 9/11 attackers. (Notice the word "conflated" - to merge or meld or make equivalent. Good $5 word) The administration AFAIK has not claimed Iraq was behind 9/11, but they have conflated Iraq with the attackers. It was "we're going after Iraq: terrorists who pose a threat to the USA", not "we're going after Iraq: because that'll show terrorists they shouldn't mess with us".

Originally Posted by Soldier

As for proofs: We may have known of lack of veracity of some of that. But can you tell me that this has been shown for every source we used? Is it possible that there was still enough evidence that the administration trusted, that they considered it proof? As long as that is a possibility, you cannot say "Bush is a liar."

I think that if any source known to be false was used for the justification, then the justification was based on a lie, unless it was relegated to "possibly true, just to add more weight to our claim".

Originally Posted by Soldier

You can say "I believe Bush is a liar," but this is a large difference.

In all fairness, you can qualify anything said by anyone on this board by adding "believe".

[Soldier]

Yes, you can. But "believe" is all you can do right now, since you lack proof.

How do you know which sources of evidence were actually used for the justifications? How do you know which ones were originally used, then abandoned (even if such was not publicly announced), yet the conclusion was kept thanks to other evidence?

[jeff]

For which conjecture do I lack proof?

The debate example is pretty well covered above. References to the basis the war was sold on are home in the form of paper, but I'll see what I can do.

Off the top of my head before I leave the office:

His recent "I will not jeopardise Social Security" (along with campaign pledge to not take money out of the "lock box") contradicts for the former, his plan to divert funds from current SS contributors to the fund (that's how SS benefits are paid); for the latter, well, SS money has been dramatically taken to bolster general revenue to make up for shortfalls. The former arguably isn't a lie, the latter - well, the money has been taken.

We can also bring up the "the sailors put up the 'Mission Accomplished' sign on the aircraft carrier", but that wouldn't be fair to Bush - as his staff did it, not him.

[Soldier]

As far as the "Mission Accomplished", I'm not going to bother with it or getting into a leadership discussion.

And I would say that you lack concrete proof that Bush knew that his intelligence was bad (yes, I can already hear the joke, ha ha), yet sold it to us anyway, and planned on later claiming "bad information".

[jeff]

Quick points, pending a serious post:

1) We need a to include, with a different expression, when a person is careful to avoid specifically saying something technical incorrect, but is misleading or deceptive. "Deceitful", and "disingenuous" come to mind, though neither word has the satisfying crunch of "liar", and is so frequently squirmed out of. This category, for me, is plenty of justification for "don't reelect".

2) To your comment about WMD intelligence, Soldier - I think it more likely that Bush and team knew that had faulty intelligence, but hyped up to justify the invasion that they really wanted to do, figuring that they would find the WMD on the ground when they got there. Ooops.

3) The Intel corporation must be pretty tired by now about people complaining about "bad intel'.

[Soldier]

1. Go right ahead.

2. "I think it more likely..." Of course you do. You've been making that obvious for quite some time now. I don't happen to think that is more likely. Neither of us has proof.

3. Their fault for picking the name! But, out of pity, let's start referring to it as "Microsoft", so that people can start blaming it on "bad Microsoft".

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Okay, you're really reaching out now trying to prove your argument. And it's not working.

In the vernacular, "Sez you!" Alas, I fear that you cannot very well be accounted an objective referee. I think you'll agree.

In proving the lie, the test of everything else ever spoken on the topic does not apply.

Really?

So if I say that I have driven while drunk, and tomorrow I say that I have not, neither instance is a lie simply because each moment is a "fresh start"?

By the way, if you'll notice, under that odd logic Bush has never lied, either...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

When you asked Jeff to explain Kerry's "Global Test". I was exaggerating it by implying that we had to send aproval forms to France. Apparently we both have humor that is overly nuanced

If only there wasn't such a miserly limit on the use of smilies.

The global test consists of "your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing" and that "you can prove to the world that you did if for legitimate reasons."

To me this represents a flexibility, a willingness to consider the opinions of other countries not to require them to approve a 10 point checklist (gross exaggeration for emphasis):

How do you get that from "have to...prove" to them?

This, IMO, represents a pretty cut and dry statement.

It does, and if it were his only statement on the matter I'd feel much better about the whole thing. Unfortunately, it is sort of at odds with the "global test" statement---at least from my understanding of English. Now, if it wasn't what he meant, he ought to have said it differently, or not at all.

I think he's struggling with two conflicting imperatives. He must retain the right to act in the nation's defense, without let or hindrance, and he knows that he must, and to make it clear that he does he says so. But at the same time he holds this fervent belief in international consensus, which given the different national interests of other countries is bound to conflict at times with the first imperative---as it did for Bush. And to reassure the anti-war, anti-Bush contingent of his support he must avow that belief publicly.

I realize the pressures on him, and the tightwire he has to walk between tough-on defense and can't-we-all-just-get-along, but in the political game one's opponent is bound to exploit the conflict between the two positions. Kerry has tried to meld the two by saying he'd do so much better and be so much more reasonable, patient and persuasive than Bush at the second imperative that there would never be a conflict with the first. But anyone who looks at the world with it's competing interests has to be very dubious about that possibility...

I'll be exceedingly busy over the next couple days and may not be able to post.

Well, I'll be off to a tournament on Friday, not to return until Tuesday, probably. So maybe there won't be too much of a backlog. For you, that is: I suspect that Jeff, Achilleus and others will provide plenty of material under which I may submerge...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

If Bush said "My opponent says X, and I don't believe him and neither should you", that would be a legitemate argument, and could be based on "see how he has contradicted himself in the past". But Bush didn't say that: I've seen him on TV saying "Kerry said he would require passing a global test before taking action to protect this country". He is saying that Kerry said the opposite of what he himself heard Kerry say. It's false, and he knows it to be false.

Sorry, but I disagree. I myself arrived at much the same conclusion from his statement, albeit I understand why he said it and that what he perhaps meant was not quite so cut-and-dried as it is being made out to be.
( See my droning about conflicting imperatives in the reply to esskreemr, above. )It's only that Bush, as a politician, knows that it is often counterproductive to stray from a few simple, declarative statements on a given issue. And in his world, he's right. Look how much trouble Kerry has gotten into by ignoring that rule. The more one talks in politics, the more likely someone is to perceive inconsistencies and conflicts in statements over time and exploit them. Subtlety is lost on much of the electorate. If it were otherwise Gore would be President, or at least Kerry would be far ahead in the polls today.

Maybe this is crude and cynical pragmatism. So be it. It's the way the game is played. It's all backbiting and recrimination in sound bites anymore. We can decry that, but it's not going to change any time soon, and if we want our values to be, even remotely, represented by our leaders, we have to hope that "our guys" play the game better than their opponents. They can only be of use to us if they are elected.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Now, don't forget the Economics thread, y'hear!

Heck, I've even forgotten what the title was at this point!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

The administration AFAIK has not claimed Iraq was behind 9/11, but they have conflated Iraq with the attackers. It was "we're going after Iraq: terrorists who pose a threat to the USA", not "we're going after Iraq: because that'll show terrorists they shouldn't mess with us".

Here's the point I think we're all dancing around ( OK, maybe "hopping in rage" is more apt than "dancing", but never mind that now ): Iraq has had dealings with, supported, shielded and funded terrorists. Perhaps not Al Qaeda, and perhaps not aimed directly at us, but terrorists of various stripes. Agreed?

And there is no form, group or brand of terrorism which is not either a direct or a potential danger to us. There are no harmless terrorists. They are all "the enemy". They must be fought wherever they are found, and in whatever variety. That made, and makes, Iraq a front in the war against these creatures. Now as it has turned out it was not the primary front, or perhaps even an important one. But we know this only in hindsight. By all indications, we thought that it WAS an important front. Hence we struck at it.

And of course, now it IS an important front in that war. I don't think anyone will dispute that. It may be so only because we kicked over a hornet's nest. But the hornets are there now. And what good does it do to say "Tsk! Oughtn't-a done that, buddy"?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Sorry, but I disagree.

Here we must agree to disagree. I understand your points about equivocal remarks, but on this occasion Kerry makes a simple declarative sentence, and it is a lie for Bush to say that Kerry said the opposite of what Bush himself heard Kerry say.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Here's the point I think we're all dancing around...snip!...And of course, now it IS an important front in that war. I don't think anyone will dispute that. It may be so only because we kicked over a hornet's nest. But the hornets are there now. And what good does it do to say "Tsk! Oughtn't-a done that, buddy"?

Agreed on the first "Agreed". Now, the questions that come up are:

- Did Iraq present a threat to the US via its cordial relationships with terrorist?
- Did the administration honestly relate the degree of this threat when selling the war?
- Was Iraq near the head of the list of countries harboring terrorists?
- If not, why did we select Iraq?

I assert (choosing my words carefully): no to the first 3 of the above, noting that it was Saddam Hussein's regime itself that was represented as the threat to the US at the time the war was marketed, plus the direct testimony from Clarke and O'Neill to the 'find a basis for war on Iraq' tilt from the Administration.

To the second part; yes - absolutely. The place is in chaos now, and we cannot just pack up and leave. At this point, the question is "who will be better at competently and honestly dealing with the situation, in all its reality, for the best outcome".

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Heck, I've even forgotten what the title was at this point!

"The US economy and politics" (which probably should be moved to 'Politics 2004' folder)

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And of course, now it IS an important front in that war. I don't think anyone will dispute that. It may be so only because we kicked over a hornet's nest. But the hornets are there now. And what good does it do to say "Tsk! Oughtn't-a done that, buddy"?

Wanna know what good it is to say that now??

It's good to say it because we are about to go into a national election to cast a vote for our next leader and we need to say that before going in to re-elect the guy who kicked the hornet's nest and started all this trouble.

[jeff]

Bingo - and a Kewpie doll prize to Mave_Mari for making the point: we shouldn't vote for the guy who had the poor judgement to kick over the nest. Not to mention lining up almost the entire world against us.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

In my own defense, sometimes there are a lot of threads running at once, and I am often left to argue a position alone against three or four opponents. That means a lot of posts to answer, which, together with my propensity for grandiloquence and my one-finger typing method, often means a whole night spent answering half of the posts calling for attention. And so the next night there's unfinished business AND new material; and so on. Never mind the backlog when I dare to miss a day or two of posting, or have to post from the library, which imposes a 1-hour time limit on computer use...

Never mind the research that's often necessary.

Not to mention the occasions when the computer swallows a long, sedulously composed screed whole.

Do you know, I have spent a good four to five hours on today's debates, and still haven't even opened the first three threads on the political board alone? And here I was hoping to get to another discussion forum later on....

I know---excuses, excuses!

Well, you have posted in excess of 6000 posts, so you don´t have to feel sorry for missing something. That said, I do wonder what Mrs. Inq thinks of all those computer hours.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Did Iraq present a threat to th