1. What are they saving that is contradictory to anything treeman is suggesting? 2. Do you really think that soldiers talk to the press exactly the same way that they talk to other soldiers?
Oh, really... so what's my position on: 1. Gay Marriage 2. Gun Control 3. Legalization of mar1juana 4. Abortion
1. Don't take it from me, take it from Treeman "I know that they are misrepresenting the situation there, and it sickens me. I can barely even read a NYT headliner any more, they are just oozing with hatred for American and Iraqi success." 2. No, if anything, they'd be more optimistic and willing to gloss over deficiencies with the press than with treeman. However, many of them are not, such as the servicemen who went on TV, said that Rummy was an *******, or something like that, and demanded to be sent home.
Totally off-topic, however, I've been meaning to ask... giddyup, why do you feel the need to quote and bold stuff the opposite of everyone else? Feeling to conformist lately?
And just out of curiosity, exactly, specifically, what have I been wrong about? This is directed towards Batman Jones in particular, who is quite fond of claiming that I am always wrong, and either forgetting to substantiate that claim with examples or making up something that I supposedly said but did not in fact say and was wrong about... I will be the first to admit that I am not always right about everything, but on the major stuff regarding this topic I am usually not too far off. Examples: I said that we'd roll over the Taliban quickly and relatively easily, while the opposition predicted a dire battle that we would lose Soviet-style. Who was right? I predicted that we'd oust Saddam relatively easily and quickly (I said anywhere from one to three weeks - turned out to be three weeks). I said that many Iraqis would welcome us, and they did. I said that we'd find horrors there that would turn even the most diehard liberal's stomach, and we've found no shortage of torture chambers and mass graves. You guys are going to try to use the bioweapons trailers as an example, but the CIA has yet to change their story on that one. I'll take a CIA analysis over a state department's any day, and still fail to see the point of a mobile hydrogen-production facility when the Iraqis had not used artillery balloons in over 12 years... The only other item you guys will try to use would be that no WMD have been found yet, and of course as is your style you will conclude that there are/were no WMD in the fiorst place. I can only say that both proven history and logic dictate that that is a silly position to take, and that as I always say on that subject, it is just a matter of time. Now, exactly, precisely what have I been dead wrong about, BJ? Please do tell, as specifics would be so much more enlightening than your repeated "treeman is always wrong" rhetorical generalizations.
I don't know how to do it in segments like some people do, so all I can do is insert my commentary where appropriate and make it bold to differentiate it from the original comment. Teach me how to do it better and I'm all ears. I can reply to a quote with a comment, but how do you segment it and reply to different segments?
<b>SamFisher</b>: Those embedded reporters didn't report the constant stream of tripe that you promote. Setbacks yes, but pessimism, no Of course their stories contain quotes, but the quotes are only illustrative-- BTW, you are still stuck with the conundrum of the editorial decisions which pander to a negative outlook which is not balanced. Is it my fault if you slunk away from my challenge as regards the Ted Nugent thread?!? You were going to bash me, remember? You had your chance there to get in the last word.... and you bit your tongue I guess. Your remarks are so typical of the often-seen blindness of liberals. When you can't change my mind, you demonize me. I'm willing to argue for the sake of the argument. Grab your sack and get in or don't but quit whining when someone won't crown you the winner... When I think you're right, I'll let you know. Maybe I'd better look in the GARM forum?!
treeman: Thanks for an intelligent post. I'll do my best to answer it, but first let me say how weird it is to think of you as a calm, reasoned poster. I'm inclined to think it's got more to do with the level of debate coming from others on your side lately, but it's appreciated none the less. Without search (and frankly, without time -- my company's throwing me a going away party tonight and on Tuesday I am actually going away. I've got a great lot to do before then and instead I'm on this BBS as usual.), I'm not able to give you a comprehensive list of your positions and what I think was wrong with them. Plus, it's been a while. If I guess at what you said versus what someone else said I'll definitely be wrong. But I'll do this instead: I'll list a series of things that some people here were wrong about and you can let me know which were yours. Or not. I don't actually care to settle it. I was really responding to the weird treeman vs. MacBeth debate, which I found annoying on the grounds that MacBeth's concerns about the war are seeming more and more valid and those who argued those points with him are seeming more and more, well, wrong to have been so vehement in their arguments. Another disclaimer: I'm almost sure I never read your posts on Afghanistan. I don't know if I would have agreed with them or not. I mostly lurked until a little over a year ago and when I did I only lurked in the GARM. I didn't start visiting the hangout til I started posting regularly. So I'm leaving that stuff out. But for the record, I was for going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This is not a complete list (and again, it's probably not all yours), but off the top of my head (I'll leave WMD's in general for the end): - Saddam constitutes an immediate threat to the US, either because he has (or is close to having) nukes or he has other WMD's capable of reaching us by missile. - Saddam had something to do with 9/11 or had close ties or worked in concert with Bin Laden or Al Qaeda or other terrorists -- that he constituted an immediate threat by conspiring with any of those terrorists against the US. - Bush had good evidence of any of the above, but couldn't share it for security reasons. - If we wait for hard evidence of a threat, it might come in the form of a mushroom cloud. - Saddam can launch a chemical attack in 45 minutes. - The cannisters, the mobile labs and each of the other myriad "smoking gun" stories which was first trumpeted on this BBS and later refuted. - We will be embraced by the Iraqi people. - The military is united in their sense of purpose and believes in what they're doing in Iraq. - That the war on Iraq is an important, urgent component of the war on terror. - That there was a plan for rebuilding Iraq and we wouldn't get bogged down there for a long and indefinite period of time. - That the US possessed the necessary resources to go it alone. - That there was no way to approximate the cost of the war so that that cost could be included in the budget and approved by Congress. There are absolutely more but, like I said, these are off the top of my head. Let me address my positions on each of these items, because they have not changed and I don't feel like I've been meaningfully wrong about one single thing yet. And then I'll get on to WMD's in general. - On the threat to the US: I have always said I did not know whether or not Saddam constituted an immediate threat. I have said that if I saw evidence of a real, urgent threat I would rethink my position on the war. And I have also said I was hearing too many contrary opinions (from inside and outside the US) to take Bush or Powell at face value. I believed there was a very good chance they wanted the war for reasons other than a threat and that, therefore, they might not have been honest about the threat. But again, I always said I'd change my mind right away if someone could demonstrate that Saddam had the capability and the will to carry out an attack on the US. I still would have believed we shouldn't go without a real coalition, but I'd at least have believed it was important to our security that something be done. - On 9/11, Al Qaeda and terrorists in general as they relate to Saddam: I have always said that if Saddam had been involved in 9/11, I would support action against him. If he had assisted Al Qaeda in the past and continued to do so, same. - On the various smoking guns: I was skeptical, because I just do not trust this administration to do things for the reasons they say they're doing them. - On the Iraqi people: I have maintained that the predicted enthusiasm was overly optimistic, but I always expected many Iraqis to be happy for being free of Saddam. I cautioned before this began that we shouldn't expect that to translate to love of the US or even necessarily democracy. - On military morale: I never registered an opinion on this. I've been surprised by the outspokenness of a vocal minority of the military which has openly, loudly questioned the mission of late. - On terror: I've yet to see a single, credible piece of information linking Saddam to terror against anyone outside the Middle East. I'm not sure I've seen evidence linking him to terror outside of Iraq, but I won't say it doesn't exist. He may have sent checks to Palestinian suicide bombers. I can't recall. But that would hardly justify the recent position that Iraq is (or should be) the center of the war on terror. - On rebuilding and the cost of the war effort: I don't think I registered an opinion. If I did it would have been a prediction that rebuilding estimates (in time and money) were overly optimistic in order to make the effort more palatable. It is now clear that the administration had virtually no rebuilding plan other than happy Iraqis embracing democracy. Now on to WMD's in general: I have never said that Saddam never had WMD's. I have said that it was altogether possible he no longer had them. Maybe you can be the first to answer my repeated question about the possibility his WMD's had degraded to a state where they were no longer viable. I have heard it said repeatedly that these weapons have a shelf life and that that shelf life is consistent with the period of time between us knowing he had them and us attacking. If that is true, it is certainly a reasonable answer to the question of where they went. Hans Blix has never given me a reason not to take him at his word and I've never seen convincing speculation as to any ulterior motives he might have for being disingenuous. I have listed Bush's (and Rove's) reasons in the past. Whether or not he had WMD's though, even at the time we attacked, I have always said that unless those WMD's constituted an immediate threat to the US it did not justify a pre-emptive war or the risk to US soldiers or Iraqi civilians. I was also moved by the assessment (almost sure it was from US intelligence, though I can't recall which branch) that Saddam would likely only use WMD's against the US if we attacked. The administration disagreed with that notion and maybe you did too, but it was enough of a reason for me to be more cautious and give the inspectors more time. I'd like to point out, while I'm here in this very long post, that I've never said the war was for oil, revenge or to help Cheney's friends (and Bush's contributors) profit. I don't entirely discount those possibilities, but I never needed those issues to justify my positions. I had plenty others. That's all I've got for now. I hope I answered your question.
This stuff is so comical. I say you're using low blow patriotic nonsense to attack my observation and then you respond by doing it again. Very nice giddy. I didn't know bravery was all that was needed to overcome human nature. I guess that's why soldiers never have any problems with alcohol, or drugs, or wife beating, or being AWOL (ahem)... because they're brave and so well trained that they're just above being fallible and human. And really let's just try to make me (decidedly anti this war) feel guilty for the deaths of 282 brave Americans who were there because people like you supported the lying fratboy-in-chief and his concept of preemptive war by mind reading. Go ahead, call me un-American. That'll show me!
Do you really want to know what cracks me up ? It's how people refer to our president. Look at our man here Timing. Instead of saying Bush, or Mr. President, we have to hear " the lying frat boy-in-chief ". No mater how I felt about any president, I would still show a little respect. I apologize in advance for this statement to you Timing, I realize it’s not just you. I just don’t understand where all this disrespect comes from.
Well after 8 years of hearing our President referred to as Slick Willie among other things, I can see where respect for our President, whoever it is, could be lacking a little.
Yes I agree, " Slick Willie " that's pretty stupid. But, because certain people disrespected President Clinton, that makes it ok ?
People earn respect by their actions, not by their office. What he's done while leading my country simply insults me to a degree you can't imagine.
I'll call you un-American if it will make you feel better, but I'm not of a mind to do it unsolicited! Since you used your cynicism to attack my observation, what's wrong with using patriotism to fight back? I think treeman blew away your assumption. He was talking with soldiers who were just back from Iraq not recent boot-camp graduates. I never implied that these men and women were super beings. However you assumed that they were no better than gossips who don't know anything legitimate about the goings-on in Iraq. Somewhere between those two extremes lay the truth and I think I was far closer to it than you. Mind reading? I believe that the President read the UN charges about Saddam not fully cooperating for the last dozen years or so and so the jig was up. He read reams of intel which indicated that Saddam was guilty of war crimes against his own people as well as the Kuwaitis and the Iranians. He knew that Saddam had never accounted for his bio/chem WMDs and he wasn't going to wait around for proof positive about nukes either when one went off. Thank you for your leadership, Mr. President!
Sigh...T_J, I realize you're not really interested in the truth here, as I already pointed out that my 'qualifications' were not raised by me, but by you. As such, your entire post, as usual, is ridiculous. As to the quality of my posts, I will let them stand for themselves. They have already been fully demonstrated to be well recieved by most. You could, as they say, look it up. Your continued need to try this kind of crap rather than address things as they are also fully demonstrates exactly the same kind of limitations required to challenge another poster's qualifications, and when he responds, criticize him for so doing. I would say it's beneath you, but sadly it is not.
