I'm not following you. Bush had modernization of the energy infrastructure as part of his 2000 campaign and since then has had funding for it voted down three times apparently. After three years his plan was what exactly? And if after three years he still has no plans to fulfill goals of his campaign how could that be judged as anything but not successful? Did I miss something?
You chimed in with re: to 'bringing people together.' I compared the two to make light that one has a definitive plan to produce tangible results - be it negative or positive. 'Bringing people together' is an attitude, so how can you judge it's success?
Your analogy would be better if the issue under discussion was whether or not a dog facing away from you was licking his privates or nippping at fleas. Don't oversimplify.
Say what??? Don't overcomplicate. You accused people who opposed the tax cuts and the war BEFORE they happened of hindsight. How does that make any sense at all? MacBeth's analogy is exactly right.
Timing had no way of "knowing" that in the aftermath of Saddam's defeat, a long period of occupation would be necessary. That is still not a certainty even today, although more likely than the day the major hostilities ended. It was a politically motivated opinion issued at the time and nothing more. Yet now he wants to claim it as certain knowledge. I don't buy it. He knows nothing in particular about the matters of war. No one here does-- except maybe treeman who is a soldier. Same general idea for the tax cuts. No one can know for sure. As they say, a non-working clock (with two hands) is right twice a day. MacBeth's analogy is funny but that's about all. The outcome of a war and complex economic events are about as far afield as you can get from the centerpiece of his analogy-- paying attention to whether or not a dog was indeed lying in the road. It was or it wasn't. The "events" of war and tax cuts are not nearly so apparent.
giddy: I get what you're saying. No one knows for sure how things are going to turn out, true. Suggesting that warning about possible ill effects is purely partisan is insulting, but whatever. Timing and others (including myself) predicted the tax cuts would harm more than help and we predicted that the Iraq thing would be more complicated than we were being told. In fact, many experts, even within the administration warned that the occupation would be complicated and were basically told to shut up (just like a lot of you guys here told a lot of us here to shut up). If you want to call the warnings purely partisan, that's fine. I think it's entirely wrong, but it's fine. Whatever. I can't prove it wasn't. Calling continued criticism hindsight, when our positions haven't changed a whit, though just shows you don't understand the meaning of the word hindsight. MacB's story illustrated it perfectly. You can use the old lines or the new ones to criticize our criticism of the administration, but calling it hindsight's just kind of dumb.
Ummm... giddyup, you are being ridiculous. everyone knew that a long period of occupation was necessary in postwar Iraq. The people that were in the administration that said so were dismissed. The people in the administration that said the war would be expensive were dismissed. Now the administration is finally conceding that the war will be costly, and that our occupation will be longterm you seem to finally be aware of this possibility... but there were people saying this all along. MacBeth's analogy is spot on... and it's funny as hell, simply b/c it describes way too many things about you and your shortsighted allies, thank you very much.
If <b>everyone</b> knew the war would turn out so, who did the dismissing and on what grounds? Obviouslly, it wasn't everybody and there are different points of view of a very complex situation. There will be disagreements and those who turn out to be "right" claim to have known it would be that way. These events are too complicated and too volatile for elected officials -- much less lay persons-- to know very much for certain. His analogy is nothing but a distortion of possibilities to prove his point. Remember, it's fiction.
I don't think that pointing up partisanship is really that insulting. If you can find a significant number of examples of contra-partisanship let me know! I don't think they are out there. The difference between you, MacBeth, timing, and President Bush is that he had to make a decision, take action, and be held accountable. You guys can just be armchair chortlers. Of course, events in real life usually turn out to be more complicated than the roundtable planning. You've put on enough performances to know that I'm sure... and theatre is relatively a tame endeavor compared to warfare. Isn't it? I really didn't mean to specifically indict anyone. I was just responding to those standard criticism and crediting those who had posted them for clarity. I don't have the time or the interest in following your or timing's positions on every issue from yesteryear to the next election. I'm just chatting. MacB's story was cute and it was depictive-- just not of anything in real life that matters. It only served to illustrate another cheap shot at President Bush. You want a textbook war and they just don't exist in the real world. A dog lying in the road is obvious as hell. How a war will eventuate or how a tax cut will effect the economy is only conjecture which hinges on as of yet unrealized events which will become co-factors in the outcome. Politicians want to take misjudgements of their opponents to the bank and then that opponent to the nearest hanging tree. I like to think I would support our leaders more than that. It's a call for statesmanship, I guess.
1) "I don't think that pointing up partisanship is really that insulting. If you can find a significant number of examples of contra-partisanship let me know! I don't think they are out there." Untrue. I have very little interest in this subject, as I have no partisan affiliation, but a simple review of the facts dictates that one party's following has consistently voted based on party affiliation whereas one has not on this issue. At one point , based on the government's arguments which the people accepted, in the majority, war support accounted for roughly 70% of the population. Clearly this would indicate that large numbers of non-Republicans were making decisions on the facts as they knew them, not on party affiliation. Now that those facts, and the source of them ( the govt.) has been shown to be at best incompetent, and at most lies and liars, war support has 'stabalized'...exactly along party affiliation lines. Any understanding of statistics will tell you which party's supporters have followed party lines thus far and which party's hasn't. Take from that what you will about objectivity, etc... 2) "The difference between you, MacBeth, timing, and President Bush is that he had to make a decision, take action, and be held accountable. You guys can just be armchair chortlers. Of course, events in real life usually turn out to be more complicated than the roundtable planning. You've put on enough performances to know that I'm sure... and theatre is relatively a tame endeavor compared to warfare. Isn't it?" Again, untrue. Let's take this piece by piece...We all evaluate the data as presented and make decisions. Bush has more power, thus his decisions matter more, but to say that none of the rest of us makes decisions which matter at all is to spit in the face of representative government. And we all did...those of us who opposed the war did so, at least some of us, based on the fact that the argument presented was insufficient. We said so at the time, and were dismissed because they knew better, we were told. To dismiss us now that our assesment has proven correct because none of us knew enough to make a decision is circular reasoning. Taking action was the second step with which we disagreed. If you go to jump off of the roof of the garage, your parents can't guarantee that you will get hurt, but it's pretty sound judgement. To jump on the grounds that the outcome is not certain, get hurt, and dismiss your parents' recriminations because they were making a judgment call and not predicting a certainty is specious. And finally, I am amazed, literally, that you included "The difference between you, MacBeth, timing, and President Bush is that he had to ...be held accountable' " As that is exactly what stage you are objecting to. To be accountable, lest we forget, is to be responsible or answerable. Forget the whole aspect that we said this was wrong beforehand...and concentrate on the fact that you are now saying that, even if it doesn't work, we can't hold Bush responsible, and the only reason we would is because of party affiliation and/or hatred of Bush. When you equate holding him accountable as mindless Bush-bashing, what happened to that step in your statement of what seperates Dubbya from folks like us? And when you dismiss criticism of any decision Bush makes on the basis that we none of us knew for certain what would be the outcome, irrespecitve of the basis for our predictions, nor their accuracy, then how will Bush ever be accountable for anything? And yet that is the veey basis for this entire post you've made here. 3) "MacB's story was cute and it was depictive-- just not of anything in real life that matters. It only served to illustrate another cheap shot at President Bush. You want a textbook war and they just don't exist in the real world. A dog lying in the road is obvious as hell. How a war will eventuate or how a tax cut will effect the economy is only conjecture which hinges on as of yet unrealized events which will become co-factors in the outcome." Again, you make distinctions which no realist would ever make, as they preclude responsibility for any decsions made by any administration beyond that visually apparant. If Bush were to decide to release every inmate held in every prison in the land, I cannot say for a fact, as you would have it, that crime would rise...but it wouldn't be much of a leap in reasoning, would it? And when that came to pass, as it almost certainly would, would we not have a right to hold Bush accountable? No, there is no textbook war...but that is not the only requirement necessary for criticism and disagreement on the decision. Based on that rationale no war ever fought should not have been fought, no war in history should ever have been opposed by it's people, or individuals within a state, as they were judging something without an absolute certainty of action and consequence. 4) "Politicians want to take misjudgements of their opponents to the bank and then that opponent to the nearest hanging tree. I like to think I would support our leaders more than that. It's a call for statesmanship, I guess. " No, it's a call for inertia within the body politic aside from automatic support of authority merely because they are authority. It's an appeal for a Hamlet complex...if you can't be sure, sit back and do nothing, and let those in power act alone and unhindered. As it is your own country, you are required to do the exact opposite. Jefferson said that " It is the responsibility of every ( person) within a responsible society to question the actions of it's government." I don't think he'd have made the addendum of 'unless it is less apparent than a dog in the road'...do you?
That's just ridiculous Giddy. You hold me more accountable for what I post here than you hold Bush for starting an illegitimate war, blowing up the deficit, and going gung ho cowboy "Bring em on!" on national television to score poll points at the expense of our troops. Your events are more complicated logic is the same bait the American public swallowed to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in blowing off the UN to attack a sovereign nation in the name of self-defense. Now we find out we did so to defend ourselves from dastardly mobile Helium labs but hey he had to make a decision, take action, and then hope his sheep would stay in lock step to allow him to avert accountability from what he's gotten our nation into. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you hold that opinion because you sincerely are unable to admit that many of us vehemently opposed this war on it's merits and with each passing day our previously stated concerns are regularly slapping our nation in the face.
Originally posted by MacBeth 1) "I don't think that pointing up partisanship is really that insulting. If you can find a significant number of examples of contra-partisanship let me know! I don't think they are out there." Untrue. I have very little interest in this subject, as I have no partisan affiliation, but a simple review of the facts dictates that one party's following has consistently voted based on party affiliation whereas one has not on this issue. At one point , based on the government's arguments which the people accepted, in the majority, war support accounted for roughly 70% of the population. Clearly this would indicate that large numbers of non-Republicans were making decisions on the facts as they knew them, not on party affiliation. Now that those facts, and the source of them ( the govt.) has been shown to be at best incompetent, and at most lies and liars, war support has 'stabalized'...exactly along party affiliation lines. Any understanding of statistics will tell you which party's supporters have followed party lines thus far and which party's hasn't. Take from that what you will about objectivity, etc... <b>Is it at all possible that people had opinions about this before the government presented their arguments for justification? I know I did. You underestimate the American people who are not waiting to have their minds made up by what they hear at a Press Conference from the Administration. For a decade, many have insisted that we made a big mistake in not taking out Saddam during the First Gulf War. That thought has persisted. Many, no most, Americans were not blank slates just waiting to feel what the Administration wrote upon their foreheads. My challenge to illustrate example of contra-partisanship was intended to be limited to this board and the people here... since that is who I supposedly insulted. Is it really a surprise to you that objectivity can be suspended when the stakes are murder and terrorism? I'm not at all surprised. When the intensity of feelings have waned, all you are left with is a good example of partisanship-- attitudes about the war have settled upon party lines.</b> 2) "The difference between you, MacBeth, timing, and President Bush is that he had to make a decision, take action, and be held accountable. You guys can just be armchair chortlers. Of course, events in real life usually turn out to be more complicated than the roundtable planning. You've put on enough performances to know that I'm sure... and theatre is relatively a tame endeavor compared to warfare. Isn't it?" Again, untrue. Let's take this piece by piece...We all evaluate the data as presented and make decisions. Bush has more power, thus his decisions matter more, but to say that none of the rest of us makes decisions which matter at all is to spit in the face of representative government. And we all did...those of us who opposed the war did so, at least some of us, based on the fact that the argument presented was insufficient. We said so at the time, and were dismissed because they knew better, we were told. To dismiss us now that our assesment has proven correct because none of us knew enough to make a decision is circular reasoning. Taking action was the second step with which we disagreed. If you go to jump off of the roof of the garage, your parents can't guarantee that you will get hurt, but it's pretty sound judgement. To jump on the grounds that the outcome is not certain, get hurt, and dismiss your parents' recriminations because they were making a judgment call and not predicting a certainty is specious. And finally, I am amazed, literally, that you included "The difference between you, MacBeth, timing, and President Bush is that he had to ...be held accountable' " As that is exactly what stage you are objecting to. To be accountable, lest we forget, is to be responsible or answerable. Forget the whole aspect that we said this was wrong beforehand...and concentrate on the fact that you are now saying that, even if it doesn't work, we can't hold Bush responsible, and the only reason we would is because of party affiliation and/or hatred of Bush. When you equate holding him accountable as mindless Bush-bashing, what happened to that step in your statement of what seperates Dubbya from folks like us? And when you dismiss criticism of any decision Bush makes on the basis that we none of us knew for certain what would be the outcome, irrespecitve of the basis for our predictions, nor their accuracy, then how will Bush ever be accountable for anything? And yet that is the veey basis for this entire post you've made here. <b>The answerability for all this comes at election time. The constant carping I see here is just exercise. I didn't say that you don't make decisions that matter. Don't put words in my mouth. Personally, I think this constant armchair critiquing spits in the face of representative government. As some have said, war is fluid and when it doesn't go by the book, it is not time to cackle about the sky falling. It's about adjusting and pressing on.... until the election. What I said is this: George W. Bush is the President of the U.S.; you, MacBeth, are not. He, not you, will have to make decisions about matters of war. About this matter he will have to make decisions and to take action for which he will be held accountable by the world and history. You do not do anything of the sort. Lives are in his hands. They are not in yours.</b> 3) "MacB's story was cute and it was depictive-- just not of anything in real life that matters. It only served to illustrate another cheap shot at President Bush. You want a textbook war and they just don't exist in the real world. A dog lying in the road is obvious as hell. How a war will eventuate or how a tax cut will effect the economy is only conjecture which hinges on as of yet unrealized events which will become co-factors in the outcome." Again, you make distinctions which no realist would ever make, as they preclude responsibility for any decsions made by any administration beyond that visually apparant. If Bush were to decide to release every inmate held in every prison in the land, I cannot say for a fact, as you would have it, that crime would rise...but it wouldn't be much of a leap in reasoning, would it? And when that came to pass, as it almost certainly would, would we not have a right to hold Bush accountable? No, there is no textbook war...but that is not the only requirement necessary for criticism and disagreement on the decision. Based on that rationale no war ever fought should not have been fought, no war in history should ever have been opposed by it's people, or individuals within a state, as they were judging something without an absolute certainty of action and consequence. <b>Hey, you are the one who analogized a dog lying in the road to a war being prosecuted in a nation the size of California. Again, you choose an example which is ludicrous in every way except to illustrate your point. So now you are comparing the Administrtion's decision to realize the UN demands of a decade ago with President Bush releasing all prisoners. That's a level comparison!! Again, I never said (in fact, I said just the opposite) that President Bush is immune from criticism. I only complain about the constant, persistent criticism. The war went better than we might have hoped; the aftermath of the war is not going so well. Can we at least agree that he is 1 for 2?</B> 4) "Politicians want to take misjudgements of their opponents to the bank and then that opponent to the nearest hanging tree. I like to think I would support our leaders more than that. It's a call for statesmanship, I guess. " No, it's a call for inertia within the body politic aside from automatic support of authority merely because they are authority. It's an appeal for a Hamlet complex...if you can't be sure, sit back and do nothing, and let those in power act alone and unhindered. As it is your own country, you are required to do the exact opposite. Jefferson said that " It is the responsibility of every ( person) within a responsible society to question the actions of it's government." I don't think he'd have made the addendum of 'unless it is less apparent than a dog in the road'...do you? <b>This is subtle, no doubt. My complaint with you guys is the constancy of your criticism. Nothing is ever done right by this Administration. You act like a bunch of know-it-alls who would have us believe that you could run this country better than our experienced, elected officials. That's the epitome of arm-chairing.</b> [/QUOTE]
I do nothing of the sort. I know nothing of importance for which you are accountable. I know very well what President Bush is going to be held accountable for. You just want to condemn and convict him before the full results are in. You credit him for nothing. You criticize him for everything-- that might literally be true. Did you read the letter that MadMax posted from his friend in Iraq? Maybe there is moe to this than WMDs. It was a mistake on the Administratiion's part to accentuate that. What do you mean I can't admit that some of you vehemently opposed the war? HOW COULD I MISS THAT FACT?!! I just don't give you the credit that you give yourselves. You are total laymen who know nothing of improtance about how a war is prosecuted. You only know how you feel about it.
a read the first sentence of this post and stopped. hands down, one of the most idiotic statements i've read on this BBS in a long time (not coming from anyone w/ the initials TJ). yeah, b/c setting up entire governments to a foreign people while re-structuring their economy and re-tooling their entire national infrastructure after invading their country is always easy. 2 weeks tops. and it's not having 20/20 hindsight, it's having rational foresight.
