B
Bill Sornson
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:52 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> [BS:] What IS unpatriotic is actively rooting for your own country
>>>> to lose/fail/be humiliated (just because you hate Bush so much); or
>>>> even worse, actively working to bring that about (leaking
>>>> classified information, for example).
>>
>>> I don't actively root for our country to "lose" in Iraq. I wish
>>> there were some way to "win" - or more realistically, to extricate
>>> itself from the impossible quagmire the neo-cons have gotten us
>>> into. But I can't imagine the nature of the miracle that might get
>>> us successfully out of Iraq.
>>
>> It's not all about YOU, Frank.
>
> So who are you accusing of actively rooting for our country to lose?
Somewhere along the line you've deleted the very answer to that question.
If you can honestly say that the current Democratic leadership (Reid,
Pelosi, Clinton, etc.) wants the US to have a successful outcome in Iraq,
then you're in your own fantasy land. In fact, one reason they're so
/urgent/ nowadays is that they're deathly afraid that the troop
reinforcements and new military leadership MIGHT succeed. They'll do
anything to prevent that.
>> You trotted out the strawman that people who
>> questioned or criticized the war were labeled unpatriotic. I gave
>> examples of things that at least /could be/ considered so, as
>> opposed to mere policy differences. Maybe you can give some
>> specific examples of Bush or other administration officials saying
>> that people who disagreed with them are unpatriotic. (You know, the
>> way you said Mark Hickey "most often" did something but then
>> admitted you couldn't provide even /one/ example of it.)
>
> As usual, the administration avoids direct language. They condemn by
> implication. IOW, they know how to hire speechwriters. But the
> implications are clear.
Bush's speech writers suck. But again, just as with Mark, you're left with
proof by assertion and...nothing else.
>>
>>>> I don't remember anyone saying you're unpatriotic for opposing the
>>>> war --
>>
>>> Then you've been playing alone in your fantasy world.
>>
>> Produce a quote /in context/ and I'll look at it. Criticism and
>> agenda-driven lies are not the same thing.
>
> These are not quotes, but they are certainly evidence that criticizing
> the war was called unpatriotic:
>
> See http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010923solevote0923p4.asp
>
> or, from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=213
>
> "Is Criticism of the War Patriotic?"
>
> "Nearly half of Americans (49%) say that criticism of how the war is
> being handled is neither patriotic or unpatriotic, while the other
> half divides evenly on the question (22% say it is unpatriotic, 23%
> say it is patriotic). Not surprisingly, views about criticism are
> highly partisan and strongly related to views about the war itself,
> with 43% of conservative Republicans saying critics of the war are
> unpatriotic..."
Now you're aping JB (@SA.O). Articles and studies are not the same as the
President or admin Officials questioning the patriotism of people who merely
oppose the war.
Questioning the patriotism of Dennis Kucinich saying Bush targets civilians
for assasination or **** Durbin for calling US troops Nazis on the Senate
floor is /different/ -- and even THEN Bush didn't do it.
Saying that what the Dems want is the same as what AQI wants is...well,
plainly true.
But I get it, Frank. You and many others hate Bush, and it's coloring the
way you look at /everything/ he says or does. It's really not very
complicated.
>>>>> [FK:] Mark took that position [WMDs made the invasion and conquest
>>>>> of Iraq necessary] continuously, from the minute that the issue
>>>>> was being raised by Cheney, Wolfowitz et. al. and trumpeted by
>>>>> Limbaugh and his cohorts. Many here argued against it, and Mark
>>>>> continuously defended it. He defended it long after it was
>>>>> abandoned (at least, for public use) by the administration.
>>>>> AFAIK, he has never stated he was wrong.
>>
>>>> ISTR his arguing that it was commonly believed by /many/
>>>> intelligence sources, and that indeed the Democrats used the very
>>>> same arguments in their CASE FOR THE WAR, too.
>>
>>> Slow down. You're losing track of the discussion. DID Mark take
>>> that position? Yes, despite what you claim. The fact that others
>>> did as well does not disprove that Mark did.
>>> Were most Democrats convinced by the Administration's "facts?" Yes.
>>
>> Oh, horseshit. They /made the case for war/ just like Bush did.
>
> IIRC they didn't make the case; they agreed with the case, based on
> false evidence that was provided. Cherry-picked intelligence,
> remember? As mentioned in the Downing Street Memo?
Read Hillary's pre-war talks on the Senate floor. Hell, read he hubby's
comments from BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE.
>
>> Clinton
>> made regime change in Iraq the OFFICIAL POLICY of the US in 1998
>
> Have you not noticed that he did NOT make invasion and conquest of
> Iraq official policy? There are other ways of effecting regime
> change. There are probably even legal ones.
>
>>> They were lied to, plain and simple. But they've since learned, and
>>> they no longer believe nor defend the idea of Saddam's WMDs.
>>
>> Kerry lied then. Hillary lied then. Bill Clinton lied then. Hell,
>> SADDAM lied then. (Along with Hans Blix, the UN, Russia, Britain,
>> etc etc.)
>
> Let me explain again. Move your lips, if necessary, to read the next
> sentence very slowly.
>
> The current administration provided false evidence that fooled most of
> the country.
If that's true, then so did all the leading Democrats who looked at the
exact same intelligence (often, MORE of it) and came to the exact same
conclusions.
Hey, I'll even get a Hickey Quote for you:
"There was no other reasonable conclusion but that Iraq still
possessed>WMD - Hans Blix, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, John
Kerry and Jacques Chriac all said as much. Why is it you're so hung up on
Bush believing the same thing?"
> Still, you can't claim Hans Blix agreed with the neo-cons. That's
> just a lie. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
> "...I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have
> been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren't any,"
> Mr Blix said."
But Blix once was sure they were there. WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM? You guys
argue that he couldn't have moved them unnoticed (not sure that's true,
but...) -- so he either destroyed them (which would also leave evidence) or
he hid them (buried most likely). The FACT remains that EVERYONE was sure
he had 'em -- especially his people and neighbors.
> Britain? Have you even read the Downing Street Memo? You show no
> signs that you have.
>
> Russia? From
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/russ-m29.shtml, "Only hours
> after the first American missiles landed on Iraqi territory, Russian
> President Vladimir Putin made a public declaration, condemning the
> onset of the US invasion as a 'great political error.' "
ANd that proves that Russian intelligence didn't indicate he had WMD? Great
logic, that.
> ...d I guess the Kurds only /imagined/ they were gassed and died by
>> the 100,000s.
>
> The issue was not whether he _used_ to have such stuff. It was
> whether he _did_ have it at the time of invasion. I'm surprised even
> you can't keep that straight!
No, the issue is whether Bush honestly believed he had them. I'm surprised
even you can't keep that straight!
>> How did Hussein get rid of his stuff untraceably? If he
>> destroyed them, there would be evidence.
>
> Interesting statement! That indicates that you are among the - what?
> - 1% of the world that's still clinging to the delusion that Saddam
> had WMDs !
He did have them (he used them). What happened to the rest of them? No one
knows. (And if indeed there WERE none, NO ONE KNEW IT BEFORE THE OVERTHROW.
It's really not that complicated.)
>
> Again, you're in a fantasy world.
>
>> Prove he lied and impeach him.
>
> Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. Those who'd like to
> impeach Bush will have to start by impeaching Cheney, because we
> certainly don't want him _officially_ in charge.
PROVE BUSH LIED AND IMPEACH HIM. YOU KEEP STATING ("CHARGING") IT AS FACT.
DO YOU THINK THE DEMS WOULD HESITATE ONE MILLISECOND IF THEY COULD BRING HIM
DOWN?!?
Face it, you keep saying it but the 9-11 Commission Report and endless
investigations have not shown any manipulation or manufacture of pre-war
intelligence. It's easy to state ("charge") it as fact, but the only real
fact is that no one -- NO ONE -- has even come close to proving it.
>
> In fact, if we can impeach Cheney, the puppet will probably wind down.
>
>> Until then, STFU.
>
> Descending to foul acronyms? Well, at least it's consistent with your
> 9th-grader taunts.
Put up or shut up, Frank. "STFU" is just a silly acronym; sorry if it
offended the delicate flower.
BS
> On Apr 27, 7:52 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> [BS:] What IS unpatriotic is actively rooting for your own country
>>>> to lose/fail/be humiliated (just because you hate Bush so much); or
>>>> even worse, actively working to bring that about (leaking
>>>> classified information, for example).
>>
>>> I don't actively root for our country to "lose" in Iraq. I wish
>>> there were some way to "win" - or more realistically, to extricate
>>> itself from the impossible quagmire the neo-cons have gotten us
>>> into. But I can't imagine the nature of the miracle that might get
>>> us successfully out of Iraq.
>>
>> It's not all about YOU, Frank.
>
> So who are you accusing of actively rooting for our country to lose?
Somewhere along the line you've deleted the very answer to that question.
If you can honestly say that the current Democratic leadership (Reid,
Pelosi, Clinton, etc.) wants the US to have a successful outcome in Iraq,
then you're in your own fantasy land. In fact, one reason they're so
/urgent/ nowadays is that they're deathly afraid that the troop
reinforcements and new military leadership MIGHT succeed. They'll do
anything to prevent that.
>> You trotted out the strawman that people who
>> questioned or criticized the war were labeled unpatriotic. I gave
>> examples of things that at least /could be/ considered so, as
>> opposed to mere policy differences. Maybe you can give some
>> specific examples of Bush or other administration officials saying
>> that people who disagreed with them are unpatriotic. (You know, the
>> way you said Mark Hickey "most often" did something but then
>> admitted you couldn't provide even /one/ example of it.)
>
> As usual, the administration avoids direct language. They condemn by
> implication. IOW, they know how to hire speechwriters. But the
> implications are clear.
Bush's speech writers suck. But again, just as with Mark, you're left with
proof by assertion and...nothing else.
>>
>>>> I don't remember anyone saying you're unpatriotic for opposing the
>>>> war --
>>
>>> Then you've been playing alone in your fantasy world.
>>
>> Produce a quote /in context/ and I'll look at it. Criticism and
>> agenda-driven lies are not the same thing.
>
> These are not quotes, but they are certainly evidence that criticizing
> the war was called unpatriotic:
>
> See http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010923solevote0923p4.asp
>
> or, from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=213
>
> "Is Criticism of the War Patriotic?"
>
> "Nearly half of Americans (49%) say that criticism of how the war is
> being handled is neither patriotic or unpatriotic, while the other
> half divides evenly on the question (22% say it is unpatriotic, 23%
> say it is patriotic). Not surprisingly, views about criticism are
> highly partisan and strongly related to views about the war itself,
> with 43% of conservative Republicans saying critics of the war are
> unpatriotic..."
Now you're aping JB (@SA.O). Articles and studies are not the same as the
President or admin Officials questioning the patriotism of people who merely
oppose the war.
Questioning the patriotism of Dennis Kucinich saying Bush targets civilians
for assasination or **** Durbin for calling US troops Nazis on the Senate
floor is /different/ -- and even THEN Bush didn't do it.
Saying that what the Dems want is the same as what AQI wants is...well,
plainly true.
But I get it, Frank. You and many others hate Bush, and it's coloring the
way you look at /everything/ he says or does. It's really not very
complicated.
>>>>> [FK:] Mark took that position [WMDs made the invasion and conquest
>>>>> of Iraq necessary] continuously, from the minute that the issue
>>>>> was being raised by Cheney, Wolfowitz et. al. and trumpeted by
>>>>> Limbaugh and his cohorts. Many here argued against it, and Mark
>>>>> continuously defended it. He defended it long after it was
>>>>> abandoned (at least, for public use) by the administration.
>>>>> AFAIK, he has never stated he was wrong.
>>
>>>> ISTR his arguing that it was commonly believed by /many/
>>>> intelligence sources, and that indeed the Democrats used the very
>>>> same arguments in their CASE FOR THE WAR, too.
>>
>>> Slow down. You're losing track of the discussion. DID Mark take
>>> that position? Yes, despite what you claim. The fact that others
>>> did as well does not disprove that Mark did.
>>> Were most Democrats convinced by the Administration's "facts?" Yes.
>>
>> Oh, horseshit. They /made the case for war/ just like Bush did.
>
> IIRC they didn't make the case; they agreed with the case, based on
> false evidence that was provided. Cherry-picked intelligence,
> remember? As mentioned in the Downing Street Memo?
Read Hillary's pre-war talks on the Senate floor. Hell, read he hubby's
comments from BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE.
>
>> Clinton
>> made regime change in Iraq the OFFICIAL POLICY of the US in 1998
>
> Have you not noticed that he did NOT make invasion and conquest of
> Iraq official policy? There are other ways of effecting regime
> change. There are probably even legal ones.
>
>>> They were lied to, plain and simple. But they've since learned, and
>>> they no longer believe nor defend the idea of Saddam's WMDs.
>>
>> Kerry lied then. Hillary lied then. Bill Clinton lied then. Hell,
>> SADDAM lied then. (Along with Hans Blix, the UN, Russia, Britain,
>> etc etc.)
>
> Let me explain again. Move your lips, if necessary, to read the next
> sentence very slowly.
>
> The current administration provided false evidence that fooled most of
> the country.
If that's true, then so did all the leading Democrats who looked at the
exact same intelligence (often, MORE of it) and came to the exact same
conclusions.
Hey, I'll even get a Hickey Quote for you:
"There was no other reasonable conclusion but that Iraq still
possessed>WMD - Hans Blix, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, John
Kerry and Jacques Chriac all said as much. Why is it you're so hung up on
Bush believing the same thing?"
> Still, you can't claim Hans Blix agreed with the neo-cons. That's
> just a lie. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
> "...I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have
> been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren't any,"
> Mr Blix said."
But Blix once was sure they were there. WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM? You guys
argue that he couldn't have moved them unnoticed (not sure that's true,
but...) -- so he either destroyed them (which would also leave evidence) or
he hid them (buried most likely). The FACT remains that EVERYONE was sure
he had 'em -- especially his people and neighbors.
> Britain? Have you even read the Downing Street Memo? You show no
> signs that you have.
>
> Russia? From
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/russ-m29.shtml, "Only hours
> after the first American missiles landed on Iraqi territory, Russian
> President Vladimir Putin made a public declaration, condemning the
> onset of the US invasion as a 'great political error.' "
ANd that proves that Russian intelligence didn't indicate he had WMD? Great
logic, that.
> ...d I guess the Kurds only /imagined/ they were gassed and died by
>> the 100,000s.
>
> The issue was not whether he _used_ to have such stuff. It was
> whether he _did_ have it at the time of invasion. I'm surprised even
> you can't keep that straight!
No, the issue is whether Bush honestly believed he had them. I'm surprised
even you can't keep that straight!
>> How did Hussein get rid of his stuff untraceably? If he
>> destroyed them, there would be evidence.
>
> Interesting statement! That indicates that you are among the - what?
> - 1% of the world that's still clinging to the delusion that Saddam
> had WMDs !
He did have them (he used them). What happened to the rest of them? No one
knows. (And if indeed there WERE none, NO ONE KNEW IT BEFORE THE OVERTHROW.
It's really not that complicated.)
>
> Again, you're in a fantasy world.
>
>> Prove he lied and impeach him.
>
> Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. Those who'd like to
> impeach Bush will have to start by impeaching Cheney, because we
> certainly don't want him _officially_ in charge.
PROVE BUSH LIED AND IMPEACH HIM. YOU KEEP STATING ("CHARGING") IT AS FACT.
DO YOU THINK THE DEMS WOULD HESITATE ONE MILLISECOND IF THEY COULD BRING HIM
DOWN?!?
Face it, you keep saying it but the 9-11 Commission Report and endless
investigations have not shown any manipulation or manufacture of pre-war
intelligence. It's easy to state ("charge") it as fact, but the only real
fact is that no one -- NO ONE -- has even come close to proving it.
>
> In fact, if we can impeach Cheney, the puppet will probably wind down.
>
>> Until then, STFU.
>
> Descending to foul acronyms? Well, at least it's consistent with your
> 9th-grader taunts.
Put up or shut up, Frank. "STFU" is just a silly acronym; sorry if it
offended the delicate flower.
BS
