You Decide The Correct Document ...

[timkell]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

Sorry Newsmax isn't as credible as Americanprogress.org. :?

I actually was having a somewhat philosophical discussion with Toasty.

You're so intellectually dishonest and biased its sad. You're hopeless. Go to sleep.

You're so good at sidestepping issues, I think Bush would love to hire you! Give him a call!

The article from Amercianprogress.org is a collection of quotes. It's barely an article. You still haven't worked these quotes to fit into your "idea" of what the pres is saying.

Then you heap insults on me. How am I dishonest and biased? Show me instead of just stating it.

Oh wait. You can't. OK. Just keep on stating it then, and enjoy your world.

[toasty]

We definitely have filters that are based on our opinions and beliefs. However, how could the fact that the media is liberal in any way help form my political positions? The reason that I think the media is liberal is because I have ALREADY formed a political position, ergo, you're implication that this can in any way shape my thinking in completely ridiculous.

This may be splitting hairs here, but I would argue that you (and I, and everyone) have a political ideology which helps you form specific positions on political issues when run through the "filter" we've been bantering about, so it isn't that ridiculous. At this point, though, we're pretty much arguing semantics, which is an awfully silly thing to get worked up about, so I'll drop it at that...

[acmatos]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

Sorry Newsmax isn't as credible as Americanprogress.org. :?

I actually was having a somewhat philosophical discussion with Toasty.

You're so intellectually dishonest and biased its sad. You're hopeless. Go to sleep.

[timkell]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

I like to deal with ideas. We can sit here all day posting links that will suit our arguments(even though you liberals will have a much easier time doing this :wink But, to actually argue your position coherently just in terms of the merits of the ideas and concepts themselves, now that's interesting.

What in hell does that mean? I ask you to back your "ideas" up with facts, and you say it's more interesting to talk a bunch of smack without facts? We're not talking about philosophy. We're talking about whether Bush exagerrated the truth and whether his PRIMARY reasons for going to war proved false. You still have not offered ONE fact to refute either of those things.

Nonetheless, I never said that the administration never used WMD's to justify war. I merely stated that it wasn't necessarily the main/only reason. Furthermore, I also said that the Admin used the imminent threat argument saying that we had to take out Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. You're actually combining two separate justifications and distorting the entire issue.

No, I didn't say you said that either. Here's what I said you said:

If you're going to claim the administration was not using WMD/Imminent threats as the primary justification for war, but instead was saying "We need to take care of him BEFORE he becomes an imminent threat," then you better back it up with facts, quotes and articles. If you can't, then that part of your argument holds no water.

And, here's what you said:

The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this.

Sounds pretty much exactly like you're still claiming. Way to sidestep my argument by pretending I was distorting yours. Still no evidence from you to back your "idea" up. We're waiting...

The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify.

Wrong again.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html

If you're going to use newsmax as a source, then I'm done with you. None of these article shows that, as Bush said in your article below: "the world knows that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"

Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Yeah that's really unbiased stuff there!
The whole article is bogus. If you actually read the quotes you'd realize that the words "imminent threat" are used only once by Secy. Rumsfeld when speaking about 9/11! The only other times that the phrase is used, it is out of quotation marks. Furthermore, many of those quotes are taken totally out of context and manipulated to fit the argument. Did you not make it past the title???

Quotes CAN be taken out of context. But they CAN'T be manipulated. They're quotes.

The link contains one paragraph, followed by 31 quotes from administration personnel. Where is the bias? Can you please explain the difference between "imminent threat" and "much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined" and "grave threat " and "threat of unique urgency" and "serious and growing threat" and "real and dangerous threat", etc. etc. etc.?

Just a little refresher on some of what President Bush has said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030220-1.html

Right from your link:
"After Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council, the world knows that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"

Where are they?

"And therefore, this nation must also confront not only shadowy terrorist networks, but the gravest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming to threaten the peace with weapons of mass destruction."

This sentence is his primary justification for going. Yes, he mentions that there are other benefits, like freeing the Iraqi people. But that is an additional benefit, not the primary reason for war. The primary reason for going to war is to stop Husseing from using his WMDs.

None of those three links you sent show ANY evidence of WMDs in Iraq. They show evidence that Iraq sent scrap metal to Europe, which concerns the UN because "what else could they have gotten rid of?" Good question. That doesn't mean "we proved it!"

Now that I've completely wiped out all of your points, I can go to sleep now.

BTW, I think Kerry sucks too.

[acmatos]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

Acmatos, you have a few posts where you claim the WMD/Imminent threat argument was not our primary reason for going to war and the administration made this clear at the time leading up to the war. Others have put quotes in their posts to back up their position, yet you haven't.

I like to deal with ideas. We can sit here all day posting links that will suit our arguments(even though you liberals will have a much easier time doing this :wink But, to actually argue your position coherently just in terms of the merits of the ideas and concepts themselves, now that's interesting.
Nonetheless, I never said that the administration never used WMD's to justify war. I merely stated that it wasn't necessarily the main/only reason. Furthermore, I also said that the Admin used the imminent threat argument saying that we had to take out Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. You're actually combining two separate justifications and distorting the entire issue.

The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify.

Wrong again.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Yeah that's really unbiased stuff there!
The whole article is bogus. If you actually read the quotes you'd realize that the words "imminent threat" are used only once by Secy. Rumsfeld when speaking about 9/11! The only other times that the phrase is used, it is out of quotation marks. Furthermore, many of those quotes are taken totally out of context and manipulated to fit the argument. Did you not make it past the title???

Just a little refresher on some of what President Bush has said:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030220-1.html

[acmatos]

This filter is created as a function of your own beliefs about the world around you; ergo, those underlying beliefs (i.e., the media is liberal and therefore can't be trusted, among others I'm sure) help you form your political positions. My response then, would be HOW COULD IT NOT? Of course the beliefs that we have in general mold our opinions on specific things.

We definitely have filters that are based on our opinions and beliefs. However, how could the fact that the media is liberal in any way help form my political positions? The reason that I think the media is liberal is because I have ALREADY formed a political position, ergo, you're implication that this can in any way shape my thinking in completely ridiculous.

[Nekrolicious]

I agree; the definition of the typical political partisan - Democrat or Republican - is "single-minded cheerleader." If you devote your efforts wholeheartedly to either "cause," you basically become another faceless, narrow minded pawn. If you want to think for yourself, don't pledge support to either group.

[toasty]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

I can't get over how Liberals are destroying their own credibility and public image: assaulting a young girl for having a Bush/Cheney flag

Uh, that was actually a Bush supporter, dressed as a Kerry supporter, that ripped the sign out of his sister's hands, creating this fracas:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109542699935507535

as revealed by LobsterClan in an earlier thread on this topic: http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/...;&start=15

Yeah, there are liberals out there that make all liberals look bad -- and there are conservatives that do the same. This just in...

[asdf_admin]

true. it is really sad. I go to a very Liberal school (art school) and my golly to I have fight. In my English class ... the topic of Bush came up ... here I was alone listening to non-factual data being spit out by my brothers and sisters. bah. I fought and I fought hard ... not because I like Bush more, but because of truth and fact ... not lies and fiction. Typical day in a liberal school. I love my odds.

... I love Fridays ... let the games begin.

[Nekrolicious]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

The point of all this is the fact that many liberal voices (not just Dan Rather) put their full support behind these documents and their legitimacy. Now they say that, even though the documents are fake, the info in them is valid. That assertion is based largely on hearsay, much of which comes from an ancient former secretary.
I can't get over how Liberals are destroying their own credibility and public image: assaulting a young girl for having a Bush/Cheney flag, beating up a plainclothes police officer, starting drunken arguments on planes (scaring the hell out of the rest of the passengers). Granted, these are a scant few mishaps...HOWEVER, I am seeing a lot of downplaying and subject-changing from zealous Liberals when these topics come up.

Partisan politics in general are total bullshit. Is a lobotomy required when becoming a mouthpiece for an extremist political fallacy crusade?

[timkell]

The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this. Anyway, that's not really that important. The problem is that the media has, for the last 18 months, changed what the administration had stated. The liberal media has been able to focus on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus(i.e. WMD's)
Another thing, he can't just come out and say "we just had to get rid of his regime because we need to change the middle east" (even though he has said it less harshly). Whether we like it or not we do have "allies" in the middle east who can help or impede our mission there. Some of them are already worried that they will be the next to fall(this is another important reason fo going into Iraq, keeping them in check!). And, unless we really want to go to war with the entire Middle East this has to be handled carefully.
Also, our military runs on oil, without it we're screwed.

Acmatos, you have a few posts where you claim the WMD/Imminent threat argument was not our primary reason for going to war and the administration made this clear at the time leading up to the war. Others have put quotes in their posts to back up their position, yet you haven't. This is clearly a contrarian viewpoint. Even conservatives admit the stated reasons for going to war turned out not to be true, while at the same time saying it was worth it to get rid of Saddam.

If you're going to claim the administration was not using WMD/Imminent threats as the primary justification for war, but instead was saying "We need to take care of him BEFORE he becomes an imminent threat," then you better back it up with facts, quotes and articles. If you can't, then that part of your argument holds no water.

Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...VF&b=24970

The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify. You can say they did it for a noble cause, i.e. "We know the public and the rest of the world won't go along with it if we say he simply needs to be removed, so let's just push this 'threat' thing." And that may be a valid opinion. But at least have the cujones to admit that that's what happened, and you agree with it anyway.

[toasty]

Furthermore, stating that the media has a liberal bias is neither an assumption(this is very much factual. If you'd rather not believe it then that's on you) nor does it in any way form the basis of my political positions. HOW COULD IT???

Easy. Earlier, you defended your position that the real reason for the war is this concept of "imminent threat" in part by charging that the reason it would appear to be something else is that the liberal media has "changed what the administration had stated" and " focus[ed] on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus (i.e. WMD's)." I am assuming that you run the information you receive through your own personal filter that tells you whether or not it is trustworthy -- as we all do. This filter is created as a function of your own beliefs about the world around you; ergo, those underlying beliefs (i.e., the media is liberal and therefore can't be trusted, among others I'm sure) help you form your political positions (i.e., "Rumsfeld's words and the press be damned, the real reason we went to war in Iraq was to prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat" :wink: ).

My response then, would be HOW COULD IT NOT? Of course the beliefs that we have in general mold our opinions on specific things.

To get back to my suggestion that cries of "liberal media" is a cop-out, I would note that contrary to what people on both sides of most issues would readily admit, there is loads of undeniably fact-based information out there that could be used to support or rebut any position. Frankly, accusing the media of being liberal and going on your merry way is not a particularly strong way to make your point and, on this board in particular, it is heavily overused. I see that, and I think to myself, "AND?"

You should really give up the pseudo-intellectual jargon and just go back to discussing things plainly.

Now, lets both remember that this thread isn't about us personally.

Didn't think that it was. No offense taken or intended.

indeed

[Yao]

I did.

[acmatos]

Ouch. Like a kick in the nuts Acmatos.

I wonder if you really have any idea what he was saying.

[acmatos]

Yeah, you're right, I backed off because you clearly have the upper hand here. If you'll look back at my other posts in this forum, you'll note that I have a long history of avoiding intellectual discussion whenever possible. What a complete pussy I am.



Seriously, I didn't find anything terribly objectionable with your substantive point. I did, however, take issue with some of the assumptions you state which presumably form the basis of your general world view and, accordingly, your political positions. Whether the fault lies in the foundations for your political analysis or the analysis itself, a fault is a fault, and the fruit borne from incorrect premises is as rotten as if it were the result of incorrect ideology or analysis.

Why is that an improper basis for challenge?

I knew that was going to happen when I posted. I wasn't implying that YOU were intellectually incapable of arguing the points, but merely that the points I was making were in many ways "common sense" type of stuff and can't really be countered intellectually.
Furthermore, stating that the media has a liberal bias is neither an assumption(this is very much factual. If you'd rather not believe it then that's on you) nor does it in any way form the basis of my political positions. HOW COULD IT???
You should really give up the pseudo-intellectual jargon and just go back to discussing things plainly. Now, lets both remember that this thread isn't about us personally.