posted
You do know this "issue" is just a flaming bag covering the pile of manure that the rightwing "patriot"s have laid on the American doorstep, right?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because somehow right wing politicians have just...conjured the disgust for flag burning into the hearts and minds of a great many Americans, right aspectre?
Please.
Now, I happen to think it's dangerous, unAmerican, and contemptible to actually support making burning the flag illegal.
That doesn't mean I don't recognize it upsets many people, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, maybe this go around will produce some better results -
1. No, which is why I was being specific.
2. Yes, it is, and if you don't believe me, I'll refer you to a higher power:
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution
quote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. (emphasis added, obviously)
So explain to me please, how when a Republican charges a Democrat with giving aid and comfort to the enemy by criticizing the war, they are NOT charging them with treason? And then explain to me please, how treason is not unpatriotic?
3. Let me get this straight, one side argues the merits of a debate, and the other side argues the merits of HAVING the debate, and that ISN'T stifling debate? I'm not saying there isn't SOME merit to having the debate over the debate, but after a few years, after avoiding the debate countless times, when does that become a problem? Never? And how does that NOT engender bad faith? Wouldn’t it be advantageous to stop trying to stifle the debate and just have it?
4. The problem is that it isn't an argument IN the debate, it's an argument used to STOP the debate. To cease debate, to end it, to stop it from ever starting. You're claiming I'm labeling subjects off limits for the debate, I'm not. But I'll address the other debate, the one that you keep referring to, again. It's a fair debate to have, but in that debate, Republicans are calling their opponents treasonous, which is tantamount to unpatriotic, and can they do that? Well hey, I guess they can, but if you want to go back to the very, very beginning of the argument, to the first point of contention you asked of me, I merely stated that they were doing it, I never said they couldn't I just said that they were, and that it was widely accepted that they did, I never levied judgment on it being allowed in the debate or not. You put that on me, and I’d like you to please quote where I said that that part of the debate should be off limits. I’m pointing out what they are doing, and you don’t seem to like it much, and you’ve just done EXACTLY what you claim I was doing, you attached MOTIVE onto my actions. You assumed and proclaimed that I want to declare parts of the debate out of bounds, but I’m not doing that, I’m debating the merits of debating the merits of debating the merits of the debate. Is that not allowed now? Given this discussion, you’ve led me to believe that it is perfectly fair.
quote:I see the "they're questioning my patriotism" accusations specifically as intended to stifle certain forms of discourse. If someone thinks that certain forms of dissent help our enemies, they should say so. The people making the dissent should then demonstrate either 1) the dissent does not help our enemies or 2) any help to enemies is outweighed by the importance of the dissent.
Fair enough.
quote: You, are, however, attempting to label a particular position as "out of bounds" in some way - exactly what you accuse the administration of doing.
Censorship and dissent-stifling is as loaded an accusation as unpatriotism, and you're using it with the desired goal of carving out a whole category of argument.
Please show me where I am doing that. So far as I can tell, I’m identifying a debate tactic and vilifying it, which I think is perfectly valid, it’s what you claim the Republicans are doing, why can’t I?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I certainly think that the public is manipulated by repeated suggestion, even (maybe especially) when it overt. Commercials do it all the time. They don't come out and say that you will be sexy if you buy a certain car; they manage to convey that message, though. Implication is a very effective way to manipulate people.
What was it? Sixty percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11? While it wasn't said explicitly, the juxtaposition of September 11 to Iraq was enough to create that impression.
And while I might agree that those people haven't much to add to public discourse, they still get to vote. They have as much right to control the destiny of this country as someone who is informed. So we have to care about how they are manipulated.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
So you're not going to explain why this effect requires stupidity to think it won't happen, but all the other effects don't? OK, as long as you don't think you've addressed my argument.
quote:So explain to me please, how when a Republican charges a Democrat with giving aid and comfort to the enemy by criticizing the war, they are NOT charging them with treason? And then explain to me please, how treason is not unpatriotic?
Because treason also includes a mens rea element of intent. Intent matters, and they aren't speaking of the intent.
quote:Let me get this straight, one side argues the merits of a debate, and the other side argues the merits of HAVING the debate, and that ISN'T stifling debate? I'm not saying there isn't SOME merit to having the debate over the debate, but after a few years, after avoiding the debate countless times, when does that become a problem? Never? And how does that NOT engender bad faith? Wouldn’t it be advantageous to stop trying to stifle the debate and just have it?
Actually, you aren't trying to argue the merits of the debate. I haven't heard you once address whether such dissent actually has an effect. In fact, you are putting forth an argument specifically to prevent such a discussion from happening. It's obvious from the very first sentence - you've declared one side to be discussing "merits" and the other not.
quote:The problem is that it isn't an argument IN the debate, it's an argument used to STOP the debate.
Only if one lets you define "the debate." I consider this a debate as well - how we conduct our political discourse matters, and it's an issue worth debating. It's not a meta-issue. And remember, you are also arguing about how the debate is conducted.
quote:Please show me where I am doing that. So far as I can tell, I’m identifying a debate tactic and vilifying it, which I think is perfectly valid, it’s what you claim the Republicans are doing, why can’t I?
The Republicans are, if they are doing what you accuse them of, identifying a debate tactic and vilifying it as well.
Alternatively, they are discussing the merits of certain kinds of discourse. Just as you are doing. Their intent is to convince people not to engage in certain kinds of discourse. Just as you are doing.
My point is that every criticism you are levying against the administration's comments on how certain types of discourse affect the war applies to your comments about how the administration's comments affect debate. All your characterizations of the administration as stifling debate apply to the same degree to you.
Are you contending that "vilifying" something doesn't have the intent of making it less acceptable to the general public?
quote:And while I might agree that those people haven't much to add to public discourse, they still get to vote. They have as much right to control the destiny of this country as someone who is informed. So we have to care about how they are manipulated.
And I think the creation of these unquestionable memes is as worse manipulation than anything that has been demonstrated about the Republicans questioning patriotism.
Lyrhawn fully expected that everyone would just agree that "the Bush Administration more or less equated questioning their leadership with a lack of patriotism."
We had millions of people believing that there was going to be a draft if Bush was elected based on no evidence because of the same types of tactics.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we agree that what I'm saying is perfectly fair and valid?
Good, I'm glad we settled that.
But I still think you're wrong about the treason thing, why? Because America isn't populated by 300 million lawyers. You're using legalese in a sense that only an extreme minority of Americans would use it. And you're jumping right to the case and skipping the part where the charge was leveled.
And I fully disagree that this is the 'same types of tactics' that got people to believe that there'd be a draft if Bush was elected. I believe what I believe based on numerous instances of Republicans and Bush officials leveling such charges, either directly or through inference.
I fully respect the way that you operate Dag, you like to parse out every issue, following it logically back to its roots. I see you time and time again on these boards attack people for logical fallacies, fairly often without actually taking a position yourself, you just go after the inaccuracies for the sake of them. But, if I am to buy into your argument in this case, it would be based on the premise that words have no subtext, that they have definitions and defenses that can be fought out in the court of law. Well this isn't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion, where people don't yank latin phrases out of thing air to try and parse out the words they hear their leaders saying on television. This Administration, until recently anyway, has been very, VERY good at controlling the message that gets out of the government to the people. Rove especially is a master at it. I give them that much credit. So when they say something like "aid and comfort to the enemy" they mean for the average American to connect that instantly to Treason. Sure, if every American visited a law library, they'd eventually discover that in fact there is more to a charge of treason than that, but do you honestly thing the average American, hell, even an ABOVE average American is going to actually do that? I think you're ignoring cause and effect, what politicans say and WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS rather than what WOULD happen IF every American decided to write a research paper on political speeches.
From my point of view, you're attacking Democrats for what you see as making something out of nothing in an attempt to divert attention from what Republicans have actually been saying, and I think from your point of view, I'm just one of those Democrats. But like I said before, I don't have to convince you, and now that you've assigned some sort of motive to my words, I don't think it's anywhere near possible that I could even get you to understand my point of view, let alone convince you I'm right.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we agree that what I'm saying is perfectly fair and valid?
Good, I'm glad we settled that.
And for the same reasons, what the administration is doing is fair. If I apply your standards, what you are doing is unfair (or somehow wrong).
quote:So when they say something like "aid and comfort to the enemy" they mean for the average American to connect that instantly to Treason.
The average person doesn't connect those words with treason - it requires knowledge of the treason clause, something most people aren't even aware of, let alone know it well enough to connect it "instantly."
Further, the average person does NOT think that something that happens to help the enemy, despite the actor's intentions, is treason.
quote:I think you're ignoring cause and effect, what politicans say and WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS rather than what WOULD happen IF every American decided to write a research paper on political speeches.
I have been dealing with what actually happens - and what actually happens is that motives are bing assigned to certain types of criticisms in an attempt to, as you say, vilify their tactics.
I don't buy into the whole "code phrase" mentality where the "real" meaning of what someone said is explained by their political opponents. I'm sick of seeing comments attacking our current welfare system as being code for racial divisiveness. I'm sick of seeing statements relating to the new dangers made evident by the attacks of 9/11 being labeled as claiming that Saddam took part in 9/11. I'm sick of people trying to mark off limits the very simple concept that words we say can help people with interests adverse to our country.
There's a reason the Viet Cong publicized Fonda's visit so widely - because it helped them. It's clear it can happen. Your grouping of all the statements essentially lumps all such argument into the patriotism accusations because of "context." What's not even discussed when someone screams "stop calling us unpatriotic" is whether it's actually happening now.
The worst was your very first example about Gonzales's comment regarding the definition of 4th amendment freedom in a manner that excluded civic responsibility. This is an absolutely necessary issue to discuss. It underscores the concept of exigent circumstances. It's why we allow searches at customs points and before getting on airplanes. And you casually labeled it as an accusation of being unpatriotic. It wasn't even talking about disagreement being civic irresponsibility.
quote:But like I said before, I don't have to convince you, and now that you've assigned some sort of motive to my words, I don't think it's anywhere near possible that I could even get you to understand my point of view, let alone convince you I'm right.
It's an admitted motive, not one I've assigned. You yourself said you wanted to vilify a debating tactic.
And, of course, you've been assigning motives to the Administration since this discussion started.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because political opponents aren't to be trusted to such things, on either side of the spectrum. It's a self-feeding cycle that continuously coarsens political discourse.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what criteria do we use to determine a "political opponent" in such a situation?
If I point out that Cheney is, for example, clearly seeking to link Al Qaeda to Iraq through the use of suggestive language without explicitly saying so, and therefore now oppose Cheney, have I become his political opponent?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The irony of Pixiest's comment is that I've heard that one seriously advanced.
So have I, the problem with treason is its usually properly identified AFTER the treasonous act has been commited.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. Bush DID say that Saddam was linked to 9/11, that IRAQ was linked. There is NO link, and yet more than HALF the country thinks there was! Why are you not more outraged by the blatent disinformation campaign from the government to its citizens? He said that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger, but that was WRONG, and then his cronies OUTED the spy who proved it wrong. And you think that I am perpetuating falsehoods? Get a clue man. I think you're being ridiculously naive on THIS one. That doesn't mean that I don't think you have a point on OTHER subjects, but I know how to differentiate and not make blanket statements across whole swaths of material. I am villifying their tactics as I see them, your accusation against me is for MAKING UP tactics, pinning them on them, and THEN villifying them. That's wrong, and it's insulting.
2. You aren't making any sense to me on a part of this. Yes, I want to villify what they are doing because I believe it stifles debate and dissent about this subject. I want to see a fair debate with all sides considered, not just mine, and not just my opponents'. So I am doing the same thing they are doing, as far as methodology goes. I guess I don't get what your point is. I don't like what they are doing, so I'm trying to get them to stop, they don't like what I am doing, and are trying to stop what I am doing. It's free speech and it's allowed, it's just my position. I don't understand what you are trying to get me to see, and I don't get how my position is so wildly different from theirs as far as methodology goes, but that has nothing to do at all with the content of our arguments. I don't like the way they are going about their arugments, and I am saying so, what are you taking issue with?
Tom -
I have the feeling that Pix WAS seriously advancing that theory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush DID say that Saddam was linked to 9/11, that IRAQ was linked.
Really? Quote, please.
quote:I don't get how my position is so wildly different from theirs as far as methodology goes
I don't think it's wildly different. I think it's basically the same. I also think it's ok by my standards. It's not ok by the standards you want to hold the administration to. Apparently you want to hold yourself to a different standard.
quote:I don't like the way they are going about their arugments, and I am saying so, what are you taking issue with?
That you are not holding yourself to the standard you are attempting to hold them to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, perhaps you can show in that first link where Rice suggested that Iraq was linked to 9/11, not just linked to al Queda.
The second link shows Bush saying there's no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11 and takes a Cheney quote out of context to attempt to portray him as having suggested a link. Here's the whole quote:
quote:The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
The heart of the geographic base.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you are not holding yourself to the standard you are attempting to hold them to.
What standard?
As far as Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11...Al Qaeda planned 9/11, and he claimed many times, and defended upon assault, that Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda, supported and based there, when we know that isn't true.
quote:In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
You seriously don't see the connection?
quote:Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year (2003), attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
The number of Americans who believe that Saddam was personally involved in planning the attacks was at 70% in November of 2003, and still stands at 55% as of this year. Cleary a majority of American citizens think that Bush said that. Maybe if they all only took his words at face value and examined them all with lawyerly efficiency, we wouldn't have all these pesky misconceptions. And again, you're mad at DEMOCRATS for perpetuating falsehoods?
This wasn't even an issue before Bush brought it up, and now HALF the country falsely believes it. How else do you explain that? Coincidence?
posted
HE DIDN'T SAY THAT SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Stop bitching about "lawerly efficiency." Asking that people bother to read or listen to what's actually said is not too high a standard to demand. The simple fact is that he didn't say it. Got that? He didn't say it.
He did cite 9/11 as a reason for the Iraq invasion - not to overthrow someone who participated or helped those who participated, but for other reasons.
As to the subject of accusations of being unpatriotic, you've simply glossed over the stupid/treason dichotomy, ignored my repeated explanations about why your interpretation of Gonzales's statement - your very first example - is misleading, and not addressed the fact that most people to not consider unintended aid to the enemy to be treason, all so you can, once again, express incredulity that I dare to disagree with your interpretation of the Administration.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, do you believe that it is possible for people to strongly imply things which they deliberately do not say?
If, for example, I were to tell someone "Wow! You're dressed nicely today," it would be possible for that comment to ACTUALLY mean "you are normally not dressed nicely." Do you agree?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.
--President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
From Lyrhawn's BBC link
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, he didn't need to say it. The Administration created that impression without saying it. They put the two things together enough to create that impression. This is a common way to manipulate people. Advertisers do it all the time. It is how we sell things. It served their purpose, which was to get the American people to support the war in Iraq.
Do you really think that impression was an accident?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The simple fact is that he didn't say it. Got that? He didn't say it.
I hate when people disregard honesty in an attempt to defend people who have done wrong.
I hate it when people make oblique comments about posts without bothering to explain what the heck they are talking about. Are you contending that he did say it, or are you agreeing with me that he didn't?
Or are you accusing me of being dishonest, in which case, according to the standards you constantly try to push on this board, you owe at least some kind of explanation. Not that it would matter, because if you are accusing me of dishonesty then you are lying.
quote:Dag, do you believe that it is possible for people to strongly imply things which they deliberately do not say?
Of course it is possible. But the connection Bush was making was explained multiple times by him.
quote:He certainly implied it:
I'm going to assume you selected the quotation you thought provided the strongest demonstration of an implied link. And, quite frankly, it implies no such thing.
If Iran were to build and deploy a dirty bomb, you can bet we'd pay a hell of a lot more attention to North Korea than we do now. Such attention would not suggest that we thought North Korea had anything to do with it.
It's an incredibly common event for the commission of a particularly horrifying crime by one criminal to result in extended crackdowns on related crime by totally unrelated criminals. A drive by that kills a little girl leads to a crackdown on all drug dealers, even those not connected.
I paid careful attention to all these speeches as they were made. It was always excruciatingly clear to me that Bush was specifically not saying that Saddam was involved in 9/11. It was a multi-stepped argument, one that never got considered because of all the people who didn't discuss the nuanced cause and effect relationship because they inferred something that simply wasn't there.
quote:Dag, he didn't need to say it. The Administration created that impression without saying it. They put the two things together enough to create that impression. This is a common way to manipulate people. Advertisers do it all the time. It is how we sell things. It served their purpose, which was to get the American people to support the war in Iraq.
Do you really think that impression was an accident?
The two things were related. It simply wasn't a cause and effect relationship.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or are you accusing me of being dishonest, in which case, according to the standards you constantly try to push on this board, you owe at least some kind of explanation. Not that it would matter, because if you are accusing me of dishonesty then you are lying.
People who defend people vigorously often step far outside the bounds of honesty. Dag, you seem to me to often defend things extremely vigorously. There are many people who defend President Bush by lying or by playing games with the truth and you are one of the people who defend President Bush, and your manner in doing often stikes me as overly vigorous.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So we agree that what I'm saying is perfectly fair and valid?
Good, I'm glad we settled that.
And for the same reasons, what the administration is doing is fair. If I apply your standards, what you are doing is unfair (or somehow wrong).
quote:So when they say something like "aid and comfort to the enemy" they mean for the average American to connect that instantly to Treason.
The average person doesn't connect those words with treason - it requires knowledge of the treason clause, something most people aren't even aware of, let alone know it well enough to connect it "instantly."
Dag, the average person DOES associate that with treason, at least these days, specifically because of the way the administration has repeatedly portrayed them in regards to people who disagree with the war in Iraq.
You may not...I know I don't...but a large number of people do, despite the actual definition of it....including some Republicans that have the media's attention. Cheney specifically, IIRC.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or are you accusing me of being dishonest, in which case, according to the standards you constantly try to push on this board, you owe at least some kind of explanation. Not that it would matter, because if you are accusing me of dishonesty then you are lying.
People who defend people vigorously often step far outside the bounds of honesty. Dag, you seem to me to often defend things extremely vigorously. There are many people who defend President Bush by lying or by playing games with the truth and you are one of the people who defend President Bush, and your manner in doing often stikes me as overly vigorous.
Next time you accuse me of game playing, remember this post, you flaming hypocrite.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It was always excruciatingly clear to me that Bush was specifically not saying that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly. We've had that conversation, too.
------
Squick, that was uncalled-for. I don't think Dag is ever deliberately dishonest; I just think, when it comes to political figures, he's even more hyperliteral than Porter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, Squick is making a point about juxtiposing things without saying them.
If you pay as careful attention to his posts as Dag did to the President's speeches it will be excruciatingly clear that Squick never said Dag was lying.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really not get the point? (edit: dkw got it.)
How can you be upset about what I'm doing while at the same time defending President Bush for doing the same thing?
For example:
quote:We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
quote:Knight Ridder pointed out on March 21 that, in a letter Bush sent to Congress at the beginning of the Iraq war, the president asserted that military action was "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
quote:On September 14, 2003, Cheney said the following on NBC's Meet the Press: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
They never actually explicitly said it (although both Bush and Cheney did lie about the relationship between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein throughout the 90s), but is it any wonder that people got the impression that there was a connection?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to assume you selected the quotation you thought provided the strongest demonstration of an implied link. And, quite frankly, it implies no such thing.
If Iran were to build and deploy a dirty bomb, you can bet we'd pay a hell of a lot more attention to North Korea than we do now. Such attention would not suggest that we thought North Korea had anything to do with it.
It's an incredibly common event for the commission of a particularly horrifying crime by one criminal to result in extended crackdowns on related crime by totally unrelated criminals. A drive by that kills a little girl leads to a crackdown on all drug dealers, even those not connected.
But where is the related crime? How does what Al Quida did on 9/11 relate to the percieved threat of WMDs in Iraq? The only similarity is that they are both threats. I think it is a stretch to link the two based on that alone.
To use your example, if a girl is killed in a drive by there would be a crackdown on all gang-related activity in the area. If the police decided to ramp up the war on drugs as a result, I would think that a tenuoust link being used to further an unrelated agenda.
So if 9/11 spurred pre-imptive action or concern over possible related crimes, the action should have included responses to ALL related threats, not just one out of dozens. I think the singling out of this one particlur threat as a result indicates that there is another agenda being followed.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly.
If he hadn't taken great pains to explain all the other reasons he was speaking of both at once.
And thanks.
quote:Dag, the average person DOES associate that with treason, at least these days, specifically because of the way the administration has repeatedly portrayed them in regards to people who disagree with the war in Iraq.
Not in my experience.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Guys, Squick is making a point about juxtiposing things without saying them.
If you pay as careful attention to his posts as Dag did to the President's speeches it will be excruciatingly clear that Squick never said Dag was lying.
And if you pay careful attention to my post you will realize that I didn't say he was accusing me of lying. I was calling him on his ongoing accusations of game-playing (asking simple questions is, to Squick, games-playing) and wondering why he considers his games acceptable.
quote:If the police decided to ramp up the war on drugs as a result, I would think that a tenuoust link being used to further an unrelated agenda.
But they do, all the time.
quote:So if 9/11 spurred pre-imptive action or concern over possible related crimes, the action should have included responses to ALL related threats, not just one out of dozens. I think the singling out of this one particlur threat as a result indicates that there is another agenda being followed.
I don't think that's true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:wondering why he considers his games acceptable.
Where did you do that? I missed the part where you asked this. If you can point it out, I can answer the question more fully.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I know they do. It's part of how they force associations between drugs and violence that aren't really there. But that's another conversation. Regardless, just 'cause they do, doesn't make it a good thing.
quote:I don't think that's true.
That's cool. Do you think it's possible?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where did you do that? I missed the part where you asked this. If you can point it out, I can answer the question more fully.
If you couldn't put it together that I thought you were playing games from my response to you, I can't help you.
Edit: You'll also note that I didn't bother to ask you the question, because I expect a zero-value reply. That doesn't stop me from wondering.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly.
If he hadn't taken great pains to explain all the other reasons he was speaking of both at once.
Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.
He was connecting the two. He was not saying that Saddam or Iraq were involved in 9/11.
It's the subtle switch from "connection" to "Iraq caused/was involved in" that I find most perplexing. Can people not really appreciate the difference?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.
I think it is also important to note that the President, despite being told as early as Sept. 21st, 2001 that there was little credible evidence of it, repeatedly asserted that there was a long-standing, collaborative relationship between the government of Iraq and al Queda.
quote:He was connecting the two. He was not saying that Saddam or Iraq were involved in 9/11.
And, again, important to note that most of the asserted connections of Iraq to the war on terror were false and labeled as at best unconfirmed by U.S. intelligence services.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are wondering why I think that it is okay, how do you have the confidence to call me a hypocrite? Can you read my mind so that you know that I don't have a non-hypocritical reason for my behavior? If not, I have no idea how you have the ability to say that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly.
If he hadn't taken great pains to explain all the other reasons he was speaking of both at once.
Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.
Look, its not as if Iraq and Al-Qaeda were as seperate as trade sanctions on North Korea and Medicare. They were both part of the same larger effort.
Destroying Al Qaeda as far as I understood it was not the sole goal of our activities in the middle east as they are not the only terrorists who can hurt us or could potentially hurt us.
From what I can tell 9/11 told us to stop turning a blind to the middle east, and when we started looking over the region there was Saddam with his WMDs (yes we did not find any, but thats what our inteligence told us) and Bush decided to try premptively attacking potential problems before they materialize and Saddam was a good candidate.
It was also obvious that if we sent troops into Iraq that Al Qaeda would MAKE it their business to interfere. Soon after, they, (Al Qaeda) declared that the front line on the war against the American satan was in Iraq. There was no direct link before we went in, but THEY made a link when we got there.
The plan was to establish a stable democratic Iraq that would act as a foothold in the middle east and push extremist Muslim regimes back.
Its not as if Bush believed that solving the Iraq problem would have NO effect on terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, but we would have still gone there purely because of Sadaam and WMDs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll rephrase: If it wasn't his intent to create the impression that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attack on September 11, then whoever was responsible for crafting the White House message, did a really lousy job. If that was an example of the President taking great pains to make something clear, then he really is incompetent and so are his media advisors and speech writers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Knight Ridder pointed out on March 21 that, in a letter Bush sent to Congress at the beginning of the Iraq war, the president asserted that military action was "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
make a much stronger linking here than you seem to be crediting.
---
And again, there is that troubling number of 70% of the population somehow getting the idea that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks.
As I demonstrated here, you can deliberately set up statements such that you make clear implications without ever saying it. A great many people think that, along with dishonesty abuot the relationship that the Iraqi government had with al Queda and terrorists in general, the Bush administration's statements on this manner represent a excrutiatingly clear example of this sort of strategy.
I patterned what I said above directly off of statements made by President Bush. I still don't understand how people, like Dag, can take exception to my statements while defending the Prsident's while maintaining a consistent set of standards. Could someone explain that to me?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you are wondering why I think that it is okay, how do you have the confidence to call me a hypocrite? Can you read my mind so that you know that I don't have a non-hypocritical reason for my behavior? If not, I have no idea how you have the ability to say that.
You're right. There is the possibility that you've managed to come up with some rationale that makes my asking someone a question about where someone else asserted something "game-playing" (even though the person actually intended to imply that the assertion had been made) whereas your post in this thread wasn't game-playing.
You're free to attempt to explain that rationale. As it is, though, given your repeated lectures to me about certain behaviors being conducive to discussion, I'm forced to conclude that either you don't intend that such rules should apply to yourself (which would make you a hypocrite) or that your not the great expert on discussion-conducive behavior that you pretend to be.
I'll note that my response to your initial post on this topic was, in fact, in accordance with your suggested discussion-conducive behavior - that is, asking for clarification. Since it doesn't seem to have worked and the clarification still has not been provided, I'm forced to conclude that your repeated lectures to me are, in fact, worthless.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Knight Ridder pointed out on March 21 that, in a letter Bush sent to Congress at the beginning of the Iraq war, the president asserted that military action was "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
(emphasis mine)
Sounds like Bush is asking for FAR more leeway then just finding Al Qaeda elements and governments that house them. He is stating it is his intention to go after anyone who is a terrorist or part of a terrorist organization. Sadaam Hussein falls well within the realm of terrorism.
Now you can argue there were better places to take the battle, or you can saw fighting something as big as terrorism is far more then we can chew, but it does link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda, but only so far as they both are terrorists, not that they are some big organization working in close connection.
As for 70% of Americans thinking Iraqi's were responsible, I need to read more on that before I can form an opinion as to how that was possible. But that statistic in of itself means nothing to me, as I am reasonably sure that if you ask Americans if they speak Japanese in China that aroudn 60-70% would respond in the affirmative.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't understand how people, like Dag, can take exception to my statements while defending the Prsident's while maintaining a consistent set of standards. Could someone explain that to me?
No, because you never listen to me. I have no desire to have a discussion with you. My preference is mutual ignoring. Lacking that, I will settle simply for clarification of intent when you say something that references me that I want clarified, and calling you on your rampant inconsistency with respect to calling me on posting "unproductive" behavior when yours is far worse.
That's all I care about with respect to you, Squick, because you treat me like shit and I'm tired of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
