I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

wrote:

I'm amazed that there are people out there who are shocked about why
everyone isn't on-board with this action.

And you accuse others of using straw men!

Nice.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Bill Sornson wrote:

So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to
see
through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
(including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
could.

Well, you select the stuff that supports your position, remove all the
weasel words when presented "in summary", hide the originals behind
"top secret", never to see the light of day, present the summary, in a
further summary, to the public as truth, then stand back and watch
everyone fall into line.


It's worse than that. He knew we were going to war with Iraq before he even
had this information. That is public record.

Bill Sornson wrote:

Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
powerful!

Ooops, you almost got me again.

LOL.

E.P.

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

I'm amazed that there are people out there who are shocked about why
everyone isn't on-board with this action.

And you accuse others of using straw men!

No strawman at all. The statement stands by itself, and does not
supply attitudes or ideas where they do not exist, in an attempt to
discredit the holders of the attitudes. There are people who are
shocked that not everyone is on-board with the Iraq war. I know at
least two of those folks personally.

I am amazed by these folks.

So, go ahead and point out the strawman, Mr. Logic.

E.P.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:25:29 GMT, Bill Sornson wrote:

So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to see
through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources
(including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else
could.

Ultimately a leader is responsible for the conduct within his
administration. The Senate review found that there were plenty of people
in the intelligence community who were aware that most of their
"iron-clad" intelligence was just speculation and heresay. This was
information that could have saved tens of thousands of lives. There were
TWO WEEKS between our initial decision to go to war and crossing the Iraqi
border, yet in all that time NOTHING got communicated? This was either a
huge cover-up or a huge screw-up. Either way HIS administration failed to
do its job.

The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would
be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's
turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated
doesn't change the initial reasons and eventual hoped-for outcome.

I read the congressional agreement, and it didn't say word one about
overthrowing a government and/or installing a democracy. If things had
"gone well" based on the "initial reasons", we'd have found and destroyed
the WMD and so-called links to terrorism that the Bush administartion
claimed existed.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

I'm amazed that there are people out there who are shocked about why
everyone isn't on-board with this action.

And you accuse others of using straw men!

No strawman at all. The statement stands by itself, and does not
supply attitudes or ideas where they do not exist, in an attempt to
discredit the holders of the attitudes. There are people who are
shocked that not everyone is on-board with the Iraq war. I know at
least two of those folks personally.

I am amazed by these folks.

So, go ahead and point out the strawman, Mr. Logic.

In the context you wrote it, it was diversionary (or at least off-point).
No one on here (that I recall) has expressed "shock" that some people aren't
"on-board" with the Iraq war. (Seems more like people are shocked that some
still SUPPORT it, in fact.)
--
Ray Bolger

Bill Sornson wrote:

In the context you wrote it, it was diversionary (or at least off-point).

It *was* an aside. But, like I said, I did not assign anyone a
position and then try and attack that position. It was sort of
"peripherally related" to the topic at hand.

No one on here (that I recall) has expressed "shock" that some people aren't
"on-board" with the Iraq war.

No, not in this particular thread. But then again, I never claimed it
for anyone in the thread.

If you will re-read my original comment, I was expressing *my*
amazement - not addressing anyone else's attitude, except in terms of
my opinion.

And knock off the Carl Fogel impression - it's bad enough when *he*
does it.



E.P.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:02:44 -0700, G.T. wrote:

You do realize the tyrranist was just changed rather than removed
altogether? There is nothing the USA, the EU, or the freakin' AMB can do to
resolve tribal conflict without resorting to removing one tribe or the other
from the face of the earth.

Its quite possible that the three distinct provinces could be given
greater autonomy. Much of the escalation of tribal conflicts began after
the British started drawing borders where there were none before.

Of course, that would require the new central government to give up some
of its power, something that governments are typically reluctant to do.

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

wrote:

And knock off the Carl Fogel impression - it's bad enough when *he*
does it.

Dear...um, 'E',

That's about as close to Carl's style as I'll ever get

(You can tell by my one short paragraph versus his 18 /long/ ones.)

Hit & Run BS

" wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:
" wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

The fact remains that the vast majority of statesmanship is done over
the phone.

Yeah, the POTUS telecommutes.

This is actually NEWS to you?

I was being sarcastic.

I can see you're twisting yourself in knots to back "your guy." It
makes you look kinda silly.

Not at all - I was correcting mistaken assumptions - nothing more,
nothing less. Woulda done the same thing for Bill Clinton had someone
suggested his "vacations" were non-working ones.

But hey, being the POTUS is "hard work." And he's "working hard", I'm
sure.

Think you'd last three days?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame