For the record my own opinions concerning these issues are also unchanged:
- The conduct of the war with the government and military of Saddam was masterful. The conduct of the war with insurgents has been unorganized and often ineffective. This does not alter my believe in the wisdom and necessity for launching the war.
A clear indication that you are a person without a scintilla of scruples. An invasion of a sovereign country, the subsequent murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, the destruction of a sovereign country's infrastructure was "masterful".
You know this is right because, in your text above, you are honest enough, sadly only unwittingly so, to admit that it was only "masterful", not moral or right. But even here you are so wrong.
What's "masterful" about a military superpower bombing a country with virtually no defences. Only a truly sick mind would suggest that this is in any way, masterful.
- It was wise and necessary to launch war in Afghanistan
- Conduct of the war in Afghanistan has, overall, been successful. Bin Laden's ability to escape from Tora Bora seems clearly to have involved mistakes or misjudgments on the part of the American military, but, in the end, that has had little impact on the war in Afghanistan, although it can be credibly argued that it has been something of a setback for The War on Terror.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. It was neither wise nor necessary. Bush clearly gave the Taliban the opportunity to stay in power if they had been willing to give up Osama BinLaden.
That says all that needs to be said about this "big desire to see democracy flourish". Let's forever, put to rest that stinkin' piece of BS. It has never been the case, it's only been the cover.
- The War on Terror has been successful on a number of fronts. I don't think anyone of any intelligence believes or has believed that there will ever be a dramatic and crushing victory leading to the surrender of Islamist terrorists around the globe, and it will be many years yet to come before we can judge its overall success.
Well, if you had the inclination to do a wee bit of research ["No way", says Finn, "It'll clearly be at odds with my talking-points mentality."], you'd find that the experts don't quite agree with "anyone of any intelligence".
The central point, however, of my original response is that it takes quite a bit of arrogance and/or stupidity to suggest that because someone has not changed their mind to your your way of thinking, they are guilty of intellectual cowardice.
Fear not Finn, I doubt that anyone would think for a moment that you could be guilty of anything even approaching intellectual.
If Bush Won't Fire Rumsfeld, We Must Consider Firing Bush
Cenk Uygur
Brig. General Mark Scheid, who was one of the five or six original war planners at Central Command, has come out and explained why the Secretary of Defense didn't want any post war planning. It seems clear from Scheid's comments that Rumsfeld had a specific intent in preventing post war planning - make sure we go to war no matter what!
Please read all of Brigadier General Scheid's comments for yourself here. But this is the most important part:
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
In other words, we are going to go to this war no matter what the consequences are, no matter what the American people think - and we'll keep the truth away from them if we have to.
Does any reasonable person still have any doubt that these guys lied us into this war? How can you? How can any rational person read that (along with everything else we have read) and still think they were simply acting based on the best evidence they had?
My God, here's a clear admission that Secretary Rumsfeld blocked any planning which might bring out information that could prevent the war. Only the pathetically self-deluded can still hold on to the idea that the Bush administration didn't really want to go to war, that war was thrust upon them by the intelligence and the evidence.
At this point, we all seemed to have gotten used to the idea that our president lied to us about why we needed to go to war and invaded a country that had nothing to do with attacking us. If any of you believe the Republicans wouldn't have tried to impeach Clinton over that, there are no words to describe how disingenuous or gullible you are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-bush-wont-fire-rumsfe_b_29082.html
Time and again the liberals have accused us of being the mean spirited and hateful ones and time and again we've sent them out to prove it with posts. And time and again they've come back having to admit that the Conservatives do not generally engage in name calling or personal attacks on other members and our reputation as meanspirited and hateful exists in their minds only.
Foxfyre wrote:Time and again the liberals have accused us of being the mean spirited and hateful ones and time and again we've sent them out to prove it with posts. And time and again they've come back having to admit that the Conservatives do not generally engage in name calling or personal attacks on other members and our reputation as meanspirited and hateful exists in their minds only.
And time and again Foxfyre makes up whole series of posts for argument's sake that never existed...
Finn dAbuzz wrote:For the record my own opinions concerning these issues are also unchanged:
- The conduct of the war with the government and military of Saddam was masterful. The conduct of the war with insurgents has been unorganized and often ineffective. This does not alter my believe in the wisdom and necessity for launching the war.
A clear indication that you are a person without a scintilla of scruples. An invasion of a sovereign country, the subsequent murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, the destruction of a sovereign country's infrastructure was "masterful".
You know this is right because, in your text above, you are honest enough, sadly only unwittingly so, to admit that it was only "masterful", not moral or right. But even here you are so wrong.
What's "masterful" about a military superpower bombing a country with virtually no defences. Only a truly sick mind would suggest that this is in any way, masterful.
- It was wise and necessary to launch war in Afghanistan
- Conduct of the war in Afghanistan has, overall, been successful. Bin Laden's ability to escape from Tora Bora seems clearly to have involved mistakes or misjudgments on the part of the American military, but, in the end, that has had little impact on the war in Afghanistan, although it can be credibly argued that it has been something of a setback for The War on Terror.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. It was neither wise nor necessary. Bush clearly gave the Taliban the opportunity to stay in power if they had been willing to give up Osama BinLaden.
That says all that needs to be said about this "big desire to see democracy flourish". Let's forever, put to rest that stinkin' piece of BS. It has never been the case, it's only been the cover.
- The War on Terror has been successful on a number of fronts. I don't think anyone of any intelligence believes or has believed that there will ever be a dramatic and crushing victory leading to the surrender of Islamist terrorists around the globe, and it will be many years yet to come before we can judge its overall success.
Well, if you had the inclination to do a wee bit of research ["No way", says Finn, "It'll clearly be at odds with my talking-points mentality."], you'd find that the experts don't quite agree with "anyone of any intelligence".
The central point, however, of my original response is that it takes quite a bit of arrogance and/or stupidity to suggest that because someone has not changed their mind to your your way of thinking, they are guilty of intellectual cowardice.
Fear not Finn, I doubt that anyone would think for a moment that you could be guilty of anything even approaching intellectual.
Let's see...
I don't have a scintilla of scruples.
I am wrong when I am right and honest only unwittingly.
I have a truly sick mind.
I have no idea of what I am talking about
I have a talking points mentality
I don't even approach being an intellectual.
No ad hominem here.
Too bad nimh has sunk down to the level of me and tico, otherwise he might have come to my rescue, or at least chastised JTT. Now I have to endure the fellow's withering criticism alone and unprotected. Oh no!
Dems seem likely to pick up midterm seats
Quote:
I guess the republicans can break out the champaign, Bush is up 42%.
