Powered by TypePad

« My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean | Main | A Fine Day For The Irish »

June 29, 2005

Comments

jukeboxgrad

Bumper said: "the goal posts now get up and move from 'rebuilding' to 'cost more lives' and 'deadlier'."

Uh, no. Les said "it was my impression that the rebuilding would be harder and take much longer than the war" (7/5, 7:25 pm).

As I've already explained, "longer" is not an issue. "Harder" is an issue. I assume that when Les says "harder," he means deadlier. If Les would like to speak up and explain otherwise, I'll be happy to be corrected. Otherwise, I think my interpretation of his words is reasonable, and your assertion regarding moving "goal posts" is not.

"the rhetoric used by the administration in the speeches clearly indicates that the rebuilding of Iraq would not be 'easy' or without casualties."

No serious person ever expected that "the rebuilding of Iraq would ... be 'easy' or without casualties" (and to suggest otherwise, or to suggest I dispute this, is a nice case of you attempting to move the goal posts). In other words, "the rhetoric used by the administration in the speeches" doesn't tell us anything particularly interesting or meaningful. It most certainly doesn't tell us anything along the lines of what Les asserted, "that the rebuilding would be harder and take much longer than the war."

Therefore, the speeches do nothing to answer the question I raised with regard to backing up Les's assertion. I've asked for even the slightest tangible proof that _anyone_ made a statement similar to what Les claims "everyone knew." I'm still waiting.

Harry Arthur

At least Bush is "muscular," though. My, my, don't we know a lot about survival/parachute gear? To quote a famous cartoon character: "What a maroon!"

I believe this weekend I'll (pardon the quote from another famous cartoon character) spend some time working on my transition from an adolescent, "industrial-mind" value system, based only on asking the question, is it POSSIBLE? to Gaia- sustaining and promoting practices and explorations which must ask the question, is it APPROPRIATE?, since this is the only possible future of human activity on this earth and all, or maybe I'll just mow the lawn on the ol' PE.

Perhaps I'll call William Clark and ask him about Petroeuros and our planned invasion of Iran. No, wait a minute, I'll have to call Scott Ritter for that one. I'm just overwhelmed - so many conspiracies, so little time ...

"Yawn" ... "wink" ...

Les Nessman

jbg:
"I assume that when Les says "harder," he means deadlier."

I did not mean 'deadlier'. I knew we would mop the floor with them in the war phase (though I was surprised at how few casualties we had) but I did not know exactly how long it would take to rebuild Iraq (most of a decade? more than a decade?)

I never doubted our military would beat their military. I am more concerned that we will succumb to the Lefties and bug out before the job is done.

I meant 'harder' in the 'political will to see this thing through' sense.

Harry Arthur

I share Les' concern and his understanding of the term "harder", given the well known fact that we Americans suffer from attention deficit disorder, otherwise known as "short attention span". We're used to CSI solving the case in an hour, and we've forgotten even our own difficult history of the founding of our own nation, let alone Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, etc.

Thus my particular concern that Bush needs to continue to bring the American people into the loop on Iraq and the Global War on Islamofascism. I don't view that as a character flaw on his part, just a bad assumption that we all hear the whole story about the good as well as the bad and the ugly in the normal course of a news cycle.

Nor do I have a problem with the MSM detailing our loses and failures - that's at least part of their job. My problem with the MSM is that they often fail to address the other half of the story, not because there's some sort of left wing conspiracy but because, quite simply, they're lazy - body counts are easier to report - no thought involved, no analysis required, plenty of controversy.

And there is unequivocally a success side of the story that we often do not hear. Anyone who knows anyone who has served in Iraq will confirm that fact, as do the many, many sites by soldiers who are there or who have been there.

jukeboxgrad

HARRY

Harry said: "My, my, don't we know a lot about survival/parachute gear?"

I guess I know about as much as Gordon Liddy, who said this (on a show called Hardball, oddly enough): "here comes George Bush ... he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness ... —and I’ve worn those because I parachute—and it makes the best of his manly characteristic ... run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America ... all those women who say size doesn’t count—they’re all liars. Check that out ... he's coming across as a -- well, as women would call in on my show saying, what a stud ... and then guy -- they're seeing him out there with his flight suit, and he's -- and they know he's an F-105 fighter jock. I mean it's just great." (link, link).

As Wolcott said, "One of the more cringe-inducing TV moments in recent memory was Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy sprouting rhetorical woodies over the spectacle of Bush on the carrier deck in his flight suit, his parachute harness showcasing the presidential bulge ... the two of them should take a cold shower, preferably not together." (link)

Then there's this: "Why the President Had to Show His Balls ... This was the first a time a president literally showed his balls ... [the] manly exhibition was no accident ... I can't prove they gave him a sock job ... but clearly they thought long and hard about the crotch shot." (link)

And this from the sober, august, ultra-serious WSJ: "Hey, Flyboy ... Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie! ... there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking -- how to put it? -- really hot ... a business suit just doesn't do it the way a flight suit does ... The New York Post ran the hot shot on its front page. And Newsweek called it a photo-op but gave the president what can only be called a centerfold. ... my friend Emily, a mother of two and probably a liberal, examined the picture of the president in his fly-boy gear that I just happened to have in my purse. She looked carefully, grinned and said, "He's a hottie. No doubt about it. Really a hottie. Why haven't I noticed this before? He looks so much better than Michael Douglas in that movie we saw ... Alexandra, an unmarried event planner in her 30s, e-mailed: 'Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!'" (link)

And this: "Why did he have an erection upon seeing all those young men aboard the carrier? ... I felt like he paraded his crotch in my unwilling face. I'm sure they did quite a lot of custom fitting and alterations on the flight suit, as they had gone to a lot of trouble to put a huge embroidery of his title across the back. We've already been told of the effort made to position the carrier for the correct background shot out to sea -- no doubt the angle of the sunlight was also calculated." (link)

More here and here.

I realize Mr. Naive still wants to believe the display of Bush's "manly characteristic" (as Liddy so delicately put it) wasn't highly intentional and carefully planned.

By the way, Bush didn't just use his crotch, the flight suit, and the aircraft carrier as political props. He used our entire armed forces and the country of Iraq. (One result is we're being forced to question "the longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at a time ... The concern that the concentration of troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan was limiting the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts was underscored by Gen. Richard B. Myers [link]. Good thing Bush is "muscular," though.)

Of course this is the guy who in a moment of uncharacteristic candor said "I'm basically a media creation" (link). Therefore it's no surprise that he goes to extraordinary lengths to treat the presidency (and other serious matters, like war) like a Hollywood production.

"Americans suffer from attention deficit disorder, otherwise known as 'short attention span'"

I think you, like Bush, have a condescending attitude about Americans. Americans have the capacity to be patient and they have the capacity to sacrifice. A true leader knows how to call forth these capacities. But Bush doesn't trust this, and doesn't trust us. That's why he was never straight with us about the true cost, and that's why he recently passed up another chance to level with us.

"we've forgotten even our own difficult history of the founding of our own nation, let alone Germany, Japan"

Interesting you should mention that, since a Democratic president defeated that particular evil axis in less time than it's taking Bush to nab OBL. Oops, I forgot, first we need to get a permission slip.

"Thus my particular concern that Bush needs to continue to bring the American people into the loop on Iraq and the Global War on Islamofascism. I don't view that as a character flaw on his part, just a bad assumption that we all hear the whole story about the good as well as the bad and the ugly in the normal course of a news cycle."

You're being typically vague, but as best I can understand you're saying Bush needs to do more to tell us about the Good News in Iraq. You must be joking. Did you watch his speech? Good News about Iraq was a very major portion. Good News was definitely not absent from his speech. What was notably absent was straight talk, using numbers, regarding the sacrifices we all need to make. A war tax would be a good start, by the way.

LES

Les said: "I meant 'harder' in the 'political will to see this thing through' sense."

Thanks for the clarification. However, I don't think that really addresses the issue. I think it's clear enough that the major reason there might be a failure of "political will" is that what some folks insist on calling "rebuilding" (even though it looks a lot like war) is so deadly. (In other words, it's not the time and it's not the money: it's the blood.)

You had said everyone knew there would be a "decade(s?)long rebuilding phase." I said no one conditioned us to expect a "decade(s?)long rebuilding phase" that would consume thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

You responded by saying "it was my impression that the rebuilding would be harder and take much longer than the war. I think everyone knew that."

I think you're still avoiding the underlying question. Was it your impression that "the rebuilding" would consume thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars? Your generalities ("harder," "political will") are just like Bush's useless platitudes ("Iraq is a dangerous place"): they don't take a clear position.

Dave

If you want to point to something more indicative of stage managing, look away from the groin area and point to the fact that POTUS came aboard on a Viking rather than a COD bird. Did he fly in on a jet for political imageeering purposes? Certainly, that's some if not most of it - goes with the job description. Of course, the other part of it might be the fact that, AFAIK, he's the only President ever rated on jets and maybe he wanted to mark the occasion in a way that the young sailors on that boat would particularly appreciate. The one thing that I do note that seems to go frequently unappreciated in discussion of this "issue" is that the event marked the end of the longest deployment of a nuclear aircraft carrier in history (combat or otherwise). [The only longer deployment that I know of was the conventional carrier USS Coral Sea after the Gulf of Tonkin incident; there were apparently a number of deployments almost as long during the Iranian hostage crisis. It's also perhaps germane to the discussion to note that President Carter greeted the return of the Nimitz after one of these nine month deployments (probably it's also due to the fact that the Nimitz had been involved in Eagle Claw, but he particuarly used the occasion to thank the crew for their extended deployment).]

Short form: COD _bird_ says something about the President, Cod _piece_ says something about your worldview.

kim

Worldview.

The mission of the Nimitz was accomplished. The mission of defeating Saddam's armed forces was accomplished. Those nitpicking this still memorable photo op are too nuanced to find the end of anything. And usually jealous of the accomplishments of others. Or their accoutrements. I couldn't resist.
==============================

BumperStickerist

at this point - while expressing an admiration for quote-mining and linking, the testing of the 'Law' is still in effect. Let's check one, shall we:

jbg: Of course this is the guy who in a moment of uncharacteristic candor said "I'm basically a media creation" (link).

One thing I mentioned previously was JBG's inability to look at time and consider the nature of chronology. Checking this quote, it would be from, not one, not four, not eight years ago, but sixteen years ago ... 1989!

The second issue brought up was JBG's inability to process into context that information.

So, the context of the Portentous Conclusion about Bush admitting he was a 'media creation' was made by Bush before he served two terms as governor *and* one as President!!!!

Well, then. Considering Bush's statement was an accurate assessment of the realities of the situation at the time I would conclude that 'The accurate assessment of the realities of the situation at the time' would appear to be a hallmark of Bush's political life.

That would be a good thing.

And, while I made an offhand reference to the flight suit thing using a line from SpinalTap, it's nice to see that JBG considers the topic worth several paragraphs and accompanying links.

But this is not the first time that a Presidential candidate's genitals were a topic of discussion!

JBG forgot, or deemed irrelevant, the antecedent Presidential campaign involvement of Gore's genitalia on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Not to mention the whole Gore 'Alpha Male' thing, Gore's dressing in earth tones, and the releasing of millions of gallons of water from the reservoir for a photo op.

{no links provided, if you have to be lead by the hand to see that they're true, then - well - you don't remember very much)

More recently we have the litany of Kerry's attempts during the campaign to seem athletic and appealing to the Women Folk. You could just read the archive of 'The Kerry Spot' for a running narrative.

Admittedly, Kerry was only a Senator, and judging from his record, not much of one to boot, but the point remains.

And, one has only to read the speech made on the carrier to see that it was not a political speech at all. {cough}. But, granted, one that could be used for political purposes such as highlighting a difference in approach to the issue of terrorism.

If the conversation is going to take a turn to presidential campaign politics, I'll show my cards and simply say this:

If Kerry couldn't defeat the Evil Rovian Machine, what makes you think Kerry could be effective against al-Qaeda?

~ or, going back to 2000 ~

the Democrats didn't learn the following lesson:

Never send a Warren Christopher to do the job of a Jim Baker

As for photo ops - there's a whole litany of Clinton staged photo ops, from 'Where'd those rocks come from on the Normandy beaches' to the 'Dancing w/o Music' .. 'Laughter/ Tears at Ron Brown's funeral' ... without getting into 'concerns' about the timing of the use of the military and the coincidence to problems with Clinton's legal situation.

But that's fever swamp territory, which is more comfortable for you, than for me.

Cheers.

Les Nessman

jbg:

"You had said everyone knew there would be a "decade(s?)long rebuilding phase." I said no one conditioned us to expect a "decade(s?)long rebuilding phase" that would consume thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

Many of us didn't need 'conditioned' to accept reality.

Many of us know that it is only a matter of time until the Islamist extremists get a wmd and devastates one of our cities, and other atrocities along the way.

Kill 'em all or transform their extremist, despotic cultures into something with more freedom and democracy. Those are our choices. Iraq is just one part of the GWOT.


If you need someone to condition you, then I'll do it : The overall war will take many years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Now you know; (as if you didn't already).

kim

The onrush of events isn't happening unless we're 'conditioned' to it? Miasma of Febrile Marshes.
===========================

Harry Arthur

I think you, like Bush, have a condescending attitude about Americans. Americans have the capacity to be patient and they have the capacity to sacrifice. Sure. I think Gen Giap and the North Vietnamese would disagree with your assessment, but, hey, what would I know? Perhaps this is a recent phenomenom. After all, if our attitude toward WWII was the same as yours toward Iraq, we would have never fought the Germans or the Italians, since they weren't involved directly in the attack on Pearl Harbor and we would have been whining about the horrible losses the first two years of the war.

Actually, I hold the American people in very high regard if you really must know. After all they made the right choices in the last several elections, didn't they? That doesn't mean I think we're perfect. I think it's pretty "well known" that we have problems focusing on the "long term" for exactly the reasons I posted.

You happen to disagree. Fine. Nothing new there.

Harry Arthur

I seriously doubt you know as much as Gordon Liddy on the subject of parachute harnesses, or much else that occurs in this universe at least.

Sorry you're so obsessed with the fact that GW looks good in a flight suit. It's OK to be envious of fighter pilots - I understand. Isn't it annoying? Ten links - that's close to a record - must really bug you. From your citations I'd say you weren't the only one with that envy thing going on.

"Typically vague ..." Yep, that's me: Mr. Vague. Funny that most folks with whom I work, correspond and interact on a daily basis have no trouble whatsoever understanding me, so don't know how to fix that particular problem. But, yeah, GW does need to talk about our successes more, for the reasons I clearly enunciated. If that's vague then ... whatever.

BumperStickerist

In point of historical fact, in his speeches, Winston Churchill never quantified the anticipated amount of blood, sweat, toil, and tears.

The bastard.

[/sarcasm]

jukeboxgrad

DAVE

"Did he fly in on a jet for political imageeering purposes? Certainly, that's some if not most of it - goes with the job description."

Most presidents in recent history felt that part of the "job description" was to uphold "the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military," which meant not appearing in uniform. Even well-known liberal Glenn Reynolds expressed concern over the "blurring of the lines" (link).

"Cod _piece_ says something about your worldview"

Let me know what you think of the worldview of folks like Gordon Liddy and the WSJ, who gushed over his "manly characteristic" and compared the shot to a "centerfold."

KIM

"The mission of defeating Saddam's armed forces was accomplished."

This is kind of like "[Saddam] wouldn't let them in," except when he did, and "combat operations are over," except for the ones that aren't, and we defeated Saddam's "armed forces," except for the ones we didn't. Everyone understands that "Saddam Hussein loyalists" are an important part of the insurgency, which Rumsfeld recently warned might continue for 12 years (link). So you're absolutely right ("The mission of defeating Saddam's armed forces was accomplished"), as long as you're willing to adopt novel definitions for words like "defeating" and "accomplished." That's no surprise, since you've already adopted novel definitions for words like "he wouldn't let them in," "major combat operations," and "weapons of mass destruction" (two weather-balloon trailers that contained no weapons whatsover).

BUMPER

I pointed out that Bush admitted "I'm basically a media creation." Bumper, ever the sleuth, noticed that this quote is from 1989, as if this tells us something important. Really? What? The date tells us nothing, except that Bush apparently used to be more candid.

"Bush admitting he was a 'media creation' was made by Bush before he served two terms as governor *and* one as President!!!!"

Which tells us nothing, except that Bush was a media creation both before and after he was candid enough to offer that remark.

"Bush's statement was an accurate assessment of the realities of the situation at the time"

I'm sure you noticed what else he said: "I've never done anything" (link). How odd that this "accurate assessment of the realities of the situation at the time" is nowhere to be found in his official biography (link).

"this is not the first time that a Presidential candidate's genitals were a topic of discussion"

Maybe you didn't notice, but the guy in the flight suit was not a candidate (at the time), he was the president. And as I mentioned before, "this was the first a time a president literally showed his balls" (link).

"what makes you think Kerry could be effective against al-Qaeda?"

Kerry's effectiveness or ineffectiveness against al-Qaeda is a hypothetical question. Bush's ineffectiveness against al-Qaeda is, by now, well-established history. This is proven by recent events in London (so much for "We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities;" link). It's proven by the fact the OBL is still free, almost 4 years later. It's proven by the fact that Bush let OBL get away: "resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq before we accomplished our mission there. How can I be so sure? General Franks told me" (link). It's proven by the fact that Bush let Zarqawi get away (link). It's proven by the fact that Bush is currently acting like he needs a permission slip to get OBL.

It's proven by the fact that prewar, OBL had no place to train his people ("he has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore;" link), and now he does (link).

Then again, I realize you have a novel definition of the word "effective."

"there's a whole litany of Clinton staged photo ops"

It's a not a good sign for the quality of your argument that you retreat to the usual (whether it's true or not) "we're only doing what Clinton used to do." I thought your guy was supposed to be better than Clinton.

LES

"Many of us know that it is only a matter of time until the Islamist extremists get a wmd and devastates one of our cities"

I'm curious. Do you think what we're doing in Iraq is making it more or less likely for such a thing to happen? Something else I'm curious about. If we took the resources we're currently dumping into Iraq and used it to improve domestic security, do you think we might be safer? What if we got serious about energy policy, so we would see less of this?

"The overall war will take many years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

Lots of us have known that for a long time, and have been trying to spread the word. Trouble is, the president still won't admit that. Also (and this is where you continue to dodge the question), he didn't say anything like that before the war, and likewise for his officials and commentators.

So I'll ask the question again. Show me a single example of any righty official or commentator making a statement before the war along the lines of "The overall war will take many years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

Some on the left made such statements, and were laughed at. Virtually no one on the right made such statements. That's my point (and this is at odds with your vague assertion "everyone knew").

"Many of us didn't need 'conditioned' to accept reality."

Leadership means making sure your people know what to expect, so you can count on their support when the going gets tough. Bush didn't do this, and that has a lot to do with why he's losing support.

"transform their extremist, despotic cultures into something with more freedom and democracy"

I think everyone should have a fair chance to vote (even black people in Ohio). But you have to be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. What makes you think that all these elections you're looking forward to are going to produce results that please you? Where is it written that all these wonderful new Islamic democracies are going to be friendly to us and oppose terrorism? How pleased are you with election results in Iran? How do you know a disciple of Zarqawi (or OBL or Saddam) won't be winning elections in Iraq in a few years?

Do you think this kid (and many like her) is going to support governments that are friendly to us, or governments that are going to try to kick our ass?

Let me know if thousands of people we've arrested by mistake are eager to rush home and vote for candidates who will be friendly to US interests.

A key part of the story Bush tells is that new democracies in the ME are going to fight terrorism. Like many other things he says, this sounds like a complete fantasy to me.

By the way, speaking of "extremist, despotic cultures," let me know why we're cozy with one that does stuff like this and this.

By the way, since our dear friends the Saudis aren't terribly shy about supporting terrorism, what makes you think a democratically-elected goverment of Iraq will be any different?

By the way, we're obviously devoting great effort to training the Iraqi army. Trouble is, this isn't the first time we've trained Arab fighters. Last time it didn't turn out that well for us. What makes you think this time is different?

HARRY

"Americans have the capacity to be patient and they have the capacity to sacrifice. Sure. I think Gen Giap and the North Vietnamese would disagree with your assessment"

You seem to be getting geared up to say "it's the fault of the liberal-traitors that we lost this one, just like last time." Did I get that right?

"we would have never fought the Germans or the Italians, since they weren't involved directly in the attack on Pearl Harbor"

The alliances among Japan, Germany and Italy were extremely clear, explicit, and undeniable. The alleged connection between Saddam and 9/11 is anything but. Nice job pretending otherwise. In other words, it's not just that Saddam wasn't "involved directly in the attack on [WTC]." It's that he appears not to have been involved _at all_. And meanwhile, we still can't manage to catch the guy who actually did it.

"I seriously doubt you know as much as Gordon Liddy on the subject of parachute harnesses"

Thanks for helping me make my point. I'm sure you're right about Liddy, which is why I pointed out that it was him, not me, who appeared on TV gushing about Bush's "manly characteristic."

"you're so obsessed with the fact that GW looks good in a flight suit."

My opinion of how Bush looks in a flight suit is not that interesting to anyone, not even to me (nice job with your usual mind-reading, though). What's much more interesting is when the WSJ decides to report that the president looks "SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!" (emphasis in the original).

"It's OK to be envious of fighter pilots"

If his time as a "fighter pilot" had actually ever included any fighting, many of us would be more impressed.

BUMPER

"Winston Churchill never quantified the anticipated amount of blood, sweat, toil, and tears."

It was utterly trivial for me to find this example of Churchill suggesting the war would continue for years: "we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years" (link).

Here's another comment about "years:" "Let us grown-ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern task and the formidable years that lie before us" (link).

In stark contrast, Bush still can't bring himself to say that it will be years until we get out (although Rummy has now almost hinted at that).

By the way, it's not just that you (et al) haven't shown an example of Bush making a statement like this before the war (or even now, for that matter). It's that you haven't shown an example of _any_ prominent righty official or essayist making such a comment before the war, along the lines of what Les said: "The overall war will take many years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars." This despite the fact that Les suggested "everyone knew" this. If everyone knew, why did no one say?

Just one of many attempts to rewrite history ("he wouldn't let them in," "we found the weapons of mass destruction").

kim

Rewriting history? Are you discovering that this Iraqi event wasn't as it was described to you? The moving hand of time writes, and having writ, shows us the purple ink it used.
=================================

Harry Arthur

Most presidents in recent history felt that part of the "job description" was to uphold "the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military," which meant not appearing in uniform. Nonsense. Hey genius, you can legitimately question whether GW should have flown onto a carrier as a crewmember but to suggest that wearing a flight suit somehow jeopardizes the constitutional civilian control of the military is pathetically ridiculous. I don't care who said it, who thinks it, who believes it, who asserts it, or who argues it - ridiculous to the extreme. What's he supposed to wear when strapped into an ejection seat in a military jet? A three piece suit? Ridiculous. Talk about "straining at a gnat." In case I might be a little vague with my point on this: not only doesn't the point pass the common sense test, it's absurd and it's bogus. Clear enough?

You seem to be getting geared up to say "it's the fault of the liberal-traitors that we lost this one, just like last time." Did I get that right? Unfortunately, as usual, no. I meant exactly what I said and said what I meant. Though regarding Viet Nam and liberal traitors, if the shoe fits ...

If his time as a "fighter pilot" had actually ever included any fighting, many of us would be more impressed. And this observation is based on what military experience, exactly? If you had the slightest idea of what it's like to be a fighter pilot, or a military pilot at all, you'd realize that training is very nearly as dangerous as combat because it's done realistically, with the exception that there are no "bad guys" shooting back, of course. I've certainly lost far more friends in training accidents than in actual combat. I'll say it again. We lost more lives in the training runup to the first Gulf war than in the combat action itself.

While we're making observations and asking questions, here's one: Is there anything at all that GW has ever done correctly? Anything?

Les Nessman

jbg:
""Many of us know that it is only a matter of time until the Islamist extremists get a wmd and devastates one of our cities"

I'm curious. Do you think what we're doing in Iraq is making it more or less likely for such a thing to happen?"

Less likely.

"Something else I'm curious about. If we took the resources we're currently dumping into Iraq and used it to improve domestic security, do you think we might be safer? "

Since you're someone who accuses people of being 'vague' a lot, perhaps this is an attempt to demonstrate what 'vague' really means; by 'improve domestic security' do you mean hiring an extra border guard or do you mean putting a 20 ft wall around the entire country; or something in between?


""The overall war will take many years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

Lots of us have known that for a long time, and have been trying to spread the word."

Ah. So you admit it's true. Well, I knew it was true; I thought it was common sense plus I had heard several admin people saying the same thing.
You knew it was true...because...how did you know it was true?

Jeez, it's almost like we knew it even though the Prez hadn't 'conditioned' us for an overlong span of time. I wonder if other knew, too? Why, yes, they did.

Les Nessman

jbg:

"Les:"transform their extremist, despotic cultures into something with more freedom and democracy"

I think everyone should have a fair chance to vote (even black people in Ohio)."


Wow. What a racist and ignorant statement. Complete with (yet another)link to some unheard-of Lefty opinion rag. As a resident of Ohio, I can tell you that you are full of shit. (A common theme for you)
You are the worst of both worlds in this case. Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong about somthing already disproven in the past. Perhaps you should stop living in the past, particularly when it's a fantasy past that never happened. This has also been a common theme for you; as has already been pointed out.

Harry Arthur

Come on, Les, "everyone knows" that Halliburton reprogrammed all the electronic voting machines to record extra votes for GW. This was cleverly set up after the 2000 election when, as you might recall, GW's Florida operation got the democrats to design poor ballots so people in Palm Beach would vote for Pat Buchanan. This then led to the demand for computer voting which, of course, Halliburton would be able to control.

This is how things work in the Michael-Moore-universe.

Be on guard, the consitution hangs by a thread - GW wore a flight suit.

BumperStickerist

well, this conversation has been .... enlightening isn't the word I'm looking for ... and the points jbg brings up aren't sufficient to make this discussion exasperating ...

jbg - in boxing parlance, you're a tomato can, a tomato can with access to Google.

Your basic inability to consider sentences, and in some cases, words as anything but discrete things is the problem.

Here's some advice:
Take some time.

Read the stuff you linked to,

reflect on it

... go back, reread (more accurately - read) all of Bush's speeches on the subject.

And then wonder that anything that's happened over the past three years comes as a surprise.

btw - if you need a cinematic example of the nit-wittery you're exhibiting, in particular with regard to Bush's statements from 1989, please rent and watch, possibly paying attention to, 'Presumed Innocent' with Harrison Ford and Bonnie Bedelia.

{btw - your other points have been addressed, repeatedly, I'm hoping to help you achieve a breakthrough by introducing a new paradigm for you to consider}

At one point, Harrison Ford's character in a fit of exasperation says "Yeah, I did it", which the DA tries to use as evidence of a confession at trial. The judge says 'yeah, he said it, but where I come from we'd be less polite and say 'your mother', so - no, it's not an admission of guilt.'

Your Heavy Reliance on the Photo Op regarding Liberia Two Months After The Invasion To The Exclusion of Everything Else Bush Said in Other Larger More Public Forums is idiotic, at this point.

Again, Bush did not lie.

Cecil addressed the topic of cooperation on substance 'up there' .

The reports you cite, if you bothered to read them, support Bush's statements *completely*.

That that you are unaccepting of those facts is, at this point, is, I'm sure, a burden you've learned to bear.

Here - keep hope alive:

Dennis Kucinch, 2008
http://www.cafepress.com/electionblues.15590223

Cheers

Dave

"Let me know what you think of the worldview of folks like Gordon Liddy and the WSJ, who gushed over his 'manly characteristic' and compared the shot to a 'centerfold.'"

I think their worldviews are overly tight and focussed about three and a half feet off the ground, as is yours in this matter.

Seriously, it wouldn't be possible for me to think much less of of a guy that puts out publicity shots of himself in a business suit with IDF jump wings (that I strongly suspect got for Hollywood drops [i.e., without weapons or other equipment] onto a nice, soft, freshly graded DZ) discretely tucked behind the lapel. And that's quite apart from what I think of former SAs who are convicted of the type of criminal offences that he was.

On other topics, as Harry has quite properly observed, your crack about how Bush's service as a fighter pilot failed to include combat flying is _way_ the hell out of line. I grew up outside CFB Moose Jaw, the site of all primary jet training for the [R]CAF, and I had the chance to meet a lot of my friends' fathers who were instructor pilots (fighter jocks included), and as a group of people there was a lot there to admire [though probably not for the reasons that you would immediately think of]. As to the danger inherent in the job, sometimes I think the most effective possible weapons system would greatly resemble a student pilot. :)

jukeboxgrad

KIM

"are you discovering that this Iraqi event wasn't as it was described to you?"

Not exactly. There were quite a few people, prewar, who weren't wearing rose-colored glasses (since I see you're fascinated by colors today). Unfortunately, those people weren't in power. So the accurate form of your statement would be that I discovered quite some time ago "that this Iraqi event wasn't as it was described" to me by my government.

HARRY

"to suggest that wearing a flight suit somehow jeopardizes the constitutional civilian control of the military is pathetically ridiculous"

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but I have to consider Eisenhower more of an expert on the subject than you are: "President Eisenhower, who as an Army general had led four million troops in the invasion of France during World War II, was concerned that such attire would be contrary to the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military."

"it's absurd and it's bogus."

Go tell Glenn Reynolds.

"training is very nearly as dangerous as combat"

If there's hardly any difference, is hard to understand why he thought that avoiding combat was "a smart thing to do."

"Is there anything at all that GW has ever done correctly?"

There's fairly widespread acknowledgement that chasing OBL in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Bush's support at the time was very high. Trouble is, he decided catching the guy behind 9/11 wasn't important enough to finish the job (link). And now he's acting like he can't get OBL without a permission slip from Pakistan. Good thing he's "muscular," though.

LES

"Less likely."

How? Is it your premise that once we kill enough of them, there aren't any more? Even though their recruiting seems to be going better than ours? Do you think maybe we should just be killing a lot more of them, a lot more quickly? I also wonder how to define "them" (maybe anyone brown holding a Koran?).

"by 'improve domestic security' do you mean hiring an extra border guard or do you mean putting a 20 ft wall around the entire country; or something in between?"

Several hundred billion would go a very, very long way toward solving problems like those described here. In fact, just the $9 billion we managed to lose somehow would go a very long way, if it had been spent at home.

"I had heard several admin people saying the same thing."

Really? Where? (In case you hadn't noticed, I've now asked this question almost half-a-dozen times.)

"how did you know it was true?"

Because I had been listening to folks like Ritter. Is he someone you consider an example of "admin people?"

"What a racist and ignorant statement"

I had no idea I had to explicitly warn you I was being facetious. I should have known better.

"some unheard-of Lefty opinion rag ... you are full of shit ... already disproven"

The source I cited quotes 10 named eyewitnesses who gave sworn testimony to circumstances such as people who had to "stand in line up to 10 to 12 hours in the rain." I realize purple fingers impress you. Does this impress you? Is this witness "full of shit?" Please refer me to the source which shows that the testimony of this witness is "already disproven." Or maybe you can show me the sworn testimony indicating than any Republican, anywhere, had to "stand in line up to 10 to 12 hours in the rain."

When we make our own voters wait all day in the rain, does this help us convince the world we're sincere when we say we're interested in spreading "freedom and democracy?" Or does it help to convey the impression that we're "full of shit?"

HARRY

"Halliburton reprogrammed all the electronic voting machines to record extra votes for GW"

As you know, the voting machines weren't under the control of Halliburton. They were under the control of Diebold, an Ohio company whose president once said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year" (link).

Funny thing about Diebold, I don't think they've ever made an ATM that doesn't produce a receipt, and I don't think they've ever made a voting machine that does. Odd little technological quirk, there.

By the way, how odd to notice cases like this: "a computerized voting machine recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there are only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up."

And how odd to notice this: "in practically every case where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered ... Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up."

By the way, those words were written by someone who said " I did not think that John Kerry should have been president of any country at any time" (link).

BUMPER

"your other points have been addressed, repeatedly"

I'll just remind you of one. You suggested (7/3, 6:37 am) that Saddam failed to "[allow] inspectors access to sites sometime prior to, say, February 2003." Tell us again how you addressed that?

"Your Heavy Reliance on the Photo Op regarding Liberia Two Months After The Invasion To The Exclusion of Everything Else Bush Said in Other Larger More Public Forums"

Do you mean there was some other occasion where Bush spoke truthfully on this point, and admitted that Saddam let in the inspectors? I'm not saying this didn't happen; I'm just saying I hadn't noticed. Let me know what statement of his you claim I'm excluding.

Anyway, your latest defense is highly creative. Here is it in plain English: "it's not fair to criticize Bush for lying on 7/14/03, because there were other occasions when he didn't lie."

"Cecil addressed the topic of cooperation on substance"

The fact that Blix wanted quicker action on various documents is not an excuse for Bush to say "he wouldn't let them in." Bush said that, even though it wasn't true, because it makes a better sound-bite than "we wanted better cooperation from Saddam." Trouble is, the latter statement is true and the former statement is false.

Just like "we found the weapons of mass destruction" makes a better sound-bite than "we found a couple of trailers, and one out of 15 analysts think they are WMD-related." Trouble is, the latter statement is true and the former statement is false.

kim

You're just a little sensitive about umpty million purple fingers, huh? This is one of the biggest quarrels I have with erstwhile liberals; you should be rejoicing about events in Iraq and elsewhere.

My point, which you refuse to see, is that the MSM painted a picture for you of events in Iraq that was false.

In general you sound not so much delusional as bitter at being deceived. Bush's direction has been clear for awhile: MSM, in oppostion, has
become almost absurd in its deceptiveness. You can feel it; you hate to believe it. Breaking through to acceptance of much of what is happening in the Mideast might allow you to reconcile your liberal principles with present events. And remember, besides being talented, Bush is lucky.
==========================

BumperStickerist

~ sigh ~

JBG, you remind me of an accounting professor in Accounting 101 who said "This will be the most difficult accounting course you'll ever take - because during this class you will either 'get it' or you won't."

A person, not me, raised their hands and said 'get what?'

Again, andagainandagainandagain,

read the material you link to. Continue reading after you get to the one sentence that seemingly supports your predrawn conclusion.

Take the time, understand the whole thing. Resist the urge to be eisegestical.

Let me pose a hypothetical to you, which may shed some light on your failure to differentiate:

Suppose a person had been ordered to testify in a case. That person had been given immunity and was therefore obliged to answer the question.

The witness proceeds to 'claim the Fifth' during their entire testimony.

The prosecutor says afterward 'The witness failed to testify.'

Was the prosecutor lying?

Harry Arthur

General of the Armies and Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, might not think it appropriate to wear his uniform, rank, etc, and that is somehow roughly equivalent to GW wearing a fairly generic flight suit to ride through a carrier landing? Obviously, making distinctions between completely different circumstances in completely different contexts is not your strong point. Again, I wouldn't want to be vague - ridiculous and bogus.

As for Professor Reynolds, nice guy, usually has insightful things to say, but in this case is just wrong, as the vast majority of his guests so informed him. Of course Dana Milbank is uniquely qualified to pontificate on this how? To get all huffy-puffy about this ... well ... what can I say?

To quote Bill Cosby, "...any way we can get out of it? Yep. What's that? Wipe that foam from around your mouth."

Harry Arthur

Funny thing about Diebold, I don't think they've ever made an ATM that doesn't produce a receipt, and I don't think they've ever made a voting machine that does. Odd little technological quirk, there. Even though they contractually agreed to do so? So let me get this straight. The states contracted with Diebold (secretly owned by Halliburtion) to manufacture voting machines which were required or not required to produce receipts - which was it? And the programming has been analyzed and determined that a percentage of the votes illegally were diverted to GW? There is proof for all of this of course? People are going to jail over this of course? The voting data from the Diebold (secretly owned by Halliburton) machines goes where? To Diebold corporate headquarters where it is adjusted as necessary to create republican votes? I think I've connected the dots.

So, I'm curious, do you feel the same way about the election for governor in Washington state? Any "progressive" sites you'd like to send us to that might be critical of the election out there? Just wondering if this door swings both ways.

jukeboxgrad

BUMPER

"The witness proceeds to 'claim the Fifth' during their entire testimony."

Your example might be helpful if Saddam had let the inspectors into the country, but had not allowed them to inspect the sites they wanted to inspect. Trouble is, this isn't what happened. What happened is that "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect." This is despite the fact that you tried to claim otherwise: "the UN Inspectors were not allowed 'in' to certain buildings or areas they'd asked to see."

You still haven't explained why your description of events is correct, and Blix's isn't. Obviously your statement and his cannot both be true.

By the way, if you think it was perfectly honest for Bush to say "he wouldn't let them in," why did you bring up all that nonsense about Liberia?

Speaking of nonsense, I haven't heard you say anything about Churchill recently.

HARRY

"Even though they [Diebold] contractually agreed to do so? [build voting machines that printed receipts]"

You're making a good point (if I understand you correctly, since as usual you're being indirect), which is that public officials who signed contracts for these receipt-less machines share the blame. I couldn't agree more. However, this doesn't change the fact that Diebold (for reasons that I think are highly mysterious and questionable) has taken a very strong stance discouraging the idea of printed receipts. This is from internal Diebold emails, 1/3/03: "There is an important point that seems to be missed by all these articles: they already bought the system. At this point they are just closing the barn door. Let’s just hope that as a company we are smart enough to charge out the yin if they try to change the rules now and legislate voter receipts ... Any after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive."

2/7/03: "The new Secretary of State just announced that he supports touch screen vendors being required to print a receipt. This has major implications for our new unit. ... If voters know that a printed receipt is there, I believe there will be demand to see it. I am suggesting that R7 development and design folks begin having some discussions on various scenarios of a printed ballot receipt and how we could 'hide' the receipt from the voter if necessary or keep them from touching if it comes to that ... Yes, another bad idea, brought to you by our elected politicians."

2/14/03: "RE: Ballot Receipt Printer NOW required in California ... how do you stop this steamroller from happening? ... If this goes the full Mercury Method, where the voter can change their mind after their receipt was printed, that would pretty mean the end of electronic DRE [Direct Recording Electronic voting] I think. Can you imagine two million six-inch strips of paper in Los Angeles County? ... All these MIT/Caltech/Stanford 'experts' have never run an election and have never created an election system, but people will listen to them anyway. And I won’t even discuss the crackpots."

1/17/01: "There are many problems with trying to print a receipt for the voters. ... The time it takes to print the receipt adding to the total voting time ... Running out of paper during voting ... Given all these problems I do not think the company should even consider implementing such a system."

"Diebold (secretly owned by Halliburtion)"

Well, no, it's actually worse than that. Diebold was originally funded by Howard Ahmanson. Ahmanson is a backer of Christian Reconstructionism, which "seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite." They're also interested in "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards" (link). (I don't know how they handle ostensible ex-drunks who seem to have a lot of accidents, like Bush.) Companies originally funded by Ahmanson now control 80% of US electronic voting (link). So our voting system has been susbstantially financed by folks who share certain philosophical beliefs with the Taliban.

"And the programming has been analyzed"

It should be, but it hasn't. Diebold has refused to allow independent experts to officially examine their current code, even though there are ways to do this while protecting their intellectual property.

As it happens, a copy of their code leaked (they seem to have astonishingly lax security practices, such as placing various sensitive items on publicly-accessible web sites), and was examined at the John Hopkins University department of Computer Science. This analysis showed very significant security flaws, which create the impression that someone wanted the machines to be easy to hack.

"determined that a percentage of the votes illegally were diverted to GW"

When a machine records 4,258 votes for Bush in a precinct where only 638 people voted, I think that qualifies as "a percentage of the votes illegally were diverted to GW." Actually, of course, it's worse than that. It's votes being synthesized, not "diverted."

"There is proof for all of this of course?"

I've provided citations to back up the various assertions I've made.

By the way, recall that Hitchens said: "in practically every case where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered."

By the way, you have interesting standards of "proof." When it's a question of war, you're apparently willing to accept the idea that a weather-balloon trailer is a weapon of mass destruction, even though 14 out of 15 analysts stated it wasn't WMD-related. On the other hand, when black-box voting machines hand Bush thousands of votes that don't exist (and the vast majority of errors like this fall only in one direction) you're determined to sit on your hands and look the other way. I guess that's because you're a fan of freedom and democracy, and you think that purple fingers on the other side of the globe are more important than clean and fair elections at home.

"People are going to jail over this of course?"

I don't know if this guy ever ended up in jail, but he was headed in that direction.

Aside from him, there are probably people who should be in jail, but aren't. Attitudes like yours have a lot to do with that.

"The voting data from the Diebold ... machines goes where?"

They're stored in Microsoft Access files, which are outrageously easy to hack, just like everything else that relies on Windows. A demonstration showed that a monkey could do it. The response was to say that "no hacking can happen unless the hacker is physically at the computer." (In other words, Diebold has virtually admitted that once you're sitting at the machine, you can make the numbers whatever you want.) Trouble is, there are many indications that these machines were in unsecured locations where all sorts of unauthorized personnel could get at them. Also, these machines are typically equipped with network connections, and therefore can be hacked remotely.

By the way, if you want to experiment with hacking Diebold's stuff, fairly complete instructions and supporting material (a "'toolkit and practice set' for vote tampering") can be found here.

"To Diebold corporate headquarters where it is adjusted as necessary to create republican votes"

Nothing that exotic is required. Vote totals can be easily tampered with, by many different people, in many different places, at many different times, in many different ways, for many different reasons. I sure am impressed by all those purple fingers, though.

No voting system is perfect, but the system we have now is an open invitation for fraud.

"do you feel the same way about the election for governor in Washington state"

That election was obviously very screwed-up in a variety of ways. One would think that working for clean elections would be a bi-partisan issue. That's why it surprises me that the Republican-controlled electronic voting industry is shamelessly dragging its heels on the subject of paper receipts. Then again, maybe those paper receipts would get in the way of "replace[ing] democracy with a theocratic elite."

jukeboxgrad

KIM

"You're just a little sensitive about umpty million purple fingers"

I think those fingers are just dandy. It's just that I think we have a ways to go at home before we tell the world that they should look up to us as an example of how a terrific democracy operates; no one is very impressed when the message we send is "do as I say, not as I do." My idea of patriotism is that speading freedom and democracy begins at home.

Speaking of colorful fingers, I notice no one seems to be interested in answering this question, about a very shaky assumption that Bush et al seem to take for granted: where is it written that all these wonderful new Islamic democracies are going to be friendly to us and oppose terrorism?

"you should be rejoicing about events in Iraq"

I guess you must mean events like this one. Or events like this, which prove what a fine job we're doing as we train Iraqi police to follow in our footsteps.

Or events like Allawi (our guy, if you can remember back that far) recently saying "The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq ... We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak."

"the MSM painted a picture for you of events in Iraq that was false."

I guess you must mean events like this one. More here.

"Bush's direction has been clear for awhile"

That's for sure. Anyway, I just mentioned how impressed Allawi is with "Bush's direction."

"bitter at being deceived"

Bush never deceived me. However, I'm not happy that he tried.

"MSM, in oppostion, has become almost absurd in its deceptiveness."

You must mean the MSM that almostly completely failed to mention the DSM, for about a month. That darn liberal media.

kim

Antique Allawi Allahballooh.

Ali-Sistani is the power there; there has come to be, by the grace of Allah, trust between him and Bush.

Otherwise, some of your dysfunctionall isllusions about Iraq would have been true.
===========================

BumperStickerist

at this point. jbg, my hope that you would have at least read the source materials you cite in full has dwindled.

Any hope that you'd be able to put that information in some sort of chronologic order (e.g. in the order in which they occured) died about a week ago.

It's not that I'm ducking your question - again, they've all been answered - it's just that you're past the break-even point of diminishing returns for providing material you're so desperately sure that you don't need.

Enjoy the pastiche you've created.

Remember: The absence of a Rovian connection only makes the connection that much more apparent.

Cheers.

ps. if you'd notice, I managed to include an apt Churchill quote sans google link - I suppose I should congratulate you on your newly found source of Churchill links and marvel at the speed with which you have misapprehended it for your own purposes.

Simply breathtaking.

kim

Oh, and since purple fingers have made such an impact on you: What would you say would be the opinion of the Democratic Party, and Jimmy Carter, of using purple ink as a method of voter authentication here in the USA?
==================================

Harry Arthur

One would think that working for clean elections would be a bi-partisan issue. JBG, are you sitting down? Couldn't agree more on this one. This goes way back to Kennedy-Nixon all the way to Florida 2000 where the voters in Palm Beach County couldn't understand the ballots, to counting hanging chads, to Washington State. I'd also submit that motor-voter registration is ripe for abuse as is the concept that you don't need to produce a picture ID to vote. Now we have internet voting and the preponderance of votes in many states is now absentee, yet another potential for abuse, e.g., "snowbirds" registered in both NY and FL.

Couldn't agree more with Kim, either. At the very least it would keep voters from multiple attempts as long as we limited absentee voting to true absentees.

Nor do I have a problem with creating a receipt and a machine-generated optical scan backup for your vote that would be counted electronically if the machines broke or that could be counted in parallel with machine tallies to ensure an absolute match. I'm sure there are enought smart people around to think of a "fool proof" voting methodology.

How about we also declare at least the national voting Tuesday a national voting day and keep the polls open 24 hours all referenced to the most western time zone? Furthermore, no vote-related news of any sort until the polls close, another anomoly in 2000 when Florida was announced by the MSM while the polls in the panhandle were still open.

On everything else, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems we have completely differing views of facts and their interpretation. Honestly, I'm not at all happy with the degredation of my tone of late. At some point I ceased being analytical and "witty" and got mean, nasty and even personal - inexcusable, even if in frustration with perceived or actual slights or the failure to get you to see my point. My apologies to you and to other readers. I'll hereby take my own advice from months ago and re-elevate my comments and disagreements to a civil level. Best to you all.

kim

Democrats don't want voter verification. Sadly, their creative energies are devoted to diablolical Diebold disinformation. Their only strategic effort is to sow doubt in the democratic process. This is a party?

The unsubstantialness of their spirit and the lack of faith in really counting votes cast the remaining organs and skeletal remnants of the Democratic Party in a particularly awkward stance and gait. The Night of the Living Democrat.
==============================

jukeboxgrad

KIM

You're still so distracted by purple fingers you must have missed my question: where is it written that all these wonderful new Islamic democracies are going to be friendly to us and oppose terrorism?

"opinion ... Jimmy Carter ... using purple ink"

If I had any reason to think that was actually a serious question, I might consider answering it. Then again, sometimes I'm inclined to ignore questions from folks who've already shown they're inclined to ignore my questions.

Speaking of ignoring questions, I notice that Les (and/or his pals) is declining to back up his claim (7/9, 9:33 pm) that "several admin people" warned us that "the overall war will take many years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

"diablolical Diebold disinformation"

I realize making blanket statements is easier than coming up with a shred of proof to show that anything I offered was "disinformation."

"sow doubt in the democratic process"

Claiming that exit polls are always reliable, except when it's inconvenient for Republicans, seems like a darn good way to "sow doubt in the democratic process."

BUMPER

"my hope that you would have at least read the source materials you cite in full has dwindled"

Not only am I quite familiar with all the source material I've cited, I'm also quite familiar with all the source material you cited (although that's not saying much), and there's nothing in that material that reconciles the direct conflict betweeen what you said ("the UN Inspectors were not allowed 'in' to certain buildings or areas they'd asked to see") and what Blix said ("access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect").

You're well aware of that, which is why you persist in hiding behind generalities, instead of just taking responsibility for your false statement (and this is only one example), which couldn't be more plain.

"Any hope that you'd be able to put that information in some sort of chronologic order"

I think this is your cute way of saying "he didn't let them, until he did." Trouble is, that's not what you said. Maybe it's what you wish you had said. It would have been the plain truth, whereas what you said was something other than that.

"you're past the break-even point of diminishing returns for providing material you're so desperately sure that you don't need."

That's a stunning piece of syntactical nonsense, even for you. You've outdone yourself.

"I managed to include an apt Churchill quote sans google link"

I guess you're talking about when you said "blood, sweat, toil, and tears." By the way, not only was your quote "sans google link," it was also sans quote marks. Hint: try shift-apostrophe. By the way, it was also sans correctness, since he actually said "blood, toil, tears and sweat"

Of course the great irony of you citing this quote is that two sentences after he said that, he said "We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering" (link).

So this is yet another example (earlier I provided two other examples) of Churchill doing exactly what you said he never did: quantifying the burden (and of course this is exactly what Bush still refuses to do, so thanks for helping me demonstrate what we all know, that Bush is no Churchill). In other words, you would have known that your statement ("Winston Churchill never quantified the anticipated amount of blood, sweat, toil, and tears") was idiotic if you had managed to read two sentences past the quote you mangled.

"my hope that you would have at least read the source materials you cite"

Heh.

HARRY

"I'm sure there are enought smart people around to think of a 'fool proof' voting methodology."

Then you might want to ask yourself why the "smart people" at Diebold apparently spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to make sure no one forces them to print receipts. You might even want to think about if this peculiar fact is in any way connected with where the money came from to build the company.

There are definitely "enought smart people around to think of a 'fool proof' voting methodology" (or at least _relatively_ fool-proof). Trouble is, there are also definitely "enought smart people around" to think of voting methodologies that are outrageously easy to hack and manipulate. Unfortunately, it appears that our voting system is currently in the hands of the latter group, not the former, and folks like Kim ("diabolical Diebold disinformation") seem determined to keep it that way.

"I'll hereby take my own advice from months ago and re-elevate my comments and disagreements to a civil level."

Thank you for this admirable comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.