Are you the Nielsen ratings? I hardly ever watch Fox News. I never read the WSJ. Most of my news comes from MSNBC, the radio and stuff here. I hear dissenting voices. I watched that hour-long diatribe against Bush on PBS last night (in, around, and through the Spurs-Pistons game). I listed to NPR on a weekly basis. Who said anything about projecting feelings? I'm talking about what I have seen and read-- parents and spouses bereaved about the loss of a son or husband do no unanimously lash out against the administration. In fact, I see more of them who continue to support the administration. THEY speak for their own dead loved one, not me. I'm pretty irked about the lazy effort that most of you make in trying to understand what someone like me is saying. All you want to do is to pigeonhole, or distort what I'm saying. andy, you throw me in the Faux New box and won't let me out. Well, it is an inaccuate depiction.... so there!
The problem I have is with your use of the word "most." It seems to be the same problem other people have. How could you possibly know that "most" families of dead soldiers still support the war in Iraq or Bush, for that matter? Have you polled them? Other polls have been taken that show fast declining support from Americans in general both on Bush and Iraq. Saying that "most" of the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq still support the action based on the few stories you have heard is making a HUGE assumption. I don't make that assumption and as such, believe that there are families on both sides of this issue, but I do not presume to assume that "most" believe the same way I do. It may be inaccurate, I don't know you personally so I really can't say. However, your statements on the subject certainly paint you that way.
giddy one last post (because this thread has gotten seriously off topic). Google "military families on Iraq" and look at the first oh 5 or 6 pages of web sites that come up.
<b>andymoon The problem I have is with your use of the word "most." It seems to be the same problem other people have. How could you possibly know that "most" families of dead soldiers still support the war in Iraq or Bush, for that matter? Have you polled them? Other polls have been taken that show fast declining support from Americans in general both on Bush and Iraq. Saying that "most" of the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq still support the action based on the few stories you have heard is making a HUGE assumption. I don't make that assumption and as such, believe that there are families on both sides of this issue, but I do not presume to assume that "most" believe the same way I do.</b> I think I've only characterized it as my impression from what I've seen. I've seen the bitter ones, too. My unscientific impression (not an assumption as you would characterizeit) is that most are still on the administration's side. No one here has even suggested the opposite conclusion based on anything remotly objective; they just want to criticize my conclusionse. That's funny. <b>It may be inaccurate, I don't know you personally so I really can't say. However, your statements on the subject certainly paint you that way.</b> Sorry but I pre-date Fox News... You "can't really say" but that sure doesn't stop you!
No. Although I like Joe Scarborough okay, I don't watch many of those types of shows. I just catch the news segments. I'll catch Chris Matthews now and then and Joe once in a while. I have no steady diet of Fox News (no Hannity or O'Reilly on even a semi-regular basis-- I make no effort to watch them), CNN or anyone else for that matter. I just get it as I can.
Giddyup; Here is your quote that started all of this. I understand that you're making a statement based upon your own assumption which is all fine the problem that I have is that you're asking the rest of us to be more charitable rhetorically than you yourself are to those on the other side of an argument. You've on several occasions criticized taken others to task for making just such an assumption calling it in your words "special knowledge".
I'm making a statement based on my observations over two years of this war not just my assumptions. Is there not a legitimate difference between the two things? People assume that Badiane both can and cannot be our PF of the future.That is a projection. My claim is made on the basis of observations collected over a couple of years of war news (and, for you andymoon, not from FOX News)... I have criticized people for their seeming claims of "special knowledge." In those instances they seemed to think they had access to more information than the Pentagon or the FBI or the CIA... or all of them combined. I am making no claims of special knowledge other than a mental tallying of the reports I've seen. I'm not sure what you mean "charitable rhetorically" People are prone to criticizing my observations but no one has put forth the contradiction to my observation. They've mostly just transferred their "feelings" about the matter to all the victims' families. Is anybody willing to say that most of the victim's families have turned against the administration (even in) the horrible aftermath of their personal loss? WARNING: This is not a scientific study!
As far as I have seen, nobody but you is claiming that most of the families fall on one side or the other of this debate.
Well unless they split right down the middle, most of the families do fall on one side or the other. With an "event" as impactful as a war and the recent loss of a loved one added to the mix, I would not expect it to be split down the middle. Why are you just being contentious here?
I do not disagree that most of the families fall on one side or the other. I am just not so egotistical to believe that I know what side that is.
There you go again! It is not egotistical to have an opinion based on observaton. Look, man, I read your love advice to Isabel... offering yourself up as a sexual surrogate. Give me a break!
But this isn't just the families its the dead you are talking about. Now what seems more logical, assumptions based upon playing close attention to current events that the Admin. didn't plan the occupation of Iraq very well or that we know what the dead feel? You say you're basing your assumptions on two years of this war. Well what the heck to do you think the rest of us have been doing? You criticize others for thinking they know more than the CIA, FBI are president yet your statement of knowing what the dead feel is somehow perfectly acceptable? This is what I mean by you seem to be expecting others to be more charitable rhetorically than you are to others. We're supposed to be understanding about your assumption, even something as wild as knowing what the dead feel, while you're free to accuse others of being smug about "special knowledge" for something like assuming the reasons for invading Iraq.
It is really simple: I let the families of the dead speak for their dead loved ones rather than you or mcmark or andymoon or wnes or rimbaud. If you want to call letting the families of the dead speak for the dead an assumption, well go ahead... I can't stop you! I'm not accusing anyone of not paying attention to the last two years (don't be silly)-- except as it pertains to this one specific issue. Since no one seems to want to contradict me... I guess I might have been pretty accurate. I gotta get up in 6 hours. I'm outta here...
There you go again. You know, I'm pretty irked about the lazy effort that you make in trying to understand what someone like me is saying. All you want to do is to pigeonhole, or distort what I'm saying. First, you say nonsensical things such as "It doesn't make sense that I woud be countering my own claims..." that I certainly never argued. And now you are putting me in a group of your enemies (lower case this time, see?) that "claim" the dead would be mad at Bush. All I originally said is that it was odd of you to bring the dead into a discussion about lying before congress and the only time I talked about how the dead would feel is by saying they would rather be alive. You agreed with that because it is obvious. But, yes, you are the better man here because you are letting the families speak for the dead while I am putting words in dead people's mouths. I am going to be useless at work today now that I have come face to face with the cold reality of my personality flaws. That really sucks. Boo on you, giddy, booooooooooooo!
I didn't offer, I am married. Were I not married, I might make such an offer just to show that there are men out there who have the ability to pay attention to a woman in bed.
I might make such an offer just to show that there are men out there who have the ability to pay attention to a woman in bed. Methinks chicks are more concerned about the other 23 hours and 58 minutes of the day.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3231954 June 19, 2005, 9:38AM Excerpts from Downing Street memos Associated Press The following are excerpts from material in secret Downing Street memos written in 2002. The information, authenticated by a senior British government official, was transcribed from the original documents. In a memo dated March 14, 2002, Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, tells the prime minister about a dinner he had with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who's now secretary of state. Manning is now the British ambassador to the United States. "We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option." ———— "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?" ———— "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy." From a memo dated March 22, 2002 from Peter Ricketts, British foreign office political director, to Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, on advice given on Iraq to Blair. "The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapon) fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up." ———— "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)." ———— "We can make the case on qualitative difference (only Iraq has attacked a neighbour, used CW and fired missiles against Israel). The overall strategy needs to include re-doubled effort to tackle other proliferators, including Iran, in other ways (the UK/French ideas on greater IAEA activity are helpful here). But we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about." ———— "The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo, it was: Serbs out, Kosovars back, peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." From a document dated March 8, 2002, on Iraq from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat to Cabinet Office: "Since 1991, our objective has been to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam Hussein in power." ———— "Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD, although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD." ———— "The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change." "A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult." "Saddam is only likely to permit the return of inspectors if he believes the threat of large scale US military action is imminent and that such concessions would prevent the US from acting decisively. Playing for time, he would then embark on a renewed policy of noncooperation." "The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. ... The US may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than we think desirable." "We have looked at three options for achieving regime change (we dismissed assassination of Saddam Hussein as an option because it would be illegal)." "Of course, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law." From a memo dated March 25, 2002, from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Blair: "If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL (Osama bin Laden) and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses 1/2 sic 3/4 on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate." Speaking about the difference between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he said: "By linking these countries together in the "axis of evil" speech, President Bush implied an identity betwen 1/2 sic 3/4 them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case — that Iraq poses a unique and present danger — rests on the facts." "A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We also have to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better." "Iraq has had NO history of democracy, so no one has this habit or experience." From a briefing paper dated July 21, 2002, given to Blair and government officials before meeting on July 23, 2002, about Iraq: "Even with a legal base and viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective. ... A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Futher work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime's and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor." From minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials. "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service. "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." ———— "The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." ———— "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
