Mr. Long,
I said, "I am against some, and not all of Bush's policies and against al Qaueda at the same time. Do you understand how this is possible?"
You said "You make your choice- -you are for reasonable democratic gov't or you are ready to be blackmailed and victimized by them. It's clear where you are."
I'm unsure why you feel compelled to resort to distorted accusations. They are false and they avoid a meaningful discussion of policy. The choice is not between a 'reasonable democratic government' and being 'blackmailed and victimized'. When Bush was delivering the speech, he was referring to the contribution of military forces to wage war on SH. My stance was "There is no link between SH and 9/11 - GWB".
I said "Does that help? Men who haven't been in war should not lead the sons and daughters of others into it."
You said "That comes out of the sout end of a northbound bull."
No, it came out of the mouth of a colonel in the 101st.
You - "Should surgeons who have never been operated on be barred from performing surgery?"
The metaphor is a good one, but more approriately used like this; Do you think someone who has never operated by themselves before, but perhaps has seen some movies about it - do you think they should be in charge of the operation?
The metaphor you are using would be more akin to "Do you think that if you've never been the victim of war that you should wage war?"
4. I said < Bush attempts, as does the entire administration, to juxtapose/confuse Iraq and the war on terror. As in "The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got. Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq"...>
You said <"The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States" Are you claiming bin Laden did NOT say words to that effect?>
You again are missing the meaning of what I have said. I said nothing about the validity of the statement "the terrorists..." The topic of what I said was about the juxtaposition (that means placing side by side) of the war on terror and the war in iraq.
I'm beginning to think that either you can't understand, or you deliberately misunderstand. Either way, it's a position of weakness and it betrays the insecurity of your position. This pervasive need to distort is a tired, ineffective way to discuss policy.
From now on, I would prefer to have a meaningful conversation about the future of Iraq instead of miscommunications. For example, how are US interest best served by the new government? Is this something you have any interest in? |
