Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (186900)	4/23/2004 6:08:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573088

Bush did not use those exact words. He was careful to say that an attack was possible, not imminent. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney who intimated that it could happen at any time.......that includes sooner rather than later. Bush said something, he hinted at something worse, and the post here stated something even worse. I'm not saying its unreasonable to hold Bush to account for what he hinted at as well as what he directly said but the specific quote I complained about goes beyond even what Bush hinted at. Based on their combined comments, a reasonable person could conclude that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US and that an attack could happen at any time. And such an attack most likely would be leveled at American cities where it would do the most damage. Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't say or even strongly hint that massive Iraqi WMD attacks directly on the US could occur soon. They talked about how Saddam was exploring ways to attack the US, they even talked about specific methods that he might use, but that isn't the same thing. Also if they where going to "blow up American cities", that implies nuclear weapons. The scenarios that the administration talked more about where things like giving chemical weapons to terrorists. You may not agree but that's what most people heard. Most people heard that Iraq had dangerous WMD and would get more of them (and more dangerous ones) if we didn't do anything about it. They didn't hear the equivalent of the president saying that Iraq would make a nuclear attack ("blow up American cities") within a matter of months if we didn't invade now. You may consider this reversal to be humorous but its what I experience all that time from neocons. I don't see it from neocons any more then any other political group. Also I think you misuse the word neocon. It come to be a word liberals (or other anti-conservatives) use to mean a more extreme version of conservative but neocons don't have to be extreme at all to be neocons. Case in point is the inflammatory comments by Bush leading up to the war. I'm not making it up....and others agree with me. If you want to say Bush's comments where inflammatory and inaccurate I'm willing to listen and might agree. If you want to say that they where lies, then I would need a lot more convincing but I would still be willing to talk about the idea, esp. if the conversation was done with more light then heat and based on specific strong arguments that directly indicate lying rather then merely mistakes or even incompetence. Also there is different levels of lying, if you want me to react strongly against the alleged lie it would have to be shown to be more then the usual political spin and exaggeration that probable every modern president has engaged in. I do think you let your bias blind you to the reality.........or you don't hear it because its not threatening to you as it would be to me. The feeling is mutual about some things. I feel you and other people hear also let their bias blind them to reality. If you think I am blind about something and actual want me to see it you might be able to but you can't start with the assumption that any reasonable person will agree with your biases (rather then mine or neither of ours) or your version of the facts. Actually lay out the argument in detail and try to make explicit all the premises and you might actually make me see something you think I was blind to. Of course when your premises are explicit and the focus is on logic not merely rhetoric you open yourself up to counter arguments every step of the way. Each step of the argument has to be established. But if they are solid and the premises can not be refuted or even said to be in doubt then you pretty much win the argument and the other person is forced to concede if he or she cares about logic at all. More likely there will be a point of disagreement, and important premise that you think is true and they think is false, but even then progress will have been made. You will understand exactly where you disagree and why. Each person will know what the other person really thinks and will be less likely to wonder "how could they be so blind as to not notice this obvious point". You have never once said Iraq is a mess. "I've said it at least a half dozen times on SI." As far as I remember, never to me. To get to a half dozen you would have to include statements like "if that happens Iraq will be a mess", or "the situation in Iraq is messy". But I believe I did use the exact words "Iraq is a mess" once or twice, and some of the other phrases are close enough to have the same meaning. For the record I do think the situation in Iraq is a mess but I don't think it is an irresolvable mess or a disaster (again other then in the sense that any ongoing war, or any situation that causes the deaths of hundreds of Americans (and thousands of locals) can be said to be a disaster). If we have another year like the last year, and then another several years where things gradually get better then the sacrifices in Iraq will have been worth it IMO, even if you only consider the interests of the US, they will have been even more worth it if you consider the fact that tens of millions of Iraqis will have been freed from Saddam. Of course if you are much more pessimistic about what will happen in Iraq then you will think Iraq was a major, perhaps even disastrous mistake. I'm interested in knowing how much of your opposition about Iraq is do to your opinion about how bad the war will go and how much is a matter of principle. If you knew that the fighting in Iraq would be over before the end of the year and that before the end of the decade a stable democratic government would run the place would you still vilify Bush for invading Iraq? I will tell you that if the situation in Iraq turns as bad as some of the people on SI that I have debated with seem to think that I will say that Iraq has been a mistake, at least in execution. Tim