Lies and more lies. Who Said What When

The more I read your thoughts, the more I hear little but a political strategist at work, not a seeker of the truth, nor a person of journalistic integrity who seeks to educate, nor one who promotes independent thought.

We will see how it goes. Bush Sr. thought he had it in the bag after the Gulf War. Democrats thought Monica was a non issue in the beginning.

Sometimes, these things have a life of their own.

 

1000% spot on.

There can be little doubt that Kymar isn't interested in any seeking of truth; that's crystal. Obviously the only intention of this verbal contortionist is do defend his ideological predisposition come what may.

Most Bush supporters believe that, when the whole WMD story is better understood - particularly after additional scientists and technicians join the scientist who last week revealed buried nuclear equipment and documentation .......It's also believed that if additional WMD evidence is seen to bear Bush out, then his most vocal opponents on the issue have set themselves up for major falls.

LOL. 'Additional' evidence? Try SOME, ANY evidence (unless there's a special Kymarese definition of 'evidence' you're using).

What 'when the whole WMD story is better understood' really means is 'when enough time has gone by to make the story we concoct more likely to be believed'.

After being subjected to this kind of blather for the better part of a year (in the Iraq case), what do you expect non-Americans to think except 'F-ing Americans'.

 

Yep, boy oh boy, the amount of chemical/bio/and nuclear weapons we used on Iraq is just absurd! How can our troops see through the mushroom clouds and haze of anthrax and biotoxins we dumped on Baghdad?

 

Apparently, your hypocrisy never ends. You offered your political judgments a couple of posts ago, complete with a "read my lips" reference and a suggestion that Bush's political fate will follow what you judge to be Blair's, and then, when I respond in kind with my own political judgment, you accuse me of being "political." And then you follow up with another set of political strategic judgments.

That the avowedly America-hating Alfonso joins you in your assessment of my objectivity might perhaps be a signal to you - or at least to those whose biases don't overwhelm their judgment.

I offered two articles by undeniable experts in their fields on the WMD issue. In addition to supporting my larger points about the real WMD issue, they also happened to back up judgments that I earlier offered, and that you previously called into question, about the relative battlefield uselessness of Iraq's chem/bio arsenal against US forces. You shifted the debate argument by analogy, and I responded to your analogies with analogies of my own. Instead of replying in detail or even generally (much less conceding any subsidiary points - we'd all need smelling salts), you change the subject yet once again to your personal beliefs about me and my political positions.

Next you'll accuse me of getting personal. Or maybe, instead, you'll post a page of insults, as you have before - then accuse me of being impolite or uncivil or uninterested in discussion or, as you put it, "education." Or maybe you'll hide for a while, then come back and repeat the same thing you've been saying over and over for weeks now.

To repeat the one thing we agree on: We'll see.

I have a position. I believe it's well-known in these parts, if not always well-understood. I'll even admit to something of a personal stake in it - as I see nothing wrong with strong feelings about strong personal beliefs. I also strongly believe and strongly feel that you are likewise arguing from pre-conceived positions and your personal stake in them, and that your implicit claims to the contrary are transparently false.

 

This is what I said:

"The more I read your thoughts, the more I hear little but a political strategist at work, not a seeker of the truth, nor a person of journalistic integrity who seeks to educate, nor one who promotes independent thought."

Your immediate response was to focus on your beliefs of some hypocrisy on my part.

I may or may not engage in hypocritical thinking.

For the sake of argument, say I am hypocitical. Does that let you off the hook from my comments on your M.O.?

Your immediate defensive reprisal begs the question unanswered:

Are you denying the truth of my statement? Are you seeking truth, objective journalism, and the promotion of independent thought, are you just one among the legions of followers who latches onto a party and ideology and spins, spins, spins.

Rather than just responding with some rational thoughts on my comment, giving reasons why my comments are false (irrespective of any ad hominem issues) your redress is attack, attack, attack.

This is the common manner of argument I see on the political scene these days of polarization, and not really dealing with criticism of the issues or positions someone takes. I pointed out how Hannity does it, and all of the spinners do it, including Carville, Limbaugh, etc.

You appear to be in their league, as I see this is your motis operandi. It must be how you were trained in "spin school."

Don't answer the question, don't deal with the issue raised, but immediately go on the attack to attempt to change the focus away from yourself and your position to that of the one who sends criticism your direction.

 

In accusing me of responding in the manner of "attack, attack, attack," you once again ignore the detailed factual and logical arguments that I offered - either on the specific issues that were under discussion or the question of objectivity and the influence of feelings or beliefs - then merely re-state your own attack, attack, attack.

I know of a few people who would find it amusing to learn that Optional777 had become the leading exponent of civility on ET.

 

You did offer a response, after a personal attack. Why was the personal attack necessary at all? Why not just the response to the issue, rather than focus on potential hypocrisy?

My comments about you were not suggesting anything other than you take the position of political strategist, rather than objective journalist, or proponent of independent thought. Was I wrong?

Are we to equate the position of political strategist with other slanderous terms now? I never claimed we don't need political strategists to advance political agendas. I just think we need to identify those who assume those roles so that we can properly evaluate their comments in the light of the position they take. I find it helpful and necessary to filter data in terms of context. In the same way that many stopped reading Wild/MSFT, as they concluded his posts were lacking objectivity, if one is known as a political strategist from a particular bias, one can decide if the comments are going to be objective and independent in their conclusions.

I am not suggesting your attacks aren't with the broad borders of civility on a message board, just that they are mechanisms used by those who spin criticism, either critique of a position of of person, rather than deal with it directly.

Again, your response is laced with ad hominem.

Is it even possible for you to address an issue without employing this tactic? Are you even conscious that you employ this tactic in nearly every response to criticism?

 

Why are we still here?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 30, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


"What are we getting into here?" asked the sergeant from the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division, stationed north of Baghdad. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"

The questions that sergeant put to a Washington Post reporter are ones our commander in chief had better begin to address.

For less than three months after the fall of Baghdad, we have lost almost as many men in Iraq as we did in three weeks of war. One U.S. soldier is now dying there every day.

"Mission Accomplished," read the banner behind President Bush as he spoke from the carrier deck of the Lincoln. But if the original mission – to oust Saddam and end the mortal threat of his weapons of mass destruction – is "accomplished," why are we still there?

What is our new mission? What are the standards by which we may measure success? What will be the cost in blood and treasure? When can we expect to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis? Or is ours to be a permanent presence, as in postwar Germany and Japan?

If that sergeant does not know what he is doing there, it is because his commander in chief has left him, and us, in the dark. And if the president does not begin soon to lay out the case for why we must keep 150,000 men in Iraq, the American people will begin to demand they be brought home. Already, one poll shows that 44 percent of the nation finds the present level of U.S. casualties "unacceptable."

This is not 1963. Americans no longer have the same patience or trust in government we had when JFK took us into Vietnam. We are no longer willing to have Americans die in open-ended wars for unexplained ends. Dean Rusk's familiar mantra, "We are there, and we are committed," is no longer enough.

When the United States lost 241 U.S. Marines in the bombing of the Beirut barracks 20 years ago, and 18 Army Rangers in the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu, Americans demanded we get out. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton hastily did.

As has been written here many times, Americans are lousy imperialists. We are uninterested in ruling and reforming other peoples if they appear to want us out of their lives. Nor are we willing to shed American blood for visions of empire dancing in the heads of Potomac pundits.

This week, six British soldiers were killed – three executed – after surrendering to Iraqi civilians enraged over intrusive house searches that they believe dishonored them and their women. This was in the Shia region of southern Iraq, which had been thought to be pacified.

One is reminded of Yitzhak Rabin's remark after the invasion of southern Lebanon had ignited the peaceful population there: "We have let the Shia genie out of the bottle."

On their visit to Baghdad, Sens. Lugar and Biden warned the U.S. Army might have to remain in Iraq five years. But Americans are not going to tolerate five years, or even two years, of guerrilla war without a better explanation as to exactly what vital interest of ours requires us to stay in Iraq and fight this war.

Moreover, there is every indication the security situation is getting worse. The incident in the south is but one example. The heavy-handed but natural reaction of U.S. soldiers to being ambushed and sniped at and killed every day is another. Invading homes searching for weapons, rousting out and roughing up Iraqi men, and patting down their women is a sure way to antagonize a fighting people.

Lest we forget, among the "Intolerable Acts" that led to our own revolution was the "Quartering Act," where Bostonians had to provide shelter for British troops sent to pacify the city after Sam Adams' tea party down at the harbor.

We are told the United States cannot walk away from Iraq now, or it would descend into chaos. That may be true. But if chaos is one alternative, another is a no-win war such as Israel is today fighting against the Palestinians. And the chances of that are daily rising.

A recent U.S. strike in the west turned up the bodies of Saudis and Syrians who had come to fight Americans, as their fathers went to Afghanistan to fight Russians. Moreover, U.S. pressure on Iran to permit inspections of its nuclear facilities – or U.S. pre-emptive strikes – would surely be answered by the kind of Iranian aid to and instigation of the Shias in Iraq that Teheran gave to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Hezbollah, after years of guerrilla war, drove the Israelis out of their country.

President Bush had best begin devising an exit strategy for U.S. troops, before our enemies succeed with theirs.

 

Tell that to those who were bombed.

What wmd were used on us? American Airlines and United Airlines?

 

Iraq: Everyone Now Needs Food Aid
by Ricardo Grassi

ROME -- The war in Iraq has made the entire population of 27 million dependent on food aid, leaders of aid programs say.

Before the war that the U.S. and Britain launched March 20 to remove the Saddam Hussein regime, 60 percent of the population had depended entirely on food aid.

”Today, the lives of 100 percent of the Iraqi population, 27 million people, depend on the provision of monthly food rations,” UNICEF chief representative in Iraq Carel de Roy told IPS in a phone interview.

The United Nations WFP (World Food Program) chief representative in Baghdad Torben Due says the crisis is unprecedented. ”To avoid a food crisis in the country we have initiated the largest emergency operation in the 40 years history of the WFP,” he told IPS in an interview on email from Baghdad.

The situation was bad enough before the war. A WFP survey of the southern and central provinces then showed not only that 60 percent of the population depends on food aid but that one in five Iraqis were living in chronic poverty. The results of the survey were announced last week.

Chronic poverty was defined by WFP as conditions in which an individual or a family cannot meet essential needs of food, water, clothing, shelter, health and basic education over a long period.

The southern and central regions of Iraq covered by the WFP survey are home to 22.3 million Iraqis. But the situation was little better in the north.

A report by the international charity 'Save the Children' was quoted in the WFP survey as saying that most people in the north depended on free food rations through the public distribution system. ”Most households are extremely vulnerable to external shocks - they have limited (if any) capacity to expand to other coping strategies and economic activities,” the report was quoted as saying.

The WFP now says that ”two months of instability and war have most likely made their ability to cope with an already deteriorating situation much worse.” Across the country, it says, vulnerability to poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition have most likely risen over the past two months.

The war halted income-generating activities for many Iraqis, the WFP report says, ”as more pressing concerns such as personal safety and survival took precedence.” The report points out that many shops and private sector businesses remain shut, and that many government employees have not been paid for the past few months.

The 1980-88 war with Iran, the two Gulf wars and the economic sanctions between them, and failing economic policies have impoverished a majority of the Iraqi people ”and reduced them to relying heavily on free food handouts,” says Due.

Carol de Roy says the sanctions empowered Saddam's regime, and weakened the population. ”There is no question about it,” de Roy says. ”The food issue is clear evidence.”

The setbacks of the nineties came after considerable progress. A survey conducted by the University of Harvard in 1991 after the first Gulf War noted that the percentage of people with access to safe drinking water had risen from 66 per cent in 1975 to 87 percent by 1987. By that year, 93 percent of the population was covered by free health services.

The sanctions were eased in the late nineties to allow Iraq to buy food against oil exports. Now again ”in the short and medium term the food needs will have to be covered through import financed by revenues from the oil export,” Due says. In the long term, ”Iraq has an important agricultural potential that could be activated though massive investments in the agricultural sector.”

Long term solutions need to be based on” a thorough analysis that takes into consideration the current high level of dependency on food rations,” Due says. ”A solid knowledge base covering poverty, malnutrition, food security, social welfare and other related issues will be needed to have an informed dialogue on the best policies to follow.”

The new Collegial Provisional Authority (CPA, headed by U.S.) that is responsible for administrative matters, he says, ”is receptive to the points of view of WFP.”

Food assistance to the Iraqi population is assured for the next five months. The WFP has received almost 500 million dollars in donation for the food aid Program The U.S. and Britain, which led the invasion of Iraq are the largest food donors, Due says.

But disbursement is not easy. ”The security situation is the most serious concern, as it makes it difficult to operate in some areas of the country,” he says. The U.S. and British forces controlling Iraq are under increasing attack from Iraqi opposition forces.

Food supplies are being hampered also by poor communication. The offices of the Ministry of Trade were destroyed in the war, and this has restricted communications between Baghdad and the rest of Iraq, Due says.