On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:10:58 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:41:53 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

John H wrote:

all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al.

our capture of Saddam.

You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday
morning.

Go and fornicate yourself, John.

Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this
country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is
that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid
opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies
should take.

You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage
of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies.


Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught.
With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the
entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's
gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it.

But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the
statements Bush made to get us into Iraq
in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time
yesterday?

Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq.
If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the
capture of SH is old news.

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

But I *can* make an assumption.

Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as
fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither.

Are you referring to the phrase, "to maintain the party line"? If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief.

My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based
on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But
absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and
unproven assumption and is best treated as such.

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any
motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they
cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions.

On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that
you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris.

And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'?

No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing
disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably
drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of
argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions."

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition. I'm not debating anything. Would you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa? I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Joe Parsons


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD