Comments on: A Good Idea… http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23321 peter Thu, 04 May 2006 00:36:02 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23321 stick with me and you will be wearing walnuts the size of diamonds... stick with me and you will be wearing walnuts the size of diamonds…

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23318 Mark Thu, 04 May 2006 00:30:26 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23318 Hey, we're all friends here...as I've said many times, thank God we have some frequent commenters from the left, too, to keep us intellectually honest (or at least in the vicinity). On a completely unrelated note, your suggestion on adding numbers to the comments is working out nicely, isn't it? It's nice to be able to just say "if you read what you said in number 7"... Hey, we’re all friends here…as I’ve said many times, thank God we have some frequent commenters from the left, too, to keep us intellectually honest (or at least in the vicinity).

On a completely unrelated note, your suggestion on adding numbers to the comments is working out nicely, isn’t it? It’s nice to be able to just say “if you read what you said in number 7″…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23314 peter Thu, 04 May 2006 00:23:38 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23314 Very satisfied: it's a nuanced and consistent argument (even though I disagree with it). I may be unyielding, but I play fair: when you twist what someone else says, it's an implicit admission that you're not willing to contradict his argument and instead you taking the easy road by misrepresenting the other side. I don't think I twisted what you said above: if you read the words in post seven literally, you seem to be conflating 9/11 with the invasion. Thanks for the instant clarification! Very satisfied: it’s a nuanced and consistent argument (even though I disagree with it).

I may be unyielding, but I play fair: when you twist what someone else says, it’s an implicit admission that you’re not willing to contradict his argument and instead you taking the easy road by misrepresenting the other side. I don’t think I twisted what you said above: if you read the words in post seven literally, you seem to be conflating 9/11 with the invasion. Thanks for the instant clarification!

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23312 Mark Thu, 04 May 2006 00:14:06 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23312 All right, let me be clear...I don't think 9/11, the event, justified the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 is perhaps THE defining moment in the War On Terror, but even without 9/11, Iraq would have had to be dealt with. Want a justification? How about its repeated violations of the ceasefire of Gulf War I?...and that's just for starters. I'm not trying to have my cake and eat it, too...I'm trying to say that the removal of Saddam did not have a direct correlation to the events of 9/11 itself, except inasmuch as they highlighted the need to be more aggressive in combating the sources of instability in the breeding ground for terrorists, with the Hussein regime, regardless of terrorist affiliation, being a long-standing thorn in the side of sane policy in the region. Satisfied? I somehow doubt it... All right, let me be clear…I don’t think 9/11, the event, justified the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 is perhaps THE defining moment in the War On Terror, but even without 9/11, Iraq would have had to be dealt with.

Want a justification? How about its repeated violations of the ceasefire of Gulf War I?…and that’s just for starters.

I’m not trying to have my cake and eat it, too…I’m trying to say that the removal of Saddam did not have a direct correlation to the events of 9/11 itself, except inasmuch as they highlighted the need to be more aggressive in combating the sources of instability in the breeding ground for terrorists, with the Hussein regime, regardless of terrorist affiliation, being a long-standing thorn in the side of sane policy in the region.

Satisfied? I somehow doubt it…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23311 peter Thu, 04 May 2006 00:08:28 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23311 1) Not twisting words: "What I think is the justification for the war in Iraq re: the War on Terror." Am I missing something? 2) Al Qaeda's presence before the invasion was minimal, certainly compared with many other countries which we did not attack. After we destabilized the country, there were lots of Al Qaeda types who entered Iraq -- but their negligible connections to Hussein's regime were far too insubstantial to justify an invasion. 1) Not twisting words: “What I think is the justification for the war in Iraq re: the War on Terror.” Am I missing something?

2) Al Qaeda’s presence before the invasion was minimal, certainly compared with many other countries which we did not attack. After we destabilized the country, there were lots of Al Qaeda types who entered Iraq — but their negligible connections to Hussein’s regime were far too insubstantial to justify an invasion.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23307 Mark Wed, 03 May 2006 23:18:49 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23307 peter, please - respect me enough not to twist my words. I didn't mention 'using 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq'. I said I thought the war was justified. And I stand by my intention not to refight this battle in every post... I find it odd that you have apparently never heard of al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor do you seem to realize it is led by the Jordanian al-Zarqawi... peter, please – respect me enough not to twist my words. I didn’t mention ‘using 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq’. I said I thought the war was justified. And I stand by my intention not to refight this battle in every post…

I find it odd that you have apparently never heard of al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor do you seem to realize it is led by the Jordanian al-Zarqawi…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23306 peter Wed, 03 May 2006 23:07:30 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23306 1) The quote in your excerpt is “a statement where George W. Bush said Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.” There is no conclusion which can be drawn except that we were attacked by Iraq. 2) The home grown insurgents we are fighting in Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us in 2001. We are also fighting non-Iraqis who entered the country after we invaded, and several years after we were attacked. To borrow from high school math, the intersection of terrorists who attacked us and those we are now attacking is the null set. 3) As you note, we will never agree on using 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq, as in my view attacking Iraq was at best tangential to the war on terror. 1) The quote in your excerpt is “a statement where George W. Bush said Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11.” There is no conclusion which can be drawn except that we were attacked by Iraq.

2) The home grown insurgents we are fighting in Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us in 2001. We are also fighting non-Iraqis who entered the country after we invaded, and several years after we were attacked. To borrow from high school math, the intersection of terrorists who attacked us and those we are now attacking is the null set.

3) As you note, we will never agree on using 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq, as in my view attacking Iraq was at best tangential to the war on terror.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23297 Mark Wed, 03 May 2006 21:53:47 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23297 Also, peter, when Bush says war is what they got - well, didn't they? Aren't we fighting the terrorists in Iraq? Aren't we fighting them in Afghanistan? It's not the 'Iraqis' we are at war with...it's the terrorists. I can't spend time in every thread I ever post on this blog going through what I think is the justification for the war in Iraq re: the War on Terror. It's not productive. My viewpoint is out there for anyone who wants to find it...just use the search function in the upper left. We'll never agree on this point...I think the war was justified, you think it wasn't. My point in this post was to point out that Frank Rich is so completely, utterably, laughably predictable that I could pinpoint the contents of almost any piece he's ever done in 7 easy steps...and I came remarkably close, I think... Also, peter, when Bush says war is what they got – well, didn’t they? Aren’t we fighting the terrorists in Iraq? Aren’t we fighting them in Afghanistan? It’s not the ‘Iraqis’ we are at war with…it’s the terrorists. I can’t spend time in every thread I ever post on this blog going through what I think is the justification for the war in Iraq re: the War on Terror. It’s not productive. My viewpoint is out there for anyone who wants to find it…just use the search function in the upper left.

We’ll never agree on this point…I think the war was justified, you think it wasn’t.

My point in this post was to point out that Frank Rich is so completely, utterably, laughably predictable that I could pinpoint the contents of almost any piece he’s ever done in 7 easy steps…and I came remarkably close, I think…

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23294 Mark Wed, 03 May 2006 21:49:07 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23294 Hey, if Frank can base a whole career on rewriting the same repetitive column week after week for a period of years, more power to him...just don't expect me to stand up and applaud his monkey act...there's no talent or journalism involved in what he does, just the same old hateful polemics. You keep going back to 'insinuated', 'implied' - weasel words all...show me a statement where George W. Bush said Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 - period. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist, yet Rich says it over and over again, despite it all... Hey, if Frank can base a whole career on rewriting the same repetitive column week after week for a period of years, more power to him…just don’t expect me to stand up and applaud his monkey act…there’s no talent or journalism involved in what he does, just the same old hateful polemics.

You keep going back to ‘insinuated’, ‘implied’ – weasel words all…show me a statement where George W. Bush said Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 – period. You can’t do it, because it doesn’t exist, yet Rich says it over and over again, despite it all…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/03/a-good-idea/comment-page-1/#comment-23290 peter Wed, 03 May 2006 21:15:47 +0000 http://decision08.net/?p=3839#comment-23290 1) What Bush said starts with a true statement – “With those attacks the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States” – followed by a non sequitor (“war is what they got”). In other words, the Iraqis (i.e., those who “got war”) were the same as those who “declared war on the United States.” If you diagram the two sentences, you get A=B. This is not just an insinuation – it is a direct correlation in black and white. 2) Bush admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 after it was plainly evident that this was not the case – in the march to war, there were numerous occasions where Bush and Cheney clearly implied that Iraq had a role in 9/11: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html 3) I won’t dispute that Rich is repetitive, but I think that “the relative merits of the arguments” outweigh any lack of originality. Which is more important: style or substance? 1) What Bush said starts with a true statement – “With those attacks the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States” – followed by a non sequitor (“war is what they got”). In other words, the Iraqis (i.e., those who “got war”) were the same as those who “declared war on the United States.” If you diagram the two sentences, you get A=B. This is not just an insinuation – it is a direct correlation in black and white.

2) Bush admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 after it was plainly evident that this was not the case – in the march to war, there were numerous occasions where Bush and Cheney clearly implied that Iraq had a role in 9/11:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

3) I won’t dispute that Rich is repetitive, but I think that “the relative merits of the arguments” outweigh any lack of originality. Which is more important: style or substance?

]]>