seattle.politics

In article < %usenet@ >,
usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

> Al < @ > wrote:
>
> > In article < %usenet@ >, usenet@
> > (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > > > > > > Bush did not use the term "imminent threat".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > < /issues/kfiles/ >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your list proves my point, not a single use of the term by Bush.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, as you'll note at the above-cited link, Bush used
> > > > > > > similar terms quite frequently, to describe a threat from Iraq
> > > > > > > that was imminent. Bush didn't say 'imminent threat,' but he
> > > > > > > said that the threat was imminent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then why didn't you post that link? [..]
> > > > >
> > > > > I did, you twit. See it quoted above? Did you read the message you're
> > > > > responding to?
> > > >
> > > > Uh, I said he did not use the term, you posted a link that had no cite
> > > > of his using the term, did you not read what you provided to disprove my
> > > > statement?
> > > >
> > > > It *supported* my argument.
> > >
> > > Your argument is fundamentally dishonest, because Bush's argument was
> > > (and still is) fundamentally dishonest.
> >
> > It was the argument of the democrats and the NIE,
>
> You said Bush never used the words 'imminent threat.' See it quoted at
> the top up there?

Nope.

> I pointed out that while Bush didn't use those exact
> words, the rest of his administration *did.*

I saw about three, none by Bush. It appears my simple declarative
sentence was, indeed, correct.

However, the term was a constant under the Clinton administration, so if
it is the term you object to, cite those that used it as a mainstay of
their rhetoric.

> This is why it's
> fundamentally dishonest to try to hide behind your argument about
> specific words.

In an argument about a specific term stated by a specific person, it is
fundamentally incorrect to cite words or phrases which are neither the
specific term, nor the specific person cited.

It appears you are trying to redefine my argument by redefining the
meaning of the word "specific", and other dodges, but the fact remains,
I am right, and you are wrong. Deal with it.

> [..]
> > Just because you are susceptible to propaganda doesn't mean the entire
> > country is.
>
> You're projecting again, Al.

It's all you seem to deal in, the script never wavers at all - and the
repetition of Islamist talking points by the left, and vice-versa.


> > And when you try and disseminate the propaganda, try and have proof that
> > actually supports your point rather than mine.
>
> Your point is a dishonest one. It's a logical fallacy, as I've pointed
> out three times now, but the only reaction you're capable of is to whine
> about it.

No, you failed to rebut my specific statement.


> > Then you won't have to fall back to the boring "758 reasons I hate Bush"
> > schtik.
>
> The facts are disturbing to you, I realize. I don't hate Bush. I think
> he's the worst President this nation has ever had, and that we will be
> picking up the pieces of his fuckups for at least two generations.
> That's not hatred, that's simply an assessment of what's going on in
> reality.

As compared to what can never be known - the alternate history of Saddam
in power with no sanctions.

In that case, you can only base opinion on past behavior, which in
Saddam's case would be more of the same. The US was unwilling to take
that chance.

> > Which is boring and quite ineffective.
>
> Yeah, that *must* be why you keep going around in circles on this:
> Because it's boring.

Just trying to keep you on track, and keep you from claiming that
citation of one person's use of a phrase does not prove that another did
so.


> > Oh, and *read* the cites you link in support of your argument, and you'll
> > not look so foolish.
>
> If you'd bother to understand the point I'm making before calling me
> names, you'd look a lot less like a partisan hack.

I see the point you are making. You are trying to backstep and redefine
the argument because the link you provided did not make rebut my claim.

You should have introduced the qualifying language *prior* to posting
the link, you would have saved yourself some time.