seattle.politics

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

> Al < @ > wrote:
>
> > In article < $ @trndny05>, Lobby Dosser
> > < @ > wrote:
> > > usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > > Al < @ > wrote:
> > > >> In article < %usenet@ >,
> > > >> usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >> > Al < @ > wrote:
> > > >> > > In article < %usenet@ >,
> > > >> > > usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >> > > > Al < @ > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > In article < %usenet@ >,
> > > >> > > > > usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Al < @ > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > In article <3f76f31g2mi53qv6vi7ibt5dnngls45rps@ >,
> > > >> > > > > > > Don Homuth < > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:23:57 -0500, Al
> > > >> > > > > > > > < @ > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > [..]
> > > >> > > > > > > > >Not to mention the rhetoric of the "Imminent threat",
> > > >> > > > > > > > >quite a bit of that too.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > It wasn't rhetoric. The decision to go to war had
> > > >> > > > > > > > already been made.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I refer to the democrats.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, shake it up, baby, now, (shake it up, baby)
> > > Twist and shout. (twist and shout)
> >
> > It always comes down to the leftist authoritative declaration of The
> > Truth, facts are another right-wing conspiracy.
>
> I have no *need* to defend the truth from you. You either accept it or
> you don't.

I believe you are confusing truth with opinion.


>Obviously you don't, and in fact, because you base your own
> rhetorical victory on a narrow framing of the issue,

A specific reference is now "narrow framing", rhetorical shuffle time.

Call it what you want, but don't try to rebut a specific with something
that is not specific, or you'll end up re-re-qualifying ad-nauseum.


> you not only refuse
> to accept the truth, but you actively seek to avoid it. I told you: It's
> true that Bush didn't use the term 'imminent threat' to describe Iraq,
> but what you ignore is the fact that Bush never fired anyone in his
> administration for saying that Iraq *was* an imminent threat.

Why should he have? It's not like the term hadn't been used for the past
decade.

> Which they
> did repeatedly.

Three, maybe four times, right?

Then again,"repeatedy" does mean more than once, so you can get away
this one.

> As I pointed out: The message discipline so exhibited
> was quite astonishing to behold.

Maybe because with all the previous rhetoric, the intel, the opinion of
other intel agencies and governments, maybe "walks like a duck" was the
reasonable conclusion.

> You're simply playing a game with the truth. There's no 'right-wing
> conspiracy' here... Far from it. You're just a tool, and you got used.

By Clinton, the UN, or Bush? All said the same thing.

If that is the case, then at least I was used by those with US national
security as their motivation, and not those with a vested interest in
attacking American interests - which s the left's burden. Best of luck
with that burden.

> The Bush administration *did* say that Iraq was an imminent threat, in
> addition to saying that it *wasn't* an imminent threat. These two
> differing messages are completely irreconcilable.

Here we go again. The Bush administration never stated that Iraq was not
an imminent threat.

The precise language, by Bush was "we must act before the threat becomes
imminent".

> The Bush
> administration was lying in at least one instance or the other. You're
> going to have to figure out for yourself which it was. The question is
> not whether the Bush administration was dishonest, but in what way.

Now you've gone even further, and used the word "lying" to describe the
act of "presenting the case based on NIE majority opinion and others"

Because, emotional placard-language aside, that was exactly the case,
and there is nothing you can do about that fact, and the constant
pounding on this irrelavency advances the discussion not one bit.

The only real effect this obsession with Lies" has is to aid our enemies.