The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Wrong again. Early in the process, the administration had a list of 6 or so justifications and was roundly chided by the NYT, among others, because it was "unclear" which ofv the 6 was the cause belle (sp?). Eventually, WMD moved to the forefront, primarily because it was the only one that the media could understand/market.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Ha! So it's the media's fault now?


Everything's perfect!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I listed some of the issues that militated towards going in to Iraq, and our national discussions of those issues. You dealt with not a one, but merely said that most people now think it was a stupid decision. I do not feel as if you have led here by example, if hieghtened debate is your true goal..

This part of the discussion was about what individuals have done, and the effects of those actions. How does one discuss that without resort to individuals?

He said that American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis late at night. His words, not mine. I stretched to use "terrorist", but that's not that much of a leap, especially in a context where a press secretary can say "hee's a great guy and an honorable one, and we're puzzled why he would go for a plan that seems to have come from the Michael Moore wing", and people here then claim that he attacked Murtha's patriotism and said that Murtha was just like Moore.

No, I could care less about "the people." I care about the actions of the people. And we cannot discuss this stuff without including that topic.

But the "partisan attacks" on Murtha by anyone who counts were . . . where? It's just as egregious of a thing for you to make these unsupported generalized statements. Yes, you like to "stretch."

Who defines "red" and "blue"? Is it D v R? Pro-invasion v. anti-invasion? Liberals v. conservatives? There's lots of mismatchinhg depending on which definition you choose. But, if the definition is directly related to where one falls in these particular discussions, how can you NOT break down the "sides" in that way? If I think that withdrawal now would be a huge mistake, and "red v blue" is defined as "withdraw now v. not", then, yes, there are going to be lines drawn, and teams formed, and generalizations made, and they will all be valid. I think you're just using this chain of thought as a way to mask how you chose to define r v.b, and how you treat each team.

Who the heck was talking about McCain? Not me. I'd rather speak of Lieberman.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Cool. All without "we lost!", or that other stuff. And, I'd buy a fair amount of what you just said. I'd argue some, especially about how we were and are welcomed, but not the main themes.

I have friends over there who tell me that we have far more control, and far more Iraqi cooperation and goodwill, and far more of a remade society than what we're presented with in our normal information delivery process here, so I end up with a more optimistic feeling about it all than do you. I'd argue that we DO have a concrete plan, and it's the one we've been using for some time, and it's working. I guess only time will tell on that, though.

I can't address this entire topic. I just don't know enough about it to speak with any authority.

Yes, son. Now hand over that joint and go to bed.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

So the administration, so famous for steadfastly pursuing its goals in the face of any and all opposition, floated a list of six justifications, then said OK and caved when the NYT whined that a) there had to be a single causus belli, and b) it was unclear which one of the six was the cb?

The administration then said to the media, Pick whichever one you want, pick the easiest one to market, that's fine with us?

The media then picked WMDs because it couldn't understand or market the ideas that SH was a ruthless killer, or that he supported terrorists, or that he was a destabilizing influence in the ME ?

Is that how it went ?

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

I never said such an absurd thing and I don't think anyone on this board has ever said such an absurd thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk Note that once you say it's okay to kill the insurgents, Saddam, terrorists, etc., you lose the ability to claim that you are morally opposed to killing. Therefore, the best you can argue is whether you or someone else gets to decide who will die.

I understand that in some cases killing is morally wrong in some cases it is Ok and in some circumstances it is a moral imperative. Like if the only way you can stop someone from killing an innocent child is to kill them, then you must kill them. I have pretty well thought through my moral structure and I am comfortable with it.

For some reason you think that morals have to be simple. Like all killing is wrong. Why do you think that? It is more intricate than that and I don't understand why anyone would think it has to be simple. Just because I support free speech does not mean I think it should be legal to yell fire in a crowded theater or that libel and slander should be legal.

I have never even entered into that conversation. I don't know anything about what Libby did. What I did say is that lying under oath should be prosecuted by the full extent of the law.

Where is the contradiction? Yes a free press is important for a democracy, and I have no problem with the US planting propaganda to help establish democracies inother countries. There is not contradiction there. Why is that a contradiction?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taxwonk You claim that we are not engaging in torture, but you defended the existence and maintenance of undeclared prisons and prisoners.

I never claimed that we were not engaged in torture. I have never discussed those prisons on this board but I do defend them. What is wrong with them?

I have got one that I have thought through. You clearly have not thought yours through or you would not throw out mindless phrases that mean nothing. I think if you read my posts you will see that I have a consistent moral philosophy. I don't see any consistency in yours.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You forgot the {sarcasm} html.

I think what he meant was that the admin listed quite a few reasons why we should invade Iraq - I listed some of them earlier today, and, if you were here way back then, you should remember all of us debating all of those points - but that apparently confused the poor media, and they, in their reporting, seemed to cover only the WMD reason with any great effort or breadth, and so the national conversation centered on that. And Powell centered on that in his presentation, I think because, at that point in the discussion, that was the main argument that people were focusing on. (I wish he had been more broad in his approach, but that's hindsight.)

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

When did I say this? I never said this. It is Ok to kill insurgents to stop them from killing our soliders and innocent poeple. It would be better to arrest them, but if we can't arrest them, or we can't arrest them without allied casualties we should kill them. Is there anyone on this board that think it is not morally OK to kill insurgents?

It would be a moral imperative to kill an insurgent if you had a gun and you saw an insurgent running towards a school strapped to the nines with bombs. If you didn't shoot to stop him that would be immoral.

Why do you find those concepts so heinous. Why are my moral positions so offensive. You say you are a moral relativst - well then. What is wrong with the terrorist attacks on 9-11? If Al Queada thought they were moral, then who are you to critisize them for what they did.

I believe the intentional killing of innocents that serves no purpose other than to instill terror is a universal moral wrong. As a relativist you can't say that. I have a moral compass and you don't.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Give me a break. The troops who think they are doing good work aren't going to have anything but scorn for Dean and the ones who don't think they're fighting the good fight are going to have morale problems no matter what some old man back home is saying.

The terrorists and bombers have no morale problem either. The insurgents are fighting because they beleive they have no other choice. The terrorists are fighting because they believe they are in a holy war against the forces of evil and they will be many times blessed if they die a martyr in the struggle against the infidel.

The troops whose hearts are in the fight understand that they are fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy. I am sure they would feel no more common cause with those back home who are fighting harder to suppress dissent than they do with the enemy abroad. Both are anti-freedom.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I've never seen the phrase in French. The Latin is causus belli.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Mr. Spanky? As I said before undeserved respect.

I have always said is OK to critisize the war strategy, even the decision to go to war, but to say we don't have a chance is undermining our troops. I think it is clear that Saddam was evil, and that the insurgents are evil and want to do evil things. As long as people acknowledge that, but say this may not be in our strategic interest, we are fighting the war the wrong way, or we should get out now even though it will leave a problem fine. But to say that we are losing, or that we can never win undermines confidence. If those statement were true it would be another thing, but no one could possibly know whether or not we can really win, so to say that we cannot undermines moral and emboldens our enemies.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I disagree that the MSM was so powerful, or the bush administration was so inept at communications, that the message was dictated by the MSM's inability to grasp more than a single cb. It's hard to believe they were calling the tune and the bush administration had to dance to it, especially if you posit that they were too dumb to figure out how to sell newspapers on the idea that SH was a ruthless sociopathic mass murderer who had the capability and intent to do us harm too. It also flies in the face of the well-documented fact that the neocons had great concerns about Iraq leading up to the war, and also bush, cheney and rumsfeld's - I'll be charitable here - great interest in Iraq even before 9/11.

This incidentally illustrates what I believe to be an error in viewing the MSM as liberal or conservative. They are neither - that gives them too much credit for actually having an ideology and sticking with it. They are, plain and simple, whores to whoever is in power at that moment. They will crawl across 20 miles of hot broken glass to lick the tire tracks of the trucks carrying the laundry of someone who will give them a WH inside tip, no matter how small or insignificant, be it Democrat or Republican.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I suspect most of the men and women in the field have a much better idea of how the war is going that any civilian on Capital Hill. They don't need to be fed rosy scenarios - they won't believe them anyways.

And, I suspect not all the insurgents are "evil and want to do evil things." Some of the Iraqis have deep seated animosities between them, and the fact that the Kurds and Shi'ites are ascendant is going to result in bloodshed with the Sunnis. We need to be careful not to make ourselves an ally in a war on the Sunnis, and not to turn ethnic discord into widespread Sunni alliance with al Quaida.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

We aren't debating saving helpless children here. We're debating the propriety of killing adults, based upon their politics and religion. Explain, if you can, and I submit you can't, why your support of the war in Iraq is anything more than a decision on your part that it's okay to kill the insurgents because we are trying to enforce a social order that you deem superior.

You may be comfortable with your choice, but you can't deny that it is a choice, and nothing more.

I never said it was simple. I said that they represented a choice between competing philosophies. You can claim the moral high ground, but you can't defend it in objective terms. That's my point. You're the one who is suggesting that it should be simple. You claim that the US invasion of Iraq, and our continuing occupation of Iraq, is the moral thing, and that anyone who isn't supportive of that is stupid and morally wrong, because dissent or criticism are urting the war effort.

If it isn's so simple, then why are you so afraid of allowing debate on the issue? Why do you insist on calling people who don't agree with you stupid? Why do you suggest that noone should express dissent because it hurts the war effort?

A free press is essential to democracy, but it's okay to corrupt the press by planting false stories or using money or coercion to distort the stories reported by the press? You really don't see that as a contradiction?

You agree that freedom of the press is important but you have supported censorship and suggested that it was immoral for the LA Times to report on the DoD planting stories in the Iraqi press. If you don't see the contradiction, then I can't explain it to you.



What I see in your posts is nothing but a host of contradictions. There is little consistency in your statements on a logical or rhetorical basis. The only consistent theme is that you are clearly supportive of the current adminstration's actions in prosecuting the war.

I don't see that as a consistent moral philosophy.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Wow. I'm afraid it is time for me to talk to Dr. Spanks. He has much better reading comprehension. Please feel free to continue whatever it is you are doing.