Politics: J'accuse! - Page 67

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think it's because no one wants to talk about Iraq.

Did anyone see that footage of the guys in the tank yesterday? I had to turn it off. I felt guilty about turning it off, but I couldn't watch it. Then there were all these interviews with family members of some of the guys who were killed in the last few days.

I think it is up to 45 dead US soldiers this week. I don't know how many injured.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Did anyone see that footage of the guys in the tank yesterday? I had to turn it off. I felt guilty about turning it off, but I couldn't watch it. Then there were all these interviews with family members of some of the guys who were killed in the last few days.

I think it is up to 45 dead US soldiers this week. I don't know how many injured.

I think I saw the same footage. They didn't look like they were hurt that badly, really, but I think that the reason that that footage is so compelling is that we think of our tanks as invincible.

Check this story out. She survived, too, but it was harrowing.

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think I saw the same footage. They didn't look like they were hurt that badly, really, but I think that the reason that that footage is so compelling is that we think of our tanks as invincible.

The guy with the hand on fire may end up OK if his fingers didn't fuse from the heat, but the one with the head injury is now dead. He was the one with the bandage on his head.

I think he is the guy in one of these pictures:

SPREE - second one shows bloody injury.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...msr10104081417
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sect...=10&m=4&y=2004

Atticus Grinch · 04-09-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
While I will say that, yes, it was a gross overgeneralization that won't stand strict scrutiny, I think it would be worthier if you addressed the meat of what she's saying, as a generalization, and not jump on the "here's an exception" train, especially when your exceptions seem to be posts specifically aimed at forming exceptions to that specific overgeneralization. If AG has to make a post that specifically says "here's one to put an end to the "we don't eat our own" paradigm", there's probably SOMETHING to the paradigm.

Translation: [MUNTZ]Haw, haw! He dignified a massive overgeneralization with a response, thereby proving some modicum of its truth, because remaining silent in the face of that massive overgeneralization would have been an even more effective disproof![/MUNTZ]

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Check this story out. She survived, too, but it was harrowing.

So are more ground troops needed? That might make things worse, but I dont' know.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
The guy with the hand on fire may end up OK if his fingers didn't fuse from the heat, but the one with the head injury is now dead. He was the one with the bandage on his head.

I think he is the guy in one of these pictures:

SPREE - second one shows bloody injury.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...msr10104081417
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sect...=10&m=4&y=2004

I don't think I saw all the footage, because I saw a guy getting out of a tank, but neither a head injury nor a hand on fire. Bummer.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
So are more ground troops needed? That might make things worse, but I dont' know.

I don't have any real handle on the situation there. I'm not sure that a few more ground troops are going to make the difference. This is from Juan Cole's site:

In a CNN interview retired General Barry MacCaffrey said that the task of the US is to regain control of Baghdad and restore its lines of communication in the South. He gave away a great deal. One may conclude that a) the US has lost control of Baghdad and b) the US communications and supply lines in the South have been cut. That is, a year after the fall of Saddam, the US faces the task of reconquering the country.

Could we regain control if we doubled the number of soldiers we have there? I don't know.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-09-2004, 08:09 PM

Tim Dunlop contrasts Condi Rice's testimony this week that we didn't have enough specific information to do anything about Al Qaeda with the Administration's earlier insistence that we invade Iraq on the basis of imperfect information.

More seriously, doesn't anybody else find it strange that in the Administration's mind, despite some pretty dodgy intelligence, Saddam Hussein rose to the level of gathering immediate threat, something that couldn't be put off for a second longer, while--despite the fact that senior intelligence officials were running around the White House in the summer of 2001 with their "hair on fire" saying things like "there's a big one coming"--the pre-9/11 intelligence didn't rise to the level of imminent threat, that it rose merely to the level of cue for a holiday, causing Bush to snap into action and pack his bags for Crawford?

Do you want any more proof that they took Iraq more seriously--gave it higher priority--than they gave to the threat of terrorism?

Rice wants us to believe that because there were no specifics in the summer 2001 terrorist threats that they, the decision makers in the White House, were justified in not doing much about it. On the other hand, they also want us to believe--and they've spent the past two years trying to ram down our throats--that it was completely necessary to act in Iraq despite the fact, as they are now fond of telling us, that intelligence interpretation is more art than science, that they had an obligation to respond and not wait no matter how generalised the Iraq intelligence was.

Why was it wrong (to the point of being anti-American and objectively pro-Saddam Hussein) to wait for specific information on the Iraq threat (for instance, by allowing the weapons inspections to finish up), but okay to wait for specifics on the terrorist attack information? Why were they willing to gamble on al Qaeda but not on Saddam?

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't think I saw all the footage, because I saw a guy getting out of a tank, but neither a head injury nor a hand on fire. Bummer.

This is a pretty heart wrenching story:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...aq/8397011.htm

Shape Shifter · 04-09-2004, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
This is what Islam Online took away from Kerrey's comments:

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...rticle03.shtml

What Kerrey said came across to me (and apparently to muslims, too, who are now using his words to support their claims that the US is doing something wrong) as being very focused on the fact that we were going after muslims.

Seems you have the same reading comprehension ability as the people who have translated fewer books in their history than Spain translates in a year.

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't have any real handle on the situation there. I'm not sure that a few more ground troops are going to make the difference. This is from Juan Cole's site:

In a CNN interview retired General Barry MacCaffrey said that the task of the US is to regain control of Baghdad and restore its lines of communication in the South. He gave away a great deal. One may conclude that a) the US has lost control of Baghdad and b) the US communications and supply lines in the South have been cut. That is, a year after the fall of Saddam, the US faces the task of reconquering the country.

Could we regain control if we doubled the number of soldiers we have there? I don't know.

I don't have the answers, either, but this needs to get under control quick or GWB is going to loose support quickly. Not that I think Kerry would be able to do a better job, but if things don't get better quick in Iraq, GWB can kiss a second term good-bye.

Shape Shifter · 04-09-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
No. That is why I said "at best" and put in that part about the meeting of the minds.

See that is the difference between the Reps on this board and the Dems. Reps will criticize those of similar party affiliation if they are deserving of criticism. We won't defend someone simply because they are a Rep if they do something wrong.

That's because real-life Dems do not hesitate to criticize each other.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ion_clinton_14

(Kerrey criticizing Clinton. Wonder what the spin of the Arab press will be?)

Shape Shifter · 04-09-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't have the answers, either, but this needs to get under control quick or GWB is going to loose support quickly. Not that I think Kerry would be able to do a better job, but if things don't get better quick in Iraq, GWB can kiss a second term good-bye.

Iraq is spinning out of control and your first thought is to the political consequences? You must make much more money than me for the tax cut to mean so much to you.

Not Me · 04-09-2004, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Seems you have the same reading comprehension ability as the people who have translated fewer books in their history than Spain translates in a year.

I don't think the problem is with my reading comprehension. I have recently heard a few pundits (whose first language is English) comment on Kerrey's remarks about Christians in Muslim countries. Some were perplexed by it and others seemed to take away from it similar thoughts that I took away from it.

I also read that someone counted the words spoken at the hearings and Condi spoke 40% of the words and the commissioners spoke 60%. Yeah, it was information from her that they wanted.