Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
Obviously, none of us really know what is going on here. Pete Goss, in most probability, would not make this kind of statement unless it was part of some sort of Administration strategy. You can critisize this administration on many levels, but one area this administration excels at is controlling the message. This statement was clearly planned, and its use is part of some strategy on the part of the administration. It may be to apply pressure some where, it may be used to hamper some recent initiative by Al Queda, may be telling Pakistan you grab him now or we will, who knows. But what is for sure is that we don't know what the hell they are up to so critisizing this statement is not only premature but pretty stupid. Until we know more speculating on the reasons why is sensible, but speculating on its wisdom reflects more on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the person making the speculation than it does on the administration.

2.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have no idea what that's coming from in what I said. Did Paigow get into you?

Let's see what happened:

1. Goss makes a cryptic statement about bin Laden
2. I asked why he made it, speculating that it seemed odd.
3. You said it could have a strategic/intelligence purpose.
4. Accordingly, any questioning of it was misplaced an unwise.

Now, 3 I could see, but seems pretty thin, as there are plenty of ways to reach bin Laden through less public channels of communication (e.g., unnamed sources, counterintelligence "chatter"). Likewise for any diplomatic issues. If there truly is a problem with sovereignty issues, why is Goss making public statements about it as opposed to having Condi Rice make the proper inquiries? If someone's dicking you over, and you want them to change, you don't say it in public.

As for 4, why bother with a politics board if not? For that matter, why bother with debate and dissent in Congress?

Did paigow get to you over the weekend?

Why not say it publicly if there is some perceived strategic value? And doesn't it make sense that if there is a perceived strategic value that the administration would keep the strategy private, for obvious reasons? Why doesn't this make sense?

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let's see what happened:

1. Goss makes a cryptic statement about bin Laden
2. I asked why he made it, speculating that it seemed odd.
3. You said it could have a strategic/intelligence purpose.
4. Accordingly, any questioning of it was misplaced an unwise.

Now, 3 I could see, but seems pretty thin, as there are plenty of ways to reach bin Laden through less public channels of communication (e.g., unnamed sources, counterintelligence "chatter"). Likewise for any diplomatic issues. If there truly is a problem with sovereignty issues, why is Goss making public statements about it as opposed to having Condi Rice make the proper inquiries? If someone's dicking you over, and you want them to change, you don't say it in public.

As for 4, why bother with a politics board if not? For that matter, why bother with debate and dissent in Congress?

Did paigow get to you over the weekend?

Stop asking so many questions. You'll fuck up the plan. Remember Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war? Well, everybody started getting all nosy and asking questions and things and pretty soon -- poof! No plan.

Why can't you put petty partisanship to one side and simply trust that your Government has a crafty plan? It's not like they ever fucked anything up before. Jeez.

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Why not say it publicly if there is some perceived strategic value? And doesn't it make sense that if there is a perceived strategic value that the administration would keep the strategy private, for obvious reasons? Why doesn't this make sense?

Does "trying to convince the American public you have the first fucking clue as to what you're doing" qualify as "perceived strategic value?"

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by ironweed
Does "trying to convince the American public you have the first fucking clue as to what you're doing" qualify as "perceived strategic value?"

Yes, however I think the credibility of that particular endeavor would be bolstered by coupling it with a tax cut. Then I'd be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Why not say it publicly if there is some perceived strategic value? And doesn't it make sense that if there is a perceived strategic value that the administration would keep the strategy private, for obvious reasons? Why doesn't this make sense?

On second thought, it was a mistake to question Bush's assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Strategic value, indeed!

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On second thought, it was a mistake to question Bush's assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Strategic value, indeed!

I think we have to wait for all of the information to come in before we make a final judgement on that one, one way or the other. I. for one, will be curious to see what type of WMD's with "made in Iraq" that the Syrians may have buried in some hidden underground bunker. Its the deep throat of our generation I guess..............

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Who put out the statement?

One really ingorant individual.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have no idea what that's coming from in what I said. Did Paigow get into you?

Let's see what happened:

1. Goss makes a cryptic statement about bin Laden
2. I asked why he made it, speculating that it seemed odd.
3. You said it could have a strategic/intelligence purpose.
4. Accordingly, any questioning of it was misplaced an unwise.

Is it really so hard for you to read what I write? Or do you just love the straw man tactic of mischaracterizing what someone says and then attack it because it is so much easier to attack a statement that you create yourself. I didn't say any questioning of it was misplaced or unwise. I said any criticism of the move was misplaced or unwise until the person making the criticism had at least some information for the reason that the statement was made.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Now, 3 I could see, but seems pretty thin, as there are plenty of ways to reach bin Laden through less public channels of communication (e.g., unnamed sources, counterintelligence "chatter"). Likewise for any diplomatic issues. If there truly is a problem with sovereignty issues, why is Goss making public statements about it as opposed to having Condi Rice make the proper inquiries? If someone's dicking you over, and you want them to change, you don't say it in public.

How about simply asking the administration to explain what the purpose was of making the statement? If they do give an answer then you could critisize their reason. If the administration refuses to give an answer, then you could critisize the administration for not releasing the information. Or state that, "we think your (the administrations) conduct in the past has not been very wise, so for you to expect us to assume that what you are doing is the right thing to do is not acceptible.'. But coming out and explaining why such a move is stupid or unwise without knowing any of the facts is pure stupidity, grandstanding, and pathetic.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
But coming out and explaining why such a move is stupid or unwise without knowing any of the facts is pure stupidity, grandstanding, and pathetic.

The purpose of this board is speculation, debate, and discussion. And this is a hot topic for the day. So we should just not discuss it because, hey, the admin. has not yet sufficiently explained what it's doing. Fun!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Stop asking so many questions. You'll fuck up the plan. Remember Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war? Well, everybody started getting all nosy and asking questions and things and pretty soon -- poof! No plan.

Why can't you put petty partisanship to one side and simply trust that your Government has a crafty plan? It's not like they ever fucked anything up before. Jeez.

There is a big difference from saying, "I am not going to assume there is a plan. You need to tell us what it is or we will assume you don't have one". From: I think your secret plan is stupid. Or I think your secret plan is deeply flawed. Those statements are just plain stupid until you know what the secret plan is.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The purpose of this board is speculation, debate, and discussion. And this is a hot topic for the day. So we should just not discuss it because, hey, the admin. has not yet sufficiently explained what it's doing. Fun!

I guess I am naive, but I would like to think that since this board is full of lawyers, that some actual thought would go into criticisms before they are leveled. In our current political climate, and this was true under Clinton and Bush, every time the administration says or does anything it is immediately criticized. Everything Clinton did was critisized by the Republicans right after he said or did it. Everything the Bush administration says or does the Democrats immediately critisizes it. There are political reasons for them to do it, but on this board I thought we are at least going to try and have a semi-intelligent discussion about these issues. If I wanted to read or hear knee jerk, unsubstantiated claims, I could just turn on C-Span or read the DNC or RNC press releases. Before you attack a position or policy, shouldn't we at least try and pretend that we know something about that position or policy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) So we should just not discuss it because, hey, the admin. has not yet sufficiently explained what it's doing. Fun!

Damnit, I thought "Better Than Billing" was explanation enough.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
Before you attack a position or policy, shouldn't we at least try and pretend that we know something about that position or policy.

The democrats are all always pretending to know about policy, it covers for the absence of actual knowledge. No offence.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
The democrats are all always pretending to know about policy, it covers for the absence of actual knowledge. No offence.

Like, say, a policy of "We shall make no distinction between the terrorists ... and those that harbor them."