On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I
listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam
has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush
made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you
don't to maintain the party line.

John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement.

But I *can* make an assumption.

Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as
fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither.

Are you referring to the phrase, "to maintain the party line"?

Yes.

If not, then I
don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated
as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain
the party line."

Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it
is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being
accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his
statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than
something other.

While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe
it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into
Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information.

Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief.

My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based
on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But
absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and
unproven assumption and is best treated as such.

I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the
validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed
the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I
certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others.

I can accept that.

Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but
for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations
(as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable
to infer his motives.

Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any
motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they
cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions.

On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that
you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris.

And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from
those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in
the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic,
unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data
and arrived at their own conclusions.

Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'?

No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing
disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably
drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of
argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions."

Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you
would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for
*anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a
lie, with reason.

Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I
can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others
here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of
Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they
can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it?

Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time
I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here.

Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding.

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

For what do I need ammunition. I'm not debating anything.

Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in
debating.

ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."

I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons


Joe Parsons


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

[1] Sorry...one of my often-unreasonable pet peeves.