Asymmetrical Information

If patriotism is love for your country, and Miller accuses Kerry of putting the nation in danger because of his voting record on military spending, to the degree that Kerry wants to defend the nation with "spitballs", I would conclude that this speech was an attack on both his patriotism and his record. Miller distorted Kerrys record by presenting his case against Kerry votes on weapons systems as if there was an up or down vote on each weapons system, and that is very misleading.

I look at it like this, the Swiftys hit below the belt, Rudy G threw elbows, and Zell threw the whole damn rulebook out the window. Zell gave the most hateful, angry, speech I have ever seen. Its like we found out how Hitler would sound in Enlish(not to compare Zells ideaology to Hitler, only his delivery as a orator.

I think Kerry was stating the Swiftys, Rudy, and Zell as a group attacked his patriotism, but thats my theory, unlike the reps I wont claim special knowledge of Kerrys thoughts.

begbee: How did Miller distort Kerry's record, exactly? He illustrated it using concrete examples. Show us Kerry's 20-year record of voting to maintain a strong, well-equipped military, please.

John Kerry said:

"They have attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said. "I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."

I think Kerry was stating the Swiftys, Rudy, and Zell as a group attacked his patriotism, but thats my theory, unlike the reps I wont claim special knowledge of Kerrys thoughts.

Someone please send Senator Kerry a letter.

"We are no questioning your patriotism. We are questioning your judgement."

Thank you.

Why is Kerry out there today wasting his breath about Cheney's draft history? All it does is keep people focused on the Vietnam era, which does Kerry no good, and hell, nobody votes for VP anyways. Of course, the whole "Vote for me because of my four months commanding a boat 35 years ago" strategy was misguided to begin with. This is simply incompetent. Good grief, next he'll inform us that foreign leaders would prefer that he be elected...wait.....oh, never mind....

Zell gave the most hateful, angry, speech I have ever seen.

Aw, c'mon, Begbee, you can do better than that! What about all the speeches given by Chimpy, Rumsfield, Rice, Cheney, Rudy, Arnold, Bush Sr, Nixon, Goldwater, and every other Republican ever? Apply yourself, young man!

Its like we found out how Hitler would sound in Enlish [sic]

I call Godwin's Law. You lose.

Buh-bye.

Tom P the reason Millers speech was a distortion of Kerrys vote is he presented each weapons system as if it was the only content in a bill with a yes or no vote, while the fact is the weapons systems were often small parts of appropriations bills that reps like Cheney joined Kerry in voting NO on.

T Winston I apologize for including the scumbags from the Swiftys with the scumbags in the White House. It wasnt an error in reading comprehension, I just got my scumbags confused. And most of America realizes that the Swiftys are operating on behalf of Rove and the same Texas millionaires that fund jrs campaigns.

W Allen Kerry should keep reminding the American People that these big balled hawks in the White House renting our troops to US big oil and attacking Kerrys worthiness as Commander in Chief did everything in their power to avoid going to Vietnam. I keep hearing the word 'gravitas' attached to Cheney, its only when you stand a guy that flunked out of college twice next to a man as stupid as jr, you can use the word 'gravitas' in describing him.

RMC call anything you want, this isnt a contest of whos the biggest pseudointellectual offering obscure 'laws' to change the subject. The fact is the finger pointing, slobber dripping, near grand mal seizure performance of Zell from hell looked like Hitler.

Begbee-
I know you don't believe it, but I'll repeat what Zell Miller said: it's not Kerry's (or Kennedy's) patriotism which is in question, it's his judgment. He loves his country, but he's just not very bright when it comes to the proper way to defend it.

You can parse the individual votes all you want, but it comes down to this: did Miller broadly misrepresent Kerry's foreign policy record as compared to, say, Cheney's? If we sit down and compare all the votes, and discount the ones you consider misleading, do you really think the result is going to be that Kerry comes out voting for as many, or more, weapons systems than, say, Cheney? If not(and I'm pretty damn sure that's how it would turn out), then you can bay to the moon all you want about Miller's "distortion," but I, for one, remain unimpressed.

I won't bother responding to your ad hominems about "big balls" and "scumbags." By all means, though, keep it up; the people you're helping with those arguments are not the ones you think you're helping, so I strongly encourage you to continue.

Quite simply, Begbee, you are as deranged as your candidate, and whatever you think of those you oppose, your strategy is a prescription for disaster for Kerry. Voters are as likely to give a damn about a candidates Vietnam record in 2004 as the voters were likely to care about a WWI record in 1952. It was a strategic error from the beginning to put this matter front and center. This isn't Eisenhower in 1952, Grant in 1868, or even Kennedy in 1960. A very silly error.

Can somebody explain to me exactly which weapons system Kerry allegedly voted against would've prevented 19 mostly Saudi terrorists from hijacking 4 domestic flights with box cutters and plastic knives?

Cobra, I believe it was Mr. Kerry's votes to weaken the CIA that in addition to many other things led to the hijackings.

A lot of us, who were Left-Liberals in the 70s & 80s, were very strongly opposed to America's role in the Vietnam War and very strongly opposed to Ronald Reagan's build-up of the American military. We all thought, at the time, that John Kerry was on our side. Kerry was a hero for many of us -- because we believed that he had thrown his medals away and because we believed that he deeply regretted his service in the American military. In regard to his voting record on military spending, we all honored him, at the time, because we believed that he was doing exactly what Zell Miller now accuses him of doing -- i.e., opposing the military build-up. I have changed my mind about these issues, and I could respect Mr. Kerry if he would say, "I was dead wrong in the old days, but I've learned a lot, and I know better now." Instead of that, he seems to want to pretend that the past never happened. I do not respect him.

Kerry and his ilk have spent the last 30 years telling us it's our fault, asking "why they all hate us so much", wanting governments everywhere (such as the French and the UN) to love us, and thinking that it was bad to have good weapons, and even to threaten to use them. Now they are pretending that none of this was so.

No wonder they are reduced to bragging about a war record from 30 years ago. It was almost grotesque to see all the emphasis on the military at the Democrat convention. All that saluting, the "reporting for duty" must have struck most Americans as phony. We know they hate the military (Clinton said as much in his youth, and Kerry slimed them when he came back from Vietnam).

At least Clinton was a likable rogue; Kerry is even more arrogant and pompous than Al Gore. If he loses big enough, then perhaps the Democrats will undertake some serious introspection and stop all this nasty tactical stuff.

"...not to compare Zells ideaology to Hitler, only his delivery as a orator."

WHAAAAT?
That's like saying: "...not to compare Zell's ideology to Stalin, only his Georgian backround"

That was witty, Maor.

Unfortunately most of the other comments were typically republican, personal attacks that are nothing more than boring smears.

Gazz we know why the Islamic radicals hate us, all you have to do is read Bin Ladens fatwa, Clarkes "Against All Enemies" or "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous. To put it in a sentence, its our Energy Policy and its propping up rulers like Saddam, or now Alloli, who represents the same secular Sunni facists that Saddam did, Mushariff, the Saudi Royal family, etc. Your accusations that Democrats hate the Military is as Mike Tyson might say, ludicwis.

Whoever is writing as Notary should go back to their log cabin.

The democrats greatest failure has been to not hold this administration accountable for 911. There was no "intelligence failure", there was a failure of leadership. It amazes me that we knew exactly who was responsible and how they brought the WTC down on 9-12-01(likely sooner), yet it was somehow an intelligence failure. Bush and Rice failed to coordinate the 911 intelligence in the manner Berger and Clinton coordinated the Millenial Terrorist intelligence, so they built the ridiculous "Wall", and the idea that the various intelligence agencies are suppose to share intelligence with each other without the coordination of the NSA. Never mind the CIA is prohibited from operating in the US. Never mind the PDB that stated "Bin Laden to strike in the US" a month prior to 911. Never mind a single person was fired for the single greatest event of terrorism to happen in the US. The Dems second greatest failure was not calling the department of Homeland Defense exactly what it is, a large bribe to keep local pols and first responders from criticizing the administrations failures. First responders basically clean up the mess after the government fails to stop a terrorist act. Does it make any sense to hand all this money to them, while only 2% of cargo entering the country is inspected, and while our borders are among the most porous in the world? How is it that the Dept of Homeland defense was created to coordinate intelligence and prevent terrorism, but everyone from the 911 commission, to the Senate report on Intell state we need new agencies to do this very thing?

Aah, Begbee, don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say that Democrats hated the military. I said Kerry that and his ilk hate the military.
I didn't mean Democrats like Harry Truman, JfKennedy, Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, Max Cleland, Ed Koch, Joe Lieberman, General Wesley Clark, Charlie Rangel, etc.
I was referring to Kerry who slimed his fellow veterans (while indulging in the cute pretence that he was simply quoting someone else). I was also referring people like Bill Clinton (who not only avoided Vietnam as many of us would no doubt try to do, but wrote that he "loathed" the military). I was also referring to the Columbia University professor who wished for our soldiers to get killed in Iraq so as to give the US a bloody nose. I was referring to much of the liberal media who seemed to glory in every potential setback ("quagmire" in the sandstorm before Baghdad, the picking apart of the Jessica Lynch rescue in which the army was ludicrously said to fire blanks, etc). I was of course mainly referring to those activists who seem to drive the direction of the Democratic party and would not today nominate for president anyone in the previous paragraph.

All these people are at liberty to make wild eyed claims ("it's about oil!") and to overstate the problems our soldiers face and to minimise their successes ("of course, we all knew that Iraq would be easy, and Afghanistan too!!"), even though we all remember their earlier bodybag predictions.

However, when the effect of this is to make our military feel unappreciated, and our enemies emboldened, well, then that's a problem.

Hope I made myself a little clearer.

One other thing Begbee,
I can agree with you that these people might resent the USA for past deeds. However their recent targets have included Russia, Indonesia, Australia, Israel, Spain, China, etc, etc.

People who have recently had their throats slit in the most vile way include citizens of America, Turkey, Bulgaria, Nepal, etc etc

Did all these countries prop up Saddam? Funnily enough, the French and the UN seem to have done more propping up than anyone in recent years.

I think that most people would agree that the muslim/arab terrorists are at war with the entire civilized world right now. They will either have to get over their victimization culture (something that we recognize right here at home, no?) or we will have to help them get over it in as we are presently doing.

Your view that we brought this on ourself is a valid one, but you're in the minority.

It's clear to me that Begbee is really a George W Bush 'bot in deep cover. In fact, I see these guys on every blog: crazed, drooling moonbats who compare Bush to Hitler and toss about 9/11 conspiracy theories without the tiniest shred of evidence or even logical thinking. Guys like this do Kerry more damage than a thousand Swift Vet ads ever could.

In other words, Begbee: keep up the good work!

The government of Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to Clinton, but Clinton told them to deport him to Afghanistan. This was the greatest failure of Clinton's years in office. It's very hard to blame 9/11 on anyone other than Clinton. If he'd been doing his job, it would never have happened.

I'm glad begbee thinks I was witty, but I can't return the compliment. My whole point was that his comparing Zell to Hitler, because of resemblances which he admits have nothing to do with ideology, is VERY low. Godwin's law indeed.

Gazz I agree that Clintons relationship and attitude towards our Military was a weakness of his Presidency. I disagree that Kerrys speaking out against the war upon his return from Vietnam was wrong. The most under reported fact about Kerrys debate with Oneill on the D Cavett Show is that Kerry got Oneill to confess to taking part in war crimes. At one point in the debate Kerry directly asks Oneill, "Did you take part in free fire zones?" Oneill responds, "Yes", and Kerry then reads directly from the Geneva Convention the description of free fire zones as a war crime. I believe that the number of war crimes in Vietnam are much closer to Kerrys description than Oneills. The other thing to keep in mind about Kerrys comments is they were spoken after we already announced our withdrawal from Vietnam.

Gazz everything changed when we decided to occupy Iraq. Anyone working in Iraq on behalf of the coallition is now a target. One of the five pillars of Islam is to come to the aid of any muslim state occupied by non muslims. Every Islamic Arab state is covertly helping the insurgency. Heres a question, can you claim an Occupation is over, without reducing the number of Occupying Forces?

RMc feel free to add some content in the future.

Mayor I went out of my way to state there was no idealogical relationship between Zell and Hitler. But Im completely accurate in comparing the similarity in speech delivery between Zell and Hitler. In fact, if I were moveon.org, Id make an ad that overlaps Zells speechs audio with Hitler video, and Hitler audio with Zell video. And the reps cant say much because Zells a dem.

Id make an ad that overlaps Zells speechs audio with Hitler video, and Hitler audio with Zell video.

Bravo! Bravo! Encore...!

(Rmc runs and grabs some popcorn)

The democrats greatest failure has been to not hold this administration accountable for 911.

Perhaps some in that party would actually prefer to shut their word holes while they're ahead (or behind, as one's views may dictate). Any attempt to "hold [fill in the blank] administration accountable" will inevitably point back to the eight Clinton years when the US was lead by a Democratic president, cooed to and coddled the Europeans and the UN, sent out only small, underarmed humanitarian military missions (e.g. Mogadishu), and largely limited its reckonings with terrorists to 'law-enforcement'-esque activities. After that comes the second obvious realization, that in spite of this somewhat idealized Democratic version of how the US ought to operate, a bunch of hijackers were STILL plotting and training for 9/11.

So, you may just wish to let that one die a quiet death on its own time, because -- as RMc has been boistrously putting it -- that won't help the people you think it will help.

Clinton could have done nothing to stop 911. Getting 'tough' by playing offense with supposed terrorists in Iraq has done nothing to stop global terrorism, in fact terrorism has increased since our invasion of Iraq. Bush was the only guy that could have played defense against the 911 terrorists, by following the Clinton method of coordinating intell when theres large amounts of terrorist chatter, but he was on vacation. Beyond that, the reps arent running against Clinton.

I completely disagree with those who think Kerry should speak only about the economy, health care, the debt, etc. The fact is going negative is what most moves polls, and terrorism is Bushs biggest positive. The fact he completely failed the country on 911 should be pointed out everytime the issue arises. Most believe National Security will be the prime mover in the upcoming election, to not get your punches in on the incompentence of Rice and Bush is asking to lose

Clinton could have done nothing to stop 911.

Didn't say he could have. In fact, for better or worse, the kinds of policy making that were characterisitic of that timeframe would have actively interfered with such an effort.

The point was, eight years of the US playing Mr. Nice Guy didn't stem the tide of terrorism; Average Joe may not know/care about all the intricacies invovled on the political side, but he IS capable of scratching his head real contemplative-like and saying "Well, lessee now, the kind of approach we had during the Clinton years didn't do it, so I'm going to favor someone who is trying something different." Of course, maybe Average Joe isn't thinking along those line right now, but if someone starts harping tooth-and-nail on 9/11, he WILL be.

So far, Kerry hasn't outlined a clear and comprehensive plan of how he will prosecute and/or conclude the WoT, so that argument works against his position.

Getting 'tough' by playing offense with supposed terrorists in Iraq has done nothing to stop global terrorism, in fact terrorism has increased since our invasion of Iraq.

Back to that context thing we were discussing earlier -- can you please explain every word of that sentence, being extremely careful as to clarify what you mean and what kind of assumptions/inferrences are involved? Be sure to include absolute data points, such as the physical magnitude of each incident and the number of casualties caused, else I'm going to write the statement off as yet another batch of mindless parroting.

Bush was the only guy that could have played defense against the 911 terrorists, by following the Clinton method of coordinating intell when theres large amounts of terrorist chatter, but he was on vacation.

Yes, we've all heard that convenient bit of slander before. Moving on...

Beyond that, the reps arent running against Clinton.

Ah, so you're saying they have a good chance of winning this time? Kerry = Bob Dole, maybe?

"Getting 'tough' by playing offense with supposed terrorists in Iraq has done nothing to stop global terrorism, in fact terrorism has increased since our invasion of Iraq"

The fact that there have been no repeats of 9/11 on American soil suggest to me that this whole "getting tough" and "playing offense" thing might have some merits.

Oh wait...you want to shift the discussion to *global* terrorism, right? Tell you what, when the President of the United States of America becomes responsible for protecting Bali and Spain from terrorists, that conversation might become relevant.

DRB it was nine years between the Al Qaeda WTC strikes in the US, and eight years between attempted strikes by Islamic terrorists in the US. Its very flawed thinking to assume because nothing has happened on our soil, our current approach is working. Especially if its still a 'global' war.

Anonymouse some of your language is sooooooo irritating. First, I aint got no stinking absolute data points. Although some might say Sunday in Chechnya is all the data they need to reach a conclusion in the severity of this years terrorist events. But with my previous comments Im just believing what Sec of State Powell said in retracting his previous comments on number of terrorist events post Iraq invasion, and thats global terrorism has increased. Do we chalk up the 1000 dead US servicemen in Iraq as victims of terrorism?

How do you figure the incompetance of Rice and jr on 911 is slander? Berger and Clinton had the heads of the various intell agencies meeting on a daily basis when the Millenial terrorist chatter reached its peek. They rolled up three different cells of Al Qaeda in thwarting that attack. On 911 Rice was scheduled to give a speech on Star Wars defense systems. Because shes a Russian/Eastern Europe expert, not a middle east expert. And because she skipped Bergers suggested meeting on Al Qaeda.

Kerry is no Bob Dole. More importantly, jr is no Bill Clinton.

Anonymouse some of your language is sooooooo irritating.

You want irritating? Try a messageboard partisan who throws out statements to the effect of "global terrorism is up! UP, I SAY!" and then finally admits under questioning --

First, I aint got no stinking absolute data points.

You don't even have the data points that would make that observation meaningful? Then it is meaningless as presented. I'll explain.

Your statement, in generalized form, was "[x] has done nothing to stop [n], in fact [n] has increased since [x]." As framed, that is a completely meainingless statement, designed to influence sloppy thinkers into believing, first, that [x] was, explicitly and exclusively, intended and expected to accomplish some goal(s) [n]; and second, since [n] didn't occur, [x] clearly failed.

Whether or not [x] was intended to accomplish [n] is a separate debate, possibly meritorious, that I won't take up here. However, even by itself the case that "[n] has increased" is still meaningless. Here, [n] is being generally defined as "global terrorism." Okay, but WHAT has actually increased?

a) The number of casualties have increased in real terms? That might be a valid datapoint, because it could show that global terrorism has, in general, become more effective at killing. Or it could just show that usual terrorist activities got lucky a couple times and inflicted an unusually large number of casualties. Either way, if that argument is valid it CAN be defended with empirics, thus eliminating wiggle room for partisan ambiguity.

b) The number of incidents have increased in real terms? That would still make the statement "[n] have increased" true, but by itself, it doesn't tell us much in this case. It could be that terrorists in general have been more active (and yet [x] may, or may NOT, have been a key influencing factor). Or it could tell us that what has taken place in and around Iraq sufficiently disrupted terrorist structure and communication that what would have been periodic large and effective incidents, have instead been reduced to multiple small and much less effective incidents (in terms of casualties and/or socioeconomic disruption). Or it could be that terrorists were already intending to make a number of strikes and the timing is coincidental.

c) The methodology of COUNTING incidents/fatalities has changed or been distorted by external changes, inflating the count? For example, some might count the attacks against coalition service personnell in Iraq to be 'terrorist events.' I myself generally would not (even though some of the events may be perpetrated by persons who would otherwise engaged in terrorist activity elsewhere), since the country is effectively a war zone until the civil government has gained reasonably strong control over the geopolitical boundaries, and that could be a while. And whether or not these are actually terrorist incidents occuring within Iraq, thus raising the tally of [n], I find it difficult to become morally indignant about them since the deaths are still less (and frequently, less gruesome) than what was taking place daily under the Ba'athists. In that sense the perspective of what these terrorist events mean/are is dictated almost entirely by one's political needs, not empirics.

Although some might say Sunday in Chechnya is all the data they need to reach a conclusion in the severity of this years terrorist events.

Russian and Chechnya have been going at this for a long time. Until that mess finally simmers down, I have difficulty seeing how that supports any political point you were hoping to make, at least until we have better information on from whence these nuthatches actually arrived.

But with my previous comments Im just believing what Sec of State Powell said in retracting his previous comments on number of terrorist events post Iraq invasion, and thats global terrorism has increased. Do we chalk up the 1000 dead US servicemen in Iraq as victims of terrorism?

See point 'c' from earlier.

How do you figure the incompetance of Rice and jr on 911 is slander? Berger and Clinton had the heads of the various intell agencies meeting on a daily basis when the Millenial terrorist chatter reached its peek. They rolled up three different cells of Al Qaeda in thwarting that attack. On 911 Rice was scheduled to give a speech on Star Wars defense systems. Because shes a Russian/Eastern Europe expert, not a middle east expert. And because she skipped Bergers suggested meeting on Al Qaeda.

I don't figure it. If you want to make arguments on the intelligence/capabilities of the current leadership using their own quotes or previous actions in proper context, knock yourself out, although bear in mind Kerry is fair game for the same treatment, from Swiftboat Vets or anyone else with a hatchet in need of sharpening. Although I would note you have previously become very indignant when various persons did exactly that (to the point of employing invective and slurs against persons whose arguments you could no longer refute rather than exiting the debate in a gentlemanly manner), so I'm still not convinced of your intellectual concistency there.

I thought nuance was banned from use by the jr republicans.

As to all your blah, blah, blah about absolute data points, I'll clarify my position. First, according to Powell the number of terrorist attacks have gone up since the invasion of Iraq. Second, in terms of casualities, if we take the thousand dead US soldiers in Iraq, the 200 dead Spanish citizens in the train attack, and the massacre of two hundred children in Chechnya, the terrorists are creating much larger terror events than prior to the invasion of Iraq. The large number of dead and the types of people targeted are more terrifying than all the pre 911 attacks.

There is nothing to say about Rice and Bushs record on intelligence and terrorism pre 911. They did nothing, there wasn't even terrorism policy in place. Most everyone that reads a newspaper knows that Berger and Clinton coordinated the intelligence effort that stopped the millenial terrorists. And even if you want to consider the arrests at the border in Vancouver "luck", there were also Al Qaeda cells rolled up in Buffalo, Chicago, and Montreal from the same investigation.

Also, if your going to call someone a liar, or object to the facts presented, its up to you to provide contradictory sources. Otherwise disputing everything as if posting should be footnoted as acadmic writing is more a debate tactic, than a search for accuracy.

I thought nuance was banned from use by the jr republicans.

Childish.

As to all your blah, blah, blah about absolute data points,

Again, childish. Am I debating a fellow adult here, or a fifth grader on the verge of a temper tantrum?

I'll clarify my position.

Thank-you. That's precisely what I was requesting.

First, according to Powell the number of terrorist attacks have gone up since the invasion of Iraq.

Ah, attributing a source, which can then be querried/refuted. Excellent.

Second, in terms of casualities, if we take the thousand dead US soldiers in Iraq, the 200 dead Spanish citizens in the train attack, and the massacre of two hundred children in Chechnya, the terrorists are creating much larger terror events than prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Okay, you've clarified your position. NONETHELESS, there is room for disagreement on whether armed soldiers in something that is effectively a war zone are the victims of terrorism, or the unfortunate casualties of war; and I can't say as you have proven much by bringining Chechnya into this. In fact, it probably weakens your position.

See, for example, the current Economist, "Victims of a conflict without end," and note the historical comments in the "A terrible decade" subheading:

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3170269

The large number of dead and the types of people targeted are more terrifying than all the pre 911 attacks.

By your counting methodology, which is not easily swallowed, and which I daresay you would leap upon with daggers a-flashing if someone else were being similarly sloppy in defending an argument you opposed. Of course, that's just speculation on my part.

There is nothing to say about Rice and Bushs record on intelligence and terrorism pre 911. They did nothing, there wasn't even terrorism policy in place. Most everyone that reads a newspaper knows that Berger and Clinton coordinated the intelligence effort that stopped the millenial terrorists. And even if you want to consider the arrests at the border in Vancouver "luck", there were also Al Qaeda cells rolled up in Buffalo, Chicago, and Montreal from the same investigation.

Ah, more of those factually-based assertions. Excellent; keep them coming!

Also, if your going to call someone a liar

I didn't. Of course, you did say "if," so I guess you deserve a benefit of the doubt there. If by any chance you felt the twinge of pain associated with being a liar, I can't help you any further; maybe check for recent proboscis growth and consult with Jimminy Cricket?

or object to the facts presented

I objected to the lack of facts in the presentation. There is a difference.

its up to you to provide contradictory sources.

You have that backwards. You were the one making unsubstantiated assertions; the burden of proof was on you.

Otherwise disputing everything as if posting should be footnoted as acadmic writing

Who did that? I'm merely entertaning a bit of amused disgust at your present writing strategy, which has looked more like a blizzard of marginally-related hay straws than an attempt to discuss facts at all. You're not writing to a familiar audience ("echo chamber") here; if you want to be taken seriously on a contestable point, defend it.

is more a debate tactic, than a search for accuracy.

I suggest you leave "debate tactics" out of this. You've dropped far too much ammunition on this forum for your opponents to pick up, and will quickly discover that it fits readily in their firewarms.

I noticed that someone equated violating the Geneva Convention to committing a War Crime. They are not the same thing. E.g., taking news pictures of POW's violates the Geneva Convention, but I doubt that anyone considers it a war crime.

But we could have a debate over whether or not a free fire zone is a war crime; I don't think it is, because a free fire zone doesn't completely eliminate your responsibility to check out your target, but you certainly have a lower threshold of "proof" or "evidence" that the potential targets are indeed hostiles.

Clinton could have done nothing to stop 911.

The government of Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to Clinton, but Clinton had him deported to Afghanistan rather. If Clinton had captured bin Laden in the 90's, then 9/11 never would have happened.

The nuance thing was pretty sweet, no matter what you say. I have never been angry here, most of the time its kinda funny, though it has also been frustrating. Many here are much more intrested in sounding smart than writing something good. To the beef-

I agree with you that the idea that Soldiers killed while at war shouldnt be counted as terrorist victims. But the White House has called both the foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents "terrorists". Ive often stipulated to very contestable points here, and I'll do it again reguarding US casualities in Iraq. The events in Spain and Chechnya are the two worst incidents of terrorism save 911(if you disagree provide an example of bigger terrorist events), and they both happened after the invasion of Iraq. One of the most frightening acts of terrorism is the decapatation videos of non muslims doing buisness in Iraq. Then theres also Bali, Riyadah, etc to consider, sure they pale in comparison in prevoking the type of fear the above incidents did, but they were still kind of mean. As to your comments on methodolgy, is there anything more terrifying than the mass slaughter of children? I wasnt just speaking in terms of number dead.

If you would like to learn more about Clinton, Berger, and the rolling up of the millenial terrorists I would suggest reading Clarkes "Against All Enemies". This story has been in many, many newspapers. Are you really so ignorant as to not know the methods Clinton and Berger used to stop the millenial terrorists, or are you afraid to comment directly and are attempting to shift the argument?

How about this, why dont you show me exactly whats in dispute reguarding my presentation of the facts? Your cute with your language about the millenial terrorist story, but even there you dont state exactly what you disagree with. For all your use of italics and arrogant wording, you never state specifically what you object to. Btw, know one here needs to be familiar with me to know what I present is fact, all they need to be familiar with is a newspaper.

Rex war crimes are like being pregnant, its not a question answered by degrees. Heres some unsubstantiated speculation you guys love so much, I think Oneils still huge hatred of Kerry is much the result of his free fire zone humiliation. That moment would stick in my craw as well.

Shamus I know of one occasion that the Sudan had Bin Laden, but would only release him to another Islamic nation. Clinton begged Saudi Arabia to take him, but they refused. The other oppurtunity Clinton supposedly had to get Bin Laden was over Afganistan with the Predator drone. But the Predator drone was not armed because of a turf battle between the CIA and the Military. But its irrelevant, there was no positive identification of Bin Laden by the drone anyway.

Begbee, I was considering a response to all of that, but then I read your response to Mindles' "Fresh from the stupid idea department" post, and finally realized what I should have realized a long time ago:

You're not serious.

The character "Begbee" is clearly some sort of elaborate charade, and I fell for it hook and line, and nearly put my teeth into the sinker.

Well, please accept my sincerest congratulations on a job well done. And do give my regards to whomever put you up to this. I don't know whether you just won a beer or a passing grade on a graduate-level psychology research paper, but I hope you enjoy it, as you have most definitely earned it.

Cheers!

Well, shucks, Mindles; it was Christopher Buckley who compared the Convention to a Nuremberg rally, and Andrew Sullivan who compared it to a scene at "a North Korean sports stadium".

Boy that was a specific argument Anonymouse. Personal attacks in a post with no content makes it impossible to reply to you without joining you in the mud.

Bruce I think the republicans ran a great convention. The only real negative was the intensity of Zell. Great red meat, but way to angry to do anything but hurt with the swing voters. I would have presented a very different Democratic convention.

Boy that was a specific argument Anonymouse. Personal attacks in a post with no content makes it impossible to reply to you without joining you in the mud.

I know, I know, you're not allowed to break character until the assignment is officially over. It's cool, I won't take it personally. After all, it was me that fell for it all this time!

Anonymouse I'll now assume that since you dont dispute the facts as I presented them, you agree with me. Welcome aboard, buddy!!!!!!!!

Anonymouse I'll now assume that since you dont dispute the facts as I presented them, you agree with me.

Um, right. Yeah.
We've tried, many times. You ain't listening.
Next!

Anonymouse I'll now assume that since you dont dispute the facts as I presented them, you agree with me. Welcome aboard, buddy!!!!!!!!

No, see, by disputing the facts as you presented them, I'd be playing right into the hands of your research paper, or earning you a second beer, or whatever. You've already got enough material from me; carry on with someone who hasn't seen through the ruse yet.

Either make an argument with content instead of smears, or go lick your wounds.

Comments are Closed.