How BUSH Created a Terrorist Haven

“Mutt – I’m quite aware of what a straw man argument is. You have attributed a counterfeit position to the author that is easily defeated. It is a method you employ often and is a sign of desperation. For someone who thought it a trivial point, you seem obsessed with it.”

“"The greater part of our happiness or misery depends on our
dispositions, and not our circumstances." --Martha Washington”

“Violin, he never uses the straw man. He exaggerates, is sarcastic, and occasionally "overstates a position" that you hold, but he never commits a fallacy. Just ask him!”

“ I’m quite aware of what a straw man argument is

But evidently you have a *very* difficult time recognizing it in real debate. You called it strawman, but you argued bait-and-switch. Guffaw! Back to phil. 101 for you.


You have attributed a counterfeit position to the author that is easily defeated

Uh oh. You're being dishonest again, Violin. I replied directly to her, using her quotations. How about telling us exactly how that is strawman. LOL.

For someone who thought it a trivial point, you seem obsessed with it.

But it's so funny! You're so determined not to admit defeat in the face of incontrovertible evidence, you're putting on quite a show for us to watch!”

“I’m sorry. I mistakenly thought you were moderately literate.

"The whole premise of her argument is fallacious. Obviously, in her opinion, we should have appeased the terrorists and tyrants." is a classic straw man.”

“Actually, Mutt, I'd have to go with you getting schooled in this debate.

Back to the high school debate club for you!”

“The whole premise of her argument is fallacious. Obviously, in her opinion, we should have appeased the terrorists and tyrants." is a classic straw man

My mistake here was to confuse you with rather poor paragraph structure. My conclusion was that her pemise was a fallacy. My editorial was that she probably is an appeaser. But you're disingenuously twisting this into strawman (and arguing bait-and-switch - lol) to divert attention away from the fact you have no substantive rebuttal to the points I had made.


You, Violin, used the following example of bait-and-switch to justify your mistaken use of strawman:

Well my motivation is that you consistently set up these ridiculous positions for others in order to distract from an honest discussion.

Give it up and save yourself from more embarrassment. I've nailed you to the wall on this. All you have going for you is the "me too's" of phaedrus.”

“Well mutt, I must admit that after six semesters of philosophy, I was unaware of the term, “bait-and-switch fallacy”. I have done a google search for the term and the results are quite interesting. Of the five times I could find it referenced on the entire internet, one was by you and the other four times were on chat boards. You obviously have some special knowledge unknown to logisticians throughout the ages,

Congratulations – you win.”

“Wouldn't the accepted definition of the bait and seith require someone to agree to a definition of a term and then to switch the use of that term?”

“I'm now sure how I managed to mangle the spelling of switch like that...”

“Violin, you really set yourself up for these butt-kickings. Bait-and-switch is the informal term for red herring, you dolt.

You again show your dishonesty by not asking or saying red herring yourself. If you truly had so much philosophy in college (which is not at all apparent in the way you argue), you would've undoubtedly heard the term. They're interchangeable.”

“Jeeze – I already conceded defeat. What more do you want?”

“honesty”

“insight, too.”

“I don't think you'll ever get them, Mutt, but if you try real hard and search for the blue fairy, maybe you'll become a real boy.”

“If I were to say something like, "It must be hard to be so self-righteous as to not recognize when your argument has been logically refuted", to whom would I be referring?”

“Hmmmm. Tough one, Dun.”

“IMHO. The easiest point to make on this argument would be to compare the terrorist activity taking place in Iraq today, with that taking place before the "War on WMD's". How many terrorist actions did Al Quaeda et al take credit for before the "War on WMD's"?”

“I can think of one where over 3000 people died.”

“Key phrase: "in Iraq".”

“i was purposefully ignoring that part and answering the "How many terrorist actions did Al Quaeda et al take credit for before the "War on WMD's"? part.”

“Yes, "in Iraq".”

“The easiest point to make on this argument would be to compare the terrorist activity taking place in Iraq today, with that taking place before the "War on WMD's

"terrorist activity"? You mean the guerrillas?”

“Those ‘guerrillas’ seem to be using many of the same tactics that ‘terrorists’ elsewhere are using: attacks on civilian infrastructure, embassy bombings and the like. What is the purpose of the semantic distinction?”

“They're not targeting civilians. That's the difference. They're trying to get the American military out of Iraq. When shooting at soldiers didn't work, they switched to destroying the rebuilding efforts.”

“Oops, should've added with the exception of the UN. However, there was deep resentment of the UN that built up over the last decade.”

“So terrorism is guerrilla warfare if there's enough resentment, or if the civilians are engaged in rebuilding?”

“"terrorism" is guerilla warfare when you wage it on your own soil against an occupying force. Of course, in some situations, who is to say whose soil it is?”

“What made Hezbollah operations in Lebanon terrorism then?”

“Guerillas vs terrorists??? A little evasive wouldn't you say, Mutt?”

“Vile if that ? was directed towards me (flyguy) I'd suggest that the question would need to be restated to something like "WHO made Hezbollah operations in Lebanon terrorism then?"
(this is the barracks being blown to bits you're referring to, I assume. I'm a bit out of my element here!)”

“comeon man, that place was a terrorist haven long before bush got involved!”

“No not that specifically flyguy6x. Hezbollah drove Israel out of Lebanon largely through a guerrilla campaign against Israeli troops.”

“"Iraq is turning out to be a continuing battle in the war on terrorism."

-- George W. Bush
August 22nd, 2003”

“Violin is turning out to be a continuing broken record in the Jihad on GW Bush......


Stratdewd
Aug 24, 2003”

“New Thread- How clinton created a terrorist haven”

“So Violin, how many times was it that Clinton turned down Bin Ladden? Was it 3 or four times? I forget when I'm distracted by interns and all.”

“Well, guys... It'll be SEPTEMBER soon.

Where are the WMD?”

“In a 5 sided building?”

“I think they're in Alabama, scheduled for incineration... <G>

Anybody in eastern AL or western GA take advantage of the free gas-mask give-away?


(this msg. brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Depertment)”

“lolz!”

“I love it how cons try to distract from Bush's failures by bringing up Clinton. To borrow ped's phrase, Clinton was a lying slut. Nuff said.

However Tea, by bringing up the false charge that Clinton turned down bin Laden when he was offered up only shows that you are ignorant of the facts and are too lazy to check for yourself. If you really intend to pursue a career in politics, you should learn to do your homework before making public statements or you’ll end up looking foolish. The truth of the matter is that there were negotiations with Sudan to arrest bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody. The Saudis refused. The US Justice Department had no case with which to hold him. You can read the Washington Post article here.

Clinton did sign a finding authorizing killing bin Laden rather than capture him, later adding several of his top deputies and authorizing the shooting down of any aircraft on which they were flying. He ordered two submarines stationed in nearby waters so that cruise missiles could be fired at bin Laden with 6 hours notice.

I really can’t recall anyone trying to blame Bush senior for the first bombing of the World Trade Centers. Why do you guys always try to pass the buck and avoid personal responsibility?


Now can we get back to the subject?”

“It appears that even the mouthpiece of the neoconservative movement, the Weekly Standard, is exasperated with Bush’s bungled occupation of Iraq and shares many of the fears of Jessica Stern.


Do What It Takes in Iraq

From the September 1 / September 8, 2003 issue: The United States must be serious about its "generational commitment."
by William Kristol and Robert Kagan
09/01/2003, Volume 008, Issue 48


NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER Condoleezza Rice gave an important speech a couple of weeks ago, in which she called on the United States to make a "generational commitment" to bringing political and economic reform to the long-neglected Middle East--a commitment not unlike that which we made to rebuild Europe after the Second World War. It was a stirring speech, made all the more potent by the knowledge that it reflects the president's own vision. President Bush recognizes that, as is so often the case, American ideals and American interests converge in such a project, that a more democratic Middle East will both improve the lives of long-suffering peoples and enhance America's national security.

For all our admiration for this bold, long-term vision, however, there is reason to be worried about the execution of that policy in the first and probably most important test of our "generational commitment." Make no mistake: The president's vision will, in the coming months, either be launched successfully in Iraq, or it will die in Iraq. Indeed, there is more at stake in Iraq than even this vision of a better, safer Middle East. The future course of American foreign policy, American world leadership, and American security is at stake. Failure in Iraq would be a devastating blow to everything the United States hopes to accomplish, and must accomplish, in the decades ahead.

We believe the president and his top advisers understand the magnitude of the task. That is why it is so baffling that, up until now, the Bush administration has failed to commit resources to the rebuilding of Iraq commensurate with these very high stakes. Certainly, American efforts in Iraq since the end of the war have not been a failure. And considering what might have gone wrong--and which so many critics predicted would go wrong--the results have been in many ways admirable. Iraq has not descended into inter-religious and inter-ethnic violence. There is food and water. Hospitals are up and running. The Arab and Muslim worlds have not erupted in chaos or anger, as so many of our European friends confidently predicted.

But the absence of catastrophic failure is not, unfortunately, evidence of impending success. As any number of respected analysts visiting Iraq have reported, and as recent horrific events have demonstrated, there is much to worry about. Basic security, both for Iraqis and for coalition and other international workers in Iraq, is lacking. Continuing power shortages throughout much of the country have damaged the reputation of the United States as a responsible occupying power and have led many Iraqis to question American intentions. Ongoing assassinations and sabotage of public utilities by pro-Saddam forces and, possibly, by terrorists entering the country from neighboring Syria and Iran threaten to destabilize the tenuous peace that has held in Iraq since the end of the war.

In short, while it is indeed possible that, with a little luck, the United States can muddle through to success in Iraq over the coming months, the danger is that the resources the administration is devoting to Iraq right now are insufficient, and the speed with which they are being deployed is insufficiently urgent. These failings, if not corrected soon, could over time lead to disaster. Three big issues stand out.

*WHERE ARE THE TROOPS? It is painfully obvious that there are too few American troops operating in Iraq. Senior military officials privately suggest that we need two more divisions. The simple fact is, right now there are too few good guys chasing the bad guys--hence the continuing sabotage. There are too few forces to patrol the Syrian and Iranian borders to prevent the infiltration of international terrorists trying to open a new front against the United States in Iraq. There are too few forces to protect vital infrastructure and public buildings. And contrary to what some say, more troops don't mean more casualties. More troops mean fewer casualties--both American and Iraqi.

The really bad news is that the Pentagon plans to draw down U.S. forces even further in coming months. Their hope is that U.S. forces will be replaced by new Iraqi forces and by an influx of allied troops from around the world. We fear this is wishful thinking. It seems unlikely that any Iraqi force capable of providing security will be in place by the spring. And as for the international community--never mind whether we could ever convince France and other countries to make a serious contribution. In truth, our European allies do not have that many troops to spare. And consider the possibly unfortunate effects of turning over the security of Iraqis to a patchwork of ill-prepared forces from elsewhere in the world.

That's why calls from members of Congress to "internationalize" the force and give the U.N. a preeminent role are unhelpful, and really beside the point, at this critical juncture. Senator Biden is correct to say that "we have a hell of a team over there, but they don't have enough of anything." But he's wrong to suggest that a meaningful part of the solution would be "to internationalize" this. And when Rep. Mark Kirk says that "every international peacekeeper brought in is a chance to replace an American," he's raising false hopes among the American people. Such calls for "internationalization" also signal to Iraqi Baathists and Islamic radicals an inclination on the part of the United States to cut and run.

It's true that, unfortunately, we don't have many troops to spare, either: We should have begun rebuilding our military two years ago. And it is true that increasing the size of our forces, both in Iraq and overall, is unattractive to administration officials. But this is the time to bite the bullet and pay the price. Next spring, if disaster looms, it will be harder. And it may be too late.

* WHERE IS THE MONEY? The same goes for the financial resources the administration has sought for Iraqi reconstruction. It is simply unconscionable that debilitating power shortages persist in Iraq, turning Iraqi public opinion against the United States. This is one of those problems that can be solved with enough money. And yet the money has not been made available. This is just the most disturbing example of a general pattern. The Iraqi economy needs an infusion of assistance, to build up infrastructure, to improve the daily lives of the Iraqi people, to put a little money in Iraqi pockets so that pessimism can turn to optimism. There has also been a stunning shortage of democracy assistance, at a time when, according to surveys taken by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Iraq is undergoing an explosion of political activity.

We understand the administration's fear of asking Congress for the necessary funds for Iraq. The price tag, which may be close to $60 billion, will provide fodder for opportunistic Democratic presidential hopefuls who are already complaining that money spent in Iraq would be better spent in the United States. But, again, the time to bite the bullet is now, not six months from now when Iraq turns to crisis and the American campaign season is fully underway. If Rice and others are serious about making a "generational commitment" equivalent to that which followed the Second World War, then this is the necessary down payment.

* WHERE ARE THE PERSONNEL? The American military is not alone in facing a shortage of people in Iraq. Everyone returning from Iraq comments on the astonishing lack of American civilians as well. Until recently, only a handful of State Department employees have been at work in Iraq. The State Department, we gather, has had a difficult time attracting volunteers to work in Iraq. This is understandable. But it is unacceptable. If the administration is serious about drawing an analogy with the early Cold War years, it should remember that the entire U.S. government oriented itself then to the new challenge. We need to do the same now. The administration must insist that the State Department pull its weight. Indeed, we need to deploy diplomats and civil servants, hire contract workers, and mobilize people and resources in an urgent and serious way. Business as usual is not acceptable. Getting the job done in Iraq is our highest priority, and our government needs to treat it as such.

These are the core problems the Bush administration needs to address. Success in Iraq is within our reach. But there are grounds to fear that on the current trajectory, we won't get there. The president knows that failure in Iraq is intolerable. Now is the time to act decisively to prevent it.”

“Those elusive WMD's. Dang them anyway.”

“I'm not exactly a big Robert Byrd fan, but he really makes sense in this Washington Post article.

My favorite part is the last paragraph:

"A hallmark of true leadership is the ability to admit when one is wrong and to learn from errors. Candidate George W. Bush spoke about the need for humility from a great and powerful nation. He said, "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power -- or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." It is time for the Bush administration to swallow its false pride and return to that philosophy of humility before it is too late."”

“Simply amazing! Now Perle wants to cut and run:

Perle Cites Errors in Iraq, Urges Power Transfer

Wed August 27, 2003 02:57 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - Richard Perle, a leading Pentagon adviser and architect of the U.S. war to topple Saddam Hussein, said the United States had made mistakes in Iraq and that power should be handed over to the Iraqis as fast as possible.

<snip>

"Of course, we haven't done everything right," said Perle, according to the French text of the interview. "Mistakes have been made and there will be others.

"Our principal mistake, in my opinion, was that we didn't manage to work closely with the Iraqis before the war, so that there was an Iraqi opposition capable of taking charge immediately," he said.

"Today, the answer is to hand over power to the Iraqis as soon as possible," he added.

<snip>


..................................


While Dean thinks we have make lemonade out of Bush's lemons:

Defining Dean

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, August 25, 2003; Page A17

<snip>

"Now that we're there, we're stuck," he said. Bush took an "enormous risk" that through war the United States could replace Saddam Hussein and the "small danger" he presented to the United States with something better and safer. The gamble was "foolish" and "wrong." But whoever will be elected in 2004 has to live with it. "We have no choice. It's a matter of national security. If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."

And "bringing democracy to Iraq is not a two-year proposition. Having elections alone doesn't guarantee democracy. You've got to have institutions and the rule of law, and in a country that hasn't had that in 3,000 years, it's unlikely to suddenly develop by having elections and getting the heck out." Dean would impose a "hybrid" constitution, "American with Iraqi, Arab characteristics. Iraqis have to play a major role in drafting this, but the Americans have to have the final say." Women's rights must be guaranteed at all levels.

<snip>”

“Unbelievable... and yet...”

“Ex-Envoy Criticizes Bush's Postwar Policy

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 5, 2003; Page A16

A former U.S. commander for the Middle East who still consults for the State Department yesterday blasted the Bush administration's handling of postwar Iraq, saying it lacked a coherent strategy, a serious plan and sufficient resources.

"There is no strategy or mechanism for putting the pieces together," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, and so, he said, "we're in danger of failing."

In an impassioned speech to several hundred Marine and Navy officers and others, Zinni invoked the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in the 1960s and '70s. "My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice," said Zinni, who was severely wounded while serving as an infantry officer in that conflict. "I ask you, is it happening again?"

Zinni's comments were especially striking because he endorsed President Bush in the 2000 campaign, shortly after retiring from active duty, and serves as an adviser to the State Department on anti-terror initiatives in Indonesia and the Philippines. He preceded Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks as chief of the U.S. Central Command, the headquarters for U.S. military operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

This was not the first time he has broken with the administration. He was publicly skeptical last winter of the decision to attack Iraq.

Underscoring how much his views have changed since 2000, he implied that the Bush administration is now damaging the U.S. military in the way that Bush and Vice President Cheney during that campaign charged that the Clinton administration had done. "We can't go on breaking our military and doing things like we're doing now," he said.

He also questioned the Bush administration's decision in January to have the Pentagon oversee postwar efforts in Iraq. "Why the hell would the Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals with the reconstruction of Iraq?" he asked. "Doesn't make sense."

In addition, he criticized the administration for not working earlier and harder to win a U.N. resolution that several nations have indicated is a prerequisite to their contributing peacekeeping troops to help in Iraq. "We certainly blew past the U.N.," he said. "Why, I don't know. Now we're going back hat in hand."

Zinni's comments to the joint meeting in Arlington of the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, two professional groups for officers, were greeted warmly by his audience, with prolonged applause at the end. Some officers bought tapes and compact discs of the speech to give to others.”

“I'll say it for strat:

JIHAD BUSH

Carry on.”