Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I can't find a transcript for that show. I guess they don't put them up for the "special report" shows on weekend. Funny, you find Matthews to be liberal, yet mediamatters.org finds him to be too conservative. Probably means he's just about in the middle. >>In recent months on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, coverage of the investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame has offered a clear pattern of misinformation by host Chris Matthews and his guests. Further, on numerous occasions, Hardball's panels of guests who discussed the issue have skewed right -- solely composed of Republicans, prominent conservatives, and journalists or political figures with no public partisan or ideological affiliation; only one arguably skewed left (the head of a nonpartisan professional organization was paired with a columnist frequently presented on PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer as the liberal of two panelists). <<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Funny, you find Matthews to be liberal, yet mediamatters.org finds him to be too conservative. Probably means he's just about in the middle.> No, it means mediamatters.org is way left.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Assertion without proof.>> <It's my opinion. I never claimed it was a fact.> An opinion based on not seeing the show in question, as I recall. Oh, but you saw OTHER shows. Noted. <<Nice try at sophistry, but again, no.>> <I quoted what the NIE said the INR said. You then claimed it meant something else.> I quoted them too. In fact, I believe I quoted them first. Your interpretation of what the INR said would be hard to believe if I didn't know you. <<As ElKay points out, the information Congress was given was slanted and incomplete.>> <You're both wrong.> Nope, we're right, and we've shown why. <<Once again, it WAS working. Saddam was boxed in, isolated internationally, and without WMD.>> <He wasn't complying with the cease fire, so we didn't know he didn't have WMD's.> But we could have found out and saved an invasion, occupation, 2100+ soldiers, and billions of dollars. Seems worth a couple of months of inspections. <<Not the best option at all.>> <I disagree, and I believe history will prove me right.> I believe history will be kind to neither you nor Bush. So there we are.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>But we could have found out and saved an invasion, occupation, 2100+ soldiers, and billions of dollars. Seems worth a couple of months of inspections.<< The tally is over $200 billion, and the Pentagon is about to ask for an additional $100 billion. And you forgot to mention the 30,000 dead Iraqis civilians.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I quoted them too.> Yes, and then you consistently misinterpret them. <Nope, we're right, and we've shown why.> Nonsense. You've made claims that can't be supported. <But we could have found out and saved an invasion, occupation, 2100+ soldiers, and billions of dollars.> As long as Saddam refused to cooperate fully, we could never be sure. If we hadn't deposed Saddam, 25 million people would still be under his repressive regime, instead of voting in the only arabic constitutional democracy today. Saddam would still be in power, threatening his neighbors, pursuing WMD's, harboring terrorists, supporting terrorism, and defying the UN. Is that really what you want?
Originally Posted By ElKay Dougie, that's real stupid rhetoric. By extension, since we seem to be doing such a "swell" in Iraq, why not go ahead and invade, the greatest threat to the US and the rest of the world, the country with the worst human rights in the world and the country that is an actual threat to it's neighbors--CHINA. By doing to the repressed Chinese what we are doing to the formerly oppressed Iraqi, we would be getting more bang for the buck. Plus we will gaining a huge market for our products and at the same time get a workforce (soon to be freed from the yoke of Communism) that'll work for peanuts. After China there are several dozen repressive countries around the world that could benefit from American liberation, including FRANCE. All we have to do is claim that we'll all be greated as liberators and the unleashing of the free markets in those countries would very quickly pay for our expenses in liberating their countries. Truth be told, as our "great" leader said yesterday, the intelligence he used to call for a war of liberation was faulty. Dougie, tell us exactly how great things will be IF those newly freed 25 million Iraqi people fall into a civil war between the greatly oppressed Shia against the lightly oppressed Sunni? There's a pretty decent chance of that happening since both factions are killing and torturing each others as we train them as soldiers and policemen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Dougie, that's real stupid rhetoric.> Of course it's not. <By extension, since we seem to be doing such a "swell" in Iraq, why not go ahead and invade, the greatest threat to the US and the rest of the world, the country with the worst human rights in the world and the country that is an actual threat to it's neighbors--CHINA.> Because we don't have to. We're making progress with China in other ways. We weren't making any progress with Iraq. And, as far as I know, China is supporting terrorism the way Iraq was. <Dougie, tell us exactly how great things will be IF those newly freed 25 million Iraqi people fall into a civil war between the greatly oppressed Shia against the lightly oppressed Sunni?> Things wouldn't be that great, but there's little evidence that that will happen. Unless, of course, you happen to be a nattering nabob of negatism.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I quoted them too. In fact, I believe I quoted them first. Your interpretation of what the INR said would be hard to believe if I didn't know you.>> <Yes, and then you consistently misinterpret them.> I think it's you who does that, so there we are. <<Nope, we're right, and we've shown why.>> <Nonsense. You've made claims that can't be supported.> We've supported them very well. The fact that the nuclear dissents were left out of the summaries is one prime example, and you've never been able to refute that. You refuse to accept evidence sometimes, which is your right. I write these things for others to ponder more than for you sometimes, as I know there are certain "walls" you erect that won't allow you to see certain things. <<But we could have found out and saved an invasion, occupation, 2100+ soldiers, and billions of dollars.>> <As long as Saddam refused to cooperate fully, we could never be sure.> How can we be sure of North Korea now? Yet we don't invade. "Can't be sure" is not a high enough bar for invasion and occupation. <If we hadn't deposed Saddam, 25 million people would still be under his repressive regime, instead of voting in the only arabic constitutional democracy today. Saddam would still be in power, threatening his neighbors, pursuing WMD's, harboring terrorists, supporting terrorism, and defying the UN. Is that really what you want?> Ah, the last refuge. Look, I've said many times, the world is a dangerous place and we have to choose how we deal with threats wisely. It's a sad fact that tyrants will treat their people harshly and do other terrible things. We need to balance the interest in preventing that with our own national interests and the consequences of HOW we might take him out. Other regimes have fallen from the inside, or through coups, and I'm not sure how hard we tried to make that happen; I know we probably did, but not how hard, and none of us do, as that's all highly classified. But if it comes to invasion and occupation we have to ask if the benefits surpass the possible down side, for us and for the country in question. That's still very much up in the air. It's already cost 2100+ soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, billions of dollars, and a real "boy that cried wolf" problem if we ever want to do it again. And the outcome is very much up in the air. If Iraq DOES devolve to civil war, that will cost more Iraqi lives than Saddam ever did. And, God forbid it, but that's a real possibility. Also, if that happens, one or more of those states could become the next Afghanistan in terms of terrorism - Iraq has already become a haven for terrorists to a far greater degree than it was under Saddam. IMO, we'd have been better off leaving him in the box he was in. I do get tired of hearing that means I must "love Saddam" or some such nonsense. I'm basing that on hard-headed analysis of what was the wiser decision in the long run. Obviously, you disagree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The fact that the nuclear dissents were left out of the summaries is one prime example, and you've never been able to refute that.> I don't need to refute it. I'm not the one making the claims. The fact that some dissent was left out of a summary does not make the summary slanted. <How can we be sure of North Korea now?> Is North Korea out of compliance with 17 UN resolutions? <"Can't be sure" is not a high enough bar for invasion and occupation.> The things that we sure of were a high enough bar. Saddam's was a rogue regime that oppressed its people, threatened its neighbors, suppported terrorism, harbored terrorists, pursued WMD's and defied the UN. Apparently, you wanted him to remain in power.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The fact that the nuclear dissents were left out of the summaries is one prime example, and you've never been able to refute that.>> <I don't need to refute it. I'm not the one making the claims. The fact that some dissent was left out of a summary does not make the summary slanted.> But of course it does! If you can't see that, you can't see much. <<How can we be sure of North Korea now?>> <Is North Korea out of compliance with 17 UN resolutions?> It's breaking the non-proliferation treaties it signed. <<"Can't be sure" is not a high enough bar for invasion and occupation.>> <The things that we sure of were a high enough bar.> No they weren't. Because... <Saddam's was a rogue regime that oppressed its people, threatened its neighbors, suppported terrorism, harbored terrorists, pursued WMD's and defied the UN.> With the possible exception of the last item, all those things were true of Pakistan. And Sudan. And arguably North Korea, depending on your definition of terrorism. So those things without WMD or actual ties to 9/11 specifically were NOT a high enough bar, IMO. <Apparently, you wanted him to remain in power.> (TomS) <Wow, Douglas, I never thought I'd see you commit a Beauism.> I addressed that in another thread, but yeah... it's indicative of knowing his arguments are weak.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I don't know how else to interpret the constant argument by you and Dabob that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It's not like you get to depose him without it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If you are arguning that removing Saddam was wrong then you are agruing hat Sadddam should still be in power raping, torturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. The left would rather argue silly policy points and play gotcha, rather than liberate people who WERE living in hell under Saddam. This is today's liberal.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But of course it does! If you can't see that, you can't see much.> I can see plenty. I can see that you're unable to back up your assertions with any evidence, that you'll obfuscate when proven wrong, and that you can't answer simple, yes or no questions, because they show how wrong your position is. <It's breaking the non-proliferation treaties it signed.> So that's a no. <With the possible exception of the last item, all those things were true of Pakistan. And Sudan. And arguably North Korea, depending on your definition of terrorism.> So my statement was true, right? <I addressed that in another thread, but yeah... it's indicative of knowing his arguments are weak.> You wish.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I don't know how else to interpret the constant argument by you and Dabob that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It's not like you get to depose him without it.> Answered that in another thread. <<But of course it does! If you can't see that, you can't see much.>> <I can see plenty.> You refuse to see plenty more. <I can see that you're unable to back up your assertions with any evidence,> Wrong. Leaving the dissents out of the summary and classifying that information IS evidence. <that you'll obfuscate when proven wrong,> You're the one who parses statements to within an inch of their lives in order to obfuscate, and invents strawmen to knock down. <and that you can't answer simple, yes or no questions, because they show how wrong your position is.> I answered that "simple yes and no question" (that actually wasn't anything of the sort, as Tom pointed out) on another thread. And I showed how YOUR position is wrong. And a perfect example of your obfuscation, too. Because I showed why you trying to equate the statements of Bush and Co. with Hillary and other Democrats was inherently dishonest. <<It's breaking the non-proliferation treaties it signed.>> <So that's a no.> It's an "irrelevant question, so let me be more precise." <<With the possible exception of the last item, all those things were true of Pakistan. And Sudan. And arguably North Korea, depending on your definition of terrorism.>> <So my statement was true, right?> Your statement was misleading. I pointed out why. <<I addressed that in another thread, but yeah... it's indicative of knowing his arguments are weak.>> <You wish.> I know.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I don't know how else to interpret the constant argument by you and Dabob that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It's not like you get to depose him without it. << Maybe your inability to interpret what we're saying is one of the reasons these threads go on so long, Dougie.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So now it's my fault you guys can't support your accusations, or make a coherent argument. Got it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Considering that I'm an English major who almost always got A's, I doubt the problem is that I'm interpreting something wrong.
