Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Game, Set, Match to Dabob2.> Don't call the game in the second quarter with the score tied, RT. You might end up looking foolish.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You obviously missed the Rush Limbaugh thread where the clearest of statements was so turned, twisted, and spun that when it was all over it made Lombard Street look positively straight as an arrow.> Luckily I was there to straigten it back out.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Luckily I was there to straigten it back out.<< LOL! Well played, Douglas.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Wes Clarke did.>> <Really? These guys say that his opinions were all over the place. <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/ne" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/ne</a> ws2003/0916-10.htm> If they were (and you'll notice I just posted that once sentence about him, based on what I remember reading at the time), he was at least correct some of the time, as opposed to the neocons who were wrong, period. <<War games in 1999 predicted trouble even if 400,000 troops were sent.>> <Did they? I looked over the actual document, and the above sentence is a mischaracterization of it. It was a seminar in which 70 people from various branches of the government brainstormed about what would be possible problems in a post-Saddam Iraq.> I transposed the place that I wanted to put the "even" - a better summary was the one right after that paragraph: "The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue." At any rate, there were plenty of liberals (and war gamers) who did a hell of a lot better at predicting what would happen in Iraq than the neocons.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Game, Set, Match to Dabob2.>> <Don't call the game in the second quarter with the score tied, RT. You might end up looking foolish. > Almost as foolish as someone who would mix tennis and football metaphors.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <he was at least correct some of the time, as opposed to the neocons who were wrong, period.> Especially if one mischaracterizes what they said, and what neocons said. It seems we are supposed to take a few statements by neocons that didn't turn out quite right and deduce that all neocons were always wrong, but disregard all the things liberals got wrong, and focus only on the few things they got right. <At any rate, there were plenty of liberals (and war gamers) who did a hell of a lot better at predicting what would happen in Iraq than the neocons.> I think neocons were right as often as liberals.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Almost as foolish as someone who would mix tennis and football metaphors.> I'd say much more so. Nobody seriously uses tennis metaphors.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Luckily I was there to straigten it back out." Dang! Douglas has actually made me laugh a few times the last couple of days. Republicans should really lose more often - it does wonders for his sense of humor.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Republicans should really lose more often - it does wonders for his sense of humor.> No, it doesn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<he was at least correct some of the time, as opposed to the neocons who were wrong, period.>> <Especially if one mischaracterizes what they said, and what neocons said. > You love that word "mischaracterize," which by now we all know should be read as "not as Doug would wish to see it." I didn't mischaracterize anything. You asked for examples, and I gave them. I also know full well what I and others here said at the time. <It seems we are supposed to take a few statements by neocons that didn't turn out quite right and deduce that all neocons were always wrong, but disregard all the things liberals got wrong, and focus only on the few things they got right. > Not at all. You asked for examples and I gave them, and could easily have given more, but the posting was long enough as it was. So it wasn't a few things. Nor was it a "few statements" by neocons. In addition to the famous statements predicting it would be a "cakewalk," that the insurgency would be limited, that the oil revenues would pay for it all... there's the whole question of overall tone. Overall, the neocons were convinced that going into Iraq was wise, any insurgency would be smalll, negative consequences for us would be limited, and negative consequences for the Iraqis would also be - certainly none of them predicted the current level of sectarian violence and death (over 3,000 in October alone according to the UN). They simply got all that wrong, EVEN IF by some miracle Iraq rights itself before more years of bloodshed, and frankly, Doug, you obviously don't want to face up to that fact. <<At any rate, there were plenty of liberals (and war gamers) who did a hell of a lot better at predicting what would happen in Iraq than the neocons.>> <I think neocons were right as often as liberals.> You can think that all you like, but unlike me, you've shown no evidence. <I'd say much more so. Nobody seriously uses tennis metaphors. > Yeah, "game, set and match" is like some weird, made-up language.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You love that word "mischaracterize," which by now we all know should be read as "not as Doug would wish to see it."> You'd like that, but it's not so. You and a few other posters here continually interpret things to the detriment of conservatives, and you're doing it here. For example, the "cakewalk" remark was made by Ken Adelman, and applied only to how easily our forces could defeat Saddam's armies, and remove him from power. It was given in response to predictions by others that those things would be difficult to accomplish, requiring more than 200,000 troops and thousands of casualties. You can read his essay here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer</a> Mr Adelman was more correct than his critics, and no one ever said Iraqi oil revenue would pay for all of the costs of reconstruction, so it's a mischaracterization to say that they all got all of it wrong. <You can think that all you like, but unlike me, you've shown no evidence.> The evidence that I've presented has been as compelling as any you have. <Yeah, "game, set and match" is like some weird, made-up language.> Well, no. But it was incorrect.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You love that word "mischaracterize," which by now we all know should be read as "not as Doug would wish to see it.">. <You'd like that, but it's not so.> Yes, it is. <You and a few other posters here continually interpret things to the detriment of conservatives, and you're doing it here.> Nope. <For example, the "cakewalk" remark was made by Ken Adelman, and applied only to how easily our forces could defeat Saddam's armies, and remove him from power. It was given in response to predictions by others that those things would be difficult to accomplish, requiring more than 200,000 troops and thousands of casualties. You can read his essay here: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/</a> ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer> Thank you, Doug. Because here we see it's you who is mischaracterizing. Here is his exact statement. "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. " Note the two parts to that statement. Now, unless you believe that anyone thought we could just up and leave Iraq as soon as Saddam was deposed, you've got the whole question of the aftermath, and what constitutes "liberating Iraq." Even the neocons did not believe that meant simply deposing Saddam. It involved setting up a stable, functioning democracy. It was always part of the neocon plan. As we've seen, that has proven to be anything but a "cakewalk." <Mr Adelman was more correct than his critics, > Nope, as we've seen, he was LESS correct than those people who said that the war portion would be relatively easy, but the aftermath would be a bear. Yes, there were some who predicted greater casualties in the war portion, but partly due to the experience of the first gulf war, most people did not. For you to insist that their predictions were representative of most is dishonest. The predictions I remember agreeing with were the ones that said that deposing Saddam would be relatively easy; the aftermath would be messy indeed. Those people were obviously more correct than Adelman. <and no one ever said Iraqi oil revenue would pay for all of the costs of reconstruction, so it's a mischaracterization to say that they all got all of it wrong.> Most of it, though. I also note that you didn't address the questions of the neocons predicting that the insurgency would be limited and that sectarian violence would be limited as well, which they obviously got completely wrong. I've noticed this before with you; you respond to what you (think you) can refute and ignore the rest. And these are hardly unimportant issues that the neocons got completely wrong. <<You can think that all you like, but unlike me, you've shown no evidence.>> <The evidence that I've presented has been as compelling as any you have.> I know you actually think so, but please. Until the WashPost link, you hadn't presented any at all that said the neocons were "more" correct than liberals; only your opinion that it was so. And even the link didn't show what you think it did. <<Yeah, "game, set and match" is like some weird, made-up language.>> <Well, no. But it was incorrect.> It was RT's opinion, and therefore cannot be correct or incorrect.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Now, unless you believe that anyone thought we could just up and leave Iraq as soon as Saddam was deposed, you've got the whole question of the aftermath, and what constitutes "liberating Iraq."> Which Adelman was not addressing, as anyone who reads the essay can clearly see. <Nope, as we've seen, he was LESS correct than those people who said that the war portion would be relatively easy, but the aftermath would be a bear.> Sure. He was less correct than some people you've constructed in your imagination. <I also note that you didn't address the questions of the neocons predicting that the insurgency would be limited and that sectarian violence would be limited as well, which they obviously got completely wrong.> I didn't address it because it's similar to your other points. No one said it would be peaces and cream, and as bad as it's been, and may continue to be, it hasn't been as bad as it could have been. <Until the WashPost link, you hadn't presented any at all that said the neocons were "more" correct than liberals; only your opinion that it was so.> Why would I present evidence to back up something I never claimed?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Now, unless you believe that anyone thought we could just up and leave Iraq as soon as Saddam was deposed, you've got the whole question of the aftermath, and what constitutes "liberating Iraq.">> <Which Adelman was not addressing, as anyone who reads the essay can clearly see.> I read the essay. He's either including it as part of "liberating Iraq," which would make more sense since no one thought we could just depose Saddam and leave, in which case he's including that in the "cakewalk,"... or he's minimizing the aftermath entirely - which come to think of it is a quite legitimate criticism of the neocon plan as well. <<Nope, as we've seen, he was LESS correct than those people who said that the war portion would be relatively easy, but the aftermath would be a bear.>> <Sure. He was less correct than some people you've constructed in your imagination.> I was one of them. I didn't construct me in my imagination. We had other people on these very boards saying that very thing. And certainly other people writing editorials, etc. You just hate to admit they were right. <<I also note that you didn't address the questions of the neocons predicting that the insurgency would be limited and that sectarian violence would be limited as well, which they obviously got completely wrong.>> <I didn't address it because it's similar to your other points.> No, they're quite different from, say, the oil revenue question. They're different, and in fact, key. <No one said it would be peaces and cream, and as bad as it's been, and may continue to be, it hasn't been as bad as it could have been.> That's so lame. It could have been worse? That's not the point we're arguing. The point is: did the neocons come closer to predicting what happened, or were the people arguing that invasion would be unwise closer? Obviously, the latter, loathe as you are to admit it. <<Until the WashPost link, you hadn't presented any at all that said the neocons were "more" correct than liberals; only your opinion that it was so.>> <Why would I present evidence to back up something I never claimed? > I'm not searching the whole thread, but you did say "I think neocons were right as often as liberals." - which is wrong.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He's either including it as part of "liberating Iraq," which would make more sense since no one thought we could just depose Saddam and leave, in which case he's including that in the "cakewalk,"... or he's minimizing the aftermath entirely - which come to think of it is a quite legitimate criticism of the neocon plan as well.> No, as I said earlier, he's not addressing it. <I didn't construct me in my imagination. We had other people on these very boards saying that very thing. And certainly other people writing editorials, etc. You just hate to admit they were right.> I'll admit that they were right when I see that they were right. But I'm not conceding based on your memories over mine. <The point is: did the neocons come closer to predicting what happened, or were the people arguing that invasion would be unwise closer?> Earlier, the point was that the neocons were wrong about everything. At least you're moving off of that sweeping generalization. <I'm not searching the whole thread, but you did say "I think neocons were right as often as liberals." - which is wrong.> But it's my opinion, clearly stated as such. And you just said RT's opinion couldn't be correct or incorrect. Why then is mine?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<He's either including it as part of "liberating Iraq," which would make more sense since no one thought we could just depose Saddam and leave, in which case he's including that in the "cakewalk,"... or he's minimizing the aftermath entirely - which come to think of it is a quite legitimate criticism of the neocon plan as well.>> <No, as I said earlier, he's not addressing it.> Which, as I said earlier, was a big problem with the neocon plans in general. While more thoughtful people were saying "the war portion won't be any harder than it was in '91, but if we actually depose the government and occupy the country, THAT will be the hard part," the neocons either said that that wouldn't be difficult either or - in an act of intellectual dishonesty - didn't address it at all. Remember, these op ed pieces were all part of the effort to "sell" the war to the public, so if you say "liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk," unless you thought we could just up and leave after deposing Saddam (which Adelman clearly did not), then you are by inference saying the whole thing will be a cakewalk. He then went on to talk about how easy the military portion would be, but only a relatively few people were saying that would be difficult. That was a gift to people like Adelman, because he could refute that, not address the occupation at all, and imply that the whole deal would be easy. Which was intellectually dishonest, but a big part of selling the war to the public. <<I didn't construct me in my imagination. We had other people on these very boards saying that very thing. And certainly other people writing editorials, etc. You just hate to admit they were right.>> <I'll admit that they were right when I see that they were right. But I'm not conceding based on your memories over mine.> Knowing how your memories are filtered through your biases like everything else, I believe you when you say that. I already posted some people in this thread. Next you'll be telling me what I was saying at the time, and it was quite a bit more accurate than what the neocons were saying, and I didn't come across those opinions in a vacuum - I was reading what other thoughtful people whom I admired were saying. You can pretend they didn't exist; knock yourself out. <<The point is: did the neocons come closer to predicting what happened, or were the people arguing that invasion would be unwise closer?>> <Earlier, the point was that the neocons were wrong about everything. At least you're moving off of that sweeping generalization.> Did I say everything? Well, they've gotten just about everything about Iraq wrong, unless you count things like the traditional war portion, which not many people disagreed with them on anyway. So nice try at misdirection to avoid answering, but I'll ask again: did the neocons come closer to predicting what happened, or were the people arguing that invasion would be unwise closer? <<I'm not searching the whole thread, but you did say "I think neocons were right as often as liberals." - which is wrong.>> <But it's my opinion, clearly stated as such. And you just said RT's opinion couldn't be correct or incorrect. Why then is mine?> Because it's contrary to all the evidence.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <While more thoughtful people were saying "the war portion won't be any harder than it was in '91, but if we actually depose the government and occupy the country, THAT will be the hard part," the neocons either said that that wouldn't be difficult either or - in an act of intellectual dishonesty - didn't address it at all.> Again, the piece was written in response to people who said it would be difficult to defeat Saddam's armies. It was not written in response to people who thought that would be easy, but the aftermath difficult. <I already posted some people in this thread.> None of whom said defeating Saddam's armies would be easy, but occupying the country would be hard. That certainly wasn't the concensus of anti-war critics. <So nice try at misdirection to avoid answering, but I'll ask again: did the neocons come closer to predicting what happened, or were the people arguing that invasion would be unwise closer?> I answered that question before you asked it. I think they were both equally wrong. <Because it's contrary to all the evidence.> That description applies to RT's opinion, not mine.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<While more thoughtful people were saying "the war portion won't be any harder than it was in '91, but if we actually depose the government and occupy the country, THAT will be the hard part," the neocons either said that that wouldn't be difficult either or - in an act of intellectual dishonesty - didn't address it at all.> > <Again, the piece was written in response to people who said it would be difficult to defeat Saddam's armies. It was not written in response to people who thought that would be easy, but the aftermath difficult.> It was written as part of the attempt to sell the war. He knocked down the strawman of "would Saddam be difficult to defeat" (posited by relatively few people) and said that the liberation of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Unless one would believe that the liberation was simply a matter of deposing Saddam and nothing afterwards, it was either intellectually dishonest or saying the whole matter would be a cakewalk. <<I already posted some people in this thread.>> <None of whom said defeating Saddam's armies would be easy, but occupying the country would be hard. That certainly wasn't the concensus of anti-war critics.> Yes it was. And turnabout is fair play here. The people I posted talked about how difficult the occupation would be (and how it would unleash forces we weren't prepared to deal with), and didn't address the defeat of Saddam. But since they were already assuming an occupation would happen, that assumes the defeat of Saddam. <<So nice try at misdirection to avoid answering, but I'll ask again: did the neocons come closer to predicting what happened, or were the people arguing that invasion would be unwise closer?>> <I answered that question before you asked it. I think they were both equally wrong.> Well, you're wrong. My sources talk about how difficult the occupation would be and what would be unleashed by it - and they were right. They didn't address how difficult deposing Saddam would be - and since they were arguing against the war, if they thought it would be difficult, they'd surely have said so. Whereas your example talks about the whole liberation being a cakewalk. It's obvious who was more correct. <<Because it's contrary to all the evidence.>> <That description applies to RT's opinion, not mine.> As we've seen - just the opposite.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unless one would believe that the liberation was simply a matter of deposing Saddam and nothing afterwards, it was either intellectually dishonest or saying the whole matter would be a cakewalk.> You're doing it again. You're responding to my opinions by repeating yours. Mine are backed up by what Adelman actually says in the essay; yours are based on your liberal biases. <The people I posted talked about how difficult the occupation would be (and how it would unleash forces we weren't prepared to deal with), and didn't address the defeat of Saddam.> "Still, there will be an invasion, which will be difficult if not impossible to win." Sounds like they addressed it, and were wrong. <As we've seen - just the opposite.> Who is "we"? Sure, you believe that. But that hardly makes it true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Unless one would believe that the liberation was simply a matter of deposing Saddam and nothing afterwards, it was either intellectually dishonest or saying the whole matter would be a cakewalk.>> <You're doing it again. You're responding to my opinions by repeating yours. Mine are backed up by what Adelman actually says in the essay; yours are based on your liberal biases.> Not so. Both are based on what Adelman said. It's just that you're willing to overlook his intellectual dishonesty. <<The people I posted talked about how difficult the occupation would be (and how it would unleash forces we weren't prepared to deal with), and didn't address the defeat of Saddam. But since they were already assuming an occupation would happen, that assumes the defeat of Saddam. >> <Still, there will be an invasion, which will be difficult if not impossible to win. Sounds like they addressed it, and were wrong.> Wrong again, Sparky. Unless one restricts the meaning of "invasion" to "deposing Saddam," this is true, and they were correct. It has proven difficult to win. The invasion was by definition going to include the aftermath of deposing Saddam, unless anyone thought we could depose him and just leave. Since neither neocons nor liberals thought that could possibly be the case, it is disingenuous to read "invasion" as meaning "deposing Saddam" solely. And I notice that once again you didn't respond to their other points. Their predictions of sectarian violence, for example, which they got right and the neocons just plain got wrong. <<As we've seen - just the opposite.>> <Who is "we"? Sure, you believe that. But that hardly makes it true.> Neither do your assertions. As to who "we" is, so far on this sub-matter, it's you, me, and RoadTrip. We're winning with 66% of the vote.
