Blogcritics: Comments on Bin Laden Thanks Administration Officials For Planning "Assistance"

Comment by JR

Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:11:57 EST

Dave Nalle: Did they vote? Are they running their own infrastructure? Can they set their own policies without asking our permission? The answer to all of these is 'yes', so you figure it out from there. It's not even clear that the answers to all of those questions is 'yes', let alone that those three things constitute running a country. What can you prove? By the way, you said in Comment 63: This means that she's actually fallen for the Liberal propaganda that Bush is pro-life, anti-gay and a warmonger, when everyone with any awareness of current events and the fine line Bush is treading knows perfectly well that this is not the case. But when copygodd asked when Bush became pro-choice, you responded in Comment 68: He always has been, but he's done a remarkable job of making sure that everyone thinks he's not. He's had to for political reasons. So who's responsible for the belief (false, according to you) that Bush is pro-life? Was it Bush or liberal propagandists? Victor Plenty: Some people honestly think the real situation in the world is different from what you think it is. Dave Nalle: They sure do, Victor. But since I base my assessment on fact and they don't, I'll stick with mine. Facts are self-consistent; your assessments are anything but. Dude, you're like the Charles Ives of cognitive dissonance.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:35:22 EST

MCH - see my Chickenhawk article. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:34:53 EST

JR, an answer to the question "Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq?" is not "They still need our troops, among other things." You seem to think I asked if they were completely self reliant. Not the same thing, or else you think that the presence of our troops automatically means we're running the country, in which case there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with you. Did they vote? Are they running their own infrastructure? Can they set their own policies without asking our permission? The answer to all of these is 'yes', so you figure it out from there. Dave

Comment by MCH

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:21:07 EST

Re comment #52: "Jay, like so many others, has no real idea of what the U.S. military is about, he gets his info from TV." - SFC Ski Agreed Ski...no different than so many other of BC's civilian keyboard warriors, namely Eric Olsen, Dave Nalle, R.J. (Bobby) Elliott, David Flanagan, Al Barger, et al.

Comment by JR

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:58:17 EST

Well, now look who can't read? It clearly is an answer to the question, if not the answer you were looking for.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:32:50 EST

>>Have abortions been banned? Some, yes. He signed a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. He gave no indication that he intended it to be struck down by the courts.<< So, you think that pulling a living baby from the womb and stabbing it in the skull to kill it is an abortion? >>Has Bush supported civil unions? Not that I'm aware of. What's he done?<< Endorsed them during the election. No one has sent him any federal legislation on the issue so he hasn't done anything more than that so far. >>Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq? Not yet. They still need our troops, among other things.<< Not an answer to the question. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:31:12 EST

>>wait a second...bush is pro-choice? when did that happen?<< He always has been, but he's done a remarkable job of making sure that everyone thinks he's not. He's had to for political reasons. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:30:14 EST

>>False choice, Dave. Some people honestly think the real situation in the world is different from what you think it is.<< They sure do, Victor. But since I base my assessment on fact and they don't, I'll stick with mine. Dave

Comment by JR

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:55:44 EST

Dave Nalle: But Richard, my comment is automatically malicious because it opens up the possibility that Bush might leave a positive legacy in history. Your comment is malicious because you accused someone of wishing for nuclear war. (I'm assuming that such a mindset would reflect badly on her, and that that's why you wrote the comment. If anyone wants to challenge my assumptions, feel free to speak up...) Have abortions been banned? Some, yes. He signed a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. He gave no indication that he intended it to be struck down by the courts. Has Bush supported civil unions? Not that I'm aware of. What's he done? Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq? Not yet. They still need our troops, among other things.

Comment by copygodd

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:46:27 EST

wait a second...bush is pro-choice? when did that happen?

Comment by Victor Plenty

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:42:48 EST

False choice, Dave. Some people honestly think the real situation in the world is different from what you think it is. You can call those people "delusional" if it helps you be more comfortable with your own delusions, but anyone making sincere efforts to take an unbiased view will realize such tactics only undermine your own claims.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:06:08 EST

Victor Wrote: >>Angie, in comment 40, responded primarily to the claim of likelihood. Clearly in her opinion it is already too late for the Bush administration to achieve anything positive, and so she considers it unlikely any honest history text (leaving aside the question of whether any such thing really exists) will look upon George W. Bush in a good light.<< So you're saying she's just ignorant and ill informed rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent Bush's record and potential for success. I guess that's a valid opinion. >>Dave's subsequent comments misread Angie's point. Whether out of deliberate malice or simple minded incomprehension is unclear. He assumes she has said it would be undesirable for the Bush administration to succeed in its stated goals, when it is very clear she has only said it is unlikely.<< You could only say that, based on the current situation, if you choose to ignore facts and instead substitute a baseless presumption of failure which can only originate in a desire to see Bush fail. There's no other way to come to the position she has expressed. He does this in a clear attempt to vilify her. Conveniently, he fails to present any arguments that might disprove the statements she has actually made. Here's a quote from her second comment: "In fact, what I have seen him do is get us into a "war" that we should never have been in. Listen to him want to take away women's right to do what they wish with their own body. Talk about denying homosexuals the same rights others have." This means that she's actually fallen for the Liberal propaganda that Bush is pro-life, anti-gay and a warmonger, when everyone with any awareness of current events and the fine line Bush is treading knows perfectly well that this is not the case. Have abortions been banned? Has Bush supported civil unions? Did we bring democracy and self-government to Iraq? She's either delusional or deliberately misrepresenting reality in order to attack Bush. You pick. Dave

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:00:37 EST

>>I take it that you cannot effectively interpret what Dave said? Malicious? Come on!<< But Richard, my comment is automatically malicious because it opens up the possibility that Bush might leave a positive legacy in history. Anything good about Bush is 'malicious' and he's always a 'complete failure', perhaps because he's a 'fascist'. Dave

Comment by Angie

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:24:19 EST

You wouldn't piss on Bush to put him out if he were on fire. Oh please Dave, get over yourself huh? I may not like the guy or how he's running the country. And I may think he is a complete (edits self), BUT! I would at least throw water at him if he was on fire. and in the end your ill-wishful thinking won't count for anything Funny, but I do believe that there are MILLIONS that feel as I do. Perhaps it's your wishful thinking that won't count for anything. Only time will tell.

Comment by Victor Plenty

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:07:50 EST

It's my duty to help those who cannot help themselves. I'd rather be helpful than enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Comment by Richard Porter

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:03:03 EST

Victor Plenty Thanks for clarifying what I said...no, what I meant....no, what I thought...no, what I inferred...no, what I desired.... Thanks for the contribution!

Comment by Victor Plenty

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:47:19 EST

The vague open-endedness started with Richard's comment 6:

I do hope my children can read about President Bush in our history books as maintaining a very successful administration for the United States and the world.

The word "hope" has at least two possible connotations in this sentence. It can be interpreted as saying it is likely the Bush presidency will be remembered in a positive light by historians. It can also be interpreted as saying it is desirable for the Bush presidency to be remembered as a success. Richard seems to use the vagueness of his wording to mean both of these things. Angie, in comment 40, responded primarily to the claim of likelihood. Clearly in her opinion it is already too late for the Bush administration to achieve anything positive, and so she considers it unlikely any honest history text (leaving aside the question of whether any such thing really exists) will look upon George W. Bush in a good light. Dave's subsequent comments misread Angie's point. Whether out of deliberate malice or simple minded incomprehension is unclear. He assumes she has said it would be undesirable for the Bush administration to succeed in its stated goals, when it is very clear she has only said it is unlikely. He does this in a clear attempt to vilify her. Conveniently, he fails to present any arguments that might disprove the statements she has actually made. It is an illustrative example of the classic straw figure fallacy. When you cannot defeat your opponent's actual argument, create a false argument that is much weaker, and refute that one instead.

Comment by Richard Porter

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:39:40 EST

JR I take it that you cannot effectively interpret what Dave said? Malicious? Come on!

Comment by JR

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:20:55 EST

Dave Nalle: But deny reality all you like. History will judge Bush one way or another and in the end your ill-wishful thinking won't count for anything. Your malicious comments don't count for anything either. They just stink up the place.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:47:45 EST

No need to twist anything. Looks like I got you exactly right the first time, Angie. You wouldn't piss on Bush to put him out if he were on fire. But deny reality all you like. History will judge Bush one way or another and in the end your ill-wishful thinking won't count for anything. Dave

Comment by Angie

Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:13:15 EST

Wow! I didn't what I meant by that was the topic of choice here. Thanks for the email nudge to come clarify myself. it's worth sacrificing the welfare of the nation and the world to make sure Bush goes down in history as a bad guy? You don't care about freedom, human rights, genocide, terrorism, world hunger or anything else? So long as Bush goes down in flames the rest of the world and our country can go to hell too and that's just fine with you? Real nice how you twist what I said around Dave. Takes talent to do that. And ... funny, but perhaps I've been living on another planet these last few years, but I don't recall bush accomplishing any of that. In my opinion the guy has been a complete failure. A laughable one at that. In fact, what I have seen him do is get us into a "war" that we should never have been in. Listen to him want to take away women's right to do what they wish with their own body. Talk about denying homosexuals the same rights others have. Just lovely. Definitely something worth looking up to. (sarcastic for those who can't tell) So Dave, go ahead and twist those very direct words around. :)

Comment by Temple Stark

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:47:50 EST

>>so I don't have to leap to conclusions from its open-endedness. LOL. Have to ... hahahahaha. compelled, even I bet. hoohoo. Good one. !@#$% There's these things called questions, see? They lead to greater understanding and unlightenment and, it is said, can even arrest those leaps. More questions, less declarations make one.

Comment by SFC Ski

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:07:00 EST

Jay, like so many others, has no real idea of what the US military is about, he gets his info from TV.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:00:33 EST

Hard to imagine someone can't see the difference, but I'll spell it out for you. >>Parallel to the way things operate in the U.S. Not many poor folks calling the shots in Washington.<< Yes, but here in the US every poor person has a vote equal to that of every rich person plus the right to organize and campaign and work to see that people get into office who implement the policies they want. That is not the case in the terrorist dominated nations of the Middle East. >> Not many rich folks lugging around M16s doing Washington's bidding around the globe. << True, the officers usually carry a personal side-arm. But they still fight in the front lines. >>Consequently, I'm not really sure what your point is...<< No, you clearly lack the frame of reference to get my point. Dave

Comment by Jay Barnica

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:51:12 EST

>>> Terrorist leaders in the middle east overwhelmingly come from the educated, wealthier classes. It's a political route to power for them. Now, the actual terrorists who strap on bombs and blow themselves up are a different matter. They're poor, hungry and fanatical and they come from backwards countries like Sudan and Yemen. They are recruited by the terrorist leadership because of their ignorance, desperation and how easily they are manipulated. They are victims of terrorism as much as the people they kill. But they are NOT the real terrorists. Those are the multi-millionaires like Bin Laden who plan the operations. <<< Parallel to the way things operate in the U.S. Not many poor folks calling the shots in Washington. Not many rich folks lugging around M16s doing Washington's bidding around the globe. Consequently, I'm not really sure what your point is... Jay