Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

Tenuous at best. What they did was an act of war. You could argue that striking back, even against civilian "strategic" targets was an acceptable response. However, I suppose I'm a lot more specific in what I consider terrorism than some.

Was it really an "act of war"?

The Russians intervened to support a friendly government -- puppet or not -- and were there with its consent.

You know that drill, don't you?

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist...

Interestingly the same mistakes are made over and over. The Russians went in to prop up the Socialist secular regime that was dependent on the Soviet Union but under attack from the Islamists and in danger of collapse.

The Russians expected to support the Afghan army and allow the Afghans to do the bulk of the fighting, but the Afghans were not capable of it and the Russians were sucked in ever deeper.

 

[Shawn]

In your opinion. But then, I've been swapping stories with Bulldawg for years here. I'm telling you what the intent was. If you chose to discount that, well, that's your choice.

No, it had nothing to do with supporting the invasion. It had to do with responding to Bulldawg, then reading the news item, then providing background information regarding what I took from that article.

The rest of the junk in this thread (assigning motives and such to my reasons for posting) is pure hogwash.

You know what I'm not "buying?"

I'm not buying any notion of explaining your entrenched position based on the fact that it was somehow a discussion of language directed at Bulldawg. You dug in, and that doesn't dig you out. You were responding to Bulldawg, but you were also advocating a larger opinion, one that is well known on the board.

Yes, the obvious meaning of the report is that Saddam was not planning Brigade-sized conventional military operations with al-Qaeda. Correct.

That's what makes the news article and the way it was reported incorrect.

I'm not buying that you just put out an "opinion" when you explicitly stated that the other posters didn't understand the language of the report. It was a presumption of expertise (which may be true) to marginalize the counter-opinions.

You missed the entire point. See Bulldawg's post above.

Operational (standard English) - Working, viable.

Operational (Pentagon-ese) - A level of war involving Division-sized elements confined to a given geographical region, limited in size and scope, ie: Operation Desert Storm.

The headline of the story you posted is totally misleading and way off base. The report it cites is a Pentagon report, written in Pentagon lingo. It doesn't say there was "no link" it says there was no "direct operational link."

Given that al-Qaeda doesn't do conventional warfare, using division-sized maneuver elements, this is hardly surprising.

Non-news.

And I'm not buying that all the other "garbage" was what crapped up this thread. Your opinon is your own, and I think you raised some legitimate issues. When counterpoints were made, you deflected, per usual, into a discussion about semantics, and suggestions of superior knowledge about the workings of the military (assumed true) and the press corps. Others tried to assert that even if your understanding of the language of the DoD is accurate, the larger point advocated by the story is still accurate.

Utlimately, it does not vindicate the intelligence reports, nor the reasons the administration asserted for invading Iraq. It's abundantly clear to everyone that your wrangling of words--mixed in with your other posts on this thread and others--was a defense of the administrations position.

You'll of course deny that, and claim that you were only trying to clarify the language and the sourcing of the story. The body of your post, on this thread, suggests otherwise.

That's what I'm not buying.

 

[DadsDream]

You know what I'm not "buying?"

I'm not buying any notion of explaining your entrenched position based on the fact that it was somehow a discussion of language directed at Bulldawg. You dug in, and that doesn't dig you out. You were responding to Bulldawg, but you were also advocating a larger opinion, one that is well known on the board.

My first response, the one about Saddam sealing his fate, was a reply to Bulldawg, as previously stated.

The second response was an analysis of the language of the article.

I'm not buying that you just put out an "opinion" when you explicitly stated that the other posters didn't understand the language of the report. It was a presumption of expertise (which may be true) to marginalize the counter-opinions.

I wasn't trying to marginalize anybody's opinions. I found it curious that the headline didn't match the direct quote in the article. The headline said "no link." The direct quote said "no operational links."

Why would that word "operational" be included as one of the few direct quotes in the article, I asked myself. So, I wrote my opinion about that.

And I'm not buying that all the other "garbage" was what crapped up this thread. Your opinon is your own, and I think you raised some legitimate issues. When counterpoints were made, you deflected, per usual, into a discussion about semantics, and suggestions of superior knowledge about the workings of the military (assumed true) and the press corps. Others tried to assert that even if your understanding of the language of the DoD is accurate, the larger point advocated by the story is still accurate.

Thank you for conceding that I raised some legitimate issues.

Seems a number of folks decided to take issue with me, rather than what I was saying.

Superior knowledge? Versus inferior knowledge? I don't view things that way. Knowledge is knowledge. I offered my opinion about the article and what it meant. That's all.

Utlimately, it does not vindicate the intelligence reports, nor the reasons the administration asserted for invading Iraq. It's abundantly clear to everyone that your wrangling of words--mixed in with your other posts on this thread and others--was a defense of the administrations position.

Which has exactly ZERO to do with the article that was posted...from leaked anonymous sources...before the official report was published.

It has ZERO to do with me defending anything or anybody.

It was simply an observation that for some strange reason, the direct quote in the story didn't match the headline.

The direct quote in the story could also be taken to mean two different things.

For pointing that out, that makes me apologist for the administration?

That's totally wrong and really tiresome. It's 2008, not 2004.

You'll of course deny that, and claim that you were only trying to clarify the language and the sourcing of the story. The body of your post, on this thread, suggests otherwise.

That's what I'm not buying.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but since it's an opinion about me on a personal level, I'll tell you flat footed that you're wrong in this case.

 

[peytonknows]

 

[SaintJ]

Guess who's back?
Back again
Shady's back
Tell a friend
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
na-na-na
....two....three....four....

 

[RebSaint]

It has ZERO to do with me defending anything or anybody.

It was simply an observation that for some strange reason, the direct quote in the story didn't match the headline.

The direct quote in the story could also be taken to mean two different things.

For pointing that out, that makes me apologist for the administration?

That's totally wrong and really tiresome. It's 2008, not 2004.

Yes it does, and yes it is. For two reasons. Diminishing the larger point of the story and focusing on the minutia of the story completely does not change that the Administration Either lied or intentionally misled the American people to support a war based on false premises.

What would be the motivation to focus on some obscure detail, while completely missing the big picture based on God-knows what obfuscated, complicated military jargon besides A. Ego B. Attention hoarism, or C. A slick, backchanneling way of justifying what the Administration said before the war or at the very least, a subtle way to justify or excuse away the degree of misinformation which came out of the Bush administration. Or justify a reason that was provided by the Bush camp which was put simply--patently misleading or downright FALSE.

I choose option C. It was not simply "an observation," and if it was simply "an observation" you would have conceded its non-sequiter nature and relevance once so many others bowled you over the head with it--but no, we all know what's really at work here. If it was "just an observation" you wouldn't have dug your heels in so deep despite the obvious lack of basic logic or common sense.

 

[DadsDream]

Yes it does, and yes it is. For two reasons. Diminishing the larger point of the story and focusing on the minutia of the story completely does not change that the Administration Either lied or intentionally misled the American people to support a war based on false premises.

What would be the motivation to focus on some obscure detail, while completely missing the big picture based on God-knows what obfuscated, complicated military jargon besides A. Ego B. Attention hoarism, or C. A slick, backchanneling way of justifying what the Administration said before the war or at the very least, a subtle way to justify or excuse away the degree of misinformation which came out of the Bush administration. Or justify a reason that was provided by the Bush camp which was put simply--patently misleading or downright FALSE.

I choose option C. It was not simply "an observation," and if it was simply "an observation" you would have conceded its non-sequiter nature and relevance once so many others bowled you over the head with it--but no, we all know what's really at work here. If it was "just an observation" you wouldn't have dug your heels in so deep despite the obvious lack of basic logic or common sense.

It's not something obscure...it's in the headline and first two paragraphs of the article which is the subject of the thread.

So, rather than posting an opinion about the subject of the thread and reading the opinions of others about the subject of the thread, we should focus on me and why I post the things I do?

Simple enough, then.

The opinions you’re expressing about me and my intentions are totally wrong and way off base, besides being totally off-topic.

 

[RebSaint]

It's not something obscure...it's in the headline and first two paragraphs of the article which is the subject of the thread.

Wrong. Arguing over the various naunces and semantics over the DoD definition of "operation" is obscure and obfuscates larger issue here.

So, rather than posting an opinion about the subject of the thread and reading the opinions of others about the subject of the thread, we should focus on me and why I post the things I do?

Simple enough, then.

The opinions you’re expressing about me and my intentions are totally wrong and way off base, besides being totally off-topic.

Really, how long are you going to play the victim card? You decided to run with this intellectual football, and continue to dig your heels in. One. More. Time.

You were not just "providing information" for the sake of it, you were expressing an opinion, albeit in a round-about way about the veracity and truthfullness of the Administration's claims about AQ and Hussein before the invasion of Iraq.

Why the focus on you? Well you were the one who INSISTED for some odd reason to focus on something obscure and non-sequiter. You were queried SEVERAL different times as to what motivated you. You provided a pretty unbelievable excuse and frankly, got called on it. And based on your posting history, I'm still sticking to option C, based on how many times you've stepped up to the plate to bat defending the Bush administration.

 

[DadsDream]

Sorry, but when it comes to my opinions and what I think and feel, you're speculating and you're wrong.

 

[DadsDream]

Well you were the one who INSISTED for some odd reason to focus on something obscure and non-sequiter.

Something in the Headline and first Two Paragraphs of the story isn't obscure or non-sequiter.

It's the raison d'etre for the whole piece.

 

[RebSaint]

Sorry, but when it comes to my opinions and what I think and feel, you're speculating and you're wrong.

Don't take me for a fool, bro. You've defended this administration on almost every policy its implemented, from Iraq, to the Patriot Act, to its post-Katrina response. Back when Bush had only a 29% approval rating you were in that number. I remember the threads and issues.

If not done in the name of defending the administration, what pray tell motivated you to take such an odd, intellectually untenous position in this regard?

Only the most die-hard partisans defend the administration's claims before the war--and long since the administration's claims have been discredited by several U.S. government agencies, including the CIA, 9-11 Commission ad naseum.

I told you a long time ago, you might as well registered on up as a Republican.

 

[champ76]

I'm confused. Can't we have opinions and observations and not be personally blasted for them and our motives maligned?

 

[RebSaint]

Something in the Headline and first Two Paragraphs of the story isn't obscure or non-sequiter.

It's the raison d'etre for the whole piece.

But quibbling over the meaning of "operation" is, which is what you did over and over again in this thread. I think most here agreed on that point. Except you and Champ76.

 

[RebSaint]

I'm confused. Can't we have opinions and observations and not be personally blasted for them and our motives maligned?

Nope. I'm not blasting anyone. I call blind partisanship for what it is. I think blind partisanship should be maligned at every turn.

We wouldn't be at this point I think without Dads focus on such an obscure, non-sequiter, and I think it's only fair and an observation on my what motivates such obsession with an obscure, non-sequiter which really strays from the larger issues.