I snipped massively, particularly where we said basically the same thing. --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here is the radio address text... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html > I see, you did the same thing I did, only we seem to > disagree to some extent. > You "read in" a lot to what he was saying, I did > not. You made assumptions > and followed implications, I did not. Of course I > was not listening to the > "talking head review" that came after the address. I > am of the opinion that > you got your "take" from some such "review". Incorrect. I did not hear this address, I only read the text. I have read no commentary on this text (other than the article I posted, which as you noted commented only on a few isolated sentences). Please do not do me the disservice of saying that I cannot read a text and come to my own conclusions. > Don't get me wrong, he is spining, but he is not > saying the words you are > puting in his mouth. He just isn't, you or someoen > you listend to is. I put nothing into his mouth. Implications are part of the design and aim of a good speechwriter. Innuendo is not truth or reason; it contributes nothing to rational choice. > > > We resumed, and ended the war, not becouse we > knew they had WMDs, but becouse > > > they had broken the agreements they made to > > >ensure a sesation of hostilities. > > > >Yet UN inspectors, back for the first time in years, > > were 'making progress' (albeit only under the > >threat of the military might poised around Iraq) > > Yes but the final chance they were recieving for the > inspections to work was > squandered by them cheeting and liying the same as > they had done previously. > > What about the inpracticality of...Sitting on >Sadam's doorstep in a "seig" for another 12 years... UNSC involvement would have spread the costs, and probably shortened 'time to invasion' significantly. Although we _have_ had troops in Germany, Japan & Korea for decades (of course Saddam's Iraq poses a much different challenge than Cold War-era USSR & China). > > "We cannot leave the future of peace and the > >security of America in the hands of this cruel and > dangerous man." > > Remember the security of america also depends on our > ability to respond > elsewhere in the world (like our own shores?) we can > no-longer aford > (echonomicaly or security) to expect to keep our > troops fully engagen in a > seig or a no-fly protection for others. All the soldiers in the world cannot protect an open society from determined and trained men willing to kill themselves. All the information-gathering done by massive computers cannot make a supervisor listen to a field agent's alarming report. Do you advise that we pull our current troops from South Korea, Japan and Germany among many others? IIRC, several folk posted that they think other countries should start pulling more of their own weight in the self-defense realm; this might be a good long-term policy, but I think it would be de-stabilizing if done abruptly. I seem to recall a post that suggested that the EU would be able to handle most of its own defenses by ~ 2015? Can anybody clarify? > Their were pictures found in seveal places in Iraq > depicting an "Iraqi Air" > plane flying into WTC. But he never said AQ he said > "terrorists". Again, implication and innuendo. And Rumsfeld did more re: Iraq ?->? 9-11. <dry> I think there are old pictures of Saddam socializing with members of the current administration...innuendo? > > by saying "weapons of mass death" instead > > of "weapons of mass destruction" -- Very carefully > >and cleverly crafted wording. > > Absolutly! Skillfuly done... Just becouse you do >what has to be done and play the > spin better than your apponents doesn't make what > you did wrong, and it > doesn't make your spin wrong either. So it's just a *game?* A giant 'Reality TV Special?' It makes truth a casualty. That is not reasonable. That does not make my decisions informed. > > > Was thier a "spin" to sell the war? Of course > > >their was...Who's fault is that, Bush? Wolfowitz? > > >Powel? They are at fault for the > > > American mode of consensus? You want to blame > them for the manner that ideas are expressed in the > US? > > > > In matters of state, by Administration members > > themselves, ABSOLUTELY!...They were addressing the > > American people about armed conflict. > > And their opponents were not using spin and > marketing techniques? Come on! > You fight the fight your given. > >Everyone slants things > > in their favor. It doesn't make the practice > >honest, correct or admirable. > > No but it *is* the -reality- of what is required. As > soon as one group is > willing to play to the masses with "spin" everyone > has to get on the spin > Maru becouse the best ship is the one that carries > the goods. What really > makes me proud is the way they did it without > fibbing. That remains to be seen. >Instead of spoon > feeding the spin, they let the idiots fill in the > spin, by making buzwords like WBD, evil doors, etc.. >Especialy for someone who has shown that he has >difficulty with words. His speechwriters are good, I acknowledge. Incidentally, are all who disagree with Bush/Admin views "idiots?" I disagree with most of the current admin's take on the world, but I happen to know some very smart and thoughtful Bush supporters on this list. >Did they know what > they were doing? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? > Yes. Then we have completely opposing views of statesmanship. In matters of literally deadly seriousness, I expect to be informed of facts and best estimates, not manipulated, tweaked, and disrespected. I do not admire those who use such tactics to "win" their point, be they left, right or off-the-charts. > > I expect "spin" on most...political matters, > > but in matters of armed conflict, in which men, > women > > and children will die, we (the people) require and > > deserve to make our decisions based upon as much > >of the 'truth' as it is possible to know > > How is that supposed to work? Were the peacniks > going to just stop spinning? > The Far left? The middle left? Was anyone else going > to just not spin? Come on. Then the truth by itself isn't convincing enough? The 'evidence' for WMD had to be spun to be believed? Do you truly want to advocate a worldview in which the loudest, showiest or longest-talking speaker "wins?" Where is reason, rationality or respect in such a view? > You still don't see how Sadam was a serious threat > to our security even if we > had known ofr certain that he did not have WMDs? You > anted our military to be > spread as thin as possible, in another 1/2 century > seig stance like Korea? > Where were all those soldires going to come from? <blunt> Saddam is/was a brutal dictator who the world will be better off without. Once a convenient "ally," he was also a convenient scapegoat for American fears after 9-11, when bin Laden couldn't be run to ground. Do I personally feel safer now compared to 6 months ago? No. Extremist Saudis and al-Qaida members pose a far greater threat to America and American interests than SH was - they reached out from half a world away, and killed thousands of civilians without any "weapons of mass destruction" at all. And comparing Iraq to the Cold War Korean situation is apples and orangutans. <sarcastic mode> If invasion of North Korea, Syria or Iran is being contemplated in the near future, with armed resistance still occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan, then there will certainly be a need for more soldiers. I suppose a draft could be avoided if proper spin is put on the situation. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
