Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

What You Expected, What You Got

What You Expected:


What You Got…


What you Expected:


What you Got:


What you Expected:


What you Got:


What you Expected:


What you Got:


The next: What You Expected, What You Got.

What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • roz
  • UrbanBard

    What does the above post have to do with this thread, Roz?

    Congratulations, BTW. But don’t let you victory go to your head.

    This thread was very simple. Daniel posted some photos that lead to a propagandistic punch line of “everything wrong with the world is George Bush’s fault.”

    I disputed that contention.

    Can there be cases where the Democrats will win elections? Sure, the country is about 50-50 now. And any election depends on what candidates are running. So what? The trends are bad for the Democrats. But, there can be reversals.

    As a Conservative, I am leery of the Republicans, too. I’m stuck with them though, because the Democrats make no sense.

    Congratulations, Daniel. By removing all my post you have turn this thread into gibberish. First, you are a propagandist, then a censurer. What’s next for you to descend to?

  • UrbanBard

    Hi Daniel,
    I’ve been looking at your photographs and what they can tell us about you and your values.

    First, we have a hamburger designed to look good, versus a hamburger that most of us prefer eating. The latter looked like a special order built to fit a single person’s tastes.

    Next, we have imaginary space battles versus the problems of dealing with alien life and politics.

    Then, we have the beauty and elegance of Apple designed systems versus the ugliness of any system that Microsoft touches.

    Lastly, we have Al Gore’s empty phony life versus wrestling with the ugly reality of global terrorism.

    What can we learn from these choices?

    First, that you are in reaction against reality. Next, that you value beauty over popularity. Then, that you look only at issues superficially, rather than deeply.

    Is that symptomatic of a Leftist?

  • roz

    “The trends are bad for the Democrats.”

    Show something current that says this.

  • UrbanBard

    I’d point you to Walter Russell Mead’s “Special Providence– American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.”

    But, I don’t believe that you can read.

    What Mead writes about is how there has been a realignment, since the end of the Cold War and 9/11, of the four political groups who affect foreign policy.


    Naturally, You have never heard of Mead and will discount him, as a conservative, without a hearing. Therefore, I can give you nothing that you would agree with, because neither Mead nor I am a leftist. And you listen to only Leftist viewpoints.


    Neither of us knows what the 2008 election will bring. I believe that the War in Iraq will be unmentioned because it will be won.

    The American public may want to continue political gridlock while the Democrats control Congress. That would mean that a Republican would return to the Presidency.

    But, the country is still too evenly divided for me to have any confidence. I do not handicap elections a year away from going to the polls. Too many things can happen in a year to shift events. Al Qaeda could attack us again. That could favor either party depending on how it happens.

    The point about the long term trends was that back in the sixties and seventies the Democrats had lock on both houses of Congress– they were the majority party. Ever since 1976, the Democrats have declined in influence so that they finally lost Majority Party status in 1994.

    It is still in dispute whether the Republicans have picked that status up. We will know when the Republicans gain enough seats in the House to weather the normal reversal in the sixth year of a two term presidency. Except for the Iraqi war, the republican might have achieved that in 2006, but who knows?

  • roz

    I asked you to back up your statement that “The trends are bad for the Democrats.” But you don’t provide any evidence. This has happened a few times here. You just come back with personal attacks. Really, you don’t evidence for the things you say.

    Show we recent information that says the Democrats are in decline and the Republicans are gaining support. These are your statements.

  • UrbanBard

    The problem is that you are such an unreasonable person that no evidence would be acceptable to you. These are highly complex matters that you have never investigated and, confident in your bigotry, never will. The nature of American public opinion is changing. Meanwhile, you have hunkered down in your spider hole.

    Partly, the changes in public opinion are from the breakup of the Soviet Union. And too, it is that we have discovered new enemies– in the Mid East and Europe. Different coalitions of opinion leaders have formed in America that are leaving the Democratic Party out in the cold. This isolation is self chosen, because you are in denial that even a problem exists. There is, to you, no Global War on Terrorism.

    There is no evidence strong enough for those who will not see. That is why you are delusive.

    You asked that question, not to gain knowledge, but as a trap to deny that knowledge exists.

    Time will tell, Roz. We are winning the war in Iraq. How will you adjust to that? Will you lie to yourself that is was inevitable so that you can deny victory to President Bush?

    That is what people like you did with President Reagan and the break up of the Soviet Union. Living in a malignant fantasy means that events always catch you by surprise. You then cover your embarrassment by telling yourself lies.

  • roz

    But you don’t present any evidence of the claims you are making.

    Again, on what basis do you say: “The trends are bad for the Democrats.”

    Show where I am unreasonable or in any way bigoted?

    I am not living in any malignant fantasy. What are you talking about? You are the one a in fantasy, you keep saying things about me that have no basis at all.

    I asked that question because I think you are wrong and that if you look at the data you will be forced to accept the fact that you are deluding yourself.

  • roz

    Oh please, stop with the nonsense. I have not demanded any “level of proof” -just more than your opinion to be equated as fact. If thats an impossible standard for you clearly you have no basis for the things you say.

  • UrbanBard

    Let’s end this, Roz. Does Lieberman’s opinion means nothing to you? He has been in politics much longer than you or I.

    I’ve given you plenty of reasons for why the Democrats are declining in influence. You will not even address them.

    Instead, you want some expert to pass on this. They have, but I have better things to do than dig them up for you. Especially since, you will merely discount them as being biased. Neither evidence, nor logic will satisfy you. Nor will the opinions of Democratic politicians. Why then should the position of some Political Scientist satisfy you? Your mind is closed on the subject. You merely want deflect this onto your opponent.

    The point is that you cannot look back at the history to verify the facts because you are too caught up in Political Correctness. This is getting tedious. And I have given up on your closed mindedness.

    You have no interest about truth; you are looking for self justification. You are looking for some petty technicality to allow you win.

  • roz

    “We have always had enemies from within, too, so you are no exception.”

    How dare you call me an enemy of my country?! Utterly basisless and we have already seen time and time again how you say things you can’t support. You have no credibility. In America we all the right to question our government. Its no wonder Republicans are so incompetent if questioning the performance of the government is seen as disloyal. Its our duty to question and criticize the actions and motives of those in power. If you don’t like that, go live in Russia.

    “You can point out that President Bush’s popularity figures are low, but Congress’ is even lower.”

    The Democrats are showing restraint. They know the war is not popular but are not willing to lead the country to defeat. They have the power to stop funding it but are not using it. So the things you are saying about them are wrong.

    The problem is that the Bush administration lied to the public about the basis for the war and then went on to run it in an extremely shoddy manner, I have already pointed out the ways. So the war in Iraq is now extremely unpopular and the American people want out. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out given the circumstances. So the Democrats are in the position of representing the people who oppose the war, yet trying to help steer it to some sort of completion without destabilizing the Middle East. If Bush had not so badly run the war, or entered it in the way he did, we would not be in this situation.

    “Does Lieberman’s opinion means nothing to you?”

    I respect Lieberman but he does not speak for me. I want to see the US vigorously defended, but I also place value on our credibility. Apparently, Lieberman does not have a problem with being lied to by the Administration – I do. So when our Secretary of State makes a presentation to the UN that is totally false, on intelligence that is known to be unreliable and unconfirmed, I find it unacceptable. When our President makes a statement during the State of the Union address that must be retracted because our own intelligence knew it was false, I lose trust in him. When I see the president mismanage the war to the extent that it appears to me to be utterly incompetent and totally wrong headed, I find it intolerable. I don’t have confidence in what our President says or for his administration to do anything well and I want his power limited and I would like to see him and Cheney leave office as soon as possible. I think they have betrayed the trust of the nation and grossly mismanaged their offices. That has nothing to do with any generational or partisan stance on Foreign Policy. It has everything to do with them being honest and doing a competent job.

  • roz

    The democrats are only desperate to get rid of Bush and the insane Republicans, the whole country is desperate for that.

  • roz

    “I was using the quote to point out how the American public does not trust the Democrats to protect them.”

    Rubbish. Now that the American people have seen how ready the Republicans are to screw things up the Democrats are the only choice.

  • roz

    “A country where the business markets are regulated via competition or in the courts for crimes actually committed rather than preemptively through regulation? I think not. What is wrong with me saying that you are an enemy of that?”

    Pathetic. This was not the context in which you were speaking earlier. Another one of the unending dishonesties from you. You have no integrity.

    If you are going to call me an enemy of the country, back it up or shut up.

    “The problem is not with criticism; it is disloyal opposition in the midst of war. It is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden parrots Democratic Party talking points. He knows that you want him to win.”

    Bin Laden loves Bush because he had played right into his hand by energizing his efforts to recruit followers.

    No democrats are aiding or abetting Bin Laden. We are the ones who want to focus on catching him. You are the one who said it did not matter.

    “This is the cheapest, most efficiently run major war in human history. You are too bigoted to note that. The military historians are not.”

    Of course its not. Gulf War 1 cost $67B, most of which was repaid by the neighboring states. Don’t forget this intervention in Iraq was totally elective. Other wars were not.

    “Apparently, you have no problem with the Mainstream Media lying to you.”

    You keep talking about these “lies”. You never substantiate.

    “If you are talking about the 16 words in the 2002 State of the Union address, those are demonstrably true.”

    Wrong it was 2003 and the White House retracted it because at the time it was said our own intelligence knew that it was false.

    “All wars in a Democracy are unpopular. ”

    Not true. Once committed to WW2 it had popular support. Same for the Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan. Even the war in Iraq has public support before the lies were revealed and the extend to which it was mismanaged was shown.

    “All wars are mismanaged, because the enemy can change the administration’s plans.”

    Again, enemies can change tactics, that is not the same as our side not running its own governing operations well. That is not the same as our side not having sufficient force to occupy or to follow its own plan to occupy the country.

    ““So when our Secretary of State makes a presentation to the UN that is totally false, on intelligence that is known to be unreliable and unconfirmed, I find it unacceptable. ”

    That is anti-war propaganda disputed by the evidence. ”

    Get real. Powell admits he was duped and regrets it. The source for the mobile chemical weapons trucks was a con artist who fabricated the whole thing. German intelligence said that it was not confirmed. The US has no basis for staking its credibility on such unreliable information and then worse launching a war for it.

    “This is the cheapest, most efficiently run major war in human history. You are too bigoted to note that. The military historians are not.”

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “The democrats are only desperate to get rid of Bush and the insane Republicans, the whole country is desperate for that.”

    Not so. You misinterpret how narrow victory was in 2006.

    The Democrats won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast.

    The 2008 election is a whole new ball game. And it is too soon to know anything yet.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    ““I was using the quote to point out how the American public does not trust the Democrats to protect them.”

    Rubbish. Now that the American people have seen how ready the Republicans are to screw things up the Democrats are the only choice.”

    It’s too soon to say anything. I don’t try to handicap the races this early. Too many things can happen in a year.

  • roz

    “Are you a political enemy of the Bush administration? Yes. Does that make you a political enemy of the United States? Yes. Why? Because people want to destroy America, or kill Americans, and you are tacitly on their side.”

    Note that your argument here is exactly the logic that fascists use to justify attacks on the opposition.

    Its also wrong. Stop trying to smear me. Your case must be weak otherwise you wouid not need to contunually lodge these personal attacks. In a free society, people have a opposing views – get used to that. I have never said anything against the US or in support of terrorists. Show me how I have tacitly supported them?

    This sort of response why I say that the NeoCons, which I don’t mean a slur, its a conservative group, often say they want to spread democracy, but they don’t want to live under it. They don’t want to be subject to the scrutiny and accountability that it entails. And they breed hatred towards people who oppose them.

  • roz

    “You don’t want us to win the war.”

    I never said anything of the sort – what is this based on other than your fantasy?

    “You tout every Anti-American line there is. Why should I not then judge you by your talk?”

    Show me one thing I have written that is anti-american?

  • UrbanBard

    This is quite easy to resolve, Roz. Make a position statement of your beliefs instead of hiding behind accusations. Expose your values, rather than make me guess at them.

    What are your positions on the war on terror? Do you believe that the terrorist threat is overblown? Do you contend that all America need do is vacate the MidEast to placated our enemies? Do you idolize the European Union and wish America to follow its lead? Do you want America to give up its sovereignty to the United Nations? Are you in favor of one world government?

    You have no excuse that you are misunderstood, and thus slandered, when you won’t reveal yourself.

    This is not about having opposing views. It’s about being intellectually honest. That means that you don’t try to duck the issues. You don’t try to change the subject when you are losing an argument. And when you have lost; you admit it.

    Roz said:
    This sort of response why I say that the NeoCons, which I don’t mean a slur, its a conservative group, often say they want to spread democracy, but they don’t want to live under it. ”

    No, we just want you to be honest.

    “They don’t want to be subject to the scrutiny and accountability that it entails.”

    Scrutiny is fine; it’s the disinformation that is the problem

    ” And they breed hatred towards people who oppose them.”

    Oh now. You hate us for what we are, not what we do.

    “Because people want to destroy America, or kill Americans, and you are tacitly on their side.”

    Note that your argument here is exactly the logic that fascists use to justify attacks on the opposition.”

    Do you in the Democratic Party give aid and comfort to the enemy? Yes. Does that bother you? It doesn’t seem so.

    Would you hesitate to reveal state secrets that would result in Americans getting killed or our security being threatened, if it also damaged the Republican Party? If you wouldn’t hesitate, then you are an enemy of America. You would be a conspirator before the fact.

  • roz

    “”Get real. Powell admits he was duped and regrets it.”

    May I have a source please?”

    If you really need one:


    Gotta love this quote – well if you are not blind to the truth:

    “”What we didn’t do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or, by (quickly) recreating the Iraqi (armed) forces,” he said.

    “It may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things differently.””

    Huh sound familiar? Kinda the point I have been making over and over again.

    Oh wait Powell must have “false expectations based on bogus information” or no how did we forget, you must assume he is anti american for saying this stuff or that he wants to lose the war.

    Or Powell can say it and its ok, just from me its somehow anti-american?

    Who is the bigot here? Its you buddy. You are the one with the closed mind who dances around the issues. You are the one acting like a Microsoft PR person trying to patch over incompetence with lies. Face it, everything you accuse me of really applies to you much more than it ever did to me.

  • UrbanBard

    Ros said”
    ““You don’t want us to win the war.”

    I never said anything of the sort – what is this based on other than your fantasy?”

    It is your actions which speak louder than your words. If you only attack without giving any balance, then you reveal your biases.

    ““You tout every Anti-American line there is. Why should I not then judge you by your talk?”

    Show me one thing I have written that is anti-american?”

    Roz, You intentionally do not reveal yourself. So, I must judge you by the groups that you take your talking points from. If you have any disagreement with the Anti- American sources that you cite, then I never see them because you don’t tell them.

    Your silence does not protect you. It leads others to judge you more harshly than otherwise through “guilt by association.”

  • roz

    “You have no excuse that you are misunderstood, and thus slandered, when you won’t reveal yourself?”

    Oh its my fault that you slander me? Is that how it works? Until people take your loyalty quiz they are un-american? I already spelled out my positions above. I actually don’t think they matter. What matters is opposing all of your BS, which has been my focus.

    “What are your positions on the war on terror?”

    I don’t believe in a “War on Terror”. I believe that we must go after Al Queda. Destroy it. We should clean up our act in the Middle East, that would have meant confronting Saddamn at some point under the terms and timing that we selected. We should also end our dependence on Oil. The more we can do that, the better off we will be.

    “Do you believe that the terrorist threat is overblown?”

    Yes, I think it is hyped up. Is there a threat from terrorists? Yes. Is it overblown to make people afraid so that they will support all kinds of crazy stuff? Yes, it is.

    “Do you contend that all America need do is vacate the MidEast to placated our enemies?”

    No. What makes you think that I would?

    “Do you idolize the European Union and wish America to follow its lead?”

    No – where do you get this stuff?

    “Do you want America to give up its sovereignty to the United Nations?”

    No, I’d like to give you up to the United Nations.

    “Are you in favor of one world government?”

    No – are you? What makes you think that I would be, the Bible? Where do you find this survey – Nutcase Monthly?

  • roz

    “Roz, You intentionally do not reveal yourself. So, I must judge you by the groups that you take your talking points from. If you have any disagreement with the Anti- American sources that you cite, then I never see them because you don’t tell them.”

    What anti-american sources are you talking about? Did a little voice in your head tell you this stuff?

  • roz

    “It is your actions which speak louder than your words. If you only attack without giving any balance, then you reveal your biases.”

    You spew off so much rubbish, what else can I do than attack it? Tolerating it is not an option.

  • roz

    “Your silence does not protect you. It leads others to judge you more harshly than otherwise through “guilt by association.””

    I’ve hardly been silent on anything.

  • roz

    “This is not about having opposing views. It’s about being intellectually honest. That means that you don’t try to duck the issues. You don’t try to change the subject when you are losing an argument. And when you have lost; you admit it.”

    Again this applies more to you than to me – take your own advice.

  • roz

    “I suggest you read the article again. Powell was saying that the information was false in hindsight, not that it was bogus. Powell says that Tenet believed in what he was saying. There was no intention to mislead, so there were no lies. That this was a mistake or it was the results of enemy action.”

    I suggest you reread it. Powell said that he thought Tenet believed it. But he did not say it was a mistake or anything about enemy action. That was not in the article.

    “Some members of the US intelligence community “knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up,” Mr Powell said.

    “These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some of these resources should not be considered reliable,” he said.”

    So my point that they knew it was unreliable and presented as if it was stands. It was false in hindsight to Powell, but it was known to be from unreliable sources at the time it was presented by the people who provided the information. Powell presented the information in the UN saying it was from “solid sources” with Tenet behind him.

    I don’t personally think Powell is in a position to know what Tenet individually knew or believed. But the fact is that the intelligence was from unreliable sources, members of the government, knew it was unreliable and it was presented as if it was solid when it wasn’t. Powell later says he regretted presenting it. What more do you want?

  • roz

    “What really interesting is how much you picked up the biases of the article. The Bush administration never said that there was connection between Saddam and 9/11. So, why was this contention in the article, at all?”

    How do you know what I picked up from the story, do you think you can read my mind?

    And of course the Bush administration suggested on many occasions that there was a connection between Al Quada and Saddam. Cheney on many occasions said there were “links”. He just never said what the links were. In any case there was a the time confusion among some in the public that Saddam was part of 9/11 when he wasn’t. So it was a reasonable question to ask at the time, “Did you know of links between Iraq and 9/11?”

  • roz

    “I think you are deceptive, because you will not reveal yourself. If you are misunderstood, it’s your own damned fault.”

    I might also be talking to a moron. Thats another explanation when a person is misunderstood.

    “What I don’t like is you being dishonest in claiming to be American when your actions say otherwise.”

    What actions? You mean words right? Critical words to be exact? That makes me un-american?

  • roz

    Oh please.

    First, treat other people with respect. You don’t need to be insulting simple because people disagree with you or question you.

    Second, you are as much, no sorry, much more of a propagandist as anyone, so where do you get off lecturing about distorting things to suit your case?

    I don’t know why Daniel was removing your postings, maybe because they were annoying, unnecesarily insulting and misguided. Its Daniel’s site, so not sure what you are complaining about. If you don’t like this forum go somewhere else to express yourself.

    I for one find much of what you write to be totally dishonest and based on rubbish, so I make a point of pointing out the problems where ever I can and where I have interest.

    Like for example, you were the first to mention Iraq. So you are wrong again about your generalizations. Nothing new there.

    To me the crux of the discussion here boils down to the question did the US need to invade Iraq when it did or was it something we elected to do.

    Was there an a legal case to take action in Iraq?
    Yes, one could make that case.

    Was it urgent to the extent that it had to happen before the summer of 2003?
    No, there is, in my opinion, little basis to say that. That to me is way the scrutiny of the reasons to go to war, and the problems with the case made is valid. What was the rush?

    Personally, I think the UN was weakened by the US action in Iraq so I really don’t get the point you are trying to make.

    If the US had time to confront Iraq it would not have needed to redirect troops from capturing Osama. It could have marshalled more forces for occupation, solidified plans and collected much stronger international support. I think that would have made a big difference and the hostilities there would have been reduced a long time ago.

    But I think, at the end of the day, the proponents for the war saw an interest in moving when they did that had nothing to do with protecting the honor of the UN as you say. Most of them hate the UN and wanted to by-pass it entirely. I don’t think it was about protecting the US or anyone else from an immediate threat or a weapons program.

    My view is that those advocating immediacy thought that if the US and the UK with its weaker partners invaded when they did, it would work out fine and the US would gain a larger influence on the New Iraq. I think, their thinking was, look, if we don’t need them, why bother. They just underestimated the manpower needed to do the job well. it may in fact not be the disaster that some say it is in the end but it was messier, more expensive and drawn out than it needed to be.

    I hope, given that we are there, that we can find a successful conclusion.

  • roz

    “Telling the truth is not necessarily insulting.”

    Ridiculous. You really think telling to Daniel or me that “you have not an original thought in your head” is not an insult or that that represents telling the truth? Go to hell.

    “Do you like winning arguments by dishonest means?”

    I had nothing to do with the removal of your posts. I don’t think the last poster was in any case the winner. I think you lost because the points you were making were so weak. You had resort to personal attacks rather than making a cogent argument and many things you say have been shown to be wrong. Like you said that not using the Iraqi army had a military basis and that military people were against it. Really, many in the military recognized the usefulness of the a reconstituted Iraqi military to help stabilize the country. Still you won’t recognize that this was a mistake when many other do. You are not willing to admit that it might have had a positive impact on the trajectory of the war if these units were available to the coalition.

    You keep branding the me as un-american with no basis. Many of the points that I was making were made by others, former generals, Colin Powell. We finally learned that your insults were for the things I had not said, not anything I said. My argument that this misjudgment was based on your fantasy was proven in that.

    “You are not persuasive because you have bought into the lies and the deceptions of the Mainstream Media.”

    You keep raising these so called lies, but I was not using anything that you showed to be a lie.

    ‘Reagan winning the Cold War is a good case of that.”

    I give Reagan credit for positions he took many unpopular at the time, but the Cold War was won by the American people thru effort over several decades with leadership from both parties.

    “Admit it. You would not favor an invasion at any time. So, you would put it off forever. You just don’t want to solve problems.”

    Wrong, I would have supported it with better justification. Hey, Democrats supported the authorization of force even with the deceitful case that was made, so why not on a less deceitful basis.

    “A year of foot dragging through the UN is not a rush. Our Army was ready in November. It would have caught Saddam by surprise.”

    How do you figure “a year” of foot dragging? And our army was not ready for occupation even when we went in so not sure why you’d it was better for us strategically to go in earlier than when we did.

    “The Northwest Territories of Pakistan are not under the control of the Pakistani government. The only way we could have done what you wanted was to invade that territory and that would destroyed our friendly relations with the Pakistani government. What you ask for is impractible and foolish.”

    It would have been absolutely justified and warranted and it was exactly what was needed to be done. It would have been much more practical and sensible than invading Iraq when we did.

    “That is delusive. There was no international support possible. We had asked everyone.”

    We will never know, but my perception at the time was that we were rushing them and there was no way they could agree given the weak justification we made. We made a lot of noise about WMD that could not be substantiated and they knew was false. The very presentation we made was from German intelligence sources that they told us were not necessarily reliable and that the information could not be confirmed. We turned around and presented it to the Security Council as our best most solid evidence.

    “Tell that to Colin Powell and Blair. They were the two who forced Bush to go through the UN.”

    My point was that those who argued for invasion did not give a hoot about the UN. So your argument that the war was fought for the dignity of the UN does not hold water. Powell was not a proponent of the war. Blair was on our side but took our lead. I was talking about Cheney, Pearle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. None of those players would have invaded a country for the honor of the UN.

    ‘It has been a long term position of Conservatives that the UN is no aid to freedom in the world and they want to end the UN. But despite that, we went through the UN, so the Conservatives lost. Can you explain that?”

    Yes. Most people do not have the hostility to the UN that conservatives harbor. (Most people don’t understand why the conservatives are so angry about a lot of stuff.) So when the President is talking about invading a country, they think: Have you talked to anyone else about this? Have you tried other means to resolve it? The American public, Congress and people like Powell and Blair knew that, in any case and especially without a tangible immediate cause, invading a country was not so simple or easy and it needed international scrutiny, approval and deliberation to make any sense.

    The use of the word need means, by definition, that there is no alternative. So if you don’t use the mechanisms available to you, you can’t really make the necessity case at all.

    “No, Saddam was no immediate threat.”

    But part the argument of making a pre-emtive strike is that there is an immediate threat. If you don’t have an immediate threat then you lack one of the primary justifications for taking action.

    Potentially the US could have made a justification on another means similar to the one you are making that if no action was taken then UN policies and the terms of the cease-fire treaties had no weight. But that argument would have taken time to develop. Without the story about WMD and the false urgency created under that, there was not basis to attack when we did.

    “You give all the reasons to protect Saddam. Face it. You are on Saddam’s side.”

    Not at all. I am only on the US’s side. My arguments are not to protect him but to protect the US from taking rash unjustified actions.

    “And we became good friends with Germany after Hitler was deposed. Is there something wrong with that?
    Are you silly enough to think that this was the reason we went to war with Germany in WWII? LOL”

    There is nothing wrong with the good relations we have with Germany now, I never said there was. And where do you get the impression that I said that it was a basis for our participation in WW2? You may have misunderstood my point.

    I was saying that the proponents of the war in Iraq saw that continuing presence in Europe, Japan, Korea and elsewhere as a welcome beneficial, in terms of the reach of US influence, side effect of those conflicts that might have been replicated in Iraq. Given the track record its not silly to suggest that was a factor in their thinking. I think its silly that you would not admit it.

    “I don’t remember anyone saying that it would be easy. President Bush never said that it would be. I remember him saying it would be long and hard. That it would take decades.”

    Then you are not aware of Wolfowitz’s testimony to Congress which I already presented above. He dismissed the need for more forces and completely misjudged the scope of the cost of the conflict.

    Bush was talking about the War on Terror, something with very weak definition. In terms of Iraq many times the public has been told that we are on the verge of wrapping the loose ends up. The President appeared on a ship with the message, “Mission Accomplished” now years ago.

    “I just hope that the Democrats will not sabotage Iraq like they did Vietnam by denying military aid after we leave.”
    You only hear people on the far right saying these things, I don’t think it has any historical basis.

  • roz

    “People on the left are unused to having their motivations questions and they need it. They have gotten accustomed to being attack dogs with never a thought that other people can reply in kind.”

    Thats really a false generalization. You say a lot of things where the opposite is true – and you never prove your point. If you watch any media its the people on the right who have all the hostility. Is there anyone on the left as nasty and repugnant as Ann Coulter? Is she bringing the country together?

    Most people I know are angry and fed up with Bush, they feel betrayed by all the things he has done. But no one I know or talk to are angry at people who are more conservative than them the way that people on the right talk with so much scorn to people on the left. Its really horrible to see the way that people attack fellow Americans. Look, we disagree with you, but read over this thing, you lept right out with a lot of hostility, insults, labeling that was totally false.

    I am not at all Anti-America, yet you still persist to tag me with that, its actually quite disturbing to think that a fellow American would resort to that in 2007.

    I don’t think it “works”. I would have been much happier to simply have a reasonable discussion on all of this stuff that would have been a 100X more persuasive that hearing constant insults. Most people do not agree with you, that does not make the imbeciles. They just don’t see it your way, that is not a reason to be angry with them or call them names, or to tell them that they are anti-american. Setting a nasty tone and telling people they are disloyal is just not the way to go about bringing people to your side.

    Really, as Americans, we should be working together. In a way to me you seem like the anti-American, because you really seem to hate people who are to the left of you, thats nearly everyone in America. I don’t hate conservatives, I just disagree with them, but I reject the lies that many are willingly perpetuating.

  • roz

    “I would have been upset at Daniel if he was helping me by unfair means.”

    Really, you are so uncivil to people here, I kinda think you get what you deserve. I did not see it as him helping me in particular. Most sites would not allow the sort of insults and hostility that you present. I think you’d have less trouble it you just presented yourself in a more collegial manner.

  • roz

    “That didn’t work so I started being as nasty and presumptive as you are.”

    This is how you like to see it, but again its just you resorting events to make you feel better.

    “I did. It didn’t work. I had to slap you around to get you to be respectful.”

    Again bullshit, I have been nice, you keep calling me unamerican or an imbecile, its totally uncalled for and wrong.

    “The issues that I highlighted are: the justice of Saddam’s case in invading Kuwait, The UN’s justice in forcing him out and then imposing a conditional cease fire, The US’s justice in carrying through with the UN’s war after Saddam broke the condition in resolution 687, the powerlessness of the UN because it will not take steps to force compliance, the right of the US to have a viewpoint which opposes the opinions of UN and EU official”

    No dispute with any of these.

    “the right of the Republican Party to cary on a war and the paranoia of the left in confronting Republicans”

    Its not paranoia to raise objections or ask that our explanation of what we are doing be based on facts.

    “But you are not interested in the issues, are you?”

    Of course I am, I just realized that I have been spending my time on someone who has been acting in quite nasty way, I just disagree with you on most of your points. I did not want it to be a total waste of time.

    I don’t think the media or the left is lying to us the way the Administration did. Do they get stuff wrong? Of course. I no longer give that same benefit of the doubt to the Bush administration, the trust has been broken too much.

    Like I said, was there legal standing to take action in Iraq, yes. Was it necessary and justified for the Coalition to do what it did when it did. No, I just am not convinced of that. I was not at the time and I am not now.

    My thinking has always been that maybe we are doing the right thing in Iraq by getting rid of Hussein but it was not correctly justified and we were lied to too much to be acceptable. That is the issue for me, I think the lies are corrosive and if not for them, we might have been better prepared to handle occupation.

  • jdoc

    Wow. Why are all of Urban’s posts deleted?

  • Encolpius

    I’d appreciate it if Daniel’d shut down comments for this post, as Bard ceased to be amusing several weeks ago, and has swiftly descended into being downright annoying.

    If I wanted to read this kind of paranoid conspiratorial right-wing crap, I’d turn to pretty much any station on the AM dial.

  • UrbanBard

    If Daniel had been an honest person, then he would asked Roz and me to take this argument elsewhere. Instead, he deleted my posts to make it appear that Roz was winning the discussion.

    Your opinion is worthless, Encolpius, because you have made no arguments. We merely disagree.

    You are a propagandist, too. You don’t want me to have my say because less committed Leftists, than yourself, might agree with my arguments. I am not paranoid because I fear no one. Nor do I conspire with anyone. I merely disagree with the talking points of the Mainstream Media.

    If you don’t like free speech, then don’t listen. What makes you a propagandist is that you want to prevent other people from listening.

  • Encolpius

    I don’t care if you have your say, Bard, but Daniel is in no way required to provide you with a forum to spew your crap. That’s not censoring your right to “free speech” … it’s telling an unwelcome guest to get the hell off of his property.

  • UrbanBard

    That is right, Daniel is not required to provide me with anything. But, there is civilized behavior. Daniel is pretending to have an open forum here. I have broken no rules. I have been honest. You just don’t like my opinions. Tough.

    It would be quite permissible for Daniel to ask me to go away. He has not. Perhaps, Daniel should have asked that of both Roz and me. But, he did not.

    He wanted to foist a lie upon his readers; that I had given up when I had not. He had already lied earlier to suggest that I constantly pestered him. Two or three emails is not pestering.

    The things that Roz thought were insults were just the truth in some sense. Roz displayed great ignorance and had a delusive world view — Talk about your paranoid fantasies.

    A person cannot ignore the consequences of their actions. If he acts to sabotage the Republicans and this also harms our war efforts and helps the enemy, why should he not put be placed on the enemy’s side?

    That is the difference between a loyal and a disloyal opposition. A loyal opposition will not harm America just to get at the Republicans.


    I have nothing against Daniel. I have stated that he make sense when talking about technical subjects. His politics just make no sense.

    There are legitimate arguments against the Iraqi war, but you Leftists never bring them up. I tried to get a discussion going on them, but Roz wasn’t taking.

    The reason that I suspected Daniel might be Roz, in disguise, is that I can’t see Daniel keeping out of the fray. But doing so openly would place his reputation in jeopardy, as if censoring my posts did not.


    Why are you involving yourself in this, Encolpius? Why should you interfere when Daniel does not? Why is this any of your business?

  • Encolpius

    I think you just like the attention.

  • UrbanBard

    No, I just respond when attacked unfairly.

    I had a simple response to the pictures that Daniel posted: that they reminded me of ’60’s Anti-war propaganda.

    I thought them quite delusive. They implied that the world would be perfect if only Al Gore had no been elected President in 2000.

    It was you Democrats who wanted to refight those old, dead issues. I merely replied. I tried to replace nonsense with reason. You weren’t having any of it.

    You on the Left have an inability to reason. You cannot take evidence, combine it with logic, to construct a case. The next step is totally beyond you of testing that case against history to see if it is valid. You are not trained to do that, but worse, your sources of information in the Mainstream Media constantly lie to you. This makes you unhinged from reality.

    It makes you unable to answer questions that conservatives ask of you. Questions such as ,”Where did the WMD go which the UN inspectors found in 1995?” Instead, you make the pretense that the WMD never existed. But you won’t answer the question of, “Then you are saying the UN Inspectors lied in 1995?”

    Or If I make the case that the purpose of the Iraqi war was to salvage the credibility of the UN, “How do you respond?” Silence.

    I am in a quandary myself over the war, I believe that the war is necessary and that it divides America’s enemies. But, I don’t want to save the UN. I want the UN to die as the worthless abuser of human freedom that it is.

    There are many things that we could talk about, but I am not politically correct. Not even in a Conservative sense. I think for myself. That means that I disagree with people on the Right.

    There are issues where I oppose President Bush.

    I have not sold my soul to the National Review the way you have sold yours to the Mainstream Media. Or whoever does your thinking for you.

  • UrbanBard

    A monor correction:

    I thought them quite delusive. They implied that the world would be perfect if only Al Gore had been elected President in 2000.

  • roz

    “If he acts to sabotage the Republicans”

    What are you talking about? What actions have I taken?

  • roz

    Don’t call someone disloyal and anti-american over and over again with no reason or basis and expect them not to take it personally.

  • roz

    “Do you on the left want to win this war? I don’t think so.”

    I have no idea why you say that. Everything I have been arguing for would have helped our efforts there. Democrats have not cut funding of the troops, even Republicans now realize that pressure needed to be placed on the Administration to get the job done. It was the election of 2006 that forced Bush to can Rumsfeld and the change course and do the surge. Left to their own devices the Administration just was not taking the steps needed to get the job done. I am glad violence is going down now. Really, I think there is a chance we may need to keep forces in place longer than the spring but unfortunately because the Administration waited so long to take action, even if we wanted to maintain the surge we don’t now have the troops available to extend their stays. Blame whoever you like for that but your a fool to think that is the Democrats fault, its just simply not the case.

    “Are many of the actions of the people on the Left disloyal and unAmerican? Absolutely. Why? Because they play into the hands of the terrorists.”

    What actions of the left are you talking about? Criticism of the war?? Sorry but in a free society you have you live with that. People exercising their rights to speak out are not enemies of the state. Many of the actions of Bush do the same. Why don’t you stop vilifying people who just disagree with you.

    “The problem here is that you can dish out the insults but you are not mature enough to take them.”

    I have not dished out any insults, though they are certainly deserved.

    “There are legitimate arguments against the Iraqi war. You Leftist never bring them up, so I did. The arguments that you Leftists tout are childish, boring and impractical.”

    I am not a leftist. I am moderate. I have brought up many criticisms of the conduct of the war, but you wrongly dismiss them because of the source. When Powell says the same exact thing its reasonable. So why continue arguing with you.

  • roz

    “If you act like someone who is disloyal and anti-America, then someone needs to call you on it.”

    Again, for I don’t know how many times, nothing I have said or done has been in the slightest way Anti-American. I am not the NYT by the way. I really have no concept why you keep suggesting this. This is from your fantasy, not reality. I am not socialist or really at all leftist. I just want the truth from government.

    “Jamie Gorlick created the “Wall” that kept the CIA and the FBI from talking to each other about intelligence cases. The Church Commission and FISA was an “easy on terrorists” campaign that contributed to 9/11.”

    If the Bush administration did not like it they could have changed the policy. If they had convened a group to try to fight Al Queda before 9/11 as they should have they might have recognized the problem and taken steps the get the departments talking – but they didn’t.

    Are you forgetting the real abuses of power that happened under Nixon that warranted the creation of the FISA court?

    Personally I think that creating a bogus impeachment of Clinton was quite a distraction for the President. Maybe he would have been better in a position to fight Al Queda if not for the constant baseless investigations and prosecutions all at the hands of partisan Republicans.

    “Because you want to cut efforts, not increase them.”

    I never argued for any cut. I have been saying all along that we needed more forces there.

    “If you are paranoid about the government then you shackle the government’s hands when they try to protect this country.”

    We need to be a country of laws and that includes our defense of the country. So yes the Administration should be compelled to use FISA and if they find cases where they find the rules are insufficient to collect the intelligence they need they should as soon as reasonably possible seek the proper authority from Congress, not simply ignore the laws and restrictions on them.

    “Rumsfeld was one of the longest serving Secretary of Defense we have ever had. The average term is two years. It is delusive to think that the 2006 election caused his retirement.”

    Well he did resign the next day. Good riddance to him. Length of term is meaningless if the President is weak on asking for accountability. Gates is much better from top to bottom. He has credibility.

    The New York Times is not the same as the Democrats or people who are critical of our handling of the war.

    “Colin Powell did not say he was duped.”

    Oh here is another gem for you:

    I have already addressed those questions. What sort of fantasy do you live in? Of course the invasion of Kuwait was not justified and Iraq’s removal from Kuwait was justified.