Downing Street memo

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:53 pm

Yes, it's a good thing we have some mild-mannered, level-headed posters like WYCAT around to keep us on an even keel.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:12 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:By the way, why do I get a testy jab and WYCAT gets nothing? Didn't he start that whole thing? In the spirit of giving, I'd like to share at least half of my accolades with him.

That is why. You both are being babies.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:13 pm

iaafan wrote:Yes, it's a good thing we have some mild-mannered, level-headed posters like WYCAT around to keep us on an even keel.

You are the one who started this political soapbox diatribe. Dont go high and mighty on us now.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:17 pm

Is anybody else as confused with the last 20 or so posts on this thread as I am?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:18 pm

Cat Pride wrote:
iaafan wrote:Yes, it's a good thing we have some mild-mannered, level-headed posters like WYCAT around to keep us on an even keel.
You are the one who started this political soapbox diatribe. Dont go high and mighty on us now.

Wasn't it, like, a political opinion thread? Or is it a thread to criticize people for having political opinions? Again, I'm just really confused.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:22 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Is anybody else as confused with the last 20 or so posts on this thread as I am?

I'm just glad nobody called me a sign-waving liberal hippie.

--GL (doh!)

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:16 pm

1aafan and Bay Area Cat keep putting up opinions based on unknown or unproven facts. The rest of the board members can not make post that counter their views. What happened to my right to Freedom of Speech or is that being blocked on this site.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:31 pm

BobCatFan wrote:1aafan and Bay Area Cat keep putting up opinions based on unknown or unproven facts. The rest of the board members can not make post that counter their views. What happened to my right to Freedom of Speech or is that being blocked on this site.

I hate to break this to you, but you don't have a right to free speech on a privately-owned message board.

It seems to me that everyone's opinion on all of these matters is pretty much based on unknown or unproven facts, isn't it? Unless Donald Rumsfeld happens to be reading this board, I don't think any of us really knows what the administration knew or didn't know before we invaded Iraq. Does that mean none of us should discuss it? I don't think so; it just means that we should all recognize that our opinions are just opinions, and there is probably a lot of info out there that none of us knows anything about. That doesn't mean one side is "more right" than the other; both sides have an equally limited knowledge of the facts.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:44 pm

BobCatFan wrote:1aafan and Bay Area Cat keep putting up opinions based on unknown or unproven facts. The rest of the board members can not make post that counter their views. What happened to my right to Freedom of Speech or is that being blocked on this site.

Just to humor me, can someone please point to a comment I have made that wasn't supported by some sort of evidence? I will happily provide any backup to support the statement, or I will admit that it was groundless, depending on which is the right answer.

Demanding that kind of accountability would be a lot better way to proceed in conversations like these as opposed to everyone whining about a couple posters' opinions. As it is, it sounds to me like people are running out of material and are starting to attack the messengers instead of refuting the message itself with facts (or pointing out the flaws in the assertions of others). You might even find that you are attributing comments to people that never made them.

I will assume the Freedom of Speech line was a very subtle tongue-in-cheek comment.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:26 pm

1AAFan, BAC, WYCat, et al, can you please take your "discussion" to the Argument Room (sorry, obscure Monty Python reference)?

On a more serious note, it seems this thread has gotten terribly personal. Can you folks snipe at each other via PM, so we don't have to see it?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:19 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:On a more serious note, it seems this thread has gotten terribly personal. Can you folks snipe at each other via PM, so we don't have to see it?

I agree with that 100%. I would like nothing more than for all of our political conversations to be based exclusively on the issues and the contents of the posts and not taken to the personal level.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:34 pm

If I said anything that personally offended anyone, please accept my apology. I was just trying to start a lively discussion and hear opposing viewpoints about an intriguing (IMO) subject.
I don't see why we can't discuss this without sniping at each other. I am very open to hearing opposing viewpoints. I make a point of watching and listening to various conservative TV and radio shows. I think the problem with this thread is that no one has offered an opposing to view to the Downing Street memo. Has anyone heard that it is totally bogus? When the Dan Rather letter came out, it was quickly revealed as bogus and I'm very willing to accept that, while others say that the content of the letter was factual.
I felt it was a real sad ending to his career, but he used very poor judgement in that instance.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:50 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
BobCatFan wrote:1aafan and Bay Area Cat keep putting up opinions based on unknown or unproven facts. The rest of the board members can not make post that counter their views. What happened to my right to Freedom of Speech or is that being blocked on this site.
Just to humor me, can someone please point to a comment I have made that wasn't supported by some sort of evidence? I will happily provide any backup to support the statement, or I will admit that it was groundless, depending on which is the right answer.

Demanding that kind of accountability would be a lot better way to proceed in conversations like these as opposed to everyone whining about a couple posters' opinions. As it is, it sounds to me like people are running out of material and are starting to attack the messengers instead of refuting the message itself with facts (or pointing out the flaws in the assertions of others). You might even find that you are attributing comments to people that never made them.

I will assume the Freedom of Speech line was a very subtle tongue-in-cheek comment.

I found one

"And, in all likelihood, the flushing of the Koran thing probably did happen at one point or another -- Newsweek just can't document it "

Please post the hard evidence.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:13 am

http://watchingwashington.blogspot.com/ ... koran.html

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/cultur ... 104824.php

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05182005.html

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/18/092946.php

http://www.atsnn.com/story/142989.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... o_koran_dc

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:42 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:On a more serious note, it seems this thread has gotten terribly personal. Can you folks snipe at each other via PM, so we don't have to see it?
I agree with that 100%. I would like nothing more than for all of our political conversations to be based exclusively on the issues and the contents of the posts and not taken to the personal level.

As do I. BAC, read your PM and get back to me. I think you might be surprised.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:23 pm

I haven't had time to read all of the posts since my challenge to iaa, but I just wanted to throw these in the mix: (All taken from AP reports, which means they appeared in most, if not all, newspapers in America)

"Saddam...has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and building palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State for the United States of America, November 10, 1999.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor, February 18, 1998.

"We know that he (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States of America, September 23, 2002.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America, February 17, 1998.

Please note that these are not attacks on our former liberal "leaders"; they are simply more proof that EVERYONE involved with Iraq believed that Saddam either HAD WMD's or at least the ability to create them. I'm simply tired of the Monday-morning-quarterbacking that has gone on just so the left has a reason to attack Bush. He, like many, many leaders here & abroad, believed that Saddam was a SIGNIFICANT threat to the U.S. and our allies. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE PROOF OF ANY KIND DEMONSTRATING THAT BUSH KNEW BEFORE THE INVASION THAT THERE WERE NO WMD'S IN IRAQ.

Do I agree with the war? That's a tough question & not the topic I'm addressing. iaa and his/her ilk simply don't like Bush and are fabricating this "Bush lied" story to fuel their hatred and their rage. Find another reason, iaa, because the one you're using is pure, unadulterated BULL.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:28 pm

Grizlaw wrote:Gato, that was fifteen years ago -- in what way does it prove that Saddam had WMDs during the time directly leading up to our attack?

While it may not PROVE that he had them, I suppose it's similar to the way the Russians assumed we had more nukes after dropping a couple of them on Japan.

Fact is, he had them & he used them so it's really not a giant leap to figure that he has more of them and/or the ability to create more...

I believe even the "slowest" of lawyers would surmise that!

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:35 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:So essentially the burden of proof you are placing on iaa is higher than it was for us to go to war in the first place. Therein lies a problem.

BAC,

I know you think you're way ahead of all us poor old red-staters but I'm pretty sure neither you nor anyone on this board has seen 1% of the data the Bush & Clinton Administrations had regarding Saddam's WMD capacity.

I'm confident that the evidence presented to our leaders was IMMENSELY more substantial than what I'm requesting of iaa. You, like iaa, simply are so desperate to find reasons to dislike/disagree with/hate Bush that your after-the-fact attacks have taken over your ability to simply say that, unfortunately, the evidence (both BUSH'S & CLINTON'S) was wrong.

I'm sorry that folks like you and iaa have decided that Bush is evil and that he did all this just to make a buck for himself & his pals, but it simply isn't the case.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:50 pm

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:53 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Wasn't it, like, a political opinion thread? Or is it a thread to criticize people for having political opinions? Again, I'm just really confused.

When iaa & others present the "Bush lied" theory as FACT, it is not being offered as a political opinion. The reason I "attacked" iaa is that his opinion is based on nothing more than his hatred of Bush, because the TRUE FACTS of this situation lie on the opposite side of his "political opinion".

Arguing that fact with NO credible evidence simply shows that iaa is anti-Bush. And yes, I'll use the term venom-spewing until he comes up with some credible support for his attacks because frankly, without such support, all he has is are baseless attacks and I think at that point, the shoe fits.