|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
In any forum I've visited, this kind of dishonesty (leaving out highly pertinent information because it contradicts your opinion) would end any trace of credibility the poster had possessed.
|
(Marv, feel free to post more specific criticism, and I will explain myself if it is appropriate to do so, or I will admit that I posted distortions and apologize.)
I put the time and effort into responding to Lebell's post of examples of my shortcomings and tendencies to mislead......as smooth points out, Lebell has since deleted his post. I copied the part of his post that did not include his quote of the entire article found here.....
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
Host,
I gave several examples.
But as you wish.
To quote myself from above:
"In other posts he has been known to take excerpts that support his position and leave the ones behind that don't."
Now to SUPPORT my charge, from the VERY FIRST LINK at the top of the page: http://www.nola.com/hurricane/t-p/k...STERPLAN31.html
If you wanted to present the whole story, you would have included this tidbit from that link. But since you didn't and you repeatedly don't in post after post, I can only conclude that a balanced picture is not what your after.
I went on another semi-random link hunt and I found this one
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
in this post
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93741
You failed to provide the full quote on Iraq. What remains,
doesn't bolster your argument at all, and indeed, I wonder why you even bothered to include it. It actually tells me that Saddam was indeed still a very real threat and from what I've read elsewhere, even the left agrees that the assessment is accurate.
If you want, I will search out more examples. |
Lebell, in your first example, it may not have been clear to you that I ONLY included the following, from the link that I posted, to begin this thread.....
Quote:
More From The Times-Picayune | Subscribe To The Times-Picayune
Feds' Disaster Planning Shifts Away From Preparedness
August 31, 2005
By BILL WALSH, BRUCE ALPERT And JOHN McQUAID
c.2005 Newhouse News Service
WASHINGTON - No one can say they didn't see it coming......
|
The rest of that first quote box was content as described....."excerpts are from an article by Sheila Grissett which appeared in the June 8th, 2004 edition of the Times-Picayune.)"
I was unable to come up with a link to the June 8th, 2004 article, and there was no reason that I could justify to post the excerpt of the linked article that you claim I excluded because it did not bolster my argument.
I can only remind you that this thread was not intended to be a debate on the response of authorities to the plight of surviving victims. It is a thread that highlights the narrower issue of our presiident Bush making similar statements, shortly after huge disasters, that strike me as boldface lies. I linked an Aug. 31 articel tiitle that directly contradicted what Bush stated, and all of my posted references are intended to examine what it is reasonable to expect that Bush knew, and when he knew it.....eiither on Sept. 16, 2001, related to 9/11, or last week, related to the risk of N.O. levee failures.
It may not seem like I think about it, but I strive to keep my posts as brief as possible, without weakening my arguments, by being too brief. I assume when I post, that my entire audiience is hostile to what I am tellng them, and a few might be willing to examine what I post and then use what I offer as a jumping off point to their own, independent inquiries.
Respondiing to your second example, I began the thread that you linked, with the following.........
Quote:
Add Trent Lott, senator from MS, who was the Republican leader of the senate in 2001, to the growing number of people who have publicly stated that president Bush planned to invade Iraq before spring, 2002, before "the facts were made to fit the policy". He said on Sunday, Aug. 21, on NBC's
"Meet the Press",
|
I iincluded the following "excerpts" in the same, thread starting post, to strengthen the crux of what I iintended the thread to be about.....one more sign that Bush intended to contrive a case for invading Iraq.....regardless of the fact that Saddam had not rebuilt his military capability, or his WMD programs, nor did he possess the WMD stockpiles that Bush claimed to be the provocation and justification for war. I also intended to show that Bush's claim that war was a 'last resort", to be chosen only after diplomatic efforts had failed to disarm Saddam, was a falsehood, or at least a cynical charade.
Quote:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001
Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ
Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.
High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.
There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............
|
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq
By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order
"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.
|
Quote:
http//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html.............
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
.................... The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.....................
................ Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.................
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.
<h4>Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.</h4>
|
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/22/...omacy-started/
................As David Gregory (of "Meet the Press") notes, this runs completely counter to how President Bush describes the decision to invade Iraq:
“I want to share something with you. Committing troops into harm’s way is — in harm’s way is the most difficult decision a President can make. That decision must always be last resort. That decision must be done when our vital interests are at stake, but after we’ve tried everything else.” [President Bush, 8/5/04]
“The use of force has been — and remains — our last resort.” [President Bush, 5/1/03]
“But a President must always be willing to use troops…as a last resort… I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq… So we use diplomacy every chance we get — believe me.” [President Bush, 10/1/04]
“As a last resort, we have turned to our military.” [President Bush, 4/16/03]
“As a matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us… this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.” [President Bush, 10/28/03]
President Bush keeps saying this because he knows Americans expect him to pursue all other options before U.S. troops are put at risk. If Sen. Lott says is right, President Bush failed to meet that basic expectation.
|
Do you really want to maintain, that in the face of all of the following that I included, I misled other members into thinking that there were no grounds for the U.S. to invade Iraq, based on his existing WMD programs, stockpiles, and prior, recent buildup in military capabilities, when there actually were grounds.
I think that you have it exactly backwards, Lebell. You seem to want to hold me to a "standard" that would brand me as you earlier described me, if I do not include entire quotes, instead of excerpts that address core, and essentially relevant points, while you exhibit no such tendency to demand a similarly strict standard of your president or his government.
This is all the more curious a stance when one considers that the worst harm that I might do, by what I include or leave out, is possibly mislead some readers, and diminish my own credibility, while the POTUS and his team can get vast numbers of people killed and maimed, as they are demonstrating..... |