tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post8965012641159983281..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-34324747595960029992007-11-28T10:45:00.000-05:002007-11-28T10:45:00.000-05:00Also, I'd like to note that this barely ever progr...Also, I'd like to note that this barely ever progressed from the original synopsis I left. Basically, this is it:<BR/><BR/>1) Tom says the administration behaved appropriately by outing Plame in order to stifle the lies of Joe Wilson.<BR/><BR/>2) Everyone else says, not only is there no reason to believe Wilson lied, but that outing his CIA agent wife is inappropriate as a response to his The Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-15084829168720049782007-11-28T10:28:00.000-05:002007-11-28T10:28:00.000-05:00Conclusion of this thread:Tom simply likes to talk...Conclusion of this thread:<BR/><BR/>Tom simply likes to talk.<BR/><BR/>Whenever ANYONE tries to restate his position in any sort of a way bordering on clear, he claims that it's a total misrepresentation of what he was saying and then provides no clarification himself.<BR/><BR/>So annoying. What a waste of time. I like how half-way through this all, I gave a synopsis of Tom's position, and he The Mystichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00813641115915460692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-88159231292912837982007-11-27T21:05:00.000-05:002007-11-27T21:05:00.000-05:00"Plus Wilson had no real knowledge of the situatio..."Plus Wilson had no real knowledge of the situation, and the administration genuinely believed the British info of the 16 words."<BR/><BR/>False. <BR/><BR/>As Wilson shows in his Salon piece (carefully citing evidence from the body of the Commission report), it seems to have been made clear to the White House (on several different occasions and in different ways) that the CIA had concluded that Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-2469220694759361972007-11-27T13:49:00.000-05:002007-11-27T13:49:00.000-05:00Thx, Tracie, but I believe I answered about "justi...Thx, Tracie, but I believe I answered about "justification" directly somewhere previously.<BR/><BR/><I>The American people have a right to know that the justification for administration's $2 trillion and thousands of lives squandered in Iraq was based on lies. Period.</I><BR/><BR/>I dispute that, and I think it's key here. It's part of a belief that I think is unwise, that one can do or say Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-57827911286324004512007-11-27T10:14:00.000-05:002007-11-27T10:14:00.000-05:00Tom posts:Your link to "classified" looks impressi...Tom posts:<BR/><I>Your link to "classified" looks impressive, Jim, but has the same probative value as linking to the dictionary.</I><BR/><BR/>On the contrary. The definition I posted to is the DoD's definition. Therefore, the fact that Plame's identity was classified means that the people responsible for protecting our nation determined that revealing Plame's identity as a CIA agent would damageJim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-27472519519700145142007-11-27T06:45:00.000-05:002007-11-27T06:45:00.000-05:00What I can't help but wonder from this last post i...What I can't help but wonder from this last post is when truth ceased to have any intrinsic value to the right. The American people have a right to know that the justification for administration's $2 trillion and thousands of lives squandered in Iraq was based on lies. Period. Why is this not true for Bush-supporters?<BR/><BR/>Tom:<BR/><BR/>Why is it bad for Wilson to "endanger" U.S. troops by Traciehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06788160009958142245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-62643771333686580352007-11-27T04:06:00.000-05:002007-11-27T04:06:00.000-05:00Your link to "classified" looks impressive, Jim, b...Your link to "classified" looks impressive, Jim, but has the same probative value as linking to the dictionary.<BR/><BR/>You realize, of course, that the "sixteen words" were uttered in 2003, after Congress had already authorized the use of force against Saddam in 2002, right? We didn't go to war on 16 words.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Tom has yet to show any clear and direct connection between Wilson's Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-13933202514643808192007-11-26T23:55:00.000-05:002007-11-26T23:55:00.000-05:00Tom now casts the justification of the outing of P...Tom now casts the justification of the outing of Plame as:<BR/><I>"The question is what good Joe Wilson, liar or not, was attempting to achieve, with boots on the ground and lives at risk."</I><BR/><BR/>What Wilson was attempting to achieve was to get general recognition that the evidence available to the Bush administration at that time did not support the inclusion of the "16 words" in Bush's Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-82734394609061874212007-11-26T21:21:00.000-05:002007-11-26T21:21:00.000-05:00Um, you still haven't engaged a single argument. ...Um, you still haven't engaged a single argument. Of course discussion is fruitless. 1999. Plame's recommendation. Wilson's crap job in Niger that justified nothing he said.<BR/><BR/>Liar. WaPo ombudsman:<BR/><BR/>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58334-2004Jul17.html<BR/><BR/>And I didn't move the goalposts, I just tried another tack since you didn't want to read the rebuttal toTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-9761611417649865872007-11-26T19:03:00.000-05:002007-11-26T19:03:00.000-05:00Don't try to attribute your own dogmatism to me, T...Don't try to attribute your own dogmatism to me, Tom. I've long ago ceased trying to reason with you about this stuff. In fact, I'm baffled as to why you insist on dogging the issue. You're the one with the religious belief here, utterly immune to facts and reason. Nothing about my world-view is at issue. I'm fine with changing my mind in accordance with the evidence--but I do require actual Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-55387430110957426572007-11-26T02:45:00.000-05:002007-11-26T02:45:00.000-05:00No, my arguments aren't demolished just because yo...No, my arguments aren't demolished just because you say so, WS. Where did you pick up this habit of talking like that?<BR/><BR/>I did not relate the FDR example to the decision to go to war itself, but to the "outing." You missed that.<BR/><BR/>Neither did I go to "Bush lied us into war," which I gave up on a long time ago. This is a religious belief with you, and to give it up collapses your Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-31413820996257771402007-11-26T00:45:00.000-05:002007-11-26T00:45:00.000-05:00One last point before I move on, Tom: you'll note ...One last point before I move on, Tom: you'll note that I was willing to conclude that Wilson had apparently lied before I saw the Salon.com piece. I'm perfectly willing to go with the evidence here. But as jim b rightly pointed out, there's evidence available that trumps the original evidence. And no new evidence has yet been introduced to trump that evidence.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-38887544708491360802007-11-26T00:42:00.000-05:002007-11-26T00:42:00.000-05:00Just keep repeating your assertions, Tom... He's ...Just keep repeating your assertions, Tom... He's a liar...he's a liar...he's a liar...<BR/><BR/>Om...om...om...<BR/><BR/>The evidence that Bush lied is far stronger than that Wilson lied...yet you're eager--nay, desperate--to reject the first claim and accept the second. Puzzling...<BR/><BR/>I didn't just "declare" that the FDR case is irrelevant. Try to keep up. FDR was right, Bush was wrong. Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-20887939384195730622007-11-25T19:08:00.000-05:002007-11-25T19:08:00.000-05:00I answered Wilson's defense. he found the Iraqis ...I answered Wilson's defense. he found the Iraqis fishing in Niger in 1999 and he lied about his wife's recommendation. You just can't point at a salon.com article and say your case is in there somewhere. Facts not in evidence, they call it in legal proceedings.<BR/><BR/>More rebuttal of Wilson's salon.com article, altho I have done it myself:<BR/><BR/>http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2004Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-34997067365219230492007-11-25T16:37:00.000-05:002007-11-25T16:37:00.000-05:00Joe Wilson lied...Joe Wilson lied...Joe Wilson lie...Joe Wilson lied...<BR/>Joe Wilson lied...<BR/>Joe Wilson lied...<BR/><BR/>The mantra isn't working.<BR/><BR/>Nothing you've said here takes one step toward rebutting Wilson's claims in the Salon.com piece jim b pointed us to.<BR/><BR/>And pointing out that it is in principle permissible for a government to lie sometimes doesn't entail that they're always permitted to do so...and certainly not in Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-38271802434878725732007-11-25T15:44:00.000-05:002007-11-25T15:44:00.000-05:00No, they don't sound plausible because they're mis...No, they don't sound plausible because they're mischaracterizations of what I'm saying, and as Paul Newman said to the judge in "The Verdict," if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it.<BR/><BR/>Joe Wilson is the one who lied.<BR/><BR/>Should Joe Wilson be able to go out there and lie---or even if he didn't lie, parade his incompetence on the matter---and undermine the Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-82979205234608090342007-11-25T15:31:00.000-05:002007-11-25T15:31:00.000-05:00So your position is: U.S. government lies should n...So your position is: U.S. government lies should not be exposed?<BR/><BR/>Or: U.S. government lies should not be exposed even if they lead to catastrophic policies?<BR/><BR/>Or: U.S. government lies should not be exposed if they might possibly harm the country or the troops in some indirect way?<BR/><BR/>and/or: It is permissible for the government to retaliate against family-members in order to Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-92073544579357899142007-11-25T14:55:00.000-05:002007-11-25T14:55:00.000-05:00In identifying it. Thank you, Jim.However, a narr...In identifying it. Thank you, Jim.<BR/><BR/>However, a narrow reading of what harm and endangerment is is required to refute it and wins in that narrow sense---we cannot prove to Law & Order standards why soldier x died in Province y on day z. <BR/><BR/>But did Wilson and the "lies" tide behind him undermine the war effort with zero harm to our troops? I don't see how.<BR/><BR/>Neither is theTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-19170835752311153662007-11-25T11:26:00.000-05:002007-11-25T11:26:00.000-05:00Is Jim right about what you consider your best arg...Is Jim right about what you consider your best argument, Tom?Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-70147368325257579482007-11-25T08:04:00.000-05:002007-11-25T08:04:00.000-05:00I noted that the US exercised prior restraint in s...I noted that the US exercised prior restraint in stopping the Progressive from publishing a story on how H-bombs are built. <BR/><BR/>Tom responded:<BR/><I>Um, that's not how we work, even under the fascist Bush administration. Assholes [pejorative, admittedly] like Joe Wilson still get their say without prior restraint. First Amendment and all that.</I><BR/><BR/>Tom, that is exactly what <B>we Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-46995185225819778332007-11-25T03:24:00.000-05:002007-11-25T03:24:00.000-05:00Tom,The Bush administration had the power to silen...<I><BR/>Tom,<BR/><BR/>The Bush administration had the power to silence Wilson if they had cause to believe that Wilson's statements were putting troops at risk...Had Wilson placed US troops in danger, the Bush administration could have stopped him.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, that's not how we work, even under the fascist Bush administration. Assholes [pejorative, admittedly] like Joe Wilson still get Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-3579124722533802152007-11-25T01:10:00.000-05:002007-11-25T01:10:00.000-05:00Tom,The Bush administration had the power to silen...Tom,<BR/><BR/>The Bush administration had the power to silence Wilson if they had cause to believe that Wilson's statements were putting troops at risk (just as in the '70s the Progressive magazine was prohibited from publishing an article on how the H-bomb works). The Bush administration did not do so.<BR/><BR/>The Bush administration could have published the "truth" to combat Wilson's "lies". Jim Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322487665818601057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-84921403480055190902007-11-24T16:14:00.000-05:002007-11-24T16:14:00.000-05:00The war was already on. Troops on the ground. Th...The war was already on. Troops on the ground. The "lies" talk was all over al-Jazeera. For many months, years, the insurgents [no, terrorists, murderers] thought there was a good chance we would abandon the Iraqi people to them, and that talk fed that belief.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I know you think my arguments are all bad. Duly noted, as usual. And as usual, I prefer that the participants not doubleTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-58705628981088941832007-11-24T16:04:00.000-05:002007-11-24T16:04:00.000-05:00I'm not seeing any support for these claims, Tom.A...I'm not seeing any support for these claims, Tom.<BR/><BR/>And it's too bad that the "war effort" (by which I think you mean: "the propaganda/marketing campaign to fool the American public into supporting the war") *wasn't* undermined. It'd be a much better world today if we hadn't invaded.<BR/><BR/>So far as I can tell, Wilson refutes your factual claims.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to go back and read Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-15787546264721486222007-11-24T14:15:00.000-05:002007-11-24T14:15:00.000-05:00I read Wilson's own letter of rebuttal to the sena...I read Wilson's own letter of rebuttal to the senate committee. Does that count? I also read the relevant sections of the committee report.<BR/><BR/>He did find evidence that Iraq was fishing around Niger in 1999. He also did such a crap job that he had no business speaking on the subject at all. He also lied about his wife's connection in getting him sent there. Charitably, he was confused Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com