Author Topic: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2.... (Read 8439 times)

Nash · « **Reply #300 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:31:33 AM »

Based on your comments, I really can't fathom your letters amounting to anything.

If there's perceived good, you ""

If there's perceived bad you make apologies and duck.

What are you telling these guys? Seriously.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #301 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:32:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Oh I am so sure.

Hell, you'll prolly have a post the next day detailing how Dems do it too, and it's all business as usual, and move along everyone.

well to be honest there was a Dem that was CAUGHT red handed removing classified documents.

It was right around the last election.....anyone remember his name?

Toad · « **Reply #302 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:33:18 AM »

Why should I be serious when you never are?

You have no clue what I write, except of course that you have the letter I sent Bush. Guess you thought that was full of apologies and "ducking"?

Nash · « **Reply #303 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:35:27 AM »

Well Toad, you sure as hell did enough apologizing for them before you wrote that letter, and you had zero clue as to what was happening.

Has there been a change there? I don't think so.

I can't even imagine what you are writing these swine now.

Toad · « **Reply #304 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:37:57 AM »

No, I didn't apologize for them. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and time to be proven right or wrong. A significant difference you refuse to accept.

Again, direct question... did you find apologizing and "ducking" in that letter?

Answer instead of dodging.

Toad · « **Reply #305 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:41:10 AM »

And as for "clues" we both had the generic news media. Obviously, there was a large spread of opinion there.

I also had friends from my AF days that I greatly respected telling me the threat was there.

Turns out I was wrong. But I sure don't think your "data" at the time was any better than mine. IIRC, you admitted yours was a guess as much as mine was a guess.

So now you're proud you were a "lucky guesser"?

Seems I remember something else you posted about people who were going to crow about "being right" after the fact too.

Nash · « **Reply #306 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:43:24 AM »

Well okay first of all - I loved your letter. It was great. There was no ducking. It was straight forward and honest. It was far more than I expected.

Yeah...

It was good.

As to the second part - yes you did apologize. And make excuses for. And make cases for. And belittle others for not.

You were a huge advocate.

Me?

I wanna hold you and everyone else accountable for it. Because those boys are paying a hell of a price for it and I wanna make sure you remember why. I aint never gonna let it drop Toad.

Raider179 · « **Reply #307 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:46:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
So statistically somone in the Bush Admin is guilty and based on past practices.....or.....statisti cs it is likely to be Karl Rove because "some people who are called as witnesses at grand jury hearings, are prosecuted afterward"....

Got it. For a while there you were confusing me. I couldnt figure it out.

You said something about how this will all amount to nothing. I showed you a stat that says only 1 in 2000 federal grand jury investigations goes without a prosecution.

The part about KR shows why and how he can still be prosecuted since you used the "he hasnt been charged defense"

Raider179 · « **Reply #308 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:48:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
read the past 6 pages of this thread and maybe you will learn something. In order for KR to be found guilty certain criteria have to be met. Just outing her is not enough. We've established this and moved on....keep up Nash

Actually if you read the entire posts you will learn that it seems the information on Valerie Plume came off a secret/No foreign document. So actually the "criteria" you want doesnt have to be there. Revealing secret documents is also a crime. So if he learned it from that document (which is why he can't remember where he heard it) then outing her is plenty.

Toad · « **Reply #309 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:51:47 AM »

I was an advocate prior to the invasion and until they caught SH and had time to interrogate him.

I did "make the case" based on what I thought. As you did.

If I "belittled" the opposition it was no more or less than you or any of the others in the hotly debated topic did.

However, I call you on the apologizing/excuses.

I challenge you to find any post of me "apologizing" or "making excuses" BEFORE I wrote the letter.

Let's see it.

As for holding me accountable, that's in you. You deal with it. I supported the invasion along with the majority of Americans at the time. That's my accountability.

I remember why too. From my evaluation of the situation, I thought it was the right thing to do. I have no qualms or regrets about that part of it. Decisions get made on the available data; not all of them always turn out to be correct but they still have to be made.

Hey bring it up once a week if it makes you feel good. Don't bother me none.

Nash · « **Reply #310 on:** July 30, 2005, 12:55:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
That's my accountability.

You're not alone.

Toad · « **Reply #311 on:** July 30, 2005, 09:45:25 AM »

Obviously. As I said, the majority sided with the administration. I was one of those.

I deal with my accountability on a daily basis. I have friends over there at just about any given time. Do you?

The decision was made. So what do we do now that it proved incorrect? Just leave? Just walk away and toss a "sorry" over our shoulder? I don't think so.

What no response on the "apologizing" or "excuse making"? Were you just doing your Nash thing again and throwing stuff against the wall to see what would stick?

Or do you want to tell me that back then it was OBVIOUS I was wrong because your reading of the situation in the print media and guessing was so much better than mine?

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I didn't see the thread where the clock had started... but I assume it goes for our wager also Toad (or whenever u want)?

As far as I'm concerned, *everyone* was going on guesses. Due to that, bragging about any which way this turned out (and will turn out) is absurd.

"I was right, you were wrong" is the same as saying "Gee aint I smart - neither of us had any information, but I made a better guess than you". So I think it's silly to see or do any bragging on it.

It'll cost me, but I really do hope WMD turns up. And for selfish reasons. It just works out better for folks in our part of the world if this WMD stuff doesn't turn out to be a crock of ****. It'll end up being worth a lot more to me than the bet, that's for sure.

As I said, bring it up all you like.

Nash · « **Reply #312 on:** July 30, 2005, 03:39:07 PM »

I also said (feel free to look it up) that I thought it was absolutely incredible that a nation was about to invade another nation based on guesses.

You weren't "obviously" wrong. You were obviously guessing. And you were wrong to support a war based on guesses.

You have no problem with that? Fine - we differ.

But the kicker, it turns out, is not only were those guesses wrong, but they were based on complete lies. It slays me.

You haven't come around to that one yet, have you?

Raider179 · « **Reply #313 on:** July 30, 2005, 03:53:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

But the kicker, it turns out, is not only were those guesses wrong, but they were based on complete lies. It slays me.

You haven't come around to that one yet, have you?

Some people are still debating the meaning of the word "fixed" lol

To me this is just something else that shows the pattern that this adminstration follows. Deception/lying of the American public is ok to them.

Toad · « **Reply #314 on:** July 30, 2005, 05:13:23 PM »

Well, you and I clearly differ.

For example, you classify all intel as "guesses" apparently. Intel is a tough business. You can show two highly qualified photo interpreters the same photo and they often will deduce diifferent things from it. To Nash, apparently, these are "guesses". Maybe they are.

That doesn't mean that National Command Authority can disregard the two interpretations; it means somone has to make a decision and formulate policy from one of those reports. Sometimes a decision to go to war result from this chain of events.

You ever had to make a decision where people's lives were in the balance? Make the right decision, everyone lives; make the wrong one and everyone dies? Somebody has to make decisions like that. You use the best available information you can get and then you have to make the call. Second-guessers always look brilliant after the fact but it's rarely so cut and dried for the guy having to make the call.

You can say it's wrong to support a war based on what the government tells you. You can feel all good about being so right. You can even brag on how well you guessed if you like. I chose to believe my government and I don't feel that was wrong. Sorry.

Now, if you have an incontrovertible information that the guesses were based on "complete lies" please link it. And pass it on to the US Congress as well.

Or are you just going by what you read in the media?