Cindy's own words

[Jocko]

A) You said you put me on ignore. Do you ever tell the truth?

A. I said I blocked your sockpuppet. Don't you ever read for meaning?

B) The password problem was corrected on the JREF side. Ask them if you don't believe me.

B. I don't believe you, no, because your password was magically restored mere minutes after I lodged the complaint. You've condemned presidencies on less evidence than that, so take it as you will.

C) Ask me specific things about her quotes that you consider asinine and I will respond. I cannot read your mind and then look them up for you. Also, as I said, holding up her asinine term of term "freedom fighter," does not provide an excuse you blanket reject averything she has said. Doing so is equally asinine.

C. See above. I've spent a lot of time culling points for you. I hope you pay them more mind than you've show me. You know, like actually reading them or something kooky like that.

D) I have not apologized for her. As I said, except for "freedom fighters," I more or less agree with her position.

D. You have no idea what her position is, except that she has a deep, even pathological hatred of George Bush. Of course you agree with that.

By apologizing, I mean little things like:

...the term "freedom fighter" can be a variable.

Bush (not the troops, since he gave the orders) has created anarchy and, as such, has created this new breeding ground for terrorists, and is indirectly responible for the death of tens of thousands Iraqi civilians, and nearly 2,000 of our own troops (whom I do admire and respect and want to get them the hell out of there before more of them are killed pointlessly).

That's nothing, you should see what Roosevelt did to Normandy. Or what Truman did to Japan. The question is, why Bush alone is worthy of your seemingly inexhaustible venom.

Why have you not come out in support of the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians or 2,000 dead American soldiers? Do their lives not matter to you at all?

I support the troops by supporting their mission. Did you know that something like 80% of active military voted for Bush, Mark? Ever even wonder why that might have been?

Could it be that Cindy is merely misguided, and her actions could cause more harm in the very arena she's trying to help?

 

[Mark]

A. I said I blocked your sockpuppet. Don't you ever read for meaning?


So....you hate my sock puppet enough to put it on ignore, but you leave my main acount open. Got it. Makes perfect sense.


I don't believe you, no, because your password was magically restored mere minutes after I lodged the complaint. You've condemned presidencies on less evidence than that, so take it as you will.

Since you have shown over and over again that you are a liar, I think I'll trust my own word. Besides, you can check with the admins anytime you like to see if I am telling the truth. Also, I have not received ANY response from the admins about your infantile, petulant complaint, so how would I know when you lodged it? Other than your word, which, as we have seen, is worthless.


See below. I've spent a lot of time culling points for you. I hope you pay them more mind than you've show me. You know, like actually reading them or something kooky like that.

You have no idea what her position is, except that she has a deep, even pathological hatred of George Bush. Of course you agree with that.

I know I don't; that's exactly what I said. And neither do you.


By apologizing, I mean little things like:


That's nothing, you should see what Roosevelt did to Normandy. Or what Truman did to Japan. The question is, why Bush alone is worthy of your seemingly inexhaustible venom.



I support the troops by supporting their mission. Did you know that something like 80% of active military voted for Bush, Mark? Ever even wonder why that might have been?


I am trying to make my way through your mangled sytax so I can respond. You "support the troops" by "supporting their mission." And if our troops are sent into harm's way by an out of control administration, you have no objection, right? It's still their mission. Too bad if they die for no reason...you support them all the way to their deaths.

I assume, then, that you fully supported Clinton's sending troops to Kosovo and Ethiopia, yes? And if you did not, please explain why you didn't support our troop then.


Could it be that Cindy is merely misguided, and her actions could cause more harm in the very arena she's trying to help?

She is misguided in calling the terrorists "freedom fighters." She is absolutely on the money when she says our troops are being killed for no good reason. Blind loyalty to the Republican Party is NOT a good reason. Why, I might even call it immoral.

Ever wonder how many of our troops would vote for Bush if the election were held today?

 

[Ziggurat]

So now you want me to say her comment was immoral as well as wrong?

Give that man a dollar!

It's stupid and wrong. The dictionary defines immoral as "wrong."

And yet, that's not the only kind of wrong. Which is why just using the word "wrong" is insufficient.

So if her saying that is immoral, then so is your support of this war...because it most certainly is wrong.

So close. And yet, you STILL can't just say it, without offering up excuses or conditions. And this time, the excuse is that my position is just as immoral. Except that you don't even have the courage to say that directly, you just say that I'm also wrong, and IF her statement is immoral than my position is also immoral. In other words, you're saying that you won't concede that her statement is immoral unless I concede that my position is immoral. That's still not good enough.

I have seen nothing in her words to indicate to me that she is a "terrorist supporter." That she called them "freedom fighters" was stupid. Does that indicate she supports them?

Yes, it does, and rather obviously so. Arguments that this support is not significant don't change that, and amount to further excuse-making on your part.

Or does it indicate she was engaging in silly hyperbole?

I frankly don't care if that's all she was trying to do, the fact remains that her statement supports terrorists. You need not consider this important in order to recognize that that's still what it was.

I don't know and neither do you (unless you are intending to claim the JREF prize for mind reading).

Nonsense. I am not MAKING a judgment about her motives. I do not pretend to be able to do that, nor do I even really care. I am making a judgment about her ACTIONS. Actions that I have witnessed, actions that support terrorists, regardless of whether or not that's what she meant to do.

Want to give the excuse-making another round?

 

[Jocko]

Ever wonder how many of our troops would vote for Bush if the election were held today?

Don't have to, Mark, because we had an election just 10 months ago. Remember that one? In the leadup, USA Today reported a 73% to 18% advantage for Bush

the Army Times poll gave Bush 79% of the vote to Kerry's 18% of those who identified a candidate.

So I think I have a pretty good idea of how they would vote today, Mark. How good is your grasp of what matters to a soldier? Your confidence would seem less misplaced if you offered sources from time to time, by the way.

Edited to add: I supported both missions in Somalia and the Balkans, btw. I was physically nauseous when we pulled out of Somalia with our tails between our legs, however, though I don't expect you to understand why. Your policy seems to be that one death prevented today at the cost of a hundred tomorrow is a perfectly sane strategy.

 

[Mark]

Give that man a dollar!



And yet, that's not the only kind of wrong. Which is why just using the word "wrong" is insufficient.



So close. And yet, you STILL can't just say it, without offering up excuses or conditions. And this time, the excuse is that my position is just as immoral. Except that you don't even have the courage to say that directly, you just say that I'm also wrong, and IF her statement is immoral than my position is also immoral. In other words, you're saying that you won't concede that her statement is immoral unless I concede that my position is immoral. That's still not good enough.



Yes, it does, and rather obviously so. Arguments that this support is not significant don't change that, and amount to further excuse-making on your part.



I frankly don't care if that's all she was trying to do, the fact remains that her statement supports terrorists. You need not consider this important in order to recognize that that's still what it was.



Nonsense. I am not MAKING a judgment about her motives. I do not pretend to be able to do that, nor do I even really care. I am making a judgment about her ACTIONS. Actions that I have witnessed, actions that support terrorists, regardless of whether or not that's what she meant to do.

Want to give the excuse-making another round?

Well, what can I say? If you want someone to parrot your own words, create a sock puppet.


Jocko:
"USA Today reported a 73% to 18% advantage for Bush"

Ok, and this:

"Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. For the first time, a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm

So, in your view, the vast majority of Americans no longer support the troops and are immoral. Nice.

And this:

"The survey by the Stars and Stripes newspaper also said that 49% of those polled did not plan to re-enlist, while 31% said the war in Iraq was of little or no value for the United States."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3201918.stm


" According to the Pentagon-funded Stars and Stripes, 48% of troops polled rated morale as “low” or “very low.” The GI Rights Hotline calls increased 75% in 12 weeks."
http://www.mainstream-media.net/alerts/alert_pitch.cfm?id=90

 

[Jocko]

Jocko:
"USA Today reported a 73% to 18% advantage for Bush"

Ok, and this:

"Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn't abated. For the first time, a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm

So, in your view, the vast majority of Americans no longer support the troops and are immoral. Nice.

You asked about the troops supporting the president. I proved your point was without merit.

So you respond with a poll about the general public, rather than from the military, and suggest that somehow refutes the fact that military voters supported Bush nearly 4-to-1 AFTER the war was a year and a half old.

This is what's known as moving the goalposts, Mark, and it's a dishonest tactic as well as a logical fallacy.

Edited to add, after your edits:

Can you tell me why you think re-enlistment rates are somehow indicative of political leanings? It seems you want to prove a point using something. ANYTHING other than actual evidence that backs up your point.

You DO realize that Casey Sheehan re-enlisted, don't you?

 

[Mark]

You askeed about the troops supporting the president. I proved your point was without merit.

So you respond with a poll about the general public, rather than from the military, and suggest that somehow refutes the fact that military voters supported Bush nearly 4-to-1 AFTER the war was a year and a half old.

This is what's known as moving the goalposts, Mark, and it's a dishonest tactic as well as a logical fallacy.

See the polls I just added to my post above.

Also, you ignored my question: did you support Clinton's sending troops to Kosovo and Ethiopia? And, if not, why didn't you support our troops?

I never asked about troops supporting the president. You are lying again.

 

[Jocko]

See the polls I just added to my post above.

Also, you ignored my question: did you support Clinton's sending troops to Kosovo and Ethiopia? And, if not, why didn't you support our troops?

I have answered both points in the previous two posts.

I never asked about troops supporting the president. You are lying again.

This is too rich. Think back about 20 minutes, Mark. Or just look up on this very page.

Hint: it looks like this:

Ever wonder how many of our troops would vote for Bush if the election were held today?

No wonder you find so much to admire in Cindy Sheehan. You have a great deal in common.

 

[Mark]

I have answered both points in the previous two posts.



This is too rich. Think back about 20 minutes, Mark. Or just look up on this very page.

Hint: it looks like this:


No wonder you find so much to admire in Cindy Sheehan. You have a great deal in common.

You got me. In the heat of the argument, I forgot I said that. You are right and I sincerely apologize for saying your were lying about it. My bad.

That said, I would still like an answer to the question: did you support Kosovo and Ehiopia? And if you did not, why didn't you support our troops?

Btw, I didn't ever say I "admire" Cindy (I won't call you a liar about it, though). I think she is doing the cause more harm than good.

 

[Jocko]

You got me. In the heat of the argument, I forgot I said that. You are right and I sincerely apologize for saying your were lying about it. My bad.

That said, I would still like an answer to the question: did you support Kosovo and Ehiopia? And if you did not, why didn't you support our troops?

Well, you can apologize for making me repeat myself next.

Originally posted by Jocko
Edited to add: I supported both missions in Somalia and the Balkans, btw. I was physically nauseous when we pulled out of Somalia with our tails between our legs, however, though I don't expect you to understand why. Your policy seems to be that one death prevented today at the cost of a hundred tomorrow is a perfectly sane strategy.

Is there anything else I can do for you today?

 

[Mark]

Well, you can apologize for making me repeat myself next.


Is there anything else I can do for you today?

You are putting words in my mouth. And you didn't really answer the question: did you, or did you not support our missions in Kosovo and Ehiopia? And if you did not, why didn't you support our troops?

That you were nauseated when we left Ethiopia doesn't really answer the question, now does it?

When I am wrong, I will apologize (as I just did). You are being evasive.

 

[mr rosewater]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jocko
Edited to add: I supported both missions in Somalia and the Balkans, btw. I was physically nauseous when we pulled out of Somalia with our tails between our legs, however, though I don't expect you to understand why. Your policy seems to be that one death prevented today at the cost of a hundred tomorrow is a perfectly sane strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Mark]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jocko
Edited to add: I supported both missions in Somalia and the Balkans, btw. I was physically nauseous when we pulled out of Somalia with our tails between our legs, however, though I don't expect you to understand why. Your policy seems to be that one death prevented today at the cost of a hundred tomorrow is a perfectly sane strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Jocko, you never spoke against those wars? If so (and I will take your word for it), I will at least respect your consistency. Most of the people now claiming they supported those wars were screaming "Wag the dog! Wag the dog!" at the time. If you were not one of those, then good on ya. None of them admit it now, of course.

But I will take your word for it if that is what you are saying. I wonder if you will extend the same courtesy regarding my password?

 

[Jocko]

You are putting words in my mouth. And you didn't really answer the question: did you, or did you not support our missions in Kosovo and Ehiopia? And if you did not, why didn't you support our troops?

That you were nauseated when we left Ethiopia doesn't really answer the question, now does it?

When I am wrong, I will apologize (as I just did). You are being evasive.

Evasive, perhaps... but at least I know the difference between Ethiopia and Somalia.

Your point, as I read it, was to diving any difference in my attitude when forces are under the orders of a democrat vs. a republican president. I'm pleased to report that it makes no difference to me; what disgusts me are the hasty, reactive retreats. Nixon or Clinton, I don't care about party, both are equally guilty.

Clinton's approval on the Balkan war was lower than Bush's is now; does that mean we should have quit, as Cindy Sheehan would have us do now?

 

[Mark]

Evasive, perhaps... but at least I know the difference between Ethiopia and Somalia.

Your point, as I read it, was to diving any difference in my attitude when forces are under the orders of a democrat vs. a republican president. I'm pleased to report that it makes no difference to me; what disgusts me are the hasty, reactive retreats. Nixon or Clinton, I don't care about party, both are equally guilty.

Clinton's approval on the Balkan war was lower than Bush's is now; does that mean we should have quit, as Cindy Sheehan would have us do now?

A for consistency then.

For the record:

I supported the Kosovo mission.

I did not support Somalia/Ethiopian mission.

I reluctantly supported the first Gulf War. Oddly, because Hussein---unprovoked---invaded a sovereign nation. Hmmm.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

I do not and did not support the invasion of Iraq.

Where I am consistent is in only supporting wars that have (IMO) a purpose. I do NOT subscribe to party loyalty, because I do not belong to any party. By your words, at least as far as war is concerned, you no not either. I can respect that even if I disagree with your position.

 

[mr rosewater]

Mark said,
Where I am consistent is in only supporting wars that have (IMO) a purpose. I do NOT subscribe to party loyalty, because I do not belong to any party. By your words, at least as far as war is concerned, you no not either. I can respect that even if I disagree with your position


What was the purpose in the balkans?

 

[Mark]

Mark said,
Where I am consistent is in only supporting wars that have (IMO) a purpose. I do NOT subscribe to party loyalty, because I do not belong to any party. By your words, at least as far as war is concerned, you no not either. I can respect that even if I disagree with your position


What was the purpose in the balkans?

Stopping ongoing genocide.

Doesn't apply in Iraq, because the genocide was already stopped.

I should also point out that:

A) It was our stated reason for going to Kosovo in the first place, not a post-invasion spin.

B) The power vacuum on the region was already there; we did not create it by invading.

 

[Jocko]

A for consistency then.

For the record:

I supported the Kosovo mission.

I did not support Somalia/Ethiopian mission.

I reluctantly supported the first Gulf War. Oddly, because Hussein---unprovoked---invaded a sovereign nation. Hmmm.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

I do not and did not support the invasion of Iraq.

Where I am consistent is in only supporting wars that have (IMO) a purpose. I do NOT subscribe to party loyalty, because I do not belong to any party. By your words, at least as far as war is concerned, you no not either. I can respect that even if I disagree with your position.

Thank you, Mark. But do you remember the flak Clinton caught - even when it was clear the US casualties were going to be so few - for making war without an act of congress? The polls lambasted Clinton on the issue; that's why Bush's dip - in and of itself - means exactly nothing to me. That's why Cindy's protest means nothing to me.

A political position is not necessarily permanent simply because it is loud.

 

[Mark]

Thank you, Mark. But do you remember the flak Clinton caught - even when it was clear the US casualties were going to be so few - for making war without an act of congress? The polls lambasted Clinton on the issue; that's why Bush's dip - in and of itself - means exactly nothing to me. That's why Cindy's protest means nothing to me.

A political position is not necessarily permanent simply because it is loud.

Agreed. And, as I said, I give you full credit for consistency.

 

[Orwell]

Since we seem to be on the subject...

Here's a bunch of guotes from Republicans when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia (I believe that they're true, but I haven't checked all of them):

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
---Sean Hannity, Fox News

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
---Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain the y have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of then Govenor of Texas, George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)