"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132695403.239050.164700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132689731.133799.66660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132679372.568873.75790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132634639.416436.189010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<...>

Nobody's backing off of any attacks because there weren't any
attacks on Murtha in the first place. "Cut and run" wasn't an
attack on HIM it was an attack on HIS PROPOSAL.

Fred, that is just wrong. From:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/18/ltm.01.html
"BASH: The gloves-off White House effort is to paint a Democratic
Congressman calling for troops out of Iraq in six months as out of
the mainstream.

"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a
record of supporting a strong America," said the White House press
secretary in a blistering statement. "So it is baffling that he is
endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme
liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

By trying to link John Murtha to the dovish filmmaker Michael
Moore, Bush aided hope to stop independent and Republicans, already
skittish about Iraq, from following the influential Democrat's
lead."

Ahem, "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore" is criticism
of those positions.

Comparing him to Michael Moore is, in the opinion of many, a personal
attack. Nice try at spinning, though.

Well, I'm happy to see that the Democratic party is coming around to
that opinion of Moore, anyway.

I can't help it that the MSM go out of their way to mischaracterize
the administration's positions on these things.

Ahh, a fine whine from Fred.

<...>

So a retired colonel is a better planner than all the Generals in
military?

Try reading "Plan of Attack". The Pentagon generals wanted to go in
with hundreds of thousands of troops, and they were overruled by
Rumsfeld. Indeed, one general, General Shinseki, was forced to
retire because he made his objections to Rumsfeld's plan public.
So, perhaps the question that should be asked is "So, the secretary
of Defense, who never made it to general rank in the service, knows
better than all the generals in the military?"

Nice Dodge. Get good milage? How's the suspension?

Dodge? I don't think so. You talked about the opinion of military
brass, so I answered based on the opinion of military brass. If mine
was a dodge, yours doesn't even rate Yugo status.

The difference between my brass and your brass is that mine are the ones
whose opinions were actually put into policy.

<...>

You know, Fred, I'm not sure what the best solution is to the
mess that is Iraq. I am afraid that just leaving would be wrong,
but I don't know what else to do. Surely the current "strategy"
isn't working, unless you want to see more American servicemen
killed.

What would you know about progress under the current strategy?
Anybody who says that it's working is a 'right-wing hack' whom you
ignore.

And, you know this how? The fact is that the only evidence you have
been able to give have been from "right-wing hacks" and from
bloggers.

I rest my case.

Yeah, if my case were as weak as yours, I'd run too.

You just keep confirming my opinion, David.

I
might support putting in a couple hundred thousand more troops
to secure the borders and occupy areas after we clear them of
the insurgents, but where will we get the troops?

Recruit them from the Iraqis, which is what we have been doing.

And, that is working out just dandy, ain't it.

Why, yes, it is.

Tell that to the Iraqis who are being murdered by the day, not to
mention to the families of the dead American troops. You obviously
have a different definition of dandy than the rest of the world. Or,
is English a second language for you?

*You* are not the rest of the world.

8^)

<...>

NOT.

As usual, you are mistaken.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991919/site/newsweek/

Oh, right, I'm supposed to believe Newsweak but you don't have to
believe anything I cite.

If you were to look into it, that article is from a DIA paper that
was declassified with the help of Senator Carl Levin. But, don't
let me stop your rant.

And we have their word for it that they've accurately characterized
that DIA paper. And you'll believe anything.

Again, Fred shows his denial. Guess what, Fred. Truth comes from more
than administration sources. But, you'll believe anything they
spoon-feed you, won't you?

Guess what, David? Carl Levin is not known for accuracy in leaks.

<...>

The Hill? Right-wing?

The author certainly is, considering his other credits are
writing for National Review and National Standard. And, from
what I read, his whole story is based on speculation by Clarke,
and not much more.

And Clarke is another right-wing hack, right?

No, but it was *opinion*, not facts.

No! Say it isn't so!

A biting comeback. Or, is that a comeback that just bites?

<...>

Nope.

Wrong.

Yes, as usual, you are wrong.

Yes, as usual, you are delusional.

Says Fred, eyes firmly closed, fingers in ears, shouting at the
top of his lungs "IS NOT!!!"

Aww, poor David, shouting "IS TOO!!!" to the world.

Sorry, Fred, but I am supplying facts.

Where?

Just about everywhere. Just because you are apparently immune to facts
that go against what you want to believe isn't my problem.

<...>

Look above, Fred. Supported every claim. Oh, and here is
something else for you to chew on, a table showing
administratioin claims about Iraq, along what was known by the
CIA and the UN. Enjoy...
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/iraqintell/tables.pdf

I can see right off that that table is a pretty presentation of a
bunch of crap. The Iraq-Africa-Yellowcake claim, for instance, was
*confirmed* by British Intelligence, and *remains* confirmed by
them. The forged documents were not the sole source of that claim.
There were independent reports that Iraq had made trade overtures
to Niger, whose only exports were yellowcake and certain
agricultural commodities which would be of little value in Iraq.

Fred, not even the administration believes that crap any more. Why
do you?

David, you're just wrong. Get used to it, because if you keep
sticking to your arguments, you'll keep being wrong.

Gee, the evidence says I am correct. But, keep those blinders on.

Says David, nose down in the feedbag, blinders in place.

In fact Joe Wilson's verbal report after his little jaunt was
taken as *confirmation* of the claim.

So you *still* haven't supported anything.

I would judge that I have supported my side better than you. That
said, the main weakness of that table is that they didn't cite
sources, which is a weakness.

A *BIG* weakness.

At least I am willing to look at my data objectively. You, apparently,
are not.

Well, I see that this thread is finished. If you have any actual
information to impart, feel free.

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132689731.133799.66660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132679372.568873.75790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1132634639.416436.189010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

As usual, you are mistaken.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991919/site/newsweek/

Oh, right, I'm supposed to believe Newsweak but you don't have to
believe anything I cite.

If you were to look into it, that article is from a DIA paper that was
declassified with the help of Senator Carl Levin. But, don't let me
stop your rant.

And we have their word for it that they've accurately characterized that
DIA paper. And you'll believe anything.

Nobody's backing off of any attacks because there weren't any attacks
on Murtha in the first place. "Cut and run" wasn't an attack on HIM it
was an attack on HIS PROPOSAL.