Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask

Religions > Atheism > Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Fred Stone"
Date:	07 May 2007 02:44:52 PM
Object:	Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Once it became clear the claims about Saddam’s
WMD stockpiling would never be realized, there was no shortage of
apologies from a red-faced press embarrassed by its earlier failure to
ask tough questions.
The New York Times went so far as to issue an 1,100-word apology. “We
wish we had been more aggressive,” The Times said, referring to articles
that took officials too closely at their word. Going ahead, the paper
promised, it would “continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the
record straight.”
The first opportunity to flex this newfound appreciation for
journalistic skepticism came the day congressional Democrats dropped
their policy of laying Iraq’s failing at the feet of the Bush
administration. Instead, a wholesale Iraq policy shift was attempted.
Democrats’ initial solution — for a conflict alternatively lambasted for
mass casualties, savaging of America’s reputation, inspiring “civil
war”; with some even going so far as to call it the “greatest foreign
policy blunder in American history” — was a pork-laden war-funding bill
imposing timetables for withdrawing American troops.
How such a measure would serve as an Iraq cure-all was never adequately
explained. For its part, the media — the supposedly fearless D.C. press
corps in particular — seemed satisfied with Democratic explanations that
such measures are just responding to public demands. But if popular
opinion provides a suitable compass for guiding foreign policy, why all
the apologies for an earlier lack of skepticism with WMD?
Why not, instead, tough questions — like:
» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or defeat?
» If victory, how will withdrawal help?
» If defeat, how will that help national interests?
» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s
reputation in the region?
» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously
fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?
» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?
» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency
plans?
» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave by
September 2008. What’s significant about this date other than being two
months prior to the next presidential election?
These questions never came because the answers are obvious: Abandoning
Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country halfway broken
will leave a permanent scar on America’s regional reputation; it’s
impossible to fight the war on terrorism but not Iraq’s insurgents;
leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional war; Democrats have no
plan should such a contingency arise; the final pullout date is
arbitrary aside from its intent of removing Iraq from the next
election’s political equation.
This wouldn’t work, as Democrats and the media, both having claimed to
have been “duped” by President Bush, invested personal credibility in
using Iraq to bring down President Bush. Diverting even a fraction of
energy spent challenging the president over his war plans to do likewise
with Democrats threatens not only Democratic leaders, but the D.C. press
corps itself.
Having failed to survive Bush’s veto, Democrats are now scrapping
“timetables” in favor of “benchmarks.” Ostensibly these make America’s
continued support conditional upon verifiable progress from Iraq’s
government.
Again, the press, Washington’s (with its closer access) in particular,
has an opportunity to prove its mettle. Tough questions:
» Does it make sense to threaten American allies?
» How can Congress be sure “benchmarks” won’t increase short-term
violence, whereby insurgents could ensure discontinued U.S. support?
» Who creates the benchmarks? How will they be verified? How will it be
determine they’ve been met to satisfaction?
The media have expressed in no uncertain terms its rather limited
fanfare for the level of carnage in Iraq. Yet what we’re seeing now
threatens to pale in comparison to a possible worst-case scenario.
Should the press continue expressing limited curiosity about what
potentially lies behind door number two, such a dystopic finality
becomes, sadly, only more likely.
Tom Elliott is an editorial writer for the New York Post.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act,
there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the name of
saving the planet and everyone's fine with it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "ike milligan"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	07 May 2007 09:43:37 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47...

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Once it became clear the claims about Saddam's
WMD stockpiling would never be realized, there was no shortage of
apologies from a red-faced press embarrassed by its earlier failure to
ask tough questions.

The New York Times went so far as to issue an 1,100-word apology. "We
wish we had been more aggressive," The Times said, referring to articles
that took officials too closely at their word. Going ahead, the paper
promised, it would "continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the
record straight."

The first opportunity to flex this newfound appreciation for
journalistic skepticism came the day congressional Democrats dropped
their policy of laying Iraq's failing at the feet of the Bush
administration. Instead, a wholesale Iraq policy shift was attempted.

Democrats' initial solution - for a conflict alternatively lambasted for
mass casualties, savaging of America's reputation, inspiring "civil
war"; with some even going so far as to call it the "greatest foreign
policy blunder in American history" - was a pork-laden war-funding bill
imposing timetables for withdrawing American troops.

How such a measure would serve as an Iraq cure-all was never adequately
explained. For its part, the media - the supposedly fearless D.C. press
corps in particular - seemed satisfied with Democratic explanations that
such measures are just responding to public demands. But if popular
opinion provides a suitable compass for guiding foreign policy, why all
the apologies for an earlier lack of skepticism with WMD?

Why not, instead, tough questions - like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory - or defeat?

The question is meaningless, since the definitions of victory and defeat are
arbitrary.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

See above comment.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

See above comment.

» How will abandoning Iraq's burgeoning government affect America's
reputation in the region?

The definition of burgeoning is arbitrary. How will not abandoning it help
America?

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously
fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

How is it possible to fight a war on terrorism?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?

What is worse than a worst case?

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats' contingency
plans?

What scenario? What is the President's plan? I have never seen a rational
plan based on any kind of facts.

» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave by
September 2008. What's significant about this date other than being two
months prior to the next presidential election?

Now at last a question that it is possible to answer. Because the Democrats
believe they will win the 2008 election, they don't want to be saddled with
an army in Iraq. Also, if they can make the Republicans cave in to this
demand, their victory in November 2008 will be the biggest lanslide in U.S.
election history. OTOH, if the President doesn't cave and pull out the
troops, then the fiasco inherited by the next president can be blamed on the
intransigence of the Republicans. By fiasco, I mean the Iraq war.Either way
the Rpeublicans get blamed. The only way the Republicans won't suffer
mightily, is if somehow Iraq gets significantly better, or they can cover up
the failures or find a very good reason to invade Iran as a diversion, which
they don't have yet, since Iran is at least several years from getting the
Bomb.

These questions never came because the answers are obvious: Abandoning
Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country halfway broken
will leave a permanent scar on America's regional reputation; it's
impossible to fight the war on terrorism but not Iraq's insurgents;
leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional war; Democrats have no
plan should such a contingency arise; the final pullout date is
arbitrary aside from its intent of removing Iraq from the next
election's political equation.

The doom of the Republican Party is already sealed either way. Don't forget,
Afghanistan is also about to appear as a failure.

This wouldn't work, as Democrats and the media, both having claimed to
have been "duped" by President Bush, invested personal credibility in
using Iraq to bring down President Bush. Diverting even a fraction of
energy spent challenging the president over his war plans to do likewise
with Democrats threatens not only Democratic leaders, but the D.C. press
corps itself.

This paragraph is unclear. There is no bringing down of President Bush. He
is a lame duck. Neo-cons used the Iraq invasion to bring down the Republican
Party, whether intentionally or not.

Having failed to survive Bush's veto, Democrats are now scrapping
"timetables" in favor of "benchmarks." Ostensibly these make America's
continued support conditional upon verifiable progress from Iraq's
government.

Progress which is improbable; I would say impossible.

Again, the press, Washington's (with its closer access) in particular,
has an opportunity to prove its mettle. Tough questions:

» Does it make sense to threaten American allies?

Eh? WTF?

» How can Congress be sure "benchmarks" won't increase short-term
violence, whereby insurgents could ensure discontinued U.S. support?

Increased violence would then be the fault of Congress. Not only quite a
stretch, but I would say ridiculous.

» Who creates the benchmarks? How will they be verified? How will it be
determine they've been met to satisfaction?

The so-called benchmarks are just a political ploy. Why discuss it further?

The media have expressed in no uncertain terms its rather limited
fanfare for the level of carnage in Iraq. Yet what we're seeing now
threatens to pale in comparison to a possible worst-case scenario.

This is so unclear as to be pathetic. A symptom of tortured thinking is
tortured prose.

Should the press continue expressing limited curiosity about what
potentially lies behind door number two, such a dystopic finality
becomes, sadly, only more likely.

Are you trying to satirize your own writing here? It is laughable.

Tom Elliott is an editorial writer for the New York Post.

Is that who wrote this garbage? How did he get a job or are you making this
up?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	07 May 2007 09:33:36 PM

"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:ttR%h.12734$3P3.5076@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47...

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Once it became clear the claims about
Saddam's WMD stockpiling would never be realized, there was no
shortage of apologies from a red-faced press embarrassed by its
earlier failure to ask tough questions.

The New York Times went so far as to issue an 1,100-word apology. "We
wish we had been more aggressive," The Times said, referring to
articles that took officials too closely at their word. Going ahead,
the paper promised, it would "continue aggressive reporting aimed at
setting the record straight."

The first opportunity to flex this newfound appreciation for
journalistic skepticism came the day congressional Democrats dropped
their policy of laying Iraq's failing at the feet of the Bush
administration. Instead, a wholesale Iraq policy shift was attempted.

Democrats' initial solution - for a conflict alternatively lambasted
for mass casualties, savaging of America's reputation, inspiring
"civil war"; with some even going so far as to call it the "greatest
foreign policy blunder in American history" - was a pork-laden
war-funding bill imposing timetables for withdrawing American troops.

How such a measure would serve as an Iraq cure-all was never
adequately explained. For its part, the media - the supposedly
fearless D.C. press corps in particular - seemed satisfied with
Democratic explanations that such measures are just responding to
public demands. But if popular opinion provides a suitable compass
for guiding foreign policy, why all the apologies for an earlier lack
of skepticism with WMD?

Why not, instead, tough questions - like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory - or
» defeat?

The question is meaningless, since the definitions of victory and
defeat are arbitrary.

Definitions are not arbitrary. You can't avoid the issue by pretending
that they are. Deconstructionism won't save you from reality.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

See above comment.

Deconstructionism will not save you from your own fecklessness.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

See above comment.

» How will abandoning Iraq's burgeoning government affect America's
reputation in the region?

The definition of burgeoning is arbitrary. How will not abandoning it
help America?

Definitions are not arbitrary. That you avoid these questions is very
revealing of the deficiency of your ideology.

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to
simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

How is it possible to fight a war on terrorism?

One identifies the persons who employ terrorism and makes war upon them.

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from
» Iraq?

What is worse than a worst case?

Liberals who avoid issues that they cannot reconcile with their failed
ideology.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats' contingency
plans?

What scenario? What is the President's plan? I have never seen a
rational plan based on any kind of facts.

Your inability to "see" anything that does not square with your failed
ideology is consistent with terminal end-stage liberalism.

» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave
» by
September 2008. What's significant about this date other than being
two months prior to the next presidential election?

Now at last a question that it is possible to answer. Because the
Democrats believe they will win the 2008 election, they don't want to
be saddled with an army in Iraq. Also, if they can make the
Republicans cave in to this demand, their victory in November 2008
will be the biggest lanslide in U.S. election history. OTOH, if the
President doesn't cave and pull out the troops, then the fiasco
inherited by the next president can be blamed on the intransigence of
the Republicans. By fiasco, I mean the Iraq war.Either way the
Rpeublicans get blamed. The only way the Republicans won't suffer
mightily, is if somehow Iraq gets significantly better, or they can
cover up the failures or find a very good reason to invade Iran as a
diversion, which they don't have yet, since Iran is at least several
years from getting the Bomb.

So you think you've got a double-bind going, hmm? You better work a lot
harder to sabotage any possibility of even vestigial success in Iraq
then. But be careful, if people ever suspect that you're trying to
sabotage the mission you're screwed.

These questions never came because the answers are obvious:
Abandoning Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country
halfway broken will leave a permanent scar on America's regional
reputation; it's impossible to fight the war on terrorism but not
Iraq's insurgents; leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional
war; Democrats have no plan should such a contingency arise; the
final pullout date is arbitrary aside from its intent of removing
Iraq from the next election's political equation.

The doom of the Republican Party is already sealed either way. Don't
forget, Afghanistan is also about to appear as a failure.

Again, if people catch on to the sabotage the Democrats and the media
are preparing, they're the ones who will be doomed, not the Republicans.

This wouldn't work, as Democrats and the media, both having claimed
to have been "duped" by President Bush, invested personal credibility
in using Iraq to bring down President Bush. Diverting even a fraction
of energy spent challenging the president over his war plans to do
likewise with Democrats threatens not only Democratic leaders, but
the D.C. press corps itself.

This paragraph is unclear. There is no bringing down of President
Bush. He is a lame duck. Neo-cons used the Iraq invasion to bring down
the Republican Party, whether intentionally or not.

It's perfectly clear to anyone who isn't blinded to the implications of
the Democrats tactics.

Having failed to survive Bush's veto, Democrats are now scrapping
"timetables" in favor of "benchmarks." Ostensibly these make
America's continued support conditional upon verifiable progress from
Iraq's government.

Progress which is improbable; I would say impossible.

Again, the press, Washington's (with its closer access) in
particular, has an opportunity to prove its mettle. Tough questions:

» Does it make sense to threaten American allies?

Eh? WTF?

Iraq is our ally.

» How can Congress be sure "benchmarks" won't increase short-term
violence, whereby insurgents could ensure discontinued U.S. support?

Increased violence would then be the fault of Congress. Not only quite
a stretch, but I would say ridiculous.

» Who creates the benchmarks? How will they be verified? How will it
» be determine they've been met to satisfaction?

The so-called benchmarks are just a political ploy. Why discuss it
further?

Sure, avoid them like the plague, after all, they might interfere with
your attempts to sabotage the mission.

This is so unclear as to be pathetic. A symptom of tortured thinking
is tortured prose.

Yes, I've noticed how tortured your thinking is.

Should the press continue expressing limited curiosity about what
potentially lies behind door number two, such a dystopic finality
becomes, sadly, only more likely.

Are you trying to satirize your own writing here? It is laughable.

Tom Elliott is an editorial writer for the New York Post.

Is that who wrote this garbage? How did he get a job or are you making
this up?

Ike, you need to work on your turnspeak. You've done a very poor job of
deconstruction. You actually left in some words that meant something.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act,
there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the name of
saving the planet and everyone's fine with it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "ike milligan"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	09 May 2007 09:51:52 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9929EE87D4DDCfreddybear@66.150.105.47...

"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:ttR%h.12734$3P3.5076@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47...

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Once it became clear the claims about
Saddam's WMD stockpiling would never be realized, there was no
shortage of apologies from a red-faced press embarrassed by its
earlier failure to ask tough questions.

The New York Times went so far as to issue an 1,100-word apology. "We
wish we had been more aggressive," The Times said, referring to
articles that took officials too closely at their word. Going ahead,
the paper promised, it would "continue aggressive reporting aimed at
setting the record straight."

The first opportunity to flex this newfound appreciation for
journalistic skepticism came the day congressional Democrats dropped
their policy of laying Iraq's failing at the feet of the Bush
administration. Instead, a wholesale Iraq policy shift was attempted.

Democrats' initial solution - for a conflict alternatively lambasted
for mass casualties, savaging of America's reputation, inspiring
"civil war"; with some even going so far as to call it the "greatest
foreign policy blunder in American history" - was a pork-laden
war-funding bill imposing timetables for withdrawing American troops.

How such a measure would serve as an Iraq cure-all was never
adequately explained. For its part, the media - the supposedly
fearless D.C. press corps in particular - seemed satisfied with
Democratic explanations that such measures are just responding to
public demands. But if popular opinion provides a suitable compass
for guiding foreign policy, why all the apologies for an earlier lack
of skepticism with WMD?

Why not, instead, tough questions - like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory - or
» defeat?

The question is meaningless, since the definitions of victory and
defeat are arbitrary.

Definitions are not arbitrary. You can't avoid the issue by pretending
that they are. Deconstructionism won't save you from reality.

Definitions are arbitrary. For instance in the dictionary, there are several
definitons of the same word usually depending on the context and the usage
of the word. I have seen no definition of victory or defeat related to the
context here., much less arbitrary or otherwise. Why evade the issue by
refusing to specify what is meant by these terms in relation to Iraq?

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

See above comment.

Deconstructionism will not save you from your own fecklessness.

I was asking, futilly it seems for clarification, but as I read further down
the post, it became apparaent that whoever wrote it, was confused.
Please clarify what you mean by my alleged fecklessnes.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

See above comment.

See above questions about above comments of yours.

» How will abandoning Iraq's burgeoning government affect America's
reputation in the region?

The definition of burgeoning is arbitrary. How will not abandoning it
help America?

Definitions are not arbitrary. That you avoid these questions is very
revealing of the deficiency of your ideology.

I don't think I have indicated what any ideology is, in this post, except a
scepticism about accepting mindless and incoherent rantings, which you seem
to think constitute some sort of Gospel that should be above criticism. If
in fact these rantings are based on some kind of clear concept, then I
suppose you would have elucidated that by now. Then a rational dialectic
could follow.

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to
simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

How is it possible to fight a war on terrorism?

One identifies the persons who employ terrorism and makes war upon them.

I would have thought that identifying them would have made it possible to
capture and/or kill them, and war is not so precise as that. In war you
identify an armed force and oppose it with an armed force.

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from
» Iraq?

What is worse than a worst case?

Liberals who avoid issues that they cannot reconcile with their failed
ideology.

How is that affecting the price of eggs in Chicago, to use a hackneyed
expression?

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats' contingency
plans?

What scenario? What is the President's plan? I have never seen a
rational plan based on any kind of facts.

Your inability to "see" anything that does not square with your failed
ideology is consistent with terminal end-stage liberalism.

Is this about terminal end-stage liberalism or trying to talk about facts
and issues? If the former, I will leave it to you to pontificate further.

» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave
» by
September 2008. What's significant about this date other than being
two months prior to the next presidential election?

Now at last a question that it is possible to answer. Because the
Democrats believe they will win the 2008 election, they don't want to
be saddled with an army in Iraq. Also, if they can make the
Republicans cave in to this demand, their victory in November 2008
will be the biggest lanslide in U.S. election history. OTOH, if the
President doesn't cave and pull out the troops, then the fiasco
inherited by the next president can be blamed on the intransigence of
the Republicans. By fiasco, I mean the Iraq war.Either way the
Rpeublicans get blamed. The only way the Republicans won't suffer
mightily, is if somehow Iraq gets significantly better, or they can
cover up the failures or find a very good reason to invade Iran as a
diversion, which they don't have yet, since Iran is at least several
years from getting the Bomb.

I presonally am not trying to do anything but get at some facts and issues,
so far with little success. But politics and public perceptions are an issue
and a fact. The people who are now screwed in that regard, are the
Republicans due to abysmal incompetence and manipulative fabrications, that
is, in the public perception, which I did not create, they did.

These questions never came because the answers are obvious:
Abandoning Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country
halfway broken will leave a permanent scar on America's regional
reputation; it's impossible to fight the war on terrorism but not
Iraq's insurgents; leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional
war; Democrats have no plan should such a contingency arise; the
final pullout date is arbitrary aside from its intent of removing
Iraq from the next election's political equation.

The doom of the Republican Party is already sealed either way. Don't
forget, Afghanistan is also about to appear as a failure.

Again, if people catch on to the sabotage the Democrats and the media
are preparing, they're the ones who will be doomed, not the Republicans.

The Republican administration sabotaged itself already. the train has left
the station and the toothpaste is out of the tube, the horse has left
through the barn-door, etc. So in a few years, about the time pigs learn to
fly, the general public will like them again. that's not for me to be glad
or sorry about, because I think soon enought there will be other things to
worry about that will eclipse that. You have erroneously assumed that just
because I question what you have written, I am a stereotypical so-called
liberal. This ad hominem type of comment is not a good substitute for
clarity in replying. But judging by the quality of the OP that may have been
too much to hope for.

This wouldn't work, as Democrats and the media, both having claimed
to have been "duped" by President Bush, invested personal credibility
in using Iraq to bring down President Bush. Diverting even a fraction
of energy spent challenging the president over his war plans to do
likewise with Democrats threatens not only Democratic leaders, but
the D.C. press corps itself.

This paragraph is unclear. There is no bringing down of President
Bush. He is a lame duck. Neo-cons used the Iraq invasion to bring down
the Republican Party, whether intentionally or not.

It's perfectly clear to anyone who isn't blinded to the implications of
the Democrats tactics.

I think it is perfectly clear to anyone psychic enough to actually assume
the persona of the writer without going insane.

Having failed to survive Bush's veto, Democrats are now scrapping
"timetables" in favor of "benchmarks." Ostensibly these make
America's continued support conditional upon verifiable progress from
Iraq's government.

Progress which is improbable; I would say impossible.

Again, the press, Washington's (with its closer access) in
particular, has an opportunity to prove its mettle. Tough questions:

» Does it make sense to threaten American allies?

Eh? WTF?

Iraq is our ally.

Great. Glad to hear it.

» How can Congress be sure "benchmarks" won't increase short-term
violence, whereby insurgents could ensure discontinued U.S. support?

Increased violence would then be the fault of Congress. Not only quite
a stretch, but I would say ridiculous.

» Who creates the benchmarks? How will they be verified? How will it
» be determine they've been met to satisfaction?

The so-called benchmarks are just a political ploy. Why discuss it
further?

Sure, avoid them like the plague, after all, they might interfere with
your attempts to sabotage the mission.

Very well, let's discuss them. What are your ideas for benchmarks? When
replying please snip the irrlevant parts of the post.

This is so unclear as to be pathetic. A symptom of tortured thinking
is tortured prose.

Yes, I've noticed how tortured your thinking is.

Rather limited fanfare. Rather limited brain function, is what that phrase
seems to indicate.

Should the press continue expressing limited curiosity about what
potentially lies behind door number two, such a dystopic finality
becomes, sadly, only more likely.

Are you trying to satirize your own writing here? It is laughable.

Tom Elliott is an editorial writer for the New York Post.

Is that who wrote this garbage? How did he get a job or are you making
this up?

Ike, you need to work on your turnspeak. You've done a very poor job of
deconstruction. You actually left in some words that meant something.

Meant eomething to you? Amuse me.
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	09 May 2007 11:23:42 PM

Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
[---snip garbage---]
So are you just unable to feel shame? Is that it?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	10 May 2007 05:25:02 AM

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1178771022.602720.312800
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
[---snip garbage---]

So are you just unable to feel shame? Is that it?

I know you are but what am I?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act,
there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the name of
saving the planet and everyone's fine with it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	14 May 2007 02:38:27 PM

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or defeat?

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level of
violence that is now acceptable?

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how do
you see victory occurring?

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously
fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency
plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Has Matt Silberstein Ever Answered A Tough Question In His Life?	15 May 2007 08:57:26 AM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kfeh435u5algbb65d98el6mv0sad5odp74@4ax.com:

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

The Answer Is, Apparantly Not:

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or
» defeat?

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level of
violence that is now acceptable?

The current definition is the same one as it has always been. The level
of violence that is acceptable will depend on whether a Republican or a
Democrat is President in 2008.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how do
you see victory occurring?

Staying will enable the Iraqi Army to continue its development of
advance officers and other human resources needed to maintain its
mission as defenders of freedom.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

Americans won't be defeatist losers who ran away from a ragtag bunch of
terrorists who barely inflicted any casualties at all.

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to
simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from
» Iraq?

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

America wins a resounding victory in Iraq before the 2008 elections and
the Democrats get crushed at the polls.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency
plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?

They leave office anyway.
Now how about actually answering the questions instead of playing games,
Matt?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act,
there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the name of
saving the planet and everyone's fine with it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Has Matt Silberstein Ever Answered A Tough Question In His Life?	16 May 2007 10:51:07 AM

On 15 May 2007 13:57:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns99316E4655B30freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Please stop with this use of people's names in the subject line. It is
inappropriate. And there is a reason why the Usenet has threading,
deliberately breaking it is rude.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kfeh435u5algbb65d98el6mv0sad5odp74@4ax.com:

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

The Answer Is, Apparantly Not:

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or
» defeat?

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level of
violence that is now acceptable?

The current definition is the same one as it has always been.

Not according to various speeches I have seen Shrub give.

The level
of violence that is acceptable will depend on whether a Republican or a
Democrat is President in 2008.

Wow, and you complain about others avoiding tough questions. It was
Shrub who shifted the standards of victory from a democratic open Iraq
to one with acceptable levels of violence. So the tough question for a
war supporter to answer is what they would consider an acceptable
level of violence for the U.S. to pull out and claim victory. Avoiding
that question with an attempt at a partisan jab is still avoiding.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how do
you see victory occurring?

Staying will enable the Iraqi Army to continue its development of
advance officers and other human resources needed to maintain its
mission as defenders of freedom.

Nice idea, what is the actual rate of that development? Are they
developing their forces appreciably faster than the opposition is
developing theirs? And what % of the Iraqi forces are working for a
non-sectarian Iraq vs. fighting for their particular sect?

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

Americans won't be defeatist losers who ran away from a ragtag bunch of
terrorists who barely inflicted any casualties at all.

No, Fred, I was not asking for your political spin but for how it will
affect our reputation in the area. It is possible that we have already
lost everything we can by the war and occupation and such and that
staying won't hurt that any more. But is there any actual evidence
that leaving will be worse for our reputation *in the region* than
staying is?

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to
simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from
» Iraq?

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

America wins a resounding victory in Iraq before the 2008 elections and
the Democrats get crushed at the polls.

Ok, so you have no actual interest in tough questions, you are just
trying for some silly partisan points.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency
plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?

They leave office anyway.

IOW they plan on running away and denying that it is there fault.

Now how about actually answering the questions instead of playing games,
Matt?

Why should I? You have not shown anything that suggest an actual
interest in the questions or a willingness to deal with the tough
questions yourself. The initial questions, like other such lists you
have posted, were full of false and misleading assumptions. That the
questions were bad does not make them "tough", just misleading.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Has Matt Silberstein Ever Answered A Tough Question In His Life?	18 May 2007 07:55:12 AM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:vh9m4351chokafo6oiq86ll3it3hgn3vai@4ax.com:

On 15 May 2007 13:57:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns99316E4655B30freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Please stop with this use of people's names in the subject line. It is
inappropriate. And there is a reason why the Usenet has threading,
deliberately breaking it is rude.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kfeh435u5algbb65d98el6mv0sad5odp74@4ax.com:

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

The Answer Is, Apparantly Not:

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or
» defeat?

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level of
violence that is now acceptable?

The current definition is the same one as it has always been.

Not according to various speeches I have seen Shrub give.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

The level
of violence that is acceptable will depend on whether a Republican or
a Democrat is President in 2008.

Wow, and you complain about others avoiding tough questions. It was
Shrub who shifted the standards of victory from a democratic open Iraq
to one with acceptable levels of violence.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

So the tough question for a
war supporter to answer is what they would consider an acceptable
level of violence for the U.S. to pull out and claim victory. Avoiding
that question with an attempt at a partisan jab is still avoiding.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how do
you see victory occurring?

Staying will enable the Iraqi Army to continue its development of
advance officers and other human resources needed to maintain its
mission as defenders of freedom.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

Americans won't be defeatist losers who ran away from a ragtag bunch
of terrorists who barely inflicted any casualties at all.

No, Matt, you still haven't answered the original questions.

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is
» coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to
simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in
Iraq?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from
» Iraq?

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

America wins a resounding victory in Iraq before the 2008 elections
and the Democrats get crushed at the polls.

Ok, so you have no actual interest in tough questions, you are just
trying for some silly partisan points.

No, Matt, *YOU* haven't answered the original questions. Don't try to
shift this to me.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency
plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?

They leave office anyway.

IOW they plan on running away and denying that it is there fault.

No, Matt, It's *YOU* who is running away and denying that it's your
fault.

Now how about actually answering the questions instead of playing
games, Matt?

You ran away, Matt, and now you expect me to chase you? Nope, not
playing. Answer the questions the way they were asked.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act,
there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the name of
saving the planet and everyone's fine with it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Has Matt Silberstein Ever Answered A Tough Question In His Life?	18 May 2007 10:28:25 AM

On 18 May 2007 12:55:12 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993463C4586F4freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:vh9m4351chokafo6oiq86ll3it3hgn3vai@4ax.com:

On 15 May 2007 13:57:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns99316E4655B30freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Please stop with this use of people's names in the subject line. It is
inappropriate. And there is a reason why the Usenet has threading,
deliberately breaking it is rude.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kfeh435u5algbb65d98el6mv0sad5odp74@4ax.com:

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

The Answer Is, Apparantly Not:

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or
» defeat?

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level of
violence that is now acceptable?

The current definition is the same one as it has always been.

Not according to various speeches I have seen Shrub give.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

No, I have not because the questions were malformed. If we don't have
a definition of victory (and we have been given various standards over
time by the administration) then we can't discuss how an action can
lead to victory.

The level
of violence that is acceptable will depend on whether a Republican or
a Democrat is President in 2008.

Wow, and you complain about others avoiding tough questions. It was
Shrub who shifted the standards of victory from a democratic open Iraq
to one with acceptable levels of violence.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

No, Fred, I have not since they were malformed. But you have shown
that you are unwilling to even look at difficult questions, you try
for cheap partisan shots instead. You can't demand that others
"answer" tough questions while you work so hard yourself to avoid
them.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how do
you see victory occurring?

Staying will enable the Iraqi Army to continue its development of
advance officers and other human resources needed to maintain its
mission as defenders of freedom.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

All of the questions were malformed and had unstated and incorrect
assumptions. They were tough because they were nonsensical. I was
providing some the questions we need to answer before we can
reasonable look at the ones you asked. You may well like simplistic
questions and answers, I don't.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

Americans won't be defeatist losers who ran away from a ragtag bunch
of terrorists who barely inflicted any casualties at all.

No, Matt, you still haven't answered the original questions.

Questions with hidden incorrect assumptions are not tough, they are
malformed.

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

America wins a resounding victory in Iraq before the 2008 elections
and the Democrats get crushed at the polls.

Ok, so you have no actual interest in tough questions, you are just
trying for some silly partisan points.

No, Matt, *YOU* haven't answered the original questions. Don't try to
shift this to me.

I have shown some of the wholes in the questions. If you can't face
that then stop whining about others.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency

plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?

They leave office anyway.

IOW they plan on running away and denying that it is there fault.

No, Matt, It's *YOU* who is running away and denying that it's your
fault.

Well, it is not my fault: I thought that we were not preparing
properly for the war and the aftermath and I was right about that. I
did not realize how completely incompetent the administration would be
in their conduct of the war and the occupation, but that incompetence
is not my fault. Your response above is running away from the
situation: you and the administration have now re-defined victory to
mean staying in Iraq until a change of administration. Somehow you
think that means you (not the country) have won something.

Now how about actually answering the questions instead of playing
games, Matt?

You ran away,

No, I tried to face the issues.

Matt, and now you expect me to chase you?

No, Fred, I expect you to make personal attacks and avoid dealing with
the real issues.

Nope, not
playing. Answer the questions the way they were asked.

Why? If you ask "have you stopped beating your wife" style questions I
don't have to "Answer the questions the way they were asked."
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Has Matt Silberstein Ever Answered A Tough Question In His Life?	21 May 2007 05:14:15 PM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d1hr435092lr4d42gbkcks3mriuagk4gkq@4ax.com:

On 18 May 2007 12:55:12 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993463C4586F4freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:vh9m4351chokafo6oiq86ll3it3hgn3vai@4ax.com:

On 15 May 2007 13:57:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99316E4655B30freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Please stop with this use of people's names in the subject line. It
is inappropriate. And there is a reason why the Usenet has
threading, deliberately breaking it is rude.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:kfeh435u5algbb65d98el6mv0sad5odp74@4ax.com:

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

The Answer Is, Apparantly Not:

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or
» defeat?

Well, Matt, here it is, still waiting. Are you going to keep avoiding
the question?

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level
of violence that is now acceptable?

The current definition is the same one as it has always been.

Not according to various speeches I have seen Shrub give.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

No, Matt, we have been given a consistent standard by the
administration. Quit dodging.

The level
of violence that is acceptable will depend on whether a Republican
or a Democrat is President in 2008.

Wow, and you complain about others avoiding tough questions. It was
Shrub who shifted the standards of victory from a democratic open
Iraq to one with acceptable levels of violence.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

I answered your "difficult" cheap shots the way they deserved to be
answered. Since you're just avoiding any tough questions, you deserve
nothing but ridicule.

So the tough question for a
war supporter to answer is what they would consider an acceptable
level of violence for the U.S. to pull out and claim victory.
Avoiding that question with an attempt at a partisan jab is still
avoiding.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how
do you see victory occurring?

Staying will enable the Iraqi Army to continue its development of
advance officers and other human resources needed to maintain its
mission as defenders of freedom.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

You don't like having to answer questions that go straight to the
contradictions in your own position. But you're still avoiding the
issues, Matt.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect
» America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

Americans won't be defeatist losers who ran away from a ragtag bunch
of terrorists who barely inflicted any casualties at all.

No, Fred, I was not asking for your political spin but for how it
will affect our reputation in the area. It is possible that we have
already lost everything we can by the war and occupation and such
and that staying won't hurt that any more. But is there any actual
evidence that leaving will be worse for our reputation *in the
region* than staying is?

No, Matt, you still haven't answered the original questions.

Questions with hidden incorrect assumptions are not tough, they are
malformed.

You mean like yours. Now answer the ones that were originally asked, if
you can remember back that far. But that was your whole point. Divert
and delay and maybe everything will be forgotten. But I won't forget as
long as this thread remains active. It's your choice, Matt.

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

America wins a resounding victory in Iraq before the 2008 elections
and the Democrats get crushed at the polls.

Ok, so you have no actual interest in tough questions, you are just
trying for some silly partisan points.

No, Matt, *YOU* haven't answered the original questions. Don't try to
shift this to me.

I have shown some of the wholes in the questions. If you can't face
that then stop whining about others.

You still aren't answering any of the questions, Matt.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency

plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?

They leave office anyway.

IOW they plan on running away and denying that it is there fault.

No, Matt, It's *YOU* who is running away and denying that it's your
fault.

No, Matt, that is not the way I or the administration are defining
victory. That is another of your strawmen.

Now how about actually answering the questions instead of playing
games, Matt?

You ran away,

No, I tried to face the issues.

No, you ran away.

Matt, and now you expect me to chase you?

No, Fred, I expect you to make personal attacks and avoid dealing with
the real issues.

You ran away and now you accuse *me* of avoiding your strawmen.

Nope, not
playing. Answer the questions the way they were asked.

Why? If you ask "have you stopped beating your wife" style questions I
don't have to "Answer the questions the way they were asked."

If the questions were like that, you might have a point other than the
one you keep under your hat.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Has Matt Silberstein Ever Answered A Tough Question In His Life?	21 May 2007 07:44:12 PM

On 21 May 2007 22:14:15 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9937C29916B63freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:d1hr435092lr4d42gbkcks3mriuagk4gkq@4ax.com:

On 18 May 2007 12:55:12 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993463C4586F4freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:vh9m4351chokafo6oiq86ll3it3hgn3vai@4ax.com:

On 15 May 2007 13:57:26 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99316E4655B30freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Please stop with this use of people's names in the subject line. It
is inappropriate. And there is a reason why the Usenet has
threading, deliberately breaking it is rude.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:kfeh435u5algbb65d98el6mv0sad5odp74@4ax.com:

On 07 May 2007 19:44:52 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9929A939C9600freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

The Answer Is, Apparantly Not:

Why not, instead, tough questions — like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or
» defeat?

Well, Matt, here it is, still waiting. Are you going to keep avoiding
the question?

The questions are not well formed. I can't and won't attempt to answer
questions full of undefined terms and/or false assumptions. Whining
won't change that nor the nature of the question.

And what is the current definition of victory? What is this level
of violence that is now acceptable?

The current definition is the same one as it has always been.

Not according to various speeches I have seen Shrub give.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

No, Matt, we have been given a consistent standard by the
administration. Quit dodging.

No, we have not. The lasted definition of victory is less violence,
the original was a free democratic ally in the war on terror. Is that
last one the one you still see as defining victory?

The level
of violence that is acceptable will depend on whether a Republican
or a Democrat is President in 2008.

Wow, and you complain about others avoiding tough questions. It was
Shrub who shifted the standards of victory from a democratic open
Iraq to one with acceptable levels of violence.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

I answered your "difficult" cheap shots the way they deserved to be
answered.

It is a good thing you don't apply the same standards to both sides. I
did not respond with a cheap shot, I asked for clarifications. You
can't do that so you gave me a cheap shot.

Since you're just avoiding any tough questions, you deserve
nothing but ridicule.

If you find some of value provide it.

So the tough question for a
war supporter to answer is what they would consider an acceptable
level of violence for the U.S. to pull out and claim victory.
Avoiding that question with an attempt at a partisan jab is still
avoiding.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

If victory, how will staying help? Not what do you want, but how
do you see victory occurring?

Staying will enable the Iraqi Army to continue its development of
advance officers and other human resources needed to maintain its
mission as defenders of freedom.

No, Matt, you haven't answered the original questions.

You don't like having to answer questions that go straight to the
contradictions in your own position. But you're still avoiding the
issues, Matt.

Your analysis is not bad, your aim is off. If a reasonable time table
says that we will need major forces (comparable to our current force
or larger) in Iraq for 20 years then we have already a defeat.
Pointing out that we have troops in Korea now ignores that those
troops have not engaged in meaningful combat for decades. The issue is
not should the U.S. forces remain as peace *keepers*, but how long
until there is a peace to keep. So, again, what is the current
operational strength of the Iraqi army? How much of that strength
belongs to one or another sectarian side? Is the non-sectarian force
growing at the same rate or faster than the sectarian ones? If we had
some reasonable truthful answers to these and other questions we can
make reasonable decisions. If not and if "trust me" and "stay the
course" and "they are in the last throes" and such are all we are
given, then leaving is likely the best thing to do. I would like a
meaningful discussion of other options, but the administration refuses
to engage in discussion or truthful presentation to the American
public.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect
» America’s
reputation in the region?

And how will staying actually affect our reputation?

Americans won't be defeatist losers who ran away from a ragtag bunch
of terrorists who barely inflicted any casualties at all.

No, Fred, I was not asking for your political spin but for how it
will affect our reputation in the area. It is possible that we have
already lost everything we can by the war and occupation and such
and that staying won't hurt that any more. But is there any actual
evidence that leaving will be worse for our reputation *in the
region* than staying is?

No, Matt, you still haven't answered the original questions.

Questions with hidden incorrect assumptions are not tough, they are
malformed.

You mean like yours.

No, but you are free to point out actual problems rather than whining.

Now answer the ones that were originally asked, if
you can remember back that far. But that was your whole point. Divert
and delay and maybe everything will be forgotten. But I won't forget as
long as this thread remains active. It's your choice, Matt.

Actually Fred you changed the thread title to make it harder to find
the original questions. And then refused to do much besides partisan
or personal attacks. Would you care to actually discuss options in
Iraq?

What are some possible worst-case scenarios for staying in Iraq?

America wins a resounding victory in Iraq before the 2008 elections
and the Democrats get crushed at the polls.

Ok, so you have no actual interest in tough questions, you are just
trying for some silly partisan points.

No, Matt, *YOU* haven't answered the original questions. Don't try to
shift this to me.

I have shown some of the wholes in the questions. If you can't face
that then stop whining about others.

You still aren't answering any of the questions, Matt.

No, I am still not doing that. I have explained why several times. The
reasons remain.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency

plans?

Should such a scenario manifest, what are the administration's
contingency plans?

They leave office anyway.

IOW they plan on running away and denying that it is there fault.

No, Matt, It's *YOU* who is running away and denying that it's your
fault.

No, Matt, that is not the way I or the administration are defining
victory. That is another of your strawmen.

No, Fred, it is what you presented just above. The Administration's
plan is to keep forces in Iraq until 2009, then blame the Democrats.
As you said "they leave office anyway".

Now how about actually answering the questions instead of playing
games, Matt?

You ran away,

No, I tried to face the issues.

No, you ran away.

Did not.

Matt, and now you expect me to chase you?

No, Fred, I expect you to make personal attacks and avoid dealing with
the real issues.

You ran away and now you accuse *me* of avoiding your strawmen.

Do you think anyone is persuaded by your accusations?

Nope, not
playing. Answer the questions the way they were asked.

Why? If you ask "have you stopped beating your wife" style questions I
don't have to "Answer the questions the way they were asked."

If the questions were like that, you might have a point other than the
one you keep under your hat.

As I said, when you have some quality ridicule use it.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	21 May 2007 08:34:34 PM

On May 7, 12:44 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

Why not, instead, tough questions - like:

=BB Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory - or defeat?

The victory has already been won. There are no WMDs in Iraq. So of
course you will agree that all American forces can immediately
withdraw, there's no reason for them to still be over there. Hasta la
vista, Iraq, there's nothing left but AK-47s and grenades, so there's
no earthly reason for Americans to be there anymore. So pop the
champaign and save up the ticker tape, break out the type you last
used for "JAPS SURRENDER", Johnny's about to come marching home.
.

User: "Mike"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	14 May 2007 03:03:09 PM

On May 7, 3:44 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

Why not, instead, tough questions - like:

=BB Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory - or defeat?

As opposed to the strategy of staying for a while and having a
lengthy drawn-out defeat instead of a hasty defeat? IF and I repeat
IF a defeat is to be had then of course a hasty defeat is better than
a slow one. Are you to stupid to get that point? Don't bother
answering. Obviously you are.
But of course you don't think there will be a defeat. Well then,
what the hell is a definition of a win here? A stable pro-democracy
pro-Western Iraq? That ain't happening you delusional moron. It
cannot be done. It can't be done by American troops; it can only be
done by the Iraqis getting their act together. That is precisely the
frustrating thing about the current situation. The American military
can accomplish just about anything in the way of purely military
tasks, but we CANNOT make Iraq stable. Your stupidity on this point
is breath-taking.

=BB If victory, how will withdrawal help?

There is no "victory" to be had. Nor a loss. We got rid of Saddam
and we are now confident that we are not threatened by Iraqi WMDs.
Those go on the victory side of the ledger. On the other hand we will
probably leave Iraq in a horribly chaotic state with massive
instability. That goes on the loss side of the ledger. We have
greatly strengthened Iran's strategic position in the Middle East
which is a BIG tally on the loss side of the ledger. The point is
that withdrawing now means that no more American soldiers will have to
die fighting for unrealistic further gains that cannot be achieved.
If I thought staying would further our interests I would be the first
to recommend staying.

=BB If defeat, how will that help national interests?

It won't. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld completely FUCKED UP our
national interests. The question is would we rather cut losses or
have a protracted defeat.

=BB How will abandoning Iraq's burgeoning government affect America's
reputation in the region?

LOL!!!!!! What reputation in the region. I assume that you live in a
delusional fantasy world in which America enjoys a reputation in the
Middle East as a disseminator of Democracy and a fair broker. Fred,
you have got to be the STUPIDEST nontheist I have ever heard of.

=BB A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously
fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

First of all I don't assume as you do that a Taliban spokesman
necessarily speaks Gospel truth. We don't know what bin Laden's
status is and to what extent he controls his rather loosely organized
al quaeda. You of course would automatically believe anything a
Taliban spokesman says; I don't. In any case we should fight
terrorists when we have an opportunity to EFFECTIVELY fight them and
we should pick and choose the battles wisely. In case you haven't
noticed, the situation in Afghanistan is going down the toilet because
we are so overburdened in Iraq.

=BB What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?

Truly HORRIBLE worst-case scenarios. About as bad as the scenarios we
will face in the near future if we stay and then leave.

=BB Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats' contingency
plans?

Whereas ***** Bush's plan is to simply defer the day that these
scenarios have to be faced.
<snip remaining crap from the guy who has a Stone inside his skull
instead of a brain>
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	15 May 2007 12:16:21 PM

Mike <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1179172989.487048.200380@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On May 7, 3:44 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

Why not, instead, tough questions - like:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory - or
» defeat?

Are you too stupid to get the point that *VICTORY* is possible?

But of course you don't think there will be a defeat. Well then,
what the hell is a definition of a win here? A stable pro-democracy
pro-Western Iraq? That ain't happening you delusional moron. It
cannot be done. It can't be done by American troops; it can only be
done by the Iraqis getting their act together. That is precisely the
frustrating thing about the current situation. The American military
can accomplish just about anything in the way of purely military
tasks, but we CANNOT make Iraq stable. Your stupidity on this point
is breath-taking.

Of course the American military cannot make Iraq stable *BY ITSELF*. I'm
not the stupid one here. The American military's job is to train and
support the IRAQI military until THEY can do the job on their own.

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

We do not have to leave Iraq in a horribly chaotic state. We do not have
to leave there at all. We haven't been defeated. Our military has hardly
even been scratched.

That goes on the loss side of the ledger. We have
greatly strengthened Iran's strategic position in the Middle East
which is a BIG tally on the loss side of the ledger.

That is absolutely wrong. Iran is hurting badly. Their economy is in
tatters, their people are in virtual revolt, the only thing that keeps
the mullahs in power is a reign of terror.

The point is
that withdrawing now means that no more American soldiers will have to
die fighting for unrealistic further gains that cannot be achieved.
If I thought staying would further our interests I would be the first
to recommend staying.

The problem is that all you listen to is defeatist propaganda. You never
bother to listen to any arguments for victory.

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

It won't. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld completely FUCKED UP our
national interests. The question is would we rather cut losses or
have a protracted defeat.

And this is the proof. You don't even think that victory is possible for
America, and yet there is nothing about America's situation in Iraq that
would indicate that we have been defeated.

» How will abandoning Iraq's burgeoning government affect America's
reputation in the region?

And here comes the hate-America-first rhetoric, right on schedule. If
you think our reputation sucks so much, what possible motive could you
have for making it suck even more by running away from some ragtag bunch
of terrorists who have hardly hurt our military at all? Yes, Mike, I
know all the sob stories that all the leftists in the world weep their
bitter tears over when they have their hate-America festivals. I'm not
the stupid one here. I don't believe ancient Soviet propaganda.

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating
insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to
simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

Which part of *IF TRUE* did you fail to understand?

In any case we should fight
terrorists when we have an opportunity to EFFECTIVELY fight them and
we should pick and choose the battles wisely. In case you haven't
noticed, the situation in Afghanistan is going down the toilet because
we are so overburdened in Iraq.

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from
» Iraq?

Truly HORRIBLE worst-case scenarios. About as bad as the scenarios we
will face in the near future if we stay and then leave.

Keywords: near future. Meaning before the Iraqi power structure is
capable of standing up for itself without our support.

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats' contingency
plans?

Whereas ***** Bush's plan is to simply defer the day that these
scenarios have to be faced.

You didn't answer the question. You simply avoided it and called the
President names. Nice going, Mike.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act,
there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the name of
saving the planet and everyone's fine with it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Some Tough Questions The Media Should Ask	18 May 2007 04:25:23 PM

On 15 May 2007 17:16:21 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993190008E7B8freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Mike <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1179172989.487048.200380@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On May 7, 3:44 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/a-714083
~Tom_Elliott__Has_the_media_learned_nothing_on_Iraq_.html

[snip]

That goes on the loss side of the ledger. We have
greatly strengthened Iran's strategic position in the Middle East
which is a BIG tally on the loss side of the ledger.

That is absolutely wrong. Iran is hurting badly. Their economy is in
tatters, their people are in virtual revolt, the only thing that keeps
the mullahs in power is a reign of terror.

Actually the dislike of American bullyi