Sure. Happily.
[quote=“fred smith”]
Yes, but so what? How is this now relevant to your point?[/quote] Keep this one in mind and we’ll come back to it.
Yes, question but obtusely refuse to take a president at his own word about his own reasons for the invasion but rather attribute motives without proof is an unacceptable alternative to not wanting to hear the president’s message and take him at his word.[/quote]Still sorting through the grammatical structure of that one, but here goes… apologies is I mischaracterize your meaning, which I take to be:
‘Question, yes; but obtusely refusing to take a president at his word about his reasons for the invasion and instead attributing motives without proof is unacceptable.’
And yet, you’re refusing to accept, at face value, my reasons for rejecting the logic of his arguments; instead, you insist on characterizing my motives negatively. Today, I posted an excerpt from Foreign Affairs. I summarize that article thus: [url=US Embassy Iraq Memo - gloomy - #96 by Jaboney what do we have? Bush & Co. still believing in their approach, but pursing other means because acting on their beliefs has clearly failed to acheive their ends."[/url] Perhaps you missed that. It’s not that I don’t believe that Bush believes he’s right, it’s that I believe he’s dressed his reasons up to parade them around and win support. That belief is based on statements made by numerous individuals, inside and outside of the administration. Are those statements sufficient to constitute proof? No. Were the administrations statements in making the case for war sufficient to constitute proof? No. So we’re left with reasonable doubt, and I believe that men of good will can honestly disagree on their analyses of the situation. Fair enough?
You are assuming then that the “opposition party” is acting with perfect candor and honesty while the other is being deliberately deceptive. You have not made your case. Stop squirming.[/quote] No, I’m not. The Democrats rightly lost trust, and I characterized the press as “hot and bothered”–hardly the best condition, I think.
Terrorism is real. Shall we call it war on islamofascism instead? or do you think most of us get the idea and prefer to not label one religion as the primary source of trouble to excessively skirt around giving offense.[/quote]
War on a tactic, or an ideology, it’s still a poor metaphor. War has a rather concrete reality that escapes ‘battles for hearts and minds’.
[quote]The distinction is relevant.
That between wars of necessity and choice, and the relative degrees of trust that a population should extend the gov’t in either case. Goes to my initial, hanging point.
[quote=“fred smith”]A zoo is a collection of animals. Government is political administration. Any other definitions you want to share?[/quote] This is where I leave you.