Posted on 09/04/2002 2:13:49 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
And some of those who believe it dwell among us.
Ummmm .. doesn't this fall under the lines of LEAKING INFORMATION???
Hmmm .. I'll have to research it to be sure .. as for the "real Conservatives"
I wouldn't have a problem if they would just wait until Bush presents his information and what evidence he can without putting folks in harms way .. it's not like he is goinna start bombing tomorrow
But as usual they jump ship without all the facts
YEP!!!
Why do you think I hold Brent Scowcroft in such high regard? I point him out (as I really hope you realize) as representative of the Bush I administration and as one who's opinion is respected by conservatives who have a clue. He's also considered to be speaking for HW Bush. So far I haven't heard the old man saying anything like, "he's not speaking for me" or "We need to go kick Saddam's butt and the UN be damned."
BTW, read the Kissinger article in the NY Times. He was not misrepresented. The article is consistent with other interviews Dr. K has recently given. (Don't ask for sources on other interviews. Do your own research as I have.) Why do people who, when confronted with something in writing they don't want to see, throw out that they were "misrepresented." Is your purpose to debate or obfuscate?
And, maybe for your simpleness I need to be somewhat more specific and stay away from statements like "every day the list grows longer". People like you tend to take that literally. If my generality caused you some brain pain, I apologize. Again, more of what you don't want to hear so you attack the statement. The irrefutable fact is that there is a continually growing list of conservatives opposed to unilateral action if any action at all in Iraq. These people have minds much larger and experienced than yours so don't try this at home.
And as for the source on Schartzkopf, I've posted it here before so go find it. Stormin' Norman is considered to be speaking for the senior brass at the Pentagon who can't speak out.
What are you saying? I shouldn't have taken your post seriously? Uh, sorry (I guess).
Please tell me that's not true.
I'd like to be able to make you happy in this respect, but to be honest I don't even remember what my discussion with you - or this thread - was about. It was a while ago, after all. I'm going to have to review a little first.
Why do you think I hold Brent Scowcroft in such high regard?
What I was saying (now that I've re-read my original post) is that you seemed to think that his opinion was important, for some reason. Yet you were simultaneously evidently not sufficiently familiar with who the man is to be able to correctly spell his name. I think I just found these two items to be... incongruous.
I point him out (as I really hope you realize) as representative of the Bush I administration
Fair enough. Yes, I did realize he was a member of the Bush I administration. Whoop dee doo. So if any member of the Bush I administration writes an op-ed piece opposing a war against Iraq, no matter who, no matter how unfamiliar you are with the person or indeed how his name is actually spelled, why, then, we're required to put on the brakes. Is that it? I'm really trying to follow your reasoning here but it doesn't add up.
as one who's opinion is respected by conservatives who have a clue.
I'm not sure this is true. For example, I don't respect his opinion, having read it. Okay? Why don't we move on, then. You're gonna hafta do better than just point to the opinion of Some Random Guy From The Bush Administration, Who You Barely Even Know Anything About, Including His Name in order to construct a convincing anti-war argument.
He's also considered to be speaking for HW Bush.
"Considered"? By whom? You?
I don't "consider" him to be speaking for Bush I. Sorry. I "consider" him to be speaking for himself. Now where does that leave you? Once again, because of the opinion of Some Random Guy From Bush I Administration, we're not allowed to attack Iraq. I mean really, is that the best you've got?
So far I haven't heard the old man saying anything like, "he's not speaking for me" or "We need to go kick Saddam's butt and the UN be damned."
Indeed. In fact, Bush I hasn't given a press conference announcing that 2+2=4 or that the sky is blue. I guess that means those things aren't true either. (Oh boy.)
BTW, read the Kissinger article in the NY Times. He was not misrepresented.
I've read the article, and multiple debunkings of it, and yes he was.
Now, frankly I don't give a rat's ass what Henry Kissinger thinks about anything, and he's not a conservative in my book. But that just makes it doubly pathetic that the NYT felt the need to misrepresent his op-ed in order to bolster an anti-war case.
Don't ask for sources on other interviews.
Heh, of course not. That would be so silly of me, I should just take your word for it, and accept all your assertions wholesale, of course. Of course.
And, maybe for your simpleness I need to be somewhat more specific and stay away from statements like "every day the list grows longer".
I see, so you simply meant that the list grows longer, but not necessarily every day.
Well.
It was several days between my post and your response. Who, pray tell, has been added to this ever growing "list" in the intervening time? Anyone? Just how pathetically slowly is this "list" growing, anyway? Will there be 4 people on it by the year 2100?
The irrefutable fact is that there is a continually growing list of conservatives opposed to unilateral action if any action at all in Iraq.
"Irrefutable", eh? Well name names (besides the much-respected Mr. "et al"). What are you waiting for? It should be easy. Sheesh.
And as for the source on Schartzkopf, I've posted it here before so go find it.
Isn't there a W in his name somewhere? Your keyboard may be missing a W, why don't you check :)
Anyway, we've certainly been here before. I ask for sources, you say "go find it". Cute, very cute.
You're right I guess, perhaps I shouldn't have taken your post seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.