Safe Haven | Preservation of Capital |

Exposing Mr. Tamblynâs fallacious tactics has left him nothing to say, except to count and âLOLOL!â Iâm going to sleep. Dean

Grasshopper becomes more like Bronson every day.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:20 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Report exonerates Bush, Blair of Lying

Only two, but -- hey -- it was a short paragraph. LOLOL!

andean <> wrote:

An answer with no analysis plus Ã¢â¬ÅLOLOLOL!Ã¢â¬Â Ã Enjoy!?? Ã Surely you wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t be interested in stigmatizing the analysis that sees straw men and exposes false argument, which leads to the truth.Ã If I notice someone using another straw man, IÃ¢â¬â¢ll be happy to describe it again, if it would help you understand the term.Ã Understanding the concept helps in avoiding problems in forming rigorous arguments, which is in the interest of most people.Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã Dean Ã Ã

-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 7:16 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Report exonerates Bush, Blair of Lying

More straw men. LOLOLOL!

andean <> wrote:

The criticsÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã¢âÂ¢ lawyering is full of distortions and straw men, which, in fact, is ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâspin,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ when compared to the actual text of BushÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã¢âÂ¢s speeches.Ãâ An intent to deceive by Bush has not been shown, according to the Report, though I am the first to agree that he was promoting an invasion which he believed necessary for good and valid reasons.Ãâ Blair asks the telling question, to which the ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃâcriticsÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ offer No answer:

ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃâHow was it that critics thought that Washington and London were wrong to act on fragmentary and uncertain intelligence in the case of Iraq -- and wrong NOT to act on fragmentary and uncertain intelligence in relation to Sept. 11?ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ

A flawless counter to 9/11 and terrorism is probably impossible because the path to stopping terror is multifaceted, and by the time you are perfect you are late, so there will always be problems for the opposition party and the anti war constituency to seize upon.Ãâ The greater error is to be found in the criticsÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã¢âÂ¢ absence of strategy to solve the terrorist problem, and in the distortions and idealistic thinking of their carping in many of their attempted rebuttals. Ãâ Picking apart a genuine effort, without offering a compelling alternative, when the stakes are so high (multiple mass killings and paralysis of the western world), is just lawyering to win an election. Ãâ If they won, the anti war constituency would be in charge of fighting terror with no compelling pacifist strategy to solve the problem, except t o send the police after them.Ãâ ; What if the terrorists have state sanctuary (and state support), which they could purchase from some countries? Ãâ Do we want a war strategy from an anti war constituency? Ãâ I have yet to notice the criticsÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã¢âÂ¢ grand strategy (please tell me what it is), while Bush has stated the importance of bringing representative government to the Middle East to give hope to the hopeless (in this life), who are volunteering for suicide ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃâmartyrdomÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ in mass killings.Ãâ Did the anti war constituency intend to achieve BushÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã¢âÂ¢s goal against Saddam with diplomacy?Ãâ Inspections?Ãâ Inspections were not allowed by Hussein until the US Army was camped in the desert on the Iraq border.Ãâ The French and the ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃâcriticsÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ wanted them to bake in the sun indefinitely (until the next US election, when Bush could be de feated for stupidly doing nothing) while ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâinspections,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ which Hussein previousl y unilaterally terminated, continued indefinitely, with no complete accounting of WMD in sight.Ãâ You didnÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ã¢âÂ¢t notice a French army there baking in the desert, did you?

Instead of pounding on ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâneo-cons,ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ the ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃâcriticsÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ should be extolling their strategy.Ãâ It appears they have none.Ãâ Ãâ Ãâ Ãâ Ãâ Ãâ Ãâ

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 3:45 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Report exonerates Bush, Blair of Lying

The neo-cons and those in their thrall can spin and spin and spin and it won't change the facts one bit -- nor the growing public awareness of the facts.

I posted an article in Message 5657 that addresses their attempt to smear Wilson.

wavemechanic <> wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: andean

To:

Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:54 PM

Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Report exonerates Bush, Blair of Lying

ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅHow was it that critics thought that Washington and London were wrong to act on fragmentary and uncertain intelligence in the case of Iraq -- and wrong NOT to act on fragmentary and uncertain intelligence in relation to Sept. 11,ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃÂ said PM Blair.

My computer interferes with my sending addresses at times. There is a very good article by Sullivan in the Jul 20 Chicago Sun Times on this subject.

Dean:

You probably mean this one http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul20.html, which includes the following excerpt:

"According to Butler, Saddam had earlier built up WMD stockpiles. He had programs in place to reconstitute them. He was seeking uranium from other countries (including Niger so that, as Mark Steyn pointed out here on Sunday, "Bush Lied!" would have to be replaced by "Wilson Lied!"). And he would almost certainly have restored the WMD threat once the sanctions regime against him broke down or was abandoned -- as was happening in the period running up to the war.

These conclusions may be excessively modest. Saddam's restoration of his WMD threat would likely have been even faster than Butler thinks since, as we know from the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal, the sanctions regime against Saddam was extraordinarily porous -- if porous is the right word to describe a system where the sanctions enforcers accepted a cut of the profits in return for assisting in the sanctions-busting.

And it may be the case that Saddam did possess WMD at an early stage of the crisis and that the intelligence services were not wholly wrong. Some new evidence suggests something along these lines. A report to the U.N. Security Council in June this year by the acting executive head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission claims that before, during and after the war, Saddam shipped WMD and medium- range ballistic missiles to countries in Europe and the Middle East. [and the question of the 20 tons of chemicals (including VX and sarin) that was moved from Syria, which does not have the capacity to produce them in that tonnage, to Jordan in an attempt to execute a terrorists attack].

U.N. officials say they do not yet have a full accounting of exactly what weapons passed out of Iraq in this way, but that entire factories were among the items transported abroad. If that is so -- and this report may turn out to be exaggerated -- then our current conventional wisdom will have to be overturned."

Along the same lines, the following is an excerpt from Sestanovich's article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/opinion/21sest.html). Setanovich is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University. From 1997 to 2001 he was United States ambassador at large for the former Soviet Union:

"When America demanded that Iraq follow the example of countries like Ukraine and South Africa, which sought international help in dismantling their weapons of mass destruction, it set the bar extremely high, but not unreasonably so. The right test had to reflect Saddam Hussein's long record of acquiring, using and concealing such weapons. Just as important, it had to yield a clear enough result to satisfy doubters on both sides, either breaking the momentum for war or showing that it was justified.

Some may object that this approach treated Saddam Hussein as guilty until proved innocent. They're right. But the Bush administration did not invent this logic. When Saddam Hussein forced out United Nations inspectors in 1998, President Clinton responded with days of bombings - not because he knew what weapons Iraq had, but because Iraq's actions kept us from finding out.

A decision on war is almost never based simply on what we know, or think we know. Intelligence is always disputed. Instead, we respond to what the other guy does. This is how we went to war in Iraq. The next time we face such a choice, whether our intelligence has improved or not, we'll almost surely decide in the very same way."

Bill

You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.