Diane Rehm says Kucinich wants to pull troops out of Iraq immediately

[redqueen]

This morning at the end of the first half of her program, Diane Rehm asked a question of one of her guests. I just caught the last part of the show and missed the guest's name, but the question was preceded by a statement along the lines of 'Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to pull all US troops out of Iraq immediately - what would that do to the country?'

The guest, of course, proceeded to say how awful it would be.

I've already sent her a mail, cc'ed to the ombudsman, detailing the problem.

I'm getting so tired of this.

If anyone else heard it and wants to share their disappointment, request a correction, or whatever, the email for her show is '[e-mail]' and for NPR's ombudsman it's '[e-mail]'.

*sigh*

[Padraig18]

1. What 'problem' is that? n/t

[mmonk]

2. I was wondering about that too.

[MrSoundAndVision]

5. The problem is that....

it wouldn't be a terrible thing to pull out of Iraq immediately. And another problem is that the ombudsman at NPR has been overwhelmed by listeners compaining that they always fail to mention Kucinich when they run stories on the presidential candidates and other issues. Example, after the failed WTO meetings in Cancun they did an in depth story on the WTO and proceeded to get comments from Democratic presidential candidates. All except one: That's right, Dennis Kucinich, the candidate who will cancel it's ass. As the NPR ombudsman quoted an emailed complaint: "... a pretty glaring omission wouldn't you say?...." So that's the problem fellas. NPR's biased too.

[mmonk]

6. I see

Thanks for the clarification. At least his position was aired though, not in an even handed manner I agree.

[MrSoundAndVision]

11. No problem

Yeah it's been really obvious on NPR, where there supposed to be all "intelligent" in their stories. Their is a really good interview with Kucinich on Morning Edition, but that was months ago. I was really hoping Tavis Smiley would have Kucinich on, but I'm not sure. He was going to have them all on, then suddenly stopped at Kucinich.

[cavebat2000]

3. Dude

Diane Rehm knows her sh**.

[redqueen]

4. Yeah, just stating this once.

We are all adults and have at least average levels of reading comprehension skills.

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between 'pulling troops out immediately' and Kucnich's actual plan should read Congressman Kucinich's plan at herescroll down to the 10/09 statement.

If you still don't see a difference I really don't know what else to say.

[Padraig18]

7. Oh, I see.

Actually, the only problem I see is with Kucinich's decidely rosy assumptions about UN member-states' willingness to contribute sufficient numbers of peace-keeping troops to prevent chaos. Where is there evidence that sufficient support exists to even make this possible?

I don't accept his assumptions, plain and simple, and the question was fair.

[redqueen]

8. If we cede control of Iraq, they'll commit troops.

The UN and major member states have been saying for MONTHS that the main stumbling block preventing them from committing troops & cash is THE ASPECT OF US CONTROL.

What's so 'rosy' about the fact that if one changes the reality on the ground to one more amenable to their wishes (yes, that would be the abdication of US control of oil contracts -- that's the main stumbling block for US) that they'll be more willing to send troops & cash?

That's what they, themselves, have stated.

Not really much here to puzzle on, is there?

[Padraig18]

10. 'More willing'

'More willing' to contribute does not equate with either 'completely willing' or 'willing to send enough'.

[redqueen]

12. And which of those is worse than ZERO?

I suppose that since we aren't guaranteed exactly 100 % of what we're asking for that we should cede no control, and stay in the quagmire and keep funding it with our children's credit?

What part of that makes any sense at all?

[Padraig18]

13. The point

If he cannot guarantee 100% withdrawl and funding, he should quit promising the American people that he can.

[redqueen]

16. The point is to try to get them out.

The point, to look at reality and not political correctness of what should or should not be said, is that he is the ONLY candidate who seems to recognize that the UN and its member states have been abused and our credibility with them badly damaged. Rather than try to strong arm them by keeping control so we can make *'s buddies rich, which is what it seems like nearly every other candidate (excepting Al) is planning on doing, Kucinich advocates compromise so that we can get all the help we can.

You can pick apart the chances of getting how much help, but any way you slice it, getting that help as fast as possible is better than insisting on US control of a nation we should not have invaded in the first place, thereby exacerbating the loss of life and drain on our treasury.

[Padraig18]

18. See post #15. n/t

[Mairead]

49. WHO SAYS he can't? You? How do you know? Answer: you don't.

All you're doing is trying to make us believe that your judgement is better than his. Exactly why should we accept that?

[Padraig18]

54. As a sentient being living in the real world...

... I am quite capable of realistically assesing DK's plan, and it is unworkable. His promise of a speedy withdrawl is smoke and mirrors, and ignores extant realities regarding the UN, logistics and funding.

[Mairead]

67. How sweet.

Well, on the offchance that you're actually silly enough to think you've defended your opinion, I'll trump you: as a thinking being who's been around plenty long enough to be your grandmother, I disagree with you. Completely. So I'm right and you're wrong. How d'ya like those apples? :)

[Padraig18]

71. I'm wounded.

:)

[mmonk]

9. It would be nice

but many nations have said they won't contribute troops. Whether that means under any circumstance including under the UN flag remains to be seen. I personally think U.N. peacekeepers couldn't handle it, but maybe they could.

[MrSoundAndVision]

14. It only remains to be seen because....

it is thoroughly out of the question on our end. The media has been saying for months (ever since Kucinich has been in the mainstream spotlight voicing dissent) that we can't pull out. We can't: and your answer is "Ok" we can't. See, actually we can, and will, whether you think it's right or viable or not. We will be forced to leave, better to do it now to save our brothers and sisters from death and our children from becoming less educated than paying for your (you and everyone else who doesn't see this) inability to see the reality here with their blood and my money.

It is TIME to get out NOW. The UN WILL do it. It is in the interest of the world to stabilize the region, and to leash the pit bull (US). To say they wouldn't is obtuse at best. And for the record, members of the UN such as France, Russia, and Germany won't send troops because their people don't want them to because they know there sons and daughter's will die because of U.S. corporate interests. When will you know that?

http://www.kucinich.us

[Padraig18]

15. Aside from India and Pakistan...

... which nations *will* send troops, even with a UN authorization, and do so in sufficient numbers to constitute a meaningful peacekepping presence?

Long on sound bites, short on details--- and the devil's in the details, my freind.

[redqueen]

17. France, Germany, Russia...

You can nitpick details all day, but substitute your candidate's NATO-related plans and tell me which one contains more 'details'.

[Padraig18]

20. Actually no.

They have said the opposite--- they will NOT commit troops, period.

Try again.

[redqueen]

25. You really believe that?

From the BBC:

War critics to back Iraq resolution - 10/16/2003

"We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction," German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said after talks on Thursday.

But he added that he did not think that the resolution was adequate for the situation in Iraq and that was why no additional military or material help would be offered.

The three have been pushing Washington for concessions on the text which is aimed at winning broad international backing for the reconstruction of Iraq.

link

[Padraig18]

27. Where, in that statement...

... does it say anything whatsoever about *troops*?

[redqueen]

33. Here

"But he added that he did not think that the resolution was adequate for the situation in Iraq and that was why no additional military or material help would be offered."

I suppose by 'military help' you thought he was referring to loaning us some helicopters or something?

[Padraig18]

36. Are you sure he was referring to...

... Germany, France and Russia sending in THEIR troops, or the theoretical idea of 'military help'? The German government has already stated *explicitly* that their soldiers will not be deployed to Iraq--period.

[redqueen]

37. Yeah you're right, he was probably talking about 'theoretical' help

:crazy:

[MrSoundAndVision]

21. Well let me ask them and get back to you stubborn

It would be in everyone's interest to do so. With your attitude, the UN would have debated forever about who will go into Bosnia, not that it was NECESSARY to go into Bosnia. Hell, you have Candadians in Afganistan right now because it is in interest of the world to stabilize Afganistan.

[Padraig18]

24. Facts are stubborn things.

And the point is that no adequate number of UN member-states have ever indicated that they are willing to contribute sufficient troops to adequately stabilize Iraq. Until the facts indicate otherwise, our inflammatory presence will remain, and DK's plan would effect, at *best*, a partial withdrawl.

[MrSoundAndVision]

32. Well the point I suppose would be to

change the Iraqi mission. I mean, no the UN wouldn't agree to take over the WAR, but they would help us end it. When you take one side out of a conflict of war there's no war anymore.

Iraq is a mess, and it will take a REAL effort to convince everyone that America has said goodbye to it's corporate interests, and Kucinich will be the man to do that.

Now if you put 150,000 UN troops on the ground in Iraq, the Iraqi's will still be occupied. But if you train the Iraqi police and military, and allow a UN umbrella to foster a constitution that is representative and democratic, then we will have a free Iraq. But the first step is getting us out, and that step WILL happen, we can just choose to do it now, as DK will, without paying the horrible price of blood later.

[Padraig18]

34. But where will the 150K troops *come from*?

No combination of UN member-states has indicated even a willingness to contribute that number of troops. DK's plan sounds good on paper, until you start doing basic arithmetic.

[MrSoundAndVision]

40. Hey I'm a mathematician and

you missed my point. No, first of all we don't need troops, UN or otherwise, on every street corner in Iraq: that's the job of the Iraqi police. That was my point. We fund the UN to: rebuild the Iraq police force, oversee all oil profits, and distribute the monies both donated and capitalized from Iraq's oil so that the Iraqi's themselves rebuild their country (I mean they do the bricklaying and the telephone wire laying and everything, not contract companies from here). Anyway, I'm going to the park. Be back later.

In the meantime, you could click http://www.kucinich.us :)

[redqueen]

41. Where will the troops *come from* for Dean's plan?

"A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament."

Well? The devil is in the details, so? Which NATO members have committed to sending troops?

Or are these details something only other candidates have to provide?

[Padraig18]

43. They will come from NATO member nations.

And the post isn't about Dean's plan.

[redqueen]

46. Have NATO member nations "indicated a willingness" to contribute...

that number of troops?

That was the standard of whether or not Kucinich's plan was workable.

Here's the quote:

"No combination of UN member-states has indicated even a willingness to contribute that number of troops. DK's plan sounds good on paper, until you start doing basic arithmetic."

So, logically, Dean's plan would similarly only 'sound good on paper' until you tell me which member nations have indicated a willingness to contribute that number of troops.

Make sense?

[Padraig18]

51. If this were a post about Dean's plan, yes.

But it isn't.

[redqueen]

53. Actually this thread is about the mischaracterization of Kucinich's plan.

Which you seemed more than happy to perpetuate.

Part of your perpetuation of the mischaracterization of Kucinich's plan was your assertion that because UN member states had not already mentioned sending 150K troops, that his plan was not realistic.

When confronted with evidence that your candidate lacks similar 'detail', which you cited as necessary when discussing Kucinich's 'unrealistic' plans, you opened the line of argument to that area.

So which is it? Are these 'details' necessary, in order to accept a candidate's plan as realistic and workable, or are they not?

Easy question.

[Padraig18]

55. You're changing the topic...

... which remains DK's plan, *not* Dean's.

[redqueen]

57. I started the topic. I know what it is.

It is the mischaracterization of Kucinich's plan. That activity is one you're gleefully partaking in.

What I don't get is why you aren't on that other thread, the one asking about Dean's plan, explaining how that one is any more realistic or workable.

Again, which NATO members have commited 150K troops, exactly?

[Padraig18]

59. Again, this is about DK's plan.

If you want to talk about it, fine; if you want to engage in a game of 'Gotcha!', I'm not biting.

OK?

[redqueen]

61. Not 'gotcha', logical deduction.

If you say x is true under these circumstances for candidate x, then why is it so difficult to get you to admit that x must also be true under the same circumstances for candidate y?

It's not 'gotcha'. It's defining your terms.

If Kucinich's plan is unworkable for the reasons you specified, then Dean's is also unworkable. Accept and admit that and you can keep your criteria intact. If you won't admit it then you must admit your criteria for defining an unworkable or unrealistic plan are flawed.

[Padraig18]

62. No, it's "Gotcha"

This thread is not about Dean's plan. I have never mentioned OR alluded to Dean's plan at any time in this thread--- YOU have.

I know a game of "Gotcha" when I see it, and I'm not playing.

[redqueen]

63. Sounds more like sour grapes to me.

You lay out your reasons why Kucinich's plan is unworkable and unrealistic, but when faced with putting those same criteria to your chosen candidate, you refuse to 'play gotcha'.

I can't force you to use the same criteria in evaluating your candidate's plans vs. others'. I would think it's only reasonable. Were I you I would probably reflect on why that seems so hard to do.

[Padraig18]

65. It's not hard at all.

I just refuse to be drawn into yet another game of "Gotcha" with a DK supporter, when the subject of the post is DK's plan, not Dean's. You guys are entirely too good at doing that, and I'm not going to play the game any more. :shrug:

[redqueen]

68. That would be true, if it wasn't flatly false.

The topic of this thread is not Kucinch's plan.

The topic of this thread, which is quite obviously plain, is that Diane Rehm characterized his plan as leaving Iraq immediately, which is wrong.

With me so far?

Then you join the thread, and say that his plan is unworkable, because of x. Fair enough. I point out that Dean's plan also has the same characteristic, and you cry 'gotcha'.

You came on a thread about mischaracterizing Kucinich's plan, and chose to further mischaracterize it by seeming to portray it as somehow less workable or realistic than other plans. Since you support Dean, that would imply that, logically speaking, Dean's plan is more realistic or workable.

So, since *you* chose to pick a characteristic of Kucnich's plan and use it to call the plan unworkable and unrealistic, *you* opened the conversation to that line of discussion -- i.e. whether or not said characteristic really made the plan unworkable or unrealistic.

[redqueen]

19. I don't know what you mean by saying they 'couldn't handle it'

But consider that the very presence of US troops is an instigating factor. Consider that stabilizing Iraq very probably will be much easier without the ubiquitous presence of the invading army's troops and the invading country's government in control.

[Padraig18]

22. 'Instigating factor'

And after 12 years of UN sanctions, why do you believe that the UN will be any less an 'instigating factor'? I point to the bombing of the Baghdad HQ and continuing attacks on UN personnel as evidence that the UN is also 'unloved' in Iraq.

[redqueen]

26. Look at their targets.

How many UN dead? How many US?

[Padraig18]

29. How many UN *there*? How many Americans *there*?

You do the math.

[mmonk]

23. Agree we need to take the American face off it as much as possible

but they are bombing the UN, Red Cross, police stations, trying to assassinate the new Iraqi interim government members, hotels, etc. The only UN response I've seen to the attacks is to reduce staff.

[redqueen]

28. They're bombing everyone they percieve as assisting the US / Britain.

If we were to rescind control, and have multinational peacekeepers, do you really think there would be the same level of violence? Honestly?

[mmonk]

30. Yes

[redqueen]

35. Well if that's the way you see it...

then you've resigned yourself to American presence in occupied Iraq for years... this despite clear indications from other countries that were their admendments to the UN Resolution adopted, that they would have sent troops / monetary aid.

Congratulations and all hail Halliburton and Bechtel.

They thank you for your continued support.

[mmonk]

38. You don't get it

Until there is an Iraqi government in full control with an armed forces and police and they are able to put down all that try to gain control of the country, both foreign and domestic, there will be violence there. Any other combinations probably won't end all the violence.

[redqueen]

39. Is that the same trap the Israeli gov't is in?

Insisting that *all* violence be stopped before progress can be made? How self-defeating is that?!

You say I 'don't get it', but the reality is that we see the situation differently.

To me, a UN-led, multinational peacekeeping force, with oil profits going not to US companies but to Iraq, will lessen the violence.

To you, nothing will matter and the situation is going to be the same no matter who is in control or, more specifically, who is benefiting from the country's natural resources.

We just disagree.

[mmonk]

42. I know the point you are making

in that an occupying force will need to leave before violence will truely cease. I did not say it didn't matter who was in control. An Iraqi government with an Iraqi armed forces needs to be in full control.

[redqueen]

44. But in an earlier post you said the violence would be the same...

whether under UN control or US? Is that an accurate representation of your take on the situation?

[mmonk]

45. Basically would be the same.

Until there is an Iraqi power from the top down to gain control.

[redqueen]

48. Well actually one of the amendments that Germany and France...

and probably other member states have tried to get adopted is that control would be handed over to Iraq more quickly. Probably with just this situation in mind.

However it is the US that prevents it.

So there again, you have more proof that Kucinich's plan -- acceding to the UN's and member states' demands vis a vis control and responsibility issues -- is actually more realistic and more likely to result in a less violent and less costly end to *'s blunder.

[mmonk]

66. You might say I'm for a variation of it.

I think we need help militarily. I don't have confidence UN peace keepers are any kind of substitute. We need help in conjuction with others for as long as it takes to insure an Iraq force can gain control (as well as confidence). I don't think it will be fast in the best of circumstances. But we need to spell our forces on a meaningful rotation that can't be achieved without help (2 week leaves don't count).

[Padraig18]

47. And for the record:

I believe the IWR and our subsequent invasion of a nation that had neither attacked nor threatened to attack us, or its neighbors, to have been both disatrous and immoral.
That said, the question is not "Do we leave?" or "Should we leave?", but "How can we leave Iraq and do the least amount of avoidable harm to her and her people?".

[No More Shrub]

50. How indeed?

Do you have a better recomendation than handing control over to the UN as soon as possible?

[Padraig18]

52. How can you 'hand over control'...

... to an organization that is, at present, unwilling and unequipped to *assume* control.

There are no 'quick fixes' for this mess, DK's rosy optimism nonwithstanding.

[redqueen]

56. UN members have made their wishes known.

Kucinich is the only candidate willing to accede to those wishes, in order to fix the Iraq mess in the fastest way possible.

You're right, at *present*, they are not willing. They are equipped, however, and have made clear what criteria are necessary for their willingness to change.

[No More Shrub]

58. So you have said

but I have yet to see any documentation on your part to contradict the statements from France and Germany saying that if the US was not in control they would supply military aid. Given the way we are viewed arouond the world, thanks to chimp in charge, I think it probable that more suppoort would be there if it was seen as going to the UN and not the US. As far as I can tell, you just want Dean to be right so bad that you no longer look at things objectivly.

[Padraig18]

60. I'm not biting.

I've not even mentioned Dean's plan, nor have I mentioned what I think about it. To correct a mistatement of yours, neither Germany nor France has indicated that they would be willing to help militarily *at all*, as has been pointed out previously in this thread.

[No More Shrub]

64. Even if they haven't

I, for one, would rather at least try to do something which would not only help to bring our people back, but would also help the Iraqis as well. I don't think any government a US lead coalition puts in place will go over well with the Iraqi people, whereas a UN appointed one would at least have a fighting chance.

At any rate my question was, do you have a better plan?

[Padraig18]

69. And my reply was...

... this is a thread about DK's plan, and I will not play "Gotcha!".

[No More Shrub]

72. So all you wanted to do was bash Kuncinch?

Without offering anything constructive?

[Padraig18]

74. It's not bashing to point out substantive flaws in hi plan.

And his plan is chock-full of them.

[No More Shrub]

75. Do you consider 1 "flaw" as beign "chock-full"?

'Casue thats all you have pointed out so far, your insistance that the UN won't help.

[Padraig18]

78. Ummm, mischaracterization:

The UN won't help a.) militarily, b.) economically or c.) logistically. Considering that UN participation in those 3 areas are the fundamental underpinnings of DK's plan, I'd call those 'flaws', yes.

[No More Shrub]

82. Catch 22

you keep using what the UN is saying about how things are now, not how they would be under Kuncinch's plan. This has been stated many many times and you refuse to acknowledge it other than to deny it based purely on spectulation. I know that I'm only speculating that there would be enough support, but I believe that if the US wasn't in charge things would be different. I don't think thats such a strange idea.

[redqueen]

76. It's not 'gotcha' to admit that as a Dean supporter...

you have very little credibility on the topic, based on your own criteria as to what's 'workable' or 'realistic'.

Dean's plan is 'chock-full' of flaws, as well.

[Padraig18]

80. Then feel free to point them out in a thread about *Dean's* plan.

Shall we discuss spaced-based mind-control weapons here, too? Dep't of Peace, any one?

Just as off-topic.

[No More Shrub]

84. RedQueen did

Where's your response
Dean Laid Out Multi-Lateral Iraq Plan in April

[Padraig18]

86. Who said I was required to respond?

My suggestion was that if she wished to discuss Dean's plan, that it would be appropriate to do so in a Dean thread, not a Kucinich one.

[No More Shrub]

90. The entire time you have implied

that if this thread had been about Dean you would be more than happy to show us all the error of our ways and the glories of Dean. Why not just say that Deans plan is just as bad but it doesn't make DK's any better if thats how you feel, otherwise say something more than Im right your wrong and make this a discussion about whats best for America.

[No More Shrub]

100. If you won't discuss your plan

why keep saying to do it in another thread? It just makes you look like an ass, which I'm sure you wouldn't be, not a nice, civil person like you. You wouldn't just want to point out the faults of others without taking a look at youself would you?

[redqueen]

70. Apparently, asking for that information...

is playing 'gotcha'.

You figure it out.

[Padraig18]

73. Easy to figure out.

The topic is either a.) About DK's plan, b.) About the misrepresentation of DK's plan, but it is NOT c.) About Dean's plan or d.) About the misrepresentation of Dean's plan.

That's why it's "Gotcha!" :hi:

[Desertrose]

77. I thought this was a "discussion"board...why is it so hard

for you to discuss Dean's plan??
I think redqueen has made some good points....and you refuse to discuss Deans plan.... If it is superior or better thought out than DK's...hey, lets hear it?

What with this "gotcha" crap? I thought you wanted to discuss things....yes? maybe not then........?



Peace
DR

[Padraig18]

79. That's been explained repeatedly.

Please refer to one of several posts where I made it clear why it is "Gotcha!".

Whatever this thread is, or is NOT about, it isn't about *Dean's* plan.

[redqueen]

81. Yes it's painfully obvious.

There are no less than TWO threads dedicated to either discussing the various canddiates' plans with respect to an exit strategy in Iraq.

But you're here.

Hmmm.

[Padraig18]

83. Because you can't take a simple...

... "I refuse to play 'Gotcha!' " at face value, and leave it alone. Nope, you have to keep worrying it like a mother hen with one chick, so of course I come back.

All clear now? :)

[redqueen]

94. Because you can't critique Dean's plan...

only other candidates' plans are up for debate.

Yeah, it's very clear.

[xJlM]

85. I thought "Gotcha" was a repug thing

Remember how Bush* didn't want to play it back in 2000? Actually, I think that explains a lot of your whole problem with this thread. If you think we need to stay in Iraq, sign up today. They've got a spot for you, I'm sure.

[Padraig18]

88. And if you think that *I* think we need to stay in Iraq...

... I direct you to my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=74890&mesg_id=75125&page=

Thanks for playing. :hi:

[xJlM]

91. This is not about some other thread

Two can play at that game. This is about your comments here, and they paint a pretty clear picture. You don't want our men and women coming home, so you need to put your money where your mouth is. I'm sure they've got a uniform and a gun for you.

[Padraig18]

92. That *is* in this thread.

Your comment makes it clear you didn't even click the link.

Thanks for playing. :hi:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

97. ...

"Padraig18 (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-03-03 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #44

47. And for the record:


I believe the IWR and our subsequent invasion of a nation that had neither attacked nor threatened to attack us, or its neighbors, to have been both disatrous and immoral.
That said, the question is not "Do we leave?" or "Should we leave?", but "How can we leave Iraq and do the least amount of avoidable harm to her and her people?". "

[No More Shrub]

102. You never answered your own questions

[Padraig18]

103. Which questions? n/t

[No More Shrub]

107. These questions

That said, the question is not "Do we leave?" or "Should we leave?", but "How can we leave Iraq and do the least amount of avoidable harm to her and her people?". "

[Padraig18]

108. *sigh*

It was a rhetorical question, and was used solely to illustrate my POV on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. :eyes:

[No More Shrub]

109. But you have never stated your POV!

Why do you think I keep asking? All I have wanted to know from you is what you thought a better plan would be. Obviously you don't have one and your refusal to admit it is quite childish and very frustrating for someone wishing to have an intellegent debate which you seem to be incapable of. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

[Padraig18]

31. I do.

They are bombing everyone who is not an Iraqi in the 'Sunni Triangle'.

[redqueen]

87. Civility, anyone?

This thread's first two responses were either tongue-in-cheek affirmations of Diane Rehm's blatant mischaracterization of Kucinich's plan, or they were mocking. I suppose a case could be made that the posts were made in ignorance of Kucinich's actual plan, but that's stretching believability, when, after all, we're on a "Politics and Campaigns" board. We've all watched the debates, and have indeed had this conversation before. I don't know about others but I can't accept ignorance as an excuse.

Later in the thread we see a comment asserting that anyone who is 'sentient' or 'living in the real world' would see that Kucinich's plan is just not even possible. Leaving any critical, substantive debate about the reasons that said plan might be considered as such, we're instead treated to derision and out-of-hand dismissal.

And even later, we see the use of another mischaracterization of one of Kucinich's plans, namely the act he authored intended to keep space from being weaponized.

I fail to see why all the complaints from Dean supporters about how posts / comments are unfair to Dean have any merit whatsoever. Seems like equal opportunity bashing to me.

[Padraig18]

89. I'm sorry you see it that way.

If an attempt to keep the debate focused on DK's plan, or mischaracterization of his plan, is 'uncivil', then I fail to understand what would be considered 'civil'. Your failure to mention what prompted the 'sentient being' comment is a bit disingenuous, as well. Finally, the 'space-based mind-control weapon' comment was an attempt to illustrate that the direction you *wanted* to take the argument was just as off-point.

[redqueen]

93. I don't think you are.

I think if you're sorry about anything, it's that you're having a hard time weaseling out of this situation.

I don't think your failure to back up your opinions with respect to other candidates is an example of the lack of civility I mentioned. That's another issue altogether.

You're not stupid -- you know what civility is, and it was not displayed in your response to Mairead.

Mairead simply asked why you thought the way you did, and you said it was because you're a sentient being living in the real world. What was it in her post that prompted that remark? You seem to assert that it was deserved -- how?

I at no time desired to take the argument off topic. The topic is the mischaracterization of Kucinich's plan. In disucssing said plan you said x makes it unworkable. When I asked why that same characteristic didn't make Dean's plan unworkable you played *'s 'gotcha' card.

[Padraig18]

96. My response is and was civil.

In regards to mairead's post:

"Mairead (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-03-03 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #13

49. WHO SAYS he can't? You? How do you know? Answer: you don't.


All you're doing is trying to make us believe that your judgement is better than his. Exactly why should we accept that?"

I find that hardly civil, read as a whole.

I am not 'weaseling' whatsoever. If the thread had been about *D-E-A-N*, then discussion of his plans merits/flaws would be appropriate; it wasn't, so they're not.

[redqueen]

99. If you equate her post to yours...

then we're just looking at this from two entirely different viewpoints.

To me, asserting that someone doesn't know something, and asking for reasons why one should believe otherwise doesn't come close to the level of making the comment that by simply being 'sentient' one should comprehend why that someone else is right.

[Padraig18]

101. I do.

I futher fail to see what is not civil in this reply:

"As a sentient being living in the real world...


... I am quite capable of realistically assesing DK's plan, and it is unworkable. His promise of a speedy withdrawl is smoke and mirrors, and ignores extant realities regarding the UN, logistics and funding."

I am a living, breathing human being capable of critical thought, and it is my assesment that DK's
How is that uncivil?

[redqueen]

104. I wish you were being facetious.

I'm afraid it just isn't so.

I'm glad I'm in a patient mood today! :)

See, here's how it works:

You said, "As a sentient being living in the real world, I am quite capable of realistically assesing DK's plan, and it is unworkable. His promise of a speedy withdrawl is smoke and mirrors, and ignores extant realities regarding the UN, logistics and funding."

This, implies that anyone who does not agree with you, that Kucnich's plan is blah blah blah, is an unconscious being living in a fantasty world. I don't know about you, but I considered your remarks insulting, and I've seen them on other threads, and they were equally insulting there as well. Just because it's common for people to be insulting, this does not make it any less uncivil.

If you still fail to see how your remarks were uncivil, then maybe someone else can help out here, because I really don't know how much more plainly it can be stated.

[Padraig18]

105. I'm sorry that you don't see it.

I made it as clear as possible not only what I wrote, but what I *meant*. It was not uncivil, and I have no control over whether or not someone else chose to view it that way. Might it not be theoretcially possible that I viewed the post that was in response to as uncivil, if that's the standard for incivility here? It can't just cut one way now, can it? :shrug:

That makes 2 of us in a patient mood today.:)

Edited for typo.

[redqueen]

106. Yep, as I said...

we just see it from two completely different viewpoints.

[Mairead]

110. "I find that hardly civil, read as a whole."

What do you think 'civil' means, then?

When you make uninformed and unsupported statements in a dogmatic way, it seems to me plenty civil enough merely to refrain from roasting you over an open fire. Does your notion of civility require that we receive your pronunciamenti in hushed awe?

[genius]

98. Why does it have to be our troops instead of UN troops?

The Iraqi people will be nicer to the U.N., particularly since the U.N. won't steal their oil.

[redqueen]

111. I'm starting to think it's nothing but arrogance. n/t