John Murtha calls for US pullout in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

More ad hominem talking points courtesy of Felicia. :violin

---

I posted that almost two months ago. Given your last post to me, why on earth are you responding to it now? The poll numbers are even more against the War in Iraq and Bush on the war and in general than they were then. And why would you claim my post was an ad hominem one?

ad hominem (Latin, literally "against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

My post you quoted doesn't do that. I don't do that. As I always do here, I addressed the merits of Yourdaddy's post, or rather the lack of them. Yourdaddy claimed it wasn't true that the majority of soliders supported Murtha or were against the war, and I provided facts to substantiate that.

Here are some examples of ad hominem points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

Johm Murtha has gone senile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

Luckily, (Chefmike) and Felicia won't procreate. That would create one ugly little child.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

Look in the mirror. Judging by your confident pictures, you obviously don't know shit from shinola. You DON'T look female. You look like a basketball player in drag.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

The corporation would be responsible dipshit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inhouston

Felicia, why don’t you stick to a subject matter you know something of, like being a tranny and flipping pizzas or whatever you do for a living.

---

just a few choice examples.

So, while I have forgiven and forgotten those types of trespasses against me, please don't make an empty, and stale accusation against me of attacking the messenger At least in the past when you have chosen to personally attack me and not my facts or logic, you did so promptly LOL

FK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

And why would you claim my post was an ad hominem one?
ad hominem (Latin, literally "against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

---

Blah blah blah … you got the Latin meaning correct, however try referring to the current definition of the term from a reputable dictionary instead of foisting your typical “Liberal Left spin” on its meaning. :smh

The Latin root meaning of ad hominem "against the person (Uh ... Bush)", as well as the term's current meaning and (more pertinent) usage "appealing to the prejudices (towards Bush) and emotions of one's self or others rather than logic" is the very basis of all your "ad hominem" posts where politics are concerned.

And … you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InHouston

Blah blah blah … you got the Latin meaning correct, however try referring to the current definition of the term from a reputable dictionary instead of foisting your typical “Liberal Left spin” on its meaning. :smh
The Latin root meaning of ad hominem "against the person (Uh ... Bush)", as well as the term's current meaning and (more pertinent) usage "appealing to the prejudices (towards Bush) and emotions of one's self or others rather than logic" is the very basis of all your "ad hominem" posts where politics are concerned.
And … you know it.

---

I know nothing of the kind. I didn't foist anything on anyone. I gave the correct definition of the term and some very clear examples of that kind of argument. But in the interest of furthering the discussion, here are some other definitions of ad hominem, none of which fit your attempted spin on the term

Ad Hominem
Rejection of a claim or argument on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

Ad Hominem
You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself

argumentum ad hominem
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

An ad hominem fallacy is an argument that is directed at the person defending the argument rather than the argument itself, and thus fails to address what is at issue

Ad Hominem ("to the person": an attack directed on the character of an opponent, rather than the issue at hand)

Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man," and an ad hominem argument focuses on the emotions and prejudices felt toward a person or group rather than on the logic of their arguments.

I don't agree with the current administration's positions on most issues. But I address them on those issues on the facts not by name calling, or character assassination or insults. Others may do that here, but I don't. If you don't like my arguments that's fine, but please don't mischaracterize them. Truth be told, I'm the victim of ad hominem attacks, from you and from others, not the other way around. Your claiming the contrary and victim status is not only yet another ad hominen attack, but is also a real non sequitur LOL

But seriously, sweetie, why bring this up two months later?? I'd say you missed me, but I think if you did miss me, you'd just reload ;)

FK

The latest reality check from Big John...

Claims and Facts: The War In Iraq

03/14/2006

I sent the following to my colleagues in the House and Senate today.

Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection

CLAIM: "There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03




FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]

FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." [National Journal, 8/9/03]

Weapons of Mass Destruction

CLAIM: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush, 5/29/03

CLAIM: "We know where the WMDs are." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

CLAIM: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President Bush, 1/28/03

CLAIM: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President Bush, 10/7/02

CLAIM: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03


FACT: "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March" and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]

FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. "Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere" made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, "CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference" removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]

FACT: "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

War on Terror/Bush Doctrine

CLAIM: "All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03


FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government "not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts."

Pre-War Cost Estimates

CLAIM: Iraq will be "an affordable endeavor" that "will not require sustained aid" and will "be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion." -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

CLAIM: "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03


FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.

FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.

Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates

CLAIM: "I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]


FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.

Post-War Planning

CLAIM: "I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]


FACT: "A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process" in which "officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq." [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]

Length of Military Operations

CLAIM: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." -- President Bush, 5/1/03

CLAIM: The war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]


FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after "major combat operations" supposedly ended than before.

Troop Deployment Needs

CLAIM: "What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03

CLAIM: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03


FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that "The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces" to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take "several hundred thousand troops."

FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.

FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.

FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.

Insurgency Strength

CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes." -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05

CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. "When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency." [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]


FACT: "Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased." [Newsweek 7/4/05]

FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years." [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]

Troop Withdrawal

CLAIM: "Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training." - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04

CLAIM: "Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." [NY Times, 6/29/05]

CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]


FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a "small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves" which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]

Situation on the Ground

CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on "Meet the Press" [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going "very, very well."


FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.

FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]

FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]

FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jo...r_b_17311.html