America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11

[greekalum]

Why would the Bush administration need to respond to their own actions?

(Not that I approve of the Bush administration's foreign policy, but your post makes no sense. Unless by "they" you also mean the Iranians, in which case you've got some facts really wrong.)

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by greekalum

Why would the Bush administration need to respond to their own actions?

(Not that I approve of the Bush administration's foreign policy, but your post makes no sense. Unless by "they" you also mean the Iranians, in which case you've got some facts really wrong.)

Apology for misleading the public, for one.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

Apology for misleading the public, for one.

While the administration certainly obfuscated the reasons behind invasion, do you really think an apology is actually an equivalent "nothing" to the post you reponded to?

Not that I particularly agree with ann.coulter2's post, but I think you're going apples and oranges when it's not at all necessary to make your point. Why don't we simply discuss the Bush administration's actions on their own merits?

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

While the administration certainly obfuscated the reasons behind invasion, do you really think an apology is actually an equivalent "nothing" to the post you reponded to?

Not that I particularly agree with ann.coulter2's post, but I think you're going apples and oranges when it's not at all necessary to make your point. Why don't we simply discuss the Bush administration's actions on their own merits?

Thank you for telling me what's necessary to make my point.

[greekalum]

What IS your point, exactly? Because if it was a logical response or rebuttal to Ann Coulter over there, you certainly didn't make it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

Thank you for telling me what's necessary to make my point.

OK, let me rephrase to try to make this amiable (since, y'know, I'm not trying to be a dick about this):

-Your point is both strong and established on its own.
-The post you quoted made a comparatively weak point.
-The two points are quite disimilar.

Therefore
-In my opinion, your argument can stand on its own, so I'm curious why you would even try to "piggy back" here?

-RC
--I'll apologize for the shot I took in the other thread, if that helps - I didn't think that was all that bad, but I must have been wrong.

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

OK, let me rephrase to try to make this amiable (since, y'know, I'm not trying to be a dick about this):

-Your point is both strong and established on its own.
-The post you quoted made a comparatively weak point.
-The two points are quite disimilar.

Therefore
-In my opinion, your argument can stand on its own, so I'm curious why you would even try to "piggy back" here?

-RC
--I'll apologize for the shot I took in the other thread, if that helps - I didn't think that was all that bad, but I must have been wrong.

RC, why are you asking about my intentions to contribute to a discussion? second, why do you even care enough to overanalyze? I'm flattered by all this attention you're giving me, but it's really not a big deal. Like this discussion. Now, I must head back and gain my western views via Glenn Beck.


PS: it doesn't help. It's the thought that counts.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

RC, why are you asking about my intentions to contribute to a discussion? second, why do you even care enough to overanalyze? I'm flattered by all this attention you're giving me, but it's really not a big deal. Like this discussion. Now, I must head back and gain my western views via Glenn Beck.

Do what you have to do - but don't play 'ivory tower' and expect agreement.

I'm interested because, well, that's the definition of 'discussion,' counselor.

-RC
--Glenn Beck? You're so cute when you call the kettle black