Quote:

 

Paul Pillar has a career interest and preference for negotiations as the way to solve conflicts. From his earliest book, he focused on situations where the outcome was not victory. Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions. With regard to Iraq, whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly — if terrorism is the question. Clearly Mr. Pillar is not on board with George Bush’s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy while stabbing the president in the back doing it. Why did this fellow have a job at the CIA?

There is plenty of material on the web and in his books that one can easily see that he has an agenda-- and therefore should not be considered prima facia as an expert. No wonder the president was not quick to accept his imputs.

cruiser

Feb 13 2006, 09:21 PM

You Bush lovers say that you have not attacked Pillar. What the hell do you call this statement you made below.

Colo is right on, you always attack experts even though you have no knowledge of what they are talking about, do not give me the Bull Sh*t that you have not attacked him.

Quote:

 

Paul Pillar has a career interest and preference for negotiations as the way to solve conflicts. From his earliest book, he focused on situations where the outcome was not victory. Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions. With regard to Iraq, whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly — if terrorism is the question. Clearly Mr. Pillar is not on board with George Bush’s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy while stabbing the president in the back doing it. Why did this fellow have a job at the CIA?

There is plenty of material on the web and in his books that one can easily see that he has an agenda-- and therefore should not be considered prima facia as an expert. No wonder the president was not quick to accept his imputs.

cmoehle

Feb 14 2006, 08:55 AM

Truth? Without agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, it is a value judgment and thus relative to a set of values or principles, and not absolute as in true or false.

cmoehle

Feb 14 2006, 10:57 AM

silverfox "justme's posting looks factual to me and is therefore the truth. If you do not think so then provide factual information that it is not."

OK.

"career interest and preference for", "he focused on", "whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly", "not on board with" etc.

Those are not facts. Those are interpretations, conclusions, and they are based on value judgments. Only thing that comes close to a fact is "Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions." And that is a generalization of facts.

What you all are arguing are value judgments, not truth.


"I think some are so hung up with their opinions that they can not accept any fact that is out of their established thought process."

When was the last time you did this? If I might ask.

Remember, I don't necessarily disagree with justme's statement, just his declaring it the truth.

justme

Feb 14 2006, 08:44 AM

cruiser

Feb 13 2006, 09:21 PM

You Bush lovers say that you have not attacked Pillar. What the hell do you call this statement you made below.

Colo is right on, you always attack experts even though you have no knowledge  of what they are talking about, do not give me the Bull Sh*t  that you have not attacked him.

Quote:

 

Paul Pillar has a career interest and preference for negotiations as the way to solve conflicts. From his earliest book, he focused on situations where the outcome was not victory. Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions. With regard to Iraq, whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly — if terrorism is the question. Clearly Mr. Pillar is not on board with George Bush’s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy while stabbing the president in the back doing it. Why did this fellow have a job at the CIA?

There is plenty of material on the web and in his books that one can easily see that he has an agenda-- and therefore should not be considered prima facia as an expert. No wonder the president was not quick to accept his imputes.

The truth

Colo_Crawdad

Feb 14 2006, 11:18 AM

There is plenty of material on the web and in his books that one can easily see that he has an agenda-- and therefore should not be considered prima facia as an expert. No wonder the president was not quick to accept his imputes.