General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
What Kevin "accurately paraphrased" is that he alleged, I answered: he
alleged, I answered: he alleged and I answered: and he has no reply.

Sure you did. Just keep believeing that tripe....

Let's take a single example of that "tripe".

Kevin said, this very thread, June 9th -
"Uhmmm...again, where in the White House's case against Iraq did you
find thaose descriptive terms? Eh?"


And I replied that

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised." President G W Bush, March 17 2003


"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger
is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know
Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do...

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists...

Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is
increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer
to developing a nuclear weapon...." President G W Bush, October 17, 2002


So, either President Bush's terms were not "descriptive" of an immediate
and imminent WME threat from Iraq, or Kevin is at best terribly mistaken
and at worst lying through his teeth.


There are plenty more - it's not too surprising Mr Brooks chose to run
away from them, any more than it's a surprise that he's so amnesiac
about his own words and claims.

And I replied, within 24 hours, that it was not a direct quotation any
more than your "accurate paraphrases" (pshaw!) of other folks' words
are, and apologised immediately for any misunderstanding.

But you persisted in claiming it was an accurate paraphrase--it was not.

It was as accurate as any of yours.

The
ones I have presented of your arguments, OTOH, are supported by your own
past statements.

As are yours. You yourself repeatedly claim that it's simply not
possible to work out the priorities: therefore how can WMEs be an issue?
Show me evidence that they entered into the thinking: you claimed
several times that there *was* no reasoning and no analysis involved.

According to you, your own leaders never claimed WME were a factor
(though I provided the transcripts of the speeches where they said just
that - a useful point by which to judge any of your claims, despite your
hasty evasions).


According to you, it's not possible to identify reasons for the
conflict, and none of the factors precipitating conflict can be
identified.

Yet, apparently, with all that loudly-claimed and oft-cited certainty...
you're able to insist that WME *were* a signficant reason.


So, which of your claims is false? Is it possible to break out a reason
with some idea of its relative importance, or is it not? On the one
hand, you insist that such analysis is utterly impossible: yet on the
other hand, you insist that you have conducted just such an analysis and
concluded that WMEs were, in fact, a significant factor.

Which leads us to the question 'how significant'? More or less so than
alleged links to al-Qaeda? More or less so than sponsorship of
Palestinian terrorists? More or less important than Saddam's bad table
manners?

On the one hand you're calling me a liar for doubting your judgement of
this prioritisation: on the other, you loudly and repeatedly insist that
no such prioritisation is possible.

Either way means you've lied repeatedly - I'm curious which set of
statements you're choosing to repudiate.


No, I've never denied those words, and I've already apologised for any
possible misinterpretation.

Now, I note *you* have snipped out multiple examples of where you have
falsely attributed words to me... how *remarkably* convenient!

I notice, also, you've neatly elided your repeated claims of "Nobody
said this!" where they were met with published speeches, and "This never
happened!" with the cites that it did.

So, just who's being dishonest here, Kevin?

You are, and I am growing tired of pointing that out to you, as it obviously
serves no purpose. I do have one regret in this case--I should have just
plonked your lying ass on 18 May, and saved us both the effort of this
current meaningless "he said, she said". You are what you are, and there is
going to be no changing that.

Indeed. I'm sticking to the truth and you're running away from it as
fast as you can - no wonder you wish you'd just gone for a blustering
killfile. When challenged, intellectually or physically, you keep on
retreating until in the end you abandon everything in desperation.



(Are you *sure* you're not Fred McCall under an assumed name?)


Kevin, you issued the challenge.

"As to cowardly, the next time you are in the area drop me a
line--I'll be more than happy to let you address that issue in person,
in any form you may so choose, if that is what you really want." Kevin
Brooks, June 8 2004.

Yes, I did. Though I kind of took that "coward" bit of yours as a challenge
in and of itself.

No, that was an *insult*. The challenge is the response to a slight, a
blow, or an imputation against a lady's honour.

By rule and tradition, the challengee gets to choose time, place and
weapons. There is a sizeable body of tradition on the matter. That you
are as ignorant as you are dishonest is no surprise.

Sorry, I have never had any plans to visit the UK, so if you are really
interested, you'll have to come to the DC area; that is enough of a trip for
me to make.

How *remarkably* convenient. So, you're ignorant of the centuries of
history and the evolved traditions, you're confident that *you* will
never come near me, and now you insist that I should travel thousands of
miles to a few score for you.

And when I offer to meet you on your own continent, your own seaboard,
even closer than original plans would have allowed (I was originally
bound for Charleston but matters changed) you continued to find reasons
why you were suddenly able to match your words with deeds.

It is also no surprise that you avoid the first invitation, and now the
second. Indeed, when it turns out I'm willing to cross the Atlantic to
meet you, you're suddenly unable to even leave the environs of
Washington DC. Not unexpected, but hardly an indication of either your
courage or your certainty.

Again, my original invite stands. Let's see, we have Paul, who has mentioned
visiting the DC area before,

Indeed, once, in 2000, on a personally-funded vacation. (I was in New
Orleans last year, again at my own expense. Several planned trips to the
US have since fallen through for assorted reasons, though I did put in a
very productive week in Halifax further north)


I note with some amusement how this story changes.

"You, OTOH have indicated that you make periodic visits
to the DC area" (Kevin Brooks, June 9)

Guess what? This is another one of Kevin's "accurate paraphrases".

which would seem to pose a realistic
possibility of him doing so again.

Not that much tactical operational analysis in the DC area, sadly.
Though the Navy Yard gives me some hope of seeing what excuse Kevin uses
for avoiding the next encounter.

Versus me, who has never been to the UK,
and is extremely unlikely to ever have the opportunity of going there in the
future.

Which makes flinging out challenges to UK residents *ever* so cheap and
convenient, doesn't it, since you insist they have to come to you (ever
closer, as your own evasions prove) to test your words with steel?

Now which sounds like a more sincere invitation--the one to the guy
who has frequently commented about his trip(s?) to the DC area,

His single vacation, yes.

or the one
offered to guy who has never visited your own stately shores?

So, you're challenging because you're sure you'll never be tested: and
evading as fast as you can when offered opportunity.

Methinks you
were not actually sincere in that offer about Fort whatever next
weekend...please, say it ain't so?

Completely sincere. It's conveniently located for me, ninety minutes by
easy transport (train and taxi) from London for you, and has the
advantages of being a flat, open field where we shouldn't be
interrrupted at that hour. And as a side benefit, the view over the
Solent is superb.

Why, are you changing your mind and offering to present yourself? Or
will I have a lonely wait, with just a sunrise for company?

I played it according to tradition. Then when you claimed it was too
hard for you to travel, I offered to meet you on the far side of an
ocean. You're still running away. What conclusions shall we draw from
this matter?

Go ahead and hide behind your tradition; I'll still be waiting in VA to make
that trek to DC at your leisure.

Of course you will, Kevin. Until I find myself coming to DC, where
you'll find you've got urgent business elsewhere or some other pressing
reason to miss the appointment.

In other words, when invited to defend your words, you found it
inconvenient because it was the wrong country.

Gee, again, how sincere was that offer?

Completely. Both of them.

Now, how sincere was that original challenge, given your evident
enthusiasm to carry it through and your obvious willingness to put
action behind your words?


Then, when the opportunity was offered in your own country, even on the
correct coast, you found it inconvenient because it was the wrong state.

You could go along with my original offer--anytime.

The trouble with that, Kevin, is that you're running away as fast as I
can chase you down.

Shall we pursue this spiral downwards? Must I pursue you through excuses
that I'm in the wrong city, the wrong suburb, the wrong neighbourhood,
and eventually that you'd give me satisfaction if only I were not on the
wrong side of the street?

No, I'd even be willing to meet you halfway (to NYC, that is); do you have a
suitable alternative in mind?

Not immediately to hand, given that it seems I must pursue you in this
matter (doesn't *that* indicate your honesty and conviction!). But if
opportunity offers, then I'll give you another chance to demonstrate
your cowardice.

Indeed, and I note with amusement your efforts to avoid it - while
loudly trumpeting your enthusiasm.

I have offered to meet you halfway now.

"Halfway" is mid-Atlantic, Kevin.

It's worth remembering that this "halfway" offer (halfway between NYC
and DC, not the US and UK... funny how Kevin's claiming to be the brave
and determined one here) came only after Kevin heard I was pressed for
time on the 5th.

If I'm taking a three-thousand mile trip, can't you match even a
fraction of that?

See above.

In other words, "No, I'm too scared" (in a Brooksian 'accurate
paraphrase')

As I said, it's a working visit so I'm constrained for time. (Fly in on
the 5th and the ship leaves on the 6th, and time and carriers wait for
no man). So, no long drives, but I'm willing to fit you in.

Oh, so now you have already started building your newest excuse.

If you want to call it an excuse, *you* persuade a carrier task group to
delay sailing.

Halfway?

Halfway is about thirty-five degrees West, and rather damp.


I'm going very considerably further than that and you're still evading.
If I'm covering thousands of miles, you can manage a few hundred if your
honour is so wounded and your confidence so high.

That it is evidently not... allows obvious conclusions to be drawn.

And you've indicated that you lack the means or the will to visit the UK
(or, perhaps, just the courage).

Just never had any plans to do so, now or in the past--but you already knew
that, didn't you?

I didn't know anything about your travel habits (unlike you, who yet
again made seriously erroneous claims and passed them off as truth), but
I had a suspicion that your challenge was completely insincere and
looked forward to testing it - and I had some tiny hope that you
actually meant what you said.

Which is whaty that whole Fort whatever on 19 June was
just your psing for the stage?

No, the old tradition that the challenged party chooses the ground. I am
quite confident that you would never honour your challenge, but that
doesn't change the fact that I'll do so. Shall I wait there for you?

By tradition, you issued the challenge, you've been told when, where and
how: attend, or forfeit. (Of course, this applied to men of honour,
which is why I know you will not attend)


But, it's a long trip, so I offered you something closer to home. And
again it's too difficult for you.

So, now we just have to wait until I find myself in the DC area to
discover what your next reason why you can't follow your bluster through
might be.


Again, halfway?

Okay, "halfway", but that'll be rather later - probably around the 10th
at a very rough guess - and I presume you'll be swimming unless you find
a mail buoy to cling to.

Of course: on current form, I could knock at your door and you'd claim
it was "too far" to meet me.

No, not as I have offered to meet you halfway to NYC.

After making sure you knew I lacked the time to do so. And yet *you*
claim I'm making insincere offers? I'm sticking to what I can do: you're
large on claims, but short on substance.

I'll see you at Fort Widley on the 19th, or I'll see you in NYC on the
5th, or we'll wait to be amused by your next evasion.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk