It always amazes me when AP still pretends it’s a news outlet, rather than an anti-American propaganda machine. How’s this for an article:
Do you believe in Iraqi “WMD”? Did Saddam Hussein’s government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?
Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.
People tend to become “independent of reality” in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
Maybe the reality is that Americans know (a) that Iraq probably shipped WMD’s to Syria in the long build-up to war the UN demanded, (b) that Iraq had situated itself with preliminary weapons systems that, in a heartbeat, it could transform into WMDS, and (c) that hundreds of weapons, all with devastating capacity, have in fact been located in Iraq, although the press seldom covers these findings. And that’s just off the top of my head. I guess it all depends on what your definition of WMDs is, and whether you care whether they’re actually found, or are just concerned (as I am) that they actually existed, or could imminently exist, with a megalomaniac’s hand on the trigger.
In other words, maybe half of Americans, rather than being delusional, are reading reports other than those emanating from AP, and actually have a more sophisticated grasp of reality than the blinkered MSM does.
Anyway, read the whole thing, and tell me whether it strikes you as a propaganda piece for the anti-War left, insulting American’s intelligence, or if it actually reads like a news story.
By the way, I’m still reading David Horowitz’s Radical Son, which makes it pretty clear that, on the Left, truth is a fluid concept if it interferes with the party line.
UPDATE: I wrote this post in something of a rush yesterday, in between household chores and work. I therefore didn’t bother to provide links supporting my reality. Here are a just few:
Russia tied to Iraq’s missing weapons
WMD shipments to Syria described
Post-invasion intel shows WMDs went to Syria
Sarin nerve gas found in Fallujah
500 Chemical weapon shells found in Iraq
Iraq was hiding chemical weapons facilities in 1999
Back story (about the hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq)
For those who believe my reality, please feel free to provide more links.
Since these stories don’t seem to inspire any excitement or belief amongst the anti-War crowd about the WMDs’ existence, I guess we really have to nail down what the heck kind of WMDs they were expecting to find or where precisely they were expecting to find them. Is enough Sarin to take down a city a WMD, or merely a conventional weapon on a chemical scale? Do chemical WMDs made in Iraq — and that Iraq could and would have used at any moment — count if Iraqis secretly and temporarily hid them in another country moments after we announced that such weapons existed? Does anyone care that Saddam Hussein has shown that, given the chance, he was at all times perfectly willing to use WMDs against those in his way?
UPDATE II: If you want the non-lazy version of my post, go to Flopping Aces, where Curt deconstructs myriad errors in AP’s purported news story.
UPDATE III: American Thinker also has a detailed analysis explaining why Hanley’s conclusion is opinion, not news, and should not be promulgated as such.
Filed under: Iraq, Media matters |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Half of Americans may well be delusional.
Guess which half.
Hey, Bush is the WMD, and he isn’t in Iraq.
Bookworm, they’ve found us out: “It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to UNDERMINE any commonly agreed set of facts.” GO INTERNET!
(NOT MY facts, Duelfer/Hanley, nor MY common agreement. In fact as you say,not even many Americans!)
Your AP ARTICLE is a superb outline of the delusional tactics of the Left. Hanley’s group of minds even manages to uncover the ‘fact,’ surprisingly!, that the President himself is a liar. (Who the hell is Kathleen Hall Jamieson?, a scholar (you’re not serious) of ‘presidential rhetoric?!’ What credentials enable her to call the elected leader of America a liar? None.)
What a gang of Goebbels ‘wannabees’–even ‘hoodwinker’ (that term fits the Left all the way) Scottie Ritter appears (instead of Baghdad Bob!)
The MSM has been ‘morphing’..fake experting.. MANIPULATING basic American sensibilities for years (decades?). They’ve put everyone in mortal danger, but still they find dismay that some people in America (and the world) YET insist upon truth.
You see, the bane of the elite MSM is that they know everyone else is a fool. Here Hanley tell us.
There were no WMD’s in ‘peace loving Iraq.’ NOT now. Iraq’s out of business, thanks to the lives of American/ Coalition troops/many Iraqis. Saddam won’t threaten again.
I’m sure all that the civilian death and violence in which we are sinking is merely a product of the Bush terrorist mindset, ‘independent of reality.’ HEY.
Americans shouldn’t sweat Iran pursuing nuclear enrichment for tourist purposes! Why pay attention to the mullahs offering Hezb weapons to mass kill civilians out of Islamic goodwill?
Whose world is it, then: these loons Mr. Hanley offers.. or the REAL WORLD.
Wonder if his experts should live in Haifa right now to meet the enemy. And face up to the possibility of ‘”SADDAM HUSSEIN’S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH’S HANDS.”‘
Just a delusion, after all.
I always liked the answer about the WMDs already found… “Those are not the WMDs cited in Bush’s speech.” OK, are the WMDs numbered in some special way or something?
Ja, they’re numbered as Bush Senior, Bush Junior, and Little Baby Bush.
Ah yes, the vaunted “secret memorandums” that you all talk about but no one ever sees. And I’m absolutely certain that Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R) is a member of the commy left.
Careful — I hear the Kool-Aid is spiked.
BTW,
Most bloggers, when offering “evidence” to contradict something, offer links to their proof. I note that all you can do is make claims that Iraq was all ready to go WMD on people, despite the FACT that all anyone has found is some stale Sarin that dates back to before the last Gulf War (which doesn’t rise to the level of Clear and Present danger in my world).
You kinda suck there Bookworm. Maybe you should read more books.
Some people obviosly live in different worlds than the rest of us. What is a danger to their world, is not a danger to ours, and what is a danger to ours, is not a danger to theirs.
The whole WMD issue should be considered after reading this link and the entire review.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/democratiya-interview-putting-cruelty.html
It’s not going to penetrate the ‘reality based crowd’ of course *wink*
> maybe half of Americans are reading
> reports other than those emanating
> from AP, and actually have a
> more sophisticated grasp of reality
I doubt it. The CIA definitively said Saddam did not have the WMD that was the original public justification for our “Pearl Harbor” style attack. Every one of Saddam’s ministers and generals has provided intelligence consistent with “no WMDs, but we wanted to pretend we had them”.
Anyone can imagine any other nonsense. Maybe space aliens moved Saddam’s secret stash to the far side of the moon. If you have got some actual facts, as opposed to wishful conjecture, please share it. Otherwise, come and join the reality based community and let go of the fantasies.
Ymarsakar,
Thank you for making those points. Paranoid and Chomsky-esque, and not supported by any facts, but thanks for that. Your assertion is basically that the facts are biased against your reality. I think you’re right.
Iraqi Generals said that Saddam moved them to Syria.
CIA Director Tenet told the prez personally, that it was a ‘slam dunk’ that there were WMDs in Iraq.
Hey Book, see what I’m talking about? Different worlds. They live in the “reality based community”, we live on planet Earth of the technological era.
Their world is not our world, and our world is not theirs. It’s too bad we live in a space-time juxtaposition however. If we didn’t, then we could just argue harmlessly. But since we do, everytime we argue about WMDs or “threats”, we have to bring metaphysics into the argument. Who’s reality is the real reality, who lives in whom’s reality, and so forth. Fundamental Truth Wars.
Paranoid and Chomsky-esque, and not supported by any facts, but thanks for that.
That’s only because it is an impossible mission for some people to read links. So they for some reason say that you don’t base your arguments on the facts. The facts for some people just mean “things that they agree with”. Those are not facts.
You’re kind of rude there, Mission Accomplished. More rudeness of that kind and my blog policy is that you gotta go. If you’re polite, of course, you can stay, no matter what you say.
By the way, if you stick around and read my blog, you’ll see that I usually heavily link to support my assertions. Sometimes, though, I’m blogging on the fly and, if I know my assertions can be easily found and proved (as these can), I assume my readers’ ability either to know the information already or to find it themselves.
It strikes me that BOOKWORM, not the AP, is the one insulting my intelligence. Instead of presenting any evidence, you use a phrase like “Maybe the reality is …”. Maybe?!?!?! If you’re so sure there’s WMDs in Iraq, why not go there and see for yourself. (Take as long as you need … we’ll wait.) In the meantime, as a taxpayer I totally resent the fact that $900 million has been spent looking for something that no longer exists.
On a brighter note, I do agree with you that the MSM is indeed “blinkered”. If their corporate bosses ever let them take their blinkers off and start reporting the facts instead of the propaganda emanating from the White House, it’s quite probable that the demand for Bush/Cheney’s impeachment will be quite overwhelming. Truth might be a “fluid concept” to the Democrats if it intereferes with the party line but why don’t you spend a little time doing an objective analysis of the GOP’s concept of truth. Kindly pay particular attention to how much information is being withheld or marked “classified” by this administration, information that has never before been kept from the public by ANY administration. The truth may be out there but George Bush is doing his damnedest to make sure none of us knows what it is.
Having read David Horowitz’s book about the reality-based community, I’m more glad than ever that I crossed my own personal Rubicon and left the liberals behind. One of the consistencies on the Left, one I knew first hand and ignored for so many years, is a refusal to recognize any reality that doesn’t square with political doctrine. That’s a dangerous, dangerous way to perceive “reality,” and leaves one open to making the worst possible mistakes of judgment. I’ve been on both sides, a useful experience, and know which one actually looks at the world as it is, rather than the world as I/we want it to be.
NOTHING so strikingly demonstrates the disconnect from what is happening in the real world than assertions such as “If their corporate bosses ever let them take their blinkers off and start reporting the facts instead of the propaganda emanating from the White House….”
Anyone who believes and is willing to argue that the MSM is reporting White House propoganda has left the regions of rational thought and discourse. Thanks for the object lesson in why arguing with leftists is a dangerous waste of time – it is necessary to defeat them if we are to live in peace and safety, with liberty and justice for all.
Bookworm,
Anyone who would take David Horowitz seriously needs psychiatric help. The man is justifiably ridiculed by both conservatives and liberals for his mendacious ness and lack of integrity. Furthermore, a ‘refusal to recognize any reality that doesn’t square with political doctrine’ is, unfortunately, a individual character flaw found in those who are rabid political ideologes and extreme religious fundamentalists, and not solely reserved or broadly applicable to the left or
right.
R.Mutt
Sheesh, who let all these trolls into the pool?
Anyone who believes and is willing to argue that the MSM is reporting White House propoganda has left the regions of rational thought and discourse.” – – someone who only sees one side of the meida bias issue
After 9/11 and before the war in Iraq, the mainstream media served as a stenographer of sorts. Every time President Bush made a speech, anyone looking for the truth had to turn to the foreign press to see which WMD claims were false. ( I sent article after article to my congressman and he sent me form letters in return. When he voted for the war, he lost my vote – and (thank god) his place in Congress).
And then there was the Phil Donahue incident.
In case you’re not aware NBC News executives commissioned a study and Donahue was targetted for being both “liberal” and anit-war” That’s why he was canned. Not because of his ratings, which were MSNBC’s highest at the time.
Here’s more:
“That report–shared with me by an NBC news insider–gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the “America’s News Channel,” have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”
The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war……He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives.” The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes “a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
Ban away there Delusion-girl! Like I’m ever coming back to read your “through-the-wormhole” delusions again!
“Having read David Horowitz’s book about the reality-based community…”
Oddly, your whole point here is the exact same for why I left the Republican Party.
Your reaction is understandable, MissiionAccomplished (especially when invited to digest one of Y’s posts), but when “dialoging” with conservatives, name-calling diminishes you more than them. Better to provide opportunity for them to hang themselves, which this topic – in part because of your contribution — has done nicely.
[…] [Read more discuss…] […]
“a refusal to recognize any reality that doesn’t square with political doctrine”
That is a great way to put it. Unfortunately, you make the mistake of thinking that this is a feature of the left alone, when it is a feature of all partisan thinking. Lots of research has come out about this, and it really is true of all partisans.
Though, current members of the ‘faith’ based community can be more accurately described as suffering from “cognitive dissonance” which is actually the ability to hold two inconsistent thoughts in one’s mind at the same time.
Like “George Bush was president during 9/11” and “9/11 was in no way george bush’s fault, but totally clinton’s fault”
OR
“We cannot destroy life to save it” (stem cells) and “civilian casualties are acceptable collateral damages”
OR
“Iraq is sliding towards civil war with death squads roaming the city” and
“Those Iraqi’s should thank us for getting rid of Saddam’s death squads!”
I’m not sure if you read the AP article very closely.
“Maybe the reality is that Americans know (a) that Iraq probably shipped WMD’s to Syria in the long build-up to war the UN demanded”
The question in the poll cited in the article regards whether people “believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003”. If you believe that Iraq shipped them to Syria during the buildup – prior to the invasion – you would answer “no” to this question. So this does not explain the 50% who answered “yes”.
“(b) that Iraq had situated itself with preliminary weapons systems that, in a heartbeat, it could transform into WMDS”
Even if this is so, those are not WMDs. Someone who believes this would still answer “no” to the question asked.
“(c) that hundreds of weapons, all with devastating capacity, have in fact been located in Iraq, although the press seldom covers these findings.”
It is widely agreed-upon that these weapons do not meet the definition of WMD that was outlined before the war. Thus, even if you believe that this is so, you would still answer “no” to the question asked.
So besides the fact that I personally dont find any of your three reasons convincing in and of themselves, I dont see anything in your post that explains why people answered “yes” to the question that was asked – even if they believe all three of the theories you listed.
However, you seem to have misunderstood the question, so maybe others did as well.
TG, you’re letting the poll questions frame the debate. This is what I meant when I talked, either in this post or a later one, about the moving target that is the definition of WMDs. Poll questions can shape anything, anyway. (Here’s a low level example of precisely that point: http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-political-polling-is-useless.html)
The fact, though, is that the AP article reported as news the fact that 50% of Americans are delusional for believing in WMDs. How the poll was framed is irrelevant to that conclusion, because the poll questions cannot stand alone as the ultimate definition for what constitutes a WMD.
Thank you, though, for your thoughtful comment. While I ultimately don’t support your point, I think it was a good one.
My goodness Book, this is some collection who’ve got commenting here!
I love watching Bush supporters try and rationalize their way out of the imaginary WMD debate.
Repeat after me: Nothing has been found. Nothing was found by the U.N. despite more than 700 inspections. Nothing was found after we spent almost a billion dollars looking.
And if you want to cite circumstancal evidence, I’ve got a lot more to show how Bush stole the 2000 election and Ohio in 2004. But of course you wouldn’t be interested in THAT kind of circumstancal evidence. You’d write me off as a conspiracy theorist or a wacko, or a partisan hack trying to avoid a “reality-based” world.
Kind of like I’m writing you off now.
I think Bookworm’s original post provides the best illustration of how divorced from reality the dwindling minority of pro-war Bush supporters actually are. Some of the comments then provide good support of this.
For example, in a quixotic attempt to substantiate the irrational belief that the WMD justification for Iraq invasion was actually true, Bookworm can only point to whacked-out right-wing sites such as the Moony Times and PowerLine.
Then, in response to the many refuting comments that were sure to follow this line of tripe, one commenter says something like “who let all the trolls in?”
This goes to show that pro-war pro-Bush ideas can only exist in an echo chamber in which they’re never scrutinized. Once light is let in, these ideas evaporate quickly. Thanks for the brilliant illustration of this point, although I’m sure that wasn’t your intention.
Hey, Mission, thanks for your contribution, as Ralph says. It’s the smarts that makes the world a better place (and your writing, too!)
Biddle is right: I am tired of those WH media /right wing stupid fantasies. I’ve yet to see a WMD. even after
1/train massacre in Spain brought down the government in power 2/hotel-embassy-other bombings in Turkey killed many innocent Turks 3/nightclub bombing in Bali killed innocent young Asians/Australians 4/riots in Paris set parts of the city ablaze 5/suicide attacks in NY and Washington paralyzed America 6/mass transit attacks left London reeling 7/suicide bombers ravaged Israel 8/suicide bombers-armed gangs–terror death squads rape Iraq 9/thousands of rockets rain down on (deserving?) Israelis 10/ famine and horror mark the warfare in Darfur 11/ ‘non racist’ Iran threatens the world oil supply while arming any terrorist group willing 12 / Afghanistan fights to come out from under the stone age of a fanatic government 13/ train massacre in India kills many Indians 14/ hotel bombings in Cairo murder even more Arabs.. So, where’s the WMD?? Ain’t.
No sweat! live with it, people.
Biddle observes honestly: why expend billions of taxpayer dollars defending this country against a terrorist menace that’s a fake? AlQ/Hezb videos certainly come straight from those secret documents at the White House propaganda office.
Yeah,I forgot the TRILLION dollar loss the US ECONOMY/stock market took over the American 2001 massacres. Just a GOOD thing NO WMD’s were involved. By the way, SINCE NO WMD’s were used, I might sue YOU for my/our losses.
3reddogs is right on, too. I suggest packing up some of you right thinkers for a mission to locate WMD’s. ‘Shove them-Bush-extremist cowboys the facts.’ Maybe see the Bekka Valley, or Haifa, or Tehran. If you lust for cooler climates, there’s always North Korea (bring your own food). Sacrifice for your country, maybe?
You’ll get, as Mr. Biddle wishes ‘ some actual facts, as opposed to wishful conjecture.. and join the reality based community and let go of the fantasies.’
Might build your backbone. Not that you’re not doing your part!?
Still your next door neighbors in the Reserve/Guard have been fighting for years around the world, especially in Iraq/Afghan. Your support for the troops is a plus. Right or wrong, as Americans, they’re ours.
Paul:
You’ll discover that the “Loony right wing sites” that I linked to look to, and cite heavily, actual underlying sources to back their conclusions. That is, they link to documents discovered in Iraq; they link to satellite information; they link to news stories; etc. Because my sources actually provide their quite legitimate sources, I don’t believe I need to duplicate their effort. If you’d like to know more about the stories, go to those Loony sites and dig down through their links — then see what you see.
We really should re-invade Germany. I hear there are= concentration camps there. They’ve been moth-balled, but that counts, right?
BTW, why isn’t the BUSH ADMINISTRATION trumpeting your evidence?
“..why isn’t the BUSH ADMINISTRATION trumpeting your evidence?”
Mission, YOUR government (the Bush Administration being part of it) has good FAITH in YOUR intelligence. You can read the facts, so no need to play stupid games about reality. It’s a brutal world out there.
Why don’t you try to make it better..?
[…] Sister Toldjah The American Thinker Bookworm Room Gateway Pundit […]
*Maybe* 50% of American thinks whatever it thinks.
These are the facts:
1) None of the WMD’s have been found.
2) No evidence of them having been transported anywhere has been found.
3) No evidence of WMD’s or an existing WMD program had been found by the inspectors, before they were told by the US to flee or be bombed with everyone else.
If we’re going to go by polls, over 60% of the US thinks Bush is doing a bad job in Iraq, and that the Iraq invasion and occupation wasn’t worth it. Do you agree with those polls, I wonder?
Here’s the poll that I’m citing –
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
I’m including a link to what I’m citing, because I prefer facts over supposition. If it weren’t for people basing their thinking on facts, we wouldn’t have cars, medicine, or these computers we’re using at this very moment.
Bush is too honest, everyone in our world knows that. Bush is so honest, he won’t even propagandize his viewpoint, meaning dessimilate information favorable to his viewpoint at the expense of others.
Another reason why Bush isn’t trumpeting the evidence, is because people like MissionAccomplished would just say “Mission Accomplished” whenever Bush says something.
Btw, I wish Mission would accomplish his mission and keep to his word, never to read Bookworm’s words again. You can always come to my blog and read my words, if you feel up to the challenge.
#
Ban away there Delusion-girl! Like I’m ever coming back to read your “through-the-wormhole” delusions again!
Comment by MissionAccomplished | August 7, 2006
I posted the rest of my…. rebuttal at my site. Click on my name to go there. Most of it should probably interest Bookworm room regulars and Bookworm herself. The stuff I left here was just for general stuff.
Anyone want an argument with me, they can bring it.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/democratiya-interview-putting-cruelty.html
There’s a lot of stuff in that link that nobody on the Left can destroy. Simply because assassination is not currently a tool of the Left.
The way I see it, I can criticize Bush. Because, I’m using constructive criticism, I’m just not lashing out at him because of personal frustration and ignorance, or arrogance. The rest of you, I don’t know. You might have to go on the anger trial management program. I’m looking out for ya’ll you know, if I had all your passion and rage, I could decimate America’s enemies with fury alone.
Mission has no honor, there is no accomplishment without honor, and there is no honor without finishing the mission, once and for all.
I’ll just say this as a parting gift. I’m a better person than you are, MissionAccomplished. Let loose the dogs of war, now.
One of the consistencies on the Left, one I knew first hand and ignored for so many years, is a refusal to recognize any reality that doesn’t square with political doctrine. That’s a dangerous, dangerous way to perceive “reality,” and leaves one open to making the worst possible mistakes of judgment.
I absolutely agree with your second sentence. This is a HORRIBLY dangerous way to view reality.
I would like to suggest to you that Liberals are not a separate species. Our brains are organically the same. This means that conservatives can also be subject to wishing to avoid facts that contradict their political beliefs.
Reasonable so far, right?
You, Bookworm, are in this very article ignoring facts.
-> The “Russians took the WMD’s” article you link to, doesn’t refer to WMD’s at all, but conventional military arms and explosives. So, not the reason we invaded, and irrelevant even if true.
-> The “Syrians received the WMD’s” link, like the Russian one, offers one other lone guy’s word. He says there’s photographic evidence – but offers none.
-> The third link you post, points to the exact same article as the second.
-> The fourth is some document that describes someone’s interviews with some Iraqi truckers, who say something WMD’s were moved on such and such a date – again with no supporting evidence.
-> The fifth link refers to some sarin gas shells found back in 2004. This and any other sarin gas that has been found, has been denounced as unviable by none other than the freakin’ Pentagon. Fox news isn’t even pushing that any more.
-> The sixth link, same as above. And further, *the article itself* says these aren’t the WMD’s we’re looking for: “Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.” (emphasis mine.)
-> The seventh link, refers to some other declassified docs, that says some stuff may have been moved around so it couldn’t be found. “May” is not evidence. As you say so eloquently in your article, we need facts and need to be aligned with facts, even if they clash with our ideologies
-> As for the final link, the first sentence of the article says it all:
“You’d think the discovery of 500 chemical weapons in Iraq would be a big story, even if they are leftovers from Saddam’s arsenal in the 1980s.“(emphasis mine.)
It should be needless to say that they are NOT a big story, because:
a) chemical weapons degrade into unusability after a few years.
b) their origin date doesn’t show a continued WMD program
c) most importantly, **they aren’t the reason the Bush admin gave us to invade.**
I’ve been on both sides, a useful experience, and know which one actually looks at the world as it is, rather than the world as I/we want it to be.
Bookworm, if that’s the case, then where are those WMD’s?
And please do not refer to any of the above links. As I’ve shown, there is not a single one of them that offers any hard facts.
It comes down to this: Politicians of ALL parties are dangerous. They will tell you anything they think will get you to give them power.
This is why we all MUST demand facts from all politicians, even if they appear to match our ideology.
That’s reasonable too, right? There should be nothing wrong with demanding as many facts from a conservative, as from a liberal, right?
Blah blah blah…Liberals are angry…blah blah blah…Liberals have psycho…blah blah blah…there really were WMDs, trust us…blah blah blah
Enough with the tired, nonsensical Rovian hot air. Just because you say something a lot doesn’t make it true.
BushCo claimed a “clear and pressing danger” in Iraq. They supposedly “knew” where the WMDs were. They supposedly identified “mobile weapons labs.” There were “stockpiles” of weapons.
So why’d we have to spend $900 million to look for WMDs if we knew where they were? Why did we never find mobile weapons labs? Where are the stockpiles of weapons or the facilities to make them?
I know it hurts to admit you bought into the lie. And you’re so far into it now that you’ll never admit you were wrong. But we all know it. And day by day, the American public is learning it. So take that lie to your grave. No matter how you try and spin things, it doesn’t make them true.
Did any of you consider one simple little thing in your continued belief in Syrian, Russian, or hole in the desert hidey-holes for all those THOUSANDS OF WMDs Bush terrorized us into war with: If our marvelous spy satellites could pick out people loading those mobile WMD labs (Remember those nice pictures we showed the UN?) – why couldn’t they pick out the convoys that would have been needed to HIDE all that stuff?
Just asking.
Given that the Government Accountability Office found that the Bush administration violated the law by engaging in “covert propaganda” within the U.S., the notion that the Bush White House manipulated the media is not even a conspiracy theory any more — it’s a conspiracy fact. In case you were out of the loop, the story went something like this: The Bush administration produced phony stories hyping everything from Medicare to federal student loan programs, which ran on American TV disguised as “news.” It then turned around and paid columnist and frequent TV talk show guest Armstrong Williams $241,000 to promote its No Child Left Behind legislation. “This happens all the time,” Armstrong told the Nation’s David Corn, adding that “there are others.”
Though columnists Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus were also on the White House payroll, speculation regarding “the others” ran rampant following one news conference, when Jeff Gannon, of Talon News and GOPUSA, asked President Bush how he could deal with Senate Democrats “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.” Bloggers immediately smelled a rat and within a month, the mainstream media also began to question how Gannon, a gay escort, was given clearance to attend White House briefings — even before he was a reporter. “Planting or even just sanctioning a political operative in the WH press room is a dangerous precedent,” CBS reported, pointing to Karl Rove, The who seemed to have Gannon’s egg on his face.
Bookworm:
Unsurprisingly, your claim that the loony right wing sites contain links back to legitimate sources has proven to be false. There is reference to hearsay, like the testimony of a single witness. There is reference to unofficial translations of documents. But I saw nothing solid and legitimate about any of this proof.
Which answers another poster’s question, “why isn’t Bush trumpeting these discoveries?” The obvious answer is that, under scrutiny, these claims would never survive. It’s far better to leave something as a hypothesis and legend for right-wing loony web sites, than it is to bring it out into the open and have it disproven fully.
Of course, my favorite post on this page is the one that suggests that Bush is too honest to trumpet this intel. Pure comedy!
Published on Wednesday, October 9, 2002 in the Guardian/UK
White House ‘Exaggerating Iraqi Threat’
Bush’s Televised Address Attacked by US Intelligence
by Julian Borger in Washington
President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.. . “Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,” said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence.. .
Mr Cannistraro said the flow of intelligence to the top levels of the administration had been deliberately skewed by hawks at the Pentagon. “CIA assessments are being put aside by the Defense department in favor of intelligence they are getting from various Iraqi exiles,” he said. “Machiavelli warned princes against listening to exiles. Well, that is what is happening now.”
::sigh:::
Tuesday October 8, 2002
World dispatch
America’s great misleader
Simon Tisdall
Bush’s arguments strain the limits of plausibility to justify war on Iraq. . .
In spelling out the dangers posed by terrorism, which may be defined as the use of fear and violence to attain political ends, Mr Bush used fear and the threat of violence to promote his policy.
Since when has it been the proper function of an American president to scare the children? But with his claim that Iraq might use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for biological and chemical weapons attacks “targeting the United States”, he strayed into the realms of horror-movie fantasy.
It would be useful to know what plausible evidence the administration has for suggesting that “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists … This could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints”.
As a matter of fact, rather than propaganda, the administration has no such evidence, only suppositions – for although Saddam is bad, he is not mad.. . .
Mr Bush even went so far as to purloin the words of John F Kennedy and suggest that what the US is now facing is akin to the Cuban missile crisis. That is a gross exaggeration of the position. It is at odds with the known facts. As such, it is misleading and unnecessarily, irresponsibly alarming to the American people. This is not leadership in the Churchillian style that Mr Bush professes to admire. It is mere demagoguery.. . . “
Paul, sadly it’s the truth.
“that Bush is too honest to trumpet this intel. Pure comedy!” In fact, President Bush’s behavior measures YOUR honesty.
I can see all his actions and his words. Any worthy person can. I know little about you.
He’s been too good a President. He could have played the Clinton ploy of the ‘looney Left,’ and ripped this country up. Most of the Evangelical Right I know would have followed him into Holy war. He chose not to.
Even in all the hate (when did Americans turn to SUCH hate; please tell me!) Mr. Bush still chose to represent you. And the Left. Which history will honor him for. History will savage the Left. Which has done nothing except to divide and destroy.
The Left is shamed into making up hate. The White House, especially the President, has yet to challenge that right to do so. Unlike the Left, Mr. Bush BELIEVES in a free country.
You and the Left have hurt all of us. Many of us challenge YOUR right to do so.
So,Get on board–and Get a life. Are you helping or worsening a hurting world? All your comments seem to be the latter.
Do you care?
Or is it all just a game.. YOUR ugly one that kills civilian innocents, kills Americans, kills Israelis, and may kill you and me?
Actually, it doesn’t matter whether WMDs have been found, what condition they were in, or how old they were.
The fact is that the left was all set for this debate from the get-go.
I recall a British web site that I was haunting during the run-up to the Iraq war. When the WMDs were mentioned, a Kool-Aid drinking liberal from the UK responded, “Yes, of course WMDs are going to be found. BushHitler is going to plant them there.”
So it doesn’t matter whether they’re found or not. If found, the left will claim that they were planted. That debate angle has already been disclosed.
“And you’re so far into it now that you’ll never admit you were wrong.”
Matt, there is no wrong. You are deliberately distorting, picking, and hurling factoids in a world that has passed you by.
Tehran could care less about Iraq’s WMD’s. Murderous Iraqi/Hezb. terror groups could care less about past WMD’s. You and every civilian are targets. Turn on the real world.
If you are American, you have a duty to support your troops in Iraq. The President didn’t say that: Your fellow Americans expect it. It’s your duty.
Support them, let them get the job done, and get it over. Then’s let’s fight over ideology.
Have all the war crime trials you want when they are safe.
Maybe you don’t care about their lives.
Yet, they, by choice, care about yours.
That puts you in their debt. Are you paying on that? Or are you happy to hurt them and the US?
Bookworm:
Paul, sadly it’s the truth.
Bookworm, the truth is verifiable. Your claims are not. Therefore, they don’t qualify as being true. “Truthy” perhaps is the closest they come, but they still contain enough untruths to hardly qualify even for that title.
He’s been too good a President. He could have played the Clinton ploy of the ‘looney Left,’ and ripped this country up.
You don’t see that uniter-not-divider Bush has divided this country more than it’s been since the Civil War?? I can hardly imagine a scenario where the country was more divided without armed conflict.
Even in all the hate (when did Americans turn to SUCH hate; please tell me!) Mr. Bush still chose to represent you.
You said you didn’t know me, and you surely proved it with that statement. Bush doesn’t represent me on anything. The Iraq war, the tax cuts for billionaires, Intelligent Design, his USSC nominations…nothing. In fact, in terms of who benefits from his policies, I see Bush only represents a tiny fraction of the electorate.
The Left is shamed into making up hate.
Making up hate? What the hell does that mean? I can assure you the hate most of the world feels toward Bush is quite genuine. Perhaps you mean “making up the reasons to hate him?” That again would be wrong. The war on Iraq is true. Katrina was true. The trillion dollar debt is true. The election rigging (at least in 2000) was true. These provide more than enough justification to hate the man, as any person who values peace and freedom would.
You and the Left have hurt all of us. Many of us challenge YOUR right to do so.
Please describe this damage I have caused, and be specific. Then explain why this damage has been so extensive as to warrant limiting my right to do so. Keep in mind, while you’re responding, that your answers should be in accordance with the rule of law which has enabled this country to thrive.
YOUR ugly one that kills civilian innocents, kills Americans, kills Israelis, and may kill you and me?
Holy cow, I think you lost your sanity at the end of the post. Take a deep breath and try again.
If you are American, you have a duty to support your troops in Iraq. The President didn’t say that: Your fellow Americans expect it. It’s your duty.
JG, I completely agree with this.
Where we disagree is how to support the troops. Your support requires them to be moving targets in a civil war that they have not been trained to fight, and largely don’t understand the justification for. Your suppport involves piles of dead bodies, destroyed families, and our military at the breaking point. And for what? To get rid of a tyrant who was threatening us? Nope, that didn’t out to be true. To get rid of a collaborator with Al Qaeda? Nope, that’s not true either.
On the other hand, I support the troops by working to bring them home from a conflict they have no business in, so that they can return to their families and their peaceful lives.
That, to me, is real support. Yours is a type of backhanded support that keeps them in harm’s way so that you can continue to feel that you were right in supporting the invasion in the first place. Your support goes no further than the yellow ribbon on your car.
Paul:
You don’t see that uniter-not-divider Bush has divided this country more than it’s been since the Civil War.
No, this country has always fought over issues. FDR had his enemies. W.Wilson faced a Congress that denied him the right to make his international peace. WWII saw internationalist and isolationist forces face off. Presidents Johnson and Nixon saw Vietnam burn us alive.
You’re not checking our history.
“Bush doesn’t represent me on anything.”
Paul, he doesn’t have to. He has to represent what’s best for this country. He represents those who disagree (you and others) and those who have every other range of opinion. We have a representative democracy, also called a republic. You have the responsibility to understood his role as President and respect it. He stand for all of us, not just you. He also has to protect you. And he has done that.
God bless him.
“I can assure you the hate most of the world feels toward Bush is quite genuine.” I doubt it. Even Iranians (those who hate the mullahs) admire a strong man.
As for the media driven hate: since when do the MSM control your thinking? Or any country’s? Civilised peoples everywhere are safer tonight because of this one small figure. A great man.
Your American history should show this, also. We Americans steer true to our ideals and history. The President has done so, admirably. Whether H. Chavez, a loon in the streets of Arab London, or the President of Iran hates those ideals and US– go for it. Americans are better people than they. We act and save. They just hate.
“why this damage has been so extensive as to warrant limiting my right to do so..”
I’m not sure this is an American answer. Americans respect, honor, and serve their country first. Do you? You seize the right to discord, subversion, and unwillingness to act within the confines of a democratic consensus. Your opinions have emboldened the terrorist enemy and hurt national morale at home. WE the people establish any rule of law. It is American law, the fact that you are part of a greater whole to whom you owe fealty, not a personal vendetta.
YOUR ugly one that kills civilian innocents, kills Americans, kills Israelis, and may kill you and me?
Look in the mirror by reading the Iraqi mil blogs. There are thousands. Citizens putting their lives on the line and wondering where and how Paul is helping? Whose side are you on?
No, this country has always fought over issues. FDR had his enemies.
Those examples you cite pale in comparison to the polarization we’re seeing today. I’m not saying we never had adversarial relationships in government. That much is necessary. But never so much partisan gunslinging.
He has to represent what’s best for this country. He represents those who disagree (you and others) and those who have every other range of opinion.
So, by the same criteria, I assume you think Clinton was representing you while he got a blowjob from Monica?
Back in reality, he wasn’t representing either me or you. Similarily, Bush isn’t doing what is best for this country, according to a growing majority of Americans. He’s doing what is best for a small number of his supporters, and that’s it. Beyond that, he’s got an army of stooges to say “God bless him” because he happens to give lip service their side in the culture war, by opposing gay marriage and flag burning, 2 non-issues.
I doubt it. Even Iranians (those who hate the mullahs) admire a strong man.
JG, you really need to get out more. I travel extensively to Europe and Asia, and let me tell you, if I had a dime for every time somebody asked me what I thought of Bush, I could quit that job. Each time I’m asked, the person asking hates him. Foreign media (apart from a few Israeli and Rupert Murdoch owned outlets) all take a very dim view of Bush and the wars he’s started. Your belief that people admire him, particularly the Iranians, is hopelessly absurd. However, it’s complete nonreality does explain the rest of your views.
Civilised peoples everywhere are safer tonight because of this one small figure. A great man.
Curious, isn’t it, that the vast majority of those “civilized peoples” view Bush as the greatest threat in the world today. Oh, something tells me you just stopped caring about them.
Americans respect, honor, and serve their country first.
Well, JG, in addition to being completely ignorant of the views of other people in the world, you’re also completely ignorant of the way this country was founded. Fortunately, many great Americans have provided some helpful hints for you:
But I think the ultimate refutation of your misguided understanding of this country can be found right in the Declaration of Independence:
JG, I’d love a response to the following:
You wrote: “Matt, there is no wrong.”
Um…yes there is. If Bush said there absolutely WERE WMDs and there were not, that’s called wrong. A 1st grader knows that. So since Bush said there WERE WMDs and there weren’t, please explain how he was not wrong.
You wrote: “If you are American, you have a duty to support your troops in Iraq.”
Please show me where I ever said I do not support the troops. Typical right-wing straw man. When you can’t debate me, you fall back on ‘Support the troops!”
You wrote: “Maybe you don’t care about their lives.”
Again, please show me where I ever said or inferred that.
@Paul: “I can assure you the hate most of the world feels toward Bush is quite genuine.”
Please define “most of the world”. A lot of people think that France and Germany constitute “the world”… and, incidentally, someone here reminded me a few days ago that France and Germany are not “the world” when I went into a rant about “world opinion” while talking about France and Germany.
The fact is that France and Germany hate the US and have for a good, long time. They regard us as unsophisticated boobs, and resent the fact that so many of us translate “nuance” as dissemination and lying. They resented our interference in their North Africa colonialism just after the turn of the 20th Century. The French further resent the fact that we had to rescue them from Germany twice, and the Germans resent that we interfered with their plans. The fact that Bush allows them to focus that resentment on one person is neither here nor there… it is the US they hate, and Bush only a convenient scapegoat.
Did you fall for that belief that the French and Germans were “with us” right after 9/11? Hell no… on 9/12, leMonde was preaching that it was all the US’s fault… apparently for not being psychic. Der Spiegel and Stern never expressed a single word about 9/11 that could be construed as “sympathetic” in any way. So the notion that Bush somehow “threw away” world support after 9/11 is bogus.
So… do you find truth in this statement?
first, he incites war, then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack …
A threatening opposition was gathering over the head of this man. He guessed that the only salvation or him lay in diverting public attention from home to foreign policy … Thus began the increasing efforts of the American President to create conflict … For years this man harboured one desire — that a conflict should break out somewhere in the world.
[The fact is that one country] has at last become tired of being mocked by him in such an unworthy way fills us all … I think, all … decent people in the world, with deep satisfaction.
If you find truth here, it might interest you to know that these are the words of Adolph Hitler, recorded in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reicht, and the president he was deriding was FDR.
And that is my whole point. The Germans spent the entire 20th Century lying about the US, and are still doing it. In fact, they haven’t even bothered to change the wording.
Please define “most of the world”.
In a world of 6 billion people, “most of the world” would mean greater than 3 billion. In Bush’s case, he has united far more than that number against him. I am not talking about France and Germany. I am talking about virtually all of Europe including the UK (our special ally), as well as the Middle East (including newly-liberated Iraq), and Australia. I’m not presently aware of poll results from Africa or the former Soviet Union, but I see no reason why they would view him differently.
Your strawman that all anti-Bush sentiment can only be found in Germany and France is beyond ridiculous.
Paul,
Thanks for your last post. Points:
“Your support requires them to be moving targets in a civil war that they have not been trained to fight, and largely don’t understand the justification for.”
I can’t say I read Iraqi milblogs daily. But morale seems to be undeniably high. It has to be. These people are coping with death and danger daily.
I think troops know why they are there very well.
Read their blogs, or Michael Yon, the honest voice.
You should know why they are there, too–it’s no secret.
Yes, perhaps we began greenly. But, Paul, this is the crux: we–those of us who defy terrorism– will have to fight them.
You can’t deny that reality. No citizen whose country who has been savaged can. Iraq is our first stand.
We have, on the whole, probably done better than the first fights after our involvement in World War II. That’s what I’ve read.
“so that they can return to their families and their peaceful lives.” As Victor Davis Hanson remarks below, that’s possible only because our troops hold the enemy for the present. But it will be a long war.
That’s a reality we all will have to face up to. Terrorism will either destroy us, or we, it. Peace comes through winning. As now.
It’s tempting to remake 9/11, isn’t it?..into a time that is past, as we move on.
More from Hanson on this, and on the courage that defines America:
“So part of Mr. Bush’s dilemma derives also from his very success. The audacious removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban — coupled with the killing of thousands of Islamic terrorists abroad, together with a revolution in security procedures at home — have combined to prevent another jihadist attack. Now in our complacence, we think our recent safety was almost a natural occurrence rather than the result of national sacrifice and ordeal that must continue. And, again, such a return to normalcy makes the lonely task of prompting reform in the Middle East seem rather unnecessary, if not irrelevant.”
(skip)
What progress we have made since 9/11 — thousands of terrorists killed, al Qaeda scattered, Europe galvanized about Islamism and sobered about the consequences of its cheap U.S. rhetoric, Iran’s nuclear antics revealed, democracy birthed in the Middle East, Palestinian radicals exposed for their fraud, the United Nations under overdue scrutiny, America much better defended at home — all that came as a result of an often unilateralist posture that risked global alienation by challenging the easy appeasement of the rest of the world. Nothing there to apologize for or change — but much accomplished to be proud of.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc1NGI3M2YzMTdhNjJmY2QzMjc5MGEzZDg3ZTM2MDY=
JG is like your typical Republican. When he can’t intelligently debate the issues, he resorts to name calling, saying we don’t “support the troops,” or that we’re “hurting America.” – none of which have anything to do with the argument at hand.
It’s pretty clear JG has no real grasp on any of the issues, as pretty much all of his posts quickly devolve into platitudes and hackneyed, tired right-wing talking points.
FYI: 6 in 10 people around the world disapprove of Bush. So yes, MOST of the world…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/opinion/polls/main1838662.shtml
Matt… if you support the troops, you support their mission. You do NOT support troops by trying to undermine their mission. You do NOT support troops by spending your waking hours deriding their mission. You do NOT support the troops by pointing out that they are dying for nothing.
You DO support the troops by going to the Milblogs and reading what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq. You DO support the troops by finding out about all of the wonderful things they are doing outside Baghdad.
You can further support the troops by going to Iraqi blogs and finding out the truth about what the Iraqis think.
And here: Highlights
In a poll of 21,953 people in 21 countries, conducted between November 2004 and January 2005, a solid majority (58%) view President Bush’s re-election as negative for world peace and security. Only about a quarter of those polled (26%) call the re-election a positive step.
http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/41.htm
LOL! Poll data again!!!!
Haven’t you figured out by now that polls are front-loaded to produce the result the pollster wants? That the questions are loaded, and the population sample is tainted toward the pollsters view?
These two poll questions would produce amazingly different results, but they ask the same question from different points of view:
Do you believe in a woman’s right to choice?
Do you believe that women should be allowed to murder their babies?
Can you see the difference? And if you load the sample towards people who agree with the pollster, imagine the results you would get!
A bit more play than is usual for a Bookworm topic, but trust me, the scary part is that for all of this rebuttal to her original assertions concerning Saddam’s alleged WMD, next week she’ll sing the party line, oblivious to everything to the contrary that’s been posted here. God bless her, she’s just that partisan, nothing more
Addendum: Polls done in London, Paris, Berlin, and any other world capital have a high probability of agreeing with ANY leftist view simply because of the high percentage of government workers in the area. As would be true in Washington, DC, or large cities like New York and Chicago because of the high percentage of welfare recipients who owe their income to the leftist viewpoint.
Paul: Your strawman that all anti-Bush sentiment can only be found in Germany and France is beyond ridiculous.
I’m delighted that you find that ridiculous, since YOU made that claim, not me.
I was merely using France and Germany as examples, not the one one only sources.
Paul, to this post (48):
“But never so much partisan gunslinging”
Mr. Bush has not encouraged this. I have never seen him turn in word on his enemies. This partisanship is mostly one sided. But, yes, the rancor from the McCarthy people against Lyndon Johnson or H. Humphrey.. Nixon villified for every action from many parts of the political spectrum.. Yes, we are fractitious people. But, still, one.
“Foreign media all take a very dim view of Bush and the wars he’s started. Your belief that people admire him, particularly the Iranians, is hopelessly absurd.”
The media do hate him, don’t they?
He’s not answerable to them, nor are we Americans. I have no problem with those who hate us, as long as it is for the right reasons.
You have a proud birthright as an American. We are friends to all, but subject to none. Others are entitled to their opinions. They are subject to the rule of truth, as are we. If they speak responsibly about terrorism, their opinions are worth considering. If not, they will eventually live or die by their choice.
I won’t reply to this ( except to say, you as an American are well informed enough to know differently): ‘ vast majority of those “civilized peoples” view Bush as the greatest threat in the world today.’
I know their fear. Did most of the world not run from Nazi Germany, Japan, and the Soviets? You may be old enough to remember Europe rent with anti US hate during the Vietnam era/Cold War. Paris thronged with pro Communist rioters urging removal of the same US missiles/troops that kept them free… They had forgotten that in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell.
So, whatever world opinion is, know that it will be as unimportant as those strident cries of the past are today.
I’m not sure why the other quotes follow. MUch of the totalitarian nature of today’s world proceeds from your side of the political spectrum. The Left seems to be inescapably totalitarian.
From the bloody shirts of Al Jazeera, to the criminal activities of the BBC (which was found guilty of trying to bring down the Blair government), to the unlawful acts of the New York Times: these are Left/radical actions which undermine the law. You do answer to the law, however.
When I see you ride MIchael Moore off on a rail, ostracize the stupids of Hollywood, stand for free speech on every college campus, then I will know you are not just slinging quotes.
I fear you are.
Matt… if you support the troops, you support their mission.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Their mission wasn’t decided upon by the troops. It was decided upon by a bunch of draft-dodging war hawks who have never fought in their lives.
Matt:
In reply to 49: You wrote: “Matt, there is no wrong.”
‘Um…yes there is. If Bush said there absolutely WERE WMDs and there were not, that’s called wrong.’
Matt, you know better. You are supposed to be a responsible citizen.
This is a straw man argument too! and past history. If you don’t understand what’s occurring in Iraq and the Middle East, please hang around and learn from Bookworm. You have an excelent source and links to many other informed sources.
As for not supporting the troops, these absurd arguments have made their task almost impossible. You owe them your loyalty and an end to useless bickering.
if you support the troops, you support their mission
I’m sorry, where did you dig up that criteria? You’re conflating two entirely separate things.
The troops, who put their lives on the line to protect Americans (in the best-case scenario)The politicians who, for often corrupt, politically charged purposes, may at certain times abuse the troops and send them on a mission that is unneccessary
To become an intelligent human being who is able to adequately discuss politics, you first need to separate these two things in your mind.
You should know why they are there, too–it’s no secret
Well, let’s take Bush’s comments as an indication of why the troops are there:
According to the president, American security is threatened when anti-U.S. resentment grows in the Middle East and the region is awash in violence. Our goal, then, is to bring about a new Middle East where the U.S. is viewed as a force for good and peace and freedom can take hold. That is the essence of the neoconservative worldview.
So how are we doing at that goal?
Mass protests have erupted across much of the Muslim world against the war in Lebanon, prompting louder and more desperate calls for a ceasefire from governments fearful of a popular backlash.
Indonesia’s President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who leads the world’s most populous Muslim nation, said: ‘This war must stop now, or it will radicalize the Muslim world, even those of us who are moderate today. It is just one step from there to a clash of civilizations.’
Demonstrations in Baghdad, where hundreds of thousands of Shia thronged the streets to voice their support for Hizbollah as Arab anger toward Israel mounted … Crowds of [Shia cleric Muqtada al-]Sadr supporters from across Iraq’s Shia heartland converged on the capital’s Sadr City district, chanting ‘death to Israel, death to America.’
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1214548.ece
So, by the president’s own standards for success, his policies are a failure. And considering that he’s offering no new ideas for adjustment, just more of the same, there is no reason to expect these things to change.
So what we’ve got is a failed set of policies, and our troops in harm’s way as a result. Your idea of support simply means keeping them in harm’s way and continuing to pursue failure.
Matt: (post 53)
“..as pretty much all of his posts quickly devolve into platitudes and hackneyed, tired right-wing talking points.;”
Not so, Matt. You have to think, man. We do require a modicum of such in this part of the blogosphere.
Be pleasant. It helps.
But, yes, your are right! about the below:
‘to name calling, saying we don’t “support the troops,” or that we’re “hurting America.” – none of which have anything to do with the argument at hand.’
I am calling you irresponsible. And, yes, you have hurt America very much. Many of us are bitter for that reason.
And, yes, you have hurt America very much.
While this statement gets bandied about quite a lot, it seems to be completely without merit since no one can quite say exactly what any of us dissenters did to hurt America. Please explain.
Paul: The election rigging (at least in 2000) was true.
True. But the Democrats who were responsible for the rigging got off with a hand-slap.
Belief that there was some kind of Republican hanky-panky in the 2000 election is the REAL source of the US animosity towards Bush. You people need to get OVER IT.
This is the truth of the matter. I live in Tallahassee, where all the hoo-raw was going down, and this was all local news for me. For reasons I can’t fathom (rolling eyes), the national news media did NOT pick up on this. Could it be because it would have made an asshole out of Gore? Naw…
The Democrats in the Florida State Legislature had a complete and thorough investigation of EVERY charge that was brought up in the 2000 election. Mind you, Paul, these were people who were desperate to get anything… ANYTHING… on Gov. Jeb Bush.
These are the results of the investigation:
The “problem” voting precints were ALL in Democrat-controlled counties. Any problems that came up were the fault of the Democrats in charge of those precints. The infamous “butterfly” ballot was designed by the Democrat Supervisor of Elections in Broward County. The fuss and bother about that was HER fault.
The stories that blacks were intimidated by the presence of State Troopers near their voting precints were bogus… runamuck rumors. Witness after witness was questioned, and there was not one single instance of a person who wanted to vote who was prevented from voting. The witnesses always talked about how “my mother’s cousin’s neighbor” was somehow prevented from voting, but the “mother’s cousin’s neighbor” was never found. Decision: Runamuck rumor. The only instance of so much as delay involved a single Miami-Dade police officer who pulled a black driver for a moving violation, and released the driver in plenty of time to vote. That was the ONLY proven instance of anything even similar.
Breath of common sense: If State Troopers HAD been involved in blocking voting precints in predominantly black areas that are mostly in inner cities, they would have been outside their jurisdiction and would have caused a war with the local police. That would have had enormous news coverage, and probably world-wide. State Troopers in Florida do NOT have jurisdiction inside city limits. No news coverage… no event.
The incident of the gang of Republican “thugs” who were banging on the doors to get into an area where a recount was taking place turned out to be ONE Republican who was SUPPOSED to be inside as a watcher… and a group of reporters. Further, it was the reporters were were yelling and banging on the door like “thugs”. The Miami Herald owned up to this one the very next day, but their explanation somehow dropped off the major media radar.
The fact that felons are not allowed to vote in Florida has been the law for as long as Florida has been a state. It was the law before the election and during the election, and bringing it up after the fact is bogus. The voter register is ALWAYS cleaned out before an election. The fact is that in Florida, local judges are all elected officials, and we do NOT want convicted felons to have an input into who is sitting on the bench. Sorry, but that is the opinion of the majority of the state.
I could go on and on.
I would like for YOU to explain in detail precisely what it was that was “rigged” in Florida, and how it was that Republicans rigged it when all three of the contested counties were Democrat controlled.
“I am calling you irresponsible. And, yes, you have hurt America very much. Many of us are bitter for that reason.”
You can call me whatever you want from the annonimity of the blogosphere. And it doesn’t bother me one bit.
Maybe you should look in the mirror regarding hurting America and see how supporting an unnecessary war has hurt America and our soldiers. Or how irresponsible it is to blindly back a President whose policies have made us more hated abroad.
Paul (to post 64):
You will note that huge numbers of people over the decades who participated in pro Communist rallies world wide. Celebrating a genocidal power who promised to enslave them all. So, stuff your rallies and polls.
‘So what we’ve got is a failed set of policies, and our troops in harm’s way as a result. Your idea of support simply means keeping them in harm’s way and continuing to pursue failure;’
No way. You, as an American, don’t mean that. As Victor D. Hanson and any other number of figures assert (check TownHall.com as beginning), we are winning. We have to. So you are guilty, Paul, of being a prisoner of your own biases, or else foregoing some ability to reason.
Bottom line: if you live in this country, as of 8/7/06, you drove off to work this morning, as you wife and kids went their way, and you didn’t think once about the bomb/terrorist waiting for you.
Around the world, Other people do, and did.
“And considering that he’s offering no new ideas for adjustment, just more of the same, there is no reason to expect these things to change.”
Thank God, not.
Well done, Mr. President. WELL DONE!
Haifa waits for you, Paul, by the way. You will have to face, along with the rest of the world, the fact that the rockets are coming. Will your own turn on you when that happens?
I would like for YOU to explain in detail precisely what it was that was “rigged” in Florida, and how it was that Republicans rigged it when all three of the contested counties were Democrat controlled.
Glad you asked. This was Kathleen Harris’ overseeing of the voter roll purgues, which “accidentally” disenfranchised about 90,000 Americans who had the same last name as some convicted felon. Since Bush “won” by 538 votes, and since most of these 90,000 were African American, it is very reasonable to conclude that including the votes of these 90,000 would have given the election to Gore.
No way. You, as an American, don’t mean that. As Victor D. Hanson and any other number of figures assert (check TownHall.com as beginning), we are winning.
Correction: I, as an informed American, do indeed mean that. By Bush’s own criteria, we are not winning the war on terror. This doesn’t mean we’re not winning the military battles, since we clearly are. But victory in the war on terror will not be a military one. It will be an ideological one, and that is the war we are losing. I take it you agree, since you weren’t able to even begin to address the argument I put forth in post #64.
if you live in this country, as of 8/7/06, you drove off to work this morning, as you wife and kids went their way, and you didn’t think once about the bomb/terrorist waiting for you.
Fact is, the risk of me dying in a car accident is several hundred times greater than dying in a terrorist bombing, a fact that is true throughout the world, even in Israel. So your point makes little sense.
Well done, Mr. President. WELL DONE!
Considering that you have demonstrated a complete inability to defend Bush’s policies, or even address them at times, you can’t begin to imagine how moronic this statement makes you sound.
“…we are winning. We have to.”
No we aren’t and no we don’t. Look up the word “hubris.” Then look up the word “Vietnam.”
Matt: (post 68)
I’ve just finished the prize winning novel ‘1776,’ by David McCullough. One of his themes, beside the hand of God, was that of those who put country first. I hope we Americans all will, regardless of our differing opinions.
We may bicker–but to our terrorist foe– we are all the enemy. Child/women killers will not distinguish between Left and Right.
Let the noble band of brothers who serve and save us around the world (but especially in Iraq) light your life, as they do all Americans.
Uh… Paul… those “disenfranchised” voters had every opportunity and plenty of time to get back on the voter rolls BEFORE the election, and did so.
The Democrats in the State Legislature found NO case of a voter who wanted to vote who was not allowed to.
Maybe you should look in the mirror regarding hurting America and see how supporting an unnecessary war has hurt America and our soldiers. Or how irresponsible it is to blindly back a President whose policies have made us more hated abroad.
The military has been blooded, it’s better than what would have happened under your policies, where they would have gone fat and undisciplined.
Blah blah blah…Liberals are angry…blah blah blah…Liberals have psycho…blah blah blah…there really were WMDs, trust us…blah blah blah
This was a great counter-argument by mattM.
Enough with the tired, nonsensical Rovian hot air. Just because you say something a lot doesn’t make it true.
I do think Matt said blah far more than I ever used any one specific word in my own writings. People without honor do not really adhere to their promises and rhetoric.
If our marvelous spy satellites could pick out people loading those mobile WMD labs (Remember those nice pictures we showed the UN?) – why couldn’t they pick out the convoys that would have been needed to HIDE all that stuff?
The earth is big and satellites don’t cover 24/7 a specific area. There are gaps, and people can use those gaps. It’s why electronical intel doesn’t replace humint.
If you get tired arguing with matt, make sure you take a break, of a day or so. Somebody seems to be fired up here for some reason.
a Kool-Aid drinking liberal from the UK responded, “Yes, of course WMDs are going to be found. BushHitler is going to plant them there.”
That’s actually not so bad an idea, mama. Along with oil for Food, we could plant French made weapons there, and make it look like they were working together.
When he can’t intelligently debate the issues, he resorts to name calling, saying we don’t “support the troops,” or that we’re “hurting America.” – none of which have anything to do with the argument at hand. – Matt
Matt thinks someone disagreeing with your actions or how you do things is resorting to “name calling”. *shakes head*
If you want to support the troops go to blackfive and actually listen to what the troops want. Not just what your personal biases fit in here. Funny, after I wrote this, Mama wrote a similar thing and I read it. Okay.
God bless her, she’s just that partisan, nothing more-Ralph
Bookworm’s indomitable pursuit of inner reflection and the path to the inner eye is what I love about her. Ralph’s criticism just reinforces this belief. If he said more of his criticism, it would have a bolstering effect, so perhaps he prefers the silence of shadows.
Oh… wait… I take this back…
The Democrats in the State Legislature found NO case of a voter who wanted to vote who was not allowed to.
Of course, the Democrats didn’t investigate this, but it was found that West Florida, which is in the Central time zone, had thousands of Republican voters who believed the news media when they said that the polls in Florida were closed. Given that West Florida is a Republican stronghold, the loss of the time when those planning to vote on the way home from work cost a great deal of disenfranchisement. On the Republican side. And these people were never given the opportunity to make it up in any way.
Matt (Post 72):
‘look up the word “Vietnam.”’
As many Americans, I have to come understand and accept the sacrifice of Vietnam. And see those who made the disaster, including many in this country. We are America and we face a hostile future today. We must do it united.
Please honor your Vietnam era veterans who suffered, and have borne the burden of shame that can be shared with many others.
Let them know you honor them, for they are America, and share their pain and loss.
God bless and keep them; forgive all of us who have turned on the best and bravest.
If you want to keep talking to Matt, just make sure you can hold your temper.
The Democrats in the State Legislature found NO case of a voter who wanted to vote who was not allowed to.
Could you point me to where you’re getting all this?
Let them know you honor them, for they are America, and share their pain and loss.
I do honor the Vietnam Vets, particularly those who understand that, in spite of perhaps the very noble things they did while they were there, the war itself was a horrible, horrible mistake. (I’ve also been to Vietnam, and have seen first-hand just how horrible it was.)
I honor those Vets by working to prevent more people from being similarly scarred in the pursuit of a reckless set of military adventures abroad. I do this by questioning the rationale for war provided by our leaders. Through this questioning, I have discovered their rationale to be lacking. Therefore, I am working to hold them accountable to the American people they represent, to the military whom they’ve abused, and to the world which they have destabilized in pursuit of long-term global domination. That is what a true patriot does, continues to hold America to its highest ideal.
What you are doing, JG and mamapajamas, is not in any way patriotic. You have simply allowed yourselves to be fooled by the most corrupt government in US history. That same history will judge you and your hero very harshly.
Paul, it was local news in 2001. The MSM buried it.
Paul, I know that you don’t believe me, but the fact is that there is something that happened that DID make the MSM.
Jesse Jackson blew into town on a wave of media hysteria, demanding to know what was happening, and insisting that he was going to get to the bottom of it all.
He met with the Democrats in the State Legislature, then ducked out of town without letting the MSM know he was leaving.
Why? Because he found out that the charges in the 2000 election were bogus.
Paul (post 71):
Ah, no, Paul, (post 71)
” .greater than dying in a terrorist bombing. a fact that is true throughout the world, even in Israel. So your point makes little sense.”
Numbers aren’t civilization, Paul. You must have visited Israel, where parents, during some suicide bomb waves, never know if they will see their children that night.
Terrorism fear is the norm in too many parts of the world. It’s rather callous to enjoy your relative safety and scorn others. And, it’s here, too, whether you will say it or not.
“complete inability to defend Bush’s policies, or even address them at times, you can’t begin to imagine how moronic this statement makes you sound.”
He needs no defense, only gratitude from you. The President’s record is clear for all honest citizens to see. Face it: He has made you a safer, freer person. Be thankful.
Paul, I wish I were the source of much of my writing. I’m not that original. You have access from this site to the same sources. Read and grow. You’ll gain tolerance.
And perhaps some humility. I have.
Many years ago, in Colorado, a fellow college student from the Bay Area began, out of the blue, to rant and rave about how he hated “cowboys”, not that he knew any personally. I eventually figured out that he hated cowboys because they made him question his own manhood and values. So it is with much of the world that hates us, like France, Germany and our own Lefty fellow travelers. One only needs to acknowledge their silence on the true atrocities that this world has experienced with the complicity of those that ostensibly “hate” us…Darfur (France, China, Germany), Rwanda (France, UN), Chechnya(Russia)…or go back to the Cuban Gulag, Cambodia, the Cultural Revolution. Today they chastise Israel for defending itself, but they are silent when Arabs kill their own (as in the Somalie famine, the destruction of Hama in Syria, or the infamous Jordanian “Black September”). Churchill was a minority voice in Europe duing the 30s, when the mainstream was either delusional about peace or hopelessly enamored with two socialist utopians, Hitler and Stalin. Churchill was right, the conventional wisdom that promoted Europe’s Stockholm Syndrome-like groveling and appeasement was wrong…and it paid a very heavy price. “Old” Europe’s current groveling before its future Shiite masters should evoke sadness, not admiration, for the butcher’s bill that will come due.
Also, for the record, Bush said that we need to preempt dangers BEFORE they become imminent, that “imminent” in a world of WMDs is too late! Five hundred sarin gas-shells, old or not, translate into “tons” of munitions. Also, with regard to his attempts to get yellowcake from Niger, the question is…why did he need “tons” of yellowcake in the first place? He already had quite a bit. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm. for a story that got very little MSM coverage. Contrary to the MSM’s spin, the Duelfer Report detailed extensively that Sadaam’s WMD manufacturing capability remained intact and would have been relatively easy to start production once sanctions were lifted. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/index.html.
Finally, even if Sadaam had been bluffing about his WMDs (He sure fooled Clinton, CIA and the UN, didn’t he?), it’s like a bank robber walking in the bank and saying he/she has a gun in his/her pocket…you take him/her at their word, gun or no gun. Not to do so invites disaster.
The Leftwing wingnuts’ current vitriol and ravings really bespeak a need for serious counseling and medication rather than empathy and understanding. They speak of their high moral virtue, of empty negotiations of “peace and understanding” but instead, as usual, prove themselves the enablers and apologists for truly awful things to come. The rest of us should hold them very, very accountable.
Paul (post 80):
“accountable to the American people they represent, to the military whom they’ve abused, and to the world which they have destabilized in pursuit of long-term global domination”
You’ve been too long in the Soviet territories, Paul, mentally, perhaps. Too much Leftist academics.
This is simply UNTRUE.
America has done very well with her military and has made the world a better place.
I do hope your patriotism helps you see this.
WE, most of all, brought down Communism. WE, with others, rebuilt a torn world after WWII. (Check your world history for the other victors who were as generous.) WE have spent untold treasure to help that world.
Not all well, certainly with corruption, certainly with bad policies. WE are not perfect.
But, you as an American will have to say: ‘I’ll put MY country’s record up against anyone. WE Americans acknowledge our mistakes, celebrate our virtues, love our country.’ I’ll not accept you, nor the world, nor anyone as America’s judge. Get over it.
The world’s stability is our greatest accomplishment in many ways. We have paid too high a price for it. Still America has been the linch pin of the Free World since 1945. Honor your parents and grandparents for their blood and work.
No way we have dominated. NO way. That’s Marxist/Leftist/terrorist claptrap. Sorry, to be blunt.
Check out the real imperial powers: Japan, Germany, England, the Soviet Union, Marxism, today’s fanatic Islamism..
Measure us against them. Do it.
Your ignorance is disgraceful. As an American.
Paul, it was local news in 2001. The MSM buried it.
I…see. So you can’t prove it, but I can see it’s what you would really, really, really like to believe.
While this may have been “local news” to you, I do question your ability to absorb information properly, as you are ostensibly a Bush supporter, and are therefore impervious to facts that don’t mesh with your worldview. Therefore, sorry to say, unless you can provide some kind of support for your story of the 2000 election apart from “trust me, it’s true,” it’s going to remain in the BS file.
Post 83
Terrorism fear is the norm in too many parts of the world.
By “the norm,” I take it to mean a significant threat surpassing ordinary day-to-day threats such as getting killed in a car crash. So please, tell me which other parts of the world terrorism fear is the norm.
(Having traveled a lot, I already know the answer.)
He needs no defense, only gratitude from you. The President’s record is clear for all honest citizens to see.
Wow! So you’ve framed your abject lack of critical reasoning skills, as well as the integrity to support your beliefs with facts, as a virtue!!! That approach, while hilarious in its intellectual bankrupcy, will hopefully die soon. Our country can not continue to run on such idiocy.
Read and grow. You’ll gain tolerance.
As you can see from my posts, which unlike yours contain link to support my assertions, I read voraciously. However, no amount of reading will ever make me tolerant of those who abuse power which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (as the Iraq war has). I’m sorry, we’re not meant to be absolutely tolerant of everything, or else murder would not be a crime.
Wow! I go away for a few hours and look what happens. I want to commend all of you, on either side of the debate, for keeping so civil what is quite a heated argument. I don’t get the feeling either side is going to concede an inch or a smidgen and we live in such an information saturated world, each can easily find a source — and as easily refuse to give credit to the other’s source. Please feel free to continue this debate if you wish, an invitation I extend because all you have stuck to the facts as you see them and, almost entirely avoided personal attacks. I’m also delighted by the absence of obscenities, which are anathema to me. I’m bowing out again, as I did for most of the afternoon, since I have a family to look after and work to do.
Post 84:
America has done very well with her military and has made the world a better place
To make that statement with a straight face means you have to completely ignore the point I made back in post 64. Your inability to address that point means you have no answer to it, and that therefore your statements to the contrary are only wishful thinking. JG, this country did not prosper on wishful thinking, but on a can-do attitude that looked at a problem and dealt with it.
Honor your parents and grandparents for their blood and work.
I do. I honor them by continuing to fight for what they fought for. You, on the other hand, are fighting directly against that legacy.
Check out the real imperial powers: Japan, Germany, England, the Soviet Union, Marxism, today’s fanatic Islamism..
Measure us against them. Do it.
Okay, since you’ve never been to another country before, let me educate you.
Japan: Tokyo is hands-down the most peacful, safe big city I’ve ever been to. People are extremely polite. You can pull out all your cash on the subway, and no one will bother you. If you drop a $100 bill, somebody will pick it up and hand it to you.
Germany: The scars from their nazi pasts still haunt the Germans, 3 generations on. They are so hesitant to use force that they have made some silly decisions, such as how they dealt with the Munich Olympics killings.
England: A true representative democracy, England’s parliament truly has teeth. Proportional representation enables smaller political parties, such as the Greens and Lib Dems, to gain significant power in parliament. Civil servants have to stand at a small table and clearly articulate their point of view while being razzed by the opposition. While there is certainly corruption in their system, there is far more transparency there than there is here.
As for the Soviet Union, that nation has collapsed due to rampant corruption and a flawed ideology.
However, I assume you want to compare the US to all of those countries when they were at their worst (e.g. nazi Germany, etc.) Your assumption seems to be that, so long as history provides at least one example of a nation that abused its power more than the US, then anything we do is okay. Unfortunately, that assumption represents a race to the bottom, as we abandon the great principles on which this country was founded. I will not follow you there.
Your ignorance is disgraceful. As an American.
JG, it is your ignorance which is displayed in glaring detail on this page. You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said with a single fact, only with your unsubstantiated beliefs. That is true ignorance.
each can easily find a source — and as easily refuse to give credit to the other’s source.
That’s not true. According to this page, it is virtually impossible for a Bush supporter to find a source that is not an op-ed from the pro-Bush echo chamber, to support their beliefs. In other words, very little factual evidence exists that makes Bush’s policies look good, effective, responsible, or humane. Those who are arguing against what Bush has done are not so limited in their means.
Finally, even if Sadaam had been bluffing about his WMDs (He sure fooled Clinton, CIA and the UN, didn’t he?), it’s like a bank robber walking in the bank and saying he/she has a gun in his/her pocket…you take him/her at their word, gun or no gun. Not to do so invites disaster.
That’s a very good point. The difference between Iraq and your bank robbery example is that invading and occupying a country are far more involved than combatting a bank robber. And if you’re wrong, the consequences are far more grave. For that reason, an intelligent, well-intentioned leader would have let the inspectors continue to do their job, which would have of course discovered that Saddam did not have WMDs.
In answer to your anticipated objection, it’s true that Saddam was resisting the inspections somewhat. However, with a huge army amassed at his doorstep, and his primary motivation being to remain in power, we saw him capitulate to inspectors’ demands again and again, allowing them into presidential palaces on a moment’s notice, and so on. Had this process continued, 2,500 military personnel would still be alive, the US would still have allies to deal effectively with Iran, the war on terror would still have a chance for victory, and our treasury would ultimately be $2 trillion richer.
I…see. So you can’t prove it, but I can see it’s what you would really, really, really like to believe.
By Paul’s own logic, he can’t prove any of his own beliefs either. So what is he basing his stuff on, ouji boards?
as you are ostensibly a Bush supporter, and are therefore impervious to facts that don’t mesh with your worldview.
An ad hominem attack, a method in which a person is declared wrong because of who he is, rather than the substance of his or her arguments. For people of Paul’s caliber, being a Bush supporter means defacto that that identity is proof positive he is right and everyone else that disagrees with him, as wrong.
As you can see from my posts, which unlike yours contain link to support my assertions, I read voraciously.
So Paul has a bunch of links to the newspapers. Which tell things in a way that agrees with him. Huray, we have proof positive of resurrection. I think not though.
I guess if you can find a newspaper link that claims the same thing that he does, this means it is ‘proof’. I don’t think Paul’s proof exists in this reality.
I think I can convince Paul of what’s going up, if I can get Bush to release the limits. Once Bush releases the limits, what Paul thinks is going to be so distorted that it will collapse from the shifting earth.
I would write more, but then I’d have to reread the thread.
I got a link for Paul, but Paul won’t use it, because it comes too close to the truth.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/07/democratiya-interview-putting-cruelty.html
That’s not true. According to this page, it is virtually impossible for a Bush supporter to find a source that is not an op-ed from the pro-Bush echo chamber, to support their beliefs.
Rather truer than not, instead of not true.
If Paul was willing to keep deployed several divisions to make Saddam be contained, then Paul should have done so. However, it seems the President was in charge of deploying the military, not Paul. So it seems Paul wants to usurp control of the military from the Presidency. Not a very common goal, but I’m sure, a very popular one.
By Paul’s own logic, he can’t prove any of his own beliefs either. So what is he basing his stuff on, ouji boards?
Point out a single claim I have made for which you require substantiation, and I will provide it.
An ad hominem attack, a method in which a person is declared wrong because of who he is, rather than the substance of his or her arguments
No, it wasn’t an ad hominem attack. I attack Bush supporters because of their worldview, which supports the most corrupt, ineffective president in US history. I’m not attacking them because of their hair color, taste in music, etc.
I guess if you can find a newspaper link that claims the same thing that he does, this means it is ‘proof’. I don’t think Paul’s proof exists in this reality.
It’s called “corraborationg evidence.” If you don’t like my sources, let me know and I’ll find other ones to corroborate. That how you construct a good argument.
Anyhow, perhaps you can focus on the issues next time instead of just me. That will advance your argument far more.
I got a link for Paul, but Paul won’t use it, because it comes too close to the truth.
While I can see at a glance that your link is another op-ed from the pro-Bush echo chamber, I will read it tomorrow to see if it includes any facts whatsoever. I’m on a constant pursuit of the truth and will read anything that reasonably challenges my point of view.
Paul:
It’s late and I’ve been away. You’re obviously a bit frayed, too:
“Having traveled a lot, I already know the answer.”
I accept you amy. I am sure you get to visit most parts of the places you see and know the real feeling of the inhabitants. I haven’t. But, unfortunately, the fortunate ability to physically move from place to place don’t debunk the existence of everyday terrorism. Thanks for the information.
“Our country can not continue to run on such idiocy.”
Thanks for the lighter note!!
Sure, it can. It has for almost two terms under this fine President, and for over 200 years previously. But, seriously, I won’t engage your misrepresentations about this country, or the President, without seriously challenging and reformatting much of your basic thinking. No time for that here, nor my forte; sorry. But you have a whole conserv/neo con/Christian/American blogosphere which is open. Try it!
..who abuse power which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (as the Iraq war has).
I’m sorry, we’re not meant to be absolutely tolerant of everything, or else murder would not be a crime.”
Well, we must engage here. You don’t have the moral, historical grounds to make such an assertion. You are a loyal citizen of this country, a great thing. But no more. Here, you place yourself in exactly the position you most despise: judging those for actions for whom you have no authority. No right to define murder.
No authority that I recognise. Not from any sacred text, a lawful document, a civilised institution, a higher being, or the heritage and beliefs and lives of our ancestors, American and earlier.
So I reject point blank this unjust statement– and anyone else who might support it.
I’m glad you do read a lot. Please check your reading and consider.
Post 93: Paul, you DO BELIEVE THIS?
I guess John Kerry was right. That’s scary.
“Had this process continued, 2,500 military personnel would still be alive, the US would still have allies to deal effectively with Iran, the war on terror would still have a chance for victory, and our treasury would ultimately be $2 trillion richer.”
I am trying to understand Paul’s logic, here.
1) “..who abuse power which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (as the Iraq war has”. So, we attack Iraq to stop the people who are killing civilians, the same people keep killing civilians, therefore America is guilty of those civilians getting killed. Help me out here?
2) “…the US would still have allies to deal effectively with Iran”. You mean, we are the only ones left able and willing to deal with Iran? Silly me…here I thought that it was the Europeans, Israelis, Turks and Arab states that had the most to worry about Iran. Does this mean that we can no longer convince them of the need to protect themselves from Iran because they don’t like us?
3)”…the war on terror would still have a chance for victory”. You mean it’s over? We’ve been defeated? Jimmy Carter was right all along? Perhaps the only thing left for me to do is to curl up in a fetal position under my desk.
I am soooo confused.
Wow!
Bookworm — this is surely making your numbers look good!
Regarding the whole reality vs. perceived reality thing:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
The article is a few years old, but clearly, many, if not most Americans thought/think that Saddam had a direct hand in 9/11 despite a lack of clear evidence to support that notion and despite reluctant admissions by Bush administration officials that no Saddam had no clear links to 9/11 and that significant WMD’s were found in Iraq. (Does the Good Bookworm have an explanation for this phenomenon? – I’m quite curious.)
Having said that, I would bet that Saddam had some pretty nasty stuff at some point. Perhaps some of Saddam’s WMD’s were supplied by or paid for by the Reagan administration as Reagan pursued a policy of providing aid to both Iran and Iraq during their bloody eight-year war. (BTW, President Bush often says that “Saddam gassed his own people.” I don’t think Saddam regarded the Kurds as his own – that’s why he gassed them…)
That Iraq had WMD’s at some point should surprise nobody, as WMD’s are valuable tools in any sovereign nation’s arsenal. Maybe Saddam dismantled some, maybe he relocated some to sympathetic states. In either case, we didn’t find much upon invading, which sort of blows a hole in the “imminent threat” that the Bush administration kept shoving down our throats to get us to gleefully support the invasion.
But, let’s assume that despite the lack of WMD’s, the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime was legitimate, for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else. That is to say that removing Saddam was, in and of itself (this is key), a good thing.
However, removing Saddam, in and of itself, was only half of the job, or the very beginning of a job. My personal opposition to the invasion of Iraq stems from not having heard one word from the Bush administration as to what they planned to do once Saddam was gone. (I’m still waiting…) I knew that there are at least three general ethnic groups within Iraq that do not get along. If Saddam’s regime was toppled without providing an immediate replacement power structure, a power vacuum would be created for which various interests would fight. Somehow, I saw this coming, but apparently, the Bush administration didn’t. It is as if the Bush Administration simply assumed that removing Saddam, in and of itself, would pave the way for a Middle-Eastern transforamtion. (Again, “In and of itself!”) – Or perhaps they did see it coming and they recognised the virtually limitless domestic political capital to be had in being an administration in a time of war.
The Good Bookworm dismisses anti-Iraq-war types as simply delusional. Certainly, some are in denial of Saddam’s evils, but many others who oppose the war in Iraq do so not because they are in denial of the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime, but because the net result of the invasion has not yielded a significantly better situation. In fact, Iraq might be much worse off. Bush apologists will say, “Oh, but Iraq has had elections!” Again, in and of itself, that is fantastic, but the fact remains that the average Iraqi citizen has traded the terror of Saddam for the terror of chaos. What do elections matter if you can’t be sure that you will survive a trip to the grocery store? This is a failure of the Bush administration.
I’m very curious as to the Good Bookworm’s take on the “in and of itself” aspect of the overthrow of Saddam. Is it as simple as that; just remove Saddam and decare Mission Accomplished? I mean, in one sense, the mission was accompished; Saddam was removed. On the other hand, we have one hell of a mess on our hands; should we ignore it because it wasn’t part of the plan? Aside from bashing the anti-war crowd, what does the Good Bookworm propose as a solution to the crisis in Iraq?
Good Bookworm: Today I read a number of news reports of thousands of Iraqi citizens taking to the streets to show their support of Hezbollah. Should I simply dismiss these reports as delusional anit-war leftist propaganda since, obviously, such news does not fit nicely with assurances from the Bush administration that we are winning in Iraq and the Middle East in general? Or should I be concerned that perhaps we have, despite noble intentions (fantasies?) created a monster we cannot control?
Here’s some more food for thought. These items don’t fit nicely wiht right-wing talking points, so don’t say I didn’t warn you..:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2627
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn
http://hnn.us/articles/862.html
Good Bookworm, I really am intersted in your thoughts.
Correction:
The article is a few years old, but clearly, many, if not most Americans thought/think that Saddam had a direct hand in 9/11 despite a lack of clear evidence to support that notion and despite reluctant admissions by Bush administration officials that Saddam had no clear links to 9/11 and that no significant WMD’s were found in Iraq. (Does the Good Bookworm have an explanation for this phenomenon? – I’m quite curious.)
Sorry…
Wow, some blogs and the Washington Times support your wingnut viewpoint? Those are certainly more reputable news outlets that the Associated Press. How could I have been so blind?
No, it wasn’t an ad hominem attack. I attack Bush supporters because of their worldview, which supports the most corrupt, ineffective president in US history. I’m not attacking them because of their hair color, taste in music, etc.
Most people don’t know what an ad hominem attack is, though they do know what a personal attack is.
An ad hominem attack isn’t precisely an attack against the person, it is only an ad hominem attack when the attack against the person is used as proof positive that one thing is right over another thing. If someone said that he liked music, and this meant he was wrong over his politics, that would be called a non sequitur more or less.
As I outlined Paul was making the argument that because Bush supporters were this that and the other, that this meant Paul was right and other(s) were wrong.
Let’s break your aparts then, paul.
as you are ostensibly a Bush supporter, and are therefore impervious to facts that don’t mesh with your worldview.
You, being the person Paul was talking to. It justifies why Paul is right by saying Bush supporters are impervious to the facts, and when someone is impervious to the facts, that means they aren’t right, right? So this is a classical ad hominem, where the statement that someone is a kind of person, which causes them to be wrong. Notice that Paul did not inverse it, he did not say you are impervious to the facts, which makes you a Bush supporter. For it not to be a personal attack, Paul would have to say that the person he was talking to was ignoring a “specific” fact that he would then describe, and then say that because that person was ignoring facts that criticize Bush, that this then means that person Paul was talking to was a Bush supporter.
But that’s not Paul’s reasoning.
As for Paul’s challenge for me to select something for him to substantiate. And I mean substantiate, here is one out of many.
Had this process continued, 2,500 military personnel would still be alive, the US would still have allies to deal effectively with Iran, the war on terror would still have a chance for victory, and our treasury would ultimately be $2 trillion richer.
For one thing, Paul doesn’t know what else would have happened had Iraq not been invaded. So there is nothing available to him, other than the omniscient power of a god, to substantiate his claims that 2,500 people would still be alive. Nor does Paul have anything that would support his claim that the US would still have allies with Saddam bribing France with oil for Food. We may have had to pay our “allies” 2 trillion just so that they stay bought.
Anyhow, perhaps you can focus on the issues next time instead of just me. That will advance your argument far more.
How you act and how you behave are important, in so far as by describing how you do things, people can better understand why you are wrong. This is different from what you did, which is to say you understood that people are wrong, because of how you described their behavior. You come to your conclusions first, then start describing people. I look to actions first, to decide my conclusions. It is not the same.
Wow, some blogs and the Washington Times support your wingnut viewpoint? ” – Tan
Bookworm argues her case well, and with passion. Her sources (like Horowitz and Mark Steyn) make me cringe, but I’m fascinated, too.
Some of the blogs she links, too, however, are deeply delusional, concluding that if you dont back Bush and the war in Iraq, you must be some sort of socialist. While The Washington Times and Front Page are questionable sources, “pulling things from one’s butt” is even worse.
Self deception is one thing, but some of these folks go on and on about “the left,” frustrated that the entire world doesn’t buy into their delusion.
All of this reminds me of the Bishop Berkely quote:
“Things are as they are, and their consequences will be what they will be. Why then should we seek to be deceived?”
I see that my original post disappeard. It was there last night. I probably used too many big words. Or, more likely, I struck a nerve. Well, one way to eliminate dissenting views is to…
C’mon bookworm. For the last time, you are disseminating false info, and I have a feeling that you are doing it on purpose, to egg on the dimmer bulbs in your camp.
Let’s say it together. The “Sarin-filled suitcase” was actually sarin test kits. The 500 chemical munitions-capable artilary shells were from the Iran/Iraq war , and those munitions, sarin and mustard gas, have a shelf-life or 3 to 5 years, maximum. You know this, so why do you lie to us?
What are you trying to accomplish by lying to your readers?
Yeah, the left, the left is the problem…
Which weapons are now in Iran?
The ones that were given to them by George Bush the First in exchange for Iran’s promise to continue to keep Americans hostage?
Or are they the weapons given to Saddam by Biuck Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld when Reagan said that Saddam was a valuable ally?
Which weapons are they?
But, seriously, I won’t engage your misrepresentations about this country, or the President, without seriously challenging and reformatting much of your basic thinking. No time for that here, nor my forte; sorry. But you have a whole conserv/neo con/Christian/American blogosphere which is open. Try it!
I don’t know how many times I’ve read these words from a Bush apologist. What they essentially say is that Bush supporters have no means of defending their point of view with anything approaching reality. They can only point to other people who share their belief, but not to facts, as facts generally undermine that belief. Really, their belief in Bush as anything other than an abject failure is purely a matter of faith, inasmuch as it can’t be justified any other way. While faith is a difficult thing to prove or disprove, faith in a human being is far easier to validate or invalidate than faith in God. Eventually Bush will make another huge mistake that will finally impact you directly. I believe that is the only thing that will enable you to see what kind of person and president he truly is. I just hope this huge mistake is something from which the world and this country can recover.
I am trying to understand Paul’s logic, here.
I’m happy to help you out.
1) “..who abuse power which results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (as the Iraq war has”. So, we attack Iraq to stop the people who are killing civilians, the same people keep killing civilians, therefore America is guilty of those civilians getting killed. Help me out here?
It’s not the same people killing civilians. Before, it was Saddam’s Baathist regime that was killing civilians. Now that Sadddam is gone, it has enabled the low-grade civil war between Sunni and Shiite to bubble over. This civil war will eventually either tear the country into 3 bloody pieces, or will remain together through brutal supression. Either way, lots of blood is on US hands, which has and will continue to severely damage our efforts in the war on terror.
2) “…the US would still have allies to deal effectively with Iran”. You mean, we are the only ones left able and willing to deal with Iran? Silly me…here I thought that it was the Europeans, Israelis, Turks and Arab states that had the most to worry about Iran. Does this mean that we can no longer convince them of the need to protect themselves from Iran because they don’t like us?
The world generally agrees that Iran with nukes is a problem. However, as a direct result of the Iraq disaster, our allies are unwilling to join us on any sort of military adventure. They can’t be seen by their electorate as appeasing Bush, who is commonly regarded around the world as a modern day Hitler (though I don’t agree with that assessment). Therefore, any sort of rhetoric with which we threaten Iran about their nukes lacks any teeth whatsoever. The Iranians are perfectly aware that they can continue to thumb their noses at the world indefinitely, since the Iraq occupation will prevent any consequences for their actions.
3)”…the war on terror would still have a chance for victory”. You mean it’s over? We’ve been defeated? Jimmy Carter was right all along? Perhaps the only thing left for me to do is to curl up in a fetal position under my desk.
Don’t be silly, of course it’s not over. The US will continue to slog it out indefinitely. However, barring a drastic change of strategy involving a new leadership team, our efforts will not move us closer to our goal of a peaceful, democratic Middle East.
Frankly, the best thing we can do towards this goal is to impeach Bush and Cheney and send them to the Hague for war crimes. This would assure the world that we as a nation truly are committed to justice and the rule of law, and therefore that we are a trustworthy ally. That is required to rebuild the trust that we have lost as a global leader.
As I outlined Paul was making the argument that because Bush supporters were this that and the other, that this meant Paul was right and other(s) were wrong.
Let me clarify this. Bush supporters, by definition, need to disregard wide swaths of reality in order to maintain their belief. They need to disregard the 2000 election, the August 2001 PDB, the PNAC’s demand back in the 90s to invade Iraq in order to extend US military dominance across the globe (nothing about WMDs or liberating anyone), the Enron connection, the Downing Street Memo, Paul Clarke’s book, the many lies stated openly by administration officials in justifying the Iraq invasion, Abu Ghraib and the torture memos, the NSA spying case, the Valerie Plame outing and subsequent cover-up, extraordinary rendition, no-bid contracts to the vice president’s company, and many, many more things. Because Bush supporters can, by definition, never face these issues in a truthful, straightforward way, they are unfortunately divorced from reality, as the title of this page states.
For one thing, Paul doesn’t know what else would have happened had Iraq not been invaded. So there is nothing available to him, other than the omniscient power of a god, to substantiate his claims that 2,500 people would still be alive. Nor does Paul have anything that would support his claim that the US would still have allies with Saddam bribing France with oil for Food. We may have had to pay our “allies” 2 trillion just so that they stay bought.
It’s true, I have no crystal ball. When we’re talking about “what would have happened,” we need to use logic to support our prediction. I don’t see any logical way that 2,500 of our troops would have died in Iraq and $2 trillion of our treasury been drained had we not invaded. If you can explain that, be my guest.
(Final post) Paul said:
“JG, it is your ignorance which is displayed in glaring detail on this page. You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said with a single fact, only with your unsubstantiated beliefs. That is true ignorance.”
Well, this fulfills little.
Thank you for engaging in discussion. It requires time and thought which is always difficult to find in the day.
Best wishes for you and your family.
Really, their belief in Bush as anything other than an abject failure is purely a matter of faith, inasmuch as it can’t be justified any other way. While faith is a difficult thing to prove or disprove, faith in a human being is far easier to validate or invalidate than faith in God.
Bookworm, does this seem a little.. ironic too you in light of what I have written in the past?
Paul wrote the bolded portion, btw.
Let me clarify this. Bush supporters, by definition, need to disregard wide swaths of reality in order to maintain their belief. They need to disregard the 2000 election, the August 2001 PDB, the PNAC’s demand back in the 90s to invade Iraq in order to extend US military dominance across the globe (nothing about WMDs or liberating anyone),
I’ll take your clarification, and I’ll put up an analysis about it.
If you define Bush supporters by a certain definition, that definition being that they have to disregard wide swaths of reality to maintain their belief, then you first have to substantiate this claim of yours, instead of hiding it amongst your arguments where the light of day won’t reach it. If every argument of yours, Paul, is centered around this belief, it being the a priori foundation of your reasoning, then you should argue that out first. People do not become wrong because you, Paul, wrote down some logical premise and said you believed in it, people are right or wrong based upon the strength of their logic and reasoning.
I don’t see any logical way that 2,500 of our troops would have died in Iraq and $2 trillion of our treasury been drained had we not invaded. If you can explain that, be my guest.
I don’t specifically restrict it to Iraq. They could have died in Syria, or Afghanistan, or Iran if they didn’t go into Iraq. Why would anyone believe you over me or me over you? Of course that doesn’t matter, what matters is why you, Paul, believe in something that isn’t convincing. You believe that you will save 2,500 Americans if you can stop the invasion of Iraq from occuring, but as we all know, actions have consequences, and if you do that, then Murphy will always cause something else to go wrong.
GIven that you admit you have no crystal ball, why would Paul be so certain of what would have happened? Do you just care that Americans not die in Iraq, you don’t mind that they will die somewhere else?
no-bid contracts to the vice president’s company, and many, many more things. Because Bush supporters can, by definition, never face these issues in a truthful, straightforward way, they are unfortunately divorced from reality, as the title of this page states.
Let’s go back to this thing. Here’s the major flaw in your logic. You start off with the belief, a priori style, that Bush supporters are this and that, as described above. Then you say that you are right, and people like mama are wrong because mama doesn’t use facts in her links or JG doesn’t use facts. You then say that by definition, Bush supporters can’t use facts. So what Paul is really arguing is that he is right because his opponents don’t use facts, and his opponents don’t use facts because Paul is right in defining Bush supporters as incapable of using facts.
Does this seem a little circular to anyone? CIrcular logic is not something acceptable, Paul.
THe list of things you wrote, Paul, can be argued about. But what seems to happen is that if your opponent is a Bush supporter, Paul, you automatically define them as being able to use facts. Then you claim that because you use facts and they don’t, you are right and they are wrong.
That’s a pretty transparent flaw.
Danny, if you want to know the logic of Paul, read my above post.
I did, YM. Thanks. You crystallized for me what I have heard bumped up against so often from other Lefty’s with whom I have argued and argued…to the point where they cover their eyes, plug their ears and enter into a dark and gloomy parallel universe that I have no wish to explore. :-).
Ymars: “Then you say that you are right, and people like mama are wrong because mama doesn’t use facts in her links or JG doesn’t use facts.”
Indeed. Apparently, Paul has no interest in commentary from witnesses. The fact that I can’t point to a story in the New York Times or on CNN damns me. I reported what I reported because I saw it unfolding on the local news. The national media did not pick up the stories I mentioned, which leaves only the witness accounts like mine.
I should have thought that the fact that the national news media itself has not been able to come up with any individual who was not allowed to vote (except the West Florida people who were decieved by the “polls closed” story on the news) backs up the fact that the Democrats in the Florida Legislature couldn’t find anyone, either. Any individuals who were not allowed to vote in the Eastern portion of Florida due to the voter register purge would have been ballyhooed on the national news media, trotted out one by one, given the feeding frenzy they were on. If you’ll recall, the story was always that they knew someone who wasn’t allowed to vote, but never produced that person. The lack of such individuals on the news tells a tale of its own… and backs up my account. Jesse Jackson ducking out the back door after coming here to Tallahassee on a wave of media with the intention of getting to “the bottom of this” also tells a tale in and of itself.
I also heard the gossip coming from the Legislature, but did not report any of the gossip in my message above. The general gossip was that the Democrats in the legislature were hair-pulling frenetic to find something… ANYthing… to pin on Jeb, and couldn’t ;). The ONLY signs of culpability were on the Democrat side, given that all three of the challenged counties were Democrat controlled, and they were very pointedly disinterested in investigating those charges.
Anyway, since witness accounts don’t count in Paul’s book, why should ANY reports count if he did not see the event himself?
One wonders.
The people that weren’t allowed to vote were over seas ballots, cast by members of the military. Gore had them thrown out for via one lawyer trick or another.
Before 9/11, the military wasn’t very popular, and Gore could get away with it given the lack of attention on all things patriotically military.
Unless you rely solely on FOX news (the modern equivalent to “living under a rock”), the shenanigans that occurred in pre-election Florida are now old news, and have been dissected at length in documentaries, magazines and to some degree, in the mainstream press. A St . Petersburg Times op-ed later deemed the election “stolen,” the Associated Press reported that Florida had “quietly” admitted “election fraud,” and Vanity Fair devoted a sizable portion of its Oct. 2004 issue to exactly how Team Bush pulled it off. By the time CNN sued the state of Florida for its ineligible voters list in 2004, the underbelly of the beast was plainly visible.
But in Nov. 2001, when Greg Palast uncovered then Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ role in the shameful voter roll purge in Florida, the news was explosive. The New York Times — the paper that would later print front page disinformation to sell the war in Iraq — took a pass, however, until three years later, when it was too late to do anything about it.
At first, election irregularities were featured as anomalies, like when the Washington Post covered computer glitches that literally subtracted thousands of votes from Al Gore and gave them to a Socialist candidate. By the time similar problems were reported during the 2002 midterm and 2004 primary elections, people were understandably skittish, with e-voting failures having “shaken confidence in the technology installed at thousands of precincts” — with as many as 20 states introducing legislation calling for paper receipts on voting machines.
In early 2004, Mother Jones predicted that “Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago” and sure enough, Americans awoke the day after the election without a decisive winner. And though John Kerry later conceded, questions have since been raised by computer programmers, mathematicians, journalists and others. “Was the election of 2004 stolen?” columnist Robert Koehler asked, before addressing the many “numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don’t make sense.”
There were warnings before the election, of course, with red flags being raised by researchers at prestigious Stanford and John Hopkins Universities. But despite Diebold’s CEO’s promise to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell’s prominent role in the Bush/Cheney campaign, and the suspicious election night lock-down in Warren County, Ohio, many still believed election angst could be attributed to a super-sized case of “sour grapes.”
When Christopher Hitchens, who is admittedly not a Kerry fan, also weighed in, however, that excuse flew out the window. “Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. . . ,” he wrote.
Rep. John Conyers and the Government Accountability Office also found widespread irregularities, and when statisticians picked apart the election results, Bush was not the legitimate winner. Pollster John Zogby compared the 2004 election to 1960’s suspicious contest, and University of Pennsylvania professor Steven F. Freeman put the odds that exit polls were that wrong, in that many states, at 250 million to one.
The evidence was so compelling, in fact, that NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller took it upon himself to tackle the proverbial suggestion “somebody should write a book.” His extensively-researched yet largely ignored Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them) shines a crucial light on the “stealthy combination of computerized vote theft, bureaucratic monkey business, systematic shortages of viable equipment and old-fashioned dirty tricks. . . ” that led to democracy’s last debacle, and will most likely lead to the next.
Ohio’s 2005 election also failed the smell test, and by late Jan. 2006, the Washington Post looked into allegations of election tampering — without the dismissive, lazy reporting usually afforded the subject. Describing tests conducted by Florida’s Leon County supervisor of elections Ion Sancho, using “relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques,” the paper quickly uncovered how easy it is to steal an election. “Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?” election officials asked test participants, and though two marked their ballots “yes” and six said “no,” by the time they went through Diebold’s optical scan machine, the results read seven “yes” votes and one “no.”
“More troubling than the test itself was the manner in which Diebold simply failed to respond to my concerns or the concerns of citizens who believe in American elections,” Sancho said. “I really think they’re not engaged in this discussion of how to make elections safer.”
Hmmm. You don’t say.
There is a reason, you see, that “None Dare Call It Stolen,” and that reasons extends beyond the preponderance of evidence. “If electronic voting machines programmed by private Republican firms remain in our future, dissent will become pointless unless it boils over into revolution,” former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts wrote. “Power-mad Republicans need to consider the result when democracy loses its legitimacy and only the rich have anything to lose.”
T.S., take a deep breath. Everything will be OK. Really.
Ion Sancho is MY Supervisor of Elections and is a very good one, even though a Democrat. He has had Leon County on paper scanners for the last 20 years.
The paper scanners are probably the safest way to vote. It has the advantage of automatically recording votes as they are scanned in, but the technology is pure 1950s… the “brain” of the machine is just too stupid to be fooled by anyone trying to do any rigging. It simply reads the columns on the paper we fill out, and gives the “yes” or “no” answer. If there’s a problem on the ballot, it spits it back out for a correction because it’s too dumb to try to “interpret” the problem. It does nothing else, and so is hard to rig. Further, we have the original paper ballots stored in the machine, so a recount can be done quickly. When the state-wide recount was ordered in 2001, we were done with it in a matter of hours, with only a few votes different that could be accounted for by paper sticking together in the recount.
The fact is that ANY “smart” voting system can be hacked. It would not be possible for the creators to stay ahead of the hackers.
So, do I think Diebold is some kind of conspiracy? Hell, no!
It’s just a system that CAN be hacked, either before or during the election. That isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just a fact of computer technology.
That was the reason why, when we had our referendum on the subject, I voted to keep the page scanners.
They’re dumb and safe.
As for the “facts” about the 2000 election that were “revealed” by the news media, I learned a LONG time ago that the news media is 87% Democrat (according to an NBC News poll) and observation showed me that there are too many of them in high media places with a partisan agenda.
I’ll stick to the facts that I picked up on the local news. The very fact that the national news did NOT report what was going on here is very telling.
Addendum: The page scanners that we’ve been using the last 20 years are, of course, the “legacy” type… the originals based on ’50s multiple-choice test technology. They are very old and probably are not made any more. Thus our interest in hanging on to what we have.
As for the “facts” about the 2000 election that were “revealed” by the news media, I learned a LONG time ago that the news media is 87% Democrat (according to an NBC News poll) and observation showed me that there are too many of them in high media places with a partisan agenda. – mama
Actually, while individual reporters might be Democrats, the media is mostly owned by 6 corporations, which do not benefit from Democratic presidents and Congresses.
Of course FOX and Rupert Murdoch are the two most cited as being part of the non-liberal media, but I’ve already posted MSNBC’s letter regarding Phil Donahue. Then, too, the GAO found the Bush adminstration guilty of planting Grade-A propaganda, Judith Miller’s Bush-adminstration-fed disinformation in the New York Times was used to sell the war in Iraq, and Karl Rove’s fingerprints were all over the Jeff Gannon fiasco.
When Greg Palast discovered the FLA voter purge in 2000, he tried to get the New York Times to run the story, but the paper refused and it was given to the Guardian instead. The New York times FINALLY addressed it in 2003, as an aside, as if everyone already knew this information.
Unless people read the foreign press, how would they?
I’m a writer and I just won my second Project Censored Award for news that didnt make the news. I’m not an agent for the Democratic party, nor would I feel comfortable acting as an agent for the Democratic party. But problems with the Mainstream Media spread across party lines.
If you are interested in the media – and ever get the chance, I recommend “Into the Buzzsaw.” It’s not about partisan politics, but what happens to reporters who wind up on the wrong side of the story. At any rate, their first hand accounts are riveting.
And re: the voting machines. Is it a conspiracy? Or is this another time the word “conspiracy” is used to discredit information? I have no idea. Election rigging was wrong in 1960, and it’s wrong today – regardless if a Kennedy or a Bush benefits.
I like Christopher Hitchens’ take. If Diebold can print out paper receipts on their ATMS, why not on their voting machines?
In 2000, I don’t think we had google. Now we do.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Al+Gore+rejected+military+ballots&btnG=Search
SO check it out. A lot of valuable documents and information are lost to the sea of time, because there weren’t bloggers checking things out in 2000.
If you define Bush supporters by a certain definition, that definition being that they have to disregard wide swaths of reality to maintain their belief, then you first have to substantiate this claim of yours, instead of hiding it amongst your arguments where the light of day won’t reach it.
My substantiation is on this very page, and many other like it where Bush supporters are unable to scrutinize their beliefs too closely or provide anything to support those beliefs.
Let me give you an example. Up above, Ymarsakar made the dubious claim that “Bush is too honest.” I don’t understand how one can believe that claim in light of the many, many examples of times that he has lied. I would expect Ymarsakar has no answer either. In my experience, a Bush supporter will merely ignore an argument like that, in the same way they need to ignore the argument I put forth in post #64. If they don’t ignore it, then they will provide an answer like JG does:
You start off with the belief, a priori style, that Bush supporters are this and that, as described above.
No, I didn’t start off with this belief. I have learned it from people like you. I have been debating Bush supporters for years now and have seen this phenomenon repeated too many times.
you claim that because you use facts and they don’t, you are right and they are wrong.
Well…yeah. If my arguments can be corroborated by elements in reality that everyone can see, whereas Bush supporters’ arguments can’t, then it sure does look like that.
Say for example somebody tells you the sun is blue. You point up in the sky where, sure enough, it’s yellow/orange. The guy still insists it’s blue because, well, he says it is. Of course, he can’t point to anything in the sky to substantiate his claim, because up in the sky is this big yellow/orange thing. So instead, he poo-poos the whole premise of having to use facts to support an argument.
Regarding the supposed fate of our 2,500 dead troops (plus tens of thousands of wounded, plus tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians), the point is that these sacrifices are made on our behalf for the ostensible reason to defend us against threats. In the case of Iraq, there was no threat, and therefore the military has been abused given its primary purpose. For that reason, it would appear that the lives of our 2,500 dead have been wasted. The only way I can see this turning around is if public outrage over the Iraq war debacle spurs protests and dialogue which eventually provides the drastic reform our system needs, to prevent such abuses in the future.
As for the possibilty of them dying in some other country, so long as they are fulfilling the role they signed up for, and not simply extending US military dominance for the benefit of an unelected few Americans, I find that acceptable.
Anyway, since witness accounts don’t count in Paul’s book, why should ANY reports count if he did not see the event himself?
Mamapajamas, let me explain this to you, while also explaining how to create a sound argument.
When an event is reported in the media, especially if the same story appears in several outlets, and more especially if some of those outlets display a different bias, then the event is likely to be true. Say if Salon.com reports that Lieberman lost, and Fox News says the same thing. What reason do I have to doubt it? On the other hand, if you as a single individual say something happened, but can provide absolutely no source that corroborates your story, even considering that the story you’re relating would have made great news items and would have no doubt been pursued by some media somewhere, then your claim enjoys very little credibility. The premise that the “MSM buried it” presupposes that the MSM is a single monolithic entity where decisions are made at the top and move to every media outlet. That is not true. The story you report would have been picked up by at least one media outlet if it were true, and perhaps even if it were not.
The fact that your “eye-witness perspective” is also crucial to substantiating your argument, since it enjoys absolutely no support otherwise, also saps credibility from your claim.
Say I’m selling a car. A guy turns up to look at it, and says he’s looking for something with great gas mileage and will pay top dollar for it. I then claim that my car (say, a Suburban) gets about 100 miles to a gallon. The guy scratches his head, says he never heard that before, that Suburbans get such good mileage. I tell him some cock-and-bull story like “the MSM buried it,” and insist that it’s true, that I’m an eye witness and I saw it. I may not be strictly lying. I may want that to be true so much, that I’ve come to believe it.
This is essentially what you have done. If you want to construct a good argument, and more importantly, if you want to believe in a version of reality that other people share, I encourage you to go back and look over your statements and beliefs.
For greater clarification, here is how a Bush supporter (or anyone with a faulty argument) tends to respond to an argument that thoroughly debunks their entire worldview:
The idea is to portray the other person as just plain crazy, such that the argument requires no response. Of course, TS’s post was well articulated and exhibited no insanity in the way it was worded. This didn’t matter to poor Danny Lemieux, who could find no other way to deal with TS’s claims.
At some point, there really is no point, Paul. We live in very different universes and there really is no piercing the veil. Shalom.
My substantiation is on this very page, and many other like it where Bush supporters are unable to scrutinize their beliefs too closely or provide anything to support those beliefs.
Nobody’s going to take your word for it that you’re right and they are wrong. You need substance, not illusionary claims. When someone says things can be found here, that is a claim. When they demonstrate how it plays out, that is substance.
I don’t understand how one can believe that claim in light of the many, many examples of times that he has lied. I would expect Ymarsakar has no answer either.
The argument that Bush ever lied, either on purpose or accidentally, is a weak argument. Not only in terms of the deductive logic,but in the inductive support as well. Meaning, those supposed examples, you talk about, Paul, aren’t really examples. Not only are they not examples, they are not facts either, but opinion and interpretation.
In my experience, a Bush supporter will merely ignore an argument like that, in the same way they need to ignore the argument I put forth in post #64.
Anyone who argues with Paul over some issue of substance, is declared to be ignoring the argument. That is neither acceptable nor consistent in any logical sense. Since Paul won’t accept the fact that his arguments are weak or unsubstantiated, it doesn’t really matter who he says is ignoring them.
No, I didn’t start off with this belief. I have learned it from people like you.
Go tell that to Bookworm, that I’m a blind Bush supporter. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and not only that, it just shows how flawed your reasoning is, Paul. Wrong on one case, in terms of fundamental truths, increases the chance for being wrong on all cases.
As for the possibilty of them dying in some other country, so long as they are fulfilling the role they signed up for, and not simply extending US military dominance for the benefit of an unelected few Americans, I find that acceptable.
Why should anyone of us care about your desire to play God in deciding who gets to die where and doing whatever you specify? You’re unelected, you’re the people you are talking about, it ain’t Bush. Unelected people sending the american military to die via abuse of power, that is you, not Bush. Look below.
In the case of Iraq, there was no threat, and therefore the military has been abused given its primary purpose.
Let me just recap Paul’s reasoning for those still interested. I’ll try and keep it simple.
Paul says he doesn’t start off with the belief that Bush supporters are blind to the facts, and cover up the facts to maintain belief. SO this must mean Paul is cognizant that Bush supporters may be right about their facts trumping Paul’s facts, right? Paul claims that he derived this belief from watching people here, like me. Since that’s factually inaccurate, it’s probably not a good idea for Paul to say that in public. On the one hand, Paul says he believes Bush supporters are blind because he has seen blind Bush supporters here. And Paul believes Bush supporters are blind because they don’t agree with Paul’s spinning and interpretation of the “facts” or even stark disagreement over the existence of certain facts as related to other facts. On the other hand, Paul says that supporting Bush cannot be justified in any way at all. So in conclusion, the reason why Paul is right is because in a circular fashion, Paul has all the right facts about Bush and nobody else can do anything about this? Paul is right that Bush supporters are blind because Paul is right that nobody can possibly justify Bush’s policies as anything other than the failure that Paul has asserted?
Let’s go back to the past, with what Paul wrote here.
Really, their belief in Bush as anything other than an abject failure is purely a matter of faith, inasmuch as it can’t be justified any other way. While faith is a difficult thing to prove or disprove, faith in a human being is far easier to validate or invalidate than faith in God.
Facts matter because they can either disprove or prove a singular and unique position. If a position is undisputed, then the facts do not matter, simply because no matter how many people say that the sea is without salt, the truth is the truth is the truth.
The problem with Paul’s reasoning is that he believes that once he has taken a position on something related to Bush, that nobody else is allowed to take a different position that is mutually exclusive with his own. This is supported by Paul’s statement that “it cannot be justified any other way” in relation to Bush’s policies.
So, are the blind Bush supporters Paul sees here, that he uses to prop up his singular faith based foundation, actually blind or are they just people that Paul will never listen to because for Paul he will always be right regardless of what the facts say? Paul doesn’t act like a person who is dumb, but he also doesn’t act like someone who openly considers the possibility that he might be wrong. What if a fact came up that shot down 90% of his beliefs about Bush, like Bush lied, what would Paul do thing? Judging from Paul’s testimony, Paul will just call you a blind Bush supporter, because obviously there is “no way” that anything can justify Bush’s policies as being anything other than a failure, of course.
Say for example somebody tells you the sun is blue. You point up in the sky where, sure enough, it’s yellow/orange. The guy still insists it’s blue because, well, he says it is.
There is nothing that Paul has provided here and now that demonstrates the obviousness of Bush’s failure and lying as the obviousness of the color of the sun. Yet Paul thinks, acts, and speaks as if what props his beliefs up is as strong as the belief that the sun rises in the East, sets in the West, and is of the color yellow/orange. Bush is a liar because that is what Paul sees, is the primary logic conduit.
I’ve seen a lot of claims from Paul, but there is no substantiation for them. Paul has two evasion techniques. Either he will say you’re a blind Bush supporter and that this means you are required to ignore facts, or Paul will say that what supports his position is already laid out in this thread. So if I ask Paul what supports his belief that Iraq was no threat, Paul will point to the blindness of Bush supporters, then he will say that their presence in this thread justifies his position, and finally Paul will refuse to demonstrate a convincing argument for why Iraq was not a threat. It’s completely circular.
Paul doesn’t care about saving American military lives, he said so himself. We start off with Paul is right and everyone else is wrong, we progress to Bush supporters are blind and cannot see Paul’s facts, and then we conclude with “this thread justifies my position, that position being that Bush supporters are required to ignore facts, and without facts, their position is worthless”.
We end with what we start, we start with what we end. That’s about it.
As for why Bush is too honest, the proof is pretty evident once someone graduates from the amateur scientific methodology to the deductive logic methodology.
If Bush was a liar, or if he lied before, he would have planted WMDs and they would have been found. If Bush was a liar, he would have purposefully mislead America about how many jobs were created, so that when his tax cuts cut in, so many more jobs would have been created against low expectations that Bush’s approval would skyrocket.
If Bush was too honest, then he would have been outmaneuvered and backstabbed by his allies when he attempted to negotiate in good faith at the UN in 2003. Which is what happened due to later Oil for FOod findings.
If Bush was too honest, then he would prevent the Pentagon from creating a propaganda office, and would encourage people to tell the truth rather than use deception.
All or most of the deductive logic gates for Bush being a liar, is false, and all or most of the deductive logic gates for Bush being too honest, is true. When I say most or all, I am refering to absolute numbers, not empirical data.
All this is just to compare the superior deductive reasoning ability with the inferior and flawed scientific inductive logic, that uses one fact out of a trillion times a billion. When using scientific empiricism, you can have 99 “facts” saying you are right, but all it takes is one fact that says you are wrong, to destroy the entire hypothesis. 99 birds are white, therefore all birds are white, up until the 100th black bird comes in that is.
Paul isn’t even using scientific empiricism. Scientific empiricism has to open itself to the possibility of being wrong, meaning they have to admit and be prepared for the fact that some new facts will change their hypothesis, or maybe even make it wrong. Paul isn’t using inductive logic. You can’t use inductive logic when you say that any fact that disagrees with you was made up by someone with faith based beliefs. Paul said it himself, Bush supporters are blind to the reality of facts because the only way they can keep believing as they do is by ignoring the truth. Well, I’m pretty sure there are facts that support Bush and not Paul. How can there be absolutely zero facts supporting those who support Bush? When there is zero possibility of something occuring or 100% possibility of something occuring, I call that faith. And Paul has a lot of it, what he does not have is any ability or recognition of deductive or inductive processes and reasoning capabilities. If he did have some inductive abilities, he could graduate to deductive logic, but since he has neither, he cannot advance beyond the circular reasoning.
Why can’t there be people with some real logical capabilities, why do I have to constantly muddle through the minds of people with some curvatures? It takes so long to get from point A to point B along a curve, instead of a straight logic stream of 1s and 0s.
At some point, there really is no point, Paul. We live in very different universes and there really is no piercing the veil. Shalom.
Damn! Happens every time! A Bushite is asked to support his worldview through logical discourse, and next thing you know, they’ve lost interest in the discussion!
The argument that Bush ever lied, either on purpose or accidentally, is a weak argument.
Hardly. In fact, it’s rock solid. Let’s take a look at this one:
Or how about this one:
That statement was false, since he has since admitted to having engaged in wiretaps without a court order.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
Need still more? How about this?
Fact is, the Congressional Research Service confirmed that the “President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) – in contrast to Members of Congress (4) – have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods”
http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm
This list can go on and on and on and on. But there you go. If you can show me that those statements above are not lies, you win a prize.
Since Paul won’t accept the fact that his arguments are weak or unsubstantiated, it doesn’t really matter who he says is ignoring them.
Not quite. Fact is, nobody has once suggested that the argument I put forth in post #66 was weak or unsubstantiated. It was just ignored. This suggests to me that no one could figure out how to refute it. That’s hardly a characteristic of a weak or unsubstantiated argument, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Why should anyone of us care about your desire to play God in deciding who gets to die where and doing whatever you specify?
It’s nothing to do with me. It’s the Constitution that Bush is violating by using our troops, there for the “common defense”, as a tool for conquest. If you don’t agree with the Constitution, then just come out and say that, but don’t try and pretend that these quirky ideas are just mine alone.
Paul says he doesn’t start off with the belief that Bush supporters are blind to the facts, and cover up the facts to maintain belief. SO this must mean Paul is cognizant that Bush supporters may be right about their facts trumping Paul’s facts, right?
Those two sentences contradict each other. Try again.
Paul claims that he derived this belief from watching people here, like me.
Not from watching you particularly, but people like you. People who defy logic in providing a defense for Bush.
And Paul believes Bush supporters are blind because they don’t agree with Paul’s spinning and interpretation of the “facts” or even stark disagreement over the existence of certain facts as related to other facts.
Not quite. While I assume that they don’t agree with the facts I’m providing, it’s actually difficult to tell since these facts are rarely even addressed. The mere fact that I support my contents with facts drives Bush supporters away, as we’ve seen on this very page on more than one occasion. That is exactly what I am referring to.
On the other hand, I have engaged with a few Bush supporters who were willing to deal with facts. These discussions often boil down to which facts are the most important, a point on which we disagree. This is disagreement I can respect. But these people are in a tiny minority and are not the people I’ve been discussing on this page.
The problem with Paul’s reasoning is that he believes that once he has taken a position on something related to Bush, that nobody else is allowed to take a different position that is mutually exclusive with his own. This is supported by Paul’s statement that “it cannot be justified any other way” in relation to Bush’s policies.
No, that’s not it at all. If you can show me why Bush is so great, by providing some facts to support that contention, while effectively refuting my facts that contradict that contention, then fair enough. But of course, that’s not what has happened, at least on this page.
I’ve seen a lot of claims from Paul, but there is no substantiation for them.
Go to post #66 and let me know what more substantiation you require. Just one example. Or try and refute my examples of Bush’s lies, another example. Fact is, I have substantiated a few of my claims on this page, far more than anyone else, but for some reason you’re unable to see this. Curious.
Anyhow, this post of yours is going in circles based on some serious misunderstandings that I hope I’ve disabused you of. In the end, however, I see you’ve finally gotten to the meat of some issues, so I’ll address these in a subsequent post.
So if I ask Paul what supports his belief that Iraq was no threat
I don’t believe you had asked that before, but I’m relieved that you’re finally willing to discuss an actual issue and am happy to respond.
Iraq was no threat to us because 1) they had no WMDs or any conventional weapons that could affect us; 2) they were not working with any terrorist groups that were operating against us; and 3) Saddam’s was a seriously cripled regime that couldn’t present a serious threat even at the best of times.
If you require further support for any of those claims above, let me know. I left them out since all 3 points are common knowledge.
Paul doesn’t care about saving American military lives, he said so himself.
No, I didn’t say that. I said military deaths are acceptable in defense of the country. This is a position shared by almost all Americans including those in the military. It is not mutually exclusive with the desire to save lives.
If Bush was a liar, or if he lied before, he would have planted WMDs and they would have been found.
You’re suggesting that if Bush lied once, he would lie consistently. That is a logical fallacy. Try again.
If Bush was too honest, then he would prevent the Pentagon from creating a propaganda office, and would encourage people to tell the truth rather than use deception.
He didn’t prevent it. He ordered it closed due to public outcry over such a thing. There is a huge difference.
In the meantime, he paid Armstrong Williams with our tax dollars to promote No Child Left Behind without informing the public that he was engaging in pay-to-play publicity. Is that honest?
Scientific empiricism has to open itself to the possibility of being wrong, meaning they have to admit and be prepared for the fact that some new facts will change their hypothesis, or maybe even make it wrong.
Fact is, I accept that some Bush apologist may come along who provides facts to support their argument, which would in fact prove my assertion wrong. While this rarely happens, I was in fact challenging you Bush supporters by saying they never back up what they say, trying to shame them into actually making some sort of attempt to reconcile their beliefs with facts. Occasionally this works, although it didn’t on this page.
He ordered it closed due to public outcry over such a thing.
Bush has never cared about public outcries, he is not a populist. Therefore he is not vulnerable to populist sentiment, either from his base or his enemies.
When has Bush ever done anything because of the public outcry, and where is your proof that he did?
As for Iraq not being a danger, why would a proto-Iran not be a danger when if left alone they would be on the same path as Iran and North Korea?
You don’t explain your reasoning nor do you present your facts, You do present your claims, however, so we have that down clear.
Fact is, I accept that some Bush apologist may come along who provides facts to support their argument, which would in fact prove my assertion wrong.
Why don’t you start the ball off then, with a fact that can be proven to be true that Saddam was not working with terroists.
I wrote this post on my blog before reading the latest comments on this thread, because I didn’t want any thing interfering with my analysis before hand.
http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/08/to-paul.html
It’s basically a description of how arguments, logic, facts, and reasoning work together to form a cohesive whole.
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
That statement was false, since he has since admitted to having engaged in wiretaps without a court order.
It’s only false if the NSA wiretaps were really wiretaps, but since the NSA program was just a key word search using computer algorithmns, that isn’t a wiretap. Meaning a bunch of FBI aren’t listening in one person’s phone calls as to what they say like we see on Law and Order (or some other cop show). The most they could do is trace the phone numbers, locations, and identities. If they flagged one call that they wanted to hear, they would have to have a good reason not to go to FISA. But since it’s just arresting people with certain phone calls or keeping tabs on their locations and identities, it is not a wiretap. So that statement is true. Your other claim that Bush has admitted to having engaged in wiretaps without a court order is a statement that isn’t born out by facts or evidence. Why haven’t Congress told Bush to destroy the tapes that he allegedly illegally had the FBI get from recording the conversations of Amerian’s? Do they not exist or something?
This list can go on and on and on and on. But there you go. If you can show me that those statements above are not lies, you win a prize.
The prize as I see it, is the realization that there are two ways to disprove an argument’s truth. Your argument’s truth being that some lie was told by Bush in these texts and paragraphs. Well, then, either your argument uses facts which are not true or your argument is formated in a way that misuses true factual events.
“ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. “
Let’s take it piece by small piece. Is it a fact or not that a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power? That is either true or not. The second consideration is, did they have access to the same intelligence as the President at the time that they voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power?
Fact is, the Congressional Research Service confirmed that the “President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) – in contrast to Members of Congress (4) – have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods”
Was there really a case where a Congressman or woman was denied access to information about Saddam Hussein, that the President was given access to? If so, where was this case? Generalities are not facts, generalities are claims and statements that are arguments. Facts are if in a specific instance, President Bush knew he had information and analysis that Congress did not have, and that in fact Bush refused to give them.
Congressional Access to Intelligence Information Not Routinely Provided in Four Areas
The executive branch generally does not routinely share with Congress four general types of intelligence information:
* the identities of intelligence sources;
* the “methods” employed by the Intelligence Community in collecting and analyzing intelligence;
* “raw” intelligence, which can be unevaluated or “lightly” evaluated intelligence, (18) which in the case of human intelligence (19) sometimes is provided by a single source, but which also could consist of intelligence derived from multiple sources when signals (20) and imagery (21) collection methods are employed; and,
* certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers. Included in the last category is the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President, and which consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics. (22) The PDB emphasizes current intelligence (23) and is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain intelligence source and operational information. Its dissemination is thus limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers. (24)
Intelligence is made up of a lot of things. When Bush says Congress had the same intel as he did, that means Congress had the same intel and analysis as Bush did. If you can prove that Bush knew things, like WMDs, that Congress did not know, then you’d be a step ahead in proving your argument that Bush lied about giving Congress equal access to the same intel he had.
Intel is so large, that nobody can access all of it. The President may constitutionally be able to access all of it, but he probably couldn’t and didn’t. So what he did access, he gave to Congress. This is borne out by the fact that nobody in Congress claimed there was not any WMDs to be found. Tenet told the President it was a slam dunk that weapons would be there, and Congress was told the same thing. There does not appear any sign that a lie was told, that Bush knew something Congress did not. If Bush knew something Congress did not, what did Bush know then that he was holding back? Why isn’t Congress petitioning for that pecific information? Bush knew there was no WMDs and lied to Congress so that Congress was suckered? If Bush believed there were no WMDs, he would never have gone to the UN and put a UN Resolution on paper backing his war based upon WMDs. But he did, so Bush did believe in the same intel that Congress believed in.
For example, while investigating Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert action operations in Nicaragua in the 1980s, the intelligence committees requested and were provided the identities of certain intelligence sources. The committees also sought and obtained access to certain raw intelligence. On other occasions, committee members have requested and obtained raw intelligence in order to verify certain Intelligence Community judgements contained in various National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). (30)
Intelligence committee staffers, occasionally, have successfully obtained access to PDBs, and PDB articles, during the course of conducting investigations and general oversight. (31) The Bush Administration, however, appears to have been more reluctant to share such information than have some of its predecessors. In 2002, for example, President Bush rejected a request by the Congressional Joint Inquiry investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks to review the August 6, 2001, PDB, which contained an article titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in U.S. (32) The Bush Administration also denied a request by the SSCI to review PDBs relevant only to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities and links to terrorists as part of the Committee’s review of the Intelligence Community’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. (33)
While denying Congress access to certain PDB articles, the Bush Administration has provided such access – albeit limited – to two commissions: the 9/11 Commission (34) and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (hereafter, cited as the WMD Commission). (35)
The question most people should ask is why Congress wanted to know what was in the PDBs and why Bush was protecting that information from public or Congressional disclosure. Bush says it is executive privilege, that things in the PDB were things that people would not say if they knew Congress would read it. Congress says something else. So without knowing what is in those PDB rejected and what in those PDB’s accepted, there’s no facts available to make a judgement.
There’s a lot of useless data in a bureacracy. The facts should only be focused on what information it was, why it was given or not given, and whether Bush believed the information in his PDB was not relevant to Iraq or not when he said he gave Congress all the same intel he received.
The 2001 addition to the law requires that such reports always be in written form, and include a concise statement of facts and explanation of an activity’s significance.
As Feinstein’s intel documents prove, sources and methods are not given to Congress simply because it increases the chances of leakage that would damage national security. Since Congress was informed and it was then leaked, that’s pretty good factual backing of the policy not to tell Congress about the sources of intel and how it is gathered.
I’m pretty sure Congress knew the explanation for the activity’s significance. The problem occured when they said “concise statement of facts”. They can’t be given concise statements of the facts about where and when sources and methods were used, so the President limited it.
The demand for written reports was added to the National Security Act of 1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into law on Dec. 28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision, with the stipulation that he would interpret it “in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority” to withhold information for national-security or foreign-policy reasons.
Graham alleged that he was never informed “that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens.”
Since it isn’t eavesdropping, I don’t think that’s much of a problem.
The problem with all of the above is described as one of the advantages of the inductive logical method of analysis. If facts are not available, if only facts for one side are used, or if the facts are only representing a small slice of real events, then the conclusion will be skewed and will probably be inaccurate and wrong.
Deductive logic is much more accurate and conclusive, which is why I favor it myself.
This suggests to me that no one could figure out how to refute it.
I skipped that post of yours since it wasn’t addressed to me, meaning I didn’t read it when I scrolled past it.
So, by the president’s own standards for success, his policies are a failure. And considering that he’s offering no new ideas for adjustment, just more of the same, there is no reason to expect these things to change.
So what we’ve got is a failed set of policies, and our troops in harm’s way as a result. Your idea of support simply means keeping them in harm’s way and continuing to pursue failure.
It’s simple to address. All I have to do is to explain all that all these people against the war in Iraq were the enemies Bush needed to flush out in the first place. All those who are against America’s and Iraq’s success in Iraq, are actually the enemies we need to annihilate before Bush’s goal could be accomplished. Since Sadr is still alive and Bush has not ordered him killed, that is a constructive and valid criticism of Bush’s policies.
But to say that the enemies of democracy are now rioting and marching and talking smack about America and Jews, that this is somehow an indication of failure, misses the point that to win you must defeat the enemy and you cannot defeat the enemy until he shows himself.Sadr shows himself, and so do Hizbollah supporters in Baghdad as well as the Indonesian President.
The Indo Prez says the war will radicalize people. What’s really radicalizing people are the re-education camps in Arab worlds, most notably Saudi arabia. By getting rid of them, we solve the problem of radicalization. But we can’t get rid of them until we win in Iraq, so it’s just one step in the ultimate goal of de-radicalizing the Middle East.
Therefore he is not vulnerable to populist sentiment, either from his base or his enemies.
That doesn’t square with his pushing for gay marriage and flag burning amendments, at the demand of his social conservative base. Let’s not forget, Candidate Bush back in 2000 stated that gay marriage was purely a states issue.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/25/MNGNG57QKI1.DTL
As for Iraq not being a danger, why would a proto-Iran not be a danger when if left alone they would be on the same path as Iran and North Korea?
Because Iraq was being successfully contained, and the Kay and Duefler reports explain in detail. He had no WMDs, nor the capability to develop them, due to the cripling sanctions Iraq was under.
It’s only false if the NSA wiretaps were really wiretaps
Jeez, Clinton gets crucified for saying something stupid like “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is”, and years later we get this! Fact is, the NSA wiretaps were wiretaps.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wiretap
A concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit
Nothing about whether a computer or a human are analyzing the data, nothing about a phone line. Sorry, try again.
Was there really a case where a Congressman or woman was denied access to information about Saddam Hussein, that the President was given access to?
It wasn’t the contention that Bush denied access to a congressman who requested it. Whether or not someone requested it is immaterial. Bush said they had access, and in fact they did not. How can you ask for information you don’t know exists? Especially when the president claims that you have access to the same intel that he does, a claim that is false?
So what he did access, he gave to Congress.
To believe this, you would have to believe the Congressional Research Service report was wrong, as your statement directly contradicts it.
Please explain where you’re getting your information, which makes you correct and the Congressional Research Service wrong.
As Feinstein’s intel documents prove, sources and methods are not given to Congress simply because it increases the chances of leakage that would damage national security.
You’re missing the point entirely. It doesn’t matter whether or not Bush had a good reason for keeping intel from Congress. The fact is, he claimed that they had access to the same intel when in fact they didn’t.
All those who are against America’s and Iraq’s success in Iraq, are actually the enemies we need to annihilate before Bush’s goal could be accomplished.
You mean the Iraqis. So what you’re saying is, we’ve invaded and occupied a soverign country, and are now in the process of erradicating anyone among the local populace who doesn’t agree with what we’re doing. Does that about sum it up?
Please show me how this is endearing us to the majority in the Muslim world who sympathize with these locals? Given that Bush’s goal is to position the US as a force of good in the region, how are these policies furthering that goal?
Consider the perception of Bush and the US in these areas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185205.stm
When you respond, I hope you can edit out some of the completely superfluous nonsense about arguments and logic, and just try and focus on supporting your actual arguements with actual facts. All this obfuscating you’re doing is really not furthering your point.
That doesn’t square with his pushing for gay marriage and flag burning amendments,
ya it does, since he believes in them if he is pushing for it. Or he may just want a dialogue and you are misinterpreting that as support for actual flag burning ammendments.
There’s no reason why he ain’t on board with immigration but against gay marriage. Other than the fact that believes in one and not the other. If he was a populist, and he actually listened or cared what you or I thought, he would either be against both or for both.
Bush wants it to be a states issue, so when states confuse the law with marriage and judges, Bush steps in because his beliefs demand it. It’s quite logical from his framework. If Mass never made gay marriage part of normal marriage law, Bush wouldn’t have been in favor of an ammendment.
Because Iraq was being successfully contained, and the Kay and Duefler reports explain in detail. He had no WMDs, nor the capability to develop them, due to the cripling sanctions Iraq was under.
I see containment as total containment, not the virus starting to corrupt and infect the containing organism, the UN.
Bush said they had access, and in fact they did not.
They did not because they did not ask, given that you said it was immaterial whether they did or did not. So obviously if they did not, it isn’t Bush’s fault, so it does matter.
Please explain where you’re getting your information, which makes you correct and the Congressional Research Service wrong.
it’s all about interpretation. Bush would only be lying if he knew and was active in attempting to deny Congress access to his higher clearance. Bush having a higher clearance is legal and Constitutional, but it doesn’t make it a lie to say that he gave access to Congress nor does it make it a lie when Congress was given access but never used it.
The fact is, he claimed that they had access to the same intel when in fact they didn’t.
Again, when Bush gives Congress access and Congress does not make use of it, it ain’t Bush’s fault.
So what you’re saying is, we’ve invaded and occupied a soverign country, and are now in the process of erradicating anyone among the local populace who doesn’t agree with what we’re doing. Does that about sum it up?
More or less yes, that is what will lead to victory if people with a spine were in charge. Any policies that are closer to it, is more successful.
Please show me how this is endearing us to the majority in the Muslim world who sympathize with these locals?
It shows them we are the strong horse. That we will annihilate them if they oppose us. They don’t have to like us to stop killing us, they just need to fear us enough not to blow up women and children. Fear is a powerful motivator, perhaps even more powerful than the shame that Arabs feel.
People support the strong horse, become the strong horse and people will support us.
This obfuscation as you term it, are necessary ingredients to delineating what conditions would make Bush a liar or not. If you don’t like extra details in your prejudicial thinking that Bush lied, then well, that’s your script I suppose. But it isn’t mine.
To Bookworm,
See my meaning when I said America was too busy defending Bush to come up with fixes for Iraq before it was too late? Even I have to defend Bush from these people, yet it distracts much from constructive plans.