Powered by TypePad

« At The Risk Of Over-Generalizing... | Main | Waas On Plame And Libby »

August 06, 2005

Comments

Seven Machos

Here is what I don't understand. Suppose Rove is guilty. Suppose he broke the law at issue, and other related ones. What would happen? Would there be a "perp walk"? Would Bush say "I am not a crook," flash some peace signs, and duck into a helicopter?

No. What Sandy Berger did was far worse than what Rove is accused of. Berger got probation and a fine. If Rove is indicted, he would eventually step down. If convicted, he would get probation and a fine. And, of course, he would earn the oppobrium of the people who, well, already hate him. Bush's popularity would take a hit. Otherwise, big whoop.

Why is the Bush-Rove-bad-evil crowd investing so much time and energy in this? Why don't you fight Republicans on, you know, issues? I guess it's because you are losers on actual political issues pretty much across the board.

Etienne

I hear words like "treason" and I just roll my eyes. Those who have refused to take national security seriously for decades lack the credibility to be the defenders of it. It has a very hollow ring to it.

Sorry, Tommy V. It really doesn't matter what you think about the credibility of your fellow Americans. It is the credibilty of your elected officials that matters, nothing else. We have as much right to demand accountability from OUR government as you do. Getting on that high horse about "those who've refused to take our national security seriously for decades" presumes a great deal you don't know about a lot of people you'll never meet. It's another way the new right wing media monopoly has trained conservatives to carelessly insult the patriotism of anyone who doesn't tow the new one party line.

Syl, I don't see the point in trying your experiment. This government was hardly being run by a bunch of scared old nannies. These were men who had dealt with Saddam both as oil company business partners (Cheney) and selling him arms from our very own USA (Rummy). They knew enough about him to know they weren't telling us everything they knew. The Downing Street Minutes correspond to what we see now written in history - the US wanted to "wrongfoot" Saddam into forcing a war, and he wasn't cooperating. So they cooked the books and invaded him anyway, lying to the American people along the way.

If nothing else, there was time to ascertain the truth and devise more effective methods to bring about the desired results. There was no crisis except the one the government was manufacturing in the yellow press.

deona

oops. sorry 'bout the double post.

Seven Machos

Edy -- We invaded Iraq. Nobody is going to jail as a result. Nobody is getting court-matialed. Americans were in favor of the war and they remain in favor of American policy and American military action, though we all hate it when Americans soliders die, ever.

Get over it. Bush won. The Republicans control the Congress. It doesn't matter what you think the "Downing Street Memo" says.

Syl

Deona

I'm sure a lot of people are friends with Rove. That doesn't mean they chat like schoolkids on the phone every day. I have several friends I haven't talked with in any personal way for well over a year. Not that we haven't had a conversation or two, but they were concerned with other things.

I think CNN used Novak as their token the way MSNBC uses Buchanan. Neither are mainstream. Buchanan is anti-Israel and an isolationist. I'm not exactly sure where Novak stands on those issues, but neither were in favor of Iraq.

Seven Machos

And another thing...

Are CBS, CNN, the Washington Times, the New York Times, the BBC, the Los Angeles Times, NB, ABC -- are these part of the new right wing media monopoly?

Do you have any idea what the word "monopoly" means?

Seven Machos

Washington POST.

kim

Etienne, read Claudia Rossett and Charles Duelfer. There was a crisis.
========================================

Syl

Etienne

No problem. You've created your fantasy, you're the one who has to live in it.

deona

Etienne:

"So they cooked the books and invaded him anyway, lying to the American people along the way. "

Your brain may still be a bit tired after that recent "experiment", but try to keep up on this one:

Do you actually think that Bush/Cheney had some super-duper secret intelligence operation at their disposal, superior to the CIA, that had irrefutable evidence (like, I guess, a scan down to 200 feet below ground of every square foot in Iraq) that there were definitely, positively NO WMD anywhere in that country? If you're like my liberal friends, you are rolling your eyes about now, thinking that's an idiotic question. They've all said "of course not -- what's your point?" You're probably thinking the same thing.

My point is that when one makes a statement, avowing it to be true, while knowing for sure that it is NOT true, one is lying. That's the definition. Look it up. When one makes a statement, avowing it to be true, while not having a clue whether it is true or not, that's simple gossip, or hearsay, or whatever.

I can't find anyone who, with a straight face, will look me in the eye and deny that they believe Bush truly believed there were WMD in Iraq, like ALL of the Senate, the WHOLE British government etc., etc. I'm certain you would admit (while saying something like "the stupid bastard") that you really think he believed they were there. You'd make a fool of yourselve to claim otherwise.

Now. According to all of that, Bush did not lie. He stated what he believed. Anyone's contention that he "cooked the books" and said stuff he KNEW was false is preposterous. His famous 16 words in the state of the union speach are still true -- he said that the British government claimed that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. IT IS DOCUMENTED THAT THEY SAID THAT! Bush made a true statement. Whether MI6 was wrong or not is moot with regard to whether Bush lied.
Unless you have literally lost control of your mind, I think you KNOW that he did not, technically, intentionally, or in any other way actually state something he knew and was sure was false. C'mon.

What you need to understand is that when YOU claim that Bush lied to the American people, you are making a statement, avowing it to be true, when you know damned well it is false.

Who's the real liar here?

millco88

Etienne,

Do you really think Joe Wilson is so naive to think that taking a public position contrary to the Administration wouldn't create a firestorm?? How long has he been in govt service? Or that the CIA is so politically deaf that it wouldn't realize immediately what that oped would do?? That seems like an awful lot of stupidity from an intelligence service.

But the reason I have my doubts that this was cooked up by Rove and others is that you have to believe Wilson's version to buy that. The problem is the Kerry campaign didn't completely believe him. Unless you think having someone critical of the administration about Iraq would have been bad for their campaign, why did they drop him?? Those are the dots that don't make sense.

The CIA knew all the cards that were in the deck when the game started. I don't think the WH did, at least from what we publicly know so far. By the start, I mean when the oped was written. So you need a conspiracy from someone in the CIA to the WH to connect Rove, et al. with the info the CIA always had OR the CIA is the only source.

Which is more plausible??

Lesley

Would the CIA have picked Joseph Wilson for their Niger fact-finding trip had his wife not put his name forward? My sense is this: had Valerie Plame Wilson NOT worked for CIA, no one at CIA would have considered Wilson for a serious intelligence gathering mission, ie. no Valerie Plame = no Joe Wilson, and that's surely one reason the WH and the press were scratching their collective heads at Wilson's Oped because they were ALL wondering "where the hell did this guy come from and why the hell did CIA send this clown to Niger?" I think it only natural that everyone, press and administration alike, started focusing in on Wilson (and, secondarily on the CIA) like a laser.

Valerie Plame and her WMD unit at CIA are essential components to understanding this story and none of us, regardless of which side of the aisle we are on, can begin to grasp this tale without all the players and their influences/motives being revealed. If "Hothead" Rove is forced to resign, so be it. If anything, this debacle has revealed the CIA to be a highly disfunctional organization. I despise the fact that elements in the CIA are playing games with the WH, and that sentiment applies REGARDLESS which party controls the Presidency. The job of the CIA is to gather information not to set policy. In this country, we hold elections to determine our policy makers and the CIA is NOT an elected branch of government regardless of their pretensions otherwise.

Syl

deona, millco88, and Lesley

Three really great posts!

SteveMG

Geez, cooked intelligence, WMD, Niger not Africa, yellowcake, Butler Report, SCSI, Silberman commission, 16 words, cooked intelligence, Butler Report, Plame, Niger, uranium, no Africa not Niger, 16 words, Wilson...

Am I the only regular visitor here who feels like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day?

SMG

SteveMG

Deona:
"His famous 16 words in the state of the union speach are still true -- he said that the British government claimed that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger."

Remember: Bush said it was from Africa, not Niger.

The exact words were:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

British intelligence believed (still do) that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Africa - including both Niger and the Congo. So does the CIA.

And in both cases the forged Italian documents were NOT the basis for the above claims.

Butler report, SCSI report, Wilson report, all support that the above accusation (sought NOT obtained) was accurate.

SMG

Tommy V

Etienne.

"new right wing media monopoly"

I think this says enough about either a. your intellectual honesty OR b. whether you are living on the same planet as the rest of us.

You can cry about people insulting your patriotism all you want (nobody did), but you're missing the point. The American public is not going to take the left's word for it on issues of national security. The left does not have the credibility on that issue. This is not me talking. The American people have made this clear over and over again. So you will need more than angry accusations for this to stick. And right now, angry accusations is all you have.

So again, when you act morally indignant about such things, it just doesn't ring true.

Marcel

Lesley, whatever you think about Joe Wilson, he did have substantial diplomatic experience and contacts in Africa and Iraq. He was stationed in Africa for 9 years including 3 years as an Ambassador, in Iraq for 3 years, plus a year with the National Security Council with responsibility for Africa (1997-98).

Wilson's service time in Africa (including Niger) and Iraq far exceeds the time spent in those parts of the world by ALL of these people combined: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, Sec. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, Mr. Hadley, Mr. Libby, Sec. Powell, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Bremer and Mr. Negroponte.

It looks like you are buying the White House spin that he only got the job because of his wife.

boris

he only got the job because of his wife

It's everybody's spin.

He did get the job because of his wife, she suggested him.

Seven Machos

How would Joe Wilson have gotten the job BUT FOR his wife?

kim

They knew that with all his experience in Iraq and Afrique that he would really produce a crackerjack report that they could show with pride all the way up to Cheney's office. They knew they could count on him to get some really reliable and useful information. His probity was known far and wide.
===============================================

Rider

"...she suggested him."

Because she knew her husband would find the reports of an attempted uranium buy were bogus...and because she knew that Bush's people would still put the reported buy in the president's speech anyway...and because she knew that Bush would read whatever they handed him...and because then her husband could write an op ed for the Times debunking the president's statement. The fiend. What an evil woman! Using her psychic powers for such a wicked purpose!

Jim E.

SteveMG,
You made some interesting points regarding why you think Rove should resign. In particular, you wrote that Rove lied to Bush and ask: "If you were Bush, would you be happy over this?"

In your summary, Bush is strangely off-stage, as if he knows less about Rove's role than the rest of us, and that once he finds out, boy, he'll be upset. But that's not the case. In fact, Bush has not only kept Rove, but has publicly expressed the upmost confidence in the job Rove is doing for him. In short, Bush IS happy with Rove.

What does that tell us about Bush (using your principles, not those of the kool-aid drinkers)?

kim

Maybe since he knows him a little better than you do, Bush is right and you are wrong.
========================================

Syl

Rider

"Because she knew her husband would find the reports of an attempted uranium buy were bogus..."

Actually he didn't find the attempt bogus. He added to the body of information about the attempt.

"and because she knew that Bush's people would still put the reported buy in the president's speech anyway"

The buy was not in the speech.

The buy was NEVER in the speech. Ever.

Attempt = True = in speech
Wilson confirmed attempt in briefing to CIA.

Buy = False = not in speech
Wilson in op ed said the buy was false and impled that because the BUY was false so were the 16 words.

He assumed his audience was stupid enough to believe him.

Seven Machos

Rider: You have just implicated the CIA in an official, covert attempt to discredit the president of the United States. This is actual treason.

Good work.

kim

Treason was done. Whether or not Fitz can prove it is the question.
==================================

Rider

Syl -

Dumb ol' George Tenet believed him too. "These sixteen words should never have been included in the text written for the President"

You make it sound like Bush said, "There have been reports that Iraq recently attempted to buy uranium from a country in Africa. But don't worry, folks. It was only an attempt. Iraq was not able to actually buy the uranium. There is no threat to the United States."

What about "recently"? Was that true? Obviously, the more recent the attempted buy the scarier and therefore the justification for including the reference in the speech. Was this attempted buy just a few weeks or a month before the speech? How recent was the attempted buy? Or was it that we recently learned about it, but the attempted buy was quite some time ago and was no successful? Did he tell just enough of the truth to mislead the American public in the context of heightened post-9/11 terror alerts?

Seven Machos:

Like I said. What a fiend! Using her psychic powers to commit treason! They should make her wear a tinfoil hat from now on to stop her extrasensory perceptions.

Rider

"...an official, covert attempt to discredit the president of the United States. This is actual treason."

"Treason was done. Whether or not Fitz can prove it is the question."

BREAKING NEWS:

Joe and Valerie Wilson are not the targets of the investigation.

In addition, sources close to the grand jury have stated that Mr. Fitzgerald has no interest whatsoever in who sent Mr. Wilson to Niger.

LMAO

No more kool aid for you two. Now, give me the car keys. You are in no condition to drive.

Seven Machos

Rider: Do you think that Iraq was NOT attempting to acquire uranium? Do you think that Iran has uranium? Do you think that Saddam Hussein would NOT try to develop nuclear weapons when his arch-enemy next door is developing them? What about North Korea? Do you think that North Korea is getting its uranium out of local North Korean mines?

Do you allege that British intelligence has backed off its claims, or that it never made its claims? Do you allege that Joseph Wilson's own report said that Iraq did not try to acquire uranium?

Sadly, you aren't a serious person. I suspect that you don't really know or care about the facts, or what they have to do with our foreign policy. You only hope that the Bush administration is somehow damaged. Somehow.

Seven Machos

Who are the targets of the investigation? Has Fitgerald called Rove a target of any investigation?

If anyone currently in the news is indicted, it will be Joe Wilson. This will be fun to watch. It'll be our own Alger Hiss moment. THe Left will go absolutely crazy.

kim

Wilson's remarks(lies that they are) have stimulated an anti-war effort that has given aid and comfort to the Sunni terrorists in Iraq. Treason perhaps to the Iraqis, but treason nonetheless. He should be held responsible for the evil he has caused with his prevarications and political opportunism. He's a snake.

Not Kool-Aid. Cool clear water of truth. You may be right that Fitz's not interested in him. The more's the pity.
==================================================

Syl

Rider

The prosecution made its case for removing Saddam.

The defense's case rested only on the most dramatic aspect of the prosecution's case.

The jury issued its verdict in November.

kim

Oh God, Rider, you're not going to beat the 'recently' horse to death, also, are you?

Just as an example, just suppose how long do you think it would take you to turn Yellow Cake into a WMD? Would that be minutes, or years? Do you understand that recently makes excellent, if imprecise, sense?

And I'm still amused by JBG's efforts to criticize Bush's use of the word 'significant', as if someone might seek 'insignificant' amounts.
==============================================

kim

Please don't forget the alternate jury issued its purple noted verdict in January.
===============================================

Etienne

This conversation has really descended into kool aid land. I must point out to deona that the fact that she has never met anyone who actually believes Bush is lying says a lot more about what part of the country she lives in than it does about the facts. Come to my neighborhood, and you'd be hard pressed to find a single person who doesn't think he's the most boldfaced liar we've ever had in elected office. And no, none of them appear to be mentally ill, as per the default insult of choice.

There is a strange blend in the dwindling conservative arguments these days. In SevenMachos we have the old guard - We won, nyah nyah, and you're just jealous. In deona, we have the childlike faith in Bush almost as a kind of jesus figure. And throughout there is the lingering self victimization of conservatives, who refuse to accept that with victory came responsibility. They will forever claim to be oppressed by the same "liberals" they ridicule. It's an insupportable position,and one that is beginning to crumble outside of cozy communities like this one.

Polls have become almost unanimous. The American people do not want this war. They don't believe it was entered into honestly. This has been our perception here in New York for a few years. Now it has finally begun to seep into the heads of all but the most addicted kool aid drinkers.

It will be an interesting ride indeed, Seven, watching the reality dawn across America. People are learning that not only were they suckered into this war that is draining their economy and destroying the honor of their nation, but that it was done in a spirit of corruption, dishonesty and of cynical disrespect for the American people. This isn't going to be easy for you guys.

kim

Go read a few Iraqi blogs.
============================

boris

he's the most boldfaced liar we've ever had in elected office.

Yeah, and Dan Rather says BJ was a good and honest man and that the TANG mamos are probably authentic, but even if not, they're fake but accurate.

Salman Pak was only used to train anti-terrorism and Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda. Meanwhile Iraqis are much worse off now than they ever were under Saddam, purple finger defiance nothwithstanding.

The Soviet Union would have fallen anyway, Noth Korea only started working on nukes when W was elected and Carter isn't responsible for Iran plunging the entire region into terrorism.

ok I'll say it, all you better red than dead ninnies who wanted to lose the cold war are hoping this is your big chance to lose another one like Viet Nam. Not this time.

BumperStickerist

Dumb ol' George Tenet believed him too. "These sixteen words should never have been included in the text written for the President"

Because ......................

The speech was the State of the Union and Tenet thought, subsequently, that only material sourced by US intel agencies should be in that specific speech.

Big.Effing.Difference.

Tenet never said that the 'Sixteen Words' weren't accurate.

kim

Ah, Rider, I noticed a little something on reviewing one of your comments. It came right after I had said, generically, that treason was done. You immediately pointed out that Wilson was not the target of the investigation. Now just what made you bring him up?
====================================

kim

Here's another point: In the confusion that the WH felt under Wilson's attack, and in the milieu of not finding vast stores of WMD, the fact that they waffled on the 16 words is evidence that they had not been 'fixing', in the American sense, the facts around the policy. Put that in your pot and stew it.
==================================================

kim

Say, Etienne, just offhand, what would have been your solution to Saddam, or would you prefer he still be in power?

Maybe if someone could just fund him the right legal talent. Maybe some gats, loot, and shysters. What a wonderful world it could be.
================================================

kim

Look, some of you people take it as if Bush knew that Saddam had nothing. HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT!!! That is the huge lie that Joe Wilson told and you sorry fools still believe.
============================================

kim

I'd like to modify 'you people' into 'you, the people' and 'you sorry fools, into 'you, the sorry fools'.
=====================================

Etienne

boris, you sound like you're on autopilot now, just randomly spewing "I'm right I'm right I'M RIGHT!!!" conservative dogma. Mix in a little irrational victim complex, and you've got today's version of conservative values.

I'll give you guys this much. Your party has gained a lot of power using the McCarthyite tactics of impugning the patriotism of critics and trying to belligerantly stereotype them as cartoon commies. The problem remains, however, to your great consternation, that this country belongs to ALL of its citizens, and we who oppose this president are not cowards who can be bullied into silence. Your corporate toadyism has payed off and you DO own the media now (as Ann Coulter herself admitted on last week's Hannity show, "We HAVE the media now"). The tide does seem to be shifting now. When people can't trust the government on one issue, especially one of such importance, it is only a matter of time until they start to feel they can't trust them on anything. Sort of goes back to what your mama taught you about the consequences of lying.

I wonder if any of you are following Cindy Sheehan's campout in Crawford this week. She wants the hard workin' President to interrupt his ridiculous FIVE WEEK vacation to answer some hard questions from a Gold Star mother. Surprisingly, the unaccountable little silver spoon fratboy hasn't found it in his moral fiber to actually bring himself face to face with the consequences of his actions. Any bets on whether he ever will?

Syl

Etienne

I'm afraid you have no knowledge of what's going on in Iraq, nor why we went there, nor the progress we've made, nor the wishes of the Iraqi people.

I'll also bet that you don't look for sources of information beyond your favorite blogs and best friends.

All you have is a loathing for an individual. That's it. Someone trained as a psychiatrist (MD and all) termed it Bush Derangement Syndrome. BDS is obsessive adn sufferers lose all objectivity.

As for recent polls, remember this before you say the conservatives should stop grousing about liberals, the managing editor of Newsweek said the media was worth about 15 points to Kerry during the run-up to the election.

Yes, Bush would have won by an unprecedented landslide if Democrats and the media weren't shouting that 'Bush' lied. And that whole furor started with Wilson...who was himself the one who misled.

Instead of acknowledging the dishonesty, people such as yourself are gleeful that the public is being misled...not by Bush, but by the Democrats and media.

Current fretting over Iraq and the economy is due to the same dynamics. My goodness, the New York Times can't even report good news about jobs without making it sound like bad news!

So we're out there fighting the good fight and countering the lies of people such as you and the misleading media.

What bothers me the most about BDS sufferers and their fellow travelers is that they are not even curious about what's really going on.

They just don't care. Neither do they care about our men in uniform who to them are only statistics to throw at Bush.

I am neither a social nor a religious conservative myself. I've lived in 8 states in my 61 years and 7 of them were blue. To me liberals have gone too far in almost everything they touch, and I'm siding with conservatives and others on the right for the foreseeable future. I didn't catch the BDS virus. I'm grateful.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Joe and Valerie Wilson are not the targets of the investigation.'

You know this how?

Clay Waters

The comments of liberal Times' reporter Elisabeth http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1018.asp Bumiller notwithstanding, the anti-war Novak is hardly a knee-jerk Bush or Republican water-carrier -- he loves to criticize Republicans and stood up for Rep. Dan Rostenkowski.

And isn't it rich that James Carville, of all people, accused Novak of being a party-line guy!

Etienne

It has become very convenient to dismiss administration critics as either a.traitors b. insane or c. ignorant. The problem is you just can't lump together one half of a free, democratic nation and dismiss their honest judgments of their own government that easily. A great many of us now read voraciously on political matters, and have the worldwide web at our disposal. I place no restrictions on my information sources, and the fact that I am on this blog in the first place bears witness to my interest in understanding what seems to me to be the incomprehensible blind faith of the right wing. Many of us who are newly political find it instructional to digest right wing arguments, consider them, and understand their intellectual and emotional roots.

I have a family member who works at Fox News.There can be no doubt that Fox is the first news organization in our history to operate as a propaganda wing of a political party. I understand that in the past conservatives felt their viewpoints were not given serious enough consideration. In response they used their superior wealth and corporate connections to buy the media they wanted. And they now have it - not an exclusive monopoly, but a powerful propagandistic platform in print, tv and talk radio. This factor alone decimates your prior comfort zone of claiming victimhood and voicelessness in the media.

Your viewpoint now receives full throated attention. People have access to it and in fact, often cannot escape it as they sit in traffic or waiting room hell. You've been heard. The American people are making their own judgments now. Unfortunately, you now have no choice but to accept their disapproval of the corporate conservative agenda...and you have no scapegoats to shift the blame onto, much as you'd love to. People don't need to read economic data to understand that their personal lives are worsening. And they are growing tired of being called "elitists" just for having their own minds - especially when it's the corporate right wing intellectuals using that term against honest, struggling working class citizens.

deona

Etienne:

Don't despair. I know you think we're ganging up on you, but help is on the way. You know, I happened to LIKE a two-party system, back before you guys were suckered into destroying your own party by surrendering to unmitigated hate for one person. Is it worth it so far??

I say don't despair, because as we all know, the news recently tells us that help is on the way for you guys. Since you guys are 99.99% committed to daily vitriol against Bush, and obviously aren't reading the papers any more, let me past here the news release:

Democrats Raise $80 Million to Fund 'Thinking'
by Scott Ott
(2005-08-07) -- In a novel approach for the Democrat party, a group of left-leaning investors said it has raised $80 million in pledges to fund thinking, in hopes that thought and actual policies might be the secret to victory in coming elections.

The dramatic reversal of strategy comes not from the Democrat National Committee (DNC) itself, but from a group of 80 wealthy progressives who each pledged $1 million in an effort to emulate the conservative think-tanks which have developed during the past three decades.

"People need something to believe in," said one unnamed investor in the new Democracy Alliance. "We Democrats have always believed, but now we're looking for that 'something' -- you know, a concept or principle or idea...whatever that means."

The Democracy Alliance will take on conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Leadership Institute and the Young America's Foundation.

The $80 million is only seed money, organizers said, toward an eventual $200 million investment in thinking and policy creation.

"Experts tell us that thought doesn't come cheap," said Alliance chairman Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, "And the progressive movement currently has no line-item in the budget for it. So we need a lot of cash up front to get the ball rolling."

However, a spokesman for the Democrat National Committee expressed concern that "this new so-called thinking strategy might divide the party, and reduce the amount of money available for our TV ads which make people feel bad about Republicans."

"People always run after the latest new thing," said the unnamed DNC spokesman. "But when they find out how difficult thinking really is, we're confident that they'll come back to the DNC."

Etienne

Yes, I know about that effort, deona, although you seem to have found a Newsmax version of it (no link?). It's a copycat thing, since most people believe similar type think tanks were responsible for the rise of the conservative movement. The right wing spends between $400-500 million a year on think tanks, training and legal advocacy groups. It has been a very effective strategy for them, and there's no reason not to learn from what works, wherever one finds it.

I'm gratified to hear you still believe in the two party system. You wouldn't know that any conservatives do when you listen to the usual rabble. It seems that Democrats (unless they ape Republicans in every detail) are either lunatics or communists to the average red state loyalist. No one seems to have considered what dire consequences this kind of attitude has on the health of a democracy.

I think you're falling into the usual trap though if you think it's Bush hatred that is undermining the Democratic party. Bush does present a particularly loathsome image of a republican - entitled, privileged, unaccountable and cynically amoral. However, he is clearly nothing but a prop for the powers behind the throne - the think tank boys, come to think of it, Cheney, Rummy, Perle, Wolfowitz, et. al. After all, if Bush was actually running our government I daresay he wouldn't be taking five week vacations while our soldiers are dying.

kim

Those seeds may sprout and grow in three decades. Let's hope so for the sake of our wnoderful two party system.
=============================================

boris

you've got today's version of conservative values

So link me to an example of your posted outrage that a mainstream broadcast network tried to use obviously forged documents to influence an election out of blind partisan hate.

No ??? what a suprise (not).

Etienne

If you insist, boris, I'll give you my opinion of that incident. Where the documents emerged from is very murky, and I'll just skip the many possible explanations for them. What prompted CBS to use them so carelessly can certainly be attributed to a partisan bias (although I'll not call it hate, having spent far too many afternoons lodged in traffic listening to the coward Hannity spew venom on the military records of a man who actually put his life on the line for America).

It was inexcusable on the part of CBS. Clearly it was motivated by the frustrations of watching a rich boy who skated away from Vietnam on a cloud of booze and cocaine and daddy's connections being lionized as a great patriot, while his opponent was demonized for nitpicks about his behavior under fire in a deadly combat zone. And yes, that was political bias, but of a kind that an objective news environment would never have engendered. With Fox News and hate radio literally brainwashing masses of people night and day, clearly there was a sense of desperation among those who saw the injustice and the lack of balance. And that led to very bad decisions being made.

kim

CBS doesn't share your view of the matter, Etienne.
===================================================

Etienne

Kim - so what? Is thinking for oneself a completely foreign concept around here?

kim

I was just sort of ironically remarking that you have an extremely odd take on the whole matter.

What about the CBS team's connections to the DNC and Kerry's campaign? How ironic that you should bring up the theme, 'Fortunate Son'. What you fail to appreciate is that God helps those who help themselves and Bush is an extremely hard-working young man.
================================================

Tommy V

"conservative dogma. Mix in a little irrational victim complex, and you've got today's version of conservative values."

Who exactly is on autopilot?

"Your party has gained a lot of power using the McCarthyite tactics of impugning the patriotism of critics and trying to belligerantly stereotype them as cartoon commies."

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Who exactly has a victim complex?

Etienne, you are becoming less and less effective in your posts.

Tommy V

"There can be no doubt that Fox is the first news organization in our history to operate as a propaganda wing of a political party."

"There can be no doubt?"

"With Fox News and hate radio literally brainwashing masses of people night and day, clearly there was a sense of desperation among those who saw the injustice and the lack of balance."

"literally brainwashing"... "literally"?

I spoke too soon. You're not less effective, you're just plain ridiculous. I think you're very fortunate that you people here who are taking you seriously enough to convert with you. Intellectually, you really don't deserve it.

Syl

Etienne, it seems to me that you're the one who wishes only a one-party system. Bush is not evil, neither are Cheney, Wolfowtiz, et al. They simply have different political opinions, methods, and goals. Both sides play the politics game.

You seem not to accept the push/pull of social issues, the environment, taxation, size of government.

For exmaple, take the environment (please). The Democrats always want more and more and more regulation because they want the environment as clean as it possibly can be.

The Republicans fight off many of the regulations, not because they want to pollute the air and water, but because they want to use methods that are workable that don't devastate corporations and lose jobs. They want to strike a balance between clean air and a ruined economy. There's no corporate conspiracy involved.

It's in the nature of the push/pull that rhetoric becomes heated. But Democrats aren't stupid, and Republicans are not evil.

Vilifying an individual because he thinks differently than you do (and I support him even though I don't agree with a lot of his stands) IS being emotional, not rational.

Etienne

Yes, there can be no doubt. As I've said, I have a relative who works there, who would not be working there if his/her (no clues) political affiliation were known. The place frequently has shutdowns because prominent administration officials are visiting, most frequently Cheney. Employees are locked in offices while Secret Service comandeers the place. This is not SOP at any other network.

It is an explicit directive at Fox that they promote the Republican party line. You can't argue this with me. I know it for a fact, from the horse's mouth. In fact, if I could tell all I know, it's possible even you would be surprised at their unscrupulous attack on our democracy.Perhaps I shouldn't have said "literaly brainwashing". It would have been more accurate to use Bush's own words -"catapulting the propaganda" through constant repetition of simplistic daily talking points distributed top to bottom from print media to hate radio to Fox News, carefully coordinated by the RNC.

You can insult me all you like, Tommy V, but you just had Kim here calling a 60 year old silverspooner on a five week vacation a "very hard-working young man"...with no comeuppance from you. If that's acceptable intellectual content for this place, I'm not sure what the parameters are.

Etienne

Syl, I actually come from oldstyle New York Republicans. The pro-business type Republicans you referenced. They all now classify themselves as conservative Democrats because the current Republican party has become so extremist. They are pro-business, but do not agree with the vicious deregulation of this group, deregulation that seems far more focussed on increasing profits than it does on saving jobs. They also are angry at the deficit these Republicans have created, along with their expansion of the federal government and obscene porkbarrel spending. They don't believe the current Repub party reflects traditional Republican values and feel that Democrats now represent a better overall economic perspective for the majority of Americans. They also are aghast at the new Repub drive to intervene in people's personal privacy. The Schiavo mess disgusted them, for example.

In the South and Midwest where the Repub party has gained so much power, it doesn't seem that economic matters are driving the debate at all. Instead they have found ways to prey on people's bigotry and religious zealotry to manipulate them into voting for policies that will, in the end, harm them. We saw with the Social Security debate however, that even these people have limits as to the extent they'll allow themselves be manipulated.

Your point about party differences is well taken, though. I grew up amongst Republicans and never had any negative impressions until after I watched them politicize 9/11. I believe today that we are facing a challenge to our democracy that is very new to America - a coordinated campaign to use media and the apparatus of government to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of the few, not for the benefit of the country but only for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Whether or not you believe it, grassroots Democrats today are motivated by a profound love of country and fear of what is being done to their children's birthright.

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "I notice another little rhetorical trick of yours. You are descending to ad hominems instead of answers to my questions, or refutations of my points."

You have a long track record of ducking questions and arguments, so you're in no position to claim a right to always deserve an answer to every bit of nonsense you emit. I'll reconsider after you catch up with your backlog.

"some of you people take it as if Bush knew that Saddam had nothing"

The inspectors were well on their way to proving that indeed "Saddam had nothing." Bush was in an awful hurry to get those inspectors out of there before they had a chance to achieve this particular result, which would have been highly inconvenient for Bush and certain hungry contractors, who were eventually paid, in part, with hundreds of tons of cash.

"God helps those who help themselves and Bush is an extremely hard-working young man."

I guess that's why Bush said (in a moment of uncharacteristic candor) "I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad."

I guess also that breaking records for vacation time fits your idea of "hard-working."

jukeboxgrad

BORIS: "Plame was just the context not the point."

This is transparent tapdancing on your part. You've been trying to use Inman to claim that Plame was not covert. So Plame was indeed "the point."

"do not square with either Harlow's action"

Please share with us your secret transcripts of the Rove-Harlow conversations, so we'll be able to see that you're not making all sorts of unstated and unwarranted assumptions about what was said and what was not said.

"the words of former Deputy Director of the CIA"

It's highly typical of your MO that you would again quote Inman without even making a pretense of answering the questions I asked about his peculiar words.

"who shall I put credence in ... partisan interpretations ... or people who have actually worked for the CIA."

Since you're impressed by "people who have actually worked for the CIA," how odd that you would harp on the words of someone who left the joint 23 years ago, and ignore the words of folks who are there now ("A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer;" link). Would this possibly be a matter of "partisan interpretations" on your part?

"If CIA officials are not applying your regs"

As I said, there's a lot we don't know about what went on between Harlow and Novak. Aside from that, it's possible that Harlow did something wrong (although I think that's unlikely) and has already been disciplined. Aside from that, there's a big difference between Harlow making some kind of a statement to Novak, who already knew about Plame and was specifically asking about Plame, as compared with Rove making a statement to Cooper, who did not already know about Plame, and was not asking about Plame.

It's quite ludicrous of you to compare these two, especially given that Harlow was trying to get Novak to not write about Plame, and Rove was apparently doing the exact opposite.

"I don't expect the men in black to jump ugly and open a big can of whupass all over Karl Rove"

Then what a darn shame that he's already been through at least five formal FBI interviews and/or grand jury appearances. Maybe you don't think that's "whupass" but it's also not a day at the beach.

"'He misled Bush.' And that makes it W's call."

Both those guys work for us. That makes it our call.

"It's everybody's spin. He did get the job because of his wife, she suggested him."

I guess not exactly everybody: "A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment."

jukeboxgrad

SYL: "Public source would be anybody not officially authorized to disseminate the information."

As I've explained, the relevant material uses the term "public source" in a very different way, so the burden is on you to defend your definition of the term.

By the way, what if Rove's source was a low-level CIA employee who was "not officially authorized to disseminate the information?" Surely you would not claim that such a person is a "public source." Yet your definition does make exactly that claim.

In other words, not only is your definition lacking support (outside of your own opinion), it's also patently illogical.

"we don't know exactly what was said by whom when"

We know plenty: we know that Rove told Cooper about Plame. Luskin has tacitly acknowledged this.

"Actually he [Wilson] didn't find the attempt bogus. He added to the body of information about the attempt."

Wilson reported nothing which supports "recently" and "significant quantities." On the contrary.

But it's true that Wilson "added to the body of information about the attempt." WIlson underlined what many in the IC already knew, that any attempt by Saddam was very likely to fail. Funny how Bush et al never got around to mentioning this to us. Lying by omission is still a lie.

"the administration was thrown off balance and reacted."

It sounds like you're talking a third-world dicatorship. In our system, it's supposed to be expected that people will openly criticize the government, sometimes vigorously. Sometime unfairly. Sometimes even by telling lies. None of this should be an excuse for the government to claim it was "thrown off balance."

The government had a right to respond openly, by dealing with the merits of Wilson's argument. Instead, the government responded covertly, attempting to slime Wilson, and outing an agent in the process. Not impressive.

"The jury issued its verdict in November."

What a darn shame that the jury is having a significant amount of buyer's remorse.

jukeboxgrad

PATRICK: "As for the argument that a public source is ONLY something like a newspaper article, that's made up out of whole cloth."

Uh, no. It's based on the explicit words of Q. 19: "a public source, for example, in a newspaper article." It's your contrary argument which is "made up out of whole cloth," since you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your premise.

"Hence, the term gets a broad interpretation, including a member of the public saying something. As opposed to a government source."

You and Syl need to do a better job of coordinating your stories, since Syl claims it's not a matter of a goverment source vs a public source, but rather "anybody not officially authorized to disseminate the information."

Anyway, both your broad definition and Syl's broad definition are absurd, as is clear from the following example. Karl is standing in line at the movie theatre. In front of him are two teenagers talking about how they went dumpster diving at the Pentagon (or maybe they were packet-sniffing via wifi). One whispers to the other: "at 6 pm next Wednesday, US forces are going to capture OBL at his secret hideout, which is the basement of the big yellow mosque around the corner from the Sheraton in Islamabad." Karl goes home and makes a sandwich-board sign which says "the teenager with the Green Day t-shirt said that at 6 pm next Wednesday, US forces are going to capture OBL at his secret hideout, which is the basement of the big yellow mosque around the corner from the Sheraton in Islamabad." Karl spends the next couple of days walking around Times Square wearing that sign.

You and Syl are both claiming that Karl is free of liability, because the teen is a "public source," and Karl is only "quoting the public source in the abstract."

Are you serious?

The example makes clear what is obvious from both common sense and from the law: classified information is classified information, and folks who sign SF-312 have an obligation to protect it, regardless of how it dropped into their lap. Q. 19 makes a reasonable exemption with regard to quoting a newspaper article. It's lunacy to inflate Q. 19 into blanket permission to leak anything you wish, simply because it was "laundered" via an unauthorized channel, or simply by packaging the information as "only" a quote from the unauthorized channel.

"The WHIG was a political group"

WHIG was "a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein" (link). I think it's odd to imagine this group not being exposed to classified information. Anyway, I haven't seen anyone (aside from you, perhaps) seriously suggest that Rove, or anyone else working at high levels in the White House, did not long ago sign SF-312.

"it didn't dawn on him that he should call the CIA ... if her status was covert, her husband would hardly be writing NY Times Op-eds"

In other words, "it seems that Wilson was being careless with information that might be classified, so I figured it was OK for me to do the same." Or, "Wilson is a person I want to slime and discredit any way I can, but I also want to claim that I viewed him as the proper paradigm for how to handle information which might be classified."

Even if Wilson was careless (and it's far from clear that he was), that's not a free pass for Rove to do the same.

jukeboxgrad

BUMPER: "JBG-brand MicroParse technique"

I think paying attention to words, and using words carefully, is a good idea. Some people prefer to just make things up.

"'working at' the CIA does not mean 'working for' the CIA"

I don't see much of a difference between those terms. Making a fuss about the difference is about as useful as making a fuss about the alleged difference between "Wilson's wife" and "Valerie Plame."

"there was no mention of Plame's previous covert work by Novak"

Novak described her as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Novak has tried to claim "operative" means "hack politician." This is a quite a tooth-fairy story, since when you look up the word "operative" in the dictionary you don't see "hack politician," but you do see "secret agent."

Some very interesting research on Novak's historical use of the word "operative" is here, also demontrating that Novak said what he meant and meant what he said.

By the way, even if Novak had not said "operative," and merely said "Plame works for the CIA," that would have been sufficient to blow her cover. Despite various specious claims trying to incriminate Wilson in this regard, Novak's column was the first published statement indicating that Plame worked for the CIA.

"JBG's arguments are less than persuasive"

Nice job not bothering to indicate why, although we do appreciate the highly irrelevant discussion about ribbons and medals.

"Tenet never said that the 'Sixteen Words' weren't accurate."

It's not for no reason that Tenet eventually won a medal, even though he ran an organization that certain folks here are quick to label as a commie plot.

jukeboxgrad

STEVE MG: "The disagreement ... is how directly involved Rove et al. were in explicitly revealing her status. Did they pass on rumors? Or did they openly reveal her position?"

It's clear that Rove told Cooper about Plame. And it doesn't matter where Rove got the information (e.g., via "rumors"). What matters is that he passed it on to Cooper, a person who wasn't authorized to have it. And the White House has been covering this up for a couple of years.

Please let me know what you might consider a rational basis for "disagreement" about anything I just stated.

"Reportedly the W.H. received a top secret memo providing much of the above information after Wilson wrote his story in the NY Times."

No. I think recent reports make it pretty clear the WH got that memo _before_ Wilson's column appeared.

"those of us on the right do have to be a little, well, nonplussed at the sudden concern on the left (I'm generalizing) over Rove's 'treason'"

This has more than a little bit to do with the fact that Bush presents himself as being so robust on the question of national security.

"Butler report, SCSI report, Wilson report, all support that the above accusation (sought NOT obtained) was accurate."

None of those sources provide a shred of meaningful support for these words Bush said: "recently" and "significant quantities."

By the way, I notice you forgot to mention Duelfer, who said "ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 ... so far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down" (link).

Seven Machos

Edy -- If you don't like a news channel, you don't have to watch it. Nobody is forced to listen to the radio, or to a particular program. There is, for example, music. There is AIr America. There is NPR.

You act as if people are being tricked. They're not. Bush said was he was going to do. People voted for him. He's done what he said he was going to do.

Also, it doesn't help your argument to call the duly elected president of the United States a bunch of silly names. It makes you look desparate and crazy.

jukeboxgrad

MILLCO: "Mistakenly outing an agent versus deliberately outing an agent is a pretty big distinction"

I agree. But even if it was "only" a mistake, that's still a big problem. If Rove was not sure, he had an obligation to ask. Also, if it was just an innocent mistake, why the denials and coverup?

"It doesn't look like the WH had that info a priori."

Note what I just said to Steve MG.

By the way, it's wrong to suggest Wilson's column was a huge surprise to the WH. Wilson pursued a variety of alternate channels before finally deciding to write the oped. In particular, before writing the oped, Wilson tried to communicate his concerns to Rice, privately. The message he got back was that "Rice was not interested and he should publish his story in his own name if he wanted to attract attention" (link). As far as I know, Rice has never denied this.

Tommy V

Juke,

This is why you're a joke. You have all these links but if someone just takes the time, the links reveal things don't mean what you say...

"I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad."

Then I follow your link, and it was attributed to Bush in 1989!!!! Attributed to him, let alone when he actually said it.

And the quote was, "I could run for Governer, but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oul business..."

The things you cut, and when he said it, completely change the meaning. Completely.

The last time I checked one of links this happened, and I just started skipping your posts.

That's 2 for 2 now and I'll start skipping your posts again.

jukeboxgrad

TOMMY: "Those who have refused to take national security seriously for decades lack the credibility to be the defenders of it."

Those who claim to be "the defenders" of national security can't be taken seriously when they are this cavalier about it.

"people here who are taking you seriously enough to convert with you"

I think you meant "converse." Thanks for the unintentional humor.

SEVEN: "I guess it's because you are losers on actual political issues pretty much across the board."

Which I suppose is in stark contrast to the way Bush's SS proposal has won the nation over (to pick one example).

"Americans were in favor of the war and they remain in favor of American policy and American military action"

People realize that getting out is going to be tough. And they're not happy about that. That's why Bush's approval rating on Iraq is his lowest ever: 38%.

"Rider: You have just implicated the CIA"

I think you don't realize Rider was being facetious.

Seven Machos

The Jukemeister types all his posts in another program, then pastes them here all at once. That's so very cute. What a hard worker.

Too bad no one reads them.

jukeboxgrad

DEONA: "he did not, technically, intentionally, or in any other way actually state something he knew and was sure was false"

"We found the weapons of mass destruction" is a pretty good example. So is "he wouldn't let them in." More here (pdf).

"I can't find anyone who, with a straight face, will look me in the eye and deny that they believe Bush truly believed ... "

You seem to be saying that most people think Bush was honest with us about the war. Maybe you should look at this: "fewer than half now think he is honest."

"In a novel approach for the Democrat party"

I'm not sure if you actually take Ott seriously. Note that he recently "quoted" Bush as follows: "But I believe our public schools advance by mutation and random chance. They have evolved into an unwieldy beast with an insatiable appetite."

I realize there is real news behind the Ott report that you pasted in. But he indiscriminately mixes in the news part with stuff he makes up. I guess I'm not sure if you're aware of this. Then again, it's easy to see why you would think his material would fit in well here.

jukeboxgrad

LESLEY: "why the hell did CIA send this clown to Niger"

As Marcel said, because he had a lot of experience in Africa and Iraq. He had also made a similiar trip to Niger just a few years earlier. He was also an experienced diplomat who had been much praised by Dubya's dad.

Please let me know if you can name someone else who had as much senior-level diplomatic experience in Africa and Iraq as he did.

You can also let me know if you can find anyone on the right describing Wilson as a "clown" anytime prior to 2003.

ETIENNE: "This has been our perception here in New York for a few years."

It's interesting to note that those who have been most directly effected by terrorism, and are also the most likely future targets, are also the ones who are least fooled by Bush's baloney.

Seven Machos

I think the person who copied Ott was fully aware of the humor involved. It's SCRAPPLEFACE. Juke, you are tone-deaf and, apparently, not the brightest bulb.

Gee, I thought I was dumb.

Etienne

Seven, I'm not watching Fox for my health. I do it to keep an eye on what these band of liars are up to, understanding as I do that they represent the propaganda wing of the government that currently runs my country. I have a right to do that, you know. I'm as much a citizen of this free democracy as you are.

We are not a nation of readers or thinkers. We've become embarassingly dumbed down in recent years, and the trend continues. Our literacy rates, high school graduation rates, standardized test results,etc. are among the worst in the developed world. It is possible to trick this kind of uninformed electorate and the elitists who run right wing media are extremely adept at it. But, as jukebox has noted, buyer's remorse does seem to have set in and prospects for the Dems are brightened accordingly.

I'm curious though about how easily you toss off my concerns about media. Wasn't it just a few short years (months?) ago that every conservative with a forum was whining about the mean old evil "liberal media"? Was it only an evil because they didn't control it, and now that they do (don't take my word for it, take Ann Coulter's), it's benign? Keep in mind, before you answer, the liberals who "controlled" the media before were journalists, the conservatives controlling it today are actually elected representatives and their appointees. BIG difference.

Seven Machos

Edy -- The NYP, the WP, CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, CBS, the LAT, and the rest of the liberal media in this country are awful, but they own the rights to the bandwitdth and the printing presses. They can do what they want. Why can't conservative media do what it wants?

Also, about this buyer's remorse: are you suggesting that the Republicans will lose congress? I beg to differ.

Finally, your cant about "not a nation of readers or thinkers" is ridiculous. You sound like a reactionary old crank: WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KIDS TODAY? Why can't they be like we were? The Left has been saying this for a century that our literacy rates, high school graduation rates, standardized test results are mainfestly NOT among the worst in the developed world. Even if they are, though, we are the the richest and powerful country on earth by any measure, so who cares?

And, by the way, only Americans take our standardized tests and they are designed to produce a bell curve of scores. Hence, to say they are going down is absurd on its face.

Etienne

Seven, we're operating in different realities. I know standardized tests are US, I was referring to the subject matter, y'know math, science, language, that kind of thing.

You sound like a barbarian. Who cares what you think? We won! Who cares if our kids are falling behind other developed nations? We're rich! It's a fool's paradise, buddy. Don't you have any kids? You clearly live by the ethics of bullying and domination. That isn't the America I want to live in, or leave to my kids. I don't want to watch my country degenerate into a nation of morons, technologically inept, drowning in debt owned by China and Saudi Arabia, run by and for the benefit of corporate profiteers. You seem like a law of the jungle kind of guy, the kind who have been fertile ground for the Repubs. Most Americans aren't as brutal. And yes, I think we'll see Democrats regain ground in Congress this election cycle, though I think it will take more than one to reclaim it. The Repubs are doing a lot of our work for us, what with all their corruption, sex scandals and stealing in plain sight. All we have to do is get their grimy hands off those paperless voting machines.

If you think the networks you listed compare in any degree of bias to the rightwing noise machine, and I'm sure you do think that, then we won't be able to make any headway on it. Not that we were making any anyway.

Jim E.

Tommy V wrote to JBG: "The things you cut, and when he said it, completely change the meaning. Completely."

Actually, no. The meaning is not "completely" changed at all.

Did you get that dictionary yet, or do you have a different meaning of "completely" than the rest of us?

jukeboxgrad

TOMMY: "You have all these links but if someone just takes the time, the links reveal things don't mean what you say..."

Then what a darn shame that you can't manage to demonstrate that.

"it was attributed to Bush in 1989"

The timing of the quote means nothing, except perhaps that Bush has become less candid in recent years. And the more complete quote does nothing to change the basic point, which is that "hard-working" couldn't be further from the truth, with regard to most of Bush's career.

"I'll start skipping your posts again."

Promises, promises. Talk is cheap.

JIM E: "Did you get that dictionary yet"

Tommy is still looking for the page where "unedifying" means something like "distasteful."

jukeboxgrad

SEVEN: "He's [Bush] done what he said he was going to do."

I guess you must be referring to campaign promises such as how he would "restore honor and dignity to the White House" (link, also see this).

"types all his posts in another program"

You're an amazing sleuth. Does the FBI know your skills are being wasted?

"Too bad no one reads them."

It's clear that certain people respond as if they haven't read them, so to that extent I have to agree. Anyway, as I said to someone else recently, it would hard for me to overstate how little I care whether or not you read my posts.

By the way, nice job doing something you're very good at: making a sweeping declaration based on information you can't possibly have.

"I think the person who copied Ott was fully aware of the humor involved"

I suggested this was possible, but I wasn't sure. And given the other things that Deona believes, and given that she described what she pasted as a "news release," and given that she didn't mention "Scrappleface," and given that she didn't provide a link, how can you be so sure where she found this, or what she thinks of it? Oops, I forgot, your role here is report on what other people are thinking and doing ("too bad no one reads them"), as if you're in a position to know, and as if they can't speak for themselves.

By the way, given what I've said, let me know how you can be so sure that everyone who read Deona's post was also "fully aware of the humor involved."

By the way, it's hysterically funny that you would talk about being "tone-deaf" and missing humor given the way Rider's recent facetiousness apparently went way over your head.

"I thought I was dumb."

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and this might be one of those special times.

"are you suggesting that the Republicans will lose congress"

Tell it to Gingrich.

"we are the the richest and powerful country on earth by any measure, so who cares"

Some people realize that we won't be for long, if we continue selling off our future to countries like China.

Here's something else to burst your complacent little bubble: "The United States still leads the world in research and discovery, but our advantage is rapidly eroding, and our global competitors may soon overtake us" (pdf).

BumperStickerist

It's okay, Tommy --

the point about JBG's (mis)use of cites was proven to the point that it became a Law.

Carry on.

The rest of us have.

Cheers.

kim

Etienne: Your '60 year old silver spooner on a 5 week vacation' and my 'hard working young man'. Which one describes the Bush putting out more work every day on vacation than you do in a week of selling your soul in the marketplace. What, jealous? Don't worry, God helps those who help themselves, so get busy. Yes even you can aspire to a 5 week vacation like he is having.
====================================================

kim

Oh, you mean Rider's feces eating facetiousness. Note how quickly he jumped to the conclusion that the treason spoken of was Wilson's?
================================================

Syl

JBG

You're SPAMMING. Get your own blog!

Etienne

I don't want EITHER side telling me how to run my life. And that means the politically correct multi-cultural Left too! I don't want ANYBODY taxing what I eat in an attempt to change my behavior. I refuse to be part of either side's social experiment.

If I want to live in sin, that's MY business. But I want my children to be taught history, not the PC crap that's in textbooks now. I want them to be able to handle the bully in the playground. I want them to know that getting an F is a FAILING grade.

And as far as which side does it more, I truly believe that the noise you hear from the right is (1)magnified by the media and (2)backlash against decades of antagonism.

It's their turn to shout. I don't have to accept it, but I do believe it is their turn. That back and forth thing, you know.

The Dems/liberals/left have behaved as if they OWN our culture. The conservatives are saying 'No you don't'.

And I'll continue living my life the way I have no matter who yells the loudest.

Etienne

If I want to live in sin, that's MY business. But I want my children to be taught history, not the PC crap that's in textbooks now. I want them to be able to handle the bully in the playground. I want them to know that getting an F is a FAILING grade.
I feel exactly the same here, though I'm not sure what PC crap you're talking about. I'm rather more concerned that they have access to the most current scientific knowledge than I am anything else. This liberal parent, for one, is having no trouble raising kids who run rings around their peers academically - I just hold them to MY standards, not the school's. Not a problem, though I fear for the society they'll be living in, given the level of joyful ignorance in their peers.

My old Republican Dad (who now insists he is a conservative Democrat)has always said that the pendulum swings in America and it always will. According to him, things have gone too far to the right now and people are starting to see Republicans as the radical extremists, which means it's only a matter of time until they vote them out. I can only hope he is correct.

I do get confused though by the conservative paranoia over who OWNS the culture. Can anyone own culture? Isn't culture just the amalgamation of what the people in a given society are producing, consuming, creating? This ownership thing is a very conservative phenomenon. It seems they can't feel content unless they know they own or control everything they perceive around them.

It speaks very poorly of the American people though if what you're saying is true. Because the conservatives wanted their time to own the culture, we've allowed the honor of our nation to be destroyed in an arrogant war of choice. Just so the conservatives can feel like they own all the toys, we are looting our treasury, racking up debt, hollowing out our military, sending jobs overseas, raping the environment, creating an exponential income gap, etc. etc. Seems like a lot for a country to pay just to satisfy political megalomania.

kim

Democrats looted the treasury for 4 decades, debt soared under their administrations, they weakened the military, regulated the environment such that jobs went overseas, but I can't blame them for making most Americans richer. That's probably the result of Republican capitalists.
====================================================

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "Bush putting out more work every day on vacation than you do in a week of selling your soul in the marketplace"

I guess you're saying that when Bush is on vacation he works five times harder than ordinary folks do the rest of the year.

"Yes even you can aspire to a 5 week vacation like he is having."

If that's how hard he works on vacation, why would any of us want to have a vacation like that? Do you bother to check to see if your stuff is even internally consistent (let alone consistent with any reality outside your own little cocoon)?

"Note how quickly he jumped to the conclusion that the treason spoken of was Wilson's?"

It's not at all clear that he jumped to any such conclusion. In other words, you're being even more absurd than usual, and that's saying a lot.

"debt soared under their administrations"

As usual you can be counted on to say the opposite of what's true. Debt as a % of GDP has dropped under recent Democratic presidents, and risen under Reagan and the Bushes.

jukeboxgrad

SYL: "Get your own blog!"

Just because you haven't been invited doesn't mean I don't have one. By the way, let us know when Tom appointed you to speak for him. I realize pretending you're in charge is much easier than responding to a very simple factual challenge, such as my pointing out your peculiar definition of the term "public source" (see here and here).

By the way, if dealing with facts generates more cognitive dissonance than you can handle, Tommy can teach you a trick regarding your space bar.

Rider

"Note how quickly he jumped to the conclusion that the treason spoken of was Wilson's?"

Gee, I must be psychic too! Dayum. Kim, you've got a mind like a steel trap: always shut.

kim

Caught your little Freudian foot in it didn't I, Rider? Not answering the point, just spitting insults? Try chewing that appendage called Joe Wilson off of your corpus.
=====================================

kim

Yes, JBG, I would say that is about right on Bush's work output during his vacation. Then when you calculate how much value he is adding to the world in his capacity of CEO daily, even on vacation, and maybe, just maybe, you can see my point.

And of course, leaden wit that you are, you missed my facetiousness. Your criticism of my characterization of his vacation was just pitiful. You make me think you might be sort of person who will deny wit in order to appear to make a point.

I hate to break it to you; your points aren't all as well proven as you think they are.
==============================================

Tommy V

Jim E.

Bush saying the full quote in 1989, and Bush saying the edited quote now are two entirely different things. One is accurate and honest, and one is pathetic and the author clearly wanted the latter. If you want to pretend otherwise for cheap jabs, be my guest. But anyone can see it and make up their own mind and your credibility suffers.

When you make a mistake, it is best to admit it. But something tells me your self-image is far too heavily defended for that.

kim

Oh for crying out loud JBG, how about just the facts. Did debt soar under Democratic administrations, or not? You are the one who has introduced a modifier, then claimed I was wrong because I had not used your modifier. We're all a little sick of sophistical tricks like this. You are only fooling yourself.
======================================

Tommy V

I have too many liberal friends to think the leftist on this message board are the best they can do.

These guys are the 'C' team at best.

Someone from the left had to say something interesting or add something to the conversation or I would not have gotten addicted to this board. Who was it, and where have they gone?

Syl

Etienne

"Because the conservatives wanted their time to own the culture, we've allowed the honor of our nation to be destroyed in an arrogant war of choice."

A bi-partisan congress authorized Bush to act long before he made the WMD case to the public and the UN.

You start off reasonably in many of your posts, but then comes the bile. It's like you can't help yourself.

Etienne

Syl, the "bipartisan congress" excuse is old already. The bipartisan congress, along with the American people, got fed a load of horse manure...I know you want to ignore it, but the history books won't. "Fixed" facts. "Wrongfooting" Hussein. Not letting the inspectors finish their work. Not building an international consensus because the evidence was too strong to allow the time...evidence that we now know was cooked.

Arrogance. A war that was chosen for humanity by a tiny group of power hungry neocons. That is what the world is living with today, and what history willl record.

There's no bile, Syl. This is my country too, and I have every right to use my own God given judgment to analyze the information I am able to discover. It isn't bile to disagree with Conservative dogma. Realizing that might be a good starting point to beginning to heal the fractures your party has created in our country.

Syl

Etienne

You have a right to your opinion, but that's all it is.

There is only one way to have learned that Saddam had no wmd stockpiles and that was to invade and take the risk he'd use them.

It's that simple.

kim

So you are saying Saddam had a right foot. Maybe the one he didn't get off on?

I asked you before what was your alternate plan for getting rid of Saddam. Or may you think he should be there still, good ol' Unca Saddam. You'd a liked Uncle Joe, too.
====================================

Etienne

Syl, war is never that simple. Making the decision to kill human beings can never be a simple decision, and one of the most evil legacies of this administration is making it seem like it can be. Simplicity is for simpletons. It's not the way the real world is.

We had inspectors on the ground. If we had let them finish their work, we would have known what we know now, and thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't have been killed. I'm not going to go into all the options that were available to us to continue to ostracize and neutralize Saddam, methods which would have incidentally preserved our own armed forces' strength and allowed it the flexibillity that this conflict has destroyed.

It's all very tiresome at this point, because it's history and we have to live in the present. But that can never be an excuse to forgive the incompetence, negligence and deceit this administration demonstrated, completely beyond accountability to we the people. It's a good thing Bush doesn't care about history, because I don't think it will be very kind to him.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame