You do what I do, vote against the one you dislike the most or think is the most dangerous. That, IMO, is the only way to vote.
That's been my philosophy since I first voted. Obviously shep, ++ and Mark will disagree with me on who is more dangerous, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how they choose as well.
If you are voting "For" a politician, you are probably being deceived as to who and what he is.
I have often stated that I have only voted "For" 3 times when I voted for Cuomo for gov of NY, Moynihan for Senate and Ronnie Raygun in 1984. But I lied. I forgot that I did vote "For" another time. For McCain in the 2000 Va. primary.
In other words, out of 4 "For" votes, I was wrong at least 50% of the time. Cuomo was a disaster for NY as he presided over massive tax increases that drove many businesses, including IBM, out of the state. McCain was a creation of the media back before I became totally distrustful of the MSM. I wouldn't vote for him with shep's finger now. Ronnie Raygun was the only one that I still would vote "For". Moynihan is tougher. I've heard people I respect bad-mouth him and I can't remember why I voted for him, but I have a feeling it's because I still trusted the NY Times to tell the truth so I might be batting exactly .250 while voting "For". Even .500 isn't very good in voting. And I voted for RR against every media outlet at the time. I just knew that I liked him, trusted him and was very happy that somebody who actually liked America was in charge of it.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
The economy is good, tax levels are low...
And the gap between the ultra-rich and poor is growing, the deficit is huge, and Soldiers, our Soldiers are still dying by roadside bombs....so, go about your merry way while Soldiers fight and die for your tax cuts and sweet economy. Really, what sacrifices have you made? The president has little sway over the economy (at least that was the conservative argument during the Clinton era of unprecedented economic gain), but he does have control over the military. But I've got an idea, if you want to put Bush in charge of something, Dean's World has a few interesting threads on Radio Shack. Put Bush in charge of a Radio Shack, let's see his genius at work.
You can get all high and mighty about it, and if those guys hadn't chosen to join the army, had there been a draft, I might agree with you.
But I know many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq. A good marine friend of mine just got back from there, and will be returning in 4 months. Another friend just left. And despite the fact they would like to be home with their wives, they'd rather finish the job than abandon it.
Now you're talking about the President's control of the economy and the military, but this is not a presidential election is it? Through your dislike of Bush you're actually making my point.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
This is the kind of thing Rose said was the last straw for her...
AMERICAN officials held secret talks with leaders of the Iraqi insurgency last week after admitting that their two-month clampdown on violence in Baghdad had failed.
It's a fact, a FACT, that the world, if not the USA, and certainly the Middle East is not safer, has experienced a sharp rise in violence and terror, directly attributable to the GOP's "yell and swing your big stick" policies.
The funny thing is, Dr. Frist's diagnosis that we should bring the Taliban into the Afghan Government, and this effort to make peace with Iraqi insurgents, is probably the only reasonable alternative in a long list of disasterous choices.
It's also a fact, a FACT, that unchallengable GOP rule has created THE single most corrupt Congress in our lifetimes. Elevencurrent members of Congress (including 3 Democrats) are under investigation, plus three more that have already resigned but whose crimes have not been fully vetted. There undoubtedly will be more to come.
Just to hammer home the distinction, the GOP LEADERSHIP is deeply involved in this corruption. A vote for a Republican is a proxy vote for Hastert and/or the rest of the GOP House Leaders who enabled both DeLay and Foley, and is also linked to Jack Abramoff. Hell, DeLay orchstrated much of the crap, and only with him gone have things started to come to light.
This GOP leadership promised to clean up their act and put through some REAL ethics and lobbiest reform. This, like so many things they have completely reneged on (including the Contract With America) came to nothing. Remember small government, accountability, term limits? Feh!
If anything, they made it easier to ignore the corruption, the gross earmarks, the waste, the theft by the no-bid contractors, the missing BILLIONS, the incompetent cronies placed in positions of trust and authority on the basis of their connections not their accomplishments, the complete and utter lack of anything resembling accountability -- by neutering the House ethics committee.
They refused to fulfill their duty to the Constitution, their oath, in the way they neutered the Senate Intelligence committee too -- the one truly bi-partisan committee, by threatening a tactical nuke option (stacking the committee -- as opposed to the real nuke of eliminating the filibuster) if it actually, you know, held a real hearing on what the Administration was doing.
But it's the House that's disfunctionally corrupt. Political gamesmanship in the Senate is par for the course -- even though it's been raised to new levels recently. The Senate passed the original Patriot Act 99-1. Not until the House got ahold of it in the Conference Committee did the the thoughtful bill that gave POTUS the tools he needed, but was carefully balanced to protect our rights as citizens of a free society, become a gutted means to protect us -- useful only as a vehicle to beat each other up instead of a unifying force to deal with very real threats.
It was Hastert and the House leadership who were content to kill both the minimum wage and the elimination of the Estate and Gift Tax by tieing them together, assuring us that both would be defeated, so they could use it as a campaign tool to mischaracterize the issues to low information voters. Everything is done through this political prism. EVERYTHING. They deliberately include poison pills for the good of their reelections chances, not the good of the nation. The schedule "stunt-votes" all the time -- like the non-bind resolution on Murtha's plan. It never would have had any legitimate effect except to waste time providing theater for idiots that think calling Marines cowards is acceptable.
I don't have an answer for the biggest problem we have -- Iraq. Neither do you. The mess is so catastrophic there are no good answers. I also know that who you vote for in the House means nothing when it comes to Iraq. They will not cut funding for our troops, but they might watch how the money gets spent a little closer it the Dems are in charge.
They will not bother to impeach POTUS (although he deserves it), because it will be seen as a stunt (just like the last time) because there simply aren't enough votes in the Senate for it to matter. Much as I like Bill Mahr, he's just wrong on this. I will be among the first to write my congresswoman if they go down that road -- unless investigations turn up something so eggregious that 10 or 15 GOP Senators publically state they are in favor of removing Bush AND Cheney -- knowing Pelosi becomes POTUS.
That's bizzare and inconceivable.
What they will have the votes for with a democratic takeover is real ethics/lobbiest reform. I'm not making any promises it will be effective, or even happen. It's just that it won't happen at all with the GOP in charge. Gingrich promised it a decade ago and produced nadda. There's a chance, with all the crap that's come down the pike recently, for some change if the House changes.
The people's House under Hastert/DeLay was a wholly owned subsidiary of the weapons and energy companies. Boeher, a tool of Big Tobacco, continues the same program. It has to stop.
Now that's a lot of hate and spittle in that comment. I started to reply, but really, why bother? The "facts" aren't, the "logic" isn't, and the "reasoning" ain't.
I'll give one example. Take your wet dream about Pelosi becoming Potus. That particular order of succession is only in case the first two die. They would have to remove Bush and Cheney at the exact, same time for Pelosi to become POTUS. If they tried to remove them both at the same time, Cheney would only have to step down before the trial and Bush could appoint a new VP and that goes away. Remember the 70s? Nixon appointed Ford to replace Agnew so even though they both left office the Speaker of the House didn't become Pres, the appointed VP did.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
We as Soldiers swear an oath to defend our nation to the death if necessary against all enemies foreign and domestic. This is an oath that I take seriously despite our Commander in Chief's poor decision to invade Iraq and the adminstration's less than stellar planning. I don't have a problem following orders, but my leaders have a legal and moral obligation to do everything in their power to avoid putting us in harms way. Now, if Iraq was preparing to launch an air, sea, or land invasion of the U.S. or one of our allies, there would be no argument. Afghanistan? Saudia Arabia? Iran? Those nations were directly linked to 9/11. Which one did we invade? The one that was most obvious, but Iraq? That's complete bullshit!! Bush was wrong, Cheney was wrong, and anyone who knew that Iraq was not a real threat but still voted to invade was wrong. History will judge Bush harshly for this monumental failure, however, hopefully I'm wrong.
but my leaders have a legal and moral obligation to do everything in their power to avoid putting us in harms way.
Now Tim, you've said some pretty stupid things but that one takes the cake. I'll give you a hint, you know that gun they issued you? That's to use when you are sent into harm's way. I mean, the reason for the military is to send it into harm's way. It's its major reason for being.
Sailors of the United States Navy can do no better than to emulate the spirit behind John Paul Jones's stirring declaration: "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
I think they have a toast about a fast ship and harm's way to this day.
I'm pretty sure the Army has a similar ethos. At least I hope so.
And most importantly, the military follows lawful orders. Period. You might disagree with them, but you follow them. You think Iraq wasn't a threat? Well, the Congress thought it was and voted to attack, the President thought it was so he ordered the attack and American people thought it was so they re-elected Bush after he attacked.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Mike V(f):
Who the hell want's Pelosi for POTUS? I don't! Speaker, sure, but I don't want her as POTUS only slightly less than I don't want Hastert as POTUS. (Sorry for the double negative)
What wet dream? The point was for you to understand why impeachment is a non-starter. Why Pelosi said it's a waste of time. Why anyone who says, "don't vote for a Dem because they will try to impeach Bush," is full of crap.
All the Dem Senators, plus a goodly portion of GOPer Senators would need to go along with the idea that removal is a good thing in and of itself because COTUS, Article I, Section 6 mandates 2/3rds of the Senate are needed to convict and remove a POTUS. One of the prime pieces of evidence that the Clinton impeachment was all for show -- like so much the GOPers do -- was because they never were even close to having enough votes in the Senate. They barely had enough votes to start the proceedings because they all knew there wasn't enough to convict by 2/3rds.
Add to that unlikely agreement in the Senate -- such a cravenly political move of trying to elevate Ms. Pelosi with simultaneous impeachment (or doing Dead-eye first, then Captain Codpiece, without the whole Congress -- as per the COTUS -- first approving a new VPOTUS) would be a transparent power grab that even IF 16 or 20 GOPer Senators said Bush/Cheney had to go, they'd never permit it to be done that way.
That's inconceivable. And yet I have heard from many a wingnutsource that despite the ridiculousness of such a scenerio, and directly opposed to Pelosi's specific statement to the contrary, that the first thing the Dems will do is try to impeach -- presumably to gain the Oval office through subtrefuge instead of elections -- not because Bush is guilty of any High Crimes (he is).
My point was, if you had read more carefully and had a better grasp of the Law of the Land, that only in the incredibly unlikely case that a Dem investigation turned up something heretofore unknown and so beyond the pale that even YOUR SIDE said take them out -- and take them both out because Cheney as CinC is a nightmare I can't even consider -- would I support impeachment.
So let me understand you Mike. I describe a near impossiblity to counter the impeachment argument against electing Dems -- a seeming strawman but which is actually very prevalent in Right Wing Blogistan -- and you presume to say that it's my fondest wish.
Read it again:
They will not bother to impeach POTUS (although he deserves it), because it will be seen as a stunt (just like the last time) because there simply aren't enough votes in the Senate for it to matter. Much as I like Bill Mahr, he's just wrong on this. I will be among the first to write my congresswoman if they go down that road -- unless investigations turn up something so eggregious that 10 or 15 GOP Senators publically state they are in favor of removing Bush AND Cheney -- knowing Pelosi becomes POTUS.
That's bizzare and inconceivable.
Did I really need to write that I would write my congresswoman to demand she vote against impeachment unless an amazing confluence of events first occured?
Am I that unclear in my writing? Are you completely unable to read something I write without a useless flame that points out your unfamiliarity with our government and the English language?
It's not my logic that's faulty. Stop skimming. If you had denied that such an argument is legitimately out there and being used by the right, I would have been forced to provide some links (like I have above), but at least it would have been a legitimate critique.
Whatever.
I remember the 70's all too well. I also know the Constitutional order of succession per the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act made pursuant to it -- which is how Ford became POTUS.
More importantly, I remember how Ford became V-POTUS pursuant to the 25th Amendment.
I thought everybody did.
You don't.
POTUS nominates a VP candidate to full a vacancy, then both houses must confirm.
COTUS, Amend. 25, Sec. 2
Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
It's not like the thing is a classified document. You should read it sometime.
What you describe as impossible is quite possible under the rules. What I described is nearly unfathomable politically -- yet could happen under current law.
That ad reminded me of something I'd been forgetting: what a bunch of slandering, unpatriotic, lying hatemongers the people who say George Bush "lied" about WMDs are.
Hatemongering liars don't get my support.
I'm convinced. I'll vote for Democrats in state offices here in Michigan but no chance in Hell I'm going to support any for national office until they apologize for their gross slurs.
Including the assholes who said Bush was "a liar or a dope" on WMDs. [spit] What scummy slimeballs.
unless investigations turn up something so eggregious that 10 or 15 GOP Senators publically state they are in favor of removing Bush AND Cheney -- knowing Pelosi becomes POTUS.
As I pointed out, Pelosi doesn't become POTUS except in the absolutely unlikely event that both the Pres and VP are removed at the exact same time and they don't see it coming. If they see it coming and take steps (like Cheney stepping down so Bush can appoint a new VP as I wrote above) or they otherwise aren't removed at exactly the same time, then Pelosi won't be POTUS. That stipulation is pretty much only in case of death. Or stupidity. I understand you think Bush is a machiavellian idiot, but at least Rove or Cheney, the evil geniuses, would see it coming.
Bush is removed from office first so Cheney becomes Pres and appoints a VP. If Cheney is then removed, the appointed VP becomes POTUS.
Cheney is removed first so Bush appoints another VP who then becomes POTUS when Bush is impeached and removed.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Mike, I'll break it down for you so you can understand. Maybe I assumed you knew that there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary harms way.
Is it OK to attibute Cheney's dissembling to Bush as shorthand for the whole administration? I mean, the whole "slam dunk" attitude was pretty deceptive of what they knew, all the doubts the intell community had which were minimized or ignored in public.
Their presentations, their one-per-cent diagnosis of the situation did not lend itself to a fair debate outside the executive branch.
It was pretty weasley, kinda, almost, sorta unfair. You know, like a lie.
It is undisputable (although you'll insist on disputing it) that the primary reason we went to Iraq was WMD's. Bush admitted so in so many words.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
Lame. He also, finally, two months ago, admitted in so many words, that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, despite not so subtle inferences to the contrary for years.
Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
Bull! That's exactly what they've been "suggesting" right along. Are anywhere from 25%-50% of Americans who thought exactly that just stupid, or did/do they believe exactly what the administration suggested?
The doubts were there if you looked hard enough. Unfortunately, "Against such rhetoric, the doubts of some in the intelligence community do not make much headway."
In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.
Here's the thing. Scotty McClellertron tried to shuffle and say it was an honest mistake, since the '98 IAEA report did not say that. There was no such report. So Mr. Bush must have been referring to the later 1991 report after the 1st Gulf War.
And the problem, of course, that there was no report saying that in 1991 either. In fact, ""There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said" in 2002.
I know that nobody reads the Moonie Times, and good thing too. In that same '02 article it talks about how Bush had to backtrack on what he said about some satellite surveillance showing new construction around Iraq's old nuke sites. Those photos, also, did not exist. Bush and Blair just made this crap up.
By '98, "we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment."
If he had reconstituted his weapons related program activities, there would have been some, you know, evidence. An arial photo of some new construction would have been good, but Bush made it up. An inspection report from when the IAEA went back in before Bush ordered them out (contrary to Bush's insistence in the '02 "Axis of Evil" SOTUA that Saddam kicked them out) would have been something -- but again, Bush made it up -- and the inspectors were burned as US spies anyway.
Now if you want to play semantic games, like the new and improved -- but exactly the same -- not changing our strategy but only adjusting tactics which is not "stay the course" because we've never been about "stay the course" ... so we're not changing anything when we change the slogan away from "stay the course" ... uh, erm ... be my guest.
Cheeze Whiz. We're fighting barbarians with a fucking scrabble board.
When a used car salesman says a car "runs like a dream," but doesn't tell you that he only has nightmares -- you've still been taken for a ride. Just pull up to the next corner, please, and let me out.
Me, I'm a grown-up who appreciates candor. And Rose, that's something we've never got from these guys. And please don't tell me how we never got it from the other guys either. We're spending a lot more treasure and blood, and getting a lot less candor than ever before. At least not since Nixon.
We've got 20,000 American kids maimed for life, fast approaching 3,000 dead with 600,000 Iraqi casualties according to DW, all sacrificed on the alter of stopping woulda, coulda, shoulda program related activities that didn't exist.
The irony was that Iraq's lack of WMDs was a good thing. Sanctions worked -- imperfectly to be sure -- but it kept Hussein contained so we could concentrate on the real threats we've never got around to stopping.
That ad reminded me of something I'd been forgetting: what a bunch of slandering, unpatriotic, lying hatemongers the people who say George Bush "lied" about WMDs are.
Hatemongering liars don't get my support.
I'm convinced. I'll vote for Democrats in state offices here in Michigan but no chance in Hell I'm going to support any for national office until they apologize for their gross slurs.
Including the assholes who said Bush was "a liar or a dope" on WMDs. [spit] What scummy slimeballs.
THat WAS NOT ME! That was Dean's comment and he made it from my computer.
Check the login info before you strike , dear. Okay?
Maybe I assumed you knew that there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary harms way.
I'll break it down so you can understand.
That's not your decision to make.
I would like to say that I was totally talking out of my butt earlier about the impeachment deal and too much crap came out. I have no idea in what ways the Speaker of the House would become President, but I would be very surprised if the people who designed out gov't would have left in a loophole that could invite a coup by unscrupulous people. (And no, I'm not saying the Dems would try a coup, geesh).
But my point stands, what Mark wrote that I first responded to was had incorrect 'facts', crappy logic and shoddy reasoning.
But I have to applaud you Mark, your sophistry got me all bogged down in inconsequential minutia, good work.
See, I only picked the wrong point because I didn't know enough about it. You obviously don't either and, as I'm not a Constitution lawyer, I don't want to get bogged down in a 1,000 word comment that you would totally ignore to give me hard time for saying the Constitution was signed in 1781 when everybody knows....
So much of what you write would take forever to prove wrong. Like when you say the GOP "completely reneged on the Contract With America"
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. They definitely reneged on some, but you definitely can't prove "all" and I don't think you can even prove "most", you can only prove "some".
Stop the presses, a politician didn't keep all of his promises!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in the way they neutered the Senate Intelligence committee too -- the one truly bi-partisan committee
I'll quote just a piece of the memo from 11/1993 by a Democrat-staffer on the that particular committee
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.
I'll skip a bit and go right to my personal favorite
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year (right before the election)either: and they go on to explain how to be the worst scumbags for electoral advantage they can find.
We must have different definitions of "bi-partisan".
"THat WAS NOT ME! That was Dean's comment and he made it from my computer."
"Ya'll look the same to me..."
Naw, that didn't sound right to me. The only person I've heard continue to spout the frighteningly deluded belief that the Cheney administration didn't willfully decieve the public into supporting a pre-ordained war and call the people who call them on it "hatemongering liars", is Dean.
I have no idea if that is directed toward me or what it means if it is.
If it's in relation to my response to shep's comment, I was just noting that I think that people who spew "Bush-lied/People-Died" are hatemongering liars.
I call them willfully-ignorant and hate-filled, but that's just semantics.
I have no idea if that is directed toward me or what it means if it is.
I thought maybe you were one of the commenters on the Blackfive post.
My bad.
I call them willfully-ignorant and hate-filled, but that's just semantics.
Well, I expect most people are mad because they thought we would find thousands of rounds of brand spanking new ready to fire WMD, plus the war isn't going the way they would like. That's neither willfully-ignorant nor hate-filled. And most people have not immersed themselves in the issue, nor can they afford to. And when famous people say that we were deceived, and we were deceived (but by Saddam), and we have a long standing tradition that claims that all politicians are liars, well, it really should be expected that people will blame Bush.
It's like blaming the Civil War on Lincoln, WWI on Wilson, WWII on Roosevelt and the Korean War on Truman. Which people do all the time, without being -ignorant and hate-filled.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Explain how they neutered it.
Pay attention. Bi- partisan does not mean non-partisan.
Frist threatened to remake the membership of the Intel Committee into a majority GOP committee (like every other committee) instead of the equal representation it now has, because (gasp) the democrats wanted to investigate intel failures and abuse by the administration -- and, you know, finish/release the 9/11 report. The parts about how the Administration used/cherry-picked intel to sell the war, warrentless wiretapping, detainee rendition and treatment -- all of that was stonewalled by Frist and Chairman Roberts.
It was in all the papers, all over the Internets. Try "The Google." You can look at Frist's letter [PDF] to Ried threatening to "restructure" the committee if the deadlock wasn't broken.
Not stated in the letter: Do it our way, back off, or we'll force it down your throat.
That's "neutering" any effective oversight by the committee in my book. MyDD has a decent overview with lots of links.
1993?? You meant 2003, right? (I'll let your ten year mistake go for now.)
But I'm confused with your problem with this. The committee is "bi-partisan" only by the fact that it is made up of equal number of members from both parties. As your memo and Frist's letter testify, work on the committee has ground to a halt.
We aren't allowed to see the juicy bits of the 9/11 investigation. We aren't allowed to investigate (a prime function of such a committee) intel abuses or questionable programs -- like what exactly is the NSA really up to. I'm not objecting to the program remaining classified. But that committee has a responsibility to oversee such classified programs and the GOP has refused to allow any check on what may or may not be improper clandestine activity.
It's one thing to hide this stuff from the public. But it begs the question, if they're doing things legally, properly, why don't they want the intel committee to know what's up?
I have my beliefs for whom to blame for this situation, and your milage surely differs. I'm more than content in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong, and that my characterization of Frist's threat of a "mini-nuclear-option" combined with Roberts' stonewalling can fairly be described as emasculation.
You'll note that neither the independent investigation contemplated by the democrats, nor Frist's threat to stack the committee in the GOP's favor have occured. Since the suggestion by the Dem staffer was to pull the trigger right before the election (the last one), I'll guess that both sides agreed to a truce -- for now.
I like Diogenes. But asceticism isn’t enlightenment (although it might help). Very, very few of us will ever deserve to be called "enlightened". It’s really a journey, not a destination.
Very, very few of us will ever deserve to be called "enlightened". It’s really a journey, not a destination.
Hmmmm. So it's not a very fast or comprehensive solution. If tribal-partisan self-delusion is the goddamned scariest thing on earth, shouldn't you come up with something better? Or was that hyperbole?
No, it's about as serious as all of the wars that have ever been waged. As soon as I come up with "a very fast or comprehensive solution," I'll let you know.
Wince, I was pretty precise, I was talking about the people who said Bush-lied/people-died. I wasn't talking about people who say they are angry about not finding stockpiles. If they claim Bush lied, they're hate-filled and ignorant. Hate-filled because they have to willfully ignore the fact that everybody else in the world was also saying the exact same things for years before Bush became President just to score cheap points. In other words, they harm our nation in an attempt to gain power.
As to the commenter quote, I've always had Veeshir in my name as a commenter. The only times I've commented differently were to satire troll. Like posting once as Saab Erekat talking about the 10 million dead Palestinian babies in Jenin. But even then I always used my veeshir email address.
As for this
Frist threatened to remake the membership of the Intel Committee into a majority GOP committee (like every other committee) instead of the equal representation it now has
Oh, I get it, he neutered it by threatening to do something. If they folded under some lame threats, perhaps they were neutered before that? And I mean, they were afraid of a threat from Bill Frist? Now that's funny. I bet they still have nightmares about Lambchop coming to get them.
And looking at your response about 'bi-partisan', I see we have different definitions for both "neutering" and "bi-partisan".
Neutering means actually doing something to effect the neuter.
Bi-partisan means working together.
... If they claim Bush lied, they're hate-filled and ignorant....
Yes, you are making the exact same mistake they are. That is: Assuming your opponents have evil motives. But when someone says something over and over that you are sure isn't true, human nature will cause you to think "he's lying", even if he's only mistaken. Or even if you are mistaken and he's perfectly right. It's not hate-filled. It may be ignorant. It's a logical error that depends on filtering out facts that should cause doubt. It may also be people being tempted by pride. It's an easy mistake, and it takes considerable effort to avoid it.
Why give your opponents the benefit of the doubt? To encourage them to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Bi-partisan means working together.
Yeah, that's what it's supposed to mean. Not sure how often it's done, but that's what it's supposed to mean.
Sorry Wince, but when people keep repeating it even after you show that it's wrong, that's pretty much the definition of lying. As the lies are hateful (Bush started a war to make money), they are hate-filled.
I don't know how many times I have had the same conversation.
Lefty:Bush lied/people died.
Me: Oh, what did he lie about?
L: WMDs
M:So, when everybody in the world, including every prominent Dem, was saying the exact same things from 1997-2003, were they lying too?
L: Bush lied to them.
M:The governor of Texas convinced the President and Vice President of the United States of a lie?
L: Okay, he misled us.
M: So, did the others mislead us too?
L: Arghhhh, I know I'm right and you're wrong.
Next day,
L: Bush-lied/people-died.
That's a hate-filled lie.
I am very precise when I use that. I don't use it lightly, but I do use it. Accurate labeling is important.
I never said their motives are evil, I said they were hate-filled liars and I stand by that. They think their motives are as pure as the driven snow, to get rid of the evil Rethuglicans and install an administration of goodness and light, i.e. Dems.
They are much more likely to accuse me of evil motives. I usually don't discuss motives, I can't understand a person who would delude themselves and become so full of hate that they drive any humor, except for very mean-spirited humor, out. If a joke gets applause instead of laughter, it's not a joke.
but when people keep repeating it even after you show that it's wrong
Maybe you haven't shown them.
L: Arghhhh, I know I'm right and you're
wrong.
Hmmm. It seems this person hasn't been shown.
This may be because he doesn't trust you.
This may be because he trusts the people who agree with him.
This may be because he's stubborn.
Maybe, even, he's right and you are wrong. I really doubt it on this issue. On this issue you have by far the better case. Unless I'm wrong.
Either way, if he believes in spite of your arguments that he is right, then he is not lying. So maybe he's hate-filled, but he isn't a liar.
When you say someone is a hate-filled liar, you are impugning their motives. Twice. I don't believe you are less likely to denigrate liberals than they are to denigrate you. You like to call them stupid and ignorant. This is no better than calling them evil.
Of course I'm not doing so well myself. I tend to get really down on people for not being polite enough.
What a nag.
I believe in forgiveness. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think you can change my mind on this issue, Mike. Which makes me alot like some people who think Bush lied. We've made up our minds, and we aren't inclined to change.
Which makes me alot like some people who think Bush lied. We've made up our minds, and we aren't inclined to change.
There is a huge difference, your stand is opinion, theirs isn't.
Hmmm. It seems this person hasn't been shown.
Or perhaps refuses to admit it?
That's my point. They see the facts and refuse to act accordingly.
I don't believe Bush because he's a Republican, I believe Bush because I was there and I watched it happen.
They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.
They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.
I have that problem with Claire McCaskill, because of some race baiting comments she made. She doesn't deserve that, but I still have a hard time giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.
Mike, you make a lot of assumptions regarding the personal motivations of those who disagrees with you.
That's questionable reasoning.
If your reasoning is to be accepted by others, especially those predisposed to disagree with you, it must be consistent and reasonable or it's not worth the pixels.
When even prominant conservatives can list exhaustive rationale for disbelieving POTUS's rhetoric, your statement that Bush is not believable simply due to party identification is a specious argument.
And directly to the point, just because you sincerely believe that to be the case does not make your reasoning sound, especially since, unless you have a exceptional contacts and a very high security clearance, and also possess the ability to read minds -- you were not there and did not watch it happen. Not all of it, not enough to speak in such absolutes any more than those you say are hate-filled.
Your reasoning is unreasonable. You may have a point, may even be right. But unless you can offer a sound argument, you are hardly persuasive.
"I don't know how many times I have had the same conversation."
Oh Mike. I have some terrible news for you. It’s not that other people can’t blow your ridiculous arguments out of the Koolaid, it’s that the people who can don’t usually waste time arguing with people who have shown themselves incapable of discerning observable reality (I’m making an exception only because you seem like such a nice fellow).
At least we have an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable cockyness.
Many people talked about Iraq’s dangerous WMD program because, at one point, he actually had a dangerous WMD program and they were not privy to the intelligence that suggested it had been destroyed. The Bush Administration knew.
The Bush administration made additional provably false statements (and a nifty UN dog-and-pony-show) about what it knew about Iraqi WMD programming, many of which they had good reason to suspect might not be true.
While the Bush administration was “fixing the facts around the policy,” they were publicly claiming that war and regime change was “a last resort.” In other words, they were lying about what they knew about Iraqi WMDs and they were lying about their intentions to invade and occupy Iraq. They confirmed both sets of lies when they forced and active weapons inspections regime out of Iraq so they could invade it.
Mark brings up the important point that arguments about people's motivations are rhetorically weak. This has not prevented me from making such arguments when overcome by anger or stupidity. Especially within the confines of my own brain. IIRC, it also hasn't prevented Mark from making such arguments, although he is in a much better position to judge how that happened than I am. Occasionally it is even necessary to argue motivation. Many crimes and civil suits require that motivation be addressed.
I look forward to the widespread use of reliable lie detectors by political elites to settle these questions once and for all. Heh. I expect such devices to impeach human memory so completely that people start videotaping their lives, just so that can remember them correctly.
Generally, arguments which question your opponents intelligence are also rhetorically weak, except in certain forums, where they are de riguer, such as the dozens. This blog may be such a forum, in which case Mark and I are violating cultural norms by arguing against it.
This is not an endorsement of the belief that Bush did mislead about Iraq, or the various arguments I've read on the subject. Those contain holes you could drive a truck through, and I believe that Mike Veeshir, Dean Esmay and maybe even I have done so.
The evidence is better that Bush was deceived than he was a deceiver. We even have very good reasons to explain how Saddam carried out that deception and why. All politics is local, right?
Oh, and you can answer it too Mark since you keep saying he lied.
I'm really curious how and why you two will explain that they (Dems) didn't lie while Bush (GOP) did lie all while saying the exact, same things at the same times.
Except I know that you will never answer my question. shep will respond with insults while Mark will post a 500-word response that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll give you two a hint, the answer is yes/no. Either "yes" they were lying too or "no" they weren't lying. If "no", then there should be more as you would have to explain why they weren't and Bush was, but I would accept only the one word "NO" as then I can make fun of you.
Wince, that's why I say they don't believe Bush because of the (R). Let's see how shep and Mark answer. I've never gotten a coherent answer to that question from a lefty. They usually end up at "Well, he misled us" and when I ask if those other misled us, they get angry and that's that.
That's why I said what I said about the party. They are absolutely inconsistent over party lines.
Once again, I try to use my terminology very carefully and precisely.
You're right, I just demolished your argument. As far as your question, it matters not one whit what any Democrat (or Republican) said as long as they weren’t trying to gin up regime change via a ground invasion and occupation. The issue is why we’ve wound up in the tragically stupid disaster called “the Iraq war” and whether Bush intentionally deceived the public about Iraq’s WMD threat to get us to go along. Unfortunately, they had enough cover with bi-partisan fears of Saddam’s past WMDs so that they could fool vast numbers of Americans into believing that an invasion was warranted.
Even today, long after the administration has been forced to retract every specious claim and dozens of insiders have come forward to say that war had been planned all along, millions of people are too partisan, too prideful or too stupid to acknowledge they were lied to. Hopefully, enough people have come to their senses to outnumber them.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Mike:
Sandi Berger's chrystal ball was a bit cloudy, Bob Graham was quite mistaken, Carl Levin was wrong, Robert Byrd's confidence was misplaced (not a unique occurence for him), Rockefeller was mistaken about the "unmistakable evidence," Hillary exaggerated, otherwise, although weasely the rest of the comments at your link were by and large accurately reflective of what the speakers knew at the time.
That was considerably less intelligence than what those in the White House had access to.
I'll quote Blackfive right back at you, Mike: "Urge them to demonstrate honesty and integrity, and substantively debate the real challenging issues facing this country."
Your insistence on a yes or no answer is directly opposed to that sentiment, a cheap debating technique, adds nothing to the discussion. And if you don't like 500 word answers, take Wince's advice and just skim -- but don't challenge me unless you've got some time put asside.
Nothing in that post is relevant in any way to the veracity of those in the Cheney administration.
At this point, as so many on the right like to point out, it's not relevant to determine if we were lied to (but that shouldn't stop Pelosi, et al., from investigating the matter), but rather what do we do now.
Now that we know for certain that the war was unnecessary and was either the result of honest mistakes, blind obsession, or deliberate lies -- is it not time to work tirelessly to get to the point where we no longer are militarily involved there?
Do you want to discuss THE critical issue facing us, or just whittle another notch on your mouse by playing those semantic games that crack you up so? How about we deconstruct Bush's statement that we were never about stay the course, or do you wanna go a few rounds about Cheney's little dunk in the water.
There are lies, damn lies, and then there's the daily White House press briefing.
Here's something that I find interesting. The question the talking heads love to ask, Russert, Blitzer, Stephanopolis, etc., is would they still vote for the war knowing what they know now about Iraq's WMDs. It's a trap question, easy to ask, puts the interviewee on the spot, and rarely leads to a satisfactory exchange.
Hint, the correct answer is -- "of course not," which few of Blackfive's subjects will say even today. Hillary won't, Kerry did after he didn't say it was a mistake. John Edwards did say it outright, that he regretted his vote for the war -- which is why I'm already campaigning for him.
I think a more interesting question, one which will never get a straight answer anymore than the above question, is to ask if they would have voted for the war knowing what that vote would do to their personal political fortunes, WMDs be damned.
Let me boil it down to one thought. Since the lack of prudence and disregard for the long term consequences of invading Iraq were excusable by you, that the urgency of the gathering threat overwhelmed caution or even waiting until the weapons inspectors could more definitively report on the realities on the ground -- why are we now so cautious about taking our troops out of a war when we were so reckless in sending them into one?
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Well, your reaction didn't disappoint either. You're true to form.
Honestly Mike, I don't understand how you can say that that, really. But I guess I'm never going to convince you that other possiblities exist beyond your pre-concieved notions of the mind-set of those you are arguing with.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but your statement simply isn't accurate. You got anything else? Are semantics the only thing you enjoy? Can you explain how our opinion of Bush's honesty will settle the Iraq conflict?
If you can, I'll concede that what you or I think of Bush's veracity in the lead-up to the war makes one damn bit of difference.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
You pointed me to the link which asked that we debate more substantive questions, that you on the right urge us on the left to engage in that excercize. I was merely obliging.
As for your question, I've answered in debth, fully and completely. It's not my problem that the answer didn't fit within one of your pidgeon holes so you could whack it with your prepared response.
I don't mean to deprive you of a smug, pyrrhic victory in a meaningless game.
As for your question, I've answered in debth, fully and completely.
I disagree. Let's see if we can find something approximating an answer.
Sandi Berger's chrystal ball was a bit cloudy, Bob Graham was quite mistaken, Carl Levin was wrong, Robert Byrd's confidence was misplaced (not a unique occurence for him), Rockefeller was mistaken about the "unmistakable evidence," Hillary exaggerated, otherwise, although weasely the rest of the comments at your link were by and large accurately reflective of what the speakers knew at the time.
That was considerably less intelligence than what those in the White House had access to.
I assume that's your in-depth, full and complete answer. First, it is nice to see you admitting that Bush is more intelligent than that coterie of nitwits. I also have to admit, I missed it earlier or I would have complimented you on almost answering my question. Why almost?
First of all, Sandy Berger got his info while in the White House, or else from his pants and socks, depending on when he said what.
Also notice that included in the list of people at the Blackfive link were Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Madelaine Albright. People who got their information while in the White House. As did Sandy Berger. Jay Rockefellar is on the intelligence committed, he saw the same info Bush did.
So some Dems were mistaken, at least one lied to, but what about the ones who had access to the very same information Bush was privy to? Remember that every investigation said that Bush didn't manipulate the intelligence.
So once again, did those people lie or is Bush the only one who lied when he said the exact same things?
I'm also curious as to why I would win a "pyrrhic victory" if you answer a question.
My opinion? I am made less intelligent by reading your 'responses' and thus, while I might win, I will lose something more precious; brain cells.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I have been persuaded that the information they recieved was not identical to what the White House had. I also am of the understanding that there has not been a definitive report from any investigation on that exact question -- did Bush lie? Was intel cherry-picked? The missing portion of the 9/11 report, Phase II, deals with that very issue, and has been stonewalled.
So...no, Mike. You can't prove the negative, that Bush, et al. did not misuse intel and mislead us, by the absence of a report from an investigation whose conclusion will not be allowed to see the light of day -- due almost entirely to political power struggles surrounding (one may assume) exactly our disagreement.
Bush also walked back three specific mistatements that they had smoking-gun type of evidence of Saddam's WMDs, the Niger Yellow Cake, and as I stated above, non-existent surveillance photos and non-existent IAEA reports.
Those are pretty specific allegations, largly if not completely untrue allegations, that are far more indicative of inside knowledge/subtrefuge than any of the more vague generalities Blackfive quotes.
So no, Bush did not say the exact same things as the others, he said more to persuade us of the same opinion -- offering completely fallacious evidence to reach those conclusions.
I don't know if it was a purposeful lie, since that requires more evidence than has been made public. Perhaps if the 9/11 investigation is allowed to release Phase II, we'll have better evidence of Bush's intent. I do know that at the very, very least, faulty information was recklessly inserted into the public consciousness again and again in late 2002 and early '03.
However, I m persuaded that a circumstantial, prima facie case can be made that we were lied to, supporting further investigation. No court would dismiss a case on such a showing, but would approve further investigation -- issuing subpoenas and warrants as requested, and would allow the people's case to be fully presented and eventually submitted to the jury.
We absolutely have probably cause -- something Bush doesn't need to show to tap your phone or pick up and indefintelyl detain someone he declares an unlawful alien enemy combatant. You can be disappearedd for sending money to a charity that is a Hamass front on less evidence than we have against Bush, but we aren't even allowed to fully investigate the untrue statements he used to start a war. Wow.
We are a jury, but until the 9/11 report's second phase is released, we haven't been presented with the entire case against Bush -- nor heard his complete defense.
But as it stands, there may not be enough to convict Bush of lying, but there's enough to put him on the witness stand and answer some very hard questions.
When you have probably cause to believe someone is lying, it's hardly hate-filled to make the accusation. It's our duty to make the accusation and have the accused answer the charges. so, if POTUS has nothing to hide.......????????
"Were those people all lying as well? If you say, "No", then stop calling Bush a liar. It's really as simple as that."
Actually, I think it's you, Mike. The rest of us understand that two people can say the same thing but only one of them lie while doing so.
For example, I don't think you are lying when you say that Bush didn't lie. But Bush is.
You do suggest that you're at least unconsciously unsure of your beliefs by focusing on what "everyone said" and refusing to accept that Bush &Co said things that no one else said and were of dubious nature even before they were proved untrue. Combine them with a motive to lie and you discover the truth: Bush lied, Bush lies, Bush is a liar.
Wince, now do you see why I feel that I can say this: They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.?
They all were saying the exact same things. Clinton bombed Iraq using the same language that Bush used and yet, Bush is the only one who lied.
"We had to act, and act now," he said.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Actually, Wince long ago persuaded me that even if Bush said an untruth (and he did, a lot of them) does not necessarily mean he is (or is not) a liar.
If anything, Mike, you saying that "They all were saying the exact same things," twice, despite what I have said that indicates the contrary conclusion, makes you a liar.
When did Bush say anything about yellow cake in Niger? Seriously, when? Links please.
And you do know that Joe Wilson said, in his report, that Saddam did try to buy uranium in Niger, don't you?
How about links to whatever IAEA report you're talking about? And links to the 'smoking gun' thing, whatever the heck that was.
I do remember Bush saying, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Where is the lie in there?
Bush said that the proof could come in the form of a nuke, Clinton said that Saddam is threatening his neighbors with nukes. How are Bush's remarks stronger than Clinton's?
Actually, Wince long ago persuaded me that even if Bush said an untruth (and he did, a lot of them) does not necessarily mean he is (or is not) a liar.
Holy guacamole! From my Democrat Dad's lips to your ear, via a detour through my brain and out the keyboard. I was accusing Kerry when Dad schooled me, BTW.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Yes I did, in the comment above I linked to a previous comment in this thread which had several links. Here it is again, with links to this piece from the very conservative Washington TIMES.
QUIT SKIMMING. Follow the links, read them, or quit wasting everybody's time.
No seriously, mentioning Niger was shorthand for the entire Wilson/16 words discussion. My point was Bush backed off the statement, just like the the surveillance photos that didn't exist and IAEA report that didn't exist. Bush claimed these things, then backed off. If any of them were as advertised, it would have been the "smoking gun" I was referring to.
As for what really happened with the 16 Words and Wilson etc., the jury has yet to be sworn in. Stay tuned. We'll know more in January after opening statements in the Libby trial.
I use these as mere examples to shove down your brain the notion that accusing Bush of lying is not exclusively an indication that the accuser is a hate-filled partisan -- but a rational conslusion which has yet to be definitively adjudicated, but which a reasonable person looking at available evidence could reasonably make.
How many times in this thread alone do you need to be proven dead wrong.
1) You didn't know how the Speaker of the House becomes president because you didn't read carefully enough or follow the links to the text of the Amendments which spell out the procedure in plain English.
2)You didn't know what I was talking about regarding Bush stating and having to back off his statements regarding surveillance photos or an inspector's report which would have been ample evidence -- smoking gun type of evidence -- if those things actually existed because you didn't read carefully enough or read the article I linked.
3) And now you say I didn't provide links which clearly I did, repeatedly.
Are you a liar? I don't know. I do know you have misspoke at least three times in this thread alone. Three times you have written an untruth.
I don't know if it's IE or not, but your link to the reprint of the Wash Times article is very annoying. It keeps reloading.
Okay, the 1998 memo didn't exist. The White House said that they meant 1991, which did exist. In '91 the IAEA was absolutely stunned to find out how close Saddam was to making a bomb. It's pretty funny, but before they realized that Bush was serious, Blix and El Baradei were very forceful, after, not so much. Ritter was another who was very forceful about how Saddam was trying to get nukes, then, he gets a documentary deal from Saddam and he's not so forceful anymore.
No seriously, mentioning Niger was shorthand for the entire Wilson/16 words discussion. My point was Bush backed off the statement No, he didn't. He still stands behind it. As do the British. The only person who backed off on that is Wilson. You see, he was going to mention yellow cake in a speech in Cincinnati and backed off on that because the intel wasn't good enough.
As for you point about linking Iraq to 9/11, he "backed off" because he never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. He repeatedly said that, considering what happened on 9/11, we have to act on Iraq as he is associated with terrorists. Which is absolutely true. Check out Salman Pak for instance.
I definitely liked your BBC link about how the CIA was "undermining" Bush's stance. How was Tenet undermining Bush? From the article
Mr Tenet says that only if attacked would Iraq use whatever weapons of mass destruction it has. Huh, it looks as if the CIA thought Saddam had WMDs.
I also liked this quote
By '98, "we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment." Confiscated it huh? Then what was 2 tons of semi-enriched uranium still doing in Iraq in 2004? Perhaps they have a different definition of "confiscated" from mine.
But all of that is still not the point, the point is that the Dems were saying the same things. Except for Kucinich and couple others, they sounded just as bellicose as Bush. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 saying that he couldn't allow Saddam to threaten his neighbors with nukes. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 saying that he couldn't allow Saddam to get nukes.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
You see, he was going to mention yellow cake in a speech in Cincinnati and backed off on that because the intel wasn't good enough.
Did you assume I was talking about something else?
Then what was 2 tons of semi-enriched uranium still doing in Iraq in 2004?
Uhm, sitting under seal, still confiscated by the IEAE, securred, (theoretically) and decidedly NON-Fissile. At least that's how I read your article. Your definition of confiscated makes assumptions, not unwarranted ones, but assumptions nonetheless.
As for your "point." While nearly accurate, with the qualitative exceptions I've mentioned regarding specificity of proof (where Bush went beyond what any Democrat said, and beyond the truth), your point is meaningless and irrelevant to what we do about it.
"It" of course, being the chaos being so wrong has wrought.
What your argument seems to boil down to is the same as a guy punching his wife and trying to excuse his behavior by saying all her ex-husbands wanted to slug her too. Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq, and botched it. The consequences have been far, far worse than anything which came out of Clinton's reign.
What your argument seems to boil down to is the same as a guy punching his wife and trying to excuse his behavior by saying all her ex-husbands wanted to slug her too.
No, I'll give you a closer analogy.
I want to buy a soda. Everybody keeps telling me that sodas cost $2. Everybody says it, your father says they cost $2. So I ask my father how much a soda costs, he asks the guy's who in charge of figuring out how much soda costs and is told $2, so he tells me 2$. I go to buy a soda and it only costs $1, did my father lie to me?
Or are you just a GOP-hating person who will never, ever, give any Republican the benefit of the doubt and actively hide your head to avoid being fair to the GOP?
I think I know the answer to that question.
You never answered my question about Clinton, Albright, Gore and Berger getting to see the exact same info Bush saw and saying the same things. That's actively hiding so as not to be fair.
Oh, and one more thing I have to touch on because I know your response will be hysterical.
Did you assume I was talking about something else? when talking about Cincinnati.
Yes, I did. Why? You said this
No seriously, mentioning Niger was shorthand for the entire Wilson/16 words discussion.
Now I look forward to you telling me I'm too stupid to understand why the Wilson/16 word comment would have anything to do with the SOTU speech and not the Cincinnati speech. I really want to see how you do that. It's sure to be a laugh riot.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
You never answered my question about Clinton, Albright, Gore and Berger getting to see the exact same info Bush saw and saying the same things.
Yes I did.
Now I look forward to you telling me I'm too stupid to understand why the Wilson/16 word comment would have anything to do with the SOTU speech and not the Cincinnati speech.
Both, shorthand for an entire discussion is just that, shorthand.
That's been my philosophy since I first voted. Obviously shep, ++ and Mark will disagree with me on who is more dangerous, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how they choose as well.
If you are voting "For" a politician, you are probably being deceived as to who and what he is.
I have often stated that I have only voted "For" 3 times when I voted for Cuomo for gov of NY, Moynihan for Senate and Ronnie Raygun in 1984. But I lied. I forgot that I did vote "For" another time. For McCain in the 2000 Va. primary.
In other words, out of 4 "For" votes, I was wrong at least 50% of the time. Cuomo was a disaster for NY as he presided over massive tax increases that drove many businesses, including IBM, out of the state. McCain was a creation of the media back before I became totally distrustful of the MSM. I wouldn't vote for him with shep's finger now. Ronnie Raygun was the only one that I still would vote "For". Moynihan is tougher. I've heard people I respect bad-mouth him and I can't remember why I voted for him, but I have a feeling it's because I still trusted the NY Times to tell the truth so I might be batting exactly .250 while voting "For". Even .500 isn't very good in voting. And I voted for RR against every media outlet at the time. I just knew that I liked him, trusted him and was very happy that somebody who actually liked America was in charge of it.
The economy is good, tax levels are low, and the opposition can't tell me how they'll do a better job on the things that are screwed up.
I wouldn't mind a little deadlock though, like the Dem's winning one of the houses.
And the gap between the ultra-rich and poor is growing, the deficit is huge, and Soldiers, our Soldiers are still dying by roadside bombs....so, go about your merry way while Soldiers fight and die for your tax cuts and sweet economy. Really, what sacrifices have you made? The president has little sway over the economy (at least that was the conservative argument during the Clinton era of unprecedented economic gain), but he does have control over the military. But I've got an idea, if you want to put Bush in charge of something, Dean's World has a few interesting threads on Radio Shack. Put Bush in charge of a Radio Shack, let's see his genius at work.
You can get all high and mighty about it, and if those guys hadn't chosen to join the army, had there been a draft, I might agree with you.
But I know many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq. A good marine friend of mine just got back from there, and will be returning in 4 months. Another friend just left. And despite the fact they would like to be home with their wives, they'd rather finish the job than abandon it.
Now you're talking about the President's control of the economy and the military, but this is not a presidential election is it? Through your dislike of Bush you're actually making my point.
The funny thing is, Dr. Frist's diagnosis that we should bring the Taliban into the Afghan Government, and this effort to make peace with Iraqi insurgents, is probably the only reasonable alternative in a long list of disasterous choices.
It's also a fact, a FACT, that unchallengable GOP rule has created THE single most corrupt Congress in our lifetimes. Eleven current members of Congress (including 3 Democrats) are under investigation, plus three more that have already resigned but whose crimes have not been fully vetted. There undoubtedly will be more to come.
Just to hammer home the distinction, the GOP LEADERSHIP is deeply involved in this corruption. A vote for a Republican is a proxy vote for Hastert and/or the rest of the GOP House Leaders who enabled both DeLay and Foley, and is also linked to Jack Abramoff. Hell, DeLay orchstrated much of the crap, and only with him gone have things started to come to light.
This GOP leadership promised to clean up their act and put through some REAL ethics and lobbiest reform. This, like so many things they have completely reneged on (including the Contract With America) came to nothing. Remember small government, accountability, term limits? Feh!
If anything, they made it easier to ignore the corruption, the gross earmarks, the waste, the theft by the no-bid contractors, the missing BILLIONS, the incompetent cronies placed in positions of trust and authority on the basis of their connections not their accomplishments, the complete and utter lack of anything resembling accountability -- by neutering the House ethics committee.
They refused to fulfill their duty to the Constitution, their oath, in the way they neutered the Senate Intelligence committee too -- the one truly bi-partisan committee, by threatening a tactical nuke option (stacking the committee -- as opposed to the real nuke of eliminating the filibuster) if it actually, you know, held a real hearing on what the Administration was doing.
But it's the House that's disfunctionally corrupt. Political gamesmanship in the Senate is par for the course -- even though it's been raised to new levels recently. The Senate passed the original Patriot Act 99-1. Not until the House got ahold of it in the Conference Committee did the the thoughtful bill that gave POTUS the tools he needed, but was carefully balanced to protect our rights as citizens of a free society, become a gutted means to protect us -- useful only as a vehicle to beat each other up instead of a unifying force to deal with very real threats.
It was Hastert and the House leadership who were content to kill both the minimum wage and the elimination of the Estate and Gift Tax by tieing them together, assuring us that both would be defeated, so they could use it as a campaign tool to mischaracterize the issues to low information voters. Everything is done through this political prism. EVERYTHING. They deliberately include poison pills for the good of their reelections chances, not the good of the nation. The schedule "stunt-votes" all the time -- like the non-bind resolution on Murtha's plan. It never would have had any legitimate effect except to waste time providing theater for idiots that think calling Marines cowards is acceptable.
I don't have an answer for the biggest problem we have -- Iraq. Neither do you. The mess is so catastrophic there are no good answers. I also know that who you vote for in the House means nothing when it comes to Iraq. They will not cut funding for our troops, but they might watch how the money gets spent a little closer it the Dems are in charge.
They will not bother to impeach POTUS (although he deserves it), because it will be seen as a stunt (just like the last time) because there simply aren't enough votes in the Senate for it to matter. Much as I like Bill Mahr, he's just wrong on this. I will be among the first to write my congresswoman if they go down that road -- unless investigations turn up something so eggregious that 10 or 15 GOP Senators publically state they are in favor of removing Bush AND Cheney -- knowing Pelosi becomes POTUS.
That's bizzare and inconceivable.
What they will have the votes for with a democratic takeover is real ethics/lobbiest reform. I'm not making any promises it will be effective, or even happen. It's just that it won't happen at all with the GOP in charge. Gingrich promised it a decade ago and produced nadda. There's a chance, with all the crap that's come down the pike recently, for some change if the House changes.
The people's House under Hastert/DeLay was a wholly owned subsidiary of the weapons and energy companies. Boeher, a tool of Big Tobacco, continues the same program. It has to stop.
I'll give one example. Take your wet dream about Pelosi becoming Potus. That particular order of succession is only in case the first two die. They would have to remove Bush and Cheney at the exact, same time for Pelosi to become POTUS. If they tried to remove them both at the same time, Cheney would only have to step down before the trial and Bush could appoint a new VP and that goes away. Remember the 70s? Nixon appointed Ford to replace Agnew so even though they both left office the Speaker of the House didn't become Pres, the appointed VP did.
Now Tim, you've said some pretty stupid things but that one takes the cake. I'll give you a hint, you know that gun they issued you? That's to use when you are sent into harm's way. I mean, the reason for the military is to send it into harm's way. It's its major reason for being.
It's blatantly obvious you aren't a sailor;
Sailors of the United States Navy can do no better than to emulate the spirit behind John Paul Jones's stirring declaration: "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
I think they have a toast about a fast ship and harm's way to this day.
I'm pretty sure the Army has a similar ethos. At least I hope so.
And most importantly, the military follows lawful orders. Period. You might disagree with them, but you follow them. You think Iraq wasn't a threat? Well, the Congress thought it was and voted to attack, the President thought it was so he ordered the attack and American people thought it was so they re-elected Bush after he attacked.
Who the hell want's Pelosi for POTUS? I don't! Speaker, sure, but I don't want her as POTUS only slightly less than I don't want Hastert as POTUS. (Sorry for the double negative)
What wet dream? The point was for you to understand why impeachment is a non-starter. Why Pelosi said it's a waste of time. Why anyone who says, "don't vote for a Dem because they will try to impeach Bush," is full of crap.
All the Dem Senators, plus a goodly portion of GOPer Senators would need to go along with the idea that removal is a good thing in and of itself because COTUS, Article I, Section 6 mandates 2/3rds of the Senate are needed to convict and remove a POTUS. One of the prime pieces of evidence that the Clinton impeachment was all for show -- like so much the GOPers do -- was because they never were even close to having enough votes in the Senate. They barely had enough votes to start the proceedings because they all knew there wasn't enough to convict by 2/3rds.
Add to that unlikely agreement in the Senate -- such a cravenly political move of trying to elevate Ms. Pelosi with simultaneous impeachment (or doing Dead-eye first, then Captain Codpiece, without the whole Congress -- as per the COTUS -- first approving a new VPOTUS) would be a transparent power grab that even IF 16 or 20 GOPer Senators said Bush/Cheney had to go, they'd never permit it to be done that way.
That's inconceivable. And yet I have heard from many a wingnut source that despite the ridiculousness of such a scenerio, and directly opposed to Pelosi's specific statement to the contrary, that the first thing the Dems will do is try to impeach -- presumably to gain the Oval office through subtrefuge instead of elections -- not because Bush is guilty of any High Crimes (he is).
My point was, if you had read more carefully and had a better grasp of the Law of the Land, that only in the incredibly unlikely case that a Dem investigation turned up something heretofore unknown and so beyond the pale that even YOUR SIDE said take them out -- and take them both out because Cheney as CinC is a nightmare I can't even consider -- would I support impeachment.
So let me understand you Mike. I describe a near impossiblity to counter the impeachment argument against electing Dems -- a seeming strawman but which is actually very prevalent in Right Wing Blogistan -- and you presume to say that it's my fondest wish.
Read it again:Did I really need to write that I would write my congresswoman to demand she vote against impeachment unless an amazing confluence of events first occured?
Am I that unclear in my writing? Are you completely unable to read something I write without a useless flame that points out your unfamiliarity with our government and the English language?
It's not my logic that's faulty. Stop skimming. If you had denied that such an argument is legitimately out there and being used by the right, I would have been forced to provide some links (like I have above), but at least it would have been a legitimate critique.
Whatever.
I remember the 70's all too well. I also know the Constitutional order of succession per the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act made pursuant to it -- which is how Ford became POTUS.
More importantly, I remember how Ford became V-POTUS pursuant to the 25th Amendment.
I thought everybody did.
You don't.
POTUS nominates a VP candidate to full a vacancy, then both houses must confirm.
COTUS, Amend. 25, Sec. 2It's not like the thing is a classified document. You should read it sometime.
What you describe as impossible is quite possible under the rules. What I described is nearly unfathomable politically -- yet could happen under current law.
Hatemongering liars don't get my support.
I'm convinced. I'll vote for Democrats in state offices here in Michigan but no chance in Hell I'm going to support any for national office until they apologize for their gross slurs.
Including the assholes who said Bush was "a liar or a dope" on WMDs. [spit] What scummy slimeballs.
As I pointed out, Pelosi doesn't become POTUS except in the absolutely unlikely event that both the Pres and VP are removed at the exact same time and they don't see it coming. If they see it coming and take steps (like Cheney stepping down so Bush can appoint a new VP as I wrote above) or they otherwise aren't removed at exactly the same time, then Pelosi won't be POTUS. That stipulation is pretty much only in case of death. Or stupidity. I understand you think Bush is a machiavellian idiot, but at least Rove or Cheney, the evil geniuses, would see it coming.
Bush is removed from office first so Cheney becomes Pres and appoints a VP. If Cheney is then removed, the appointed VP becomes POTUS.
Cheney is removed first so Bush appoints another VP who then becomes POTUS when Bush is impeached and removed.
Likewise, I'm sure. And nonbody has ever fit that bill better than the current crop of Republican politicians. Nobody. Ever.
Is it OK to attibute Cheney's dissembling to Bush as shorthand for the whole administration? I mean, the whole "slam dunk" attitude was pretty deceptive of what they knew, all the doubts the intell community had which were minimized or ignored in public.
Their presentations, their one-per-cent diagnosis of the situation did not lend itself to a fair debate outside the executive branch.
It was pretty weasley, kinda, almost, sorta unfair. You know, like a lie.
It is undisputable (although you'll insist on disputing it) that the primary reason we went to Iraq was WMD's. Bush admitted so in so many words.Lame. He also, finally, two months ago, admitted in so many words, that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, despite not so subtle inferences to the contrary for years.Bull! That's exactly what they've been "suggesting" right along. Are anywhere from 25%-50% of Americans who thought exactly that just stupid, or did/do they believe exactly what the administration suggested?
The doubts were there if you looked hard enough. Unfortunately, "Against such rhetoric, the doubts of some in the intelligence community do not make much headway."
Here's a goody from the 9.27.02 Wash.TimesHere's the thing. Scotty McClellertron tried to shuffle and say it was an honest mistake, since the '98 IAEA report did not say that. There was no such report. So Mr. Bush must have been referring to the later 1991 report after the 1st Gulf War.
And the problem, of course, that there was no report saying that in 1991 either. In fact, ""There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said" in 2002.
I know that nobody reads the Moonie Times, and good thing too. In that same '02 article it talks about how Bush had to backtrack on what he said about some satellite surveillance showing new construction around Iraq's old nuke sites. Those photos, also, did not exist. Bush and Blair just made this crap up.
By '98, "we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment."
If he had reconstituted his weapons related program activities, there would have been some, you know, evidence. An arial photo of some new construction would have been good, but Bush made it up. An inspection report from when the IAEA went back in before Bush ordered them out (contrary to Bush's insistence in the '02 "Axis of Evil" SOTUA that Saddam kicked them out) would have been something -- but again, Bush made it up -- and the inspectors were burned as US spies anyway.
Now if you want to play semantic games, like the new and improved -- but exactly the same -- not changing our strategy but only adjusting tactics which is not "stay the course" because we've never been about "stay the course" ... so we're not changing anything when we change the slogan away from "stay the course" ... uh, erm ... be my guest.
Cheeze Whiz. We're fighting barbarians with a fucking scrabble board.
When a used car salesman says a car "runs like a dream," but doesn't tell you that he only has nightmares -- you've still been taken for a ride. Just pull up to the next corner, please, and let me out.
Me, I'm a grown-up who appreciates candor. And Rose, that's something we've never got from these guys. And please don't tell me how we never got it from the other guys either. We're spending a lot more treasure and blood, and getting a lot less candor than ever before. At least not since Nixon.
We've got 20,000 American kids maimed for life, fast approaching 3,000 dead with 600,000 Iraqi casualties according to DW, all sacrificed on the alter of stopping woulda, coulda, shoulda program related activities that didn't exist.
The irony was that Iraq's lack of WMDs was a good thing. Sanctions worked -- imperfectly to be sure -- but it kept Hussein contained so we could concentrate on the real threats we've never got around to stopping.
Are you drunk or what?
READ THE DAMN 25th AMENDMENT.
If Congress doesn't approve the VP Nomination (NOT an appointment, a Nomination by POTUS) the VP slot goes vacant.
I wouldn't put anything past Bush &Co. But I'm saying that there's NO WAY Congress can be that disciplined to be so "Machiavellian."
Rove and Cheney don't NEED to see it coming -- bacause it ain't coming.
Now stop what you're doing and go back and read what I wrote. Then read it again after you've sobered up.
Hatemongering liars don't get my support.
I'm convinced. I'll vote for Democrats in state offices here in Michigan but no chance in Hell I'm going to support any for national office until they apologize for their gross slurs.
Including the assholes who said Bush was "a liar or a dope" on WMDs. [spit] What scummy slimeballs.
THat WAS NOT ME! That was Dean's comment and he made it from my computer.
Check the login info before you strike , dear. Okay?
Dean, take off Rose's [ad]Dress, right now!
I'll break it down so you can understand.
That's not your decision to make.
I would like to say that I was totally talking out of my butt earlier about the impeachment deal and too much crap came out. I have no idea in what ways the Speaker of the House would become President, but I would be very surprised if the people who designed out gov't would have left in a loophole that could invite a coup by unscrupulous people. (And no, I'm not saying the Dems would try a coup, geesh).
But my point stands, what Mark wrote that I first responded to was had incorrect 'facts', crappy logic and shoddy reasoning.
But I have to applaud you Mark, your sophistry got me all bogged down in inconsequential minutia, good work.
Again, not sophistry, nor socratic this time. Just plain old smack-down.
Wanna play some more?
So much of what you write would take forever to prove wrong. Like when you say the GOP "completely reneged on the Contract With America"
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. They definitely reneged on some, but you definitely can't prove "all" and I don't think you can even prove "most", you can only prove "some".
Stop the presses, a politician didn't keep all of his promises!!!!! OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in the way they neutered the Senate Intelligence committee too -- the one truly bi-partisan committee
Explain how they neutered it.
As for "bi-partisan", now that's funny.
I'll quote just a piece of the memo from 11/1993 by a Democrat-staffer on the that particular committee
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.
I'll skip a bit and go right to my personal favorite
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year (right before the election) either:
and they go on to explain how to be the worst scumbags for electoral advantage they can find.
We must have different definitions of "bi-partisan".
"Ya'll look the same to me..."
Naw, that didn't sound right to me. The only person I've heard continue to spout the frighteningly deluded belief that the Cheney administration didn't willfully decieve the public into supporting a pre-ordained war and call the people who call them on it "hatemongering liars", is Dean.
And shep, check the dates before you say Bush lied to them too.
The Cheney administration didn't willfully decieve the public into supporting a pre-ordained war.
The people who call them on it?
A few are hatemongers.
A few are liars.
A few are hatemongering liars.
Most are just incorrect.
Mike,
Which commenter were you?
Yours,
Wince
Which commenter were you?
I have no idea if that is directed toward me or what it means if it is.
If it's in relation to my response to shep's comment, I was just noting that I think that people who spew "Bush-lied/People-Died" are hatemongering liars.
I call them willfully-ignorant and hate-filled, but that's just semantics.
"The Cheney administration didn't willfully decieve the public into supporting a pre-ordained war."
OK, I stand corrected. Frightening delusions are frighteningly common around here.
I have no idea if that is directed toward me or what it means if it is.
I thought maybe you were one of the commenters on the Blackfive post.
My bad.
I call them willfully-ignorant and hate-filled, but that's just semantics.
Well, I expect most people are mad because they thought we would find thousands of rounds of brand spanking new ready to fire WMD, plus the war isn't going the way they would like. That's neither willfully-ignorant nor hate-filled. And most people have not immersed themselves in the issue, nor can they afford to. And when famous people say that we were deceived, and we were deceived (but by Saddam), and we have a long standing tradition that claims that all politicians are liars, well, it really should be expected that people will blame Bush.
It's like blaming the Civil War on Lincoln, WWI on Wilson, WWII on Roosevelt and the Korean War on Truman. Which people do all the time, without being -ignorant and hate-filled.
Yours,
Wince
Scaredy-cat.
Yours,
Wince
partisan does not mean non-partisan.
Frist threatened to remake the membership of the Intel Committee into a majority GOP committee (like every other committee) instead of the equal representation it now has, because (gasp) the democrats wanted to investigate intel failures and abuse by the administration -- and, you know, finish/release the 9/11 report. The parts about how the Administration used/cherry-picked intel to sell the war, warrentless wiretapping, detainee rendition and treatment -- all of that was stonewalled by Frist and Chairman Roberts.
It was in all the papers, all over the Internets. Try "The Google." You can look at Frist's letter [PDF] to Ried threatening to "restructure" the committee if the deadlock wasn't broken.
Not stated in the letter: Do it our way, back off, or we'll force it down your throat.
That's "neutering" any effective oversight by the committee in my book. MyDD has a decent overview with lots of links.
1993?? You meant 2003, right? (I'll let your ten year mistake go for now.)
But I'm confused with your problem with this. The committee is "bi-partisan" only by the fact that it is made up of equal number of members from both parties. As your memo and Frist's letter testify, work on the committee has ground to a halt.
We aren't allowed to see the juicy bits of the 9/11 investigation. We aren't allowed to investigate (a prime function of such a committee) intel abuses or questionable programs -- like what exactly is the NSA really up to. I'm not objecting to the program remaining classified. But that committee has a responsibility to oversee such classified programs and the GOP has refused to allow any check on what may or may not be improper clandestine activity.
It's one thing to hide this stuff from the public. But it begs the question, if they're doing things legally, properly, why don't they want the intel committee to know what's up?
I have my beliefs for whom to blame for this situation, and your milage surely differs. I'm more than content in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong, and that my characterization of Frist's threat of a "mini-nuclear-option" combined with Roberts' stonewalling can fairly be described as emasculation.
You'll note that neither the independent investigation contemplated by the democrats, nor Frist's threat to stack the committee in the GOP's favor have occured. Since the suggestion by the Dem staffer was to pull the trigger right before the election (the last one), I'll guess that both sides agreed to a truce -- for now.
Considering the effects, I've learned that tribal-partisan self-delusion is the goddamned scariest thing on earth.
Yours,
Wince
There is only one solution: enlightenment.
Ever found anyone who is enlightened, Diogenes?
Yours,
Wince
I like Diogenes. But asceticism isn’t enlightenment (although it might help). Very, very few of us will ever deserve to be called "enlightened". It’s really a journey, not a destination.
Hmmmm. So it's not a very fast or comprehensive solution. If tribal-partisan self-delusion is the goddamned scariest thing on earth, shouldn't you come up with something better? Or was that hyperbole?
Yours,
Wince
As to the commenter quote, I've always had Veeshir in my name as a commenter. The only times I've commented differently were to satire troll. Like posting once as Saab Erekat talking about the 10 million dead Palestinian babies in Jenin. But even then I always used my veeshir email address.
As for this
Frist threatened to remake the membership of the Intel Committee into a majority GOP committee (like every other committee) instead of the equal representation it now has
Oh, I get it, he neutered it by threatening to do something. If they folded under some lame threats, perhaps they were neutered before that? And I mean, they were afraid of a threat from Bill Frist? Now that's funny. I bet they still have nightmares about Lambchop coming to get them.
And looking at your response about 'bi-partisan', I see we have different definitions for both "neutering" and "bi-partisan".
Neutering means actually doing something to effect the neuter.
Bi-partisan means working together.
At least mine are in the dictionary.
Yes, you are making the exact same mistake they are. That is: Assuming your opponents have evil motives. But when someone says something over and over that you are sure isn't true, human nature will cause you to think "he's lying", even if he's only mistaken. Or even if you are mistaken and he's perfectly right. It's not hate-filled. It may be ignorant. It's a logical error that depends on filtering out facts that should cause doubt. It may also be people being tempted by pride. It's an easy mistake, and it takes considerable effort to avoid it.
Why give your opponents the benefit of the doubt? To encourage them to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Bi-partisan means working together.
Yeah, that's what it's supposed to mean. Not sure how often it's done, but that's what it's supposed to mean.
Yours,
Wince
I don't know how many times I have had the same conversation.
Lefty:Bush lied/people died.
Me: Oh, what did he lie about?
L: WMDs
M:So, when everybody in the world, including every prominent Dem, was saying the exact same things from 1997-2003, were they lying too?
L: Bush lied to them.
M:The governor of Texas convinced the President and Vice President of the United States of a lie?
L: Okay, he misled us.
M: So, did the others mislead us too?
L: Arghhhh, I know I'm right and you're wrong.
Next day,
L: Bush-lied/people-died.
That's a hate-filled lie.
I am very precise when I use that. I don't use it lightly, but I do use it. Accurate labeling is important.
I never said their motives are evil, I said they were hate-filled liars and I stand by that. They think their motives are as pure as the driven snow, to get rid of the evil Rethuglicans and install an administration of goodness and light, i.e. Dems.
They are much more likely to accuse me of evil motives. I usually don't discuss motives, I can't understand a person who would delude themselves and become so full of hate that they drive any humor, except for very mean-spirited humor, out. If a joke gets applause instead of laughter, it's not a joke.
Maybe you haven't shown them.
L: Arghhhh, I know I'm right and you're
wrong.
Hmmm. It seems this person hasn't been shown.
This may be because he doesn't trust you.
This may be because he trusts the people who agree with him.
This may be because he's stubborn.
Maybe, even, he's right and you are wrong. I really doubt it on this issue. On this issue you have by far the better case. Unless I'm wrong.
Either way, if he believes in spite of your arguments that he is right, then he is not lying. So maybe he's hate-filled, but he isn't a liar.
When you say someone is a hate-filled liar, you are impugning their motives. Twice. I don't believe you are less likely to denigrate liberals than they are to denigrate you. You like to call them stupid and ignorant. This is no better than calling them evil.
Of course I'm not doing so well myself. I tend to get really down on people for not being polite enough.
What a nag.
I believe in forgiveness. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think you can change my mind on this issue, Mike. Which makes me alot like some people who think Bush lied. We've made up our minds, and we aren't inclined to change.
Yours,
Wince
There is a huge difference, your stand is opinion, theirs isn't.
Hmmm. It seems this person hasn't been shown.
Or perhaps refuses to admit it?
That's my point. They see the facts and refuse to act accordingly.
I don't believe Bush because he's a Republican, I believe Bush because I was there and I watched it happen.
They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.
See?
Sure. People are stubborn.
They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.
I have that problem with Claire McCaskill, because of some race baiting comments she made. She doesn't deserve that, but I still have a hard time giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Yours,
Wince
That's questionable reasoning.
If your reasoning is to be accepted by others, especially those predisposed to disagree with you, it must be consistent and reasonable or it's not worth the pixels.
When even prominant conservatives can list exhaustive rationale for disbelieving POTUS's rhetoric, your statement that Bush is not believable simply due to party identification is a specious argument.
And directly to the point, just because you sincerely believe that to be the case does not make your reasoning sound, especially since, unless you have a exceptional contacts and a very high security clearance, and also possess the ability to read minds -- you were not there and did not watch it happen. Not all of it, not enough to speak in such absolutes any more than those you say are hate-filled.
Your reasoning is unreasonable. You may have a point, may even be right. But unless you can offer a sound argument, you are hardly persuasive.
Oh Mike. I have some terrible news for you. It’s not that other people can’t blow your ridiculous arguments out of the Koolaid, it’s that the people who can don’t usually waste time arguing with people who have shown themselves incapable of discerning observable reality (I’m making an exception only because you seem like such a nice fellow).
At least we have an explanation for the otherwise inexplicable cockyness.
Many people talked about Iraq’s dangerous WMD program because, at one point, he actually had a dangerous WMD program and they were not privy to the intelligence that suggested it had been destroyed. The Bush Administration knew.
The Bush administration made additional provably false statements (and a nifty UN dog-and-pony-show) about what it knew about Iraqi WMD programming, many of which they had good reason to suspect might not be true.
While the Bush administration was “fixing the facts around the policy,” they were publicly claiming that war and regime change was “a last resort.” In other words, they were lying about what they knew about Iraqi WMDs and they were lying about their intentions to invade and occupy Iraq. They confirmed both sets of lies when they forced and active weapons inspections regime out of Iraq so they could invade it.
I look forward to the widespread use of reliable lie detectors by political elites to settle these questions once and for all. Heh. I expect such devices to impeach human memory so completely that people start videotaping their lives, just so that can remember them correctly.
Generally, arguments which question your opponents intelligence are also rhetorically weak, except in certain forums, where they are de riguer, such as the dozens. This blog may be such a forum, in which case Mark and I are violating cultural norms by arguing against it.
This is not an endorsement of the belief that Bush did mislead about Iraq, or the various arguments I've read on the subject. Those contain holes you could drive a truck through, and I believe that Mike Veeshir, Dean Esmay and maybe even I have done so.
The evidence is better that Bush was deceived than he was a deceiver. We even have very good reasons to explain how Saddam carried out that deception and why. All politics is local, right?
Yours,
Wince
At least Saddam's deception was designed to avoid war. Bush, Cheney and the neocons come out worse by comparison.
Were the people in this link lying?
Well? Were they? Try answering a question shep.
Oh, and you can answer it too Mark since you keep saying he lied.
I'm really curious how and why you two will explain that they (Dems) didn't lie while Bush (GOP) did lie all while saying the exact, same things at the same times.
Except I know that you will never answer my question. shep will respond with insults while Mark will post a 500-word response that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll give you two a hint, the answer is yes/no. Either "yes" they were lying too or "no" they weren't lying. If "no", then there should be more as you would have to explain why they weren't and Bush was, but I would accept only the one word "NO" as then I can make fun of you.
Wince, that's why I say they don't believe Bush because of the (R). Let's see how shep and Mark answer. I've never gotten a coherent answer to that question from a lefty. They usually end up at "Well, he misled us" and when I ask if those other misled us, they get angry and that's that.
That's why I said what I said about the party. They are absolutely inconsistent over party lines.
Once again, I try to use my terminology very carefully and precisely.
You're right, I just demolished your argument. As far as your question, it matters not one whit what any Democrat (or Republican) said as long as they weren’t trying to gin up regime change via a ground invasion and occupation. The issue is why we’ve wound up in the tragically stupid disaster called “the Iraq war” and whether Bush intentionally deceived the public about Iraq’s WMD threat to get us to go along. Unfortunately, they had enough cover with bi-partisan fears of Saddam’s past WMDs so that they could fool vast numbers of Americans into believing that an invasion was warranted.
Even today, long after the administration has been forced to retract every specious claim and dozens of insiders have come forward to say that war had been planned all along, millions of people are too partisan, too prideful or too stupid to acknowledge they were lied to. Hopefully, enough people have come to their senses to outnumber them.
The swinging ball has to hit the building!
The blasting caps have to actually set off the dynamite.
And the chain must be attached to the chain saw!
Yours,
Wince
Sandi Berger's chrystal ball was a bit cloudy, Bob Graham was quite mistaken, Carl Levin was wrong, Robert Byrd's confidence was misplaced (not a unique occurence for him), Rockefeller was mistaken about the "unmistakable evidence," Hillary exaggerated, otherwise, although weasely the rest of the comments at your link were by and large accurately reflective of what the speakers knew at the time.
That was considerably less intelligence than what those in the White House had access to.
I'll quote Blackfive right back at you, Mike: "Urge them to demonstrate honesty and integrity, and substantively debate the real challenging issues facing this country."
Your insistence on a yes or no answer is directly opposed to that sentiment, a cheap debating technique, adds nothing to the discussion. And if you don't like 500 word answers, take Wince's advice and just skim -- but don't challenge me unless you've got some time put asside.
Nothing in that post is relevant in any way to the veracity of those in the Cheney administration.
At this point, as so many on the right like to point out, it's not relevant to determine if we were lied to (but that shouldn't stop Pelosi, et al., from investigating the matter), but rather what do we do now.
Now that we know for certain that the war was unnecessary and was either the result of honest mistakes, blind obsession, or deliberate lies -- is it not time to work tirelessly to get to the point where we no longer are militarily involved there?
Do you want to discuss THE critical issue facing us, or just whittle another notch on your mouse by playing those semantic games that crack you up so? How about we deconstruct Bush's statement that we were never about stay the course, or do you wanna go a few rounds about Cheney's little dunk in the water.
There are lies, damn lies, and then there's the daily White House press briefing.
Here's something that I find interesting. The question the talking heads love to ask, Russert, Blitzer, Stephanopolis, etc., is would they still vote for the war knowing what they know now about Iraq's WMDs. It's a trap question, easy to ask, puts the interviewee on the spot, and rarely leads to a satisfactory exchange.
Hint, the correct answer is -- "of course not," which few of Blackfive's subjects will say even today. Hillary won't, Kerry did after he didn't say it was a mistake. John Edwards did say it outright, that he regretted his vote for the war -- which is why I'm already campaigning for him.
I think a more interesting question, one which will never get a straight answer anymore than the above question, is to ask if they would have voted for the war knowing what that vote would do to their personal political fortunes, WMDs be damned.
Let me boil it down to one thought. Since the lack of prudence and disregard for the long term consequences of invading Iraq were excusable by you, that the urgency of the gathering threat overwhelmed caution or even waiting until the weapons inspectors could more definitively report on the realities on the ground -- why are we now so cautious about taking our troops out of a war when we were so reckless in sending them into one?
Sorry Mark, I know you don't like being laughed at, but that's just funny.
Everyone in the world was saying the same things and, I presume, they all believed it. But yet, only Bush is a liar.
That's why the question is relevant and why I can say, They don't believe Bush because he's a Republican.
Because they prove it whenever I ask that question.
Honestly Mike, I don't understand how you can say that that, really. But I guess I'm never going to convince you that other possiblities exist beyond your pre-concieved notions of the mind-set of those you are arguing with.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but your statement simply isn't accurate. You got anything else? Are semantics the only thing you enjoy? Can you explain how our opinion of Bush's honesty will settle the Iraq conflict?
If you can, I'll concede that what you or I think of Bush's veracity in the lead-up to the war makes one damn bit of difference.
Where did I say that? I will say that it won't settle the Iraq conflict as they are unrelated.
It will point out that some dishonestly and with hatred continually accuse a man of lying when he wasn't lying.
C'mon, answer the question. Were those people all lying as well? If you say, "No", then stop calling Bush a liar. It's really as simple as that.
As for your question, I've answered in debth, fully and completely. It's not my problem that the answer didn't fit within one of your pidgeon holes so you could whack it with your prepared response.
I don't mean to deprive you of a smug, pyrrhic victory in a meaningless game.
Well, actually, I do.
I disagree. Let's see if we can find something approximating an answer.
Sandi Berger's chrystal ball was a bit cloudy, Bob Graham was quite mistaken, Carl Levin was wrong, Robert Byrd's confidence was misplaced (not a unique occurence for him), Rockefeller was mistaken about the "unmistakable evidence," Hillary exaggerated, otherwise, although weasely the rest of the comments at your link were by and large accurately reflective of what the speakers knew at the time.
That was considerably less intelligence than what those in the White House had access to.
I assume that's your in-depth, full and complete answer. First, it is nice to see you admitting that Bush is more intelligent than that coterie of nitwits. I also have to admit, I missed it earlier or I would have complimented you on almost answering my question. Why almost?
First of all, Sandy Berger got his info while in the White House, or else from his pants and socks, depending on when he said what.
Also notice that included in the list of people at the Blackfive link were Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Madelaine Albright. People who got their information while in the White House. As did Sandy Berger. Jay Rockefellar is on the intelligence committed, he saw the same info Bush did.
So some Dems were mistaken, at least one lied to, but what about the ones who had access to the very same information Bush was privy to? Remember that every investigation said that Bush didn't manipulate the intelligence.
So once again, did those people lie or is Bush the only one who lied when he said the exact same things?
I'm also curious as to why I would win a "pyrrhic victory" if you answer a question.
My opinion? I am made less intelligent by reading your 'responses' and thus, while I might win, I will lose something more precious; brain cells.
So...no, Mike. You can't prove the negative, that Bush, et al. did not misuse intel and mislead us, by the absence of a report from an investigation whose conclusion will not be allowed to see the light of day -- due almost entirely to political power struggles surrounding (one may assume) exactly our disagreement.
Bush also walked back three specific mistatements that they had smoking-gun type of evidence of Saddam's WMDs, the Niger Yellow Cake, and as I stated above, non-existent surveillance photos and non-existent IAEA reports.
Those are pretty specific allegations, largly if not completely untrue allegations, that are far more indicative of inside knowledge/subtrefuge than any of the more vague generalities Blackfive quotes.
So no, Bush did not say the exact same things as the others, he said more to persuade us of the same opinion -- offering completely fallacious evidence to reach those conclusions.
I don't know if it was a purposeful lie, since that requires more evidence than has been made public. Perhaps if the 9/11 investigation is allowed to release Phase II, we'll have better evidence of Bush's intent. I do know that at the very, very least, faulty information was recklessly inserted into the public consciousness again and again in late 2002 and early '03.
However, I m persuaded that a circumstantial, prima facie case can be made that we were lied to, supporting further investigation. No court would dismiss a case on such a showing, but would approve further investigation -- issuing subpoenas and warrants as requested, and would allow the people's case to be fully presented and eventually submitted to the jury.
We absolutely have probably cause -- something Bush doesn't need to show to tap your phone or pick up and indefintelyl detain someone he declares an unlawful alien enemy combatant. You can be disappearedd for sending money to a charity that is a Hamass front on less evidence than we have against Bush, but we aren't even allowed to fully investigate the untrue statements he used to start a war. Wow.
We are a jury, but until the 9/11 report's second phase is released, we haven't been presented with the entire case against Bush -- nor heard his complete defense.
But as it stands, there may not be enough to convict Bush of lying, but there's enough to put him on the witness stand and answer some very hard questions.
When you have probably cause to believe someone is lying, it's hardly hate-filled to make the accusation. It's our duty to make the accusation and have the accused answer the charges. so, if POTUS has nothing to hide.......????????
Actually, I think it's you, Mike. The rest of us understand that two people can say the same thing but only one of them lie while doing so.
For example, I don't think you are lying when you say that Bush didn't lie. But Bush is.
You do suggest that you're at least unconsciously unsure of your beliefs by focusing on what "everyone said" and refusing to accept that Bush &Co said things that no one else said and were of dubious nature even before they were proved untrue. Combine them with a motive to lie and you discover the truth: Bush lied, Bush lies, Bush is a liar.
They all were saying the exact same things. Clinton bombed Iraq using the same language that Bush used and yet, Bush is the only one who lied.
"We had to act, and act now," he said.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office.
If anything, Mike, you saying that "They all were saying the exact same things," twice, despite what I have said that indicates the contrary conclusion, makes you a liar.
When did Bush say anything about yellow cake in Niger? Seriously, when? Links please.
And you do know that Joe Wilson said, in his report, that Saddam did try to buy uranium in Niger, don't you?
How about links to whatever IAEA report you're talking about? And links to the 'smoking gun' thing, whatever the heck that was.
I do remember Bush saying, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Where is the lie in there?
Bush said that the proof could come in the form of a nuke, Clinton said that Saddam is threatening his neighbors with nukes. How are Bush's remarks stronger than Clinton's?
Holy guacamole! From my Democrat Dad's lips to your ear, via a detour through my brain and out the keyboard. I was accusing Kerry when Dad schooled me, BTW.
Yours,
Wince
QUIT SKIMMING. Follow the links, read them, or quit wasting everybody's time.
No seriously, mentioning Niger was shorthand for the entire Wilson/16 words discussion. My point was Bush backed off the statement, just like the the surveillance photos that didn't exist and IAEA report that didn't exist. Bush claimed these things, then backed off. If any of them were as advertised, it would have been the "smoking gun" I was referring to.
As for what really happened with the 16 Words and Wilson etc., the jury has yet to be sworn in. Stay tuned. We'll know more in January after opening statements in the Libby trial.
I use these as mere examples to shove down your brain the notion that accusing Bush of lying is not exclusively an indication that the accuser is a hate-filled partisan -- but a rational conslusion which has yet to be definitively adjudicated, but which a reasonable person looking at available evidence could reasonably make.
How many times in this thread alone do you need to be proven dead wrong.
1) You didn't know how the Speaker of the House becomes president because you didn't read carefully enough or follow the links to the text of the Amendments which spell out the procedure in plain English.
2)You didn't know what I was talking about regarding Bush stating and having to back off his statements regarding surveillance photos or an inspector's report which would have been ample evidence -- smoking gun type of evidence -- if those things actually existed because you didn't read carefully enough or read the article I linked.
3) And now you say I didn't provide links which clearly I did, repeatedly.
Are you a liar? I don't know. I do know you have misspoke at least three times in this thread alone. Three times you have written an untruth.
Okay, the 1998 memo didn't exist. The White House said that they meant 1991, which did exist. In '91 the IAEA was absolutely stunned to find out how close Saddam was to making a bomb. It's pretty funny, but before they realized that Bush was serious, Blix and El Baradei were very forceful, after, not so much. Ritter was another who was very forceful about how Saddam was trying to get nukes, then, he gets a documentary deal from Saddam and he's not so forceful anymore.
No seriously, mentioning Niger was shorthand for the entire Wilson/16 words discussion. My point was Bush backed off the statement
No, he didn't. He still stands behind it. As do the British. The only person who backed off on that is Wilson. You see, he was going to mention yellow cake in a speech in Cincinnati and backed off on that because the intel wasn't good enough.
As for you point about linking Iraq to 9/11, he "backed off" because he never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. He repeatedly said that, considering what happened on 9/11, we have to act on Iraq as he is associated with terrorists. Which is absolutely true. Check out Salman Pak for instance.
I definitely liked your BBC link about how the CIA was "undermining" Bush's stance. How was Tenet undermining Bush? From the article
Mr Tenet says that only if attacked would Iraq use whatever weapons of mass destruction it has.
Huh, it looks as if the CIA thought Saddam had WMDs.
I also liked this quote
By '98, "we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment."
Confiscated it huh? Then what was 2 tons of semi-enriched uranium still doing in Iraq in 2004? Perhaps they have a different definition of "confiscated" from mine.
But all of that is still not the point, the point is that the Dems were saying the same things. Except for Kucinich and couple others, they sounded just as bellicose as Bush. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 saying that he couldn't allow Saddam to threaten his neighbors with nukes. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 saying that he couldn't allow Saddam to get nukes.
Yet, only Bush is the liar.
Uhm, sitting under seal, still confiscated by the IEAE, securred, (theoretically) and decidedly NON-Fissile. At least that's how I read your article. Your definition of confiscated makes assumptions, not unwarranted ones, but assumptions nonetheless.
As for your "point." While nearly accurate, with the qualitative exceptions I've mentioned regarding specificity of proof (where Bush went beyond what any Democrat said, and beyond the truth), your point is meaningless and irrelevant to what we do about it.
"It" of course, being the chaos being so wrong has wrought.
What your argument seems to boil down to is the same as a guy punching his wife and trying to excuse his behavior by saying all her ex-husbands wanted to slug her too. Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq, and botched it. The consequences have been far, far worse than anything which came out of Clinton's reign.
No, I'll give you a closer analogy.
I want to buy a soda. Everybody keeps telling me that sodas cost $2. Everybody says it, your father says they cost $2. So I ask my father how much a soda costs, he asks the guy's who in charge of figuring out how much soda costs and is told $2, so he tells me 2$. I go to buy a soda and it only costs $1, did my father lie to me?
Or are you just a GOP-hating person who will never, ever, give any Republican the benefit of the doubt and actively hide your head to avoid being fair to the GOP?
I think I know the answer to that question.
You never answered my question about Clinton, Albright, Gore and Berger getting to see the exact same info Bush saw and saying the same things. That's actively hiding so as not to be fair.
Oh, and one more thing I have to touch on because I know your response will be hysterical.
Did you assume I was talking about something else? when talking about Cincinnati.
Yes, I did. Why? You said this
No seriously, mentioning Niger was shorthand for the entire Wilson/16 words discussion.
Now I look forward to you telling me I'm too stupid to understand why the Wilson/16 word comment would have anything to do with the SOTU speech and not the Cincinnati speech. I really want to see how you do that. It's sure to be a laugh riot.