Murray Waas on the PDB for 21 September 2001
An important piece of the puzzle (for those who still need help coming to grips with the obvious) is this article from Murray Waas in the National Journal: Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel.
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The administration has refused to provide the Sept. 21 President’s Daily Brief, even on a classified basis, and won’t say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.
The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the “President’s Daily Brief,” a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing.
[snip]
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president’s national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.
Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won’t say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.
Hm. So, are we still clinging to that “everyone had access to the same intelligence Bush did, and agreed that we needed to go to war with Saddam” storyline?
November 25th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Ah, so now intelligence sources are credible?
November 25th, 2005 at 11:18 am
I don’t think anyone ever said intelligent sources were not credible.
I think the issue is/was how the administration may have “manipulated” or “massaged” or “cherry-picked” intelligence information to make their case for war (that Saddamn was imminent threat).
November 27th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
No one ever said the intelligence sources were not credible? Where have you been hiding the last couple of years?
It would seem to me that this particular piece of “intelligence” was cherry-picked to make a case for the opposing view, and it certainly is contrary to the intel sources used by virtually every country in the world, all of whom used their own sources in determining that Saddam possessed WMD and the desire to use them….or, did leaders of all countries just take Bush’s word for it?
November 27th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Incidentally, I would like to know when Bush, or any member of this administration, ever, ever, ever said that Saddam “was an imminent threat.” I have read all of the pre-war speeches repeatedly, and that phrase was never uttered, and never even implied. I can, however, find instances in which administration officials clearly stated that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat.
If the actual quote supports your contention, there is no need to misquote. Your statement is worse than a simple misquote; it exemplifies the practice of manipulating and massaging the truth, and it is a blatant lie.
November 27th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Are you serious, TV? Here you are:
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
“Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
• President Bush, 1/3/03
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
• President Bush, 11/23/02
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
• President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
• President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
November 27th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Sven, I hope you used cut/paste rather than wasting a lot of time at the keyboard. The administration certainly stated, believed, and was correct in many statements that Saddam was a threat; he, himself, wished to be viewed as a threat to the U.S. You found lots of quotes using the word “threat,” sans the adjective that changes the entire equation.
You did find a Rumsfeld quote from 9/18/02 that comes close. I don’t know the circumstances, location, or context in which he made that statement, but “I would not be so certain” (that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons) is hardly a definitive declaration of the administrative stance.
Three months later, in your listing, Rumsfeld stated that Saddam was “seeking the means to strike……with weapons of mass destruction.” That statement, and the others listed, stresses imminent threat? Hardly. If he had said that Saddam “has the means to strike, etc.,” you would be right – but he did not make that definitive statement.
True: Cancer poses a very real and serious threat to smokers.
False: Cancer poses a very real, serious and imminent threat to smokers.
The addition of a single word dramatically changes the entire meaning.
November 28th, 2005 at 8:17 am
TeacherVet – Are you retarded?
You spew forth sentences with absolutley no back up and Sven clearly calls you on your lies and you still blab on about nothing.
Can you please provide a link to something were someone says that “intelligent sources are not credible”.
You would probably have better luck finding the quote “this administration is not credible”.
Also, if you know how to use a dictionary, you may want to look up terms like “grave threat” or “unique urgency” or “immediate threat”, and you will discover that these imply “imminent”.
Let me know how you make out.
November 28th, 2005 at 8:36 am
Um, also, from Scott McClellan (aka “The Mouth of Sauron”):
“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
And no. I certainly don’t claim to have typed all these quotes. I found them with the help of my friend google in all of 30 seconds.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970
November 28th, 2005 at 10:17 am
sorry guys – as someone who b!tchslapped TV’s hysterical “we found teh WMDz!!!!!” point by point with a minimum of google searching, I have to say TV is splitting increasingly fine hairs to cling to the belief that bushco is working for anyone other than the rich and the corrupt.
so… if these guys are such straight up patriots and yada yada, please release the minutes (and/or audio recordings) of the Cheney energy task force meetings. I think we will find the smoking gun of the “why” we went to war. Oil and geopolitical gambling on a scale that boggles the rational mind.
Then again they have had years to doctor the record, so I am sure those oil execs and the Cheney neocons just talked about lemonade and sunshine and unicorns and bunnies. At least thats what the record will now reflect (rewriting history anyone?)
“Q: what’s the difference between Karl Rove and Joseph Goebbels? A: about 200 pounds”
November 28th, 2005 at 10:34 am
LOL – “The Mouth of Sauron.” Ahhhhh thats good stuff!!
November 28th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
I’ll play your game, since it’s the only “debate style” you have the ability to argue. You’re both being stubborn assholes, blinded by political hatred. You are unable to look at both sides of an argument, choosing instead to sheepishly/blindly follow the stale rhetoric of fellow assholes, equally filled with bitterness.
My illustration of the cancer threat answered your stupid statement about use of the word “imminent.” In any case “grave,” “serious,” “unique,” “threat,” etc. are not even remotely synonymous with “imminent.” What dictionary are you using, fool?
In the lengthy list, you chose to selectively omit the many statements made that actually clarified the administration stance. Namely, we were specifically told repeatedly that Saddam was not an imminent threat, but that he was seeking the necessary components, and that it was urgent that we force him to comply with U.N. mandates before he became and imminent threat.” That was the subject of weeks of debate in Congress, deciding whether we should strike before weapons were developed.
Scott McClellan might have used the term in 2003, in the face of malicious persistent lies and speculative attacks, but that does not constitute the well-documented policy stance.
enkidu, you rebuked the claims of “found WMD” using only sources that were filled with “if, maybe, perhaps” etc., all subjective guesswork, nothing definitive. I can find an equal number of biased sources that support my position, but that doesn’t make me right. I never said “we found teh WMDz,” asshole, I said we found components and evidenciary materials that have no other use – and I was correct.
I didn’t respond at the time because you mentioned a wife and kids. You’re an obvious hot-head, and I didn’t want to contribute to your evident uncontrolled temper. Your rage appears to be beyond reason. It is not funny that you would use the term “b’tchslapped,” considering your family situation, but it is funny that you describe my statements as “hysterical.” Trolling is habitual, eh? You are both like spoiled little brats, simply selfish little idiots.
Geopolitical gambling? Rewriting history? Trolling? Lying? Look within.
November 28th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Heh.
November 28th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
it is to laugh
TV, your WMD claims were bunkum. every. single. one. I used the BBC, the USGOV and other reputable sources. Your claims were ridiculous. The 1.7 tons of eUr were under IAEA seal and have been for many years (ie many years prior to GW2).
Screaming “asshole” isn’t debate. I resent you bringing my wife and kids into it. Your Karl Rove-like insinuations do nothing to further your radical cause.
I think a great deal about what kind of America we are building in the 21st century, what kind of planet I will leave behind. I volunteer at schools, I pick up trash with my kids when we go hiking. I help seniors in my area because that’s the way I am. I walk instead of drive and my job is entirely virtual (no commute! woot!). I am not full of rage. I am outraged that you should say so!
heh
Thanks to what is left our 1st amendment, I can use naughty terms metaphorically – ie I made you my bitch by knocking your pathetic WMD arguements around like a pimp smacks his $2 ‘ho (wait, “like” is simile, hmmmm, anyway)
November 28th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
TeacherVet, I just want break this discussion down so you can see how totally absurd this looks:
Sven’s response included these specific quotes:
You then go on to say:
He found three quotes (the first three, in case you started subtracting after that) where ‘imminent threat’ is stated directly, and three where it is clearly implied. You continued to argue your point, saying that some of his quotes did not use the term ‘imminent’ directly…when, in fact, they did.
Remember, you asked “Incidentally, I would like to know when Bush, or any member of this administration, ever, ever, ever said that Saddam “was an imminent threat.” — he showed you three direct examples of this. You also say that “I have read all of the pre-war speeches repeatedly, and that phrase was never uttered, and never even implied.” Sven showed several implications of this statement. How can you possibly continue to refute this? Is your memory that short? Are you lying? Sometimes I wonder if you’re a left-winger posting here and trying to make the right look silly…are you? JBC, are you trolling your own board?
TeacherVet, I have a question for you: What is the meaning of ‘is’?
-Ethan P
November 28th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Nope, not me.
November 28th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
My memory is sufficient to distinctly remember the weeks of debate prior to the war, during which the administration consistently argued that we needed to stop Saddam before he became an imminent threat. The phrase was bantered about repeatedly in false quotes from the left before officials addressed the issue using their terminology. A response to a stupid/false question from a reporter does not constitute policy.
When McClellan, and others, are asked questions using the words “imminent threat,” they use that terminology in their response. Sven found a couple of such examples. 1)”No terrorist state poses a greater or more imminent threat to…security…stability…” That is simply comparative, and again, I don’t know the question or the context. 2) “I would not be so certain” is used in his other quote. Again, hardly sounds definitive. I’ll give you a topic to google: find the numerous times during the pre-war debate that officials stated that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat, but needed to be stopped before he became one.
Sven showed several “implications” of the term, Ethan? In counting the adjectives used in his quotes, I find a(8 times), the (5), serious (3), grave (2), it’s, greater, real, dangerous, mortal, unique, terrible, growing, and significant. Which of those terms is even remotely synonymous with “imminent”? Even when the interviewer used the term as bait, the response usually did not. Ethen, your question is stupid, though only meant to be demeaning (with characteristic tolerance, of course), but I’m sure one of these geniuses can google it for various opinions.
treehugger, I looked up “grave,” “unique,” and “more immediate” in two dictionaries and a thesaurus. They are not synonymous. They are not antonyms, they simply are not related.
enkidu, you certainly do come across as a simple-minded asshole, even if you do pick up trash (hopefully not figuratively) and do some wonderful, politically correct stuff. I’m not your bitch in any way, but if you need a guy to b’tchslap you can probably shop around on your next trip to the park. If you think of me as your number two ‘ho, who is your number one? I didn’t bring your wife into the discussion, you did at the end of one of your ridiculous rants. If anyone ever tries to b’tchslap me, they won’t remember it, and they won’t have an opportunity to boast about it.
“Teh WMDz?” Maybe I’m just stubborn, but I provided a list of stuff that was supposedly destroyed “between the wars” (since you’re too blind to see that today’s conflict is simply an extenuation of Desert Storm). The stuff had not been destroyed, had not been discovered by weapons inspectors, and had no other use than production of WMD. The 1.7 tons of unenriched uranium were found by troops in the field; period. In your silly googling, you select only those sources that contradict those statements, and none of them are definitive. I don’t trust the opinions or bias of the BBC, and you seem to mistrust the USGov, so where are your credible sources?
Of particular interest were the many caches of recently-manufactured gas masks discovered in several locations during the march to Baghdad. The implications were unmistakable. I jokingly/sarcastically suggested that perhaps Saddam was an eccentric collector of such items. Incredibly, your “debunking” implied something remarkably similar. Of course, as with all of your credible (subjective) sources, you had to qualify your response with if/maybe/perhaps – I don’t remember which term you used.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:57 am
I used the BBC (which you claimed as a source) and USgov sources (I am repeating myself, but you seem to like to lie repeatedly), and I find it pretty credible and factual if USgov docs say those 1.7 tons of eUr were under IAEA seal after GW1 (since we could also back it up with IAEA googling). The eUr was still under IAEA seal (not sure if ANY of it escaped curing the chaos of war to be honest).
Your point about gas masks is a false premise: gas masks are not WMDs (is WP? dunno). The US makes many many gas masks too. And we have yet to destroy our US stockpile of 1,200 tons of VX (fact). Saddam is a horrible human being and he wanted to project that he had WMDs even if he didn’t have much of anything. Big mega death WMDs that he could lob at his neighbors/our allies – strategic WMDs? Probably not. Continental US threatening WMDs? Definitely not. I believe I asked you to recall the ruses allied forces used during ww2 (inflatible tanks in Dover area, Patton making himself noticed etc). You are grasping as increasingly tiny straws to suggest that gas masks are WMDs.
Your use of personal insult and invective isn’t even humorous or all that related to the points discussed. I think any objective observer (ie not u, not me) would say it is you, sir, who rant and rave. I feel more pity for TV than anger or hatred. Perhaps I hate the sort of mind that quotes the BBC as a source then turns right around and says the BBC is untrustworthy anyway. You would fit right in with bushco.
Your “we found the WMD” points (my apologies if the obvious parady of using l337 5pe4k previously was misunderstood) haven’t been trumpted by the MSM or the WH because each of your examples wasn’t WMD (certainly not in any regional or US threatening kind of way). Perhaps you can dish it out (not particularly well), but you sure can’t take it. I bitchslapped your points with a minimum of effort. I suggest you try googling and not just hunting for the 34%er wingnut sources.
My Mom once challenged me to say something nice about bush. I immediately rattled off a half dozen things. Then I ran thru a much longer list of complete and utter abject failures/disasters that seem to define bushco. These crooks make me long for preznit Bubba.
As to me being blind, well ‘brother’ I ask you to remove the mote in your eye.
November 29th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Somehow this debate reminds me of a Monty Python sketch…
A man walks into an office.
Man: Good morning, I’d like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we’ll see who’s free at the moment.
Mr. Bakely’s free, but he’s a little bit concilliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.
He enters room 12.
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that…
Angry man: DON’T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!
YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I’m sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh…Sorry…
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.
The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I’ve told you once.
Man: No you haven’t!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn’t!
O: Yes I did!
November 29th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
too funny – now NEWSMAX (a right wing moonabt wingnuttier than thou operation to be sure) is making with the WE FOUND TEH WMDzzz!!! (do u work there TV or do u work for KBR? Karl Rove?)
The list is the same crap TV was pushing and it is still a bunch of hogwash.
The 1.77 eUr story gets fleshed out somewhat in the comments (note that the eUr is LOW enriched eUr by several accounts. Not suitable for bomb-making and considered so dangerous bush1 left it behind in Iraq under IAEA seal (they couldn’t enrich it or the 500 tons of yellow cake they already had on hand to make a bomb, so why bother to move it?)
a choice bit:
“A second diplomatic official expressed puzzlement as to why the United States was considering moving the material, after the material has been presumably secured and resealed. Except for the incident immediately after the invasion, the official said, “this stuff has been there, secure, quiet, not a problem to anyone, since 1991.” – U.S. Announces It Intends to Move Tons of Uranium From Baghdad NYT 5/22/04
so… it was secured for over a decade until we invaded.
gee that sure seems “imminent” to me!
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/republicans-now-saying-wmd-were-found.html
please excuse his language, as it may be a bit strong for those with delicate sensibilities
actually the debunkings are all over the web already, Richard Miniter’s book seems to be a bit short on things like “facts” “reality” and “truth”.
http://www.ww4report.com/node/1306
November 30th, 2005 at 12:20 am
Sorry if it bothered you, enkidu, but it seemed appropriate to call an asshole an asshole. I had dropped the entire issue, but you brought it back repeatedly with your narcissistic boasting of “b’tchslapping” someone. So, you judge me as having been abusive in my use of personal insults? Wow. U da man. Sorry, but it was merely reactionary; it’s not something I usually practice. Can you say the same?
Existence of many huge caches of gas masks, if you can’t figure it out on your own, indicate that they were surely purchased for a purpose. When found in enemy bunkers, the natural assumption was that they were to be used by his troops as protection from…..wonder what? And used by whom? – Saddam certainly knew that the U.S. wouldn’t be using chemical or biological weapons. Yes, the U.S. has a large stockpile of VX nerve gas – but we have no history of using such agents on our own people. Saddam’s history?
I quoted the BBC without trust or conviction, and did so only because those on the left tend to treat BBC opinions as gospel. In fact, I purposely used sources that are usually found credible by folks on the left.
Again, I’ve been shown no contrary documentation that is not tempered with “maybe, if, probably, I think, presumably” etc. Mostly opinions pieces, often quoting “unnamed, reliable” (fictional?) sources. In your quote (above), I question whether the unbiased (insert cough) NYT reporter’s (unnamed, of course) “second diplomatic official” is talking about the same incident – “except for the incident immediately after the invasion…...” The stuff in question was discovered 15 months later.
When did you read Miniter’s book? Silly question, eh? After having read it, one sometimes wonders on which side of the aisle he belongs. He debunks 22 myths, from both liberals and conservatives, although it might not be billed that way by Newmax. No, I don’t work for Newsmax, nor do I subscribe to them. I’m a public school teacher, and haven’t worked at Langley for 30 years. I picked up the book at Books-a-Million, the same place I picked up my copies of the books by the Clintons, M. Moore, the SNL comedian, etc.
Sven, I suppose I’m the character looking for an argument, and the angry man represents the abusive b’tchslappers. I agree, too funny – and representative.
November 30th, 2005 at 8:46 am
if we were to take the Monty Python sketch as a model, Enkidu walks into a blog and…
E – Hello, I’d like to refute your “we found the WMDs nonsense”
TV – Asshole!
E – errr, anyway, each of your claims is verifiably debunked (usually by the same sources you claim as ‘proving’ your proposition, so
TV – ASSHOLE!
E – uhhhhh, this isn’t much of a debate
TV – ASSHOLE!!! you use naughty language and make fun of me! waaaa!
E – well, I DID bitchslap your pathetic nonsense with a minimum of fact checking
TV – narcissitic liberal liar! asshole asshole!
E – ummm, please talk to your doc about upping your medication as your grip on consensual reality seems to be slipping
TV –
rinse, repeat
TV, each of your claims was bullshit. A series of thin lies, mixed with a gruel of distorted facts (example 1.7 tons of eUr WMDz liberated by our troops… errr yeah, except its been under lock and key since ’91… example shell with cyclosarin! it was degraded beyond being useful as a weapon, since it dated from the 80s etc etc etc).
I need to go volunteer at my kid’s school, so i will make this short. Every human being has an asshole, while some of us are bigger assholes than others. A giant gaping soul sucking asshole like TV can’t see his precious beliefs shredded (I say again bitchslapped like a $2 ho) with resorting to stupid name calling and a truly astonishing refusal to face the facts of what is clearly his (and many other neocons) mistake.
I would ask if you had a shread of decency, but judging by your posts, I would have to say that you do not have even a shred. I am more amused and saddened by your tirades and refusal to admit your obvious error(s). I could spend all day carefully gathering facts and rebuttals, but it won’t do any good as your beliefs seem to trump reality at every turn.
Isn’t the definition of pyschotic behavior to make the same mistake over and over while expecting a different result? Well, thanks for the laugh Mr TiradeVeterinarian, it’d be a whole heckofalot more funny if you PNAC patriots weren’t gambling big time with my kid’s future.
November 30th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Sorry, little guy, but I don’t have to boast of my deeds. I was prepared to admit the report of the 1.77 tons of enriched uranium was probably bogus, along with some of the other stuff, but you couldn’t simply rebuke the claim without throwing in abusive personal insults. The result was predictable, as you’re probably intelligent enough to know; abusive language only incites stubbornness, defensiveness and retribution.
I am one (of many, I suspect), who can be persuaded – but not with the bullying tactics common to “the left.” Those tactics bring out the worst, and are not convincing or persuasive. They are used only to demean, and cause the base argument to be ignored. I care about the future of all kids, but abusive tactics make it difficult.
I also care very much about my comrades and relatives in the trenches in Iraq. The left claims to care about them, but, seemingly, only for political gain. If we are losing the war in Iraq, we’re losing it to the same enemy who defeated us in Vietnam; the enemy at home. And, the majority of voters will not forget it if we pull out prematurely, with the same post-war results as ‘Nam.
Yes, the definition of psychotic behavior is correct. A thirty-year decline in political power began immediately following the Vietnam capitulation. The radical left has continued (actually, augmented) their failed tactics. It certainly fits the definition of psychotic behavior.
I, personally, have never forgotten the hateful reception upon my return home; spit on (both literally and figuratively), demeaned by being labeled a “baby killer” by a professor in my class at a liberal arts university, treated as scum by the same people who now claim “to support the troops.” I have “walked a mile” in those shoes, and I recognize purely disengenuous rhetoric.
Apologies (sincere, too) if I bruised your sensitivity. I “turned the other cheek” repeatedly, but it reached a point that human, defensive instincts sparked an uncharacteristic reaction. I tire of being attacked simply because I have beliefs. Yeah, I know, all of my beliefs are false because someone else has opinions (beliefs!) that contradict my own.
I taught science last year. It was tough to teach evolutionary theories (beliefs), knowing that the contentions are simply that – contentious theories that are unproven (indeed, cannot be proven using the scientific method). While not mentioning other theories, I found it necessary to cast some degree of doubt, pointing out the unproven “facts” (assumptions), as stated in the textbook, on which the theory of evolution is dependent. I devoted an entire section to exposing the flaws, having obtained permission (actually, encouragement) from administration and parents to teach outside the text, and that section was not tested. I probably violated some liberal laws, so fire me.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:40 am
how does one reply to this sort of delusion?
you start off with more demeaning bs “little guy” (rolls eyes – why bother to respond) then segue into that tired old “I was just being reasonable and you were being mean! waaaa!”
no offense ‘brother’ but I went back and skimmed thru our initial exchange on WMDs… almost without exception you are the one cursing and screaming about how anyone who disagrees with your political beliefs is an asshole.
I was interested in hearing your ‘proof’ of all those WMDz and politely and repeatedly asked you to offer up some ‘proof’. Which you did in a long post from Nov4. I was eager to finally find some reason (other than oil) that might justify our invasion of Iraq. The fact is that each of your points were pathetic lies (ok, so you mixed in some half truths and even some distorted facts, good job Karl!) It only took a few second to google the answers from reasonable sources (like the beeb or the USgov or reputable news agencies – not winger sites). And without exception your points were bullshit.
It isn’t bullying to point out errors and lies in a ‘debate’ opponent. That you accuse the left of abusive vile smear tactics is laughable. I took each of your points, thanked you for a chance to see WHY the right wing is so adamant in their belief in shrubco, and actually got in there and looked at each of them in turn. Your most alarming point about 1.77 tons of eUr was of great concern to me (and every reasonable American I think). I even conceded the point until further googling revealed it to be yet another pathetic distortion. The eUr is a) not suitable for making a bomb and b) was under IAEA seal since GW1 (bush1 was so concerned about the stuff they left in in Iraq). To sum up: your talking points were BS.
The rest of your post above is stereotypical winger nonsense. I guess you turned the cheek again and again as I bitchslapped your wingnut WMD points, because I don’t seem to recall me screaming that you are an asshole. Actually far from it, I made mention several times of hoping thet you might be in the sane column, might be willing to see reason, step beyond lockstep belief in a failed (Iraq/domestic) policy/presidency. After reading your rant above, I think you DO need more medication.
Bringing up Vietnam (sorry about your experiences there and when you got home) and saying it lead to a 30 year decline in US power etc is laughable. We are the only superpower in the world! We spend more on weapons and defense then the next 30 countries combined.
I never once made any mention of your religion tho you seem to relish pretending to be the abused and downtrodden little flower. I mentioned faith in the preznit, not Jesus. I also find it funny that while the Rs hold all three branches of gov, you folks continue to pretend that the liberals and progressives hold all the power and are viciously enacting pograms that would make Stalin blush.
I didn’t attack you because of your beliefs, I simply proved you wrong time and time again. You can believe in those WMD points but there is no truth there. Those points were LIES (see URL above). But because of your magical thinking, your well-nigh-religious belief in false information, it is almost impossible to debate someone who just can’t change from their presupposed mindset, beliefs, wingnuttery. I was very much ready to concede that there were WMD found if I could verify your claims. I tried and could not. Those WMD claims are bullshit and will continue to be bullshit despite your magical thinking/beliefs.
As to your whole mini-rant about evolution, there isn’t enough time in the day to refute this idiocy. If you want to teach about God, please do it in your church or local house of worship. Other than talking about the unknowns of science (like what was ‘before’ the big bang, or who created the creator (snark)), God has no place in a science class. Magical thinking can’t be reproduced using the scientific method. Render unto Ceasar etc etc.
It does make me sad you can’t admit that your whole we found the WMDs rant was based on lies. You can burn Galileo in effigy all you want, but the Earth still goes around the Sun. Facts is facts, and lies is lies, and you seem to be full of the latter.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:43 am
TV – Thank you.
By trying to all of a sudden turn this debate into one of evolution vs creationism, you’ve displayed something to me.
You have ideologies, and no matter how many facts are presented to you you will still believe those ideologues. Thats fine. But don’t discount actual fact-checking analysis by people like enkidu simply because it doesn’t suit your “beliefs”.
You have the right to believe whatever you want. But what you don’t have the right to do is try to pass off your beliefs as facts (which btw you do a piss-poor job of doing anyways). I would be happy to entertain some of your points, but you never gave any links and/or reference material to support your claims.
I’m not sure what your tour in ‘nam has to do with this debate either. I don’t think anyone here spit on you and called you a baby killer. I know all too well about labels (hence my handle – Because I care deepy about our environment, I am often referred to as a treehugger), but thats okay. Just because some anti-war folks back in the day mistreated you doesn’t mean all people who despise war, despise the troops. Patriotism is not red or blue, it’s red, white, and blue.
We have to be careful not to lump people together under the same banner. It’s that partisan attitude that is very much alive in America today, due mostly, imo, to the most polarizing president in history. This administration has done so much to bitterly divide us that a simple debate about pre-war intelligence gets turned into a whole evolution/creationism, vietnam, left-wing/right-wing war of beliefs.
Its very sad.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Treehugger, thanks. Duly chastised, and acknowledged. I didn’t clarify my point well, but I wasn’t trying to change the focus of the discussion. Science is the study of provable absolutes, not theories, and in all fairness, the facets of evolution that are mere speculative assumptions should be identified in the study of that subject. I also have serious doubts about the Biblical presentation of creationism. Both are theories, and, as such, both should be equally explored or ignored in the classroom. I do not teach creationism in the classroom, but if it was mandated that I do so, conscience would dictate a necessity to identify the obvious flaws in the theory.
Enkidu, you simply can’t drop it. And folks wondered why the prez wouldn’t apologize or “point out 3 mistakes he’d made” during a debate forum? Why bother to apologize if it won’t be accepted, and only leads to more attacks?
Bitchslapped? Look up “bitch” in wiki, or google it. I’m a man….and my back door only swings one way. I’m guilty of personal attacks and invective? Perhaps you’re trying to impress someone with improper use of pop culture vernacular?
I’ve also re-read the posts in the previous string. I’m unable to find any example of my cursing, or of SCREAMING.
I made it very clear that I did not mention any other theories in the classroom, so your conclusions/conversations in that area are moot.
Apparently I wasn’t clear in my statement about a 30-year steady decline in power. I inadvertantly omitted “by the left” (read, Democrat), although the rest of the paragraph should have made that clear. One Democrat candidate elected from that party in the last three decades (and Clinton was not extreme, radical, or far left, the faction that dictates party policy in his party today), and a definitive loss in the structure of Congress.
How does the left attempt to reverse the trend? Simple. Attack the foundational aspects of voters’ lives; their core beliefs, values, and the teachings of their parents. An effective technique, or will voters reject denegration and forceful efforts? Only time will tell.
I hereby acknowledge that I was wrong about some of the items quoted by Miniter, so that means that I LIED? Again, you need to hit wiki for the definition of a “lie.” In case you’ve missed it, the misuse of the term has become stale, and the rhetoric is shifting to “we’re losing the war.”
My use of “little guy” was obviously in reference to your propensity for boasting, a sign of narcissism. Engagement in a pissing contest is tempting, but hardly productive.
I brought up my experiences post-‘Nam because they had a serious, lasting negative effect of my psyche. I’m not consumed by those memories, but they are consistently jogged by today’s efforts to undermine the mission of the troops while they are in harm’s way. Lives are again being lost, and the ultimate success of their mission is again threatened only by the lies of the left – the greatest enemy they face.
One in every 2,500 Iraqi’s (10,000 of 25 million, .0004 of the people), is active in the “insurgency,” and they are only capable of fighting by blowing themselves up, along with their fellow citizens; hardly a formidable enemy. Compare that to the organized foe we faced in Vietnam, and the comparisons become bogus. The only valid comparison is the effort of the enemy within. I did not mention Vietnam until well after the foolish and dangerous analogies were being screamed in the halls of Congress.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:52 pm
TV: Bullying tactics are unfortunate, unnecessary, and uncalled for, but not exclusive to any one party on the left or the right. While I admit I can be a bit of a “Svenkter” from time to time, I try not to be. I’m sorry you were treated so horribly when you came back from Vietnam. You deserve our respect for your service to our country. As for myself, I was probably only about five years old at the time, and didn’t even know there was a war. I now live in a military town, and many retired marines are my friends, neighbors and coworkers. Next door a recently retired marine was part of the initial invasion force that entered into Baghdad in the early days of our current war. I’ve praised him for the fine job he and his fellow soldiers did in those early days, for getting the job done, and suffering so few casualties. Really impressive. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem our countries leader had a practical plan for what do do since then, and in my view never really had proper justification to invade Iraq in the first place. I was initially supportive of our country going to Afghanistan to pursue Bin Ladin, but after Bush quickly stopped thinking about Osama and turned his attention to Saddam, I stopped being supportive. It was actually at this time that I first registered as a Democrat – something else I blame Bush for.
As for our countries military, I don’t see why anyone would blame our troops for our presidents mistakes. I certainly don’t. From those I know the military is just as divided as the rest of the country, as evident from the retired marine down the street with the “No W” sticker on his SUV.
And as to you being worried about being fired by some “Liberal Law” for not teaching evolution the way some might prefer: it’s quite the opposite in my state. Liberals aren’t the ones looking for excuses to fire teachers. Liberals actually realize that we need more teachers, not fewer. As to teaching evolution in this state, fortunately my wife teaches 8th Grade Physical Science, and doesn’t need to address that problem. It seems some parents freak out at the thought of their children learning about evolution, so many 7th Grade Science teachers now call it “Change Over Time”, avoiding any reference to human evolution so as not to offend the Christian Right. You see, it’s the Republican Party who has been out to attack our states educators, with Governor Schwarzeneggers “Special-Interest-Blame-the-Teachers-Election.” Several of his propositions would have been detrimental to our schools had they passed, and another proposition he sought to put on the ballot would have privitized and essentially destroyed my wife’s pension plan. Conservatives in this state seem to think its not easy enough to fire teachers here. Prop 74 was to change a teachers receiving permanent status from 2 years up to 5 years, and allow teachers to be fired for any reason without even having a hearing. These issues were apparently SO important to the Republican party that they wasted millions of tax payers dollars on a special unnecessary election that could have just as easily waited another 6 months for the primary early next year. Fortunately, the liberals of our state voted every one of his anti-education propositions down. As for me, I blame the Republican party for attacking my wife’s profession. I do, however, hope I don’t hold a grudge against them for the next thirty years.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:09 am
Sven, Arnold and his cronies were wrong. I don’t know anything about his reasoning, not living anywhere near California. Liberalism and conservatism obviously have different meanings and ramifications in different areas of the country, since the attacks on education come from the liberal side in our state. Our Republican governor did try to balance the state budget largely on the backs of teachers, but that battle was easily won. It was a bit disingenuous on my part, though, to take part in the fight against him – he was elected to balance the budget, then I fought against having to make personal financial sacrifices to that end. Since he ultimately last on the issue, it would make no sense for me to hold a grudge for his effort.
I don’t hold a grudge for 30-year-old mistreatment, but neither am I able to simply dismiss it when constant reminders come from Capitol Hill on a daily basis.
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:25 am
sorry pal, but u just can’t shoot straight can you?
*coughs discretely*
TeacherVet Says
“I’ve also re-read the posts in the previous string. I’m unable to find any example of my cursing, or of SCREAMING.”
1
TeacherVet Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
“You’re both being stubborn assholes, blinded by political hatred.”
and “blindly follow the stale rhetoric of fellow assholes”
2
TeacherVet Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
“enkidu, you certainly do come across as a simple-minded asshole”
3
TeacherVet Says:
November 30th, 2005 at 12:20 am
“Sorry if it bothered you, enkidu, but it seemed appropriate to call an asshole an asshole.”
I am sure there are some F, S and B words in there too. Whatever. Sticks and stones… anyway
You lied about cursing, you are lying to yourself about WMDs and you are lying about the real enemy (extremism imo). Democrats are your countrymen. Please try to see that folks who don’t share your extreme viewpoint might consider your schtick offensive or occasionally call you on your bs. I was more than willing to prove you right, but it turned out you were wrong.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:12 pm
enkidu, FYI the previous string was entitled “De la Vega on the Case for Impeachment,” posted on Nov. 2nd. My final post on the string was made on Nov. 4th at 9:27 pm.
Screaming, or yelling, is expressed in print using UPPER CASE or bold text, as you obviously know, since you use both techniques. I still find no evidence of my screaming – or my suposed hysteria – anywhere in the string.
Following numerous attempts to be demeaning with references to “the troll,” unable to get the response you apparently wanted, you finally lost all responsible self-control:
1
enkidu says:
November 4th at 10:57 pm
You and your cabal of half-truth neo-con chest thumping, flag draping, bloody shirt waving fucktards are making my children’s future more dangerous. To quote your hero Darth Cheney “go fuck yourself!” – (all in bold, screaming text).
You may have been in such a rage that you didn’t even know you typed it, since you don’t seem to remember it; but that classy statement, following a reference to kids and wife, made me suspect your lack of self-control and stability, and gave me cause to worry for their safety. Your rhetoric had already started getting out of hand even prior to that statement, with “leftbehind” acknowledging that you were losing control at 9:52. His words obviously served only to further provoke you, so I chose to ignore it so I wouldn’t contribute to your instability.
The following day, you acknowledged that I had not sunk to your depths.
enkidu says:
November 5th at 12:51 pm
TV has remained on the whole polite and batted back any spurious or heated ‘profiling’ of stereotypes with admirable wit, wisdom and patience. Sure he is full of bull on the “we found teh WMDz!!!” thing, but he IS trying to communicate.
That contradicts your own recent assertion, in the current string.
2
enkidu says:
Dec. 1st at 9:40 am
No offense ‘brother’ but I went back and skimmed through our initial exchange of WMDs… almost without exception you are the one cursing and screaming….
In the middle of a discussion of semantics, on a subject unrelated to the previous string, you felt the need to interject…
3
enkidu says:
as someone who b!tchslapped TV’s hysterical “we found teh WMDz!!!!!”…
Those examples don’t include the many personal, demeaning statements that smothered your assertions in the first string – and all preceded any inappropriate language used in my eventual reaction.
Following 24 days of silence I finally responded, beginning with “I’ll play your (emphasis added) game, since it’s the only ‘debate style’ you have the ability to argue.” I labeled you a “stubborn asshole” on three occasions, and “little guy” once. You became indignant, but my invectives fall well short of those only in example #1. I probably used some “F, S and B” words in the original string, but only in exact quotes from other posters.
I “hereby acknowledge(d)” that I was wrong about some of the items, and offered “apologies (sincere, too),” only to be met with another attack.
I have closely read all meanings of the word “lie.” I realize that the word has been used so recklessly that all meaning seems to be lost, but it is defined as “An intentional violation of the truth” (requiring awareness to the contrary). “Wrong” means “incorrect” (and without malicious intent). The two words are not synonymous, not being cross-referenced in the thesaurus. Most of my assertions were wrong, and I can certainly accept that, but I have not lied. Using the “new meaning” as applied commonly in the hateful rhetoric of today’s world, I could accuse my students of lying with every wrong answer on exams. Such misuse is an assault on one’s own intelligence, but if it’s important to you, go for it.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:04 pm
you are laughable
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Accepted, and thanks.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:13 am
heh – after another hour wrapping Christmas presents for kids all over this crazy planet, I felt I should elaborate. My numbered post of your swearing was simply to point out a small lie. I never said I didn’t swear, TV, you said you didn’t. That is a lie (see URL above). You can take on the aggreved tone of the victim, but it doesn’t change the fact that you couldn’t admit those points were lies and your continued defense (up until, o what an hour ago?) of them was in effect lying to yourself.
Your diatribe about what constitutes shouting and cursing, well guilty as charged. I am mad that the PNAC patriots and blow hard fucktards are indeed making my children’s future less safe by their stupid gamble in Iraq. I read right wing blogs and I have to say the hatred, the racism, the vitriol and barely contained desire to just start shooting Dimocrats is chilling. I read liberal blogs and I honestly can’t say I hear anyone saying things like the horrors I read on the winger ‘net. I think it is legitimate to ask why so many of the Rs I know are racist genocidal tools, some in my own family. That is called direct experience. You are simply reinforcing this viewpoint. I can’t recall talking smack about you or your family, and took pains to mention that we actually had some civil back and forth before you went postal.
I suppose in one sense, I am writing this before bed because you are at least trying to communicate. If your WMD points had been true, I would have eaten crow with relish. However, none of that stuff was true, and you still seem to begrudge admitting any of those bs points.
If I have personally insulted you, my apologies. I don’t question your patriotism, don’t question mine.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:15 am
You’re not laughable. You need help. You are unable to accept an apology, going off again on a wild tirade. Your propensity for spreading blame indiscriminately is wrong, period. You were verbally abusive to great excess, then indignant when the man you had repeatedly assaulted finally responded – appropriately.
You’re in complete denial. So am I. You’re in permanent attack mode, unable to see that your aggressiveness forces defensiveness, digging in. The civility of the back and forth was entirely one-sided. I posted, you attacked, I eventually responded in like kind, and I’m evil. Sigh.
More raving about those racist genocidal Republicans. You need to use more care in choosing the associates with whom you have direct experience, because your generalized blanket evaluation is blantantly false. In a very personal response to me, you again bring up racism, even knowing the charge is false. Sigh again.
Try a wee bit of something called tolerance, at least with those evil R’s in your own family. Seek some anger management help before you hurt yourself, or a family member. I say that with sincerity, without malice, but with full awareness that you cannot see your own serious flaws. In the meantime, you’re hurting your own causes, because as illustrated below, “anything you say can and will be used against you.”
Prior to the 2004 election, I very effectively used posts from raving radicals in securing votes (and creating awareness) in the Dayton, Ohio area. I had temporarily relocated to that area, living with my wife’s relatives for the effort. It was a completely honest method of exposing the lunacy of radical leftists, using their own exact words and phrases. My byword was the phrase, “These are the people who want to seize control of your government and your destiny.” I pity such people for their mental illness, for the depths of their uncontrollable hatred and self-inflicted political injuries, but will work to my dying day to see that they are never again allowed to gain control until they regain some degree of sanity and honesty. Yeah, I know, “Bush lied.”
Your efforts to save the planet are noble, and appreciated. I don’t personally know anyone who is apathetic about environmental concerns, but don’t expect everyone to be equally consumed. They are not beneath you.
Many of my WMD suspicions were proven false, and I appreciate the perspective. I don’t care what kind of chip you carry, but I will not bow at your feet. I will simply genuinely apologize, and not begrudgingly, for the third or fourth time, for having been led wrong on some issues. I know…not accepted. Take care.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:33 am
Buddy, look back over your words. Your anger and tirades far exceed my own admitted excess. You see anyone who isn’t goosestepping along with your views as the enemy. I have watched you comment for many many months and when I asked politely to see your proof of your WMD claims, it was nothing but pathetic lies.
This whole ‘the left is so angry’ thing is a ridiculous straw man. Laughable. Sorry if that offends you (not really, but trying to be polite in the face of your direct personal attacks). You should be angry at bushco, but seem too extreme to change much (mores the pity, and I do pity you). Calling liberals lunatics and mentally ill… gosh, so clinical! Are you a doctor too? So doctor, why are the right wing website full of such hatred? They are full of talk of atomic genocide, putting liberal Americans in camps, and demonize anyone who disagrees. Well, sir, I beg to disagree. This country was founded on dissent.
I tried a long long time ago in this thread to point out that strong language and vitriol may be cathartic once in a while, but it doesn’t help troll A see that troll B is every bit the same, even tho they might not agree. Perhaps you haven’t heard these words before “all men are created equal”. To borrow your talking points, your ‘stale rhetoric’ IS offensive and why should I be tolerant of your intolerance?
I am laughing right now, chuckling at your pretzel logic and decades long hatred of half of America. It isn’t raving to ask a question about my direct experiences. Why are so many Rs angry? Why are so many racist? Why are so many genocidal? These are legitimate questions. Asked reasonably, but you insist I am raving simply because these observations don’t agree with your narrow worldview (R=good, D=bad, L=evil, M=fertilizer). I don’t think I ever labelled my Dad evil, but it just shows your contempt, not understanding.
Try the other good book and look up liberal in the dictionary, then look up conservative. Yeah. I know which side I live my life on. Which side is dedicated to the greater good, which side is for tolerance, equality, justice and light. Go back and stew on that, twist it into a pretzel of hatred and malice if you like. I am still laughing.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
“Conservative” is defined as (1) Favoring traditional views and values; (2) Traditional or restrained in style; (3) Moderate, cautious. Some of the synonyms listed in the thesaurus: cautious, controlled, firm, not extreme. I accept the definition as it applies to me.
The most interesting (to me) of the definitions of “Liberal”: (1) (b) Tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. The term is obviously a misnomer as applied to today’s leftists, but we are somewhat cautious (conservative) in applying the more appropriate term; communist.
Conservatives, in keeping with traditional values, use the term “liberal” by applying its traditional, “obsolete” definition: morally unrestrained, licentious. That definition is appropriate in conservative’s views of liberalism, although the term itself is probably a misnomer. It was primarily applied as criticism of liberal (unrestrained) spending on social programs for the self-serving purpose of buying votes.
“Obsolete” implies that the term has been progressively redefined, presumably to rid the term of its traditional meaning. As such, in its use by today’s “progressives,” it is defined it in much nobler terms.
Yes, enkidu, this country was “founded on dissent.” Dissent against taxation and religious constraints imposed by England. Most of our ancestors migrated to this country to escape those impositions, and our independence was forcibly gained.
I don’t answer for any extremist websites that favor atomic genocide or putting liberal Americans in camps. I have not encountered those websites, they don’t speak for me, or for any mainstream conservatives, and they are not a viable factor in conservative politics. In short, I personally condemn them. Extremist nut-cases can be found on both sides of the political spectrum, but they are irrelevant and inconsequential, and should be dismissed as such.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
lib·er·al P Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
I love the “free from bigotry” line! Seems even the dictionary recognizes the bigotry and hatred on your side of the line. Hilarious pretzel logic on your whole archaic definition. I love how you twist every liberal social program into a self-serving attempt to buy votes. Please make sure you don’t drink any water, breath any air and drive over any WPA bridges on the way to work. And I am sure you will send back your social security checks since that evil commie FDR started that whole thing! grrrrr!!! hahahahahahaha!
Ever think that the reason no one ever uses liberal as a synonym for “morally unrestrained” is that liberals have morals? naaaaah! You still can’t answer or won’t ‘believe’ in any of the valid questions I asked about conservative/republican issues like bigotry, ignorance, hatred, greed and despite.
See ya around TV. If you have some right wing lies or left wing lies that can withstand a minimum of fact checking, please bring them to jbc’s attention (or just spout more BS and I’ll give you another taste of what it means to lie in front of people with backbone). There is hope for you yet. Until then…
December 6th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
ps – found this today and thought of you and your blinders TV
The Dukester seems like quite a guy! here are some choice quotes… I am sure you will salute the first one. Hmmmmm, that second one sounds pretty much business as usual for your side of the line as well. Tho I am sure you will have no trouble disbelieving it. So I did 2 minutes of google searching, and guess what? those Randy “Duke” Cunningham quotes are legit (scroll down for the links):
1
The Bush-Cheney campaign used Cunningham as a designated hit man in 2004. He went on national TV to attack Democrat John Kerry — ‘‘We do not need a ’Jane Fonda’ as commander in chief’’ — and as someone who ‘‘would depreciate our military and our intelligence services in a time of war.’’
2
This was no aberration. In 1992, Cunningham branded Democratic nominee Bill Clinton a ‘‘traitor’’ for his anti-Vietnam War activities and said of all Vietnam War protesters, ‘‘I would have no hesitation about lining them up and shooting them.’’
http://dukecunningham.org/bibliography/bc19921011.html
http://dukecunningham.org/quotes.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10313613/site/newsweek/page/2/
nothing from newsmax or littlegreenfootballs, tho I am sure those folks would never stoop to that sort of horrid rhetoric! *end sarcasm*
December 6th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Until this moment, I’ve never heard of Duke Cunningham. He must be on the outer fringes – so you naturally assume he is mainstream.
Do you have proof positive that “The Bush-Cheney campaign used Cunningham as a designated hit man in 2004” (without using opinions as sources), or is it a typically unfounded charge? Yeah, I know – he apparently spoke out against Kerry, so he must have been a hired political assassin. He didn’t hurt Kerry’s chances – Kerry killed his own chances when he gambled by running solely on his questionable record of a few weeks in Vietnam.
If he made the “Fonda” and the “depreciate our military” quotes, I fully concur with those statements – wish I had heard them. On the other hand, I do not think Clinton’s anti-war activities were traitorous, and I condemn anyone who would “have no hesitation about…. shooting them.” That’s nuts.
I personally branded John Kerry a traitor at the time of his false testimony before Congress. He blatantly lied to Congress and to the American people, and I believe he did so because he thought it would be politically advantageous. I attribute(d) thousands of deaths of “his/my comrades” to the rhetoric and behavior of Kerry and others who put our GIs in greater peril – and Kerry was still in the Reserves (as he was during his very brief “tour” of Vietnam).
Kerry admitted/boasted of having participated in the commission of war crimes, specifically citing killing innocent civilians and burning villages; and no, such behavior was neither ordered nor condoned, contrary to Kerry’s lies. He branded the rest of us as being his equals in that regard, and my personal animosity for the SOB runs deep.
The anti-war movement was summarily based on lies 30+ years ago, and the movement today is still dependent on lies – many of them the same ones perpetuated three decades ago – and that is the only legitimate comparison of the two conflicts. I can easily, factually debunk the lies that were used as the foundation of the movement at that time: Agent Orange, the minority myths of blacks being “used as cannon fodder,” war atrocities, the false documentaries by Dan Rather and others, etc. The public was deluged with a steady stream of lies, BS, and the Goebbels theory of propaganda effectiveness was eventually successful. It seems to be working again today.
Writer Todd L. Newmark summed it up quite well thirty years ago. “Certain themes and slogans came into currency. On the domestic front, America was a ‘police state,’ while in foreign policy we were ‘policemen of the world.’ We were committing ‘atrocities’ in Vietnam and acting like ‘fascists’ both here and abroad. We were a ‘violent’ people, a ‘violent’ society, except for idealistic youth. The administration ‘lied,’ ‘deceived,’ and continually ‘escalated,’ while the New Left quested only for truth and justice.” Sound familiar? Those evil wepublicans at work again, eh?
The biggest difference between the two conflicts, ironically, is the actual purpose/cause of the anti-war movements. With Vietnam, the anti-war movement could easily be justified by the length of the war and the massive casualty count. With Iraq, the “old” rhetoric began immediately. Today’s “antiwar movement” does not even exist as such – realistically, it is simply an “anti-Bush movement” launched by losers. It is a silly, disingenuous political stunt… with deadly consequences for our troops and reckless disregard for national security concerns. Sorry, but since that’s my opinion, I can’t supply a reference (to someone else’s opinion).
December 12th, 2005 at 10:28 am
wow – hadn’t thought to visit this thread for a while
you are still angry about the vietnam war and this has poisoned your opnion and behavior for decades. Please get some help. Seriously your hate and anger are scary. Ask for professional help and medication so you can deal with your pent up hate before you hurt someone. If you are already getting help, up your meds and/or ask for some anger management counseling.
You can call me any name you like, but you are a sad, sick human being. My thoughts are toward healing, understanding and eventual admission of your condition. Get help, please.
ps – perhaps you could identify the speaker of these quotes?
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. These questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
“You can support the troops but not the president”
“The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
and a bonus quote:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
December 12th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Your “professional analysis” is misguided, probably liberally applied to anyone who disagrees with you. Keep the opinion if it suits you. My response to your attack was delayed and unequal, but I always reserve the right to self-defense.
I took your advice. One of my closest friends is a shrink (and a Democrat). Early this afternoon, I pointed him to the two links in which we have voiced disagreement, and he disagrees with your analysis, telling me that it would have been abnormal for me not to counter the verbal assault. He thought I was too mild in my reply, and labeled you a mean, sick son-of-a-bitch.
The quotes could be from any number of people, but with regard to the Iraq war it’s all lies and BS. Are you implying that the “anti-war” folks have been reading from a script? When in hell have we ever “casually let the bombs fly”? That’s really a stupid statement. Have you been linking to Al Jazeera, or the NYTs?
Please identify the war in which an exit strategy was outlined from the beginning. I supported our intervention in the Balkans, but I never protested the lack of an exit strategy. We’ve been in Kosovo for am entire decade…. because, since it’s still a cesspool of ethnic cleansing, we have needed to stay there for a decade. We should stay there until the job is finished, and it could easily be comparable to the decades we remained in Germany and Japan.
Bush stated our exit strategy again today, in very concise terms. Surely you could understand it. When the Iraqi government and its people are no longer under constant threat from terrorists and Saddamists, our exit can be accomplished. That is the withdrawal condition that needs to be iterated for the “insurgency.” It is impossible to give an exact date for that situation to occur, and it is dangerous, careless and stupid to expect an announcement of a precise date until the situation allows it. Of course, the great cowardly lion, Murtha, relies on phantom polls to justify his desire for “redeployment.”
My own quote: “Victory means winning.” “Exit means leaving.”