in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Did Bush brainwash America on Iraq?
It seems that Chris Matthews last night on Hardball was trying to get Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to ‘admit’ that the President brainwashed us all as to the threat from Iraq.
I believe it’s Chris Matthews who’s been brainwashed, because apparently he hasn’t seen this poll roundup (via the Washington Post) taken over the course of two years where the American people by and large – and way BEFORE the President started talking about going into Iraq – believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 … and the numbers actually went *down* over the course of two years by a few points. And as far as WMD goes, well, we’ve already clearly established that it wasn’t just this President and this Congress who believed that Saddam Hussein was a WMD threat to the international community.
Chris Matthews should retitle his show “Welcome to the Spin Zone”, methinks.
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Upon further reflection, the idea that liberals and Dems see things in more shades of gray and are more “nuanced” (with the corresponding conceit that this makes them more intelligent) is laughable. Yeah, they are so nuanced and see things in such a non-black and white way that they do things like assail the honesty and integrity of black conservatives by calling them Uncle Toms and House N*’s. When a black conservative comes to a college campus to speak, they are nuanced and gray shaded enough to uniquivocally scream that said speaker is practicing hate speech. Not terribly nuanced is it? No “Well, I can understand how some blacks have different experiences and opinions.” No, it’s “They are oreos!”
Sorry Ken, nuanced and gray scaled isn’t what it is.
Severain,
Good points. There are some on the left who are as blindered as some on the right, as you point out. So my analysis is not accurate. Point conceded.
PCD – When even Patrick Fitzgerald says he isn’t hasn’t concluded whether or not the “covert” law is an issue in the Plame case, I think it’s safe to say, as I did, that the matter is still an open question. You on the other hand continue to simply regurgitate uncritically the talking points you pick up from the right wing talking heads, without offering any references to back up your claim.
I know what the law says about being overseas, etc. Now, do you know where Ms. Plame has been every minute of the last 5 years? Are we to presume that you have inside information into her “classified” activities over the last 5 years? I’m pretty sure you don’t, and that therefore you really don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s a pretty weak position to be in when you atart calling someone else a liar.
Yes, again, I’m a liar; after all I “knowingly” am repeating lies (according to you). You seem to like calling names, as if perhaps you think that somehow you will get me upset, or that somehow you will “show me”. You’ve done neither.
Also, by the way, I thought it was funny how on a recent post you appeared to be trying to imply that somehow you are connected with the CIA (Langley), as if that should impress us all. I wasn’t impressed; rather, I was bemused at your clumsy attempt to inflate yourself.
PCD, I don’t usually like to get personal, but in your case I’ll make an exceptioin. I think you’re making it clear to all that you have some problems; your inablity to articulate an argument in an adult manner without calling names suggests problems with insecurity and/or immaturity. Take some time and think about it – maybe it will do you some good.
Oh, one more thing…
When I run into someone as truly closed to self-examination or criticism of one’s arguments, I have to wonder why that might be. I can think of 4 possiblities; you either:
1) Get all your news from Hannity, Savage and Limbaugh, and never read or listen any contrary point of view, or
2) You do have a wider range of sources for news, but you automtically assume that anyone expressing a contrary point of view is either an idiot or a liar so you don’t give them serious consideration, or
3) You do have a wider range of sources for news, but just toss out anything that doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived ideas because you have so much emotionally tied up in the your agenda you can’t let it go even in the face of overwhelming evidence, or
4) You simply don’t have the capacity for rational thought.
Which is it, PCD? And while your figuring it out, have a nice day
Cordially,
Ken G.
Kenwg wrote, “You seem to like calling names,
You seem to like making false accusations..
If you get out of that pattern and just tell us what you think is a solution to a problem (without making a false accusation in your statement of a problem) we can all debate issues and policies rather than telling you that your false accusations are just that ….false
Kenwg wrote, “ your inablity to articulate an argument in an adult manner without calling names suggests problems with insecurity and/or immaturity.
Take your own advice?
(concerning your obsession with Bush) — conservatives aren’t saying Bush is perfect – by far – conservatives are saying that liberals like yourself have distorted, lied, made FALSE accusations (in a time of war even)
If you simply disagree with the decision to go to Iraq, then just state such. To go further and call names, make false accusations (repeatedly – without considering the opposing point of view) is to relegate the debate into a pointless circle.
On your items 1-4 (I’d say you fit the pattern). I read many sources and listen to many sources. I have come to the determination just like Norman Podhoretz (sp) that liberals are lying about Iraq/Bush (in a time of war) for political gain. It may be that some are sincere and believe that Bush lied/manipulated/is waging an illegal war – but after giving these sincere liberals a few facts and they decide to ignore them, I figure it’s pointless (ala Brian). Either logic, common sense and facts pursuade or they don’t.
Well, Baklava, at least you admit that perhaps some of us liberals may be sincere instead of all being liars. Maybe we’re making progress.
I have to disagree with you when you say that liberals like me have “ignored” the “few facts” that the admin supporters put forward. We have put forth a long list of facts that suggest just the opposite of what yours suggest. So who’s ignoring who? Certainly there are some who are “lying for political gain” but the same logic applies – we can both point our fingers at each other and make identical claims about the other guy (or at least some of the other guys…)
I have no doubt that there are liberals who are beating the issues just to make poitical hay, who don’t really care if some of the stuff they’re parroting may seem a bit questionable (Dan Rather for example). I also have no doubt that there are conservatives who are trying to play down and distract from the issues to limit political damage, and don’t care if some of what they’re hearing from the left really does seem to have some truth to it (you pick a name). There’s politics, agendas, and dodging the facts on both sides.
But I have to say, on the two issues that seem to be the major topics of contention (was the Valerie Plame outing a crime, and did the Bush team distort the intel), I don’t really think I’ve seen much in the way of “fact” from your side; just denial. Regarding Plame, lots of people have pointed out how Ms Toensing says there can’t have been a violation of the ” National Agents’ Identity Act” law because Ms Plame hasn’t been out of the country – the implication being that it’s all a big blow over nothing and just more politics and dishonesty from the left – all the while ignoring that Ms Plame’s identity as an agent was in fact, as stated directly by prosecutor Fitzgerald, confidential. And that outing her status was a very likely a violation of the “Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act”, a crime just as serious.
Lots of people on the left have gone off half-cocked about how the outing was a treasonous violation of the “identities” act when in fact there’s a great liklihood that it wasn’t a violation of that act at all (she probably wasn’t out of the country as required). But bring up the “Classified Information” act and the fact that it likely WAS violated just as treasonously (as well as pointing out comments by officials and offical publications in support), and the only response we get is “you guys just ignore the facts and are only playing politics in time of war!” Or we’re called liars.
Am I wrong? Don’t you see this happening?
I won’t go into great detail on the “intel distortion”, but it’s the same story. Sure, there have been some gross distortions of fact by the left (Joe Wilson), but there is also enough evidence out there that the Bush people did not in fact share all the intel, that to continue to say “they all saw the same stuff” looks just a little bit like “choosing to ignore the facts”, as you put it.
The truth is out there somewhere in the muddy middle, and in my opinion there’s at least as much mud on your side’s shoes as there is on mine. The real issue is “who’s tracking the most mud in onto the carpet” (Boy, Mom’s gonna be p….d!).
Good night.
Ken G.
Ken, your problems starts with your own superiority complex. You like to prevoke people to wrath, then you charge the agression is vindication of your position.
You, sir, don’t accept that you could be wrong. You don’t accept the law as written. Whereas, I do.
I don’t care what you think because you don’t think.
Oh, Ken, in your response you SPECULATED that Plame could have been out of the country in the last five years. You took your own speculation as fact. That’s a character flaw of yours. You take ALL your own speculation as fact and argue from there.
Plame was not COVERT AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY IN THE FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE NOVAK ARTICLE. Remember the “AND”. It doesn’t mean “OR”.
The law was not violated. You just want Rove, Bush, and his administration out of office and you don’t care what lie you have to promulgate to do it.
There is a psychological condition, I can’t recall it’s name at present, that is a step or two worse than “projection.” In projection, a person attributes many things that they themselves possess to another. In this other condition, not only to they project things onto others, they then act in such a way as to encourage or force the other person(s) to behave in a way that validates their belief about them. Like, say, taking a reasonable discussion, being a royal pest and obsfucating, dissembling, etc. to the point where their debate opponent gets PO’d and then using the fact that their opponent is angry as vindication of their opinion. Say, if a certain poster continued to dissemble and change the subject, irritating other posters, and when the other posters get mad, saying “See, all you conservatives can’t disuss things and resort to name calling and anger!”
I see this behavior a LOT in the leftists and Dems these days.
“Oh, Ken, in your response you SPECULATED that Plame could have been out of the country in the last five years. You took your own speculation as fact. That’s a character flaw of yours. ”
No, I didn’t take it as fact PCD. I used it to make the point that YOU did not know whether or not she has been out of the country, as you had presumed. Did you even read my post at all? The part about the “Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act”, for example which you have predictibly chosen to ignore? Nothing to do with the “Identities” act or being out of the country, as you keep harping on to the complete neglect of the other law in question?. Sure you did, and you’re again, predictibly, ignoring it – apparently so you can keep harping on about how “no law was broken”. You again missed or miscounstrued my point entirely, PCD. That is a character flaw of yours.
Hey, Severian, how about answering the points I brought up instead of attacking my personally with your amateur psyhoanalysis (trying to one up me on my amateur psycoanalysis of PCD?)? I have yet to see any, or very little, real facts in rebuttle to the arguments I’ve made. Just name calling and character assassnation, which seems to be the standard form of argument for your side. I’m going to try a nice simple test, just for my own interest, to see if I can generate a serious, supported rebuttal from you. Can you rebut the assertion that the “Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act” MIGHT have been violated? And that indeed that law may have been broken by whoever was involved in releasing Plame’s name? And that therefore I am not just making all this up when I dispute the constant refrain of “no law was broken”? When I suggest that perhaps some on your side are deliberately using this as a tactic?
I’m familiar with the concept of “projection” – otherwise known as “blaming the victim”. I see it all the time. As for the rest of your comment, it’s more of the same drivel we’ve been through before; denying any credence to anything I’ve put forth – claiming that all of you guys are offering “reasonable discussion” while all I’m doing is dissembling, obfuscating, etc. Well, let me ask the same of you as I do PCD; try addressing the point(s) I made, specifically. Tell, for example, how it is that the “Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act” cannot possibly been violated by someone involved in the Plame leak? And that that’s your proof that I’m just making all this up, lying, dissembling, whatever. Or are you going to just continue the sloganeering about how “no law was broken” and ignore what looks to me like a perfectly good and valid argument, backed up (once again) by references to statements by both prosecutor Fitzgerald and Predisdent Bush among other sources. Or is this one of the points that I’ve made that you just want to dismiss as “obfuscation”?
I will admit that I wan’t Bush, Rove and Co out of office. But I still try to make cogent, supportable arguments when I criticize their actions. I don’t see that from you guys – you think Bush et al are great, but all you do when confronted with factual criticism is slander, sloganeer, and dodge the questions, rather tha adress the facts presented. It’s as if you’ve predetermined that, because I don’t like this administration, all of my arguments are just spin and therrefore you can jsut dismiss them with another talking point.
Ken G
Kenwg wrote, “We have put forth a long list of facts that suggest just the opposite of what yours suggest. So who’s ignoring who?
I get tired sometimes. I’ve engaged people like Brian and inserted the links and facts. On other blogs as well. Then you come along with the same TIRED arguments that I’ve already refuted. If you would like the facts you can simply go to the previous posts on this website and scour for facts. Unless you want to just BELIEVE what you think is true (do you want it to be true?).
Kenwg wrote, “on the two issues that seem to be the major topics of contention (was the Valerie Plame outing a crime, and did the Bush team distort the intel)
a) Valarie Plame – nobody was charged with outing a covert agent and there are conflicting facts that have been discussed ad nasuem including Victoria Toensing’s argument and Woodward’s admission and other journalists’ admissions and the Vanity Fair photo. Additionally, Bush and company has said that if someone has broken a law they should be held responsible and he will not speak about it until the investigation has concluded as he can’t speak about an ongoing investigation. He has also asked his staff to cooperate fully with the investigation. There is no shredding of documents (like Hillary’s) or witholding of documents until 3 years later (like Hillary did – stuff magically appeared 3 years later) there is cooperation to the extent that Libby turned over any and every note that he had hand written, typed on computer, etc. At this point I’d say you want to convict someone in the court of public opinion as opposed to letting the court do it’s work. Thought I really shouldn’t speak to what you want.
b) The Bush team did NOT distort the intel. The accusations are abound but the accusations are untrue. The intel was simply reported. The intel was received and disseminated. Your acccusation that the intel was received and then changed (distorted) has NO merit whatsoever. I am not kneejerk whatsoever either. I have read and read and read and read. You will not find any evidence in any of the reports that came out from the Congress that the intel was distorted. I’ve read the dissenting opinions at the end of the Sentate Intelligence report by the Democrats and they simply have no facts to base their accusations on. The lapdog media reiterating the Democrats claim doesn’t make it true either. The intel stood at the time and there were plenty of Democrats who used that same intel to make their HARSH points about Iraq and Saddam also. You are simply INCORRECT in your accusation and I’m NOT going to go through and refute each of your points. The reports are out there for you to read. Norman Podhoretz’ and other people’s articles like Daniel Pipes articles are out there for you to read. Coming to this website and expecting people like me who have day jobs to be “experts” and refute you is illogical. You need to educate yourself and stop throwing out FALSE accusations. Just because you believe they aren’t false doesn’t make them so. And why would you want to continue that pattern anyway????? Would you like it if people did that about you? No. You’d want people to do the due diligence of finding out what is true and what isn’t. Of course life isn’t fair but why would you want to make it unfair more?
Ken asked, “Am I wrong?
Yes.
Kenwg wrote, “but there is also enough evidence out there that the Bush people did not in fact share all the intel
Incorrect. The Congress received ALL of the intel that the White House did. The White House additionally received things in “summarized” presidential breifing form. Your accusation is simply incorrect. The Demcrats in their OWN words in the Senate Intelligence report admit this is the case (what I wrote). I believe it is time for you to step up to the plate and read as opposed to writing. And read from the horses mouth instead of the other political websites you’ve been reading from.
The truth isn’t in the middle. Let’s do this little example for ya (sorry to go off topic ST – numbers make things easy):
In 1995 the Democrats (and the complicit media) claimed for 5 months straight that the republicans were cutting Medicare 270 Billion dollars. Let’s just say the budget for Medicare was going to be (over the 7 year period in question) 1 trillion. A cut of 270 billion would be leaving a budget of 730 billion. The accusation was UNTRUE. AND there was no truth to be had in the “MIDDLE”. If it were the middle the budget cut would’ve been 135 billion dollars leaving $865 billion. Simply making an accusation doesn’t make the truth to be in the middle of two people’s arguments. You must LISTEN to the two sides of the stories do discern what is the truth (not in the middle). Use common sense and logic. I can tell you do have a bunch. Republicans were saying that the budget was going to increase by 10% per year under current rules and their changed rules which added efficiency’s would have a budget increase of 7% per year (more than 49% compounded – and more than 1% per year than what Hillary herself proposed a year earlier in her Health Care Task force). BY any standard the budget was going to be INCREASED and not CUT. Medical inflation at the time was 6% and the additional influx of people in Medicare wouldn’t've made the additional 1% per year either. It was an increase no matter how you sliced it. I HOPE YOU SEE THE POINT.
Take it to this year and this question. Did Bush brainwash America on Iraq?
No.
Was the intelligence incorrect?
Yes.
Kenwg charged, “you think Bush et al are great
Incorrect accusation again.. you’re on a roll.
First let me (and us) speak about what we think. We (or I at least as a centrist conservative) think that Bush is to the left of center and cannot believe the perspective of leftists in this country. I don’t agree with Bush much because his positions are left of center (EXCEPT for the tax cuts for all income tax payers). I would love to see more centrist/conservative positions taken by this president.
Your sentences after that inaccurate accusation are an expectation of more from us that you have of yourself. It’s a pattern of hypocrasy by the left. I’ve read, I’ve determined. Now I must confront every one of the leftists that come on this site with a well thought out 1 hour long college type paper with links and a bibliography because you are what? too lazy to do it yourself? I apologize for that one Lord. (little Larry Cable guy humor there).
Ken is projecting again. Baklava, I don’t think he read a word of what you said, nor do I think he ever will. Ken thinks he is perfect, but can’t understand why we dismiss him as a raving leftie who can’t make a point without changing the definitions of word, reinterpreting laws to his advantage, and his condescending on everyone else.
Baklava, your wrote:
“At this point I’d say you want to convict someone in the court of public opinion as opposed to letting the court do it’s work. Thought I really shouldn’t speak to what you want.”
I asked you about the “Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act” and whether you would agree that there is at least a chance that this law was violated. You responded with a lot of off-topic verbage about “cooperation” and what Bush said about it, etc, etc, and protestations that you haven’t the time to rehash, etc.
But you did not answer my question. You sidestepped it, and buried your dancehall move under that mountain of irrelevent verborrhea that you haven’t the time for.
Hmmm. Can’t bring yourself to admit the possibility exists? I kinda think that your non-answer actually makes my point.
Then you accuse me of wanting to convict in the court of public opinion. There is some very small kernel of truth to that, insofar as I want the issue to be in the public eye and not be shoved under the rug as your side has tried so hard to do (THERE WAS NO CRIME!). But as far as “convicting” I’ll be happy to wait and see if there is even an indictment; we’re still waiting to see if prosecutor Fitzgerald’s new grand jury will produce something.
You, it seems, aren’t willing to wait that long. You apparently want to declare everyone innocent right now, and for everyone to stop talking about the the legal aspects of the outing. I would too if I were on your side.
And that actually brings me to the point of all this; what I want is for your side to stop “acquitting” in the court of public opinion before the facts are in; trying to get everyone to just forget about it.
We will all find out what the legal system says about it in time. Until then, “THERE WAS NO CRIME” strikes me as akin to whistling past the graveyard.
About the distorted intel; you refer to the senate report and that seems to be about it. There’s an awful lot more out there than what made it into the senate report. And as far as the “The Demcrats in their OWN words in the Senate Intelligence report admit this is the case”; if you’re talking about their agreeing that there ws no pressure put on the CIA to distort intel, I’m willing to concede that that is in the report (although there are a lot of anonymous CIA staff disputed this). If you’re referring to something else, please let me know.
But as I said, there is a lot more reporting out there about how the intel was cherry-picked besides what was in the senate report that you seem to be overlooking. Even the Podhoretz article (and an even better one Here (http://americanfuture.net/?p=880) leave out an awful lot. Yes, there was a lot of intel suggesting that Saddam had weapons, no arguing that. Yes, the media left out some stuff that Wilkerson said that validated some of the debated intel. I’m not disputing any of that, and that there’s a lot out there that’s slanted. But it goes both ways; there’s still a lot of reports of OTHER intel that indicated that much of the positive intel was bad (Curveball..) or that directly indicated he didn’t have weapons; all that was simply – never – mentioned. Your lasar-like focus on what Wilkerson said about the aluminum tubes, ignoring the larger picture of what Wilkerson was saying about distorted intel, is an example of this. Podheretz too doesn’t address that; he restricts himself to reiterating all the stuff we’ve already heard that suggests that Saddam has weapons. In other words, his work is just as slanted as everyone elses.
About having a life; I can appreciate the dearness of the time that you have spent on this. I’m not being sarcastic, I really am impressed with your vehemence and depth of concern; everyone should have so much interest in what’s happening in the world toady.
I just don’t agree with you.
I’m retired, so your observation, by implication, that I seem to have a lot of free time is rather perspicacious. I do have a life, however; with three kids at home (2 in college) things are never quiet. But I do get to spend a lot of time doing fun things, like skiing in the Sierras, where I was today.
Cordially,
Ken G