Democrats & Liberals Archives

How to BS

While life under the Bush administration has been no picnic, the Bushies have given us all some good lessons in the art of the BS. Let’s review some of the tactics we have learned.

The Word You Didn't Use - The classic example of this tactic is how Bush and his followers have repeatedly hammered home the point that no one from the Bush administration said that there was an "imminent" threat from Iraq's (imaginary) WMDs. The fact that they used all sorts of other words that get the same concept across (like "immediate") only slightly weakens this argument, if you repeat it enough.

This tactic is even helpful in one's personal life. Suppose you promise your kids a trip to Disneyland, then realize that you can't afford it. No need to own up to your mistake. Simply tell them you never promised a trip to the "Magic Kingdom". Or you promise your sweetie a diamond engagement ring, then decide you would rather pimp your ride. Just point out that you never, ever promised her a "precious stone".

The key to using this tactic is to act as if it is your mark, not you, who is being pedantic. Any educated person knows that a diamond does not have to compressed carbon. Someone can be a "diamond in the rough", and not be compressed carbon. Insisting that one implies the other is sheer sophistry.

A variation on this argument is to focus on a word that you (or your allies) did use, even though it is not the one in dispute. Dick Cheney is looking pretty foolish for saying back in May that the insurgency was in its "last throes". Donald Rumsfeld has recently tried to defend Cheney by arguing that "throes" can be violent. The problem, of course, was the word "last".

Get All Metaphysical - Rumsfeld is the real master of this. Challenged with the fact that the US military-industrial complex had not produced enough body armor for a war that has gone on for more than two years, Rummy blamed "physics". No physics theorem is possibly going to support this argument, but that's OK. It sounds deep. In the case of the diamond ring, you can just solemnly intone that it takes millions and millions of years to make a diamond. If you had millions of years to make one, you would certainly do it. That is how deep your love is.

The Minor Point that Turns Out to Be All Important - You could have avoided a lot of trouble with the Disney business by laying the groundwork early on. All you had to do was mention that when they went to Disney they could see a guy dressed up as a mouse. Chuck E. Cheese is a mouse, too...

The classic Bush mouse ears, of course, were democracy in Iraq.

Posted by Woody Mena at August 28, 2005 8:25 AM
Comments
Comment #75714

Thanks for the great post. Now I can go pimp my ride guilt free!

Wooooo!

Posted by: Burt at August 28, 2005 10:28 AM
Comment #75715

You forgot Meaningless Words. “Freedom is on the march” is created to decieve people into thinking “Wow, that guy is patriotic, and we can win the war!” But think about it. What does it really mean? Nothing at all. Freedom in Iraq is much farther away than the Bush administration would like us to believe. If it’s possible at all.

Posted by: John at August 28, 2005 10:34 AM
Comment #75716

One need go no farther than reviewing posts to this forum (present and archived) to find examples of BS, plays on words, uses of alternate definitions of words, vague references to words, expressions or quotes, etc. that actually say nothing but completely spin and/or completely alter the meaning/intent of the original post.

There are “masters” of BS among the participants to Watchblog.

Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 10:36 AM
Comment #75718

True. But we don’t run the country…

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 28, 2005 10:45 AM
Comment #75719

Woody,

You go to war with the President you have, not the President you want.

Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 10:49 AM
Comment #75721

Are we to the point of debating and analizing his “pep rally” phrases now?

Posted by: tomd at August 28, 2005 11:02 AM
Comment #75723

tomd,

“Are we to the point of debating and analizing his “pep rally” phrases now?”

Baloney by any other name……

Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:04 AM
Comment #75728

“Freedom is on the march” = pep rally phrase

Posted by: tomd at August 28, 2005 11:19 AM
Comment #75731

tomd,

“”Freedom is on the march” = pep rally phrase”

I’m sure it played well at all the army bases he has visited.

BTW, has Mr. Bush given a speech somewhere besides a military installation since he became President?

The question is rhetorical.

Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #75732
You go to war with the President you have, not the President you want.
That’s funny. And sad.

It really all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

WMDs ? It’s a “slam dunk”. Uhhh, just because we can’t find them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

“We need to connect willing workers with willing employers” (Bush betrays our borders while pretending to care about national security).

But, just so there’s no confusion: “Read My Lips!”.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2005 11:30 AM
Comment #75735

Rocky,

I don’t really know what you are driving at with “the president you have”.

Re “freedom is on the march”: That isn’t even BS. It’s meaningless pablum.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 28, 2005 11:48 AM
Comment #75736

Woody,

“I don’t really know what you are driving at with “the president you have”.”

You go to war with the army you have…….

Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:51 AM
Comment #75739

You also forgot the use of words that can mean anything…

PROGRESS: A undefined word frequently used on Iraq. It means anything or nothing.

PROCESS: A step by step procedure describing Iraqi Democratization. Since no one knows exactly what comprises this process, Iraq could blow up and still be under process.

Posted by: Aldous at August 28, 2005 12:06 PM
Comment #75740

Given that Democrats believed in the “imaginary” WMD including the previous administration, I’ll repeat what seems to becoming a common reply.

President Bush is responsible for trying to “sell” the concept of a war in Iraq. There is a Republican majority in Congress so they are responsible as well. However to continue to forget that Democrats as well not only supported the war, as well as continued to vote to finance the war, tries to create the mistaken impression that this is a “Republican War”. Without those Democrats in Congress that supported it as well? There would have been no war in Iraq.

I’d also point out that President Bush is the President of the United States, so unless you are not a citizen? He is your president as well. Having voted Third Party or Independent the majority of Presidential elections, I understand how frustrating it is not to have “your” guy win the office. I may not agree with the majority of what he says, however George Bush is my President.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 28, 2005 12:13 PM
Comment #75745

The words he didn’t use. This is important because it is true. The point Bush made very explicitly in his 2003 State of the Union speech was that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat and that we should not wait until it became one. He could not have been clearer, but opponents have accused him of saying the opposite of what he actually said.

Consider the analogy. Your doctor tells you that he thinks you have cancer. It is not an imminent threat (i.e. in its current form it won’t kill you) but if you don’t deal with it now (as a gathering threat) by the time it becomes imminent it will be too late.

The slam-dunk metaphor is something Bush never used. It was used by his Clinton appointed CIA Director. This is something that helped convince Bush himself, not something he tried to use to convince others. It indicates that Bush may have had bad intelligence, but he didn’t lie.

Laws of physics are good to point out occasionally. Critics of the Administration have lots of things they say should have been done. But not all things can be done; they can’t be done simultaneously and they can’t be done in zero time. Reporters and pundits don’t usually have much experience working in production. There is a time lag between when you decide to make something and well it rolls off the end of the line ready to go. Rumsfeld just points it out to them sometimes. His language is a little over the top, but he is right.

I don’t understand the minor point argument, so I can’t respond.

Posted by: jack at August 28, 2005 1:00 PM
Comment #75746

Lisa Renee:

I dont understand what you mean in your post.

It’s Bush’s war voted in by the Republican Congress, who as we all know, have the power to do everything now. Back in the good old days when Democrats controlled Congress, Democrats saved the planet and made the entire world a happy place to be. Dont you remember?

Bush will never by MY president. He’s an evil genius—-now wait, this just in—— he is an idiot, not an evil genius. Gore really won in 2000, so Bush is selected not elected. Then he stole the second election, didnt send his kids to Iraq, gave all the tax cuts to the rich, and Karl Rove is the new Joseph Goebbels, and the US is becoming a Nazi fascist country, and.. and…and..

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 28, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #75747

Lisa:

Sorry about my earlier post—just above. I decided to just type out a rant without even thinking, without using critical logical thought process, and without pausing to read what I was writing.

To put it another way, I decided to think as the left does. :)

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at August 28, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #75748

Jack,

“There is a time lag between when you decide to make something and well it rolls off the end of the line ready to go. Rumsfeld just points it out to them sometimes. His language is a little over the top, but he is right.”

So what you are saying is that in the nearly two years after Sept. 11th we couldn’t put together a force that could secure Iraq after we invaded it?

That we couldn’t have put together a better intellegence package that would have told us what Saddam had and didn’t have?

That after nearly two years of preparation we could only cobble together a force that was only 1/3 the size of that in the Gulf War?

The evidence points to the fact that Mr. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the moment he became President, and this was the best we could do?

I would remind you that Mr. Bush kept Clintons CIA director, and that director reminded Mr. Bush repeatedly that something was up and nothing was done.

I would also remind you that Mr. Bush was on vacation less than six months into office, the month before Sept. 11th.

I would submit that Mr. Bush’s cheerleading days at Yale have served him well in office.

Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 1:25 PM
Comment #75752

“Freedom haters” & “Evil Doers’

How the hell can you get behind moronic statements like this? And please, for once, drop the ‘you guys did it too” BS. I don’t allow my kids that excuse - I’m surprised that’s the best you can come up with.

There are no strong/logical ways to support what Bush has led us into. The rationale keeps changing, and as of yet, they (REPS) have still to come up with one that they can succeed at. Anyone who can read through the articles for the use of military force in Iraq that was signed by Congress, and tries to BS out the WMD mentality (and imminent threat) can be simply excused as blindly following their talking points.

Posted by: tony at August 28, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #75753

IMMINENT THREAT QUOTES:

“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02

“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

“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

“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

“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

“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

Posted by: tony at August 28, 2005 1:39 PM
Comment #75756

Rocky

Yes – that is what I am saying.

That is how it always works. Look closely at the situation in post-war Germany. Or in the South during reconstruction. Of anyplace else. Mistakes are made; steps are taken, to fall back on bureaucratese.

What critics don’t seem to understand is that the enemy also can think and adapt. It is a conflict, right. We try something; they try something to beat it. If it goes only our way, it really isn’t a conflict. When the enemy hands you a surprise, it doesn’t always mean you were mistaken in your assumptions. You have to adapt too. That takes some time.

Re intelligence. We didn’t have an intelligence package that told us Pakistan was developing a nuclear bomb. We still don’t know when Saddam lost his WMD. In fact we still don’t know if he actually did. Libya’s WMD program was much more advanced than we thought. I refer to the above paragraph about our opponents. Intelligence is always wrong to some extent. That is why it is “intelligence” and not “news” (of course even “news” is subject to massive error.)

The small force that conquered Iraq represented a change in military thinking. It was fast moving an flexible the way a larger force couldn’t be. It also employed blitz tactics, that necessarily by passed some strong points. The rapid advance certainly saved both American and Iraqi lives and prevented widespread sabotage of oil fields and infrastructure. We won faster than anticipated and that was one of the causes for the post war trouble.

All choices have costs. We could have secured Iraq better at the cost of more lives, destruction of infrastructure and ecological disasters. I think we probably made the right choice.

Posted by: jack at August 28, 2005 1:50 PM
Comment #75763

“All choices have costs. We could have secured Iraq better at the cost of more lives, destruction of infrastructure and ecological disasters. I think we probably made the right choice.”

Funny. Very funny. Truth is we invaded with Tanks but left the Infantry behind. Nice to see you approve of the current situation in Iraq. Nice to see us keeping the “cost of more lives, destruction of infrastructure and ecological disasters” down. Real nice job.

BTW. Standard Convoy for going from Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone is 3 Rhino Cars, 6 Humvees and 3 Blackhawk Helicopters.


Posted by: Aldous at August 28, 2005 2:08 PM
Comment #75764

Jack,
“It also employed blitz tactics, that necessarily by passed some strong points.”

Even Hitler knew that the Bliztkrieg tactic needed a force behind it to secure the land seized.

“All choices have costs. We could have secured Iraq better at the cost of more lives, destruction of infrastructure and ecological disasters. I think we probably made the right choice.”

Throughout history the overwhelming force takes less casualties.
Other than that I can’t argue except to say that we then turned around and dismantled the infrastructure anyway. That is why it has taken so long for us to be sure that the Iraqis could be able to defend themselves.
Our biggest blunder was the “hearts and minds” thing. Surely we might have been a little more knowledgeable about this before commiting ourselves.


Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 2:12 PM
Comment #75768

Woody

Right on!!!!! Only two things to which I would take exception.

1. It’s Dick Chicanery, and…

2. It’s Donald Dumbsfeld.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 2:53 PM
Comment #75772

Steve,

Spin or not, this forum does not put American lives in danger, unles of course you are planning some kind of attack on the participants of Watchblog.

Facing the truth is difficult, I know. Having it wrapped up in such witty and clever rhetoric is infuriating. You have my sympathy…NOT!!!!

By the way, do you like the comedy of Chris Rock?

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #75773

HOW TO BS: Never forget these:
1. It depends what the definition of “is” is.
2. I NEVER HAD SEX WITH…..

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 28, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #75775

Tomd

I believe you are well on your way to mastering the art of BS—or at least to understanding its concept.

Are we to the point of debating and analizing his “pep rally” phrases now?

I don’t think that was the point of Woody’s EXCELLENT post.

Wait….perhaps you believe all that Bushwacker, Chicanery and Dumbsfeld have to say?

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #75778

________________________________________________
HOW TO BS: Never forget these:
1. It depends what the definition of “is” is.
2. I NEVER HAD SEX WITH…..

Perplexed
________________________________________________


I think its telling that the top Democratic Scandal is a blowjob while the top Republican Scandal is getting people killed in a lie.

Republicans are indeed the descendants of Richard Nixon…

Posted by: Aldous at August 28, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #75779

Perplexed

“HOW TO BS: Never forget these:
1. It depends what the definition of “is” is.
2. I NEVER HAD SEX WITH…..”

How many people died as a result of that BS? Ummmm, let me see…NONE!

How much did that BS compromise American security? Ummm, let me see….NONE!

Is that the best you have? I see why you are “perplexed.”

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 3:30 PM
Comment #75780

Preach it Aldous!!!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 3:32 PM
Comment #75782

“We will WIN the war on terror!”

Yea, right, what is he smoking?

Everything this President says is B.S. His apologists point to Clinton’s B.S. about a B.J. and somehow that is to supposed to what? Make it equal?

Please.

How about his latest speech where he says “9/11” 7 or 8 times when he’s talking about Iraq.

Read my lips — Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush treats the American people like morons. And his apologists fall right into line.

Tony — your quotes say it all.

Posted by: Chris at August 28, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #75785

“I think its telling that the top Democratic Scandal is a blowjob while the top Republican Scandal is getting people killed in a lie.”

Some people lie, others just cheat and suck.

Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #75786

Rocky

Overwhelming forces takes less causality - usually. But the force has to be moved and maintained. There is risk in simply having a large force. There is a right size.

If you simply compare past numbers with today’s, you ignore technology changes. Weapons used in the Iraq war were many times more accurate and effective even then those used in the Gulf War. That is why Iraqi cities didn’t suffer the fate of German or Japanese cities. That is why few Iraqi civilians were killed in combat and that is why we needed fewer soldiers to carry out the fantastic task of subduing Iraq in a couple of weeks.

Besides the U.S. military casualty figures are very low compared with any other conflicts at any other time or place. We just can’t bring the number down to zero. One of the big complaints about troops is their mere presence. I am not sure providing more targets would cut casualties or make our presence there more acceptable to the Iraqis.

Also true is that almost a quarter of the casualties come from non-hostile accidents. If you double the number of soldiers, you will probably double the numbers of accidents, probably more because you presumably would be allocating these guys to more far flung places.

Posted by: jack at August 28, 2005 3:50 PM
Comment #75788

Kim-Sue,

You said……

“Facing the truth is difficult, I know. Having it wrapped up in such witty and clever rhetoric is infuriating. You have my sympathy…NOT!!!!”

What truth are you referring to? The truth that Bush is President and the Republicans hold the majority in the House and Senate or, the truth that you Democrats and Liberals are so possessed with anger and rage that all you can do is lash out with any and every issue you can find?

Some of you even claim that this is not YOUR president as if you lived somewhere else. Even the mo0re deluded seem to think that Gore won a presidential election and Bush has stolen his elections. The position that he should have sent his daughters to war, something that no President has done in modern times is really reaching.

Relax though you still have about three years worth of bashing to keep you busy where you can absolve yourself of all responsibility because this is not your President.

Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 4:04 PM
Comment #75793

Something was killed off as a result of the blow job heard round the world.

Respect for the office of the President. Granted it was something that at times was hard to do given the obvious differences we’ve had politically at times in this country. However, the Media and we as Americans used to feel that somethings should remain private, that no person was perfect and that some of these issues really didn’t have much to do with the job that needed to be done. Almost all of our former presidents have had skeletons in their past that with most exceptions were left there.

Now, look how far we have come. “Scary Kerry”, “Howard Scream” “Bushwacker”, and the list goes on and on. When you wonder why there is a lack of good candidates? Look at how we treat those who are there now. They are not Gods, nor deserve to be worshipped, but what person in his right mind would subject his family to what we currently do to politicians?

When it gets to the point where people feel it is acceptable to call the President of the United states a murderer and a terrorist or claim that John Kerry was a traitor?

We have alot more to worry about then a blow job or the war in Iraq.

While I would like nothing more than the Republican and Democratic Party to lose their stranglehold on our government? I’d like to have something left by the time they are done with it.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 28, 2005 4:22 PM
Comment #75794

Jack-
Technology can slim down conventional mechanized warfare, but it has not so far found the solution to individual presence. We can put surveillance cameras on every block, but if we fail to put enough people there, that only means our mobile forces get shuttled around more than it’s good to be.

Steve Smith-
You’re still going on about the elections? It was the war and the terrorists we were concerned about all along. Of course, that means you’re attacking the wrong people, and perhaps you’re not so warm on feeling you’ve got to apologize. But really, we accept Bush’s victory, and we just think he needs to fulfill the duties he has once again agreed to carry out. It’s only fair: A return to office with a return to the responsibilities of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2005 4:25 PM
Comment #75797

“Something was killed off as a result of the blow job heard round the world.

Respect for the office of the President.”

good thing we put a coke-head in office to replace that blow-job guy! now things’ll get cleaned up real good!

here is a rhetorical question: do you honestly think clinton was the first guy to get a little in the oval office? one of the biggest businesses in DC, aside from lobbyists, is private escorts…

i’d say that republican majority is spending it’s money well.

Posted by: guy at August 28, 2005 4:36 PM
Comment #75799

At one time I believed that Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD and connection to 9/11, but I now think he was sincere but self deluded ( I can’t say the same about other members of his administration ). He wanted to invade Iraq from the beginning and siezed on any piece of intelligence that supported Iraq’s threat to the U.S. and ignored any intelligence that did not, including warnings that some of this “intelligence” was from sources with dubious reliability - including mobile bioweapons labs - remember those.

Posted by: Warren Dace at August 28, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #75801

Steve, Steve, Steve,

I can face that “Bushwacker” is the president of the United States whether appointed by the Supreme Court or elected by a slim majority. What I can’t accept is an idiot who seem to think that because he is president that he speaks for all of us. He wants to declare an “axis of evil” let him speak for himself—or for you if you want him to do so. I don’t know any “axis of evil.” I know only of the the “assess of evil”—Bushwacker (aka George W. Bush), Chicanery (aka Dick Chaney—although the “Dick” does seem to be correct), and Dumbsfeld (aka Donald Rumsfeld).

As for “lashing out” on issues—I believe that is the right of every American citizen—something about the 1st amendment? I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. I suppose you do have a point about him being “my” president. He is the president of the country where I was born and still reside. I do wish, however, that HE lived somewhere else. I don’t believe Bushwacker stole the election. I KNOW HE WAS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT in 2000.

Regarding sending his daughters to war— Now that Bushwacker knows the geographic location of countries lacking the technology to produce WMDs (I think Colin Powel told him—or maybe gave him a globe for his birthday), I think he should escort his daughters to Iraq. If they try to find Iraq by same stupid, ideological, arrogant, asinine manner as their father, they are sure to end up in one of several places: Pakistan, India, N. Korea, or even Iran. But, given enough time I am sure Bushwacker would have our military in these countries as well so the Bush girls can just hitch a ride—oh that’s right, he can’t run for president of the United States anymore. Thank you God!

Let me tell you what I can’t accept. What I can’t accept is an idiot that involves US lives in a deadly conflict because of his own ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity; an arrogant SOB that risks American lives and security at home and abroad every time he opens his mouth; a total moron that thinks he can undue 1400 years of history simply by sending the US military to Iraq to remove Saddam from power and from setting up arbitrary meaningless deadlines for the “handover” of power to the Iraqi people; an absolute idiot that think an “Arab” democracy—whatever that might look like—would have even the faintest of resemblances to our own. What I can’t accept is an idiot for president—oh I said that already. What I can’t accept is a moronic president that puts his arrogant ideology ahead of the domestic welfare of the country he claims to serve—increasing the national debt by astronomic proportions all to remove a megalomaniac from power that posed no more threat to this country than you do; spending tax payers hard earned dollars to recreate the infrastructure of country when there are Americans starving, Americans that are homeless, Americans that persecuted for religious beliefs or race in there own country, Americans in desperate need of good public education, American children living in poverty. No offense to the Iraqi people, but excuse me if I think we should be more concerned about improving our own infrastructure before trying to rebuild those of other countries. What I can’t accept is an arrogant bastard that insults even our European allies then wants to demand that they assist us in the Bushwacker war debacle. If you want to point the finger of irresponsibility you should consider giving “the finger” to Bushwacker. I am not looking to avoid responsibility for anything—seems to me you are doing a fine job of that yourself. Or perhaps Bush supports are as ignorant and stupid as he is.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #75802

Thank you Stephen Daugherty. I wish I could have answered Steve with such tranquility, eloquance and grace. Alas, I must admit, the war thing really makes my blood boil! Thank you for your example.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 5:49 PM
Comment #75813

Stephen Daugherty,

I did not raise the issue about the elections. Please read joebagodonuts post of 8/28 1:16 PM.

I was only responding. Apologize for what?

Without question I can feel the tranquility, elequence and grace in your post. On that, Kim-Sue and I agree.

Kim-Sue,

You believe he was appointed by the Supreme Court which of course is completely an unfounded and uninformed statement. What the Supreme Court did was uphold certain election irregularities that established that the accurate election results were used to determine the outcome of the election.

People are certainly well within their rights to speak out against the President and/or his policies as much as they would like. I support their right to do so.

Your disertation of 8/28 at 5:45 seems to accomplish at least two mentionable objectives :
1. A perfect example of the exercise of free speech
2. Great example of unleashing years of frustration regarding the current administration

Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 6:43 PM
Comment #75822

Lisa Renee,

“While I would like nothing more than the Republican and Democratic Party to lose their stranglehold on our government? I’d like to have something left by the time they are done with it.

I agree. Perhaps it is yet possible.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 7:15 PM
Comment #75824

Steve,

Too bad you cannot boast of accomplishing any objective at all, menorable or not!

Back to the issue. The war in Iraq was a mistake made by the arrogance, greed, ideology, and let’s not forget, IGNORANCE of George W. Bush. The topic at hand is his attempt to avoid owning up to his debacle and wasting of American lives with the repeated hammering of tired, posturing and contradictory rhetoric.

Below is a quote from Stephen Daugherty’s comments yesterday. Steve, why don’t you mull it over instead of keeping tabs on who is venting what frustration. Then it will be easier for you to present and to discuss issues and ideas. Even if you are unable to keep pace with the wit, cleverness and clarity of most of this forums respondants.

“We as Americans can demand results from all who represent us, whatever side of the aisle they sit on. We can also, as a nation look at our situation anew, and quit just repeating the same old prescriptions for dealing with our troubles. If we don’t approach these issues with a fresh perspective, there may not be hope for the War in Iraq, much less the fight against terrorism. That is a possibility we must fight and fight well to the very last. We should not engineer our enemy’s triumph with our own simple-mindedness.”

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 7:18 PM
Comment #75829

At times I think what we need is a refresher course on the basis of how our Country was founded.

From a popular Third grade social studies site:

The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.

With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

The problem today is that our system was not designed to have a two party system. Our founding fathers advised against allowing party politics to come into play. All of you who have continued to support only Republicans or Democrats have created this situation. You gave them the power to ruin the way the system was designed to function.

So I don’t blame Bush, he’s a product of what you all have created.

What amazes me is those of you that think the solution is merely putting this already wrong balance of power into Democratic hands.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 28, 2005 7:28 PM
Comment #75831

MY FAVORITE: (A FEW MORE MINOR POINTS ?LOL?LOL?LOL?)
Denial or double-negative admission?:
“The President did not, not receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers.”

Top 11 reasons to give New York City $15 billion dollars instead of the $20 billion you promised.
11. You only gave the Taliban $45 billion in 2001, and you know how they get when they’re jealous.

reasons Bush redacted 28 pages of the 9-11 report:
. Love means never having to say you’re Saudi.
And the number one reason Bush redacted 28 pages of the 9-11 report
1. To win a second term in office.

Q: If Martha Stewart makes two or three calls to an executive before dumping $200,000 worth of his company’s stock and Secretary of the Army Thomas White (a former Enron executive) makes 77 calls to Enron executives while dumping tens of millions in stock, why is the SEC only investigating Stewart?
A: Guess which one is a Democrat.

Top 11 reasons references to Saudi Arabia were omitted from the White House transcript of the bin Laden videotape.
11. Seemed unfair: only 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
10. $1.09.99 Unleaded
9. “Saudi?” It sounded like “Zowie,” on the tape, so we left it out

facts that prove George W. Bush is too stupid to be President
He couldn’t find oil in Texas

Reasons Time Magazine Named Bush Man Of The Year…
Four Words: Contributing Editor Antonin Scalia
Dick Cheney’s photograph scares children
Newsweek double-dog-dared them.

things to do with your millions from being on the right side of the ENRON collapse
Share it with a less fortunate friend…ooops, don’t have any.

Other than, as always, Plausible Deniability, Top 11 reasons not to tell Dubya that Ken Lay had contacted you with a request for a favor when he told you Enron was failing.
11. Lay was calling from the oval office.
Might as well tell his dog, it has a longer attention span and recognizes more words.

Top 11 reasons Ken Lay didn’t show up to testify before Congress (originally).
Discovered he wasn’t being paid for the speaking engagement.
3. Heard about what happened to former vice chairman John Baxter just before he was to testify (apparent suicide).

Top 11 reasons Bush and Cheney have each personally called on Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit September 11 investigations.
It’s supposed to be a surprise.
5. What we don’t know won’t hurt us…again.
4. Bush administration efforts to lull bin Laden into a false state of security by handcuffing FBI investigators and negotiating for pipeline access through Afghanistan prior to September 11, might be misunderstood.
3. Iraq had nothing to do with it.
2. Air Force One was loaded with liquor and hookers for 16 hour flight from Florida to Washington just in case it was the end of the world.
1. We didn’t investigate Pearl Harbor during WWII because it would have diverted our efforts from fighting the war…oh, wait a minute, we did investigate Pearl Harbor during WWII.

Top 11 reasons Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill appeared to cry during questioning by Seator Robert Byrd.
. He knows what the real numbers are.
1. It always worked in the board rooms at Alcoa.

Top 11 reasons to give New York City $15 billion dollars instead of the $20 billion you promised.
11. You only gave the Taliban $45 billion in 2001, and you know how they get when they’re jealous.

Top 11 reasons to break your decisive campaign promise and build a nuclear waste storage facility, without conclusive study, right next to Las Vegas.
11. Only 4 electoral votes in all of Nevada.
. Study finds there is no oil there.

Top 11 Political Winter Games of the Bush Administration.
11. Skeleton (in the closet)
10. Fast-Track Speed Skating
9. Big Oil Moguls
8. Enron Bomb-Shred
7. Usurper-G
6. Afghanistan HalfPipe-line
5. Giant Subpoena Slalom
4.”Fuzzy” Budget-Figure Skating
3. Oilmen’s Combined
2. Cross-Country Skewing
1.Biathalie

Top 11 reasons Dick Cheney helped Saddam Hussein restore Iraq’s oil production capacity in the late 1990s
None of our business: it was consentual and he wore a subsidiary.

proposed names for out impending attack on Iraq.
11. Operation Enduring Scapegoat.
10. Operation Obliterate Iraq’s Oil Infrastructure So That Dick Cheney’s Halliburton Can Rebuild It At A Huge Profit, Like After The Last War With Iraq.
9. Operation Belated Father’s Day Gift.

Top 11 reasons 22 year-old Jenna Bush stuck her tongue out at reporters.
. Her 58 year-old father double-dog dared her. Courtesy of www.toodumbtobepresident.com

Posted by: Annie at August 28, 2005 7:33 PM
Comment #75832

—-
..the truth that you Democrats and Liberals are so possessed with anger and rage that all you can do is lash out with any and every issue you can find?
—-
What complete garbage. I will accept this argument if you can point to articles or facts or examples… but so far, all you can do toss out conjecture and generalizations about ‘Liberals and Democrats.’ You come across much like a 1950’s racist: always going on about ‘them, not us.’ You find lots of whacky names to call people, but you HAVE NO SUBSTANCE.

Posted by: tony at August 28, 2005 7:44 PM
Comment #75833

Annie:

Thanks for the link. I’d love it in the future if you’d just provide the link first, instead of cutting and pasting the whole thing. That way, perhaps we might get to enjoy some of YOUR thoughts, rather than the thoughts of others that you happen to have cut and pasted.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 28, 2005 7:50 PM
Comment #75835

Okay sorry joe.
It’s not just a problem of Bush and his ideas. The problem is his CREDIBILITY. He allows more logging and calls it “Healthy Forests”. He allows more pollution and calls it the “Clean Air Initiative”. He seeks intrusions into personal privacy and calls it a “Patriot Act”. He says that we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, then admits that there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. He expects the rest of the world to abide by international law, but expects the US not to be subject to it.

JUST THOUGHT I’D ADD MORE WHILE HERE THAT IS NOT FROM A LINK

Posted by: Annie at August 28, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment #75836

PS joe…that’s just a taste of the link and only small tidbits

Posted by: Annie at August 28, 2005 8:13 PM
Comment #75837

Kim-Sue said…..

“Steve, why don’t you mull it over instead of keeping tabs on who is venting what frustration. Then it will be easier for you to present and to discuss issues and ideas. Even if you are unable to keep pace with the wit, cleverness and clarity of most of this forums respondants.”

Keeping pace with the wit,cleverness and clarity of most of this forum’s respondents does sometimes require effort considering the redundance and tunnel vision of issues used by some respondents.

Tony said…..

“You come across much like a 1950’s racist: always going on about ‘them, not us.’ You find lots of whacky names to call people, but you HAVE NO SUBSTANCE.”

Unless you can refer me to some specific “whacky” names I have called someone your comment HAS NO BASIS.

Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 8:23 PM
Comment #75840

For those who really care about our troops and our country;
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/soldiers/
Links
Homes For Our Troops
Their mission is to build specially adapted homes for our severely disabled soldiers and their families. Since they started this organization, they have had an outpouring of support from all across America including monetary donations, donations of building materials and equipment, and fundraisers being hosted in their benefit.
The Wounded Warrior Project
The “Wounded Warrior” project seeks to assist those men and women of our armed forces who have been severely injured during the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. Many of the injuries are traumatic amputations, gunshot wounds, burns and blast injuries that will retire these brave warriors from military service. These wounded soldiers will return to civilian life minus one or more limbs, or with serious wounds or disfiguring scars, and will face greater challenges today obtaining assistance and finding opportunities that would enable them to provide for themselves and their families.
Click here for more links to support the American soldiers and the people of Iraq.


If you would like to send books to soldiers yourself, check out BooksForSoldiers.com where soldiers will post requests for books they’d like to get their hands on and all you have to do is pick a soldier to send a book to. And thatÕs just one of the many great ways BooksForSoldiers.com is helping out the troops.

If you are a soldier currently serving in Iraq and would like a free copy of either Dude, Where’s My Country or a Bowling for Columbine DVD, please send us an e-mail at soldiers@michaelmoore.com including your full name, your address in Iraq and all other information we need in order to get it to you.

Posted by: Annie at August 28, 2005 8:35 PM
Comment #75845

Lisa Renee,

OMG, another tired regurgitation of someone else’s thought. The discussion is about the war in Iraq, not why the founding father’s claimed they came to this continent. But, since you bring them up. In third grade, did you know that many of the “founding father’s” were slave owners? The very author of the Declaration of Independence—Thomas “I am nothing more than a coward” Jefferson while penning his famed “all men are created equal” was slave owner, traded people for land and money, denied his own “slave children” of their identity and freedom during his life time. I suppose later he was able to justify these behaviors when the Constitution declared the blacks were property, not people. They made no provisions for the rights of women, especially in government/political process. Didn’t you learn about Susan B. Anthony, and the like, in grade school?

In third grade, I learned that “Columbus discovered America.” Now, I am older, more educated, and better equipped to formulate my own ideas, and accept or reject information based on my own frame of reference, morality—whatever you want to call it. So I ask myself, how Columbus could be given credit for the discovery of land that was already inhabited by other people for thousands, if not hundreds of thousand, of years before he got lost?

Don’t relay so heavily in the flawed “founding” fathers. Do you really believe Bush I or Bush II started the wars in Iraq for “freedom or democracy’s sake.” Think about it; try separating the rhetoric from the facts. Even those who may not totally agree with your opinions may at least acknowledge the credibility of your thoughtfulness.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #75847

Steve,

If you don’t like the issues presented here, then instead of responding, why not just sit in front of your VCR, DVD, computer or whatever type of equipment you have, and listen to your favorite “Bush” rhetoric as many times as you like. Then you will not have to worry about taxing your brain in your feeble attempts to distract others from thoughtfully processing very timely and cogent issues regarding the War in Iraq. We get it! You support President Bush—unfortunately, so did 51% or so of other voters in this country so your behavior is original. But he still screwed up and is doing everything possible to avoid admitting it, waiting out his final term—too bad he isn’t truly a lame duck. Deal with! Dare I say, your grandchildren certainly will have to do so.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 9:10 PM
Comment #75848

Kim-Sue, given your main complaint is that Bush has done all these things supposedly on his own or only thru the Republican majority felt a little history refresher was in order.

Those are my thoughts, you guys are responsible for this mess. You allowed it to become two parties and I do not believe our founding fathers were flawed. We didn’t bother to follow their advice.

So while you are tossing all the blame at Bush, there are quite a few of us that realize neither the Democrats or the Republicans seem to take any responsibility for the very situation we find ourselves in right now.

Those “flawed” founding fathers also didn’t support the type of nation building adventure that Iraq is either.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 28, 2005 9:17 PM
Comment #75849

How to B.S.
The Federal Government should have written the book: “How to B.S.” , since they’re experts.
The biggest fraud perpetrated by the federal government is the plunder of Social Security and Medicare. While the National Debt is $8 trillion, many Americans (not too good at math) don’t realize a debt of such enormity represents interest payments to the tune of $40 trillion over the coming decades.

Essentially, we’re committing the crime of fiscal child abuse.

Our children won’t tolerate it, and I don’t blame them. They are unwittingly being burdened with Social Security and Medicare, and they will eventually see the writing on the wall.
Taxes are going to be steadily raised higher and higher to support the 4 entitlement recipients for every 5 workers. Taxes will approach 60% before they finally move to Austrailia, New Zealand, or somewhere better.

The U.S. will become another banana republic.
And it deserves it. It’s too bad that the heroes of the previous generation, born in the 20’s and 30’s, who weathered the Great Depression, World War 1 and 2, will have to suffer for our selfishness and moral bankruptcy. Baby boomers have, for the most part, proven to be worthless at most things. Worthless at parenting, worthless at controlling government, and worthless at just about everything.

How long will it take for the next generation to discover that they have been royally screwed ? But, while they may not revolt, they’ll move to other countries.

This country is headed for inevitable disaster if it does not realize it is approaching fiscal and moral bankruptcy. Prepare for 2008 . Hard times await us.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 28, 2005 9:29 PM
Comment #75850

As to your personal comments as to my credibility Kim-Sue? I’m very satisfied with my own beliefs and ability to communicate my thoughts. Not to mention there is more than enough evidence that demonstrates the Democrats are no more ideal than Republicans.

I tend to typically not bother with the whole personal insult exchange, as I find it detracts from what is really important so please excuse me for not participating in that portion of your response.

I will fully understand if you decide your discussion interests might be better met from others.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 28, 2005 9:34 PM
Comment #75851

Lisa Renee

WOW! Maybe my computer went crazy and typed in occult messages that I was unable to pickup during editing.

‘…given your main complaint is that Bush has done all these things supposedly on his own or only thru the Republican majority felt a little history refresher was in order.”

Although it is not the topic of this particular forum, let me clarify what my main complaint is: “that George W. Bush has been the president of the United States for the past 5 years, and we still have three more years to go!” What that has to do with the founding fathers I don’t know.

As far a history refresher is concerned—I must have missed that particular Saturday morning Schoolhouse Rock lesson. I thought I had all of them, where did you buy it!

Our founding fathers were not flawed? So you think slavery was a good thing? You think black people should be considered as property? You agree that women should wait for more than one century before they can vote and be part of the political process—of course that would be white women only, not black female property?

“…you guys are responsible for this mess.”

Which mess, the Iraq War? My signature is NOT on that declaration—but of course I don’t know about the other “responsible guys,” maybe they signed and just didn’t tell me.

Those “flawed” founding fathers also didn’t support the type of nation building adventure that Iraq is either.

How do you know that? Did you attend a recent séance where they were able to convey this message to you?


Steve—

Here is a pen pal for you!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 9:55 PM
Comment #75853

Lisa Renee,

My comment about credibility was not a personal insult. In fact, I made no comment at all about your personal credibility. I don’t know you; I only know some of things you write.

I was referring to the credibility of your thought process—or rather (in my opinion, I will acknowledge) the lack of credibility in your arguments (not you) that are presented in this forum.

Get ready, here comes a bona fide insult—Grow up, and get off that high and mighty road you and Steve are on! Nobody, least of all me, is insulting you or attacking your personal credibility. That is an immature, defensive excuse people use when they are unable to handle intellectual, objective opposing views of others. What you believe about the founding fathers and dems. and repubs. is your own damn business. If you don’t want your views/opinions scrutinized then perhaps don’t share them on the internet where people who don’t agree with them are likely to comment disapprovingly.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 28, 2005 10:20 PM
Comment #75855

Kim-Sue

Part of the whole exchange of a debate is at times establishing a point. My responses were in direct relation to your belief that Bush is somehow responsible for all of this.

He is not. Hence how the history came in. You prefer to blame just him? Hence the response that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are responsible and those who have continued to support keeping those two in power.

So it is on topic to your posts on this thread.

You’ve made several comments that I viewed as more personal insults to others here on this thread, hence the I don’t typically play the insult/name game. To me, this place is supposed to be above that.

I’m quite capable of handling the idea that people dont always agree with me. Just because I chose to use a different style does not represent a lack of being a “grown up”. Nor am I afraid of being scrutinized, that is the whole purpose behind this, debating of ideas is it not?
At times we learn from others, at times we realize there is nothing but an agree to disagree that can be the end result.

As to where did I get the idea that the founding fathers did not support nation building as we are doing in Iraq? I’d suggest you read some of their writings, especially George Washington’s farewell address. In fact I believe I’ve seen that referenced here in other threads on this section of the site.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 28, 2005 10:55 PM
Comment #75858

Kim-Sue,

“Our founding fathers were not flawed? So you think slavery was a good thing? You think black people should be considered as property? You agree that women should wait for more than one century before they can vote and be part of the political process?of course that would be white women only, not black female property?”

You do know that all men (and women) are the products of their time and can’t be judged by our “morality”? That slave ownership, however repugnant to you or I, was an accepted practice even into the last century?
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, dispite their faults were some of the greatest men of their time, to call these men racist would be like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. By our standards today everyone then was a racist.
If Mr. Jefferson hadn’t written those words, slavery might have been in existence even today.

Have you been anywhere else in the world?
Many if those “rights” you take for granted don’t exist in far too many countries.

Recognize the men and women of history for their faults, but don’t judge them with 21st century eyes.

Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:09 PM
Comment #75864

Kim-Sue,

I will be sitting in front of the electronic equipment that I own as you suggest. Also I will be observing your posts so that I can learn what it is like to always be correct. I will keep repeating over and over to myself ; Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush Lied and, Bush should send his girls to war, Bush should send his girls to war, and, Bush and Cheney started the war for personal profit, Bush and Cheney started the war for personal profit, Bush and Cheney started the war for personal profit.

Then I’ll throw in a bit of God Bless Cindy Sheehan, God Bless Cindy Sheehan, God Bless Cindy Sheehan.

Then, Pat Robertson should be assassinated, Pat Robertson should be assassinated, Pat Robertson should be assassinated.

Posted by: steve smith at August 28, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #75867

Undeniable proof that Bush does watch TV and has the most current events news availiable to him. I just heard his speech about Hurricane Katrina and he just repeated everything TWC has been saying for the previous 6 hours.
Seriously, he didn’t use any BS language framing like “tax relief” or “they hate us for our freedoms”. Just the straight dope relayed directly from The Weather Channel.

Funny though, I check TWC every day but I have a hard time believing the hurricane news because I don’t believe a word the Bushtapo says.

Here’s an interesting quote:
Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country.
Herman Goering
Hitler’s Reichsmarschall
Nuremburg Trials


Posted by: MyPetGoat at August 28, 2005 11:55 PM
Comment #75873

I have a question about BS:

When is someone on the left going to blame the president for hurricane Katrina? I mean, its got to have something to do with global warming, ozones, greenhouse gases, or something.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 29, 2005 12:45 AM
Comment #75874

Perplexed,

“When is someone on the left going to blame the president for hurricane Katrina? I mean, its got to have something to do with global warming, ozones, greenhouse gases, or something.”

Haven’t you heard?

That was Pat Robertson’s fault.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 12:51 AM
Comment #75876

I figured a republican would somehow be blamed.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at August 29, 2005 1:04 AM
Comment #75877

Perplexed,

You don’t think that Clintons responsible do you?

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 1:12 AM
Comment #75878

Rocky & Perplexed,

So, we’ve determined that it was his fault, not for his benefit? I must have missed that one. ;-)

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 1:12 AM
Comment #75879

Stephanie,

I just know that somehow the Republicans will blame Clinton for this. I mean after all the only thing that they haven’t tried to pin on him was the Inquisition.

Just give them time though.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 1:17 AM
Comment #75881

Rocky,

Slavery has never been an acceptable practice in any century in any society in any nation among any civilization or culture. It is a dehumanizing oppressive practice. Even Moses, who was raised in wealth and privilege unlike the rest of Hebrew society in ancient Egypt, could see and empathize with plight of his people. Please don’t place John Adams in the same category with Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was staunchly opposed to slavery and never owned, sold, traded any human being. Unlike Thomas Jefferson, John Adams at least tried to live according to his beliefs. Did you know that Jefferson made observation on the lives of his slaves—what he had the gall to regard as “scientific”? He came up with brilliant stuff like “negros” are lowly people with foul odors. Negros don’t have the intelligence that whites have, etc. These writings of his were made public and circulated, and the ideas used to justify mistreatment and murder. Even though, TJ would later recant his observation and admit his assessments and hypotheses were flawed. He NEVER did so publicly because to do so would have meant he would never be president.

Do not put words in my mouth; I did not call TJ a racist. I called him a coward! It’s okay to sleep with slaves and father their children but to acknowledge their identity and grant them freedom was too dangerous and radical an idea for the great Thomas Jefferson. A hypocrite in any century is still a hypocrite!

By the way Rocky, by what century’s morality should one judge apartheid? Was that also simply a reflection of what was accepted at the time? Or how about the genocide committed against the Native Americans, it was okay, we should not judge because it was an accepted practice of the US government to herd these people off their lands because whites wanted it, ahhh okay so then it’s alright—I won’t judge!

By the grace of God, I live in country where I have the privilege to spend my idle time bickering with individuals I don’t even know and may never meet because they don’t have guts, the sense or the intelligence to take a good long hard look at their own history, never mind anywhere else in the world. I have traveled all over this globe. I have been privileged to meet people from a variety of cultures, societies, religious groups. I certainly do not need you to tell me what I do and do not take for granted.

Let me tell you about one of my heros, a truly great man—and would have been great in any century and in any culture! Ironically, given the original topic of this form, I am talking about a Muslim. Malcolm X, a truly great man. A former thug, pimp, dope dealer, jail bird that while in prison was influenced by the rhetoric and teachings of Elijah Mohammed (not the 7th century Mohammed). While in prison he educated himself, he developed spiritually. He wasn’t perfect by any means, if he could; he would be first one to admit that fact. Because of his ability to use his own mind, his views on how the races interact, especially in America, were modified. Through his intellectual, spiritual and political maturity, he was even able to separate himself from his former mentor, Elijah Mohammed, because of EM’s “secret immoral life.” Malcolm could have taken your approach and not judged anything—instead—as painful and hurtful as it was Malcom had to face the limitations (the humanity) of a man who had inspired such great change and so profoundly impacted his life in many positive ways. TJ could only dream of being a man of that kind of courage and conviction, much like his close friend Johns Adams was.
Great men (and women) all have one thing in common; they are able to summon courage and high character in the face of adversity. That is a standard by which I “judge” greatness.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 1:29 AM
Comment #75883

Well, look who just caught up!

Good job Steve!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 1:36 AM
Comment #75884

Kim-Sue,

I sure am glad you got that out of your system.

Do you feel better now?

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 1:36 AM
Comment #75886

Kim-Sue,

“By the grace of God, I live in country where I have the privilege to spend my idle time bickering with individuals I don?t even know and may never meet because they don?t have guts, the sense or the intelligence to take a good long hard look at their own history, never mind anywhere else in the world.”

I want to thank you for the judgement of my character. Like you said you don’t know me from Adam but you have already put your prejudice out front where every one of us can see it.

If you read my post carefully you will see that I never called you a racist, but you come pretty damn close to accusing me of being one.

You will also see that I called slavery repugnant. You might want to look that word up.

Jefferson, with the words “All men are created equal”, a concept that was unheard of at the time, consciously or not, helped to lay the groundwork for the freeing of the slaves 50 years later.

Now the view from your high horse may be pretty good, but you don’t know squat about history.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 1:50 AM
Comment #75889

Rocky,

That’s a fiesty horse you’re trying to ride there.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 2:08 AM
Comment #75891

Rocky,

“I just know that somehow the Republicans will blame Clinton for this…”

Okay, I’ll take the bait.

You see, it is Clinton’s fault for not stepping on that butterfly back in the first year of his Presidency.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 2:18 AM
Comment #75892

Stephanie,

She claims to have a vast knowledge of history, but doesn’t seem to have the wisdom to understand it. I pity her for her prejudicial outlook on life and on history.

On the death of Malcom X;
From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

“Three people were arrested for his murder: Nation of Islam members Talmadge Hayer, Norman 3X Butler, and Thomas 15X Johnson. All three were convicted of first-degree murder in March 1966. Hayer himself appears to be the only man guilty of the assassination; he later gave the names of the other assassins as Albert Thomas, Leon David, William Bradley, and Wilbur McKinley. Some independent investigators familiar with details of the case have accused current Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan of having played a major role in the planning of the assassination while others claim Elijah Muhammad himself, fearing Malcolm’s rising influence, ordered him killed. Farrakhan gave an interview to the CBS news program 60 Minutes in 1998 in which he denied the allegations.”

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 2:24 AM
Comment #75893

Stephanie,

“Okay, I’ll take the bait.”

My tounge is sore from being in my cheek so long.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 2:26 AM
Comment #75894

Rocky,

Get over yourself! How can I be calling you a racist? I don’t know what your race is. And I bet you don’t know mine either. The only thing I said about you was that I don’t need you to tell me what I do and do not take for granted! I stand by that statement, becaue I don’t need your assistance in that or anyother regard!

I did not even say TJ was a racist. I did say that he was coward! I am very glad that I am was not educated from or even acquainted with the same history books as you. You might want to double check them, they may be missing some pages.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 2:27 AM
Comment #75895

Rocky,

Yeah, I’ve read her posts. I’ve chosen to stay out of it, because I’ve got a few actual intellectual discussions going on now, and I really don’t have time for anything less. Unless, of course, it’s fun! ;-)

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 2:28 AM
Comment #75896

Okay, I relent:

Kim-Sue,

What does having any particular race have to do with whether or not you’re racist? A member of any race can be and occasionally is racist against a member of a different race. If you are assuming that you have to be a member of a specific race (say white, for example) to be a racist, then you have no idea what the history of this nation is. This nation has a very racist history, that’s still on-going today. No particular race has been above this tendency.

EVERY RACE HAS PARTICIPATED!!!

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 2:34 AM
Comment #75897

Kim-Sue,

“The only thing I said about you was that I don’t need you to tell me what I do and do not take for granted!”

Frankly honey, I don’t give a rats ass what you choose to belive or what you take for granted. History is just that, history. It happened, get over it, grow up and move on.
Hind sight is twenty-twenty. You find it easy to judge people that cannot defend their actions. How easy is it for you to judge those tribes in Africa that sold the slaves to the traders that brought them here.

Just remember that if you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 2:35 AM
Comment #75899

Those tribes made a real nice profit, for what I’ve heard. Until, of course, it was their turn.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 2:43 AM
Comment #75901

Rocky,

What does the death of Malcolm X and who may have killed him, have anything to do with what I said about him? Ummm….let me see NOTHING!

In case you missed it the first time, “get over yourself.”


Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 2:45 AM
Comment #75903

Kim-Sue,

You’re hysterical. You don’t want anybody to educate you, and your opinions are the only ones that count.

Here’s a quarter. Call someone that cares.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 2:50 AM
Comment #75905

Yes Rocky,

That is true, my views are the only one that count! I have tried to get that across in all my posts. I believe I have said that in every one of them. Finally, I see Steve was able to get you to understand. Lucky for you, I am also always right!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 2:59 AM
Comment #75907

Kim-Sue,

Then you must be a very lonely girl. Please let me invite you to start your own discussion group, so that you may talk to yourself all night and be right all the time.

“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 3:07 AM
Comment #75916

Rocky,

So now you’re saying, I am trying to teach you to sing?

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 3:20 AM
Comment #75919

Kim-Sue,

Confusion will be your epitaph. Have a life.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 3:24 AM
Comment #75921

:)) Only if you write it Rocky! Goodnight!

God Bless!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at August 29, 2005 3:27 AM
Comment #75928

Rocky,

;-) Is that quote yours?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 3:40 AM
Comment #75932

No, it can be attributed to Robert Heinlein the author in “Time Enough for Love”.

It has also been attributed to P. G. Wodehouse A british humorist and novelist.
Another quote of his.

“It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.”

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 3:50 AM
Comment #75938

Rocky,

Robert Heinlein needs no introduction for me, though I do find it rather creepy that it was my father who introduced me to him. Also very disappointing that I wrote a letter to him before my father told me he was dead.

As for apologies, all I can say is it worked to get Brian and I into a more civil discourse.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 4:01 AM
Comment #75944

Well there you go.

I like this quote because it can be taken soooo many ways.

If you like humor like this look up H. L. Menken.

“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 4:09 AM
Comment #75947

Rocky,

I’ll do that.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 4:14 AM
Comment #75949

Another from Menken,

“Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right.”

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 4:17 AM
Comment #75951

Well, that one certainly fits America today!

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 4:19 AM
Comment #75961

So many comments…

I’d also point out that President Bush is the President of the United States, so unless you are not a citizen? He is your president as well.

Lisa, not sure what inspired this comment. I said the Bushies are good BSers. You say he is my president, too. I never implied otherwise.

The point Bush made very explicitly in his 2003 State of the Union speech was that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat and that we should not wait until it became one.

Jack, this is a classic half- (1/4, 1/10…) truth. Yes, he did imply that it wasn’t an “imminent” threat in that single instance, but many people from his adminisration said the opposite, explicitly and repeatedly. Rumsfeld said there was an “immediate” threat on at least three occasions. (I got in a very strange argument with a Bush supporter about whether “immediate” or “imminent” are substantially different.) Sorry, but you can’t say P fifty times and say Not P one time, then go back later and say “I told you Not P, dummy!”

There is a time lag between when you decide to make something and well it rolls off the end of the line ready to go. Rumsfeld just points it out to them sometimes. His language is a little over the top, but he is right.

Baloney, Jack. It was less than four years from Pearl Harbor to VE Day (end of war in Europe). Bush has been planning this war from when he stepped into office, and they are still working on the armor.

And please, for once, drop the ‘you guys did it too” BS. I don’t allow my kids that excuse - I’m surprised that’s the best you can come up with.

Amen, Tony! And it is funny how many Republicans (which I realize may not include Lisa) are eager to share “credit” for the war now that public opinion is turning sour…

We won faster than anticipated and that was one of the causes for the post war trouble.

We STILL haven’t won. If we have already won, then why do we keep getting blown up?

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 29, 2005 5:39 AM
Comment #75963

Compare and contrast:

Case 1 - 19 American soldiers die in “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia

GOP Line - Bill Clinton is a terrible president. He never should have let that happen.

Case 2 - 1,800+ (and counting) American soldiers die in Iraq. More than two years after invasion started, troops still don’t have enough armor.

GOP Line - Golly, don’t you know that fighting a war is hard

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 29, 2005 6:01 AM
Comment #75983

Good article, Woody. I’m always amazed at how few on the right have a sense of humor.

Rocky, here’s another quote:

“Denunciation is well enough, but laughter is the true ratsbane for hypocrites…for nature’s revenge has given them masks for faces. You may see a whole room of them crack with pain because they cannot laugh.” Especially at themselves.

Keep up the satire. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at August 29, 2005 8:24 AM
Comment #75990

Re Justice Thomas and state religions:
” The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Amdt. 1. As I have explained, an important function of the Clause was to “ma[ke] clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments.”… The Clause, then, “is best understood as a federalism provision” that “protects state establishments from federal interference.” … this federalism understanding of the Clause prevents federal oversight of state choices within the ” ‘play in the joints’ ” between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses… the Clause protects the States from federal interference with otherwise constitutionally permissible choices regarding religious policy.” taken from Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in CUTTER et al. v. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND
CORRECTION, et al.

Posted by: vague at August 29, 2005 9:02 AM
Comment #75993

Sorry that was for another topic, its monday morning…

Posted by: vague at August 29, 2005 9:05 AM
Comment #76001

Fellow posters :

On Sunday, I found myself engaged in a post-counter post session with Kim-Sue which developed into little more than throwing barbs at one another. I realize that this is counter to the objectives of Watchblog and apologize to all who had to be exposed to it.

Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 9:46 AM
Comment #76002

I love the art of b.sing but I don’t think anyone can BS as good the politicans we have in office at the present time.I think that the way to get the best politicans is when they are running for office they need to be hooked to a polygraph machine during debates.That be interesting we could ask them why they want the job and know that they just wanted to steal from the tax payers.I have often wondered why nobody has thought of that it would dramatically change politics as we know huh

Posted by: randy at August 29, 2005 10:03 AM
Comment #76005

Steve,

It is good to see a person own up to their mistakes. i make many and often. Hopefully i will follow your example.

-jo

Posted by: jo at August 29, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #76013

Woody

Re imminent v gathering threat – it is not what the President implied. It is what he said.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

Re WWII – if we judged WWII by today’s liberal standards, it would be a failure. Think of the unanticipated hedgerow fighting in Normandy, landing at the wrong beach, sinking of the amphibious tanks. And what would our pundit say about the Battle of the Bulge, where green troops were caught completely by surprise. In Iraq we occupied an area the size of France in a couple of weeks and even now our casualties are less than 2000. We paid a much greater price to get out of those Normandy hedgerows and move a couple miles inland.
The nature of war is to be surprised and to try to surprise the enemy. By what standard should we judge? Do you think it is possible to fight a war with zero casualties? If you just have that many people in a strange place, some are killed even if there isn’t any fighting. Our peacetime military loses more than 1000 soldiers each year to accidents. They work with dangerous heavy equipment. You find high “casulaty rates” among people in the forestry and fishing industries too, because they work in a dangerous environment.

And in the case of war, people are trying to kill them.

Posted by: jack at August 29, 2005 10:27 AM
Comment #76034

—-
Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
—-
OK, I agree, we had no option… Bush took that away from us. BTW - in case you’ve missed this, the whole WMD thing is busted. And before anyone else springs on the whole ‘that’s not why we attacked Iraq’ argument… go read the Iraq War Resolution that Congress signed, tell me how many times it mentions WMDs vs Democracy…

Posted by: tony at August 29, 2005 11:27 AM
Comment #76040
Re WWII ? if we judged WWII by today?s liberal standards, it would be a failure. Think of the unanticipated hedgerow fighting in Normandy, landing at the wrong beach…

This argument is BS, Jack. The proper analogy would be if Eisenhower had landed the troops on the wrong continent, and then said we must stay the course. There’s no comparison between Iraq and WWII.

The left doesn’t object to the casualties. The left objects to the fact that President Bush is failing to make the sacrifice worthwhile.

What are we fighting for there? A free-market liberal democracy? Then why does President Bush say he’s satisfied with a fundamentalist Islamic regime? Is it to fight terrorists? Then why is President Bush continuing to follow a course that’s failed for the last two years and actually made America less safe?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 29, 2005 11:36 AM
Comment #76051

steve smith,

“On Sunday, I found myself engaged in a post-counter post session with Kim-Sue which developed into little more than throwing barbs at one another.”

Your only mistake was assuming that you have a right to your own opinion.
She doesn’t think that you do.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 11:55 AM
Comment #76057

Has anyone forgotten the Iran Contra hearings featuring Ollie Ollie North, John Poindexter and a looming “imminent” shadow called Veep George Herbert Walker Bush?

From the NCTE National DoubleSpeak awards…

http://www.ncte.org/about/awards/council/jrnl/106868.htm

1987
Lt. Col. Oliver North and Rear Admiral John Poindexter

For language used in testifying before the congressional Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition: excerpts from numerous examples, as presented in Doublespeak Committee Chair William Lutz’s announcement speech:

Lutz said, “Colonel North used the words ‘residuals’ and ‘diversions’ to refer to the millions of dollars of profits … created by overcharging Iran for arms so that the money could be used to finance the contras… . (North) also said that he ‘cleaned things up,’ he was ‘cleaning up the historical record,’ … meaning he lied, destroyed official government documents, and created false documents… . ‘Director Casey and I fixed that testimony and removed the offensive portions. We fixed it by omission.’ Official lies,” Lutz observed, “were ‘plausible deniability.’”

According to Poindexter’s testimony, Lutz said, “one does not lie but ‘misleads’ or ‘withholds information.’ … In Poindexter’s world,” Lutz noted, “one can ‘acquiesce’ in a shipment of weapons while at the same time not authorize the shipment. One can transfer millions of dollars of government money as a ‘technical implementation’ without making a ‘substantive decision.’ … Yet Poindexter can protest that it is not ‘fair to say that I have misinformed Congress or other Cabinet officers… . With regard to the Cabinet officers, I didn’t withhold anything from them that they didn’t want withheld from them.’”

Posted by: d at August 29, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #76061

Rocky and jo,

Thank you.

Posted by: steve smith at August 29, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #76166

tony,

“OK, I agree, we had no option… Bush took that away from us. BTW - in case you’ve missed this, the whole WMD thing is busted.”

So, you were willing to take Saddam at his oh, so valuable word that he did not have WMD, while he was skillfully making it appear that he was hiding those self-same WMD so he could retain power?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 6:25 PM
Comment #76167

Stephanie,

However remote the possibility, it has been postulated that his defient stance was to keep his neighbors at bay.
Point being, if they thought he had WMDs they would be hesitant to invade Iraq.
His soldiers, during our invasion, had gas masks because they were told that America could use a gas attack against Iraq.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 6:40 PM
Comment #76173

Rocky,

Whatever logic that is used, I have absolutely no sympathy for Saddam Hussein. While it may not be right, it is my not so humble opinion that this Iraq war is justified by the fact that Saddam Hussein should not have remained in power after the last one. Of course, how Bush is handling the post-war (or, as I sometimes like to call it, the THIRD Iraq war) is another story entirely.

Saddam imprisoned = good
Insurgents out of control = bad

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 7:20 PM
Comment #76184

—-
So, you were willing to take Saddam at his oh, so valuable word that he did not have WMD, while he was skillfully making it appear that he was hiding those self-same WMD so he could retain power?
—-
Duh… I would take the UN weapon inspectors (they had it pretty much right on the money) … I would’ve taken a President who could’ve at least given the entire report from our intelligence, rather than just the parts that made the case for war (or fabricated outright…)

Posted by: tony at August 29, 2005 8:01 PM
Comment #76187

tony,

Hello, the weapons inspectors said not all known WMD could be accounted for…

Bush chose not to take Saddam at his word. He chose not to underestimate Saddam’s proven ability to hide WMD. You don’t agree with those choices. Get over it already. News flash: We are in Iraq.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 8:20 PM
Comment #76194

Stephanie,

“While it may not be right, it is my not so humble opinion that this Iraq war is justified by the fact that Saddam Hussein should not have remained in power after the last one.”

I may be stating the obvious here but you know that Bush 1.0 had no choice in the matter of invading Iraq after the Gulf War. Promises were made to our allies in that war.

Like it or not Saddam lived in a bad neighborhood. His posturing was all he knew.

I don’t intend to justify Saddam’s behaviour, but he was a bad actor in a region of bad actors.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 8:31 PM
Comment #76199

Rocky,

“I may be stating the obvious here but you know that Bush 1.0 had no choice in the matter of invading Iraq after the Gulf War. Promises were made to our allies in that war.”

Obvious to me, yes. Those are the facts. That doesn’t make what occured right. I was a child at the time and admittedly overly idealistic. But, after hearing how heinous Saddam was, I was shocked when I was later told that he still got to rule his country. I’ve never gotten over the immoral stupidity of that. Now I understand why, but that doesn’t mean I agree or accept the decisions made. They were wrong. While two wrongs don’t make a right, they can (and has) dispose of an evil dictator.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 8:47 PM
Comment #76205

Stephanie,

“While two wrongs don’t make a right, they can (and has) dispose of an evil dictator.”

It’s that hindsight thing again.

BTW, two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 8:55 PM
Comment #76211

—-
Hello, the weapons inspectors said not all known WMD could be accounted for…
—-
but now we’re back to the whole ‘prove that you don’t have them anymore’ argument. The UN Inspectors found nothing… that should’ve slowed us down - at least 30 days until they could finish their job. Bush jumped the gun on bad intelligence, and now everyone gets to pay the price.

Posted by: tony at August 29, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #76220

tony,

What purpose does re-hashing how we got into the war over and over again serve? We’re there, it’s a mess, we need to fix it, and waiting for the next round of elections seems like a really bad idea.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 29, 2005 10:10 PM
Comment #76261

Stephanie -

I agree that re-hashing how we got into the war does not progress us forward… but it’s a great example (IMO) of serious BS.

… I have an early shoot this morning, so… have a good day :)

Posted by: tony at August 30, 2005 6:23 AM
Comment #76263

Jack,

I realize that by historical standards, 1800+ US deaths (so far!) is not a lot. My point in bringing up that number was that it is still 100 times bigger then the other number.

Re WWII ? if we judged WWII by today?s liberal standards, it would be a failure.

Since that is the word we are using, this really is BS. People in France, England, Poland, and Russia speak their native languages, not German. It is very questionable at this point whether Iraqis will “speak” democracy. (Yes, I realize they had an election. But that’s not the same as having a democracy.) Hitler was far more than a threat, he had actually invaded other countries.

No one is criticizing Bush for minor tactical mistakes, but major strategic ones. Even Republicans, now. You are defending the minority viewpoint. This doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it should give pause, no?

As for “imminent”, there are still all of the other statements. “Imminent” is not the only word in the dictionary you can use to describe a threat. Just because Bush left himself an out doesn’t mean I have to accept it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 30, 2005 6:28 AM
Comment #76314

Just Passing through and couldn’t hold myself back from commenting.

“IMHO”

…Speaking on the Activist, Liberal Judges and how OUR courts are ruling on things they have no business being involved in, in the first place. Back in 2000 I never heard any complaints From THE GOP When they ruled in your favor and we had Bush and his cronies crammed down our collective throats. I seem to remember reading that the Repugnicans were pretty elated.

Of course that just my opinion.

Dude, I want my COUNTRY Back!!

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at August 30, 2005 1:11 PM
Comment #76317

tony,

“… but it’s a great example (IMO) of serious BS.”

Touche!

“… I have an early shoot this morning, so… “

Good luck! :-) It’s been fun sparring with you.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 30, 2005 1:20 PM
Comment #76323

Wayne,

“Dude, I want my COUNTRY Back!!”

It’s our country too, Wayne.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 30, 2005 1:30 PM
Post a comment