Even if Iraqi voters don’t approve the Constitution in today’s vote, the large turnout is still a huge victory for the Bush doctrine. Until our troops liberated that land from Saddam’s tyranny, these people had no say over their government. By turning out in droves to vote in today’s referendum, Iraqis showed that they recognize how their country has changed since coalition troops came two and a half years ago.
According to a curious AP article:
Sunni Arabs voted in surprisingly high numbers on Iraq’s new constitution Saturday, many of them hoping to defeat it in an intense competition with Shiites and Kurds over the shape of the nation’s young democracy after decades of dictatorship. With little violence, turnout was more than 66 percent in the three most crucial provinces.
I call the article curious because it begins by noting the opposition to the constitution. At least the headline did acknowledge the “large turnout.” What makes the piece even curioser is the last line where the reporter seems to have looked all over Iraq to find one of the few Shia who longs for “someone like Saddam.” But, since even this guy acknowledged that he was a small minority among Shi’ites, it seems the reporter could have ended the piece by showing support for the charter among this group.
Despite the reporter’s curious spin at the end of his piece, the large turnout represents a big victory for the Bush doctrine. Even if Iraqis don’t approve the charter, the Iraqi people recognize that, even with American troops in their country, they can participate in the political process and vote against a measure favored by what many on the left define as an imperialist occupying force.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Violence is down this time as well. Over at GOP Vixen (where I occasionally blog as Wordluf), my pal Dirty Harry notes there were fewer terrorist attacks during today’s elections than during the elections last January, “13 vs. 347.” Now read the whole thing!
UP-UPDATE: Despite the adminstration’s errors of communication in this fight, Manos finds that the Iraq fight was “worth it.” I agree. He also thinks we should put this vote in the “proper historical context“:
The United States invaded another country not for riches or gold or conquest but to spread ideas. Liberals from earlier generations, who went to war against fascism in Spain in the 1930’s, would have supported this war.
Now that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing! Hat tip: Instapundit.
UP-UP-UPDATE (also via Instapundit): More historical perspective at Gateway Pundit on the time it takes a war-torn nation to ratify a new constitution. Seems that in historical terms, they’re working pretty quickly in Iraq.
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: An expression of our failure in Iraq? (via: Polipundit).
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Gateway Pundit offers some pictures from Saturday’s vote that you are unlikely to see in the MSM, including one of Iraqi women waiting to vote while holding pictures of our president and theirs. Seems some Iraqis do appreciate the good that President Bush has done for their land. (Via Powerline.)
But… But… the teleconference was staged! Pay no attention to success in Iraq. Look! It’s Tom DeLay! And he’s… he’s… he’s doing exactly what almost every Democrat in the House did, but he’s getting indicted for it!! And look at the opinion polls! Look at my hands! Look at anything! Don’t look at the success in Iraq! Don’t look at the success in Iraq!!
Don’t look at the success in Iraq!!
Comment by V the K
====================
Dear Vinnie the Kook,
Do you mean to say they are FINALLY greeting us as liberators?
Yeah, right.
Nope, they’re voting in free elections, for the first time in many of theirs’ memory, on the Constitution that will be the basis and shape for their laws for years to come.
Your bitterness is understandable, Chandler. You cannot comprehend how Bush managed to do what years of pandering did not. You cannot understand why people who you consider subhuman should get the vote. You cannot see how people who were as happy as you claimed they were under Saddam are favoring a constitution that is antithetical to everything for which Saddam stood.
Liberators? Yes we are, and yes we have been. The Iraqis are showing their gratitude by taking control of their destiny.
The left ignores the difficult task our Founding Fathers had putting together a constitution that would satisfy nothern merchants and southern planters. It took some tough compromises to get it done, including allowing the slavery the Jeffersonian planters needed to maintain their wealth and political power.
Even after ratification by a sufficient number of states, the job wasn’t done. The Bill of Rights still had to be agreed to and presented to the states for ratification.
#2
Hey Useful Idiot Chumpler!
We were greeted as liberators the day we put boots on the ground in Iraq.
No matter how much you spin, you can’t hide the truth. Further, no matter how many times you tell the liberal lies, they don’t get any truer. Remember that.
Jack L. Allen, If I remember my history we didn’t get our Bill Of Rights untill 1783 or 1787?
I like the pictures where parents have their children put the ballots into the boxes.
By the time they are adults, the idea of voting will seem, to them, as if it’s always been that way.
#7
Just like all those little girls that will start wearing veils.
Better than wearing burial shrouds — if they were lucky — as they would have under Saddam.
Yeah, another win, on the “Addendum” on why we went there. WMDs. Anything else is grat, but the overall mission was a failure.
If we’re out there to liberate countries from tyrannical dictatorships, looks like we’ll be invading almost the whole of Africa next! Sorry, it’s a great thing for Iraqis, but this whole thing still represents a failure for Bush, although it’s good he’s sticking with it, just bad he keeps moving the blame around.
Pamela in #6, when the Constitution was ratified in 1788, it did not include the Bill of Rights, its first ten Amendments. They were ratified effective December 15, 1791.
What Bush did? Au Contraire! Read up on Mr. Cheney’s history if you will. Since the early 90s, Cheney was part of a think thank of oil companies, drillers, producers, etc that banded together for the purpose of getting control of the most oil production possible. Their primary target was Iraq….probably the largest reserve of untapped oil on the planet. I suspect Mr. Cheney’s main reason for getting on the ticket in 2000 was to accomplsh this goal. Supposedly, the administration was looking to use it’s power to wage war in Iraq as soon as they could. How convenient that 9/11 gave them an excuse (by the way…still no WMDs and still no proof that it was breeding ground for terrorism – at least until we went over there, but I digress).
Saddam was a cruel dictator, there’s no doubt about that and no, I don’t believe that they’d be better off with Saddam. (By the way, let’s not forget it was conservatives in the Reagan era that helped Saddam get the power and weapons he had) But how much better off will they be when they have a false democracy, where a foreign nation has picked the candidates and continues to have their military on Iraqi soil? The sad truth is, these people may get their votes today, but in the long run it’s the people with money and power (ie Halliburton) who will have the long-term say in that country, much like democracy has been perverted in our nation.
Interestingly enough, if we’re now in the business of freeing dictatorships, what about Cuba, which is only 90 miles from our doorstep? Castro’s been a thorn in America’s side for over 40 years. Why aren’t we marching in there and removing him from power? I guess plantain and cigars just don’t cry out for freedom as much as oil does.
What we’re seeing in Iraq is simply an extension of American policy for the past 60 years in the middle east – keep the oil flowing to the US at any cost; which has been propogated by both Republican and Democrat alike.
Kevin, the people dancing in the streets to mark the vote know that this wasn’t a false democracy. Bemoan all your want and spin your silly oil theories, but the people of Iraq know better what is going on in their own land.
#9
NoDick,
That is hyperbolic ridiculousness.
However, they are headed for cultural disenfranchisement and slavery.
Gosh the very first post in this string –as well as the post itself– played on the notion that no matter what happens in Iraq, the LibLeft generally will bemoan, becry, and bedevil any attempt to idenetify any step as a success. Sort of like almost winning the Gore election… history rewrites itself to the political preferences and spin of the commentator.
And then chandler, joey and kevin prove the point. Gotta love those LibLefties –they are predictable.
Matt, if you’ll consider for a moment what Iraq is likely to look like in 3-5 years (3 states — one Kurd, one Shi’a, one Sunni), you’ll understand why liberals can’t get excited about Iraqi democracy. Many conservatives here (actually children of the Neo-Con) seem to believe we’re on our way to a single, gloriously democractic Iraqi state. Given both the ancient and current divisions of those three peoples, such thinking appears to many of us to be partisan delusion. It seems like little more than the thinking of partisans who WANT to think this is all going to work out beautifully because you desperately want something good to come of this tragic mistake GBush made.
The left will ignore anything that gets in their way of taking the enemy’s side against their own nation.
Matt, if you’ll consider for a moment what Iraq is likely to look like in 3-5 years (3 states — one Kurd, one Shi’a, one Sunni), you’ll understand why liberals can’t get excited about Iraqi democracy.
The sad truth is, these people may get their votes today, but in the long run it’s the people with money and power (ie Halliburton) who will have the long-term say in that country, much like democracy has been perverted in our nation.
Sour grapes.
Let’s be absolutely clear on the conditions that libs preferred in Iraq to this amorphous “future”.
Let’s also deal with this:
Saddam was a cruel dictator, there’s no doubt about that and no, I don’t believe that they’d be better off with Saddam.
Of course, your entire next statement contradicts that.
But how much better off will they be when they have a false democracy, where a foreign nation has picked the candidates and continues to have their military on Iraqi soil? The sad truth is, these people may get their votes today, but in the long run it’s the people with money and power (ie Halliburton) who will have the long-term say in that country, much like democracy has been perverted in our nation.
Well, according to you, they would be better off than they were under Saddam — but you then argue that that is a bad thing.
And there we see the degree of irrational hate to which the left has sunk, folks……they’re now arguing that life under Saddam is preferable to anything else.
WHO is it that’s living under a “partisan delusion” and desperately wants something bad, anything bad, to happen so that they can scream and point about how putting the Iraqis in what they themselves admit is a BETTER situation, was a “tragic mistake”?
16 … if you’ll consider for a moment what Iraq is likely to look like in 3-5 years (3 states — one Kurd, one Shi’a, one Sunni) …
OK, what is bad about that ? If I remember correctly, most modern middle eastern border where patched together by Sir Winston Churchill. Should we have kept Czechoslovakia together ?
I am really perplexed at the reasoning used by people who think Saddam is a better alternative to anything happening in Iraq. Is it due to predicability ? Totalinarianism vs. People making dumb choices on their own ? Some insight would be helpful.
As a side note … it is good to see ND30 and QP barking at each other again. In a strange way it gives a sense of normalcy to the comment stream 🙂
#15
MichMatt,
Proof that when you have nothing to say cry Clinton or Gore.
Tiresome and so obvious.
As a history lesson, I counter: Agnew went first.
What’s sad as I read these blogs is that I see the same conservative rhetoric I see everywhere else. You despise liberals because we actually research facts about the situations before coming to a conclusion. What I see here (and on other responses to posts) is the same old “well, Bush/Cheney/Rove said it, so it must be true” ideology. We have democracy in this country because it’s what our founders were extraordinary people who crafted together one of the greatest governments in the world. Today, conservatives are more than happy to have the public sit on their ever-fattening butts, watch American Idol and vote on their cell phones. This way, fewer and fewer people will actually pay attention to what they’re up to.
I’d really like someone out there to tell me how many state GOP committees have anti-gay rhetoric on their platforms. I know Texas does, I’m just curious how many others do as well. It really mystifies me why people who are in the sights of the ultra-conservatives continue to defend them to the hilt. Frankly, to me, it’s simply akin to Jews in support of Hitler. What exactly makes all of you gay and lesbian conservatives out there think that you will be immune on the day that these conservatives wield so much power that they’ll start taking out whoever they please? Frankly I suspect most conservative gays out there have certain social stature and financial status and they believe it will make them immune. Sometimes, I can only think that is akin to prominent closeted gays Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover, 2 of the most awful men in government in the 20th century (and lord help us if any of the things written about Karl Rove are true). One of my best friends is a gay republican and he agrees with absolutely everything the republicans have to say…he believes voting for them will keep his stock portfolio up. It only serves to remind me that the fact being gay/lesbian/bi-sexual is only the slenderest of commonality we might with each other.
Let’s not forget that Germany was slowly becoming one of the most socially progressive countries in Europe after World War I. It was this socialism that led to new freedoms for gays and lesbians at that time, but unfortunately it was turned against them and they were among the first to go to the camps.
Go out and get your eyes opened a little: Try looking up an article called “the 14 points of fascism”; Take in a screening of “Good Night and Good Luck”; Actually read up on the history of some of your favorite conservatives and see how their actions against people (all in the name of patriotism) served only to make themselves fatter and richer.
There is a good lesson in that Kevin. Germany morphing from a progressive political state to a fascist one. The NAZIs were Socialists just like the progressives.
Only Leftists hate and disrespect for this country could make them believe that a very anti-socialist nation like America would follow in Europe’s footsteps. All the liberating inspirations have flowed from American to Europe. Not the other way around. Keep that in mind when you hear people swooning over European politics.
You won’t accept any success that has Bush’s (or America’s) name on it. That’s fine. We don’t need you too, thankfully. Your side has long been passed by. As the people continue to ignore your advice and your candidates, will you continue to settle for ridiculous marches every few months? Will you, in you frustration, feel compelled or even justified to do MORE to get our attention?
Well, QP in #16, no one ever said this was going to work out beautifully, but despite a number of setbacks, it is working out quite well. It’s so sad that so many like you on the left have so firmly fixed your partisan blinders (and your hatred of President Bush, your belief that he can accomplish no good) that you fail to see progress in Iraq when it happens. It might help if the MSM did not dwell on the bad news and reported more honestly (and more prominently) about some of the good things happening in that once-troubled land as these elections represent just another step in the right direction there.
Far from a tragic mistake, our operation has been a success.
And while you claim that those whom you call partisans desperately want this to work out beautifully, it seems that you and your ideological confrères desperately want this operation to fail. And you don’t bother to consider what this failure would mean for our nation’s standing in the world — or for the people of Iraq who have already suffered for three decades under the tyranny of a man imprisoned thanks to the U.S. military.
And now to Kevin (#21), you claim we despise liberals because y’all “research facts about the situations before coming to a conclusion.” That’s laughable. As the liberals seem only to provide the facts which serve their purpose and then, if they’re like Joe Wilson, they make up things (i.e., they lie) and claim that what they have made up is the truth. Indeed, in your own comment, you offer more references to pop culture than actual facts. And you don’t even consider the actual points of my post (and those of readers who commented defending it) but instead ramble on (and on) attacking conservatives without offering any facts to buttress your allegations.
How do you know that conservatives are happy to have the public sit and watch American Idol? While I know that many conservatives enjoy the show, I have also read many conservatives critical of reality television.
Then, you ramble on repeating the tired old accusation (which is more an insult than anything else) comparing gay conservatives to Jews supporting Hitler. Such an accusation suggests that if you bother to read the actual word we write, you don’t consider their meaning, that is, you don’t take our ideas seriously.
So while you suggest that liberals research facts before coming to conclusions, all you offer is insults. It seems that you haven’t taken much time to research the facts about the issues as you don’t address them, at least not in your comments to this blog. And you comments indicate that it’s pretty obvious that you haven’t you taken the time to consider the facts about gay conservatives, more content are you to hurl insults at those whose ideas you refuse to understand.
#7
I like the pictures where parents have their children put the ballots into the boxes.
Chumpler and his/her/it’s ilk would call that voter fraud.
#12
Hey Kev! If it was a war for oil and to keep it flowing to the U.S., then why are Europe and Asia getting the majority of it? Last I saw, we’re getting less than 10% of it.
Also, by your logic, we must be ruling Germany and Japan today, right?
#21
You despise liberals because we actually research facts about the situations before coming to a conclusion.
Reading up on blast e-mails from George Soros doesn’t count as researching “facts”.
It really mystifies me why people who are in the sights of the ultra-conservatives continue to defend them to the hilt.
Beats the hell out of the not so hidden platforms of hating America and changing it to a Socialist state.
Frankly, to me, it’s simply akin to Jews in support of Hitler.
Could you possibly be more asinine? Ask Chumpler. He can help.
BTW, could you explain to me how Bush is Hitler, but he’s controlled by the Jews? I’ve never understood that liberal theory.
22: The Nazis were not socialists…they originally portrayed themselves to the world as such, but they were obviously fascists, pure and simple.
#23: You say it’s old and tired to use that analogy. I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated. Seriously, I want to hear a logical, thought out response to this point of view instead of “oh, that’s just an old argument”
As to my comment about people sitting around watching American Idol: It’s a metaphor for something our founding fathers tried to tell us long ago about how people have to remain vigilant to be sure that we continue to have our democracy. Too many people in the country don’t vote. Too many people in this country don’t pay attention to their local, state and federal government. Too many people believe that if we easily give up a few freedoms to the government, then we’ll be safer. Isn’t there an old say that goes something like “those who are willing to give up their freedom to gain a little safety deserve neither”. Hell, take a look at one of Eisenhower’s farewell speeches as president; even a big war hero, he tried to warn us what would happen if the government/military industrial complex gained too much power.
I’m looking out the view of my window here which looks directly out to the twin towers site. I want nothing more than to see these terrorists captured and punished for what they did, but how is government handling that? A 6’7″ man on dialysis and after more than 4 years, we can’t catch him? What’s up with that?
You can bet your sweet freedom that if a Democrat had been in the White House then and we were where we are today, then on Fox news you’d be seeing a crawler going by: “1496 days and Osama Bin Laden still not captured yet.”
You despise liberals because we actually research facts about the situations before coming to a conclusion.
No, we despise liberals because of their stubborn insistence on embracing socialism regardless of how many times and places it has failed, and because of their promotion of the group over the individual, because we believe their policies lead to misery and oppression, because they protect bureaucrats at the expense of the people, because they are intolerant of people of faith, and because they laud tyrants like Castro but denigrate America at every opportunity.
Oh, yeah, and we’re not too crazy about the whole liberals championing government control as the answer to every problem thing either.
#27
I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated.
I have YET to see an example or proof of your claim. Seriously, instead of popping off, why don’t you provide proof of your assertions?
You can bet your sweet freedom that if a Democrat had been in the White House then and we were where we are today, then on Fox news you’d be seeing a crawler going by: “1496 days and Osama Bin Laden still not captured yet.”
Judging from the previous president, you can bet your sweet ass that liberals wouldn’t have given two shits less about what Osama Bin Laden does. If anything, a liberal president would have bent over and lubed his ass for more.
And you can’t prove that’s not true either.
Furthermore,
Why should we support “Democrats” who have to put together a panel to figure out what they stand for? Why do we keep seeing articles about what “Democrats” need to do to win?
Why? Because they are failures and no recitation of liberal lying points changes that fact.
You say it’s old and tired to use that analogy. I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated. Seriously, I want to hear a logical, thought out response to this point of view instead of “oh, that’s just an old argument”.
“Exterminated”. Do you really know what that means, Kevin?
“Exterminated” was what Hitler was doing to the Jews.
“Exterminated” was what Slobodan Milosevic was doing to the Kosovars.
“Exterminated” was, despite whatever Michael Moore and the Democratic Party are screeching, what Saddam was doing to the Shi’a, the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, and numerous other groups disagreeable to him.
Now, you seem to be one of those gay leftists raving about internment camps. Would you mind going and finding one first before you start screaming about “extermination”?
In anticipation of you dropping back and punting to “taking away our rights”, I will simply say this….according to the gay left, someone who supports that stripping gays of rights because gays offend that person’s religious and traditional views is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In short, you have no evidence of “extermination”, and you yourself champion politicians who advocate stripping gays of rights as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Come back when you build a case on something other than your own prejudices and bigotry.
To rephrase Kevin’s post from the ID discussion:
Also, this made me laugh. Kevin explains what he considers to be “researching facts”:
I bet if Kevin needs to do research on climate science, he watches The Day After Tomorrow. And don’t forget PETA’s favorite ducmentary on marine biology, Finding Nemo.
#32
The only folks I see stripping gays of their rights are the gay leftards outing their perceived political enemies.
#32: Yes, I absolutely mean extermination in the terms in which you refer to in your post. In all the cases of history you mentioned, people in those societies originally thought that if they just kept quiet and followed the crowd, then they would be spared, but look what happened anyway. Is there some kind of limit that’s ok for the government to take away from you, before it’s no longer ok to do so?
You beat the definition of extermination into the ground, but still never answered my question about why there are gays and lesbians out there who support these rabid conservative ideals that include denying rights to gays and lesbians. Also, where exactly do you glean that I “champion politicians who advocate stripping gays of rights as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”? Why are you pushing back to a definition of how you think the gay left sees things without answer the question?
#30 – I have YET to see an example or proof of your claim. Seriously, instead of popping off, why don’t you provide proof of your assertions?
* Proposal of a Constitutional ammendment defining marriage as only being between a man and woman.
* Proposal to make certain laws (see above) exempt from any judicial review – in effect, giving those in power the ability to pass laws which are un-constitutional
* MA Governor Mitt Romney dusting off an old law from the early 20th century barring out of state couples from marrying in MA. (something *never* enforced with straight couples until this issue came up) This was, by the way, a tactic used by segregationists in the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s
* Republican party platforms which specifically denies rights to gays and lesbians such as adoption/fostering of children, advocate laws making gay sex illegal and oppose criminal or civil penalties against those who act in opposition to homosexuals, disallow government family benefits to same sex couples with children, etc.
* Termination of gay government employees: Even while we faced a shortage of people who could translate Arabic languages to help fight the war on terror, in 2002 9 linguists in the Army (6 of whom spoke arabic) were dismissed from the Army simply because they were gay, for no other. (Seems to me if we want to fight terrorists, we shouldn’t be getting rid of fully qualified, patriotic and loyal citizens simply because they’re gay)
The above items came from either news reports or the sources themselves (in the case of party platforms, I downloaded the Texas Republican Party Official Party, directly from their website, dated 2004)
Please let me know if you’d like more. I’d be happy to look and see.
#36
Even if your hysterical rantings are true, how in the hell do you get extermination from that?????
Oh yeah, please provide links to your rantings.
Reading the various comments throughout this site from what can only be described with a new term, Fundy Fags, I’m wondering just how many of you here think God spoke to George Bush and said something to the effect of go forth into Iraq and bring me the head of Saddam? Could we get a count?
23’s response to Cousin Queer is odd. 23, you won’t win many American hearts and minds describing what’s happened in Iraq as “working out quite well”. Most of us (and by “most of us”, I mean about 2/3rds of us now) don’t consider 2,000 American deaths, 15,000 American maimings, and hundreds of billions spent – all on behalf of different tribes biting at the bit to rip each other to holy shreds — as “working out quite well”.
Yes, I absolutely mean extermination in the terms in which you refer to in your post.
So, you assert that gay internment camps are operating. Prove it.
You assert that organized gangs of stormtroopers are going around, torching gay businesses and killing gay people systematically. Prove it.
You beat the definition of extermination into the ground, but still never answered my question about why there are gays and lesbians out there who support these rabid conservative ideals that include denying rights to gays and lesbians.
That’s because, as I pointed out, denying rights to gays and lesbians is called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” by the gay left and gay Democrats when Democrats do it. Heck, as I’ve outlined elsewhere, you can support denying gays rights because they can’t procreate naturally and because they’re not worthy of “sacramental” institutions, and be called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” by gay leftists, Democrats, and gay “rights” organizations, not to mention getting millions of dollars in endorsements, time, and support.
In short, it’s not stripping gays of rights that you’re worried about; it’s that the wrong people are doing it.
Most of us (and by “most of us”, I mean about 2/3rds of us now) don’t consider 2,000 American deaths, 15,000 American maimings, and hundreds of billions spent – all on behalf of different tribes biting at the bit to rip each other to holy shreds — as “working out quite well”.
That’s because, PussyPatriot, Eason Jordan (erstwhile head of CNN), Michael Moore, Scott Ritter, the Democratic Party, and others have done an excellent job of hiding what was happening in Iraq under Saddam.
Unfortunately, Jordan is gone, Ritter is somewhere facing pedophilia charges, Michael Moore is embarassing even his own allies, and the Democrats are facing an election — all with Saddam’s trial about to open, with a new government with a vested interest in exposing the whole truth in Iraq.
It will be interesting to hear how moonbat shrieking about how nothing was wrong in Iraq, intervening was unnecessary and unjustified, and Saddam was a wise and just ruler will look over the testimony of the mutilated holding up their stumps, the tortured showing their scars, and the hundreds of thousands of mothers weeping over the remains of their children.
#37:
Marriage Ammendment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
Judicial Review: Included in H.J. Res. 39 of the 109th congress, entered on 3/17/05
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109K2KUJQ (this shows as a temp site, so you may have to go to thomas.loc.gov and look up the resolution separately.)
There are other bills, such as the Real ID Act which also includes similar language
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109eF3YTK::
Romney stopping out of state couples from marrying:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
Texas Republican Platform stating items on gays/homosexuals:
http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/RPTPlatform2004.pdf?docID=121
(No chance of liberal bias here folks – straight from the Texas Republicans)
Gay Linguists fired:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
The most disturbing is the “no judicial review” clauses being added to laws. This makes the constitution completely irrelevant to certain members of the legislative and executive branches of our government. I think of our 3 branches of government as a 3-legged table. Guess what happens when you remove one leg from a 3-legged table?
#8
Yes, exactly like.
The little girls don’t question veils (or at least are unlikely to) because it’s been a normal part of their lives.
This is very much like an assumption of democracy and voting as “the way things are” if this has always been a normal part of their lives.
My kids assume all sorts of things, particularly about technology, because they’ve never lived without it.
I can’t say that I’m all that fond of veils, but another thing those little girls will take for granted is that *girls vote*.
#40 (sorta piggy-backed)
I suppose all the cost and sacrifice would be worth it if only it were done for the “benefit” of people who were worthy of it?
#16
If the people of Iraq want it to split, that’s what will happen. This isn’t even a disaster, really, though obviously we’d like that not to happen. But ultimately it is up to them. What about this is so frightening?
Kevin seems utterly convinced that we’re running the show over there… telling them who to vote for, writing their constitution for them… and on no evidence. What is so hard to believe about the idea that we’re actively promoting Iraqi autonomy?
I wonder sometimes, if it isn’t the idea that people simply can’t be trusted, and therefore we can’t *possibly* be trusting them. Is that actually the difference between one side and the other… the feeling that government needs to have control of things vs. the feeling that people are capable of running their own affairs? Is it really about one side believing that people are smart and capable, even if they aren’t the same religion or color as me, and the other side… not?
What is so freaking scary about moving around some arbitrary lines on a map? Even *if* that eventually happens, which is by no means assured. Why is it so impossible to believe that we’d *allow* a genuine election in Iraq?
#38
I’m wondering just how many of you here think God spoke to George Bush and said something to the effect of go forth into Iraq and bring me the head of Saddam?
From what I’ve seen, the liberals are the only ones who believe that he ever said that. Amazing how an old lie got rehashed in the news last week like it was brand new, ain’t it?
Guess the liberal media, as usual, were counting on the people to be too damn stupid to remember.
I’ve tried twice to post responses to #36 with links to the places where I found the info, but I can’t see those posts appearing. Can someone let me know if they are appreaing? bosmacguy@aol.com
Nope Kevin,
I don’t see them. However, posts have been known to disappear before…..mysteriously. 😉
OK, Off Topic….
Just a suggestion for the Kevin’s of the world… all this blather about Nazi Germany having intimate application to the political realties in the world around… you gotta shut off the History Channel, guys, go out and do some living. Really.
Here’s a newsflash: Nearly 99.9% of all conversations engaged in the last few years have not –NOT– referenced Nazi, Hitler, or the rise of socialists or fascists in pre-war Germany. Only guys who watch the History Channel without exercising some modicum of self-restraint or fail to practice diverse viewing habits when planted on the couch in front of the TV will work so hard to use Nazi Germany as a reference point in contemporary discussions.
Another newsflash: it isn’t meaningful or applicable. Unless you’re a survivor of the concentration camps, leave this narrow segment of history alone. It’s like hearing the old folks all talk about the Depression or the Big One in WWII –get a grip! The world’s moved on.
I swear, it’s like listening to the silly fags drone on about the heyday of TV and quote Dynasty dialogue verbatim. Get a life! Pick up a ball, get off the couch, go outside, L-I-V-E for cryin’ out loud.
OK, glad to get that off my chest. Sorry.
If Kevin lives in mortal fear of being “exterminated,” why is he still in this country?
Kevin in #27, please provide evidence in statements from leading elected Republicans or the leaders of the GOP where they favor (or indicate support of) exterminating gays. If not, this is just another example of you basing your hatred of Republicans not on the facts which you claim liberals research before coming to a conclusion (Comment #21), but upon your own anti-Republican biases.
Other readers have done a fine job of exposing the silliness of your point on extermination (e.g., ND30 in #32).
Your comment in #35 is nothing more than a silly anti-Republican screed. And in none of your comments, do you address the merits of the argument in the post to which you commented.
And yes, Pussy Patriot (#38), I would win American hearts and minds if we laid out the progress our forces have been making in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration has not done a good job of telling the real story of what is going on there. Yes, there have been setbacks, but on the whole, things are improving there and polls (in Iraq) have shown that the people there welcome the changes and are optimistic about the future.
Oh . . . and thanks to all those of you who took the time to comment in my defense.
#46
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
–George Santayana
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Like the way Democrats keep losing elections…
#48
Even if the president does highlight the positive changes in Iraq, the pussy fags and Maureen Dowd rant about what a myopic lunatic he is.
Sure as hell can’t accuse the liberal media of presenting any of the positive.
#12
Cheney was part of a think thank of oil companies, drillers, producers, etc that banded together for the purpose of getting control of the most oil production possible. Their primary target was Iraq….
Iraq had a socialized economy under Saddam Hussein. While much of the economy has now been privatized, the oil industry remains in the hands of the Iraqi government. Per the Iraqi constitution:
Article 108
Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.
And in 109
The federal government…shall undertake the management of oil and gas… provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner…to the population
If Mr. Cheney wanted control over Iraq’s oil, it would have been much easier for him to deal with one dictator, who spent that money on new palaces, rewarding the ruling party elites and paying off UN officials, rather than 26 million Iraqis who now have a voice in governing and a financial interest in those assets.
52: Your points about the constitution are true, but who is there making the money to get that oil out of the ground and shipped out? Halliburton. They’re not there doing it for nothing…Most likely there is / will be a maze of financial deals through which they’ll make huge amounts of money from Iraq. Additionally, both Cheney and Halliburton have tried to tell people he has nothing to do with the company anymore. What’s little reported, even in the (gasp) liberal press, is that Mr. Cheney’s “retirement” package from Halliburton is structured in such a way that what he gets in pay is not fixed, but directly related to the profits that Halliburton makes. Seems to me he has a rather large personal vested interest in doing whatever can be done to increase the profits of Halliburton. PS – Are you also aware that Halliburton operates in Iran under thinly disguised off-shore companies? This way the can skirt fedral law that prohibits American companies from doing business with foriegn enemies? This doesn’t strike me as particularly patriotic behavior.
My point in all of this is that we’re seeing a period of unparalled and unrelenting greed in the people who are now running our federal government. Of course thoughout history, politicians on both sides of the aisles have used their positions to make money for themselves. These days, though it’s mixed with a flagrancy and nastiness unmatched in the history of politics. As an out, politically active gay person, I’m less than thrilled that they’re using issues like gay marriage, sodomy laws and the like as hot button topics to unify groups in a common cause of hatred against us so they can line their pockets under the radar.
#53
If you’re politically active, you should do more to learn the truth instead of relying on spoon fed bullshit by hysterical conspiracy theorists steeped in hate.
BTW,
Are you also aware that Halliburton operates in Iran under thinly disguised off-shore companies? This way the can skirt fedral law that prohibits American companies from doing business with foriegn enemies? This doesn’t strike me as particularly patriotic behavior.
Actually, it is legal as the WaPo pointed out. That’s why it was “thinly disguised” because it didn’t have to be. Halliburton wasn’t doing business directly with Iran and Libya, but rather two foreign companies that Halliburton holds interest in. These are privately owned firms and not owned by Halliburton.
In short, so you liberals can follow, privately owned companies that Halliburton had interests in did business with Iran and Libya. Not Halliburton.
What’s little reported, even in the (gasp) liberal press, is that Mr. Cheney’s “retirement” package from Halliburton is structured in such a way that what he gets in pay is not fixed, but directly related to the profits that Halliburton makes.
Care to reference that? Or is this just going to be another one of those smears you make where you fire and run away?
Liberal smear campaigns
In short, so you liberals can follow, privately owned companies that Halliburton had interests in did business with Iran and Libya. Not Halliburton.
The corporate veil, as it’s called, does not excuse a company from unethical business practices. The litigation about such matters proves that. It would have to be shown just what kind of interest Haliburton had in their holdings. If it’s anything like Frist’s “blind” trust though, would you bet on it?
Not that it will change your mind or your spin on such matters. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Republicans change their ethics and their morals to suit their behavior and not the other way around. You’re all wasting your time by arguing with the Freepers on here because they only care about winning, not about what it right. Ignore them. Let this site fade away as it should.
#53
Your points about the constitution are true, but who is there making the money to get that oil out of the ground and shipped out? Halliburton
Unfortunately for Mr. Cheney and your theory, Halliburton has lost money for the past three years.
You sidestepped my question. If he were in it for the money, why would he want a constitution and 26 million people to get in the way? Couldn’t he have gotten a better deal through Saddam directly?
Halliburton’s business ethics are what they are. Liberals cry wolf so often it’s hard to know when to pay attention. Is Halliburton evil? If it really was, would we know that *this* time the conspiracy theorists were onto something? I do listen, and what I hear as proof is that a company is interested in turning a profit. Well, duh. That’s what companies do. If Halliburton is actually doing anything I should care about it’s lost in a sea of “It’s the OIL” screeches.
Do any of you seriously *believe* that? You believe that in order to make a little more money Cheney pushed for war, that this is all about a handful of men lining their pockets? That this was about us controlling Iraqi oil when all we had to do was buy it from Saddam?
Halliburton could still be unethical and need to be held accountable for that, but no one is going to take the charges seriously who has to listen to rantings about how the whole purpose of the war is a secret conspiracy to get them more contracts. Because that is exactly what that is… it’s a conspiracy theory. All supposed motivations are conjecture and depend on a few men making secret plans to delude the world. It would work into the X-files without even having to change the dialog.
As for your charge, cowboybob, that Republicans change their ethics… can you claim that Democrats *don’t*.
#59
Liberals scream the loudest about ethics and morals when the heat is higher on them.
Further, to make sure you have no doubts about the Halliburton conspiracy theory, their willing accomplices in the MSM make sure to add the tag “Vice President Cheney’s former company” on any story about Halliburton.
Just curious, Kev’, did Halliburton also place the explosives in the WTC so that the towers would fall after Mossad flew the radio-controlled planes into them? I’m just trying to gauge the real depth of your paranoia
And, frankly, I doubt Santayana meant to have his aphorism used to justify calling everybody who disagrees with you a Nazi. (And after what happened in Toledo, you gotta ask yourself, what happens when anti-Nazis become more violent and dangerous than actual Nazis?)
#56: Each time I tried to post links as backups to statements I made, they didn’t show up for some reason. I’m happy to do this if someone can explain why responses with weblinks aren’t being posted.
#58: Why do I say that? Because the sad truth of the matter is that democracy is on the decline. Look at our once great country. It doesn’t matter that everyone has a vote, it’s the people with money and power who really run the show now. Simply look at how the votes were cast and counted in the 2000 election. (There’s a great picture of “enraged citizens” who banded together in a grass roots way to stop the supposed illegal re-counting that was going on in FL. Funny thing is, when the protestors in the picture were all identified, it turns out they were in the paid employ of hardline, conservative congressmen and senators, flown in mainly from other states to stage these protests).
The rule of law and our precious constitution are now subverted at every turn. Does it concern anyone out there that congress now wants to pass laws that don’t have to pass the muster of whether or not they are constitutional? Does it bother anyone that our current leaders continually attack and try to disassemble 1/3 of our government (the judicial branch)? Does it bother anyone that there is more and more legislation on the books that is slowly etching away at certain rights guaranteed to citizens, like the right to be charged formally with crimes without being held un-endigly by the government? Does it bother anyone that the president of the US is suggesting that we give policing powers on US soil to the military? Does it bother anyone that our executive branch uses loopholes in the law to sidestep congressial approval (ie appointment of John Bolton to the UN). To me, it seems decidedly un-patriotic to allow our government to continue along this path without at least questioning these changes. There’s too much of the thinking “well, I’m a good citizen, so what’s being done will never affect me”.
I know what some of you are thinking: I’m talking about so-called protections being put in place in fighting terrorists. I’m not some bleeding heart liberal….I know that there are despicable, evil people in this world who will stop at nothing, including murder of innocent people. Believe it or not, I think terrorists need to be captured and punished. Originally, we were on the right track in Afghanistan as we got closer to Osama Bin Laden, but our resources got side-tracked to Iraq and Osama remains free to plot his next attack. Believe it or not I (and most people) don’t subscribe to the non-sensical statements made here that people in Iraq were better off under Saddam Huessin. I’m thrilled that the people there now have the ability to choose their own government. What I (like other people are wondering) is how will these folks establish and maintain their own government with the continuing, un-ending presence of a foreign government? Think about our own Revoltionary War; we received a huge amount of help from the French (gasp!) which was essential to us winning our freedom from Great Britain. When it was over, did the French hang around to tell us how to set up our government? No, they didn’t and left to our own devices, things turned out pretty well here.
I’ve posed a few interesting questions in my posts which just seem to be conveniently ignored or simply getting a derisive, illogical response. Questions like “Why do gay conservatives support people who want to pass laws against them which can land is in jail or worse” or “If we’re now in the business of getting rid of dictators, then why aren’t we going to Cuba to depose Castro and bring democracy there?” another good one, that I’ve seen conservatives run and flee from is “What kind of culpability do our leaders have when it was people like John Ashcroft who helped to arm Saddam and turned a blind eye to his dictatorship in the 80s?” I seem to recall one person called me asinine and tired in my suggestion of equating gay support of ultra-conservatives akin to Jews supporting Hitler, but I saw no reasonable, thought out, well-written response to that stance.
#60 What’s wrong with the media pointing out the connection between Cheney and Halliburton? It’s a statement of fact and is actually a disclaimer that the VP of the US has ties to a company that profits from its business relationship with the US Government. Along the same lines when CNN does a report on AOL and they indicate that AOL and CNN are owned by the same company.
So, basically, even though Kevin faces “extermination” at any moment and believes that Democracy has been subverted by evil forces, he still stays instead of fleeing for some more enlightened country. Heh.
Kevin has, however, departed reality for that lefty fantasyland in which Osama is the only terrorist in the world, and if we capture him and give him, as Howard Dean suggested, a full-trial with all the protections the ACLU can offer, then all terrorism will be ended forever. After all, World War II was so unnecessary. All we really needed to do was capture Yamamoto. Hitler was just a distraction.
Also, in this delusion fantasy-land, the US didn’t need to stick around in Iraq, because Zarqawi and all those wonderful terrorists whom Michael Moore called “minutemen” and Cindy Sheehan called “freedom-fighters” would surely have peaceably let the Iraqi people write their constitution and establish the Arab democracy they were fighting to make sure never happened… if only America had left.
And, of course, establishing Arab democracy is totally unnecessary, since capturing bin Laden will end all terrorism forever anyway.
I seem to recall one person called me asinine and tired in my suggestion of equating gay support of ultra-conservatives akin to Jews supporting Hitler, but I saw no reasonable, thought out, well-written response to that stance.
Maybe because ultra-conservatives haven’t sent any gay people to death camps. Maybe because you were also challenged to show where any leading figure of the right has advocated a ‘Final Solution’ against gay people, and came up with bupkiss.
Anyway, there’s so much silliness in #62, it would be greedy of me to fisk all of it. TGC and the rest, bon appetit.
Gheez, VdaK, I think you dispatched Kevin’s observations quite well.
But getting back to the topic: even the moderate LibLefties like Sen Carl Levin of Michigan grudgingly admit Iraq is moving forward, that progress is being made.
But it’s interesting to see that after months of needling the Bush Administration about it’s lack of a plan, lack of armor and supplies for our troops, lack of trained Iraqi military and police, lack of safe and secure borders with Syria, spiraling death counts, rising insurgencies, and wide spread corruption within the Iraqi govt… now the LibLefties are giving credit for any progress to the Iraqi people.
I don’t remember, when things were going wrong in the eyes of MSM, did the Iraqi people shoulder the blame? Were they a target for attributing the “failures”? Or was it the Bush Administration and military who took the abuse from the blame-casters? I wonder why success isn’t being attributed to the Bush Administration in a commensurate fashion?
I think I know the answer to that one… like VdaK wrote at #1 and Dan made the point initially.
#49 Monty-ole-boi, check the quote –GS didn’t exactly say that but you’re close… the difference between your memory of his quote and his actual statement says a lot about your perspectives. Check it out, monty-ole-boi… GS was talking about progress, not history.
BTW, there are a couple of other GS quotes YOU could learn a lesson from given your earlier posts… like:
“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.” Oh, wait, that’s better served to “Reader” and chandler in hollywood.
or “History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.” Ouch.
or “Wisdom comes by disillusionment.” I’d offer from your pernicious jaundice of disillusionment of all things American, you should be wise beyond your years already. No?
As for your charge, cowboybob, that Republicans change their ethics… can you claim that Democrats *don’t*.
All politics and politcal parties tend to look out for their own self-interests – that’s never been the issue. However, when Republicans claim the moral high ground while controlling Congress and a Presidency currently installing 2 members on the Supreme Court, the American public has a right to expect them to put self-interest after good leadership. Actually, the American public has a right to expect this all the time. Unfortunately, it has been highlighted in the Bush second administration how lacking this is.
Day after day we see how leaders in the Republican party use their positions to further their own interests – their fame, pocketbooks or influence typically. I find it reprehensible. Taking on leadership in government, perhaps my upbringing was too naive, is supposed to be about service to your fellow Americans, loyalty to the interests of the greater good, thoughtful consideration to the compromises that best help the country, and hard work to make it all happen. I did not understand it to be a stepping stone in a government career, or a rung on the ladder to further one’s own business interests. Perhaps these could be considered perks of the job but when did they become the prime focus?
So when Plamegate, Frist’s insider trading issues, Iraq as a full-fledged independent democracy without United States financial interests, Dreir actually comes out, etc. etc. etc. (it feels like the f***ing Breck commercial) then perhaps we can get around to criticizing Democrats.
Fin
GCB — I make you the same dare that QP chickened out of. If DeLay, Frist, or Rove is convicted or pleas out of the charges against them, I’ll quit this blog and never post again. However, if the charges against DeLay, Rove, or Frist never result in a conviction or a plea, you have to agree to never post here again.
Take the dare, or do you think the charges are bogus?
Posted by monty: Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
–George Santayana
……………………………..
Oh my god Michigan-Matt.
You are absolutely right!! The wording of the quote was incorrect. Brilliant!! My hat is off to you for being so sharp!! Like a tack, you are. No. Really!! You must REALLY have to work at it. Phew!! It’s amazing how one can seemingly overcome so much in life with lots of Google to post from, without even having to read. I commend you. Really. I do. That index finger of yours must really get a workout…and so versatile it must be, too. Only experience could fine tune such remarkable dexterity.
And thank you so much for the kind correction as is your usual fashion and that of your exteemed colleagues. You are ALL, indeed a credit to your party and would make Rove proud. Models of all that Rove and party stand for, each and everyone. Breathtaking.
I will try not to be one of “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”…..sort, in the future….if there IS a future. Oh! I know….. I’ll just not remember the past and, therefore, won’t know if I’ve repeated it or not therefore I can’t be held responsible. Seems to work for you all. Thanks. I’m starting to understand you more MM. That sure saves a whole lot of energy otherwise wasted on thinking. That way I don’t have to “remember” anything….and it makes the past so, so…… malleable. Nice touch.
Oh, and those other quotes? Just priceless. Priceless. It makes me feel silly that I only posted ONE of his quotes, to begin with. Now I see how assinine it was to break up a “boxed set”. I feel like I’ve just had an epiphany. I think I’ll read Poor Richard’s Almanack next. It’s amazing how much milage one can get from those ONE LINERS, isn’t it?
I hope I didn’t get you out of the bathroom as I always hear “pissing and moaning” when I come here. You really should have that bladder checked ASAP. Maybe your bile duct is clogged? Never mind. That couldn’t POSSIBLY be it.
Thanks, again, MM. You really taught me alot. I hope I’m never in the situation where I need resort to using any of it. However, should I change parties, I have no doubt it would, most assuredly come in handy.
Sincerely,
your friend 🙂
monty
Here is an article from the NYTimes Magazine section that is one of the most eye-opening articles I’ve read in a long time. It doesn’t seem to be biased one way or the other (your milage may vary). but is EXTREMELY informative, IMHO.
The title “Reconsideration: Bush’s Ancestors” is grossly missleading and has nothing to do with the Bush family.
The subtitle “What contemporary conservatism’s ties to the American past tell us about its future” is much more appropriate”.
Give it a shot, if you care to.
Link below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/magazine/16essay.html?emc=eta1
Take the dare, or do you think the charges are bogus?
I’ll take the dare if GP bellies up the $200 he owes me from previous bets. Or better yet, let’s up the anti. I promise never to post again if none of them are convicted. However, if any of them at all are convicted (it could be any of the three) GP would agree to shut down GayPatriot entirely and retire from blogging altogether. Dan would also have to agree to start up elsewhere, to a new solo blog if he chose.
[Probably best for us not to take the bet. None of these guys will be convicted. We wouldn’t want to silence you, but would want you to keep you voice so we can hear you eat crow. Or try to explain away while you refuse a dish frequently served to you. –Ed.]
Delay is using every resource possible to attack Earle’s credibility rather than address the charges against him. He’s attempting to win the case in court of public appeal to force the hand of the court in facing this FELONY indictment.
[That’s because the charges against him are baseless. And don’t worry, he won’t need win this case in court as the charges will be dimssed. –Ed.]
Rove, Scooter et al face numerous more easily proven crimes besides outing Valerie Plame. They all have plans prepared to resign or take a leave of absence if they are indicted to focus on their defense. Not much confidence there.
[Please name these crimes. Right now, it seems that they won’t be indicted (if they’re indicted at all) for outing Ms. Plame, but for various matters related to their cooperation with the prosecutor. Ed.]
Frist’s circumstances seem awfully coincidental despite his voiciferous claims of being unaware of the circumstances of his “blind” trust. It’s already proven he had specific knowledge of exactly what his holdings were in the family business. I hear Martha has mailed him a poncho pattern just in case.
But all in all, what’s most disturbing about all three circumstances is that although laws may or may not have technically been broken, in every instance the spirit of the law was entirely circumvented. This is not something one should be proud of in the leadership of their party.
So I’m game if GayPatriot is. What say you?
#70
Wanna talk about confidence?
It took Ronnie Earle how many grand juries to indict DeLay? And then Earle essentially admits that he has little, if any, proof of DeLay’s involvement yet you still have confidence that he’ll be convicted?
Is that confidence or just your vile, putrid hatred of Republicans in general? Why don’t you be honest for a change, or are you not capable of that?
gaycowboybob — October 17, 2005 @ 12:06 am
The corporate veil, as it’s called, does not excuse a company from unethical business practices.
You appear to misunderstand the nature of the “corporate veil.” The corporate veil shields shareholders from liability (civil or criminal) from the actions of the corporations. The corporations themselves can be held civilly or criminally liable for their actions. Similarly, the corporations’ employees can be held civilly or criminally liable for their actions, even if they were undertaken while working for the corporations.
The theory of the “corporate veil” shields the shareholders from civil or criminal liability for actions of corporations of which they are shareholders. But, the veil is not absolute. If a shareholder, who is not an employee, exercises too much “day to day” control over the activities of the corporation, the “veil” can be lifted and the shareholder pursued civilly or criminally. It doesn’t happen very often with large corporations, but might be more frequent with small corporations.
Yeah, I’m a lawyer.
#68
Could you possibly be a bigger dick?
#69
Wow. Another liberal pretending he understands conservatives. What a shock.
Be careful what you wish for
From the Washington Times:
‘Baghdad Blogger’ says lives of homosexuals worse now
By Anupama Narayanswamy
The Washington Times
Published September 17, 2005
WASHINGTON — The decision to adopt Islamic Shariah law in the draft Iraqi constitution has left the so-called “Baghdad Blogger” — a homosexual Web logger in Iraq — worried about his rights.
The blogger, who uses “Salam Pax” as his Internet name, says the position of homosexuals in Iraq has deteriorated since the establishment of the new government.
Salam Pax earned widespread online readership with his acerbic and blunt commentary about life in Iraq during the war. The 32-year-old architect has worked as an interpreter for an American journalist and lives in Baghdad and continues to write his blog, or Internet commentary.
Much more at http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050917-102824-9029r
One point that should be obvious is that “democracy” does not equate to “freedom,” regardless of what Shrub might want to suggest. “Democracy” particularly does not equate to “freedom” for despised minorities.
“Many conservatives here (actually children of the Neo-Con) seem to believe we’re on our way to a single, gloriously democractic Iraqi state. ”
It isn’t reasonable to expect a Switzerland or Australia in five years, nor a Zimbabwe or an Iran, for that matter. An Ecuador or a Morocco seems more likely. Either one would be preferable to Saddam’s terror.
The Iraqis have a good chance at a functional representative government for the first time in their history. This is very good news for a long-tormented people who deserve it.
This is very good news for a long-tormented people who deserve it.
But not for the insurgent cheerleaders on the liberal left.
Good for America, bad for liberals. Bad for America, good for liberals.
#76 — I think Iraqi democracy will look a lot like Turkiye’s, but only two things about Iraqi democracy are certain:
1. It will be better than Saddam’s dictatorship.
2. Liberals will whine about its shortcomings, but offer no strategy for making it better.
V the K — October 17, 2005
#78. Your knowledge of Turkey’s democracy is apparently sadly lacking. Turkey’s democracy–such as it is–was been guided by a secular military for a number of decades. That is one of the reasons (dominant religion being the other one) for the reticence of the EU for Turkey’s accession to membership.
The secular Turkish military was established by Kemal Attaturk following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
There is no obvious body in Iraq to take the part of the Turkish military. I hate to break it to you, but the fact appears to be that the just-approved Iraqi constitution is far different. Reports have indicated that the Iraqi constitution makes Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. Secular? No. Islamic? Yes.
Be careful what you wish for. It may come back to bite you.
We’ll take our chances raj and you just keep sitting there in impotent fury while the world changes without you.
Iraq’s value as a democracy will be underwhelming for many years compared to western achievement but they will still be a powerful force for change in the area which has always been the real reason to attack Saddam. I think the WMD was put up as the incentive to get Europe on board but Bush failed to realize the godless whores he was working with in that dying continent.
We’ll soon be moving to new objectives while you’ll still be arguing about WMDs.
raj — Nothing you said refutes my suggestion that Iraqi democracy would look a lot like Turkiye’s. I was making a vague and general prediction about final form (and I was thinking along the lines of participation and functionality), and said nothing about comparative history or secularism. You also told me nothing I didn’t already know about Turkish history. I feel genuinely sorry for any client that has you as an advocate.
And instead of just bitching about the shortcomings of the Iraqi constitution, perhaps you’d like to offer a practical way forward to making the Iraqis develop a constitutional system that meets with your approval.
GCB,
In comment No. 70 you decided to drag GP (and GPW) into the wager proposed by V the K. Why propose placing GP’s blog on the wager, and not V the K’s ? From an initial observation, you are attaching a rider. This appears to be an attempt to get out of it, by making the wager ridiculous. This does not make you appear to be confident.
While V the K is not a friend of mine, if it will help you “put up or shut up”, I’ll donate $25 of GP’s wager. I ask for two conditions. First, I can only transfer it to you via PayPal. Second, I want to know how to verify your blog departure should V the K achieve success.
Well ?
GCB … as a quick clarification, the $25 is in reference to the $200 you stated GP owes you – ws
One point that should be obvious is that “democracy” does not equate to “freedom,” regardless of what Shrub might want to suggest. “Democracy” particularly does not equate to “freedom” for despised minorities.
But democracy has a much greater chance of leading to freedom than do brutal, repressive dictatorships, such as Saddam’s.
Furthermore, the irony of someone whining on a blog about the political situation in Iraq and how things were “better under Saddam” is extraordinary — given that, under Saddam, there WERE no blogs and criticism of that nature would have led to immediate imprisonment and death for the writer, as well as quite possibly the members of his family as well.
Finally, Raj does a wonderful job of showing how completely out of touch with reality the left has become, arguing that a potential decrease in the rights of a “despised minority” somehow invalidates the removal of a dictator who killed literally millions of despised minorities AND majorities.
In retrospect and knowing that, Saddam made a crucial mistake. Had he allowed gay marriage, he could have gathered millions more dollars and political support for himself from leftists who would overlook everything else.
#75
raj, democracy most certainly does not ensure freedom. The most amazing thing to me what when I found out that many democratic, western countries do not have constitutions. Majority rule rules. Individual freedom relies on the good will of the majority. In that sense, does it really matter if the tyrant is a single person, or an oligarcy, or a church, or a monarch or… Suddenly it made sense when one group or another in a “democracy” would refuse to vote. To vote would legitimize the will of a majority that they knew would not protect them.
75: You know it’s interesting; I seem to remember hearing about the same thing in Poland during the 1980s when Lech Welesa (sp?) was elected and Poland ceased to be a communist country. Do I take that to mean Communist rule was better? Absolutely not. Do I think that all citizens deserve the same rights? Absolutely.
And in most cases, you have to fight to either get and/or retain your rights. generally, no one is going to give them to you.
#66
“…when Republicans claim the moral high ground…”
How about when they don’t?
Seriously, is this a “it matters more because they claim to be moral” argument? I would say this is irrelevant. Perhaps you’d agree. Certainly Democrats don’t claim to be immoral… it’s a silly argument.
“…while controlling Congress and a Presidency currently installing 2 members on the Supreme Court, the American public has a right to expect them to put self-interest after good leadership.”
What is frightening about G.W. Bush is not his self-interest but his lack of self-interest. The man is genuinely idealistic. He believes that he can change the world. I’m torn between being terrified and thinking he’s right. Self-interest is so…. small. It’s so venal and inwardly focused. It can be trusted in a way that idealism can not.
“Actually, the American public has a right to expect this [good leadership] all the time. Unfortunately, it has been highlighted in the Bush second administration how lacking this is.”
How do you define good leadership? I would think that it would be a rather subjective thing. In this case I’d say that it’s subjectively dependant on whether or not a person agrees with what Bush is doing.
“Taking on leadership in government, perhaps my upbringing was too naive, is supposed to be about service to your fellow Americans, loyalty to the interests of the greater good, thoughtful consideration to the compromises that best help the country, and hard work to make it all happen.”
Which relies on agreeing what counts as the greater good and what will best help the country. Doesn’t it?
So if the president is not doing what you think promotes the greater good, is it because not everyone agrees what the greater good is, or is it because the president is ignoring the greater good to enrich himself and his cronies? I think that maybe it’s because what he thinks contributes most to the greater good differs from what you think contributes most to the greater good. Can we accept that this is a possibility?
What is the significance of people doing the simple act of voting? Courage? BS. If the Iraqis had courage, they’d sign up to defend their fledgling democracy with arms. Alas, not even a single battlement after three years. There’s not a Thomas Paine among them. So they went into the voting booth, where they could hide behind the curtain. Real courage, that it! And this is a victory for GWB? What would you describe as a defeat?
54 & 55 “If you’re politically active, you should do more to learn the truth instead of relying on spoon fed bullshit by hysterical conspiracy theorists steeped in hate.”
Believe it or not, I don’t get my information from Michael Moore. I get it from a variety of news sources as well as from the organizations themselves, both liberal and conservative. I’ve also noticed that with this post you’ve stepped into the in-civility that’s become the hallmark of conserativism today…unwillingness to listen to others points of view so you stoop to name-calling and bad language (and just discovered even more of your bad language further down…my goodness). I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do expect a level of some civility and respect to other people. I noticed that a number of posts here use quite derisive and down-right childish terms to describe liberal views. Also, I still don’t see anyone answering my question about why gay conservatives support groups that want to pass laws that will take away their rights; rights which are already afforded to other citizens. I’m getting ready to offer a reward to see an adult, thought-filled answer to this question
As to Halliburton and Iran, you also give the time-tested response of conservatives. “It’s ok that they’re doing it, because it’s legal” Last time time I checked, Iran was still a sworn enemy of the United States – Has something changed that I missed? It is decidedly un-patriotic and perhaps even treacherous for any American owned company to operate a business in Iran, subsidiary or not. Aside from the formation document of the corporation that is the subsidary that operates in Iran, no physical evidence has been found of this paper subsidary – no offices, no staff, no related bank accounts, nothing. All evidence points to the American headquarters of Halliburton running this company in full.
#88
What would you describe as a defeat?
That’s easy. Having to tuck tail and surrender so the can come home to die at the hands of the terrorists. Meanwhile, liberals sitting around singing Kumbaya as they die of Anthrax or dirty bombs but feeling damn good about themselves because, by God, they care about the troops more than anybody else. Also, leaving Iraq to collapse into a worse toilet than they’ve already been in for somebody else with a pair to go in and clean up.
Now then. What would you describe as a victory?
Also, I still don’t see anyone answering my question about why gay conservatives support groups that want to pass laws that will take away their rights; rights which are already afforded to other citizens.
That’s fair. You still refuse to back up your assertions about Republicans exterminating gays.
As far as your Halliburton spin, gimme a break about getting your info from conservative and liberal sites. You get your info from hysterical conspiracy theorists with websites and blogs dripping with hate.
I must assume that #88 is unserious.
#72
Part of piercing the corporate veil relies on “a lack of separate existence” between the companies in question. If you read my comment, you would know that I refer to the necessity of a separate existence and therefore a wall between the Haliburton and its holdings. Who said anything about shareholders?
You’re a lawyer huh? I suppose I should guess that from the inflated ego and condescending language. Go brush up on your securities litigation, dope. I have some brochures I could send you.
Oh and Wendy, $25 is chump change. Let’s make it worth our while.
88
What is the significance of people doing the simple act of voting? Courage? BS.
…So they went into the voting booth, where they could hide behind the curtain. Real courage, that it!
Calling people who voted in Iraq less than courageous is even lower than I thought most sensible people would stoop. A voting booth curtain will not protect you from bullets or bombs aimed at you by those wanting to defeat democracy. That curtain is not Superman’s cape. Even after voting, these people have an ink stained finger that marks them as someone who prefers free elections. They become an easily identified target for Saddam loyalists and Islamofascists. Yet, somehow, they have a higher voter turnout than we do in the US.
Would you have the courage to vote under these conditions?
John, that’s pretty much why I don’t think #88 was serious. I can’t imagine monty or chandler or whoever else to say something quite so riddiculous. Who would say that it doesn’t take bravery to vote in Iraq (or Afghanistan) particularly if part of your belief is that things are so bad bad bad over there what with all the murders and bombings and all?
I think it was bait to see who would bite.
GCB,
Did you bother to read my posts (both #82 & #83), or just look at the dollar sign ? If you read it, why avoid my question ? If you want me to jump to a conclusion, I can try.
Well I bit….I’ll probably bite again. Another story for my VA(Vampires Anonymous) group. Keep up the great posts.
Exterminatee says: My point in all of this is that we’re seeing a period of unparalled and unrelenting greed in the people who are now running our federal government. Of course thoughout history, politicians on both sides of the aisles have used their positions to make money for themselves. These days, though it’s mixed with a flagrancy and nastiness unmatched in the history of politics. As an out, politically active gay person, I’m less than thrilled that they’re using issues like gay marriage, sodomy laws and the like as hot button topics to unify groups in a common cause of hatred against us so they can line their pockets under the radar.
The first half of that paragraph is pure communist cockamamie. Perhaps conservative capitalists hate gays because they’re Marxists. Most of the conservatives that I know don’t care about and don’t want to know what I do in the privacy of my own home. They’re more interested in what I do for a living and whether I own my home or not – which, being a greedy capitalist pig, I do.
Where can I buy shares in those extermination camps? On second thought – it sounds like a boondoggle.
Interesting how our critics have long since abandoned addressing the points raised in my post. Guess it shows tacit acknowledgment that the election turnout (and now the apparent adoption of the new Iraqi constitution) represent a victory for the Bush doctrine.
Also, I still don’t see anyone answering my question about why gay conservatives support groups that want to pass laws that will take away their rights; rights which are already afforded to other citizens. I’m getting ready to offer a reward to see an adult, thought-filled answer to this question.
Oh, you’ve gotten an answer. You just didn’t like it because it pointed out, with references, that you and your fellow gay leftists call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and contribute millions of dollars to promote it when a person wants to pass laws that will take away gay rights because of his religious and traditional beliefs.
GPW,
V the K predicted the comment stream from the first commentt. Personally, I think the victory for the Bush doctrine will come with the seating of the first post-December election Iraqi government is seated. Then the insurgents and nay-sayers will see the Iraqi’s ignoring them and going on with life.
What would happen if we did that to those who have long since abandoned addressing the points raised in your post ?
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive attack is phylosophically flawed as it it a doctrine based on “might makes right”.
The elections in Iraq are the fruits of the poisoned tree.
I have patience that the worst of political blunders will be shown for waht it truly is.
Patience.
Alas, Chandler, you provide neither facts nor arguments to counter my point just your prediction, your patience, your expectation that things will go wrong in Iraq and a misrepresentation of the Bush Doctrine. Sad that you are not hopeful that democracy will prevail in that once tyrannized land. That you can’t even acknowledge that our invasion has at least given the Iraqi people some say over their government.
101: Excuse, but you didn’t answer the question. Your “answers” consisted of some twisted logic that made the terms “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” into some kind of left wing terminology.
Let me put this in simpler terms then: I take it from your website that you’re from Texas. The Texas GOP platform clearly supports anti-sodomy laws, denial of the term “family” applying to gay and lesbian couples, and custody of children by gays and lesbians. (lifted directly directly from the party platform of the Texas GOP from their 24 page platform at texasgop.org) So finish this sentence for me:
I, as a gay person, support the Republican Party ((which among other things, advocates anti-sodomy laws (making it illegal for me to engage in sex), denial of the term “family” applying to gay and lesbian couples, and deny granting custody of children to gays and lesbians)) because ____________.
Plain and simple. Please fill in the blank.
#103 Might doesn’t make right, but neither does it make wrong. Either argument is equally flawed.
#105 I believe that the answer was that it’s not much harder for a gay person to be Republican than it is for a gay person to be a Democrat, when all is said and done. It all depends on how seriously you view the dumb stuff your party does and what you think holds the best hope for real progress.
Im gay and Republican. Why? Because even being an American with partial equality in this country is better than not being an American at all. The world is too dangerous to allow Dem’s to guide our ship of state.
As for the Iraqi election….did anyone else notice the lack of coverage as compared to the first election?
#93
I suppose I should guess that from the inflated ego and condescending language.
Either a lawyer, liberal, GayCow or all of the above.
#100
That’s because they can’t address it. They have to change the subject to something they hope like hell they can win.
#105
…it beats the hell out of being a liberal pussy.
C’mon. Can’t you do better than rehashing the Texas GOP platform over and over?
#105
Oh and we’re still waiting for proof of that whole “extermination” deal. Any moment now. Whenever you’re ready.
I’m not a Republican, but I’ll take a stab at answering Kev’s question and hope he can read the answer before he is exterminated. The reason we lean conservative or Republican is because even though some of us may disagree with largely symbolic positions on lifestyle issues, we believe that lower taxes, growth-oriented economic policy, judicial restraint, assertive foreign policy, and certain other practical issues are more beneficial both to us as individuals and for the greater good of America and the world. Some of us are also put off by the descendancy of the Democrat party into childish socialist radicalism. Some or many of us don’t agree with every Republican policy, but we’re working to change them, rather than just bitching about them and walling ourselves off in an insulated ghetto. We reject the stereotyes of Republicans that leftist leaders use to keep the plantation in line, because our personal experience has shown these stereotypes not to be true.
#88 was meant seriously. It’s just that the guy, DSH or “Stephen” as he once called himself, is a bit of a crazy. We saw a lot of him here a couple months ago. Sometimes he makes sense and even writes beautifully. Bruce gave him a guest post once. Unfortunately, at other times (as in #88) DSH / Stephen suddenly turns hateful and demented. Obviously it took a lot of courage for the Iraqis to go and vote, under threat of terrorist attack. There were 347 separate terrorist attacks in Iraq, the last time they tried to vote (January). Moreover, fact is, Iraqis have been signing up to defend their country with arms and are taking over more and more duties from U.S. forces.
UP-UP-UP-UP UPDATE…
Tuesday, October 18th NYT:
“Iraqi election officials said Monday that they were investigating “unusually high” vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces, where as many as 99 percent of the voters were reported to have cast ballots in favor of Iraq’s new constitution. The investigation raised the possibility that the results of the referendum could be called into question.”
Oh, where is the sensitive Diebold software when you need it?
Love, Pussy.
Funny how lefties didn’t mind blatant voter fraud in Venezuela or Seattle, and treat Iranian and Cuban elections as democratic even though candidates are picked by the government and opposition parties are outlawed… but they seem to be all over the high pro-Constitution vote in Iraq. Funny, that.
I mean, if John Kerry can get 90% of the vote in DC, why is it so hard to believe that some Kurdish precincts would support the new Constitution by similar margins? And unlike in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or Seattle, the Iraqis themselves seem to care about the possibility of fraud and are investigating it on their own.
This quote also answers Kevin the Exterminated question better than I could:
We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation–the U.S. Constitution.
Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417
And… sorry to monopolize the board this morning … I should make it clear that even though Republicans are pretty sucky on some or many of the things the quote in #117 names, the Democrats are by-and-large either terrible on all of those issues or openly opposed to them.
Hey-ho, LibLefites here-we-go… let’s find some media ho’, ala Cindy Sheehan, in Iraq who can “tsk tsk” with authority and lend credibility to the LibLefty reporters bloviating “… this wide spread election fraud can only mean the Iraq govt and democratic movement has no credibility in the world… serious questions have been raised about voter integrity outside the Sunni triangle… it could become another Florida2000 hanging chad moment where the national referendum on a new constitution is thrown into utter chaos… why didn’t the Bush Administration forsee this and have a plan in place?”
Yeah, Hey-ho, LibLefites here-we-go. NancyPelosi? Grab mike. HowieDean, grab a kitty. Loyal followers, grab a sign and some talking points. The rest, grab some ear plugs.
Hey-ho, LibLefties here-we-go.
I think the left-lib version of that manifesto would go something like this: “We, the liberal left, believe in group rights and victimhood, unlimited government regulation, socialism, the rule of judges and elites, secularism, affirmative action and submission to the UN. We, the liberal left, oppose school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights, the war on terrorism and government accountability. And at our core, We, the liberal left, will do whatever we can to undermine the document that stands as an impediment to establishing a Cuban-style Marxist utopia — the U.S. Constitution.”
#119
You mean taking measures like putting liberal leftards in each booth to make sure the people vote correctly?
They’re too busy slashing tires.
Better yet, the Bush administration should have sent gay leftards over there to make sure people vote fabulously and to have a different colored ink, for their fingers, that doesn’t clash with their outfits. Earth tones maybe?
Better still would have been if Bush had sent AFL/CIO or UAW election veterans to run the show and do away with those pesky secret ballots.
I, as a gay person, support the Republican Party [diatribe redacted] because the Republican Party is the only party in America that is willing to fight the kind of Islamic terrorists who seek to impose on the entire world a nightmarish, eighth-century caliphate whose laws require that gays and lesbians be stoned to death and thrown off cliffs and other terrible stuff like that.
Simple as that.
Oh BTW, where’s Bruce?
Last I heard from him on IM Friday, he said he might be going into the hospital. My IM crashed yesterday and can’t connect for some reason.
Has anybody heard from him?
Butch, quit thinking like a victim –”they are out to get you ’cause you’re gay.” The terrorists only want to try to blow you up because of three reasons: 1) you’re a westerner; 2) you’re a convenient target that’s not likely to be guarded so the opportunity for a successful mission is high; and 3) you’re white. Cultural, racist terrorism. Sounds like a sermon topic for Rev Jackson.
They don’t care that you are gay –to them it just shows how far the West has debased itself to tolerate abhorrent behavior like yours. Again, meaning the gayness thing, not the liberal thing.
No, I think this site and its allies –much more than those of the GayLeft brigades—have demonstrated strongly the issue of intolerance in the Arab and totalitarian worlds foaming with Islamist radicalism. I think the anti-gay intolerance in those worlds is something you can identify with –it’s the same instinct at a partisan level toward the GayRight that draws your impotent ire. Fire away, Butchboi, ‘cause all you got is blanks.
Free advice: Parody is best served lightly, not with the heavy handed stylings of a WeScream4HowieDean clone. Go visit “Caption This” blog and watch a consummate practitioner ply his ware in parodies abloom.
I hope he’s doing well. If anyone does talk to him, send best wishes, okay?
Incidentally… it’s almost more important that the Iraqis vote no, than vote yes. They *have* voted in the past, after all, but they’ve never gotten to vote no before. If some enthusiastic persons removed no votes, as is being charged, then it’s important to investigate that and make clear to everyone that dissenting votes are an important and welcome part of the process.
“They don’t care that you are gay ”
Yes, they do. It’s not a victim thing fueled by “impotent ire.” Radical Muslims reserve a special kind of hatred for homosexuals, and that fact bears repeating on a gay Web site from time to time, lest any of us forget.
By the way, how would you know my ethnicity?
O.k. So the governing body in Iraq is supposed to be a puppet of the so called “Bush Regime”. So why are they invetigating voter fraud? If we’re to believe the rhetoric of the leftards, this wouldn’t be happening, right Pussy?
Why do you all of you keep bashing away when no one is debating you? Are you afraid you won’t say something evil enough to elicit a response and this site will continue to be an irrelevant ad space?
[Pot calling the kettle black. Only this time, I think the pot’s a lot dirtier. –Ed.]
#125 — Thanks, Matt.
#129
And where are all the visitors to your bandwidth black hole?
ButchBoi, with respect, No –they don’t care if YOU are gay. You’re a 3-count target here in America for the Islamo-terrorists. They care if people in THEIR country are gay; alas, not you ButchBoi. YOu carry no threat to their existence… hell, if the people you support were in power, the Islamo-terrorists would have unwitting allies and dupes in the WH (see John Kerry, 2002-2005).
We know they care if there are gays within their borders… that’s why this site and other GayRight allies have been working hard to highlight the issue for the otherwise-distracted GayLeft (why distracted? well because we gotta be against abortion, we gotta get women elected, we gotta stand for unrestricted porn websites, we gotta encourage victimhood for our political brothers, and we gotta stop the GOP at all costs).
If you weren’t so distracted by the issues of the GayLeft –which are mostly not about being gay and mostly about co-opting gay activists into the realm of Democrats– you’d have read the post correctly and, pray, maybe achieve a higher level of comprehension?
Enuff of this, you got the point corrected for you. “They are not out to get you because you are gay, ButchBoi”.
LOL, ARC….isn’t it amazing that GayCowboyBob no longer links to his own blog?
I stand by my statement about Islam’s hostility to homosexuality, though not with regard to my own sexuality in particular because I’ve never met a radical Muslim who wants to throw me off a cliff.
I also stand by my answer to the specific question that Kevin (#105) posed, which answer wasn’t the product of being “distracted by issues of the GayLeft.” Kevin asked a question and I answered it.
Oh, and “ButchBoi, with respect” is an oxymoron. Calling another poster a cliched name is not respectful. I post as “Butch.”
Got it?
#110: Well, once again you’ve enjoined into childish name calling and you didn’t answer the question. To me, it’s not a re-hashing…I’ve not had the chance before to ask gay conservatives what they think of this stance and I’m seriously interested in knowing other people’s points of view.
I’m not talking about a difference of a few issues. Heck there are some liberal ideas I don’t agree with with and some conservative ideas that I do agree with. Personally, I draw the line though when a group of people want to pass laws who take away rights from me (and others like me) that are enjoyed by others in our country.
I’ve not had the chance before to ask gay conservatives what they think of this stance and I’m seriously interested in knowing other people’s points of view.
Mhm, sure you are. That’s why you responded to that and
not to this — which is also a nice thumbnail summary of my position.
Now, as I’ve previously pointed out, let’s see you throw the same level of vitriol at Democrats who want to take away gay rights, despite lying in their party platform that they support “full inclusion” and “equality”. Since you want to claim that others who do so are out to “exterminate” you, let’s see you do the same for them.
“Personally, I draw the line though when a group of people want to pass laws who take away rights from me (and others like me) that are enjoyed by others in our country”
Fair enough, Kevin. A few especially obnoxious examples of rights denied:
The sodomy laws that were on the books until very recently were particularly repugnant to gays and lesbians. Those laws were enacted by Republicans and Democrats alike, and I say good riddance to them.
DADT is another slap in the face from leaders of both parties. I have a lot of friends who serve, and it’s disgraceful that they have to conceal their homosexuality. If the Israeli Defence Forces, considered one of the very best military organizations in the world, can successfully enlist gay and lesbian service members, then so can the US military.
Gay marriage has a long way to go before it’s a reality nationwide. Even here in solidly Blue California, a ballot initiative (Prop 22) to ban gay marriage passed a few years back by a wide (61.4-38.6) margin. Clearly, we’ve got a lot of work to do to convince our neighbors that extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians is a good and fair public policy. It sucks, but 61-39 in California speaks volumes about how much farther we have to go politically.
If you want a simple answer to your question from this gay conservative about why I support the Republican Party, please refer to post #123. There are things about both parties that bother me, but when it comes to the defining issue of our time, namely the Global War on Terror, I believe that the Republican Party (joined by a few prominent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman) are the only ones who have taken a strong, consistent stand. The US has got to fight the radical, head-hacking, suicide-bombing Islamic terrorists who want to kill us all, gay and straight.
#135
Jeez! You haven’t been exterminated yet?
Well it seems fair to me since you won’t answer any questions.
#135 …
Kevin has a valid point is he is asking a genuine question. If he is trying to be inflammitory, he is no better than some of the others here in the comment stream.
I will trust him to be geniune so here is my stab at an answer …
I orient myself towards the Republicans because I believe in individual freedom, and believe they feel the same . I feel it will be easier to open the minds of Republicans about living my life in a way that is natural to me, versus opening the mind of Democrats to not scolding me to tears, taxing me to submission, the regulating me to death.
There is my answer. I you don’t like it … too bad.
LOL, ARC….isn’t it amazing that GayCowboyBob no longer links to his own blog?
I posted weeks and weeks ago that I’m, at least for the time being, out of the daily posting business. What’s your point? If anyone wants to see my previous articles they’re more than happy to go to my blog.
Now, on the other hand, are any of you ready to take my “I’ll stop blogging completely if Delay, Frist, or the Plamegate group are convicted” challenge? I’m ready if you are. At least Wendy had the balls to offer me up $25.
Bruce, you still owe me $200.
#137 Butch, you are kidding, right?
The sodomy laws that were on the books until very recently were particularly repugnant to gays and lesbians. Those laws were enacted by Republicans and Democrats alike, and I say good riddance to them.
They may have been passed by Republicans and Democrats alike but it was at the behest of Democrats that they were dismantled. Rick Santorum is still a senator, for the time being, and he was the leading vocal opponent of majority of Republican lawmakers against dismantling these laws.
DADT is another slap in the face from leaders of both parties. I have a lot of friends who serve, and it’s disgraceful that they have to conceal their homosexuality. If the Israeli Defence Forces, considered one of the very best military organizations in the world, can successfully enlist gay and lesbian service members, then so can the US military.
DADT was a compromise to appease Republicans, not a compromise to more conservative Democrats. Republicans would ban gays in the military altogether if they had their choice. This is so radically biased in light of new studies from Canada, the UK and other Western nations who have found that the repeal of a ban on gays in the military have had little effect on recruiting numbers. Is the United States the bastion of all things non-progressive?
Gay marriage has a long way to go before it’s a reality nationwide. Even here in solidly Blue California, a ballot initiative (Prop 22) to ban gay marriage passed a few years back by a wide (61.4-38.6) margin. Clearly, we’ve got a lot of work to do to convince our neighbors that extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians is a good and fair public policy. It sucks, but 61-39 in California speaks volumes about how much farther we have to go politically.
The California legislature tried to lead the way in light of new support for gay marriage in the state. It was the enlightened Republican guhvunuh who put a stop to equal treatment for gay men and women in the state.
Get real.
Now, on the other hand, are any of you ready to take my “I’ll stop blogging completely if Delay, Frist, or the Plamegate group are convicted” challenge? I’m ready if you are.
LOL……how about following through on the statement you’ve already made?
Therefore, I have again withdrawn myself from their debate. The perspectives of less-than-party advocates simply drives the controversy, furthering their end of more exposure for the site a la Coulter, Malkin, Fox News……..
I hope any of you reading this will join me in taking sites like GayPatriot, Coulter, Malkin, Noonan, off your usual reading. Without exposure, they have no power.
And here you are back again, doing what you explicitly told people not to do.
Why should we believe you would keep your word in the first place?
#141 So what is a referendum for anyhow? The fact that the CA legislature tried to circumvent it and the CA governor supported the will of the people doesn’t change the meaning of the percentages in the referendum or disprove Butch’s point, which was about public opinion in a largely blue state. Does the governor represent the will of the people or not? And aren’t the legislators *supposed* to? And if the referendum passed by that much howt can you *possibly* disagree with the statement that there is a lot of work to do to convince neighbors?
DADT: “Republicans would ban gays in the military altogether if they had their choice.”
Maybe… quite a few would ban women from serving as well, and for mostly the same reasons.
“This is so radically biased in light of new studies from Canada, the UK and other Western nations who have found that the repeal of a ban on gays in the military have had little effect on recruiting numbers.”
What does this have to do with recruiting numbers? (I am genuinely confused and curious.)
In general it’s about privacy issues and unit cohesion. (It’s a bit less about security concerns… people pretty much realize that the blackmail risk is related directly to how much trouble someone can expect to get in if they get caught “out”. ) I can’t think of ever hearing about it in relationship to recruiting numbers, though.
Privacy and unit cohesion have to do with sex and sexual attraction. Ultimately I think this is less of a problem than is feared, but there’s no way that it could be considered a non-problem when it comes to integrating women or gays into the military. (Integrating blacks into the military is not an issue related to sex at all.)
And here you are back again, doing what you explicitly told people not to do.
Why should we believe you would keep your word in the first place?
What was my word on the issue as I stated? I said that I withdrew myself. And I had. And for this thread I reinserted myself. Don’t be a dope if you intend to debate. I don’t suffer fools gladly.
Take my challenge, or don’t take it. But have the courage of your convictions to commit yourself to something.
#140 … At least Wendy had the balls to offer me up $25.
As a clarification (ref #82 and #83), the $25 is yours, GCB, upfront if you accept the terms according to what V the K stated.
But you never stated why you had to bring GP or GPW into the wager proposal. What are you afraid of by answering ? I think it is a rider attempt.
What does this have to do with recruiting numbers? (I am genuinely confused and curious.)
A prime reason that bans on gays in the military have been so supported by the population is a wive’s tale of how it would negatively affect recruiting numbers. Recent polls in Canada and Britian have confirmed that recruits’ decision to join, after bans have been repealed in these countries, have been little affected by the repeal.
“…77% said allowing gays to serve openly would have no impact on their decision to enlist.”
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=7355
Isn’t it amazing that you losers have no response to your lame wannabee blogospheres? lMAO 🙂 I’d gladly join in on your blogs…..but…why should I? I’ll let you hurl the crap, as you always do.
Otherwise, I might visit. But, you don’t wan’t that, do you?
#145
Hell, I’ll give GayCow $25 just to leave. Don’t have to wait for anything. Just keep your promise and leave.
No, GayCowboyBob, I’m not kidding at all.
“The [sodomy laws] may have been passed by Republicans and Democrats alike but it was at the behest of Democrats that they were dismantled.”
Sodomy laws were struck down by a Supreme Court that was comprised of nine justices, a full seven of whom were nominated by Republican presidents (Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor, Renquist, Thomas, Stevens, and Scalia) and only two of whom were nominated by Democratic presidents (Breyer and Ginsburg).
DADT became the law of the land while one Democrat sat in the Oval Office and another Democrat (Sam Nunn) was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I chose to cite (in post #137) Israel’s muscular defense forces, but not Canada’s almost non-existent armed services. Did I hear something about getting real?
“It was the enlightened Republican guhvunuh who put a stop to equal treatment for gay men and women in the state.”
It was the voters of Blue-state California who passed Prop 22 to ban gay marriage in California by a 61-39 margin. When the governor recently vetoed the Legislature’s bill that would have twarted the clearly expressed will of California voters, he was upholding their wishes. The challenge now is to change the hearts and minds of our neighbors.
#146 If I may summarize the article you linked… polls in the UK and Canada predicted dire consequences to recruiting numbers if gays were allowed to serve openly (no statistics cited) that never came to pass. Polls in the US showed that 77% of conservative young men (deemed the sort likely to enlist) said it made no difference to them at all. Only 21% thought it would make it less likely, which isn’t quite the same as saying they wouldn’t join. (I should point out that this is not a cross section of all male youths that age but of the ones the researchers considered most likely to join the military… conservatives. And *also* the *age* group of young men, it seems to me, that are probably the most likely to have issues about their masculinity, and 77% said that gays in the military didn’t matter to them… this seems to contradict certain preconceptions, I think.)
What isn’t included is references to peopel who say that allowing gays to serve openly would cause a recruiting problem. Maybe someone is making that claim, but I really don’t think anyone is paying much attention to them. When I hear arguments in favor of keeping gays from the military or at least from serving openly it is always about privacy and unit cohesion and more generally “readiness.”
As a clarification (ref #82 and #83), the $25 is yours, GCB, upfront if you accept the terms according to what V the K stated.
But you never stated why you had to bring GP or GPW into the wager proposal. What are you afraid of by answering ? I think it is a rider attempt.
It’s a pittance and insulting. I’ll take my proposed bet with anyone. If Delay, Frist or any administration or former administration officials are convicted for the Plamegate scandal, then whoever takes my bet has to completely dismantle their blogs. I will do the same if none of the above are convicted with the added bonus of never posting on GayPatriot again.
Cough up or shut up. Wendy? ThatGayConservative? ND30? Mssrs. GayPatriot? Afraid to put your blog on the line?
It’s a stupid bet, GCB. Your blog is meaningless. Your opinions offered here are irrelevant since we can get them from HowieDeanScreamers over at the DNC’s site 24×7.
On the other hand, this blog, VdaK and others’ are worthy and unique.
Let’s see, nothing in one hand. Something worthwhile in another.
No wonder you’re eager to bet. You realize you have nothing to lose –rhetorically, physically, or in reality. Are you sure you didn’t do a stint on the Senate Minority’s Judiciary Committee staff –cause you sound like one of them?
well y’all asked for it…
Sodomy laws were struck down by a Supreme Court that was comprised of nine justices, a full seven of whom were nominated by Republican presidents (Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor, Renquist, Thomas, Stevens, and Scalia) and only two of whom were nominated by Democratic presidents (Breyer and Ginsburg).
Because even they couldn’t ignore the overt intrusion of privacy and the inherent discrimination as the laws are mostly used to prosecute gay men and women. It has come to a head from the continual fight by liberal groups to take sodomy laws off the books.
It’s the ACLU that’s been behind overturning six states’ sodomy laws since the last test by the Supreme Court in 1986, not some conservative or even libertarian groups.
The two men in the case overturning all sodomy laws were represented by the Lambda Legal Defense Network not some moderate or conservative organization and it was conservative organization who were supporting keeping the laws on the books.
Perhaps I should have said “Liberals” instead of “Democrats” but in the GayPatriot world are they not one and the same? How does black become white in this instance? How does the conservative enlightenment somehow become the force behind decriminilizing sodomy laws?
Take the time to read up and really understand each state’s history with sodomy laws instead of posting drivel bogus support for conservatism as a driving force behind the repeal. http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm
DADT became the law of the land while one Democrat sat in the Oval Office and another Democrat (Sam Nunn) was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I chose to cite (in post #137) Israel’s muscular defense forces, but not Canada’s almost non-existent armed services. Did I hear something about getting real?
I believe Marty Meehan is a Democrat. Or is their a similar Republican effort underway to repeal DADT that I’m not aware of?
The Pentagon is overtly ignoring DADT to force active duty soldiers into war scenarios, effectively disallowing gay soldiers to play the “gay card.” Curious that DADT discharge numbers peaked in 2001 and then significantly dropped by 2004.
Maybe you’d also like a little insight into the controversy around the enactment of DADTDPDH (we tend to forget the Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass part). It was President Clinton who first made the effort to repeal the ban on gays in the military by executive order, not a Republican or conservative. This was in response to the death of Seaman Allen Schindler. It was the Republican Congress, however, that stayed that order and created the DADT policy. They gave Clinton the choice of keeping the ban in place or accepting the compromise of DADT. Was Clinton complicit in accepting this compromise? Perhaps, but then who’s to say the ban still wouldn’t be in place otherwise. If anyone, it should be Nunn rather than Clinton feeling the 20/20 hindsight heat. “Gay and lesbian activists complained that Nunn, who promised “fair, thorough and objective” hearings, had hand-picked the witnesses and had rejected six or seven scholarly experts suggested by their side.”
It is currently Democrats leading the charge to repeal DADT and allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military. Not Republicans or conservatives.
And it was not only Canada cited in the report but Britian, our great ally in the Iraq invasion, as well. But in any case it’s pretty disgusting for you to criticize the Canadian military, or any individual willing to volunteer to serve their country in a military position.
continued…
“SLOWLY, VERY SLOWLY, the pressure is building to overturn the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy.
“I think it’s going to end.”
That is Charles Moskos talking. Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, is generally regarded as the principal author and staunchest proponent of DADT.
…
But an excellent article in the October issue of “Lingua Franca” summarizes the evidence for and against the “unit cohesion” argument-and leaves the rationale in tatters.
Briefly put, the evidence shows that:
* Cohesion is a result or by-product of working together, not a pre-condition for doing so;
* Successful performance is due to agreement on the importance of the task, not social closeness or group pride;
* There is no evidence that more cohesive military units perform better in combat situations.
Surprisingly, Moskos himself seems to dismiss the “unit cohesion” argument as unimportant.
“F*** unit cohesion. I don’t care about that,” he told “Lingua Franca.”
Moskos’ own argument is that gays and lesbians should be barred because of “modesty rights for straights.” That is, people (heterosexuals) have the right not to be looked at as objects of sexual desire.
“I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay [man],” Moskos says.”
———————————
Bigotry at it’s finest. What about gay men and women? Should they be forces to shower with straights? What if the straights get a hankering for some boy-on-boy or girl-on-girl action? I mean everybody’s experiemented during their teen years, right?
Ridiculous.
And finally…
It was the voters of Blue-state California who passed Prop 22 to ban gay marriage in California by a 61-39 margin. When the governor recently vetoed the Legislature’s bill that would have twarted the clearly expressed will of California voters, he was upholding their wishes. The challenge now is to change the hearts and minds of our neighbors.
The vote you cite happened 5 years ago. Public opinion has changed in those years and last time I checked the state congress was elected by the VOTERS.
“The former actor said this was a “constitutional issue” that should be decided by voters and the courts.” (I like the “former actor” part. As if what he does is considered “acting”)
Republicans don’t want judicially activist courts, and apparently they don’t want their will expressed by their elected representatives. Latest polls indicate a direct split over the issue from the past where more were against. It’s a continuing general trend toward allowing marriage. That’s what’s in their “hearts and minds.” (Oh how I hate that stupid, stupid phrase)
Considering the impact of gay marriage – “‘We are rolling the dice and taking a huge gamble’ with the lives of children, said Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Temecula.” No bigotry there, is there?
It’s a stupid bet, GCB. Your blog is meaningless. Your opinions offered here are irrelevant since we can get them from HowieDeanScreamers over at the DNC’s site 24×7.
On the other hand, this blog, VdaK and others’ are worthy and unique.
While that’s laughable at best, I’m ready to take on whatever anyone wants to offer. My terms are that whoever takes me on, though, has to give up their blogs if they lose. You all want me gone, and you all seem convinced of Delay’s, Frist’s and the Iraq War Groups cries of innocence, so bring it on already.
My original offer remains: If Rove, Delay, or Frist is convicted or pleas out on any charge related to the current investigation or indictment, I’ll quit posting at QP, if GCP, QP, PP, or CIH will make the same bet. I have nothing invested in Rove’s, DeLay’s, or Frist’s innocence. I’m just curious to see if lefties really believe these men are guilty, or if they’re just blowing smoke.
So far, just smoke.
My original offer remains also … I’ll give you $25 of what GP owes you in you take V the K’s bet.
“But in any case it’s pretty disgusting for you to criticize the Canadian military.”
Well, if the Liberal government in Canada would adequately fund the Canadian military, then that country might once again have formidable armed services. As it is, the Canadian government has short-changed their military – once one of the world’s most powerful – to the extent that the Canadian Army now has a difficult time meeting its payroll. The situation has gotten so bad that Canada purchased a submarine that the Royal Navy had deemed unsafe, resulting in a disaster at sea where, you know, sailors died and stuff. If you want to be disgusted, you might start with Ottawa’s persistent negligence toward it’s own nation’s military.
*******************************************************
If Prop 22 were put on this November’s ballot, it would likely pass yet again, by a similar margin. As for the Legislature representing the will of the people: Members of California’s Legislature represent some of the most exquisitely gerrymandered districts imaginable, such that not a single state legislator running for re-election lost in 2004; nor did a single seat in either house change parties. I voted against Prop 22, but a large majority of Californians (61-39%) supported it. Do I, does the state legislature, and does the governor have the right to thwart the will of the voters in this state, as clearly expressed by their votes on a ballot initiative? Disagree if you must, but I think not.
The gay and lesbian community has a lot of work to do, even in very-Blue California. Wendy put it well: “I feel it will be easier to open the minds of Republicans about living my life in a way that is natural to me, versus opening the mind of Democrats…” By definition, any minority – including the GLBT community – is outnumbered. We can make a lot of progress by talking with our neighbors, both Republican and Democrat, and convincing them that gay marriage is good policy. Vilifying other people won’t do it.
*********************************************************
“SLOWLY, VERY SLOWLY, the pressure is building to overturn the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy.”
Faster, please.
#154 I never suggested that bigotry didn’t play a part in support for DADT or for barring gays from service altogether. I’ve never seen anyone on this blog support DADT or barring gays from service. This Moskos guy, and what you quoted, Lingua Fanca?, mention the same issues that I did… and not recruitment fears. Don’t mistake the dismissal of one as the dismissal of the others.
Concerning privacy:
“Bigotry at it’s finest. What about gay men and women? Should they be forces to shower with straights? What if the straights get a hankering for some boy-on-boy or girl-on-girl action? I mean everybody’s experiemented during their teen years, right?”
Well, no. Not everyone experiments. Behaviors aren’t uniformly distributed. For example, almost none of the girls I was friends with had sex at 13 or 14, yet my good friend in college said that every single one of her friends had sex at that age. “Everyone I know…” isn’t reliable. Quite a lot of people aren’t sexually active during their teen years and quite a lot of those who are, do not experiment. I’m not saying that no one does, but it’s not anywhere close to “everybody.”
“Ridiculous.”
No, it’s not. It’s not an insurmountable problem, not something that should keep gays from serving, but privacy concerns are far from ridiculous. It’s not something that needs to be dismissed, it’s something that needs to be dealt with.
I’m just curious to see if lefties really believe these men are guilty, or if they’re just blowing smoke.
So far, just smoke.
I can’t comment for the other posters but I’ll take your bet personally. If Delay, Frist or any of the people involved in Plamegate are convicted, you promise to dismantle your blog and never post on GP again. I will promise the same if the reverse is true. Agreed?
And Wendy, $25 is not enough. You either take the bet as is or you confirm you have no confidence in the outcome.
If you want to be disgusted, you might start with Ottawa’s persistent negligence toward it’s own nation’s military.
You were disparaging their lack of homophobia, in that because they weren’t more “butch” (so to speak) they were a pussy army. Nice argument about funding but absolutely moot to my point.
————————–
If Prop 22 were put on this November’s ballot, it would likely pass yet again, by a similar margin.
I’d like to know the basis for your argument. Prop 22 was voted on 5 years ago and most recent polls find sentiments at a 50/50 split with a trend toward being in favor rather than against.
I feel it will be easier to open the minds of Republicans about living my life in a way that is natural to me, versus opening the mind of Democrats…”
Again, what is the rationale for such a biased sentiment? Republicans are the party mostly against any gay social initiatives. What in the world in your mind Wendy makes it more likely for social conservatives, mostly Republican, to embrace you over the social progressive sentiment of Democrats?
“SLOWLY, VERY SLOWLY, the pressure is building to overturn the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy.”
Faster, please.
I agree. Lobby your homophobic Republican senators to get a move on and confirm the Democratic initiatives already underway.
Well, no. Not everyone experiments.
You do get I was being facetious, right? No, no, apparently you didn’t. My point is that this jackhole is making preposterous suppositions about how someone looking at you in the shower will affect morale in the unit. Study after study proves that it’s those individuals that suffer a lack of confidence in their heterosexuality that is the predisposition to homophobic action.
It’s not something that needs to be dismissed, it’s something that needs to be dealt with.
I agree. We’re one of the last Western nation to come to grips with the utter and absolute fact that gay people exist. Their lives are pretty much normal except for one particular aspect which only, only affects who they care to share their bedroom with and nothing else.
#160 — Your blog is worthless, I don’t care if any of them are innocent or not, and my blog is apolitical. If you really believed anybody was guilty, you’d take the original wager.
“You were disparaging their lack of homophobia, in that because they weren’t more “butch” (so to speak) they were a pussy army.”
I did nothing of the sort. I wrote, simply: “If the Israeli Defence Forces, considered one of the very best military organizations in the world, can successfully enlist gay and lesbian service members, then so can the US military.” There’s something objectionable about that statement?
I chose to cite the Israeli army specifically because it remains, unlike Canada’s, a world-class military force. Moreover, I don’t believe that Canada’s army is a “pussy” army; merely that they’ve been short-changed by the Liberal government in Ottawa for far too long. Your own “pussy” charactization is both degrading to women and an insult to Canadians who serve.
Save the canned “indignation” for another poster; I don’t play that game.
So then if your blog is apolitical, what does it matter then if it’s gone? You can start over, you just have to make the current one go away.
I double dare you.
Wendy?
Butch?
Synova?
ND30?
GP?
GPW?
Anybody? Does anybody on this blog have some brass ones? Even some tin foil ones?
GCB, you’re a phony, you don’t believe that charges will stick (not even enough to take a wager you know you’d never stick to because you have no honor), and, frankly, your pose isn’t fooling anyone. And, frankly, whenever you pose any accusations that you’re not willing to back up, I hope someone in this forum will call you on it. I don’t have to take your wager, because I haven’t made any accusations against anyone. If I did, I’d be man enough to stand up for them, and not play stupid games.
#164
What, Sir Douche, no greetings from you?
#164 I don’t know what you kids are squabling over but I’m not playing.
#164 — GayCow is spreading the usual accusations of felonious behavior against Republicans, but totally unwilling to put his money where his mouth is. (And suggesting that even if he did, he would have no intention of actually following through with it.)
And I’m playing along just to show how devoid of honesty and character he actually is.
Sorry, I don’t gamble, especially with other people’s property (i.e., GP and GPW’s site).
Since when is this blog apolitical? Many of the posts are political, as is much of the debate. Even if it were apolitical, why would it have no value? Clearly the people who post regularly see value in the site; otherwise they wouldn’t spend time and energy reading and posting here.
You confuse bravado with bravery.
I chose to cite the Israeli army specifically because it remains, unlike Canada’s, a world-class military force. Moreover, I don’t believe that Canada’s army is a “pussy” army; merely that they’ve been short-changed by the Liberal government in Ottawa for far too long. Your own “pussy” charactization is both degrading to women and an insult to Canadians who serve.
But before you said…
I chose to cite (in post #137) Israel’s muscular defense forces, but not Canada’s almost non-existent armed services.
The opposite of “muscular” in terms of the military would make me think “weak” not “non-existent” or “underfunded.” The soldiers in the Canadian armed forces would be surprised to be called weak, I believe, simply because government funding had been reduced. Maybe they can be like the US and go into trillions of dollars of debt so they can be “muscular.” All in all though, I don’t buy your follow-up response.
My “pussy” characterization is what you left unsaid, not what I believe.
#169 — *My* blog is apolitical (That should be a bumper sticker). Which is sort of beside the point, anyway. The point is, if I were going all-out and saying… “Oh, yeah, DeLay, Rove, and Frist are innocent all the way. How dare anyone even be investigating them,” then it might be incumbent upon me to back-up this belief by accepting a wager to put up or shut up. (Being, as I am a fascistic, right-wing conservative, I hold to this archaic belief, a part of the hideous legal legacy of the evil patriarchy of dead white males, the a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.) I think someone who, on the other hand, is loudly asserting their guilt, should be willing to at least accept some responsibility for the accusation. But apparently, such an act of character is too much to ask for from any of the lefties on this forum.
#164
As I’ve said before, offer me something up and let’s deal, but something like $25 isn’t gonna cut it.
If you want to really play along, if you REALLY believe that these individuals have no chance of being convicted, TAKE THE BET already. Just offer up your blog if you lose, I do the same and also agree to never post on GP again.
#169 – You don’t have to gamble with someone else’s property. You can offer up your own blog or if you don’t have a blog, your right to post on GayPatriot. Just a simple agreement. I win, you go away. You win, I go away.
I’d like just ONE poster to take me on. Just one.
I think someone who, on the other hand, is loudly asserting their guilt, should be willing to at least accept some responsibility for the accusation.
What do you think this bet I’m posing is all about. I’m ready to take responsibility for my convictions here. That Delay, Frist, and any number of the Plamegate cohorts are GUILTY. So much so that I’m willing to completely dismantle my blog and all the previous postings so critical of GayPatriot and other gay GOP right wing sites and posters and agree to never post on GP again. I would like to find one poster on here to take me up on it. One of you who is so hell-bent on proving the righteousness of the Republican party should have the cojones to step up to the plate and stand by your convictions.
You all write the good write but can you stand the heat of a real consequential decision?
All right. So be it. If any Bush Administration official is convicted in Plamegate, if Tom Delay is found guilty of money laundering, and Frist is found guilty of whatever it is he is accused of, I’ll quit GP and shutdown my blog.
Deal?
GCB,
I believe this is not going anywhere … I never proposed or counter-proposed a wager. I did two things …
1. I offered to help reimburse part of a wager if you accepted V the K’s.
2. I asked about your counter-wager to V the K.
At the risk of stooping to your level (which by responding, I already have). I thought of a recomendation to make to you. Because I am not a medical professional, I am unable to suggest cyproterone. So I will suggest readling lessons. (the former suggestion might also anger a good chunk of this blog and is not available in the US)
If you wish to respond further, my e-mail address should be in the URL. Have a nice day 🙂
“My “pussy” characterization is what you left unsaid, not what I believe.”
It’s something you made up out of whole cloth. I don’t do sexist slurs, either expressed or implied.
All right. So be it. If any Bush Administration official is convicted in Plamegate, if Tom Delay is found guilty of money laundering, and Frist is found guilty of whatever it is he is accused of, I’ll quit GP and shutdown my blog.
Deal?
Deal as long as we understand that it’s not an “and” but rather an “or” which I’ve indicated all along. If Delay or Frist or any of the Plamegate Players are convicted, your blog is history. If no convictions are a result, I’m more than happy to fade away both removing my blog and agree not to post on GP again.
I’m seriously pleased that you grew a few in the past couple minutes. Dare to guess how many of your fellow upstanding Republicans will continue to shirk from their convictions including GayPatriot and GayPatriotWest while continuing to spout some bullsh*t excuses?
And Wendy. Wendy, Wendy, Wendy. As I scroll back, you offer to pay $25 of GayPatriots former $200 of an offer ages old. It had nothing to do with V the K until you made it so. Give your $25 to GP and he can give it plus the other $175 to me. 🙂
And my counter wager has been accepted. So now unless you’d like to also buy into the wager, you can go on posing about like the rest of the unoriginal Republican zombies on here like usual making no statements of any convictions.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Republicans’ ethics and morals change to suit their behavior and not the other way around. If you want to prove me wrong, take the bet.
It’s something you made up out of whole cloth. I don’t do sexist slurs, either expressed or implied.
As Sandra (the talented Jackee Harry) said to Mahhhhhry (Marla Gibbs): “Uh-huh.”
#177 — Wait, are you trying to say you think ALL of them are guilty, but you’re only willing to wager on ONE of them being convicted. What BS is that?
GCB’s wager is dishonest (surprise surprise), meant to disadvantage anyone who takes it, and he’ll probably just change his nick and come back anyway. But, what the Hell.
Wait, are you trying to say you think ALL of them are guilty, but you’re only willing to wager on ONE of them being convicted. What BS is that?
It’s what I’ve stated all along if you actually read what I posted. If Delay or First or and of the Plamegate indictements result in convictions, buh-bye. These are all top senior politicians who we should expect to have utterly reputable integrity, no?
But you’re taking me on huh? That’s your agreement? No convictions, I dismantle my blog and go away. Any conviction, you dismantle your blog but can still post on GP. Let’s get ready to ruuuuummmmmmbbbbllllleeeeeeeeee!
C’mon you patsy Republicans. Join me and V the K in the steel cage.
GCB’s wager is dishonest (surprise surprise), meant to disadvantage anyone who takes it, and he’ll probably just change his nick and come back anyway. But, what the Hell.
Seriously, it will be the end. GP and GPW will be able to check the logs to generally confirm. I’ve plenty of ways around being blocked but there’s no point to the ridiculous cloak and dagger routine.
No, I said I’d leave GP. That’s the wager I made. That’s the one I’m sticking to. And as ND30 can vouch, when I say I’ll leave, I leave.
GCB,
#82 … While V the K is not a friend of mine, if it will help you “put up or shut up”, I’ll donate $25 of GP’s wager. I ask for two conditions. First, I can only transfer it to you via PayPal. Second, I want to know how to verify your blog departure should V the K achieve success.
if it will help you “put up or shut up” is accepting V the K’s wager. I will use V the K as a verification of wager acceptance. If you can show me otherwise, OK.
#177 … And Wendy. Wendy, Wendy, Wendy. As I scroll back, you offer to pay $25 of GayPatriots former $200 of an offer ages old. It had nothing to do with V the K until you made it so. Give your $25 to GP and he can give it plus the other $175 to me.
My scroll back notes giving the $25 to you via PayPal. And how to verify your departure.
# 175 If you wish to respond further, my e-mail address should be in the URL. Have a nice day
I do not see any e-mails.
Since the reading lessons didn’t work, I then recomend spironolactone (which is available in the US).
I agree, V the K. Note how GCB insists ALL of them are guilty, but demands you give up your blog if only ONE of them is found guilty, while he only has to if all of them are acquitted.
I think the wager needs to be fair. Since GayCowboyBob insists they are all guilty, if any one of them is found to be not guilty, he will shut down his blog and never post here again.
In short, V the K, let’s force Bob to live up to his convictions that all Republicans are guilty.
Then again, I don’t much see the point of this wager. Nobody reads Bob’s blog; he’s just attempting to get rid of conservative and other blogs that kick his butt without having to either a) improve his writingor b) quit lying about his beliefs.
And as ND30 can vouch, when I say I’ll leave, I leave.
Yes I can, although I wish you’d come back. 🙂
It occurs to me that GCB could weasel out of this by saying, after the investigations are closed without convictions, that the possibility of convictions remains. So, my stipulation is, the wager refers only to allegations currently under investigation, and will expire when the current investigations close or January 20, 2009 … the last day of the Bush Administration… which ever comes first.
#185 — I think GCB’s insistence on an inequitable distribution of risk just underscores how little real belief he has in his accusations.
Besides which, the fact the GCB accuses a lot of Republicans of being guilty of serious crimes, but is only willing to wager his worthless weblog against one of them being convicted… I think that’s a pretty good rhetorical club to beat him with.
As I’ve said before, offer me something up and let’s deal, but something like $25 isn’t gonna cut it.
GayCowFlop sounds like a prostitute to me.
#139: I find your comment very interesting and it points out to me how different we can think about things and see them. From what I see, I feel exactly the opposite. I try to put myself in the shoes of a Republican, but fankly, I’d be pissed if I was a Republican right now. Some of their tenets are fiscal conservatism, yet we have more debt than we’ve ever had in our history (and Clinton did leave office with a surplus). Another thing is individual freedom: In the last few years conservative republicans are attempting (or have succeeded) in passing laws that attempt to control soical behavior, such as no marriage for gays. Interestingly enough, I don’t see laws being passed that will make it tougher for anyone to divorce. Isn’t the figure something like 52% of all marriages end in divorce in the first 5 years? Seems they should be passing laws to stop all those already-married straight folks from divorcing if they’re so intersted in saving marriage.
As far as taxes, I think everyone wants to keep as much as possible, but to live in this country there are things we have to pay for to keep it going and not fall apart. Right now I live in a state that has some of the lowest gas prices, which everyone loves. the downside is the lower prices are due to lack of state tax on it and consequently we have pretty much the worst city streets, highways, roads and bridges in the nation (save for the couple of toll roads). Logic tells me that the people who put wear and tear on the roads should pay for it’s upkeep. Pretty simple concept to me.
Some of their tenets are fiscal conservatism, yet we have more debt than we’ve ever had in our history (and Clinton did leave office with a surplus).
If I were using the pre-Sarbanes Oxley books of Enron, Worldcom, and others to predict corporate tax revenue, plus the “jobs” these companies were creating based on these thin-air projections to provide income tax predictions, I could bring the “surplus” right back. Add in cutting the military to the bone, and we’d be right back to where we were.
“Fiscal conservativism” does not mean a complete refusal to spend money. It means a refusal to waste money and to demand that projects return value. Fixing roads does. Handing out welfare checks to those who refuse to work, as Democrats demand, doesn’t.
Well, Kev, it’s been repeatedly explained to you, but for some reason, you still don’t get it. So, let’s try again. It’s not that Republicans don’t suck, it’s just that Democrats on a broad range of important issues suck much, much worse.
#191
yet we have more debt than we’ve ever had in our history
Not true when you compare government debt to the total economy.
Isn’t the figure something like 52% of all marriages end in divorce in the first 5 years?
I never understand this argument for gay marriage. Straight people have no respect for marriage so it shouldn’t matter if I get married…
Logic tells me that the people who put wear and tear on the roads should pay for it’s upkeep. Pretty simple concept to me.
Totally agree…logic tells me people who put wear and tear on society should pay for its upkeep too. Let’s hear it for tax reform!
#190 – GayCowFlop sounds like a prostitute to me.
And to me you generally sound like a retarded teenager. But in any case, something tells me you couldn’t afford me, baby. You’ve not taken on my bet have you?
Well, GCB, with those last few posts you’ve proved my earlier point about your “bet” or offer.
You snookered VdaK into it… it’s nothing more than distraction.
Kevin,
Thank you for your polite responce. While I have voted Republican at times, I am not active in Republican politics. Please trust me in the fact I do sit and wonder at times why I should vote for either of the two major parties.
I am upset at the rise of spending levels in less important budget matters. The Republicans seem to be embracing it as of late, instead of their late 90’s fiscal conservatism. That late 90’s fiscal approach did more for a Clinton surplus than anything the Democrats were proposing.
As for taxes, I see the benefit of those who use a road to pay or it, as in your example. I would ask how that would work for Medicare, or proposed nationwide health care. I do not see anything in the Democrat platform for less confiscation in their tax policy. Stating that only taxing he super-rich in order for your taxes to be lower is an attempt at socially acceptable class warfare.
As for same-sex issues, I do not care for the state admendments that prohibit same-sex marriage. Keep in mind that many of these admendments had bi-partisan support. President Clinton signed the Defence of Marriage Act. Based upon the constitution, he could of allowed it to become law without his signature (if he wanted to be sneaky about it), he could have veto’d it (if he didn’t agree with it), or he could put his stamp on it (which he did).
From these examples, I think it can be a wash for supporting either party. So it comes back to my previous thoughts of in which party I can be an advocate for change. Can I change the Republicans’ acceptance of my gender identity and expression, or the Democrats’ spending habits and desire to tax only those who they feel can afford to be taxed (and they can afford to alinte).
#196 — Nah, not really snookered. A better analogy is B’rer Rabbit and the Briar Patch.
#194 — “logic tells me people who put wear and tear on society should pay for its upkeep too. Let’s hear it for tax reform! “ Good point. Kev may think higher gas taxes to pay for roads are great, but the fact is, much of the gas tax gets siphoned off onto “other priorities,” and when taxes are used for infrastructure repair… well, does the phrase “Big Dig” mean anything to anyone? (Besides, massive black-hole of tax dollars?)
It is difficult to reconcile Kev’s “pretty simple concept” with leftist support for Candian-style “access to access to health care” schemes, by which people who put the most “wear and tear” on the health care system are subsidized by brutal taxation on people who use it the least. Sounds more like “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs” to me.
Wendy, that is a brilliant answer. You cut right to the heart of the matter.
In my case, the Democrats like me (or pretend to like me) because I’m gay. They loathe me because I’m pro-life (abortion allowed only in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother), pro-business, anti-tax, religious, pro-military, pro-interventionist, fiscally-conservative, and favor a limited government social welfare role.
If I weren’t gay, they would be against everything for which I stand. Ironically, if I weren’t gay, the most radical of Republicans would be FOR everything for which I stand.
Thus, quite simply, it’s a question of whether or not you value your status as a minority more highly than you do anything else. I don’t.
Snookered? Briar patch? Bull pucky.
The whole thread is here fellows. Would you like to point out where I was ambiguous in my offer? Would you show me where I said all had to be convicted and then changed my offer to any? Would you also like to show me where I wasn’t absolutely clear on that point with V the K before we came to our agreement?
Pinheads. Go back to making up some other ridiculous rhetoric or actually take the challenge. We’re talking about the Majority Leader of the House and the Senate as well as the Vice President’s office. They surely must be innocent, no? Prove your convictions in your leaders. Show that you have faith that they are law-abiding citizens and worthy of your trust in them.
Yeah, but GCB has so little faith in the charges he levels against ALL of them that he was only willing to bet that one person somewhere in the Bush Admin will be convicted of something.
What’s so funny about the above discussion with GCB is all the many, MANY times he has absolutely promised to be leaving this blog now. I think GCB must be on his tenth or eleventh “farewell tour”! But he always comes back! 🙂
That’s in addition to the times Bruce has had to ban him for bad behavior!
GCB, as a rule, I don’t call people names.
“As a rule” doesn’t mean I ‘never’ do it. Rather, it means there are certain very rare exceptions, and because they are rare, they’re extra special when I do them.
Here is one. GCB, I am telling you to your electronic face (as apparently you need someone to) that you are, in fact, a malevolent, confused and pathetic hypocrite.
P.S. and I’m still waiting – though certainly not holding my breath – for you to be willing to debate (or even to confront) Saddam’s many links to international terrorism, sweetums. (Remember that? Been, what, 3 months now?)
Actually, the first person to make dares was V the K:
GCB — I make you the same dare that QP chickened out of. If DeLay, Frist, or Rove is convicted or pleas out of the charges against them, I’ll quit this blog and never post again. However, if the charges against DeLay, Rove, or Frist never result in a conviction or a plea, you have to agree to never post here again.
Take the dare, or do you think the charges are bogus?
Then Bob replied (added emphasis mine):
Or better yet, let’s up the anti. I promise never to post again if none of them are convicted. However, if any of them at all are convicted (it could be any of the three) GP would agree to shut down GayPatriot entirely and retire from blogging altogether.
So in other words, Bob tried to cheat and change the terms of the dare.
Of course, later on, Bob makes this brag:
What do you think this bet I’m posing is all about. I’m ready to take responsibility for my convictions here. That Delay, Frist, and any number of the Plamegate cohorts are GUILTY. So much so that I’m willing to completely dismantle my blog and all the previous postings so critical of GayPatriot and other gay GOP right wing sites and posters and agree to never post on GP again.
V the K’s original dare stands. If ANY of them are found not guilty, Bob dismantles his blog and will never post on GayPatriot again. If any of them are found guilty, V the K will never post on GayPatriot again. Interestingly enough, if it’s a split decision, both of them would be bound to leave.
V the K, I thank you for being noble enough to take the hit to get rid of Bob and intelligent enough to manipulate Bob into agreeing both to give up his blog and stop posting here ever again.
Now, watch Bob try to spin his way out of that. Since you believe they are all guilty, Bob, you should have no problem leaving if any one of them is found NOT guilty. Your attempt to weasel out of having to live up to your convictions just proves what a coward you are.
Re: Bob’s “I’m willing to…agree to never post on GP again.”
Whoa there, Bob.
Your posting here is not a question of your agreement. Rather, you post here by permission of GP, that is, by grace of GP. You, me, and everyone else here have no ‘right’ to post; we are guests.
Moreover, what about all your past promises not to post again? Your dozens of past assertions or declarations that posting here was beneath you, and you were leaving forever?
So, from at least 2 angles, let’s forget about any question of your “agreeing” not to post here. Who cares about your demonstrably worthless word in agreeing to anything!
What you should say, Bob, is: “I’m willing to…..finally honor past bans on me and my own past promises to leave, by really and actually not posting again.”
Sorry about the characterization of being snookered, VdaK… I like the whole bunny, long-ears metaphor better.
And joe, I kind of think GCB’s been a’watchin too many of them Cher farewell tours -just like her, he can offer to say adios and retire, but keeps coming back like a herpes outbreak on a stressed out DNC campaign staffer.
Think of him as the “gift that keeps on giving”.
Oh… and GCB… when do you go back to being monty again? that impersonation had a little more snarkiness to it and I miss you in that role.
First Matt, I’m not any “Monty.” You can check with the Bobsy Twins running GayPatriot for assurances on that.
Second P.S. and I’m still waiting – though certainly not holding my breath – for you to be willing to debate (or even to confront) Saddam’s many links to international terrorism, sweetums. (Remember that? Been, what, 3 months now?), it would be my pleasure for you to hold your breath until you pass out. But if you want to debate on the supposition that the administration put to the American public – that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda – I’d be more than happy to wipe your ass on the court.
Third, Joe feel free to scroll through the archives here to remind me where I “promised not to ever post again.” I’ll be sure to ignore that when you do as I do with most of your pointless posts. Also, until the boys here make GayPatriot a member only club in construction to truly protect their cronyism, I’ll post when I feel like it. All that “cake and eat it too” business.
Fourth, ND30, bold words from a weak man. Take my challenge. Are you willing to lay it on the line, and if not, why not? V the K willingly agreed to my understanding of the bet, which was my same proposal from the beginning. Are you willing to take it on? Or do you also have no faith in the leaders of your party? Should be a simple choice or is it that hard to concede that your party’s leaders are cheats and liars?
Fourth, ND30, bold words from a weak man. Take my challenge. Are you willing to lay it on the line, and if not, why not? V the K willingly agreed to my understanding of the bet, which was my same proposal from the beginning. Are you willing to take it on? Or do you also have no faith in the leaders of your party? Should be a simple choice or is it that hard to concede that your party’s leaders are cheats and liars?
Of course not, Bob, and for a very simple reason; I don’t need to do it.
Being called names is hardly a motivator; it merely proves how little else the namecaller has to say.
Being accused of “having no faith” is hardly a motivator; those who I choose to put in office serve at my pleasure, and if they fail me, they will be criticized, as I’ve already demonstrated.
Winning the bet would prove nothing and do nothing, especially when the prize is silencing a blog that nobody reads and a voice who demonstrates more how incompetent and hypocritical the Left is than anything else.
Finally, taking the bet would mean giving up one of my most cherished principles, which is that I retain the right to criticize anyone, anywhere, anytime who does something with which I disagree, regardless of age, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, or party affiliation. Once I give that up, I’m well on the road to calling people who support antigay state constitutional amendments to strip gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
In short, Bob, you haven’t given me enough incentive to do it.
Yes, the recent vote in Iraq is historic. Yes, the people are experiencing the wonder that is Democracy like they never have before. This, however, does not change the fact that the invasion of Iraq was based on misinformation and lack of credible intelligence. If the people responsible for this misinformation are not repremanded, starting at the top and working the way down, then the justification of “spreading Democracy around the world” can be used to invade any country that we don’t agree with. That is a dangerous philosophy, one that would leave us less protected than before 9-11.
Agree.
Former CIA Director George Tenet – the longest-serving Director ever, whom Clinton appointed, and Bush then retained – should have been arraigned for the CIA’s multiple huge intelligence failures.
Not only the poor Iraq intelligence, but (during the Clinton years) his allowing al Qaeda to form an army on American soil and perpetrate 9-11, as well. Google “Able Danger”.
That Bush gave Tenet a Presidential Medal of Freedom, instead of an arraignment, is unconscionable.
In short, Bob, you haven’t given me enough incentive to do it.
And in the verbose long of it, you’ve conceded the sentiments of your cronies on here. That the leadership of the Republican party is not trustworthy enough to count on.
Being called names is hardly a motivator; it merely proves how little else the namecaller has to say.
But by your own party standards they’ve consistently shown just how effective it is in affecting change. Judges that have audacity to declare unfit laws as unconstitutional are “judicial activists.” Regular citizens who dare to question the motivations behind the Iraq invasion are “unpatriotic.” Etc. Name calling is effective in persuading public sentiment. And I’m more than happy to brand you what you are: a party loyalist to a corrupt leadership.
…those who I choose to put in office serve at my pleasure…
My, my. And you say I have an inflated ego? We are not amused ND30. Occasionally other people vote too.
Winning the bet would prove nothing and do nothing, especially when the prize is silencing a blog that nobody reads and a voice who demonstrates more how incompetent and hypocritical the Left is than anything else.
And yet you feel compelled to respond to me. Why is that if you’re so convinced that my posts are somehow beneath you?
I didn’t say you couldn’t start up elsewhere. You can continue to criticize to your heart’s content but simply in another venue. You can start a new blog called “ND30 Part Deux – The Bitch is Back” if you’d like. The bet is simply that you dismantle your current one if Delay, Frist or anyone part of the Plamegate scandal is convicted.
C’mon. Bring it on.
BTW, the goat has been tied to the tree trunk.
Gosh, GayCowBoyBob, I’ll be ever so happy when this bet nonsense is at an end with you. It was lame days ago; and it’s still as hollow a bet as I’ve ever heard in politics… and THAT is saying a lot.
“if you want to debate on the supposition that the administration put to the American public – that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda – I’d be more than happy to wipe your ass on the court.”
ROTFLMAO 🙂
What an imagination on you, Bob! You RAN AND HID, when I challeneged you! 🙂
(sorry, “challenged”)
#213 – Yeah, especially coming from a guy (Bob) whose word so clearly means nothing.
And no Bob, I’m not going to search mountains of your boring, malevolent posts to find the 10, 11, 12, 13, ?? times you have dramatically promised you were leaving here forever.
This, however, does not change the fact that the invasion of Iraq was based on misinformation and lack of credible intelligence.
Considering that every other Western intelligence agency believed that Saddam had and was looking to acquire more weapons of mass destruction, that’s a rather bold statement. In addition, the reason that they believed that was rather simple — Saddam said so, over and over and over again.
Consider also Resolution 1441, where it states as follows:
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Let us put it this way, Kevin; after bin Laden and the Taliban, dictators with the will, record, and means to threaten the United States who refuse to comply with international strictures against them that have been in place for over a decade will be dealt with, and severely. We have the example of 2700 – plus dead people before us to show us the consequences of ignoring or taking ineffectual steps against these regimes because we must pander to other countries who don’t care about our being threatened as long as their bureaucrats grow fat on bribes. The sick irony is that leftists are the first to blame repressive regimes for causing terrorism, but the first to defend such repressive regimes as being “legitimate governments” when something is actually done about them.
#217 – NDT –
But the CIA did have very bad humint for Iraq, and (in their reports to the President) relied heavily on statements of a single Iraqi defector, “Curveball”, who was later shown to be a compulsive liar.
And the CIA missed the majority of Saddam’s connections to international terrorism. (Thus enabling the New York Times, and its devotees like Bob, to prattle there somehow “were none”.)
And the CIA horribly screwed up the “Iraq buying uranium in Africa” issue. Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, as many intelligence services found on many highly credible leads. But somebody in the French government’s service craftily planted disinformation – i.e., forged documents – to make it blow up in the CIA’s face. It worked. The CIA swallowed the forged documents, and then, at the appropriate political moment, the forgeries were revealed with a flourish – obscuring the other massive (real) evidence of Iraq’s malfeasance.
There is simply no way you can say the CIA did competent intelligence work on Iraq.
Therefore, the statement that we went to war on bad intelligence is true, in a literal sense.
And Tenet, who reportedly waved his arms at Bush and yelled “It’s a slam dunk!” (saying the CIA’s Iraq intelligence was that good), ought to have been punished by Bush, not rewarded.
And in the verbose long of it, you’ve conceded the sentiments of your cronies on here. That the leadership of the Republican party is not trustworthy enough to count on.
As you choose to interpret it. I simply reply that you contradict your own statement to that effect by refusing to accept equal terms yourself; you have said all of them are guilty, but insist that you cannot be held responsible if a single one or several of them are not.
But by your own party standards they’ve consistently shown just how effective it is in affecting change. Judges that have audacity to declare unfit laws as unconstitutional are “judicial activists.” Regular citizens who dare to question the motivations behind the Iraq invasion are “unpatriotic.” Etc. Name calling is effective in persuading public sentiment. And I’m more than happy to brand you what you are: a party loyalist to a corrupt leadership.
I have news for you, Bob. The reason “judicial activist” and “unpatriotic” work has more to do with the activities of those performing them than it does with the namecalling. You act as though people wouldn’t notice judges sanctioning blatant abuse of eminent domain, for example, if others weren’t yelling “judicial activism”, or that they would ignore liberals calling for “a million Mogadishus” or the dead in the WTC “little Eichmanns” if others weren’t yelling “unpatriotic”.
As for being a “party loyalist”, I say some rather unusual things for one, but hey….it’s your delusion.
And yet you feel compelled to respond to me. Why is that if you’re so convinced that my posts are somehow beneath you?
Even the greatest of hunters sometimes likes an easy target. 🙂
I didn’t say you couldn’t start up elsewhere. You can continue to criticize to your heart’s content but simply in another venue. You can start a new blog called “ND30 Part Deux – The Bitch is Back” if you’d like. The bet is simply that you dismantle your current one if Delay, Frist or anyone part of the Plamegate scandal is convicted.
LOL…..weakening the terms of the bet does nothing to change the reasons I’ve already outlined, Bob, and makes me wonder what your point is in making it. I think it also makes clear what your definition of “compliance” with the terms of it upon your losing it would be.
What an imagination on you, Bob! You RAN AND HID, when I challeneged you!
The administration’s previously claims were that Iraq supported Al Qaeda and it was that tie that was one of the reasons we invaded. Which is absolutely untrue.
Are you asking me to debate that Iraq supported terrorism otherwise? There would be no debate because I know that to be true. But then that’s pretty much the norm of most middle eastern countries including our friends the Saudi Arabian government which actually does overlook Al Qaeda operations in their country.
So what is it that you want to debate?
“Are you asking me to debate that Iraq supported terrorism otherwise? There would be no debate because I know that to be true.”
A revolutionary concession. Thank you. 3 months ago, you VEHEMENTLY denied that Iraq was heavily involved with, say, Palestinian terrorism, as listed out for the general public here: http://husseinandterror.com. You claimed it was all crap.
“The administration’s previously claims were that Iraq supported Al Qaeda and it was that tie that was one of the reasons we invaded. Which is absolutely untrue.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer!
That Iraq supported al Qaeda throughout the 1990s and early 00s – with moral/political encouragement on the world stage; with some financial support; with safe haven and ‘medical’ support for al Qaeda figures (among other international terrorist figures) in Baghdad; with the hosting of annual Islamo-terrorist con-fabs (professional conferences) in Baghdad; with the active hosting and supplying of Ansar al Islam (Zarqawi’s original al Qaeda sub-group in northern Iraq) in the early 00s, before the Coalition invasion; and with the hosting, training and arming of a second al Qaeda subgroup south of Baghdad in the early 00s; has all been extremely well documented.
As for those connections being one of the reasons we invaded: Try googling the original 2002 authorizing resolution for the war sometime, Bob. You have never seemed capable of learning, but who knows, maybe this time will be the time when the penny drops.
Enough time spent on you, loser.
You claimed it was all crap.
I questioned Mr. Murdock’s credibility as he’s the only outline I’ve seen similar to his. Some points that I investigated about his report are uncorroborated, heresay, or unique. I have not seen fundamental support or denial of his viewpoint. It’s a rogue report and I would like to see similar corroboration of fact.
If I were a pessimist, as a contributor to the National Review, I would automatically call his commentary into question for bias. In another of his articles, about Guantanamo bay, he says “Leftists shriek when a Gitmo guard forgets to don surgical gloves before touching a Koran. But when Taliban, al Qaeda, and other terrorists blast mosques to bits, “Well. . . uh. . . what’s on PBS?” or “Journalists and Bushophobes should stop crying for these Islamo-fascists long enough to read a largely overlooked Pentagon document on Guantanamo detainees. They appear pampered, chatty, and lethal.” Murdoch, who is black, has this to say of the African-American leaders’ comments on the response to Katrina -“For their counterproductive, hyper-partisan grandstanding, these so-called “black leaders” deserve merciless excoriation from coast to coast.”
Otherwise, please read the section called “No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation” http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Also, was there something in the 9/11 report I missed or are you contending our own government is lying to us?
The resolution of war mentions weapons of mass destruction, which was unfounded, a national threat against our government in such, I don’t think Iraq is generally close enough to the US to be a “national threat” as much, violating resolutions of the UN security council, which is also untrue as inspections had restarted the year previous, that members of al Qaeda are “known to be in Iraq,” as they were in nearly every middle eastern country at the same time, and so on and so on…
I actually think you didn’t read it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
You claimed it was all crap.
I questioned Mr. Murdock’s credibility as he’s the only outline I’ve seen similar to his. Some points that I investigated about his report are uncorroborated, heresay, or unique. I have not seen fundamental support or denial of his viewpoint. It’s a rogue report and I would like to see similar corroboration of fact.
If I were a pessimist, as a contributor to the National Review, I would automatically call his commentary into question for bias. In another of his articles, about Guantanamo bay, he says “Leftists shriek when a Gitmo guard forgets to don surgical gloves before touching a Koran. But when Taliban, al Qaeda, and other terrorists blast mosques to bits, “Well. . . uh. . . what’s on PBS?” or “Journalists and Bushophobes should stop crying for these Islamo-fascists long enough to read a largely overlooked Pentagon document on Guantanamo detainees. They appear pampered, chatty, and lethal.” Murdoch, who is black, has this to say of the African-American leaders’ comments on the response to Katrina -“For their counterproductive, hyper-partisan grandstanding, these so-called “black leaders” deserve merciless excoriation from coast to coast.”
Otherwise, please read the section called “No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation” http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
Also, was there something in the 9/11 report I missed or are you contending our own government is lying to us?
The resolution of war mentions weapons of mass destruction, which was unfounded, a national threat against our government in such, I don’t think Iraq is generally close enough to the US to be a “national threat” as much, violating resolutions of the UN security council, which is also untrue as inspections had restarted the year previous, that members of al Qaeda are “known to be in Iraq,” as they were in nearly every middle eastern country at the same time, and so on and so on…
I actually think you didn’t read it.
Let us put it this way, Kevin; after bin Laden and the Taliban, dictators with the will, record, and means to threaten the United States who refuse to comply with international strictures against them that have been in place for over a decade will be dealt with, and severely.
But Iraq was complying with UN Security Inspections that had restarted before our invasion. These teams consistently stated that there were no WMDs. Why is that?
[Check your facts on that last statement, GCB. –Ed.]
#222 – TEN more minutes.
First, everything you said about Murdock shows his intelligence.
Next, your own CNN article debunks you. It says:
“The panel said it found ‘no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.'”
Which is “neither here nor there”, Bob, in terms of our present discussion. Because my laundry list of connections in #221 does not allege otherwise. Neither did the Bush administration ever allege otherwise.
As your article itself goes on to note,
“The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked [i.e., the organizations had ties; NOT alleging collaboration on specific attacks]…[it] stand[s] by statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell CIA Director George Tenet that described such links. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a ‘collaborator of Osama bin Laden…’ and he said Iraq’s denials of ties to al Qaeda “are simply not credible”…Bush, responding to criticism…said there was no evidence Saddam’s government was linked to the September 11 attacks.
“The [9-11] commission’s report says bin Laden ‘explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan…Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists [but] the Sudanese…reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda…A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994…There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan…”
Bob – that’s the 9-11 Commission talking. And in your own CNN article. Do you actually read these articles, Bob, before attempting to post them as evidence of some point?
Here, again, is the overall situation:
– There are extremely well documented meetings, connections, and acts of mutual support between al Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq throughout the 1990s and early 00s.
– Let me be clear: By “extremely well documented”, I mean that the 9-11 Commission itself and other bipartisan Congressional commissions have collectively documented them (some pieces in one commission’s report, another in another’s).
– That does NOT mean, yet, that Iraq and al Qaeda have been proven to have cooperated on specific attacks on U.S. soil or citizens. No one (except the Clinton Administration) has ever claimed otherwise. I have not claimed otherwise. Bush & Co never claimed otherwise. The 2002 authorizing resolution for the Iraq invasion did not claim otherwise. (The Clinton Administration linked both Iraq and al Qaeda to the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993, but we’ll leave that as a story for another time.)
– Having said all that: the ties in general and periodic acts of mutual support between the organizations have been extremely well documented, and were appopriately cited by Congress in 2002 as part of the reason for war. OK? Clear? Can your little brain take in the distinctions? Good luck.
But Iraq was complying with UN Security Inspections that had restarted before our invasion. These teams consistently stated that there were no WMDs. Why is that?
There are several good quotes in this article, not the least of which being the title, but this is the part I prefer:
In Friday’s interview, Blix acknowledged that Iraq had not provided full cooperation, although he said he believed more could have been achieved if inspectors had stayed longer.
Another, and simpler, reason that I would give is that Saddam bought them off. We now know that top UN and European officials were on Saddam’s payroll; should we be surprised that Blix kept arguing against putting an end to his masters’ payola — I mean, kept arguing that there were no weapons?
I particularly liked this inane statement from you, Bob:
I don’t think Iraq is generally close enough to the US to be a “national threat” as much
Neither is Afghanistan, by that logic. However, that theory flew out the window on 9/11 when Afghanistan and the terrorists it protected, supplied, and equipped killed over 2700 US citizens. Forgive us if we weren’t willing to wait for them to try it with one of Saddam’s biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
Bush, responding to criticism…said there was no evidence Saddam’s government was linked to the September 11 attacks.
The Administration continually alleges that these “links,” which again have been disproven, represented a collusion as necessary motivation behind our invasion. That’s simply not true.
The title of this article is “Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed.”
The things you quote as support for this collusion are either years out of date from our invasion or were never truly documented. “Talks” are not “ties” especially when nothing resulted from them. We could prosecute most of the Republican leadership if that were the only basis necessary for incrimination.
Would you like to address what these acts of “mutual support” actually were and the siginificance of them? Because that’s the whole basis for the administrations angst there. They amount to nothing but have to be propped up because they’re about the only thing based in fact to support the resolution of war. They amount to a lot of supposition.
More information and direct evidence is seen in the Saudi Arabian government “supporting” Al Qaeda activities. Why haven’t we invaded there?