More Front-Page Bias at the LA Times
It’s not just the New York Times which leaves out facts inconvenient to its arguments when covering “l’affiare Plame.” As I have reported repeatedly (here, here, here and here), while my hometown daily:
routinely reports the accusations that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV leveled against the Bush Administration, accusing it of ignoring his report finding that Saddam Hussein’s government had not attempted to purchase uranium from the African nation of Niger, it consistently fails to mention that a Senate Intelligence Committee discredited that Administration critic.
And this paper (read by fewer and fewer Angelenos every day) does it again today in a front-page over-the-fold article. Once again, the Times trots out Wilson’s claims without mentioning that a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report had discredited that former Kerry campaign staffer.
Reporters Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten only mention that committee when they can use it to suit their ends (not reporting the whole story, but twisting it to serve their own anti-Bush agenda), this time noting that committee Democrats were “fuming” at the White House’s rejection of one of their requests for information. Selective reporting seems a hallmark of Times‘ coverage of this kerfuffle.
Except for a few quotes from White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the article otherwise reads like Democratic talking points. The paper reports that Ms. Plame’s
name was disclosed to journalists in what was widely viewed as an effort to taint Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Africa had been arranged as a personal junket by his wife. It is illegal to knowingly leak the name of a covert operative.
Once again, I give these guys credit. Diligent reporters they may not be, but clever wordsmiths they are. By using the passive, they don’t have to provide a subject for those who believed this was an effort to “taint” Wilson. And they also neglect to mention that after an extensive investigation of this matter, a scrupulous federal prosecutor has failed to accuse any Administration official of breaking the law by leaking the name of a covert operative. Only Democratic partisans, angry bloggers and liberal reporters believe the Administration was trying to taint Wilson. When, in reality, it was merely trying to get out the facts which clearly discredited that self-important man.
Nearly two years after the Senate Intelligence Committee report discredited Wilson’s much ballyhooed (in the summer of 2003) attacks on the Administration, the LA Times continues to portray him as a noble critic whom the president and his cronies (led by the evil henchman Rove) tried to smear.
Let me repeat, the Bush Administration was only attempting to do what any Administration would do under similar circumstance — to rebut, in McClellan’s words “irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against” it.” While I (and others) believe they do so in a clumsy manner, neither the president nor any of his Administration did anything illegal. So, the paper is left to trot out West Virginia Democratic John D. Rockefeller IV, another perennial Bush critic, to level the Left’s favorite charge, calling “the administration’s approach to leaks ‘extraordinarily hypocritical.’“
If someone had leveled charges against a Democratic Administration like those Mr. Wilson leveled against the Bush Administration and then been shown to be a dishonest man who twisted his own findings, the MSM would savage him and bring up his deceptions every time they mentioned his name. Instead the MSM fails to note Mr. Wilson’s dishonesty because his conclusions (albeit long since rebutted) suit the story they wish to tell. (Even though partisan (while the MSM puts itself forward as non-partisan, conservatives have shown better judgment. In the 1990s, many of us (including yours truly) cancelled (or refused to renew) our subscriptions to the American Spectator when its pages included increasing amounts of (unsubstantiated) anti-Clinton screeds and conspiracy theorists.) If the MSM did not delight in Bush-bashing, Joe Wilson would long since have joined the ranks of political cranks who rise to political prominence when it seems they have something to say and then fall into obscurity when that something proves to be filled with falsehoods and fabrications. (Though there are signs that Wilson is headed that way, e.g, here, here and here.)
The MSM has made much of this story and the White House’s alleged leak because they think it fits into their narrative of the Administration’s deception and duplicity. But, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, this “latest ‘Bush leaked’ story — which doesn’t hold up very well when you look at the actual story — is basically a ’spoiling attack’ by the NYT and other media who fear subpoenas in the Libby case. As with all their efforts on this front, it’s likely to backfire.” Or as Austin Bay put it, it’s just “more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing “gotcha” with the Bush Administration than reporting the news.” And an indication that the LA Times seems to believe that because of the nobility of his cause, a Bush critic is by definition telling the truth. Even when there is a vast array of evidence to the contrary.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Cecil Turner, commenting at JustOneMinute defends how the Administration handled this (which I called “clumsy” above). He notes that despite White House efforts to set the record straight, “the media still bought Wilson’s bogus story.“
UP-UPDATE: This piece ended up being longer (as is my wont) than I had anticipated that I neglected to address the incredibly biased conclusion to the LA Times article in question:
The discrepancy suggests that Bush authorized the leak before his senior intelligence aides and advisors fully concluded that its release would not violate national security.
Please. This is more an editorial comment than non-partisan reporting. While the discrepancy may “suggest” what the Times wants it to suggest, its reporters provide no evidence to buttress their case. If anywhere, it belongs on the paper’s editorial page or a blog, but not on the news page.
UP-UP-UPDATE: If I were fisking this article, instead of trying to write an essay (as is my wont), I would have made much of this paragraph:
To counter Wilson’s claims, the administration disclosed classified information to attack his arguments and undermine his personal credibility, recent court filings show.
First, if the president authorized release of the report, then it wasn’t classified (as I noted in this post.)
Second, the reporters accuse the administration of attempting to “undermine [Wilson's] personal credibility” so it sounds as if some conspiracy is afoot, when, in reality, all the administration was doing was getting information out to counter Wilson’s false claims. Thus, by showing that the facts of the matter were at odds with what the man said, the release of that information did indeed undermine his credibility. After all, when all the facts are on the table, he has been shown to be a dishonest man. What’s wrong with undermining the credibility of such a man?
But, because the LA Times did not report that Wilson’s reports had long since been discredited (as I note above), the paper’s use of this expression makes the Administration’s efforts appear to be a smear. It’s not a smear to release information which shows that a partisan critic has been playing fast and loose with the facts.
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: The more I read about this latest revelation, the less I realize there is to it. And that the media is all in a tizzy is a more a sign of their own bias than the information’s newsworthiness. As the National Review editors write:
But what, exactly, is the misdeed involved here? First of all, it should be made clear — as it has not been in some discussions — that Fitzgerald does not charge that the president authorized Libby to say anything about Valerie Plame Wilson. Remember her? The leak of her allegedly classified CIA identity was supposedly what the Fitzgerald investigation was all about. Yet the new stories have nothing to do with her. As a matter of fact, on page 27 of the new filing, Fitzgerald writes that as late as September 2003, “the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser [Libby] had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment…”So that’s that. But what about the leak? Yes, the president authorized a top aide to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was classified, although it would later be de-classified. But what is wrong with that? When the president decides to make something public, it can be made public. The Plame case has revolved around the allegedly unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Would anyone argue that this disclosure was unauthorized?
They conclude:
So we ask all those who have become so very excited about this new story: Read the Fitzgerald filing. Read a few news reports about what was happening in July 2003. And ask yourself: What is the problem? If you think about it, you’ll probably agree that there isn’t one.
Now that I’ve whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: And again today (April 9) in a “new analysis” on the President’s credibility, LA Times writer Doyle McManus notes that “the White House was trying to rebut charges from former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that the administration had exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear programs” while neglecting to mention that Wilson’s charges have long since been discredited.
Perhaps, the Times (if it were a serious newspaper) should do a piece wondering if there’s a link between the president’s declining credibility and the media’s biased reporting of this (and other stories). And it doesn’t help the White House that the president’s press secretary often appears in a “defensive crouch.”
To counter a biased media, you need an aggressive press operation willing to take the offensive, not a tired one, lamely defending the Administration in the most banal of terms.
59 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You criticize the LA Times for whatever it is you’re mad about, yet have no problem with the apparent fact — undisputed for 2 days now — that the President of the United States ordered the outing of a CIA agent for partisan gain? Just imagine your outrage if that President was Bill Clinton (or any Democrat). Hypocrite.
Queer Patriot
Comment by Queer Patriot — April 8, 2006 @ 4:17 pm - April 8, 2006
LOL, Queer, you have as much knowledge of the facts as does the LA Times, even less if possible. As I noted in this post, the information whose release the president authorized was not about Ms. Plame. Even the LA Times doesn’t accuse the president of ordering her outing. Because he didn’t do that. Something which even liberal MSM outlets have noted. So that apparent fact is anything but. You say it’s been undisputed. Um, Queer, it’s only been made by denizens of the fever swamps of the Far Left. And has been contradicted by many in the news media — and the blogospher. Even here on this blog as I noted above.
More wishful thinking on your part–eager to see the president as the demon of your imagination and not the decent man that he is.
If you had bothered to read the post, you would know exactly what it is I’m concerned about.
I smile on my birthday as one of my critics helps prove something I have long been saying — that most of those who attack me on this blog do so without reading our posts or addressing the points we have made. Thanks, Queer, for this unexpected birthday present!
You’ve just helped show how many on the Left don’t want facts to get in the way of their narrow view of the world.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 8, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - April 8, 2006
Yeah seriously, Queer. When you attack someone with a piece of false information that would have even the L.A. Times saying, “What a delusional moron,” it’s probably time to pack it in, eh?
But aces on that whole reading thing. Making out letters? I salute you.
Next week whole sentences, and then next year, who knows? We might throw some critical thinking and analysis in.
Now, who wants a muffin?
Comment by Robbie — April 8, 2006 @ 4:35 pm - April 8, 2006
It’s weird to see people like Kewpie (and his/her/its other aliases in recent days, plus some other real individuals who think similarly) so totally and hatefully flipping out, basically because… THEY CAN’T READ.
Comment by Calarato — April 8, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - April 8, 2006
I’m still wondering just what was said - or left unsaid - in the President’s lengthy meeting with Fitzgerald. It really seems unlikely that there wouldn’t have been an opportunity - possibly even in answer to a direct question by Fitz - for the President to simply state to Fitz that he had authorized the declassification of any information in question including that in the NIE. Such forthrightness on Bush’s part would surely have derailed much of the rest of Fitz’ investigation; it strains credulity to believe that going on three years later, Fitz would still be working on it if Bush had told him about the “declassification.” Of course, it strains credulity to imagine Bush ever being that forthright so there you are.
Fortunately, even with the complexity of the situation, it seems to be increasingly clear to the American people that Bush is willing to abuse national security processes for political gain. That’s pretty disgusting to the average folk and puts him in the reviled Nixon’s company. Plus, with Ken Mehlman (played by Hillary Swank) instructing the Rubber Stamp Republicans to cling tightly to the Bush albatross, the repercussions this fall are likely to be severe for the GOP. But GREAT for the country.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - April 8, 2006
Fitz is a junkyard-dog prosecutor, Ian. Even Bob Woodward, of “Watergate” fame, agrees. (The phrase is Woodward’s.) There is nothing worthwhile being prosecuted or investigated in l’affaire Plame and there and there was never going to be. Accept it.
As for who is willing to abuse the national security process for political gain: It’s increasingly clear that that tag belongs to the Democrats.
Cheers!
Comment by Calarato — April 8, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - April 8, 2006
Speaking of bias…
The Democrats just keep getting nuttier. Hard to believe they still haven’t hit bottom, I know!
Now mind you, as a small-government-minded Independent (currently), and as a longtime gay activist and Democrat in the past, I do not exactly love the Republicans. Not by a longshot. But I strongly favor of the defense of America, and genuine (as opposed to pretended) willingness to combat Islamo-fascism. And if the Democrats are going off the rails - as they very clearly have been, for about, oh, 3 years now - the sooner they become the permanent minority, the better.
And I see the Democrats’ k-razy calls for impeachment as a key part of them continuing to be exposed and defeated, becoming the permanent minority. We all know it’s what the Democrats are thinking anyway. Better that it come out into the open (as the Vermont Democrats are doing in the linked article), so the American people can show their lack of support for it in this year’s election.
If the American people didn’t go for impeachment (and I sure didn’t) in 1998 when we were at peace and the President had committed the legal crime of perjury beyond any question or doubt, they won’t go for it today either. Yay. So Democrats - Bring it on. Call louder and louder for impeachment. The louder, the better (at this point).
Comment by Calarato — April 8, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - April 8, 2006
Will they never stop? Just yesterday I wrote the following regarding a New York Times editorial:
* Ambassador Wilson never said that Saddam did not attempt to buy uranium from Niger, only that he didn’t succesfully complete such a transaction.
* President Bush never said that Saddam successfully purchased uranium from Niger, only that he looked into conducting such a transaction.
Neither one of them contradicts or debunks the other.
So how does the editorial board of the very paper that published Wilson’s op-ed get this wrong? As far as I can see, there are only two possible explanations: the first is that the board is simply incompetent, the second is that the board has an agenda and in its zeal to pursue this agenda simply doesn’t care about the facts.
Full post herel
Comment by The Cranky Insomniac — April 8, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - April 8, 2006
Wilson attempted to imply very strongly that “Bush lied!!(tm)” when Bush reported, correctly, that Saddam had inquired about buying uranium from Niger.
Wilson’s own report, at the time, was inconclusive - with a net balance of evidence in favor of the idea that Saddam had tried it. Wilson later quite willfully gave the America the opposite impression.
And Wilson specifically lied about how he had gotten involved in the Niger mission. He attempted to create a strong impression (again, even if he didn’t say the full or exact words) that Cheney’s office had recommended him for the job. They hadn’t. It was his own wife. That was a very deliberate, specific and intentional lie on Wilson’s part.
Wilson is a fraud and a liar, period. UNLIKE Bush (at least as regards Iraq).
Comment by Calarato — April 8, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - April 8, 2006
P.S. For those not in the know: The motive for Plame and Wilson to do what they did together, in addition to selling books and whatnot and getting 15 minutes of fame, would of course be partisan. Both are known to be longtime hardcore Democrats. Wilson even had a job with Kerry’s campaign in 2004, I believe.
Comment by Calarato — April 8, 2006 @ 8:20 pm - April 8, 2006
Ian, there is no evidence whatsoever, least of all in this latest revelation, that the president is trying to (as you put it) “abuse national security processes for political gain.” Indeed, if anything the latest revelations show that in making the decision to liberate Iraq, he was quite sensitive to our national security, given the abundance of intelligence (at that time) that Iraq sought — or was developing — Weapons of Mass Destruction. And while we have not yet found such weapons since our troops liberated the land from a bloodthirsty tyrant, the Administration is no releasing Iraqi documents which are confirming the findings of the Duelfer Report that Saddam was indeed seeking such weapons and intended to restart his weapons program as soon “once sanctions were ended.”
While many on the left contend as does Ian that the president would abuse national security for political gain, it’s clear that the president’s critics are abusing and/or ignoring the facts in order to smear the Commander-in-Chief.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 8, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - April 8, 2006
The more I think about it the more I realize how Queer Patriot’s comment is paradigmatic of the Left today. Because it suits his negative opinion of the president to believe that he president knowingly outed a covert CIA operative, he calls an obvious falsehood an undisputed fact.
Such people aren’t interested in the truth, but in smearing the president of the United States.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 8, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - April 8, 2006
#6: “Fitz is a junkyard-dog prosecutor, Ian. Even Bob Woodward, of “Watergate” fame, agrees.”
Woodward is a hack, a sellout for the White House cocktail weenies. All the while he was pontificating about the investigation, he never revealed that he himself had been one of the “leakees”. He has no credibility. Kind of sad actually. But you lie down with the Bush dogs, you get up covered in fleas.
As for there being nothing worthwhile prosecuting, surely lying to the FBI and a grand jury qualifies. After all, the GOP was hot to trot to impeach a President for a similar transgression. Except the latter involved lying about a blow job while the former involved lying about blowing a CIA agent’s cover. Of course, Fitz’ investigation is ongoing and I personally believe he’s after bigger fish than Rove or Libby. I’m hoping for an August birthday present of Bush being identified as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 10:06 pm - April 8, 2006
#7: “Yay. So Democrats - Bring it on. Call louder and louder for impeachment.”
Actually, not that many of us want impeachment. That would just elevate Cheney! No, the goal just now is to tie all the Rubber Stamp Republicans up for re-election this fall to the failed, corrupt and incompetent Bush administration. And thanks to Ken Mehlman (played by Hillary Swank), the GOP is poised to do that on their own!
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - April 8, 2006
#11: “Ian, there is no evidence whatsoever, least of all in this latest revelation, that the president is trying to (as you put it) “abuse national security processes for political gain.”
Well, we shall surely see, won’t we? At least the White House has not denied the latest revelation. Indeed, the talking points appear to have been issued that Bush simply legally declassified the NIE or more accurately, parts thereof, to provide important backup info to advance the administration’s contentions on justifying its Iraq invasion. But if that’s the case, why go through all the cloak and dagger stuff with Miller? Why not just have a press conference? While we’re at it let’s see the evidence that Bush followed his own declassification rules. For if he didn’t, then AT BEST, his leaking of selected exculpatory evidence would be an attempted political hit job. Fortunately, I think it’s dawning on the average American that their President is quite capable of abusing national security processes for political gain.
But I think the real problem for Bush will turn out to be just what transpired in his lengthy meeting with Fitzpatrick. From what I can gather, that was likely recorded and it may explain why Fitz is still on the job.
Comment by Ian — April 8, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - April 8, 2006
Speaking about newspaper fairness, the political reporter for the Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel was fired after he switched parties, became a Republican, and endorsed Charlie Crist (R) for governor recently. Wonder how that would have worked in reverse? Become a Democrat, endorse their candidate at a Dem meeting. He would then be fired?
Comment by Rick — April 9, 2006 @ 12:07 am - April 9, 2006
Woodward is a hack,
Uh-oh! Libs are starting to eat their heroes? This can’t be good. Seems like the libtards are thrashing about wildly for that one stick that will keep them from falling over the edge.
Hint to Ian: It’s too late. You’re already falling and their ain’t a damn thing to grab onto.
It’s fascinating, funny and sad, at the same time, watching libs flail about bashing the presidet from doing his job. Maybe one day they’ll learn that there’s more to life than taxes, stealing elections, screwing bimbos, fucking over the military and grabbing their ankles for terrorists.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 9, 2006 @ 6:32 am - April 9, 2006
OK, GPW, if I’m “paradigmatic of the Left today”, then try this on for size: like Ian and most other true patriots, I’m actually torn about the growing calls for impeachment of Bush – assuming the Democrats re-take Congress (and that’s a mighty big assumption given what the Bush crowd have shown in the past that they can do in terms of tricking the country into thinking night is day).
On one hand, I believe he — above all who ever have — deserves impeachment AND conviction, as there are now about 20,000 American kids dead or maimed due to what can most generously be described as his “misleadership”.
On the other hand, there are countervailing reasons to not impeach, but to censure instead:
1) Your side, in 1998, so cheapened impeachment as an act of civic punishment that to apply it here, where it IS deserved, would come off to many Americans as nothing more than playing a game of partisan tit-for-tat — which I’m sure hyper-partisans like yourself would love, but not the rest of us.
2) As Ian says, it would leave us with Cheney as President — a guy that not even YOUR side fully supports (or else his 19% approval rating would be as high as Bush’s 30-something, right?). Aside from the fact that he represents the antithesis of what we need in a leader on virtually every national issue, raising Cheney to the top post would leave us with a guy certain to try to further the foreign policy fancies of the remaining Neo-Cons – thus, digging us deeper into quagmires only they can imagine. Plus, it would leave us with a President of the United States whose only claim to fame in arms came on the canned-kill quail fields of southwest Texas — a guy who had he not avoided military service so doggedly in his youth (5 times, right?) might have had enough training to avoid, in his dotage, hurling a load of buckshot into the face of another old man.
3) Thinking again from a strictly patriotic POV, what is best for the country? To have a Democratic Congress drive Bush from office in 2007? Or to let him stay another year, perhaps as an un-indicted co-conspirator, and watch him — and people like you — plumb the depths of public opinion, thereby effecting a larger-scale change in 2008? Right now, I’ll take the latter – that is, unless some new example of massive incompetence (another Katrina mismanagement, another ill-advised military mission, another $2 trillion in national debt, another Schiavo embarrassment, an established tie to the Culture of Corruption in the Republican Congress, etc.) renders his further time in office intolerable. In that case, I suppose we could all live with a snarling Dick Cheney for a year or so – but only so that we would get to see old McCain, in his sudden veer to the far right, manage the inevitable display of public affection for a real Dick.
Comment by Queer Patriot — April 9, 2006 @ 7:08 am - April 9, 2006
[deleted by GayPatriot]
Comment by Queer Patriot — April 9, 2006 @ 7:14 am - April 9, 2006
Wow.
Queer Patriot is back.
If the unconscionable schmuck were ever to make an attempt at honesty, I might get excited.
Unfortunately, to attempt to engage him would be to cast pearls before swine.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 10:12 am - April 9, 2006
#17: “Libs are starting to eat their heroes?”
Woodward reminds me of Petain: a hero in his youth, a sell-out later in life. Like I said, kind of sad.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 11:54 am - April 9, 2006
#18: “canned-kill quail”
That’s a tongue-twister after a beer or two.
I agree with you QP that it would be better to have a changeover in Congress so that it can once again perform its role as a check on untrammelled executive power. While I believe Bush is fully deserving of impeachment - and of being tried at the Hague for war crimes - I don’t think the American people are yet ready for that. Assuming the country is not subject to another catastophe, impeachment should not be the focus if the Dems take over Congress rather it should be as an effective choke collar on this mad dog administration. Unfortunately for the country, I don’t believe we’ll go another three years without another major f@ckup by the arrogant incompetents running the White House. There is already serious consideration of an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran. And from what I can gather, the current temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is far warmer than it should be at this time of year which suggests the real possibility of another season of devastating hurricanes in the US.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 12:09 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian in #15, Ian, as I put it in the post that Administration’s attempt to rebut irresponsible criticism was clumsy, though (in an update) link someone who commented at JustOneMinute detailing White House attempts to set the record straight (before the president authorized the release of the document in question) which the MSM ignored, preferring Wilson’s (later discredited) account. As I said in a previous comment (on another thread) the length of FItzgerald’s meeting shows how scrupulous a prosecutor he is. You’re just eager to convict the president without evidence. Even CNN has noted that the president had the legal right to authorize the release of this document. No one has shown that its release was harmful to national security.
Fitzgerald has made clear that neither the president of the vice-president is a target of his investigation. Wishful thinking on your part.
Queer in #18, even though your comment has nothing to do with the post to which it’s attached and even though you refuse to address my criticism of your comment, I will not delete it as other bloggers might.
It seems that whenever you lose a point, you just change the subject and attack the president from another angle.
And none of my critics has bothered to address the main point of my post — that the LA Times continues to cover l’affaire Plame while leaving out a crucial fact — that Joe Wilson has long since been discredited — and his 2003 attacks on the president shown to be based on deceptions and distortions.
Once again, you guys are more eager to attack then president than to consider the facts.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 9, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian said…
“While I believe Bush is fully deserving of impeachment - and of being tried at the Hague for war crimes…”
That’s right, Ian. Let’s have a sitting American President thrown out of the White House by Kennedy, Pelosi, Schumer & Co., dragged in handcuffs to the Hague for a war cimes trial, then executed publically. Is THAT what you wish to see happen?
The utter madness of that worldview is terrifying. Thank the God you deny that we live in a country where dreams such as yours are unmercifully crushed.
And yet, you didn’t know when to quit…
“Unfortunately for the country, I don’t believe we’ll go another three years without another major f@ckup by the arrogant incompetents running the White House.”
Yes, my bufoonish friend, but you and your little paranoid friends would be giggling like schoolgirls gazing upon a nude shot of Shaun Cassidy.
You disingenuous bastard. You’ve already openly endorsed the execution of an American President; why not, therefore, come completely clean and express your desire to see the republic thrown part & parcel into the abyss?
Your deviance is galling, as is your pathetic attempt to “wordcraft” your way around what you truly believe.
But wait, my friends. Ian had much more to say…
“There is already serious consideration of an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran.”
This is REALLY good. “Unprovoked?” Ah yes, Ian. Let’s all sit around here and ceaselessly bitch about Bush, until such time as the mullahs actually launch something. But then again, perhaps not even at THAT point would you consider a response on our part appropriate, yes?
Ya know, I sometimes cannot believe this little asshole even knows how to read. Apparently, in his mind, GWB is responsible for Iran pursuing nuclear weapons to begin with.
But again, he went on to observe…
” And from what I can gather, the current temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is far warmer than it should be at this time of year which suggests the real possibility of another season of devastating hurricanes in the US.”
Meaning, of course, that since we neocons failed to exterminate the black man from the face of the earth, we’re gonna haul out the Bush Wind Machine for a rerun.
Ian, you have consistently demonstrated through dozens of nonsensical, fallacious, and otherwise ignorant comments that the last thing you’re interested in doing is debating anything.
You are, without question, the single most useless human being I have ever encountered. Oh, I’m sure there exists somewhere a sea of idiots far more ignorant than yourself, but those particular individuals aren’t so delusional as to believe they can continue railing against whatever annoys them to honest folks who recognize smegma when they see it.
Hopefully, you’ll soon realize what a complete waste your life has been, at which point you’ll either decide to make a change, or “shuffle off this mortal coil.” However, since you are so obviously entrenched in your own victimhood, I doubt you’ll do either, so lacking in courage and self-sufficiency is your character.
You made a statement a little while back expressing a desire to spend your eternity in hades, if the alternative meant spending that time among people you cannot tolerate. In conclusion, allow me to retort:
If living in this nation means having to be governed by those who share your “groupthink,” then I do believe I’ll begin to adopt your perveted idea of patriotism.
In other words, my sad little friend, your idea of “effective government” is so thoroughly dangerous that it simply cannot and will not be allowed to ever see the llight of day. That is the reality you cannot bring yourself to accept, but will be forced upon you nonetheless.
Keep praying for your party to return to power, because that’s all you really have anymore.
Eric in America
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - April 9, 2006
#23: “the length of FItzgerald’s meeting shows how scrupulous a prosecutor he is.”
Exactly. And that’s why I think Bushco has real reason to be worried. It’s inconceivable that in such a discussion of classified intelligence leaks that the issue of declassification would not have come up. And if it had, and Bush admitted to declassifying the intelligence info, I think Fitz would have pretty quickly wrapped up his investigation. But he did not wrap up his investigation so I think it’s safe to assume that Bush did not admit to declassifying anything. That really boxes Bushco in: either Bush obstructed justice in that interview by not admitting he declassified the intelligence or he is lying now in saying he did.
“Fitzgerald has made clear that neither the president of the vice-president is a target of his investigation.”
“Target” has a specific legal meaning in these types of investigations and means a person who is going to be indicted. No one really expects Fitz to indict Bush or Cheney; that’s for the Congress to do via impeachment and trial by the Senate. It’s also why I’ve said my August birthday gift from Fitz would be to have Bush identified as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian said…
“It’s also why I’ve said my August birthday gift from Fitz would be to have Bush identified as an unindicted co-conspirator.”
But he fails to reveal what his Christmas wish list includes…
The President of the United States, hanging from a gallows, convicted of non-existant war crimes by a jury of fools.
The Utter Madness of Ian keeps rollin’ on…
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian, your comment really makes me laugh because it shows that, the facts notwithstanding, you’re convinced the president committed a crime. Do you have any evidence (beyond the length of the meeting) that FItzgerald intends to prosecute the president for obstruction of justice? I regularly read Tom Maguire’s JustOneMinute blog, one of the best sources on the Plame kerfuffle and he has not even hinted that the president or vice-president could be named as unindicted co-conspirators. To me, the length of the meeting — and Fitzgerald’s failure to request a subsequent meeting with the president — make clear that Fitzgerald has no further issues with him.
Your use of the term “Bushco” shows the narrowness of your worldview–you don’t see him as president, but as part of some corporate conspiracy.
Only those in the fever swamps of the Left believe Fitzgerald will identify the president as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” Wishful thinking on your part. A number of articles at the time of the Libby indictment indicated that Fitzgerald was not going to bring charges on the underlying offense.
So, spare yourself the disappointment. This investigation is not going to bring the “Fitzmas” presents you (and others on the Left) have long expected.
And please take the time to address the points in my post which you have so far ignored. Once again, you guys are more eager to attack the president than to deal with the facts — and fail to address facts at odds with your worldview.
Let me repeat another thing — even the most left-leaning of mainstream papers aren’t suggesting that the latest revelations show the president violated any laws. Indeed, their attempt to spin this as a sign of the administration’s hypocrisy shows how they are grasping at straws to make this newsworthy.
So, please stop indulging in wishful thinking and start paying attention to the posts to which you are so eager to attach your thoughts.
Well, at least your comments do provide me a moment’s amusement on an overcast day.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 9, 2006 @ 1:24 pm - April 9, 2006
#24: “Let’s have a sitting American President thrown out of the White House by Kennedy, Pelosi, Schumer & Co., dragged in handcuffs to the Hague for a war cimes trial, then executed publically. Is THAT what you wish to see happen?”
I thought I made it quite clear that even though I think Bush deserves that, I actually DIDN’T want to have that happen. BTW, I oppose the death penalty so I wouldn’t want to have Bush executed under any circumstances.
“But wait, my friends.”
Channeling Rush, I see.
I notice you don’t actually deny that a nuclear attack on Iran would be unprovoked. Frankly, the Iran problem has been made far more difficult by Bushco itself. First, considering how we were misled into attacking Iraq, there is abundant skepticism worldwide and in the US over trusting the same gang’s “intelligence” once again. You know the old Texas saying “fool me once… won’t get fooled again.” Second, due to the incompetence on display in the Iraq fiasco, we are far more vulnerable to an asymmetrical response from the Iranians. Third, the planning for the aftermath of a nuclear attack on Iran seems to rely on an uprising to overthrow the mullahs. Kinda like how we would be greeted with flowers and candy in Iraq?
Finally, the idea of using nuclear weapons for a first strike attack on a non-nuclear third world country ought to disgust every American with a conscience and especially those who purport to be Christian.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - April 9, 2006
Like I said, Incredibly Assinine Nitwit, though after the moonbattery about the Hague, Anti-American might be a better descriptor.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 9, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - April 9, 2006
#27: “Well, at least your comments do provide me a moment’s amusement on an overcast day.”
Well, I’m glad to have provided amusement to at least one person. I certainly seem to have got under the skin of another who shall remain nameless.
As for your post, talking about Wilson at this point is kind of irrelevant but I would point out that Wilson was a well-regarded ambassador who had served honorably under both Republican and Democratic administrations long before he became a campaign consultant to Kerry. You also make the claim that a “bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report had discredited that former Kerry campaign staffer.” Perhaps you can direct me to the portions of the report where Wilson is “discredited” by OTHER THAN additional comments by partisan GOP Senators.
You complain about “clever wordsmiths.” You seem to be a pretty clever one yourself.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian, I could frankly give a flying fuck anymore about trying to engage you. You’re a thoroughly repugnant little shit who seems to be more comfortable living in a paranoid fantasy than dealing with the fact that you, and only you, asswipe, are responsible for the sorry state of your life.
You are most decidedly NOT under my skin, but you have admitted to fantasizing about seeing a president executed. That, is just plain terrifying.
You really are a pitiful excuse for a human being, as is demonstrated by the almost fanatical dedication you have to dishonesty.
Do me a favor, Dan. Either force this individual to answer the questions you have repeatedly put to him, or boot his ass the hell off of here. Otherwise, he’s just taking up space, in which case, he’s a textbook definition of a troll.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - April 9, 2006
Language, boys, language!!! Please let’s not let the Loony Leftists drag us into their mudpile.
You can’t win a pissing match with a skunk.
-Bruce
Comment by GayPatriot — April 9, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian, well-regarded Wilson may once have been, but the Senate Intelligence Committee long since discredited him on the issue at hand (his comments in the summer of 2003). Since I have shown this in several posts (and it has been reported ad nauseum on conservative blogs and even in the Washington Post, all you need do is follow the links in the post above. Since you haven’t bothered to read my posts, I’m not going to waste my time to provide the links for the umpteenth time.
And don’t forget that Democrat John Kerry released Wilson from his campaign in 2004. Guess, by the time the Senate Intelligence Committee Report came out, even that liberal didn’t think Wilson was so highly regarded.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 9, 2006 @ 3:27 pm - April 9, 2006
#32: “You can’t win a pissing match with a skunk.”
And I would never try. However, I will direct the following to Eric (#31):
You repeatedly rant, rave, insult and misrepresent my statements so I will be thrilled if you cease to respond to what I have to say. Frankly, you sound hysterical and perhaps simply ignoring my comments would be best for your health. As for “boot[ing] [my] ass the hell off of here”, either of the blog owners is free to ask me to leave and I will do so. It’s their blog and I respect that. I don’t think I’ve been a troll here - I have simply tried to express my opinions in a respectful manner without flinging a lot of insults at commenters who disagree with me. I don’t have the time to respond to every post and/or comment and I don’t see such a requirement imposed on anyone else.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - April 9, 2006
[deleted by GayPatriot]
Comment by Queer Patriot — April 9, 2006 @ 3:50 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian, Wilson was discredited by the facts stated in the bipartisan portions of the Senate report.
The “additional comments” you refer to from the Republicans members came about between the committee Democrats willfully refused to draw or acknowledge the plain, obvious and inescapable conclusions arising directly from those facts (i.e., that Wilson is in fact a liar and fraud).
You know, kind of like you’ve been doing with Wilson?
Or maybe like those people with the Rather-Mapes documents - who see the mountains of facts that can only mean the documents were forged, then say, “It’s never been proven and I have my fingers in my ears nyah nyah nyah la la la la la la la la la la la la….”
Eric is right, Ian, that you are like those people and in no way worth arguing with.
It would be wonderful if I could see you handle to Dan’s points, rationally and honestly - I’m pretty sure I never will, though. Your posts suggest that on some level, you prefer to respond to Eric’s.
You are right that you are not obligated to respond to every post - just as I don’t, with you. Occasionally, you may seem worth my time - More often, you do not. I will continue leaving it up to my own discretion and schedule.
How’s that for clean language?
Comment by Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - April 9, 2006
Sorry for the bad edits though.
My second paragraph should of course say, “The additional comments you refer to from Republican members came about BECAUSE…”
And a couple other bad edits further down - Please forgive.
Comment by Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - April 9, 2006
You guys can go on ad nauseum about Joe Wilson but he is irrelevant to what’s now playing out with respect to the Bush administration and its selectve leaking/”declassification” of intelligence to a reporter. But keep pounding on Wilson. Everyone else’s attention is on Bush, his administration, the Rubber Stamp Republicans, and how the intelligence was hyped to get public support to go into Iraq and it will almost certainly remain that way through November.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - April 9, 2006
You sound like you’re trying to convince yourself of that, Ian.
Perhaps that’s why you’re so dismissive of the mountain of evidence now being translated linking Saddam directly to support of al-Qaeda AND of attacks against Americans and American interests.
Meanwhile, your complete FAILURE to answer when confronted with the fact that you and your fellow leftists KNEW that the “inspections” you were pushing as a solution against Saddam were in fact rigged, sabotaged by bribes paid by Saddam to UN member governments and diplomats, leads me to wonder what your attempted motivations are.
I think it’s rather simple. Bush put an end to the liberal gravy train and exposed the UN and the CIA as the politics-ridden, corrupt cesspools that they are. What secret agency on earth would continue to use as “covert” a woman who was unceremoniously yanked home because the CIA knew her identity had been compromised? What secret agency on earth would send someone who announced himself as a representative of the US government to Niger to “find out” if they had done something illegal which, if they had, would have brought sanctions swift and deadly enough to cripple their government completely and impoverish their country?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 9, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - April 9, 2006
Um, Ian, you commented to a post where the the primary point was the LA Times persistent failure to report that Mr. Wilson’s much ballyhooed claims had long since been discredited. You may fault the Administration for selective leaking, but my point here is that the MSM is guilty of selective reporting.
So far no one has substantiated the MSM and Left’s claim that the intelligence was twisted (prior to the Iraq War). And recent documents released by the Pentagon confirm the wisdom of the president’s decision to go to war — by showing Saddam’s intentions to deceive the UN and acquire WMDs as that one-time tyrant was working with terrorist organizations and developing his own plans to bomb “U.S. facilities and personnel.”
You rant on and on (and on and on) about (what you call) the Rubber Stamp Republicans at the same time the media is full of stories about divisions in the GOP and Republicans distancing themselves from the Administration.
The more you comment, the more you make one of my points — that all too many on the Left are more interested in savaging the President of the United States than in considering the record of his Administration.
It is fascinating how you refuse to address the points in my post — how you dodge the discussion by attacking the Administration any which way you can.
Perhaps I shouldn’t indulge you by taking the time to take issue with your unfounded attacks. But, I do enjoy writing.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 9, 2006 @ 5:31 pm - April 9, 2006
I apologize for the tone I had chosen in responding to Ian, but I fervently stand by my point. Namely, that Ian has developed a rather ill-conceived tactic of tossing into the ring any manner of completely erroneous and fallacious claims, waiting for the inevitable challenge, proceeding to repeat said claims until such time as people begin more aggressively calling him on his utterly bogus assertions, THEN taking the “high road” in dismissing said challenges as “rants & raves.”
Certainly, I’m not the only person here who sees this - it’s textbook Clinton-era distortion, and a perfect example of how this particular troll steadfastly cannot tolerate anything resembling a conservative mindset.
This is the crux of my issue with Ian, and to a large extent, the point of this entire thread. Faced with the truth of the matter, the MSM refuses to admit that which every other rational, sentient being seems to know is true.
For those who passionately share Ian’s dangerously negligent worldview, the following equation best applies:
2 + 2 = 5. Why? Because “Bushco” has criminally altered basic mathematics.
I beg of you, Dan & Bruce, do not allow this simpleton to think he’s contributing anything to this discussion other than senseless, patent fantasy. To do so is tantamount to surrender. He can do nothing to further conservatism, and to permit him to continue under color of “allowing the left to expose their own insanity” is analogous to taunting a wounded rattlesnake.
Sooner or later, you’re gonna get bit.
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 6:59 pm - April 9, 2006
Dan said…
“It is fascinating how you refuse to address the points in my post — how you dodge the discussion by attacking the Administration any which way you can.”
Dan, thus far from our discussions I have gathered that your policy is to allow this charade with Ian & Co. to continue in the interest of not only encouraging free debate, but allowing the fools to continue exposing just how dishonest they truly are.
Therefore, in the interest of perhaps elaborating my position, we may do well to consider the similar approach the German Jews took towards the Nazis.
And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a Cub game to watch.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 9, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - April 9, 2006
I have no idea why anyone would expect me to defend the SCLM. They have been sloppy suckups to the GOP. That they might on occasion print something that the right disagrees with doesn’t change the fact that I for one take what they say with a grain of salt. By way of example, GPW approvingly linked to a Washington Post article by Susan Schmidt. Yet that article had at least one breathtaking flaw: it substituted “Iraq” for “Iran” in describing a “point” made in the Senate Report that supposedly reflected badly on Joe Wilson. Was it an honest mistake or was it the work of a hack too lazy to question the GOP talking points she was fed? So, no, I won’t defend the SCLM. I won’t trust but I will verify. I’d suggest conservatives do the same.
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - April 9, 2006
#38 - Correction, Ian.
You’re the one going on ad nauseum here about Joe Wilson - or, to put it most precisely, about Fitzgerald’s junkyard-dog investigation of the Wilson-Plame affair.
And yet, at the same time, managing to evade relevant facts, considerations and questions. Isn’t that interesting?
For joint illustration of both points, see #5, #13, #15, #21, #25, #30, with still further allusions to Fitzgerald’s investigation from Wilson-Plame in #22, #28.
Comment by Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - April 9, 2006
Ian, you have yet to take issue with one point I made in this post. From now on, unless you address points I made in my comments — or the post itself, I’m going to feel free to delete your comments as I see fit.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 9, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - April 9, 2006
#45: “unless you address points I made in my comments — or the post itself, I’m going to feel free to delete your comments as I see fit.”
Is this a general rule or just one you’ve decided to apply to me alone?
I have repeatedly stated that if you or GP ask me to leave, I will. (And NDT for one knows I will surely do so.) But don’t hide behind arbitrary and petty “rules” that let you avoid telling me to my (virtual) face that YOU don’t want me to comment anymore.
[Please keep commenting, but address the points we've made. I love a good debate, love it when people challenge my ideas, but you have in this thread by and large not done so. --GPW]
Comment by Ian — April 9, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - April 9, 2006
Anyone else familiar with Lord of the Rings, book 3, chapter X, where Saruman tries to deal with his victims piecemeal or one-on-one, but they’re all present, and his doing so enables each victim to see through Saruman’s act?
Comment by Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 10:41 pm - April 9, 2006
Oops, sorry, that recollection (or implied analysis) isn’t an ad hominem, but could be getting dangerously close. And Dan can take care of himself. So I’ll shut up. Later, dudes.
Comment by Calarato — April 9, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - April 9, 2006
Follow-up for the Kewpie types who can’t read (where this thread began)… maybe this will get through… the Washington Post said on Sunday April 9 (publisher’s editorial):
“Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth… [After being exposed, he] subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him [by blowing Plame's 'cover']…After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge. In last week’s court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not [repeat NOT] authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity…
“As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby’s indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It’s unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.”
Comment by Calarato — April 10, 2006 @ 6:10 am - April 10, 2006
I have repeatedly stated that if you or GP ask me to leave, I will. (And NDT for one knows I will surely do so.)
Actually, the truth on that one is far less exciting.
You see, I didn’t ask Ian to leave; I merely called him on his bluff when he threatened to do so.
Might be a useful lesson for future reference.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 10, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - April 10, 2006
Let me ask something really, really politically correct of the people who bash programs like Exodus that try to change the sexual orientation of people who really want to change theirs.
Why is it we are supposed to cheer when someone chemically and surgically mutilates their body so that they can become a crude facsimile of the sex they would choose to be, but we’re supposed to recoil in horror when someone attempts through therapy to have the sexual orientation they would choose to have?
Comment by V the K — April 10, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - April 10, 2006
PIMF I meant “politically incorrect”
Comment by V the K — April 10, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - April 10, 2006
Two reasons, V the K.
1) If sexual orientation is malleable and changeable, it no longer suffices as an excuse for gay misbehavior.
2) Transgender ADDS to the “potential victim to be manipulated towards our ends” for the gay left. Exodus subtracts another person from the pool; since NGLTF and HRC are paid by the various leftist groups to whom they provide marchers on a per-head basis, it diminishes profits and salaries for their leaders.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 10, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - April 10, 2006
It’s always a pleasure to drop by here and see the gay patriots nitipick their way to self-satisfaction. Bush’s ratings are in the can but here, where the same dozen diehard rant day after day, Bush, despite the occasional quibble with him, remains da man.
No, Fitz’s investigation doesn’t extend to Cheney and Bush; that doesn’t mean people aren’t free to speculate and establish another inquiry.
Yes, I know. It’s all a grand conspiracy of the MSM to discredit George Bush. Even though the vast majoirty supported the Iraq invasion and even though the majority of working newspeople (according to E&P polls) voted for Bush, they’ve suddenly turned against him for no good reason, ignoring the “mountain of evidence” that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, even though Bush himself admitted he was not. But leave it to the gay pats to establish as fact what Bush himself discounts.
It must be difficult to see your man going down the tubes. It’s hard enough to be a gay Republican but to have your leader turn out to be the despised subject of impeachment discusson must be galling. Where will this leave you? I’ve often wondered why you people defend what even a growing number of Republican mainstreamers reject and now I realize that without Bush, your fearless effort to challenge the gay status quo by aligning yourselves with a colossal loser makes you look pathetic.
And that’s what offends you about Andrew Sullivan. He’s jumping ship before he ends up looking like a total moron, all the while claiming he was never THAT supportive.
Someone needs to study the way the gene pools of gay REpublicans and lemings intersect.
Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 11, 2006 @ 9:47 am - April 11, 2006
Thank you, Nutty Shill!
Comment by V the K — April 11, 2006 @ 10:33 am - April 11, 2006
Even though the vast majoirty supported the Iraq invasion and even though the majority of working newspeople (according to E&P polls) voted for Bush, they’ve suddenly turned against him for no good reason, ignoring the “mountain of evidence” that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, even though Bush himself admitted he was not.
Ah, but there’s a difference.
Bush never said that Saddam was not in cahoots with al-Qaeda.
What Bush said was that Saddam was probably not involved in the 9/11 attacks.
What IS coming to light is that Saddam’s involvement with al-Qaeda not only existed, but was rather extensive, and included plans for attacking the US and US interests.
Meanwhile, Nit, the evidence is there that you and your fellow liberals deliberately hid information concerning Saddam’s brutality and are deliberately downplaying events like these. Furthermore, you encouraged “inspections”, even though the evidence is also indisputable that Saddam paid both UN diplomats and UN member governments to prevent and sabotage them.
What you and the liberals have done to punish Bush for daring to put an end to your selfish exploitation of billions of dollars in hush money from Saddam Hussein is to launch a campaign of deliberate distortion, hiding the brutal practices of Saddam Hussein in the name of “dealing peace”. Mainly because you know the American public would never tolerate people like yourself admitting the truth about the millions that Saddam brutalized, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered — especially since you a) covered it up and b) went to war with Slobodan Milosevic over far less.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2006 @ 11:11 am - April 11, 2006
Oh, and by the way, Nit; how does it feel to know that you and your fellow liberal lemmings gave tens of millions of dollars and your unquestioning worship to a homophobe?
Maybe you can explain to us why that’s “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to strip gays of rights by state constitutional amendment, especially since that’s what HRC, NGLTF, and the others all claimed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 11, 2006 @ 11:14 am - April 11, 2006
Believe me, North Dallas Kneejerky, I did not support John Kerry as anything other than the more palatable of two evils. I do not vote strictly along gay issues — or there’d be practically nobody to vote for. But this is just one of your usual strawmen. I said nothing about gay marriage, which I don’t give a flip about. Been married to a woman, don’t care to compound the agony by doing it with the right gender. If you want to make it your primary cause go right ahead.
Nobody sensible is hiding Saddam’s wretched record. What a ludicrous claim. What is being forgotten, though, is the fact that the US invasion, to say nothing of sanctions beforehand, have resulted in far more deaths than under Saddam in the last 10 years. Preznit Chimpy can talk all he wants about the valiant sacrifice for freedom but the Iraqi people had NO choice in that sacrifice. This war had nothing to do with that and by a huge margin, they want us out of their country.
The effort nearly four years later to establish a signficicant connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is pathetic. I’m well familiar with the neocon argument, significant connection or not, and even Francis Fukuyama has abandoned it. When you’re in your rocker at the nursing home, NDT, you’ll still be manufacturing “evidence” that the invasion of Iraq was sensible, not because of any rationale the administration provided the American people, but because you staked so much on it. You’ll still be blaming the media and liberal homos for the failure of of the rest of the wworld to see things the way you did way back when.
It is going to be fascinating to see where ultra rightwing homos are going to land when the corruption of the Bush administration comes to full light. Perhaps you will continue ranting about Clinton’s perjury over a blow job and John Kerry’s failure to get on board with gay marriage while this generation’s heirs are left to deal with pre-emptive war, a huge deficit, and major social problems left to grow untreated. “Yeah but Clinton fucked the face of his intern and lied about it.”
Comment by NitPicking4Jesus — April 12, 2006 @ 9:14 am - April 12, 2006
I do not vote strictly along gay issues — or there’d be practically nobody to vote for.
No, you just demand that everyone else do it. Right-o.
Nobody sensible is hiding Saddam’s wretched record. What a ludicrous claim.
I cited two links in which people, including the head of a major media organization, specifically admitted to hiding information about Saddam’s record. We won’t even go into the massive coverups at the UN involving “oil-for-food”.
What is being forgotten, though, is the fact that the US invasion, to say nothing of sanctions beforehand, have resulted in far more deaths than under Saddam in the last 10 years.
Oh? And what’s your source for THAT claim?
Really, I do want to see someone who makes that comparison. In general, the media never has, because they know that their inflated “100,000″ figure looks pretty pathetic next to the estimated millions that Saddam imprisoned, tortured, and murdered, plus the mass genocides against the Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and Shi’ites.
Preznit Chimpy can talk all he wants about the valiant sacrifice for freedom but the Iraqi people had NO choice in that sacrifice. This war had nothing to do with that and by a huge margin, they want us out of their country.
Ah yes, the “if they had really wanted Saddam gone, they would have rebelled” argument.
Problem is, they did rebel — early and often. Indeed, the reason Saddam systematically exterminated hundreds of thousands of them throughout the previous ten years was BECAUSE they, their spouse, their parents, their next-door neighbor, their cousin on the other side of the country, or whoever had rebelled.
Furthermore, wanting us “out of their country” is far different than wanting Saddam back. Since you and your fellow leftists want to take the will of the Iraqi people into account, why not ask them what they prefer — your choice to leave them under Saddam in perpetuity, or what they have now?
The effort nearly four years later to establish a signficicant connection between Saddam and al Qaeda is pathetic.
And a big slap in the face to those of you who denied it, it seems.
We have known that a connection existed. The documents emerging are merely corrolaries to what was known at a much higher level and directed the decisions.
But, since you staked so much on denying Saddam’s brutality, insisting the Iraqis were better off under him, and pretending that no such connection existed, I can understand why you protest so much now.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 12, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - April 12, 2006