Archive for Sunday, July 15, 2007

Bush presidency focused only on politics

July 15, 2007


Richard Nixon was a crook. He was also a liar and anti-Semite who sought to subvert the Constitution.

I wish he was president again.

I'd also take Jimmy Carter, widely perceived as being about as effectual as Elmer Fudd, or Bill Clinton, fastest zipper in the West.

Flawed men, yes, but say this much for them: When it came to a choice between people and party, between the public and the politics, there was at least a bare chance they would put the people, the public, first.

No such chance exists with the current occupant of the mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue. Given a choice between what's best for the country and what suits his political and ideological needs, George W. Bush will invariably, unfailingly, pick the latter.

More proof, not that any is needed, arrived last week.

The testimony before a House committee of Dr. Richard Carmona - until 2006 the nation's surgeon general - was not the biggest W-related news of the week. That distinction would likely go to the new report that the Iraqi government has met half its benchmarks of progress. Or to the classified intelligence analysis, which reportedly says that, four years after the invasion of Iraq, al-Qaida is the strongest it's been since September 2001.

Yet Carmona's testimony is still worth noting for the insight it offers into the administration's mindset. Not that he said anything we've never heard before. Carmona told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the administration censored him whenever his science conflicted with their ideology.

He said he was prohibited from speaking about condom use because the administration believes in abstinence-only sex education. He was told not to speak about stem cell research. He was refused permission to make a speech at the Special Olympics because that was seen as helping a political opponent, but "was" asked to speak at events benefiting the GOP.

As I said, nothing new. I've lost count of how many officials - from the EPA to NASA to the Justice Department to the intelligence community - have testified to the Bush gang's habit of twisting, denying and ignoring verifiable facts to fit political needs.

Yes, every presidency is shaped by ideology and politics. But it's hard to imagine another administration so thoroughly politicized that people it recruited to rebuild a war-shattered nation would be asked less about their qualifications than about their opinions of Roe v. Wade. Or intelligence estimates that didn't toe the party line would be dismissed as "guessing." Or the nation's top doctor would be politically prohibited from giving his best medical opinion.

Indeed, some of us can remember a time when a president understood himself to be not just the leader of his party but also the leader of his nation. Some of us can remember when he was expected, at least some of the time, to place himself above politics, to act as the living embodiment of the nation's ideals, president of all its people. A time when truth was truth was truth - and truth was the ultimate arbiter of dissension.

Now politics is truth.

At the end of "The Truman Show," Truman Burbank, the innocent who has just learned his entire life to this point was a TV fantasy, addresses the man responsible. His question is poignant. "Was nothing real?"

I can imagine a similar question lifting from the American electorate in January of 2009 as we finally exit an eight-year sojourn in a political fantasy where there were no ideals - only ideologies, expediencies, angles to be worked and appeals to the base.

Was nothing real? Was nothing true? Was nothing beyond politics?

The answer has been self-evident for a long time now: No, nothing was.

- Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.


jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

I'm pretty sure he does, because I'm pretty sure our wives work together. Assuming, as always, that he is who everyone says he is.

When he has time for her, or for anything else for that matter, is some small matter of curiosity, I must admit.

But only a small amount.

Crossfire 10 years, 9 months ago

It has all been about the money. When it's over will the Halliburton boys have "W" over for drinks and a romp on the boat with the paid girls.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

"Most people would rather die than think: many do." -Bertrand Russell

I guess that means anyone reading this forum gets to witness your slow and agonizing death, Kevin. There are certainly no discernible cognitive processes evident in your knee-jerk sycophancy.

Flap Doodle 10 years, 9 months ago

"When it's over will the Halliburton boys have "W" over for drinks and a romp on the boat with the paid girls." George Soros is one of the Halliburton boys.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

It wasn't an attack, Kevin. But it was an amazingly accurate observation, if I do say so myself.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

"These two men left office with America much less secure than when they became president."

As opposed to what we have now? Do you consider us any more secure than those previously mentioned times? I'd be interested in hearing your rationale if that's the case.

If you say simply that we haven't been attacked, it was, what, ten years between the two domestic terror attacks committed by Al Quaeda. They still have four years left to go.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

"I'd be interested in hearing your rationale if that's the case."

Kevin's assessment of anything is strictly partisan-based, not factually based. He's like the cheerleader who will still be doing the splits and shaking pom-pons even when his team is down by ten touchdowns with 2 minutes left in the game (which as about where BushCo is now.)

Come on, Kev, let's hear your best cheer!! Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Bah!!

sfjayhawk 10 years, 9 months ago

This administration will be viewed very harshly through the eye of history. I imagine W topping the list of worst presidents ever. The next generation will ridicule us for not standing up to these people, and will remember that this administration is leaving us much less secure than at other time in our existence.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

bozoondabus: C'mon, let him prove that on his own, one way or the other. If you sidetrack him I'll have to ask again.

Going to sleep though. It's 12:30 in the morning here.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

"bozoondabus: C'mon, let him prove that on his own, one way or the other. If you sidetrack him I'll have to ask again."

He's disproven that amply, ad infinitum. And I guarantee you, no one can sidetrack him.

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

Of the Constitution Bush said, "It's just a g.d. piece of paper!" Watch out now because his May 9 Presidential Directive NSPD 51 claims dictatorial powers for the White House in the case of "catastrophic emergency." The Legislative and Judicial branches of government will be under White House control. Why doesn't the mainstream media tell us the truth?

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

Yet another instance of Bush only hearing what he wants to hear. Super.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

Ferd: "And don't you think 9/11 could have been prevented if Clinton spent as much time pursuing bad guys as he did pursuing bad girls? What if all the time spent planning liaisons with Monica had instead been used to planning strikes on al Qaeda?"

This is absolutely ridiculous. Your partisian lens has completely removed your ability to think straight. You completely absolve W's administration from any wrong doing before or after 9/11 and instead go all the way back to '95-'96 and claim that American was attacked six years later because Willy got his wang worked on a few times.

You make me laugh.

First of all Presidents don't plan strikes on "bad guys", the only approve them after the military and CIA have planned them. So blaming that solely on Clinton is ignorant at best. Furthermore, pre 9/11 the Taliban was not viewed as an enemy of America, in fact up until August of 2001 the US was giving the Taliban millions of dollars every month from the American tax payer.

Why don't you go back and look at the relavent timeline of events that occured in the Summer of 2001 that led to the US being attacked. Look at the long list of credible intelligence sources from around the globe who were screaming at the W administration that an attack was coming soon. Go back and read the Congressional testimony of Richard Perle about how the W adminstation refused to deal with the threat.

RedwoodCoast 10 years, 9 months ago

You know, I laugh nearly every time I hear Dick Cheney speak. Invariably, he'll mention something about the "terrorists" and the "terrorist threat." Yeah, I know there are people out there that we need to keep an ey on. However, the Bush administration has deviously manipulated the American public by creating a climate of fear in which they set themselves up as the superheroes. When anyone criticizes, questions, or tries to limit or stifle the actions of the superheroes, that only serves to "embolden the terrorists" and "weaken our security." The more things they can link to terrorism the better. Sounds more like ideology than logic to me. The article makes a sound point there. It makes one wonder what they're trying to get accomplished beneath that veil of sincerity.

staff04 10 years, 9 months ago

Hey Kevin-

How's it hanging, little guy? You seem to embrace being embarrassed here on these forums...

Good luck with that in the future. It has been working well for you so far, hasn't it?

Since the rest of the crowd has successfully put you back into your hole, I'll leave you alone for the night.

heysoos 10 years, 9 months ago

"Please tell us what constitutional right you had on January 21, 2001 that you do not have now."


For starters...

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

Of the US Constitution Bush said, "It's just a g.d. piece of paper." Capitol Hill Blue, Dec9, 2005

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

"Please tell us what constitutional right you had on January 21, 2001 that you do not have now."


For seconds...

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

Let me splain somethin to you Ferd; just because something is not in the mainstream media does not mean it's untrue. In fact, the mainstream media is more like a brainwashing machine than it is a fount of relevant information. They are no better than Fox news.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

Yes Ferd I did mean Clarke not Perle, Fruedian slip there. But your "truth" does nothing to avert the fact your idiotic claim is ridiculous.

First of all I do not have a partisian lens because I am not on a team or a side.

The reason I brought up the Taliban is because they controlled Afganistan, thus we would be attacking inside their country if Al Qaeda was taken out in the '90s. Surely even you can understand that.

Where have I ever criticized President Bush for not capturing Bin Laden? All of my posts are in the archive here, please show me where that statement was made. I don't think Bush ever intended to capture Bin Laden, nor was it ever a real objective of his plan. You are gravely mistaken about me Ferd. Don't try and pin the talking points of others on me, I am not a partisian robot.

"We had specific wanrings prior to the attacks on our embassies in Africa in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. We did not have a specific warning prior to 9/11."

This is ultimate display of your blissful ignorance. As I said why don't you go back and read the long, and I do mean long list of intelligence claiming that American was going to be attacked in the summer of 2001. There were strong suggestions that an airliner could be used. There was even an order given to high level executives in the government not to fly the weeks before 9/11.

You still have not given any credible link to Willy's sexual activities and the 9/11 attack. But I'm sure you could spend the rest of your life and never assert any credible evidence. Yet of course, have at it, clearly you have nothing better to do.

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

"heysoos and ndmoderate:

Are #1 and #4 rights or items on a Chinese restaurant menu? You need to do better than that to make the case that you have had constitutional rights taken away from you." --Ferd

Ah yes, the #1 is a wonderful moo goo gai pan.


I thought you were up to snuff on your Constitution? Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

"There certainly was no 10-year gap. We had the first WTC bombing in 1993. We then had the bombing of two U.S. embassies (i.e., U.S. soil) in 1998 (BTW, after we were warned that an attack was imminent), and an attack on a US warship in 2000 (again, after we were warned that an attack was imminent). The 9/11 plot was planned years before it occurred and the pilots were in this country before Bush was even elected president. Like Iraq, Bush inherited the al Qaeda mess from Clinton."

Okay, eight years then. I'm sure you've noticed that only two of those things you list occurred on our home soil. If you are going to count attacks on American's abroad, then I'm afraid that I could dig up a MUCH longer list, in the years of the Bush presidency than in the years during the Clinton admin. or the Carter admin.

And I'm sure the venerable Bush the Elder had nothing to do with Iraq as well, ne? Was that an oversight or a convenient blind spot? How's about, as well, we point the finger of blame for 9/11 on those wonderful administrations that supported Al Quaeda's leadership in fighting the Soviets. Your historical perspective is remarkably short sighted.

And I'm still waiting to hear your rationale. You shot off quickly, much as Bozo predicted you would, and didn't actually answer the question.

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

If I were gay, I would not have the freedom to marry, except in Mass. (as a side note Bill Clinton is no better on this front with his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act).

If I were a Pagan serving in the military and were killed, I would not have the right to have a pentagram placed on my headstone at a military cemetery.

I am not a christian, and I feel that my first amendment rights have been violated by the Bush administration's Faith-Based Initiatives.

In the same vein, Bush's silencing of his former Surgeon General on sex education and embryonic stem-cell research is sickening.

In other words, Bush and his "talks with God" are alienating and violating the first amendment rights of every non-christian american.

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

ndmoderate: "That was my point. You did not have this "right" prior to January 21, 2001. For the record, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards aso oppose same-sex marriage."

"Did you have that right prior to January 21, 2001?"

---By not changing this situation, Bush (like all Presidents before him) is doing the same thing as taking it away -- i.e. not having those rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

"How so? There are more faiths than the Christian faith."

---Oh come on now. You and I both know that Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives are for Christians, and possibly Jews.

"Even if that were true, which of your rights were taken away by Bush as a result?"

---The right to sex education if I was a schoolkid, and the right to life-saving medical research if I was sick. And silencing the former S.G. is true. Read the news.

"There is nothing in the first amendment that says people cannot talk to God. In fact, if people were forced to stop speaking to God, then we would have a bonafide example of a right being taken away."

---I agree. But if a President ONLY "listened" to the christian god (which is the case, although not unlike any other President, unfortunately) then he automatically violates the first amendment rights of every non-christian american.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago


Clearly I don't have enough time to devote to make you feel like a moron, but gee I wish I did.

In short:

No you are wrong, I'm not on a political side. I have NO prior posts on this forum before Nov. '06.

Bush's plan for a global war on terror and invasion of Afgan/Iraq are much different than an isolated missle attack. Why are you comparing the two?

Clarke and some others have acknowledged that there wasn't a specific time and date given but that Everyone knew an attack was coming and yet the W administration refused to even hold a meeting concerning counter terrorism!!! End of story pal, if you can't realize that these guys let their guard down when the country was in danger of attack than you are hopeless.

Yes you phrased the remarks about Clinton and 9/11 in the form of a question, I am aware of what the symbol ? means. But don't be a dishonest fool to think that I don't know that is how your twisted brain rationalized why 3,000 Americans are dead.

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

Ferd: Once again the bigger picture is missed on you, so I will cease and desist for my sanity's sake. I understand your points, but they are insignificant to the greater argument. Just ask Tony Snow--parsing isn't fun.

Two points before I go:

  1. I said: "But if a President ONLY "listened" to the christian god (which is the case, although not unlike any other President, unfortunately)..."

You then said: "So you believe that presidents prior to Bush "listened" to other gods?"

No. Re-read what I said. Every President has been a "god-listener," right? All christians, too, with the exceptions of the Deists. A President wouldn't be elected or kept in office if he ever said otherwise. That's what I think is wrong. That's all.

  1. "I think you need to go back to school and get a proper education concerning the Bill of Rights."

Not quite. You and I are reading the same document. And you can take that condescending tone and shove it straight up your @ss.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

You got Nothing Ferd, absolutely nothing.

Why don't you lay out the specific threats to the US prior to the embassy bombings, the USS Cole and 9/11. Then tell me that both Clinton/Bush I &II, the entire intelligence community all do not hold some resposibilty for not making America safer.

Perhaps an even more important point is that After 9/11 Bush has still Not done anything to make this country safer, and has increasingly put us in grave danger. I do not support that policy.

You believe the 9/11 Commission Report??? Oh my, there has got to be a rock or something smarter I can communicate with around here.


Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

"Bush's plan for a global war on terror and invasion of Afgan/Iraq are much different than an isolated missle attack. Why are you comparing the two?"

Ferd: "They're different, but the goal was the same, i.e., to get bin Laden and strike a blow against al Qaeda. That's a pretty simple concept to grasp. You shouldn't let it go over your head."

You very very Wrong. Good night and good luck.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

"A US Embassy is "home soil" for Americans, so it was just five years."

Let's not argue over semantics. You know what I mean, and you're dodging. With this and the Al Quaeda thing. And you still haven't talked about THIS administration, just pointed fingers at other ones, which is still avoiding the question.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

I take that back. You're not avoiding. Say it rather that you are framing a flawed argument in such a way as to shine light on its positives and avoid its many, many negatives.

purplesage 10 years, 9 months ago

If the Iran hostage crisis and the planning stages of the 9/11 attacks represent "security" that's what we had during the Carter and Clinton years.

I think Leonard Pitts doesn't like the "politics" of the Bush administration and that is what this screed is about. Interesting how the liberals take to such rantings when they don't like what's going on. Seems they accused conservatives similarly during the Clinton years to be sure. What administration has not advanced its own positions?

Al Quaida may be stronger, but they have not yet attacked. If they are smart, they will wait until the Dems in Congress succeed with this idiocy of a set withdrawal date and strike again. They can't be trusted and President Bush realizes this. I would be especially watchful after the Democrats likely win the next election. Although it is entirely possible that, in today's climate, the media could succeed in making another attack Bush's fault (what terrible thing is he not responsible for these days?) if these extremists try again to terrorize the world.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

Because that was my question, if you recall, Ferdinand.

At any rate, I've gotten the answer to my real question, if not the one that I asked. Thanks for being so predictable.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago


I just can't resist. Yes I think that Clinton has some indirect responsibility for 9/11, but it has nothing to do with Monica, so no our points are seriously different. Clinton's responsibility lies in the fact that he promoted an imperalistic foriegn policy agenda as well which hurt America. However, his agenda was not remotely as disasterous as the present Administration.

"You liberals are inconsistent. You say that Bush has not made the country safer, despite the fact that we have not been hit at home in nearly five years. Then, when the administration talks about threats, you all whine that they're exaggerating the threats. Which is it?"

First of all, who told you I was a liberal? I've voted for the Libertarian party more than any other party in my lifetime. Once again your partisian lens blinds you from everything involving truth. Just because we haven't had a direct attack on American soil in 5 years doesn't mean we are safer. The world has turned against us and there are millions more who now protest our country. And yes there are also over 3,000 dead young Americans who are being killed so "terrorists" don't need to kill over here.

"Didn't you just refer to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission? Do you only believe the commission when you believe it bolsters your argument?"

Do you not realize the difference between Clarke's testimony and the final 9/11 report? Honestly can you not comprehend the difference? Clarke did not write the final report. Seriously Ferd, why am I wasting my time?

"'Im wrong? So it wasn't Clinton's goal to kill bin Laden and weaken al Qaeda when he fired missiles into Afghanistan in August 1998? Maybe you believe Clinton's goal was to deflect attention away from the Monica thing?"

I was commenting on your statement regarding Bush's War on Terror. I never mentioned Clinton, you are extremely confused, go back and reread previous posts to catch up.

"Have you considered your wife? According to a J-W article she is an inanimate object (i.e., "a Lawrence ordinance.")"

Wow. Now you are attempting to insult my wife. Ferd you are truly sad. If you must know about my personal business, she is out of town on the East Coast so our young son can visit her mother who sick with terminal cancer and I had to stay here to work before I leave town for business. I'll let her know though that you took the time to insult her on the LJW forum while she is watching her mother slowly die. How big of you.

Judging from the fact that you have over 600 posts on here in only a month and half I'd say you don't have a wife, or anything else to do for that matter.


blackwalnut 10 years, 9 months ago

Pitts is right on. History will not be kind to W and his cabal - or I should say Cheney and his clueless tool W.

Richard Heckler 10 years, 9 months ago

This article is from the May/June 2005 issue of Dollars & Sense magazine.

The president completed a tour to spread fear over the financial solvency of the Social Security system and promote his multi trillion tax dollar plan to allow workers to divert nearly a third of the 12.4% Social Security payroll tax into private investment accounts. Wall Street will rake in the dough in a monster way.

At a stump speech in West Virginia in early April, Bush pointed to a filing cabinet stuffed with paper representing government IOUs and said, "A lot of people in America think there is a trust--that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you. But that's not the way it works. There is no trust 'fund'--just IOUs.:" On April 28, Bush proposed indexing high-income workers' benefits to inflation, a move he described as "progressive." If these and other administration statements about Social Security leave you scratching your head, you're not alone.

With all the fear-mongering falsehoods flying around, it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction. Below, Doug Orr helps D&S readers do just this, with clear, at times surprising, answers to many common Social Security-related questions. Congress is expected to vote on Social Security "reform" in June. --Eds.

Has the president actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. President Bush has repeatedly said that those who put their money in private accounts are "guaranteed" a better return than they'll receive from the current Social Security system. But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: "the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative"--for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than 10 years where the return on stocks was negative.

This BUSHCO group cannot stop a crash if it is in fact about to be. Social Security checks will come in handy as ENRON and Savings and Loan victims discovered.

yourworstnightmare 10 years, 9 months ago

Wow, Ferd.

You are certainly living up to the Yiddish meaning of your name. You are meshuga.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

Carmona's testimony is just another episode of an individual conveniently speaking out after the fact. What will impress me is any individual who speaks out against what they know is wrong when it is not convenient, while their career is still on the line. These are people who are in very serious positions, and their actions or inactions affect the rest of us.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

Wow. Now you are attempting to insult my wife."

"No, I merely noted that the J-W reported that she was an inanimate object. If you consider that an insult, take it up with the J-W, butterball"

Ferd, Not only are are all your points Wrong, but you continue to be a small man attempting to insult my wife while she suffers. She is not an "inanimate object", she is a beautiful and intelligent person. Please stop trying to insult her.

Ferd: "May I suggest a little rule for you? If you wouldn't say something to someone's face, don't say it here."

So are you going to follow your own rule and insult my wife to my face? I'd love to see that Ferd. What time should I expect you?

You are a sad man.

yourworstnightmare 10 years, 9 months ago

arminius/ferd has basically refused to answer very simple questions and instead changes the subject to Clinton or to some other tangential topic. Shifting sands. When one decides to "debate" in this manner, nothing is achieved, as it is impossible to move forward.

Defender, greyheim, and others have all made their views and points very clearly. Ferd continues to dodge and evade and change the subject.

The most ridiculous is the martyr technique of claiming injury by being attacked while at the same time attacking visciously.

The next buffoon technique is to play the cool, calm, rational one. This is absurd, ferd. We know you, we know your ways, we know your silly arguments.

yourworstnightmare 10 years, 9 months ago

Oh and ferd... Don't make the mistake of confusing stubborness with debate.

You have only displayed a stubborn rigidity and a caged-animal-like repetition of using discredited argument after discredited argument just to keep the "debate" going. Like the polar bear pacing in circles in his exhibit.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

Indeed. It seems as though that particular poster makes issues of how arguments are presented, i.e., wording, grammar, but avoids anything that has to do with criticism of how he presents his arguments, and it seems particularly the case when the subject the Bush administration is broached. I've commented on another thread, and was unable to get a response after I took the time to reword my comments so that he could more easily understand the point I was making.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago


And you are ignoring the fact that your statement claiming that had outsourced the specific attack you were referencing was inaccurate. You claimed that they had, but you cannot prove that. As I said, you have evidence, evidence that I'm not refuting, but you have no proof. I said that a more honest/accurate statement would have been "There is evidence that Iraq outsourced at least on attack.... ". I'm sorry you feel you were wasting your time, but you didn't have to, as the argument you were wasting your time on wasn't the argument presented to you in my post.

There is another issue/question posed to you in that post you are ignoring as well.

yourworstnightmare 10 years, 9 months ago


You hold on to a few "facts" that support your argument all the while ignoring the vast majority of those that don't.

Did Saddam have contacts with associates of al Quaeda? Likely. Does this mean Saddam was a major force behind al Quaeda? No. The majority of facts indicate that Saddam had only minor and tangential contacts with al Quaeda. Indeed, there is indication that Saddam was actively opposing al Quaeda in his own country. The few ties that you reference as "facts" certainly do not measure up to what was told to the american people as a run-up to war (Saddam and al Quaeda, you can't differentiate). This is nonsense.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

sorry, here's a correction:

And you are ignoring the fact that your statement claiming that Iraq had outsourced the specific attack you were referenced was inaccurate.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

"and instead engage in name-calling and idle threats"

I can say that I have not called you any names or threatened you in any way. Though I have seen this behavior coming from you as well as many other posters you fail to mention. I have attempted to engage you in a civil manner, and found you to be very condescending for no reason.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

16 July 2007 at 9:59 a.m. Suggest removal chet_larock (Anonymous) says:


"Nothing in the Christain Science Monitor article I linked to shows that Iraq did not outsource the Abu Sayyaf attack on our troops in October 2002, nor have you presented anything to contradict what the CSM reported. Your claim that "to claim that iraq outsourced the attack is being dishonest" is wholly without merit."

Actually, it is not "wholly without merit". What I probably should have said though, was that your statement was not accurate. An honest/accurate statement would have been "there is evidence that it had outsourced to an al qaeda affiliate at least one attack on our troops". Your statement was that Iraq "had outsourced...... ", a statement that has not been proven to be true. Though they did present evidence, nothing in your article or any of the others you cited shows that Iraq did, in fact outsource that attack. Evidence is not proof, correct? Since I'm not refuting the evidence, I do not feel the need to furnish evidence to the contrary. You are unable to prove that that attack was outsourced, as I am unable to prove that it wasn't.

As for the valid arguments presented, I should have said that the administration was "dismissive" of the advice given to them by their top military commanders - advice that has been proven correct. Do you support the administration's decision not to heed their advice? Do you not think it speaks to their judgement?

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago


Well, I'm not part of any "team". And I wouldn't necessarily call your arguments "three-pointers". You continue to prove the analyses regarding your behavior accurate, the more you ignore legitimate arguments presented to you. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

Credible? Right, well considering I've never registered with that name, and infact this is the only user name I've had, I don't give two sh&*s what you think of the syntax of my reply. Marion is lying.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago


Perhaps if you had addressed my question to you in the other post directly, I would not have felt the need to opine on your posting behavior. That's fine if you wish to debunk the inaccurate statements of other posters. I'm not here to counter every false statement made, and I have not come to the defense of any poster's false statements. I engaged you on the other thread, specifically regarding an argument you made, and you chose to dismiss me simply because you found the wording was not to your liking.

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

If you feel you are so much smarter than everyone else, except for those who back you up, why would linger on here?

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago


Leave me the hell out of your whining posts, please.

Chet hit the nail on the head with you--you choose to dismiss people simply because you find the wording is not to your liking. You purposefully get too specific in each and every argument you've had since you've been posting (yes, we all know that you were Arminius and many others...your posting style has been consistent through each of your resurrections) so you can pick out any supposed inconsistencies, all the while ignoring the big picture and refusing to answer pointed questions posted to you.

What kind of car do you drive?

ndmoderate 10 years, 9 months ago

"What kind of car do you drive?"

"What's that got to do with Pitts' column?"

About as much as your arguments.

Mkh 10 years, 9 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:


"Mkh" previously posted as "Holygrailale" and "HGA" among others"

Marion that is a bold face Lie. Which as we all know, is your speciality.

ISRAELPARASITE 10 years, 9 months ago

We are owned - used - screwed and ruled by corporations. What big business wants - big business gets. Im predicting the future (you can call me a genius in a few years when you see I am correct) - You arent leaving Iraq, You arent getting any decent healthcare solutions, Your gas isnt gonna get cheaper, Your food will be much more expensive, The economy will stay stagnant (or it will take a nose dive) --- etc....

I guarantee. None of the issues that really matter are going to be solved or worked on. Its gonna be a few more decades of dancing around acting hopeless and coming up with dead end solutions.

I guarantee it. I dont care who you vote for. -- If you want positive change in this country, its going to take A WHOLE LOT MORE than just voting for your "favorite" candidate. (P.S. -- I guarantee AIPAC already knows who America's next president is...)

chet_larock 10 years, 9 months ago

"The problem with the liberals here is that so much of what they "know" is flat-out wrong."

Alright, but I would venture a guess that "wrong" posts on here aren't all from "the liberals". When people view things from a partisan lens, many facts can be construed to fit a particular outlook. I would venture a guess that as many inaccurate and false statements are posted from people across the political spectrum. If all you find yourself doing on here is correcting false statements made by "the liberals", it seems as though that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. You may be happier finding another forum where you are able to debate as you wish.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

"You're like a member of a basketball team that had two members ejected for throwing punches. You didn't throw the punches yourself, but say the punches were justified because the other team was making too many three pointers. You then tell people that you were only trying to promote civility."

Wow! That is truly an absurd statement. That might, in fact, be one of THE most absurd statements I have every been witness to you making. I worry, somewhat, that you actually believed that was clever enough to post, or that it reflects any sort of reality (even as a simile) in any way at all.

You really make me chuckle sometimes, in a quizzically disbelieving fashion.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

Uh, oh, that one must have struck home.

As for what you said, though:

No three pointers were made. Maybe a couple of fast-break layups, and a long distance from half-court that, unfortunately, bounced off the top of the goal and then smacked the mascot in the head.

You mistook some random dude in the audience for a member of an opposite team when he said that you really stink at shooting free throws, and then leaped into the crowd and started trying, somewhat ineffectually, to pummel him.

And, as always, you paid no attention to the fact that we were actually playing baseball.

C'mon, though. Dig your hold deeper. I really enjoy watching it happen.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

Chuckles. I think I actually just constructed an argument, in the same vein as your own, that gave some pretty good reasons as to why yours was totally absurd. But then, as you apparently can't create a workable simile or metaphor with any degree of proficiency, I can't imagine how you'd be able to recognize one that had some form to it.

Good to see, though, that you've already forgotten about the post you made several up where you reamed someone for personal attacks. It's always nice to have such open reminders of double-standards and hypocrisy.

Keep 'em coming.

zbarf 10 years, 9 months ago

Time for a new topic...

Ferd won this one hands down (single handedly).

Actually, that was a biased statement coming from a conservative. I would like a liberal that has not posted to read through and tell me who was the most articulate in their agreements. Ferd or the lefties.

Good job Ferd!

Sheryl Wiggins 10 years, 9 months ago

Jonas~I love you! Even when I don't agree with what you've said you still crack me up and you seem to have a lot more class than......others.

Rationalanimal 10 years, 9 months ago

Liberal hate diatribe full of so much allegations and conclusions that by the time one is done reading the hodge podge of hate the absence of supporting fact has been forgotten. It is the classic liberal method of logical fallacy.

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

Which has the bigger mass? I've got to fill up that space!

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

"little fella"

For your information, my stunted height is a growth defect! I've dealt with prejudice all of my life!


jonas 10 years, 9 months ago

Hey, hell! It just occurred to me that as my size goes down, the proportion of my m&m size brain to the rest of my body starts to become more normal! Heck, if there's a peanut in it, I'm probably doing pretty darned well. Things are looking up for me!

jonas 10 years, 9 months ago


Fun stuff. It probably helps that I had my ability to get angry at insults somewhat burned out of me by my phone debt-collection job. After that, most stuff on this forum is a cake-walk.

Not that I'd recommend getting such a job. Truly makes you hate just about everything about life if you're not careful.

Linda Endicott 10 years, 9 months ago

Personally, I like M&Ms...

Can we have almonds instead of peanuts, though?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.