They called for the invasion of Iraq prior to 911. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many other top level Bush staffers were members of the group. Pretty good evidence that the Bush Admin. wanted to invade Iraq prior to 911. I dunno where you get Glenn Beck outta that, it’s all right there on paper. Oh, let me see … and because of this, America will become Muslim in 2025! There, does that make it feel more Glenn Beck-ish to you?
Oh, wait, this is more of that right-wing false equivalence shit you are doing!
http://www1.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/gera-a24.shtml
Kenn Starr was doing a job for the Repubs. He had no interest in the truth or justice. It was a horrible time for America when a guy with his power gleefully abused it to achieve the ends they wanted. Susan was caught in a trap she did not have a thing to do with. Starr wanted her to lie about Clinton to bring him down. They were glad to treat her as badly as they could. Starr was a criminal . The Repubs loved him.
Because I’ve watched them do just that for many years. The Democrats and Republicans aren’t some sort of obscure underground societies whose doings we know nothing about.
More of the standard Republican apologetics. More of the nonsense that the only valid viewpoint is that the Republicans are at worst just as bad as the Democrats.
“Presume guilt”? I’ve been watching them do exactly what I accuse them of, I don’t need to presume guilt.
In other words even when they write down and publicize their bad intentions, we aren’t supposed to admit it. No amount of evidence is good enough to condemn them. Acknowledging that they mean to do harm even when they outright admit it is raving paranoiac extremism.
All you are doing is underlining my point, that it is taboo to condemn the Republicans for what they do no matter how bad it is and how blatant it is. It’s clear that no amount of evidence, no level of extremism on the part of the Republicans would be enough for you.
Well as you are willing to cede every point to me but the joy with which the Bush Admin. people seized on 911 as a chance to advance their political agenda, I guess we can agree to differ on that one. I would say it particularly of Dick Cheney – everything I have heard about the guy paints a picture of him as a functional psychopath … a shark in a suit. And of course Dubya himself is famous for publicly mocking a woman about to be executed on Death Row. Not really what you’d call a bleeding heart. So I stick with my dancing with glee imagery. I’m sure it’s a lot closer to the truth than the thought of a bunch of high-minded statesmen grieving over what has happened but using the opportunity nonetheless as they think it is best for the country.
I did vote for Bush Sr., and Dole. I was a Republican voter who left the party rather than support the ridiculous campaign by Crown Prince Dubya–who was in no way his father’s equal. I wasn’t going to support a party who couldn’t see that. When I was a kid, it was the Kennedy Democrats who chased after a patrician pseudo-royalty; I expected better from “my party.”
I gave up on the party for good around 2004, when the GOP insisted on re-nominating a President who was hurting our international relationships, & refused to hold his administration to account for torture & holding suspects without trial. I was still ignorant enough in those days to think that “law-and-order conservative” meant “rule of law”–I didn’t even know that it historically meant, “keep the darkies down.”
Since then, I have moved quite far to the left economically, as I find Krugman’s arguments more persuasive than most of what’s on the right now. There’s no place for me in the GOP now anyway.
But I hate the GOP because it sneers at rule of law. I hate it because it fights against good environmental law; which bugged me a lot when I was a GOP voter, that our so-called conservative pols mocked conservation! I want to see it wither and die because it misled people like me & abused my country. I’m not a Clintonista; I always found Bubba smarmy. I just hit a point where I’d rather burn the GOP down from the outside then futilely try to reclaim & reform it from the inside. Maybe someday I will try again to reclaim the GOP name for A. Lincoln & T. Roosevelt; but for today I just want to see movement “conservatives”–the faction that substantially brought me up–removed from power by any means necessary.
No, it was “America held hostage, day X” dun-du-du-duhhhh!
They absolutely refused to accept the legitimacy of the Clinton presidency and so they attempted to shout the whole thing down.
During the campaign there was the kind of muckraking that any newcomer to presidential politics would face. But afterwards, his opponents realized, “Just because he won it doesn’t that we have to quit digging up dirt on him. We can use what we find to harass him, undermine his agenda, get him to make a mistake, possibly hound him from office, at very least prevent his re-election” (this might have been the beginning of the “Permanent Campaign”).
So they hammered away and came up with all kinds of stuff from Clinton’s past, all of which became fodder for endless hours of commentary in the right-wing media. Combine that with Ken Starr’s Whitewater fishing expedition merging with Richard Mellon Scaife’s Arkansas Project to for the legendary Vast Right-wing Conspiracy and you’re got character assassination on an industrial scale.
Clinton did demonstrate monstrously bad judgement in his personal behavior–and I’ll agree with Starving Artist, he did come across as a pretty dishonest guy. But his sleaziness was pretty much confined to that one area; I don’t recall a lot of deceitfulness in pushing various aspects of his policy agenda.
“Character Counts” was a popular bumper-sticker slogan during the Clinton years, and they had a point. But in hindsight, that should be, “Character Counts for 8 Years”. In fact, a number of principles only counted for 8 years. And then some principles took an 8 year hiatus.
Huh? Of course I think the Republican are worse; that’s why I don’t vote for them. I recognize, however, that they think the same of liberals, and that my perspective is not privileged.
Again, we run into your seemingly pathological inability to distinguish between the decision to do something that you (and I) think is wrong and harmful, and the decision to be evil, purposefully.
Where has anyone claimed that they supported invading Iraq in order to do harm? Or out of spite? Or for selfish political ends? Just because *you *can’t fathom how anyone could possibly have a sincere, different opinion from yours about how to deal with terrorism, despotic regimes, or long-term national security doesn’t mean that those with said opinions woke up one morning and decided to eat babies. You’ve got this recurring fantasy that allows you to be on the side of justice and light your whole life, inveighing against the various Voldemorts and Saurons.
:rolleyes: Try reading David Horowitz’ Radical Son. Horowitz was a red diaper baby who was right in the middle of 60s radicalism, and came to regret it deeply.
Anyone who makes heroes of Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and the like, can fairly be called a fascist.
I was talking to DT and asking him for evidence that Susan Macdougal had been threatened with death.
As to your question, well, I’m not all that familiar with the case but there’s nothing in the wiki article to suggest she was tortured unless you want to expand the definition of torture so broadly that virtually everyone in the US prison system has been tortured.
She was convicted of a crime and Starr tried to squeeze her to flip in Bill using the same tactics prosecutors use on people convicted of crimes every day.
The only difference is those criminals aren’t as wealthy or female as Macdougal and often have darker skintones.
Now, have you evidence she was tortured. If so could you present it with the appropriate citations.
Also, if she was tortured has Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch taken up her case and if not, why not?
Obama was even called the Antichrist by a supervisor I had before, but this was not worse than Roosevelt being called the “devil” himself. (The famous documentary The World At War “On Our Way” reports also that the insult was applied to Roosevelt)
Not trolling, just asking and fwiw, I’m no fan of him or his prosecution, but I don’t see any way her case was different than convicted drug dealers being threatened with maximum sentences if they don’t cooperate.
It seems to me that if we define what happened to her as torture than Jack McCoy tortured far more people than Jack Bauer.
Yeah, one could imagine that trolling would the reason for the question when the reason for her speaking at AI was mentioned already:
Not sure why it could make it better if it was called “torture against women in custody”, but then again I was only replying to the idea that Amnesty would not had noticed the underhanded way she was treated as a prisoner of the state.
Funny, I was a GOP kid in the 1980’s. Wm. F. Buckley was on PBS, George Will was on ABC’s This Week–he still is in fact. Conservatives were not that despised in the mainstream, they were and are part of the mainstream. There are some people–not in the media–who mock all conservatives as squares. Just as there are some people–not in the media–who mock all liberals as fruits. But the media have hardly shown the kind of persecution of the right you describe.
But there are those who consider themselves the True Conservatives & see the world as against them. Have been since long before I came around. The cranks, the crackpots, the conspiracy theorists & goldbugs–the fringe. But we used to consider those guys just loons, not regular conservatives like Reagan, Bush, Buckley, etc. If you think the media are “against the Right” you are a special kind of Rightie. And by special I mean really outside the mainstream in a kooky kind of way.
I don’t want the goldbugs & the paranoids running the country, thanks. No Ron Paul for me.
You’re straw-manning up a storm for some reason not in this thread. I think most of us know that people do bad things with intent that seems good to them. It doesn’t matter what their intent is; the effect matters. Conservatives may believe that ending welfare & declaring war on “America’s enemies” are acts of paladin-like virtue, they may swim in feelings of love and compassion in their own minds. They still do bad things, because what they think is good is evil & what they think is evil is good more often than they expect. (Which is true of most of us, if you think about it.)
But while Dick Cheney may have thought his desire for righteous flaming hellfire vengeance on Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti was good, we can objectively say it was a problem & such policies should be avoided in the future.
The current state of the two major political parties can be traced back to the '80’s and Reagan.
Political discourse took a 180 degree turn after Republican back room operatives realized that it’s only image and perception that counts, and that a President is a fluid and flexible symbolic icon, ripe for manipulation and fabrication at the mercy of marketing hacks.
Republicans found a mindless moron to prop up as the President, who even prompted the term of “hands-off management” in business circles to justify how the top job holder in the US could be so ignorant and removed from the managing the country.
Since most people are stupid, even the ones who vote, they can be easily influenced by images and perceptions rather than facts and reason. Reagan, directed by the modern conservative agenda, signaled the start of the current hatred against minorities, the poor and the undeserving, the foreign sounding, the foreign looking, but only if they didn’t supply oil to the Repub friendly oil corps, of course.
The hate is 90% directed from conservatives against moderates. They still bask under the thought of killing a million human beings without needing any factual proof that those people had any intent of causing any harm to anyone, because that’s all Conservatism is all about… Kill and steal their resources.
It’s a common political factor in all the 10,000 of human recorded history.