Appreciate the reply. Would that I could maintain my sense of humor as well as you have in the face of all these prevarications. Much as I try to keep my latin temper under wraps, I’m afraid there’s no winning this particular battle. I’m pissed – and with good reason. That’s all there’s to it.
In any event, I’ve added Paul Krassner to my ‘required reading’ list – though at the rate it’s growing, looks like I’ll be needing a few more lifetimes to get through it all. While on that topic, here’s a good source for lefty pinko commie books and all around information: streaming video interviews by Saul Landau with any number of liberal authors.
Interesting to note that the environment you grew up in was not unlike my own. Of all things, my Dad was a huge fan of Franco, for his own father had fallen to Republican forces at the start of the Civil War. Just your average disfunctional rightwing Spanish family, where things like homosexuality, socialism, atheism, women’s rights, pornography and assorted other issues having to do with personal freedoms, were looked upon as beyond repugnant. OTOH, flag-waving and assorted cries of ‘Viva Franco!’ were highly encouraged. Ironically enough, because my Dad was also a big believer in capitalism and the American Way – vis-a-vis the Red Menace – I was placed in overseas American schools from an early age. And damn it if I have no one else to blame for becoming such a bleeding heart my own self! That’s the America I’m fond of, the one that taught me the value of tolerance, social justice and a general distrust/dislike of authority figures.
The one that needs to rise yet again. And this particular fool is willing to do everything within his power and limited intellect to assure that it does.
Hentor, Svin, pantom, Stoid, honored to have you on-board. As I said before, I don’t know that it matters how we do it, what remains of utmost importance is that we all contribute the best we know how.
Honestly, I don’t see how the two sides can possibly reconcile at this point, the ideological schism is way too large to bridge. I think it’s come to the point where one fights fire with fire. If anything, looking back at Kerry’s campaign, I think that is exactly what was missing from it – I don’t subscribe in the least to the idea that the Dems need to ‘soften their stand’ if they want to ‘avoid irrelevance.’ On the contrary, seems to me the message has become so watered down as to remind one of Waylon Jenning’s old saw, “not a dime’s worth of difference.”
Yes. I’ve read that myself. More, I’ve studied it. I’ve looked to see if what is there is valid, and compared it with what the book actually says, and the responses if any that the Swiftvets have given.
I offered during the debates to talk about it with somebody and go over some of the parts of it in detail to find the validity, but nobody took me up on it. That website was always just offered in the fashion you offered it… as if the fact that it exists and is cited is proof of something.
That’s a shame, and it’s an attitude I really don’t understand. If you only examine one perspective, how can you have a valid opinion? How do you know the book stinks? I’ve found few people who have read it who think it does. I read it in High School. The funny thing about Mein Kampf is that if you try to make yourself forget who Hitler was and what he did later, and just read the book and try to put yourself in the shoes of a historic reader, a German who’s country is suffering from a tremendous burden of war reparations, and where there is a vast gulf between a few wealthy people and a large group of working poor, than you can come to a better understanding of the dynamics in general of the time. Do you think the German people were stupid? Why do you think they bought into Hitler? Why do you think his movement caught fire?
What is it in that book that you think is rotten? If you read it, you might be surprised.
I suppose at this point it is de riguer that I point out that I don’t like Hitler, don’t want to defend him, or apologize for him. I do however wish to understand him, and what happened in Germany to lead up to WWII. To do that, I have to open myself up to the material. If I do not, I am arguing from a stanpoint of ignorance and stupidity.
As opposed to getting involved in yet another futile WMD’s pissing contest with True Believers – I long for the simple days where the debate centered about what the real meaning of “is” was – I point anyone honestly interested in reading the string of lies that led to this war, to the following site:
Choose “Weapons of Mass Destruction” from the drop-down menu and you’ll get a long list if lies and misrepresentations. Fully sourced.
To give but one example – the very first for instance:
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/28/2003
Quote/Claim:
**Fact:**The government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the aluminum tubes were “poorly suited” for the purpose of transporting nuclear materials. - Waxman Report
Not to insert a debate into a Pit thread, but my answer is that Hitler was playing on feelings that were already present in his audience. He didn’t invent anti-semitism he just exploited it. He gave people a scapegoat and he gave them a vision- a mythology- about what Germany always was and would be again. When people are fed an ideology that makes them feel superior, special, chosen, entitled to destroy another people they invariably respond to it.
I have now just hit the delete button and will restrain myself from drawing contemporary parallels. Bush lacks vision anyway.
Add me to the list of lefties who grew up steeped in conservative tea, (giving the lie to someone’s poo about how the left doesn’t understand the right.) Although I didn’t come by my leftiness alone. My dad was the rightmeister, my mom the bleeding, crying, feeling, miscegenatin’ libby. I adore my father and have a very healthy relationship with him, probably more so than my mom, (And Daddy is currently an extreme libertarian… that bizarro place where the right and left travel so far in their respective directions that they actually meet and merge) and to maintain that relationship we just don’t talk politics.
Amen to that. But don’t you understand that that is part of the giant MindFuck. We are having our brains massaged and manipulated from every angle, and telling the left that we are just too harsh and mean and radical, in spite of the fact that exactly the opposite is the reality, is just another part of this terrifying, infuriating real world NewSpeak that our governement and media are communicating with these days.
It’s how they can spend three days in New York spewing nothing but hatred, fear, and lies, and call it their “message of hope”.
I was going to continue with the list but my stomach started to rumble and I could actually feel my blood pressure rise, so I won’t. You know. We all know.
So long as we have people in office who are laughing at those of us who are in “the reality-based community” because their “empire” is “creating [their] own reality”, our only option is to fight like hell.
But “fire with fire” must not mean lies with lies, smears with smears, manipulation with manipulation. It has to mean fight them with the truth, declared loudly and unequivically. Kerry’s mistake was that he was too polite to speak the truth about Bush sufficiently clearly, loudly, and brutally. I’m sure it was partly because the truth is so horrible and ugly it seems like a lie.
Thank the universe for jon Stewart & Co., the only people who seem capable and willing to talk about how the Emperor is not only naked, he’s jacking off on everybody.
Be prepared to defend your theses as well, because I intend to rip them apart at the seams (from the perspective a war supporter).
Meanwhile, turn about is fair play. Here is my true/false quiz. (And all you folks at home, feel free to play along!)
True or False:
When George Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” he was referring to the possession and concealment of a single canister of Sarin nerve gas.
The recovery of a single canister of Sarin nerve gas from the Hussein regime is worth the lives of over 1000 US servicemen and women, and the expenditure of billions of dollars of US capital.
When George Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” he knew that, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz, “The nature of terrorism is that intelligence about terrorism is murky.” He knew, as George Tenet stressed in his assessment of CIA intelligence on Iraq, that, ”Did these strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it…. It is important to underline the word ’estimate,’ because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof.”
George Bush and his speechwriters were personally informed by CIA chief George Tenet, at least three weeks prior to the 2003 State of the Union address, that the CIA possessed no evidence whatsoever of an Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake, and that British intelligence regarding such a purchase was unsubstantiated.
When Condoleeza Rice stated that the aluminum tubes were “really only suitable for use as uranium centrifuges,” she was aware that the not one single expert in the DoE believed this to be the case.
In the six months prior to the war, Saddam Hussein “bent over backwards” to accommodate the inspections process, and met every single demand placed upon him by the US and the UN.
Saddam Hussein was never found to be in ”material breach” of UNSC resolution 1441.
There are numerous historical examples of rogue/failed states providing “WMDs” to unaffiliated terrorist organizations, even organizations with profoundly different goals and ideologies. (If true, please give at least three examples.)
Libya, North Korea, Georgia and Uzbekistan all could begin the production of nerve gas within a few months.
Prior to the withdrawal of UN personnel in anticipation of Operation Desert Fox, UN inspectors routinely broke inspection protocol by photographing sensitive Iraqi documents and visiting their embassies after working hours.
Iraq and al-Qaeda had extensive operational contacts and cooperated in the planning and execution of numerous terrorists acts throughout the 1990s. (If true, please give at least three examples.)
Bricker:
Thanks. You strike me as a reasonable sort (for a conservative).
Now, I concede that I don’t consider your position, with regard to the possibility that the administration’s statements were mistakes made in good faith, as reasonable. But I’m more than willing to listen to your arguments for why you believe that, and consider them. Squink:
Thanks for linking to that thread. Makes for very interesting reading, and I also find it interesting that it received absolutely no attention whatsoever from the SDMB pro-war group, and stands completely unrebutted. Stratocaster:
Well, your dilemma can be resolved in part by the realization that the last point is greatly exaggerated. In fact, the intelligence community was strongly divided over the evidence, and scepticism was probably the majority view.
Regarding Tenet, his own testimony contradicts his ”slam dunk” claims:
Scylla:
Sorry I haven’t yet had time to respond to your posts. I agree with your basic point that in order to criticize claims made in a book, it helps to have read it. Still, one can have valid opinions of work even if they haven’t perused it in complete detail.
How can you accuse people on this board of toeing or parroting Republican talking points when all of your arguments rest soley on others interpitation of the SBVFT’s book?
Of course. There are levels of knowledge. I am referring to the viewpoint espoused by Redfury and Diogenes.
To prefer a viewpoint of willful ignorance from which to hold an opinion seems to me coincident with an admission of stupidity.
It is the classic argument from ignorance. “I don’t know, and I am not willing to have the knowledge. Therefore you cannot prove it to my satisfaction. Therefore it is not true.”
Let me put it plainly and politely. This is another egregious, slanderous lie from pond scum who are lower than the lowest life form on earth.
[/quote]
I know it is you debating tactic to insult the other party but calling your oponent “pond scum” is not condusive to honest debate. It should also make you wonder about the bias of the site.
The point I am trying to make is that you are calling people Nazis that are just parroting sites when you are doing the exact same thing. In many of the 13 points eRiposte they only quote a word or two from the SBV allowing them to construct a statement from the SBV and then shoot it down. How do you know that what eRiposte is claiming that the SBV are saying is in fact what they are saying. You can’t know becuase you haven’t read their book.
My impression of that site is that it’s sole purpose is to provide people like you who want to discredit the SBV becuase they are anti-Kerry with talking points to attack the SBV.
I would also like to add that I have no opinion about whether the SBV’s claims are accurate or not. I would also like to add that I don’t give a flying fuck if they are or not becuase it doesn’t matter to me barring egregious human rights violations what someone did or did not do in a war 30 years ago has no bearing on their merits for the presidency.
shrug I don’t know. Perhaps everything on that site is 100% accurate. Perhaps no one has put in the time to wade through all their links in their site, deduce what they are claiming, research what they are claiming and make a site refuting it. What is clear from my reading of their website is that they are not out to discover the truth about the SBV’s claims rather to discredit them at every opportunity.
Falsely accusing a war hero of murdering children is indeed a “pond scummy” thing to do.
Jerome Corsi, one of the authors of the Swift Boat pamphlet, has a history of posting racist and antisemitic swill on the Free Republic website. That makes him a Nazi Freeper.
It’s not only eRiposte that has debunked these swine. Every non-partisan investigation has done the same. The book is garbage. The entire campaign was lowball slander.
As a point towards mutual understanding, I should note that this apparent exasperation is often also felt by people who try examine socio-political movements deeper than the level of “our enemies are eeeeeeevil!” or who critize US policies and who are immediately jumped on as loving the evil deeds of the evil people or downplaying the evil acts. They had, I suppose, mistakenly assumed that it was understood that the acts were evil, that this was almost too boring and agreed upon by all to get yet another tired mention, and that decent debaters wouldn’t stoop so low as to accuse them of thinking otherwise simply because they didn’t offer boilerplate kowtow to the obvious.
I assume, by your inclusion of a totally unecessary but world-weary caveat, you’ve learned not to trust in such decency. Just wanted to point out that others are reaching or have reached that point as well, and perhaps now as they might have more sympathy for you, you might have some sympathy for the same having been done to them.
I should also note that the irony of your note about the importance of understanding the most famous of the Nazis followed up by Diog’s seemingly tone-deaf dismisal of anything a “Nazi-freeper” has to say is quite priceless.
But it is not necesssary, entirely, to read something to have adequate knowledge of it, not if you have a knowledgeable source. Someone who can relay salient features and points from a given work. For instance, you have been so kind as to provide us any number of pieces of, ah, information gleaned from your extensive attention to the deranged right. When it comes to relaying that information accurately, you are pretty reliable.
So when you tell us they say something, I believe you. I have no reason to doubt. But when that turns out to be flatly untrue, or at the very best open to question, if not ridicule, I feel quite justified in making a judgement. Were it not for my complete trust in your conveyence of thier viewpoint, perhaps I might not. But no, no, I am quite content to accept your word for it, and to make my judgement accordingly.
Apos, m’lad, unless I miss my guess Dio is not referring to the ever-charming Scylla, but to a lesser light in that firmament, a Mr. Jerome Corsi. You can find a poisonous potpourri of his opinions if you care to go searcing for them, and have an adequate supply of intellectual antispeptic at hand. Its kind of Jack Chick minus Jesus equals Jerome Corsi, G. Gordon Liddy with out the laid-back, easygoing charm.
(Let me pause here to remind you, as well, of how you responded when I demonstrated, in detail, why the above was so disingenuous: ”I understand that you’re frustrated with Sam. That should be between you and him. I see him as arguing his point strongly. He’s read the book, he’s entitled to his opinion and to argue…. I can’t do anything about your feelings towards Sam. I’m not sure what you want me to do.)
I could go on, but its too tiresome. Perhaps you can lead by example, friend Scylla, and start calling these gentlemen to the mat when they meet your criteria – which, I would like to add, is rather often.
Regarding this:
Respectfully disagree. Sam posited that the Vietnam incidents were condemnations of Kerry, period.
No, I mean that Sam formed his conclusions first, very hastily, and then employed rhetoric, innuendo, false logic, unsubstantiated evidence, and so forth, to support his conclusions. I found the way in which he conducted that debate to be dishonest and dishonourable, especially given the way in which he tenaciously defended Bush. As I’ve stated many times, Sam pays lip service to standards of objectivity and honesty while shamelessly promoting his agenda in the most disingenuous manner imaginable.
I understand why you got that impression, but that’s not what I meant. Hell, even I thought that Kerry was ambitious and opportunistic.
In order to understand why I have issues with Sam, you’ve got to see it in context. I feel that I’ve really given him the benefit of the doubt, and bent over backwards to meet his arguments rationally. Hell, I’ve even defended him on occasion:
But Sam’s behavior on these boards subsequently, and in particular his shameful performance during the Swiftvet debacle, has led me to reevaluate my opinion of him. And here you also have to understand that I’m balancing his actions then against his unwavering support of the Bush administration in the face of nearly overwhelming evidence of their misdeeds. Sam greats all of that evidence with a deafening silence, but the word of a few veterans with a grudge against Kerry is all the evidence he needs to categorically condemn him, and happily join in in the smearing.
So no, I don’t think he deserves better. He had better than he deserved when I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But I was naïve and wrong. And as far as I can tell, Mr. Stone deserves every bit of the grief his detractors have given him, and then some.
Can anybody out there arrange it so that Mr Svinlesha doesn’t get into any accidents with moose over there in Downtown Mooseville? I’d hate to lose him.
Apos, the “Nazi Freeper” I was referring to was indeed Mr. Corsi [note to Treis: it is not necessary to take the word of eRiposte site for that. Corsi’s posts at the Freeper site are free to view by anyone and they speak for themselves]. I may think Scylla is hopelessly, stubbornly deluded about some things and I think he is too willing to believe some things that he wants to believe but I in no way think he’s a “Nazi” or any kind of a racist or a bigot. I don’t even think he’s a bad guy deep down, he’s just mistaken about some things and needs a little guidance.
While it’s nice to see that I’m not a Nazi, I have to wonder how you get so angry over the Swiftvets for impugning Kerry, when you’re so quick to label others such as Corsi a Nazi.
It’s also pretty clear cognitive dissonance to resent the Swiftvets for attacking a “decorated war hero,” and then in turn to attack them (Most of them are decorated war heros, too.) I recall the comments you made concerning Bud Day. What was it, 7 years he spent in captivity? But, he’s a piece of shit in your eyes. It seems to me that this ethos of yours only extends towards the parties and people you endorse.
Fair enough. I assume you mean my justification for the war, not my marshalling of arguments against it.
False. He was probably referring to the consensus in the intelligence community that Iraq retained significant stockpiles of WMD, and programs to acquire more.
Only that? False.
True.
True.
Don’t know.
False. He did not turn over the nuclear centrifuge parts and plans at least.
By the Security Council? True.
Does Taliban support of al-Queda count? Or weapons transfers by the North Koreans? Or French violations of the sanctions against Iraq?
Are you alleging that this kind of support is impossible?
Anyway, I can’t come up with three specific examples off the top of my head, so I have to say False.
True.
If this isn’t true, it should be.
Iraq was not involved in planning 9/11, if that is what you are trying for.
As far as arguments against the invasion, I can post more later, but the bottom line is that the invasion was unnecessary. The violations of the inspection regime for the dozen years between Desert Storm and the invasion did not affect the world (apart from the Kurds, Israelis, and so forth) all that much. So Bush apparently decided to invade Iraq simply to grab their oil.
I can go on (later), but is this the sort of thing you want?
