# Bush attacks critics claim pre-war intel was manipulated. Huge balls or delusional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676 "2005-11-12T03:58:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/361 "2005-11-21T17:24:24Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > My favorite line of that story is: > > Still more evidence that the White House’s response to the inspections was to rush to war as the inspections were basically imploding their case for war. I don’t think so. The choice of the time when the war was to begin has always been reported to be related to Irak’s climate. They didn’t want to begin it latter in the year and have to face too hot a weather. I believe it’s true, because the time the war was likely to begin was reported long before it actually started. At least over here, it was widely assumed that the war would be wagged regardless of the circumstances and the findings of the inspectors, and hence that the inspections would be interrupted, whether or not they would have found something. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/362 "2005-11-21T17:47:27Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well yes, and it seems fair to say that besides that assassination thing, Mrs. Lincoln rather enjoyed her night out at the theatre. In my view the whole point of the issue regarding Bush et al.'s combat is how they are using the military as their personal plaything, extinguishing lives for stupid reasons, lies, and deception, while they were unwilling to risk their own lives. However, the fact that they were unwilling to risk their own lives is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. I’d still be against their policy even if they had served bravely themselves. It just helps complete the picture of how morally depraved these people are. You, too, seem to have merely skimmed my post, in which I grant that Bush’s and Cheney’s lack of military service are for game as far as their lack of reluctance to go to war. But the prosecution of it is a different matter, unless you’d like to be the first to opine that military service SHOULD be a prerequisite for being POTUS. > [@jshore](#): > > I think **Merijeek** ’s point is that this whole thing about military service has been a hijack from the thread. (Admittedly, it would have been clearer if he had linked to the beginning of your hijack instead of one of your posts in the middle.) Actually, considering that your whole fixation with supporting the troops and the best way to express one’s opposition to the war is also a hijack of the thread, I’d say that what we have is a hijack of a hijacking (by the same person who committed the original hijacking). I’m impressed with your ability to extract any sense of out **Merijeek** ’s post. Too bad we all don’t have your power to read minds through words that aren’t posted—just think of the time that could be saved typing! Please see Posts 332 and 333, which caused me to post 334. As far as the “hijack” regarding the support of the troops, I don’t recall how it got started. (You may go back and look for it if it is that important to you.) But it may have dawned on you from time to time that a debate often takes detours to discuss isuues that have been brought up. That’s true of a debate with even just two people, a forum like this is apt to be less single-minded. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/363 "2005-11-21T17:54:36Z")
Apoloqies for joining this discussion so late; life in the Third World has some disadvantages, like really slow internet service. I wanted to comment on various of Magellen’s earlier posts about off-topic protestors ar marches. Some of us are old enough to remember the Vietnam protests, when it was common practise for the authorities to disguise cops as especially scruffy hippies, give them signs saying stuff like Support the Viet Kong, and have them infiltrate the marches. The press, of course, would shove all the little old ladies and families and so on out of range and film the fakes, showing the world that only dirty hippies were against the Noble Cause of Our Glorious Leaders. Sometimes, as in the Chicago protests, the cops actually started breaking windows and throwing stuff; it was standard proceedure for march organizers to tell everybody not to let the provacateurs start trouble and not to follow them when they did. By Magellan’s logic, the authorities’ tactics were highly effective: I wonder if he thinks that the present administration isn’t cynical enough to use the same tactics today? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/364 "2005-11-21T18:10:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I agree. In fact, everyone seems to agree. Not one person has advocated military service being a prerequisite for holding the presidency. > > Which brings me back to the reason I asked the question in the first place: If we all agree that a President needn’t have served in the military, isn’t it just a comlpete waste of time to repeatedly attempt to slam Bush for not having been in Vietnam, as some have done earlier in this thread.? Surely the incompetence with which he has managed this war has nothing to do with that. > > It seems fair to criticize him for displaying a “reluctance” to serve him combat himself, while not being very reluctant to send others into combat, but as far as the manangement of the war, whther he fought or not seems immaterial—unless we are willing to say that a President should have served in the military. So it has been a waste of time. No sane person would claim that having served in a war makes you competent to run one. And as to GW’s lack of Vietnam service in any way connected to his mismanagement of the Iraq adventure. That is because he is just a natural born fuck-up. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/365 "2005-11-21T18:17:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Please reread my post. You begin with “But”, then make a point that I acknowledge. Thanks and I did. I belive criticism for his management of the war is independent of his Vietnam servitude or lack thereof. If Bob Dole had screwed up Iraq as badly, I’d be all over him. But Dole would have had much more credibility in starting the war (and probably would not have done so) owing to his brave service record. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/366 "2005-11-21T19:52:57Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Thanks and I did. I belive criticism for his management of the war is independent of his Vietnam servitude or lack thereof. If Bob Dole had screwed up Iraq as badly, I’d be all over him. But Dole would have had much more credibility in starting the war (and probably would not have done so) owing to his brave service record. Excluding your parenthetical (which, wrong or right, I think is conjecture), we are in complete agreement. Thanks for the additional reading. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/367 "2005-11-21T19:58:56Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > So it has been a waste of time. No sane person would claim that having served in a war makes you competent to run one. > > And as to GW’s lack of Vietnam service in any way connected to his mismanagement of the Iraq adventure. That is because he is just a natural born fuck-up. Which, if he is, makes his service or lack of service in Vietnam immaterial. Regarding the waste of time you allude to, see posts 332 and 333, which lead me to construct post 334. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/368 "2005-11-21T20:19:18Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > I wanted to comment on various of Magellen’s earlier posts about off-topic protestors ar marches. Some of us are old enough to remember the Vietnam protests, when it was common practise for the authorities to disguise cops as especially scruffy hippies, give them signs saying stuff like Support the Viet Kong, and have them infiltrate the marches. The press, of course, would shove all the little old ladies and families and so on out of range and film the fakes, showing the world that only dirty hippies were against the Noble Cause of Our Glorious Leaders. Sometimes, as in the Chicago protests, the cops actually started breaking windows and throwing stuff; it was standard proceedure for march organizers to tell everybody not to let the provacateurs start trouble and not to follow them when they did. > By Magellan’s logic, the authorities’ tactics were highly effective: I wonder if he thinks that the present administration isn’t cynical enough to use the same tactics today? The tactics you describe are deplorable and excusable. But they are tools used by both the extreme right and extrem left, although not necessarily having to do with Iraq. The “effectiveness” you mention is not dependent on any way on my logic. It is independent of my logic. If you meant to imply that is was/is in any way justifiable, that notion was created by you, not me. For the record, I do not think it is, regardless of its effectiveness. I’d also offer that just because an administration acted dishonorably and exaggerated the prevalance of an anti-war/anti American message doesn’t mean that that message in and of itself was 1) valid, 2) invalid, or 3) a true representation of what some actually believed. Surely you don’t think that Jane Fonda’s actions (justified or not) or the mutterings of **der trihs** (asinine or not) on these boards was/is the work of the respective administrations. Do you? Or that just because a particular administration may deceptively attempt to use their opposition’s message against them, that that message from the opposition doesn’t actually exist? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/369 "2005-11-21T21:09:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The tactics you describe are deplorable and excusable. But they are tools used by both the extreme right and extreme left… No, the “tactics” being described by **Mapache** were being used by the government of The United States Government! I’m pretty damn sure **Mapache** was referring to [CoIntelPro](http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm). From the [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) article. > [@](#): > > Methods > > COINTELPRO used a broad array of methods, including: > > 1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents. > 2. Psychological warfare from the outside: The FBI and police used myriad other “dirty tricks” to undermine these movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. > 3. Harassment through the legal system: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, “investigative” interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters. > 4. Break-ins: The FBI conducted “black bag” jobs against the targeted groups and their members. > 5. Extralegal force and violence: The FBI instigated violence, and its paid informants carried out assaults, beatings, and, in one case, a murder. > > Supporters of the FBI argue that the Bureau was convinced that there was such a threat of domestic subversion posed by radical groups that extraordinary efforts were required to forestall violence and revolutionary insurgency. Critics counter that this perception was flawed, and, in the words of Glick, in the case of "radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks-including political assassinations-were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official “terrorism.” (Glick, War at Home). Hoover was willing to use false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote: “Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt [the Black Panther Party] and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge.” > > In 1969 the FBI special agent in San Francisco wrote Hoover that his investigation of the Black Panther Party revealed that in his city, at least, the Black nationalists were primarily feeding breakfast to children. Hoover fired back a memo implying the career ambitions of the agent were directly related to his supplying evidence to support Hoover’s view that the BPP was “a violence prone organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/370 "2005-11-21T22:42:30Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > No, the “tactics” being described by **Mapache** were being used by the government of The United States Government! Thanks for the clarification. It is noted. But I am not in disagreement. Did you read my second paragraph? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/371 "2005-11-21T22:46:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Excluding your parenthetical (which, wrong or right, I think is conjecture), we are in complete agreement. Thanks for the additional reading. It is indeed conjecture but from everything I’ve seen of Bob Dole, he isn’t the type to either make snap judgements or exclude devil’s advocates. I can’t imagine him rushing into such a grave decision. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/372 "2005-11-21T23:20:59Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > It is indeed conjecture but from everything I’ve seen of Bob Dole, he isn’t the type to either make snap judgements or exclude devil’s advocates. I can’t imagine him rushing into such a grave decision. Then we are in complete agreement. I think he would have made a good President, partly for the resons you stated. With all he’s given the country, I wish he had been granted the opportunity for us to find out. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/373 "2005-11-21T23:51:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I agree. In fact, everyone seems to agree. Not one person has advocated military service being a prerequisite for holding the presidency. > > Which brings me back to the reason I asked the question in the first place: If we all agree that a President needn’t have served in the military, isn’t it just a comlpete waste of time to repeatedly attempt to slam Bush for not having been in Vietnam, as some have done earlier in this thread.? Surely the incompetence with which he has managed this war has nothing to do with that. > > It seems fair to criticize him for displaying a “reluctance” to serve him combat himself, while not being very reluctant to send others into combat, but as far as the manangement of the war, whther he fought or not seems immaterial—unless we are willing to say that a President should have served in the military. I don’t think so at all. Not one bit. Hell no. Not now, not ever. Wanna know why? I’ll tell you why. Bush, is the AWOL “hero” from the Air National Guard (daddy got him the slot so he could stay out of Nam). Then he chose to only show up when it suited him. He had the unmitigated gall, the effrontery, the audacity, the hubris, the nerve to (through hints and side remarks, and through Rove and the Swift Shitters for Bull Shit) to smear people who HAD been there. McCain was one, Kerry was the other. Not at the same time though. Meanhwile his pet pundits and lapdogs also managed to smear Max Cleland. Just recently, they tried to smear Murtha. If you didn’t go to Nam, fine. But don’t pretend you are a mighty hero and then go defaming and lying about those who did go, just to gain a few points in a campaign. Any shit Bush gets for his “war record”, he asked for. Any time he calls someone else a phony, or craven, or soft on terror, or anything at all (unpatritoic anyone?), he should get hammered. He and his cronies talk a lot of shit about other people, so turnaround is fair. He is “fair game”. No “Waaaahhhhh Mommy! He hit me BACK” crap either. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/374 "2005-11-22T00:27:50Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I don’t think so at all. Not one bit. Hell no. Not now, not ever. Wanna know why? > > I’ll tell you why. Bush, is the AWOL “hero” from the Air National Guard (daddy got him the slot so he could stay out of Nam). Then he chose to only show up when it suited him. He had the unmitigated gall, the effrontery, the audacity, the hubris, the nerve to (through hints and side remarks, and through Rove and the Swift Shitters for Bull Shit) to smear people who HAD been there. McCain was one, Kerry was the other. Not at the same time though. Meanhwile his pet pundits and lapdogs also managed to smear Max Cleland. Just recently, they tried to smear Murtha. > If you didn’t go to Nam, fine. But don’t pretend you are a mighty hero and then go defaming and lying about those who did go, just to gain a few points in a campaign. Any shit Bush gets for his “war record”, he asked for. Any time he calls someone else a phony, or craven, or soft on terror, or anything at all (unpatritoic anyone?), he should get hammered. He and his cronies talk a lot of shit about other people, so turnaround is fair. He is “fair game”. While I agree with much of what you said, I think the point remains: his service or lack of it has nothing to do with his _prosecution of_ the war (or botching of it, I think we’d agree). To claim otherwise is to support the notion that the POTUS should be required to have military service. As I’ve said, it makes his “eagerness” to send others to war more deserving of scrutiny and a badge of “hypocritical”, but either military service is critical in prosecuting a war and should be required, or it is not and is therefore a moot point. Regarding Murtha, I don’t see an attempt to smear him. Another ex-marine wished to point out that he thought a certain position was cowardly. In my book he is certainly entitled to that position. Correct or not, it was NOT an attack on Murtha the man, just on a position he held. The two things are very different. Certainly, not everyone who served in Vietnam is going to hold the same opinions, even those that apply to wartime. Some of those positions would be categorized as cowardly, some them might, in fact, be so. I think Murtha’s record speaks for itself. By every account he was a brave Marine. By every account he as acquited himself in the House with great honor. His stance on the war has changed. Terrific. He may be right now, he may be wrong now. His current position (just like his old one) will be categorized as righteous and brave by some, and wrong-headed and cowardly by others. I think both sides have the right to speak their minds on the subject, particulalry his fellow-marines who served in Vietnam. Wouldn’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/375 "2005-11-22T00:54:39Z")
Magellan said: “The tactics you describe are deplorable and excusable. But they are tools used by both the extreme right and extrem left, although not necessarily having to do with Iraq. The “effectiveness” you mention is not dependent on any way on my logic. It is independent of my logic. If you meant to imply that is was/is in any way justifiable, that notion was created by you, not me. For the record, I do not think it is, regardless of its effectiveness.” That doesn’t really answer my point, which is: IF: Disreputable or off-the-point protesters at a demonstration negate or diminish the arguments of the other protestors AND: We know that the government has used the tactics Crowmanyclouds neatly linked to above in the past AND: I, at least (don’t know about you) am not really convinced that Bush/Rove/Cheney’s dedication to honesty and straight dealing is all that much more profound than Nixon/LBJ’s THEN: Any demonstrations can and probably will be infiltrated by fake protestors, and by Magellan’s thinking are therefore illegitimate. So what would Magellan suggest as a proper sort of protest? Writing letters-to-the-editor seems a little underwhelming. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/376 "2005-11-22T01:09:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > While I agree with much of what you said, I think the point remains: his service or lack of it has nothing to do with his _prosecution of_ the war (or botching of it, I think we’d agree). To claim otherwise is to support the notion that the POTUS should be required to have military service. As I’ve said, it makes his “eagerness” to send others to war more deserving of scrutiny and a badge of “hypocritical”, but either military service is critical in prosecuting a war and should be required, or it is not and is therefore a moot point. … > > Regarding Murtha, I don’t see an attempt to smear him. Another ex-marine wished to point out that he thought a certain position was cowardly. In my book he is certainly entitled to that position. Correct or not, it was NOT an attack on Murtha the man, just on a position he held. The two things are very different. I think both sides have the right to speak their minds on the subject, particulalry his fellow-marines who served in Vietnam. Wouldn’t you agree? Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt called Jack Murtha a coward this afternoon, unworthy of the Marines, on the House floor. Money quote: ``` The fiery, emotional debate climaxed when Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel. "He asked me to send Congress a message - stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message - that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Also, the "Marine" she was "quoting" was never in Viet Nam. His career was a long string of noncombat, and some would say, cushy jobs. I can't remember his name. but he had no right to make his "coward" comment either. Bubka, Bubkis, something like that. ``` It would be more helpful if Republicans and conservatives offered positive arguments for how to do better instead of attacking every critic as a wuss, unpatriotic, inconsistent, or worse. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/377 "2005-11-22T01:12:45Z")
The above should have been in quotes, as it is from [http://www.andrewsullivan.com/](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/378 "2005-11-22T01:19:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Regarding Murtha, I don’t see an attempt to smear him. Another ex-marine wished to point out that he thought a certain position was cowardly. In my book he is certainly entitled to that position. Correct or not, it was NOT an attack on Murtha the man, just on a position he held. The two things are very different. If you put forth an idea, and I responded “that’s what idiots do, smart people don’t,” you’d take it as a critique of your idea and not a personal attack? You’re a very patient man, I guess. I know that kind of response qualifies as a personal insult under the rules of this board, for example. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/379 "2005-11-22T01:57:48Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > AND: I, at least (don’t know about you) am not really convinced that Bush/Rove/Cheney’s dedication to honesty and straight dealing is all that much more profound than Nixon/LBJ’s > THEN: Any demonstrations can and probably will be infiltrated by fake protestors, and by Magellan’s thinking are therefore illegitimate. You lose me at the last part. While it’s probably true that any demonstration “can” be infiltrated by fake protesters, and those protestors “might” be working at the behest (officially or not) of the administration, to conclude that that “probably will” happen seems to me to be a stretch. It’s not as if we don’t know that there are people who actually hold views that most of us on both sides would consider a sick or extreme. One of them has posted in this very thread. And living in San Francisco I probably have seem more than a fair share of the idiocy. > [@Mapache](#): > > So what would Magellan suggest as a proper sort of protest? Writing letters-to-the-editor seems a little underwhelming. I’d ask you to look over some of this thread, as much has been discussed on that very issue. I do agree that relying on letters to the editors would never be enough. I would add to that a massive mail/email/fax campaign to our elected representatives and protest marches, with the caveats I mentioned earlier in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/380 "2005-11-22T02:09:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s not as if we don’t know that there are people who actually hold views that most of us on both sides would consider a sick or extreme. One of them has posted in this very thread. And living in San Francisco I probably have seem more than a fair share of the idiocy. Sick? Extreme? Say it ain’t so! 😃 > [@magellan01](#): > > I’d ask you to look over some of this thread, as much has been discussed on that very issue. I do agree that relying on letters to the editors would never be enough. I would add to that a massive mail/email/fax campaign to our elected representatives and protest marches, with the caveats I mentioned earlier in the thread. I’ve wrote to a Senator once. I was shocked and amazed when I got a reply, I had expected my letter to get “round filed”. It wasn’t the answer I wanted, but at least someone read it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=20)