Yes, your facts are wrong. Bush’s appointees did not authorize torture, whcih was the topic under discussion.
You are sure doing your best to sound like it.
Well, given your recent history of telling outright lies about other people’s political positions, your opinions as to my convictions are not worth a whole hell of a lot.
You wanna come across as another foam-flecked fundamentalist fool, that’s your look out.
Regards,
Shodan
Bricker: Didn’t you claim in the GD thread that you didn’t think political bias was involved? Here you seem to be implying the opposite. Am I missing something?
Yes. My reversal, after minty green linked to the text of the report earlier in this thread, after which I said something like:
So when I started this thread, I believed partisan politics was in play. I don’t believe that now.
It may seem as if I still do in my responses to Evil Captor, but I’m just reversing the spin he’s putting on this as a “conservative victory” - if it’s simply a conservative victory, as he implies, with little underlying merit to the firings, then it seems he’s conceding a political action which failed. I don’t buy that, but I was curious to see if he does.
That “technique” is called STAYING ON THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD. This thread is about Mapes’ firing and the scandal surrounding it. (I know; I’m very simpatico with the guy that started it). There are many threads here on the People’s Republic of SDMB to explore the degenerate character of the man that every intelligent American should hate (meaning, of course, a minority of the electorate).
Well, yes and no. Before I read the report, yes I was convinced that Mapes’ actions were politically motivated. Having read the report and seen for myself the care that went into their fact-finding, I’m now prepared to accept the conclusion that it was simple fervor to be first with a big story, not a partisan attempt to change the course of an election.
I’ve criticized Limbaugh many times on these boards, and Coulter as well. I agree that both play fast and lose with underlying facts, and that both should be fired by their respective employers.
O’Reilly, I don’t criticize. I’d have to ask for a cite on his lying - note the difference between that and his invitation to draw unpalatable conclusions from the facts.
Novak, I don’t criticize either, and if you claim he’s a liar, I’d ask for some cites.
Got it. Good luck!!
Is Rumsfeld a Bush appointee? From The Washington Post:
Was Gonzalez a Bush appointee? From here:
Are you going to keep lying that they didn’t authorize torture?
What lies have I told? I’ve said what you’ve admitted, you’re pro-Bush. You just lack the honor and courage to admit what you signed on to. Your team authorized the torture of prisoners.
I’ve got cites, you’ve got nothing but bluster and excuses.
No, I acknowledged that when both candidates are matched on an issue, that issue can’t be the decision-breaker.
Hmm, Kerry said Rumsfeld should have resigned after the Abu Ghraib revelations:
So maybe I might have an inkling about what Kerry might have decided if he were in charge.
Arguing about what to call the prisoners has no relation to what they suffered. And I find it hard to believe that Gonzalez and Rummy could authorize torture or prisoners without Bush being informed. Or are you suggesting Bush isn’t really running the government?
What problems could you have had with Kerry that outweigh Bush’s lies to instigate the war, the incompetent management of the occupation, and the use of torture by US forces?
The main thing that’s bugging me, Bricker, is the fact that practically everyone involved in the story quit or got fired, and you seem to want something more … jail time? Beheadings? What?
To crush them, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Er… no.
Seriously, where do you get that? This thread was started to convey the statisfaction I felt at this outcome. I have no desire to see any additional penalties. In fact, having previously publicly speculated that CBS would whitewash this, I felt honor-bound to start this thread acknowledging that I was wrong, and CBS took appropriate action.
So - no.
Well, as long as you’re asking, it would be nice to see Rather kicked to the curb as well.
From your own fucking cite:
See above.
Part of the topic of the thread is the decision process by which the thread topic was chosen. The reasons for the, well, let’s call it indignation over CBS’s actions are necessary to discuss the topic fully. Those reasons include the willingness of a large part of the populace to allow their attention to be directed away from the issues directly relevant to the campaign and the process of selecting candidates. This topic wouldn’t exist if not for a sufficient quantity of blind partisans who didn’t want the true subject to be explored. People who were fascinated by what the Swifties were saying but tried to overlook their sources, because after all Kerry was the candidate, not the Swifties. People who refused to consider what Bush’s behavior was at the time but were fascinated by the sources of one of the media outlets that had been looking into it. People who still don’t realize their own willingness to be led by their party’s spinners. People like you. It most certainly matters why this is the thread topic. Do you begin to understand now?
Maybe not, if your thinking is truly on the level of this:
That did not enhance your credibility one bit.
Then where are your extensive threads demanding that? Have you said boo about any of the people who support the same party you do without being called out on it?
Treason is okay for you, but not lying? :rolleyes: As long as he’s as effective as Zell Miller in getting your party in power, huh?
You really should keep reading. Gonzalez pointed refers to the POWs as “detainees,” not POWs, and his idea of “humane treatment” does not rule out torture. Read p. 3 of the memo. Moreover, read the bit you cited again:
Those are wiggle words as wide as a barn door to let the military and CACI contractors do what they did. After all, the prisoners were detainees, not POWS, right?
Interesting to see CBS having its feet held to the fire over their sloppy fact-checking by a bunch of people who keep insisting that false statements re: WMD were just well-intentioned mistakes, despite their being based on stuff like decade-old graduate theses and the like. Nigerian yellowcake allegations based on documents that were more obvious forgeries than these memos; aluminum tube allegations that were dismissed by technical experts; unmanned drones that were powered by rubber bands; 40 minute attack times (okay, that was the poodle across the pond said that one); ambiguous satellite pictures of trucks being unequivocably classified as mobile weapon labs. I guess since the Bush administration isn’t a news outlet, it’s not their job to verify that the stuff they say is true, and there’s no need for resignations or apologies? After all, it’s not like anyone’s lives were hanging in the balance on the WMD issue, not like memogate, which is clearly life and death, and absolutely mandatory to have right before proceeding.
Me? I figure “News Organization Cuts Corners While Attempting to Scoop Opposition” isn’t much of a headline, unless you’re a news organization trying to pimp your relative lack of corner-cutting (or, to be honest, your relative lack of getting caught at it) to consumers.
Of the two of us, you and me – which of us do you think is seen by more people on this boad as a “blind partisan?”
Well, I have criticized Rush Limbaugh in the past on this board. But the truth is I don’t listen to his show, so he’s not exactly at the forefront of my attention. Indeed, I’ve never STARTED a thread criticizing him, for the simple reason that it’s nearly impossible I’d become aware of a particular transgression of his unless I read about it here. Ditto Coulter.
Question: did Woodward and Bernstein commit treason?
This is actually kind of unpleasant. More often than not, you are smarter than this, and it bothers me to some extent that you are willing to stoop to this kind of argument.
So no, your argument that “detainees” are tortured and POWs are not is pretty obviously wrong.
You are mischaracterizing the intent and character of the memo. We have lots of fools to do this on the SDMB. We don’t need any more.
You are going from “all Mormons are Republicans” to “you are either with Kerry, or with the torturers” to “anyone who disagrees with me is a mindless Bush-bot”.
This is like back when you were claiming that Bush would cancel the elections and set up a dictatorship. There comes a point where political disagreement shades over into paranoid delusions. It is unpleasantly common on the SDMB.
This is not likely to appeal to the moderate middle. IMO.
Regards,
Shodan
Talk about mischaracterizing. I never said “all Mormons are Republican”, just that it’s good odds that any given Mormon is far more likely to be a Pub than not. And I didn’t say that “you’re with Kerry or the torturers”; there were other choices than Bush or Kerry. If you voted for a candidate, then you share some responsibility for his actions. You and Bricker obviously shrug off said responsibility. So be it. And I’d like for you to show me where I wrote, “anyone who disagrees with me is a mindless Bush-bot”.
Yes, I was quite wrong there. Trickery and Diebold made it unnecessary.
And I repeat, you’re not the moderate middle.
What did Diebold have to do with anything?
Nothing that can be proven.
The level of truth of a proposition is not settled by vote. We’ve been over this, and it’s puzzling why you would keep proposing such an amoral, fact-flouting philosophy. But, if you suspect that a substantial portion of those who read your work might think it blindly partisan, that should be cause for concern more than celebration - even if it’s from “The People’s Republic of the SDMB”, as you dismiss it. Consider, while you’re at it, that I’ve said nothing in any way that would excuse torture, aggressive war, lying, self-delusion, unnecessary deaths, bigotry, or even growth of government debt at all, much less in the service of a party. Can you say the same?
Okay, change it to Fox, then. Have you deplored their accuracy and balance in such gloating depth as that which you deplore CBS’s?
Question: Why would you think they did? Who was the foreign enemy they were aiding?
Question: Is there some substance to that question of yours other than yet another tiresome attempt at a self-excusing tu quoque?