Our freedom is on it's last legs.

[Updike]

SteveG1, I see you’ve mastered the use of the underline tag. Bully for you.

But to use it on every other sentence is quite annoying to the rest of us.

[Fritz]

@Updike

SteveG1, I see you’ve mastered the use of the underline tag. Bully for you.

But to use it on every other sentence is quite annoying to the rest of us.

I have to disagree on this. I’ve been following this thread closely, and SteveG1’s underlines of the salient points within each cite has been helpful.

[Updike]

@Fritz

I have to disagree on this. I’ve been following this thread closely, and SteveG1’s underlines of the salient points within each cite has been helpful.

Helpful to whom**, the retarded?

[Updike]

@Fritz

I have to disagree on this. I’ve been following this thread closely, and SteveG1’s underlines of the salient points within each cite has been helpful.

Helpful to whom, the retarded?

Well, I just fucked that up, didn’t I? Bah Humburg, I say.

[jayjay]

@Updike

Helpful to whom, the retarded?

Well, I just fucked that up, didn’t I? Bah Humburg, I say.

Well, he’s TRYING to be helpful to the retarded, but y’all aren’t having it, apparently…

[FinnAgain]

For those who aren’t drunk and off their medicine:

[

NEW YORK, NY – More than 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody since 2002, Human Rights First research in a soon to be released report indicates, including 27 cases the Army has to date identified as suspected or confirmed homicides, and at least seven cases in which detainees were tortured to death.

](http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2005_alerts/etn_1019_dic.htm)

[

New analysis by Human Rights First of dozens of deaths in U.S. custody reveals a pattern of grossly inadequate and flawed investigations – compromising the United States’ ability to hold individual wrongdoers accountable. The investigations have been flawed in various ways. (Case examples involving each of these flaws given at the end of this document; references available on request):

* Criminal investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution;
* Record keeping has been grossly inadequate, further undermining chances for prosecution;
* Overlapping criminal and administrative investigations instigated by the military have interfered with each other, and compromised chances for accountability;
* Commanders have repeatedly failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, launched serious investigations only after a case became publicly known, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations.

](http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2005_alerts/etn_1019_dic.htm)

[

The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is going to get worse'' and warned that the most disturbing’’ revelations haven’t yet been made public.
The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here,'' he said. We’re not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we’re talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.’’

](http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Rueful_Rumsfeld_050704.htm)

[

At the end of a secluded cul-de-sac, in a fast-growing Virginia suburb favored by employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, is a handsome replica of an old-fashioned farmhouse, with a white-railed front porch. The large back yard has a swimming pool, which, on a recent October afternoon, was neatly covered. In the driveway were two cars, a late-model truck, and an all-terrain vehicle. The sole discordant note was struck by a faded American flag on the porch; instead of fluttering in the autumn breeze, it was folded on a heap of old Christmas ornaments.

The house belongs to Mark Swanner, a forty-six-year-old C.I.A. officer who has performed interrogations and polygraph tests for the agency, which has employed him at least since the nineteen-nineties. (He is not a covert operative.) Two years ago, at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, an Iraqi prisoner in Swanner’s custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died during an interrogation. His head had been covered with a plastic bag, and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he asphyxiated. In a subsequent internal investigation, United States government authorities classified Jamadi’s death as a “homicide,” meaning that it resulted from unnatural causes. Swanner has not been charged with a crime and continues to work for the agency.

](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact)

[

Late last month, Cheney and Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, had an unusual forty-five-minute private meeting on Capitol Hill with Senator McCain, who was tortured as a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War. They argued that the C.I.A. sometimes needs the “flexibility” to treat detainees in the war on terrorism in “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” ways.

](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact)

[

Around this time, John Helgerson, the C.I.A.’s inspector general, sent investigators to Iraq and San Diego to interview witnesses about the agency’s role in Jamadi’s death. These investigators determined that there was the possibility of criminality—the threshold level required by the intelligence agency in order for the case to be referred to the Justice Department. The agency did so, and officials in the Justice Department then forwarded the case to the office of Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over C.I.A. headquarters. The dossier has been there for more than a year. A lawyer familiar with the case, who asked not to be named, said that the Swanner file seemed to be “lying kind of fallow.”[snip]A government official familiar with the case, who declined to be named, indicated that establishing guilt in the case might be complicated, because of Jamadi’s rough handling by the SEALs before he entered the custody of the C.I.A. Yet, in the past two years, several of the Navy SEALs who captured Jamadi and delivered him to C.I.A. officials have faced abuse charges in military-justice proceedings, and have been exonerated. Moreover, three medical experts who have examined Jamadi’s case told me that the injuries he sustained from the SEALs could not have caused his death.

](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact)

[

WASHINGTON, March 15 - At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials.
[snip]
The new figure of 26 was provided by the Army and Navy this week after repeated inquiries. In 18 cases reviewed by the Army and Navy, investigators have now closed their inquiries and have recommended them for prosecution or referred them to other agencies for action, Army and Navy officials said. Eight cases are still under investigation but are listed by the Army as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides, the officials said.

Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison’s night shift.

](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16abuse.html?ex=1132030800&en=d5e7e16b9f2feedb&ei=5070&pagewanted=all)

And of course, let’s not forget what happens even when the detainee is one of our own soldiers in a training exercise:

[

Baker started having a seizure that morning and was whisked to the Naval Hospital at Guantanamo. “[He looked like] he’d had the crap beat out of him. He had a concussion. I mean, it was textbook,” says Riley. “[His face} was blank. You know, a dead stare, like he was seeing you, but really looking through you.”

Baker was airlifted to the Portsmouth Naval Medical Center in Virginia, where doctors determined he had suffered an injury to the right side of his brain

](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml)

And further, let’s not forget the fact that the effects of his attack are, even now, being covered up.

[

“They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down,” said Baker. “Then he - the same individual - reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn’t breath. When I couldn’t breath, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was ‘red.’”

But, Baker says, the beating didn’t stop. “That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me,” he said. “Somehow I got enough air, I muttered out, ‘I’m a U.S. soldier, I’m a U.S. soldier.’”
[snip]
Nearly 15 months after that day, and countless medical treatments at Walter Reed Hospital, Baker is now medically retired from the military, but still suffers.

On Wednesday, the U.S.military, while acknowledging an injury to Baker took place during the exercise, is disputing some of Baker’s claims, saying he left for “unrelated reasons.”

](http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=1891343&nav=EQlpNN9R)

And, speaking of a coverup, is it not a bit, oh… odd, that so many people just happen to drop dead of natural causes once we round them up?

[

The Los Angeles Times reports on suspicions about the death of an Iraqi scientist, Mohammed Abdelmonaem Mahmoud Hamdi Alazmirli, after nine months in U.S. custody. The U.S. said he died of “natural causes,” but his family authorized a private autopsy that found bruises, cuts and a fractured skull and blamed blunt force for the death.

](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/iraq/main620486.shtml)

But we know that things like that are only the result of ‘a few bad apples’.
[

Soldiers being told to “beat the fuck out of detainees”: Documents dated August 16, 2003, relating to an investigation into “alleged ROE and Geneva Convention violations” in Iraq include sworn statements relating to “Bulldog 6” telling soldiers to “take the detainee[s] out back and beat the fuck out of them.”

](http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17835&c=206)

But, I mean, surely we’re not doing anything to hide treatment of our prisoners.

[

NEW YORK–The American Civil Liberties Union today released files obtained from the Army revealing previously undisclosed allegations of abuse by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the documents are reports that a detainee who was beaten and seriously injured was forced to drop his claims in order to be released from custody.

](http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17515&c=206)

[

In one file released today, an Iraqi detainee claimed that Americans in civilian clothing beat him in the head and stomach, dislocated his arms, “stepped on [his] nose until it [broke],” stuck an unloaded pistol in his mouth and fired the trigger, choked him with a rope and beat his leg with a baseball bat. Medical reports corroborated the detainee’s account, stating that the detainee had a broken nose, fractured leg, and scars on his stomach. In addition, soldiers confirmed that Task Force 20 interrogators wearing civilian clothing had interrogated the detainee. However, after initially reporting the abuse, the detainee said that he was forced by an American soldier to sign a statement denouncing the claims or else be kept in detention indefinitely. He agreed.

An investigator who reviewed the signed statement concluded that “[t]his statement, alone, is a prima facie indication of threats.” However, despite the medical report and testimony from other soldiers, the criminal file was ultimately closed on the grounds that the investigation had “failed to prove or disprove” the offenses.

](http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17515&c=206)

But, I mean, surely, there’s no systemic failure and all the officers involved are keeping their men under control.

[

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today made public more than 1,800 pages documenting the investigation into at least three military units’ detainee operations in Iraq. Among the documents were reports of untrained soldiers using interrogation techniques they “remembered from the movies,” as well as reports of deaths that could have been prevented with proper training.

](http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=19088&c=36)

Oh… whoops.

So, I guess, the lesson to take away from all this is that prisoners can be killed and tortured, and if you object to it you hate America. Hell, if you notice it, you’re a traitor. Freedom is on the march!

[Banquet_Bear]

@Scylla

I’ll make you a deal:

You give me proof of two dozen or more dead by torture by US forces in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, and I will never say a word defending this war again.

…while we’re making deals, how about this. The United States has kept over 600 prisoners locked up at Guantanemo Bay for three years now. President Bush, when asked if he had any concerns they’re not getting justice, (the people detained there) President Bush replied " No, the only thing I know **for certain is that these are bad people, **and we look forward to working closely with the Blair government to deal with the issue." Cite

Can you give me proof that at the very least 24 people locked up at Guantanemo are guilty of any crimes against America, the people of Afghanistan, or humanity? Can you provide any proof that at least 24 of them are “bad people?” If on the other hand, you fail to provide the proof that anyone at Guantanemo is guilty of anything, I will consider you a hypocrite, who hates the rest of the world and defames its citizens simply for propaganda value. 'Cause you know, giving Joe Blow at Guantanemo the right to prove his innocence is so overated…

[FinnAgain]

Oh, and, by the way, sorry for implying that you’re a crazy drunken person who has gone off of your meds. I’m not going to respond to you again, so it wasn’t exactly fair for me to say that.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Scylla:

*I’ll tell you my exact honest opinion.

I think the left, as an entity, is a bunch of directionless revisionists who play the game of politics for its own sake. I think they are two-faced, disloyal and they lie constantly. I think the leaders of the left like Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean are truly despicable human beings.

I think the left manufactures scandal and outrage as a product. For five years, the left has been two-faced and traitorous. After two votes to authorize war, repeating the very same things Bush said, and seeing the same intelligence, they now blame him, and pretend that they never supported the war.*

I agree in part with your assessment here, but I think you need to be a bit more precise. What is this ”entity” you call ”the left”? Certainly, there are a lot of weak-kneed, two-faced Democrats, and they richly deserve the scorn you heap upon them. But many members of the left – such as myself, and others prominent here at the SDMB – were, in fact, against the war from the beginning. So we’re not being hypocritical, as far as I can tell. However, you criticize us for being leftist ”wing nuts.” So – if I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, I’m a wing-nut, but if a I supported it first and changed my position later, I’m a hypocrite. That leaves only one possible alternative: support the invasion. Sounds like a pretty good deal for you.

I also wonder what you mean by accusing the left, exclusively, of manufacturing scandal and outrage. The outing of a covert CIA operative is tantamount to an act of treason: all good conservatives should be outraged by it, as far as I can tell. A five-year long, bogus investigation of a Democratic president’s sex life – now that’s my definition of a manufactured scandal.

After a bipartisan senate intelligence committee has concluded that there was no falsification of intelligence data, they still insist that Bush falsified data to mislead us into war.

As do you. On a certain Thursday in November a year or so ago you conceded yourself that Bush lied to get us to go to war. As I recall we had a long discussion about this, in which you tried to justify Bush’s right to lie to us (for what you perceived, perhaps, as the greater good). Ever since then, however, it seems to me you have straddled both sides of this issue; and when the debate gets really hot you seem to fall back into believing that administration was telling the truth all along, and that anyone who doubts that is a wing-nut.

They pretend it was all about WMDs when in fact it was many issues.

This is not a pretence. The primary reason the US invaded Iraq was ”WMD.” It was argued that Iraq’s possession of these weapons constituted a unique threat to the security of the US. If we had known then what we know now, the US public would never have supported an invasion of Iraq.

*The left has lost sight of the fact that we are at war and are in this together. They are playing a power game, and are more concerned about petty rights violations (Yes I said “petty” rights violations, and they are fucking petty compared to having our cities blown up) than they are about the fact that there is an entire fucking society out there trying to kill us.

THey lie constantly, they manufacture scandals, and they say what they say for political effect, not for their actual job, which is to guide the country I don’t trust them or their motivations and I find them to be misguided and morally reprehensible.*

I suppose this may be true for certain segments of the Democratic Party and its leaders. Its certainly true for large segments of the Republican Party and its leaders. But I hope you don’t think its true of me, or of many other opponents of this administration and its war in Iraq.

*As for cowardice. Yes I’m a coward. Al Quaeda is an enemy that frightens me. It is an enemy that I think can bring us down. They get ridiculed because they are poor and desperate and we are such a juggernaut. They are tough motherfuckers and they are highly pragmatic and focussed and willing to sacrifice. We are fat and lazy and smug and eating ourselves from the inside out.

They could take us down. They’ve been getting better at their brand of warfare for thirty years. Laugh all you want about “nuclear anthrax” and call it paranoid, but technologies progression inevitably leads to devastating damage being cheap and readily available to those willing to use it.*

There’s some truth here, but there’s also some significant media hype. And you are exactly where the right-wing warmongers want you to be: cowering your basement, afraid of your own shadow.

Nobody should be so stupid as underestimate the very significant threat posed by organizations like al-Qaeda. You are wise in my opinion to take that threat very seriously. But our next question has to be: how can we best counter that threat? IMHO, invading a country with no relationship to al-Queda whatsoever is not a very effective means of combating them. Nor am I alone in this assessment. Richard Clark, for example, whose speciality is counter-terrorism, and whose political philosophy is far to the right of my own, agrees. He can’t possibly be a leftist wing-nut, can he?

Bush would be a better president if he didn’t have half the fucking government working against him. The left should know this.

Bush has, from virtually his first day in office, pursued an extremist and divisive political agenda. It is unreasonable for you to expect the left to simply lay down and let this administration roll over them. If Bush has half the government working against him, well, he can lay a large portion of the blame for that situation squarely on his own doorstep.

*On the other side of the coin, I’ve renounced my Republicanism. I think Republicans suck. This is not my father’s Republican party. It is not my Republican party. Bush is conservative in the one meaning of the word I strongly disaprove of… socially. Social conservatives are evangelical ignorant hate-mongering scum that deserve to look into the mirror of radical fundamentalist Islam….

So, I don’t really agree with anybody any more. If you guys weren’t such incompetant lying hypocritical opportunist assholes I could be a Democrat. Stop the fucking whining and the faux outrage for opportunism and get your fucking act together and save the fucking country.*

Well, there you go. We’re almost on the same sheet of music.

Most Americans have a tendency to think in dichotomies of black/white, good/evil, etc. If you sympathize with one political party, for example, it follows by logic that the other party is evil, traitorous, etc. My view of Washington, by contrast, is that there aren’t any good guys, really. Basically we see two maffia families locked in a turf war. If I must chose between the two, I chose the Democrats, because they lean ever so slightly in the same direction I lean; but I’m under no illusions that they’re just as corrupt and evil as the Republicans. Or has elucidator has so picturesquely put it: no virgin makes to the top of the Parliament of Whores, but at least my whore has fewer running sores than your whore.

The one thing I like about Bush is that he is unwavering. He has a fucking goal and it’s a good goal vis a vis terror. He doesn’t do giant 180 degree turns for political effect. He wants to win, and y’all are too stupid to realize that he’s not playing populist games.

We have completely different pictures of Bush, since I see him as doing nothing other than playing populist games.

Karl Rove, Scylla? Heard of him?

[SteveG1]

I composed a very long and well thought out reply last night, but the board or maybe my computer froze up last night. So, I just popped in this morning. Scylla, I guess I forgot you don’t like Bush. I guess it’s because you so rabidly support everything he does, no matter how outrageous and anti_American it is. Or maybe because you seem to be sucking his dick so damn hard. And as you, Updike, I use the underline to help the reading impaired and the cognitively challanged such as yourself. So both of you should expeditiously take a flying fuck through a rolling donut.

You’re both as full of shit as a Christmas goose, and fucking stupid besides. One thing bothers me…
You were in the basement or the carport or something at Ground Zero. Right? During the explosions? Right? But then if you hadn’t gotten married, you’d have been there or would still be there? You’d still be there on the 11th floor? Neat trick, to be on the 11th floor of buildings that don’t fucking exist anymore.

[SteveG1]

@Mr. Svinlesha

So – if I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, I’m a wing-nut, but if a I supported it first and changed my position later, I’m a hypocrite. That leaves only one possible alternative: support the invasion. Sounds like a pretty good deal for you.

That’s how I see things to, minus the underlines and shit.

@Mr. Svinlesha

I also wonder what you mean by accusing the left, exclusively, of manufacturing scandal and outrage. The outing of a covert CIA operative is tantamount to an act of treason:

God damn right. If I were in charge, people would hang for it - litereally.

@Mr. Svinlesha

On a certain Thursday in November a year or so ago you conceded yourself that Bush lied to get us to go to war. As I recall we had a long discussion about this, in which you tried to justify Bush’s right to lie to us (for what you perceived, perhaps, as the greater good). Ever since then, however, it seems to me you have straddled both sides of this issue; and when the debate gets really hot you seem to fall back into believing that administration was telling the truth all along, and that anyone who doubts that is a wing-nut.This is not a pretence.

What a straightforward way to put it. In other words, he is full of shit.

@Mr. Svinlesha

Nor am I alone in this assessment. Richard Clark, for example, whose speciality is counter-terrorism, and whose political philosophy is far to the right of my own, agrees. He can’t possibly be a leftist wing-nut, can he?Bush has, from virtually his first day in office, pursued an extremist and divisive political agenda. It is unreasonable for you to expect the left to simply lay down and let this administration roll over them.

I thought I cited Clarke, maybe in and ifferent thread? I know I cited plenty of others, but they are all wingnut traitors (?) But, I’d rather drop dead than lay down for this administration.

@Mr. Svinlesha

Karl Rove, Scylla? Heard of him?

I bet he’s one o’ them good Amurricans we all should emulate. If I were in charge, as per my statements about Wilson/Plame above, Rove would hang first. No hard jerk to do it clean, just let the bastard slowly turn blue, swallow his blackened and swollen tongue, and strangle. There’s the traitor right there - Rove.

[What_Exit]

@SteveG1

…snip…
If I were in charge, as per my statements about Wilson/Plame above, Rove would hang first. No hard jerk to do it clean, just let the bastard slowly turn blue, swallow his blackened and swollen tongue, and strangle. There’s the traitor right there - Rove.

A Little strong, but I appreciate your point of view.
I would settle for Federal prison with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Michael Brown in matching orange jumpsuits. (Brown for 100’s negligent manslaughter convictions) These are the top 5 on my list. Federal Prison is good enough; I don’t wish to sink to their level.

Jim

[elucidator]

Traitors? Traitors, Scylla?

How very odd that this revelation did not occur to you earlier, back when you still had some arguments to bear, back when your case still had a shred of credibility. Only now, it seems, as the scraps and rags of your arguments are torn from you, now, you see the truth: that you are the victim of traitors and scoundrels, unworthy of your respect. What an interesting coincidence.

I am embarassed that I ever accorded you any respect, you mock my gift, my generosity was naive, I am a fool. Because finally, with no arguments left to make, no “facts” left to present, you are reduced to flinging shit like a monkey on display. Another man, one with some dignity, might rue his previous opinions and simply discard them. A better man might even thank his rhetorical opponents for thier efforts in bringing him the truth.

But not you, it would seem. “Traitors”. Grow a beard, so that you don’t have to look upon such a sorry spectacle as you shave. Retire from these arguments, arguments such as these require honesty and respect, you have none to offer. Go back to droll domestic comedies, these will accord you the approval and praise you so desperately crave. Surely, after this, you cannot pretend that your opinions are worthy of any respectful attention?

[lonesome_loser]

But I told you so.

The man is deranged.

[Scylla]

@FinnAgain

Oh, and, by the way, sorry for implying that you’re a crazy drunken person who has gone off of your meds. I’m not going to respond to you again, so it wasn’t exactly fair for me to say that.

Think nothing of it.

By the by, if that was indeed your final post, then it seems kind of pointless to expend effort to analyze your cites as you won’t be available for any subsequent discussion.

If you change your mind, let me know.

[lonesome_loser]

If, as you say, we don’t torture. Why is the Bush administration so gung ho to get legal permission to do it?

Just because we might have to?

[What_Exit]

@lonesome loser

If, as you say, we don’t torture. Why is the Bush administration so gung ho to get legal permission to do it?

Just because we might have to?

Hey, wait I know this one. We just want the bad guys to think we might use torture. (Almost what Cheney said)

Of course this means we will appear as a rogue country to the world. I guess there might be room in the axis of Evil.

Let me get this straight.
Iran: check
Iraq: Check
North Korea: Check
Bush/Cheney Administration: Check Mate!!!

Jim

[FinnAgain]

Scylla, I am indeed going to continue to post in this thread (if it interests me), and I will indeed discuss these things with people. But I will not do so with you.

Instead of talking about differing standards of proof, or epistemology, or ontology, you called me a traitor and said I hate our soldiers. I doubt I will forgive you for that, ever. I am not being hyperbolic.

You simply do not toss off rhetoric like that. and I have no desire, at all, to discuss anything with you if those are the insults you’ll sling. That is beyond the pale, even for the Pit. I love my country, and want what’s best for Her, and for you to turn that into one of the most vile slanders I have ever had applied to me goes beyond all bounds.

You can feel free to respond to my cites all you wish. If someone else takes up your side of the discussion, I’ll be happy to discuss it with them.

Hope that clears things up.

[Scylla]

@Mr. Svinlesha

Scylla:I agree in part with your assessment here, but I think you need to be a bit more precise. What is this ”entity” you call ”the left”?

It’s hard to be precise as the nature of the comment was a generalization.

Certainly, there are a lot of weak-kneed, two-faced Democrats, and they richly deserve the scorn you heap upon them. But many members of the left – such as myself, and others prominent here at the SDMB – were, in fact, against the war from the beginning. So we’re not being hypocritical, as far as I can tell. However, you criticize us for being leftist ”wing nuts.” So – if I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, I’m a wing-nut, but if a I supported it first and changed my position later, I’m a hypocrite. That leaves only one possible alternative: support the invasion. Sounds like a pretty good deal for you.

It would be. Shame I didn’t think of it. I mentioned twice that I was not defining all liberals as wingnuts, and even named names. I regret I forgot to include yours. Clearly, if one opposed the war from the start, one is not a hypocrite. Nor must one have been a wingnut to do so. As proof of this thesis, I refer you to your yourself.

I also wonder what you mean by accusing the left, exclusively, of manufacturing scandal and outrage.

That’s an unfair mischaracterization. I can’t think of where I said it was exclusive, and I don’t recall thinking it was. In fact, on page 1 I pointed out that Republicans started it with the Clinton thing, did I not?

The outing of a covert CIA operative is tantamount to an act of treason: all good conservatives should be outraged by it, as far as I can tell.

You’re probably right. On the other hand, there is the right wing wingnut theory, that says the whole thing was a set up for the CIA to regain credibility and a political attack on Bush. In such a circumstance, the outing would be justified.

No. Don’t chuckle. I assure you in other venues this theory enjoys even greater credibility than such things as: “Bush and Cheney have singlehandedly destroyed our country and freedom itself is on it’s last legs” or “The seven day intelligence restriction actually lasted for years so nobody had any idea what they were voting for when they authorized war.”

Frankly, I don’t have enough information to understand the Plame scandal enough to form a solid opinion other than that Libby seems to have surely committed perjury and that Rove is person “A” in the indictment and apparently leaked as well.

A five-year long, bogus investigation of a Democratic president’s sex life – now that’s my definition of a manufactured scandal.

Oh come on. It was like one year on Lewinsky. You forget about Whitewater and pork belly futures and Vince Foster.

On a certain Thursday in November a year or so ago you conceded yourself that Bush lied to get us to go to war. As I recall we had a long discussion about this, in which you tried to justify Bush’s right to lie to us (for what you perceived, perhaps, as the greater good).

Unfair. I conceded a month earlier after the Kay report was released. I showed up in the pit thread to be a good sport and concede again. I don’t recall claiming that Bush had a right to lie.

Do you have a cite of me making such a claim?

IIRC what I actually claimed was that I thought the Iraq invasion was still justified. Oddly enough so did John Kerry, or so he said in the first debate.

Ever since then, however, it seems to me you have straddled both sides of this issue; and when the debate gets really hot you seem to fall back into believing that administration was telling the truth all along, and that anyone who doubts that is a wing-nut.

You are mistaken unless you have a cite from thereafter of me claiming Bush didn’t lie.

This is not a pretence. The primary reason the US invaded Iraq was ”WMD.” It was argued that Iraq’s possession of these weapons constituted a unique threat to the security of the US.

There were actually many reasons cited repeatedly in every speech. WMDs were the one everybody talked about and (rightly it turns out) challenged.

If we had known then what we know now, the US public would never have supported an invasion of Iraq.

I believe you’re mistaken. Bush won reelection, and we did know that he there were no WMDs. Kerry conceded that it was the proper thing to do and said he would have done the same thing, only much better without rushing into it.

Nobody should be so stupid as underestimate the very significant threat posed by organizations like al-Qaeda. You are wise in my opinion to take that threat very seriously. But our next question has to be: how can we best counter that threat? IMHO, invading a country with no relationship to al-Queda whatsoever is not a very effective means of combating them. Nor am I alone in this assessment. Richard Clark, for example, whose speciality is counter-terrorism, and whose political philosophy is far to the right of my own, agrees. He can’t possibly be a leftist wing-nut, can he?

You raise interesting points. In the past, you and I have had meaningful discussions in pit threads, but it’s usually very distracting what with all the mudslinging and vituperative name-calling.

Perhaps we can rediscuss the events leading up to the war again in some GD thread. Don’t feel angry at me, if I don’t wish to here.

In this thread, I am combatting left wingnuts who make completely unreasonable assertions, and am doing so in terms that I feel are appropriate. I can hardly have an enlightened discussion with you simultaneously.

Bush has, from virtually his first day in office, pursued an extremist and divisive political agenda. It is unreasonable for you to expect the left to simply lay down and let this administration roll over them.

I have no such expectation. I simply expect a loyal opposition, and I see no reason why it can’t be done effectively without resorting to moronic hyperbole and made up accusations.

Surely, there are enough actual problems to discuss and they serious enough that there is no need to engage in mindless hyperbole.

[lonesome_loser]

The only thing worse than a right winged denying idiot is a long winded right wing denying idiot.