# What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091 "2004-12-29T14:08:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/181 "2005-01-07T22:10:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And if it doesn’t? Then he holds up the tattered remains and declare himself the winner anyway. 😉 Really, **Elvis,** hasn’t Fearless Misleader’s Wacky Iraqi Misadventures™ taught you _anything?_ ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/182 "2005-01-07T22:36:21Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Then he holds up the tattered remains and declare himself the winner anyway. 😉 For the record, **Bricker** is one of few dopers of any stripe who I’ve seen publically change his mind about an issue after arguing vociferously about it. Which I respect tremendously, and is a large party of why he’s my Favorite Conservative Doper ™. ---
**Author:** ![Jake\_the\_Plumber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@Jake\_the\_Plumber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake_the_Plumber)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/183 "2005-01-07T22:55:52Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Really, **Elvis,** hasn’t Fearless Misleader’s Wacky Iraqi Misadventures™ taught you _anything?_ I taught me that Republicans have a secret code to hide their agenda from prying eyes. Everything they say is the opposite of what they mean. For instance, when they say: “This will be a short military operation to remove a dictator with WMDs and strong ties to al Qaeda from power.” They really mean: “This will be a long and drawn out conflict dragging on endlessly in time, human lives, and money, to remove a secular dictator who is a paper tiger and can’t fight his way out of a paper bag and replace him with a hostile theocracy with strong ties to hostile neighbor countries.” What I don’t get is their statements on gay marriage and all, which they really seem to be against. Maybe the secret code only works on foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/184 "2005-01-07T23:07:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Black people are inferior and should be subservient” is PRECISELY the kind of message that minority advocacy groups impute to the Republicans, and they do so PRECISELY because it is that party which is more closely identified with that statement. > > I’m sorry if it offends your sense of proper debate… but it happens. Tell you what: if you agree to get all advocates on the left to stop using such tactics, I’ll condemn those on the right for their continued use. But you seem to be suggesting unilateral disarmament. It was a bad idea when Kruschev was in power, and it’s a bad idea now in this circumstance. What an odd metaphor. Again, there are two different metrics for evaulating whether one should say something like that: (1) Whether it’s politically useful and expedient (2) Whether it’s The Right Thing To Do Your claim about unilateral disarmament says nothing about (2), only (1). Anyhow, I paid a reasonable amount of attention to the presidential campaign, the debates, statements made by various flunkies on all sides, etc. And I can’t remember ever hearing anything like “republicans think blanks are inferior and should be subservient”. I’m not saying it’s never been said by a liberal public figure, ever. But unless there was a liberal-media-coverup of unprecedented proportion it wasn’t even in the same UNIVERSE as the “liberals hate freedom and want the terrorists to win” business. And in any case, it makes no sense for you to say “make the liberals stop saying X and then I’ll condemn it when republicans say Y”. Rather, you should say “condemn it when liberals say X and I’ll condemn it when republicans say Y”. Of course, even saying that is tacitly admitting that Y SHOULD be condemned. Anyhow, if you’d like me to officially wield my Righteous Hammer of Condemnation against some public statement by some prominent liberal or other, just point me towards it, and I’ll consider whether I find it worthy of condemnation. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But that doesn’t mean that, if they’re trying to kill US soldiers, or those who are trying to currently bring democracy to Iraq (and much as I disagree with the war, and the Bush administration in general, I certainly support humanitarian and democratizing efforts in Iraq, now that we’re there), I wouldn’t try to stop them with deadly force. If I could case a magic spell which would mean that any time someone tried to kill a US soldier or an Iraqi ally of the US, their attack would backfire with lethal consequences, I would cast that spell in a heartbeat. I might not condemn them all as evil hateful terrorist scum, but they’re still not on my side. Sympathy does not mean support. > > OK. This is not, apparently, a view shared by everyone on the left, but I believe you completely. Can you provide some evidence that a remotely significant portion of the left does NOT share this view? > [@](#): > > But the reality is that you don’t have one The Left, with one spokesman. You have multiple voices, with multiple views. And the debate is somewhat binary. There is, therefore, an unfortunate tendency to ascribe to one side all of the views expressed by anyone who has allied themselves with that side. Well, obviously. And it’s useful for all of us, as debaters and dopers, to struggle against that tendency. We’ve certainly all done it (myself included), but I try very hard to disagree with the views of a specific person, not either ascribe that person’s views to a group, or assign commonly held views of that group to that person. Granted, if you took that too far, nothing could ever be discussed at all. The point I’m trying to make is that a single quote from a single member of group X does not prove anything about the overall position of group X, although it’s tempting to think that it does, particularly when it’s a position that you want to believe group X holds. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > (a) I really don’t see how “if those charges were true, how could he have won the election?” is an argument at all. I mean, wasn’t Nixon overwhelmingly reelected? Plenty of horrible people have won elections, plenty of terrible ideas have been popular, and plenty of utterly terrible choices have been made by large sections of the populace. > > In this case, the “charges” are that the course the President has chosen is unwise for the country. Of course there is no onjective, verifiable standard to prove or disprove that claim. But since (1) the President hung his re-election on the claim that his choices were wise, and his opponent hung HIS campaign on how the war was unwise, an objective component of THOSE choices does exist: the election results. (2) In the absence of an objective, verifiable measure, if we are to be guided by anything, it seems to me that the being guided by the results of the democratic process is a reasonable solution. First off, I will respond by quoting a bit of my response to Shodan: > [@me](#): > > I think you’re oversimplifying a bit here. Bush won a quite close election. There are a variety of factors that influence who wins an election, with two very big ones being: > (a) How much people truly and correctly know about each candidate, and the substantial opinions they have about his positions > and > (b) How the campaign is run, how images are spun, how fears are played upon, how candidates are incorrectly perceived, etc. > > In this case (not surprisingly), the Republicans like to think that they won largely because of (a), and the Democrats like to think that they lost largely because of (b). Until and unless someone proves one of those cases, neither one strikes me as preposterous, although I will point out that there is some evidence for (b), including the polls that show how ignorant many Republican voters were. Furthermore, even if we were to assume that people voted with full information and rationality, that wouldn’t prove that charges against Bush weren’t true. For instance, a particular voter might agree that: -The Iraq war is currently a quagmire, and was badly planned, the blame for which ultimately rests with Bush -Bush is infringing on civil liberties and -Bush is bad for the environment But still vote for Bush because that particular voter is rabidly pro-life, or rabidly-anti-catholic, or deeply in favor of the aggressive global-political-military strategy that led to the Iraq war, even while agreeing that it was badly implemented in that situation. I agree that there’s a bit of a mental disconnect, in that I honestly believe that Bush is one of the 5 or so worst presidents the US has ever had, and yet he got reelected. I’m not quite sure I believe it either. And one of the reasons I’m here discussing it is that I’m always curious to find out what makes intelligent and responsible Bush voters tick. But I certainly don’t look at that election result and say “well, I guess Bush is NOT one of the 5 worst presidents ever. What was I thinking? Damn that liberal media for misleading me!!!” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > (b) I continue to be entertained by the implication that the way people talk on the SDMB is somehow going to cost liberals the election. There might be a case to be made that people like Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand and George Soros do the democratic party more harm than good. That’s an interesting debate. And there might be similarities between things they say and things that SDMB liberals say. That’s another interesting debate. But no matter what, there is no way in hell that anything anyone ever said on the SDMB ever did, or ever will, influence the outcome of an election. > > I’m going to acknowledge the technical truth of this, but point out that there’s no way in hell one piece of litter, thrown out of a car window, is destructive to the surrounding ecology. Nonetheless, we condemn a person who tosses a piece of litter out the car window. Why? Your analogy is faulty. We don’t want a single person to litter because if everyone littered, there’d be lots of litter all over everywhere. But even if every liberal on the SDMB posted ON THE SDMB in a condescending fashion, that still wouldn’t affect more than a tiny fraction of the voters in the country. The issue is not whether one person can make a difference, it’s that even making all the difference in the world inside the SDMB makes almost no difference outside the SDMB. And that’s assuming that the basic premise, “liberals being condescending towards conservatives makes people vote for Bush”, has any real substance to it, which is debatable at best. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > (c) I’m still eagerly awaiting your response to my most recent post in this thread > > Done. Ahh, but now I’ve responded AGAIN, trumping your response. Advantage: Me ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2005, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/185 "2005-01-08T04:22:54Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > I’m here to learn. An admirable attitude. Now if you can learn not to make ridiculous accusations without any evidence, we will all be better off. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Just bumping this thread to point out that I’m still eagerly awaiting a reply from Bricker re post 168 and Shodan re post 170. OK, FWIW. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Isn’t this a bit of a double standard? You’re criticizing the left for not attacking an inflammatory statement, then you’re praising the right for not defending an inflammatory statement. In other words, when Extreme-Right people say bad things, and rightists say nothing, it’s GOOD. But when Extreme-Left people say bad things, and leftists say nothing, it’s BAD. Well, no, I wasn’t implying a double standard. Right-wingers are just as likely to flame racists on the SDMB as anyone else, if they can get a word in edgewise. But I mentioned the John Birch Society as an example of the Right actively repudiating an extremist element on their side. So, no, I am not implying a double standard. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > And, as others have pointed out, it’s honestly insulting to imply that we should HAVE to reaffirm our patriotism and loyalty. Well, you don’t have to if you don’t want to, and people will draw their own conclusions from what some on your side are saying. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And I think the reluctance of the Left on the SDMB to condemn this kind of thing speaks volumes. You guys (some of you) have a lot of trouble even with something as minimal as supporting our troops when they are in harm’s way. > > Perhaps part of that is because it’s never quite that simple. Suppose someone violently opposes our administration, despises our military leadership, is disturbed by the atrocities and abu ghraib, and has some sympathy (in the sense of comprehension, not support) for the motives of some of the people fighting against our troops, yet still respects and values the individual men and women who volunteered to defend our country. Positions like that are not easily and honestly encapsulatable into pithy soundbites, particularly when those soundbites have been to some extended coopted by their political opponents. Well, sometimes it **is** that simple. Someone in the linked thread stated, very clearly and explicitly, that he was hoping the Iraqis would kill American soldiers. This is about as far from “supporting the troops” as you can get, and, IMO, crossed the line. As I said, the respectable posters are not usually the problem, it’s the dipshits. No one is asking you to distance yourself from a reasonable position such as you describe. Your suggestion that I am is a bit of a strawman. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Honestly, I don’t ever remotely see a comparison between someone like St_rmfr_nt and someone like MoveOn. SF is a truly hateful and abhorrent group which has no place in modern American life, and, while I’m sure that its denizens voted overwhelmingly for Bush, I would feel guilty insulting good, decent Republicans by associating it with them in any way. Which is fair enough. As I mentioned, reasonable folks are not the problem, here on the SDMB or in American politics in general. But I have heard enough comparisions of Bush with Hitler and Republicans with racists and all the rest of it to pretend that everyone on the Democratic side is reasonable. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And every time someone suggests this, the Usual Suspects respond by saying (in essence) “No, everything is fine - we are entirely correct in every way, and we only lost because the Republicans rigged the elections and it was real close anyway and more people voted for Kerry than ever before and Karl Rove is Satan incarnate and BushLiedBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED!!!” > > > > To which I tend to respond by shrugging my shoulders and leaving you to console each other over yet another electoral defeat, and Bricker tends to repond in good old-fashioned Republican ways - by trying to make a buck off you. > > I think you’re oversimplifying a bit here. If you are arguing that the political discussion on the SDMB never ever happens this way, I can only point out that the immediate reaction from one of the better-known Usual Suspects was to do exactly what I said. So no, I am not oversimplifying. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Bush won a quite close election. There are a variety of factors that influence who wins an election, with two very big ones being: > (a) How much people truly and correctly know about each candidate, and the substantial opinions they have about his positions > and > (b) How the campaign is run, how images are spun, how fears are played upon, how candidates are incorrectly perceived, etc. > > In this case (not surprisingly), the Republicans like to think that they won largely because of (a), and the Democrats like to think that they lost largely because of (b). Not much to argue here. But the Dems have lost the White House and both houses of Congress, again. And there have been any number of threads on the SDMB before the election pointing out that Bush is clearly, obviously, unmistakeably, completely, utterly, no-doubt-about-it the Worst President of All Time, and gleefully crowing about his imminent defeat. And yet, somehow or other, he seems to have won (yet another sour-grapes whine from that bitch Boxer notwithstanding). For the first time in twenty years, a President has been re-elected with a majority of the popular vote, which hasn’t happened since Reagan. And hereabouts on the SDMB the hamsters labor under the weight of the posts advising the Democrats to do exactly what they did in 2000 and 2004. And the response to the very reasonable question “If Bush is so weak, howcome you guys lost to him?” seems to be very much in line with what I predicted. At least from the Usual Suspects. Johnny One-notes, the lot of them. YMMV. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/186 "2005-01-08T16:44:07Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > …Do not do stupid-ass things like invading nations that had nothing to do with attacks on America like 9/11 – i.e., Iraq. > > (followed by) > > …here’s my analysis of what the conservative leaderships’ real response to terrorism was: > > “We know we can’t defeat terrorism. We are not even going to try. Terrorism is good for us, it makes Americans unthinkingly support us out of fear. 9/11 worked for us politically, so will any other such attack – the terrorists can’t really do America much harm, even if they succeed in, say, nuking a major American city or spreading a neurotoxin or biowarfare agent it won’t affect America’s ability to make money and/or war too much. It’ll just cement us that much more firmly in power. So let’s invade a couple of Islamic countries to get the towelheads REALLY pissed off, set up some kind of half-assed agency that’ll do very little to prevent terrorist attacks but give us a great tool for attacking political enemies and hope for the best. Or worst, depending on your point of view. We might end up in charge of the whole Middle East if we play our cards right. One invasion might lead to another.” The irony is absolutely mind-boggling. It’s perfectly all right to suggest that Bush takes advantage to exploit al-Qaida activities, openly or covertly, but it is a “stupid-ass thing” to suggest that Saddam might have. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/187 "2005-01-08T17:34:06Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > The irony is absolutely mind-boggling. It’s perfectly all right to suggest that Bush takes advantage to exploit al-Qaida activities, openly or covertly, but it is a “stupid-ass thing” to suggest that Saddam might have. Whaddya mean, “all right”? I was channeling neocon realpolitik think in that section, and if you don’t care to believe that’s the way they think, remember that they were known to be planning to invade Iraq PRIOR to 9/11 for reasons that had NOTHING to do with terrorism or WMDs, and EVERYTHING to do with oil. As for Saddam and Osama – it’s well known that they hated each other much more intensely than either hated the U.S. Saddam was a secular dictator whose biggest problem was fundies like the Iranians and the Shias, Osama was a fundie Islamist. No evidence they ever cooperated, despite DESPERATE attempts to find it. Under those circumstances, the correct term is “logical” not “mind-boggling.” ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/188 "2005-01-09T00:18:57Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I was channeling neocon realpolitik think in that section, and if you don’t care to believe that’s the way they think… I care to believe in evidence, do you have any? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > As for Saddam and Osama – it’s well known that they hated each other much more intensely than either hated the U.S. I see. That’s why Osama orchestrated 9-11 and other terror acts against US, and that’s why Saddam went to war against US and continued to defy US for 11 years: because they hate each other so much. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > No evidence they ever cooperated, despite DESPERATE attempts to find it. What about evidence that Bush was glad to exploit 9-11? > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Under those circumstances, the correct term is “logical” not “mind-boggling.” I see. So it’s “logical” to suggest that Bush exploits al-Qaida, but Saddam never dreamt of it? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/189 "2005-01-10T19:03:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Isn’t this a bit of a double standard? You’re criticizing the left for not attacking an inflammatory statement, then you’re praising the right for not defending an inflammatory statement. In other words, when Extreme-Right people say bad things, and rightists say nothing, it’s GOOD. But when Extreme-Left people say bad things, and leftists say nothing, it’s BAD. > > Well, no, I wasn’t implying a double standard. Right-wingers are just as likely to flame racists on the SDMB as anyone else, if they can get a word in edgewise. Well, you may have mistyped or I may be misreading, because the bit I quote before: > [@](#): > > Look, the fact remains that in this thread, the only one making disgusting statements about supporting the death of American and allied military personnel is on the Left. And the response to that statement from the other lefties is tepid at best. > … > We tightie-righties are heavily outnumbered, but I never saw a word of support for the opinions of the St_rmfr_nt invasion from any Doper who voted for Bush. Seems basically to be saying “A lefty said something bad, and you lefties didn’t sufficently denounce him. But when SF came here and said something bad, we righties didn’t endorse him”. You guys must denounce, whereas all we must do is not actively endorse. > [@](#): > > But I mentioned the John Birch Society as an example of the Right actively repudiating an extremist element on their side. So, no, I am not implying a double standard. Hmmm. I think we may be talking past each other here, or perhaps you’re talking about the right (in general) while I’m talking about the left (on the SDMB)? or vice versa? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And, as others have pointed out, it’s honestly insulting to imply that we should HAVE to reaffirm our patriotism and loyalty. > > Well, you don’t have to if you don’t want to, and people will draw their own conclusions from what some on your side are saying. So, let’s say someone who is an extreme lefty posts “I am happy whenever an Iraqi kills an American in Iraq” in the middle of a long thread. Who do you draw conclusions about? All SDMB leftists, who you assume read the thread but didn’t post in it? Ones who post in that thread without condemning that statement? Or just ones who post in the next couple of pages, who thus probably read that post? And what about ones who have posted in other threads clearly stating that they are not happy when Iraqis kill Americans, and are outraged by any American who is? Are they obligated to restate that opinion _in toto_, should they provide links to those posts, or should they trust that you’ve read every thread on the SDMB? After all, if you’re condemning leftists for not responding to a particular post, then you must assuming that those leftists have read every thread on the SDMB, right? OK, obviously I’m being a bit sarcastic here, but the point I’m trying to make is that condemning someone for not responding to something, particularly in the format of a message board, is pretty silly. It’s very different from, say, a real life debate, in which a participant is already there, obviously heard the remark, obviously could respond, and must (more or less) make an active decision NOT to respond. > [@](#): > > Well, sometimes it **is** that simple. Someone in the linked thread stated, very clearly and explicitly, that he was hoping the Iraqis would kill American soldiers. This is about as far from “supporting the troops” as you can get, and, IMO, crossed the line. I assume you’re talking about this, from post #7 in this thread: > [@rfgdxm](#): > > Huh??? I do support Iraqi insurgents killing US troops. By what sane definition of “terrorist” is locals killing the troops of an invading army? Terrorists strike at civilians, and not armed, enemy troops that are invaders. As for US troops, I suport them by saying the should be pulled out of Iraq. They don’t belong there. If so, I must admit that (perhaps due to my naivete) I for quite some time assumed that, what with the “Huh???” business, that was some sort of typo where he meant to say something like “Huh??? I do NOT support Iraqi insurgets … BUT by what sane definition…”. However, that appears to have been wishful thinking on my part. So, we have one lefty (I guess) who posted what I view as a totally outrageous and borderline treasonous statement, which I (for the record) condemn strongly. We had one other poster ( **annaplurabelle** ) making the FAR more reasonable and not-requiring-heinous-condemnation statement that she values all human lives (Americans and others) equally, and a whole bunch of other lefties (because, remember, the SDMB is mainly lefties) not saying any of the above. So, looking at that, what does that lead you to conclude about the “average” opinion of an SDMB lefty about this topic? > [@](#): > > But I have heard enough comparisions of Bush with Hitler and Republicans with racists and all the rest of it to pretend that everyone on the Democratic side is reasonable. What? There are unreasonable lefties on the SDMB? Why, you vile cur, you’ve shattered my illusion that every last unreasonable person was my political opponent, and every last person on my side of every argument was a paragon of reason and virtue! > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Honestly, I don’t ever remotely see a comparison between someone like St_rmfr_nt and someone like MoveOn. SF is a truly hateful and abhorrent group which has no place in modern American life, and, while I’m sure that its denizens voted overwhelmingly for Bush, I would feel guilty insulting good, decent Republicans by associating it with them in any way. > > Which is fair enough. As I mentioned, reasonable folks are not the problem, here on the SDMB or in American politics in general. But I have heard enough comparisions of Bush with Hitler and Republicans with racists and all the rest of it to pretend that everyone on the Democratic side is reasonable. You didn’t address a key issue. Do you, or do you not, believe that [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) is as extreme as st_rmfr_nt? Is it even in the same ballpark? And while we’re on the topic, what about Michael Moore? Is he in the same ballpark as SF? > [@](#): > > If you are arguing that the political discussion on the SDMB never ever happens this way, I can only point out that the immediate reaction from one of the better-known Usual Suspects was to do exactly what I said. So no, I am not oversimplifying. Ah, yes, the “Usual Suspects”. Perhaps we need a version of Godwin’s Law which states that as the length of any political discussion involving Shodan increases, the probability of his mentioning the “Usual Suspects” approaches 1. (By the way, I wasn’t saying you were oversimplifying in your description of what types of discussions occur on the SDMB, rather, I was saying you were oversimplifying in your analysis of what the election results prove.) > [@](#): > > And hereabouts on the SDMB the hamsters labor under the weight of the posts advising the Democrats to do exactly what they did in 2000 and 2004. And the response to the very reasonable question “If Bush is so weak, howcome you guys lost to him?” seems to be very much in line with what I predicted. At least from the Usual Suspects. Johnny One-notes, the lot of them. Clearly, the democrats shouldn’t do exactly what they did in 2000 and 2004. The improtant (and interesting) question is whether they should change their beliefs, opinions, positions, values, etc., or whether they just need to campaign better. (There’s an even MORE interesting question, by the way, which is this… suppose the Democrats did some very sophisticated polling and learned that they were, in fact, somewhat out of touch with America. That is, when you stripped away all negative campaigning, wartime fervor, Bush-is-a-nice-downhome-guy-and-Kerry-has-a-crazy-French-wife, etc., suppose that voters just plain agree with Republican positions on issues 52% of the time compared to 48% for democrats. What then? I mean, presumably at some level the democrats have their positions because they think that those positions are RIGHT. If they change their positions to get votes, then they’re abandoning what they believe… so how should they proceed?) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/190 "2005-01-10T22:58:30Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Seems basically to be saying “A lefty said something bad, and you lefties didn’t sufficently denounce him. But when SF came here and said something bad, we righties didn’t endorse him”. You guys must denounce, whereas all we must do is not actively endorse. No, that’s not the standard. If the Left does not condemn outrageous statements, they are just as stupid as the Right would be if they did not condemn outrageous statements from their side. I have explained this a couple of times already. Believe it or not, as you like - you are setting up (IMO) a strawman. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Hmmm. I think we may be talking past each other here, or perhaps you’re talking about the right (in general) while I’m talking about the left (on the SDMB)? or vice versa? I am talking about Republicans in general, since the OP was about Democrats in general - specifically, how should they react to the problem of Islamic terrorism. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, let’s say someone who is an extreme lefty posts “I am happy whenever an Iraqi kills an American in Iraq” in the middle of a long thread. Who do you draw conclusions about? Anyone participating in the thread, who (presumably) reads the other posts in the thread and does or doesn’t react to the outrageous statement. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Ones who post in that thread without condemning that statement? Or just ones who post in the next couple of pages, who thus probably read that post? Yes, them. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > And what about ones who have posted in other threads clearly stating that they are not happy when Iraqis kill Americans, and are outraged by any American who is? Are they obligated to restate that opinion _in toto_, should they provide links to those posts, or should they trust that you’ve read every thread on the SDMB? Don’t be idiotic. I have already mentioned, twice, that the reasonable lefties are not the issue. The dipshits are. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It’s very different from, say, a real life debate, in which a participant is already there, obviously heard the remark, obviously could respond, and must (more or less) make an active decision NOT to respond. No it isn’t. I am assuming, if you like, that people who participate in threads read the posts previous to theirs. I at least try to. Maybe some of you lefties don’t, you simply post your knee-jerk reactions regardless of what anyone else has said. In many cases, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true. But I am assuming that there is a hard core of those actually participating in a discussion rather than ranting. And it seems that most of those, if there were any, either did not find the statement about wishing death on American soldiers to be outrageous, or were hoping no one noticed it, or they simply didn’t care. And when you compare that with the thin-skinned outrage that many of the same folks employ to attack anything and everything Republican, you see a double standard. It’s perfectly fine for **me** to accuse Bush of anything at all - at all - but “gee, I sure hope Americans die so I can feel like I won an argument” - well, let’s just not say anything about that. What’s the problem, after all? " > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If so, I must admit that (perhaps due to my naivete) I for quite some time assumed that, what with the “Huh???” business, that was some sort of typo where he meant to say something like “Huh??? I do NOT support Iraqi insurgets … BUT by what sane definition…”. However, that appears to have been wishful thinking on my part. FWIW, I was hoping for the same thing myself. I kept expecting him to repost that he forgot to enter the “not”. But he apparently meant it. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, we have one lefty (I guess) who posted what I view as a totally outrageous and borderline treasonous statement, which I (for the record) condemn strongly. We had one other poster ( **annaplurabelle** ) making the FAR more reasonable and not-requiring-heinous-condemnation statement that she values all human lives (Americans and others) equally The problem I had with **annaplurabelle** was the stupid and outrageous lies she was telling about **Bricker**. So I wouldn’t exactly hold her up as a shining example of a reasonable leftie. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > …and a whole bunch of other lefties (because, remember, the SDMB is mainly lefties) not saying any of the above. So, looking at that, what does that lead you to conclude about the “average” opinion of an SDMB lefty about this topic? That a lot of lefties post to threads but don’t read them, or wishing death on American soldiers doesn’t sound so outrageous to them. And for the third time, the “average” opinion isn’t the issue. It is the non-average ones that the Left is willing to overlook. And that (ISTM) loses you support among mainstream voters on the subject of terrorism. Imagine how the Republican party would look if it did not repudiate David Duke, and send some of its politicians down to campaign against him? > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > You didn’t address a key issue. Do you, or do you not, believe that [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) is as extreme as st_rmfr_nt? Is it even in the same ballpark? > > And while we’re on the topic, what about Michael Moore? Is he in the same ballpark as SF? It’s not a key issue. It doesn’t matter which is worse - racist statements AND statements like “I hope Americans die” cross a certain line. Call it the Line of Condemnation. It’s like trying to decide how much worse killing thirty people is as opposed to only ten. It doesn’t matter - killing ten people causes you to deserve the maximum penalty under law. So does thirty people. Maybe killing thirty people **is** worse. Does that mean the killer of ten shouldn’t be condemned? > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Ah, yes, the “Usual Suspects”. Perhaps we need a version of Godwin’s Law which states that as the length of any political discussion involving Shodan increases, the probability of his mentioning the “Usual Suspects” approaches 1. Then how about **Shodan** ’s Corollary? > [@](#): > > In any political discussion in which liberal stupidity is condemned, the probablility approaches unity that some liberal will chime in to demonstrate exactly the behavior condemned. The other corollary being that the Usual Suspects will blame it on Bush. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (By the way, I wasn’t saying you were oversimplifying in your description of what types of discussions occur on the SDMB, rather, I was saying you were oversimplifying in your analysis of what the election results prove.) Well, perceptions that Democrats are weak on national security are a factor, although not the only one. I am not pretending that it is the only factor. On the other hand, the more it happens, the less likely it is to be a fluke. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > suppose that voters just plain agree with Republican positions on issues 52% of the time compared to 48% for democrats. What then? I mean, presumably at some level the democrats have their positions because they think that those positions are RIGHT. If they change their positions to get votes, then they’re abandoning what they believe… so how should they proceed?) Then you’re screwed, and Republicans run the country until and unless the voters change their minds. Or maybe the Democratic positions aren’t RIGHT. And you may want to consider that possibility (in the circumstance you described), or resign yourselves to being True Believers Who Never Win Elections. Think Libertarians or the Socialist Workers’ Party. I am sure they think they are right - too. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/191 "2005-01-11T01:00:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, that’s not the standard. If the Left does not condemn outrageous statements, they are just as stupid as the Right would be if they did not condemn outrageous statements from their side. Well, I still think you’re contradicting yourself here, but… it’s a very side issue thing, and I think that you and I both agree that: -Some extreme people are idiots on both sides -But lots of people aren’t > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So, let’s say someone who is an extreme lefty posts “I am happy whenever an Iraqi kills an American in Iraq” in the middle of a long thread. Who do you draw conclusions about? > > Anyone participating in the thread, who (presumably) reads the other posts in the thread and does or doesn’t react to the outrageous statement. What if, say, some lefty said something outrageous and then 200 lefties in a row jumped down his throat. Would the 201st still be obliged to do so also, to show his patriotism? How about if the outrageous statement occurred on page 2, and then by page 4 the discussion had somewhat mutated into a very different line of discussion, and some lefty wanted to join it there. Would he be obliged to say “First off, I condemn statement X on page 2. Now, as to the current discussion…” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And what about ones who have posted in other threads clearly stating that they are not happy when Iraqis kill Americans, and are outraged by any American who is? Are they obligated to restate that opinion in toto, should they provide links to those posts, or should they trust that you’ve read every thread on the SDMB? > > I have already mentioned, twice, that the reasonable lefties are not the issue. The dipshits are. What if a poster isn’t sure whether or not you, **Shodan** , who appear to be the official judge-of-which-lefties-are-dipshits, have yet evaulated his dipshitness, but he just got done being very reasonable and expressing his outrage at loony lefties in another thread. Should he express his outrage just to be safe? Again, I’m being a bit sarcastic, because I’m trying to make the point that your guilt-by-association-unless-outrage-is-expressed standard is a basically meaningless one. Now, if all you’re claiming is that “not expressing outrage makes the left look bad”, well, you might be right. You clearly are, in fact, in that “looking bad” is relative to the observer, and you’re an observer. But that’s different from “not expressing outrage **is actual evidence** of badness”. In other words, if your point is “you lefties had better start expressing more outrage at your more fringe elements, if you want to get elected”, you might be right. If your point is “you lefties had better start expressing more outrage at borderline-treasonous statements, else you will expose yourself as the borderline-traitors that you are” then you are very badly misguided. > [@](#): > > Maybe some of you lefties don’t, you simply post your knee-jerk reactions regardless of what anyone else has said. In many cases, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true. Thanks for reinserting snide partisanship into what, briefly, had a glimmering hope of being a meaningful and polite discussion. > [@](#): > > And when you compare that with the thin-skinned outrage that many of the same folks employ to attack anything and everything Republican, you see a double standard. It’s perfectly fine for **me** to accuse Bush of anything at all - at all - but “gee, I sure hope Americans die so I can feel like I won an argument” - well, let’s just not say anything about that. What’s the problem, after all? " First of all, it’s absolutely positively human nature for people to be more sensitive to questionable behavior from those they dislike or are opposed to. Which is not to say that I think it’s OK for liberals to do or say dumb things. But I’m far more likely to start a pit thread about a conservative doing or saying a dumb thing. And I’d assume the opposite for you. And I see no problem with that. And, bluntly, some people shrilly attack republicans a lot because they REALLY REALLY REALLY dislike the current administration and everything it stands for. Many left-leaning folks, myself included, honestly believe that Bush is one of the 5 or so worst presidents we’ve ever had, and the current Iraq situation is a colossal and tragic national blunder, and yet one that is (to us) bafflingly supported by a disturbing portion of the population. It’s easy for people like you and **Bricker** to look at the level of vitriol and anger that is displayed and tut tut disapprovingly about how calm and above-it-all you are in your political statements. But the fact is, you can AFFORD to be calm. You’re winning. You’re on top. You like the state of things. And even during the Clinton years, very very few (if any) people honestly believed that Clinton was a Supreme Disaster of a president, or that the country was involved in a colosssal, disastrous and immoral national blunder on the scale of the Iraq war. All of that said, no one has even come CLOSE to saying something as contemptible as “I sure hope Americans die so I can feel like I won an argument”. And if someone did, I bet you dollars to donuts that they would be condemned by EVERYONE. > [@](#): > > or wishing death on American soldiers doesn’t sound so outrageous to them. Or, like both you and I, they kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Just for myself, by the time I was convinced that it wasn’t going to, it was 3 pages in, and there didn’t seem any point any more. Show me a thread started by someone saying, unambiguously, “I’m an American citizen, but I hate Bush so much that I want our soldiers to die just so that it reflects badly on him” and I’ll show you a thread in which a HELL of a lot of lefties jump the hell all over the OP > [@](#): > > Imagine how the Republican party would look if it did not repudiate David Duke, and send some of its politicians down to campaign against him? Did it repudiate Falwell and Robertson after they blamed 9/11 on lesbians? Is that any less outrageous than anything any leftist has said? Look, I don’t want to get into a who-repudiated-who pissing match, if only because I’m far too lazy to do the necessary googling. But, honestly, I can’t think of many (if any) public figures who are associated with the left but who are as extreme in their views as David Duke is in his, PARTICULARLY if we restrict ourselves to politicians. Is there someone running in a democratic primary somewhere on a “american deaths in Iraq are good because we are imperialist pigs who deserve it” platform? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You didn’t address a key issue. Do you, or do you not, believe that [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) is as extreme as st_rmfr_nt? Is it even in the same ballpark? > > > > And while we’re on the topic, what about Michael Moore? Is he in the same ballpark as SF? > > It’s not a key issue. It is to me, in that I gave money to MoveOn during the campaign (although I don’t necessarily agree with them 100%) and I’d like you to either substantiate your charge, so I can decide whether to withdraw my support from them, or withdraw your charge, so I don’t feel like you’re accusing me of being the next thing to SF. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter which is worse - racist statements AND statements like “I hope Americans die” cross a certain line. Call it the Line of Condemnation. It’s like trying to decide how much worse killing thirty people is as opposed to only ten. It doesn’t matter - killing ten people causes you to deserve the maximum penalty under law. So does thirty people. Maybe killing thirty people **is** worse. Does that mean the killer of ten shouldn’t be condemned? And neither Michael Moore nor MoveOn has ever, to the best of my knowledge, said they hoped Americans would die. Thus, I hope you withdraw your comparison of SF (and other extreme groups) and MoveOn. (Which you made in post #169). > [@](#): > > Or maybe the Democratic positions aren’t RIGHT. And you may want to consider that possibility I wouldn’t have discussions like this if I didn’t. I’d hope you feel the same way. Note, also, that in the context I was just using it in, “right” meant “agreeing with what voters truly believe”. The possibility certainly exists that the Democratic positiosn were BETTER, in that if we performed a hypothetical experiment with two separate Americas, one run by the left and one by the right, the one run by the left would come out, in some sense, “better”, without the voters being aware of that. Certainly, there have been elections in the past where one now looks back and says “the country would have been far better off if the other guy had won”. To sum up, it’s possible that: (a) A (presumably slim) majority of voters are actually closer to democratic than republican beliefs, but various other factors (republicans are much better at campaigning, when there’s a war going on the incumbent always gets a boost, Theresa Heinz Kerry is foreign, etc.) cause the republicans to win anyhow (b) A (presumably slim) majority of voters are actually closer to republican than democratic beliefs, as reflected in the election outcome, but those voters are foolish, as democratic beliefs are (in some fashion) actually better for the country or (c) A (presumably slim) majority of voters are actually closer to republican than democratic beliefs, as reflected in the election outcome, and those voters are wise, as republican beliefs are, in fact, better for the country Presumably, you think that (c) is the situation, and I think that either (a) or (b) is the situation, and in either case, I think we liberals need to do a better job of campaigning, choosing candidates, communicating our message, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/192 "2005-01-11T14:06:16Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think that you and I both agree that: > -Some extreme people are idiots on both sides > -But lots of people aren’t - And that the extreme idiots cause most of the trouble - And that the reasonable types might do well to dissociate themselves from the lunatics if they want to be perceived as reasonable types > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > What if, say, some lefty said something outrageous and then 200 lefties in a row jumped down his throat. Would the 201st still be obliged to do so also, to show his patriotism? How about if the outrageous statement occurred on page 2, and then by page 4 the discussion had somewhat mutated into a very different line of discussion, and some lefty wanted to join it there. Would he be obliged to say “First off, I condemn statement X on page 2. Now, as to the current discussion…” > > What if a poster isn’t sure whether or not you, **Shodan** , who appear to be the official judge-of-which-lefties-are-dipshits, have yet evaulated his dipshitness, but he just got done being very reasonable and expressing his outrage at loony lefties in another thread. Should he express his outrage just to be safe? Who gives a shit? We are talking about a thread in which a lefty made an outrageous statement, and the rest of the lefties posting had almost nothing to say about it. They either didn’t notice it, or it didn’t sound outrageous. Feel free to try to dig up strawman situations if you like. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Now, if all you’re claiming is that “not expressing outrage makes the left look bad”, well, you might be right. Well, that’s what I keep saying. You apparently are looking for a reason to think I said something else. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But, honestly, I can’t think of many (if any) public figures who are associated with the left but who are as extreme in their views as David Duke is in his… So you’ve never heard of Al Sharpton? > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > It’s easy for people like you and **Bricker** to look at the level of vitriol and anger that is displayed and tut tut disapprovingly about how calm and above-it-all you are in your political statements. Who ever said I was calm and above it all? > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > All of that said, no one has even come CLOSE to saying something as contemptible as “I sure hope Americans die so I can feel like I won an argument”. And if someone did, I bet you dollars to donuts that they would be condemned by EVERYONE. Haven’t read the thread where **rbxgm** or whatever it is made the statement we have been discussing? And that he was NOT “condemned by everyone” is exactly my point. You’re setting up strawmen, and I am repeating myself. Whatever. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/193 "2005-01-11T14:24:14Z")
I’ve posted in several places on this board that I support the troops in Iraq, and hope every last one of them returns safe and sound to their loved ones. Sure, the guy who said he hopes American troops get killed in Iraq is an ass. But I don’t feel particularly obligated to call him on it … my position is clear. Maybe it’s that “Thou shalt not publicly speak ill of a Republican” thing finally manisfesting itself on the Dem side. You’ll forgive us for closing up ranks, given the results of the last couple of elections. We’re going to have fight a lot harder to win in the next few years with people like Rove running things for the Pubbies. Maybe evne not so fairly as we once did. I think after four more years of Bush, people are going to see that. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/194 "2005-01-12T01:07:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > - And that the extreme idiots cause most of the trouble > - And that the reasonable types might do well to dissociate themselves from the lunatics if they want to be perceived as reasonable types I think we’ve begun to understand each other here… one other comment, though, is that you seem to be conflating the outside world and the SDMB here. In the “real world”, suppose a vaguely prominent democrat made a statement like “I support insurgents when they kill Americans”. Every other democratic politician in the country would be jumping over each other to condemn that statement as fast as possible, and if they didn’t, you’d wonder why. They are public figures, and are being judged by a public which expects them to respond to things like that, make statements, etc. That’s different from the SDMB. If I see some lefty make a ridiculous statement, and I’m just not in the mood to respond, I won’t, even if my response would be strong condemnation. If you think that reflects badly on me, personally, or on the left on the SDMB as a whole, well, I can’t stop you from thinking that. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But, honestly, I can’t think of many (if any) public figures who are associated with the left but who are as extreme in their views as David Duke is in his… > > So you’ve never heard of Al Sharpton? I think of Al Sharpton as a bit of a self-aggrandizing clown, but if he has outrageous, extreme, hateful political views, I don’t know about them. Care to fill me in? > [@](#): > > Who ever said I was calm and above it all? Good point. **Bricker** does sometimes have a bit of that attitude about him, though. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > All of that said, no one has even come CLOSE to saying something as contemptible as “I sure hope Americans die so I can feel like I won an argument”. And if someone did, I bet you dollars to donuts that they would be condemned by EVERYONE. > > Haven’t read the thread where **rbxgm** or whatever it is made the statement we have been discussing? And that he was NOT “condemned by everyone” is exactly my point. Except that he didn’t say that. Saying “I support Iraqis who are fighting Americans” is a pretty strong statement, and one which I condemn, but it’s zillions of times less offensive than “I want Americans to die JUST SO THAT I CAN FEEL LIKE I WON AN ARGUMENT”. One is extreme and requires massive justification (which, in that case, was not forthcoming). The other is utterly and totally inexcusably evil. Anyhow, you’re avoiding a question: Do you or do you not withdraw your claim that [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) is as extreme as st_rmfr_nt? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/195 "2005-01-12T20:40:54Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Anyhow, you’re avoiding a question: > Do you or do you not withdraw your claim that [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) is as extreme as st_rmfr_nt? > [@Shodan](#): > > It doesn’t matter which is worse - racist statements AND statements like “I hope Americans die” cross a certain line. Call it the Line of Condemnation. It’s like trying to decide how much worse killing thirty people is as opposed to only ten. It doesn’t matter - killing ten people causes you to deserve the maximum penalty under law. So does thirty people. Maybe killing thirty people is worse. Does that mean the killer of ten shouldn’t be condemned? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/196 "2005-01-13T01:13:32Z")
**Shodan** , I’m one who didn’t read all of the thread. I’ve read only the last page and that was because at the time, you were the last to post and I wanted to see what you had to say. I didn’t see the offending post. If a view is so extreme as that one apparently was and there is little doubt that others will already find it just as repulsive as I do, then I don’t bother to state the obvious or, in some cases, nibble at the bait. I know that you recognize that desiring the death of American soldiers is not a Leftist stance. (Like the Right, we are a mixed bag.) Did you honestly think that failure here to condemn that statement meant that most of the liberals who read it agreed with it? > [@](#): > > **Shodan** : (Liberals/Democrats): “BushLiedBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED!!!” > > To which I tend to respond by shrugging my shoulders \ > [@](#): > > If the Left does not condemn outrageous statements, they are just as stupid as the Right would be if they did not condemn outrageous statements from their side. Do you mind clarifying some things? We did not speak out much against a poster who said something outrageous and, right or wrong, you held our feet to the fire for it. Can you imagine how we feel when we sincerely believe that the POTUS is telling lie after lie after lie to the American public and you just shrug your shoulders? Do you believe the President has not lied or deliberately mislead the country at any point? Can you understand why people on the Left think that he has? Have you condemned outrageous statements from the right at SDMB? **Shodan** , I honestly believe that the President _is_ responsible for the death of American troops and Iraqi people _needlessly_ every day. And I am outraged beyond imagination. I speak out about it every day and that’s all I can do. Although we disagree, please try to understand the irony. I wish you and those you love safety and peace. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/197 "2005-01-13T02:25:47Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > Anyhow, you’re avoiding a question: > > Do you or do you not withdraw your claim that [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) is as extreme as st_rmfr_nt? > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > It doesn’t matter which is worse - racist statements AND statements like “I hope Americans die” cross a certain line. Call it the Line of Condemnation. It’s like trying to decide how much worse killing thirty people is as opposed to only ten. It doesn’t matter - killing ten people causes you to deserve the maximum penalty under law. So does thirty people. Maybe killing thirty people is worse. Does that mean the killer of ten shouldn’t be condemned? [Moveon.org](http://Moveon.org) hopes Americans die? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/198 "2005-01-13T16:12:01Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Do you believe the President has not lied or deliberately mislead the country at any point? No, I don’t. I think he relied on information that turned out to be false, but he did so in good faith. > [@](#): > > Can you understand why people on the Left think that he has? Absolutely. What I can’t understand is why the people on the left regard it as a proven fact. In other words, I am open to the possibility that Mr. Bush lied – I don’t think he did, but I’m willing to concede I may be wrong. After all, he claimed certainty about something that simply wasn’t true… it’s very reasonable to assume he was lying. But if I’m open to that as a possibility, I don’t understand why folks on the left can’t say, “I believe Mr. Bush lied, but I’m open to the possibility that he simply relied on bad information in good faith.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/199 "2005-01-13T21:49:16Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Did you honestly think that failure here to condemn that statement meant that most of the liberals who read it agreed with it? No. There has been some effort to try to make me say so, but no. > [@Zoe](#): > > Can you imagine how we feel when we sincerely believe that the POTUS is telling lie after lie after lie to the American public and you just shrug your shoulders? Yes, I can understand it. I had eight years of it with Clinton. > [@Zoe](#): > > Do you believe the President has not lied or deliberately mislead the country at any point? Can you understand why people on the Left think that he has? No, he has not. Yes, I can understand why you might think so. > [@Zoe](#): > > Have you condemned outrageous statements from the right at SDMB? Yes. > [@Zoe](#): > > **Shodan** , I honestly believe that the President _is_ responsible for the death of American troops and Iraqi people _needlessly_ every day. And I am outraged beyond imagination. I speak out about it every day and that’s all I can do. Although we disagree, please try to understand the irony. > > I wish you and those you love safety and peace. Thanks, you as well. > [@Zoe](#): > > Do you believe the President has not lied or deliberately mislead the country at any point? You want to run thru this one more time? OK. The following are statements of fact. I am not going to cite any of it; if you don’t believe me, fine. [ul][li]Saddam Hussein had WMD in the past.[/li][li]Saddam used WMD in the past.[/li][li]Saddam had a history of aggression against his neighbors. [/li][li]Saddam ran a regime notable for its use of torture, murder, kidnapping, rape, and other severe violations of human rights. [/li][li]Saddam committed himself to divesting himself of WMD, and proving to the world that he had done so. The burden of proof was on him. [/li][li]Saddam had a history of not cooperating with the inspection regime. [/li][li]Clinton took military action - specifically bombing - against Iraq. His stated reason for this bombing was that Iraq had WMD. [/ul]With me so far? [/li] The following is more like opinion: [ul][li]It was the settled view of practically everyone during the 90s that Saddam was acting like he had something to hide.[/li][li]It was likely that what he was trying to hide was that he had, or wanted badly to obtain, WMD. [/li][li]It was the consensus view of the heads of the American intelligence agencies that Saddam had WMD. There was some doubt in some quarters, but those who were responsible for informing the President, during the 90s and after 2001, told the President that Iraq had WMD. [_]It is possible to become aware of the threat posed by one group from attacks from another, related group. Having your car stolen while at work may make you more paranoid about being robbed in the parking lot, even if the car thief and mugger never heard of each other in their lives. But becoming aware that you live in a high-crime district makes you afraid (very often) of both.[/ul][/li] And now the part that IS opinion: [ul] [li]It is not necessary to claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11 to say that the US became aware of the threat posed by international terrorism in general on 9/11.[/li][li]Most of the attempts to claim that Bush, or Bush supporters, said that Iraq was involved in 9/11 are from people deliberately misinterpreting what was said.[/li][li]There were several instances of Bush or his representatives over-stating the certainty of the intelligence on which they relied. If you want to say Bush lied, this is pretty much the only place you can credibly do so.[/li][li]If “depending on wrong intelligence” is lying, then Bush lied. So did Clinton. So did Hilary, Kerry, Albright, etc. [/li][li]If taking military action against Iraq based on the stated belief that she had WMD makes you unworthy to be President, then Clinton was unworthy to be President. [/li][li]If taking military action against Iraq based on reasons other than the stated one that Iraq had WMD makes you scum, then Clinton is scum. [/li][li]Condemnations of Clinton based on his missile strikes against Iraq are to condemnations of Bush for the invasion as 10,000 is to one on the SDMB. Ergo[/li][li]If the standard as what constitutes lying changes based on the political party to which you belong, it isn’t much of a standard.[_]Then the accusation that Bush lied, repeated _ad nauseum_ by the Usual Suspects becomes an empty political exercise. [/ul][/li] I probably shouldn’t bother posting this, as it is either undebatable, or has been hashed over endlessly, and I don’t really care to run thru it again. I haven’t changed anyone’s mind, and no one has changed my mind. And I am sick of it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091/200 "2005-01-13T23:44:35Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > [Moveon.org](http://Moveon.org) hopes Americans die? Cite? Still waiting for the cite… surely it will be forthcoming. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-the-dem-position-on-islamic-terrorism-be/282091.md?page=11)