In more of this morning’s news: A giant ball of yellow-orange fire was spotted over the eastern horizon.
Uh, gang, since when did we start making up our minds on the basis of counting sound bites, and comparing the prominences of the soundbiters? Some here do, apparently, but not the ones interested in fighting ignorance. The strength of the argument counts, not who made it - argumentum ad somebodyelsesaysso is a fallacy, ya know.
december, what do you think, and what were the facts and reasoning process that led you to that conclusion? I hope you can do better than quotes and paraphrasing - for once.
Sam, on what basis (see above) do you conclude that most of us down here mindlessly support Bush down the line?
You had no problem with a link that doesn’t exist? That’s a little metaphysical for me.
It has nothing to do with “tweaking” Internet Explorer. What post is it that you are finding a link in? I see no link in December’s post. Here is it, with coding intact, as “Reply with Quote”. Point to the link, please. There is no link. Link there is not.
Links are conspicuous by their absence in this post. No links are found. Links are extinct in this post. El linko no hay en la casa. Paging Mr. Link, paging Mr. Link, call for Mr. Link…
Catching my drift?
I would really, really like to know exactly which mysterious political commentator calls McDermott and Bonior “no better than agents for Saddam”, and in order to do that, I need to see the original link from whence December obtained this remarkable quote, since he didn’t see fit to clue us in on who was talking.
Sam Stone, I’d be ecstatic if you’d be so kind as to go find Michele Martin’s resume/profile/biographical information and prove to me that she’s anything more than a token female stuck with the job of appearing on This Week because she has a contract with ABC and the contract says she has to do what she’s told. If you put “cokie roberts biography” into Google, stuff comes up. You put “michele martin biography” into Google and–nada, zip.
Prove to me that Michele is a serious, well-respected journalist on a par with, say, Cokie Roberts, and I will withdraw the comment.
I am surprised that no one else has brought this up so I will. Listening to talk radio this afternoon, I noticed people were very upset with the Democrats for trying this move. Even Eagan & Braude, the local Liberal talk show.
Specifically, the two Dems that went to Iraq made statements blasting Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation -from Bagdad. Making comments against the POTUS while in the nation we are about to go to war with is one thing. Doing it while you are physically located in that country certainly strikes me as wrong. I am sure many others will agree that this is in extemely poor taste to say the least.
We are? Could we discuss this a bit more, perhaps? A few of us nervous nellies are a wee bit concerned, don’t you know. Actually, there are a number of us who just plain don’t like war. Wierd, huh?
Um, Apos, is that supposed to be a joke? It’s hardly the same “Michele Martin” who works for ABC. This one works as a translator for the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center, and her bio, strangly, doesn’t mention anything about ABC.
Okay, so December’s quote is apparently from an Internet commentator named Will Vehrs who goes by the pen name of “QuasiPundit”. For posterity, if anyone wants to go find it again, it’ll be under “Sunday September 29” in the QuasiPundit archives.
And apparently QuasiPundit didn’t say this:
–as it’s not on the web page anywhere. I therefore infer that it is December’s own thought, erroneously included in the quoted QuasiPundit portion (say that three times fast–“quoted quasipundit portion”), which made it seem like it was QuasiPundit’s quote.
So, glad we have that all cleared up–December is the one who thinks they’re acting like Iraqi sycophants.
Yes, I smell you. But I think I know a link when I click it. Besides, he gave you the contents. And they are substantially the same as the story on FoxNews.com. It isn’t that hard to find, especially for someone of your legendary search capabilities.
Dammit, Lib, there is no clickable link in December’s post. You know a link when you click it, but you didn’t click it, because it isn’t there to click. Are you saying December edited his post to remove the link? Are you saying a moderator edited his post to remove the link? Are you saying the hamsters went back and inserted the link between 6 p.m. Sunday, when I looked at the post, and 6 a.m. Monday, when you looked at the post? Or, what, the link was there when you looked at the thread earlier on Sunday afternoon, and then it was gone when I posted at suppertime?
Egad, I’m having a Beautiful Mind moment here… :eek:
Or what, you can see a link that nobody else can see? Maybe you’re the one who’s having a Beautiful Mind moment.
The contents were not “substantially the same”–he added his own thought, the one about “Iraqi sycophants”, so it made it seem like his quoted link person was saying it. The SDMB stands for more accuracy than that.
And it’s December’s job to post a proper link to anything he quotes. The rest of us shouldn’t have to go search for it. That’s one of the first rules here, and everybody knows it, from the rawest newbie right on down.
So… A woman needs to show you proof of her competance, or your default assumption is that she’s a bimbo?
Michelle Martin is an ABC News Correspondent. She has covered all kinds of issues - I believe she was the lead correspondent covering Bush’s stem cell decision, btw.
Oh, and she’s been a semi-regular on This Week a number of times - and I guarantee you that you won’t sit at that table and go toe-to-toe with the likes of George Will or Cokie Roberts if you’re a ‘bimbo’. That might work on Bill Maher’s old shoe, but This Week is the big leagues, and a lot more serious. I’ve seen her a number of times, and I NEVER had the impression that she was anything other than serious and intelligent.
A Democratic congressman going to Iraq is not any more complex than a popularity stunt.
Now if they chained themselves to one of Saddam’s presidental palaces as the bombing began, that’s different, but this is a non-issue. Despite their cause, they’re hotdogging as bad as Jesse Jackson.
This is an odd stance for me to take. I usually don’t have a problem with people giving Bush the political bird. I just think that members of Congress should stick to being just that - members of Congress, not free-roaming diplomatic entities with open pockets.
That’s being clear? I thought Bush was for “action”, with or without UN support. Less than 40% of the population supports that.
And december, it seems you could have included the David Bonior quote that was included in Andrew Sullivan’s article you linked, just before the erroneous conclusions you extracted. Coincidently, your extract starts out “let’s be clear here”, which sounds vaguely familiar. The quote says:
The broader context of the quotes revolved around the negotiations currently underway in Vienna, putting trust into Hans Blix. It seems the Iraqis have some silly concern about esponiage conducted by the previous inspectors. Bonior’s comments were simply reflecting the position that these inspections should be above reproach, and not influenced strictly by Bush’s warmongers. Is there something improper about “fair and impartial”? Should we have inspectors that are “unfair and biased”? Kinda like the cites you use to support your position?
I’m not convinced that it is wrong or shows extremely poor taste. However, if I were to concede both, it still smacks of nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from the question at hand. What about the content of the criticism? McDermott’s comments about Bush “misleading” the American people may be crossing the line, but such accusations should be easy for Bush to refute - if they are untrue. And it is a bit different from calling him a liar. It leaves room for such other possibilities as ill-informed, poorly advised, or confused about our reasons for wanting war.
I think you may be right, because Dubya doesn’t really want disarmament (like he says), he wants Dubya-A-R. Like it is a personal vendetta, or something.
Skilled negotiation doesn’t involve “smoking out” the other side. Negotiation involves some balance of Power, Time, and Information between the parties involved - each party must have some of each for any negotiation to take place. But the negotiation you are referencing isn’t between the US and Iraq - no one, not even the Iraqis, think that McDermott or Bonior represent US policy. The negotiation is with the administration, whom have a disproportionate share of Time and Power. Information is the only angle the Democrats have.
And there is nothing wrong with that. If he believes it, he has the responsibility to say it. That is the American way.
Either that, or it is a country that walks lockstep with a President that wants to launch an unprovoked pre-emptive attack against a sovereign nation without international support or approval.[sup]1[/sup]
I’ll take the dissenting voices, thanks. Now I’ll retake my seat on the side with the majority of Americans.
[sup]1[/sup] Anyone that wishes to quote this sentence and proceed to tell about all the horrible, dangerous, insane, and diabolical plots of SH, I’ll so stipulate. Focus on the last phrase, if you must.
The last poll I saw had support of invasion at 78% as long as the U.N. went along with it, and 53% even if the U.N. didn’t.
But there’s a more important political factor, and that is that defense and security are traditional ‘Republican’ issues, and the Democrats usually lose when they have to face Republicans on that issue. Democrats claim they are not ‘soft on the war’, because at a time like the this the voters want tough politicians. But then they pull stunts like the Bonior/McDermott Iraqi Dog and Pony Show, and it makes the voters wonder. And voters aren’t stupid - they know that Democrats have tended to be soft on defense. Clinton had to fight an uphill battle on defense because of that, and to his credit did a fairly good job. Gulf I had very weak Democratic support.
So the Democrats are trying to avoid this issue just like Republicans try to dodge away from situations involving corporate corruption or health care, because those are ‘Democratic issues’ and it’s hard for Republicans to win.
Either Sullivan or some other blogger had a fit over Bonior’s recommendation of impartiality between the US and Iraq. We should be impartial between our own free and democratic country and a terrorist tyranny that threatens the world with WMDs? :eek:
Incidentally, note how this action nullifies the Daschle “hissy fit.” Due to a misunderstanding, Daschle and other Dems wound up “nobly” defending themselves against the dastardly accusation of not supporting America’s security against Iraq (Actually Bush had been talking about Homeland Security.) However, Bonior and McDermott’s action supports even the incorrect version of Bush’s statement.
Sure he did–“a” link. It was to a CNN.com article saying, “These two Democrats are going to Iraq.”
Accuracy is important here at the SDMB. Surprised you don’t seem to care. Or can’t be bothered to scroll up and look at it for yourself.
Where the entertainment industry is concerned–absolutely. And remember, ABC is part of the “entertainment industry”. The minute This Week’s ratings start to sink, watch how fast they change panelists. That’s why they changed panelists last summer.
Saying, “hey, she’s a respected journalist because I think she sounds like one, and she’s been on This Week for a while now, and I saw her do a standup covering stem cell research” doesn’t count as “finding her biography or professional resume” for me. No, we’ll apparently have to leave that up to my own skills with a search engine and limitless patience. :rolleyes:
QuasiPundit spelled the name wrong–it’s not “Michele”, it’s “Michel”. I don’t watch TV. I don’t know “Michel” Martin from Adam.
You are evidently so unfamiliar with who we’re talking about that you didn’t recognize Emmy-award-winning Michel Martin, and you couldn’t simply point me in the right direction, like, “Hey, she’s on Nightline”, or “Hey, she won an Emmy.”
Geez.
So okay, no thanks to SamStone, I hereby admit that Michel Martin is a respected journalist after all.
But just because a journalist, even a respected journalist, thinks the Democrats are in trouble, doesn’t make it so.
Very strange. The ABC News web site lists her as “Michelle Martin”, which is why I spelled it that way. So don’t blame me for a misspelling - apparently, her own company can’t spell it right either.
That’s a little metaphysical for me.