Wtf Cheney/lieberman!?!?!

[kaylasdad99]

@rjung

Because I have neither the patience or the good-will to cope with still-delusional morons who have no qualms about calling me (and/or us) “appeasers”, “defeat-ocrats”, and “al Qaeda enablers.”

Y’see, what’s disheartening about that is how easy it is to get you to assign somebody membership in that club. Maybe it’s because there’s a problem with the search" function, but I can’t find an instance of Scylla using any of those terms on anyone at all (although he did once call me a cutesysemanticbitch, and invite me to chokeonaturd) :D.

It looks a lot like a determination of guilt by association, and I’m not comfortable with having that two-edged weapon wielded by the people whose side I’m on. 'Cos it makes you look like a dick. And by association, it makes me look like a dick for being on your side.

Think I’ll dust off the ol’ .sig line for the occasion.

[Merijeek]

@rjung

Because I have neither the patience or the good-will to cope with still-delusional morons who have no qualms about calling me (and/or us) “appeasers”, “defeat-ocrats”, and “al Qaeda enablers.”

You forgot “Saddamite” - it’s dual use because you get to call someone a terrorist sympathiser and a homo…all in one convenient package!

Boy was that word busy in 2003.

-Joe, fair and balanced

[Oy]

@rjung

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, and this ain’t a popularity contest.

Well, if you aren’t, why bother at all? Because in this country, that’s what it still comes down to: winning votes.

Personally, I’d LOVE to be able to convince someone. Anyone. Of something. Anything.

But I’ll settle for convincing the people in power (and/or the people who put them there), if they happen to be the folks who disagree with me, that I’m not a complete jerk and that maybe, just maybe, there’s some validity to what I’m saying. It may not pay off today, or even tomorrow. But maybe it will someday. It’s a better shot than convincing them I’m an asshole and that my viewpoint couldn’t possibly have any intelligence, information, thought, or well-meaning behind it.

And maybe someday, if I try to keep an open mind (and believe me, it can be a struggle), I’ll understand one of their viewpoints well enough that I won’t hate what’s actually happening quite so much. For example, if Scylla can convince me that, despite whatever opinion I hold of Bush and his minions, invading Iraq will actually turn out to have been the right thing to do, I will a) be extremely surprised and b) feel a lot better about things as they are.

[Oy]

Oh, God.

I thought that KaylasDad’s signature was so hysterical, and the link was only to the isolated post, so I decided to search on Scylla’s user name and some verbage from that invidual post (the search engine wouldn’t take CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!!, dammit!), because I thought ‘Oh, good! Scylla’s being funny again.’

I found the thread, and read it. Oh sweet Jesus, how I wish I hadn’t.

Scylla, I’ve invested a lot in the idea that you (and therefore some of the other hard right-wingers on this message board) were a great guy with whom it was possible to rationally disagree. Now, that’s not your problem; it’s mine. But the guy I saw posting in that thread doesn’t fit that description. Not by a country mile.

Please tell me that you don’t believe that everyone who thinks that the Bush admin manipulated intelligence, or that everyone who is concerned about the unilateral power’s this administration has taken to itself, or that everyone who thinks that there’s a really good chance that some torture has taken place, and that it would appear that this was seriously supported by both the Vice President and the attornery general Samual Alito, is a fucking traitor who doesn’t deserve to live in this country or to exchange words with you. Please tell me that you were having a bad day, that a lot of things had pissed you off, that the fact of conservatives being outnumbered two to one in general on the boards and specifically by about ten to one in that thread had you too pissed off to post rationally. Because I don’t want to have to believe that you’re really the guy in that thread. I really, really don’t.

And before the rest of you begin, I don’t want to hear from anyone else on this particular issue. I made it public rather than private because I think there are other people who might be reading this who would like to know. I’m not interested in what the rest of you say about Scylla’s views. I want to hear them from him, or no one. I don’t care how many cites or threads you want to provide. I don’t want to read them. I want to hear what he says about himself.

Fortunately or unfortunately, he is now away for several days, so he won’t be able to respond until (I’m guessing) Saturday. For me that’s just as well, because I’ve been spending too damn much time here lately, and I need to get away. And if it turns out that I’ve misread Scylla that badly, then maybe I’d better stay there, or at least stick to MPSIMS and IMHO in the future.

I’m leaving now.

[rjung]

@Oy!

Well, if you aren’t, why bother at all?

I just enjoy exercising my right to free speech. I figure I better enjoy it while it lasts.

@Oy!

But I’ll settle for convincing the people in power (and/or the people who put them there), if they happen to be the folks who disagree with me, that I’m not a complete jerk and that maybe, just maybe, there’s some validity to what I’m saying.

More power to you.

[MrDibble]

@elucidator

I speak, of course, as a long-time Pit Bitch. I even have my own monogrammed, stainless steel Meat Fork.

So, is the surname initial the big one in the middle, or what?

[RTFirefly]

CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!! - Scylla, in this post.

I didn’t even open that thread while it was current, but wow. Just wow.

My opinion of Scylla is far from as high as it once was, and I think Oy! has managed to not see a side of Scylla that’s been under her nose all along. But opening up page 2 of that thread and reading posts 68 and 79…dayum. He’s flipped.

[kaylasdad99]

Uh-oh.

Look, let’s not get too worked up on the .sig line, okay? For the record, I asked for permission to take it, and Scylla was kind enough to agree. Also, he originally made it in response to a post of mine that contained a provocative point which not even everybody on my side in this argument accepts as valid. Later on in the thread, he even thanked me for my assistance in clarifying the location of some cites that had been offered in opposition to his position.

I don’t think my .sig line is indicative of any inherent instability or viciousness on Scylla’s part, and I didn’t think anybody else would, either. He’s wrong, of course, in this argument, and I see no need to pull any rhetorical punches, but if he’s going to get ad hominemed on the basis of my .sig line, I’ll just go back to:

One never has to ask to put my words of wisdom in their sig. Shit, if this was my board it would be mandatory. - Giraffe, in this thread.

[rjung]

@RTFirefly

My opinion of Scylla is far from as high as it once was, and I think Oy! has managed to not see a side of Scylla that’s been under her nose all along. But opening up page 2 of that thread and reading posts 68 and 79…dayum. He’s flipped.

And Oy! wonders why I don’t bother to play nice.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@kaylasdad99

I don’t think my .sig line is indicative of any inherent instability or viciousness on Scylla’s part, and I didn’t think anybody else would, either. He’s wrong, of course, in this argument, and I see no need to pull any rhetorical punches, but if he’s going to get ad hominemed on the basis of my .sig line, I’ll just go back to:

It’s not the sig line. It’s the content of his posts in the linked thread.

RTFirefly, it’s my understanding that Oy! hasn’t been spending much time in the Pit until recently.

[RTFirefly]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

It’s not the sig line. It’s the content of his posts in the linked thread.

RTFirefly, it’s my understanding that Oy! hasn’t been spending much time in the Pit until recently.

No, I’m thinking of threads where she and Scylla have both been active.

[Scylla]

@elucidator

Well, it wasn’t perzactly an offhanded set of remarks, now was it? It was the speech before the Security Council trying to assert a legitimate premise for war. If all these other issues were so important, why are they ignored? Time limitations? A desire for breezy brevity? Did they dash off a quick speech and neglect to inspect it? You really want to try and sell that one?

As you know, this was the issue in doubt. The President had already spoken before the UN Assembly and given the list of reasons. This one was the most controversial so Powell focussed on it.

Why, no! You must have simply scads and scads of speeches and declarations that center around these desperately urgent points you gave above, that make almost no mention of WMD. Bring them on. Pour them upon us in their multitudes!

Or how about one?

Why would it have to exclude WMDs? Are you sure Powell only and exclusively talked about WMDs during his speech? You might check that Speech againg he also talks about one of the other reasons I gave which was ties to terrorism.

[elucidator]

Which is, of course, as you well know, the same damn thing. The hysteria that the Bushiviks exploited so shamelessly was that first, Saddam had 'em, and second, he was gonna give 'em to his bestest buddy, ObL.

Which is a steaming load. Which you already know.

[Scylla]

@Oy!

OK, maybe I’m wrong here, but I suspect that Scylla’s memory is actually being somewhat distorted by the extra information he has acquired in his reading. His knowledge as to the actual thinking in the White House is undoubtedly more accurate than mine, but as for the citizenry?

As an ordinary citizen who has not read any credible sources one way or another about the actual pre-war planning and thinking inside the White House, I can only give my memories as a citizen who gets her news from NPR (a decent, but hardly in-depth source). I do not remember any substantial reason for our invasion or the so-called Iraq crisis (remember that, folks? Suddenly popped into existence in late summer/early fall 2002, just in time for the mid-terms?) other than Hussein’s supposed WMDs (which the ‘ignored’ UN resolutions related to, they weren’t viewed as a separate issue).

I can hardly explain your impressions. If you were paying attention to the primary source material, IE, Bush’s speeches on the subject you might feel differently.
I can only speculate that because WMDs were the hot button topic it will tend to be what you remember.

One minute, “everybody knew” Hussein probably had a few old and poorly maintained WMDs stashed away where no inspector had found them and no one felt any huge need to do anything about it, and the next, it was a Crisis. This was absolutely tied up with the fact that Hussein was A Very Bad Guy (and in fact, anyone who tried to suggest that maybe this wasn’t the greatest idea in the world was immediately accused of supporting him). But the two were linked together very closely; Iraq was suddenly a grave and urgent threat because it had WMDs and Hussein was A Very Bad Guy who clearly wouldn’t hesitate to use them. The other reasons Scylla claims Bush gave were given to us citizens at most in passing. They almost certainly were part of the White House thinking on the topic. But they weren’t reasons used to convince the public, and therefore Congress.

Yes. They were. Again, I will refer you to the speeches:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/

And let us not forget the rather shameful subtext of the time, that somehow magically Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This was never outright stated by the White House, but every effort was made to couple Iraq and 9/11 together as equal parts of The War Against Terror[sup]TM[/sup] and to emphasize some exceedingly tenuous ties between Iraq/Hussein and bin Laden (considerably less than US ties to either!).

A subtext will be hard for you to cite. Anyway, I’m quite clear on Iraq being part of the war on terror. I understand it. It makes sense.

I think by Election Day 2002, at least 50% of the electorate believed that Iraq had been all or in part responsible for the attacks on 9/11. I’ll be the first person to state that the administration never came right out and said unequivocably that Iraq was involved in 9/11. But it’s either disingenuous or hopelessly ingenuous to think that that impression wasn’t deliberately fostered by the White House in order to drum up citizen support for an invasion.

That’s an editorial interpretation of yours. I strongly disagree with it.

I think Scylla got a little confused on the point of the build-up being ready to go as a justification for the urgency of the invasion. The build-up (all the alliances, logistical set-ups, deployments, etc) were ready to go because the invasion had to be Right Now, NOT the other way around. But it’s surprisingly easy to fall into a circular argument, so I’ll assume that was an error rather than a deliberate attempt at BS. Not that I don’t think you’re perfectly capable of BS, Scylla, because anyone who could write The Horror of Blimps or Evil Nazi Groundhogs clearly is (in the best possible way), but because I assume you wouldn’t try to BS your way here.

No. I think my argument was legitimate as I made it. Where do you think we get 16? 26? resolutions with nothing done about them? Hussain was pretty good about riding the wave of outrage until it died down.

Having pushed the issue as far as we did, if we backed off or allowed it to die down it would be that much tougher to make an issue of it again, at a later date.

But still, Scylla, I think you’re allowing later knowledge to cloud your memory of that time, which as a former psych major, I can tell you is exceedingly easy to do. You know (or at least, have a highly educated opionion on) what the White House thinking was during the pre-war period. I think that distorts your memory of what was being said to the people.

I go by Bush’s speeches, which support this viewpoint of mine.

Now that may not seem all that important to you, but IMO is it very important for two reasons, both linked. One is that it was used to influence congressional elections, and the other is that it was used to manipulate Congress. There is only one reason that the huge majority of Congress voted in favor of granting the President the power to act, and that was that the WMD-9/11 panic/anger had been carefully instilled into the public, along with the delightful little meme that if you didn’t support the White House on this, you were either pro-binLaden, pro-Hussein, or both: a traitor, in other words. Now I don’t have proof that this was done deliberately by the White House, but if you don’t believe it, Scylla, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn and some swamp land in Florida that I’d like to sell you. Congress might have voted in favor of the administration in this without that PR campaign; Lord knows, it’s been a heavily pro-administration congress from the start! But they also might not, because the “facts” being presented to the public in this case were pretty damned weak. And unlike an ordinary citizen, a congress-critter actually is usually pretty up on current events.

Well, I think I told you that the main issue became WMDs and Bush made a mistake allowing it to be characterized this way.

I said as much in 02,'03.

I also maintain that, if there had been any true belief that the sights we had supposedly identified as real WMD sites actually contained WMDs, we would have detached a few men at each, at the very LEAST to provide warning in case Iraqi military decided to show up to use them.

I already responded to this earlier.

So I’m having just a teensy bit more trouble accepting this little white lie than Scylla does, and I think Scylla is using memory distortions to allow his own good impressions to remain.

My memory is generally pretty good. I remembered that I’d spoken to RTF about that article briefly 3 years ago. I don’t need any excuses or what have you. I think what I said was pretty accurate. The speech I cited backs that up.

[Scylla]

@RTFirefly

I don’t recall having debated this with you, and like I said, I don’t recall anyone’s having provided a strong rebuttal. Please to provide a link?

Looks like you found it.

Citing Plan of Attack in some degree of specificity, with a summary of its argument, would also be useful. Just citing the book in a vague manner, and claiming it supports you, is bullshit as far as debate goes.

I wasn’t talking to you. I was making a recommendation to Oy.

It’s like saying, “Somewhere in this tome is my rebuttal to your argument. Why don’t you go read it, and then you can figure out what part of it constitutes my rebuttal, and then you can try to rebut that in turn. Oh, and when you get done with that, I’ll probably tell you that my rebuttal was actually some other section of the book that you didn’t consider.”
[/quote]

Ok. Here’s how it works for me and you:

When you do things like criticize me about things you think I might hypothetically I no longer feel obliged to waste my time responding to you, as you don’t appear to be posting in good faith.

Well, fuck that shit. Either debate, or not. But don’t make bullshit claims that some book backs you up, without getting into detail about how it does.

Or, you could say “Scylla. That’s very interesting. Could you perhaps cite some examples from this book?”

Allright, well that’s enough you for a while.

[Squink]

Rice: Iraq Providing Shelter, Chemical Weapons Help to Al Qaeda

September 26, 2002

President Bush’s national security adviser has alleged a connection between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terror master Usama bin Laden that many had thought impossible to back up.

And Condoleezza Rice also insisted she could back up her assertion with proof.

Rice on Wednesday accused Saddam’s regime of sheltering members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network in Baghdad and helping bin Laden’s operatives in developing chemical weapons.

Rice’s comments – by far the strongest statements yet from the U.S. government alleging Al Qaeda contacts with the Iraqi government – were aired Wednesday on PBS’ The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

[Scylla]

@Oy!

Scylla, I’ve invested a lot in the idea that you (and therefore some of the other hard right-wingers on this message board) were a great guy with whom it was possible to rationally disagree. Now, that’s not your problem; it’s mine. But the guy I saw posting in that thread doesn’t fit that description. Not by a country mile.

Sure it does. That’s me. It is certainly possible to rationally disagree with me.

Please tell me that you don’t believe that everyone who thinks that the Bush admin manipulated intelligence, or that everyone who is concerned about the unilateral power’s this administration has taken to itself, or that everyone who thinks that there’s a really good chance that some torture has taken place, and that it would appear that this was seriously supported by both the Vice President and the attornery general Samual Alito, is a fucking traitor who doesn’t deserve to live in this country or to exchange words with you.

I don’t think that.

Please tell me that you were having a bad day, that a lot of things had pissed you off, that the fact of conservatives being outnumbered two to one in general on the boards and specifically by about ten to one in that thread had you too pissed off to post rationally. Because I don’t want to have to believe that you’re really the guy in that thread. I really, really don’t.

If it has my name under the post. It’s me.

[Oy]

@Scylla

Sure it does. That’s me. It is certainly possible to rationally disagree with me.
…
I don’t think that.

Funny. You did an awfully good job of saying it for someone who doesn’t think it. So which you am I to believe?

@Scylla

If it has my name under the post. It’s me.

Apparently that’s my answer.

Fwiw, I did order the book. It should arrive this week.

See you folks around.

[Scylla]

@Oy!

Funny. You did an awfully good job of saying it for someone who doesn’t think it. So which you am I to believe?

I’d like it if you directly quoted me where I said that.

Apparently that’s my answer.

Yes. It is. If I wrote the words they’re mine. No getting around that, and I don’t really wish to dignify RTFs attempts at character asassination with a defense and encourage his trolling.

Fwiw, I did order the book. It should arrive this week.

I hope you find it as illuminating as I did.

[Oy]

@Scylla

I’d like it if you directly quoted me where I said that.

Scylla, this is my absolute last word on the topic. I already read far more than I wanted to in that thread, and it hurt so badly that I strongly considered giving up the Dope entirely. (I’ve ended up at the decision that, while I may post in the lesser forums, for the forseeable future I’ll limit any political commentary I have to exactly that: a brief commentary, a real drive-by. It would seem that my judgment is inadequate to anything more) The point here is that I’m not going to go hunting through that thread for the precise wording of your posts. RTFirefly posted a link; it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to find the posts that left with me the impression they did. You certainly have no trouble in expressing your opinions quite clearly. But I’m not going back in that thread, and if that means you, by refusing to look in the thread yourself or refusing to acknowledge how a normal person reading it was likely to interpret it (and believe me when I say, I sure as hell wasn’t LOOKING for anything like that, so I sure as hell didn’t project it on to you or your posts), decide that I’m just a stupid liberal with no mind and no muscle to back up her opinions, and who only lives to see and portray conservatives as Snidely Whiplash, well, I can live with that. It beats the hell out of going back into that thread and seeing what I never wanted to see in the first place and only desperately wish I could forget.