October 3, 2006 by lonbud
I Read The News Today, Oh Boy
Condoleeza Rice ignored warnings delievered by members of her own government and by former staffers of the outgoing Clinton administration concerning Al Qaeda’s intent to strike in the U.S. months before 9/11. This is news? Today the State Department confirmed, though Dr. Rice has no recall of the fact, that CIA Director George Tenet briefed her as National Security Advisor on the Al Qaeda threat in a meeting on July 10, 2001.
She also ignored warnings and eschewed consideration of Clinton administration-produced plans for confronting the Al Qaeda threat in meetings with the outgoing National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and her own counterterroism chief, Richard Clarke, as early as February 2001, but that news is three years old now.
In denying recall of the July meeting with Mr. Tenet today, Dr. Rice noted she had met with him repeatedly that summer concerning terrorist threats.
This is beginning to get Watergate-esque. “I don’t recall,” indeed.
bubbles - October 3, 2006 @ 10:36 am
So I guess it’s the “Defeatocrats” vs “Denialicans”
Paul Burke - October 4, 2006 @ 9:15 am
Oh yeah but Condi will be saved by the latest scandal and even though you are right and it is atrocious that they fired Richard Clarke I just have to go off topic and spew on the sex scandal. I just can’t help myself – oh I’ve dreamed of Monica’s return for soo long – Ken Lay where are you to come riding in on your white (racist kkk horse) and save the day!
I’m so looking forward to hearing from Ken Lay the righteous boot strapped sex prosecutor for Capital Hill. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! The press needs to run him down and get quotes. Ken the silence is deafening!
I wonder how many of those who used Clinton’s dalliance for political advantage and expressed outrage for months and damn near impeached one of the best leaders of the free world will respond now? Best leaders of the free world you may ask – Clinton erased decades of deficits and left the Republicans a surplus of tax payer money to fix – social security, and/or health care. What did they do? They blew every cent of it and dug the biggest hole we have ever been in with complete disregard for fiscal sanity and bridges to nowhere. Under Clinton’s watch FEMA was a model organization another decades old problem Clinton fixed. That alone gets him best the President vote since Kennedy.
Clinton gets a blow job from a non-minor female consenting adult dying to do it and they tear him down. It’s time for the far right – one religion for all – damn the Constitution and Bill of Rights crowd to show their true hypocrisy once again! Let’s all enjoy the show. The Fox news network better be calling for blood 24 hours a day 7 days a week like they did with Clinton.
“… unleash the hounds…”!
Paul Burke - October 4, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Err ahh make that Ken Starr – Ken Lay is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish that’s stinkin’ to high heaven about the monoplistic power on the Hill.
lonbud - October 4, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
It’s certainly hard to keep all the malfeasers and miscreants straight.
After all of the substantively horrific things inflicted on the country (and, indeed, the world) by the Republican Party, it’s only fitting they should go down in flames on a scandal rooted in prurience and its cover up. If Americans couldn’t figure out how badly they and their unborn great grandchildren have been sold out by the Bush administration in the past six years, they have no problem understanding Mark Foley’s emails and instant messages, nor any difficulty exacting revenge on the Republican leadership for keeping Foley’s thing for young boys on the hush-hush.
I am personally disgusted that it took a pedophilic lush to finally coalesce the public’s disdain, that the ruling junta’s economic, environmental, anti-trust, and foreign policies (to name but a few of the ones most obvious to any thinking person) weren’t sufficient to have produced a bum’s rush for these bastards in 2004.
But I will sit back and watch in utterly bemused satisfaction as the wheels finally come off in the coming weeks and years.
The part that spoils my joy over this from being complete is the secret knowledge that the Democrats are really no better, and offer no substantial alternative to what we’ve seen out of the Republicans.
Those unborn great grandchildren are still likely to be hosed.
Michael Herdegen - October 5, 2006 @ 11:28 am
Those unborn great grandchildren are still likely to be hosed.
Rather, they’re likely to have lifestyles that would be the envy of the denizens of Mount Olympus, just as you live literally like a King compared to your great-grandparents, circa 1910.
There have been good and bad Presidents, and alternating periods of national leadership by Democrats and Republicans, and liberals and conservatives, since then, and it’s all worked out OK.
So too will the future, despite the failings of all political parties.
I really like the blog makeover. Very appealing.
lonbud - October 5, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Thanks for the feedback on the makeover, Michael. I was kind of hoping it might generate some comments from the many folks who read but don’t normally join in the conversation… but, well, I guess it’s another lesson in the dynamics of expectations.
With respect to your reliance on an ever-upward trajectory of social evolution to excuse or ignore or discount present deficiencies in leadership, I Just Have To Say it’s a pretty darn cavalier attitude, on one hand, and on another, history shows it to be a fallacy.
The past 100 years in America may well have great predictive value as to the condition of this society 100 years hence, but it’s no guarantee of future comfort and technological superiority by any means.
Especially with the present leadership kicking right out from under the Republic many of the fundamental supports on which its past prosperity was founded, I am not nearly so sanguine as you about our great grandchildren living like gods and goddesses.
Michael Herdegen - October 6, 2006 @ 4:11 am
[There’s] no guarantee of future comfort and technological superiority by any means.
True, no guarantees that America will be a better place in 100 years, but it’s a near-certainty that someplace will be far better in 2200.
Our great-grandchildren need not stay here.
My ancestory includes English, Scots, Swedes, and Germans, but here I am, in America.
Especially with the present leadership kicking right out from under the Republic many of the fundamental supports on which its past prosperity was founded…
That’s ahistorical.
The “fundamental supports” that you feel are being kicked out from under the Republic are in most cases 20th century constructs and additions, and so therefore cannot be said to have been integral to “past prosperity”, and in other cases those “fundamental supports” were temporarily suspended in the 19th century, with no lasting ill effects.
History didn’t begin with your birth.
lonbud - October 6, 2006 @ 8:10 am
Habeas corpus is a 20th century construct? In the previous thread I outlined quite clearly how the current leadership has emasculated this society’s fundamental organizing principles, derived from the ideas and protections of civilized people dating back 800 years.
But that doesn’t even matter, because you referred to the irrelevance of good and bad governments since 1910, which, last time I checked, was during the 20th century. So the dismantling of 20th century social protections and organizing principles would seem to be relevant to a consideration of how well off people in the society might be in the 22nd century.
Come now, too, after all this time trumpeting your horn about how the United States has produced the most advanced, luxurious, technologically proficient, and militarily irresistable society known to mankind, you are ready for our great grandchildren to abandon it for whatever greener pastures might bloom elsewhere in the galaxy a hundred years hence?
Cowardly, and disingenuous, Michael.
bubbles - October 6, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
And “The Boy who would-be King” strikes out the law as it applies to him again today…
Read all about it.
Tam O’Tellico - October 6, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
Well, let us not stoop to equate lying under oath about a blow job with merely soliciting sex from a minor. In Republicana, the former is an impeachable offense, while the latter merely necessitates holding your nose and your tongue and looking the other way until after the election.
Besides, Foley can excuse his behavior by blaming it all on demon rum and his turn in the barrel as an altar boy. I guess the problem is that Clinton didn’t have the good sense to ply himself with liquor before his dalliance with Monica.
Hastert’s excuse? Maybe he’s covering up for the fact that he was Foley’s long lost wayward priest.
Whatever moral lsuperiority the GOP (Gay Old Perverts) were assumed to have in ’94, they have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they do not possess such bedrock conservative values as fiscal responsibilty or providing for the common defense.
In fact, the only thing they have proven is the old adage offered by Willie Sutton: He robbed banks because that’s where the money is. Congressmen accept money from bagmen like Abramoff and perverts like Foley as though it were the perfectly natural thing to do.
Thus in Michael’s Rich New World of Freemarketia, bribes and underage sex can no longer be called perversions since they have become the norm.
Michael Herdegen - October 6, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Habeas corpus is a 20th century construct?
No, lonbud, that part falls under the line I wrote about how “in other cases those ‘fundamental supports’ were temporarily suspended in the 19th century” – are you saying that you are unaware that such occurred ?
But that doesn’t even matter, because you referred to the irrelevance of good and bad governments since 1910…
So the dismantling of 20th century social protections and organizing principles would seem to be relevant…
Pop quiz: What were the protections in 1910 from being “tortured” by the authorities, (with “torture” being defined as the aggressive interrogation techniques used on terrorists today), what were the protections from being spied upon without a warrent, what were the protections against any other piece of Bush policy that you believe is destroying any kind of social fabric ?
Answer: NONE.
Bush administration policies don’t establish any condition whatsoever that hasn’t existed before in American society, and in most cases during the 20th century.
Which is why I wrote that “history didn’t begin with your birth”, because for all of your wailing about how Bush is destroying civilization, the absolute MOST that he can be accused of doing is rolling back the clock to before the ’60s.
Come now, too, after all this time trumpeting your horn about [the United States], you are ready for our great grandchildren to abandon it for whatever greener pastures might bloom elsewhere in the galaxy a hundred years hence?
Cowardly, and disingenuous, Michael.
Please explain how it’s either.
Further, you are aware that you’re calling your own ancestors “cowards”, right ?
bubbles - October 6, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
Lest we forget Monica was 22 years old at the time.
Michael Herdegen - October 6, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
Well, let us not stoop to equate lying under oath about a blow job with merely soliciting sex from a minor. In Republicana, the former is an impeachable offense…
Are you saiying that Democrats don’t consider perjury to be an impeachable offense ?
That alone would establish that, despite whatever faults they might have, the Republicans are more just and moral than is the Democratic Party.
Fortunately, you’re mistaken.
Anywhere in America, whether in areas controlled by Democrats or by Republicans, perjury is an impeachable offense.
Also, the thought that bribing public officials is the norm in America is hilariously ignorant. You may wish to read a little something about how the Abramoff, Cunningham, and Jefferson bribery scandals are bringing down public officials left and right – a little knowledge goes a long way.
Further, it seems that you are unaware that what we now consider to be “underage” sex was the norm in America before the 20th century; nothing “New” about it.
Tam O’Tellico - October 8, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
M: “Are you saiying that Democrats don’t consider perjury to be an impeachable offense?”
Foolish boy, that is sophistry of the most infantile kind – akin to asking me if I’ve stopped beating my wife. Speaking of wives, ask an attorney how often perjury occurs in divorce court and how often it is punished.
You know as well as I – at least I hope you do – that perjury only becomes an impeachable offense if it rises to a high crime and misdemeanor. While Clinton’s behavior was shameful, there is now way it rose to that level.
On the other hand, if it can be proven that a President or other high official perjured himself about WMD or outing a covert agent or taking bribes or influencing no-bid contracts for cronies – such perjury would certainly constitute high crimes an misdemeanors.
But unfortunately, the Republicans foolishly chased their tail with Clinton, and now they are in deep shit because they set such a pitifully low standard for impeachment. You may recall I warned you about all this a long time ago – and come January, those chickens may well come home to roost.
You may think this is all wishful thinking, but there is blood in the water, and unlike with Clinton, this time the public is looking for someone to hang.
Tam O’Tellico - October 9, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
M: “Further, it seems that you are unaware that what we now consider to be “underage” sex was the norm in America before the 20th century; nothing “New” about it.”
What I am aware of is just how low you will go to excuse the behavior of your party hacks. But no, as a Free-Market Fanatic you probably yearn for the good old days of child labor and male domination. Hell, you probably think Osama’s got it right with that Seventh Century Islamic nonsense.
And just to set the record straight, even though the age of consent has risen with our collective conscience, sex with children has never been the “norm” – though obviously perverts and their apologists have always been with us.
lonbud - October 9, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
I think Michael is just yanking our chain now, y’all. For the past month or more he’s made all manner of outrageous and disingenuous statements so at odds with what even he must recognize as “the facts on the ground”, I have to believe he’s taken to posting merely for his own amusement, to see how much spitting and popping we’re capable of.
Then again, he may well be one of that tiny minority of Americans who believes freedom and security can be preserved through torture, who find it completely reasonable to address the nuclear ambitions of Iran and N. Korea by imbedding our military forces into a civil war in Iraq, and who find sex with underage children (among other quaint practices of the 19th century) acceptable because it’s “nothing new.”
He’s in fine company with James Dobson, who today excused the Foley Affair as “sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.”
Allllrightythen…
As I said before, a total rout and Impeachment hearings by Easter. Book it, Danno.
Michael Herdegen - October 10, 2006 @ 9:29 am
On the other hand, if it can be proven that a President or other high official perjured himself about WMD or outing a covert agent or taking bribes or influencing no-bid contracts for cronies – such perjury would certainly constitute high crimes an misdemeanors.
Sure.
But if you mean that we might see Bush, Cheney, or a Cabinet official in the dock for such behavior, then I think that you’re going to be disappointed – again.
You may think this is all wishful thinking…
Yes, I do.
And just to set the record straight […] sex with children has never been the “norm”…
And as you know, sixteen year olds became “children” in the 20th century – before then, they were “young adults”. So while it’s certainly inappropriate in most cases for modern adults to have sexual relationships with sixteen and seventeen year old people, that’s not at all the same as having sex with, say, eight year olds.
I think Michael is just yanking our chain now, y’all.
No, I never do.
I find that kind of behavior pointless, and a waste of time.
It’s just that your perception of “the facts on the ground” is so at odds with mine that you find my posts to be “outrageous and disingenuous” – just as I do yours.
I ask again:
Come now, too, after all this time trumpeting your horn about [the United States], you are ready for our great grandchildren to abandon it for whatever greener pastures might bloom elsewhere in the galaxy a hundred years hence?
Cowardly, and disingenuous, Michael.
Please explain how it’s either.
lonbud - October 10, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Michael you have consistently excused all kinds of inequities and disparities that exist in America, and apologized for all kinds of what I consider destructive, unfair, and immoral policies of the current administration by pointing out that a) things have always been this way; b) the United States is the greatest country in the history of recorded time; and c) anyone from almost any other country on the planet would love to live here if they could.
I’ve paraphrased and exaggerated your position only for the sake of simplicity and contrast — at its root my description will have the ring of truth for anyone who has read this blog for any length of time.
When I take the Bush administration to task for policies I believe will seriously affect the society into which our great-grandchildren will come of age, a society that will be ravaged by environmental degradation created and exacerbated by Bush administration policies, one stripped of fundamental protections that have underlain the 200+ glorious years that have brought us to this present moment, you don’t have the courage to explain how those policies that I take issue with will NOT have the effects I predict, nor do you attempt to explain how those policies will ensure the perpetuation of the glory you believe is this country’s gift to history. You find it perfectly acceptable to have our 22nd century relatives emigrate to wherever might be better at the time.
Reminds me of a song by a little-known band from Memphis that had its 15 minutes in the 80s.
Human Radio’s “Another Planet” —
technology is worth the prices that we pay
and we might lose a species or two along the way
if we can’t eat em ride em pet em
use em or hunt them down for sport
there ain’t no cause to keep them
there’s an awful lot of wood
out there that no one ever sees
yeah we can save the forest
but do we need so many trees
coz we can cut em haul em sell em
n make some greenbacks
while the environmentalists are sleeping
and when it’s all gone
don’t worry we can find another planet
strong industry keeps the economy running well
and naturally there are certain waste products expelled
if we can’t bury it fry it hide it
deny it or shoot it into space
we could always dump it in the ocean
and when it’s all gone
don’t worry we can find another planet
it’s a damn good thing that our rockets
can make it to the moon
coz the way this worm is turning
we’re gonna need those suckers soon
but first we need bombers warheads
missiles subs and satellites
i think we just ran out of money
and when it’s all gone
don’t worry we can find another planet
when it’s all gone
it’s all gone
Tam O’Tellico - October 10, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
I don’t believe Michael is yanking our chain any more than the policy-makers in this administration who argue with a perfectly straight face that foreign policy “realists” are passe. Instead, so their “thinking” goes, reality is immaterial because reality is altered by acting upon our belief. Thus in this twisted construct, belief is more important than observation, and thus you get Pax Americana, Iraqis greeting us with open arms, and prayer to prepare for hurricanes.
Call me old school, but when reality becomes passe in the affairs of men, madness is not far off. Then again, what else can one expect from people who advocate Intelligent Design or dispute global warming or believe in fairy tales like a Free-Market cure-all for every ailment?
Michael Herdegen - October 11, 2006 @ 4:33 am
Michael you have consistently excused all kinds of inequities and disparities that exist in America […] by pointing out that a) things have always been this way; b) the United States is the greatest country in the history of recorded time; and c) anyone from almost any other country on the planet would love to live here if they could.
Not “excuse” – “explain”.
Human nature is such that there will always be inequities and disparities, many self-chosen. We can’t prevent people from being self-destructive, or even just from settling for less-than-maximum-potential. In fact, almost everyone on Earth falls into the latter category.
In spite of that, America has become the greatest nation the Earth has ever seen, (at least in absolute terms, and certainly in the top three in relative terms), and almost everyone on Earth would like to live here.
That didn’t come about purely by chance.
So, despite the fact that we’re not going to become the perfect humans and society that you pine for, we’re doing something right, and everything that we’re doing now is well within the bounds of what we’ve dome before, on the way to becoming “the greatest”.
Therefore, despair and pessimism are irrational.
When I take the Bush administration to task for policies I believe will seriously affect the society into which our great-grandchildren will come of age…
Which is what’s so funny – I’m a huge Bush supporter, and you’re a rabid Bush-hater, yet I don’t think that his policies and actions will hugely influence what kind of world it’ll be fifty years hence, any more than FDR’s legacy determined precisely what 1995 would be like – but you do.
To me Bush is but a man, performing a difficult job well enough, and to you he’s apparently another Julius Caesar, bestriding the Earth like a colossus, and changing our society forever.
…a society that will be ravaged by environmental degradation created and exacerbated by Bush administration policies, one stripped of fundamental protections that have underlain the 200+ glorious years that have brought us to this present moment, you don’t have the courage to explain how those policies that I take issue with will NOT have the effects I predict…
Why should I ?
You don’t bother to take the time to construct logical arguments, supported by examples and references, to explain why the things that you think will come to pass are inevitable. You simply assert that society is declining, and will continue to do so.
I’ve pointed out, for instance, that you are mistaken when you assert that the Bush administration’s policies are in any way dissimilar to those which have been the norm for the past 200 years in America. They are, at most, at odds with the practices of the past 50 years.
I’ll make more comprehensive arguments when you do. Simply saying that “the environment will be ruined in 100 years” is easily countered by “no, it won’t”.
You find it perfectly acceptable to have our 22nd century relatives emigrate to wherever might be better at the time.
Of course. Why wouldn’t it be acceptable to us to have our descendants move to wherever the livin’ is easy ?!?
What kind of monster condemns his great-grandkids for improving their conditions, demands that they suffer ?
Tam O’Tellico - October 11, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
M: “…you are mistaken when you assert that the Bush administration’s policies are in any way dissimilar to those which have been the norm for the past 200 years in America. They are, at most, at odds with the practices of the past 50 years.”
Well, I take exception to that assertion because it is blatantly obvious that this administration is different not only in degree, but in kind. Or at the very least, it is a return to a kind of government we hoped we had grown out of more than a century ago. You want an example, how about this one:
This administration has consistently replaced highly qualified career civil servants with political hacks, quacks and cronies to an extent not seen since the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883. That act was passed “because the system of selecting officials and supervising their work was irrational”. I’d say this administration has taken a giant step backward. Good job, Brownie.
Even worse is the the fact that in so many ways, this administration has been determined to undo seventy years of social progress begun under FDR and continued by every President of either party since. Even supply-sider Reagan was more interested in greasing the skids for business than in cutting down the safety net.
You want facts? This administration formulated a new foreign policy based on the doctrine of pre-emption and the absurd notion of Pax Americana. It tried to gut the United Nations. Members of this administration deliberately outed a covert CIA agent and manipulated intelligence for political purposes with tragic consequnces.
This administration substantially cut taxes for the wealthy and refused to raise the minimum wage. It tried desperately to eliminate the so-called Death Tax which applies only to the estates of multi-millionaires. It also tried to undo Social Security.
This administration has gutted environmental regulations and sold off public land, disenfranchised voters, aided and abetted the creation of K-Street, gutted FEMA, consistently altered scientific research to conform to ideological beliefs, financed overtly religious organizations, and violated the constitutional rights of many Americans.
This administration hired fake reporters, embedded reporters and staged phony forums. It engaged in the unprecedented creation and dissemination of propaganda. It enabled the concentration of media outlets by multi-national corporations.
If you do not see these facts on your TV, do not adjust your set. The fault may be in your wiring.
bubbles - October 12, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
A report published Monday, by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous “IQ” report among others.
There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements:
1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff.
2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain System of intelligence ranking.
The study determined the following I Qs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidential term:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D] 142,
Harry S Truman [D] 132,
Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122
John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,
Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,
Richard Milhous Nixon [R] 155,
Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,
James Earle Carter [D] 175,
Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105
George Herbert Walker Bush [R] 98,
William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,
George Walker Bush [R] 91
In order of IQ rating:
182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]
175 . . James Earle Carter [D]
174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]
155 . . Richard Milhous Nixon [R]
147 . . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]
132 . . Harry S Truman [D]
126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]
122 . . Dwight David Eisenhower [R]
121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]
105 . . Ronald Wilson Reagan [R]
098 . . George Herbert Walker Bush [R]
091 . . George Walker Bush [R]
The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.
The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.
Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G.W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.
The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.
“All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or careers. Not so with President Bush,” Dr. Lovenstein said. “He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking.”
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F.Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist For more informat ion on the Lovenstein Institute, go to: http://lovenstein.org// .
Tam O’Tellico - October 12, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
Bubbles: “[Bush’s] … limited vocabulary, lack of scholarly achievements, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.”
“By an inferior man I mean one who knows nothing that is not known to every adult, who can do nothing that could not be learned by anyone in a few weeks, and who meanly admires mean things.”
–H.L. Mencken
Well, at least Bush truly represents the American people. I suppose this explains why Michael is such a big fan of the fool who would be king.
Tam O’Tellico - October 12, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
Another “appeaser” heard from:
Gen. Richard Dannatt , chief of the British Army, said post-invasion planning for the Iraq War was “based more on optimism than sound planning.”
He added that our continued presence in Iraq made the country less secure and called for a pullout of British troops from Iraq “sometime soon”.
“I don’t say the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.”
lonbud - October 12, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
I’m sure you can all understand that the Lovenstein study, like the report published this week in the Lancet purporting to place the “extra” number of Iraqi deaths since 2003 at somewhere between 400,000 and 900,000, can — and will — be rejected out of hand by many people as absurd on its face.
The Bush administration and, indeed, the majority of the neoconservative movement behind the executive hegemony that has paralyzed the nation in the past six years, wants nothing to do with anything remotely associated with science, the scientific method, intellectual rigor, or honesty, or even objective, non-partisan, or inquisitively critical thinking about “the course” that has been charted in the White House.
These are times calling not for the questioning of authority but rather for faith in our leaders. After all, they are all wealthy, successful men who have achieved power and recognition outstripping anything possesed by those who might question their motives or their intelligence or their abilities.
We should all just keep shopping and re-financing our mortgages and cashing those checks we get every month from the kind folks at MBNA, and leave the thankless work of governing and providing security to the professionals.
And praying, too. Did I forget to mention that? Prayer is essential to the success of this enterprise.
lonbud - October 12, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Comment by Michael Herdegen @ October 6, 2006, 9:49 pm
Pop quiz: What were the protections in 1910 from being “tortured” by the authorities, (with “torture” being defined as the aggressive interrogation techniques used on terrorists today), what were the protections from being spied upon without a warrent, what were the protections against any other piece of Bush policy that you believe is destroying any kind of social fabric ?
Answer: NONE.
This is the kind of bullshit history they teach in a madrassa.
In the United States of America, such protections were codified in its founding documents. 18th Century, not 20th. Just because the very freedom we now purport to spread was only starting to be widely recognized in the early decades of the 20th century, and its further protections beginning to be globally codified by mid-century, excuses neither your fiction that the absolute MOST [Bush] can be accused of doing is rolling back the clock to before the ’60s, nor does it explain why we should not decry the Chief Executive’s unchallenged flouting of the law and our collective humanity.
Bubbles - October 14, 2006 @ 11:58 am
For those of you that may have missed this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/ In every way imaginable the terrorist threat has been exaggerated politicized and magnified well beyond its actual proportions. Contrary to the claim of “thousands of lives have been saved” to justify the Patriot Act and the gutting of or constitution protections, “the things they hate us for” there have been only a few highly touted prosecutions that actually amounted to no threat whatsoever. I can hear Michaels response already, ie. “we can’t tell you about the others”, well then why make such a ‘Madison Avenue’ event out of this crap?
Tam O’Tellico - October 16, 2006 @ 7:44 am
Gentlemen:
It is absurd to attempt to quantify the danger posed by terrorists, since we cannot even agree on the meaning of the word. Those with a vested interest in continuing this war want to lump everyone who disagrees with them into that category – and if not actual terrorists, then “aid and abetters”.
In fact, recently passed legislation gives the President the right to assert that most of us on this blog fall into that category for daring to disagree with his policies.
While we can all hope the fool who would be king might have better sense then to use his very likely unconstitutional newly-won perogatives, he has so far not demonstrated an overabundance of good sense – let alone good will.
It remains to be seen whether the Courts will exercise their duty and strike down this wretched excess, but by then it may be too late for the victims of presidential paranoia.
What can be said about the threat from terrorists is that we are very likely creating more of them than we are killing – and there is no sane way that can be interpreted as making us safer.
If we continue with our present bull-headed trampling thru the Mideast Bazaar, we will likely be left with two very bad choices: surrender or death – death being the destruction of 3 billion Muslims.
Michael Herdegen - October 16, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Leaving aside the obvious ridiculousness of the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania’s report, and accepting solely for the sake of argument that there is any possibility of it being correct in its rankings, then the report tends to validate two of American society’s long-held common-sense assumptions: That there is little correlation between “intelligence” and “wisdom”, and that being really, really smart doesn’t much help one to be a good President.
Beyond that, Bubbles, you’ve claimed in the past that your opinions should be given extra weight in this forum because you work at a job that requires “analysis”, (the global warming thread in which you were insistent that I tell you in which field I work, remember ?). The uncritical way in which you eagerly swallow the Lovenstein Institute’s claptrap hook, line, and sinker puts paid to that claim, eh, “Mr. Analysis” ?
Tam O’Tellico:
“By an inferior man I mean one who knows nothing that is not known to every adult, who can do nothing that could not be learned by anyone in a few weeks, and who meanly admires mean things.”
–H.L. Mencken
Well, at least Bush truly represents the American people.
Yes, your contempt for the average American is well known in this forum.
Hilariously, like leftists everywhere, you like to claim that you’re “for the little guy”, while simultaneously demonstrating that you despise everything that “the little guy” likes or supports.
You want facts?
Yes, please.
Unfortunately, what you provide mostly underscores my charge that you’re a little weak in distinguishing between “facts” and “opinions”.
This administration formulated a new foreign policy based on the doctrine of pre-emption…
That is a “fact”. Whether it’s good or bad for America, or the world, is an “opinion”.
…and the absurd notion of Pax Americana.
That is an “opinion”, one that directly contradicts the actual foreign policy of ALL American Presidential administrations since 1945, and so substantiating the notion that “Pax Americana is absurd” necessarily requires a much longer and stronger argument than “because I say so”.
It tried to gut the United Nations.
That is an “opinion”. It pushed for reform at the United Nations, along with the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.
When the leader of an organization that has been implicated in forced child prostitution and accepting bribes from despots supports the same institutional reforms that the U.S. does, then holding the opinion that the reform measures “gut” the organization seems foolish.
Members of this administration deliberately outed a covert CIA agent…
Normally I would call this a “factual error”, but since you’ve participated in at least three threads in which the validity of that charge has been refuted, complete with referrence to the controlling authority, I shall instead identify this as a “lie”.
For shame.
…and manipulated intelligence for political purposes…
Not exactly, but close enough. I’ll call this “fact”.
…with tragic consequnces.
Ach, another “opinion”.
This administration substantially cut taxes for the wealthy…
Hmmm, let’s call this a “half-fact”. This administration did cut taxes for the wealthy – but they ALSO cut taxes for everyone else, too.
…and refused to raise the minimum wage.
Another lie.
Congressional Republicans passed a Federal minimum wage increase, and President Bush indicated that he’d sign it. It was Congressional Democrats that killed the Federal minimum wage increase, and again, YOU KNOW THAT, having participated in the thread in which we discussed such.
For shame, for shame.
It tried desperately to eliminate the so-called Death Tax which applies only to the estates of multi-millionaires.
Another “half-fact”. It did do so, but of course that would only continue current policy – nobody now is paying a Federal “death tax”. Further, you forgot to mention that well over two out of three American adults supports the permanent elimination of Federal estate taxes. Links to polls available on request.
It also tried to undo Social Security.
Another “opinion”. It tried to reform SS; whether you like the reforms or not, they’re not the same as “undoing” SS.
Further, the American demographic situation is such that SS will be bankrupt by 2020. They will be paying out more than they take in by then, maybe sooner, and they have no reserve funds, although they do hold trillions of dollars worth of worthless Congressional IOUs. (Worthless because Congress has no reserve funds either; the only way that they can repay the IOUs is to raise revenues from American taxpayers, and their ability to do such is distinctly limited).
So if anyone “undid” SS, it was Congress, although I mostly blame the American voters for being willing to believe that they could have their cake and eat it too.
But I wouldn’t strongly dispute that Congress actively ran a con on the American public over SS.
This administration has gutted environmental regulations…
Bordering on “opinion”, but I’ll give you this one, and call it a “fact”.
…and sold off public land…
“Fact”, but so what ?
Whether this is good or bad for America is an “opinion”, and both sides have good points.
…disenfranchised voters…
“Opinion”, and paranoid to boot.
…aided and abetted the creation of K-Street…
A “factual error”.
The K-Street/White House/Congressional dance has certainly continued under this President, but the K-Street lobbyists were well-established long before “W” entered politics – before he was even an adult.
So Bush could hardly have “aided and abetted” the “creation” of K-Street, and consorting with lobbyists is hardly a failing unique to this administration, or even to 20th century administrations.
…gutted FEMA…
Another “factual error”.
To the extent that FEMA was gutted, instead of simply incompetently led, it was Congress that did it, when they created the Dept. of Ho. Security.
…consistently altered scientific research to conform to ideological beliefs…
This is an “opinion”, one that seems to rest on the belief that scientists themselves don’t issue reports that are predicated more on “ideological beliefs”, rather than pure research results.
The “Union of Concerned Scientists” is notorious for issuing opinion pieces that attempt to claim the mantle of “scientific authority”, and in this very thread we have the humorous example of the Lovenstein Institute’s political hit-piece, gussied up as a “research report”, and the further example of the Lancet article which knowingly mis-reports the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. (Their previously-published “study”, in 2004, had the headline “100K civilian deaths”, but when one looked at the actual data, and not just the articles based on the press reports about the “study”, one found that BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, there was only a 40% chance that 100K or more had died. There was a 90% chance that fewer than 50K had died – but that wasn’t as good a headline, eh ?)
…financed overtly religious organizations…
Another “half-fact”.
They did finance overtly religious organizations, but only to perform needed community-service functions, such as homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and the recipient organizations were prohibited from proselytizing, and required to be non-sectarian in serving clients. In other words, they were required to behave like non-religious organizations.
One has to be pretty far gone to want to see people freezing and starving on the street, rather than to see religious organizations getting tax dollars to provide relief to the indigent.
…and violated the constitutional rights of many Americans.
“Opinion”.
This administration hired fake reporters, embedded reporters and staged phony forums. It engaged in the unprecedented creation and dissemination of propaganda.
This reveals tremendous historical ignorance. I’ll call this “opinion”, while acknowledging that the basic “facts” are true. It’s the analysis that’s faulty.
It enabled the concentration of media outlets by multi-national corporations.
“Half-fact”.
As with the lobbyists, this administration didn’t attempt to halt behaviors and trends started under previous administrations.
One may “opine” that it’s a failure, but one cannot say that it originated with the current Bush admin.
So…
We’ve got two “facts” which would tend to support a negative opinion of this administration, two “facts” which don’t necessarily support such an opinion, four “half-truths” or “spin”, eight “opinions”, two “factual errors” in which you blame the current administration for the actions of Congress and/or previous administrations, and two outright lies.
Two “facts” relevant to your thesis, out of twenty attempts to deliver such, matched by two knowing mistruths. That’s pathetic.
But, on the positive side, I agree with you that the most likely future is that Bush’s Middle East reform efforts will ultimately fail, and we’ll end up killing millions of Muslims.
Where we differ on that issue is that I think that Bush’s attempt is noble. It’s more moral to try to introduce them to a better way of life, one that doesn’t involve killing Americans, rather than skipping straight to the Dresden/Hiroshima phase.
Who knows, maybe it’ll work, and we can avoid putting more notches in our gunbelt.
lonbud:
The Bush administration […] wants nothing to do with anything remotely associated with science, the scientific method, intellectual rigor, or honesty, or even objective, non-partisan, or inquisitively critical thinking…
Even if that were true, how does it differ even one iota from your life-paradigm, as evidenced by your writings on this blog ?
You ‘n the Bush admin., based on your description of them, are like two peas in a pod – just with differing polarities.
We should all just […] leave the thankless work of governing and providing security to the professionals.
Well, that is after all what Tam O’Tellico advocates; he wants us to be governed and kept safe by “highly qualified career civil servants”, not by “political hacks, quacks and cronies”, as he wrote up-thread.
This is the kind of bullshit history they teach in a madrassa.
In the United States of America, such protections were codified in its founding documents. 18th Century, not 20th. Just because [they were] only starting to be widely recognized in the early decades of the 20th century…
Oh, I get it. The protections that you think that the Bush admin is destroying were given to us in our founding documents – but we didn’t notice for well over 100 years, nearly 200 years in some instances.
LOL
What was that you were saying about “madrassa history” ?
You’re demonstrating an example here.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution mean exactly what the SCOTUS says that they mean, no more and no less, when they deign to rule.
When they don’t, then it’s up to the Executive and Legislative branches to define what our founding documents mean, and it’s up to the American voters to let them know if they’ve gotten it right, or close enough.
So what you’re saying is that society “found” some previously-unknown meanings in our founding documents over the decades and centuries, and what I’m saying is that now the pendulum is swinging the other way.
The fact that you don’t like the direction of the arc in no way means that it’s not traversing a previously-travelled route.
Whether those protections always existed or not, they were not always enforced, so deciding to stop enforcing them now is not a “new thing” – it’s just the return of an “old thing”.
Whether such is positive or desirable is debatable, but pretending that it’s unprecedented is both pointless, and damaging to the credibility of your argument.
Kinda like the Lancet making wild and incendiary claims about the number of Iraqis killed in the troubles there, and then admitting in the fine print that according to their own data and studies, the numbers that they were trumpeting were probably inaccurate, and that the most likely number was FAR lower.
bubbles - October 16, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
M: I don’t know what makes you think I took it “hook line and sinker”. Thats an opinion if I ever heard one. I cut and pasted and article thats it. Your analysis -I bought into their entire methodology- flat wrong. What struck me about it was that every other President had published something except your beloved W. so they had a only his public statements to look at. Score – self explanatory.
I know I’ve told you this before but you are to logical and effective argument what Dr. Frankenstein was to the surgical science of rejoining a severed limb. Somehow you think snipping a phrase out of context ignoring the idea it supports but instead wrapping your opinion around it constitutes some type of logical argument. It doesn’t.
lonbud - October 16, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Michael is an apologista.
In the post-2006 election period of re-awakening in this country, he and his “opinions” will carry the weight and respect due the “leaders” of Vichy in post-War France.
He wouldn’t know the difference between intelligence and wisdom if it could free him from being held in prison indefinitely without charge.
Then again, that’s just my opinion.
Michael Herdegen - October 17, 2006 @ 1:04 am
I cut and pasted an article thats it. […] What struck me about it was that every other President had published something except your beloved W. so they had a only his public statements to look at.
A valid and even interesting point – but not one that you made when posting the report’s conclusions.
If you’re going to post articles without adding disclaimers or commentary like the lines that I’ve re-posted above, then those who read your post will naturally assume that you support the ideas within the article – thus, “hook, line, and sinker”.
As an aside, you are aware, aren’t you, that due exactly to the point that you’ve just made, the Lovenstein Institute’s report is fatally flawed ?
While you’ve written that my opinion that you “bought into their entire methodology [is] flat wrong”, you haven’t written that you’re aware that their is no merit whatsoever to their “research” – that it’s for entertainment purposes only.
In the post-2006 election period of re-awakening in this country, he and his “opinions” will carry the weight and respect due the “leaders” of Vichy in post-War France.
Happily for us, we need wait only three more weeks to get a good idea about whether that’s an accurate prediction or not.
Of course, the GOP keeping Congress, or the Democrats taking the House, aren’t sure signs that either of us are correct about the future national zeitgeist, but either way it’ll provide a weathervane.
[Michael] wouldn’t know the difference between intelligence and wisdom if it could free him from being held in prison indefinitely without charge.
And yet I note well that you provide neither counter-example nor reasoned argument to refute any of the views that I presented in my last post.
Truly, in a place where ad hominem substitutes for logic, we’ll find that the posters there “want nothing to do with anything remotely associated with intellectual rigor, or honesty, or even objective, non-partisan, or inquisitively critical thinking.”
lonbud - October 17, 2006 @ 3:33 am
Touche mon frere, as far as the ad hominem goes. Sometimes it feels good to go right at the hominem.
The way I do it, opposed to the way your unitary executive does it, my hominems do not die in uncounted numbers who may or may not be reliably expressed by known socio-scientific sampling protocols.
As predicted, you rejected the Lovenstein and Lancet publications for being “absurd on their face.” Truly absurd is your implication that no one noticed any constitutional protections against imprisonment without charge or access to counsel, against unreasonable search and seizure, against torture prior to the 1960s.
For whom did history appear to begin at birth?
Michael Herdegen - October 17, 2006 @ 5:02 am
The way I do it, opposed to the way your unitary executive does it, my hominems do not die in uncounted numbers…
That’s true. Since your way is the way that we did things pre-9/11, your hominems died in precisely-counted numbers.
The mistake is to think that there was world peace before Bush, and hellish warfare after. They were at war with us all throughout the Clinton years; we just didn’t notice until after Bush took office.
As predicted, you rejected the Lovenstein and Lancet publications for being “absurd on their face.”
No.
If you’d been paying attention, you’d have seen that I detailed why the Lancet studies were flawed, how they were flawed, and where to go to get confirmation of my assertions.
Please read my post again, more carefully – although really, I spent two paragraphs explaining it, so perhaps you didn’t even read my post at all, possibly just skimmed it.
I also pointed out why the Lovenstein conclusions are “garbage in, garbage out”, in my note to Bubbles, although I didn’t state the reasons directly and clearly, since anyone who’s the slightest bit familiar with how IQ scores work can look at the list and see immediately that it’s bogus. I guarantee that the Lovenstein folks know that the list is completely inaccurate, but of course their intent was not scholastic.
If you’d like, I can explain in detail – but it’ll involve some statistics and a basic explanation of the scientific method.
Truly absurd is your implication that no one noticed any constitutional protections…
But my friend, that is YOUR implication, not mine. You write “…such protections were codified in its founding documents. 18th Century, not 20th. Just because the very freedom we now purport to spread was only starting to be widely recognized in the early decades of the 20th century…”
Codified in the 18th century, not applied until the 20th… Whatever happened during the 150 years inbetween ?
Were Americans just extremely stupid until the 20th century, in your view ?
Or is it more likely, as I wrote above, that American society’s interpretation of the founding documents has changed over time ?
…against imprisonment without charge or access to counsel, against unreasonable search and seizure, against torture prior to the 1960s.
When was Miranda, again ?
1790? 1820? 1880? 1920? No…
So “access to counsel” was hit-or-miss throughout most of American history, no ?
As I wrote upthread, “torture” as defined by modern aggressive interrogation techniques.
Are you truly attempting to assert that the definition of an “unreasonable” search hasn’t changed considerably over time, that “rubber hose” policing techniques weren’t acceptable throughout most of American history ?
Again, it might be fruitful to make an argument that going back to older ways of doing things might be uniquely damaging to modern society, in ways that they weren’t in the past, but to continue to assert that modern legal interpretations were prevalent in the past is a bizarre and indefensible stance. What is the appeal of doing so, for you ?
Tam O’Tellico - October 17, 2006 @ 8:21 am
Well, as always, we can agree to disagree about what constitutes fact and what constitutes opinion. I think it’s fair to say, however, that it is certainly no fact that Michael’s politics of jungle greed is based on his love of the little man.
And while I freely admit to being an elitist when it comes to choosing leaders, I don’t consider that a fault. Michael may prefer being led by an ingnoramus and an incompetent, but again, I doubt very seriously that that reflects his love for the little man.
The fact is – at least in this corner – that the American voting public has gotten tired, too tired to engage in the hard work required to separate posers and propaganda from men (and women) who are serious about doing the people’s work.
In the process, they have surrendered some of the most basic freedoms – freedoms that we purport to be fighting for half-way around the world while blithely handing them over to the fool who would be king.
If anyone is so ignorant as to believe that the powers handed to this despot won’t be turned against our own people when it suits him, there’s this from the NY Times (yea, yea, I know it’s a liberal commie rag):
“Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department’s collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.”
I’m sure Michael will find this outrage justified in the “war against terror”. Buut others of us will see it as further proof of Aesop’s adage that “any excuse will do for a tyrant”.
Tam O’Tellico - October 17, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Let’s examine for a moment what underlies Michael’s inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. For background go here.
Our govt has spent millions (fact) on an insidious (opinion) new program deceptively labeled (opinion) Sentiment Analysis Program. The program’s sole purpose is to keep tabs on negative statements about the US made in print (fact).
Obviously, such a program is a totalitarian wet dream (opinion that is likely a fact).
Like wiretapping and torture, the habitual liars (fact) in this administration expect us to believe this program will be used only to analyze foreign documents – I doubt most of us here are buying that bullshit (opinion that is likely a fact).
On the other hand, this foreign-only restriction would constitute a fact to Michael, while most of us here wouldn’t even grant it the status of opinion. We’d call it what it is – a lie.
Michael Herdegen - October 17, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
I’m impressed. Keep up the good work.
lonbud - October 17, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
Oh, yes, Michael, let’s talk about modern legal interpretations, shall we?
The writ of Habeas Corpus has been recognized in English Common Law since the 12th Century, was cited by Blackstone as early as 1305, and was codified in the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679.
Here in the New World, the Founding Fathers of the United States thought enough of the concept to mention it in Article One of the Constitution. Imagine that.
In point of fact, modern legal interpretations of the writ of habeas corpus were not only prevalent in the past, those like the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld reaffirm a fundamental right to be free of detention without charge that has lain at the bedrock of our civilization for 800 years.
What seems bizarre and indefensible to me is your insistence that what the Bush administration seeks to do is merely roll the clock back 40 years, to exercise authority in the manner of some non-existent halcyon era, when the “older ways” of “rubber hose” policing were “acceptable”.
Danger, Will Robinson!
You are out of your mind if you think “rubber hose” policing is going to solve your Islamofascist terror problem, sherriff.
You are also on the wrong side of science with regard to the papers published in the Lancet and by the Lovenstein institute. It may well be your opinion that their conclusons are false and their implications ridiculous, however, both papers were transparent in the nature of the concusions to be drawn from the studies and in the limitations of applying the conclusions to uncategorical statements of fact.
The broad conclusions to be drawn from each of them, that the number of Iraqis who have died since 2003 are likely far greater than the number to which the Bush administration is comfortable acknowledging, and that the observable intelligence of Presidents since FDR puts #41 and #43 at or near the bottom of the heap, are simply obvious to anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to what has gone on in the world.
So, I guess I can’t say for a fact that your reasoning and conclusions are those of a dangerous lunatic, but I do not hesitate to offer it as my unqualified opinion.
Michael Herdegen - October 18, 2006 @ 6:26 am
Noted.
Michael Herdegen - October 18, 2006 @ 6:32 am
Or more fully, if the world were indeed as you perceive it to be, then I would be a dangerous lunatic in fact, not just in your opinion.
lonbud - October 18, 2006 @ 8:51 am
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? We interact with the world as we perceive it to be.
So let’s consider our perception of the threat of Islamofascist terrorism, or Muslim jihadism, or whatever you’d like to call the improper noun that is the enemy upon the defeat of which you and your Commander in Chief might consider a return to “modern legal interpretations” of habeas corpus and an abandonment of “rubber hose” policing.
Foreign Affairs, the bi-monthly journal of the Council on Foreign Relations — no left-wing, green-earth, pollyanna organization by a long shot — rightly compares the total number of people killed since September 2001 by Al Qaeda or AL Qaeda-like agents operating outside Afghanistan and Iraq to the number of people who drown every year in bathtubs.
Grover Norquist, are you listening?
The statistical probability of an American dying in a terror-related attack on American soil is roughly that of being struck by a meteor.
Here’s a few more statistics (of which you are ever so fond, Michael) about the world we live in:
The private sector owns 85 percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure, yet in the last five years, Fortune 500 companies have increased their security spending by all of 3 percent.
Salaries and wages represent 45 percent of U.S. GDP today, the lowest percentage since record-keeping began in 1929.
The average number of books authored by each President of France since WWII: 8
Average number authored by U.S. presidents: 4
Number written by Jimmy Carter: 20
Number written by George W. Bush: 0
Number of states that use electronic voting machines with no recountable paper trail: 15
Minutes it took a Princeton researcher to hack into a Diebold voting machine in September: 1
Danger. Lunacy. Citations on request.
bubbles - October 18, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Ok, this is a must watch: if there was ever any doubt about how we got into this situation in Iraq… (Opinion)
Most memorable quote, “don’t worry we’re really tight, we were in the same frat in college”. – A 25-year-old former Republican political operative appointed to lead a team of 5 other appointees put together for the (CPA) Coalition’s Political Authority in Iraq. (Fact)
bubbles - October 18, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
Actually that’s (CPA) Coalition’s Provisional Authority
Tam O’Tellico - October 18, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
Islamofascist n. a derogatory term coined during the reign of George the Worst, proof that it takes a fascist to know one.
One wonders how this administration can continue to promote the notion that our problems in Iraq are mainly due to Islamofascists – “outside agitators” in the service of Iran and al Qaeda. If the truth were told – and it won’t be in this WH, this war is not about Islamofascists or terrorism – it is about power and payback – and payback – as always – is hell.
The FACT is, Iraq descended into civil war a long time ago. We, of all people, ought to recognize the signs. The Sunni/Shia divide is analogous to our North/South feud, and the militias are the functional equivalent of Quantrill’s Raiders, et al. Or if you prefer, it is a time and place much like the Reconstruction South with the Klan and the “tribal” feuding in the Kentucky hills.
What is going on in Iraq is not Islamofacsim, but the oldest of man’s mortal sins. This is the curse of Cain, a curse that according to the Bible was born in these very lands.
No one can possibly know how many have died thanks to our “liberation” of Iraq, but a recent study puts the number at 600,000 or more Iraqis. The WH poo-poo’s that study and puts the number at a “mere” 30,000. We will have to rely on Michael, our resident statistician, to tell us if the administration’s number is a FACT or OPINION or another outright LIE. I’m guessing it’s the last.
But even by the WH reckoning, it’s time to leave, since we have taken ten eyes for each eye and ten teeth for each tooth lost on 9-11. But we won’t.
No, regardless of how many Americans or Iraqis die in this war, we will not be leaving Iraq as long as this President is in the White House, and that FACT has nothing to do with WMD, terrorism, Islamofascists or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Here’s why: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/
Michael Herdegen - October 18, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
The statistical probability of an American dying in a terror-related attack on American soil is roughly that of being struck by a meteor.
A statistic which strongly supports the contention that the Bush admin is doing a bang-up job with national security, right ?
Average number [of books] authored by U.S. presidents: 4
Perhaps you’re unaware that the sentence should read “authored”, since it’s a common practice for celebrities and other prominent people to put their names on books ghostwritten by others, or to release volumes of their collected speeches.
If Bush were to have four books written for him, and published in his name, would that make you happier ?
In any case, it’s likely that we’ll see at least two books from “W”, once he’s retired.
Number written by Jimmy Carter: 20
Number written by George W. Bush: 0
So apparently the rule is: The worse the President, the more books they write.
Tam O’Tellico:
Both the Lancet and the White House are lying, in the sense that, while neither of them knows for sure how many Iraqis have died, they’re both aware that the figures that they’re promoting are almost certainly wrong.
Based on the Lancet’s 2004 data, and what’s happened since then, I would be comfortable estimating that the true figure is somewhere between 100,000 – 200,000.
Note that if the UN sanctions had continued as before, the death toll from March of 2003 until now would have been roughly 130,000, or only slightly less than the probable death toll from the current troubles.
Michael Herdegen - October 19, 2006 @ 12:16 am
You are also on the wrong side of science with regard to […] the Lovenstein institute. It may well be your opinion that their conclusons are false and their implications ridiculous…
Yes, those are my opinions.
Now, please tell me how I’m on “the wrong side of science”. What is my error?
Explain to me how IQ scores really work, and why the Lovenstein Institute’s conclusions are valid.
You can’t, can you, because you’ve done no research into measuring IQ, you’re simply sure that I must be wrong, because the list validates your preconceptions about George Bush and the world in general.
Sadly, (for you), the whole thing is a fraud, a humor piece – exactly as I described it above, after one look at the list.
Ironically, in a sense the list itself is a rough-n-ready IQ test, right ?
lonbud - October 19, 2006 @ 7:42 am
the contention that the Bush admin is doing a bang-up job with national security ?
Well, let’s put it this way — they are doing at least as good a job of protecting Americans against terrorism as they are of protecting us from being struck by meteors.
Tam O’Tellico - October 20, 2006 @ 7:38 am
Well, I am happy to see we are making some progress what with Michael at least admitting that the administration is capable of a lie – that’s far more than this administration is capable of doing.
You all may recall a very, very long time ago, I posted an OPINION that one day soon Americans would face the same choice Native Americans faced not so long ago – the choice between freedom and security. It now appears we have chosen to become what the Indians called “Fort Dogs”, a reference to the weak who hung around the forts living off table scraps from the wasiciu.
(For those unfamiliar with the term, wasiciu translates as “he who takes the fat”. A contemporary translation would be “trickle-down economics” or “Free-Market Capitalism” also known as The New Golden Rule – he who has the gold (or the guns) makes the rules.)
Where is thel howl from the public or the press at the passage of the Retroactive Torture Justification Act? Yea, I know, it only applies to sand niggers – no need for us good white folks to worry.
It now appears the Legislative branch has surrendered its duty to weigh against the worst excesses of the Executive branch. Coupled with continued attacks on an independent Judicial Branch, you have the worst fears of the Founding Fathers come to pass.
Now mix in paperless ballots on machines (made by rabid partisans (FACT)) that have been proven to be easily manipulated (FACT), and you have the greatest dream of Joe Stalin come true: “Having the vote means nothing; counting the vote means everything.”
Tam O’Tellico - October 21, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
We’ve discussed mine safety here several times, and once again the fool who would be king engages in a perverse appointment – in spite of the mining deaths of the previous year. It is just such scurrilous actions, such hypocrisy and doublespeak that will dump this playboy at the bottom of the presidential pile:
http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2006101937?pt=0
Tam O’Tellico - October 22, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
And just you’re wondering what happened to Neil the even more shameless Bush, check out where our NCLB funds are going:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ignite22oct22,0,4402778.story?track