It shouldn’t have come as too much of a surprise when Time named the right-wing blog PowerLine “Blog of the Year” in December 2004. After all, PowerLine had been widely read by the mainstream media because of its role in a big journalism story—the Dan Rather “Memogate” affair. In the days after the infamous September 8, 2004 broadcast, PowerLine was among… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (159)Propaganda needs to have no traceable source for it to be truly effective.It would appear the far-right has found another way to spread deceit and further their politics of avarice.Thanks for perverting another medium.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:33 PM Digby, thanks for rewriting the Prospect piece. Unfortunately, the only bit you actually added was completely, utterly, bass-ackwards wrong. Cheers.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on Apr 13, 2005 at 7:05 PM I think you really have to try hard to miss the difference between the right and left blogs.
The blogs of the right are largly looking out from the Republican party message to expand that message. The blogs of the left are largely looking in at changing the Democrat party message. As a result, conclusions such as this article are missing the obvious.
Consider also the party in power. Blogs of the right can largely act in comfort due to the Republican control of the Executive, Senate and House. Blogs of the left are inclined to make amends to change that Republican control.
This observation isn’t complex. It is not like searching for a tree that provides no shade.
Posted by Brennan Stout on Apr 13, 2005 at 7:27 PM The big left blogs are screwed up too. There is no room whatsoever for real discussion outside the range of really liberal to moderately liberal. ON Daily Kos for example they completely cut off anyone who is not a liberal. Anyone who challenges capitalism, or is anti-statist or seems too far left is literally blocked from posting comments and diaries on Kos. I was blocked from Kos for my view that every country on earth is ruled by a tiny ruling class and that winning elections can’t change that fact. I also said I was neither a liberal nor a Democrat. For that I was banned. This is a screwed up mindset.
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Apr 13, 2005 at 7:30 PM Indeed, Digby, bravo on mastering the art of the paraphrase in mere weeks. I’m sure Garance didn’t mind doing the heavy lifting here, such as it was.
Posted by Tacitus on Apr 13, 2005 at 8:05 PM Blogs will some day replace religion. That’s a little exagerated but they could become a tool for democrartizing the system. The California Democratic Party has a blog called Bob’s blog, where I’ve been blogging at lately. Local party organizations web sites could post Bob Mulholland’s (Bob’s) topics on local organization blogs and and with a few local items have a good Democratic Party blog statewide network with local dialogue.
It makes so much sense that Republicans would use operatives instead of real citizens.Wealthy Republicans like rauchy stuff so they listen to talk radio and working class Republicans are Bible thumpers and Bible thumpers give a thumbs dowen to the Internets ( with an ‘s’as Bush calls it ) and bloody blogs.
Posted by Craig Williams on Apr 14, 2005 at 5:53 PM There’s at least a third blogosphere: teenage girls writing about their drama-filled lives.
Step out of the political world every once in a while. :P A blog is just a piece of technology.
Posted by Ed. on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:50 PM “The right blogosphere operates largely as part of the greater Republican message machine. Many of its bloggers are already part of that infrastructure, working as journalists for conservative publications, writing books and lecturing. ......
By contrast, the left blogosphere is populated by “citizen bloggers,” who work in non-political occupations for a living and blog for reasons of personal interest. This sphere actually operates as a unique and potentially powerful political constituency rather than a part of the Democratic Party apparatus. “Sorry, Digby, but you are either ignorant of the blogosphere or trying to put one over on people. Let’s see, left-wing bloggers “work in non-political occupations and blog for reasons of personal interest.” Let’s run down a few of the most popular left-wing blogs:
dKos - Markos is a Democratic party activist and was a paid political consultant during the 2004 campaign
Atrios - Duncan is a full-time employee of Media Matters, a George Soros funded left-wing media watchdog group
Political Animal - Kevin is a staffer for left of center mag Washington Monthly. Sure he has a day job but he isn’t really any different than the Powerline guys
Matt Yglesias - Matt is a staff writer for left of center mag American Prospect
Talking Points Memo - Josh is also a staff writer for Washington Monthly
Sorry, it just won’t wash
Posted by Campesino on Apr 15, 2005 at 7:53 PM Campensino,
Perhaps those individuals blog for the “left” in a less-than “citizen” way, but it does not change the fact one iota that thousands of people like me blog everyday on liberal sites for personal edification.
I am certain that the finger can be pointed 180 degrees the other direction as well. Republicans who blog on this line obviously are paid operatives, by and large.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 15, 2005 at 9:20 PM Republicans who blog on this line obviously are paid operatives, by and large.
What do you mean by “on this line”, you mean this web site?
Posted by Campesino on Apr 15, 2005 at 9:38 PM “Perhaps those individuals blog for the “left” in a less-than “citizen” way, but it does not change the fact one iota that thousands of people like me blog everyday on liberal sites for personal edification.”
Of course it doesn’t change that fact, I agree. But Digby’s argument is that right wing bloggers are “professionals” and left wing bloggers are not. If you compare the top traffic bloggers of both sides they really look pretty much the same as far as background goes. That blows his argument.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 15, 2005 at 9:50 PM Um, Digby’s distinction is between “insiders” and “outsiders”. You just have to read the frickin’ title to figure that out.
Your misuderstanding of this fundamental makes it clear why your list in a previous comment, even though they contain professionals, are not “insiders”.
Posted by Hal on Apr 16, 2005 at 3:08 PM My sister! My daughter! My sister! My daughter! Sister! Daughter!...............My sister AND my daughter! Got it?
Posted by Faye Dunaway on Apr 16, 2005 at 4:32 PM “Damn it, Jim! I’m a doctor, not a miracle worker!”
Posted by Leonard McCoy on Apr 16, 2005 at 4:34 PM “Adolf! Nixon! How did you degenerates get into heaven? Oh shit! This isn’t heaven, is it?”
Posted by John Paul II on Apr 16, 2005 at 4:37 PM Um, Digby’s distinction is between “insiders” and “outsiders”. You just have to read the frickin’ title to figure that out.
Your misuderstanding of this fundamental makes it clear why your list in a previous comment, even though they contain professionals, are not “insiders”.
Posted by Hal on April 16, 2005 at 10:08 AM
Um, let’s like go over your logic again:
- Krempasky is a paid political consultant who blogs
- Malkin is an opinion journalist
- Hewitt is a lawyer who does talk radio
- Powerline guys are two lawyers and a banker who blog on the side
But they are all INSIDERS- Kos is a blogger who also is a paid political consultant
- Atrios, Yglesias, and Marshall are opinion journalists
- Drum is a computer/software consultant who blogs on the side & gets paid by a left wing journal to do it
But they are all OUTSIDERSFrankly, that makes no sense logically or empirically. Anyone who pays attention to the blogs (left & right) listed above as I do on a daily basis know there is a wide spread of opinion among all of them. I don’t think the guys on the right get a daily fax from the RNC any more than I think the lefties get one from the DNC.
It’s your frickin misunderstanding (and Digby’s) that there IS no fundamental here
Posted by Campesino on Apr 16, 2005 at 7:37 PM A major difference between lefty and righty discourse is righties seem to make their criticisms nasty and ad hominem, while lefty criticisms focus more on the merits.
As a related observation, righties seem to place more importance on loyalty to power and authority (to the detriment of verifiable truth and even of goodness), while lefties are more inclined to place power and authority in what is true and what is good (in the humanitarian, enlightenment sense of the word good). Thus the righties are more inclined to sing one tune—the tune of those in positions of authority—and lefties are more inclined to have many, varied perspectives on any given issue.
Posted by Em on Apr 16, 2005 at 7:44 PM “A major difference between lefty and righty discourse is righties seem to make their criticisms nasty and ad hominem, while lefty criticisms focus more on the merits.”
All you have to do is read comments on Eschaton or Political Animal to undestand that both sides are equally nasty and ad hominem
Posted by Campesino on Apr 16, 2005 at 7:50 PM The majority of the lefty blogosphere people that are mentioned as having paid megaphones in other lefty media were bloggers first—and then after rising to some level of prominence, got paid gigs as a result of successful blogging. Kevin Drum was Calpundit before being picked up by Washington Monthly and morphing into Political Animal. DailyKos was blogging on Dem issues and the horseraces and was a website-infrastructure guy before working briefly for Dean, and now I think consults rarely and selectively on netroots-related stuff. Eschaton’s Atrios was a prominent anonyblogger way before Duncan Black worked for Media Matters and the two (Eschaton and Media Matters) are still very obviously distinct, with Eschaton still as quirky as ever. Joshua Marshall was simultaneously a sort of freelance journalist/graduate student/blogger blend, and it doesn’t seem like Talking Points Memo sprang out of a big media gig, more vice versa. Similar w/Matthew Yglesias, a student/blogger/freelancer who has gotten increasing attention and who works for The American Prospect magazine. Folks like Americablog’s John Aravosis, who’s blogged on Gannon and other scandals, have blogging as an avocation and part-time job, more or less based on reader donations. Not sure how it is w/ the righties, could be similar, or not. Just wanted to dispell the myth than the big lefty bloggers started out as big lefty media/political people then got big blogophones—it’s actually the reverse order in time (if you can even call any of them “big” on an absolute household-name-recognition basis, which not really the case.)
Posted by Em on Apr 16, 2005 at 8:00 PM “By contrast, the left blogosphere is populated by “citizen bloggers,” who work in non-political occupations for a living and blog for reasons of personal interest.”
Read it again - it’s in the present tense. We all started somewhere. I agree the lefty bloggers started small and got bigger. But to go through the list of people you discuss (with the possible exception of Drum)and say they work in non-political occupations for a living and blog for reasons of personal interest just isn’t true.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 16, 2005 at 11:57 PM Regarding the CBS forgeries, you say that:
“. . . a later investigation by the Columbia Journalism Review revealed that the PowerLine bloggers—as well as others who gained national media attention, like Buckhead from Free Republic and Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs—were uniformly wrong as to the details, and only right in the larger sense that the memos could not be authenticated.”
Do tell. Which details, specifically, were they proven to be wrong about?
Posted by Jheka on Apr 16, 2005 at 11:59 PM I am a “citizen bloggers” from the center.
I recently documented the comspiracy of the left, including the actions of the left’s bloggers. In general what the left accuses the right of doing, the left is guilty of.
SAD!
http://fredfryinternational.blogspot.com
Posted by Fred Fry on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:06 AM There’s right wing blogs and right wing blogs, but there’s only one Little Green Footballs. There, Charles Johnson provides a platform for some of the vilest comments you can find anywhere. Take a look:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15473_Palestinian_Child_Abuse#c comments
If this doesn’t work as a link (coward Johnson redirects ‘lefty’ links to the IDF website) then just cut’n’ paste it into your browser window…
P.S. LGF has a ‘closed registration’ which stops any protests against their hate speech. The ‘lizards’ or ‘minions’ as they call themselves get very busy on lefty blogs, leaving nasty messages and name-jacking regular posters.
Posted by Alan on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:09 AM Which details, specifically, were they proven to be wrong about?
Well Jheka, that would be: none. This is simply wishful thinking on the part of Digby and of Corey Pein at CJR. They’d like to think that if you keep saying you’ve proved something that it’s as good as actually proving it.
Typography expert/Democrat Dr. Joseph Newcomer handily destroys that claim, along with the notion that the forged docs might be authentic.
Here’s a sample:
It is worth pointing out that good reporter will listen, and learn, and do research to learn. Pein apparently takes the attitude that if he can’t understand something with a superficial reading, it must be either wrong, or unworthy of any effort to understand. He is very much of the school “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts”.
The big difference between the likes of Pein and Digby vs. Newcomer is that Newcomer actually supports his assertions with factual evidence. The evidence is available to anyone with the ability to read and comprehend.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:27 AM The comments at LGF are almost entirely normal, ranging from innocuous to angry, just like most forums out there. Of course there are some, very few, that step over the line and they are usually slapped down in short order by the other posters. On the lefty blogs, however, there are regular comparisons of Bush (or anyone on the right) to Hitler, fairly regular calls for Bush’s assassination, racist put-downs of Condi Rice or any other non-white who dares stray off the DNC plantation, and more of the hatred and vitriol that the LGF posters are unfairly accused of spewing. Charles Johnson is also name-jacked on a daily basis. Classic projection.
Posted by Mr.Neutron on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:28 AM Alan, could you direct me to some pure, wholesome blogs? Something with bunnies, perhaps?
Thanks, Mom!
Posted by Pablo on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:32 AM Dude,
there’s like several thousand blogs. You say:“Many of its bloggers are already part of that infrastructure, working as journalists for conservative publications, writing books and lecturing.”
Do you actually have proof that the blogosphere…other than Kos…actually took money to profess a certain belief set?
I’m just curious causeit seems that you are inventing things.
Posted by Quilly Mammoth on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:52 AM Well Digby, I don’t suppose you’d care to list these Rathergate details which the right-wing blogosphere was “uniformly wrong” about, would you?
I already know that you can’t because you cited as proof on this point Corey Pein’s laughable junk column on the subject. You haven’t done your homework and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
By far the dumbest thing I have read in weeks. Here’s a quote that demonstrates how I feel after reading your piece:
“Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Posted by TrollSlayer on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:21 AM - Kos is a blogger who also is a paid political consultant
- Atrios, Yglesias, and Marshall are opinion journalists
- Drum is a computer/software consultant who blogs on the side & gets paid by a left wing journal to do it
But they are all OUTSIDERSKos and Jermome Armstrong started their political consultancy after they started blogging. Atrios was an econ professor and started at Media Matters after he started blogging. Yglesias was a Harvard student and got a fellowship at the Prospect in part because of his blog. Drum, as you note was a consultant, and only relatively recently started blogging for the Monthly. Marshall was an opinion writer, so that stands. Otherwise, all “citizen bloggers” until blogging propelled them to other things. I note that according to Truth Laid Bear, the top 5 liberal blogs are Kos, Atrios, Marshall, Drum and BoingBoing. BoingBoing blogger are all “citizen bloggers”.
Posted by J on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:22 AM You assert that conservative bloggers are working in some dark conspiracy, teaming up to brainwash the great unthinking masses with their perfidious ideas.. and then you assert that liberal bloggers are “citizen bloggers” doing it out of personal interest…?
Kos gets paid by Howard Dean, and he’s not the only lefty blogger taking money from Dems for the blogging work they do. How many does Soros employ or pay?
Now, name for me a conservative blogger that invoices the RNC for services rendered.
anyone?
anyone?
LGF? Powerline? CQ? nope, nope, nope..
Of course, as long as Kinkos is open, I know I can count on my fellow Texan, Mr. Burkett, to ‘find’ a copy of a Rove memo to Hinderaker with instructions for the Rocketman’s next post.
Posted by Dave on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:41 AM “Otherwise, all “citizen bloggers” until blogging propelled them to other things.”
I agree. Please read Digby again:
“By contrast, the left blogosphere is populated by “citizen bloggers,” who work in non-political occupations for a living and blog for reasons of personal interest.”
As I said, Digby is speaking in the present tense isn’t he, and he is wrong. I mean, Derek Jeter used to play Little League, but you wouldn’t call him a Little Leaguer now would you?
‘li
Posted by Campesino on Apr 17, 2005 at 2:15 AM Right, we’re all just a bunch of mind-numbed robots for believing our lying eyes rather than Mary Mapes and the CBS crew who were so absolutely stupid, or blind, or both, that they couldn’t figure out that the Bush memo was a fake.
Seems to me the mind-numbed robots are the idiots who still try to defend this piece of trash as a “journalistic” effort.
How dare you declare that anybody who disagrees with you is obviously under the influence of some dark conspiracy?
The memo was a fake. Rather got caught. He’s been at if for years and he finally got hoisted by his own petard. Give it up, fool. Get a life.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 4:34 AM Everyone else has done a fine job disassembling this particularly noxious and deliberately ignorant (to be charitable) load of codswallop, so I’ll simply respond to a single point Alan made in the comments thread about Little Green Footballs:
1) At the top of every single comment thread is the following disclaimer:
“Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs. Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.”2) “Palestinian Child Abuse” is a standing headline of Charles’. It uniformly refers to pictures in the mainstream press of Palestinians dressing their children up in fatigues or (hopefully) fake suicide bomber rigs, carrying toy (or real) weapons, wearing camouflage paint, and appearing in public rallies (read: mob scenes). These are usually held in places where there has been recent violence.
Charles does this, I believe, to show how the Palestinians inclulcate their children in a “death-cult” mentality from the earliest possible age, getting them used to the idea of bearing arms and killing Jews and themselves in the struggle. It shows just how much they have invested in the idea of violence and slaughter, and serves as a constant reminder of Golda Meir’s classic quotation that there will be no peace as long as the Palestinians hate the Jews more than they love their children.
But to go back to the original piece… may I add my voice to the growing chorus that calls for Digby’s original claims that 1) the top liberal bloggers are “independent,” while the top conservatives are “on the payroll; and 2) the Rathergate memos are merely “unverified” and have not been prove completely and utterly bogus? Speaking as a contributor to a top 20 blog, I am far more interested in point #1, because it means someone’s been intercepting my checks ever since I started…
J.
Posted by Jay Tea on Apr 17, 2005 at 5:31 AM STATEMENT OF FACT REQUIRING PROOF
“The notoriety stuck, although a later investigation by the Columbia Journalism Review revealed that the PowerLine bloggers—as well as others who gained national media attention, like Buckhead from Free Republic and Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs—were uniformly wrong as to the details, and only right in the larger sense that the memos could not be authenticated.”Please produce these details and explain how they were wrong. This isn’t a matter of opinion or of ideology. This is a matter of fact. Produce facts or surrender.
Posted by samuel stott on Apr 17, 2005 at 7:46 AM Wow, Digby must be correct to be collecting so many vitriolic and nasty right-wing denials and counter-attacks.
Posted by Archie on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:49 PM In reviewing the comments, I am once again struck by what I see as a fundamental difference between today’s conservatism vs. the left. That is, the so-called right always seems constrained both to be logical, and to be consistent, in its positions; while the left seems unconstrained to be either.
It seems as if the left, come hell or high water, needs to defend other leftists (Ward Churchill, anyone?), no matter how absurd their positions, nor how wrong they turn out to be. On the other hand, when conservatives are wrong about an issue (the recent flap about the Schiavo memo comes to mind) they admit their mistake and move on.
Call me what you will; but I can sleep at night with the knowledge that the views I have today will be consistent with those I had yesterday, and not contradictory to those I’ll have tomorrow.
I don’t need to explain why withdrawal of nutrition and hydration violates the Eighth Amendment when applied to convicted felons; but not when applied to brain damaged spouses. I don’t need to explain why capital punishment is a crime; but partial birth abortion or euthanasia is humane. I don’t need to explain supporting the decriminalization of marijuana; but the criminalization of cigarettes.
I could go on; but I won’t. Digby makes my point by claiming there’s support for his argument by referring to, what else, yet other liberals who agree with him (or her?); but still producing no evidence. His readers make my point by reading Digby’s unsupportable claim that leftists are somehow free of vitriol or rancor, then writing in and calling Digby’s detractors every name their imaginations can handle.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 12:54 PM Archie, please cite examples of “vitriol,” “denials,” and “counter-attacks.” I looked, and all I saw were refutations and challenges to his basic presmises, all backed up with facts.
Or are you one of those people who say “facts are stupid things?”
The only evidence cited in the initial piece was theColumbia Journalism Review “defense” of CBS, and it has has been thoroughly discredited, debunked, and destroyed elsewhere. On the other hand, the evidence presented showing the memos to be forgeries is extensive and, to this day, despite countless hours and dollars spent, irrefutable.
But it’s just so much easier to call the other side names, isn’t it? Makes it easier to dismiss their arguments, right?
But “facts are stupid things.”
J.
Posted by Jay Tea on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:12 PM I am still laughing at the title “citizen blogger”. All Hail the People’s Republic of Haven!
Who knew Weber’s fiction had such deep impact? Is there someway to rank bloggers using a combination of NZ Bear’s TTLB Ecosystem and “Citizen Blogger”?
Citizen Higher Being Blogger Kos?
Yeah.
Posted by Quilly Mammoth on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:20 PM Myself, I’m just sitting back laughing my ass off.
You guys on the right are a hoot!
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:35 PM Here’s his blog.
And just let me say again that the right wing commenters here are a hoot.
For example, the Powerline jokers are Claremont Fellows who have been writing for National Review and Weekly Standard for years (to quote Digby). Hardly outsiders.
And as to the “right admitting their mistakes”, I’m still waiting for admission regarding the whole Iraq WMD thing, the insurgency (just a few dead enders), the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection and on and on and on.
Just the recent idiocy over the AP photo by the Powerline icons is enough to have me rolling on the floor laughing at the previous comments.
It’s like going to a comedy club.
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 1:48 PM “a later investigation by the Columbia Journalism Review revealed that the PowerLine bloggers—as well as others who gained national media attention, like Buckhead from Free Republic and Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs—were uniformly wrong as to the details”
Yes, the people in/at Columbia Journalism are known to be unbiased centrists looking only at facts…. After all, look how they react to complaints by students of their own glaringly anti-Semitic bias—they shuffle it under the rug and look the other way until it blows over. Let’s all hope it doesn’t. Bad enough to go to a school where professors have some commitment to facts and reason. It’s pointless to go to one where they think they can push their unsupportable agenda at people who can’t fight back with reason.
Posted by NBII on Apr 17, 2005 at 3:56 PM Wow, Digby must be correct to be collecting so many vitriolic and nasty right-wing denials and counter-attacks.
Once again, wishful thinking. Saying that Digby is collecting vitriolic, nasty, right-wing denials and counter attacks does not make it so. In fact, most folks would call that “lying” in the absence of evidence.
Certainly Archie, you’ll point directly to some of this nasty vitriol. It seems to not exist on these pages, and it follows that it doesn’t exist at all. Enlighten us, or admit your deception.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 17, 2005 at 4:45 PM The fact that you would cite that ridiculous CJR article is an indication of how desperate you are to make an argument. The fact that CJR would publish it in the first place is an indication of how desperate they are. You gotta love the argument, “his explanation is complicated and I don’t understand it, therefore it is wrong.” Well, what do you expect from an Evergreen graduate?
Posted by James on Apr 17, 2005 at 4:59 PM Wow! We got the anti-semitic liberal accusations in on only the second page o’ comments.
And I love how you guys throw down the gauntlet in such outraged, Marquis of Queensbury fashion! I can almost see the pressed suit and buffed shoes.
Y’all are a hoot.
admit your deception
ROFL! Next you’ll be “demanding satisfaction”.
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 5:34 PM Hal, you need not fear my “demanding satisfaction” from you. Such things are only demanded from the honorable. You, sir, do not qualify.
But let me answer you in your own tone, Hal:
The only person you’ve been hearing “demanding satisfaction” lately is your girlfriend, and those demands have not been met.But now that we’ve gotten the juvenile insults out of the way, Hal, would you care to actually refute the charges made? The ones that go to great lengths to show the flaws, errors, and outright lies in the Columbia School Of Journalism article? Or are you just gonna pee in your pants in glee from having annoyed those who argue with facts and truths?
I think I can guess which. I can already smell it.
J.
Posted by Jay Tea on Apr 17, 2005 at 5:52 PM Now that’s gettin’ classy! Attacking sexual skill and bladder control in the same comment…
As to refuting charges, um… Gee, I think I’ll just let you stand there and huff and puff, throw down those gloves and shake your tiny fist in anger. It’s so much funner to see how far you’re going to take this.
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 6:10 PM And might I just say that demanding someone defend something that they didn’t say and isn’t even relevant to the post in question is kind of lame.
Just saying.
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 6:23 PM OK, Hal, let’s lay our cards on the table. A key point of Digby’s piece is that the Rathergate memos were never conclusively proven forgeries, but rather “remain unverified.” I dispute that, and others have more than adequately cited sources that they were out-and-out forgeries, and every single expert CBS cited as authenticating the memos has retracted, denied, or piled on so many qualifiers and reservations as to strip that authentication of any credibility whatsoever.
Digby cited the Columbia School Of Journalism Review article defending the Rathergate memos. Again, others here have cited numerous sources that utterly eviscerate that load of codswallop far more thoroughly and effectively than I have.
Digby’s third assertion is that the right-wing bloggers are all “on the payroll,” while the left-wingers are predominantly “citizen bloggers.” Yet again, people have shown actual, concrete evidence that the opposite is actually true.
And as far as why so many people are reacting so strongly to Digby’s piece… there’s a term for that trait in people who simply cannot stand to see flagrant lies, distortions, propaganda, and falsehoods go unchallenged. A trait that demands that one stand up and speak the truth. That trait is called “integrity.” Might you be unfamiliar with that term?
J.
Posted by Jay Tea on Apr 17, 2005 at 6:33 PM Now we’re getting into gambling metaphors!
First, Digby’s point doesn’t rest on whether the memos were never conclusively proven forgeries. His point is, forgeries or not, the Powerline jokers were wrong in every respect other than they couldn’t be verified.
Second, irrespective of what the CJR is or is not, or what you think you have conclusively proven in the comments, it does not negate the fact that the Powerline jokers are dicks who are republican party insiders.
Third, don’t say “all”. It’s stupid to use this adolescent debating tactic. And the assertion that anyone was on the payroll is never made by Digby - only that they are insiders.
As to your final point, I am familiar with the term “political toady” - a term which seems to fit you to a “t”.
Ever see Reno 911? You kind of remind me of the D&D players.
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 7:30 PM The “Powerline Jokers” have been writing for Weekly Standard and National Review for years? Bullshit. Once again, proving my point. Liberal liars cite other liberal liars for their “facts,” and before long it becomes the truth. Cite somebody besides Digby for this outrageous assertion.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 7:54 PM it does not negate the fact that the Powerline jokers are dicks
Brilliant, devastating argument! Should you incorporate some actual fact into your scintillating style, you shall be the King of the 8th grade debate team.
Bravo.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 17, 2005 at 8:30 PM Cite somebody besides Digby for this outrageous assertion
Do you actually read Powerline? I don’t even like the blokes and even I can read their little bios.
Seriously. If your going to call someone a liar, you should at least read their frickin’ web page.
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 8:41 PM Yeah, Hal, or whatever your name is, I do read Powerline. I’ve also been reading the Standard and the National Review for years. Your statement was these guys have been writing for the Weekly Standard and National Review “for years.” Not so. Powerline came first, then the articles in National Review and the Weekly Standard. Two of the three bloggers had written for some minor publications before that. The third hadn’t any real experience in that regard.
Your comment gave the impression that Powerline was somehow an outgrowth of these publications; which it wasn’t.
This same sort of “industry hack” argument was leveled at Dr. Charles Newcomer, who wrote the analysis of the Rathergate memo. Left wing bloggers—without any evidence—cavalierly accused him of being part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, which is a joke. The guy’s a long-haired, liberal hippie freak left over from the sixties, who said he was probably going to vote for Kerry in the election. Nonetheless, he was mugged by the truth when he saw the Rathergate memo and decided to speak out. And for his troubles, he was attacked by the left as if he was some sort of, well, little Eichmann.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 9:17 PM This sounds picky and trivial, but I cannot take seriously the opinion of anybody who refuses to use his or her real name to his or her articles.
If you have the courage of your beliefs, stand by them and don’t hide behind a pseud.
Oh, and by the way, the wingies never, ever proved the memos were forgeries, because they weren’t, and they know it. They used them as a way to discredit the whole National Guard report.
Not even the panel investigating the “Rathergate” story would touch this issue, which only proves my point that the weren’t forgeries and they knew it. But the panel tried to provide a smokescreen for CBS over the dustup.
Posted by Susan Nunes on Apr 17, 2005 at 9:33 PM I’d say Dr. Newcomer proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the National Guard memo was a forgery. Considering he was one of the inventors of computer type fonts, and is a liberal to boot, I found his report just about conclusive.
Saying it was never “proved” is a canard. Sure, and the prosecution never proved O.J. killed Nicole. This is funny to me, because Dan Rather’s greatest nemesis, Nixon, used this same argument. He called it “plausible deniability.” Al Gore called it “no controlling legal precedent.” It’s just code for “I was wrong, I got caught; but I’ll never, ever admit the truth.”
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 9:42 PM Susan Nunes:
“Oh, and by the way, the wingies never, ever proved the memos were forgeries, because they weren’t, and they know it. They used them as a way to discredit the whole National Guard report.”
Oh, yes. The “Rathergate-memo’s-as-a-deliberate Karl-Rove-plant” conspiracy theory, which also requires absolutely no evidence of either.
I agree. Why would liberals need to forge documents when they require not a shred of proof to substantiate their many other conspiracy theories?
Posted by Harry Mallory on Apr 17, 2005 at 10:02 PM Let’s just concede they were forgeries. The fact remains that every single reason and argument for the documents being forgeries that the Powerline weenies gave was wrong. The *only* thing they were right about was that they couldn’t be verified.
It’s pretty funny to think y’all are somehow under the belief that if you can prove the memos really forgeries then the Powerline bozos won’t be jerks and therefore everything Digby said about them being insiders will magically be untrue.
ROTFL!
Posted by Hal on Apr 17, 2005 at 10:27 PM “The fact remains that every single reason and argument for the documents being forgeries that the Powerline weenies gave was wrong. “
Every single? Name one.
Posted by James on Apr 17, 2005 at 10:38 PM “Let’s just concede they were forgeries. The fact remains that every single reason and argument for the documents being forgeries that the Powerline weenies gave was wrong.”
Give me a break. Let’s just concede then, that the source of the memo was a liar. Let’s also concede that there’s not a scrap of evidence that Bush shirked his duties by flying F-104’s in the National Guard, other than the word of people who already hate the guy.
How about, let’s just concede that you’ve lost the argument; but in typical liberal style, you’re claiming the memo was “fake but accurate.” Based on what? Why, of course, the word of yet other liberals who claim Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard.
So, tell me, what is it that the Powerline guys said about the Bush memo that was wrong? Once again, we have a liberal making an argument with nothing but wind behind it, then claiming victory.
Get a life, move on. The memo was a fake, its premise was a lie; but liberalss just can’t admit it. Ever ever ever. Hold your breath until your face turns blue.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 10:39 PM I am just amazed that anyone would still be arguing that the memos are real. Within a couple of hours of the 60 Minutes broadcast, several people on the web produced near exact replicas of the memos in MS Word. Now 6 MONTHS later, not a single person has been able to come up with typewriter that could theoretically even have produced the memo, or any other Air National Guard memo that even remotely resembles those four. Not to mention all the factual and formating errors in the documents. The leaps of faith and logic that are required to believe those documents are real are just astounding.
Posted by james on Apr 17, 2005 at 10:46 PM FYI: Flying F-104’s in the National Guard was no walk in the park. The F-104 was a lousy design. It was downright dangerous to fly, which is why the Air Force shoved them off on the National Guard at the first opportunity. I think it took just as much courage to climb into one of those things as it did to climb into a swift boat.
The whole argument is inane, in any event. Both men served during Vietnam. The kerfuffle over the National Guard service only served to draw attention away from the real differences between the two candidates.
By continuing to argue over this issue, liberals only hurt themselves the same way Republicans did by continuing to attack Bill Clinton once it became obvious they couldn’t prove the Whitewater charges. Regardless of what they suspected or believed, they should have moved on. By failing to do so, they only hurt themselves.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 17, 2005 at 10:48 PM Did you know?
76 years ago the President of General Motors predicted 80-mpg by 1939; 69 years ago Ford Motor Co. tested a 170-mpg Pogue carburetor; 32 years ago Shell Oil Co demonstrated a 376-mpg automobile; 28 years ago a 100-mpg Ford V-8 was demonstrated; 22 years ago Peugeot advertised a 72-mpg @ 56-mph Diesel. 3 years ago an English newspaper article announced a 104-mpg Toyota Diesel and 94-mpg VW/Audi Diesels. Commercial fuel cell vehicles have been available in Europe for years. Many U.S. Patents exist for devices that separate the elements of water for use as fuel, one patent #1,380,183 was granted 84 years ago.
The other side is a composite of 8.5”X11” documentation for four of the above statements. If you wonder why this technology is not available to you see: byronw.www1host.com.
Byron Wine
(byronw@purespeed.com)
Manassas, VA
NOTE: THis format prevents attachments
Magnetic motors:http://pesn.com/2004/06/30/6900029PerendevPowerMagneticMotor/ This is a production motor requiring no external power input.
http://www.japaninc.net/article.php?articleID=1302 A tested motor/generator has an efficiency of more than 300%
Posted by Byron Wine on Apr 18, 2005 at 12:11 PM This sounds picky and trivial, but I cannot take seriously the opinion of anybody who refuses to use his or her real name to his or her articles.
If you have the courage of your beliefs, stand by them and don’t hide behind a pseud.
It is picky and trivial, not to mention uninformed and incorrect. While the Powerline guys used nics, their site has always had their real names and bios correlated to the nics.
Any suggestion that they’ve “hidden behind pseudonyms” is patently false. Their identities have never been a secret.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 18, 2005 at 1:17 PM Bush didn’t fly F-104s,he flew either 102s or 106s,one of those outdated delta-wing designs.That’s assuming he was sober enough to get it off the ground.
What the right-wing won’t admit is they have a PROPAGANDA machine which they use to deceive the American public into doing things which aren’t in their best interest or to distract them with wedge issues when he right wishes to economically sodomize the public.
What still amazes me is the number of essentially god people who fall for the right’s lies,who get hung up on trivial issues(Terry Schiavo,really.)while letting themselves be cheated by supposed paradigms of honesty(Bill"boxcars!” Bennett)who are probably the worst pack of thieves we’ve had since the robber barons of the 1880’s.Furthermore,if these right-wing robots had the integrity they claim,they’d be outraged at the dishonesty of the far right.Does Whitewater/Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky/Right-Wing outrage/blah,blah,blah…my friends… compare to lying to start a war over oil,and then lying about lying?For all of the right-wingers reading,in the style of your god Rush Limbaugh,I DEFY YOU TO SHOW ME ONE W.M.D. SEIZED IN IRAQ!Now I will go back to my portentous pontification while my call screener weeds out any dissenting callers.
Right-wingers are very good at dishing it out,but like all bullies,they can’t take it.Cowards.
Let’s face the truth.The right-wing does not want any dissent or disagreement.They only want compliance.Why do people support their deceptive policies?Because they don’t win in real life.Nor will they if they keep voting for politicians who care more about how much they can take rather than how much they can give to the public.Just how does does a country become fascist?Watch ours,right after the late reality-crap show to find out.P.S.to Tonya Harding.I love you.Break Paula Jones’s nose again.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 18, 2005 at 1:26 PM I’ve noticed how the right wingers here use the standard technique of attacking the source without even considering the facts, yet defend LGF! Say, how can a closed registration system allow for name stealing, huh?
Posted by Lefty on Apr 18, 2005 at 3:23 PM I’ve noticed how the right wingers here use the standard technique of attacking the source without even considering the facts
Who did that? Where? What source? The CJR piece falls down upon analysis of the facts. Digby relies on it as a source, so he falls down on the facts.
What source has been attacked here without discussion of the facts? OK, Powerline has been, but that’s not the point you’re trying to make, is it?
Say, how can a closed registration system allow for name stealing, huh?
Who said it does? What are you arguing with?
Typical leftist tactic: Just keep screeching that lies are truth. Ignore the pesky facts.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 18, 2005 at 3:47 PM Yeah, right, Bush flew F-102s. They were the planes that were so dangerous even Chuck Yeager couldn’t control one. Thanks for making my point, followed by a gratuitous comment about Bush. At least he wasn’t fucked up while meeting with the communists.
Yep, all of us right wingers side tracked on trivial issues like euthanasia. Somehow, that’s supposed to compare to Rathergate. I hope some day your spouse euthanizes you because they don’t want to take care of you any more. Seems like you’ve already had the lobotomy, idiot.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 18, 2005 at 4:00 PM I DEFY YOU TO SHOW ME ONE W.M.D. SEIZED IN IRAQ!
How about two? BTW, Rush is as much of a blowhard as you are a dummy.
Let’s face the truth.The right-wing does not want any dissent or disagreement.
I must not be “right-wing” then because I don’t mind dissent or disagreement, unless it’s provided with no facts whatsoever. I couldn’t care less about your feelings.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 18, 2005 at 4:20 PM Re: “one WMD seized in Iraq”
Correct. WMD’s weren’t aimed and at the ready. Despite the liberal dissembling, Bush never said there were. His words to the UN in September, 2002 were that Iraq was a grave and gathering danger, as opposed to a clear and present danger. To the extent that Bush “lied,” so did every other intelligence agency in the world.
And since then, there has been revelation after revelation of components of WMD that have been poo pooed by the MSM, because liberals don’t ever want WMD to be found there. Such as the al Qa Qa dump, where all those specialized explosives used for triggering nuclear devices that Saddam didn’t have were supposedly stolen from. And, oh yes, that article buried last month in the NY Times, where “sophisticated equipment” like, um, centrifuges used to process nuclear material, went missing.
The “absence” of evidence of WMD’s in Iraq is nothing more than an exercise in studied ignorance by the left, which would rather lose a war than lose an election. Whether or not you care to defend your country, the other half of us do and will if we believe we are threatened.
Posted by John Huettner on Apr 18, 2005 at 4:34 PM John ,John,John,
You missed the point completely.Bush took the spot in the TNG to avoid actual combat in Vietnam,unlike McCain who did use his plane as a weapon and was later trashed by this party.It was the F-104 that was too dangerous-something wing geometry.Bush may have been sober when he met the communists,but he did say he looked into the soul of a master spy,Putin,a man who could teach sneaky to a weasel and said he trusted him.Naivety or stupidity?Either way,not something I want in a president.I hope if I ever am in Terry Schiavo’s position my wife does euthanize me.Being a vegetable is no form of living,it’s merely existence.
We invaded Iraq because we were afraid they were going to launch a sneak attack with some sort of W.M.D.The definition of which changed as each possibility was disproven.We went from nuclear threat to chemical threat,which are completely different levels of threat:the difference between a shotgun and a howitzer.
Despite wishful right-wing revisionism Bush did say “He’s got’em.” Furthermore,I remember how rabid the far-right was about invading because of this threat.The word traitor was used to describe not only those who said"no war”,but those who said"Now,let’s not be too hasty.Let’s be sure before we commit our troops”.Traitors both in the eyes of the far-right.Oh,by theway,this administration has even admitted there were no WMD"S in Iraq.Regarding this nonsensical idea of pre-emptive invasion,suppose in 1981 the Soviet Union
had decide to invade Iraq because of Iraq’s,at the time,possible nuclear threat?Remember the Breeder reactor they had before the Israeli’s took it out?The Soviets would have a legitimate claim with Iraq being close by as it is.What would the U.S. response have been?Nuclear war.
You honestly want to tell me that this cat-lick and a promise reason for war justifies the misery it’s caused?Don’t even mention the mass graves which were filled during the Reagan administration
with weapons that REPUBLICANS gave to Hussein,and neatly swept away in the obfuscation of Iran-Contra.Regarding Rathergate,if we want to talk about media personnel lying,look at Rush.I’m limited to 800 characters, so I can’t even begin to catalogue his lies.
By the way,I did defend my country U.S.Navy,Persian gulf.I have seen Soviet vessels up close.My younger brother is over in Baghdad with the National Guard.If I thought that Iraq was a real threat and not a political tool I would probably re-enlist despite my age.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 19, 2005 at 1:01 PM the facts would be the memo is fake but bush also never fullfilled his TANG duties - what is actually important. but john kerry faked his ‘Nam injuries so its ok.
and the rightists defend the incompetent cabal in power come hell or high water, facts shmacts. talk about tossing your so called principles in the garbage…
Posted by center on Apr 19, 2005 at 5:03 PM The interesting fact that conservatives always neglect in the “Rathergate” (bet it took all 3 brain cells to come up with that original title), is that Killian’s secretary, Marian Carr-Knox verified that the content was absolutely “100% correct”. And as a talking head, the verification of sources is not your job. I’m sure Rush or Ann are not the ones checking their data either.
John Heuttener is so off-base, it is hilarious. I hope you will be resigning for time in Iran, after June, 2005. Then you can “show us” how many nations we can go after at one time until, at last and so predictably, blowout will come our way again, a la 9/11. By the way, John, we didn’t lose the election. We just watched brainwashing take its course on an ignorant populace while hackers rearranged numbers to give W the “victory”. All will come to light in time, but I am beginning to doubt that it will be in time to save a democratic America.
Sieg Heil, John.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 19, 2005 at 6:08 PM *is that Killian’s secretary, Marian Carr-Knox verified that the content was absolutely “100% correct”*
She asserted that some people felt that way about Bush. She also verified that she had never seen those memos or any like them, that she never typed those memos or any like them, and that Killian didn’t know how to type.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:22 PM You’re absolutely correct, she did state that she did not type those memos. She also stated that she knew Killian agreed with the content, but did not type them either. So, the bottom line is, someone who was there states that the information is correct, but the way in which they were brought to the public’s attention were hoaxes. That does not invalidate the fact that he was a piss-poor serviceman and that pages and pages of his records are “missing”. That in itself seems a huge fraud. When are you conservatives going to wake up to that fact that the man is a pathological liar?
Posted by Margaret on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:59 PM *She also stated that she knew Killian agreed with the content, but did not type them either. So, the bottom line is, someone who was there states that the information is correct, but the way in which they were brought to the public’s attention were hoaxes.*
Of course there is also Killian’s son who was also in the unit who disagrees with her and says his father always had a very high opinion of Bush. Also that his father had a rule never to keep “unofficial” files as they caused more problems than they solved. Killian’s son was there just as much as the secretary was.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 19, 2005 at 10:42 PM I’m afraid you are incorrect about the son. He was a juvenile at the time and was not allowed to spend time “on base”. Mrs. Knox also said that the family of Killian would not have been aware of the attitudes on base because, she says, he did not share his work with his family. As she worked there everyday, his family and wife weren’t, just figure it out. Just like John Bolton, people will eventually realize that they have been sold a pack of lies. I’m sorry that you can’t let go of your fantasy, Campesino.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 20, 2005 at 12:49 AM Ah yes, fake but accurate. Sure, the memos weren’t real, but they feeeeel right, which is good enough for the left.
Margaret, do you have any support whatsoever for the notion that Killian’s son “was not allowed to spend time on base”? I ask because that’s about the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long time. It’s an absolutely ludicrous platform to build the idea that Gary Killian wouldn’t know how TANG operated, how his father operated, or how he felt about Bush. That goes double when you realize that the younger Killian joined the TANG and served with his father. So, is there anything to that notion, or did you just make it up?
Regardless of your irrational hatred spawned by wishful thinking, Bush was reelected. He was also honorably discharged from the TANG with more than enough service points, and unless there’s some sort of smoking gun…which there isn’t…you’re wasting your time kvetching. The game is over, the score is in the books and the forgers lost. The end result of this thing is what it should be, with the exception of the actual forger being exposed. And Bush is serving his 5th year as Commander in Chief. Deal with it.
The funny part of this is that you folks seem to have given up on the idea that the memos might be authentic, which was the thrust of this piece to begin with. There may still be hope for reason and rationality…
Posted by Pablo on Apr 21, 2005 at 11:52 AM We just watched brainwashing take its course on an ignorant populace while hackers rearranged numbers to give W the “victory”.
Oh, my. Please disregard my previous question, Margaret. I wouldn’t have asked it had I known that you’re insane. My apologies.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 21, 2005 at 11:55 AM Mrs. Carr-Knox said that Gary Killian spent little to no time on base, as he was a civilian juvenile. She also stated, on statements given on msnbc, cbs, abc, etc., that she knew from conversations with Killian that he did not share the details of his daily workings on base with is family. So much for the insane verdict.
If you knew something to be true but were unable to access the shredded documents (where are all those missing pages of Bush’s records?), a desparate person might go beyond reasonable limits and try to force a forgery to show what they knew. It’s not right, but not beyond understanding.
Oddly enough, the Republicans really never came up with one verifiable piece of evidence against Kerry. So they, too, came up with forgeries from Republican veterans called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. According to military records, not one statement alleged against Kerry is verifiable. And he had a dozen men with him who all, despite being Republicans (some of them) all vouched for the truth of his statements. How odd that our military is so stupid and inept as to reward someone for military bravery when they didn’t deserve it! You must think very highly of our military if you believe Swift Boat! But that fantasy works for you, and it has even less substantiation.
The hope for rationality is lost in this conversation because I see you are one of the brainwashed Bush-Brigade and I could say the sky is blue and you’d disagree.
Well, as DeLay will soon be shown the door, the economy is starting to tank, people are beginning to see the lies that were the basis for Iraq and the Congress is trying to eliminate the Constitutionally-provided promise of separation of powers, us non-fascist-zombie brigadiers have the pleasure of watching the pendulum swing back the other way.
If you nutcases get your way…Sieg Heil!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 5:09 PM p.s.
Bush was not re-elected. Read any one of the current statistical studies available online (go to Feb. 15 “A Corrupted Election” on this site.
You know, the thing with Republicans is they can never ever, ever, ever admit they were wrong. And, darn, those pesky facts! At least I learned a new tactic from the GOP in this last election…just put your fingers in your ears and sing “la-la-la-la” while someone is trying to tell you a documented fact that you don’t like. It really seems like it worked for them!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:01 PM “According to military records, not one statement alleged against Kerry is verifiable.”
We don’t really know, as Kerry has refused to sign the SF 180 to release all his records as he has promised to do. And as Bush has done
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:22 PM “And he had a dozen men with him who all, despite being Republicans (some of them) all vouched for the truth of his statements.”
Except the enlisted man in his crew who served with him the longest, who came out against him. And every one of his peers serving in the unit who came out against him. And every officer who was in his chain of command, who came out against him.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:25 PM Show me the documentation. I watched a broadcast on one of the network news stations during that time, and I saw his men coming out and supporting him. So, show me the documentation.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:30 PM “Mrs. Carr-Knox said that Gary Killian spent little to no time on base, as he was a civilian juvenile. She also stated, on statements given on msnbc, cbs, abc, etc., that she knew from conversations with Killian that he did not share the details of his daily workings on base with is family. So much for the insane verdict.”
All of these statements were directly contradicted by Killian’s son and his wife also in interviews in the national media.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:31 PM So Bush signed it, eh? Well, since they can’t find “mysterious” missing reems of paperwork, what does that prove? That they cleansed his record before allowing release.
Also, I heard an interview with Kerry about 6 weeks ago on NPR and he stated that he will gladly sign off if the “gentlemen” from Swift Boat Veterans will. He said that, so far, they are refusing. So the ball’s in your court on that one.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:34 PM “According to military records, not one statement alleged against Kerry is verifiable.”
Or his crazy “Christmas in Cambodia” story. Or his “CIA hat” story when he was running arms to the “Khmer Rouge”? Come on
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:34 PM Also, I heard an interview with Kerry about 6 weeks ago on NPR and he stated that he will gladly sign off if the “gentlemen” from Swift Boat Veterans will. He said that, so far, they are refusing. So the ball’s in your court on that one.
He promised to sign the form on Tim Russert’s “Face the Nation” with no conditions. If he has conditioning it now, he’s the one crawfishing.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:36 PM Killian’s family also stated that they are staunch supporters of Bush. Gee, what a surprise they didn’t want their dead husband/father muddying the waters. You’re grasping for straws here, Campesino. How could he come home from work and share classified data, especially when George Sr. was governor of Texas at the time? I don’t believe the Killians, sorry. I would believe the secretary who worked with him everyday.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:37 PM I don’t agree. It’s up to Swift Boat to prove themselves as well. Why should he be the only one to have to do that? We are moving ever closer to a one-party fascist theocracy. What is so appealing about that to you? Are you planning to enlist for Iran after June?
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:39 PM I heard him give a very clear definition of his position on the Cambodian border that Christmas. Actually, the guys with him verified that they were at the border. So, no, I still find Bush, Cheney, et al to be far greater liars.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:41 PM “Killian’s family also stated that they are staunch supporters of Bush”
Mrs. Carr-Know also stated that she was a staunch opponent of Bush
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:52 PM If it FEEEELS right,
At the beginning of this war when cooler heads were saying let’s examine the facts and think before we commit to war,It was the right who were giving us histrionic propaganda about patriotism.
Rationality was displaced by emotions and FEELINGS.Unfortunately,the right has no conception of its own doublethink.I might also add that the chickenhawks who got us into this war were so against going to war in Rwanda,Somalia,and Kosovo.The same right-wingers turned a blind eye to the occurring slaughter now rant about mass graves in Iraq.Two diferences between the graves in Iraq and those in Kosovo:one the graves in Iraq were dug during the 80’s and filled with victims of weapons supplied by a REPUBLICAN president,as opposed to the fresh graves of Kosovo which were filled while REPUBLICANS refused to assist,fearing it would be a political gain for Clinton(how about that for partisan politics?)Second,unlike Iraq,there was no oil in Kosovo,or any of the other countries I listed.If they had oil,they would’ve had republican support.I also don’t remember any republicans demanding we got to war with Iraq during the Clinton administration.I do remember that when he did make an effort to go after Osama Bin laden,republicans screamed Wag theDOG!“Perhaps if they had shut up and let him do his job,September 11th would simply be another day.Oh no,they had to discredit his effort ane turn into another piece of Monica/Paula/Trooper/Whitewater/because wer’e afraid of government regulation
of crooked business/witch-hunt.Regarding Bush’s service record,I can’t believe that the re-party would have the temerity to flaunt it.If that were my record,I’d hide it.Wait,they tried that.Also,I find it more amazing that a candidate who went from a cushy spot on a destroyer to swift-boat duty,someone who gave up comfort and relative safety for getting his head blown off at any moment should be vilified by the republicans.Doubly so,that his worst critics all wimped out when duty called and took deferments,had medical conditions that"healed with the signing of the Treaty of Paris,or,like Cheney had"other priorities”.if Medal of Honor winner Bob Kerry runs for president,what repyilian political ploy or innuendo will they use to slime him?
Q:what the definition of a NEO-CON?
A:a rabid sheep?
Posted by wwoods on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:55 PM “My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in ‘68 and ‘69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy… if a man like that can’t handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?”
— Steven Gardner
Enlisted man on Kerry’s crew
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:56 PM “Also,I find it more amazing that a candidate who went from a cushy spot on a destroyer to swift-boat duty,someone who gave up comfort and relative safety for getting his head blown off at any moment should be vilified by the republicans.”
At the point in time that Kerry volunteered to go to the Swift boats, they had not been assigned to river patrols. They were cruising safely off-shore out of range, and were mostly used to help pick up downed fliers. Kerry admitted this himself in his autobiography. He didn’t volunteer for Swift boats to see combat
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 7:00 PM “I heard him give a very clear definition of his position on the Cambodian border that Christmas. Actually, the guys with him verified that they were at the border.”
They verified he was 50 miles away. He also claimed President Nixon sent him there - when he didn’t take office for another month. Grasping at straws??
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 7:04 PM “We are moving ever closer to a one-party fascist theocracy. What is so appealing about that to you?”
We are no more closer to a one-party country now than we were in 1992 when Democrats controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress (with much higher majorities, I might add). The pendulum swings in American politics, and the Democrats will be back in again soon enough.
There is nothing appealing about a fascist theocracy. I think that there is little chance of that happening. I really don’t believe that conservative religious people asserting themselves politically now is any more dangerous than liberal religious people were when they asserted themselves in the Civil Rights and anti-war movements of the 60s and 70s.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 7:15 PM “How could he come home from work and share classified data, especially when George Sr. was governor of Texas at the time?”
1. It wasn’t classified data
2. George HW Bush was never governor of TexasI mean, really
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 7:18 PM “Are you planning to enlist for Iran after June?”
I already served in the Army, how about you??
Posted by Campesino on Apr 21, 2005 at 7:30 PM OOps, you’re right. I meant senator from Texas. Yes, that George was there wasn’t classfied, but my dad was military and he did not tell us about his work day, who was good or bad, etc. Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that Killian did either. Not only that, how difficult to criticize the son of the senator from your state, especially since he actually received handwritten letter from GHWB on at least 2 occasions inquiring about his boy’s behavior.
In an interesting NY Times article, it was shown that Steve Gardner never served directly with Kerry. He, according to the military data, simply passed by him during battle on the river. Not a very credible source since, he also, was a big Bush supporter.
But you know what? You will never convince me that a self-centered draftdoger like Bush is in any way capable of being a good leader. Look at the country. It’s never been this divided, not even during Vietnam. He has turned family member against family member. He and his neocons are ruining the US, and they will bring major blowback on us, just like 9/11.
Ultimately, Campesino, when you post your neocon drivel on sites likek this, you are a major laughing stock.
No, the Army isn’t my thing. I just volunteer in my church helping the poor, the sick, the elderly. I was a Girl Scout leader for 9 years and won our distict’s leader of the year award (in a city of over 2M). I prefer to build up and heal rather than kill. I guess that’s the difference between you and I. And don’t talk to me about “defending my freedom”. The last several (VN, Granada, Kuwait, Iraq) wars we’ve engaged in have had everything to do with oil and power and the prevention of the Communist domino theory, not one thing to do with our freedom. Communism rightly destroyed itself, it imploded. Sanctions worked better than weapons, but I guess we learned nothing from that. When are you Vietnam people ever going to get over that you were lied to and used?
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 8:31 PM “Who is Steve Gardner?
Swift Boat Vet “eyewitness” was not present for events leading to Kerry’s medals or Purple Hearts.”Go to <mediamatters.org> for the real story on Gardner. Pure politics. He lies through his teeth.
Further documentation of Bush’s lies:
“But as Media Matters for America has noted, former Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes swore under oath that he helped Bush get into the Guard, and Bush’s Harvard Business School professor Yoshi Tsurumi said Bush “admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad—he said ‘dad’s friends’—skip him through the long waiting list to get into the Texas National Guard.” Neither statement has anything to do with the CBS documents.”
And let’s not even get started on Condi, who tried to override Article 2 of the constitution yesterday by telling State Dept. employees that they were not to cooperate in Bolton’s investigation, or else.
Or the lies, lies, lies that the Administration continues to perpetrate to bring down the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Will you finally be satisfied, Campesino, when we have the theocratic fascist dictatorship that you are helping to create? If you are so blinded as to not see that is what you’re helping with, I am so sorry for you, but sorrier for the millions you doom.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 21, 2005 at 10:14 PM Margaret, you loon. We’re already 4 years into the 8 year Bush presidency and we still haven’t seen a theocratic fascist dictatorship. I’ll tell you what, you crawl under your bed, and we’ll move forward along with the Constitution.
Seek help, really. You’ve doomed yourself. Bush has nothing to do with that. You need meds, and I hope you get them.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 22, 2005 at 12:25 AM Campesino,
When one compares the service record,Kerry still outshines Bush.What I find amusing,in a darkly humorous way,is how much republicans screamed about Clinton not going to Vietnam,screeching the importance that our C-in-C be a military veteran even though most of those loudmouths didn’t serve themselves.Gore had his record trashed,republicans said it wasn’t good enough.The Democrats put up Kerry in 2004 and republicans did all but directly call him a coward and a war criminal.When did patriotism through service become the sole property for republicans.Now let’s look at Bush.A person who used his political influence to leapfrog over hundreds of other men to gain a cushy and coveted spot in a TANG unit.A man who scored ridiculously low on his flight aptitude tests.A man removed from flight status for reasons undisclosed,and who took off form his unit for a year to work on a political campaign.This man should lead our military?
Republicans could’ve had McCain and a possible reconciliation,or simply detente,between both parties.Can’t have that,no sir.Instead,the republicans trashed McCain’s record and insured that Bush,a Texas oil man,got into power.
The Bush family has family values,they’re just Corleone family values.
As a result,we have a war of insurgency we may never win,the hatred of the entire Middle-East,and the disgust of the rest of the world,and have turned Iraq into a magnet for every terrorist group that hates us.“Bring’em on,our president said,and they are. However,we do control Iraq,sort of, and have all the cheap oil we could want.Oh,wait,gas is $2.50 a gallon.Well,we at least have a corporate stranglehold on the oil that’s got to benefit the public…at least those who are oil executives.
By the way,Fascism does not show up every time in blackshirts,armbands,and jackboots lugging gas chambers,nor does it show suddenly.It quite often comes in the form of a series of laws which subtly restrict freedom.The far-right should know about restriction of freedom,they screamed about it when Clinton said they couldn’t make machine guns.But,hey,the republicans won this election,so their followers won.Say nothing,comply,help the boig guy get richer,fight the dirty enemy liberals who are traitors for disagreeing and soon you’ll reap the benefits,which somehow never manifest.
Democrats don’t think republicans are inherently stupid,they simply can’t believe that anyone would be dumb enough to believe this pile of right-wing manure.
If you vote republican,you’ll get everything you deserve.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 22, 2005 at 1:21 PM Bravo, wwoods. Well put. That Pablo is an ignorant jerk. Never any corroborating evidence, no links, just insults. My parents always taught me that’s how stupid people with no real argument debate. But that’s Republicans for you!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 22, 2005 at 2:59 PM Margaret, I just call them like I see them. Do you have a link to support your “Fascist theocratic dictatorship” nonsense? Something evidentiary, like the elimination of Congress and the Judiciary? How about something that shows the election was stolen? Again, something evidentiary, not half baked conspiracy theory. Of course you don’t, because it doesn’t exist except in your warped, paranoid mind. Oh, and I’d rather be a jerk than be insane.
Bush is still the legitimately elected President of the United States, the memos are still forgeries, and Bush is still honorably discharged, and the Constituion is alive and well. Deal with it.
wwoods, the Presidential race is not a military accomplishment measuring contest. Bush did nothing but praise Kerry’s record, and release his own. Bush did not make military service a centerpiece of the campaign, Kerry did. And then refused to release his records. It was a bad move that cost him dearly. It’s pretty tough to win a campaign when you can’t do interviews for fear of getting hammered with your record. Regardless, if it were a matter of weighing military accomplishments, Bush has 4 years of CinC experience while Kerry has 20 years of voting against military spending. Bush wins that contest. That’s why he wins the military vote.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 23, 2005 at 2:22 PM I meant senator from Texas
He was never senator from Texas either.
As I said, I mean, really
Posted by Campesino on Apr 24, 2005 at 3:32 AM former Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes swore under oath that he helped Bush get into the Guard,
After he had previously sworn on oath that he didn’t
Posted by Campesino on Apr 24, 2005 at 3:34 AM No, the Army isn’t my thing. I just volunteer in my church helping the poor, the sick, the elderly. I was a Girl Scout leader for 9 years and won our distict’s leader of the year award (in a city of over 2M). I prefer to build up and heal rather than kill.
Gee whiz - how wonderful - speaking as a Scoutmaster, myself
Posted by Campesino on Apr 24, 2005 at 3:38 AM You were right. He was a congressman. I thought he was a senator because Carr-Knox spoke of Killian receiving letters from George Sr. during W’s TANG time. I remembered Senate, but it was the House. This is the quote from a bio of WHWB: “Prescott Bush, who was elected a Senator from Connecticut in 1952, George became interested in public service and politics. He served two terms as a Representative to Congress from Texas. Twice he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. Then he was appointed to a series of high-level positions: Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.”
You can believe what you want, but the bottom line will always be, Kerry served, Bush didn’t. End of discussion.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 25, 2005 at 3:20 PM You can believe what you want, but the bottom line will always be, Kerry served, Bush didn’t. End of discussion.
Sorry - BOTH served. One in Vietnam and one here in the US
Posted by Campesino on Apr 25, 2005 at 3:35 PM No, one copped out on Daddy’s purse/powerstrings and didn’t even show up when commanded to, which is documented. Time will ultimately show GWB to be the WORST president in US history, of that, I have no doubt.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 25, 2005 at 4:53 PM You’re right.Unfortunately,republicans have made it an issue which has now backfired.Of course it isn’t an issue,it doesn’t serve their interest right now.
Regarding Bush’s experience as C-in-C,he ignored Al-Qaeda from January to September despite their overt hostility(USS Cole).His response to 9/11 was to wait months before invading Afghanistan.Bush is no Eisenhower.As a matter of fact,how much military prowess does it take to point to a country on a map and say"invade them”?All you have to do is make sure you don’t invade the wrong one.Oh,wait,Bush did that.
We can define republican military policy with one word:WHOOPS!
You mentioned that Kerry voted against military spending.Did you pay attention to Rumsfeld’s cuts in miltary spending of 25%,or the base closings?Did Bush object?No.Republicans talk the talk about being strong on defense,they sure don’t walk the walk.By the way,Clinton’s military spending was far more than his republican congress asked for.Yet,he was portrayed as weak on defense for closing bases and eliminating obsolete weapon systems.Furthermore,his cuts weren’t done during wartime and,moreso,didn’t affect the living conditions of our troops.Some C-in-C.By the way,Kerry’s records were on the internet.Hardly hidden,unlike Bushh’s which were redacted.
Incidentally, making a comparison of a sitting president to someone who isn’t,is shoddy arguing at best.Nonetheless,it’s become typical of the right.Actually,it’s necessary if you’re going to get working people to support a man who wants to money to rich people at the expense of our military and anyone else who isn’t a special interest.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 25, 2005 at 5:26 PM Sorry I’m double blogging,but my last post was for Pablo.Hope he reads it.By the way,Pablo, if you had any understanding of fascism,you’d know that it does not have to be commanded by one person.It can be done by a large group if that works.It doesn’t require the elimination of congress or the judiciary.What drivel.It only requires the elimination of opposing political views.Which,by the way the republicans are doing their best to accomplish.It’s apparent you didn’t look at what I posted 4/22.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 25, 2005 at 5:47 PM Now that’s what I call teamwork! Thanks, wwoods. Nice to hear the voice of sanity once again.
Please, please list the link for that Kerry info on his record. I heard him say on NPR that he would sign a total release on his records if all the members of Swift Boat Veterans would do theirs. Apparently he had stated earlier on Tim Russert that he would do it, but I heard him a while later and he said he decided to do it only if they would. I think that is more than fair, considering he’s not the President or even a candidate now.
Thanks!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 25, 2005 at 8:41 PM We can define republican military policy with one word:WHOOPS!
As long as we ignore two governments eliminated and replaced with elected, representative governments chosen by voters. If we can just ignore the historical taking of Iraq. We toppled the 3rd largest Army in the world, and it’s dictatorial government in a month. That was the most decisive military victory in history, despite the fact that you lefties were screaming “QUAGMIRE!!!!” the minute we hit sandstorms and got slowed down for 15 minutes. It was also the most bloodless war of it’s size, ever. The only problems we’ve had have been with insurgents, who are just the people we want to be fighting…there and not here. Baathists and jihadis. Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians…in Iraq…killing Iraqis.
No further attacks on the US. 50 million people liberated. 2 brutal, repressive regimes gone for good. Thousands upon thousands of jihadis wondering where their virgins are. Shockwaves throughout the region (you’ll notice that Syria pulled out of Lebanon today…but this has nothing to do with it, right?) Democracy punching through in Georgia, Kyrgystan…and what’s this I hear about Egypt?
Sure you can sum up the events of the last 3.5 years as a military “WHOOPS!”...as long as you keep that asshat pulled way on down and scream “ABU GHRAIB!!” a few more times.
Thankfully, history won’t care what you think about the whole thing.
Of course, they don’t teach this stuff in Girl Scouts, do they?
Kerry said he’d sign Form 180. He’s the guy who was “Reporting for Duty.” He’s the guy that made his military service the centerpiece of his campaign while downplaying his 20 years of Senate duty.
Why would there be any objection at all to releasing his records? I mean, he’s a bonafide war hero, right? He should be proud of his record. He should be proud enough to sign Form 180.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 25, 2005 at 10:13 PM He should be proud enough to sign Form 180.
He should. Then maybe we would find out why the Honorable Discharge he has released dates from the mid-1980s instead of the early 1970s when he left service and received his original discharge
Posted by Campesino on Apr 25, 2005 at 11:35 PM “It only requires the elimination of opposing political views.Which,by the way the republicans are doing their best to accomplish.”
Political views that oppose the Republican party are thriving. I see them on tv every night, hear them on the radio every day, read them in the newspaper every day, and why - I even read them in the comment threads on this website.
To read your comments, you would think Democrat party members were being rounded up and put behind barbed wire. Can’t you see that overreacting like this undermines your credibility.
You really would do much better if you worked on getting people you like elected and stop screaming that there is a dictator behind every tree
Posted by Campesino on Apr 25, 2005 at 11:42 PM “You really would do much better if you worked on getting people you like elected and stop screaming that there is a dictator behind every tree.”
That’s the problem, Campesino. Their complaints are myriad and often delusional. Their solutions are nonexistant.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 26, 2005 at 9:49 AM Campesino,
“To read your comments,you would think Democrat party members were being rounded up and put behind barbed wire.Can you say free speech zone?
I’m not saying there is a dictator behind every tree.I’m just worried about one finding his way into the White House.Poltical views that oppose the republicans,if you haven’t noticed,are carefully guided by the networks to not humiliate the right.Poltical debate on all of these shows is kept to the smallest amount of discussion time allowable.Why?In past years it’s been found that given enough time a republican will run out of intelligent things to say.Regarding debate,I spent over a year watching Fox and listrening to right-wing radio.There is no debate.Dissenters aren’t allowed to make their points without being repeatedly interrupted.If a point is close to being made,the discussion is diverted or a personal attack is made,usually by questioning an abstract value as though it were concrete.
Why not take a look at what’s going on in our capitol.The current struggle by the republicans to subvert the apoointment process of judicial
nominees is a classic case of attempting to create dictatorial conditions.One party will be able to what it wants with opposition being irrelevant.Pablo,
We did"liberate"Afghanistan and Iraq.Yes the war lasted only a few weeks.The Iraqis stood virtually no chance against us.We’d been practicing.By the way,regarding"third largest army"actually it’s fourth behind Russia and China,and I don’t know if you’re aware that after number two the size rapidly dwindles,tosay nothing of fighting ability.There are no longer thousands of jihads,just one big one.Guess who it’s aimed at and guess where it is?
Those of us who did scream"QUAGMIRE!“were talking about the war of insurgency.Republicans simply tuned us out by turning up the volume of the martial music.
Other countries are doing what we want.We have a huge army in the region.They don’t want their country destroyed.Boy,that’s a healthy foreign policy.
There were also no U.S. terrorist attacks after the first WTC bombing for Eight years,thanks to Clinton.Curiously both wre planned during republican administrations.Check the dates.
Why would you think I have anything to do with the Girl Scouts?
If you checked Kerry’s website,you’d have found his military records.I suppose those were forgeries.
Finally,I’m not the only summing up the last 3.5 years as a military"WHOOPS!”,so is the rest of the world.Incidentally,immature jokes only serve to reinforce the percption of republicans.
“Asshat”,whatever.Can you say"guilt by association”?
r
Posted by wwoods on Apr 26, 2005 at 1:12 PM Boy, talk about delusional! A foreign policy that relies on almost no intelligence in the area of battle, as we did in Iraq and now Iran, is delusional. David Kay and Scott Ritter tried to tell Bush Co. that they were a destroyed infrastructure in Iraq with no WMD, but the Republican spin machine did its usual BS, resulting in a large percentage of Americans still believing that Sadaam had cosponsored 9/11.
Now that we know Bush has already signed the executive order last October for the “possible” invasion of Iran sometime after this June,(on the same shakey and unsubstantiated grounds), the machine will really start spinning shortly. These are facts, Pablo and Campesino. But you can all just bury your heads in the sand, as usual. Why people would join a group like the current Republican right is baffling. If you study history at all, the whole course of events is VERY much like the period during the Weimar Republic when Hitler was ascending to his elected position of German Chancellor. That is why people keep comparing Bush to Hitler. Fascist dictatorships ride in on the back of religion, always. When the Senate starts rewriting the Constitution in the wee hours of the night, that is also an exact replay of what happened in order for Onkel Adie to take complete control. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Though I am certain you can’t understand the parallels, since your brains have been turned to gel by Rush, Hannity, etc.
Get used to it. Either your group will succeed and we will have another Great Depression lived under great oppression from the fascist theocrats or we will kick your asses out. Considering that Congress currently has a 33% approval rating and Bush only a 45% (lowest rating in the 20th/21st century), I see that as a definite possibility in the near future. I am not looking for agreement here from you two, I’m just stating the facts.
Maybe a little quinine would help bring that Republican fever down so you can think clearly again. Best of luck!
Posted by Margaret on Apr 26, 2005 at 3:19 PM “If you study history at all, the whole course of events is VERY much like the period during the Weimar Republic when Hitler was ascending to his elected position of German Chancellor. That is why people keep comparing Bush to Hitler. Fascist dictatorships ride in on the back of religion, always.”
First of all, I study history for a living.
Conditions in the US today are nothing like what was going on in Weimar Germany. During the early 30’s the German people were angry because of the humiliation of the loss of WWI, had suffered through hyperinflation that destroyed everyone’s savings and pensions, and were suffering in the midst of the Great Depression in conidtions that were at least as bad as they were in the US at that time. Hitler had a private army, the Brownshirts, who went around the country intimidating police, and fighting pitched battles with street gangs that were organized by the Communist party. The basic social order and public safety was breaking down and people were desperate for stability.
If you really believe that conditions are like that in the US right now I just don’t know what to say to you.
Oh, and the Nazi movement was explicitly atheistic. Some authoritarian minded church leaders, Catholic & Protestant, went along for the ride, but they were not part of his movement, and he merely tolerated them. Mussolini’s situation in Italy was similar.
About the only European fascist movement with a strong religious element was Franco’s Falangist party in Spain. And that basically was in reaction to the quasi-Marxist Republican government in Spain that was anti-Catholic and destroyed churches and killed priests. The church backed Franco for its survival. So saying that Fascist governments always come in on the back of religion is not true at all.
So if you really study history at all and understand it, you will understand that most of your assertions in this line make no sense
Posted by Campesino on Apr 26, 2005 at 3:59 PM Please read, “Defying Hitler”. The similarities are huge. Just because it’s not to its zenith yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
“Oh, and the Nazi movement was explicitly atheistic”
Yes, I am aware of that. But not every right wing Repub. is a born-again Christian and, yet, they go along for the ride. The Church backed Hitler and he often used the phrase, “Gott mit uns”. Just because there’s not an overt religious practice involved with the leadership doesn’t mean that the party can’t drape it in the cloth of religion. The GOP certainly has!I lived in Germany for two years when I attended the University of Heidelberg. In the time I lived there I came to know many x-Nazi’s and those who went along for survival. They state that it was understood that the Nazi’s did what they did for “God and Country”. So your point is really moot. I know in the 80’s the Pope apologized for backing Hitler and not doing more to overthrow him. How much more religious culpablity do you need? I also know that they told me politics was definitely preached from the pulpit. And, yes, they were absolutely humiliated by their WWI loss, just as we are as a nation over Vietnam. Just look at the last election…still fighting about Vietnam’s relevance and justifications. Don’t even try to tell me that we aren’t still embarassed about that one. Just talk to most vets, it’s still hot.
I will accept your Franco example, and restate, it almost always rides in on the back of religion.
Yes, economics were very different in the Weimar Republic. I am well aware of that, as well. However, with the current trends that Bush Co. in undertaking, the Social Darwinism that is being extolled will take its toll. I guess it’s really more reminescent of the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the resultant stock market of ‘29 at the moment. But when 25 million children are getting their healthcare taken away in Missouri by a Repub. government, when Bush now questions tax cuts for anyone but the rich, the inevitable result will be the same.
We are on the way, that is my point. Fascism in its infancy is already here. When the Christian right screams about judges not following Biblical perspectives and that they should be impeached, but they meet in the dark of night to assault the Constitution, it is arriving. Sorry you wrap yourself up so much in your psuedo-intellectual tape loop that you can’t see that. God is great, he’s allows me to see what is plainly in front of my face.
Actually, I have a Bacherlors Degree in German and History. And if you, with all your acumen, can’t see history repeating itself, I think your education has been for naught.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 26, 2005 at 4:30 PM There are no longer thousands of jihads,just one big one.Guess who it’s aimed at and guess where it is?
You’re just not paying attention. Kosovo, Chechnya, Indonesia, Sudan, France, Holland, the Phillipines, China, India, Pakistan, hell…even Saudi Arabia. Islam has bloody borders and if you think that’s all because of Chimpy McHitlerburton you’re out of your mind. There’s a lot of jihad out there, and it doesn’t need us for it’s raison d’etre. Look around.
Those of us who did scream"QUAGMIRE!“were talking about the war of insurgency.
You folks started with how we’d never succeed against Saddam’s scary army, and you’ve been naysaying since. 20 years from now, this is going to make the Marshall Plan look amateurish. The insurgency is spiraling into control, and it has very little popular support. Iraqis are not happy about being car bombed. Zarqawi, et al cannot win, period. It’s not possible, and it’s only a matter of time until it’s finished, and very little time at that. Look around.
But you know what? This war was what it looks like when al Qaeda throws everything it has at us. We kick their ass. But you are right. We didn’t do enough to win this as quickly as possible. But if we had done everything in our power you’d be complaining about that too, as it would have been much messier on the other side.
There were also no U.S. terrorist attacks after the first WTC bombing for Eight years,thanks to Clinton.Curiously both wre planned during republican administrations.Check the dates.
al Qaeda didn’t mind us when Bubba was POTUS? Please. Non sequiter. Next.
If you checked Kerry’s website,you’d have found his military records.I suppose those were forgeries.
You’d find what he wants to show us. He said he’d sign Form 180. He’s a war hero, right? What’s the problem? Let’s see his DD214. What’s your argument with that? He is a military hero, right? Or is he a war criminal? He has claimed to be both. I’d call that a military “Whoops!”
Finally,I’m not the only summing up the last 3.5 years as a military"WHOOPS!”,so is the rest of the world.Incidentally,immature jokes only serve to reinforce the percption of republicans.
So you didn’t see those Iraqis and Afghanis dancing on the streets and braving death threats because they could vote. You didn’t see grown men weeping with joy because they were free to do something you take for granted. An immature joke? Not to them.
Oh, but they’re just brown people, so it’s all an immature Republican joke. And who is it that thinks Iraq would be better off if we’d left Saddam alone? I’d like to see some world leaders quoted on that. Look around.
Sorry, buddy. If the asshat fits, take it off and have a look around. The people who matter disagree with you, and so do the facts on the ground.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 26, 2005 at 6:08 PM When the Senate starts rewriting the Constitution in the wee hours of the night, that is also an exact replay of what happened in order for Onkel Adie to take complete control.
Got any evidence of that “fact”, Margaret? Or is that your imagination having it’s way with you?
Just look at the last election…still fighting about Vietnam’s relevance and justifications.
Who wanted to talk about Vietnam last election? John Kerry. Dan Rather. Max Cleeland. Democrats.
The Republicans were more concerned with the enemy we have now, not the internecine spats we had then. But you Democrats wanted to talk about John Kerry being a war hero and Bush being AWOL 35 years ago. Now, you want to use the fact that you can’t get past it as proof that we’re all still humiliated over Vietnam? Speak for yourself.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 26, 2005 at 6:18 PM “Just because there’s not an overt religious practice involved with the leadership doesn’t mean that the party can’t drape it in the cloth of religion. The GOP certainly has!”
“However, with the current trends that Bush Co. in undertaking, the Social Darwinism that is being extolled will take its toll.”Alllllllrighty, then. It’s Evangelicals engaging in Darwinism. Check.
/off to chase butterflies
Posted by Pablo on Apr 26, 2005 at 6:21 PM Considering you’re apparently pretty high on something, that would probably be the best thing you could do, Pablo.
Check this out:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
This article proves that the Swifties were nothing but a bunch of Republican liars. Shows every “fact” they used to be erroneous.
Plus, it was the Republicans who smeared McCain, Kerry, Cleland, not the Dems. All any of those men did was talk about having seved, unlike AWOL Bush. “Failure to Appear”, what a wonderful trait for a president. Admitted to his college prof. that he ditched Vietnam through Daddy. Oh, the wonders of the GOP spin machine. Aren’t you glad Americans are politically lazy? You can pull the wool over their eyes so easily, liar.
Do you understand the term “social Darwinism”? Apparently not. Has nothing to do with evolution. For a good primer on it, watch your beloved Administration rape America. They are the biggest traitors on the face of the Earth. Hope you are enjoying destroying Democracy. With a name like Pablo, I’m sure one of the Republ. big boys will give you a housekeeper job for your faithful service against Democracy.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 26, 2005 at 8:14 PM Pablo, p.s.
The proof of that is called Terri Sciavo. What they did was unconstitutional. It violated the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 26, 2005 at 8:21 PM “Oh, and the Nazi movement was explicitly atheistic”
Yes, I am aware of that.Thanks for conceding my point. What you say following that is anecdotal and does not refute the point that the churches were not in his coalition and played virtually no role in Hitler coming to power. Something that you said happened every time a fascist government comes to power.
“Yes, economics were very different in the Weimar Republic.”
Thanks for conceding that point as well, especially since the horrid economic situation in Germany during that period was a driving force in driving the populace to the point that they would accept almost anything to stabilize the situation. The sort of economic situation we don’t have in the US today, with a growing economy and unemployment below 5%.
“I guess it’s really more reminescent of the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the resultant stock market of ‘29 at the moment. But when 25 million children are getting their healthcare taken away in Missouri by a Repub. government”
So now you are agreeing with me that 2005 US isn’t like Weimar at all. I’m glad we got that settled. You’re saying that it’s really like the US in the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons in the 1890’s. And we all know that the Gilded Age resulted in the fascist dictatorship of .......Oh, that’s right, no dictatorship at all, but the Republican presidencies of McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft. I’m not sure exactly how you skip over the period of 1900 - 1929 to link the Gilded Age to the Great Depression but I don’t think that it does anything to my argument. Actually, the Great Depression didn’t result in a fascist dictatorship here either unless you want to characterize Franklin Roosevelt that way.
Oh, and I’m not sure how 25 Million kids in Missouri lost health care benefits when the population of the state is only 5.6 Million
And just to get back to something you mentioned earlier - I listen to very little talk radio and as much of it is Air America as anything on the right. So much I read on web sites like this one says that people who disagree with aspects of Progressive positions are either stupid or have been brainwashed and it’s really sad. I disagree with many things that you say and I believe that you are misinformed on some topics. But I would never say that you are stupid or brainwashed. You really should give people who disagree with you that credit as well.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 26, 2005 at 9:02 PM that the churches were not in his coalition and played virtually no role in Hitler coming to power.
To clarify I should say “active role”. They did play a role, so to speak, in that they did not oppose him actively enough
Posted by Campesino on Apr 26, 2005 at 9:32 PM “And, yes, they were absolutely humiliated by their WWI loss, just as we are as a nation over Vietnam.”
One other point, I really don’t believe that the psychological effects of Vietnam and WWI are comparable. In Vietnam, we lost 50,000 dead out of a population of about 200 Million. We lost those dead and some prestige. Our country was never touched and our economy never harmed. We continued to play a vital role in the world, and eventually recovered enough to win the Cold War 16 years later.
In WWI, Germany lost 1.7 Million dead out of a population of about 60 Million. Germany lost all its overseas possessions, territory to the west to France and to the east to Poland and other countries. Its Army, Navy, and Air Force were disbanded and its airplanes destroyed and ships scuttled. Its economy had been destroyed by the war and it was forced to pay reparations. Finally its territory was occupied by foreign military for several years.The effect of WWI on Germany and Vietnam on the US are not comparable.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 26, 2005 at 9:45 PM Pablo,
Kerry’s DD214 was on his website during the election,but isn’t anymore.However,if you want to view a copy,go to findlaw.com.i’m sure you’ll still believe it’s a forgery.
What is with the list of countries?Do you seriously believe that all of those countries are a threat?Unbelievable.Throwing out lists of countries that have muslim populations that don’t like us is not the same as a military threat.I suppose French Muslims have WMD’s.if you need straws to grasp,they sell them at most supermarkets.
Regarding Clinton,the terrorists who did that were arrested within days.Despite republican accuations of incompetence,the terrorists are now in a Colorado penitentiary.Non-sequitir?Only when the facts don’t suit the right wing’s propaganda.
Those of us who did predict a quagmire were predicting it as a result of a war of insurgency.As a matter of fact,if you read the papers,terrorist attacks have climbed in recent months.However,the Bush administration has done its best to suppress unfavorable data.Of course,to the right-winger,this is just liberal deceit.Actually it’s conservative paranoid.Regarding the people weeping and dancing,sure they did.Now,they want us to go home.Many of the insurgents feel the same way and hope if we lose enough troops we will.Unfortunately they don’t understand the greed of Texas oil-men.
Furthermore,if you’d paid attention at all to the past twenty-five years of history,indeed,the past fifty years,you’d realize this current conflict is about oil.We didn’t hate Khomeini because of his religious beliefs,we hated him because he wouldn’t play ball with us.
Saddam did play ball,so we armed him to the teeth so he could fight the Iranians.Saddam was our buddy.Hell,we even let him shoot a hole in the USS Stark and didn’t complain all that much.Then he got greedy and we made him into a villain.The immature joke comment referred to the “ass-hat” remark and calling people who disagree and present supportable and documented arguments,not Limbaugh/Hannity drivel,crazy.Honestly if you aren’t a teenager,quit acting like one.
Funniest thing about this post is how these right-wingers continually look for an enemy.When they don’t exist externally,they invent them within there own populace.Facsinating.I guess it’s an ego thing.Like many of the right-wingers who post White House white noise,Pablo,it’s apparent you have very little idea of what’s going on or how things work.I might also add you also appear to have very little sense of history.You obviously don’t understand that we live through history.What’s happening now is tomorrow’s history.Whether it’s mass-media indoctrination,naivety,greed,or just plain stupidity,your party followers just don’t get it.As a result,your going to keep on being conned by the right,keep losing,and blame it on the wrong person.
By the way who deleted posts?Yours?Or is this another baseless accusation to divert us from the argument you keep losing.If you want deleted posts,go to a right-wing site.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 27, 2005 at 1:25 PM Campesino,
You just keep missing the point. The administrations (Republican) prior to 1929 led up to the conditions that allowed that disaster. What we are seeing Bush Co. do is repeat those same errors and build toward a terrific crash in the near future. Even Greenspan and GAO say that we are in for very serious trouble very soon. Unsustainable, they say.
So, Bush is leading us to the conditions that are quickly building momentum toward Weimar conditions. We will be there within the next 5-10 years. Then, with the judges and laws put into place (being done now) to keep the common working man down and build up corporations, we have a base of cheap labor with neutered unions and a militarily based economy. Per the leak from the Pentagon last month on the Neocon plan for “advancement”, the goal is to reduce manufacturing in our country to a basic military economy, having outsourced most other manufacturing. Go to factcheck.org. The document was on there last time I looked.
You fail to understand that Hitler took from the Beerhall Putsch in ‘23 to ‘33 to come into power legally. I’m being foresightful here and 49 million other people in America have the same vision, because we voted against him and his disastrous plans for America.
You have a real tendency to oversimplify. Just because something isn’t in your textbooks, I will take the word of the people who experienced everytime over the text.
Sorry you can’t or won’t see what’s coming. But millions of us do, and we will not rest to Bush, you and your kind are once again reduced to a neutered minority. But since Harry Reid has now shown you how to use Senate Rule 14, maybe you won’t be so sad.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 27, 2005 at 3:25 PM Kerry’s DD214 was on his website during the election,but isn’t anymore.
No, it wasn’t. Of course, if he signed Form 180, like Bush has, he wouldn’t have to put it up on his website.
What is with the list of countries?Do you seriously believe that all of those countries are a threat?Unbelievable.Throwing out lists of countries that have muslim populations that don’t like us is not the same as a military threat.I suppose French Muslims have WMD’s.if you need straws to grasp,they sell them at most supermarkets.
Do you recall saying this?
There are no longer thousands of jihads,just one big one.Guess who it’s aimed at and guess where it is?
All those countries I mentioned have jihad/jihadis in them. I answered your question, and you try taking me to task for doing so? What a macaroon! Your statement is wrong, and reading things I didn’t say into mine is not going to help you. Enough with the strawmen. You’re creating a fire hazard.
Your suggestion that the President guides the success or failure of our security on a day to day basis is idiotic. Also, when the Bush Administration started picking people up after 9/11, you and your friend Margaret started screaming “Fascists!!!” You can’t have it both ways. It’s non- sequiter. BTW, who was the Director of the FBI on 9/11 and who appointed him? Heh.
We didn’t hate Khomeini because of his religious beliefs,we hated him because he wouldn’t play ball with us.
Funny, I thought it was the kidnapping of out citizens, and that “Death to America” stuff. Didn’t carter run a military mission into Iran? Oil is everywhere, and it sells at the price OPEC decides on. Khomeini was irrelevant as far as oil goes. Iran sold oil, and the world bought it. Simple supply and demand.
Saddam did play ball,so we armed him to the teeth so he could fight the Iranians.
No we didn’t. Feel free to refute that with a list of weapons we provided Iraq with.
The immature joke comment referred to the “ass-hat” remark and calling people who disagree and present supportable and documented arguments,not Limbaugh/Hannity drivel,crazy
You haven’t presented such argument. You’ve presented lefty talking points as though they’re Gospel. Show me Kerry’s DD214. Show me a list of arms we sold Saddam.
You can’t do it, asshat.
What’s happening now is tomorrow’s history.
Right, like Afghanistan’s first election ever.
Whether it’s mass-media indoctrination,naivety,greed,or just plain stupidity,your party followers just don’t get it.
Read my last sentence again. The world is changing for the better and 50 million newly liberated people are glad you’re not running the show. I don’t know what it is, but you just don’t get it. The horrors you promised 4 years ago? You’re still promising them. Your imagination doesn’t create reality.
My reply to Margaret disapppeared. That happens often on left wing sites. It’s in DU’s TOS, and at Kos they let the crowd do it. Spare me your whiny, accusatory drivel.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 27, 2005 at 3:52 PM FIRE ALERT! FIRE ALERT!
PABLO IS CREATING FIRE HAZARD WITH STUPID DRIVEL.
By the way, Pablo, did you know that Iraq is failing? It will not succeed, and the more you read the papers daily, the more we watch our plans go down in flames.
Election? Now that have increased poppy production and are flooding world markets with heroin, every junkie is thankful. Karzai can’t even leave Kabul because the people want his head. It, too, will fail. So I don’t see one shred of success.
You know, you are a liar when you say people delete your entries. I’ve been posting here for a long time and I can go back and find whole threads still intact from 4 months ago.
So, as you clearly have your head up your ***, I have decided to sign off. Going to a big rally today in my metropolitan city to march on the Federal Court building. Expecting about 75,000 people. Also working in 3 grass roots groups, one of which has convinced our City Clerk to eliminate Diebold machines next election. No time for empty fights with dogmatic, unrealistic trolls. Taking America back one step at a time…keep up the good work, fellow-Bush destroyers.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 27, 2005 at 4:27 PM Geez, Margaret. Are you mad about something? Is drivel flammable? How badly were you burned?
I’m glad you’re going marching. Speak truth to power! Stop those Nazis! They’re coming, right?
Thanks for saving the world. From Diebold. Get all their ATM’s too! They’re stealing our elections and our money. Damn corporations. STOP THOSE NAZIS! And speak truth to power. That’s always important, and you never want to go marching without speaking truth to power.
Bring an umberlla. It might rain.
You go get after Diebold, and the adults will watch the rest of the world for you. Have fun! Make friends! Change the World!
Che rules!
Posted by Pablo on Apr 27, 2005 at 6:48 PM Expecting about 75,000 people.
Please, let us know how that works out. You’re bound to get media with a crowd like that.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 27, 2005 at 6:50 PM “Campesino,
You just keep missing the point.”
You know Margaret, I have to agree with you. I keep missing the point because your point seems to change with every post.
Your consistent thought in each post seems to be that we are on the verge of a “fascist theocracry” in this country. You say that if I knew anything about history I would realize that conditions in the US now are just like they were in Weimar Germany and that is why people on the left equate Bush and Hitler.
So then I marshall some facts as to why conditions in Weimar were very different than they are in the US today. Then you reply agreeing with me, and saying that conditions today really are like the period of the 1890s in this country, the Gilded Age.
Okay, so I don’t know if I really buy that, but even if you are right, I point out the fact that the Gilded Age didn’t result in a fascist government in this country. So you then somehow jump over about a 25 year period to directly connect the Gilded Age to the 1929 stock market crash (which I don’t buy) and say that that is the analogy to today, that somehow we are about to have another Great Depression, which I guess you think will cause a fascist government.
Again, I point out that the Depression resulted in the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, and I didn’t you would want to call him a fascist.
So in your latest you say I miss the point that Bush is about to cause a great crash (Greenspan says so!) and that will make conditions just like Weimar. In the course of about a half dozen posts you have circled all the way around to support an argument that you agreed in the second post didn’t hold water. It’s very difficult to discuss things with a person who can’t remember what she said day before yesterday.
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 3:21 PM Pablo,
It is apparent that you have not understood one thing I’ve posted.Obviously you lack the intellectual capacity or capability.You ask for facts,then claim they are opinion,subtantiated arguments you dismiss because they don’t fit into your process of propaganda.Use your search engine to find Kerry’s DD214.I did.Quit being so lazy.
Why were the hostages kidnapped?we seized Iranian financial assets in our banks?Why?khomeini wouldn’t play ball with us.
How did Hussein get into power?We put him there.We wouldn’t have had to go through this war if REPUBLICANS hadn’t armed him.Ever heard of Iran-Contra?Weapon sales to both sides.You want lists?So do a lot of people.The CIA,however isn’t going to comply.By your logic if it can’t be obtained,it doesn’t exist.
As well,I’ve noticed you haven’t provided any substantiation to any of your Fox News talking points.You generate arguments then turn the burden of proof upon the person you disagree with.Typical right-wing proaganda tactics.
I’m through talking to you .You are obviously a fool and no longer amusing.By the way the ass-hat remark is juvenile.Wait a moment!Of course!Now your method of reasoning is becoming clear.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 28, 2005 at 3:59 PM “How did Hussein get into power?We put him there.We wouldn’t have had to go through this war if REPUBLICANS hadn’t armed him.”
1. He put himself into power through an internal Baath party coup
2. 95% of his arms came from the Soviet Union. His other significant sources of arms were France and Germany
Posted by Campesino on Apr 28, 2005 at 5:38 PM wwoods, you frigging moron. Do I need to prove to you that Afghanistan and Iraq have recently held historic elections, and that they liked it?
“You ask for facts,then claim they are opinion,subtantiated arguments you dismiss because they don’t fit into your process of propaganda.”
Would you like to point to an example of that? I’ll be the guy not holding my breath. Let me know when you’re done.
At any rate, you’re right, this conversation isn’t worth having. And as Campesino notes, the vast majority of Saddam’s armament was Soviet. France was a distant second. You are a bloviating nitwit and my time would be better spent scratching my ass than talking to you. But it’s nice to visit barking liberal sites now and then. Someday, I might find someone smarter than you and more sane than Margaret. I’m still not holding my breath.
Cheers!
Posted by Pablo on Apr 28, 2005 at 7:56 PM Why were the hostages kidnapped?we seized Iranian financial assets in our banks?Why?khomeini wouldn’t play ball with us.
Just because you’re ignorant, wwoods, and I like pointing that sort of thing out: We’re talking about Jimmy Carter, ferchrissakes!
Khomeni flipped out when the Shah came to the US for medical treatment. The Iranian response was to seize our embassy. Part of Carter’s response was to freeze Iranian assets. You’ve got the cart before the horse, laddie.
Memo to the geopolitically clueless: Always recall your ambassador and close your embassy before you freeze another nation’s assets.
And that was “assets” not “asshat”. Thank God you’re not in charge.
Posted by Pablo on Apr 28, 2005 at 8:14 PM Talk about ignorant. Khomeni grabbed his opportunity while the Shah was gone. They grabbed our hostages then.
Oddly, Jimmy Carter couldn’t get anything done because the Republican dominated Congress blocked his every move. Filibuster, I think it’s called. But that was okay for the GOP.
Pablo, you are probably the most clueless person I have every blogged with. You deserve the Blind Neocon of the Year award.
Bye, bye. Hope you reap exactly what you sow; anger, poverty, poor health and misinformation.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 29, 2005 at 1:53 AM Hey Maggie!
Talk about ignorant. Khomeni grabbed his opportunity while the Shah was gone. They grabbed our hostages then.
That must have been while George HW Bush was governor of Texas! Or was it Senator? Help me out here, Maggie. I can’t seem to get my wrong as wrong as you do.
The Iranian Revolution began in earnest with a massive protest on 9/8/78, aka Black Friday. The Shah fled Iran on 1/16/79. Khomeni returned from exile in France on 2/16/79. Khomeni “grabbed his opportunity” after the revolution had already deposed the Shah.
Our embassy was stormed on 11/4/79, 9 months later when the Shah came to the US for cancer treatment. It was in response to the hostage taking that Carter froze Iran’s assets in the US.
I know the facts are pesky things for you to deal with, Margaret, but they are what they are and no amount of your ad hominem changes them. Blather all you like. Tell me though (or at least make up something clever), what Carter initiatives did the Republicans filibuster? How did the “Republican dominated Congress block his every move”? Why did they have to filibuster if they dominated the Congress? Why did the Republican dominated Senate have two Democrat Majority Leaders during Carter’s term? (Mike Mansfield and everyone’s favorite Kleagle, Robert Byrd) I’ll help you with that one: The Republicans were the minority in the Senate. You just love being wrong, don’t you?
Pablo, you are probably the most clueless person I have every blogged with.
Maggie, every time you go on a blog, you’re blogging with the most clueless person you’ve ever blogged with. As Campesino noted, you’re entirely comfortable being completely wrong. You’re perfectly happy to contradict yourself and talk in circles. I suppose it’s wrong of me to find your willful ignorance so entertaining, but I do. It’s kind of like looking a a creepy little bug you’ve never seen before. But this time, I won’t fry you with a magnifying glass.
You deserve the Blind Neocon of the Year award.
I won that in 2000 when I voted for Nader. I didn’t get the memo in time. :( Damn that Karl Rove.
Hope you reap exactly what you sow; anger, poverty, poor health and misinformation.
So far, I’m 0 for 4, which leaves you at least 2 up on me. Are you poor and sick too?
Oh, and how was the marching? Did you speak truth to power with 75,000 of your closest friends? Pppppffffffft Diebold! Phooey!
Posted by Pablo on Apr 29, 2005 at 8:08 AM Margaret,
Glad to see you back here for a moment.Out of curiosity,I thought I’d see what response Pablo would leave.I wasn’t disappointed.Typical.Then again,what else do you expect from a pig but a grunt or squeal?Still obsessing about ass-hats,scary.I noticed he’s still using the Fox News debating method,if you can call it that.I’m just wondering when he’ll start using the appositive phrase"my friend”.Still spouting revisionist history as well.I wonder if half the right-wingers who talk about the Reagan administration were even alive the year he was elected.
Really what I wanted to bring up was this premise:instead of deleting them,like they claim we do,without any proof,I might add,why not ignore them no matter what imbecilic arghument they make.Having listened to their drivel for the past few years it’s occurred to mee that the structure of right-wing behavior will eat itself without an enemy.Look at what happened in our own country.The right hated communists.When there was no commie enemy,they began to attack the"liberals”.When liberals became more moderate,they began attacking Democrats.Now that Democarats are no real threat,since the right pretty much controls the enire show,they attack anyone who disagrees with Bush,right or left.
It also occurred to me that the grass roots followers readily subscribe to the right’s policy of conflict:they’re obedient yet economically frustrated.It couldn’t be the fault of the people they voted for,it must be those dirty poor people,and the one’s who spoil fun by pointing out that not everyone has it so good.
When you think about it,the idea of life is war is perfect.If you beat the enemy,enjoy!However,be wary because the dirty enemy is waiting for the next moment to strike.If you lose,further reason to"fight the good fight”.How Orwellian.Talk about using the book.Chiling.Real deviant brilliance.
Still,I think giving them no one to fight would drive them crazy.I’ve also noticed that logical arguments don’t work.How many hours have people spent on this sight arguing with these myrmidons? No matter what you post,no matter what facts you present,they dismiss it as untrue or some conspiratorial propaganda.I say ignore them,they’ll go away.Hopefully soon.Perhaps they’ll take their ass-hats with them.
Posted by wwoods on Apr 29, 2005 at 1:29 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Digby
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
