Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Kevin Drum on the difference between Bush and Kerry

And this was hardly the first time. As governor of Texas, he opposed a Patients' Bill of Rights twice. It finally passed over his opposition and without his signature in 1997, but by 2000, when he was campaigning for the presidency, he was bragging about it. You'd hardly know he had ever been anything but a proud and enthusiastic supporter.

And I bitched about it at the time. http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/cl...?msg_id=000Vzs

(And whoa on the time machine ride to get to that post. I'd forgotten about a lot of posters...)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, it isn't. I'd be a hell of a lot happier if Kerry had said "If we had known that there were no WMD and known there was no connection to al Qaeda, then I would have voted against going to war in Iraq. It was the wrong thing to do. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and an evil man, and I am glad to see him out of power. But Saddam Hussein was not a threat to this country. Removing a dictator who did not threaten the US was not worth losing over 900 American lives, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, damaging our alliances throughout the world, destroying the international goodwill that we had established through the successful and efficient war [using Clinton's military --I'd have him leave that part out] in Afghanistan, and distracting the world and drawing our resources away from the fight against al Qaeda. We had contained Saddam through the policy of inspections and limited bombings. We were supporting the Iraqi people in their own efforts to bring about democratic change. We should have continued those efforts, and we should have kept this country and the world focused on destroying al Qaeda. When George Bush misled us into war -- by claiming the evidence of WMD was absolutely rock-solid, when he knew that it was much, much less than certain -- he made America less safe."

But that's not what he said. He said he would have supported even with out WMD. That seems inconsistent with his prior statements re misleading into war. If WMD was irrelevant to the decision, than any alledged misleading should also be irrevelevant.

Anyway. That's what I would have said. But this election is so tight and so fucking poll-driven that integrity of positions is taking a back seat to doing whatever the parties believe will garner advantage in the swing states.

2.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The flip flop is that he has previously said that Bush mislead us in to war, but he would have voted for it even without WMD. Is that a coherent position?

Yes. That position is absolutely coherent. If you think not, please reread what you wrote and think about it hard.

What you're objecting to is that Kerry's trying hard to have it both ways -- just like most politicians. However, that doesn't make the position incoherent, or a flip-flop.

For instance: Say some acquaintance/friend made up some excuse about an emergency to get you to lend him fifty bucks. In truth, he just wanted to buy beer for a party, but had blown all his cash at the bars last weekend. Your friend has misled you into giving him fifty bucks. However, it is not incoherent for you to say that you'd have given him the money anyhow, if you had known the truth. [But that he is an untrustworthy dick for misleading you.]

S_A_M

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

This makes it so much clearer.

Spree disclosure: mp3 file of W answering a question that probably strayed from the talking points the questioner had been given.

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/w...overeignty.mp3

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please. You must be thinking about SEF or someone else.

eta: the fact that you call someone a racist is not reproachable in the least (assuming they actualy are). What I'm quibbling with is that you have previously suggested that the entire middle of the country is racist.

In point of fact, you and AG misunderstand each other frequently, and then fill in the blanks you see in each other's posts.

I, OTOH, can communicate with almost all factions on the Board, because I am both an egghead and a Man of the People.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fringe is a girl. She's a lot like Taxwonk, they both say they're overweight and they both have trouble with logic progression in argument style. fringe also has severe mental problems. About 2 weeks ago she wrote about how the people around her when she was institutionalized smiled all the time after shock treatment. Unfortanely, while fringe is quite overweight, she isn't quite NAAFA size, so she is on her own as to dealing the fat haters that populate the world.

Like the workman "bothering" her. Decent chance she tried to flash them some boobie through the window and they did something like cover the window with a tarp. That can really hurt a girl's feelings.

Sometimes, Hank, you remind me of my children. They find themselves fascinated with a new toy or tv show, and it becomes an obssession with them. They can't tear themsleves away from it, long after the thrill would have worn off for a person with the slightest shred of maturity.

On the other hand, the kids still have time to grow up.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

If you haven't read this yet, do it now. The guy doesn't know if he's going to keep the site up or not. It's far and away the best war blog I've read. His account of a battle on Aug. 5 in Mosul had me glued to the monitor.

http://cbftw.blogspot.com/

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sometimes, Hank, you remind me of my children.

You realize this statement, if true, makes you a shipwreck of a parent. "Hank" sure as shit does not remind me of any person I have a hand in raising.

They find themselves fascinated with a new toy or tv show, and it becomes an obssession with them. They can't tear themsleves away from it, long after the thrill would have worn off for a person with the slightest shred of maturity.

On the other hand, the kids still have time to grow up.

2. Worse, for the future, is that while I surely won't become more mature, I may very well get senile- soon. Thus, the pettiness and nastiness will only increase in the future until I explode one day. Supernova.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, it isn't. I'd be a hell of a lot happier if Kerry had said "If we had known that there were no WMD and known there was no connection to al Qaeda, then I would have voted against going to war in Iraq. It was the wrong thing to do. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and an evil man, and I am glad to see him out of power. But Saddam Hussein was not a threat to this country. Removing a dictator who did not threaten the US was not worth losing over 900 American lives, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, damaging our alliances throughout the world, destroying the international goodwill that we had established through the successful and efficient war [using Clinton's military --I'd have him leave that part out] in Afghanistan, and distracting the world and drawing our resources away from the fight against al Qaeda. We had contained Saddam through the policy of inspections and limited bombings. We were supporting the Iraqi people in their own efforts to bring about democratic change. We should have continued those efforts, and we should have kept this country and the world focused on destroying al Qaeda. When George Bush misled us into war -- by claiming the evidence of WMD was absolutely rock-solid, when he knew that it was much, much less than certain -- he made America less safe."


Anyway. That's what I would have said. But this election is so tight and so fucking poll-driven that integrity of positions is taking a back seat to doing whatever the parties believe will garner advantage in the swing states.

Under a containment policy, it makes sense for Congress to give the President the power to go to war in Iraq, but it also makes sense for the President to decline to do so when the inspections don't turn up any WMD. Sidd, you're forgetting that the congressional vote was well before the war started.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you do realize your blogs are no more persuasive a source than your posts or GGG or Club's or anyone else's. You keep posting this drivel like it means something.

And I thought the Dems had a platform plank that the Iraq war was something they supported, I believe Kerry is boxed into saying he supported it as an idea, but now he says not its execution.

Golly, Hank, your half-assed musings are much more persuasive than any blogger. Nice work.

The post about Bush's straddles was really for club, since he gets exercised when Kerry does that kind of stuff. But I know you don't like to be ignored.

What I want to know is what hould he do differently.

You don't care what he would do differently. You're not going to vote for him. You want him to say it in more detail because you want to be able to attack him for it. Bush is not getting more popular, so you're hoping Kerry will say things to hurt himself.

As long as he keeps explaining how he'd the get French to come and help, I can accept he is being specific about what he'd try and do. That he would not be able to get the French in is clear to anyone with an IQ over 88. I just want JFK to make clear that this is his big difference, or if he has more bright ideas, he highlights those also.

Read his campaign site. There's a lot of really specific stuff there that the media doesn't bother to cover.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But that's not what he said. He said he would have supported even with out WMD.

Um, yes. I realize that. That's why I'm saying I'd be happier if he'd said what I said instead of what you say he said. I thought I said that.

That seems inconsistent with his prior statements re misleading into war. If WMD was irrelevant to the decision, than any alledged misleading should also be irrevelevant.

It is not the flip-flop the Repubs claim it to be. There is nothing inconsistent about the statement "X lied about his reasons to get public support for his decision, but the decision itself was the right one." I don't think that statement applies to the war in Iraq (the first part does, not the second), but that's neither here nor there.

I mean, if you could actually show -- as some believe -- that FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor so he could get the US into WWII, would that be irrelevant? Even if you thought the US was right to fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Under a containment policy, it makes sense for Congress to give the President the power to go to war in Iraq, but it also makes sense for the President to decline to do so when the inspections don't turn up any WMD. Sidd, you're forgetting that the congressional vote was well before the war started.

I'm not forgetting anything. If your argument is correct, then Clinton was a fool for not seeking the power to go to war in Iraq during all the time that he pursued the containment policy.

Clinton wasn't a fool. He knew there was no reason to ask for the power to go to war. Until a reason for war existed, there was no reason to ask for the power.

And no reason to grant it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not forgetting anything. If your argument is correct, then Clinton was a fool for not seeking the power to go to war in Iraq during all the time that he pursued the containment policy.

Clinton wasn't a fool. He knew there was no reason to ask for the power to go to war. Until a reason for war existed, there was no reason to ask for the power.

And no reason to grant it.

The role of Congress and the President are fundamentally different. Kerry was a senator, but you guys are treating his vote on the resolution authorizing the president to go to war as if it were something different -- the decision to go to war itself. As Kerry was defending how he voted: "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq...."

I don't understand why he would have voted for the resolution even if he had known no weapons would be found -- it moots my point about inspections -- but maybe that's in a part of the article club didn't post. [eta: The original Reuters article suggests that his reasoning is that it would have been a sufficient reason to give the president war power to prevent Iraq from developing WMD, but it's not at all clear.]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Because I know he likes to discuss Scooter . . .

Time reporter to be jailed on contempt charges

Looks like eventually Robert Novak will get his turn to sing, either like a man or like someone's bitch.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because I know he likes to discuss Scooter . . .

Time reporter to be jailed on contempt charges

Looks like eventually Robert Novak will get his turn to sing, either like a man or like someone's bitch.

But will he? If Russert's decided that his ethical obligations stop at the jailhouse door, I wonder if they'll ever get around to writing out that subpoena for Novak (though he deserves it more than these two).