A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i thought it was a prankster. it really puts credence in Wag the Dog.

Well. I'm no Bush fan, but even I wouldn't accuse the adminisration of that.

You sure you're not a Michael Moore fan?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well. I'm no Bush fan, but even I wouldn't accuse the adminisration of that.

You sure you're not a Michael Moore fan?

both sides did stuff in WTD- the not-in power party declared the war over, but I just meant it in the news can be simply created sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is just to explain to Ironweed.

No, it isn't.

My time is certainly too valuable to get back into this with the rest.

No, it isn't.

Blix had said the day the invasion began he was certain we would find WMD.

No, he didn't. He said he had been previously, but had seen enough by the time the invasion started to doubt that there were any WMD, because he'd never found anything in the places we told him to look.

The UN maintained sanctions that were starving Iraq, although making the Blix family, the Hussein family and certain French and Germans rich.

We weren't talking about this -- funny how you guys keep trying to change the subject.

The reason for the sanction were that Saddam had WMD once and would not show that he got rid of them.

That was one reason.

Ty will quote a US general who told Bush "We have not found any" as proof that no one believed they were there.

No, I won't. But it is proof that Bush said things to the American people that were inconsistent with what his senior advisers were telling him at the same time. (Also something we weren't talking about.)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, it isn't.



No, it isn't.



No, he didn't. He said he had been previously, but had seen enough by the time the invasion started to doubt that there were any WMD, because he'd never found anything in the places we told him to look.



We weren't talking about this -- funny how you guys keep trying to change the subject.



That was one reason.



No, I won't. But it is proof that Bush said things to the American people that were inconsistent with what his senior advisers were telling him at the same time. (Also something we weren't talking about.)

And here I thought we were reduced to telling Hank to kiss your ass.

[*Sniff*]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, it isn't.

yes it is.

No, it isn't.

I'll give you this one. 77-4

No, he didn't. He said he had been previously, but had seen enough by the time the invasion started to doubt that there were any WMD, because he'd never found anything in the places we told him to look.

you're just wrong here.

We weren't talking about this -- funny how you guys keep trying to change the subject.

goes to motive- why would the UN believe he had them, but still not vote to tak them?

That was one reason.

78-4

No, I won't. But it is proof that Bush said things to the American people that were inconsistent with what his senior advisers were telling him at the same time. (Also something we weren't talking about.)

I KNEW we hadn't found anything, I think you knew that. How was it inconsistant? I honestly never got why you think that meant anything. The statement "you know, we haven't actually found anything." That does not differ from anything I heard, or knew. Most of the time the inspectors were kicked out, and I didn't expect he'd let them find anything if it was there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And here I thought we were reduced to telling Hank to kiss your ass.

[*Sniff*]

What do you mean, "reduced?" It usually takes Hank dinner, a movie, and several drinks to get to that point.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What do you mean, "reduced?" It usually takes Hank dinner, a movie, and several drinks to get to that point.

You should wash your ass more carefully, Ty. One Snapple, and he's licking away like a champ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yes it is.

No, it wasn't. 1-0.

I'll give you this one. 77-4

Woo hoo! 2-0.

you're just wrong here.

You are either playing on semantic distinctions, or you are misinformed -- I can't tell which. Read Blix's book, or this review of it. When the war started, Blix had found no WMD anywhere he had looked, believed inspections were working, and wanted to continue. The Bush Administration vilified him, personally, and told the inspectors to leave. If you think that "everyone" was in agreement about the state of Iraq's putative weapons programs, I'm not sure I can help you anymore. 3-0.

goes to motive- why would the UN believe he had them, but still not vote to tak them?

The UN has no sanctions against many other countries which possess WMD -- e.g., the US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, etc. 4-0.

78-4

I didn't realize that you were giving yourself a victory every time you agree with someone about something. Now that I understand, I've decided to keep score, too. 5-0.

I KNEW we hadn't found anything, I think you knew that. How was it inconsistant? I honestly never got why you think that meant anything. The statement "you know, we haven't actually found anything." That does not differ from anything I heard, or knew. Most of the time the inspectors were kicked out, and I didn't expect he'd let them find anything if it was there.

When -- for example -- Colin Powell went before the UN with the "proof" that Iraq had WMD, "everyone" understood that the Administration was telling the world that it had access to information that the rest of us didn't have, on the basis of which it thought Iraq had WMD. We were supposed to trust Powell (and Powell did the talking because he seemed trustworthy). In retrospect, Powell has let us know that the intel he was given was weak, and that he scrapped portions of the presentation he was given because he didn't believe.

But you now claim to be a Cassandra. I wish you'd let everyone in on it. The Administration was busy telling everyone that Iraq had WMD, and it would have been nice if someone other than Blix had pointed out that no one had found anything.

Meanwhile, you are confusing my point about what Franks told Bush. On September 7, 2002, President Bush told reporters, unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." If you can't see how that "differs" from what Franks told him, you should turn in your license to practice law.

6-0.

[Replaced_Texan]

I'm just cutting and pasting her post, cuz I'm lazy and it's easier:

Originally posted by lawgeekgurl

Gee, you mean all those anti-gay measures you passed might have consequences?


I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find out that legislators across our good ole USA may have rushed to push through anti-gay marriage amendments that were poorly written (despite warnings to that effect). Now they reap what they have sown.

Recently, Rufus at Running With Lawyers noted that in Ohio, defense attorneys are arguing that Ohio's gay-marriage ban has the effect of stripping protections against domestic violence among unmarried heterosexual couples. The debate in that post was not so much that the loophole in the law was as wide as a mack truck, and the legislators didn't care in their rush to pass anything anti-gay marriage prior to the presidential election, but that the defense attorneys are taking flak for making that argument on behalf of their clients accused of domestic battery. I say a defense attorney is obligated to use any and all legal arguments he or she can to protect the rights of their client, and if the law is flawed, and an argument can be made, you are obligated to make it. Ironically, the public defender's aide who came up with this argument was against the gay marriage amendment in the first place, and admits that he came up with this idea while brainstorming about how to make the amendment look bad. Guess what? It worked.

Now, in Utah, they are having similar problems with their hastily drafted anti-gay marriage bill

"Taken literally, the gay marriage ban could deny hospital visitation or survivor's property rights to children being brought up by grandparents, or to senior citizens who live together but do not marry for financial reasons. Siblings living in the same household also could find themselves without customary rights.

Utah's Legislature — overwhelmingly Republican and Mormon, and one of the most conservative bodies in the nation — ignored warnings from the state's Republican attorney general that the amendment went too far. Utah voters ratified it with 66 percent approval in November."

In Indiana, where the gay marriage amendment* was the "most important issue facing Hoosiers today" before the election according to Brian "Grandstanding is my middle name" Bosma, then head of the Republican minority in the House - so much so that the Republicans staged a much-publicized walkout during the session when lawmakers were urgently trying to pass property tax reform (arguably a much more pressing issue, given that the state was and is far below expected tax revenues, and a constitutionally mandated property tax fix ended up raising some urban homeowners' bi-annual tax bills as much as 300%). The Republicans succesfully captured the majority in the House in the following election, largely because they campaigned on the gay marriage amendment issue in the conservatively Catholic districts in southern Indiana. Dems who had opposed spending time debating the gay marriage amendment in favor of tax relief and other bills during the session were soundly defeated, as they were perceived as "pro-gay." Now that Bosma's the speaker? Oh yeah, gay marriage amendment? Not such an urgent problem anymore. And might I say: bastards.

*Indiana, like the majority of states, had already passed a law which made gay marriage illegal. The Republicans wanted an amendment to the state constitution duplicating the law. Recently, Indiana's Court of Appeals upheld the gay marriage law already on the books, but not before Bosma and the Repubs in the legislature declared it was not so urgent to pass an amendment after all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm just cutting and pasting her post, cuz I'm lazy and it's easier:

• Recently, Rufus at Running With Lawyers noted that in Ohio, defense attorneys are arguing that Ohio's gay-marriage ban has the effect of stripping protections against domestic violence among unmarried heterosexual couples.

Why do you need to criminalize domestic violence, as opposed to charging someone with (e.g.) assault or battery? Not making any kind of argument here -- I'd like to know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And my point was (not speaking for Billmore here) that perhaps Arabs in other countries are not rushing to support the Iraqis because they fear reprisals from their government, whether you call that government totalitarian, athoritarian, or another name.

I understood your point. But if you were a middle-class Arab, wouldn't you rather live in Egypt than Iraq right now? Or Qatar? Or Bahrain? Or Saudi Arabia?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The fillibuster appears to be the only new idea coming out of the "party of change" these days.

I was irritated by this post, and knew I'd seen a good response to it, but couldn't figure out where. A-ha -- it was Ezra Klein's new blog. Here's what he said:

• The "For Something" Trap
  I'm rapidly losing patience with the "Dems need to stand for something" trope, the one usually offered by kindly conservatives in the context of well-meaning advice. This week, the guidance was proffered by QandO's Dale Franks, and it's springboard is a Christian Science Monitor editorial that worries itself sick over the Reid-led move towards opposition party. The criticism follows the usual trajectory, a graceful arc from sadness over the failing opposition party to invocation of the now-unemployed Tom Daschle who, the writer predictably writes, would be glad to tell you how well this opposition party stuff works out. Too bad such a fun to write post is so intellectually bankrupt.
  
  Tom came from a crimson state that voted for President Bush in overwhelming numbers, so maybe if you're from Dubya country you might not want to be the nation's highest profile opponent of his policies. And I'm sure that's exactly what he'd tell you if you went to his door and asked, rather than simply imagined the conversation onto your keyboard. As for Reid and the Dems? They don't stand for anything? Really? Not even the 10 Leadership Bills that they unveiled last week as the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? Or did you just not take the time to look?
  
  If the Dems really were a bunch of idealess naysayers whose only use in life was implying things about Bush's nominees, I'd wholeheartedly jump on the "they suck' bandwagon. But it's just not true. What is true is that they are a minority party subject to the whims of a hyper-partisan majority that has choked off every opportunity for the Democrats to put forth an affirmative agenda. The evidence of the Republican Party's near-despotic rule over the House, and to a lesser extent the Senate, is voluminous and outrageous. Democrats can't bring bills to the floor, Hastert won't put legislation up for vote unless a majority of Republicans support it (a stark contrast with the bipartisan vote-counting of certain Clinton-era policies), Democrats are denied the judicial courtesies they offered Republicans, DeLay regularly augments egregiously conservative portions of bills when he finds they gain too much Democratic support, and so forth. This is a public strategy aimed at painting the Democrats a wholly negative, unproductive party. But, as with so many PR efforts, it's relation to the truth is creative.
  
  Fact is, Democrats have a publicly accessible legislative agenda that they're simply being barred from pursuing. They asked perfectly reasonable questions of Bush's nominees, queries that are all the more essential considering the mess these folks made of the last four years (does anyone really believe that the country was well-served by ignoring the August 6th PDB or the Geneva Convention?). And Republican dominance, for its part, is directly traceable to the determined bomb-throwing and demagoguery of that consummate oppositionist, Newt Gingrich. You tell me -- did it hurt them in the long run?
  
  I don't fault the Republicans for misrepresenting the facts, they're a political party focused on consolidating their power. I blame the pundits, editorialists, reporters and writers who don't do the reporting or questioning that'd lead this absurd meme to disintegrate. And that goes for normally freethinking guys like Dale over at QandO, who must know better and, if they don't, damn well should.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understood your point. But if you were a middle-class Arab, wouldn't you rather live in Egypt than Iraq right now? Or Qatar? Or Bahrain? Or Saudi Arabia?

Is there a middle class in those countries?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is there a middle class in those countries?

Yes. And don't fight the hypo.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Meanwhile, you are confusing my point about what Franks told Bush. On September 7, 2002, President Bush told reporters, unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." If you can't see how that "differs" from what Franks told him, you should turn in your license to practice law.

6-0.

I'll have to call this on a tie (npi). W may not have lied intentionally. He's not very smart. Maybe he just forgot.