A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
During the 2000 campaign W. did assign a nickname to me.

I generally refrain from responding to the same post four times, but this one deserved double special notice....what was the nickname?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why is anything Cindy Sheehan's saying getting any airplay? Is she at all qualified to speak about foreign affairs?* Is she a student of history? Has she written papers about Ford? Did she work in his administration? Has she held office of any sort?

Citing Sheehan is like citing Geraldo Rivera or Jerry Springer, or offering broad opinions from dilletantes on this board as snippets from learned political treatises. It's amusing material for jokes and light discussion, but doesn't deserve more than the thinnest passing consideration.

*No, her ostensible "moral standing" does not give her words any validity. She's a crank, screaming into the wind. Emotional gravitas and rational intelligence have no common thread.

don't ask me, its the liberals' media covering her. I saw it on AndersonCooper360.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why is anything Cindy Sheehan's saying getting any airplay? Is she at all qualified to speak about foreign affairs?* Is she a student of history? Has she written papers about Ford? Did she work in his administration? Has she held office of any sort?

Citing Sheehan is like citing Geraldo Rivera or Jerry Springer, or offering broad opinions from dilletantes on this board as snippets from learned political treatises. It's amusing material for jokes and light discussion, but doesn't deserve more than the thinnest passing consideration.

*No, her ostensible "moral standing" does not give her words any validity. She's a crank, screaming into the wind. Emotional gravitas and rational intelligence have no common thread.

Her fifteen minutes ended a long time ago. The only people keeping her current are the Penskes of the world, so they can keep kicking her.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't complain if Ford openly supports the war, right? So isn't obvious that when he says nothing, he's against it?

No. Maybe he is just respecting the time honoured tradition that former POTI don't criticise or second guess the current POTUS. Of course, Peanutfarmerboy blew that tradition out of the water so I guess its open season now. Sad that the Dems let their hatred of America and freedom degrade us all.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Her fifteen minutes ended a long time ago. The only people keeping her current are the Penskes of the world, so they can keep kicking her.

AndersonCooper is Penske?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe he is just respecting the time honoured tradition that former POTI don't criticise or second guess the current POTUS.

Exactly. If he's not openly supporting the President, it means he disagrees, right?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Exactly. If he's not openly supporting the President, it means he disagrees, right?

No it means he is reserving judgment. Anyway, its moot, as he breached the 11th Commandment and the POTUS/POTI rule thing. I sure hope he enjoys hell.....no mulligans there.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
From what I read - and heard - Ford criticized Bush for focusing too much on the WMDs as an excuse for going to war. I have and still hold that same position. But I don't think Ford told Woodward that he opposed the war. Am I wrong?

What I read is that Ford also said "I don't think I would have gone to war," and that he would have pushed alternatives such as sanctions more vigorously. He also said that, while "I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation No. 1 of what's in our national interest." "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."


Of course, that was over two years ago. Things look much better now, right?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
What I read is that Ford also said "I don't think I would have gone to war," and that he would have pushed alternatives such as sanctions more vigorously. He also said that, while "I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation No. 1 of what's in our national interest." "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

Based on the fact that Ford thought the peoples of the Eastern Bloc were free from Soviet domination and oppression in 1976, I don't think he is qualified to opine on freedom.

[Penske_Account]

George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage.

Too bad he is one of the few Ds with any courage or sense. NYers ought to toss that phoney Bloomberg into the East River and bring Koch back.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Her fifteen minutes ended a long time ago. The only people keeping her current are the Penskes of the world, so they can keep kicking her.

Agreed. However, that she had 15 minutes at all is an embarrassing commentary on what passes for, or is manipulated into appearing as, broadcastworthy political commentary these days. I feel awful for the woman, and actually agree that her son's death was the result of a poorly considered war. Nevertheless, her infantile ramblings did more damage than help to her cause. She's also dangerous to all of us because she stood on the proposition that a person lacking the complex understanding of the issue at hand should be given a pedestal based on emotional factors alone. If she'd stood by the road and stuck to her simple message of wanting a minute with W, she'd have, and deserve, respect today. Instead, she decided to open her mouth and pontificate on what she didn't know, and made an ass and right wing foil of herself in the process. But that's always the Strident' Left's Achilles Heel, isn't it? They can't help but believe they know everything, and that people should follow them because they're smarter than everybody else.

You wonder why the Left is the butt of jokes while buffoons on the Right like Hannity and Limbaugh get away with their vitriol? You need look no further than Cindy Sheehan. Nobody wants to hear sermons from the self-righteous. The Right Wing wants a fight. The Left Wing's galled that anyone would ever dare challenge its positions. How dare anyone?*

*Yes, I realize the Right does some of this when they use their "you're with us or you're a terrorist" arguments, but it's not the same. The Right isn't acting appalled, like some fucking college professor who gets pissed when you suggest Friedman made a fool of Galbraith. It's just controversy-mongering. There is a difference. And it's a big one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cheney called me " a little shit" and threw a coffee cup across the room.

I just use Powell's description of Cheney and Rummy for you:

Fucking Crazy.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Based on the fact that Ford thought the peoples of the Eastern Bloc were free from Soviet domination and oppression in 1976, I don't think he is qualified to opine on freedom.

This is a good point, I must say. The man was not the brightest bulb on the bloc.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course, you didn't answer my question,

Of course I did. I answered it directly. I know that is hard for you’re to recognize when someone does which you almost never do which is respond directly to a post or answer the questions in a post that you are responding to, but in this case you are flat wrong.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
which went to how you can tell that pundits who want us to pull out are acting for the wrong reasons (dishonesty, stupidity, partisanship, etc.) rather than the right reasons.

I said you can tell by how they complain about the war. That was a direct and obvious answer to your post. Do I really need to spell it out for you? If someone says, "Bush hasn't given us any reason for this war", "there is no justification for this war", "we have no business being there and should pull out" "this war is immoral" etc. etc. etc. doesn't that clearly put them in your first category immediately? What pundit or so called expert has been so cryptic in their opinions that you can’t tell what their rational is for their position, or that are so cryptic you can't tell if they fall in category one or two?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And, as Sidd suggested, the answer is that you can't. You just ascribe the worst of motives to those who disagree with you.

Like I said, if someone said "it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out." then I know they fall into category two. But if not they fall into category one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop As for your 1), I disagree. Iran is somewhat stable and somewhat democratic, and it is not an asset for us. A somewhat stable, somewhat democratic Iraq that allied with Iran would hardly be invaluable for us.

I don't think you can call Iran “somewhat” democratic. And if you can then I shouldn't have used the term somewhat. In Iran the leaders choose who can run for office. That is no different than what the Soviet Union did. So if the Soviet Union was somewhat democratic before Gorbachav then I guess you could call Iran somewhat democratic. But I don't think the existence of Iran's "somewhat" democracy puts any pressure on other countries to become democratic. The election we oversaw in Iraq was truly democratic, set a democratic precedent, and got citizens all over the Arab world wondering why they couldn't dip their thumbs in inc.

If Iraq turned into a "democracy" like Iran’s that would be a failure. But I think there is a good chance it won’t.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I guess our disagreement makes me a lying, moronic, partisan traitor, right?

Not all of the above but one of the above.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop As for your 2), there are plenty of people out there saying these things, but I guess you just haven't been paying attention. It's simpler just to accuse them of wanting to cut and run.

Cite? Really - who do you know that has taken this position? "it is extremely important that we succeed in Iraq, and the best strategy for achieving success is pulling out."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop As for your last question, I am aware of no one who thinks that our Iraq policy is unimportant, but many who think that there are no longer many good options. Which is to say that there are plenty of people who believe -- for the right reasons -- that the best course for America is to pull out.

If you believe, there is any chance for success, and pulling out will probably lessens those chances of success, and you are still for pulling out, then I can't agree with you. You simple don't understand the importance of winning. I think that most of the people that are for pulling out are of that position and therefore don’t understand the importance of winning.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop As I've said before, I'm actually not sure which side I come down on, which is another way of saying that there are no longer many good options.

As I said, the only people that are for pulling out who are not traitors, bigoted, extremely ignorant, or are not putting partisanship in front of national interest, or letting their hatred of the Bush administration blind them, are the people that truly think pulling out will increase our chances of success. However, I don't know many people that take that position, and the ones that do take the position, I think really don't understand the situation very well
.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I generally refrain from responding to the same post twice, but this one deserved special notice....what was the nickname?

I sent it to you in a PM.