All Hank, all the time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I was just posing a hypothetical.

Here's another hypothetical. Suppose that the President's speechwriters propose the language I quoted, and his policy people say, "You can't say that -- it's not true." So someone suggests, "well, we know the British got the same bogus report that we did, so why don't we say that 'Great Britain has learned' the other stuff." That gives us some sort of plausible deniability if it comes out that we know it's not true." I would say that that is misleading, akin to lying. I would further submit that if President Clinton had tried a ruse like that in a deposition concerning alleged sexual abuse, you would be ready to convict him for perjury on that basis alone.

I guess it depends upon what your definition of "is" is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I guess it depends upon what your definition of "is" is.

It's funny that you think that's a "gotcha." I have no problem acknowledging that Clinton was lying. But if he'd been the one pulling the wool over people's eyes with that State of the Union crap, you would have put that into the articles of impeachment.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
According to you (and Wikipedia), Lamont's uncle was sympthetic to the communists in the 1930s -- 75 years ago -- and publicly disavowed those views in the 1950s.

I am trying to find a copy of his pamphlet on the subject to acertain what "disavow" really means (eg, did he disavow Krushnevian communism, but affirm Mao?), although there is certainly some truth to the old saw, "once you go red, can't trust a word to be said" Many a fifth columnist has "publicly renounced" their views to add better cover. Hell, Atta went to strip clubs in Florida, and I am fairly certain the dancers weren't wearing burkhas.

Either way, the guy never renounced his socialism, which, in this day and age, is probably slightly more of a risk to our freedoms than its sister ideology, communism.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


According to you, the uncle's renounced sympathies, held 75 years ago, make the nephew a commie sympathizer.

Wrong. Why are you lying? That is not what I said. I said, family of origin beliefs and values have been shown to have a significant affect on a person's belief systems. I base this on my udnerstanding of the soft science of psychology, which the democrats rely on for all sorts of justifications for their social agenda, eg leniency for pedophiles who were abused as children and have alleged residual psychological maladies. Are you saying you don't believe in psychology? Based on the foregoing, I said, perhaps the apple doesnt fall so far from the tree. A relevant topic of discussion that Neddy could have dismissed with a quick disavowal of socialism and an affirmation of the free market. I never heard nor read such statement from him.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

So, I'm not trying to lie -- I'm doing something even worse, I think, which is relying on you.

Politics of personal destruction. Nice. You never miss a chance to take a pot shot.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's funny that you think that's a "gotcha." I have no problem acknowledging that Clinton was lying. But if he'd been the one pulling the wool over people's eyes with that State of the Union crap, you would have put that into the articles of impeachment.

I support the Commander in Chief in wartime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I support the Commander in Chief in wartime.

What does that mean?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What does that mean?

What do you think it means?

[Penske_Account]

interesting...... early returns are showing that Sugar Ray McKinney (D-GA), who earlier this year struck a Capitol Hill police officer, is trailing her primary opponent by a 74-26% margin. Oops, should have thought better about commiting a felony assault in an election year.

If only she could take Pelosi with her.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What does that mean?

Duh. It means you are a traitor for questioning Bush during the Eternal War on Terror.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What do you think it means?

I think you're saying that you're OK with the President lying to scare people into a war with Iraq if we're in a different war on global terror. But that seems stupid to me, so I thought I'd give you a chance to try to make it sound better.

Interestingly, it turns out that we were in the global war on terror during the Clinton Administration as well, but Republicans like yourself didn't want to believe it, so you chose not to support the Commander-in-Chief during wartime. For example, you guys refuse to believe that Clinton had legitimate reasons to launch those cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan. Which is to say, you mean that you support a Republican Commander in Chief during wartime.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you're saying that you're OK with the President lying to scare people into a war with Iraq if we're in a different war on global terror. But that seems stupid to me, so I thought I'd give you a chance to try to make it sound better.

No, it means I support the Administration (and Congress who supported the administration) when a decision is made to engage one of the many potential appropriate battlefields in the War on Terror and I don't second guess the battlfield strategy on a micromanaging basis. There was no scare tactic. The previous administration had already identified the danger Saddam's Iraq posed and there are plenty of quotes from President Clinton regarding the threat. Further, the former Co-President, in her role as Senator Incitatus, supported going to war in Iraq. It was a good decision. I knew at the time it would be a long haul, and perhaps tougher than some of the optimistic projections. In reality, it has proven to be about as tough as I thought it would be, but I think it was the right decision and stand firm in supporting the mission to its logical end. Victory. I look forward to traveling to Baghdad in 2016 or so, and enjoying some nice Iraqi wine whilst sitting al fresco at a Cafe along the Rue de George W. Bush.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Interestingly, it turns out that we were in the global war on terror during the Clinton Administration as well, but Republicans like yourself didn't want to believe it, so you chose not to support the Commander-in-Chief during wartime. For example, you guys refuse to believe that Clinton had legitimate reasons to launch those cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan.

He should have come clean with the American people that we were at war and what the danger was, instead of worrying about getting his weinie whistled while Gorelick erected her Anti-intelligence wall. Also, maybe when he had the chance to take bin Laden off of Sudan's hands he should have. And further, shooting cruise missiles into a camel's behind and/or a baby aspirin factory is meaningless fluff. If he wanted to be treated like a war time president, he should have acted like one, instead of acting like a porn star. And the perjury thing and presenting false affidavits to a federal judge were a little off too.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Duh. It means you are a traitor for questioning Bush during the Eternal War on Terror.

Bzzzzzzztttttttttttt! It's too bad there couldn't be a laboratory to play out different scenarios. I'd bet if Bush had done nothing and then Hussien launched some WMD attack, like an anthrax attack on SF, for example, you and Ty would be screaming the loudest that Bush dropped the ball, and Saddam had violated all of the UN Sanctions since 91 and Clinton had called him the greatest threat to stability in the ME, but dumya was asleep at the wheel.

Thank G-d history will be the ultimate vindication for George W. and his courageous stand against the enemies of peace and freedom.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No, it means I support the Administration (and Congress who supported the administration) when a decision is made to engage one of the many potential appropriate battlefields in the War on Terror and I don't second guess the battlfield strategy on a micromanaging basis. There was no scare tactic. The previous administration had already identified the danger Saddam's Iraq posed and there are plenty of quotes from President Clinton regarding the threat. Further, the former Co-President, in her role as Senator Incitatus, supported going to war in Iraq. It was a good decision. I knew at the time it would be a long haul, and perhaps tougher than some of the optimistic projections. In reality, it has proven to be about as tough as I thought it would be, but I think it was the right decision and stand firm in supporting the mission to its logical end. Victory.

That's utterly non-responsive to what I was talking about, as you well know.

And the victory part is deluded.

He should have come clean with the American people that we were at war and what the danger was, instead of worrying about getting his weinie whistled while Gorelick erected her Anti-intelligence wall. Also, maybe when he had the chance to take bin Laden off of Sudan's hands he should have. And further, shooting cruise missiles into a camel's behind and/or a baby aspirin factory is meaningless fluff. If he wanted to be treated like a war time president, he should have acted like one, instead of acting like a porn star. And the perjury thing and presenting false affidavits to a federal judge were a little off too.

Completely non-responsive, but given the cards you were dealt that was well-played.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you're saying that you're OK with the President lying to scare people into a war with Iraq if we're in a different war on global terror. But that seems stupid to me, so I thought I'd give you a chance to try to make it sound better.

Interestingly, it turns out that we were in the global war on terror during the Clinton Administration as well, but Republicans like yourself didn't want to believe it, so you chose not to support the Commander-in-Chief during wartime. For example, you guys refuse to believe that Clinton had legitimate reasons to launch those cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan. Which is to say, you mean that you support a Republican Commander in Chief during wartime.

In follow up to the below, in fairness, in my estimation, the war we are currently in, started with the taking of our Iranian Embassy. Carter dropped the ball by prostrating our policy to the lives of a couple of hundred diplomats. It was an act of war and it should have been treated as such. Reagan dropped the ball consistently to trhougout his term on the ME (except for supporting Israel). The day the hostages came out was the day we should have launched retaliatory strikes and taken out some military targets. We were weak on Hezbollah after the embassy bombing in Beirut, and Reagan cut and ran. Etc etc etc et al. It is all part of a whole, as the terror network and the funding network interact (albeit necessarily in a concerted way) in various ways. Unfortunately, none of our Presidents over the last 30 years has had an overarching policy or vision on the ME and how to balance dealing with the radical islamist terrorist problem while also trying to respect the cultural differences and win the hearts and minds of the people. So we find ourselves in the situation we are. For now, I advocate more aggressive military policy. It's not perfect, but I think diplomacy in this area is for shit, so the alternative method is worth a shot.

Either way, point is, plenty of blame to go around to all of the last 5 presidents. At least.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

the victory part ....was well-played.

I tried to read what you wrote, but the above is all I could make out. MY eyes are tired. Long day.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


It was an act of war and it should have been treated as such. Reagan dropped the ball consistently to trhougout his term on the ME (except for supporting Israel).

I was re-reading this to mock my spelling and grammar errors, and I had to note that the funny thing is, in the 80s, I was far more willing to give the Palestinians a chance and supported a position that Israel should be pressured to give up land for peace and the pressure should be us leading them by the nose, or else. I also was highly critical of Sharon and his lebanon incursion.

How times have changed.