Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You speak as if Karl Rove was talking about "conservatives" and "liberals" as accounting for only a small part of the nation. He clearly was not -- he was describing the nation as consisting of "conservatives" on the one hand and "liberals" on the other, and nothing in-between. He set up a dichotomy, in other words.

What possible point could Rove have been making if he really considered only the far left to be "liberals"?

One comment of Rove's I found particularly interesting (in a foaming-at-the-mouth Wahhabi Republican sort of way) was his attack on Moveon.org for calling for "moderation and restraint" in the response to 9/11. I find it interesting because, in fact, Bush did exercise moderation and restraint. People were calling for carpet-bombing Kabul, for a mass invasion of the Middle East, and even for near-Armageddon (Ann Coulter -- "we should invade their countries...." and convert them to Christianity by the sword). Bush, instead, carried out a very tailored attack (using the precision weapons built by the Clinton military) that drove the Taliban from power without mass civilian casualties. It was truly his finest hour, and it was so because he balanced the desire, and need, for revenge with the understanding that an overwhelming attack would be worse for the US in the long run.

And then, of course, he fucked it all up by invading Iraq instead of devoting US military and diplomatic resources to making the aftermath of the Afghan war a success. But that's a different issue -- even though Rove wants you to believe that it's part of the response to 9/11.

Rove was responding in like kind to the all of the comments from the liber...democrats, like Hillary, Reid, Michael Moore et al. They lump all republicans, conservatives, facists and other like people into one group.

if you think the modern day demo party is tolerant or open minded then you get out more.

Maybe instead of attacking the messenger you should look at the message and ask why some 59M people are buying into what Rove was saying. It ain't just the kool-aid.....although the tax cut flavour is tastee.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're a long-time lurker, then you'll know that I don't like Moore, so it's particularly irritating to have him held up as some kind of political leader. Since you're so keen on staying on topic, the topic was Karl Rove's bon mots, not Michael Moore.

With RT as my witness I am not that sock, although I did invent the obviously fallacious use of the introductory "long time lurker...." line for socks on this board.

I think it was either patentpara or lady val who first used it...or chris.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Why should he be required to apologize or resign, as many Democrats are suggesting, when what he said is true?

Because when you are running the country during wartime, you ought to speak for all Americans. Remember those "United We Stand" bumperstickers after 9/11? Rove shouldn't be exploiting 9/11 for partisan advantage. And any Republican with a shred of decency would agree.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, the DNC initially denied him press credentials because they didn't want him there. They then backed down on that. But he had no official role -- he was someone's guest in a box, I believe.

FWIW, I bet Paigow thought Slave was a frivolously fun one night stand and she would never hear hide nor hair about him again.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Isn't that how we are financing it now?

Hmmmm, maybe. Now I don't feel so badly about that 2.60 a gallon gas. Maybe I will get an SUV to support the cause. Anyone know anythng about the Porsche Cayenne?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the population was much better off when they were getting gassed? How come people focus so much on death in war, and not on deaths caused by despotic governments.

Club was speculating about the number of deaths in Iraq, so I gave him some numbers.

But since you're concerned about despotic regimes, how about the torture being committed by the regime we installed in Iraq?

• Up to 60% of the estimated 12,000 detainees in the country's prisons and military compounds face intimidation, beatings or torture that leads to broken bones and sometimes death, said Saad Sultan, head of a board overseeing the treatment of prisoners at the Human Rights Ministry. He added that police and security forces attached to the Interior Ministry are responsible for most abuses.
  
  The units have used tactics reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's secret intelligence squads, according to the ministry and independent human rights groups and lawyers, who have cataloged abuses.
  
  "We've documented a lot of torture cases," said Sultan, whose committee is pushing for wider access to Iraqi-run prisons across the nation. "There are beatings, punching, electric shocks to the body, including sensitive areas, hanging prisoners upside down and beating them and dragging them on the ground…. Many police officers come from a culture of torture from their experiences over the last 35 years. Most of them worked during Saddam's regime."
  
  The ordeal described by Hussam Guheithi is similar to many cases. When Iraqi national guardsmen raided his home last month, the 35-year-old Sunni Muslim imam said they lashed him with cables, broke his nose and promised to soak their uniforms with his blood. He was blindfolded and driven to a military base, where he was interrogated and beaten until the soldiers were satisfied that he wasn't an extremist.
  
  At the end of nine days, Guheithi said, the guardsmen told him, "You have to bear with us. You know the situation now. We're trying to find terrorists."

LA Times

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're a long-time lurker, then you'll know that I don't like Moore, so it's particularly irritating to have him held up as some kind of political leader. Since you're so keen on staying on topic, the topic was Karl Rove's bon mots, not Michael Moore.

Since you want political leaders, here goes:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” ... “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)


To state the obvious, three of these were candidates for the Democratic presidential nominee, with one winning the nomination. I'm looking forward to your logic for ignoring their comments or perhaps you will finally explain why Karl Rove's statement was not accurate.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Since you want political leaders, here goes:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” ... “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)


To state the obvious, three of these were candidates for the Democratic presidential nominee, with one winning the nomination. I'm looking forward to your logic for ignoring their comments or perhaps you will finally explain why Karl Rove's statement was not accurate.

I almost posted all of this yesterday. Either we belong to the same Republican cut and past news service or you are me.

RT, help?!?!

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Since you want political leaders, here goes:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Hey Neil, you traitor, maybe if your main man Clinton had taken bin laden out when he had the chances instead of bombing aspirin factories or shooting cruise missiles up camel's asses we would have never seen 9-11. Oh, but wait, he was doing more important things in the Oval Office, right?

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because when you are running the country during wartime, you ought to speak for all Americans.

Do really believe this? I posit that a true leader should do and say what's best to win the war and protect his country, not have some massive group therapy session to come up with a consensus position that speaks for every single citizen.

Remember those "United We Stand" bumperstickers after 9/11?

I don't ever recall hearing about them being placed on John Kerry's Range Rover, or on Sharpton's limos or Kucinich's bicycle, so perhaps the "we" in that statement didn't
apply to them.

Rove shouldn't be exploiting 9/11 for partisan advantage.

Accurately portraying the position of your political opponents is not exploitation. You only perceive it as such because, to quote my betters, the truth hurts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Since you want political leaders, here goes:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” ... “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)

To state the obvious, three of these were candidates for the Democratic presidential nominee, with one winning the nomination. I'm looking forward to your logic for ignoring their comments or perhaps you will finally explain why Karl Rove's statement was not accurate.

To state the obvious, none of these quotations -- however inflammatory -- fit Rove's bill. To take the last, Kerry said that he would use the military when necessary, but suggested that the Bush Administration was choosing the wrong tactics. Porter Goss, Arturo Gonzalez and Karen Hughes would strongly resist the idea that what they do is not part of the war on terrorism.

Kucinich sounds like he was channeling Gandhi. I don't happen to agree -- and neither do most Democrats, who voted unanimously to fund the war in Afghanistan -- but in any event, what he said there does not support Rove. Someone surely has done a good job of finding you sentences from Kaptur, Sharpton & Abercrombie to wrench out of context, but none of those fit Rove's bill, either. Kaptur and Abercrombie voted for the war in Afghanistan, too, so perhaps you're not trying very hard to understand where they were coming from.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Since you want political leaders, here goes:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” ... “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)


To state the obvious, three of these were candidates for the Democratic presidential nominee, with one winning the nomination. I'm looking forward to your logic for ignoring their comments or perhaps you will finally explain why Karl Rove's statement was not accurate.

Kerry's statement was made in '04, not '01. As for the rest, you've sort of proven our point. They were made by nutjobs at the obscure fringe of the party, whereas the nutjobs in the Republican party are the ones running it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Hey Neil, you traitor, maybe if your main man Clinton had taken bin laden out when he had the chances instead of bombing aspirin factories or shooting cruise missiles up camel's asses we would have never seen 9-11.

At least Clinton tried, over the opposition of Republicans like you who cared more about the hummer he was getting from Monica Lewinski than about the threat to country presented by Al Qaeda. When Clinton tried to take out bin Laden, you and the other armchair warriors complained that he did anything at all to divert attention from the Starr Blowjob Saga, not that he didn't invade Afghanistan.

And maybe if Bush hadn't ignored what his top counter-terrorism official was telling him to do, we would have never seen 9/11.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
3600 a year? You mean nearly a quarter of the deaths have been US soldiers?*

Somehow, I doubt that. (And, again, you ignore the difference in population sizes to make your "point").

*Over 1700 US soldiers dead in Iraq since March 2003 -- compared to Club's estimate of about 8000 total dead since that time.

You are not looking at the same time periods I am. I am looking at the current state of affairs. I had to post data regarding CA for prior years because that is all that's available. And what's the population of CA? Iraq is roughly 25 million. While not exact, I think CA is in that neighborhood.

First, that's just confirmed deaths, and doesn't count all the missing and unknowns.

Second, that's just Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents. It doesn't include US soldiers, nor the civilians killed by US soldiers.

Third, for every death there are several severely wounded -- i.e., loss of limbs. One sees nothing like this in US crime statistics -- there are not 3 or 4 people getting maimed for each murder.

The CA data doesn't contain much of this information either (e.g., missing/unknowns, wounded).

I'm sorry, but the suggestion that more people are murdered in the US than in Iraq is just plain wrong -- and that is without taking into account the huge difference in population.

To borrow from Shape Shifter -- would you feel safer in Baghdad, or in New Orleans?

I don't know how you reach this conclusion. I posted data for CA, you argue US as a whole. I believe there were over 16,000 murders in the US in the last year available.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And any Republican with a shred of decency would agree.

Good luck finding one. The Repubs care far more about winning elections than winning wars.