home

Saturday Open Thread

Norwegianity and Sideshow have good roundups of topics today, from Murtha and the Republican's transparent stunt of vote on his Iraq pull-out measure, to the immigration raid that busted 125 undocumented workers of a Wal-Mart sub-contractor to Diebold and California. Here's an open thread to discuss these and all other topics of interest to you.

< Fighting Crime the Old Fashioned Way | WaPO: Woodward's Source Testified Previously >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    edegey writes:
    by finding a quote that supports your freudian projection of blaming the people who protested the idea of preemptive attack in the first place
    Actually edgey, ClayP was complaining that I wasn't quick enough.. and since I seek only to serve, I want to be sudden.. But I admit I find your claim that the people in question protested the war in the first place rather silly. Need I remind you of the comments by Reid, Kennedy, Pelosi, Levin, etc and et al? My personal favorite:
    "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. … [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
    Surely you read this link in my reply to ClayP. In it you will find indisputable proof of the inaccuracy of your comment. Now in the interest of being fair and balanced I will give you Michael Moore. However, he is not a member of Congress, although I believe he thinks he has some special power. And John Kerry may have some special power also since he has claimed to "I voted for the war before I voted against it.." Opps, that only proves my point. Sorry for piling on. Remember edgey, I'm the guy in the back of the room grinning as you try and make some incorrect point.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Hey the Houston Chronicle is reporting that Ruben Cantu, who was 17 when he was accussed of murder, might have been executed by the State of Texas despite the fact that he was innocent. The story is here

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Sweet, now I can repost this. I don’t know if it was taken down last night since it was OT or there was some TL glitch. Anyway, here’s congress notably out of order.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Well, when asked to stand and be counted, the Demos ran off and hid. The vote for the resolution to immediately remove the troops was 403 t0 3. Which proves that all they have been doing is playing politics, taking cheap shots when they can do so without having to face the country with a definable and undeniable position, and playing to the anti-war Left. When they had to take a stand... well, they decided that just maybe they could afford to pis* of the anti-war Left because the Left has no place to go. I am LOL.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    PPJ, Agreed. Run, liberal, run. ♫ Run, run, run. ♫ Next, they'll talk tough about opposing/fb'ing Alito, but (again) back down in the crunch from actually doing anything. All yap and no bite.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    The vote yesterday to keep the US military in Iraq was 403 to 3. That proves again that both the Republican and the Democratic Party support the imperialist aggression against the Iraqi people.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    ppj-yes you would love that vote as it fits right in line with your POV: Dirty tricks and lies that define the Rove Republicans. Guess America is starting to see behind that once slick now greasey curtain. Bet you love Jean Schmitt, sucker. You will either sink with the rotting ship or, coward that you, are find some face saving technicallity to shift your allegiance. 27% of Americans are still stuipified enough to agree with your transparent lies.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    That Norwegianity link has me confused. He says: For all the nonsense Bush spouts that they love to hear, it’s still the party of big business, and big business loves illegal labor, even if the rank and file wants to shut down the border. So, he opposes illegal aliens taking jobs from union workers, as described in the news story? I thought the proper "liberal" position was to support undocumented workers taking union jobs. Either that, or some people live in a fantasy world where they can have unfettered illegal immigration and high-paying jobs for all. So, which is it? (See also this. Back in 2003 in response to the earlier WalMart raid, Nancy Pelosi said it was a "terrorizing raid". Statements like that end up supporting illegal aliens taking jobs from union workers and end up supporting those companies that use illegal aliens to do union-busting.)

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Squeaky, Andreas, Talk, talk, talk, but come the day you'll still vote Dem, regardless of all this, cuz the Left is about tribalism and power, not principle. Or do those 3 (wow!) votes persuade the Left otherwise. Watch. Results will bear me out. Posers.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steven Sanderson on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    An effective remedy to the nausea induced by exposure to conservative scoundrels cloaking themselves in phony patriotism is listening to Dylan's "Talkin' John Birch Society Blues."

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    @ras: Wishful thinking on your side? You may not have encountered many people who fight for principles but I am one of them. I am supporter of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Party.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    It's interesting to see Jim and Andreas, polar opposites, in complete agreement on something, albeit for notably different reasons. The Bush vs. Kerry campaign illustrated clearly that there is no appreciable difference between Democrats and Republicans, and that stupendous lack of difference was reflected in the outcome of the election which was pretty much 50-50. The resolution put forward had no chance of passing or even being close. The Democrats were caught with their collective trousers down around their ankles.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    A quote from an article published by the WSWS today:
    What must be understood about the escalating debate in official Washington is that it is a conflict with the ruling elite over how best to safeguard the interests of American imperialism. Bush’s Democratic critics are not “antiwar” in any serious sense of the word. They largely backed the Iraq war to begin with and, as the statements of Clinton, Kerry and others demonstrate, they still support the goal of the intervention, which was to seize control of a key oil-producing country and transform it into a US client state. The Democrats have become more vocal in their criticism, not because of US casualties or the horrors visited upon the Iraqi people, but because of the evident failure of the enterprise, evidenced not only in the ongoing resistance to the US occupation in Iraq, but even more so in the growing hostility to the war among the American people.
    Political conflict intensifies over Bush’s Iraq war lies By Patrick Martin, 19 November 2005

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Hey squeak. You talk as tough as the Demos. What are you going to do? Smear somebody??
    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.
    Now, I forget. What is the difference between you and what you claim about Rove? Andreas - The difference is that the Repubs, or at least a majority of them, actually oppose withdrawal. The Demos actually support withdrawal, they just don't want to take the heat.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    And yet nobody in either party nor on any blog I visit has defined, or even tried to define what 'winning' will look like, how we will know when we have won. Just the way Jim likes it, brings back fond memories for him of Vietnam-as-Patriotic-cause. Ad infinitum shedding of blood with no explanations necessary, and no objective in sight.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    ppj- I see that you have made a trophy for yourself. Too bad it is a fake not so dissimilar to the fake you are perpetuating by gloating over a predetermined vote meant to smear Congressman John Murtha (D - PA)t . The slimy Schmidt statement is a banner for the Rovian attack meant make a mockery of Senator Murtha's proposal to pull the troops out of Iraq. Ironically The latest "traitor"-- the U.S. commander in Iraq, General Casey had simultaneously proposed the same thing as Murtha. The Houe stunt was an embarassing moment for all Americans. Your ability for self delusion is increasing in direct proportion to your obviousness. As a poor echo chamber of RNC lies your comments are about as resounding as a tin can. We can listen to the real thing from O'Reilley and the other wingnut spin machines.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    Squeak writes:
    ppj- I see that you have made a trophy for yourself
    If you are referring to you defining yourself as a smearer, and my reminders, don't over value yourself. There is no way I would consider you worthy of being a "trophy." As for the Congressman, there is no doubt that he served in Vietnam, and honorably so. That he is no longer an expert in military affairs is a given. That he has become the John Kerry of the House is apparent. As for General Casey, if you read what he said, this is a plan with numerous options. If you are capable, look up "withdraw now" and compare that to "options." And also understand that the latter has been discussed and planned over the past year. Your inability to make an effective point reminds me of what your hero in the Senate, ex-KKK member Democrat Byrd said. "Pity. Pity. Pity." Smear someone else, Squeak.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    PPJ-
    That he is no longer an expert in military affairs is a given.
    What rank did you make, Mr Expert? Oh right you are Propaganda Regurgitrator and Ministerial Waterboy for the Echo Chamber of Wingnuttia: A Karl Rove wannabe. What a hoot you are PBJ, turning smear into a defense of smear; the smear spotter spreads his lies rather thickly these days...must be starting to notice the water seeping in.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    This was a stunt by the GOP, but one that was needed. The increasingly partisan demeanor over Iraq was starting to detract from other ongoing business. We weren't going to pull troops out, and the posturing needed to be stopped. Hopefully, this vote will keep the posturing on Iraq on the back burner for a while. On a different note, here is a site suggestion change the coding so that when someone clicks a link it opens in a new window? Usually I try to remember to rt click, open in a new window, but to have that as the default on a click would be nice, and is not difficult to code.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    The war lovers say the opposition wants to cut and run. I guess they didn't see the big sign behind Monkey Boy on the USS Lincoln in May of 2003. Mission accomplished. Time to go.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    BigTex, I'm happy to see you know that it was a stunt from the repubs. But I'm a bit surprised you think it was needed.
    The increasingly partisan demeanor over Iraq was starting to detract from other ongoing business.
    The repubs have been stonewalling and streamrolling on every issue since bushco came into power. Late night votes, surprise votes, schiavo votes, holding open the vote long past congress norms so they could twist arms. Calling oponents cowards and traitors because they disagree. Thanks for your comment, it's nice to see someone elevate the discourse (here or in congress), even tho we disagree. I yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from Texas.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Oh, and Tex, the 'New Window' thing was a decision that TL made awhile ago. It caught me off guard too at the time and I complained and they (TL and Ditto) let me know the reasons why. I'll leave it to them to recount the reasons. Now I use Firefox or Safari browsers, so I just set the comment to open in a new tab. (Step away from IE, put it down and step away;-)

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Squeak - You must confuse easily. I have never claimed to be a military expert, although I would say I'm way ahead of average for this blog. As for the "retired" General, it is obvious he has forgotten whatever he knew, or he wouldn't want to "schedule" an "immediate" withdrawal. As for Rove, you are the one focused on the Evil One. Go smear someone else, Squeak.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Bark! bark! bark! Growl, bark, snarl, bark..uhm..bark, bark. Man, am I getting tired of shaking little humping Leftist puppies from my ankle. Bark! Bark! Yelp!!! Good night.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Man, am I getting tired of shaking little humping Leftist puppies from my ankle.
    Those puppies will go right away if you'll just take your medication there, buddy.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    PPJ-- Still waiting on that mountain of evidence you claimed to have connecting pre-invasion Iraq to "the terrorists." Good thing I didn't hold my breath.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Thanks for your comment, it's nice to see someone elevate the discourse (here or in congress), even tho we disagree. I yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from Texas.
    Thank you to the gentleman from parts unknown for the compliment. From what civil discourse takes place here, there appears to be a respectable number who want to engage in civil discourse, but are drowned out by the snark. The few times civil discourse does take place, the light of civil discussion reveals that positions aren't too far apart between the parties, they have different means, but similar ends. Hopefully in the end the civil discourse will help to sharpen ideas build mutual respect. Much of the problems in society, and in the functioning of government, stem not from different desires, but rather from a deep distrust and disrespect fuled from the general lack of civility. Parties will not always agree, but the common ground should be enough to piecemeal improvements. Hopefully, elevating the discourse to a level of civility will help to end the animosity, and make the dicisions that are easy possile. I am far from polished, and should/when I fail to be civil, I hope the gentleman will gently point out the error of my ways. Our gracious admin has tightened the reigns a little bit on the tone of discourse, a tightening that is much appriciated.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Great cartoon (via Sideshow). What Bush said. "The Democrats had access to our intelligence and voted to remove Saddam from power." What Bush meant. "Its not my fault I lied. Its their fault they believed me."

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    this vote will keep the posturing on Iraq on the back burner for a while.
    But the mounting death toll needs to be addressed. From 150 attacks to 700 attacks per week. Something besides posturing is needed, I agree. Something called an admission of reality, at the very least.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    The reason the Democrats voted against the “immediate withdrawal” plan that the Republicans put forth is because it was a sham. They did it to try to embarrass Murtha and other Democrats. Murtha’s resolution (which was not voted on) called for a practical withdrawal over time. He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months. I have noticed that whenever Bush or his minions counter critics they use “deliberately” before misled. They know that they have indeed misled the public – this has been proven, so I think they use “deliberately” incase of impeachment.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    “He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months.”
    You’re kidding me, right? Tell me what difference the ‘smooth withdrawal’ over six months would make. Try and tell me with a straight face that a decade from now you and I could tell the difference between an Iraq where the US pulled troops over the next month and one where the US pulled troops over the next six.
    “They know that they have indeed misled the public – this has been proven, so I think they use “deliberately” incase of impeachment.”
    I agree the administration deliberately mislead the public, but they certainly didn’t manufacture or alter intelligence; they unknowingly disseminated bad intelligence. Congress signed off on the use of force against Iraq with the exact same intelligence the execs had. And when you hear this or that Democrat from the intelligence committee talk about how they didn’t have the exact intelligence, they are spinning their complicity. They have access to the exact same intelligence, requesting and reading it is a different matter. The Democrats that voted for the invasion are trying to get some benefit from the unpopularity of the war. Perhaps they can convince the public they were lied to (they’re doing a good job here) and get a bit of traction.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    ClayP – Thanks for the reminder, I have been busy involved in my avocation of trying to guess what is printed on those little plastic squares the person across the table from me have on them. And I too am glad you didn’t hold your breath. It is not often that I get such a willing and eager student. If I remember correctly you made a typical Left wing claim that Saddam was the salt of the earth, couldn’t spell Weapons of Mass Destruction and had never, never, never heard of al-Qaeda. Gads. Such a lack of knowledge is indeed rare in the wired world we live in. To wit: We begin with a gaggle of quotes showing that the Demos, as well as the Repubs believed what the world’s intelligence community was saying. We continue with the offer of a $2,000,0000 bribe to a UN inspector by Saddam to not report what he knew. Now, I may be an old fashioned kind of guy, but I don’t understand offering a bribe to cover up something that wasn’t there. Perhaps you have more experience in the matter of bribes and can explain it. Next we have the 11/98 indictment by the Clinton JD.
    ..al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.
    Now I know that this is a mere indictment, but perhaps you can find in your heart to believe the US government in this matter just half as much as you believe Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. And then we have the Kay Report (PDF) which is beloved by the Left for its saying no found WMD’s, but ignored in its statement that Saddam was trying to build WMD’s and had missiles that exceeded the UN resolution and his agreements. I wonder what Saddam wanted these missiles for? Perhaps it could have been to deliver a bomb build from the uranium actually found in Iraq.
    But he said that the low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
    Of course, the missile couldn’t have reached the US, but:
    The Energy Department said that in addition to 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources . . . [that] could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device [or dirty bomb]" were also transported..
    “Hey, mama! Look at Junior glowing in the dark. Kinda cute…” Well, now roughly two tons of yellowcake only builds one lousy bomb. So now we know why Saddam at least ATTEMPTED to purchase yellowcake from Niger. The following is from the Senate Intelligence Committee report and didn’t get much play in the MSM, seeing as how it proves Bush right in his ’02 SOTU speech.
    (Former Niger PM ) Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(deleted ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
    I wonder why Mr. and Mrs. Wilson never talks about that? Of course uranium by itself does not a nuke make. But we have this. Another point the MSM ignored.
    The IAEA was monitoring the munitions because HMX is a "dual use" substance powerful enough to ignite the fissile material in an atomic bomb and set off a nuclear chain reaction.
    So there you go, ClayP. . We have an indictment, an attempted bribe, the Kay Report, enriched uranium found, a nuke trigger explosive, proof that Saddam was trying to buy more… And then we have the 9/11 commission admitting that there were some contacts… and much, much more. So tell me ClayP, would a reasonable person say that two enemies of the US just might be working together? Do you think Saddam who we now beyond doubt had WMD’s in the past, and who had used WMD’s in the past, would want to somehow get and use them against the US? Are you a reasonable person, ClayP?

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Debbie - The point is simple. When you say you will withdraw over the next six months, several things will happen. First, the terrorists will redouble their attacks against innocent Iraqi citizens in an attempt to completely demoralize them and take control of the government. Secondly, the terrorists will redouble their attacks on US troops to keep the pressure on them. Thirdly, the existing government will collapse in the face of these attacks and the loss of US support. When the withdrawal is complete the terrorists will kill anyone who cooperated with the US. Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, will be brutally murdered. The remainder of the Moslem world will see this for what it is, a failure to fight, and will seek to include the terrorists into their governments. That won't happen. The terrorists will just take over the government. The radical Moslems in Europe will force the EU to accommodate them. Long term we will see a Moslem Europe, controlled by terrorists. So your oh so reasoned approach will kill, in the end, millions of people and establish a deadly enemy of the US. The US, after this is done, and after a few terrorists attacks, and after seeing its energy supplies cut off, will be forced to use nuclear weapons. Congratulations debbie. You and the Congressman are just so clever

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Speculative fearmongering worked so well in getting the country into this mess that you really figure it will work in getting us out, do you Jim? Stay the course... You're halfway there... --- "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” --George W. Bush, May 24, 2005

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Jim, I was explaining to you why the Democrats did not vote for that resolution Friday night. It was not their resolution. I think the congressman knows a lot more than you Jim. All of your last post is just hot air. You don't know what will happen if we leave, and are you sure that it would worst than if we stay. I am still waiting for some examples of communist “spies” in the government that were tried and convicted? The Rosenbergs were not in the government and Hiss was convicted of perjury. Remember the “Good night, and Good luck” post. You only repeat the Republican talking points (propaganda). Thanks, Jim I too think I am rather clever.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    @debbiehamil: You did not explain why the Demacrats voted for the continuation of the occupation regime. I would have supported that resolution.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    debbie - I believe the Rosenbergs worked for the government. And one of them was one of FDR’s personal assistant/advisor. And the book names 349. I haven’t counted and classified all of them. BTW – I gave you the above information previously. That you haven't bothered to read "Verona" and yet still claim that their were no spies provides proof positive that you are neither clever or interested in facts. Instead you want to parse “convicted.” Again, if you read the book you will see that many were not charged because to have done so would have revealed “Verona,” and the FBI/CIA decided that it was to valuable to reveal. And you write:
    Jim, I was explaining to you why the Democrats did not vote for that resolution Friday night. It was not their resolution.
    Actually debbie the Demos did vote for the resolution.i.e. 403 voted for, and there aren't that many Repubs. That many of them did so to avoid being put on record of not supporting the troops is obvious. Still think you are clever? I have never claimed to know more than the congressman, so why do you continue to make this false claim? There are numerous people, one of them a Marine on active duty, who obviously know more. The Demos shouted down his comments. But then his comments weren’t kind to the congressman, or to the anti-war Demos. Free speech only to those who toe the party line, eh? As to my speculation, it is that. But I think many reasonable people will find it to be just that, reasonable. We have recent history to see what the results may be. Think pre-WWII, the inaction of France and England, the resulting take over by Germany/Japan of much of the world, and the deadly war that followed, ended, as we know, by the atomic bombing of Japan. Yes debbie, you are so clever.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    edgey - Well, you sure know about repeating, I'll give you that. Speaking of Germans, here is a link you may enjoy. Among other things it says..
    What does Rockefeller believe, really? I know what Bush believes: He thought Saddam should go in 2002 and today he's glad he's gone, as am I. I know what, say, Michael Moore believes: He wanted to leave Saddam in power in 2002, and today he thinks the "insurgents" are the Iraqi version of America's Minutemen. But what do Rockefeller and Reid and Kerry believe deep down? That voting for the war seemed the politically expedient thing to do in 2002 but that they've since done the math and figured that pandering to the moveon.org crowd is where the big bucks are? If Bush is the new Hitler, these small hollow men are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis whose whining defense was, "I was only obeying orders. I didn't really mean all that strutting tough-guy stuff." And, before they huff, "How dare you question my patriotism?", well, yes, I am questioning your patriotism -- because you're failing to meet the challenge of the times. Thanks to you, Iraq is a quagmire -- not in the Sunni Triangle, where U.S. armed forces are confident and effective, but on the home front, where soft-spined national legislators have turned the war into one almighty Linguini Triangle.


    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Well, Whizzy... I am really impressed with your ability to come up, on a moments notice, with yet another evasion of responsibility and accountability and a way of remaining in constant denial, by finding a quote that supports your freudian projection of blaming the people who protested the idea of preemptive attack in the first place for the quagmire and the death and destruction you and your kind have foisted upon the world.
    But you don't make it as far as W. has without some psychological defenses of your own, especially when it comes to insulating yourself against your own fears and insecurities. Raised in a family steeped in privilege and secrecy, and prone to the intense aversion to introspection and denial of responsibility that are the hallmarks of a so-called dry drunk, one who has kicked the bottle without dealing with the root causes of the addiction. Bush has become a master of the psychological jiu-jitsu known as Freudian Projection. For those of you who bailed on Psych 101, Freudian Projection is, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a defense mechanism in which "the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by falsely attributing to another his or her own unacceptable feelings, impulses or thoughts." In layman's terms, it's the soot-stained pot calling the kettle "black."
    You've learned jiu-jitsu and the big lie well, Whizzy. Goering must be smiling upon you from his grave...

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Whizzy writes: Need I remind you of the comments by Reid, Kennedy, Pelosi, Levin, etc. You're not five years old anymore Whizzy. Need I remind you that learning from experience, being able to admit errors of judgement, and being able to change your position on an issue when changing circumstance or new knowledge and facts warrant it, rather than doggedly pursuing a failing and destructive course of action and remaining in denial, is a hallmark of real leadership, as well as of adulthood?

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, in his remarks to Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Houssa, stated: "Sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- 02/24/01 Colin Powell
    Thomas Friedman, Foreign Affairs columnist for the New York Times, in an e-mail published by Slate magazine, wrote: "The stated reason for the war was that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction that posed a long-term threat to America. I never bought this argument. I didn't have any inside information. I simply assumed that whatever WMD Saddam possessed had to be, after a decade of sanctions, so limited that it was easily deterrable. There was absolutely nothing in Saddam's history to suggest that he was suicidal—that he had the capability or will to attack the United States directly and pay the price. He was always deterrable and containable. This was always a war of choice." -- 01/12/04 Thomas Friedman


    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    "Whizzy" sez: Secondly, the terrorists will redouble their attacks on US troops to keep the pressure on them. The attacks went from 150 to 700 a week when we said we were staying. "Redoubling" would be an improvement over that!

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Try and tell me with a straight face that a decade from now you and I could tell the difference between an Iraq where the US pulled troops over the next month and one where the US pulled troops over the next six.
    PW, you can be a real cold hearted MF. I'll tell you with a straight face what the difference might be. About 40 more years on earth for 100 or more U.S. young people -- and countless others killed in conflict with them. But then, you'll wake up safe and sound tomorrow morning, so I can see why you wouldn't be in any hurry.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Okay, I think I may have to apologize. I can't tell whether PW favored a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not based on context. If you did, I apologize. If you didn't, my point remains.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Actually, Tampa, it does appear to me that your initial read on pigwiggle's comment was taken out of context, but the part you extrapolated nevertheless merits attention on its own grounds. Really, those are the very words I would use to illustrate what a joke our current misadventure in Iraq really is. Take Vietnam. Today we can only look at is as a misadventure, as we cannot connect it to our lives or government or liberties in any meaningful way. It was just a stupid thing our government at the time did. But unfortunately, as you point out, irrelevant as it was, it cost tens of thousands of American lives. But no politicians died, and the chickenhawks currently in power made damned sure they didn't have to go, so that made it okay... I suppose. In ten or twenty years Iraq will look exactly the same.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by wg on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Sunday funnies -- George & The Door. From Reuters
    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Jim, if we could channel your “posts” we could fly around the world. Hot air!!!!!! Republican talking points!!!! The Rosenbergs were not in the government. I did research the Venona project:
    There was a secret intelligence project called "Venona." A single document, dated March 30, 1945, referred to an agent code-named "Ales," a State Department official who had flown from the Yalta Conference to Moscow. An anonymous footnote, dated more than 20 years later, suggested "Ales" was "probably Alger Hiss."
    I don’t think a “probably” is much of a certainty. You make claims like:
    As proven time and again, McCarthy's claims about communist spies in government were and are true and correct.
    And you can’t or won’t back it up. I said:
    Democrats did not vote for that resolution Friday night.
    They voted against it - that was where the 403 came from. There were 403 votes against the resolution. Right again, I am clever

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Honestly, PPJ…I expected more, even of you. Sadly, though, it seems that your ego (“It is not often that I get such a willing and eager student.”) thoroughly outweighs your intellect once again. More interesting, however, is your capacity for self-serving projection. For starters, you state:
    If I remember correctly you made a typical Left wing claim that Saddam was the salt of the earth, couldn’t spell Weapons of Mass Destruction and had never, never, never heard of al-Qaeda.
    See…that’s evidence of the problem right there, PPJ. I never said any such thing. Never even implied such. What I said was that the United States had invaded
    …a country which never ONCE attacked or in any way threatened the United States...
    True to form, your unfortunate penchant for adding two to two and getting 17 didn’t just end there, it merely established the motif for the rest of your argument. What you presented was a hodge-podge of rightwing propaganda and castoff trivia, sloppily tied together with Herculean leaps of desperate pseudo-logic. For example, take the Rolf Ekeus story. Your own cite doesn’t even make the leap that you take on that issue. The story says, and I quote:
    A clean report from Mr. Ekeus's inspectors would have been vital in lifting sanctions against Saddam's regime. But the inspectors never established what had happened to the regime's illicit weapons and never gave Iraq a clean bill of health.
    Basically, the only conclusion a rational person can draw from that claim was that the government of Iraq was profoundly corrupt and anxious to have the economic sanctions lifted. That’s not exactly news, Jim. So far as I’m aware, you (and those like you) are the only ones making the ludicrous connection between the attempted bribe and “evidence” of any WsMD. One would think that Mr. Ekeus would have made such a connection, if he believed that to be the case. He hasn’t. You also contend that former Iraq’s overtures towards “expanding commercial relations” with Niger is sufficient evidence of Saddam’s desire to procure yellowcake to justify the Monkey King’s infamous “16 words” in the 2003 (not 2002) State of the Union address. That story (at least the one you cited) proves nothing other than the fact that
    Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.
    (emphasis mine) That’s not “evidence” PPJ, that’s supposition. The two aren’t interchangeable in the real world. Your only evidence of “the connection between Iraq and the terrorists” (your original call to arms on this topic) is a seven-year old indictment of al Qaeda issued by the same administration trying to justify its (likely criminal) bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan based on equally suspect “intelligence.” The same administration whose Secretary of State callously answered that the reported death of half a million Iraqis due to the sanctions regime was “worth it.” That’s not “evidence” either, PPJ. In light of the undoubted investigations of both al Qaeda and Iraq since 9/11 alone, presenting something like that as evidence of a link between the two is just plain pathetic. To meet your definition of what a “reasonable person” must be, one would have to relinquish any thought of being a rational person. You’ve made that leap. I will not. Sadly enough, I find myself missing Cliff. At least he presented some sort of challenge. Occasionally.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    ClayP - Tis sad indeed that you are unable to recognize a snarky comment zap. So I take it back. You are incapable of being a student. For obvious reasons. The remainder of your comment is a defense of Saddam and a denial of what is obvious. A quick review. The bribe wasn't a bribe, just an attempt to make sure nothing happened. Uh-huh. Sure. As for your snearing comment about Bush's SOTU, 16 words, you can't accept what is in the Senate Intelligen Committee report because it would destroy your world view. That the Brits still stand by their position, as confirmed in the Butler report, means nothing. And you ignore the two tons of yellowcake found, and the trigger explosive material and the rocets and the Kay Report.. And the indictment was trumped up.... Ho hum, nothing new here. Typical leftie denial of reality and logic. Have a nice life. And remember. Some one will always be around to protect you.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Every reason and justification put forward by this administration, it's supporters, and PNAC, so far has been either lies, misdirection, or a smokescreen. With 14 (16?) permanent bases now established on the oil fields of Iraq, and possibly Iran as well Syria next, and with US military power established next door to Saudi Arabia, the US, if it is not now stretched too thin, is attempting to control and ensure its access to the worlds energy supply. And to deny it to whom? There is only one threat large enough, but not yet strong enough, to challenge America's economic and military preeminence as the worlds only superpower. China...
    In this new century the injunction to prevent the emergence of a new rival "that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union" can apply only to China, as no other potential adversary possesses a credible capacity to "generate global power." Hence the preservation of American supremacy into "the far realm of the future," as then-Governor George W. Bush put it in a 1999 campaign speech, required the permanent containment of China--and this is what Rice, Rumsfeld and their associates set out to do when they assumed office in early 2001. This project was well under way when the 9/11 attacks occurred. As noted by many analysts on the left, 9/11 gave the neoconservatives a green light to implement their ambitious plans to extend US power around the world. ... For at least some US strategists, not to mention giant military contractors, then, the "war on terror" was seen as a distraction that had to be endured until the time was ripe for a resumption of the anti-Chinese initiatives begun in February 2001. That moment seems to have arrived. Why now? Several factors explain the timing of this shift. The first, no doubt, is public fatigue with the "war on terror" and a growing sense among the military that the war in Iraq has ground to a stalemate. So long as public attention is focused on the daily setbacks and loss of life in Iraq--and, since late August, on the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina--support for the President's military policies will decline.... MORE...


    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    The attacks went from 150 to 700 a week when we said we were staying. "Redoubling" would be an improvement over that!
    Only you could think that 1400 attacks a week would be an improvement. edgey - In the real world you are not allowed to change your mind every 15 seconds. From time to time you must make a decision and stick with it long enough to see it through. It is called being an adult. If we followed your idols’ logic, we would have surrendered to Germany and Japan after the Battle of Midway. If not then, surely during the Battle of the Bulge. The famous reply of "Nuts!" to the demand for surrender would have been replaced with, "Oh, please don't hurt us! We told that evil Roosevelt he was wrong. Hitler isn't really all that bad. And see! We haven't found any death camps, and besides, the Jews are being reasonable..." Remember edgey, I'm the guy standing in the back of the room laughing at your attempts Glanton – As has been demonstrated time and again, the Left’s actions during the Vietnam War caused the North to hang on and keep killing US soldiers while the Lefties in the US won a political battle for them. So who was responsible? The Left. And it is happening again. Though this time around the Internet and the news channels are making it much, much harder. Debbie – Indeed, I misspoke. Double negatives have always been a problem. But as clever as you think you are, I am sure you understand that what they did was seek cover when it came to support what the Lefties want. They are clever. How does it feel to be jilted at the altar?? And read Verona. The book lists 349 names, dozens of examples, etc. Even clever people need education. Or just keep on believing that the Soviets were just benign lovers ruled by a happy, sweet, old Joe.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    The projection continues...
    The remainder of your comment is a defense of Saddam and a denial of what is obvious.
    Please point to the exact quotes which were in any way defensive of Saddam, and we'll go from there with that. Your problem is that, with your absolutist view of the world, people who disagree with you on one issue must, by virtue of the way your brain works, fit into neat, little, pre-configured categories. That I dispute your claims of "evidence" must therefore mean that I'm on Saddam's side. That's called projection. For the record, I loathed Saddam back in the days when your Republican buddies were providing him with weapons, intelligence and diplomatic support during the Iran/Iraq war. You know, back when Bob Dole called Saddam a "valued friend" of the United States. Back when our government blocked any meaningful UN action against Iraq for using chemical weapons against Iran as well as its own population. Such meaningless issues are mere annoyances to the properly patriotic.
    The bribe wasn't a bribe, just an attempt to make sure nothing happened. Uh-huh. Sure.
    What on earth is that supposed to mean? The attempted bribe was just that: an attempted bribe. You're making a supposition not not based on any rational evidence as to the motivation behind that attempted bribe. That's the issue. Again: projection.
    As for your snearing comment about Bush's SOTU, 16 words, you can't accept what is in the Senate Intelligen Committee report because it would destroy your world view.
    No, I choose not to accept it because I have no idea how much of it is based on the bogus intelligence used to get us into that war in the first place.
    That the Brits still stand by their position, as confirmed in the Butler report, means nothing.
    Minus the obvious sarcasm, you're finally onto something there...
    And you ignore the two tons of yellowcake found, and the trigger explosive material and the rocets and the Kay Report.
    True enough. I feel no obligation to respond to issues to which you can find no better citation than NewsMax or Fox News. They have even less credibility on the issue than you do.
    And the indictment was trumped up.
    Yeah, pretty much. One would think that if it weren't, evidence of such a connection would have surfaced by now. I mean, it's not like Iraq and al Qaeda have been the subjects of any investigation since then, right?
    Ho hum, nothing new here. Typical leftie denial of reality and logic.
    Nothing new here, indeed.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    By the way, PPJ... there's a guy who claims to have irrefutable evidence that it was Stephen King who murdered John Lennon. You seem to have similar standards of what constitutes "evidence". Perhaps the two of you could collaborate on this whole Iraq / al Qaeda thing and get to the bottom of it for the rest of us. Worth a shot, anyway.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Whizzy: In the real world you are not allowed to change your mind every 15 seconds. From time to time you must make a decision and stick with it long enough to see it through. It is called being an adult. Exactly, Whizzy. You're close. In fact you've almost got it figured out, if you can just pull your head out of your rear long enough to tell that to Bush:
    The list of Bush major policy U-turns is as audacious as it is long. Among the whiplash-inducing lowlights: In September 2001, Bush said capturing bin Laden was "our number one priority." By March 2002, he was claiming, "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." In October 2001, he was dead-set against the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Seven months later, he thought it was a great idea. In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Four months later, he supported it. During the 2000 campaign, he said that gay marriage was a states' rights issue: "The states can do what they want to do." During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Dizzy yet? No? OK: Bush supported CO2 caps, then opposed them. He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn't. Then he did again. He was against nation building, then he was OK with it. We'd found WMD, then we hadn't. Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn't. Then he was "sorta." Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out. In fact, Bush's entire Iraq misadventure has been one big costly, deadly flip-flop: We didn't need more troops, then we did. We didn't need more money, then we did. Preemption was a great idea on to Syria, Iran and North Korea! Then it wasn't "hello, diplomacy"! Baathists were the bad guys, then Baathists were our buds. We didn't need the U.N., then we did. And all this from a man who, once upon a time, made "credibility" a key to his appeal. Now, God knows, I have no problem with changing your mind so long as you admit that you have and can explain why.


    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Glanton - No, what's important is keeping the facts straight, something the Left has great difficultly doing when it is negatibe to them. ClayP - Spare me the psycho babble. Your whole premise is that Saddam is as pure as the driven snow, never had WMD's and never had any ill intentions against the US. Your claims otherwise is called denial after the fact. Your ability to try and deny the bribe calling Iraq corrupt is breath taking.... Come on, Clay. Try. Repeat after me. Why. Would. A. Bribe. Be. Offerred. If. Their. Is. Nothing. To. Hide. ????? That is middle school logic for God's sake. As for the bogus intelligence.... Did you actually read the report? Or did the folks from Niger lie to Wilson? And the NewsMax story, if you cared to read it, was based on an AP story. Are you calling AP a lair? Let us see... Everyone is lying. All intelligence is phony.... Bush evil... uh-huh.. sure... That about sums up your feeble attempt to refute my argument. As for Lennon, I'm sure tou are convinced that he was never shot and is living in peace and love somewhere in the Middle East.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    edgey - Smoking some good stuff, eh? The Demos said what they said when they said it. That won't go away. And changing directions in a battle doesn't mean you have given up the war. Although it is obvious that the Demos have... that is until they are required to put a vote on record... I again laugh at your juvenile attempt to make a point. I mean, really edgey, what's next? Saddam for Santa Claus? Adopt a terrorist?

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    "Whizzy" sez: Only you could think that 1400 attacks a week would be an improvement. Well, there was a nearly 700 percent increase when we said we were staying. So if that were to continue then you're talking 4,900 attacks per week. So the 1,400 per week is a definite improvement over that. Of course, if you actually EVEN SLIGHTLY gave a damn about their lives anyway, you would admit to seeing this scam for what it is and want it ended immediately.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    This is beginning to feel much like a game of whack-a-mole in which the mole keeps coming up through the same opening. Over. And over. And over.
    Your whole premise is that Saddam is as pure as the driven snow, never had WMD's and never had any ill intentions against the US.
    No, Jim...my whole premise is that nothing in that steaming pile of excrement that you think is "evidence" should inspire a rational person to believe the charges you're making. Saddam was a thug of monumental proportions. (You just don't like that I point out the fact that he attained that monumental status with the assistance of our government.) Iraq, at one point in the past, possessed chemical and biological weapons (weapons they acquired with our assistance), but there is no evidence that they possessed these weapons immediately prior to our invasion. None. I said that Iraq hadn't attacked the United States. Nothing you've said refutes that in any way.
    Your ability to try and deny the bribe calling Iraq corrupt is breath taking.... Come on, Clay. Try. Repeat after me. Why. Would. A. Bribe. Be. Offerred. If. Their. Is. Nothing. To. Hide. ?????
    Given the fact that (I know this will shock you) no WMD have been found in Iraq, a rational person should conclude that the bribe attempt was made in effort to get the economic sanctions lifted. Why is that so hard for you to understand as a motive?
    And the NewsMax story, if you cared to read it, was based on an AP story. Are you calling AP a lair?
    No, I didn't care to read it. While I may have low standards (I mean, I am continuing to argue with you), I see no point in playing along with you if you're going to use tripe like NewsMax as a source.
    As for Lennon, I'm sure tou are convinced that he was never shot and is living in peace and love somewhere in the Middle East.
    Nah, Lennon's dead, God rest his soul. But have you noticed that your typing gets worse the more flummoxed you become? Funny, that.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    To understand Jim, ClayP, you have to understand that he stands steadfast like a roadsign pointing the opposite way of history itself. Talking Points (a la NewsMax) are his old standby, as any slip into a real exchange of utterances between human beings represents exposure and--worse than death itself!--potential loss of face. Anyway, to proceed. Jim parrots Ann Coulter who says: 1) Vietnam was a noble effort but the LEFT sold it out; 2)Joe McCarthy was a great American (but his methods were bad!), but the LEFT sold him out; and 3)Iraq is a noble cause but the LEFT is trying to sell it out. The first two out of three of these inanities, obviously, have been thoroughly debunked by history already. And as for ignorant position number 3, it's just a matter of time.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Darly writes:
    All the yellowcake in the world won't make a nuke until the percentage of the U-235 isotope is increased
    Indeed, and if you will read the Kay Report you will discover that Saddam was trying to do exactly that. Link
    They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels.
    ernie - YOU wrote: The attacks went from 150 to 700 a week when we said we were staying. "Redoubling" would be an improvement over that! Now. Redoubling 700 is an improvement over 700?? Duhhhhhh. PIL - It is an OPEN thread. Now I know you have problems with word definitions, but that means you can comment whatever you want. Of course I cheat and use links. And I didn't know you were a nuke scientist... In the meantime I'll take the word of the AP article quoted in Newsmax. Of course, if you insist, I must point out that if he didn't have enough that is a perfect motive for his attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger. ClayP - Speaking of links, do you ever use one? You claim that I am wrong, but you offer nothing but assertions. Come on, ClayP. Show us the money. You show your complete bias when you ignore a Newsmax story with an AP source. By doing so you are saying that AP has lied. I am sure you never challenge anything on KOS.. I mean you could even say the story was fake (Newsmax) but accurate. (AP) I mean you have accepted such logic before, haven't you? BTW - I don't argue that WMD's have been found. I do argue that Saddam was trying to get back into the WMD business, as shown in the Kay Report. And yes, the more I type the more Old Arthur visits the finger joints, leading to all sorts of problems. Enjoy your snarky comment, perhaps you will remember them in your elder years. I do hope someone will be around to provide you some psycho babble. BTW - If you had been around a while you would know that I have never said that we didn't provide Iraq assistance during its war with Iran. At that time it was thought it was better to have Iraq fight the war to prevent Iran from taking over the ME. It is called geopolitics, and we also did it with the USSR during WWII. Of course the Soviets also were not friends, after the war. And it is as old as mankind. The expression is, "An enemy of my enemy is my friend." And that explains the odd relationship between OBL and Saddam. Read some history, ClayP. Educate yourself in something besides psycho babble. Glanton - I don't mind you having a little fun, but I have never agreed that McCarthy was a great American. I have stated time and again that his methods were wrong, but his claims about spies and communists were correct. Your statement is dishonest and I think less of you for it. Can you tell me why you can't condem the man, but accept his facts? Is it because the facts caused the Left a great deal of difficulty?

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    TS,glanton-
    “I can't tell whether PW favored a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not based on context.”
    There seems to be a couple of groups calling for the withdrawal of US troops. Those that simply want them out irrespective of the consequences and then those that think the US presence is the major impetus for violence; i.e. Murtha et al. The latter group is dead wrong. The major impetus for violence is the ethnic/religious divide in Iraq. It’s clear, the only folks al-Zaraqwi hates more than Americans are Shia. US troops have managed to keep a lid on the simmering religious violence; if they withdrew it would be a bloodbath; a civil war that would surely draw in Iran. I go back and forth on this, but my current thinking is that the US needs to take responsibility for the current state of Iraq and fix it. Withdrawing US troops will only make things worse. As far as the coldhearted position; I would hardly be surprised to see the wholesale slaughter of Sunni Arabs on the heels of a US withdrawal. A few hundred Americans or a few thousand Sunni Arabs, take your pick.

    Re: Saturday Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    Jim, that hurts. But I suppose you meant for it to. I mean, first of all, I don't understand why you would find it so hard to believe I would think you uphold McCarthy as a great American, given your comments. And I did acknowledge you didn't approve of his methods. But so what? I don't like Michael Moore's methods a lot of the time, but I think him a great American nevertheless (feel free, by the way, to attack me ad hominem based on this last point, rather than to substantively address my post). You ask: Can you tell me why you can't condem the man, but accept his facts?
    Jim, McCarthy was highly paranoid and exceedingly drunk on power (as well as spirits). His thesis was that there was a vast conspiratorial network of Communists trying to take over the government. Now, I wholly and cheerfully cede that there were lots of Communist sympathizers but almost all of them were regular folks, or even college kids, meeting in living rooms smoking pot etc. Not hurting anyone. And BTW: Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution mandate that one is free to sympathize with or even campaign for Communists or whatever else; freedom of speech even if you hate the speech. As for those few government operatives who may have been working for Stalin, those are traitors, absolutely. But again, no convictions resulted from Mr. McCarthy's rants. None.