posted
Interesting points and quotes from Al Franken's book "LIES and the lying liars who tell them":
Liberal media?
Tone of coverage for Gore & Bush during 2000 election
Positive: 13% Gore, 24% Bush Neutral: 31% Gore, 27% Bush Negative: 56% Gore, 49% Bush
source: Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellance in Journalism
a great quote regarding Clinton and Dubya on terrorism and al Qaeda:
quote: Immediately after the embassy bombings, Clinton issued a presidental directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Assassinate bin Laden? Amen, I say. Sean Hannity, though, has devoted a substantial amount of time, both on air and in his book, to pretending that this never happened and criticizing Clinton for not having the balls to do it. On his show, he yammers about Reagan's Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the assassination of foreign heads of state. Watch Hannity on TV, or listen to the radio. He'll bring it up.
quote: The final al Qaeda attack of the Clinton Era came on October 12, 2000. Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the USS Cole, killing seventeen of our sailors. Clinton decided to take the fight against al Qaeda to the highest level possible. Instead of funding them like Reagan, or ignoring them Bush, Clinton decided to destroy them. He put Richard Clarke, the legendary bulldog whom he had appointed as the first national antiterroism coordinator, in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out al Qadea. ...
Working furiously, Clarke produced a strategy paper that he presented to Sandy Berger and other national security principles on December 20, 2000. The plan was an ambitious one: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; systematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assets; stop its funnding through fake charities; give aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda ...; and, most significantly, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach bin Laden himself. Clarke proposed bulking up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces troops on the ground in Afghanistan. As a senior Bush administration official told Time, Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11." ... But the plan was never carried out. In its place Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, and his national security team would conceive and execute a different plan entirely. A plan called Operation Ignore. ... Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleeza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." ... While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying any attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under the Clinton administration. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism-fighting was to the Clinton White House.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, a comission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern" and said that America was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: "A National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security"...
The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unanimous conclusion: "This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."
... The public face of [Bush's terrorism policy] would be an antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. ... Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met. ... No one understood better the importance of taking a break to spend a little special time with the wife and dog than President George W. Bush. Bush spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. As he told a $1,000-a-plate crowd at a fund-raiser in June, "Washington, D.C., is a great place to work, but Texas is a great place to relax." That's why on August 3, after signing off on a plan to cut funding for programs guarding unsecured or "loose" nukes in the former Soviet Union [a possible source of nuclear weapons for terrorists] he bade farewell to the Washington grind and headed to Crawford for the longest presidential vacation in thirty-two years.
...
Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tene delivered a report to Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. ...
Among those left to swelter in the D.C. heat that August was one Thomas J. Pickard. ... In his role as acting FBI director, Pickard had been privy to a top-secret, comprehensive review of counterterrorism programs in the FBI. The assessment called for a dramatic increase in funding. Alarmed by the report and the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request $58 million from the Justice Department to hire hundred of new field agents, translators, and intelligence analysts to improve the Bureau's capacity to detect foreign terror threats. On September 10, he received the final ... communique': an official letter from Ashcroft turning him down flat. ...
On September 9 ... Congress proposed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs. The money was to come from Rumsfeld's beloved missile defense program, the eventual price tag of which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at being between $158 billion and $238 billion. Congress's proposal to shift $0.6 billion over to counterterror programs incurred Rummy's ire, and he threated a presidential veto. ...
[the next day, September 10, 2001], Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget requests to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo listing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn't make the list. ... The day after that [9/11], they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America.
quote: I'd just like to say that I'm not going to trust anything that will give actual percentages on "positive" and "negative" media.
Franken talks about that a little later:
quote: Holy sh*t!
A million questions raced through our minds. Who are these Pew people? Where do these numbers come from? Was this just another liberal lie?
No. It turns out that the Pew Charitable Trusts are among the largest, most prestigious foundations in America. Totally mainstream. Their Project for Excellence in Journalism comes out of the top-rated Columbia School of Journalism and is one of the few media research organizations without a political axe to grind.
And the numbers? Turns out they came from a comprehensive study examining 1,149 stories from seventeen leading news sources. ... So what had happened? It turns out that TeamFranken had spent the 2000 election cycle locked away in its ivory tower. Any normal American who watched the news or read the papers that year would have noticed that the media just hated Al Gore.
Somewhere along the line, the pack decided that Al Gore was a sanctimonious, graspy exaggerator running against a likeable if dim-witted goof-off. Instead of covering the issues and how they might affect average Americans, the media looked for little scraps of evidence to support its story line of Gore the Exaggerator.
They found them in the unlikeliest places. For example, where he didn't exaggerate. Take his role in the creation of the Internet. In the 1980s, Gore was one of the handful of leaders who foresaw the tremendous power of Arpanet, an emergency military computer network. As both a congressman and a senator, Gore fought tirelessly for the funding that would turn Apranet into what is now the Internet.
The Internet, as you may know, became a big hit in the nineties and briefly enjoyed a great deal of media coverage. With this in mind, Gore told Wolf Blitzer in a 1999 interview, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
What do you suppose he meant? That, late at night in his office in the Russell Building, after the other senators had gone home, he had written the PASCAL code that allowed packet switching? Probably not. No. What he seemed to be doing is what members of Congress do: He was taking credit for a program he championed and funded. In this case one that revolutionized the information infrastructure of the entire world.
What an a**hole.
The phrase "invented the Internet" first appeared in a Republican Party press release and would be repeated by the "liberal" press thousands of times during the campaign. What should have been an enormous credit to the man's vision became a symbol of his insidious, compulsive disonesty. Ironically, Gore was sometimes criticied via the Internet itself!
When a few people -- like me -- pointed out that he hadn't said that he had invented the Internet, Ann Coulter responded: "In point of fact, 'create' is a synonym for 'invent.' Any thesaurus will quickly confirm this." That may be true. But the very same thesaurus would show that "friendly" is a synonym for "intimate". So, when Ann told the New York Observer that she and I were "friendly", they knew it was her way of claiming that we are lovers, which we most certainly are not. I am not currently having an affair with any Republican woman, but if I were, it would be with Maine senator Olympia Snowe, whom I respect for voting her conscience.
- ibid
Buy this book. It totally rocks. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. It'd be sad if it weren't so funny.
posted
BTW, though I've never been a fan of Dubya, the more I read this book, the more I hate him. The lies, the smear campaigns, the record deficit, and worst of all, the blaming it on Clinton, the "liberal media", and a lack of "patriotism". Makes me furious!
posted
Yeah, that book is ridiculous. It was during Clinton's administration John O'Neil, the "man who knew" wwas alienated from the FBI. Bush is the one who wants to coordinate the sharing of information between agencies. Clinton said Saddam Hussein was going to use his WMDs but when Bush wants to do something about it Clinton retracts his comments and opposes the war. Clinton never did anything regarding foreign policy in eight years of office.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Franken provides his sources. Can you provide me yours? In particular, I'm interested in seeing your proof for the statement, "Clinton never did anything regarding foreign policy in eight years of office."
posted
*wonders how freeing Kosovo from oppression, which resulted in the democratic freeing of a dictator from power in serbia, counts as nothing*
*wonders similarly about such things as maintaining relative peace in the middle east, compared to, say, now*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I admit that I only skimmed this thread, but you said that the USSR ruined itself by its military spending, right? I don't know who that was addressed to, but when I think about it, that does apply to the current situation in the US, doesn't it?
Both seem to have a system of morals set down by their economic system, and if you didn't adhear to these same values you were ruled by tyranny. It was their duty to free you from it. Both countries also ground down their middle class to fuel their huge military budgets.
Granted I've only been thinking about this for 5 minutes, but it's a neat idea that I'll have to think on a little more. Thanks Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Kosovo which would have been a disaster had Milosevic been willing to continue fighting. Clinton showed through his presidency that he wasn't willing to put any effort into anything. He didn't provide the necessary support for our troops in Somalia, he virtually ignored Bosnia, he was never willing to do anything about Iraq except launch a few cruise missiles even though he himself declared Saddam to be a threat to the world.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."-Bill Clinton
Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
There was also another quote that I have repeatedly heard where he says that someday someway Saddam will use his weapons but I couldn't find it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the Soviet spending it was Reagan who made them outspend themselves and whatever you might say about it it was what worked.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newfoundlogic, That is a myth which is contrary to existing evidence. Since the end of the cold war, Soviet records have been opened and it has been conclusively shown that the USSR did not increase its military spending in response to Reagan's military build up. Not at all. Unless you are maintaining that the USSR would have decreased it military spending without Reagans excess (something that is highly speculative to say the least) then you must conclude that Reagan's spending excesses played no role in the collapse of the USSR.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except no. Or was it coincidence? Maybe a magical fairy told the Soviets to give up. Yeah, I believe that. Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, There are plenty of good reasons that the USSR collapsed, Reagan's spending excesses just doesn't happen to be one of them.
And rather than mocking my arguments, perhaps you can explain how the Reagan military budget caused the USSR to collapse even though all the data proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response. Your conjecture is built on pixie dust.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First you say Reagan's spending didn't affect the Soviets then you say its just one of the reasons why they collapsed and then you say again that it didn't affect them. You keep contradicting yourself. What data? That's what I'm most skeptical about. This is the first time I've heard that Reagan's spending had no effect.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
newfoundlogic, Where did I say Reagan's spending was one of the reasons the USSR collapsed? I'm sorry but I can't find it anywhere in my posts.
The popularity of a myth, is no evidence for its validity. Show me the data that says the USSR increased their military spending in response to Reagan's increased military budget. Then we can start talking. Without data, you are simply talking conjecture.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, sorry I actually misread your post. However you did claim that data says that the Soviets didn't increase spending. I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Ann Coulter were genuinely interested in finding out who single-handedly won the Cold War, she should have called my old friend Marshal Viktor Kulikov, the former Warsaw Pact comamnder. In 1992, Kulikov told U.S. News & World Report that "Reagan was a logical extension of what had started with Truman, a concentrated effort to weaken and intimidate the Soviet Union."
Other people give credit for ending the Cold War to the Polish Pope, John Paul II; to Lech Walesa and his independent trade union, Solidarity; to Jimmy Carter, who put pressure on Moscow to respect the human rights of its people; and to the Soviet Union itself, which was collapsing under the crushing weight of its own failed system. Reagan, of course, did put medium-range Pershing II missiles in Europe and began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day.
So credit where credit is due. Viktor told me that Reagan's aggressive posture unquestionably hastened the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days.
quote: I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response."
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
Jeff
P.S. I prefer the oldfoundlogic: without the fallacies.
posted
Day late and dollar short but I would like to RE-point out to odouls the number and the range of applications put forth...also the fact that I am now a SANDWICH JOCKEY for the simple fact that 99 other applications didn't get so much as a call back. With college behind me and a history in manufacturing to put me through school I still could not find a job in this DEPRESSION. I still feel that the folks that this is not directly affecting are deluding themselves into believing that this is not an immediate problem. That the people without jobs are just lazy. Just be glad the cuts haven't hit you yet. Because when they do you will realize that there is NOTHING. You can't even FIND a job shoveling shit to earn 6.50 an hour. Do you know why? Because some bank VP just beat you to the manure shoveling job 10 min ago.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Day late and dollar short but I would like to RE-point out to odouls the number and the range of applications put forth...also the fact that I am now a SANDWICH JOCKEY for the simple fact that 99 other applications didn't get so much as a call back. With college behind me and a history in manufacturing to put me through school I still could not find a job in this DEPRESSION. I still feel that the folks that this is not directly affecting are deluding themselves into believing that this is not an immediate problem. That the people without jobs are just lazy. Just be glad the cuts haven't hit you yet. Because when they do you will realize that there is NOTHING. You can't even FIND a job shoveling shit to earn 6.50 an hour. Do you know why? Because some bank VP just beat you to the manure shoveling job 10 min ago.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I was out of work for OVER A YEAR AND A QUARTER after Intel laid me off. I was applying for positions that I used be too senior to manage before the lay offs. Now I'm back to work, having taken a signficant step backwards in my career and a $30,000 pay cut.
Oh yeah, and Intel had at least two other rounds of layoffs after mine, and one before mine. And rumor has it, another one's coming ...
Oh no, the economy's not in trouble. Of course not. Bush's miracle tax cut has done what all the respected economists said couldn't be done with a tax cut. It has ended the reces ... whoops, I guess that statement's a wee bit premature.
What could possibly be better in this, this best of all possible worlds?
posted
P.S. My apartment complex has a record number of empty apartments. Apparently, nobody can afford the rent anymore, so they're all moving in together or going back to live with their families. At the office park where I work, the space is about 2/3 empty because of all the businesses that keep folding. Hey, at least it's easy to find a parking spot now.
Oh yes, thank you Dubya. That tax break really fixed the economy reeaaaaaal good.
posted
I like real people Although I know it hurts others as well...Misery does love company And thanks to Dubaya...theres plenty of company.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day.
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So credit where credit is due. Viktor told me that Reagan's aggressive posture unquestionably hastened the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days.
Rabbit, it seems from this statement that the author was probably being sarcastic in what came before it.
posted
In all fairness, Jeff, you WERE living at the top of the bubble in your career and your area. While I'm not applauding Bush's handling of the economy, the tech industry -- and the West Coast in general -- was WAY overdue for a correction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
See you were the one who said that the data quote, "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." I don't see how asking you to back that up is a logical falacy.
Your first link has tons of flaws. For example:
quote: Israel, Taiwan, and North and South Korea have allocated a disproportionate share of resources to defense without bankrupting their economies.
North Korea even has economy? That's news to me. South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan all have industries that the Soviet Union didn't also. Furthermore none of those three is communist. They can't be compared. Furthermore, the fact that Soviet spending didn't decrease with less hostile relations is actually proof of Reagan's success. The Soviets still felt the need to pour money into their military in order to try to keep up with America despite a less likely war.
The second link is just "Chernoff is great, Chernoff is wonderful, all hail Chernoff" so it doesn't really leave me a lot of room to attack.
The third one doesn't go anywhere, it just babbles for a really long time. It does mention Afgahnistan however. What's intresting about that is that the Soviet pullout basically matches their decrease in the rate defense spending. The author also never explains why all these Soviet high-ups complain about American spending and yet supposedly nothing new on the Soviet side happened. There's a logical gap there that is never explained.
Lautsprecher für die Toten, again sorry but how are your problems Bush's fault? Also, with Bush as president I've had no problems, my family has had no problems, and no one I know has had problems. All this despite living in a very liberal community being South Florida.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Quote: Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day.
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Not exactly true. Not exactly false, either. The Star Wars project worked on high powered lasers to shoot down missiles, when the project died, the prototype lasers fell into disuse.
Then at some point in the last few years these lasers have been brought back and are actually proving themselves excellently in shooting down missiles. Not just missiles, either. The device, called the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) has been able to shoot down artillery shells.
We gave one of these things to Israel, another we're mounting on a 747.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bush Administration has definitely made its share of mistakes since September Eleventh. My own personal annoyance list:
1. Ass-covering Paranoia. Everyone is so frightened that they might get blamed in the event of a new terrorist attack, that they issue warnings and instigate security panics at the drop of a turban. The new security procedures and National Guard patrols made sense during the first few weeks, when we were still in the midst of the Anthrax scare, and we had no idea if apocalyptic terrorist strikes were going to happen on a weekly or a monthly basis. But what we needed after that was confidence and defiance, not fear. Of course, who can blame members of the administration for a little paranoia, when the first thing many people did after the attacks was try to find some American bureaucrat to blame for them.
2. The Iraq Excuses. Seriously, people need to say what they mean. We didn't go to Iraq because of the sudden emergence of WMDs. We went to Iraq because September Eleventh forced us into a paradigm shift. Suddenly, an enemy half a world away was as dangerous as an enemy right on our borders. We had to finish the job we started in 1991, because if we didn't, Saddam Hussein had the money, the connections, the motivation, and now the inspiration to really hurt us. He didn't NEED weapons of mass destruction. All he NEEDED was a little creativity, and maybe a box cutter or two. A bit of fertilizer, some pipe, and some rednecks to deliver it. But ever making excuses, our politician friends built this huge house of cards justifying the war in Iraq with dubious reports of WMDs, only to watch it crash around them when no weapons were found. If they'd said what they meant from the beginning, this wouldn't be an issue.
3. Speeches. Bush is freaking awful at dealing with the press. Ari Fleischer was good at it. Rumsfeld was good. Powell was good. Bush SUCKS at it. Not that I can really fault him as a person. I'd probably suck at it too. But the leader of the free world is at a HUGE disadvantage if he can't answer questions confidently and clearly without sounding like a goon. I'm similarly mystified as to why Colin Quinn has his own show. He's smart, he's cool, I love the writing and the format ... but dude, the guy CAN'T TALK! Good oratory skills are not the only mark of a good leader, but lacking them is still a huge hit to your effectiveness.
4. The Afghanistan Thing. One of the most serious legitimate doubts that people have about the situation in Iraq is America's spotty record of building nations. We haven't really done it since Japan, and it's not a task to be taken lightly. I think people would have far more confidence in the success of our efforts if we'd proved a little something in Afghanistan before moving on.
5. Ignorance of Their Own Weaknesses. Look, if someone is going to accuse you of going to war over oil, you have to GO OUT OF YOUR WAY not to give contracts to companies you're associated with. I mean, sheesh, isn't that common sense? I saw it on the West Wing, for crying out loud. If someone is going to accuse you of cowardice, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to show courage. If someone is going to accuse you of corruption, GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to be honorable. In politics, appearances ARE everything. You have to be a complete idiot to go into the political arena unprepared to head off your enemies' accusations.
Etcetera. There are problems. But this argument isn't about issues like this at all. This argument is nothing more than a continuation of the 2000 election. President Bush left a lot of angry people lying around when he took on the job, and those angry people have been SEARCHING for reasons to denouce Bush and pry him out of that office since his term began.
You know this attitude. You saw it from conservatives during Clinton's presidency, after he "unjustly" beat the once-popular Bush Senior over a silly but politically distastrous decision about taxes. It wasn't enough that Clinton actually was a philanderer with contempt for defense and a high tolerance for corrupt behavior — his detractors made him out to be a murderer and got him impeached, which was way beyond the mark.
So it's not limited to one end of the political spectrum. But it's SHEER IDIOCY, no matter who does it. So it makes you mad that a guy you don't like got to be president. That doesn't mean that it's suddenly your responsibility to turn into a raging fool, accepting any and every stupid bit of negative propaganda as truth, so long as it takes down the man you have already predetermined that you are going to hate. Give me a break. There is no conspiracy to "roll back civil rights". This war was not started to build anyone's private fortune. Bush neither planned nor anticipated September Eleventh. If you want conspiracies, The X-Files is on TNT, and Deus Ex: Invisible War comes out in December.
Meanwhile, our country has taken the war to the terrorists, and we are trying to build democracies in a region once driven to madness by fanatical theocracies and warlord mentalities. If we succeed, we can defuse an entire culture of ticking time bombs. But we won't succeed if we let our own frustration over political grudges drive us into self-righteous bickering, at the expense of our ongoing efforts. I'm not saying we need to "support the president no matter what because we're at war and you're not a patriot otherwise". I'm saying that descending into fanatical hysteria does no one any good. Constructive criticism is awesome. Destructive raving is nothing more than that. Destructive. To everyone.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah. This thread had two pages. And it totally moved on from where I thought it was when I wrote that. Feel free to ignore Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In all fairness, Jeff, you WERE living at the top of the bubble in your career and your area. While I'm not applauding Bush's handling of the economy, the tech industry -- and the West Coast in general -- was WAY overdue for a correction.
Tom,
Actually, I was extremely underpaid for my my profession and expertise, and I live on the East Coast and not the West Coast. But other than that, your comments were spot on.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
TheRabbit,
Xavier's correct. Al Franken is a comedian. He was using sarcasm and irony to point out how useless Reagan's policies were despite the fact that Republicans like to laud how he single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union.
The term Rube Goldberg should have clued you in....
I want to see this supposed data that "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFL! And while you're at it, prove that God doesn't exist, and that santa doesn't exist, and that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Oh, and prove that the CIA didn't kill JFK, and that newfoundlogic isn't a talking bullfrog.
Sorry, NFL, but your Argumentum ad Ignoratium is an invalid argument.
See you were the one who said that the data quote, "proves beyond doubt that the USSR did not increase their military spending in response." I don't see how asking you to back that up is a logical falacy.
Actually, no, I wasn't the one who said that. Go back and check.
quote: Your first link has tons of flaws. For example:
quote: Not exactly true. Not exactly false, either. The Star Wars project worked on high powered lasers to shoot down missiles, when the project died, the prototype lasers fell into disuse.
Then at some point in the last few years these lasers have been brought back and are actually proving themselves excellently in shooting down missiles. Not just missiles, either. The device, called the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) has been able to shoot down artillery shells.
We gave one of these things to Israel, another we're mounting on a 747.
Thus, single-handedly kicking off the arms race into high gear once more, despite the fact that we had finally got it to ease up and we were actively working on reducing weapons. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
So, let's see, who does this help? Well, it doesn't help us, because it makes the world less safe instead of more safe.
But it does help the defense industry, of which Haliburton is a part. Oddly enough, while Bush's terrible decisions have sent the American economy into a death spiral, Cheney's beloved Haliburton has made billions.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reagan. . . began developing the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to this day. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No missile defense system has ever been deployed, which doesn't exactly increase my confidense in anything else your source has to say.
Um, Rabbit, I'd just like to point out that a "Rube Goldberg" *anything* doesn't exist. (It's an older metaphor, so he's dating himself) That's exactly what he was trying to say. The argument, I believe, is that the very *idea* of such a complex and expensive defense, whether it's built or not, is enough to freak out the world, to "scare" other countries into dialogue.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Interesting, Franken addresses this fallacy in his book, too. It's really a great book!
quote: The bombing campaign [in Kosovo] was extremely unpopular with certain Republicans, who had no qualms about expressing their objections while our troops were in harm's way.
"[President Clinton] said if if we did nothing, there would be an instability in the region. There would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all these problems to explode."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay --- May 2, 1999
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
Senator Richard Lugar --- May 3, 1999
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
Senator Trent Lott --- May 4, 1999
"They haven't prepared for anything in this. And they're running out of weapons to do it. And frankly, I don't think Clinton has the moral authority or ability to fight this war correctly."
Sean Hannity --- May 10, 1999
...
The bombing campaign in Kosovo ended on June 10, 1999, with the signing of a peace accord. Milosevic was kicked out of Belgrade a few months later and sent to The Hague, where he's now on trial for crimes against humanity. (I say "guilty.") And as I pointed out in my joke to the troops, there was not one American combat casuality during the entire campaign.
Ah yes, flagrant disregard for the proper use of the military ...
posted
A Rat Named Dog (nice to see this name again!) you said. . .
quote:We didn't go to Iraq because of the sudden emergence of WMDs. We went to Iraq because September Eleventh forced us into a paradigm shift. Suddenly, an enemy half a world away was as dangerous as an enemy right on our borders.
And in the same paragraph. . .
quote: He didn't NEED weapons of mass destruction. All he NEEDED was a little creativity, and maybe a box cutter or two.
Now, to me, that implies that although Hussein didn't have WMD, he had access to enough cash to hire people to carry out terrorist attacks on his behalf.
The things I don't understand are as follows. Didn't Saddam always have that capability? Are you saying that he didn't think of it before 9/11? Is the fact that he can do it more frightening now, that before 9/11? Is this part of the paradigm shift you were talking about? That there are those out there who would like to do us harm and we need to eliminate that threat?
See, what I inferred from that paragraph was that there are crazy leaders out there who suddenly realize that they don't need WMD. They just need to hire a few zealots with box cutters. So, in an effort to defend ourselves, we've gone ahead and put the "preemptive strike" thing on the table.
I also don't see how Saddam is any more dangerous that the psychopath in North Korea. There are plenty of despots all over the world who could do the same thing.
As for the conspiracy theory nuts (like me ) I think that Bush has made it too easy for them. The fact that they had a plan, in writing, and were in the last stages of starting a war with Afghanistan certainly don't help their situation. The fact that they want the oil from the Caspian Sea and need for the pipeline to run through Afghanistan, Pakistan and end in India, where, surprise, Halliburton has a 3 billion dollar power plant idling by, is at best an eyebrow raising coincidence. (You did address this point 5, but I just thought I'd reiterate how bad it looks.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if we went after the psychopath in North Korea you'd be pissed about that as well. Saddam was more dangerous because like Clinton himself said, he had used his weapons, while Kim Jong Il has been the biggest bluffer in history.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He used his weapons against his own people in 1986. 17 years ago. And even after that, the US continued to arm him. We actually increased aid to Iraq and encouraged them to step up their air war against Iran. So, let's not suddenly get morals on that issue, k?
Also, I don't think you know my position on Iraq, so, what you think I would, or wouldn't say about North Korea is irrelevant.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
