Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Didn't want to answer that last question I asked, heh Dabob? Here it is again, just to make the point - Do you support the leaders of the Democrat party who continue to say this sort of thing? Can we take it that the answer is "no" to all three?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It was far too broad a question to answer. What leaders are you talking about, what are their specific statements, and what constitutes "support" for them?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What leaders are you talking about, what are their specific statements, and what constitutes "support" for them?> Who's obtuse now?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Who's obtuse now?> Still you, apparently. What "leader of the Democratic party" are you talking about. Hillary Clinton? To my knowledge she hasn't said Bush lied about anything and in fact is largely a supporter of the war. Harry Reid? I'd have to see a specific comment. Michael Moore? Not a leader of the democratic party. And if someone in that party says something I disagree with, what constitutes "support?" You have asked a ridiculously broad question.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh How about what Harry Reid said recently – “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.†Do you agree with that statement? If not, do you think it irresponsible for Sen Reid to say such things? Do you think he should be leader of the Senate Democrats?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>That I post on the blog of person A does NOT mean that I agree with everything - or even anything - as the owner of that blog. That's just faulty analysis.<< Kwiatkowski does not "post on a blog." She is a regular contributor to the site. That she contributes content to the site would be an indicator that she is, at the very least, sympathetic to the point of view of the owner.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Still trying to figure out why you attributed that [that Bush lied] to me, though, when I never said it.<< Actually, it wasn't my original intention to attribute that to you, per se. My original statement in post #22 was directed to Beau, and was in response to his comment in post #13. (>>Funny how liberals use the argument from Dabob when they get busted on their insistance that Bush lied... Talk about no backbone or spine, then doing a massive flip flop for the entire world to see.<<) My clarification, that it was a case of moving the goalposts rather than a flip flop was not intended as a charge against you, Dabob. Since you originally posted the argument Beau commented on, it was natural you would assume I was addressing you directly. Although this was not my intention, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and congratulate you on not falling for the specious "Bush lied" argument in the first place. But, since you persist in calling me out on the subject, I offer this clarification.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I actually agree withthe " move the goalposts " angle. These Democrats who are claiming Bush lied said the EXACT same stuff about Saddmas weapons programs. Wait... nobody but Bush used the word "mushroom cloud" so all the dems who said Saddam had WMD's are off the hook!! America is starting to see what a joke this is. Look for a GOP rout in 08.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Also, if the dems could impeach the entire White House like they fantasise about, who would they install as President to run the war on terror and to keep this ecomomy going?? Who would the military cheer for that the dems decide to put into office?? Who??
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>That I post on the blog of person A does NOT mean that I agree with everything - or even anything - as the owner of that blog. That's just faulty analysis.<< <Kwiatkowski does not "post on a blog." She is a regular contributor to the site. That she contributes content to the site would be an indicator that she is, at the very least, sympathetic to the point of view of the owner.> If you had a blog and invited me as a regular contributor, if only to offer an opposing viewpoint, would that make my "sympathetic to the point of view of the owner?" If you invited Beau as a regular contributor and he posted something nutty, should that be tied to you?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <My clarification, that it was a case of moving the goalposts rather than a flip flop was not intended as a charge against you, Dabob....I offer this clarification.> Okay, good. Glad we finally got there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <How about what Harry Reid said recently – “The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.†Do you agree with that statement? If not, do you think it irresponsible for Sen Reid to say such things? Do you think he should be leader of the Senate Democrats?> Based on what we know, I partially agree with it. On the first part, IMO, the Bush admin. did manipulate intelligence at the least, and we need to look deeper, which is what getting the stalled senate investigation is supposed to do (and what Reid was referring to). As to the second part, we really don't know if Libby's leak was intended to destroy Wilson, but that seems the most logical explanation to me, though I know you don't think so. As examples of the former: in Sept. '02, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all went on the sunday talk shows and said that the aluminum tubes Saddam sought to buy were really "only" suited for centrifuges, and this proved he was pursuing nuclear weapons. The problem is the CIA and the nuclear experts in the Energy Dept. had been debating these tubes since 2001, with the latter concluding that they were NOT suitable for centrifuges. "Given the lengthy debate and the importance of the tubes, it is impossible to believe that the Bush team was unaware of the nuclear experts' position." (I typed that straight from the magazine, so can't give a link). Yet Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, went on TV and said flat out that they were "only" suitable for centrifuges, thus scaring us all (including me - I remember watching that). Of course, they later had to retract the aluminum tube claim, but only after months of scaring everybody and planting the seed in everyone's mind that Saddam was getting nukes. Another example: the Oct '02 National Intelligence Estimate was presented to Congress the night before hearings began. The full NIE contained dissents and qualifiers. Members could only look at it onsite; they could not take a copy with them for review. What they COULD take with them to review was a white paper "summary" that removed that qualifiers and dissents - thus the "summary" was a distortion and manipulation of the full NIE. Moreover, this white paper was made public; the full report was not. Thus, any member of congress revealing those dissents would be revealing classified information. Does that constitute "lying?" I don't like to use that word unless I'm sure but at the very least it's manipulation and distortion, and I certainly can't argue with the desire to get to the bottom of it.
Originally Posted By patrickegan March 2002 Sen. Jay Rockefeller — the ranking Democratic on the Senate intelligence committee and now a full member of the “Bush lied†chorus — echoed Einhorn’s assessment, adding, “I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat†and “we can no longer afford to wait for a smoking gun.â€
Originally Posted By patrickegan Clinton and Gore were not alone in their conviction that Saddam had WMDs. France thought so, too, as did Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the Democratic administration. The Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If you had a blog and invited me as a regular contributor, if only to offer an opposing viewpoint, would that make my "sympathetic to the point of view of the owner?"<< You are posing a question which is irrelevent in this context. Kwiatkowski does not offer an "opposing viewpoint" on Lew Rockwell's site. And I would say that even a columnist who did do so would have to have at least a certain amount of respect for the owner of the site. >>If you invited Beau as a regular contributor and he posted something nutty, should that be tied to you?<< Yes, absolutely, because as the owner and publisher, it would be my decision to print it. But all this is pointless speculation. Why don't you (as I did) go to the Kwiatkowski archive at Lew Rockwell's site and peruse her work for yourself? <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html" target="_blank">http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwi atkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html</a> You will see that her point of view is quite in line with Mr. Rockwell, although they may not agree point for point. She clearly has an agenda in her writing, which is why I earlier stated I would take her "unbiased" reportage with a grain of salt.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>If you had a blog and invited me as a regular contributor, if only to offer an opposing viewpoint, would that make my "sympathetic to the point of view of the owner?"<< <You are posing a question which is irrelevent in this context. Kwiatkowski does not offer an "opposing viewpoint" on Lew Rockwell's site. And I would say that even a columnist who did do so would have to have at least a certain amount of respect for the owner of the site.> Opposing or concurring, however, the concept holds. (I brought up "opposing" because the example I gave was you and me, who are usually, though not always, opposed). Let's say National Review has George Will, not a regular contributor, write a guest column. It was likely be largely concurring, but let's say what he writes is 85% in agreement with what Buckley would have written. Buckley isn't responsible for the 15% he doesn't agree with. Indeed, he's not really responsible for any of it if Will's name is on it; one often sees disclaimers along the lines of "opinions expressed are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect, blah blah blah." >>If you invited Beau as a regular contributor and he posted something nutty, should that be tied to you?<< <Yes, absolutely, because as the owner and publisher, it would be my decision to print it.> Well, see, I disagree. You can print something you disagree with entirely - with or without a disclaimer like the above - and it doesn't mean you agree with it or back it in any way. I remember in the 80's when Pat Buchanan wrote a particularly nasty column on gay people and AIDS. It really, and I mean REALLY, got me angry. It was downright hateful. But I recognized my newspaper's right to publish that column and didn't hold it against the newspaper in general. It was Buchanan's opinion only. <You will see that her point of view is quite in line with Mr. Rockwell, although they may not agree point for point. She clearly has an agenda in her writing, which is why I earlier stated I would take her "unbiased" reportage with a grain of salt.> Obviously, KK has no love for the Bush administration. A lot of people don't. What I took objection to was your original assertion, which I quote: <Her regular material on Lew Rockwell's blog (he who advocates the overthrow of the government) > ... pretty clearly insinuates that KK must also advocate the overthrow of the government. Did you find anything doing so in her writings? I didn't, though of course I didn't read everything. If you did, please point it out. If not, the insinuation is pretty low.
Originally Posted By patrickegan PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction--Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. "The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added. The senator said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD. <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp?ZoomFont=YES" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/ Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/157wjmhn.asp?ZoomFont=YES</a>
