IS BUSH A LIAR--OR SIMPLY IGNORANT?
RELAX--THERE'S NO NEED TO CHOOSE!
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084730/
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HANS BLIX GIVES IT TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Yesterday, soon-to-be retired chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix stated to the Council on Foreign Relations(NYC) that "the longer the United States and Britain occupy Iraq without finding weapons of mass destruction,
the more conceivable it is that Baghdad destroyed them after the first Gulf War in 1991".
Blix also stated: "``It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons
of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are.''
Blix also threw out this wry comment (targeting the Bush administration): ``Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short
time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying,
'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time". "All right!''
If Bush was someday to be asked why his administration kept saying " we need to have patience" when looking for the WMD's..
when, for all intents and purposes, he gave Blix the bum's rush when he appealed for ample time,
Bush would probably say: "That's simply revisionist history."
Just wait until Mr Blix writes a book about this period in history.
Future generations will look back and understand just who the revisionists of history were...and why.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-blix.html
HANS BLIX GIVES IT TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Yesterday, soon-to-be retired chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix stated to the Council on Foreign Relations(NYC) that "the longer the United States and Britain occupy Iraq without finding weapons of mass destruction,
the more conceivable it is that Baghdad destroyed them after the first Gulf War in 1991".
Blix also stated: "``It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons
of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are.''
Blix also threw out this wry comment (targeting the Bush administration): ``Three-and-a-half months for new inspections was a rather short
time before calling it a day and especially when we now see the U.S. government is saying,
'look, you have to have a little patience, you know these things take time". "All right!''
If Bush was someday to be asked why his administration kept saying " we need to have patience" when looking for the WMD's..
when, for all intents and purposes, he gave Blix the bum's rush when he appealed for ample time,
Bush would probably say: "That's simply revisionist history."
Just wait until Mr Blix writes a book about this period in history.
Future generations will look back and understand just who the revisionists of history were...and why.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-blix.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear God...what have Bush and Blair gotten us into ?
Six British Troops Killed in String of Iraq Attacks
"Six British troops were killed and several were wounded in Iraq on Tuesday in the biggest daily death toll sustained
by U.S. and British forces since March 23, three days after the start of the war to topple Saddam Hussein."
Dear God...what have Bush and Blair gotten us into ?
Six British Troops Killed in String of Iraq Attacks
"Six British troops were killed and several were wounded in Iraq on Tuesday in the biggest daily death toll sustained
by U.S. and British forces since March 23, three days after the start of the war to topple Saddam Hussein."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Denial and Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From The New York Times, 6/24/03:
"There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration
officials deceived us into war.
The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial,
unwilling to admit the obvious."
"...the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public..."
"....We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make..."
"..if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy? "
Denial and Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From The New York Times, 6/24/03:
"There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration
officials deceived us into war.
The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial,
unwilling to admit the obvious."
"...the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration's efforts to mislead both Congress and the public..."
"....We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make..."
"..if we can't find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy? "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
American taxpayers:
I hope you enjoyed the embedded
journalism in Iraq.
You paid for it.
"..Who paid for this media training, transportation and equipment? Unwittingly, American taxpayers picked up the tab for these and many other expenses in the military's embedded media program...."
"..To provide a minimum daily ration of two meals-ready-to-eat (MREs) and two 16-ounce bottles of sterilized water for a month,
the cost to the military is more than $500 per journalist, based on figures from the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia.
Free shelter saved embeds the cost of a tent ($130 retail), sleeping bag ($100 retail) or hotels in Kuwait City and Baghdad ($100 nightly minimum).
They also took no-cost loans of gas masks ($179-$329 retail) and nuclear/biological/chemical suits ($45-$59 retail).
And, yes, protection courtesy of the U.S. armed forces. To hire a former British Royal Marine from Centurion to escort you to Baghdad,
the charge is around $400 a day....."
SLIGHTLY?!?
"..Almost every major news organization has a strict policy against journalists accepting anything free from people they cover.
Freebies undercut the public's perception of their independence and objectivity...."
"..In future military conflicts, will this many journalists embed if they have to pay?"
American taxpayers:
I hope you enjoyed the embedded
journalism in Iraq.
You paid for it.
"..Who paid for this media training, transportation and equipment? Unwittingly, American taxpayers picked up the tab for these and many other expenses in the military's embedded media program...."
"..To provide a minimum daily ration of two meals-ready-to-eat (MREs) and two 16-ounce bottles of sterilized water for a month,
the cost to the military is more than $500 per journalist, based on figures from the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia.
Free shelter saved embeds the cost of a tent ($130 retail), sleeping bag ($100 retail) or hotels in Kuwait City and Baghdad ($100 nightly minimum).
They also took no-cost loans of gas masks ($179-$329 retail) and nuclear/biological/chemical suits ($45-$59 retail).
And, yes, protection courtesy of the U.S. armed forces. To hire a former British Royal Marine from Centurion to escort you to Baghdad,
the charge is around $400 a day....."
"..Almost every major news organization has a strict policy against journalists accepting anything free from people they cover.
Freebies undercut the public's perception of their independence and objectivity...."
"..In future military conflicts, will this many journalists embed if they have to pay?"
Monday, June 23, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See former Vt. Governor Howard Dean's Presidential campaign kick-off speech here:
"THE GREAT AMERICAN RESTORATION"
http://www.deanforamerica.com/docs/GreatAmericanRestoration.pdf
"YOU have the power!"
- - - - - Howard Dean Declararation Rally - Photo by Jim Brayton - Burlington, Vt. 6-23-03
See former Vt. Governor Howard Dean's Presidential campaign kick-off speech here:
"THE GREAT AMERICAN RESTORATION"
http://www.deanforamerica.com/docs/GreatAmericanRestoration.pdf
- - - - - Howard Dean Declararation Rally - Photo by Jim Brayton - Burlington, Vt. 6-23-03
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A God for Bloggers -
Ralph Waldo Emerson
by blogger Christopher Lydon
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/2003/06/21#a131
Adding one of my own favorites by Emerson:
"The Bohemian Myth"
In many forms we try
To utter God's infinity
But the boundless hath no form
And the Universal friend
Doth as far transcend
An angel as a worm.
The great Idea baffles wit
Language falters under it
It leaves the learned in the lurch
Nor art nor power nor toil can find
The measure of the eternal mind
Nor hymn nor prayer nor church.
* * * * * * * * * *
A God for Bloggers -
Ralph Waldo Emerson
by blogger Christopher Lydon
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/2003/06/21#a131
Adding one of my own favorites by Emerson:
"The Bohemian Myth"
In many forms we try
To utter God's infinity
But the boundless hath no form
And the Universal friend
Doth as far transcend
An angel as a worm.
The great Idea baffles wit
Language falters under it
It leaves the learned in the lurch
Nor art nor power nor toil can find
The measure of the eternal mind
Nor hymn nor prayer nor church.
* * * * * * * * * *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A definitive article from The New Republic-essential to those who care about Bush's alarming and criminal exaggerative admonitions about Iraq.
(Oooo--I'm trying so hard not to say "lies"..yikes...I went and said it again!)
THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR.
The First Casualty
by John B. Judis & Spencer Ackerman
"..'The democratic processes ... are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public.'
..If anything, this principle has grown even more important since September 11, 2001...."
"It is up to the president and his administration....to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war.
That is exactly what the Bush administration did when it sought to convince the public and Congress that the United States should go to war with Iraq..."
A definitive article from The New Republic-essential to those who care about Bush's alarming and criminal exaggerative admonitions about Iraq.
(Oooo--I'm trying so hard not to say "lies"..yikes...I went and said it again!)
THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR.
The First Casualty
by John B. Judis & Spencer Ackerman
"..'The democratic processes ... are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public.'
..If anything, this principle has grown even more important since September 11, 2001...."
"It is up to the president and his administration....to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war.
That is exactly what the Bush administration did when it sought to convince the public and Congress that the United States should go to war with Iraq..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
From: Washington Post
WELL---- DUH!
This is the problem with the media.
This story could have come out BEFORE the war.
It's no wonder the polls prove so often that the public is so misinformed!
This proves an important point. Journalists should INDEED watch what they say..
and they should say it often and not be afraid of what they are watching themselves saying!!!
Stop giving this administration a Teflon-coated free pass!
Yes, Washington Post---this intelligence information was classified...and you were too afraid to talk about your gnawing doubt about the truth
of the lack of evidence regarding the Iraq-AlQaeda connection BEFORE the war....when it really would have counted.
Excerpt:
"In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda.
A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report."
Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
From: Washington Post
WELL---- DUH!
This is the problem with the media.
This story could have come out BEFORE the war.
It's no wonder the polls prove so often that the public is so misinformed!
This proves an important point. Journalists should INDEED watch what they say..
and they should say it often and not be afraid of what they are watching themselves saying!!!
Stop giving this administration a Teflon-coated free pass!
Yes, Washington Post---this intelligence information was classified...and you were too afraid to talk about your gnawing doubt about the truth
of the lack of evidence regarding the Iraq-AlQaeda connection BEFORE the war....when it really would have counted.
Excerpt:
"In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda.
A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional sources who have read the report."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting blogstats
http://www.daypop.com/cached?q=link:iddybud.blogspot.com/&url=http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/interestingblogs.html&time=20030622193631
http://www.myelin.co.nz/ecosystem/
Interesting blogstats
http://www.daypop.com/cached?q=link:iddybud.blogspot.com/&url=http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/interestingblogs.html&time=20030622193631
http://www.myelin.co.nz/ecosystem/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review- Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1056050270.php
USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review- Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1056050270.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~
An article by Ron Brownstein from June 21- Centrists Losing Ground in Democratic Tug of War -shows that the act of blurring differences between Republicans and Democrats may have worked for Bill Clinton, but it's not going to fly in 2004. It's nothing more than piss-warm political pablum. We need a giant step forward if we're going to once again recognize the America for which our forefathers fought and died. Bush has really shown us what hard right looks like. Why would we want to remain anywhere close to that perilous tilt with a "new" Democrat?
I mean, come on, DLC... Bush is Hitleresque-- without the mass genocide...oh--and also without the mustache. Who needs genocide when Americans are malleable and complacent? Why the hell would the DLC want to play into the politics of hard right? If you show the American people that you understand what American democracy means and point out the naked Texas emperor at every opportunity, the American people will "get it". The DLC seems to have NOT so much lost faith in their OWN
once-closely held principles....more alarmingly, they've lost faith in the American people's ability to think for themselves...a misjudgement that will either be their undoing...or American democracy's undoing if the people don't wake up.
Here is another great opinion on the topic from the Memphis Flyer website:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/onthefly/onthefly_new.asp?ID=2434
"The Democratic Party may have had all the “moderate” it can stand. There’s nothing “moderate” about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, a larger agenda of fundamentally changing the role of government is taking place in Washington, and no one is doing anything to stop it.
The problem isn’t that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. They are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side - not to mention directly in the middle of mainstream America."
.
An article by Ron Brownstein from June 21- Centrists Losing Ground in Democratic Tug of War -shows that the act of blurring differences between Republicans and Democrats may have worked for Bill Clinton, but it's not going to fly in 2004. It's nothing more than piss-warm political pablum. We need a giant step forward if we're going to once again recognize the America for which our forefathers fought and died. Bush has really shown us what hard right looks like. Why would we want to remain anywhere close to that perilous tilt with a "new" Democrat?
I mean, come on, DLC... Bush is Hitleresque-- without the mass genocide...oh--and also without the mustache. Who needs genocide when Americans are malleable and complacent? Why the hell would the DLC want to play into the politics of hard right? If you show the American people that you understand what American democracy means and point out the naked Texas emperor at every opportunity, the American people will "get it". The DLC seems to have NOT so much lost faith in their OWN
once-closely held principles....more alarmingly, they've lost faith in the American people's ability to think for themselves...a misjudgement that will either be their undoing...or American democracy's undoing if the people don't wake up.
Here is another great opinion on the topic from the Memphis Flyer website:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/onthefly/onthefly_new.asp?ID=2434
"The Democratic Party may have had all the “moderate” it can stand. There’s nothing “moderate” about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, a larger agenda of fundamentally changing the role of government is taking place in Washington, and no one is doing anything to stop it.
The problem isn’t that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. They are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side - not to mention directly in the middle of mainstream America."
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ann Coulter starts blogging today.
Duck!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-ann.php
Ann Coulter starts blogging today.
Duck!
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-ann.php
Sunday, June 22, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Rockefeller is a wimp...and other assorted stories....
"On Friday, senators on the intelligence committee cut a deal that lets "a thorough review" — i.e. a Republican whitewash — go forward into whether the spy community ginned up prewar intelligence. The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.
Open, closed, who cares? Congress is looking in the wrong place. They're scrutinizing those who gathered the intelligence, rather than those who pushed to distort it."
Maureen Dowd
Where Are WMDs? Where's Congress?
*Apparently, Congress is far, far more worried about polls and re-election than they are about
the American people's damaged trust in the administration's decision to send of nearly 200 American troops to their death in Iraq.*
Is anyone out there losing faith in Congress to represent the best interest of
democracy and the interest of the American people.....or is it just me?!
Jay Rockefeller is a wimp...and other assorted stories....
"On Friday, senators on the intelligence committee cut a deal that lets "a thorough review" — i.e. a Republican whitewash — go forward into whether the spy community ginned up prewar intelligence. The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.
Open, closed, who cares? Congress is looking in the wrong place. They're scrutinizing those who gathered the intelligence, rather than those who pushed to distort it."
Maureen Dowd
Where Are WMDs? Where's Congress?
*Apparently, Congress is far, far more worried about polls and re-election than they are about
the American people's damaged trust in the administration's decision to send of nearly 200 American troops to their death in Iraq.*
Is anyone out there losing faith in Congress to represent the best interest of
democracy and the interest of the American people.....or is it just me?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My letter to General Wesley Clark:
Dear General Clark,
I am very impressed with your recent comments about your own view of leadership in America. I have the utmost respect for you and I wish you success in any decision you choose to make regarding a run for the Presidency. I believe you would make a fine President.
The world has drastically changed since the 9-11 attack.
In my opinion, President Bush had a SOLID golden opportunity to bring the entire world to a better understanding of America and the average American's courage and determination to be united resolutely after the once-unimagineable terrorist attack on our own soil.
We realize there has long been anti-American sentiment overseas...especially in the Middle East.
Today, that anti-American sentiment has increased a thousandfold.
I often wonder... how could this have happened?
The answer leads me to understand the principles of what America leadership should NOT be.
An American leader should not drive the good will of the world away from his already gravely-misunderstood people, especially in times of the greatest sorrow-- in an aftermath of a senseless suicide attack which takes the lives of 3000 of his people.
An American leader would take pains to maintain the semblance of open government after such a heinous attack. An American leader would not create an impression that he had something to hide by shutting out victims' families when they ask myriad reasonable questions and plead for an independent investigation.
An American leader would not use questionable/dubious intelligence information to convince the American public that an
elective war was necessary. An American leader would not use that same dubious intelligence information as part of his State of the Union address. An American leader would not give a different reason almost every day in his lead-up to a preemptive attack on another nation; instead he would give clear, passionate, concise reasons...otherwise, he might expect the American public to wonder why he changed his mind so often.
An American leader would foster the spirit of freedom in every way..especially free speech. Dissent should not be something about which citizens are made to be fearful as they are told they'd best be "careful of what they say..."
An American leader would use the Miltary with the greatest of care, consideration, and discernment.
An American leader might realize that a "war on terror" is potentially an eternal war. Hatred has not been eradicated since the dawn of mankind. An American leader might be viewed as a war-opportunist if he uses the "war on terror" as a reason for any war toward which he elects to adventure.
An American leader would understand that the trust of his people means EVERYTHING. That American leader might have been expected to have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now..especially if we look back upon all that immediacy and certainty in which citizen-trust was fiercely engendered by the current administration before the Iraq war began.
We were "led" to believe. Now we are not quite so sure.
We won't be so trusting in the future.
We need a leader we can trust.
We need a leader who is not afraid to open his door and show us that he means what he says...and that he does what he does because he has sound reason for it!
We need a leader who has a political agenda which fosters freedom of speech amongst all citizens and sends a far more solid democratic message.
We need a leader who does not obviously want to systematically starve the economic life out of Social Security.
We need a leader that will not fraudulently attempt to connect AlQaeda with a foreign government any and every time he wishes to change that government's regime.
Honesty means everything.
The current American leader has failed to promote basic respect and diplomacy in the world. I realize the task was monumental after 9-11, but an American leader should not have alienated the good will of so much of the world after such an attack. It seems that most of the world should have been directly by our side..a truly good leader would not have rested until it was so.
General Clark, I truly believe you are an honest man.
I hope you enter the political arena.
You would be a fine American leader.
Jude
http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/board/viewtopic.asp?forumid=6&id=7&page=3
_________________________
My letter to General Wesley Clark:
Dear General Clark,
I am very impressed with your recent comments about your own view of leadership in America. I have the utmost respect for you and I wish you success in any decision you choose to make regarding a run for the Presidency. I believe you would make a fine President.
The world has drastically changed since the 9-11 attack.
In my opinion, President Bush had a SOLID golden opportunity to bring the entire world to a better understanding of America and the average American's courage and determination to be united resolutely after the once-unimagineable terrorist attack on our own soil.
We realize there has long been anti-American sentiment overseas...especially in the Middle East.
Today, that anti-American sentiment has increased a thousandfold.
I often wonder... how could this have happened?
The answer leads me to understand the principles of what America leadership should NOT be.
An American leader should not drive the good will of the world away from his already gravely-misunderstood people, especially in times of the greatest sorrow-- in an aftermath of a senseless suicide attack which takes the lives of 3000 of his people.
An American leader would take pains to maintain the semblance of open government after such a heinous attack. An American leader would not create an impression that he had something to hide by shutting out victims' families when they ask myriad reasonable questions and plead for an independent investigation.
An American leader would not use questionable/dubious intelligence information to convince the American public that an
elective war was necessary. An American leader would not use that same dubious intelligence information as part of his State of the Union address. An American leader would not give a different reason almost every day in his lead-up to a preemptive attack on another nation; instead he would give clear, passionate, concise reasons...otherwise, he might expect the American public to wonder why he changed his mind so often.
An American leader would foster the spirit of freedom in every way..especially free speech. Dissent should not be something about which citizens are made to be fearful as they are told they'd best be "careful of what they say..."
An American leader would use the Miltary with the greatest of care, consideration, and discernment.
An American leader might realize that a "war on terror" is potentially an eternal war. Hatred has not been eradicated since the dawn of mankind. An American leader might be viewed as a war-opportunist if he uses the "war on terror" as a reason for any war toward which he elects to adventure.
An American leader would understand that the trust of his people means EVERYTHING. That American leader might have been expected to have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now..especially if we look back upon all that immediacy and certainty in which citizen-trust was fiercely engendered by the current administration before the Iraq war began.
We were "led" to believe. Now we are not quite so sure.
We won't be so trusting in the future.
We need a leader we can trust.
We need a leader who is not afraid to open his door and show us that he means what he says...and that he does what he does because he has sound reason for it!
We need a leader who has a political agenda which fosters freedom of speech amongst all citizens and sends a far more solid democratic message.
We need a leader who does not obviously want to systematically starve the economic life out of Social Security.
We need a leader that will not fraudulently attempt to connect AlQaeda with a foreign government any and every time he wishes to change that government's regime.
Honesty means everything.
The current American leader has failed to promote basic respect and diplomacy in the world. I realize the task was monumental after 9-11, but an American leader should not have alienated the good will of so much of the world after such an attack. It seems that most of the world should have been directly by our side..a truly good leader would not have rested until it was so.
General Clark, I truly believe you are an honest man.
I hope you enter the political arena.
You would be a fine American leader.
Jude
http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/board/viewtopic.asp?forumid=6&id=7&page=3
_________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the conservative handbook of how to respond to a post from a moderate,
liberal or anyone with whom you disagree.
1. Don't do any research yourself. Demand the poster provide verifiable
proof.
2. If proof is provided attack the source or author of the "proof." The
source or author can be dismissed by referring to their sexual orientation
or calling their patriotism into question. Name calling is allowed as long
as it invokes an emotional response from the poster causing them to divert
from the facts.
If this does not work:
3. Attack the umbrella organization where the "proof" was located. Refer to
the newspaper or organization (ACLU, ADL, NOW, etc.) as not being
communists, homosexual or traitorous. Make baseless accusations the poster
will have to defend. Remember: don't do ANY research. It takes no time to
make a baseless accusation. If the poster is able to defend the source and
umbrella organization, ignore the proof and go to the next step or go to
step 6 depending on the amount of time you want to waste.
4. Counter the facts with your opinions. NEVER EVER provide any
contradictory sources of argument since the poster can easily turn the
tables at this point and you will have to defend your sources. Remember
don't get caught up in the facts.
If this does not work:
5. Attack the poster. The purpose of this action is get the poster off the
subject and forget about the facts of the original post. Name calling is in
order. Remember sexual innuendo is the best weapon.
If this does not work:
6. State flatly you don't believe anything they have written. Demand more
proof and keep demanding more proof. When the poster no longer responds you
have WON the argument!!!! Don't worry if they add you to their kill file.
Wear it like a badge of HONOR.
From the conservative handbook of how to respond to a post from a moderate,
liberal or anyone with whom you disagree.
1. Don't do any research yourself. Demand the poster provide verifiable
proof.
2. If proof is provided attack the source or author of the "proof." The
source or author can be dismissed by referring to their sexual orientation
or calling their patriotism into question. Name calling is allowed as long
as it invokes an emotional response from the poster causing them to divert
from the facts.
If this does not work:
3. Attack the umbrella organization where the "proof" was located. Refer to
the newspaper or organization (ACLU, ADL, NOW, etc.) as not being
communists, homosexual or traitorous. Make baseless accusations the poster
will have to defend. Remember: don't do ANY research. It takes no time to
make a baseless accusation. If the poster is able to defend the source and
umbrella organization, ignore the proof and go to the next step or go to
step 6 depending on the amount of time you want to waste.
4. Counter the facts with your opinions. NEVER EVER provide any
contradictory sources of argument since the poster can easily turn the
tables at this point and you will have to defend your sources. Remember
don't get caught up in the facts.
If this does not work:
5. Attack the poster. The purpose of this action is get the poster off the
subject and forget about the facts of the original post. Name calling is in
order. Remember sexual innuendo is the best weapon.
If this does not work:
6. State flatly you don't believe anything they have written. Demand more
proof and keep demanding more proof. When the poster no longer responds you
have WON the argument!!!! Don't worry if they add you to their kill file.
Wear it like a badge of HONOR.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI: A link to retired General Wesley Clark's website
WES CLARK
"Leadership for America is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America’s future. Through a wide range of activities, the organization aims to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today..."
FYI: A link to retired General Wesley Clark's website
WES CLARK
"Leadership for America is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America’s future. Through a wide range of activities, the organization aims to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Weblogs At Harvard Law
Hosted by: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
What makes a weblog a weblog?
Fri, May 23, 2003; by Dave Winer.
From: Weblogs At Harvard Law
Hosted by: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
What makes a weblog a weblog?
Fri, May 23, 2003; by Dave Winer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Democrats.com
The proposition (posted on the "2004 President forum") was this:
"Lets join together and urge Hillary Clinton to run for the Democratic nod. You can help in this effort by signing the following petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hillary/petition.html"
********** ********** ********* ************
Here is my contribution to the discussion..which can be found at:
http://community.democrats.com/forums/topics.cfm?forumid=48
"I think Esther had a very good point. We shouldn't have to be prodding our candidates to run.
If they are truly passionate about 2004...the most important election in history for the LIFEBLOOD of democracy...
then they should be QUITE clear and committed by now.
I admire Hillary Clinton; I think she could make a good President. I have to say, with all honesty, that I don't understand her support of the Iraq resolution. Also, her coy allusion to potentially running in 2008 only leads me to believe she doesn't CARE what happens this next election....and that greatly disturbs me.
I ask myself..would Hillary rather wait until a politically convenient time for herself....and secretly hope the
2004 Democrat fails to win? Perhaps that is not true, but I cannot stop myself from constantly asking
myself the very question.
After close consideration, I have decided to back Howard Dean.
He is a man of great passion, compatible ideology, and in the most reasonably pragmatic sense...electable.
*Unless you let the media tell you he's not.*
After watching a CSPAN poll yesterday where a question was asked: "Who do you THINK will win in 2004?"..I heard one too many Democrats stating that they HOPED a Dem would win (many mentioned Howard Dean), but that they THOUGHT it would be Bush.
This showed me that there is a lack of faith amongst Democrats.
Where are the true believers?
When you have entertainment cable news telling you what a groovy guy Bush is and how the Dems don't have a prayer in 2004...and when you start believing that...then I think you've lost faith in that for which the Democratic party stands.
It's time to get a shot of the "religion" back into the Democratic party. (Ideologically speaking).
I think Howard Dean is passionate and might just make believers of us once again.
There's no harm in pleading for Hillary to run....just understand that she seems to want to wait to see what happens in 2004...and that should dismay you if you really want to see Bush ousted.
Jude"
__________
Howard Dean did a great job on Meet the Press this morning.
He didn't let Tim Russert get him flustered or make him appear ineligible to be a potential military
Commander-in-Chief for not being able to recite military statistics..nice try, Tim/NBC!
Howard Dean also didn't let the partisan lying Treasury Department statistics stand in his way of explaining exactly how and why Bush's tax cuts
will need to be repealed. Nice try, Bush administration!
From Democrats.com
The proposition (posted on the "2004 President forum") was this:
"Lets join together and urge Hillary Clinton to run for the Democratic nod. You can help in this effort by signing the following petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hillary/petition.html"
********** ********** ********* ************
Here is my contribution to the discussion..which can be found at:
http://community.democrats.com/forums/topics.cfm?forumid=48
"I think Esther had a very good point. We shouldn't have to be prodding our candidates to run.
If they are truly passionate about 2004...the most important election in history for the LIFEBLOOD of democracy...
then they should be QUITE clear and committed by now.
I admire Hillary Clinton; I think she could make a good President. I have to say, with all honesty, that I don't understand her support of the Iraq resolution. Also, her coy allusion to potentially running in 2008 only leads me to believe she doesn't CARE what happens this next election....and that greatly disturbs me.
I ask myself..would Hillary rather wait until a politically convenient time for herself....and secretly hope the
2004 Democrat fails to win? Perhaps that is not true, but I cannot stop myself from constantly asking
myself the very question.
After close consideration, I have decided to back Howard Dean.
He is a man of great passion, compatible ideology, and in the most reasonably pragmatic sense...electable.
*Unless you let the media tell you he's not.*
After watching a CSPAN poll yesterday where a question was asked: "Who do you THINK will win in 2004?"..I heard one too many Democrats stating that they HOPED a Dem would win (many mentioned Howard Dean), but that they THOUGHT it would be Bush.
This showed me that there is a lack of faith amongst Democrats.
Where are the true believers?
When you have entertainment cable news telling you what a groovy guy Bush is and how the Dems don't have a prayer in 2004...and when you start believing that...then I think you've lost faith in that for which the Democratic party stands.
It's time to get a shot of the "religion" back into the Democratic party. (Ideologically speaking).
I think Howard Dean is passionate and might just make believers of us once again.
There's no harm in pleading for Hillary to run....just understand that she seems to want to wait to see what happens in 2004...and that should dismay you if you really want to see Bush ousted.
Jude"
__________
Howard Dean did a great job on Meet the Press this morning.
He didn't let Tim Russert get him flustered or make him appear ineligible to be a potential military
Commander-in-Chief for not being able to recite military statistics..nice try, Tim/NBC!
Howard Dean also didn't let the partisan lying Treasury Department statistics stand in his way of explaining exactly how and why Bush's tax cuts
will need to be repealed. Nice try, Bush administration!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)