You can stop emailing me this Abraham Lincoln quote explaining to me that I am wrong for thinking censure for Durbin is a bit much:
“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
Now, I take the War on Terror seriously, which is part of the reason I think we should have a coherent policy towards the detainees, as I think the current situation is doing us little good. But unless I missed out on the slavery, the secession thing, the brothers shooting each other bit, and the whole Atlanta on fire escapade, this isn’t the Civil War. Things are just a touch different now, and a touch different in this little Dick Durbin flare-up:
Of course, Lincoln defined a “saboteur” as virtually anyone who disagreed with his politics and policies and subsequently ordered the military to arrest literally tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of opposition newspaper editors.
Both “Lincoln scholars” and neocon political activists typically take Lincoln at his word and seek no other definitions of treason or sabotage. To Lincoln, criticizing him or his administration amounted to “warring upon the military.” And according to Waller, these words “apply to some lawmakers today,” even though these lawmakers insist that they are opposing the Bush war policy “to support the troops.”
Exhibit A in the neocon case for imprisoning political opponents is Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, who was forcefully taken from his Dayton, Ohio home in the middle of the night by 67 armed federal soldiers, thrown into a military prison without due process, convicted by a military tribunal, and deported. One place to read about Vallandigham is in Lincoln
Stormy70
Censure? No. But he should lose his leadership position. That is all.
And now,I have about twenty Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes on my Tivo to watch.Good night, all.
Mike S
Somehow I don’t think the current GOP would have any problem with this. If they could jail the opposition they would. Too many don’t think the founding ideals of this country are worth the paper they’re writen on.
History will not be kind to this period of the Republic.
Mark
Kevin Drum asks what I think is an interesting question: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006534.php
The Sanity Inspector
“Only rhetoric”? No. The sight of the leader of the opposition saying his own country’s troops are of a piece with Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot will resonate with our foreign enemies. Especially those enemies who are nominally our friends.
Far North
This is how the debate seems to go now:
1)Someone criticizes the Bush policy, this time the Gitmo detainee operation
2)Conservative righteous indignation explodes, only not over the issue of our Gitmo detainee policy, but the manner in which someone described it.
3)Conservatives end up attacking the messenger, who dared to speak out against Bush policy, with absurd demands, this time censure. Anyone who even remotely defends the messenger gives aid and comfort to the enemy and wants to see America lose.
Too many conservatives here are defending the indefensible. First, it’s deny. Then it’s excuse and justify. Then it’s attack the messenger. and label anyone that opposes you as unpatriotic traitors just like (drum roll please) that party from Germany from the 1930s.
Deny. Excuse. Justify. Attack. Deny. Excuse Justify Attack.
Repeat steps 1 thru 4.
James Emerson
I applaud Durbin for his leadership and his willingness to speak truth to power, even if the truth is tainted with evil. He should be promoted for bravery in the face of a vicious rightwing attack machine. Obviously, he is a consummate politician who understands the effect his words will have on both his supporters and enemies. Above all, he should continue his barrage of image laden words. This is a fight about the facts, but facts have no life when presented dull and dessicated. The rhetorical battle is won by bold imagery. Words have meaning, but some words invoke fear and loathing, and these are the words that are the most effective against an enemy who has mastered the use of fear and loathing to pursue a narrow political agenda.
Sojourner
Hopefully, this is just one of what will be many indications that the Dems are finally growing some.
ppgaz
I posted this to the preceeding thread in the series, so if reposting one’s own stuff is verboten, please delete the earlier one. I can’t say this another way, and it goes with this thread:
You know, the “hurt the troops” meme is wearing pretty thin. It’s completely dishonest, and manipulative.
The way to support the troops, in this context, is to give them proper leadership and run a humane and dignified detention operation.
The way to support the troops is NOT to spin every legitimate criticism of the conduct of these operations into cotton candy.
Dysfunctional operations are symptomatic of leadership that doesn’t know, or hasn’t been given to know, what its mission is and what the standards are, and why.
Neither Durbin, nor Al Jazeera, would have anything to bitch about it these operations were being properly conducted. The civilian potatohead leadership in the Pentagon and White House chose the situation we have now. I can’t see any benefit to it whatever. Why these detainees cannot have representation, have charges specified against them, have independent review of their treatment and have at least the same treatment that we’d accord an accused murderer in the civilian system, is beyond me. I am not so afraid of terrorists that I have to lock them away and throw away the key in order to protect myself from them. I’ve shared the world with terrorists for half a century now, I do not quake in my shoes.
If the detainee situation is appropriate, then let the people who run these programs come forth and prove it with facts and with shining some daylight on these operations. Every time they hide behind somebody else’s uniform and cry “foul”, I am more convinced than ever that they are not being forthcoming. I think THEY are hurting not only the troops, but the country, by giving every appearance of running a corrupt program here and providing more ammunition to America-haters, while at the same time, openly mocking genuine concern and legitimate inquiry. These are not the actions of good people, these are the actions of incompetant people who want to beat down any exposure of what they are doing. If they are doing good things, then let’s see them. Let the whole world see them.
Mr.Ortiz
John, it pains me to say this, but you seem to be suggesting that Lincoln’s word is not the word of God. This must mean you’re pro-slavery, just as anyone who criticizes Bush is pro-terrorist. Please amend your statements to state, as patronizingly as possible, that you do not support slavery, or I will be forced to stop reading your blog.
Josh
“or I will be forced to stop reading your blog”
That’s the one that went too far. Now retract your comment, or I will be forced to stop reading your comments.
SomeCallMeTim
This can’t be good for troop morale: Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry…. “Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” Hagel tells U.S. News. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”(cite).
CENSURE CHUCK HAGEL! CENSURE HIM NOW!
Dean Esmay
What I find intellectually dishonest, and despicable, is the constant refrain from those on the left who claim that every vile accusation levelled at our troops equates to “criticizing the Administration.”
If you want to criticize a POLICY, then NAME THAT POLICY, and say WHAT YOU WANT DONE DIFFERENTLY. Don’t pretend that calling our troops torturers, Nazis, gulag-runners, etc. and pretend that that’s “criticizing Bush.” No, it isn’t, it’s criticizing our people on the ground.
“Our military prisons are being run badly–President Bush should order X, Y, and Z to be done immediately.” That’s criticizing the administration and/or its policies. Saying we’re running a gulag is simply obscene.
Dean Esmay
To get back to the subject: I don’t see anything wrong with censuring a member of Congress for making outrageous comments and remarks that damages the body as a whole, or the Republic. Senator Joe McCarthy was censured for exactly that: speaking out against what he believed was a widespread communist infiltration of our government.
Do I think Durbin should be censured? Nah. Not unless he keeps saying daft, hateful things. But in principle, someone who constantly and regularly says this about our troops? Yeah I’d censure him.
And by the way, since when does criticizing a politician, a member of congress, equate to jaul the opposition? Give me a break. Tell me, are Bush critics the kind of people who “would jail the opposition if they could?” Grow the fuck up. Durbin can say whatever stupid shit he wants, and the rest of us can criticize him all we want, and the dark allusions about such criticisms leading to a police state are paranoid drivil.
Dean Esmay
“Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” Hagel tells U.S. News. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”
Nothing offensive about that, whether it was said by a Democrat or a Republican. I mean, it’s wrong, but there’s nothing inherently outrageous and offensive about it.
Indeed, it is a perfect example of what “criticizing the administration’s policies” actually looks like–as opposed to comparing our people on the ground to Nazi and Stalinist monsters. I mean, seriously, what are you people going to do if someone actually starts acting like a Nazi or a Stalinist?
ppgaz
“Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” Hagel tells U.S. News. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.”
Nothing offensive about that, whether it was said by a Democrat or a Republican. I mean, it’s wrong, but there’s nothing inherently outrageous and offensive about it.
WTF? Most Americans have figured out that the war might be a mistake. Most of the citizens of the Western world outside of the US had it figured out a long time ago. However ….
The real crux of this matter is this: What do you think the odds are that the United States will leave Iraq in the forseeable future, leaving behind a stable, liberal democracy that is friendly to the United States and/or its interests? And, in what year will this happen?
Try not to stir up gales of laughter with your answer. I’d be surprised if even half of the officials in the US Government believe that the above-described outcome is even a 50-50 proposition. What did you say “winning” was, again? Take your time, there’s no hurry to answer.
But, let’s revise and extend our inquiry. What do you think those odds were calculated to be by the potatoheads in the White House, say, three years ago? And once you have your answer to that one, try this one: On what … history, empirical data … what … were those conlcusions based? What planning was put into effect to accomplish that outcome? How does the current situation diff against that plan?
On the basis of what comic book logic do you assert that the above-referenced statement is “wrong”? Why is it that a dogmatic party in charge of every instrument of government, and in the benevolent lens of a cowed and impotent press, can’t sell that idea to the public?
Or, did I misunderstand your remark?
Nash
I call Bloggerhea on that reasoning!
How many other readers think that had Hagel’s words been uttered by a Democrat, they would not be attacked as offensive, outrageous, and an attack on the troops?
Anyone?
Dean Esmay
Those who believe the operation is failing are mostly guilty of not knowing much history, or much about military matters. In most measurable ways, Iraq is already in better shape than Japan or Germany were at this point after World War II. Our casualty rate remains the lowest of any large-scaled armed conflict we’ve ever engaged in, most of the country is on board with democracy, and the only really troubling population is the minority Sunni population. Meanwhile, slowly but surely, Iraqis are handling more and more of their own security. Nevertheless, I fully expect the United States to still be in Iraq 10, 20, even 30 years hence, much like we are still in Japan and Korea and Germany. I view that as a good thing.
Nash
That was in response to Esmay, not you ppgaz. I agree with you–just didn’t know there’d be any steely-eyed souls here at this time of night.
Dean Esmay
How many other readers think that had Hagel’s words been uttered by a Democrat, they would not be attacked as offensive, outrageous, and an attack on the troops?
I certainly would not label them outrageous, offensive, or an attack on the troops. Nor do I think our host Mr. Cole would. Indeed, I would have to ask: can you find me an example of any prominent defender of the administration’s Iraq policies in the last year who’s accused a Democrat of being “outrageous, offensive, and attacking the troops” for merely saying “we’re losing the Iraq operation?” I can’t remember any.
Mind you, I would consider such sentiments defeatist, ill-informed, shallow, lacking in any sensible historic or military knowledge. But outrageous? Nope. Just dumb. And wrong.
Nash
How’s about we have another one of them referendum thingies put to the country to see how the American citizens feel about still being in Iraq in the year 2035? I know, we could even call it a presidential election!
You can even run the 527 that has the title: “Having US troops permanently stationed in permanent bases in Iraq is a good thing” to drum up support!
Let’s run it up the flagpole, what say?
John Cole
I say everyone Larry Moe and Cheese it on this topic until tomorrow.
I just spent 20 minutes cleaning cat vomit off the couch (sister’s damned diabetic cat ishere again for the weekend) and don’t have the energy to argue.
Nash
I think you are probably accurate in describing Mr. Cole’s response, although that’s up to him to decide. And I believe you are being honest about your own reaction, Dean. But I believe you are being disingenuous or just sadly mistaken about whether the people in the positions of attention grabbing would go off on that jag. I’m confident, because it has already happened. Repeatedly. A lot. Every time. For exactly those words.
“President doesn’t know what he’s doing.” “We are losing the war.” “Administration doesn’t have any plans.”
These are examples of statements that have gotten their speakers crucified by President Bush and or Vice President Cheney and or Scott McClellan and or Sean Hannity and or Rush Limbaugh and or and or and or and or ad infinitum.
You are correct about you and probably one other person. You are demonstrably wrong about most everyone else, because they have a long history of reacting in an almost verbatim fashion to this sort of rhetoric. Ask our host.
Nash
Will do.
(I just had to dose eyeballs with antibiotics for 3 cats. Does that count for any sympathy?)
Dean Esmay
We don’t need a national referendum. It’s what we hold elections for. We didn’t have, or need, any such referendums in the cases of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Kosovo, etc., either.
As for people being called traitors just because they say we’re losing: I’ve been covering the war for three and a half years, and while I rarely pay much attention to what chowderheads like Sean Hannity say, I have seen very few cases where someone simply saying we’re losing or that the war is wrong are branded traitors. And I’m one of those, y’know, nasty insideous rightwingdeathmachine “warbloggers” and I read lots and lots and lots of war commentary from lots and lots and lots of sides.
SamAm
We don’t need a censure either, and I need not say why.
Far North
No politician that I can recall has ever been held to a lower standard for success than George W. Bush. From a purely political perspective, just think about how easy it is to be president is the “post 9/11 world”.
It truly was easy to invade Afganistan and drive out the Taliban. It was one of the easier victories for the American military, along the lines of Grenada and Panama. Bush was hailed as the avenger of an angry America.
It was truly easy to convince Americans to follow the lead of the President as he declared Iraq part of the axis of evil and drummed up support for war. Every major newspaper in America was spellbound from 9/11.
Low standards.
And we were angry. And we were bitter. And we wanted justice. We wanted the head of the man that that launched the attack. That man was Osama bin Laden. But Bush wanted Saddam’s head more than he wanted bin Laden’s. And it was easy to convince America to go along. We had to hit the middle east. Iraq was in the middle east.
We went into Iraq and beat another 4th rate army. Easily. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier. Bush proudly proclaimed victory. The press annointed Bush “king”.Cameras captured the toppling of Saddam’s statue. Bush beamed with pride.
Low standards.
Osama bin Laden attacked us, and Bush delivered Saddam. “Well done” declared the so-called- liberal-media.
Low standards.
But we weren’t greeted as liberators. Guys in Iraq, the ones that lived there, didn’t like our presence, even though they thought Saddam was a bad guy. Some of them started shooting at our soldiers. Some of them started blowing themselves up around other Iraqis. But Bush was being resolute and would not stray from a free and democratic Iraq. By election time 2004, the insurgency picked up and people were being killed daily.
But so strong was Bush’s leadership in the war on terror that he was reelected. And the operation that Bush declared over from the aircraft carrier in 2003 raged on. Security got worse and worse as Bush’s post war planning was exposed as close to non-existent. Not to worry.
Low standards.
Those purple ink dipped Republican fingers said it all. ELECTIONS IN IRAQ. ALL IS GREAT. ALL HAIL BUSH.
But Iraq got worse. While Republicans were hollering about schools opening, Americans continued to die. And those whom we don’t keep track of kept dying. They would be the Iraqis whom we liberated. They continued to die at an alarming level. But we don’t count them, even though it is for them that we are doing the great deed.
Then June 2005 arrives. No WMDs. Saddam captured. Free elections have already take place. But now what is it? Why do we still have to stay? What is it we still want to accomplish?
Oh, we can’t leave until Iraqis can take over security of their country. You know, provide the type of security we are providing. The kind of security where 50 people are blown up every day.
But the conservative praises the job Bush is doing in Iraq while he whom republicans will not speak of roams free. Osama whiles away the days while Bush basks in the glory of his Iraq adventure. Truly a job well done.
I have a question for DarrellStorm 70. When will we know we’ve won?
Low standards.
Dean Esmay
Nah. George W. Bush is being held to higher standards than any wartime President in history–bar none. He’s being held to WAY higher standards than Roosevelt, or Truman, or Eisenhower, or LBJ or Nixon. The problem is that those saying he’s being held to low standards lack any real historical frame of reference.
You know we never did capture Hitler, and were never sure until just a few years ago exactly what happened to him.
If you want to see a balanced, thoughtful look at the current conflict in Iraq, I suggest you read this piece by Bill Roggio.
KC
Ah Dick Durbin, if only I could read that name one more time.
caleb
After all the righties piling on the lefties for their off base comparisons of the Iraq war, they go and pull this comparison out of their collective arses.
The irony is waaaaaay too much.
LOL!
Rick Moran
Vallandigham did indeed consort with spies from the south which would make him a little less than “anti-secessionist.”
According the Catton in “Glory Road” the Ohio Congressman advocated “negotiations” with the south on the basis of separation.
He was also a scheming, ambitious, foul mouthed lout who wanted the dem nomination in 1864. He also was an obscene race baiter whose tirades against the Emancipation Proclamtion endeared him to dems in Ohio.
Just thought I’d set the record straight…
Rick Moran
Dean:
Sorry…McCarthy was NOT censured for anything he said or alleged. He as censured for obstructing a Senate investigation and a few other things…
It had nothing to do with what he said. Here’s the link:
http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/article_106.shtml
p.lukasiak
Dick Durbin said nothing wrong — of course, wingnuts (and I have to include my host in this, since he made such a fuss about Durbin’s remarks) take Durbin’s remarks out of context, and claim that Durbin was “comparing our troops to Hitler and Pol Pot” — when what he was doing was pointing out that the Bush regime’s treatment of detainees bears no resemblance to America’s image of itself….
The problem is that the Bush regime consistently denies that it practices and condones torture — while all the evidence says that the use of torture is “covert” Bush policy. Its not “a few bad apples” — when two people are beaten to death (one of them innocent) in Afghanistan during “interrogations”, and the government tries to cover it up, and the person who was in charge of “interrogations” in Afghanistan is sent to Iraq where there is an even greater need for “intelligence”, to suggest that the Bush regime isn’t promoting, encouraging, and condoning torture is pure hogwash.
Most importantly, Durbin has had the guts to say what the rest of the world already knows — that the Bush regime has far more in common with history’s worst dictators than it does with America’s concern for human rights and the rule of law. Of course, Bush hasn’t reached the level of depravity of Hitler or Pol Pot — but neither Hitler nor Pol Pot were actings like genocidal maniacs when they started out either — they became genocidal maniacs because nobody in their own nations had the guts and the power to stop them.
Dick Durbin is standing up and saying “this has got to stop before it goes any further” and those who criticize Durbin are the same kind of people who enabled Hitler and Pol Pot to engage in the most heinous crimes against humanity imaginable.
It CAN happen here….
ppgaz
Mr. Esmay, sir, you are a liar.
McCarthy was not censured for “speaking out.”
To wit:
“Resolved, That the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, failed to cooperate with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in clearing up matters referred to that subcommittee which concerned his conduct as a Senator and affected the honor of the Senate and, instead, repeatedly abused the subcommittee and its members who were trying to carry out assigned duties, thereby obstructing the constitutional processes of the Senate, and that this conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, is contrary to senatorial traditions and is hereby condemned.”
—/
McCarthy was censured for repeated and profound abuses of his power as a Senator.
Your subtle but deliberate twistings of the historical record are enough for me to completely disregard any assertion you make on this subject henceforth.
Rick Moran
Uh…excuse me Mr. PPQAZ…liar?
It’s a common misconception that McCarthy was censured for his actions and words. I hardly think that Mr. Esmay’s misstatement rises to the level of “lying.”
Or perhaps you’re more familiar with the practice?
And as for Mr. p.lukasiak:
Your “defense” of Durbin is laughable. By saying that the Bush administration has “far more in common” with these murderous regimes, you descend to Mr. Durbin’s level of historical analogy as insult.
The fact is, Durbin said what he said. No amount of wishful thinking on your part will change the words that came out of his mouth. And when given the opportunity to clarify or even apologize, he posts a defiant, self-serving statement that actually DEFENDS his use of historical analogy.
If he had an ounce of decency, he’d resign. But since one could measure the decency these days in the democratic party in milligrams not ounces, he won’t do the honorable thing.
ppgaz
I’m sorry, are we now rising to the level of “common misperceptions?”
The relevant text can be Googled by an eigth grader in less than two minutes.
Esmay has either never bothered to look it up, or else he is just content to have a Limbaughlian view of the world — that is, made up — and frame everything in that context.
All fine, until we start talking a war which is sapping the military power of this country, costing a fortune, killing thousands of people, and dividing the country …being run by people who apparently, themselves, can’t rise above the level of “common misperceptions” in their planning and conduct of the war.
Common misperceptions are not good enough. Esmay is a liar.
Rick Moran
The fact that you can’t tell the difference between a misstatement and lying only proves you to be a partisan hack.
In order to “lie” one must know the statement they are making is false. Mr. Esmay has never proven himself to be anything but honorable and truthful in his writings. And since neither you nor I am personally acquainted with Mr. Esmay, taking his word at face value would seem to be the rational thing to do.
Who ever acccused a democrat of being “rational?”
ppgaz
Mr. Esmay’s entire thesis here is a series of misstatements.
McCarthy censured for “speaking out?” My grandkids would look it up on Google first, just as a matter of courtesy.
Comparing Iraq to poswar Japan? Three years after the surrender of the empire, Americans were hunkered down in walled safety zones while a violent insurgency, outside the walls, killed dozens of Japanese and a dismaying number of American soldiers on a daily basis? Japan, a country characterized by a commonality of culture that rewards discipline, compared to Iraq, a country whose history is characterized mostly by tribal and religious upheaval?
Esmay is nothing but a bullshit artist. He’s a liar.
Rick
I believe Balloon-Juice guests, in order to be consistent, should demand Durbin’s censure on the grounds that he exhibits greater stupidity than even Rick Santorum, allegedly the gold standard of such.
Cordially…
John Cole
Dick Durbin said nothing wrong — of course, wingnuts
Hunh? I said i wasn;t a big deal, but it was stupid and he queered the debate with it.
Look around. I think I am right.
PPGAZ- Is there the possibility Dean was just, you know, wrong?
ppgaz
Well, sure. In fact, he is demonstrably wrong on almost every point he’s made in this thread.
He reminds of the Bush administration. Well, you know, we were under the common misconception that Iraq was full of WMDs and that Saddam was itching to use them. We were under the common misperception that Saddam had something to do with 9-11.
We’re under the common misperception that global warming is just something dreamed up by tree huggers. We’re under the common misperception that the earth was created in seven days. We’re under the common misperception that Terri Schiavo just needed a little more TLC and she could have written her memoirs.
In the age of talk radio, we can run for office, win, and run the country, all the on the basis of common misconceptions. We can discount science on the basis of misconceptions.
It’s a good ploy, really. Under the “common misconception” rule, nobody need ever be held accountable for anything. If there’s a good outcome, take credit for it. If it’s bad, blame it on somebody else.
I don’t find that this new set of rules is acceptable. I don’t like and I won’t settle for it.
As for Mr. Esmay, if he wants to step forward and withdraw all of the assertions he made which do not stand up to simple factual inquiry, then I’ll withdraw my blast.
It’s a common misconception that I am unresonable.
W.B. Reeves
“In order to “lie” one must know the statement they are making is false.”
Uh, no.
A lie is any false statement made with a reckless disregard for the truth. I’m sure that you would agree that we are all personally responsible for our statements and opinions just as we are for our actions. Otherwise your attacks on Senator Durbin wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense now would they?
I think this is particularly true when the false statement pertains to a matter of historical fact and the person issuing the falsehood has put himself forward as being educated on the subject while claiming that those who disagree are ignorant. Moreover, Esmay’s innacuracy isn’t limited to the question of McCarthy’s censure. Consider the following jewel:
“Those who believe the operation is failing are mostly guilty of not knowing much history, or much about military matters. In most measurable ways, Iraq is already in better shape than Japan or Germany were at this point after World War II.”
Refresh my memory. Exactly how long did we have to fight armed insurgencies in occupied Germany and Japan? A year? Two years? Five years? More? Since Esmay, with his greater mastery of history, assures us that we are doing better in Iraq than in either of the previously mentioned occupations, I’m sure he can tell us.
While we’re at it. Has anyone got the provenance of the supposed Lincoln quote that John’s been receiving via email? I ask because, contra Esmay, I’m a history buff and have read a fair amount about both Lincoln and the Civil War. I’m not familiar with the quote. Doesn’t mean he didn’t say it but as the McCarthy blunder above indicates, anyone can cite history, it doesn’t follow that they know what they’re talking about.
Birkel
Have we really missed the point? I mean, isn’t it really funny that so many Dems were on the wrong side of the Civil War? That’s a position that was pretty clearly wrong given what we know to have happened over the last 140+ years.
Now, Abraham Lincoln may’ve gone overboard with arresting political enemies, but he had much bigger fish to fry. Namely he had to save the Union from a danger that many Dems didn’t fully understand.
Don’t know history? Doomed to repeat it? Sometimes it seems so.
John Cole
Nirkel- If you are done wrapping Bush up in Loncoln, you might look at Lincoln’s views on government and explain how those are conservative.
In other words, Bush ain’t Lincoln, and Democrats then arenot Democrats now.
Birkel
Nohn Cole,
If you are done not getting the joke perhaps you could laugh.
John Cole
I am humor impaired, you know, and I didn’t realize it was supposed to be funny.
Aaron
I am looking forward to a Hillary win in 2008. Then we can watch GOP senators mouth off whatever they want .
moveover.org
Slartibartfast
I have a hunch that a lot reminds you of the Bush administration.
Birkel
W.B. Reeves,
A lie requires knowledge, not recklessness. You’ve selected the wrong standard.
Get a dictionary or at least a dictionary.com.
“”
Birkel
W.B. Reeves,
A lie requires knowledge, not recklessness. You’ve selected the wrong standard.
Get a dictionary or at least a dictionary.com.
1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2)Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Rick
Birkel,
That pretty much nails that Dick Durban.
Cordially…
Birkel
John Cole,
Not funny so much as ironic.
******************************
Sorry for the double post. The first one didn’t have the link to the definition of lie. I didn’t mean to hit “Post” the first time. Whoops.
ppgaz
So, let me see if I have this right. According to the bathosphere, one is not lying if one can later claim not to have known the truth.
Congratulations. This is the standard to which the actions of your government are now held. This is the achivement of the bunch who would “restore honor and integrity” to government. Now, of course, they can say that they really didn’t know what honor and integrity really were; after all, the rule is fluid. Malleable.
You can start a war, or pretty much anything … you can say anything, and mean nothing … you can waltz away from any deception, any spin, any manipulation, as long as you can later claim that you didn’t know exactly what the truth was, or were under a “common misconception.”
This, from the same bunch of potatohoeads who now want to call some pushy rhetoric by a senator “treason”, a crime punishable by death.
Got it. You people really need to go off somewhere and get your act together. You suck.
John Cole
ppgaz- I think lying requires intent, as in intentionally knowing something is false and the propagating it.
Which is why I don’t think Clinton lied about WMD.
ppgaz
Okay, let’s parse away at this until everyone can claim a stake in the ground somewhere.
Let’s parse it all away, but of course, let the wingnuts try to hang “treason” on Durbin.
Once all the parsing is done in the area of what’s a lie and what is not, then please help me parse this term:
Accountability.
Please parse thoroughly and explain to me the general standard that applies to accountability, both for words, and actions.
After it’s all parsed out, please explain to me why I should take the assertions of any potatohead on any subject? The spud is not accountable, and needn’t have any facts …. so, my reason for buying his argment would be ….?
Birkel
ppgaz,
Have you read NYT v. Sullivan? Perhaps you’ve seen the movie “The People vs. Larry Flynt”?
You have to knowingly make a false statement in order to be sued for libel. And you also have to have the intent to deceive. (And of course truth is an absolute defense.)
So we’re not really breaking new ground here with the, you know, dictionary definition of lying. I’m sorry you’ve been using the wrong definition all these years. Perhaps now you can convince other Lefties not to wag the Liar Finger so frequently. It’d be really helpful…
Birkel
ppgaz,
Did you just move the goalposts? Please don’t do that. Just admit that you were wrong and then type something like:
“I was wrong. On another subject I….”
That way we can know when we’re moving to another subject. It’s just helpful for the discourse. (And it might be helpful if you clicked the links I provided before arguing with me about dictionary definitions. Keep that under your cap for next time.)
I’ll gladly talk about ‘accountability’ as soon as it’s clear we’re done with ‘lying’ so be a dear and admit you were wrong.
p.lukasiak
Birkel, if I say
“Birkel is Michael Jackson’s pimp”
am I lying? I don’t know for a fact that you aren’t lying. So I wouldn’t be lying, right?
Mike S
I have a hard time saying President Bush lied. But I do think most can agree that he and his admin mislead us on just how strong the case was. There is a defference between the two. There were a few things, like Condi’s assertion that there could be no other uses for the alum tubes, that could be considered lies. But overall I try to avoid saying President Bush lied.
I don’t think anyone can deny that there was a pretty big campaign to mislead us though.
Darrell
Birkel, if I say “Birkel is Michael Jackson’s pimp” am I lying? I don’t know for a fact that you aren’t lying. So I wouldn’t be lying, right?
Behold the ‘logic’ of the left. Dean Esmay is called a “liar” because he says Joe McCarthey was censured for speaking out on his sincere belief that communists were infiltrating out govt, and this is equivalent, in the deluded little minds of the left, as accusing someone of being M.Jackson’s pimp.
Take a close look at how the left views things. Such intellectual depth, reason, and proportion.
Darrell
Re: claims of Dean Esmay’s “lie” about Joe McCarthy being censured for his beliefs, well technically McCarthy was censured for failing to cooperate with a Senate investigation. But that investigation was a witchhunt organized by McCarthy’s enemies to dig into his private life including digging throught the IRS to obtain tax return data (for which there was no violation of the law). As for McCarthy’s “lack of cooperation” with the investigation, he was NEVER subpoenaed. Some ‘lack of cooperation’, huh? You may disagree with Esmay’s interpretation of history, but his is a reasonable one.. definitely not in the category of a “lie”, except to partisan hacks who want to smear rather than debate
The other count of censure was because McCarthy called the committee investigating him an “unwitting handmaiden of the Communists”..
Wow, for all the ruckus, you would have thought McCarthy had compared our troops with Pol Pot or something
ppgaz
No, Darrell, you are wrong. No Senator has ever been censured for “speaking out” or anything like it.
http://www.fountcom.com/folio/sources/censure.html
I think you’ll need to send up a spreadsheet so that we can keep track of all the various “standards” that you want to apply here.
Standard One: A president can say anything and do anything, because he is president. Citations: Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Reagan. Facts don’t matter, because as we all know, they change with time.
Standard Two: A senator can be accused of “treason” for making a rather innocuous and completely factual remark on the floor of the chamber. The full text is here:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:JBz8wdYi-FEJ:durbin.senate.gov/gitmo.cfm+durbin+remarks+senate+prisoners&hl=en
For the record, I find his remarks factually accurate, and rhetorically sound. What he said was absolutely true, and when read in context, doesn’t sound anything like the Foxnews version of the remark. But of course, we are manufacturing new standards here, so anything goes when it comes to attacking his speech. Warning, trying to parse his full speeck may result in having to deal with the actual substantive issues here, which revolve around treatment of detainees. Doing this may distract from the noise machine which is attempting to take a small sliver of that speech and portray it as “treason” so as to deflect from the truth about these detainees, namely that many of them have been abused, and some killed, because of crappy leadership emanating from Washington, DC, and we must never actually discuss such things in public.
Standard Three: Posters to the blogosphere are held accountable according to a new color chart:
GOP = Green, anything goes
Dem = Red, treason
Yellow = Fence-sitter, wants to “play nice” all the time
Please adjust all your comments accordingly.
Darrell
No, Darrell, you are wrong. No Senator has ever been censured for “speaking out” or anything like it.
Tell me, where did I say that a Senator was ever censured for speaking out? That’s right, I never said it. You simply made that up. I said McCarthy was the victim of a witchhunt against him.. and I backed up that statement with facts and logic.
ppgaz loves to pound on those straw men, because he can’t cope with an honest debate.
ppgaz
Pay attention, Darrell. The sub-thread revolves around Esmay’s contention that McCarthy was censured for “speaking out.”
The entire subtopic hangs on that assertion, and my response to it.
Not everything is about you.
While you are in a fact-checking mood, please read the full text of Durbin’s remarks of the 14th and point out where the factual inaccuracies are, so that we can forward those to his office and ask for correction.
Darrell
Not everything is about you.
From the first two statements of ppgaz’s previous post:
No, Darrell, you are wrong. No Senator has ever been censured for “speaking out” or anything like it.
I think you’ll need to send up a spreadsheet so that we can keep track of all the various “standards” that you want to apply here.
Not about me? Oh my, what a tangled web we weave…
ppgaz
Okay, Darrell, you managed to turn your stream into “is not, is too” repartee. Good for you, well done.
Since you failed on the “censured for speaking out” issue — point mine — would you like to try for some of your meaty discourse on the larger subject?
Which of Durbin’s assertions of fact are incorrect? What is the true, and to me, obvious intent of the “Nazi” remark? That we are Nazis, or that we are a great nation much better than that, and we ought to do something about the detainee situation?
Careful, it’s a trick question.
Rick
Just to be clear, the treatment recounted by Durbin isn’t making my head explode.
The Islamists held at Gitmo are the “cream” of those picked up in Afghan combat operations and sweeps–not Boy Scout jamborees–and they are being subjected to interrogation. The severity of which can escalate to nudity, shaving, female space invaders, witholding toilet access, and pop music.
Next stop, Zyklon B.
The point is, I’m not squeezing out any crocodile tears for these jihadi boys.
If some of you “ality-based” devotees could only learned to consider the Gitmo compound as holding Randall Terry-of-Arabia (and south Asia) cadres, you might then view the situation in a realistic light. Like many Democrats, in fact, do.
But not the Illinois Nazi-equater.
Cordially…
Darrell
Which of Durbin’s assertions of fact are incorrect?
Tell us ppgaz, do you ever get tired of beating on those straw men? Sheesh.. This was NEVER a dispute over ‘assertions of fact’, but about Durbin’s decision to compare US treatment of prisoners at Gitmo with the mass murdering regimes of Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin. *Now* do you see the problem?
f
The problem is with the way we manage Gitmo and treat prisoners, not the way someone described it. Sheesh.
Nash
A Tom DeLay
press release on 5/20/2004
(ironically demonstrates that Democrats are not innocent of the same behavior)
Or:
After Sen. Tom Daschle, during a press conference, said
Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, sent out the a press release titled “Foley Questions Daschle’s Patriotism,” attacking the Senator’s motives. “It looks like his patriotism has gone the way of his majority,”
Dean?
Birkel
p.lukasiak,
No, to answer your question you would not be lying. It is an exaggeration to make a point that nobody would believe is truth. Thus, you do not have the requisite intent to deceive.
On another point: It is obvious from your post that you are unable to form a coherent argument. It’s like you made two points in only one nonsense post neither or which you desired to make.
Fly away little birdie…
Kimmitt
Man, if that isn’t Dashboard Confessional calling Coldplay emo.