DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on March 21, 2007, 04:05:50 PM

Title: A question for the political Right
Post by: Universe Prince on March 21, 2007, 04:05:50 PM

Dinesh D'Souza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza) recently said:

By suggesting that we make common cause with traditional people around the world who share our abhorrence of liberal cultural excess, I am not “blaming America” or taking the side of the Muslims. It would be one thing if we were winning that war and didn’t need new ideas and new tactics. The reality, of course, is that we are not winning and we are desperately in need of both ideas and tactics.

   [...]

The only way to win, I suggest, is to create a new configuration of forces. We must give up on leftists in America and Europe who will never join our side and instead find common cause with the traditional Muslims who share many of our values and can actually help us defeat radical Islam. In fact, as the limits of our military strategy have shown, they are the only ones who can.

Those quotes are from part 4 (http://tinyurl.com/287fpb) of D'Souza's series of columns called "The Closing of the Conservative Mind". The series is his rebuttal to the conservative critics of his book The Enemy at Home.

The question is: Is D'Souza correct? He blames the political left for cultural excesses that contribute to the Muslim world believing itself to be under assault. And so, to make this brief, he says the political right should forget the liberals and make common cause with "traditional Muslims" who are closer in values to American conservatives. Is he right? If so, why?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Amianthus on March 21, 2007, 05:23:45 PM

It's a good point. He may well be correct, let me ruminate on it for a while.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 21, 2007, 05:41:43 PM

I'll need to respond to this, hopefully this evening Prince, when i more time to dwell on the hypothesis.  At 1st glance, my initial thoughts are that he's right.  Now I need to endeavor to understand why that would be my initial respoinse, and if one's initial answer to a question is again usually the right one

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: domer on March 21, 2007, 06:23:25 PM

I don't know how typical I am of the Left in America, being predominantly moderate and all, but DeSousa seems to be trying to steal a march under cover of necessity, when folks like me have been arguing since quite some time back (check it out) that a full-throttle, appropriate initiative aimed at cultural and political intersecting points with the vast, moderate Muslim populace is not only the most effective way to fight this war (for the most part) but also the most humane, which is why I believe Leftists would be attracted to this approach.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 22, 2007, 01:59:06 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on March 21, 2007, 04:05:50 PM

The question is: Is D'Souza correct? He blames the political left for cultural excesses that contribute to the Muslim world believing itself to be under assault. And so, to make this brief, he says the political right should forget the liberals and make common cause with "traditional Muslims" who are closer in values to American conservatives. Is he right? If so, why?

I fear that any answer coming from the "Political Right" will be seen as "obviously biased", by anyone not of the PR, unless it's in some way disagreeing with the author's premice.  But, we can't control that perception now, can we, so let's address that question, and I'll endeavor to give an honest objective answer, that will obviously be coming from a partisan conservative.

The left and right have become so polarized, which has become a large chunk of the country's population, that we'll never see another Reagan victory, where he won 49 out of 50 states.  Apprx 45% of the electorate leans right, 45% of the electorate leans left, and you have the Presidential candidates, once they win their respective primaries sprinting to the center to try and eek out that 2-5% electoral win.  The point being (which I raised in another thread a couple of weeks ago), is we have developed into quite a polarized society.  Now, the RW has been able to distance and minimize it's radical elements (Christian coalition, Falwell, etc.)  Yes, they still have large #'s, and yes their rhetoric is still pretty outlandsih, but for the most part they have very little pull in major policy making.  Some?, yes.  No one's denying they have influence, the point is the amount. 

Now, *Bias alert*, it does appear that not only has the LW accepted many of its radical elements, in many cases they've embraced them.  And of course these acts are embolden by other left leaning socialist minded countries and their peoples, outside of perhaps Australia.  When you have legislators seriously trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, shows you just how far they'll go to silence the right.  So, to think that dialog can be achieved to bring such radical elements together, in the name of taking on radical Islam, I'm going to have to agree with the author, that it can not be achieved from thru some meeting of the minds between the right & the left.  When you see folks like Rosie O'Donell berrating our supposed mistreatment of KSM, and basically laying claim that we're really the bad guys, I think the polarization has become too great.  So a new front is likely a better course of avenue, realizing how the hard core leftists of america & Europe are looking to try and "make peace" with a mindset that wants to kill us for not being Muslim, and will actively protect these malignant militants instead of surgically removing them.  We're likley to achieve better results at taking on militant Islam with the author's suggestion of forging a new coalition with traditional muslims.  If that is doable

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: _JS on March 22, 2007, 12:39:26 PM

Wow. So you agree with the author that the culture war and war on terrorism are related? You think an alliance with the right wing of Islam and the right wing of the United States is a good idea?

Your inability to understand Europe and Islam has been raised to new and bold levels Sirs. Pride and ignorance are a powerful combination.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 22, 2007, 01:16:22 PM

Quote from: _JS on March 22, 2007, 12:39:26 PM

Your inability to understand Europe and Islam has been raised to new and bold levels Sirs. Pride and ignorance are a powerful combination.

I apparently learned from the master, on how best to combine pride & ignorance.  Your influence over me has been brought to a new "powerful" level it would seem        :-\     Let me know if you ever want to have a rational discussion on this, and why my position is what it is

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: _JS on March 22, 2007, 01:50:15 PM

Apologies, that was a brash response.

By all means, please explain why you agree with this gentleman.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Plane on March 22, 2007, 05:33:47 PM

In several European countrys there are laws resricting the number of hours that a TV station can use for American produced programming .

There is a feeling of seige in traditional communitys that are exposed to American entertainment products , where the young the blond the beautifull the gaunt and the wealthy are idealised lionised exaulted and exploited for the purpose of selling highly perfumed shampoo.

We bother Europeans with the way we woo their young, how much more do those who are even more distinct in social mores than the Europeans get bothered ?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 23, 2007, 01:45:15 AM

I just read this article in the NYTimes.  This is what they think of his latest book.

None (but Me) Dare Call It Treason

 
By ALAN WOLFE
Published: January 21, 2007

At first Dinesh D’Souza considered him “a dark-eyed fanatic, a gun-toting extremist, a monster who laughs at the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians.” But once he learned how Osama bin Laden was viewed in the Muslim world, D’Souza changed his mind. Now he finds bin Laden to be “a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person.” Despite being considered a friend of the Palestinians, he “has not launched a single attack against Israel.” We denounce him as a terrorist, but he uses “a different compass to assess America than Americans use to assess him.” Bin Laden killed only 3,000 of us, with “every victim counted, every death mourned, every victim’s family generously compensated.” But look what we did in return: many thousands of Muslims dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, “and few Americans seem distressed over these numbers.”
Skip to next paragraph
Wink

THE ENEMY AT HOME
The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11.

By Dinesh D’Souza.

333 pp. Doubleday. $26.95.
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Book News and Reviews

I never thought a book by D’Souza, the aging enfant terrible of American conservatism, would, like the Stalinist apologetics of the popular front period, contain such a soft spot for radical evil. But in “The Enemy at Home,” D’Souza’s cultural relativism hardly stops with bin Laden. He finds Ayatollah Khomeini still to be “highly regarded for his modest demeanor, frugal lifestyle and soft-spoken manner.” Islamic punishment tends to be harsh — flogging adulterers and that sort of thing — but this, D’Souza says “with only a hint of irony,” simply puts Muslims “in the Old Testament tradition.” Polygamy exists under Islamic law, but the sexual freedom produced by feminism in this country is, at least for men, “even better than polygamy.” And the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that the West has a taboo against questioning the existence of the Holocaust, while “pooh-poohed by Western commentators,” was “undoubtedly accurate.” Unlike President Bush, who once said he could not understand how anyone could hate America, D’Souza knows why Islamic radicals attack us. “Painful though it may be to admit,” he admits, “some of what the critics or even enemies say about America and the West ... may be true.” Susan Sontag never said we brought Sept. 11 on ourselves. Dinesh D’Souza does say it.

Dreadful things happened to America on that day, but, truth be told, D’Souza is not all that upset by them. America is fighting two wars simultaneously, he argues, a war against terror abroad and a culture war at home. We should be using the former, less important, one to fight the latter, really crucial, one. The way to do so is to encourage a split between “radical” Muslims like bin Laden, who engage in jihad, and “traditional” Muslims who are conservative in their political views and deeply devout in their religious practices; understanding the radical Muslims, even being sympathetic to some of their complaints, is the best way to win the support of the traditionalists. We should stand with conservative Muslims in protest against the publication of the Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad rather than rallying to the liberal ideal of free speech. We should drop our alliance with decadent Europe and “should openly ally” with “governments that reflect Muslim interests, not ... Israeli interests.” And, most important of all, conservative religious believers in America should join forces with conservative religious believers in the Islamic world to combat their common enemy: the cultural left.

The “domestic insurgents” who, in D’Souza’s view, constitute the cultural left want “America to be a shining beacon of global depravity, a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill.” “I intend to name the enemy at home,” D’Souza proclaims, and so he does. Twenty recent members of Congress, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy, are on one of his lists, and 17 intellectuals (one dead, one British) are on another, with similar numbers of Hollywood figures, activists, foreign policy experts, cultural leaders and organizations. Some of those he identifies — Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Ward Churchill — might not be surprised to find themselves here. Others — the sociologist Paul Starr, the historian Sean Wilentz, the clergyman Jim Wallis, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum — are less obvious candidates for inclusion. (One person, Thomas Frank, is mentioned on two different lists.) All these people might charge D’Souza with “McCarthyism” for supposedly exposing them, but he accepts the challenge. McCarthy, after all, was “largely right.”

Lest one think that D’Souza exaggerates the danger the cultural left presents to America, he has an ace in the hole to back him up: Osama bin Laden himself. Bin Laden, it seems, has taken pains to identify his natural allies within the United States and regularly engages in “signaling” them through videotapes in “an effort to establish a broader political alliance.” In particular, his fall 2004 tape, generally believed to have helped George W. Bush defeat John F. Kerry, contained a secret message to the cultural left that D’Souza, and D’Souza alone, has decoded. “Whichever state does not encroach upon our security thereby ensures its own,” bin Laden declared. Anyone who thinks bin Laden used the term “state” to mean “country” — common usage in Europe and the Middle East — is wrong. He was actually telling residents of New York and Massachusetts that if they voted for the Democrats, he would refrain from killing them. D’Souza writes like a lover spurned; despite all his efforts to reach out to bin Laden, the man insists on joining forces with the Satanists.

D’Souza has fallen on hard times lately. Political correctness and affirmative action — the issues he has addressed in inflammatory ways in the past — no longer inspire the same passion. “The Enemy at Home” is clearly designed to restore his reputation as the man who will say anything to call attention to his views; charging prominent senators and presidential candidates with treason can do that. (One can dismiss D’Souza’s claim that “I am not accusing anyone of treason or even of anti-Americanism” as either self-delusional or dishonest; my guess is the former.) Yet despite all his heated rhetoric, D’Souza’s book is unlikely to make much of a dent. It relies on a distinction between traditional and radical Islam that even he does not take seriously; there are no theological differences between the two camps, he suggests at one point, and even the “few” political differences between them are disappearing. It is filled with factual errors (Milton Himmelfarb, not Irving Kristol, compared the voting behavior of Jews to that of Puerto Ricans; Diana Eck is not a historian, but Thomas Frank, wrongly identified as a political scientist, is). In a line D’Souza will surely wish he had never written, he brags of the “remarkable progress” in Iraq “since Hussein’s removal from power.” Some of the people he elevates to the status of major enemies of the United States — Kristine Holmgren, Robert Jensen, Glenda Gilmore — are (no offense intended) anything but household names.

At one point in “The Enemy at Home,” D’Souza appeals to “decent liberals and Democrats” to join him in rejecting the American left. Although he does not name me as one of them, I sense he is appealing to people like me because I write for The New Republic, a liberal magazine that distances itself from leftism. So let this “decent” liberal make perfectly clear how thoroughly indecent Dinesh D’Souza is. Like his hero Joe McCarthy, he has no sense of shame. He is a childish thinker and writer tackling subjects about which he knows little to make arguments that reek of political extremism. His book is a national disgrace, a sorry example of a publishing culture more concerned with the sensational than the sensible. People on the left, especially those who have been subjects of D’Souza’s previous books, will shrug their shoulders at his latest screed. I look forward to the reaction from decent conservatives and Republicans who will, if they have any sense of honor, distance themselves, quickly and cleanly, from the Rishwain research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Alan Wolfe teaches political science at Boston College and is the author of “Does American Democracy Still Work?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/books/review/Wolfe.t.html?ex=1327035600&en=ec31237277885996&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: BT on March 23, 2007, 03:26:02 AM

Ah

The clamor for distancing, denouncing and differentiating else one be accused of tacit approval is alive and well in Mr. Wolfe's world.

Same as D’Souza's world.

silly rabbits

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 23, 2007, 04:07:41 AM

Quote from: _JS on March 22, 2007, 01:50:15 PM

Apologies, that was a brash response.  By all means, please explain why you agree with this gentleman.

Apologies accepted.  And without going into too much detail, a large problem I have in trying to accept the notion that the LW & RW can come to some understanding in dealing with the threat of militant Islam, is that it does appear the LW either minimizes the threat of militant Islam (thus no need to consider such avenues as violence/military intervention), or worse, attempts to claim the U.S. is the greater threat (Bush is evil, Bush is Hitler, our Nation is some Fascist Imperialist country, just setting up puppet Governments where it can).  Garbage like that

So, we could keep going back and forth refuting both notions, getting us no where, or we could attempt a different tact, such as the one the author is hypothesizing.  When you have such radical elements of the left, such as Rosie O'Donnel, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, appearing to be the mainstream of leftist thought, (an assumption on my part, since I see very little denoucncement and criticizing of their rhetoric), and you have such an active policy in trying to give more rights to terrorists trying to kill us, that despite how much an optimist I am, I see no rational or logical meeting of the minds.  And since the threat continues to grow, as a malignancy in need of being surgically addressed, the author's premise of trying to move foward has significant merit.  Does it mean getting into bed with the radical conservative elements of Islam?  It doesn't appear that's what the author is advocating.  He seems to want to focus a coalition with like minded conservative and moderate elements of Islam (whoever they may be)

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: _JS on March 23, 2007, 12:19:52 PM

Quote

When you have such radical elements of the left, such as Rosie O'Donnel, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, appearing to be the mainstream of leftist thought

Two actors and a filmmaker? Seriously? It is interesting to note that you employ the same tactic as BT denounces in the previous post. Your definition of "radical" likely needs some work. In general, American "leftists" and American "rightists" are very close in overall thought. The disparity of thought for the majority of American voters is very small on the classical political spectrum.

Quote

and you have such an active policy in trying to give more rights to terrorists trying to kill us

Specific examples of "giving terrorists more rights to try to kill us?"

Quote

Does it mean getting into bed with the radical conservative elements of Islam?  It doesn't appear that's what the author is advocating.  He seems to want to focus a coalition with like minded conservative and moderate elements of Islam

So you agree with his initial premise that the decline in American culture is the cause of the September 11 attacks?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Plane on March 23, 2007, 08:36:05 PM

To the serious radical Muslim there is little common ground with the right or the left in our politics , our right would strike them as Crusaders and our left as debauched. Little reason to prefer either one.


But to a Muslim who was willing to live and let live there might be slightly less irritation from our factions that are somewhat conservative and somewhat more from those who woo the youth with a media full of seduction.

In Europe many country's have put limits on the number of hours a week that television can broadcast American programs , they feel an onslaught against their culture and their mores from the seductive product of Hollywood, how much more are our violent and sarcastic programs irritating to those whose culture is even more divergent from ours than Europes is?

I am glad that Mr. D’Souza is willing to let some of us off the hook. I don't expect his attitude is the most common one.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Stray Pooch on March 24, 2007, 12:49:26 AM

Al Gore has said very little with which I wholeheartedly agree but in his (second) concession speech he siad this:  That which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

That statement is equally true of Americans (irrespective of political [persuasion) and of Muslims (irrespective of sect).  Though we have strong disagreements with the left, our basic values are not particularly different.  We all believe in freedoms of speech, press and religion.  We all believe in fair treatment of other people.  We all reject the notion that a certain class of people are superior by birth.  Of course, we interpret these ideas differently, and there are bigots and PC police types who believe the old "some are more equal than others" idea.  But by and large we are Americans - and culturally that is a breed apart from the rest of the world.

Muslims, too, have far more in common culturally than things that are in conflict.   Members of two conflicting Muslim sects will still have cultural institutions and shared values with which to resolve conflicts.  Americans have litigation, Muslims have Sharia.  Americans have endless interpretations of the Constitution; Muslims have endless interpretation of the Koran.

Probably most importantly, American conservatives and Muslim conservatives have a defining characteristic which makes them immediately hostile to one another: Religion.  Each thinks the other is going to hell.  As Plane pointed out, Muslims of any sect would view our left as hell-bound for licentiousness and our right hellbound for false religion.  Either way we all burn in the same Muslim hell.  Meanwhile, any shared traditional values we hold with Muslims would be overshadowed by that whole Jesus vs. Mohammed thing.  Sure, we'd band together to stone the adulterers, but once those sinners were dead we would turn our attention to each other. 

And of course, while our Christian RW folks were busy thinking all of those Muslims were going to burn just as quickly as the gays and the abortionists, Muslims worldwide would be thinking we Christians would be in just as much fire as the guys we stoned. 

Attempting a coalition of cross-cultured groups with certain shared traditional values seems like a good idea at first glance, at least from a "can't we all just get along" perspective.  But in the end, while our moral standards may have some similarities, our cultural differences are irreconcilable.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 03:24:43 AM

Pooch, I think you would have made a fine ambassador...or maybe I mean diplomat. Mediator.  Anyway, you have the idea. 
The cultural divide is very hard to bridge, and that's where many meetings with the other side help.   It helps the distaste people feel for the differences diminish.  Peace Corps workers help.  Movies, books, music, art, sharing food.
 Anything to let the two groups see each other as people, not 'the other.' 

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: BT on March 24, 2007, 03:54:24 AM

Quote

Anything to let the two groups see each other as people, not 'the other.' 

Do you really believe that? Do you practice it?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 24, 2007, 04:02:42 AM

Quote from: BT on March 24, 2007, 03:54:24 AM

Quote

Anything to let the two groups see each other as people, not 'the other.'   

Do you really believe that? Do you practice it?

If she does, I sure haven't seen any sign of it.  Have we seen even 1 op-ed that wasn't decrying how bad, how miserable, how evil "the other" side of the ideological spectrum is?  Bush is?  Any effort at any time advocating a Plane/Pooch approach to diplomacy??

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 02:26:34 PM

I don't believe in lying, so I won't whitewash the present administration's lies and bad actions.  I'll call evil when I see it. 

I choose to think of you guys as misguided rather than evil.   Easily led.

I'm not here in an ambassadorial role. 

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: BT on March 24, 2007, 03:11:02 PM

Quote

I'm not here in an ambassadorial role. 

of course you aren't. but why do you espouse diplomacy for others and not yourself.

Are you just talking the talk yet not walking the walk?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 24, 2007, 04:16:47 PM

Quote from: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 02:26:34 PM

I don't believe in lying, so I won't whitewash the present administration's lies and bad actions.  I'll call evil when I see it.  I choose to think of you guys as misguided rather than evil.   Easily led.

Funny, how I can project the same conclusions upon yourself.  Just need to substitute "present administration" with "present core of the Democrat party", though I wouldn't go so far as to reference the hard core libs as "evil".  I'll call evil when I see it myself, which would include the likes of militant Islam.  Those that want to lay claim to the garbage of how evil "the present administration" is supposed to be, just reinforces how well you can be led.  You would make them proud with as well as you're being led to believe, Lanya.     :-\

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Amianthus on March 24, 2007, 07:52:03 PM

Quote from: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 02:26:34 PM

I don't believe in lying,

So, what would you call that whole "Republicans want women to die of cancer" thing?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 24, 2007, 08:01:21 PM

Quote from: Amianthus on March 24, 2007, 07:52:03 PM

Quote from: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 02:26:34 PM

I don't believe in lying,

So, what would you call that whole "Republicans want women to die of cancer" thing?

I think she applies the same rationalization techniques to "stand by what she said" then, as she does in supporting the pseudo Fairness Doctrine.  Though of course we're always left to deduce that ourselves, since she refuses to defend those positions.  Simply "stands by them", and claims how important it is to "let the two groups see each other as people, not 'the other.'"         :-\

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 11:41:05 PM

Quote from: BT on March 24, 2007, 03:11:02 PM

Quote

I'm not here in an ambassadorial role. 

of course you aren't. but why do you espouse diplomacy for others and not yourself.

Are you just talking the talk yet not walking the walk?

If I were in a diplomatic role, I would walk the walk and talk the talk.  I'm not.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: BT on March 24, 2007, 11:53:10 PM

Quote

If I were in a diplomatic role, I would walk the walk and talk the talk.  I'm not.

In a way we are all diplomats. Either by words or example.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Universe Prince on March 25, 2007, 01:01:32 AM

Quote from: Lanya on March 24, 2007, 11:41:05 PM

If I were in a diplomatic role, I would walk the walk and talk the talk.  I'm not.

Why are you not in that role?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 25, 2007, 03:20:18 AM

  I don't see debating as mediating, or having much to do with the duties required of an ambassador or a diplomat.   

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Plane on March 25, 2007, 03:54:39 AM

Quote from: Stray Pooch on March 24, 2007, 12:49:26 AM

Al Gore has said very little with which I wholeheartedly agree but in his (second) concession speech he siad this:  That which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

....................

Well said .

I think it is a very big mistake to assume that another person wants the same result of diplomacy that you do , it should be step one to learn what the truth is in respect of what he desird results are.

There really are people who want no peace , or who want peace but want something elese more . For them diplomacy is usefull for reloading.

I  expect tho that there are people of good will and wisdom amoung every nation, it is a lucky nation indeed that has these ones in charge.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 11:59:37 AM

Quote from: Lanya on March 25, 2007, 03:20:18 AM

  I don't see debating as mediating, or having much to do with the duties required of an ambassador or a diplomat.   

So what you are basically saying is that objectivity, persuasion, finding common ground with others is not your intention.  You are just here to spout your opinion.  That is the opposite of open-mindedness.

I view debating as a process of analyzing, seeking to understand, attempting to persuade others or come to possible means of resolving conflicts.  In other words, to me debate is an equal mix of learning andf teaching.

Since you will not "lie" and like to call it as you see it,. I will follow that course.

You are a fierce debater (by your implied definition) until you are faced with something that logically challenges you.  At that point you fall back on "I stand by what I said" because you have nothing more substantial than your own ego to support it.  By this I do not mean that you are unintelligent - far from it.  You may be intellectually lazy.  It's hard to come up with good arguments with some of the excellent debaters here and elsewhere.  That is unfortunate, but excusable - since the world does not revolve around our opinions and we all have real life responsibilities to attend to.  OTOH you may be an intellectual coward.  You are so wrapped up in your own self-image as a liberal (or whatever image you have of yourself) that to admit you (and/or the many liberal sources you cite) are wrong would be intellectually traumatic.  If that is the case, I urge you to try accepting that the core values you completely believe in may be wrong.  It is liberating - and you do not necessarily have to conclude that they ARE wrong.  Just accepting the possibility opens the mind and enables the learning process.

The Bush administration is not evil.  It may be confused about moral priorities.  It may be diplomatically inept (and I am among the many who believe that to be the case).  But it is not evil.  Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are evil.  Hitler was evil.  Bush is, at worst, a bad President (and I do NOT believe that to be the case). 

You are correct to say that you are not here to be a diplomat.  That is, however, a very good way to approach debate.  At the very least, BT is correct in pointing out that encouraging such qualities in others while seeing no need of them in your own debate is at best hypocritical and at worst arrogant.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Plane on March 25, 2007, 01:45:00 PM

What is the place for intuitive decisions?

I think that a lot of important decisions are made by a lot of people with no real logic involved, hunches are played, gestalt's are felt , and distaste from subchontious reasoning is felt.


If one has a strong feeling that something is right or wrong , won't logic follow in the ruts that emotion leaves?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 03:03:32 PM

Quote from: Plane on March 25, 2007, 01:45:00 PM

What is the place for intuitive decisions?

I think that a lot of important decisions are made by a lot of people with no real logic involved, hunches are played, gestalt's are felt , and distaste from subchontious reasoning is felt.

If one has a strong feeling that something is right or wrong , won't logic follow in the ruts that emotion leaves?

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Most people desperately desire to believe that they are a part of a great mystery, that creation is a work of grace and glory, not merely the result of random forces colliding.  Yet each time that they are given but one reason to doubt, a worm in the apple of the heart makes them turn away from a thousand proofs of the miraculous, whereupon they have a drunkard's thirst for cynicism, and they feed upon despair as a starving man upon a loaf of bread.

A bit overwritten, perhaps, and definitely run-on, but this is a pretty good observation of human nature.

There are, of course, times when faith, intuition or instinct are more important than simple physical observation or the application of logical thought. It is not wise to reject one's deeply held beliefs or convictions in the face of a few seeming contradictions.   But when valid logical objections to intuitive conclusions are rejected out-of-hand without at least sober consideration, one crosses the line from faith to foolishness.  Again, one need not conclude that one's beliefs are false - they must only open their minds to the possibility that they are.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Henny on March 25, 2007, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 03:03:32 PM

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Just now? That is (IMO) one of the best Koontz books ever. Be sure to follow it with "Forever Odd."

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 05:08:56 PM

Quote from: Henny on March 25, 2007, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 03:03:32 PM

It's funny, Plane.  I am reading the book "Odd Thomas" by Dean Koontz and I just read a passage which seems to fit well (with a little forcing, perhaps) with that thought:

Just now? That is (IMO) one of the best Koontz books ever. Be sure to follow it with "Forever Odd."

My wife is a huge Koontz fan.  She even wrote him for advise on writing once and the guy actually sent her a handwritten letter along with a list of agents, etc.  Class act.  She still gets his newsletter.

She hadn't read the "Odd" trilogy.  She has been too busy for  quite a while (and lacked energy).  But she just picked up all three of them (including "Brother Odd") and now she's got me hooked.

I had a Jimmy Buffet thing going for a while there, but I needed a break.  I was spending too much time in the Caribbean.  He's as fun a writer as he is songwriter.

But I really had just read that quote when I took a break and came on line. 

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Henny on March 25, 2007, 05:39:10 PM

Quote from: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 05:08:56 PM

She hadn't read the "Odd" trilogy.  She has been too busy for  quite a while (and lacked energy).  But she just picked up all three of them (including "Brother Odd") and now she's got me hooked.

Wait a minute... did you say TRILOGY???

Sigh. I am so out of touch living here. I guess I'll pick up my copy when I get back to the States (about 3 weeks).

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 25, 2007, 06:47:57 PM

I echo, TRILOGY?
I didn't know that, thanks.
  Koontz is good.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 26, 2007, 04:15:35 AM

Quote from: _JS on March 23, 2007, 12:19:52 PM

Quote

When you have such radical elements of the left, such as Rosie O'Donnel, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, appearing to be the mainstream of leftist thought

Two actors and a filmmaker? Seriously? It is interesting to note that you employ the same tactic as BT denounces in the previous post. Your definition of "radical" likely needs some work. In general, American "leftists" and American "rightists" are very close in overall thought.

You seem to have confused my referencing of the extreme elements (such as the "2 actors and a faux filmmaker") as examples of leftists.  I'm trying to point out it's the radical elements of the left, that appear to have co-opted much of what the "leftists" would have been the foundation of.  You seem to be referencing moderates who can lean both left & right, and who indeed are very close in overall thought

Quote from: _JS on March 23, 2007, 12:19:52 PM

Quote

and you have such an active policy in trying to give more rights to terrorists trying to kill us

Specific examples of "giving terrorists more rights to try to kill us?"

(A) Again, I'm referencing the radical left, not "you" specifically, and (B) those would be the examples advocated by folks like Rosie and yes, even Tee, who not only support giving them the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to accusations of terrorists being held in places like Quantanimo, but actual rationalizations as to why it's justified for them to act as they do.  They're really just "freedom fighters", defending themselves against that evil imperialist pigs, the infidel Americans

Quote from: _JS on March 23, 2007, 12:19:52 PM

So you agree with his initial premise that the decline in American culture is the cause of the September 11 attacks?

No.  Our being the infidels, the supposed source of all evil, who dare to not embrace Islam as the true religion of peace, and instead support those zionist monkeys of Israel.  That would be much closer to the cause of 911, than any decline in our culture.  If anything, it's not a decline issue, it's an incline issue, an incline in how in such a short period of time became the lone superpower of the globe, while Islam, who once dominated this globe, decided not to join the 20th century, and watched their global influence get completely wiped out.  They've got to blame someone.....so apparently it's us, and the Israelis

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 26, 2007, 04:34:27 AM

Quote from: Stray Pooch on March 25, 2007, 11:59:37 AM

You are a fierce debater (by your implied definition) until you are faced with something that logically challenges you.  At that point you fall back on "I stand by what I said" because you have nothing more substantial than your own ego to support it.  By this I do not mean that you are unintelligent - far from it.  You may be intellectually lazy.  It's hard to come up with good arguments with some of the excellent debaters here and elsewhere.  That is unfortunate, but excusable - since the world does not revolve around our opinions and we all have real life responsibilities to attend to. 

OTOH you may be an intellectual coward.  You are so wrapped up in your own self-image as a liberal (or whatever image you have of yourself) that to admit you (and/or the many liberal sources you cite) are wrong would be intellectually traumatic.  If that is the case, I urge you to try accepting that the core values you completely believe in may be wrong.  It is liberating - and you do not necessarily have to conclude that they ARE wrong.  Just accepting the possibility opens the mind and enables the learning process.

The Bush administration is not evil.  It may be confused about moral priorities.  It may be diplomatically inept.  But it is not evil.  Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are evil.  Hitler was evil.  Bush is, at worst, a bad President .... At the very least, BT is correct in pointing out that encouraging such qualities in others while seeing no need of them in your own debate is at best hypocritical and at worst arrogant.

I know I tend to ruffle feathers when I speak of others, but at times I find it necessary, or at least compelled.  Case in point, as Pooch has both accurately & diplomatically referenced one of the more irritating trends that occurs from our dear Lanya.  At one time, way back when, I remember Lanya being a very devoted lib, lots of passion, very opinionated, but generally when shown the error of her thought process (such as being shown facts that refuted an opinion she had), she would consistently acknowledge where she was wrong, and it didn't take away from her liberal credentials in the least.  I admired it.  Kind or how I admire Js & Freak, and how I did admire H. 

But something happened along the line.  Perhaps its when Bush took office, and perhaps Lanya convinced herself that the election was stolen, despite the facts to the contrary.  In any case, now we get garbage like "Republicans want women to die of cancer", and she stands by it.  She stands by the Fairness Doctrine, while completely ignoring the pointed questions posed to her that demonstrates just how anti 1st amendment it is.  She stands by how Bush apparently also stole the 2004 elections in Ohio, because....well because more investigations were needed that would have apparently demonstrated how it was stolen.  She stands by how it was Rove, Cheney & Co who outed a Covert CIA agent, despite that it wasn't anyone from the Bush adminstration that initially leaked her name (it was Armitage at the State Dept), nor was she ever classified as covert by Fitzgerald, the lead investigator.  I even recall that when the Fitzgerald investigation was going on, it was asked by more than 1 person, that at the conclusion of said investigation, would she be content with the results.  I distinctly recall her referencing a "yes", in so many words.  Yet, now the investigation is over, and it's quite clear of her displeasure that justice hasn't been done yet. 

I'm not sure when or where her train went off the tracks, whether it's laziness on her part, or cowardice.  In any case, I miss the Lanya of old, who was a well intentioned and honorable lib.  Now, she's just sounding like a female version of Michael Moore     :-\   My apologies if this was an inappriopriate posting.  I just needed to vent a little

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: _JS on March 26, 2007, 03:21:17 PM

Quote

No.  Our being the infidels, the supposed source of all evil, who dare to not embrace Islam as the true religion of peace, and instead support those zionist monkeys of Israel.  That would be much closer to the cause of 911, than any decline in our culture.  If anything, it's not a decline issue, it's an incline issue, an incline in how in such a short period of time became the lone superpower of the globe, while Islam, who once dominated this globe, decided not to join the 20th century, and watched their global influence get completely wiped out.  They've got to blame someone.....so apparently it's us, and the Israelis

Odd. Islam has never "dominated the globe." And us being the only superpower probably depends heavily on one's definition of what a "superpower" is, and if the term has ever really had any useful meaning at all.

As far as I recall, bin Laden did not use Israel much at all in his discussions of September 11. Most of his ire was directed at the United States having permanent military sites in Islamic countries.

You tend to focus quite a bit on Israel, much moreso than al-Qaeda actually has. Why is that?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 26, 2007, 03:41:07 PM

Quote from: _JS on March 26, 2007, 03:21:17 PM

Odd. Islam has never "dominated the globe."

It wasn't a global power back beginning in the 6th century, during the Caliphate and again during the Ottoman Empire?  Ummm, ok, if you say so

Quote from: _JS on March 26, 2007, 03:21:17 PM

And us being the only superpower probably depends heavily on one's definition of what a "superpower" is, and if the term has ever really had any useful meaning at all.

I think most folks & historians will conclude that at this time, the U.S. is indeed the 1 big superpower, though Russia and China would be right behind us

Quote from: _JS on March 26, 2007, 03:21:17 PM

As far as I recall, bin Laden did not use Israel much at all in his discussions of September 11. Most of his ire was directed at the United States having permanent military sites in Islamic countries.

Actually, yes the former (which incidently also debunks the notion that his actions were because of our support of Israel, so I thank you for that concession), and slighty out of context to the latter, as our being present as non-Muslims on Muslim land, is consistent with the twisted version of the Koran that militant Islam is using to justify their acts of targeting and killing non-muslims.  So yes to the latter as well, but that it also fits the MO

Quote from: _JS on March 26, 2007, 03:21:17 PM

You tend to focus quite a bit on Israel, much moreso than al-Qaeda actually has. Why is that?

Not really.  I think that's just a misguided perception on your part.  Israel's just part of the problem to Islamofascism.  They simply get more public ire from the likes of their members, but in actuality, it's any non Muslim that's the problem

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: _JS on March 26, 2007, 04:01:08 PM

Quote

It wasn't a global power back beginning in the 6th century, during the Caliphate and again during the Ottoman Empire?  Ummm, ok, if you say so

Considering that Islam did not exist in the 6th century, I'm guessing that it wasn't a global power then! The Caliphates are sometimes discussed as if they were vastly powerful, but they never really were. In fact, the first major split of Islam came over the calihpate (the party of Ali, otherwise known to us as Shi'ites). In reality the Caliphate became a source of struggle between the most powerful families in the Arab world.

The Ottoman Empire was powerful, but certainly not a friend of the Arabs. It also came much later in the history of Islam. The Ottmans began as early as the 13th century, but only became a force in the mid 15th century upon the capture of Constantinople. It was afterwards that they grew to be a powerful Empire, but by no means were they accepted by Islam as some sort of grand carriers of the torch of Islam. In fact, many of the Arab peoples despised and fought the Turks as did the Persians (check the Safavids of Persia, who were a strong rival to the Ottomans).

Also, check the Jalali Revolt to see how insecure the Empire was internally.

Around the beginning of the 18th century, the Ottomans began to decline and repeatedly fought wars with their major European rival, the Russian Empire.

So to answer your question...no, Islam never "dominated the globe." Yes, the Ottoman's were a strong Empire at times, but by no means represented Islam.

Quote

I think most folks & historians will conclude that at this time, the U.S. is indeed the 1 big superpower, though Russia and China would be right behind us

A sincere historian would probably realize how stupid and irrelevant "power rankings" are for nations at any point in history. Just look how well our "superpower" status serves us in Iraq. The same has been true throughout history. Giants fall, so to speak. Napoleon lost to a slave rebellion in Haiti ;)

Quote

Actually, yes the former (which incidently also debunks the notion that his actions were because of our support of Israel, so I thank you for that concession), and slighty out of context to the latter, as our being present as non-Muslims on Muslim land, is consistent with the twisted version of the Koran that militant Islam is using to justify their acts of targeting and killing non-muslims.  So yes to the latter as well, but that it also fits the MO

Oh well, that clears it up! LOL

Quote

Not really.  I think that's just a misguided perception on your part.  Israel's just part of the problem to Islamofascism.  They simply get more public ire from the likes of their members, but in actuality, it's any non Muslim that's the problem

No offense meant Sirs, but your knowledge of Islam and history don't exactly lend you to be an expert (or a reasonable amateur) at creating these theories.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:43:11 PM

Quote:
Sirs: <<I even recall that when the Fitzgerald investigation was going on, it was asked by more than 1 person, that at the conclusion of said investigation, would she be content with the results.  I distinctly recall her referencing a "yes", in so many words.  Yet, now the investigation is over, and it's quite clear of her displeasure that justice hasn't been done yet. >>

I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.  I heard a lot of whining about money being spent on this and "no underlying crime" by Republicans, but I haven't heard Democrats who are unhappy about the results.  If there's a pardon, well, that will suck but it's still our justice system, working.  And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light,  he can't plead the 5th.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Amianthus on March 26, 2007, 05:50:13 PM

Quote from: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:43:11 PM

And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light,  he can't plead the 5th.

If he's pardoned and new evidence comes to light, there won't be a trial during which he will able to plead the 5th.

If he's pardoned, it's over. No more trials for him.

Quote from: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:43:11 PM

I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.

It's more an implication thing. You keep on posting articles about it, many of which say that the investigation was not complete. And you agree with everything you post, right? You said that at one time.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 07:52:01 PM

You may well be right about the 5th and a pardon.

I post articles about the fact that a prosecutor wasn't able to discover what really happened because someone obstructed justice.  That's wrong.  When it concerns a CIA officer's cover being blown, I think it's important and I post about it.   But the results of the trial itself I am pleased with.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Plane on March 26, 2007, 07:54:34 PM

Quote from: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 07:52:01 PM

You may well be right about the 5th and a pardon.

I post articles about the fact that a prosecutor wasn't able to discover what really happened because someone obstructed justice.  That's wrong.  When it concerns a CIA officer's cover being blown, I think it's important and I post about it.   But the results of the trial itself I am pleased with.

Was a CIA officer's cover blown?

Will anyone be accused in court of that?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 26, 2007, 08:53:10 PM

Quote from: _JS on March 26, 2007, 04:01:08 PM

No offense meant Sirs, but your knowledge of Islam and history don't exactly lend you to be an expert (or a reasonable amateur) at creating these theories.  

Neither are your positions on what I'm thinking and why

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 01:58:44 AM

Plane:
Yes, a CIA officer's cover was blown.
No, no one will be accused unless the prosecutor thinks he has enough evidence to prove his case.

Ami,
I know what I was thinking about now: immunity.  If someone gets immunity, they can't take the 5rh, or so I understand.   But that doesn't pertain to Libby.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 27, 2007, 02:59:22 AM

Quote from: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:43:11 PM

I don't recall saying I was displeased with the results.  

Your words, actions, and outrage at who hasn't been charged for "outing a covert agent", speaks quite the opposite, it would seem Lanya.  You're even still hung up on the fact that Fitzgerald never classified her as covert, which would have made "outing her" a crime.  She wasn't, and it wasn't.  End of story, or in this case, investigation

Quote from: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:43:11 PM

I heard a lot of whining about money being spent on this and "no underlying crime" by Republicans, but I haven't heard Democrats who are unhappy about the results.   

I've been seeing one right here in this saloon

Quote from: Lanya on March 26, 2007, 05:43:11 PM

And if he's pardoned, then he will not be able to incriminate himself, so if new evidence comes to light,  he can't plead the 5th.

Lanya still salivating at hopefully more indictments, even though the investigation is over

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Plane on March 27, 2007, 04:41:21 AM

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 01:58:44 AM

Plane:
Yes, a CIA officer's cover was blown.
No, no one will be accused unless the prosecutor thinks he has enough evidence to prove his case.

There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to make the  case that a CIA officer has been exposed  , where from do you get this certainty?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 27, 2007, 05:06:29 AM

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 01:58:44 AM

Plane:  Yes, a CIA officer's cover was blown.

Lanya:  She had a frellin desk job at the CIA.  She wasn't undercover, at the time of this supposed "outing", for her cover to have been blown.  She may have been at some time in her career, but apparently not at this time.  Fitzgerald's investigation can't get much clearer on this.  Libby was prosecuted for giving inconsistent testimony, NOT for divulging any CIA agents "cover".  Is this sinking in yet, or are the Bush bad blinders on as secure as ever?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Amianthus on March 27, 2007, 08:07:10 AM

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 01:58:44 AM

I know what I was thinking about now: immunity.  If someone gets immunity, they can't take the 5rh, or so I understand.   But that doesn't pertain to Libby.

Only if the immunity agreement so specifies. Granted, it usually does, but that is not always the case.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Brassmask on March 27, 2007, 12:08:22 PM

A fundie is a fundie is a fundie.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 27, 2007, 01:23:06 PM

Quote from: Brassmask on March 27, 2007, 12:08:22 PM

A fundie is a fundie is a fundie.

Ok, that takes care of classifying yourself and Lanya.  Was there a point to that concession?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 01:57:24 PM

Sirs:
Wrong.
'Further, Fitzgerald stated that Plame's identity had been protected by the CIA "not just for the officer, but for the nation's security." And in their recently published book, Hubris, Corn and Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that, at the time of the leak, Plame was the chief of operations for the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq, which "mount[ed] espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have."'
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060008

CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’

During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 27, 2007, 02:50:01 PM

Lanya: WRONG

FACT it's a criminal offense to "out a covert agent"
FACT Fitzgerald did not indict anyone for "outing a covert agent"
FACT Fitzgerald (the fella in charge of the investigation) at no time concluded during any time of the investigation, that Plame was "covert"

This is simple Lanya, and the fact you're still hung up on it demonstrates just how much you're not pleased with the results of the investigation

All you have to do to debunk the above facts is demonstrate ANYWEHRE that Fitzgerald made the official conclusion Plame was covert.  You can't, because he hasn't.  End of story, but by all means, keep making noise

Had she been covert, there would have been a crime committed, and Armitage would have been indicted for it..  The fact is she had a desk job at the CIA, and "leaking" that information is no more a crime than leaking that I'm a Physical Therapist, working at a hospital.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: BT on March 27, 2007, 03:15:04 PM

Quote

Had she been covert, there would have been a crime committed, and Armitage would have been indicted for it..  The fact is she had a desk job at the CIA, and "leaking" that information is no more a crime than leaking that I'm a Physical Therapist, working at a hospital.
 

Not only did she need to be covert but the leaker had to know it. I think the second part was what Fitzgerald was having problems with.

BTW did Hayden testify under oath that she was covert or are we going on Waxman hearsay?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: kimba1 on March 27, 2007, 06:36:20 PM

Probably most importantly, American conservatives and Muslim conservatives have a defining characteristic which makes them immediately hostile to one another: Religion.  Each thinks the other is going to hell.  As Plane pointed out, Muslims of any sect would view our left as hell-bound for licentiousness and our right hellbound for false religion.  Either way we all burn in the same Muslim hell.  Meanwhile, any shared traditional values we hold with Muslims would be overshadowed by that whole Jesus vs. Mohammed thing.  Sure, we'd band together to stone the adulterers, but once those sinners were dead we would turn our attention to each other.  -->


soo true
note: by tolerance on both sides they can talk to each other.
any comparative talk of religion will be insulting
philistine is a revered people in islam
us it`ll be whole different meaning
hitler was well liked by many muslims
we got a different take on him.
speaking of a muslims idea of christianity is just simply insulting.
same on our side.
and both parties are guilty of thinking everybody is the same
all muslim are the same all christians are the same.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 09:06:55 PM

Sirs:
There was a crime committed. It was reported by the CIA to the DOJ. The investigation ensued.
Just because no one is charged for a crime does not mean that no crime was committed---there may be lack of evidence to prove the person did it. But whoever leaked her name in the first place, it was a leak of a CIA officer.  In wartime.   By her own government.

Would you say that a murdered person wasn't dead because no one was ever charged with her murder?

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 27, 2007, 10:22:51 PM

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 09:06:55 PM

Sirs: There was a crime committed. It was reported by the CIA to the DOJ. The investigation ensued.

Lanya: And the ensuing investigation has concluded that no crime was committed, in the venue of "outing a covert agent".  What was determined is that if you're not sharp enough to recall what you said a while back under oath, and give contrary testimony compared to the notes you've taken, you can be indicted for OoJ.

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 09:06:55 PM

Just because no one is charged for a crime does not mean that no crime was committed

In this case it does, since we know WHO initially "leaked" Plame's name, and since he was never indicted, there is apparently no crime as to "outing a covert agent", since it's apparent to most rationally minded folks, she wasn't.  Fitzgerald has all but said precisely that.  I realize that you're obviously not satisfied with the results, that not enough Bush folk were dragged out of the WH in handcuffs.  I understand, Bush bad, Bush evil, The Bushies HAD to have committed a crime in this situation because........well, because its Bush.  and Plame just has to be covert, she just has to be.

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 09:06:55 PM

---there may be lack of evidence to prove the person did it. But whoever leaked her name in the first place, it was a leak of a CIA officer.  

That would be State Dept fella Armitage, who apparently leaked that Plame worked for the CIA, and in no way connected to Bush.  By the way, I'm leaking that BT's working as a politician, but don't tell anyone

Quote from: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 09:06:55 PM

Would you say that a murdered person wasn't dead because no one was ever charged with her murder?

Of course not.  But I wouldn't be salivating for someone I despise to be indicted for it, just because I hate the person though, then get all bent out of shape when it was determined following an investigation, that the murdered person actually committed suicide

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 27, 2007, 11:26:39 PM

Sirs:
I think you'll find the people on your side of the aisle whining about Libby's conviction, calling for pardons, it's appealed, etc.   I'm only repeating over and over that the head of the CIA said she was covert, and that is that.  I am most certainly desirous of someone being brought to justice for this crime. 
Outing a CIA officer is a crime.   It wasn't done by the Russians, it was done by US. That's horrible, and unacceptable.  It makes me wonder if you think it's ok for CIA officers to be outed, by their own government.    Is this acceptable to you? 

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 27, 2007, 11:33:01 PM

Yea, we can all see how quite content you are with the results of the investigation         ::)

A) I don't accept (as well as the little fact it's a CRIME) for covert CIA agents to be "outed"

B) I have no problem when an employee for the CIA's name is legally divulged

It seems you keep focusing on A, when the investigation has concluded B.  But yea, you're fine with the reslts of the Fizgerald investigation

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: Lanya on March 28, 2007, 12:48:27 AM

I am content with the verdict.

I repeat:

'Further, Fitzgerald stated that Plame's identity had been protected by the CIA "not just for the officer, but for the nation's security." And in their recently published book, Hubris, Corn and Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that, at the time of the leak, Plame was the chief of operations for the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq, which "mount[ed] espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have."'
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703060008

CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’

During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/

I'm getting my highlighters  out next.....

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 28, 2007, 01:04:30 AM

And still not 1 reference by Fitzgerald that she was covert, and still not 1 indictment for "outing a covert agent", especially now that we know her "outing" came from Armitage....Case now officially closed

But Lanya's just fine with the results            8)


(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20070321RZ1AP-PlameBlonde.jpg)

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: _JS on March 28, 2007, 12:08:35 PM

It is very rare for these cases to end up with anything other than actions taken against crimes such as perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, etc. That is the way most of these like Iran/Contra, the Lewinsky Affair, and many other special investigations into complex government affairs end.

To claim that somehow vindicates all wrongdoing is intellectually dishonest Sirs.

Title: Re: A question for the political Right
Post by: sirs on March 28, 2007, 12:45:10 PM

Intellectually dishonest?  That'd be trying to lay claim to widespread outing of an undercover covert agent by the Bush administration, when the concluded investigation implies otherwise, a small reference to the fact that someone has a desk job at the CIA, by a State Dept official. 

I'm not sure where you were trying to go with the slap at me Js, but suffice to say, you're all over the ballpark on that one.  I'd advocate a more practice what you preach approach, on your part