Patterico's Pontifications

10/22/2006

Byron Calame Should Resign

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:31 am



Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Times, admits today that the paper made a mistake when it decided to run the Swift terrorist finance tracking story. (Via Michelle Malkin.) Calame had previously defended the decision in a column that, he now concedes, gave insufficient weight to the arguments against publication.

Calame’s reversal is welcome, but comes four months too late. Calame never should have defended the publication of the Swift story to begin with. He already had all the facts he needed to oppose the decision back in June, when the story was first published.

Calame says that two factors ultimately persuaded him that running the story was a mistake:

the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused.

But those factors were immediately obvious to anyone reading the article. The evening the article hit the Web, I noted that the article had failed to raise any serious issues regarding the program’s legality. And the next day — the same day the article was published in the print version of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times — I noted the “strict controls” that were in place. Within three days, I had a detailed post, based on the articles themselves, which discussed the program’s legality, controls, and congressional oversight.

Why was I able to figure this out instantly, whereas it took the New York Times‘s public editor four months to realize the importance of these facts? It’s not because I’m smarter than Byron Calame; I’m not. It’s because I don’t automatically defend a newspaper simply because it has been attacked by the Bush Administration. By contrast, the only reason Calame supported the paper’s decision, he admits today, was because the paper had been harshly criticized by the Bush Administration:

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

Simply put, Byron Calame overlooked (or underweighted) obvious facts, and defended his paper in a knee-jerk fashion, simply because his paper had been viciously attacked by the government.

A public editor who cannot objectively evaluate his paper’s behavior in the face of criticism — from any source — should not be the public editor.

I appreciate Calame’s honesty. But he should resign.

UPDATE: Captain Ed and Tom Maguire have more.

UPDATE x2: Calame’s column gives me an idea for the editors of the L.A. Times. More on that here.

UPDATE x3: I should make clear that, about an hour after I published this, I added a couple of words to make it clear that Calame may have simply underweighted, rather than completely overlooked, a couple of concepts that he discussed in his column.

175 Responses to “Byron Calame Should Resign”

  1. Mad at George Bush? Get even, give away our intelligence secrets…

    Or so says Ombudsman Bryan Calame at the New York Times. Michelle Malkin calls it Un. Freaking. Believable! It really is, isn’t it? The arrogance is mindboggling. What the heck are you talking about Sara? Remember the Swift Program used to monitor and…

    Squiggler (72c8fd)

  2. the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused.

    Could a european paper run the story without as much opprobrium because of the apparent illegality of the program under european data protection laws?

    actus (10527e)

  3. Try to stay focused here.

    New York Times
    Calame
    Lack of impartial oversight by NYT Ombudsman

    that’s the issue.

    Let’s keep on track with the argument, m’kay?

    steve miller (d050ef)

  4. Let’s keep on track with the argument, m’kay?

    The way I see it, we could have another paper publish the story first, and the NYT can follow without opprobrium. But this complicates things, because papers like to be able to break stories, not follow.

    actus (10527e)

  5. Hey, Calame is doing a great job….

    Patterico thinks NYT ombudsman Byron Calame should resign… for having rushed to defend the NYT’s revealing the details of the SWIFT terrorist tracking program “because the paper had been harshly criticized by the Bush Administration”….

    Thoughtsonline (d3e296)

  6. “vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration”

    Clearly the Times thinks it is above criticism.

    pst314 (20d3ed)

  7. And thats after the New York Times has lost hundreds of readers and many subcreiptions too bad

    krazy kagu (3e8790)

  8. #4 actus

    The way I see it, we [emphasis mine] could have another paper publish the story first, and the NYT can follow without opprobrium.

    So you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information? Is that really what you are contending actus? That journalists in this country, who by their own admission should have never published the story, should instead have given all these details to foreign journalists so they could publish them. Then it would be ok for our own MSM to cover. Just want to be clear. Are you condoning that position?

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  9. Stashiu3,

    Of course actus isn’t condoning that position, persay, but…

    EFG (c34d31)

  10. Pinning Jello to a wall, I know. What can I say? Sometimes I’m hardheaded. 😉

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  11. It’s a fair cop, guv–UPDATED…

    The Baathist Broadcasting Company (BBC) admits they’re PC homosexual anti-American Jesus-hating multiculturalists. Problem is, when they say that it’s true, I’m not sure I believe it anymore. UPDATE: Has someone hit the MSM with some kinda truth ray…

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  12. It’s so obvious that he should resign although I’d argue he should be charged as well.

    Anyway, his defense for revealing a classified program he acknowledges was legal (and that we know was formerly effective) is that he was mad?

    He was emotional?

    He was upset that his paper was verbally attacked?

    That’s his justification for endangering national security?

    He’s proven he can’t do his job and will reveal classified information in a huff.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  13. I’ll disagree with our esteemed host on this one. Mr Calame made a mistake, something we have all done. But, unlike most of the people in the mainstream media these days, he was able to look back, reasonably objectively, and not only see that he had made a mistake, but admit, in public, that he had done so.

    It seems like he might have just learned something from all of this. And if he resigned, what are the probabilities that The New York Times would select someone better?

    Dana (1d5902)

  14. christoff: calame doesn’t reveal classified information… in a huff or otherwise. His job is to cover for those who do.

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  15. This Byron Calame is a cretin and a traitor to America! To claim he did it because the New York Times had been criticzed by the Administration is beyond disingenous!!! It is the New York Times which has served for nothing but propaganda fodder for our Islamist enemies, fueling day to day all the hooplah about how bad things are going in Iraq, and which has leaked more “classified” information on the pretext of “Freedom of the Press” than if they were official spies for Al Qaeda!

    Not only should this “New York Times Tokyo Rose” resign, but there should be a Grand Jury investigation as to possible “treason” charges being brought against him and his liberal, pro-Jihadist “Freedom Fighter” rag!

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  16. In response to the battering of the press against the GOP, I offer the Dems (and their allies in the media such as the NYT and the LAT) this:

    http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-dems-are-not-fighting-gwot.html

    JSF (a90377)

  17. Now The Times Admits Its Mistake…

    To quote the kids, “Un-frelling-believable.” The New York Times’ ombudsman, Byron Calame, makes a bombshell revelation today in his column. Michelle Malkin enlightens us with this news.It seems that he’s the one left holding the bag in admitting t…

    The Asylum Pundits (b5f39f)

  18. NYT public editor Byron Calame now admits paper was wrong to publish info on banking-data surveillance program (aka SWIFT)…

    Patterico thinks Calame, whose admission is published here, should resign.
    While I can understand the sentiment behind Patterico’s call, it’s going to take a lot more changes at the NYT besides a potential Calame resignation to get them t…

    Sister Toldjah (1466f5)

  19. Isn’t this a perfect metrosexual non-apology, apology? Calame justifies his own malpractice by citing his feelings! Feelings trump everything in the P.C. world of Barney Calame. It was just “vicious” of the Bush administration to object to the NYTimes’s willingness to jeopardize all of our safety. “Vicious”? Oh my, Barney, what exquisitely delicate liberal sensibilities you possess. I’m sure the Jihadis will be grateful.

    Stephen (135468)

  20. Was the SWIFT story true? Yes it was. Good to see all of you on the right hold the first amendment in such contempt. As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money. Secret government programs are for fascist states, not America.

    All Calame did was criticize his paper for running a factually accurate story. He had no input into the decision to run the story in the first place, so why should he resign?

    big johnny (b3c70a)

  21. #21 big johnny

    As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money. Secret government programs are for fascist states, not America.

    How about that it was his job and he didn’t do it? In his own words, he didn’t do the job he was supposed to because he was angry at the administration. I also disagree that you have an absolute right to anything. Your rights stop where the safety of others begins. If a government is not allowed to protect its national security and interests, it will not survive. Should people have been told all the details of the Manhattan Project? What use would that information be used for today? Your sense of entitlement does not override the safety and security of our citizens and the forces that protect our way of life. If government cannot have secrets, soldiers die. That might not be a problem for you, it is for me.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  22. sorry but you do not have an absolute right to know what the government is doing because secret government programs are for fascist states. If someone had passed the operational plans for attacking the enemy and for infiltrating spy rings by the enemy to the press and got it printed, would you applaud the press for printing it even though the result was the bombing of your kid’s school? That is essentially what the NYT did here. They closed off our ways of following the money trail (something the NYT had advocated right after 9/11) so that now the enemy has a way of passing the money that buys the bombs that kill your neighbor’s son in Iraq. Good to know which side you are on. You want a subjugated America and not a free America with you choosing who to do the subjugating.

    dick (b8e957)

  23. Wait, this should not be a problem for the omnipotent NY Times. They can just un-write what they wrote. Explain it was a hoax? Just kidding? Written by Jason Blair?

    Listen, if a few people die, what’s the problem when it comes to the First Amendment being protected by the brave Tribunes of the People at the NY Times? Especially when they were viciously criticised by the jack booted, theocrat, Storm Troopers of the Bush Adminstration.

    Good Day To You Sir.

    moneyrunner (a77b40)

  24. Patterico,

    This post is #3 on the top 3 linked articles at RealClearPolitics Sunday. Congratulations and you deserve it.

    DRJ (1be297)

  25. […] Calame puts this admission second in his column. After a, quite frankly, useless explanation of why the Times is becoming more magazine-like to support the core news gathering. Uh, sure. A lot of us have been saying ever since the publication of details of a legal program with adequate oversight, that the Times was badly out of line. Nice of Calame to finally notice the nose on his face. Patterico lauds the column for honesty, then calls for Calame to resign. He's right. […]

    Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » The Timing May Be Off (a177fd)

  26. It’s nice to see that someone in public life can admit a mistake. More power to him. Now if only our “esteemed” leaders would admit a few of thier mistakes.

    Mark (f5ed39)

  27. Quote: Listen, if a few people die, what’s the problem when it comes to the First Amendment being protected by the brave Tribunes of the People at the NY Times? Especially when they were viciously criticised by the jack booted, theocrat, Storm Troopers of the Bush Adminstration.

    Comment by moneyrunner — 10/22/2006 @ 3:12 pm

    Amazing! One more “sensitive” commentary by the left-wing “intelligentia”!

    It wouldn’t be so bad if those who’d die and be made to “cease and desist” permanetly would be the likes of “moonbats” like you, Moneyrunner, but when it endangers “innocent” lives, and or brings about their demise needlessly due to some left-wing political hack with a “political agenda” at the New York Times, that is another matter altogether!

    Unbelievable!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  28. #28 Althor

    That was heavy sarcasm by moneyrunner. Parody of lefty rants. Just sayin’ 🙂 The “Good day to you sir” is trademark sockpuppet phrasing of Wilson/Ellison/et.al., noted best-selling author whose blog has been read… somewhere, I forget actually. 😉

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  29. NYT Public Editor Admits Publication Wrong…

    It takes three months to realize that these stories undermine US national security? That there was no illegal activity on the part of the US government? Or that the NYT should have held the stories because of the beneficial data that these programs c…..

    A Blog For All (59ce3a)

  30. Resign, hell! Fetch a rope….

    NYT’s Calame: Oops. Our Bad.Ed Morrissey The New York Times’ public editor, Byron Calame, initially supported the publication of the confidential national-security program that tracked terrorist financing through the Swift banking program. Now, at th…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  31. I think the NYT editor was truly afraid of criticism, but not from the Bush Administration.

    Could you imagine the vicious criticism he and the NYT would have experienced from liberals had the story not been published?

    Webluker (f38403)

  32. #32 Webluker

    If they hadn’t published, how would liberals have known they were considering a story?

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  33. tsk, tsk, tsk. why are you people so afraid of people who drive camels and live in caves ten thousand miles away? Rice got the message from Tenet and Clark, and didn’t think it was important. Why should people who dropped the ball be given more power when they didn’t fully utilize the power the had prior to 9/11????? And sorry, but i disagree. state secrets are bullshit. this is not a tactical military operation. you can’t have it both ways: you can’t say on the one hand that the terrorists are big, bad and resourceful and will go to the most dastardly lengths to attack us, then on the other hand act like they are so stupid they wouldn’t figure out we would be trying to track their finances through legitimate banking institutions. quit peeing yourselves.

    big johnny (b3c70a)

  34. Any criticism of The New York Times is a thought crime against The New York Times and all elite intellectuals believe this.

    Peter Rice (25c137)

  35. #34 big johnny

    Actually, I can have it both ways and say both things, especially since you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go back to Kos and review all six cards this time.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  36. What this clown is saying in effect is that he is nothing more than Pinch’s bitch faggot

    Lord Locksley (9b9875)

  37. Democrats remind me of young people I like, such as a charismatic big brother or a cool uncle, while Republicans are reminescent of adult figures like a dependable dad or grandfather. Like many young people, Democrats are known for their idealism and strong feelings but they can also be irresponsible and overly emotional. Republicans, like most adults, are known for steadfastness and pragmatism but can also be stern and inflexible.

    Bryan Calame and the Times’ editors remind me of young people I know who are good people but who lack good judgment. In this case, the Times’ editors were unwilling to seriously consider the Bush Administration’s objections to publishing a story about the SWIFT program because of previous Bush Administration criticism of the Times. The Times might as well have said “You’ve been mean to me” or “You can’t say ‘No’ to me” and “I’ll show you.” The Times’ response is tantamount to something teenagers might say or do when their parents won’t let them use the car keys.

    Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying I agree with Patterico that Calame should be an adult and resign.

    DRJ (1be297)

  38. BTW, Big Johnny, the SWIFT program is a tactical military operation in this war.

    DRJ (1be297)

  39. so you can have it both ways, you mean like a little baby?

    big johnny (b3c70a)

  40. I apologize for my typo in Mr. Calame’s first name.

    DRJ (1be297)

  41. #40 big johnny

    Ignoring trollish behavior

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  42. Stashiu,

    I know, and I did think before I posted, but it was worth it.

    DRJ (1be297)

  43. As far as I’m concerned, he’s had his chances. Not wasting any more time on him. Bitter failure in life and unable to discuss anything rationally. Full-blown BDS, probably at the incurable stage. Pity. 😉

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  44. at least i’m not crying about the fact that a newspaper printed the truth.

    big johnny (b3c70a)

  45. Dim Johnny, did anyone dispute that the NYT’s story was true? Last time I checked, truth was not a defense to publishing classified information. The smart money says all the nuclear secrets Aldrich Ames and the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians were true, too. So what? It would have been better if they had printed stuff that wasn’t true.

    Xrlq (739fa7)

  46. Quote: at least i’m not crying about the fact that a newspaper printed the truth.

    Comment by big johnny — 10/22/2006 @ 5:34 pm

    No, not about that you aren’t! You are only still crying about Bush winning the election in 2000!

    Wow Big Johnny! That a newspaper publishes “classified” information, which naturally is true, can simply be justified by saying like you did “that at least the newspaper published the truth”?!?! What kind of sick, warped, delusional justification is that?!?!

    Precisely! They published “the truth” that for the sake of national security should not have been in the public domain, “aiding and abetting” the enemy with information they will find extremely useful to know, and endangering the lives of innocent people in the process! Doh!!!

    I wish Jack Nicholson was here to slap you silly and tell you, you are the one that “can’t handle the truth” in your left-wing irrational paranoia!!!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  47. Oh, it’s classified so the NYT can’t mention it; but Bush can talk about it several times in public before the paper does the story and you’ve got no problem there. Fact is, I am paying for this shit. It is not a “tactical operation” and it is stupid. If I’m pissed at Bush, it’s because his administration dropped the ball and let the 9/11 hijackers in through the front door. In repsonse to that, he and his enablers try to grab more power than they need to cover their asses. Clinton foiled numerous attacks under the existing law, why can’t Bush fight terrorism and follow the law as it is written? Bush and his people are corrupt. Sorry you tools haven’t figured that one out yet.

    big johnny (b3c70a)

  48. #48 big johnny

    Ignoring trollish behavior

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  49. So you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

    If part of the problem is that it breaks no law, then would we level as much opprobrium at a paper that published it in a place where there was a question as to whether the law was being followed? In a place that is also part of the war on terror, and concerned about terrorists being caught?

    That journalists in this country, who by their own admission should have never published the story, should instead have given all these details to foreign journalists so they could publish them.

    I don’t think they’d give the story to the competition. I think they’d want to publish the story before the competition.

    Could you imagine the vicious criticism he and the NYT would have experienced from liberals had the story not been published?

    I thought they held the story for a while.

    actus (10527e)

  50. […] Linked with Michelle Malkin, Patterico’s Pontifications,The Anchoress, JunkYardBlog, Macsmind, Riehl World View, […]

    Right Voices » Blog Archive » New York Times Editor Is Sorry He Blabbed! Too Late, Damage Is Done! (1466f5)

  51. Big Johnny you are truly in complete denial here!

    With all the revelations that have become public of late, from the ABC miniseries to North Korea’s sticking the middle finger in Clinton’s face and to his “worthless” “Jimmy Carter” nuclear agreement of 1994, to all that has been divulged lately about the monumental shortcoming of the Clinton Administration, you really have to be totally delusional and cynical to blame President Bush for the mess he inherited from Clinton!

    It wasn’t Bush but Clinton in his monumental incompetency, who failed to adress from getting Bin Laden the “eight times” – count them – “eight,” he could have gotten him and failed to do so because of some stupid “technicality,” to letting N. Korea get away with developing nuclear weapons under his very nose while furnishing with billions of dollars in oil and food which only served to buttress the regime!!!

    You have to be totally deranged, in face of the facts staring you in the face, to once again, habitually, blame it all on Bush, when the one that was too busy, either chasing interns to have sex with them or dealing with all his scandals, to pay attention to our “national security” was non other than Clinton himself!!!

    Stop smoking whatever it is you Democrats smoke nowadays…. or lay off the “acid’ from the 60’s!
    Get real!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  52. Re: Mr. Calame’s comments on the “Swift” program – I guess this isn’t the kind of group that would take kindly to the idea that most relatively sophisticated people assumed that the government had been long engaged in this kind of financial oversight program and that the Times article 1) only confirmed the obvious; 2) had no impact on methods of terrorist financing. Its impact seemed to be mostly on domestic politics, in that it allowed the Bush admininistration to try once again to discredit the national press, which is making a valiant effort to provide objective reporting about how effectively, legally, and fairly OUR government is using OUR military, OUR intelligence services, and OUR taxes. I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for providing an extremely important public service.

    M. Dean (a0221d)

  53. had no impact on methods of terrorist financing

    Here, actus, he’s one of yours.

    moneyrunner (a77b40)

  54. I wouldn’t tell him to resign. He has probably learned something, but Bill Keller is still there and doesn’t seem to have learned anything.

    What really disturbs me about this whole issue is that the reasons for disclosing both this and the NSA wiretaps are so legally and philosophically asinine. The idea that any individual’s privacy is more important than efforts to prevent his death or his committing murder is what it boils down to.

    This issue has gone from the so-called right to be let alone, which is pretty much only a problem for celebrities. Most of our lives are of absolutely no interest to anyone else, except perhaps identity thieves. The idea of government agents trolling through our conversations is absurd, but the idea that the agencies we’ve created to protect us, including our rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, etc. are unable to follow up potential evidence of plots to kill civilians, unless some judge is consulted while it disappears, strikes me as a violation of the rights of everybody else. This is ACLU-think, pure and simple, straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

    Mr. Calame came to his conclusion belatedly, but honestly. He wrote a weak defense at the time, but he reconsidered. However, he didn’t make the original decision to publish the story, and there is no indication that those who did wouldn’t do it again.

    The extension of the First Amendment to granting newspaper editors the authority to countermand classification of national security information. This is not the Pentagon Papers. There is no reason to believe that those involved in either program were acting from any malign purpose.

    The press today sees every battle as another Vietnam, even after we are directly attacked, and every secret as another Watergate cover up. Considering the damage our media and liberals did to our resolve to carry out our treaty obligations to the South Vietnamese, they should be less confident, not more, to make decisions that nobody has elected them to do.

    AST (63d041)

  55. Quote: I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for providing an extremely important public service.

    Comment by M. Dean — 10/22/2006 @ 7:06 pm

    Sure! More power to your “anti-Bush,” “anti-Administration,” “hate America,” propaganda machine! Hooray! Not even Al Jazeera provides propagandistic fodder for our enemies better than that illustrious bunch of leftist rags you mentioned; with the notable exception, of course, of the Wall Steert Journal, which is more “balanced” in its approach!

    Apparently, you consider the war in Iraq just mere Bush “adventurism” unworthy to be called a war, but the fact is that WE ARE AT WAR! Back in WWII there was such a thing as “CENSORSHIP” of what could be printed in the Press! With all the unrelenting flow of “classified” information being divulged in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all those other “allies” and purveyors of the Democrat, left-wing, secularist “propaganda” every other week, the practice is LONG OVERDUE!!!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  56. Bush’s fault…imagine that.

    PC14 (98b75e)

  57. Quote: I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for being Al Qaeda’s counter-intelligence service. (SARCASM)

    nk (57e995)

  58. Quote: I say, more power to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the broadcast media for being Al Qaeda’s counter-intelligence service

    Don’t you know? apparently the WSJ is not at fault here. At least according to our host. Being second means you’re safe.

    actus (10527e)

  59. AST,

    What an excellent comment. While I’m not sure I agree, I even appreciate your suggestion that Mr. Calame should stay on because he might have learned something from this experience. Perhaps it’s true that journalists will think twice about national security matters in the future. Then again, maybe the lesson they learned is to hide their real motives – at least until they get a big book deal.

    DRJ (1be297)

  60. Don’t you know? apparently the WSJ is not at fault here. At least according to our host. Being second means you’re safe.

    Which relates to the comment how?

    moneyrunner (a77b40)

  61. Actus #60,

    I had some choice things to say about that, not against our host but against the Administration, on that thread. I’m glad that the conversation has veered from Patterico’s main point in his post because, for the life of me, I can’t see why Calame should be harder on himself than the Administration was on the publishers and, for all we know so far, the leakers.

    nk (57e995)

  62. Which relates to the comment how?

    The comment mentioned the LAT, NYT, and WSJ together as al qaeda’s “counter-intelligence service.” But some people — myself included — are of the opinion that publishing second is safe. The info is already out there.

    actus (10527e)

  63. Actus has a point, moneyrunner. The Administration objected to the NYT but practically peddled the story to the WSJ. (I don’t agree with any implication that Patterico approved. He had several follow-up posts regarding prosecution of the publishers as well as the leakers.)

    nk (57e995)

  64. #50 Actus

    If part of the problem is that it breaks no law, then would we level as much opprobrium at a paper that published it in a place where there was a question as to whether the law was being followed?

    The information was classified, although the broad outlines were known, the details were not. If the NYT had not published, how would a foreign paper get the information, if not from the NYT? Use some critical thinking skills here. That information was leaked for a specific, partisan purpose and the NYT played along, knowing the program was not illegal and the information published was classified.
    #54 M.Dean

    I guess this isn’t the kind of group that would take kindly to the idea that most relatively sophisticated people assumed that the government had been long engaged in this kind of financial oversight program and that the Times article 1) only confirmed the obvious; 2) had no impact on methods of terrorist financing. Its impact seemed to be mostly on domestic politics, in that it allowed the Bush admininistration to try once again to discredit the national press, which is making a valiant effort to provide objective reporting about how effectively, legally, and fairly OUR government is using OUR military, OUR intelligence services, and OUR taxes.

    You’re correct, I certainly don’t take kindly to lies and spin, moral relativism, or apologists for traitors. By “most sophisticated people” you mean the ones who hate the administration I assume, and include yourself in the sophisticated group. (That’s not a question in case you missed it.) Where’s your link or source to back up that nonsense? In case you missed it, the “sophisticated people” are outnumbered as well as clueless. I am rapidly becoming certain that the people you consider “unsophisticate” are getting ticked off and will be out to vote, despite what those skewed polls show. They’ve been completely wrong since Nixon, at least they’re consistent.

    #56 AST

    Very good points, especially the last paragraph. Thank you.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  65. If the NYT had not published, how would a foreign paper get the information, if not from the NYT?

    Are foreign newspapers incapable of figuring out things? They could find out from leaks at SWIFT.

    Use some critical thinking skills here.

    I’ll say!

    actus (10527e)

  66. 67. Actus

    Are foreign newspapers incapable of figuring out things? They could find out from leaks at SWIFT.

    The point is, they didn’t find out from SWIFT, did they? SWIFT wasn’t drawing attention to it. It took a partisan traitor to voluntarily violate an oath and pass information onto someone not entitled to it. Again, critical thinking actus, not just coming out with some new theory that has no basis in fact.

    Answer the original questions actus:

    Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

    Then this:

    Do you believe that journalists in this country, who by their own admission should have never published the story, should instead have given all these details to foreign journalists so they could publish them? Then it would be ok for our own MSM to cover?

    You haven’t answered these, just redirected away from them. Let’s hear what you believe about these questions, not new ones you make up.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  67. Actus has a way of taking a good argument to ridiculous extremes. The NYT is a bunch of expletive deleteds. Still, the Administration dropped the ball. Instead of arrest warrants and perp walks it responded with “filling in the blanks” for the WSJ and LAT. It sure looked to me as though it was just trying to dilute the NYT’s exclusive.

    nk (57e995)

  68. #69 nk

    I expect that is correct. Why should the NYT have been rewarded with an exclusive for treason? There has to be another reason for not arresting and perpwalking everyone involved. I would contend that, rather than dropping the ball, the administration was protecting the rest of the information that had not gone public. They would have almost certainly faced defense requests for classified information that they would claim was “necessary for a fair defense” and all the attending fallout. Instead they minimized the damage that had already been done to protect what was left, and cleared the way for finding the traitor who leaked it in the first place. Just my opinion.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  69. It took a partisan traitor to voluntarily violate an oath and pass information onto someone not entitled to it.

    how do you know this? People at a consulting company, as well as at a foreign company (in a place where it might be illegal), had access to the existence of this program. And yet you think that it was someone in this country violating an oath that passed it on?

    Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

    Certainly. It implicates EU privacy law. Are the Europeans not entitled to their laws? They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.

    Do you believe that journalists in this country, who by their own admission should have never published the story, should instead have given all these details to foreign journalists so they could publish them? Then it would be ok for our own MSM to cover?

    I do not think journalists should be giving stories to their competition to break and then follow. They should just go ahead and publish first if that is the case.

    actus (10527e)

  70. #71 actus

    Thank you for the direct answers. The fact that you are more loyal to the EU and willing to harm the National Security interests of the United States on their behalf is now on public record.

    Of course, I have now lost what little respect I had for you in the past. I am probably not alone.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  71. The fact that you are more loyal to the EU and willing to harm the National Security interests of the United States on their behalf is now on public record.

    I think they have reasonable, though different, laws and the same security interests as we do.

    actus (10527e)

  72. Stashiu3, Comment #70: I don’t disagree. But I have commented here before that I am a firm believer of the “roust”. You arrest them, strip-search them, anal-probe them, lock them up until they post bail, lock them up again until they give up their snitches and then decide whether to proceed with trial or dismiss the case. Contrary to the unlawful combatants our leftist friends I think the Administration is too soft not too hard.

    nk (57e995)

  73. #74 nk

    There is merit to that method, but I’ll stay away from matters of policy until after I retire.

    #73 actus

    Our security interests are for us. Apparently you consider yourself a “sophisticated” member of the world community. I won’t question your patriotism as you’ve just demonstrated you don’t have any. And your loyalty to the EU outweighing your loyalty to the US is still on public record. From today forward, Google is not your friend, at least not if you ever want a security clearance. Good on ya.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  74. Our security interests are for us. Apparently you consider yourself a “sophisticated” member of the world community.

    I just think the EU has pretty much the same interest we do in stopping terrorist financing. So my loyalty is to the same thing. And as i’ve said before, i’m a bit of an open government nut.

    actus (10527e)

  75. #77 actus

    Oh, I think anyone reading your words now, or in the future, can see exactly what you mean. For a change.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  76. I meant #76 actus… PIMF

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  77. Oh, I think anyone reading your words now, or in the future, can see exactly what you mean

    Really? are you sure? Do you think the EU and the US have the same interest in stopping terrorist financing?

    actus (10527e)

  78. Byron Calame doesn’t need to resign, he’s only a low level flack catcher.

    The guys who’re to blame haven’t yet seen the light. But, rosy fingered dawn signals daybreak.

    Black Jack (66a365)

  79. #79 actus

    That wasn’t the question and changing it now doesn’t change your answer (although I will answer your question in a moment). The question was if you would help the EU even if it clearly hurt US National Security. You said you would.

    Now, do I think the EU and US have the same interest in stopping terrorist financing? Absolutely not. They both have an interest in it, but they are not identical. My loyalties lie with the United States. Yours do not.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  80. The question was if you would help the EU even if it clearly hurt US National Security. You said you would.

    But what you’re missing is that I think it hurts both. I said in my answer (#71) that they’re concerned about the war on terror too. Did you not see that? Thats what I mean, that they have the same concerns we do when it comes to terrorist financing.

    My loyalties lie with the United States. Yours do not.

    The interest is similar enough to me. So my loyalties are basically with the targets of islamic terror. People like me, whether I live in an east coast blue target city or a european city with a reasonable approach to drug laws.

    You disagree. You think the interest is different enough. Thats a fine answer. But when it comes to my loyalties, you have to consider what I think the interests are.

    actus (10527e)

  81. Why do you debate with a slippery eel who just changes the terms of reference every time he gets nailed on a point?

    The man should resign because he clearly let his emotions affect his judgement vis a vis defending the publishing of a piece highly damaging to national security.

    Letting actus play word salad games with you for the next 3 days is pointless.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  82. #82 actus

    I didn’t miss it and answered, our interests are different, not the same, not identical. And US interests take priority for me, they do not for you.

    The only thing I have to consider is whether you would place EU interests before US interests. You have stated you would. No matter how much nuance you want to imply, your words are clear (again, for a change). The EU and US are not equivalent, not for US citizens. When you say you would help the EU even if it hurt the US, you declare greater allegiance to the EU. There is no nuance that can make that ok. This is not an “agree to disagree” situation. I do not agree that it is ok for a US citizen to hurt US interests in order to help anyone else. Like I said, good luck if you ever need a security clearance. Those guys are not real big fans of nuance when it comes to National Security.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  83. #83 Christoph

    He’s already hung himself. Forgive me for belaboring the point, I’ve never successfully nailed Jello to a wall before and was somewhat giddy. He can wiggle away now unless someone else wants a turn, I’m done. Catch and release day I guess. 😉 Thanks Christoph.

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  84. Quote: In case you missed it, the “sophisticated people” are outnumbered as well as clueless. I am rapidly becoming certain that the people you consider “unsophisticate” are getting ticked off and will be out to vote, despite what those skewed polls show. They’ve been completely wrong since Nixon, at least they’re consistent.

    #56 AST

    Excellent observation! I really get insulted that weeks away from the elections, the Democrats are all shrilly claiming victory in a majority of races too close to call, in what appears to be an excercise in mass self-delusion, and that for all intents and purposes their friends at the “Elite” liberal media are already claiming victory; even though the votes have not even been cast yet!!!

    Are they taking us for granted?!?! Do they really think that just because the NYT, the LA Times, the WaPo et al, and Ted Turner’s CNN, the MSN and the biased Alphabet networks are already declaring “victory” for the Democrats as “inevitable,” that we are just going to roll over and croak, and let them take our elections and our votes away from us?!?!

    Do they really think America’s “Silent Moral Majority” is going to be so discouraged about some sleezy pubescent-like e-mails by a Gay Republican Representative to stay home all disconsolate on election day, and grant victory to the “Boisterous Immoral Minority” by default, so that they can then push their leftist secular agenda of cut-and-run, Jihadist loving, tax raising, abortionist, gay promoting “alternate lifestyles,” unfettered open borders, moral ralativism, and godlessness in the Public Square, and the rest of their morally bankrupt “politically correct” socialist agenda down our collective throats once again?!?! Are they so “conceited” as to think that conservative voters would be so “morally” upset with Republicans on account of that degenerate ex-Congressman Foley, as to turn around and vote for the Democrats: “The Party of All Things Immoral”?!?! How asinine is that?!?!

    They really must take us for the “Yokels” they so “quaintly” equate us with in their
    “sophisticated” hubris! What insolence!!!

    Every conservative ought to march en masse on November 7th and swamp those polls and put the media “Elite” and their fawning “pollsters,” and all these “sophisticated” Democratic asses (how apropriate: “Democratic Donkeys”!) and put them all in their place once and for all!!!

    Don’t be discouraged Middle America! Your vote still counts! Don’t let the Democrats convince you otherwise by prematurely proclaimimg a victory that is not theirs to have!!!

    Isn’t it ironic?!?! If only they would be so “confident” of our ultimate success in Iraq as they are of their own “political comeback” in November and of taking back Congress and the Senate, it would fare much better for the U.S. in Iraq…rather than the relentless barrage of vitriol, negativity, and cut-and-run defeatism they have been spewing since the beginning of the conflict!!!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  85. NYT Public Editor Brian Calame Should Resign…

    I was determined to take the whole weekend off from this bloody blog, so I let a Sunday blog swarm pass me by. Time to play catch up.
    Background
    Back in July, the New York Times decided to run a story on a “secret” government terrorist-f…

    La Shawn Barber's Corner (1b383c)

  86. NY Times Published National Security Secrets To Get Back At the Bush Administration…

    We should be thankful that the New York Times decided to undermine the security of the United States in recognition of the hypersensitive fears of foreign opponents of the Bush administration.

    ……

    Webloggin (a2d188)

  87. The only thing I have to consider is whether you would place EU interests before US interests. You have stated you would.

    Uh. I stated they’re the same. You think i’m wrong about that — that they’re different. I don’t think thats the case. We disagree on this.

    But thats different than me stating that I would place one ahead of the other. Do you get that?

    I think a EU newspaper could publish this story with much less opprobrium, given the arguable legality of the program there. A program that protects them as well as us. Since a EU newspaper could publish it, I think a US newspaper can do the same — since the results are the same.

    When you say you would help the EU even if it hurt the US, you declare greater allegiance to the EU.

    But i’m not saying it helps the EU over the US, because it hurts the EU as well as the US. I’m not seeing why this favors them over us.

    I do see why it favors open government. And I am in favor of that.

    actus (10527e)

  88. The very idea that ANY media source is or can be unbiased has been absurd from the moment the Political Right started whining about it – yea, from the moment the Political Left started pretending they managed it.

    There was a time when the bias of a newspaper was assumed, and people bought that paper according to whether they wanted to read that bias. Thoughtful citizens read two or more papers with two or more biases and figured the truth was somewhere in the middle.

    The problem with The Times is not their Liberal bias. The problem with the Times is their assertion that that bias does not exist (and their inability to write for sour apples).

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  89. Q: Do you think that a legal program by the United States Government, integral to National Security issues relating to the Global War on Terror, should be published despite the knowledge that it damages our ability to collect needed information?

    Actus: Certainly. It implicates EU privacy law. Are the Europeans not entitled to their laws? They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.

    Seems clear to me, enjoy your day and good luck. You can even have the last word. 🙂

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  90. […] Patterico puts the case that Byron Calame shoud resign for his appalling performance in the SWIFT matter: Simply put, Byron Calame overlooked (or underweighted) obvious facts, and defended his paper in a knee-jerk fashion, simply because his paper had been viciously attacked by the government. A public editor who cannot objectively evaluate his paper’s behavior in the face of criticism — from any source — should not be the public editor. […]

    Dinocrat » Blog Archive » The ombuds-neuter (ea6a9d)

  91. Seems clear to me

    Its amazing how much you want to believe this idea about me that you ignore the words that I write: They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.

    It truly is. In some ways I even overstated my case: saying both “also” as well as “too.”

    actus (10527e)

  92. I was one of those saying that Mr Calame shouldn’t have to resign over this (all the way up at comment #14), but I’d like to add one more point. THis entire thread exists because Mr Calame admitted that he’d made an error in judgement, and he even explained his motivations at the time. Fair enough. But, other than the general statements against the Times and its editorial positions, Mr Calame would be enduring none of this abuse (a statement which assumes he has even seen it) if he hadn’t been honest enough to admit it! All he needed to do, after his soul-searching, was keep his mouth shut, and this clamor would not exist.

    He came, belatedly, to the position that most of us here took in the beginning; in this case, late is better than never (and nothing). Here is a man, in the editorial offices of The New York Times, who might be a bit more inclined to examine the opposition’s points now — and we want to get rid of him?

    Dana (3e4784)

  93. “Elite” Media All But Already Called Result Of November Elections Even Before The Votes Are Casted: They Claim Democrats As Winners!…

    Inherent in the mindset of most Democratic “Elitists” is the concept that those of us that live in the so called “Red States that lie between those two thin fringes of “Blue” on either coasts, are nothing but a bunch of uncouth oafs, “clodhoppers…

    Hyscience (98837e)

  94. Dana,

    It’s a good point, and of course the best thing about this is that he admitted his error.

    It just seems to me that, for someone to truly carry out the duties of that position, they can’t have the automatic defensiveness he’s admitted to as a character trait.

    Patterico (de0616)

  95. “Its amazing how much you want to believe this idea about me that you ignore the words that I write: They’re also concerned about the war on terror too.”

    Actus, your answer was “certainly.” The rest was just you trying to obfuscate and water down the answer.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  96. What he’s admitted doing is the same as a QA inspector letting a quality problem go by because he’s concerned about the cost to his company of correcting it, or because he’s defensive because his customers have been complaining about the quality of their products.

    In fact its exactly analagous to that since in effect Calame is the reader’s only QA rep at the NYTimes.

    True, he admits he didn’t do his job. Yes, he makes a lame excuse for that.

    IMO though he’s done enough. He admitted he screwed it up and that may make him look more closely at what he’s doing in the future. Frankly, he’s better than the reader’s rep for my paper, who won’t even respond to me as a paying customer.

    Remember the environment in which Calame dwells. He’s living in Manhattan and working at the NYTimes with the likes of Dowd and Krugman and Keller. I doubt his readership up there cares about this or thinks this is much of a problem. I think it would have been really easy for him to just forget about this one.

    Its really more of an issue for the wires, the other papers around the country that carry NYTimes stories I’d think.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  97. […] I was reminded of this idea upon reading NYT ombudsman Byron Calame’s column from yesterday, in which he said that he now believes the New York Times should not have published the Swift terrorist finance tracking story. While I was very disappointed that Calame’s change of heart came four months late and buried deep in his column, at least it appeared in the pages of the paper, and that’s worth something. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Suggestion for L.A. Times Editors: A Column from the Readers’ Representative (421107)

  98. As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money.

    You already did. It’s called your congressperson and they were advised of the program through the appropriate committees cleared to handle such secrets. In representative republics, we don’t let such idiots as clinically narcissistic nutjobs as you handle national secrets.

    Read the Federalist papers. The founders were afraid of people exactly like you. Highly motivated activists who lack competence, rationality and common sense. People like you invite and actively seek tyranny and totalitarianism as a solution to your own confused, poorly run lives.

    So just because your personality “condition” prevents you from sleeping while knowing the government has secrets kept from you doesn’t entitle you to run the government for us. Call your Congressperson if you don’t like things. That’s the $0.02 society permits you to have.

    redherkey (219245)

  99. Good to see all of you on the right hold the first amendment in such contempt. As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money. Secret government programs are for fascist states, not America.

    Hahaha, thanks for this idiotic drivel.
    It’s always good to start the day off with a laugh.

    The Ace (22647b)

  100. Here’s what Mr. Calame wrote on Oct. 8:

    October 8, 2006
    THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Hazarding Personal Opinions in Public Can Be Hazardous for Journalists
    By BYRON CALAME
    The Times s guideline requires its journalists to demonstrate, to sources and readers, a determination to be an impartial observer by keeping personal opinions separate and private

    .

    Funny, he doesn’t follow his own advice. If memory serves me correctly, his 18 month term expires next month. I think he is clearing his conscience before he departs.

    Corky Boyd (a8cc75)

  101. Fact is, I am paying for this shit. It is not a “tactical operation” and it is stupid.

    Really?
    How would you know? Which federal law enforcement agency have you worked for?
    Or, let me guess, you were at DIA or CIA before, right?

    it’s because his administration dropped the ball and let the 9/11 hijackers in through the front door. In repsonse to that, he and his enablers try to grab more power than they need to cover their asses. Clinton foiled numerous attacks under the existing law

    Um, idiot, the 9/11 hijackers were in America planning the attacks before Bush even announced his candidacy for the Presidency.

    Further, Clinton “foiled” no terrorist attacks.

    The Ace (22647b)

  102. As a taxpayer I have an absolute right to know what my government is doing with my tax money.

    You have no such “right” and in fact even liberal judges recognized the importance of government secrecy, especially in wartime.

    The Ace (22647b)

  103. Whoever leaked SWIFT likely knew if there was any abuse of it.

    Calame’s regret is none has emerged. And that the leaker has been or is about to be exposed.

    Since he chose to put this out BEFORE the election, something is about to hit the fan.

    steve (3e5902)

  104. Bloggers and pundits, liberal and conservative, have no idea what professional objectivity means, so your knee-jerk reaction to this is to flog him. But to flog and call for the resignation of a well-respected, professional person who has the integrity and confidence to admit he was wrong is an example of why civility in our society is dying and hypocrisy is on the rise. If a person, who otherwise does his job well, admits to a mistake, that doesn’t mean he’s no longer fit for the position. He deals with hundreds of issues a month, some probably as integrally linked with our national security as this one, and probably makes assessments you’d agree with frequently. All of you need to unclamp your jaws, take a step back and allow for the humanity of people in public life.

    chelicera (d43296)

  105. #106 chelicera

    I don’t think he should be prosecuted, but he should resign. Even his honest admission now is rather dishonest since it is essentially buried in an article titled, “Can ‘Magazines’ of The Times Subsidize News Coverage?” An honest retraction/mea culpa would have put this on the front page where the story first appeared, and titled “We Were Wrong and We’re Sorry!” Now, he only defended the initial publication, so resigning is sufficient (IMO). If he’s dealing with hundreds of issues each month as you posit, how many of those issues are influenced by his personal feelings for the participants of the story?

    The ones who made the deliberate decision to publish the story, and the traitor who leaked it in the first place, are another matter entirely.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  106. Quote: If a person, who otherwise does his job well, admits to a mistake, that doesn’t mean he’s no longer fit for the position. He deals with hundreds of issues a month, some probably as integrally linked with our national security as this one….,

    Comment by chelicera — 10/23/2006 @ 8:22 am

    Wow Chelicera, great argument! The exact same thing can be said of President Bush, just insert his name in lieu of “a person” in your comment!

    On the other hand, the “job so well done” by Byron Calame and his ilk at the New York Times has been to leak classified information on almost a regular basis in order to embarass the Administration irrespective of how it will damage the country or what risks to our troops and our national security revealing such information will pose, to undermine Bush’s policies with a constant barrage of negative, biased, defeatists reporting, and to paint Iraq in the worst possible light they can on a daily basis! I am sure such is considered indeed very journalistically “professional” in its own “partisan,” “biased,” “political-hack” kind of way at the New York Times!

    You can almost say that by so vehemently wishing Iraq to fail for over three years now, they have wished it into becoming true: “wish something to be true so intensely and for so long until it indeed does come true”! Of course, all their negative reporting on Iraq has helped them enormously to achieve this apparent feat of leftist, Democrat, “mind over matter,” while providing our enemies and detractors with ample fodder to fuel their “hate America” agendas!!!

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  107. #108

    On the other hand, I’ve heard there are some decaffeinated brands that taste just like regular. Just sayin’ 😉

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  108. “Wow Chelicera, great argument! The exact same thing can be said of President Bush, just insert his name in lieu of “a person” in your comment!”

    -Althor

    Yeah, if he ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  109. Does anyone really think Byron Calame has the professional gravitas to print this confession on his own, in the NY Times, on a topic which revealed a secret government program monitoring big-time terrorist money transfers?

    Or is it more probable his evolving position has been the subject of much discussion at the paper’s very highest levels, likely in the presence of a large and well paid legal team?

    Can you say, “trial balloon?”

    Black Jack (66a365)

  110. NYT Ombudsman Decides, ‘All Right, Maybe We Shouldn’t Have Run the SWIFT Story’…

    Here’s Byron Calame:

    My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons…

    Mary Katharine Ham (95d97e)

  111. Mary Katharine Ham…get off the computer and make me a sammich.

    Manly Man (42b540)

  112. NYT Public Editor Brian Calame Should Resign…

    Agreed. Bill Keller shouldn’t be forgotten in the demands for resignations either.

    Some mistakes or acts of poor judgment (delayed reaction) are so egregious that even when the right thing is eventually done – the lack of trust in the persons judgment should preclude them from holding the position any longer.

    Athos (5e3c9f)

  113. You guys don’t see any potential for abuse of a program that allows the government to track the funds of anyone they deem a “terrorist”?

    That’s newsworthy, isn’t it?

    What are the real terrorists going to do, stop using banks because they know that the government MIGHT be tracking their financial transactions?

    What did the article tell them that they didn’t already know?

    This all comes back to the idea of a slippery slope that we, as Americans, have to be careful about stepping onto.

    Leviticus (e87aad)

  114. The New York Times and BBC have gone overboard with their bias…

    In recent years, The NY Times has become the mouthpiece of the angry left in the US and the BBC is about as anti-Israel as anyone can be.
    Patterico has this post on his wonderful blog:
    “Today, Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Time…

    silvio (95d97e)

  115. You guys don’t see any potential for abuse of a program that allows the government to track the funds of anyone they deem a “terrorist”?

    That’s newsworthy, isn’t it?

    Isn’t Mr. Calame saying that it not newsworthy? At least not enough to justify publishing despite the National Security concerns? Your position is the exact same as their initial justification for publishing and they are now saying that justification was wrong. They acknowledge there are sufficient checks and balances to protect American citizens from the abuses that concern you.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  116. You got that right Leviticus, but what you don’t understand is that many of the commentors here would love to pour some oil on that slippery slope. They are gleeful over the prospect of being able to lock up liberals, journalists, muslims and people who question authority like you and me. Just look at the rhetoric directed at the NYT and poor arctus here who commited the unforgivable sin of speaking his mind. He is now un-loyal, has no patriotism, should have Big Brother Google make a note of his opinions so he can never get “security clearence”. I imagine our egalitarian friends here also think he should be on the no-fly list and have his phone tapped because al Queda may be calling.

    The people here are not so much worried about a slippery slope toward authoritarianism as cheerleaders for its arrival.

    Paul (b7b8c4)

  117. Anyone who harms national security for political reasons should resign. George Bush, Dick Cheney and crew should set the example and go first.

    charlie (cc17e8)

  118. The only leaking of government secrets that is allowed is Cheney leaking through Bob Novak ..all else is treason!!

    charlie (cc17e8)

  119. #118 Paul

    There is a difference between questioning authority/speaking your mind and actively working against the interests of your own country, or being willing to do so, just because of an irrational hatred and paranoia relating to the current administration. I keep wondering why, if over half the country has been working to establish fascism for so long (according to you and yours, that’s all we long for), you and actus aren’t already imprisoned and being tortured for your heresy. Perhaps because it’s a paranoid fantasy that is all in your head? That slippery slope has been a major Dem talking point for 6 years and more… how slippery can it be if you’re still allowed to speak your mind?

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  120. Charlie’s back!!! Hey charlie, how’s it going?

    Ignoring trollish behavior.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  121. Quote: Yeah, if he ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?

    Comment by Leviticus — 10/23/2006 @ 9:27 am

    Leviticus, if by saying there is no justice you mean all the irrational hatred, vitriol, and all the paranoia by such as you on the looney left ever since you lost the 2000 election to this man, I would have to admit that yes, there is definitely no justice for President Bush!!!

    He continuously tells the American people how difficult the challenges we face in Iraq are and how we are constantly adapting our strategy to address such challenges more effectively, and you say he doesn’t admit his mistakes?!?! You don’t want president Bush to admit to any “mistakes,” what you want is for him to admit “defeat” to the cut-and-run, insidious, Democratic scandal mongerers; that’s what you want!!!

    President Bush has done a far better job on the booming economy Democrats just wish to ignore on these elections – like the “Pink Elephant” in their room – and a far better job of keeping America safe from the ominous terrorist threat we face, and being on the offensive so far, than that cretin Bill Clinton ever did; who you undoubtedly just “adore”!!!

    Clinton was so busy sleezily chasing interns, and dousing out all his “flaming” scandals during his term, that he simply did not have the time or the concentration to be overly concerned about something so “mundane” as our “national security”!!!

    And look at all that happened or took shape during Clinton’s watch, and under his very own “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” “Pinocchio” nose: From our cut-and-run defeat in Mogadishu, to the bombings of our embassies in Africa, to the Khobar Towers attack, to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, to letting Bin Laden get away the “eight times” – count them, “eight” – Clinton had him in the crosshairs, to all the failures of his
    Administration for which we are still paying the price, which ultimately culminated in the attacks of 9/11!!! Not to mention the N. Korea Nuclear Weapons program he not only failed to stop dead in its tracks, but actually encouraged by that fabulous “Jimmy Carter / Madeleine Albright 1994 Treaty” fiasco, which Clinton signed, in which not only did we allowed the North Koreans to develop their nuclear weapons program unimpeded by “inspections” for five years, but furnished them with the technology to do it better, and with billions of dollars in oil, and food aid, which but only helped buttress the failing North Korean regime, and free more of its limited resources to devote to its beligerent nuclear objectives!!!

    But of course we shouldn’t blame Clinton for “dropping the ball” on that one, after all, he had Kim Jong-il’s “word” that North Korea was not going to use its nuclear program for “evil purposes,” and you see, it’s all really a misunderstanding, since nuking the U.S. is not
    “evil” in the eyes of the North Korean tin-pot dictator!!! Tst, tst, tst!

    Now, who has done a better job then?!?! So go ahead and shove it!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  122. Quote: “I imagine our egalitarian friends here also think he [Arctus] should be on the no-fly list and have his phone tapped because al Queda may be calling.”

    Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 2:29 pm

    Actually, Arctus has no such thing to worry about…but as for you, I’d be on the lookout for the ambulance with the two white uniformed orderlies holding the straightjacket for the
    “Irrational I hate Bush – I hate America violently perturbed”! Be careful, they might pull into your driveway at any time now! Pfff!!!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  123. Quote: Anyone who harms national security for political reasons should resign. George Bush, Dick Cheney and crew should set the example and go first.

    Comment by charlie — 10/23/2006 @ 2:40 pm

    If it wasn’t for them, you’d most likely be laying under nuclear Jihadist rubble by now along with hundreds of thousands others, you moron! Stop drinking the Democratic “poisoned Kool Aid”!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  124. Stashiu, the fact we are still out talking and walking is certainly no thanks to people with attitudes like yours who equate dissent with treason and being un-patriotic. Thousands of people have dedicated their lives to watching their government and calling out when they see it going too far and the constant refrain from the right is “traitor”, “terrorist-lover”, “no patriotism”, you should know the rest as you seem to take such joy in using them against other people as well as getting your jollies by suggesting Big Brother is watching what we say.

    The slippery slope is no myth. America could slip into a totalitarian state as easily as any other country has in the past if people stop paying attention and speaking out.The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Unfortunatly what I see from the right now is blind support for any law or power that would increase the executives authority. Unitary Executive, warrantless wiretapps, detention without trial, Total Information Awareness, executive privelige and secrecy being called more than ever, signing statement on a previous unseen level, over the top rhetoric equating dissent with treason, the closening of ties between big buisness and big govt. are all signs of an increasing authoritarianism weather you are willing to admit it or not. The problem is I think you like it.

    The fact that americans still have the freedoms we have is do to brave americans who fight against the excesses of govt. and not those who genuflect and go along.

    Paul (b7b8c4)

  125. Actus, your answer was “certainly.” The rest was just you trying to obfuscate and water down the answer.

    A useful distinction for you to make.

    actus (10527e)

  126. #126 Paul

    Dissent is not treason, disclosing classified information for partisan purposes is. Anyone willing to work towards helping another country while harming ours is unpatriotic. And it’s not Big Brother watching, it’s those pesky background checks if you want to be trusted with classified information. The Executive Branch is supposed to be equal to both the Judicial and the Legislative, not subordinate to them. Does that answer your broad-brush points, and do you question any of that? I’d be glad to hear why.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  127. Dissent is not treason, disclosing classified information for partisan purposes i

    In treason, you have to adhere to the enemy. Partisan purposes means you’re adhering to your party, not the enemy. Thats not treason.

    actus (10527e)

  128. The fact that americans still have the freedoms we have is do to brave americans who fight against the excesses of govt. and not those who genuflect and go along.

    No, the reason Americans still have the freedoms we do is because of the brave Americans who work to make government better and protect our interests. Dissent is not the highest form of patriotism, despite the popular meme of the left. Dissent is necessary to the process of good government, but is not inherently patriotic or unpatriotic. Dissent in the interest of building better government is patriotic, dissent to tear down adminstrations just because you disagree with them is unpatriotic. Painting anyone who disagrees with you as a fascist brownshirt is just baseless smearing and should be called on it.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  129. #129 actus

    If the action intended to help your party will also knowingly help your enemy, it’s treason.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  130. It doesn’t realy answer any points since I wasn’t asking any questions. You say it is not Big Brother who would go through Google to check peoples comments on blogs to see if they are reliable for security clearence as you suggested to arctus? I guess we have a different definition of Big Brother.

    And I would more than love for the executive to be co-equal to the other two branches of govt. but that is not the way our current executive sees thing. They beleive in the unitary executive and that they should not be subject to laws passed by congress that they disagree with or any infringement on thei power which they see as limiting their ability to fight the war on terrorism, which could be anything in their minds.

    Paul (b7b8c4)

  131. If the action intended to help your party will also knowingly help your enemy, it’s treason.

    What do you think ‘adhere’ means, as the constitution uses it?

    actus (10527e)

  132. #132 Paul

    I guess we have a different definition of Big Brother.

    I guess so, but how would you suggest background checks be done? I want to be able to trust people given classified information based on more than just their word to “be good”. So do the people doing security investigations, it’s kinda what they’re paid for.

    #133 actus

    What do you think ‘adhere’ means, as the constitution uses it?

    That would be for a trial to decide. I’ve already said I believe anyone who knowingly helps our enemies against our interests would fit. If their actions don’t meet the court’s definition of treason, they are still traitors.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  133. Dissent when you have a govt. you beleive to be corrupt and willfully violating the law is not only the highest form of patriotism, it is the only form. If our founding fathers had decided otherwise Tony Blair would now be your leader and he’s one of those european types.

    It is just palpable balony to say that todays freedoms come from within the govt. and not from without and shows little understanding of American History. The abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, womens right to vote, one man one vote, and the Bill of Rights and Constitution all come about because of struggles outside the govt. and not from some benevolence from within.

    Paul (b7b8c4)

  134. If their actions don’t meet the court’s definition of treason, they are still traitors.

    What about the constitution’s definition of treason? Did you think about that one, or does everyone get to make up their own?

    actus (10527e)

  135. Quote: The slippery slope is no myth. America could slip into a totalitarian state as easily as any other country has in the past if people stop paying attention and speaking out.

    Comment by Paul — 10/23/2006 @ 3:20 pm

    There is a huge difference Paul between “dissent” and “speaking out,” and outright “treason”: “Ading and abetting the enemy” and doing all in one’s power to achieve “defeat” for your own country!!!

    But, if Democrats can indulge in their sick “fantasies” by watching “fictional documentaries” on the assassination of President Bush, and or “daydream,” like Cindy Sheehan, to go back in time to kill him before he became President, then I would imagine there is nothing wrong in “fantasizing” on what you just said, and it does just make my mouth water! Hmmm, hmmm:

    Imagine, all of our young soldiers returned from Iraq, 150,000 strong, who have constantly been demoralized, undermined, and insulted by vicious barrages from the Democrats and the left, who have called them from “baby killers,” to “murderers,” to having accused them of “terrorizing Iraqi women and children” to calling them “torturers,” not by the fringe far-left fanatics, but by our very own Democratic Lawmakers on the Hill, such as Rep. John Murtha, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin, and others; imagine our young soldires taking over Washington, imposing Martial Law, Suspending Congress, and seeing them round-up all those terrorist loving, traitorous Democratic Representatives and Senators, like Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their aforementioned
    traitorous ilk, and having them all interned in bob-wired internment camps, from where they would all face Court Martial for their “treasonous” activities, and be sentenced!

    Ah! It’s just a fantasy, but wouldn’t that just be Grand?!?! Seeing all the Democrats in cuffs and shackles, being driven away in military buses! I am sure Michelle Malkin could write another best seller book about it: “In Further Defense of Internment” LOL!

    Oh well, back to sad reality!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  136. Stashiu:

    I think several points come to mind:

    OJ Simpson may not be a murderer in the eyes of the law, but I suspect that few folks would be comfortable with him walking around carrying cutlery. Similarly, while one may be acquitted of treason (or found guilty of a lesser charge), that does not mean the person is not a traitor.

    IIRC, Benedict Arnold was never formally tried—does that make him any less a traitor?

    As to the disclosure of classified information in an unauthorized fashion, that may or may not be treason, but it is criminal. Said disclosures indicate a treasonable mindset, even if it does not necessarily fit a Constitutional definition of treason (if only because, as per the law, there may not be two witnesses to the act).

    Disclosure of said information to a foreign power again may not fit a tight definition of treason, but probably fits most peoples’ normal understanding of the term (betraying one’s nation to a foreign power).

    As for Paul’s odd way of characterizing dissent as necessarily patriotic, one need only wonder whether that would apply to decisions undertaken by a Chief Executive that he happened to agree with.

    For example, would the actions of, say, the Rosenbergs be less treasonous if they felt that the Truman government was overstepping its bounds in keeping nuclear information classified from a wartime ally?

    Might an Aldrich Ames or a Robert Hanssen claim some kind of “dissent is patriotic” argument to justify their activities? Might a Pollard?

    More starkly, was the effort of some military officers (and the McCormick Chicago Tribune) to reveal US war plans in early 1941, to reveal US-UK joint warplanning discussions (when the US was still formally neutral), and US Navy activities in the North Atlantic (undertaken in violation of the Neutrality Acts as signed by FDR himself) all examples of patriotic dissent? Or treasonous activity?

    Information that is classified is not to be declassified lightly. Certainly not on the basis of the mere opinions of those who disagree w/ the Chief Executive—b/c there are almost always more issues at stake than the politics of the moment. Thus, there are those who are authorized to classify and declassify information.

    Failure to take such things seriously may not be treason. But they are and should be treated as criminal.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  137. #135 Paul

    Dissent when you have a govt. you beleive to be corrupt and willfully violating the law is not only the highest form of patriotism, it is the only form.

    Perhaps you should look up the word patriotism. (hint: Love of and devotion to one’s country.) The baloney comes in when you automatically equate dissent with patriotism. Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs dissented, they were not patriots.

    #136 actus

    What about the constitution’s definition of treason? Did you think about that one, or does everyone get to make up their own?

    Traitors are not necessarily guilty of treason actus. Former FBI agent Richard Miller for example. The Constitution’s definition is clear, but applying it to specific cases is for the courts to do.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  138. Traitors are not necessarily guilty of treason actus

    Wow that settles it then!

    The Constitution’s definition is clear, but applying it to specific cases is for the courts to do.

    So clear, but its not the one you’re using?

    actus (10527e)

  139. #138 LO

    Jinx… I owe you a coke since you had the Rosenberg reference posted first, lol. I went with Richard Miller, but considered Hanssen. Why are these concepts so difficult for them to understand? Are they just fanatics who project their own obsessions onto those who think differently? Paul and actus, a betrayal of your country is a bad thing, no matter your justification.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  140. #140 actus

    If you don’t get it by now, you’re not going to. You’re not making a point, you’re ignoring the explanations. Ignoring trollish behavior.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  141. It’s also interesting to consider just how often democracies have become totalitarian states.

    In the history of the world, there’ve been very few totalitarian states (for which we should be grateful).

    The USSR. Never a democracy (not even the Kerensky government could make that claim).

    The People’s Republic of China. The Nationalist government was hardly a democracy. More a weak dictatorship, at best.

    North Korea. Never a democracy.

    Nazi Germany. This is probably the example most people have in mind. Yet, Weimar Germany was itself a weak democracy at best. This was, of course, compounded by the political actions of not only the Nazis but the Communists and the Social Democrats. The lack of dissent was hardly the problem—Weimar died far more because the various political elements were constantly striving to undercut each other, and each fed the Nazis to aid their own fortunes. But of dissent, there was plenty—until after the Nazis took full power (by which time it was too late).

    Iraq, under Saddam Hussein. Hardly a democratic legacy.

    Cuba. Batista was a thug, not a democrat.

    Yugoslavia? Serbia? Syria? None have a democratic tradition.

    One might suggest the eastern European states, but that was a totalitarian system held in place by Soviet bayonets, hardly the same thing as one that rises of its own accord.

    Does this mean there’s nothing to fear? Of course not—but it also suggests that the urgent “need” for dissent that some seem to perceive is based upon emotion, rather than an accurate view of history.

    That leaves aside, of course, the real question of whether the United States today, even with all the talk of “unitary executive” and signing statements is at all comparable to Weimar Germany or Taisho Japan.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  142. stashiu:

    Over at Jeff Goldstein’s blog, the general opinion was “Ignore actus.” The reason was simple:

    actus does not argue in good faith.

    He will try to derail threads. He will argue over meaningless nits, while ignoring the main issue. And on a new thread, he will rehash the exact same lines and arguments, over and over again, regardless of whether they’d been covered in a previous thread that he himself had participated in.

    He’s the sort of fellow who will argue that 2+2 does not always equal 4, because in a base 2 system, it’s actually 100.

    actus seems to be the quintessential boor who must have the last word. And having obtained it, is convinced that he therefore has “won.”

    To his credit, he’s less quick with the “brownshirt” canard and similar other ad hominem, at least from what I’ve seen of him. In short, a polite troll, but a troll nonetheless.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  143. But of dissent, there was plenty—until after the Nazis took full power (by which time it was too late)

    I would also emphasize that it was precisly that dissent for partisan advantage that enabled the Nazi’s to amass enough political strength and will to take over. Very good points, thank you.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  144. Agree completely and have made the same points about actus several times, with the same qualifiers about his calmness. I am just glad to have him on the record as choosing the interests of the EU over those of the US. You are right though. As fun as actus-stomping is, the thread ends up derailed. I will try to limit myself to “Ignore actus” in the future. Not as entertaining, but certainly more honest and efficient. Take care sir(?) and I have really enjoyed your posts, not just today. Let me know when you’re ready for that Coke (or beverage of choice) and it’s yours.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  145. If you don’t get it by now, you’re not going to

    Yes. You think that one can be a traitor without committing treason. Which is odd.

    I am just glad to have him on the record as choosing the interests of the EU over those of the US

    Uh. I’m on the record as saying they’re the same. You’re on the record as saying they’re different.

    actus (10527e)

  146. Paul

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    I think it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Darleen (03346c)

  147. I’m late to the comments here, and I haven’t read all the comments — I admit it — because you’ve been overrun by trolls, or maybe “actus” has learnt how to generate sock puppets.

    But I would like to point out that, while the response to the Calame rowback universally notes that it was appended to an “unrelated” column, I’m not so sure it was unrelated.

    The point of the earlier part of Calame’s column is that the Times is pushing more “magazines” — basically, he all-but-admits, advertorial content — in order to try to stem the flow of red ink which has led to what he (and no doubt actus and his mini-me “big” johnny) consider a great calamity (not Calame-ity): newsroom layoffs.

    Then, he admits that he, nominally the READERS’ representative, was so outraged at the lese-majeste of Times critics that he was too blinded by partisan rage to hear their message.

    Byron Calame can’t make the connection between the paper’s insular, one-sided staff and the dwindling readership (and ad revenues). No more, it seems, can anyone in 43rd Street. This bodes ill for a turnaround. If you are a Times writer you might want to keep the personal effects in your desk and cube down to what fits in a single box. If you are a Times stockholder, the SELL light’s been lit since Pinch got the gig. History and science both have cautionary tales of the consequences of inbreeding.

    I’m just sayin’.

    Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien (88bf29)

  148. Paul, comment #118, wrote: “They are gleeful over the prospect of being able to lock up liberals, journalists, muslims and people who question authority like you and me.”

    Don’t worry Paul. Some of think that “four walls are three walls too many”. (Credit for quote, actus) 😉

    nk (77d95e)

  149. “They are gleeful over the prospect of being able to lock up liberals, journalists, muslims and people who question authority like you and me. Just look at the rhetoric directed at the NYT and poor arctus here who commited the unforgivable sin of speaking his mind.”

    Oh, yeah. That’s why with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, we still haven’t managed to “lock up” all you damn liberals. Such incompetence!

    sharon (dfeb10)

  150. Stashiu:

    Thanks for the kind offer and even more for the kind words and thoughts.

    I’d like to pass your offer forward, however. The next time you and your uniformed brethren and sisters are out, perhaps you’d be so kind as to buy one of your fellow servicefolks a drink, and let it be from me?

    It’d be a chance for me to show some appreciation to those who are sacrificing on my behalf, at least by proxy.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  151. #152 LO

    Consider it done sir.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  152. What Leviticus writes:

    “if [Bush] ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?”

    What Althor reads:

    “I LUV BILL CLINTON HE’S SO GREAT I WANT TO GIVE HIM A GREAT BIG HUG HE’S SO MUCH BETTER THAN BUSH BUSH IS A MEANY I HATE HIM LOL!!!!!!!!!!”

    Focus, moron.

    Saying that “we are constantly adapting our strategy to address such challenges more effectively” is NOT the same as saying “I made a mistake by going into Iraq. I’m sorry.”

    Think of it this way: You break into your neighbor’s house because you want to steal his valuables. He catches you at gunpoint. However, out of the mercy of his heart, he says that he will let you go if you apologize. Now, are you going to say “I am constantly adapting my strategy to break into your house in a more efficient, less noisy manner”?

    I doubt it. I doubt even more that anyone would qualify such a statement as an apology.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  153. Althor, for an objective analysis of Bush’s pros and cons go to

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=tictacs

    Note to everyone except Althor (and maybe “The Ace”): The aforementioned link is meant to be humorous. As you all know, I am a rational, insightful individual who wouldn’t dream of making such allusions of my own accord.

    Objectivity is, of course, paramount.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  154. Quote:

    What Leviticus writes:

    “if [Bush] ever admitted any mistakes and did his job well in the first place, this could be said of him…yet it hasn’t. There is no Justice, is there Althor?”

    What Althor reads:

    “I LUV BILL CLINTON HE’S SO GREAT I WANT TO GIVE HIM A GREAT BIG HUG HE’S SO MUCH BETTER THAN BUSH BUSH IS A MEANY I HATE HIM LOL!!!!!!!!!!”

    Focus, moron.

    Saying that “we are constantly adapting our strategy to address such challenges more effectively” is NOT the same as saying “I made a mistake by going into Iraq. I’m sorry.”
    Think of it this way: You break into your neighbor’s house because you want to steal his valuables. He catches you at gunpoint. However, out of the mercy of his heart, he says that he will let you go if you apologize. Now, are you going to say “I am constantly adapting my strategy to break into your house in a more efficient, less noisy manner”?
    I doubt it. I doubt even more that anyone would qualify such a statement as an apology.

    Comment by Leviticus — 10/24/2006 @ 7:41 am

    Let me respond in kind, and see who the real “moron” is!

    In the first place, I did not “read” into your senseless diatribe anything more nor less than the habitual “I hate Bush,” “I hate the Administration,” “I hate Republicans,” “I hate America,” “I hate everything,” liberal, leftist, Democratic, “mantra” of talking points mindless dribble we hear day in and day out from irrational “haters” of your ilk! Besides, as much as you may mock, and deny it, I’m sure I wasn’t far off the mark, since in your heart of hearts, I am sure that on any given day there would be far more “grace” in your heart for Clinton, than there ever possibly could be for Bush! So, yes, why don’t you admit that were you to meet with the bastard, you’d tell him how much you love him and give him a great big hug (though if I were you, I wouldn’t shake his hand…lest you get some semen on your hand!)!!!

    On the second place, the premises upon which you base you whole fallacious arguments is so demonstrably false that it is appalling! Using such an insane analogy as that “we broke into our neighbor’s house (Iraq) because we wanted to steal their valuables, that they caught us at gunpoint, and that out of the Radical Islamic mercy of their hearts, they will let us go if we apologize” How patently insane is that?!?!

    Only in jest, or if someone is “pathologically schizophrenic” (as more and more leftists and Democrats increasingly prove to be) and deluded, would anyone ever make such an insane, absurd, analogy!!!

    Imagine that! Iraq has only got “oil” and “sand,” so obviously, since we did not go in there to “steal the oil,” as amply proven by rising oil prices and worldwide shortages we would have otherwise supplied with our ill gotten booty, then it follows, according to your deranged mind, that “we broke into Iraq” to steal what?!?! The “sand” ?!?! I am sorry but the extrapolations, though pathetic are simply hilarious!!! And , oh, wait! The Iraqis caught us red-handed and “they” are the ones with the “gun” and in their “Jihadist Islamist mercy” would let us come back home with our tail between our legs to live here “happily ever after” and not bother us ever any more, if we but only had the decency to “apologize”! As if they would not rather nuke us at the drop of a pin, and behead us all if they could!!!!!

    I really seriously have to ask you, have you had your “pills” for your “Bush Election 2000 Post-traumatic Syndrome,” yet today? After all, so many Democrats suffered from the “malady” right after the elections, that they had to go and see their “Shrinks” about it! I suspect you may be one of them.

    We had to go into Iraq because we had no choice! Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region. He, and not us, is the one who “broke into his neighbor’s house” twice, when he invaded Iran and when he marched into Kwait! His rogue regime openly supported terrorism and harbored terrorists, as when he offered rewards to the families of suicide bombers in order to entice them to carry out their unspeakable murderous acts of self-immolation; or as when he offered “sanctuary” to countless known, fleeing, terrorists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; who fled to Iraq after the American invasion of Afghanistan! He developed and stockpiled “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that he not only used on his Iranian neighbors, but on his own civilian population as well; and the consensus of the entire Intelligence Community of our allies, as well as our own, just before we went into Iraq, was that he was again stockpiling them in defiance of all the “sanctions” and the U.N. resolutions, and that they indeed posed a “real and present danger” to the U.S. and to the World Community if he chose to facilitate “terrorists” around the world with such biological and chemical weapons; regardless of how inaccurate those intelligence estimates may have turned out to be, and or how much you want to carp that “Bush lied to the American people” in your deranged partisan hatred! Saddam, and his two thug sons and brothers, carried out the systematic “ethnic cleansing” of the Kurds in the north of Iraq, as well as that of many other minorities through out Iraq; he decimated the “Marsh Arabs” of the Delta, and kept the Shi’ite population under an onerous yoke of tyranny and oppression; killing and torturing countless hundreds of thousands of those he perceived as a “threat” – many of them women and children! He kicked out the U.N. Weapons Inspectors, continuously defied the U.N., wiped his ass with all the U.N. resolutions, and thumbed his nose at the U.N. sanctions; thanks to his “pals” of the infamous “Oil for Food” scandal! And what do you and your liberal, anti-war, Democratic buddies on the left propose, even in 20/20 hindsight, we were supposed to do?!?! Send in Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright to engage in more “bi-lateral” talks and more “shuttle diplomacy” and given Saddam an “autographed basketball” as we did with Kim Jong-il and North Korea in 1994?!?! As proven by recent events, fine course of action that turned out to be!!! But, of course, perhaps we should have done nothing at all, and just waited until Saddam in fact would have provided Al Qaeda and or other terrorist groups with such WMDs and they would have used it upon an American city before we should have done anything about it
    After all, don’t anti-war peaceniks, leftys and Democrats claim that there is no such thing as a “War on Terror” and that “terrorism” is a “law enforcement” issue, not a “military” one; which naturally means that you have to wait until the “crime” is committed, and hundreds of thousands of American lie dead and or dying of “anthrax” or “nerve gas” in one of our major cities, before they would do anything about it?!?! Great “Democratic Game-plan”!!!

    The war in Iraq is being fought at two levels, one militarily, and the other in the court of public opinion. Militarily, our campaign in Iraq has been a resounding success! But the court of public opinion is being manipulated and swayed by the far-left, liberals, and Democrats, and their allies in the “Elite” media, saddly, mostly motivated by sheer, base, political objectives!

    The life of each and everyone of our servicemen is unique and precious, and everyone from the President, to the Pentagon, down to every single American or human being of conscience with half an ounce of decency, is truly sorrowed by each loss and concerned about the mounting death toll; but militarily speaking, the casualties in this conflict, so far, have been negligible, when compared to the losses we’ve suffered in other wars!

    In Viet Nam, where we “cut-and -run” as many want us to once again do, we lost over 50,000 troops, and as a result of our disgraceful withdrawal, the North Vietnamese, not only took over South Viet Nam and our Vietnamese allies we abandoned, but invaded neighboring Laos and Cambodia, and unleashed the Pol Pot “Killing Fields” of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Today, the mounds of bleaching skulls of the millions of innocent victims who were indiscriminately mass slaughtered sit, a stark, silent, testimony, to the consequential horrors that our cowardly action of cut-and-running withdrawal in Viet Nam set in motion!!!

    We have lost far more lives than in Iraq in every other conflict in our history, with the noted exception of the Gulf War, from the Korean War, to WWII, where we lost 500,000 men, to the Civil War, where some experts claim the toll reached an incredible 700,000. And one is forced to ask oneself, if during these crucial times in our nation’s history, indeed the world’s, particularly during WWII and the Civil War, we would have chosen the same path of withdrawal and defeatism we chose in Viet Nam, and that the “Left” and the “Democrats” wish us to take yet again today in Iraq, if there would even be an America today – while most likely we would all be eating “Kraut” now, and hailing “Sieg Heil” in a sea of raised arms and “odorous” armpits!!!

    We would be faring far, far, better in Iraq, if from the very onset of this conflict we would not have been continuously bombarded with the daily barrage of liberal, “peacenik,” anti-war, leftists, doom-saying, Democratic, “got-cha,” negative, “propaganda” spewing from Washington Democrats and their allies in the “Elite” media, which has only served to embolden, and traitorously give “aid and comfort,” to our Islamist enemies, which has persistently tried to ignominiously demoralize and slander our troops with its daily dose of venom, and whose ultimate goal is to seek our defeat in Iraq – in order to humiliate President Bush, discredit his policies and his Administration, and usher the “defeatist,” “cut-and-run” Democrats back into political power!!!

    This, unbelievably so, is a common goal shared by the “terrorist insurgents” in Iraq, and the “Left” and the “Democrats” in this country, and which both are hell-bent in achieving on this coming November elections, as witnessed by the surge in all the bloodshed and the violence in Iraq put up by the insurgents just two weeks before the “fateful” elections for all those precious “made for TV” “picture moments” relentlessly being drummed about, by the biased, “Democratic allied” liberal, “Elite” media, which has been screaming the Democrat’s and the insurgent’s “propaganda” mantra at the top of its “pink” lungs from every one of its newspaper headlines, and assiduously showing the horrific, often “staged,” disturbing images of all the carnage 24 /7 on our television screens, with the intent of negatively swaying American public opinion and influencing the elections in favor of the Democrats on election day!!!

    As a footnote, ironically, CNN has just been “outed” in the last couple of days, as having “significant” ties with the radical Islamist terrorist and the insurgents, allowing them to set the tone of the coverage and to “stage” much of the footage showing all the “devastation” and the “carnage” we see daily on our television screens, to proselytize their hateful “ideology” during coverage, and to spew all their “anti-American” (feelings most of those at CNN as well as the terrorists both share) “propaganda,” in exchange for “ exclusive access;” much as that “unofficial” mouthpiece of AlQaeda, Al Jazeera, habitually does! Some conservative lawmakers in Washington are so enraged at this treasonous behavior on the part of CNN, that they have requested the Pentagon to rescind all CNN reporters, and bar them from being embedded with U.S. troops!

    But what is even more ironic, is that given the “overt” concern shown recently by “hand-wringing,” liberal, leftist, Democrats, over the “Geneva Convention rights” of captured Jihadist murderous thugs in street clothes, and over the use of “coercive interrogation” on them in Washington- remember, to these “concerned” bleeding heart Democrats, the detainees should only receive “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” treatment during their internment as pertains to their food, accommodations, and creature comforts: Food that is “Halal,” served “not too cold, not too hot, but just right”, rooms that are “not too cold, not too hot, but just right”, and beds that are “not too hard, not too soft, but just right”, all of which, of course, Nancy Pelosi “Goldilocks” and the Democrats heartily approve – yet these same “bleeding heart” liberals, leftists, and Democrats, apparently turn a blind eye, and give a rat’s ass about the countless victims that Saddam, heinously, systematically, raped, tortured, and massacred, whose countless bodies, numbering in the hundreds of thousands – many of which were women and children – keep turning up in mass graves all over throughout Iraq, and from which horrors our troops delivered the Iraqi people!!!

    But of course, according to these same liberals, leftists, and Democrats we had no business
    “liberating” the Iraqi people in the first place! Apparently these gray-haired, balding, leftist, Democrat “Baby Boomers,” former “Hippies,” now in “Armani suits” and “silk ties,” and their liberal, amoral, “secular progressive” “brood,” which are the “pampered” result of the Post-war, the greatest period of plenty and prosperity for the common man in the history of America, are irritated, in their self-centered, “Rebel without a cause,” “Viet Cong Flag wielding,” pot smoking, “free love,” isolationism, that by going into Iraq we “disturbed” the “Status Quo” in the region, and that now we have this “pesky” war to “divert” their attention from more important “pursuits” such as watching who won in “American Idol,” or participating in their politically correct “Gay Pride Parades”! One has just to see the patronizing contempt with which the likes of Bill Mahrer has all along referred to, not only to the people in Iraq, but to those every day Americans dwelling in between those two thin “Blue” fringes on either side of the continent, to realize the amount of “hubris” and “conceit” that makes up their “Latte drinking,” “Sushi eating,” twisted, leftists, Democratic, “Elitist” ideology… and then the cynics wish to pass themselves off as the “Party of the People”! Yeah, right!

    In sooth, Leviticus, nothing better describes you and your sick, “affectated,” peacenik, leftists, Democratic ilk, than the words once uttered by Gertrude Stein about a previous generation! That generation also embraced the proven failed policies of “pacifism” and “appeasement,” to the point of lowering their heads like eunuchs, and accepting the yoke of Nazism and German occupation throughout Europe in 1938, much as the “defeatist,” “cut-and-run,” Democrats of today wish us to do in the face of Islamofacism and in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!

    Stein’s hauntingly descriptive remark about that generation, eerily fits today leftist, liberal, secular progressive, defeatist, “cut-and-run,” “Viet Cong flag wielding,” “Baby Boom” Democrats perfectly: “You are all a lost generation!”

    Let us only hope that America, as we know it, will be able endure long enough, until this accursed “lost generation” are all finally in their graves!!!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  155. Althor… You are an idiot.

    The Proverbial Neighbor isn’t a group of radical militants; he is us. US. WE caught Bush using false intelligence to justify a war, and he won’t apologize for it.

    “Iraq has only got oil and sand, so obviously, since we did not go in there to steal the oil, as amply proven by rising oil prices and worldwide shortages we would have otherwise supplied with our ill gotten booty”

    -Some Clown

    It’s pretty hard to milk a country of its oil when the people you thought would welcome you with open arms start blowing holes in your pipelines.

    “Rising oil prices”? What rising oil prices? Where I live, gas has fallen about 85 cents per gallon in the last two months (regardless of OPEC threats to cut production by about 600,000 barrels a day [to keep the price up]). So either we are getting plenty of oil out of Iraq (doubt it, although I’m sure we’d love to), or oil companies are manipulating oil prices in hopes of cutting their losses in the coming election. Neither one sounds too good.

    Oil for Food Program?

    Surrounding the Iraqi Oil Ministry with tanks while looters tear the rest of Baghdad apart?

    Doesn’t sound too good, does it?

    “Leviticus, nothing better describes you and your sick, affectated, peacenik, leftists, Democratic ilk…” blah, blah, blah (You talk way too much about way too little)

    “Affectated” isn’t even a fucking word, what is it doing in parantheses?

    Brevity is wit, and you have it not.

    [I’d appreciate it if you would tone it down. Opening a comment by saying “You’re an idiot” is not helpful to your argument’s persuasive power anyway. — P]

    Leviticus (cd96c4)

  156. By the way, Althor, what did you think of the little link I posted? Pretty hard to argue with that kind of objectivity, if you ask me.

    Leviticus (cd96c4)

  157. Quote: “Affectated” isn’t even a fucking word, what is it doing in parantheses?

    Comment by Leviticus — 10/25/2006 @ 7:01 am

    Affectated is indeed a word, Leviticus. Hemingway used it to describe those who were overly enthused in their “effeminate” fads! It fits you and your sick “effeminate” ideology perfectly! But, of course, as you know, Hemingway was one big, bigoted, “ultra-conservative,” so what else can you expect of him! LOL!

    I also find it highly amusing that most Democrats, when under pressure, seem to loose much of their vocabulary and communication skills, and must revert to using “fucking” almost exclusively as the only “adjective” in their snarling diatribes (shouldn’t that more accurately be “dia-tripe”? LOL!)

    So now, it turns out the “proverbial neighbor” are not the Iraqis, but you poor Democrats. Well, when you spoke of “breaking in into someone’s house” I would imagine it referred to our invading Iraq, not to Bush having to “break into” his own house!

    And your pathological insistence on the proven delusion by Democrats that Bush used false intelligence as a pretext to go into Iraq, is, as with the rest of your mindless dribble, asinine! I suppose that since Blair, Ariel Sharon, Shirac, Schroeder, Putin, and the rest of our European allies received the same intelligence from their Intelligence Services about the Iraqi WMDs, as that given the President by our own intelligence , upon which Bush acted-on in his decision to go to war in Iraq, it must all have been one “gigantic collusion” by the leaders of the world against you poor anti-war Democrats! Boooo Hoooo!!!

    But your insane analogies keep coming! Imagine, comparing the infamous corruption of the “Food for Oil” scandal, to our safeguarding the Iraqi Oil Ministry Building, while, as you claim, looters tear the rest of Baghdad apart! Well my friend, the “Ministry of Oil” building is not the only building we guard with tanks, as a matter of fact, there is a whole array of government buildings, Ministries, Embassies, et al, in Baghdad, that are being guarded in such manner. Last I heard, I think they called it the “Green Zone,” but of course, you may not be aware of that in your virulent Democratic single-midedness. LOL!

    As to the looting, it was not our soldiers who were doing the looting, but the Iraqis looting Iraqis themselves, much as Americans, here in the land of “Democrats, Freedom, and Welfare Pimps” riot at the drop of a hat under the least pretext, to loot, steal, and burn their neighborhoods down, as happened in the Miami Race Riots, the Rodney King Riots, and with the looters in new Orleans after Katrina! I suppose it might have to do with human nature?

    But, even though you accuse me of not being brief enough for your tastes – as in your Democratic talking point mantras which are so easy to learn and memorize – and of lacking “wit” simply because I go through the trouble of explaining my points at length, I must give credit where credit is due, and I have to admit, to my chagrin, that your insane nonsense, incited me enough to write a very illuminating post describing our little exchange on Hyscience (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/
    2006/10/on_the_insanity_1.php) for which, when I earn a “Limbaugh” – the conservative equivalent of a leftist “Pulitzer,” I will stand up in stage, with the statuette in hand, and thank all those who supported me, including you, who have been my inspiration with all your “Blame America,” irrational, schizophrenic, mental derangement!

    So, and even if I have not been brief enough, thank you very much Leviticus! And keep your insane dribble up…the more Americans that read it, the more that would be incensed enough about the madness you represent, to vote against the Democrats this coming November and save us all from another “Democratic idiocy” induced 9/11 from happening!

    Tata! And don’t be overly “affectated”!

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  158. “So now, it turns out the “proverbial neighbor” are not the Iraqis, but you poor Democrats. Well, when you spoke of “breaking in into someone’s house” I would imagine it referred to our invading Iraq, not to Bush having to “break into” his own house!”

    -Althor
    (sigh)

    Bear with me, Althor. I say that Bush was caught by the Proverbial Neighbor (us) trying to steal our valuables (money). At the same time, I insinuate that he did it by invading Iraq and stealing the country’s oil. What could I possibly mean?

    Q: Why is oil valuable?
    A: Because you can sell it for money.

    Q: Whose money?
    A: Our money.

    Q: But why is that stealing?
    A: Because the price is arbitrary.

    Q: And who’s being stolen from, again?
    A: Us (and the Iraqis).

    “I suppose that since Blair, Ariel Sharon, Shirac, Schroeder, Putin, and the rest of our European allies received the same intelligence from their Intelligence Services about the Iraqi WMDs, as that given the President by our own intelligence , upon which Bush acted-on in his decision to go to war in Iraq, it must all have been one “gigantic collusion” by the leaders of the world against you poor anti-war Democrats! Boooo Hoooo!!!”

    -Althor

    They received the same intelligence, yet only Blair saw fit to send troops into Iraq along with us. Everyone else seems to have acknowledged that sanctions were doing their job.

    in re: “affectated”

    You don’t see the rest of us using made up words like “Oobleck” or “Lorax” in our arguments and then saying that “DR. SEUSS USED THEM LOL!!!!”

    Finally…

    Good luck winning your “Limbaugh” award, genius.
    Even though you write like a third-grader (“…most Democrats, when under pressure, seem to LOOSE MUCH of their vocabulary and communication skills…”, way too many commas and quotation marks), you should have a chance at such an award (since Limbaugh writes the same way).

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  159. Yes Leviticus! More of your asinine reasoning at work!

    Ok, you say to bear with you (I am a patient man, but deranged Democrats like you can drive anyone batty!), that you say that Bush was caught by the Proverbial Neighbor (us) trying to steal our valuables (money). At the same time, I insinuate that he did it by invading Iraq and stealing the country’s wealth. What could I possibly mean?

    Well Leviticus, let’s see:

    Q: Why is “sand” valuable?
    A: Because you can sell it to make glass.

    Q: Whose “glass”?
    A: The glass for our “bongs”.

    Q: But why is that stealing?
    A: Because it will drive the price of “bongs” up.

    Q: And who’s being stolen from, again?
    A: Us (and the Iraqis) who use it to smoke our pot (or their Hashish). LOL!

    And Oh yes! The ample corruption at the U.N. and all those countries and individuals Saddam had in his “pocket,” as amply proven in the “Oil for Food” scandal, were working just fine…just as Clinton’s 1994 Treaty with the North Koreans has prevented their developing a nuclear weapon!

    Of course that poor hack of a writer, Hemingway, is no more to be taken seriously than Dr. Seuss; after all, I suppose the “Cat in the Hat” is far superior to Shakespeare on any given day to the looney Democrats!

    Thanks on your good wishes on my likelihood of winning a “Limbaugh” for my post; and by the way, at least, unlike you, I can use other adjectives to attach to my nouns other than “fucking,” (though I am sorely tempted to use it when attached to the noun “idiots” like you!) and I am proud at least of having completed third grade, while you seem to have even been failed at “Marxist Indoctrination Democratic Leftist’s School”!

    But then, the one common denominator amongst Democrats, Hugo Chavez, Marxists, Communists, Revolutionaries, Anarchists, Radical Islamists, and all the “Rainbow Coalition” (isn’t that also gay?) of left-wing “ideologues” and “hate mongers” is precisely that: Their sense of “inadequacy” and “failure”!!!

    Need I say more?

    Check out the following web site and you’ll die laughing (and or of rage) at what I mean:

    http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=33

    Again, Tata! And remember, don’t keep overdoing the effeminate “affectation”!

    Love,

    Althor

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  160. “Q: Why is “sand” valuable?
    A: Because you can sell it to make glass.

    Q: Whose “glass”?
    A: The glass for our “bongs”.

    Q: But why is that stealing?
    A: Because it will drive the price of “bongs” up.

    Q: And who’s being stolen from, again?
    A: Us (and the Iraqis) who use it to smoke our pot (or their Hashish). LOL!”

    -Nice Try

    You don’t get it. Sand isn’t oil. Everyone has access to sand. Also, I’m not sure what kind of circles *you* run in, but where I come from bongs aren’t exactly in high demand.

    Oil is.

    According to you, Iraq has nothing but sand and oil. Since everyone has sand, and every action has a motive behind it, we must’ve been after their oil (I’m not saying that this is necessarily true, but for the purpose of making you look stupid I’ll say it is).

    “…at least, unlike you, I can use other adjectives to attach to my nouns…”

    -Althor

    The difference between my use of adjectives and yours is that I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid calling my “opponent” the same tired names (“Hippies, Marxists, Communists, Revolutionaries, Anarchists, Radical Islamists” etc.) that seem to get your rocks off. At least when I do resort to such juvenile tactics I’m realistic enough to limit my insults to an individual rather than painting an entire segment of the population with a single brush.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  161. Oops! Sorry, P, I just saw your little cautionary addendum. I’ll try to be less forward… my behavior must have something to do with the time-honored American tradition of “If they don’t understand, say it louder”.

    But tell me honestly, P… Do you think I’m an “affectated” peacenik? I have feelings too, you know…

    Just kidding. Only the effeminate have feelings, and we all know how bad it is to be one of *them*.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  162. Quote: Just kidding. Only the effeminate have feelings, and we all know how bad it is to be one of *them*.

    Comment by Leviticus — 10/25/2006 @ 2:01 pm

    How true! It is indeed horrible to be “affectated”!

    As for my “painting my opponents – as you describe them, an entire segment of the population, such as the deranged 33% of Americans that amazingly believe the “conspiracist delusion” that Bush had something to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11, all of which, by the way, obviously vote Democrat – with a single brush, I’d say, as the old saying goes: “If the shoe fits, wear it”! That also applies to the “Hammer and Sickle.”

    But I do not want to keep you any longer from continuing to catch-up on your reading of “Das Kapital” to “hype” your psyche right before the elections, and the “Demokraten Kommunistische” overthrow the “corrupt” Republican regime in Congress! So, Tata and enjoy your reading!

    Althor 🙂

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  163. Hows this for a conspiracy theory…

    Leviticus (43095b)

  164. Oops! How’s THIS for a conspiracy theory…


    Dang…

    Leviticus (43095b)

  165. How’s
    THIS
    For a conspiracy theory (Got it)

    Leviticus (43095b)

  166. Leviticus, stop “trolling” and go back to reading your “Karl Marx”! After all, it looks like the ousting of the “Capitalist Republican Pigs” in November will not be as easy as previously envisioned by the“Demokraten Kommunistische Proletariat”!

    Althor 😀

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  167. P, I’ve asked this before, but is Althor for real?

    1.) He puts words in my mouth (through moronic use of quotation marks) that, by proxy, make me look like an idiot to any outside observer.

    2.) He calls me a whole slew of lameass names and you whine at me for calling him an idiot (a conclusion which all evidence points to).

    3.) He keeps using that damn smiley face which, everyone must admit, is annoying enough to drive Ghandi to kill a whole school bus of innocent crippled children.

    I’m trying to have a rational (or at least reasonably rational) discussion with him and he keeps coming back and calling me a Communist (like I give a shit, but it gets annoying).

    I haven’t lived in the self-styled “blogosphere” long enough to be sure of what “trolling” is. I have an idea, obviously, but not an exact definition. If I am “trolling”, let me know. If not, tell this guy to give it a rest.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  168. You know Leviticus, you are incapable of having a “rational” discussion since, first, you base your faulty arguments on false premises and assumptions to begin with, and secondly because in order to butress your leftist politcal bias, and sick twisted ideology, you simply ignore any and all evidence that “debunks” your position even if it blankly stares you in the face!

    I have tried to banter with you non-chalantly in all good will, and have looked at our interchanges in a lighter, more humorous manner, in spite, of course, that in so doing I still have tried to get through any important points I wanted to make; such as the outright absurdity of much of what you are disingenuously stating as “fact”, when in sooth it is nothing more than “partisan dribble”!

    Smileys and e-moticons are usually interpreted by normal people as an ingratiating gesture. Apparently, like most shrill Democrats, in your bitterness, and paranoia, you cannot even grasp such a concept, much less have a sense of humor!

    For someone who should be overjoyed that his Party is being declared the winner of the November elections even before the voters pulled on that lever, you sure are nothing but a bunch of sour grapes! Can’t even imagine how “up-the-wall” would you be if the “Defeatocrats” be losing!!!

    And you know what, this is no longer about Byron Calame, and or the treason of the NYT, but about you, just like your fellow leftists Democrats, wishing to win an unwinnable argument, and ram down my throat your bullshit about Bush being a liar, which has demonstrably been debunked so many times that it is absurd to keep arguing about it, and the rest of your “Hate America” Democratic “propaganda” crap!

    No amount of evidence or reasoning will ever break you away from your “state of denial”, and your “leftist delusions”, so it is futile to keep this up – there is no “reasoning” with a madman.

    And apparently, though I tried to end this in a humorous, amicable way, hence the smiley, it seems that you truly have some identity crisis issues, since it appears that, true to your apparent effeminate “affectation,” to the very end you must display that traditionally “feminine” trait of having to have the last word in any argument! So, do everyone a favor, and go and “engage in an act of attempted procreation through your anus with” yourself, and go and have your last word and let’s be done with it! Oh, and about those quotation marks:
    “””””””Coprophagus”””””””!

    Althor (ee9fe2)

  169. “For someone who should be overjoyed that his Party is being declared the winner of the November elections even before the voters pulled on that lever, you sure are nothing but a bunch of sour grapes! Can’t even imagine how “up-the-wall” would you be if the “Defeatocrats” be losing!!!”

    -Althor

    This is your problem, Althor. No matter how often I say it, on one post or another, you don’t seen to understand that THE DEMOCRAT’S AREN’T MY PARTY.
    I don’t win when they win; I don’t win when the Republicans win. I lose. Period.

    And you keep calling me a Communist and a Peacenik and a Revolutionary just because I don’t agree with you, when in reality I’m none of those things.

    Look… I realize I may have been argumentative and I apologize for calling any names. I see that you were just trying to be funny, and I’m sorry. I’d just like this to end on good terms is all.

    🙁

    Leviticus (43095b)

  170. …Just kidding, bitch, I’m always right.

    And I am a Communist, and an Anarchist, AND a Revolutionary! Not a Democrat, though.

    How’s that for good terms?

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  171. Interesting site! This is my vicodin ([url=http://youvicodin.blogspot.com]vicodin[/url]).

    vicodin (24e392)

  172. Top Fashion Tips…

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

    Top Fashion Tips (d82470)

  173. Ultram Aloe Vera…

    Ultram Aloe Vera…

    Ultram Aloe Vera (421df5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1571 secs.