You’d Think You Could Expect More From A Former White House Counsel
Posted by WLS:
Last week former Nixon White John Dean made the latest of his frequent appearances on Doltermann’s show.
While covering the FISA compromise legislation, and the retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies contained in the legislation, Dean and Doltermann had the following exchange:
DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”
OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.
DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know – we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.
One problem with this brillant exchange of ideas — there’s a long-standing line of legal precedent that says its a violation of the due process clause for the goverment to tell somebody to do something with the representation that its legal, and then turnaround and prosecute them on the basis that the conduct was illegal. From Cox v. Louisiana, 379, US 559 (1965):
In Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 1257, 3 L.Ed.2d 1344, this Court held that the Due Process Clause prevented conviction of persons for refusing to answer questions of a state investigating commission when they relied upon assurances of the commission, either express or implied, that they had a privilege under state law to refuse to answer, though in fact this privilege was not available to them. The situation presented here is analogous to that in Raley, which we deem to be controlling. As in Raley, under all the circumstances of this case, after the public officials acted as they did, to sustain appellant’s later conviction for demonstrating where they told him he could ‘would be to sanction an indefensible sort of entrapment by the State-convicting a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State had clearly told him was available to him.’ Id., at 426, 79 S.Ct., at 1260. The Due Process Clause does not permit convictions to be obtained under such circumstances.
The President issued an Executive Order authorizing the program, and the Administration’s agents then went to the telecomm companies to have them put in place the technical infrastructure to allow NSA monitoring consistent with the Executive Order.
And John Dean thinks the telecomms might be subject to criminal prosecution for their compliance after Congress insulates them from civil liability???
What a moron.
Dean is no moron. He brought about the Watergate scandal and has his reputation still intact with the political left. That takes some doing. There is a school of thought that he was actually behind a lot of it. Haldeman and Erlichman were the ones who let Nixon shoot off his mouth in private and quietly let off steam but they never followed through on his more extreme ideas. Dean had no judgement and was the one who made things happen and then was able to rat out his colleagues who loyally took the rap. For more see Liddy’s book and the Colodny book. He has a few things to say about Mark Felt, too.
This story is still not complete.
Mike K (b9ce3e) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:00 pmDean is a rat who abandoned the ship whose hull he had chewed a hole through. But he helped bring down Nixon, the media’s bete noir. So he still crawls out of his hole, twitches his nose, drops a few droppings, and then runs back in. The media proudly shows off his droppings.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:06 pmDean is one of Greewald’s favorite authors.
Enuf said.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:11 pm#1 So you’d be ok with Dean covering your back?
madmax333 (df0794) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:11 pmNice of him to cover his own ass. As nutso as Liddy can be, he did display fierce loyalty to Nixon and his co-conspirators. I imagine some of us who despise what the left gets away with now vis a vis national security concerns, releasing info, etc. might consider what was going on with lib protestors, the NY Times and that treasonous priest. Seems like history merely repeats itself and we really don’t learn jackshit from it. If I were on a jury judging Liddy for killing Dean, Liddy would walk. In any case, Dean’s lawsuits against Liddy didn’t turn out so well.
daleyrocks, actually that should be enough said.
But Dean’s been a hack since long before Greenwald ever heard of him. The Len Colodny book mentioned above, while it has some serious problems, is interesting to read with respect to Dean. Colodny shows how Dean has been spinning away his own acts for day one.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:24 pm” — there’s a long-standing line of legal precedent that says its a violation of the due process clause for the goverment to tell somebody to do something with the representation that its legal, and then turnaround and prosecute them on the basis that the conduct was illegal. From Cox v. Louisiana, 379, US 559 (1965):”
Serious question.
Then why did Bush threaten to veto any bill that didn’t include immunity?
According to your quote it seems that immunity is unnecessary.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:28 pmjharp, you again shown you don’t understand the topic being discussed. This is getting to be a habit with you.
The quote you copied is discussing criminal liability. The FISA bill contained immunity from civil liability.
Now lets see how often you call people who know more about you on this topic a “moron”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:31 pmFollow up question.
Sure sounds to me as if it was illegal as Bush threatened to veto it solely on the immunity clause.
“The President issued an Executive Order authorizing the program”
Does this mean the President can issue executive orders that violate the law?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:33 pm“The quote you copied is discussing criminal liability. The FISA bill contained immunity from civil liability.”
Thank you. I did not know that.
I wonder why they would ask for civil liability and not criminal. Seems to me they’d want both.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:35 pmAre you always this stupid, or are you practicing for the upcoming Olympics? ‘Cause that’s world-grade idiocy, right there…
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:36 pmserious question? Hardly. See the various civil lawsuits and their demands for mult-BILLION dollars in imaginary damages.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:37 pmOnly if the act is, in fact, illegal.
Since it isn’t, and the only hazard to the telecoms for cooperating in the GWoT is from anti-war types who will sue – and keep on suing – costing the telecoms much money, just because these losers want to stop anything that benefits the US or punishes the enemies of the United States, at any cost.
They don’t have the authority to haul the telecoms into criminal court, so they will drag out civil cases indefinitely.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:40 pmThe idea that Obama would, if elected President, prosecute criminally telecoms for cooperating with the Bush administration shows just how juvenile the Democratic constituency is today.
Unbelievably juvenile.
Obama’s biggest challenge is to convince the adult portion of the electorate that he is not the nut that his cult members worship. I’m betting he fails.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:42 pm“Does this mean the President can issue executive orders that violate the law?”
Why don’t you just answer the question, wiseguy? Maybe I’ll learn something.
Cause it seems to me that is exactly what happened.
I mean what the hell is the immunity all about if no laws were broken?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:43 pmNumerous and sundry “victims” of the telecomm’s cooperation with the Administration are suing the telecomms in courts around the country with varying degrees of success in keeping their suits going.
The FISA legislation contains retroactive immunity from suit for those companies — it would make all the lawsuits go away.
John Dean was suggesting that Obama, if elected, could have the Justice Dept. prosecute the telecomm companies for criminal conduct because the FISA legislation doesn’t afford the telecomms immunity from criminal prosecution.
For the reasons I explained above, that is an idiotic statement by Dean.
One President can’t request the assistance of a telecomm, only to have a subsequent President turn around and prosecute that same telecomm for providing the prior President with what he aske for.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:44 pmjhap — why don’t you provide us an explanation about why it is you think the Exec. order violated the law?
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:45 pmjharp, the President can issue executive orders that “violate” the law where the law itself encroaches on his constitutional powers or where Congress had no constitutional power to enact the law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:45 pmNo, WLS, don’t do it! We beat the FISA issue to death in previous threads months/years ago. jharp is not going to follow the rather high level of discussion that we had back then.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:47 pm“One President can’t request the assistance of a telecomm,”
Don’t you mean “request the telecoms break the law”?
only to have a subsequent President turn around and prosecute that same telecomm for providing the prior President with what he aske for.
And “prosecute that same telecom for breaking the law”
Pretty sweet deal to have Congress pass a law that makes your lawbreaking immune from civil and criminal liability.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:49 pmjhap — why don’t you provide us an explanation about why it is you think the Exec. order violated the law?
Because they are trying to pass a law that provides immunity. Doesn’t seem to me you’d need it if no laws were broken.
Gotta run but we be back shortly
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:51 pmjharp, now you are making up stuff again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:53 pmJust because I’m bored, jharp, here are the answers, which you would have undoubtedly heard by now if you actually cared to learn rather than complain…
1. Yes, the president can issue an executive order that violates the law, IF the law in question is an unconstitutional infringement by the legislative branch upon the powers vested exclusively in the President by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
2. As to why immunity is sought even if no laws were broken, is two-fold. One, defending against the lawsuits is exceedingly expensive. The private companies who acted at the request of the President in the aftermath of a major terror attack on U.S. soil that killed 3,000 people and destroyed a major American landmark and caused major damage to the headquarters of the U.S. military would be obscene and absurd. If you don’t like what the President did, take it out on him, not the private companies who acted at his request in those circumstances. Two, defending against the lawsuit would require disclosing operational details of the surveillance program in question. Disclosing such details would help the terrorists avoid our monitoring, just as disclosure of the fact that we could tap Osama’s cell phone led him to, guess what, stop using his cell phone!
PatHMV (0e077d) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:54 pmproviding immunity doesn’t say laws were broken. It just says “stop wasting the taxpayers’ money on frivilous lawsuits.”
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:55 pmJharp at 20
The fact that the telecomms want immunity is simply a reflection of their desire to bring all the litigation to a halt — not that they believe they might ultimately lose.
If you’re US West or Pacific Bell, do you want to pay 50 lawyers to defend you in 50 different lawsuits, even frivilous lawsuits, when you are getting sued for providing the government with the assistance it requested?
If they don’t get immunity, the next time a President comes to them asking for their assistance — even if completely and uncontestedly legal — the memory of what a bunch of yahoo trial lawyers and their left-wingnut friends can do through the filing of frivilous lawsuits would probably chill their willingness to help.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:56 pmMeanwhile, as Scott on Powerline writes here, Democrats are threatening Bush administration staffers with being attacked by terrorists.
More example that Democrats are unfit for office.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:58 pmWLS and it should chill any desire to aid future administrations. The only reason I’m not actually hoping that telecoms refuse to cooperate with an Obama administration in the future is that, unlike Democrats, I put the wellbeing of our country above partisan advantage.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 3:59 pmI don’t think all members of the Democrat Party are willing enablers of the enemies of the United States.
But it seems quite odd that the leaders of the Democrat Party don’t speak out for the United States & instead seems to do their darndest to cripple the United States and make it more possible for its enemies to thrive & prosper.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:00 pm#26 it seems to make sure that no one will want to cooperate with a President because of the threat of lawsuit – but I suspect that a presidency of Obama will use threats against private businesses to make sure they cooperate. Rather than use common interests – protecting the citizenry of the U.S. – I suspect that Obama will use his oleaginous charm & Chicago political savvy to put pressure on private businesses (and government agencies) to do his bidding.
We all remember how the Clintons got the FBI files. And we all remember the coincidental audits by the IRS against the Clintons’ enemies.
That era’s going to return. In shovelfuls.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:04 pmEverything is going so sweet and nice among my comrades. We dont seem to argue at all. Everything goes on so nice and quiet until these leftist, liberal, half-witted trollers show up to disquieten our sweet moments And now we have to argue on and on and on and on till we are at the 350th comment and we are not through because these damn leftist, misogynist, homophobic, sexist, racist dissenters wont ever let up and let us have our quiet brotherly, moments of agreement. So sad. And Patterico, it’s all your fault! 🙁
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:04 pm“The fact that the telecomms want immunity is simply a reflection of their desire to bring all the litigation to a halt — not that they believe they might ultimately lose.”
“If you’re US West or Pacific Bell, do you want to pay 50 lawyers to defend you in 50 different lawsuits, even frivilous lawsuits, when you are getting sued for providing the government with the assistance it requested?”
Interesting approach. No need to defend a lawsuit.
Just ask the U.S. Congress to write a new law!
God help us.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:09 pmSlightly OT, but have all the photos of Olby that I’ve ever seen been photoshopped to put him in an expensive suit?
andycanuck (3f2e1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:13 pmThat’s just a vapid crack, jharp. Of course Congress should immunize a telecom that acted to assist the Federal government.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:13 pmFTFY.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:19 pm“Of course Congress should immunize a telecom that acted to assist the Federal government.”
So why again do they need immunity if no laws were broken?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:28 pmjharp, you going to play this seesaw act all night? ‘Cause it got boring a long time ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:31 pmBecause of CIVIL lawsuits that were being brought by people who wanted to hamstring the President.
You do understand that civil lawsuits can be brought even though no laws were broken, don’t you? And that those lawsuits can be expensive to defend against, even though nobody did anything wrong?
Or are you just a submoronic asshat who delights in ignoring facts?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:35 pmI think a good addition would have been a requirement that the filer of said frivolous lawsuit were forced to pay all costs and fees.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:36 pmjharp is the quintessential Democratic voter. Explaining things is a waste of time. They operate on feelings so it’s no use. This next election will tell us the average level of maturity of the electorate. Bush is being punished because he seems unable to explain himself so I am less concerned at his low approval ratings than I am at the thought of empty suit Obama being elected.
Mike K (b9ce3e) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:56 pmDEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know – we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/27/2008 @ 4:56 pmIs Dean anticipating an Obama presidency and if so, he seems to be gunning for a role in it. What a sell out! My kind of guy actually. 🙂
“Because of CIVIL lawsuits that were being brought by people who wanted to hamstring the President.”
Hamstring, huh? Don’t you mean like, uh, follow the law?
I have got to admit I heard a new one here tonight that beats about anything I’ve ever heard.
Getting sued? Don’t want to defend yourself?
Just hold up a key piece of legislation that the Presidents claim is critical to the safety of the country until they add a provision that guarantees you immunity.
I don’t know if it’s booze or dope or how you come up with garbage like this.
But I do know you guys are out of your friggin minds.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:02 pm“I think a good addition would have been a requirement that the filer of said frivolous lawsuit were forced to pay all costs and fees.”
I’m pretty sure some states you can do exactly that.
Let the trials begin! And to both sides put up or shut up.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:05 pmSo why again do they need immunity if no laws were broken?
Because of CIVIL lawsuits that were being brought by people who wanted to hamstring the President.
Thanks. Let me rephrase that.
Why do they need immunity if they did nothing wrong?
You do understand that civil lawsuits can be brought even though no laws were broken, don’t you?
Yes, I did know that.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:07 pmjharp, first of all, your continual refrain that people who have a position you disagree with, ( or more often don’t understand at all ), are out of their minds is really getting very old. That you can’t form a coherent argument but instead just make references to mental health, is a pretty good clue that you are the one who is really deficient.
Another example of just how little you understand is when you make a reference to being “pretty sure” about a legal topic that you clearly don’t understand any more than any other topic you’ve opined upon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:08 pmNo. If I had meant that, I would have said that.
You claim to know this but ask “Why do they need immunity if they did nothing wrong?”? Are you suffering from a blow to the head or something? Because the only other conclusion that can be reached is that you suffer from a level of stupidity powerful enough that you need expert help remembering how to breathe.
You are also pretending to be unaware of lawsuits that are brought by political opponents for no other reason than to force a policy change.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:16 pmSo, Drumwaster,
Let’s start fresh here.
Why do they need immunity?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:25 pmWhy isn’t Congress repealing the law that admits these suits in the first place?
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:28 pmjharp, already answered above.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:31 pmWell, I will say that I thought that people like the harpster were MOBYs, in that no one could be that unable to listen to what he didn’t want to hear.
But I now work with someone who can be completely wrong on the facts and the analysis, and all the people in the group explaining it to him does nothing to make him understand the facts or, sadly, even recognize that he doesn’t understand the facts.
I suspect the online argument here is a similar case. The harpster doesn’t understand the argument and is instead continually trying to derail it to something he thinks he understands.
We can attempt to answer the continual non-understanding, but let’s face it, we’re not going to succeed in getting him to understand the issue or to even understand that he doesn’t comprehend the issue.
So have at it, but it’s not a good use of your time.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:31 pmBecause of the threats of civil lawsuits against the telecoms by people who are seeking to prevent or hinder the President’s ability to effectively carry out policies with which they might disagree. Those lawsuits, while frivolous, are expensive to defend against by the telecoms, and they don’t deserve it just because they helped out the President in a time of war.
Get it?
Which law would that be? Seriously, which law controls what causes and cases can be brought in civil court? (I’m all for repealing worthless laws, but I wasn’t aware there was one in this case.)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:32 pmIt’s my understanding that filing a suit is open to anyone – it doesn’t matter if “laws were broken.”
The beauty of the court system is that it can be used to punish your political opponents. Tie them up in endless, expensive lawsuits, and use the lawsuit as a way to smear them to boot. “So and so has had a lawsuit filed against him – he must have broken a law.”
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:33 pmWhy do they need immunity if they did nothing wrong?
Because there are people out there who DO NOT CARE the law was not broken and nobody did anything wrong. They decide they simply don’t like it.
But, they cannot do anything about it in criminal court because again, no laws were broken, and nobody did anything wrong.
So they find a lawyer (usually unscrupulous) to file a frivolous lawsuit that has little, if any, chance of winning, yet makes the defendant spend large amounts of cash to fight the legal charge.
The objective of of such frivolous lawsuits is not winning.
It is to monetarily bleed the defendant to death.
Monetarily bleed the defendant to death, not because of any wrongdoing…but because someone (or some group) doesn’t like what a company is doing, even though what they are doing breaks no law, and no one involved is doing anything wrong.
That is why they want immunity.
Got it?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:33 pm“Why isn’t Congress repealing the law that admits these suits in the first place?”
I’d say because most reasonble Americans believe in the 4th amendment that says no searches shall be executed without a warrant.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:33 pmI’m not finding that passage in Cox. Are you sure it’s the right cite?
jpe (bd88bc) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:34 pmjharp, and you would be both illustrating your ignorance of the issue and the Fourth Amendment at the same time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:34 pmWhat the hell are you talking about? How does the prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure have anything to do with frivolous lawsuits?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:35 pmPaul,
You have no understanding of our legal system to print such utter nonsense.
“The objective of of such frivolous lawsuits is not winning.”
“It is to monetarily bleed the defendant to death. ”
Do you really believe our legal system is so flawed that billion dollar companies can’t defend themselves against what you call frivolous lawsuits?
Hint. If they are frivolous the judge throws them out.
You do not need the United Sates Congress to pass a new law just for you.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:37 pmDrumwaster, jharp does not understand that the argument is about telecom cooperation with a program that was about call records not actual wiretapping. He does not understand the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment with such records – ie., when a subpoena is adequate for obtaining records versus a warrant.
And he is clueless about the fact that the suits in question have allegations that involve statutory law not the Fourth Amendment.
In short, he is not equipped to begin the argument at all. Again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:37 pmjharp, no, you are the one who is clueless about our legal system. Utterly.
And you are here lecturing people who deal with the system on a daily basis.
And we are laughing at you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:38 pm“How does the prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure have anything to do with frivolous lawsuits?”
Because that is what the lawsuits are about.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:39 pmI suspect that the harpster is simply a contrarian. Whatever position the blog owner takes, he’s agin’ it.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:40 pmY’know, they’re right.
You’re COMPLETELY clueless.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:40 pmRaley is readily distinguishable. There the defendant reasonably relied on the representation of an agent of a state. Presumably, the telcos are well aware of their rights and obligations, and still opted to follow Bush in violating the law.
jpe (bd88bc) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:40 pm— there’s a long-standing line of legal precedent that says its a violation of the due process clause for the goverment to tell somebody to do something with the representation that its legal, and then turnaround and prosecute them on the basis that the conduct was illegal —
.
I don’t think the precedent you cite is persuasive in this context.
.
I also don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of a criminal prosecution, just not for the reason you cite.
.
I think the Congressional selective cutting off the civil right of action in 50 USC 1810 (and at the same time trying to cut off the hearing of constitutional claims) is a serious balance-of-powers and Congressional credibility problem.
.
If civil suits pose a risk of discovery of state secret, then the law that provides the right of action needs to be repealed.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:41 pmSo sue the government.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:41 pmGlenn Greenwald.
(1) NSA expert James Bamford makes a vital point in a New York Times Op-Ed this morning: regardless of what happens with FISA issues going forward, George Bush violated the criminal law for the last five years by eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, and a federal court has already ruled that this is the case. Violations of FISA are felonies punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine per offense.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:43 pmFound the cite to Raley in Cox, so nevermind the above. Both are inapposite here.
jpe (bd88bc) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:43 pmThere was no law violated. Period. That does not stop those who seek to hamstring the Administration by threatening any company that cooperates with the President or any Executive agencies.
Thus, the need for the immunity.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:43 pmjharp, first of all you don’t realize just how stupid you look citing to Greenwald on this blog, do you?
Secondly, Bamford is not an “NSA expert”. He’s a writer and one who lost all of his credibility with his nutball writing about the USS Liberty.
You really are an incompetent troll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:45 pmYou have no understanding of our legal system to print such utter nonsense.
You do realize this blog is published by a lawyer? And many of the commenters are lawyers themselves?
You really have done an outstanding job of making yourself look like an idiot.
And we are laughing at you.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:45 pmOMG
jharp quoted the Sockpuppet King?
Here?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:48 pmobsidianwings.com
Critical to sealing the deal was a compromise that would grant conditional immunity to telecommunications companies for assistance they provided from September 2001 through January 2007. If the companies can show a federal district court judge “substantial evidence” they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.”
To recap: there are some minor fixes to the FISA law that everyone agrees should be adopted. The sticking point is whether companies that helped the government engage in surveillance that broke the law should receive immunity for their actions. It seems to me clear that the answer is ‘no’. First, people who break the law should be held accountable. Second, we’re not talking about some private citizen who might understandably have been inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt on questions of law, but about large companies with serious legal departments. Third, since our government does not seem inclined to tell us exactly what it has been doing, discovery in these lawsuits has been about the only way in which we have found out anything at all. Shutting down these lawsuits might prevent us from ever finding out.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:48 pmSo the harpster is quoting others – and not understanding them – and that somehow proves — what, exactly?
I know how copy-paste works. That’s not how arguments are won, however.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:50 pmThat whole second paragraph was a question-begging exercise the likes of which I haven’t seen before.
Impressive in the sheer density of stupidity.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:51 pm— There was no law violated. Period. —
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:51 pm.
That depends on what you mean by “the law.” The administration description of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (one end in US, one end out of US, one of those two a suspected terrorist; communications acquired without apprising FISC) is a violation of statutory law.
.
There’s a damn good argument that notwithstanding this, the acquisitions of communications still are withing the executive’s sole power to obtain, as foreign intelligence. If they are, then “Constitutional” (See Keith and Truong)
.
But 50 USC 1810 (a statute) provides a civil right of action, damages and all, if the statute is violated … and by the administration’s description of the TSP, the statute was violated.
.
Who was snooped is anybody’s guess, so there aren’t plaintiff’s with clear standing to sue. But that FISA was broken has already been answered to anybody who pays attention and understands.
.
When the administration says “lawful” the best translation is “constitutional.” But they want Congress to make that “It’s constitutional” call.
I think in this case (re: the telco exemption) I’m with Olbermann instead of Greenwald. Olbermann is also OK with the telco immunity.
Who’da thunk he’d be seeing things my way?
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:52 pmjharp, you should really stop now. Quoting Greenwald alone was hilarious. Quoting Bamford is just your ignorance showing.
but now just going around cutting and pasting stuff you don’t understand … well, that makes me think you are really alphie
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:52 pmYeah, I did know you were lawyers. So what?
You still don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
Please. Having Congress pass a law so a company doesn’t need to defend a civil lawsuit?
And holding up a law that our President claims is vital to national security until they are granted immunity?
Preposterous.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:52 pmIn fact, even Obamessiah sees things my way. Greenwald is a tiny minority.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:53 pmjharp, quoting Greenwald and Bamford and then claiming that we don’t know what we are talking about?
Astonishing that you are so immune to irony.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:54 pmBehold the mighty MOBY with his computer’s clipboard. He can cut-and-paste from a myriad of same-thinking websites and prove his mastery of jurisprudence.
Lawyers with actual degrees – despair! You are unmasked as unthinking professionals. A man with an Internet connection has given you a blow in your glass jaws!
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:55 pmbut now just going around cutting and pasting stuff you don’t understand … well, that makes me think you are really alphie
Oh c’mon, SPQR…at least Staunch Brayer did it with a chuckle.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:55 pmsteve miller, he is also too clueless to notice that one of his cut and paste’s actually supported an argument made above.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:56 pmThird, since our government does not seem inclined to tell us, Al Qaeda, exactly what it has been doing, discovery in these lawsuits has been about the only way in which we, Al Qaeda, have found out anything at all. Shutting down these lawsuits might prevent us, Al Qaeda, from ever finding out.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:59 pmThat’s what I don’t get. It’s like me having a magazine on cutting meat and using it to argue against neurosurgeons on how the brain “really works.”
I’d be wrong most of the time, and dangerously wrong almost all the time. And professional surgeons & others of the medical field would not suffer me gladly.
Having access to the Internet doesn’t make some people any smarter.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:59 pmAh, but it did not escape nk …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 5:59 pmsteve, there is a substantial difference however.
I’m not saying that jharp is not entitled to an opinion on the matter. I’m not saying that only attorneys can discuss it or hold informed opinion.
I’m saying that when jharp comes here and calls people who have more sophisticated understanding of an issue than he does “idiots” that he’s a clown.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 6:01 pmSPQR, I think we agree – anyone can have an opinion. I have them, too, and I’m no trained lawyer. I’m just an ordinary citizen who has the right to participate in the democracy.
But while I can opine on what a law means, I’m not likely to have as deep an understanding as a trained professional. I might not like the Kelo decision, for example, and I fear that it means my government can come claim my home because they want it for whatever reason they can think up. But people with deeper understanding provide more context and give better analysis.
I’d be happy to disagree with a lawyer, but I don’t think I “know” the law better. Unless, of course, I’m a constitutional lawyer running for President and I’m claiming to fully understand how the Constitution should be interpreted by the heart & not the mind.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 6:07 pmjpe at 53 — its headnote 12, at page 571.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 6:33 pmYep, saw it. I don’t know what alternate universe I stumbled into that I couldn’t find the passage, but whatever. Anyways, those two cases – in which people w/ no legal knowledge rely on the government’s assessment of its own laws – is entirely different from the case of AT&T, with its platoon of sophisticated counsel.
In the Raver case, the government told the defendant that Y was legal and that the D should do Y, and D had no reason to think otherwise. In the NSA case, the government told D that Y was illegal, but should still do Y, and D had every reason to know that Y was illegal and that the state’s arguments were, at the very best, weak.
jpe (bd88bc) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:13 pmLet me just add that I don’t think the telcoms should be prosecuted as a matter of policy, and I don’t think they will be prosecuted as a matter of politics. I don’t think Raver and Cox are authority for the proposition that they can’t be prosecuted, though.
jpe (bd88bc) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:15 pmWould you care to bet? This has already been threatened. (See the original post.)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:17 pmIf people like the harpster get there way, then disagreement over policy will result in ruinous lawsuits against citizens and companies. It’s the best of all possible worlds for the Democrat Party, which can sue out of existence anyone or any business that doesn’t toe the party line.
steve miller (e5eca4) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:35 pmShould have responded to this earlier:
Do you really believe our legal system is so flawed that billion dollar companies can’t defend themselves against what you call frivolous lawsuits?
Yes, they can. But it costs money to do so. Lawyers don’t work for free.
So, the objective of frivolous lawsuits in many cases is to get the defendant to spend large amounts of cash on legal defense, so even if the lawsuit is not won, the objective is still attained.
Hint. If they are frivolous the judge throws them out.
Problem is, unless the judge is like Levi and knows the all the details of the plaintiff’s case the instant it is filed without reading it, the lawsuit proceeds and the defendant’s legal fees mount before the case is thrown out. Again, the objective is attained–make the defendant spend money.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:41 pmThe very idea that a policy / partisan dispute between Republicans and Democrats should become a lawsuit against third parties shows just how juvenile the Democratic party has become.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:48 pmjpe — I think we are both working with unknowns to a certain extent. I don’t know that its been reported anywhere that the Admin. told the telecomms that what they were being asked to do was illegal, but do it anyway.
The Admin. has always taken the position that collectio of intelligence on enemy combatants during a time of war is within the constitutional authority of the President under Article II. I believe the Executive Order that created the surveillance program rests on that proposition.
Whether the Telecomms had attorneys to advise them or not is not really relevant.
If/when an Obama DOJ hauls those Telecomms before a federal district court judge after charging them with a crime, the judge is going to wonder how it is that the US Government can prosecute a company after the US Government asked the company to do the very thing for which it now wants to prosecute them.
The law doesn’t distinguish between Administrations — the government is the government. An Obama Administration is legally responsible for anything the Bush Adminsitration may have done. If the Bush Administration drew the Telecomms into “illegal” conduct, the Obama Administration won’t be able to prosecute them. The Obama Administration isn’t a new or separate sovereign from the Administration that preceeded it.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:49 pmThe point of the onslaught of lawsuits is to get the Telecomms to offer millions of dollars to settle and make the bleeding stop. Its the “cost of litigation” settlement strategy.
It doesn’t have a hill of beans to do with civil liberties.
Its all about 33% — the trial lawyers contingent fee on the settlement.
Its the trial lawyers whose interests the Dems are protecting — everything else is just intellectual slop to the left-wing-nuts.
WLS (68fd1f) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:51 pm#26 – the dems are also doing things such as holding up appointments to positions to punish people who have worked w/ the administration, i.e. hans van spavosky. this type of extortion is mob level. shame RICO cant be used on pelosi or reid.
chas (12a229) — 6/27/2008 @ 7:58 pmThe point of the onslaught of lawsuits is to get the Telecomms to offer millions of dollars to settle and make the bleeding stop. Its the “cost of litigation” settlement strategy.
I neglected to address that, WLS. Thanks.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:14 pmI think another consequences of the protests and lawsuits is that telecomms and other industries will be reluctant to assist the government in the future since it would expose them to potential liability.
DRJ (865fdd) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:25 pmI’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think a lawsuit against telcos would be about a legal finding on the prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure. That generally comes into play when someone is charged with something and the judge excludes the evidence.
In a civil suit, the jury isn’t ruling on whether a law was broken. They’re not capable of doing that. They just have to be convinced that some kind of punishment is in order against the telcos and the lawyers can get some enormous award. The jury in a civil suit is not there to determine what the law is or isn’t.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:26 pmIn the battle of ideas this guy kicking your ass, in my opinion.
And please save any insults. I know how you feel. Anyone that take the time to point out Greenwald’s errors I’d appreciate it.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/17/amnesty/
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:47 pmYou would not, in fact, appreciate it, jharp. You would ignore it, just as you have ignored every single explanation and answer provided to you thus far. Your only response, when you’ve responded at all, is to say the equivalent of “no it wouldn’t,” with no futher explanation, argument, or elaboration to support that claim. Since you’ve demonstrated quite clearly, in response to patient, substantive answers to your questions, that your mind is utterly convinced and you are not asking your questions in good faith, there’s absolutely no point for anybody to waste their time once again pointing out the same errors.
PatHMV (0e077d) — 6/27/2008 @ 8:57 pmIn the battle of ideas this guy kicking your ass, in my opinion.
Put Greenwald into the search box on the right column, genius.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:06 pmYou are completely clueless, jharp, and I’m hurting my ribs laughing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:07 pmPaul,
“Put Greenwald into the search box on the right column, genius.”
I did and read for a while and didn’t see much of anything.
If you’d like to highlight something I’d be happy to read it. It has been my experience that when Glenn mucks up he corrects himself.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:35 pmYou are completely clueless, jharp, and I’m hurting my ribs laughing.
Comment by SPQR
I hope you are enjoying yourself. I’d be interested in something I am so clueless about. I’m always willing to learn.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:38 pmI am enjoying myself, jharp. You’ve no clue why Greenwald is ridiculed across the blogosphere. And no clue why Bamford has discredited himself and been caught outright lying.
You are so far behind that you can’t catch up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:40 pm“It has been my experience that when Glenn mucks up he corrects himself.”
Funniest thing I’ve read all year.
Patterico (2f4cf5) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:50 pmI am enjoying myself, jharp. You’ve no clue why Greenwald is ridiculed across the blogosphere. And no clue why Bamford has discredited himself and been caught outright lying.
You are so far behind that you can’t catch up.
Comment by SPQR
Please share. I’d like to know.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:51 pm“It has been my experience that when Glenn mucks up he corrects himself.”
Funniest thing I’ve read all year.
Please share as I’d like to know. I’m a big fan of Greenwald.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:52 pmjharp, Greenwald has been caught using false identities to applaud his own postings, attack critics and hide behind. Patterico here is hurting his own ribs because he was central to exposing Greenwald for the fraud he is. On substantive issues, Patterico and others have shown that Greenwald is as dishonest in his own name as under sockpuppet names.
Bamford was caught lying about a multitude of claims – the most notorious his lies about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
At best, you are a rube. At worst, another sockpuppet. In between, you are merely an incompetent troll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 9:55 pmI’m very interested to know the details. As I said earlier I’m a big fan of Greenwald.
If you have a link or anything else I’d like to see it.
Greenwald has been caught using false identities to applaud his own postings, attack critics and hide behind. Patterico here is hurting his own ribs because he was central to exposing Greenwald for the fraud he is. On substantive issues, Patterico and others have shown that Greenwald is as dishonest in his own name as under sockpuppet names.
Bamford was caught lying about a multitude of claims – the most notorious his lies about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:04 pmjharp, learn to use Google. I’m done trying to educate trolls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:07 pmjharp,
Start here.
DRJ (865fdd) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:10 pm“I’m always willing to learn.”
You have absolutely no evidence of it on this blog dipshit.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:14 pmAh, DRJ, you spoiled it.
And I was waiting for jharp to actually use the Four Pillars of Greatness.
BTW, jharp, among the many, many bloggers who have kicked Greenwald’s ass – and without any acknowledge of his multitude of errors from Greenwald – are Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Goldstein as well as Patterico.
So, troll, rube or sockpuppet, which best fits you, jharp?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:17 pmYou have DEMONSTRATED absolutely no evidence of it on this blog dipshit.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:17 pmI’m sorry, SPQR. That will teach me to drop in on a conversation uninvited.
DRJ (865fdd) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:23 pmjharp,
Start here.
Comment by DRJ
I read most of it and didn’t see much substance. To me even if he is guilty as charged it didn’t mean much. I tend to focus on the contents of his posts which I have found to be reliable.
Disclaimer: I’m just an ordinary dude who has no connection whatsoever with any blogger. Just a reader and commenter.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:24 pmDRJ, oh please know that I was joking. I’m among those who value your presence greatly.
jharp, you are not narrowing down the choices with that hilarious line.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:28 pmTry reading it again. (Take the blinders off first.) Click a few of the links to see that Patterico and the rest are not lying.
If, after all that, you still claim that the Gleens have any Internet credibility whatsoever, then you have immediately eliminated any scrap of your own.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:28 pm“So, troll, rube or sockpuppet, which best fits you, jharp?”
I don’t know. You tell me.
I’m a 47 year man with a family who makes posts calling out people that publish what I think is bullshit.
You don’t have any problem with that do you?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:29 pmWhat Bush is doing with eavedropping is illegal. How do we know that? Greenwald has deemed it so!
How has Greenwald reached that conclusion? Who the fuck knows. Does he have inside information? He doesn’t claim any. Does he understand the technology involved? Clearly not if you read his post. Does he know exactly hoe the program works? No, if he did there wouldn’t be any need for him to keep frothing at the mouth about finding out about what Bush did. Does he acknowledge that Democrat leadership was briefed about the program at the outset and had no problems? He’s rather ignore that.
So how does he arrive at his conclusion that Bush is doing something illegal if he doesn’t know what Bush is doing? The usual Greenwald method. He just makes shit up because he hates Bush and his administration. It’s all part of his trampling the constitution meme, of which he has basically zippo evidence.
I commented over at Greenwald’s place for a while before he moved to Salon. With a few exceptions, the place is filled with brain dead sycophantic Greenwald fans who haven’t had an independent thought in 20 years and are willing to believe anything he says, even when his links don’t say what he claims they do and his posts internally contradict themselves.
The man is just a worthless purple prose filled ranter who could say what he was trying to say with one fifth the words. It’s no wonder the left loves him. They don’t want to think. They want to be told what to think.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:32 pmFTFY
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:32 pmjharp, I don’t have a problem that you are a failure at what you claim to be your work.
I have a problem with the fact that you are so gullible and think that clowns like Greenwald and Bamford are credible. And I have a problem that you are so obstinent in your stubborn adherence to objective falsehoods.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:32 pm” I tend to focus on the contents of his posts which I have found to be reliable.”
jharp – You are obviously not reading him critically enough, which I hardly find surprising.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:36 pmjharp – How have Greenwald’s posts on Haditha, the Anbar Awakening and Iran’s involvement in Iraq stood the test of time? As I recall he was about six months late in noticing something going on in Anbar. I’m not even sure if he has acknowledged yet whether Iran has involvement in Iraq because he can’t trust the evidence the Bush administration and others present. His antisurge posts were pretty good as well.
He does a formulaic job with attack posts on members of the media he doesn’t like. Perhaps you enjoy those.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:43 pmSPQR,
I know you were kidding but I’m still sorry that I jumped into an ongoing conversation. My excuse is I like to take every opportunity I can to link the Wuzzadem post because it’s so good.
DRJ (865fdd) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:44 pmDRJ, it is absolutely hilarious.
But so far, jharp has given us only one of the Four Pillars of Greatness. But the night is young.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:46 pmDRJ – That’s one of my favorites too.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:46 pm“jharp – How have Greenwald’s posts on Haditha, the Anbar Awakening and Iran’s involvement in Iraq stood the test of time? As I recall he was about six months late in noticing something going on in Anbar. I’m not even sure if he has acknowledged yet whether Iran has involvement in Iraq because he can’t trust the evidence the Bush administration and others present. His antisurge posts were pretty good as well.”
WTF. Do you think I’m an encyclopedia britanica?
Please post a link or a copy and paste. I’d read it.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:49 pmjharp, believe me. Lauding Greenwald alone ended any hope you ever had of having any credibility in the blogosphere.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:50 pmWTF. Do you think I’m an encyclopedia britanica?
jharp – I’m just suggesting some of his more “reliable” topics.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:52 pmjharp – I’m just suggesting some of his more “reliable” topics.
I’ve been following him daily since before he went to Salon. (unclaimed territory).
And I have yet to see him caught in a “gotcha”. If you’ve got a couple I’d like to read em. Or even one for that matter.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:59 pmjharp, that’s another indication of just how unperceptive you are.
Just full of giggles, aren’t you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 10:59 pmHarpie, you’re from Brazil, aren’t you?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:02 pmI find it hilarious that jharp still hasn’t dealt with the fact that his own quote of Greenwald/Ellersberg refers to the proven liar – Bamford.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:04 pmNow that I think about it, am I the only one that finds this construction of jharp’s odd?
“I’m a 47 year man with a family ”
Very odd?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:06 pm“And I have yet to see him caught in a “gotcha”. If you’ve got a couple I’d like to read em. Or even one for that matter.”
And I’m not from Brazil
“I’m a 47 year man with a family ”
“Very odd?”
Don’t know what you find very odd but try this. 47 year old businessman with a wife and two kids.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:16 pmDoubt if anyone thinks he’s an encyclopedia britanica.
Hazy (c36902) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:17 pmSeems to me that someone here either has a crush on Glenn Greenwald or for some other reason refuses to share the details of the “gotcha’ posts he’s made.
I’d really like to know as I trust the guy and read him daily.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:21 pmI’ve already given you enough data to know that you can’t trust him, jharp.
The whole blogosphere knows he is not trustworthy. It is clear who has the “crush” on Gleen/ellersby … yep, with a family. Sure, we believe it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:25 pmIs English a second language for you? He specifically quoted what he found unusual. If you see nothing unusual with it, then his point is not only proven, but graven into stone for future generations to learn from.
I used to think I was the Encyclopedia Americana.
***
I got better.
Try following a few links above, especially this one
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:32 pmFrankly, Drumwaster, quoting Bamford – a proven liar – ought to be enough for any sane person to know that Greenwald is dishonest.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:37 pmI got better.
And I have yet to see him caught in a “gotcha”.
Try following a few links above, especially this one
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/27/2008 @ 11:32 pm
Already read most of it and didn’t see anything of substance.
I find it interesting that you guys are quite critical of a blogger that you accuse of being wrong (so far little to no evidence to support) yet it’s OK that the friggin President of United States has been knowingly wrong and has started a war based on being wrong, and has gotten 4,100 killed, 25,000 wounded and pissed away $1 trillion and that’s OK.
How do you sleep at night?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:40 pmjharp, we sleep at night because people with zero credibility – and demonstrably incompetent – like yourself are Bush’s critics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:41 pmMeanwhile the weird comment about family is still unexplained.
I think its a subconscious hint however.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:51 pmSo what would YOU have recommended as the alternative? More Oil for food? More pilots getting shot at? More terrorists getting money from Saddam? More of Saddam’s political prisoners getting Abu Ghraib’d (by such things as having bones broken, tossed off the roofs of buildings or dropped into industrial chippers – head first, if they were lucky)?
You also have ignored the Senate report that says that everything Bush said was borne out by the intelligence available. (Or are you saying that Bush should have been able to read the future?)
You should have ended that with a “Good DAY, Sir!” just to add the verisimilitude.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/27/2008 @ 11:56 pm“Meanwhile the weird comment about family is still unexplained.”
Not sure what you mean but I’d be happy to clear it up.
I think its a subconscious hint however, that people who dwell on things that they feel are subconscious hints coming from other men are… .. well, hints of something.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:19 amOhhh… and like any good leftie, he resorts, when pushed, to suggesting his critics are homosexuals. Not, I’m sure, that there’s anything wrong with that in his mind.
PatHMV (0e077d) — 6/28/2008 @ 6:31 amOne of my favorite Greenwald quotes which illustrates that for him yhe ends justify the means:
“There are some people who treat our conflicts with the Bush administration and their followers as just a matter of basic, friendly political and policy differences – along the lines of “what should the rate of capital gains tax be?” or “what type of laws can best encourage employers to provide more benefits to their employees” – and therefore, we treat people who support the administration with respect and civility and simply have nice, clean discussions to sort out our differences among well-intentioned people.
That isn’t how I see that, and nobody should come to this blog expecting that. I don’t think I’ve done anything to lead anyone to expect otherwise. I see the Bush movement and its various component parts as a plague and a threat, as anything but well-intentioned. My goal, politically speaking, is to do what I can to undermine it and the institutions that have both supported and enabled it.”
That’s from his comment section on 12/02/06 and shows he is a completely biased commentator, with one goal in mind. It comes through loud and clear in his writing and his unwillingness to admit his errors, his dishonesty, his inability to consider administration actions legal merely because his pea brain is not creative enough to visualize legal channels or biased not to even conceptualize the possibility of legal actions.
He is one of the most dishonest, bitter, viscious, intellectually dim, vituperative, hacks writing on the internet. IMHO
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:05 amSo he openly admits his bias and tells people not to expect otherwise.
What’s wrong with that?
Would you rather he took the Sean Hannity, phony as the day is long, approach.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:02 am“Meanwhile the weird comment about family is still unexplained.”
You forgot to add in his prior comments about the following:
– he’s a multiple – gun owner who has lots of “bullets.”
– he’s also an expert marksman, who has extensive knowledge of shotgun proficiency and the tendency for any suspects in the path of said shotgun blasts to fly back immediately out into the next room;
– he’s also dealt extensively with businesses who’ve habitually depreciated their motor vehicles;
– “I’m Elmer Fudd, and I have a mansion AND a yacht!”
(Ok, I made up the last one.)
Dmac (ea35f7) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:02 amjharp, we’ve shown that Greenwald is a phony. You’ve shown your own lack of objectivity by refusing to confront the history of your idol.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:21 amAnd I also deal in international trade and see the effects of a weakening dollar every day.
Stuff like big price increases for American consumers.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:21 amjharp, you deal in international trade? How was the checkout line in Walmart today?
Or do you mean you are in Brazil?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:22 am“jharp, we’ve shown that Greenwald is a phony.”
I must have missed it. Would you be kind enough to point out where it is shown?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:23 amIt eliminated any vestige of credibility when he got caught LYING and sockpuppeting. I wouldn’t trust any of the Gleens if they said the Earth was the third planet from our sun.
At least Hannity has Colmes to present the opposing viewpoint. What does Gleen have, besides his multiple sockpuppets, all of whom are parroting the exact same line (sometimes even before the “real” Gigi posts it).
But as long as he has people like you to uncriticizingly cut-n-paste his latest RAGE (UPDATED!), he can pretend none of it happened.
And you suck down the Kool-Aid in such a concentrated form, it’s almost still powder.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:24 amYou didn’t miss it. You ignored it. It is of a kind of your troll act.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:25 am#151 seems like he’s in really good company with many of the editorial writers at NY Times- Herberet, Krugman, Dowd. Where does he fit in the lib pantheon of vocal stars such as Kos, Huff, Mikey Moore, Reid, various mouthy “stars” like O’Donnell, Streisand, Penn, Spacey,etc. ? Some of whom love to suck up to foreign despots such as Chavez and Dinnerjacket.
Ok, they hate Bush and want him to fail, be impeached, imprisoned, executed,whatever. But how the hell can they rationalize contributing to their own country’s failure and loss of troops to islamofascists? Don’t they and some of the pond scum on the internet and even here realize they only encourage more resistance from the dead end assholes of allah, may pigs crap on him? Come November, just who will they seek out to vilify from the right. If Juan McCain wins, will there be MDS? Will those who ululate for Obama take to the streets to riot, loot and kill?
madmax333 (14250d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:25 amHad to laugh at how even with Obama spinning his different points of view in the wind, leftists see that as a good thing. Flip flop is a good thing, we need more of the John Francoise sKerry “nuance” BS? Ann Althouse thinks Obama’s Lurch impersonation is a dandy thing and would serve him well as POTUS. How many ditzy, clueless enablers are fascinated with the empty suit? Maybe Harpy could explain it since she seems to be the expert on most everything? Or maybe it will just be more Bush lied ad hominem attacks?
Ohgoodlord.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:25 am“jharp, you deal in international trade?”
Yes.
“How was the checkout line in Walmart today?”
Sucked. Retail is the next shoe to fall once the tax rebates are spent. It’s a pretty ugly scene.
Though I might add Wal Mart is faring better than most.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:29 amGo back to jharp’s vacuous “how do you sleep?” comment above. This is the constant between Levi, jharp, alphie and the rest of that ilk. They are so completely convinced that they are smarter than their opponents – no matter how often that they are shown to be utterly incompetent in expressing argumetn, utterly ignorant of the details of the actual issues they opine upon, and without any command of the factual basis for any of their claims.
They keep getting completely spanked on the substance and yet their belief in their superior opinion is unshaken.
What could be better evidence of their lack of rationality? What could be better evidence of the cult nature of their faith?
I sleep well at night because I know that those who hold contrary opinions are so incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:32 amTypical Gluppet. Many sandwiches short of a picnic yet everybody else is a moron and everything anyone else says is bullshit.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:36 am“Ok, they hate Bush and want him to fail, be impeached, imprisoned, executed,whatever.”
Can’t speak for everybody but I don’t hate Bush. Though I do hate quite a few of his policies.
I suppose you could say I want him to fail in the sense that I don’t want him to succeed in the continuation of his failed policies.
I very much want our country to prosper. kind of like the good old 90’s.
“But how the hell can they rationalize contributing to their own country’s failure and loss of troops to islamofascists?”
Quite the contrary. It is Bush and the the Bush enablers that are contributing to our country’s failures.
You want to stop the loss of troops?
Bring them home. Iraq never was a threat and isn’t today.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:51 amMore trollish behavior.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:53 amWhoever is keeping track, add “Recent World History” to the list of things harpie is utterly clueless about.
(Hint: the most isolated country on the planet on September 10, 2001 was Afghanistan under the Taliban. Only two governments on the entire planet even recognized the legal existence of that government. 24 hours changed all that.)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:05 am— The Admin. has always taken the position that collectio of intelligence on enemy combatants during a time of war is within the constitutional authority of the President under Article II. I believe the Executive Order that created the surveillance program rests on that proposition. —
.
The Article II power is broader, in that it is in place in peacetime as well as wartime. The power is the power to obtain and act on “foreign intelligence information.”
.
Whatever legal proposition the administration rested its TSP surveillance orders on doesn’t fit the scheme set forth in the FISA and Title III search/acquisition statutes.
.
Just from memory, the administration has recently released some internal legal memoranda that indicate the AUMF was a Congressional grant of authority to conduct warrantless surveillance in the US. That would mean that the administration is arguing that its power to conduct the TSP wasn’t derived from Article II acting alone.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:21 amIraq never was a threat
Whoever is keeping track, add “Recent World History” to the list of things harpie is utterly clueless about.
Please, please take the time to enlighten me on the Iraqi threat.
Was it the nonexistent WMD’s?
Or the non existent ties to al Qaeda?
Or the nonexistent connection to the 911 attacks?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:38 am— In a civil suit, the jury isn’t ruling on whether a law was broken. They’re not capable of doing that. They just have to be convinced that some kind of punishment is in order against the telcos and the lawyers can get some enormous award. —
.
The consolidated civil suits in this case are a mixed bag. Some are based on state regulations set up by, e.g. a Public Utilities Commission. Some allege violations of FISA, and FISA itself creates a right to bring a civil suit. See “50 USC 1810 – Civil liability”
.
I’ve never heard a good answer as to why that statute isn’t repealed outright.
.
Finally, some of the claims are “pure” constitutional claims.
.
The argument that the suits will result in gigantic awards is bogus. The only way to get an award under the statute is to prove you were subjected to surveillance, where the surveillance was not done in accordance with the law. How is a person going to prove that? A number of the proponents of retroactive immunity acknowledge that the money awards will be trivial (if any), and point instead to the damage caused by disclosing “the program.”
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:39 amjharp, now that you’ve abandoned discussing the actual topic of the thread, if Iraq was never a threat, just how was it that it managed to fight a nation several times its size to a standstill ( Iran ), invade Kuwait, fight in at least two of the Arab-Israeli wars and be involved in at least one terror attack in the US?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:44 amNot to mention supporting, supplying and protecting international terrorists… (Abu Nidal ring a bell?)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:48 amNot to mention that “nonexistant WMD’s” was yet another in a long string of jharp’s demonstrations of ignorance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:50 amLike I said above, Afghanistan under the Taliban wasn’t a threat to anyone as the sun set on the evening of September 10, 2001.
Amazing how 24 hours can change this, isn’t it?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:51 amcboldt, jharp himself cut and pasted some quote he didn’t understand that expressly stated that a goal of the lawsuits was to force disclosures of the NSA’s program. The benefit of that to our enemies is obvious to all but jharp.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:51 am#165 We get it that you’re vehemently opposed to war with Iraq. So all those ignored UN resolutions and Congressional vote authorizing war mean nada? All those international intelligence agencies and Clinton devotees and Bubba and wife themselves saying Hussein had WMD mean nothing? Bush cherry picked info to suit his desire for war for oil and wish to please the international zionist conspiracy?
What do you think of Popular Mechanics analysis of the Twin Towers falling down? Were demolitions set beforehand? Or did the Mossad fly the planes into them?
I believe I looked into the eyes of one of those killers the summer of ’01 in computer room in Delray. To me they are real and troofers are ignorant cretins.
A lib won’t even tolerate the fact that their own country is winning in Iraq and wishes for unconditional surrender to Alqaeda. Gotta go with the it is a law enforcement issue and we should place the emphasis on Afghanistan and Osama. Indeed Osama would have us invade sovereign ally Pakistan.
madmax333 (14250d) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:51 amDid that great constitutional expert Obama flip flop on the SCOTUS gun decision? Captain Ed says he did and ditz con law prof Althouse says Morrissey is full of shit. I wonder what the knowledgeable constitutional opiners here think about Obama’s legal expertise on anything?
So I suppose once Bush is gone away we can all come together and sing kumbaya. Congress with possibly more libs will actually accomplish something? Why waste time now? Surely Love’s and Harp’s heroes Kucinich and Wexler and Congress could multitask and save the country waiting until ’09 for a change! and Hope! by impeaching Cheney and Bush NOW?
Obviously fortress USA should hunker down, gut its wasteful, warmongering military and do the right things such as using $850 billion of tax monies to help Africa via the UN? Sort of another Oil for Food scheme perhaps? Gotta figure some way for those blue helmets to get involved though, whether like being totally useless Bozos as in Lebanon or finding fresh, young virgins to rape? I’m sure Obama will be up to the job come late January. Afterall he’s done a crackerjack job with things like public housing in Chicago. The gangs love his work as do the developers. The blacks who actually live in the hellholes might think otherwise. But then maybe Chi-town has many of the same attitudes and attributes as NOLA? If the Lightworker loses, god forbid, which city will burn first?
I don’t think he would even be able to define WMD.
Even if we were to spot him the ‘W’ and the ‘M’.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:53 amBack on Feb 12, the Senate passed an amendment, S.Amdt.3938, that attached the label “Weapon of Mass Destruction” to:
.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:01 amThese, according to the United States Senate, could be Weapons of Mass Destruction:
But he’s an expert in international trade now (along with devoted family man, munitions expert, splitting atoms with his mind, etc.), so that seals it. Whatever subject you bring up, no matter the issue at hand, he’ll spring forward with claimed expertise in areas he previously claimed no knowledge of – at this rate he’ll have to be classified as jackass of all trades, master of none.
Dmac (ea35f7) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:03 amPretty much what I expected.
A lot of wordiness but not one shred of evidence that Iraq was a threat.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:05 amOnly if those things cause “death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.”
One or two per trigger pull is not significant by these standards.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:07 amDo you bump into things a lot when you walk around?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:08 amHey, harpie, let’s try it this way. You’re the expert (snort, guffaw), so tell us:
What’s the difference between a “Cease Fire” and a “Peace Treaty”?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:10 am— a goal of the lawsuits was to force disclosures of the NSA’s program. The benefit of that to our enemies is obvious —
.
There is a significant body of caselaw on the meaning of the fourth amendment, i.e., how it is to be applied.
.
Without disclosing HOW the surveillance is done, do you think it is good for the people to know the legal limits, or legal policies that attach to government surveillance of the public, or should the government be able to operate without disclosing its policy?
.
The general rule has been that two branches have to agree that snooping is based on suspicion. Should that general rule be disposed of?
.
If the TSP hadn’t been disclosed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And maybe that would be all the better – to have government surveillance over a public that is unaware it is being surveilled.
.
Most people think the government practices restraint in snooping, and that belief is based on statutes and court cases. Should it matter if the government refuses to adhere to the statutes and court rulings?
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:14 am— Only if those things cause “death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.” —
.
Is capable of causing, but yeah, a “significant number,” whatever that is.
.
The incendiary material “gasoline,” is capable of causing death or serious injury to a significant number of people, if the arsonist barricades the exits to the crowded nightclub.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:18 amA lot of wordiness but not one shred of evidence that Iraq was a threat.
Cram this in your craw and chew on it: UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:21 amyeah, countries that are “not a threat” support terrorists, send mechanized divisions to fight Israel and invade their neighbors all the time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:25 amYou fellows have no shame.
Your response to my quote about a bunch of wordiness and no evidence?
More wordiness and not a shred of evidence that Iraq was a threat.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:29 amBack during WW2, whenever warships were sailing out of port en masse, it was a given that there would be somebody watching them leave, and the report of the departure (number of ships, what types, what direction and speed they were on when passing the horizon, etc.) would be within enemy hands even before the sailors had secured from Sea & Anchor Detail.
If those people were caught back then, they would have been hanged as spies. Today, they are lauded as “whistleblowers”.
Given that we are trying to find people that don’t want to be found, do you think it is a good idea for the newspapers to be detailing exactly what means and methods the US government is using to attempt to track down these miscreants? Or is the public’s alleged “need to know” somehow more sacrosanct than the governments ability to successfully prosecute the war?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:30 amA lot of wordiness but not one shred of evidence that Iraq was a threat.
Who said this on October 7, 2002?
Hint: his name has been mentioned for US Attorney General in an Obama administration.
Lots more where that came from.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:32 amDid you miss Paul’s link to UNSCR 1441, passed unanimously?
or is it going to be another of your patented “Already read most of it and didn’t see anything of substance” response?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:32 amjharp evidently missed the Iran-Iraq War, the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Kuwait invasion, the gas attacks on the Kurds, the ’93 WTC bombing, the mining of the Persian Gulf, the exocet attack on a US frigate …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:39 am— If those people were caught back then, they would have been hanged as spies. Today, they are lauded as “whistleblowers”. —
.
There are still laws that limit the collection and dissemination of “military moves.” See 18 USC 793.
.
— Given that we are trying to find people that don’t want to be found, do you think it is a good idea for the newspapers to be detailing exactly what means and methods the US government is using to attempt to track down these miscreants? —
.
I think the “means and methods” are common knowledge. “Tap the phone line” (or “open the mail”) in the vernacular. The question is on the rules that restrain the government from doing so willy nilly.
.
I’m not saying the government does snoop willy nilly – just that the subject is on the rules that restrain or govern the snoop. At one extreme there is agreement by two branches that snooping is warranted – the courts “check” the snooper, i.e., impose a degree of restraint.
.
The question I asked is whether or not the public has a right to know those rules? Should the statutes and court cases be viewed as “rules,” or is it better if they are they just a charade?
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:46 amjharp also missed all the UNSC resolutions passed between 1991 and 2002…and the fact that Saddam broke them all.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:47 amMore wordiness, and still no evidence that Iraq was a threat.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:49 amcboldt, there are a lot of means and methods that are not disclosed that could be involved in the TSP at issue. Such as what calling patterns were being searched for, what triggered interest in a number, exactly what time periods were being compared etc. All of which would enable a terrorist group to adjust their usage to avoid surveillance.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:49 amjharp, the classic Greenwald fan – putting fingers in the ears and shouting “Nyah Nyah Nyah I can’t hear you”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:50 amjharp, the classic Greenwald fan – putting fingers in the ears and shouting “Nyah Nyah Nyah I can’t hear you”.
No, quite the contrary I hear you loud and clear.
And no one has offered one piece of evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
And I’ll help you gentleman out and point out the reason you have not been able to cite any evidence that Iraq was a threat to us.
There isn’t any.
No WMD’s.
No connection with al Qaeda.
No connection to 911.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:02 pmAbu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam. What’s that about no connection to al-Qaeda? Bullshit.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:05 pmAnd what ever happened to that guy who is a threat?
You know, the one who actually was behind the 911 attacks.
Maybe it’s just me but I think we should be sending a message that anyone who attacks the United States will swiftly and forcefully feel the brunt of justice.
But that’s just me.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:06 pm— there are a lot of means and methods that are not disclosed that could be involved in the TSP at issue. Such as what calling patterns were being searched for, what triggered interest in a number, exactly what time periods were being compared etc. All of which would enable a terrorist group to adjust their usage to avoid surveillance. —
.
Are you under the assumption that the government is monitoring everybody’s calling patterns?
.
That would make the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statutes (18 USC 3121 et seq) into a charade too.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:07 pmharpie:
Paul:
harpie:
The only thought I can come up with is, “Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.” (Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller, if anyone is interested)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:07 pmThe Duelfer report shows that you don’t have a clue about WMD’s, jharp. No connection to 911 is a strawman. And “No connection with Al Queda” is a flat out lie and is in fact shown to be a lie by bipartisan reports. That you can’t even correctly copy the talking points is more evidence of your incompetence.
You really are quite ignorant of this topic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:08 pmYou think wrong. The days of “tap the phone line” are long gone. The phone system simply doesn’t work that way anymore.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:08 pmKhalid Sheik Mohammed is facing trial at Gitmo. Osama is hiding in a cave because he cannot show his face. I assume you had one of those two in mind.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:10 pm“Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam. What’s that about no connection to al-Qaeda? Bullshit.Bullshit.”
Throwing a couple of name out there is not sufficient as evidence.
What about them? And I can’t wait to hear.
“What’s that about no connection to al-Qaeda?”
Just what it says. No connection to al Qaeda. As a matter of fact Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:10 pmKhalid Sheikh Mohammed is in custody, and Osama (who was offered to Clinton on a silver platter by the Sudanese, only to have Billy Jeff turn them down, saying “we have no reason [other than the Federal indictments regarding the first WTC bombing and the African embassy attacks] to hold him”) is a protein smear on a cave wall in Tora Bora.
(Kind of hard to prosecute a splash of burnt bio waste, innit?)
How’s the Taliban doing at protecting him?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:11 pmYou really need me to explain them to you? Sonny, go get your education somewhere else. I don’t deal in dismantling willful ignorance. And you have it in spades.
If you honestly don’t know who Zarqawi was and what Ansar al-Islam was, perhaps you should do this.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:15 pm“The Duelfer report shows that you don’t have a clue about WMD’s, jharp. No connection to 911 is a strawman. And “No connection with Al Queda” is a flat out lie and is in fact shown to be a lie by bipartisan reports.”
Let’s see it, SPQR. You know, the evidence.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:15 pmThrowing a couple of name out there is not sufficient as evidence.
The mere fact that you don’t know those names and what they represent is further proof of your ignorance.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:16 pmPablo,
Just as I thought. You’ve got nothing.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:16 pm— You think wrong. The days of “tap the phone line” are long gone. —
.
I didn’t mean for my “in the vernacular” to convey an engineering or technical method, rather as a loose and quick way of saying “listen in” (or read, or view, or whatever).
.
Same with PTRR – the hardware is markedly different, I understand. But the general point of surveillance statutes, be they “listening in” or “call logging” in nature, is to describe the policies that restrain the government.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:17 pm“The mere fact that you don’t know those names and what they represent is further proof of your ignorance.”
Why would you assume I don’t know those names?
I asked for evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States not a list of names.
And 25 posts later I have yet to see anything.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:19 pmjharp, you really are clueless.
Go read the Duelfer report. Many of us have actually bothered to do so. You don’t even know it exists evidently.
There have been connections established between Al Queda and Iraq. The actual conclusion by the bipartisan commission was that there was “no collaborative relationship” which is a different statement.
This is an example of how stupid you are making yourself look. You don’t understand the issues at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:19 pmNo child, I’ve got nothing that I’m going to give you. The facts are plentiful and widely available. That you choose to ignore them is your problem and no skin off my nose.
I’m simply not going to offer you a Playskool version of geopolitical history. You are clearly not worth the effort.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:19 pmNo, no SPQR. He wants it spoon fed to him so he can spit it back in your face with his patented toddler petulance and righteousness.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:21 pmNow you are lying outright. There were documented cases of Iraqi Intelligence agents meeting with Al Qaeda (at Saddam’s direction, no less).
Here’s another page you can pretend to read and then ignore utterly. And here is the indictment that was so very effective at getting bin Laden, despite the fact that the Clinton government knew EXACTLY where he was, but did nothing about that datum.
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:22 pmjharp, what is hilarious is that in another previous thread it was already pointed out to you that you were ignorant of the link between Iraq and Al Queda that Bill Clinton claimed with reference to the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory. And are still can’t remember.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:23 pmMichael Scheuer – a favorite among BDS sufferers and the man who ran the CIA’s bin Laden unit during the Clinton admin – wrote in his 2002 book that it was known that Iraq and Sudan were cooperating with Al Queda on chemical and biological weapons development.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:28 pmI asked for evidence, not pages to read and indictments. Still nothing!
/muddleheaded contrarian
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:35 pmThere have been connections established between Al Queda and Iraq.
Yeah, and there is substantive evidence that the hijackers trained in Florida. Should we have attacked Florida?
“The actual conclusion by the bipartisan commission was that there was “no collaborative relationship” ”
That is correct.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:35 pmWhy would you assume I don’t know those names?
Because those names were evidence. You casually tossed them aside and claimed “no evidence.” Therefore you don’t know them. Therefore you are ignorant.
See how that works?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:41 pmKind of says something about how fucked up the United States has become.
After 5 1/2 years, $1 trillion taxpayers dollars (borrowed), 4,100 dead soldiers, 25,000 wounded (many maimed and crippled and scarred for life), and not one piece of evidence that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
I cannot wait until President Obama and even heavier democratic house and senate majorities get us out of Iraq and back to a little truth fromm our government
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:42 pmThe actual conclusion reached by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. was (and I’m quoting here, so pay attention), “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.” (May 7, 2003)
Baer was a Clinton appointee. He awarded the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.
{harpie’s refrain of “no evidence” in 3… 2… 1…)
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:45 pmI’m going back to watching the golf match.
As much as I’d to see evidence of the threat I don’t think it’s out there and have lost my patience waiting.
And do you know why there isn’t any evidence?
Because Iraq was not a threat to the United States.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:45 pmThat’s all you’ll get out of an Obama Administration: a little truth. A VERY little truth.
Of course, you probably thought that Billy Jeff didn’t do anything illegal…
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:47 pm— The actual conclusion reached by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. was (and I’m quoting here … —
.
Have you read the case?
.
Describe the procedural posture, the outcome, and the facts that support the quote you cited.
.
If you can’t, I’ll point you to a summary, complete with links to source documents.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 12:55 pmThat would be great, and then you can explain to the class how any of those things changes the outcome of that case. Or how I was wrong in quoting what I did.
Are you asserting that Judge Baer didn’t find for the plaintiffs in that case? Or that he didn’t actually say what I quoted him as saying?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:00 pm“The actual conclusion reached by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. was (and I’m quoting here, so pay attention), “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.” (May 7, 2003)”
Yeah, that is some overwhelming evidence. An undefended civil suit. Wow.
Let’s spend a trillion and get 4,100 killed as Saddam and bin laden didn’t show up to defend themselves.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:03 pmYou never answered my question, harpie. What’s the difference between a “cease fire” and a “peace treaty”?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:04 pmcorrection
Let’s spend a trillion and get 4,100 killed as Saddam didn’t show up to defend himself.
May 7 2003. I’m anxious to read the case.
It seems the defense kind of had their hands full at that time. You know with the invasion, bombing, and toppling of the government.
But please post the case. I promise I’ll read it.
I’m going to watch golf.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:08 pmA peace treaty is an agreement between two hostile parties, usually countries or governments, that formally ends an armed conflict. It is different from an armistice, which is an agreement to cease hostilities, or a surrender, in which an army agrees to give up arms.
A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions.
But you knew this I’m sure. Is it supposed to be a trick question?
I’m going back to the golf. Peace to all.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:11 pmNot at all.
Which of those two cut-and-paste definitions applied to the end of the first Gulf War against Iraq (in 1991)?
Was it a Cease-Fire (with conditions to be met), or was it a peace treaty?
Drumwaster (d67aaf) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:17 pm— That would be great, and then you can explain to the class how any of those things changes the outcome of that case. Or how I was wrong in quoting what I did. —
.
The outcome isn’t changed at all. Plaintiffs won a default judgement.
.
And your quote is accurate. But out of context (as you used it), it comes off as asserting a definite finding from an adversarial proceeding where evidence is put to the test. In context, it comes off as “maybe, maybe not, but without a trial and absent a defendant, we’ll use ‘maybe'”
.
November 17, 2005 Post at Free Republic
.
Anyway, you weren’t “wrong” in quoting it. Just misleading.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:21 pmI’m willing to rely on the 2002 NIE about Iraq in terms of threats which was enough to convince both democrats and republicans to vote in favor of the AUMF. Data in the NIE was supported by similar findings of major intellingence services around the world and found not to be dishonest.
Complaints to the contrary by people such as jharp are based on hindsight and intellectually dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty is par for the course for Greenwald acolytes. The Administration never claimed Iraq had a hand in 9/11, although the left continues for some reason to insist it did. More and more connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq are emerging as more of the old regimes documents are translated. Predictably, these are not discussed in the MSM or on lefty blogs, which is why people like jharp can plead ignorance, apart from his basic ignorance.
Being in international trade, I think he has been sampling too much of his own product.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:22 pmI think its hilarious that jharp tells me that something he can’t get right is “correct”.
Judge Baer’s conclusion in the case cited is that there was evidence, the thing that jharp claims was not true.
So once again, jharp plays the most juvenile of the troll games – moving the goalposts once they’ve been shown clueless.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:25 pmJust FYI, Abdul Rahman Yasin, the maker of the bombs used in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center is an Iraqi citizen, and took refuge in Iraq after that bombing. There’s evidence Saddam Hussein helped fund that attack.
And all that money Hussein gave to the families of suicide bombers means nothing, I suppose.
It’s pretty clear that Iraq was giving cash, training and logistical support to international terrorists who were targeting US interests and US soil itself.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:37 pm— Just FYI, Abdul Rahman Yasin, the maker of the bombs used in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center is an Iraqi citizen … —
.
Not that it changes anything, but in the link you provided, it says he is/was an American citizen, by birth.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:44 pm“The ultimate finding of the judge is that a jury COULD find for the plaintiff, based on the expert testimony and inferences relating to circumstantial evidence. The judge did NOT find true, any particular FACT asserted either by the experts or by the plaintiffs.”
Thank you, cboltd.
Really cannot believe the what our country has become.
5 1/2 years, 4,100 dead, 25,000 wounded, $1 trillion
And we get offered as proof that Iraq was a threat to the United States a friggin summary judgment in a civil lawsuit.
And it gets even better. “The judge did NOT find true, any particular FACT asserted either by the experts or by the plaintiffs.”
You should be ashamed of yourself, Drumwaster.
I’m embarrassed for you.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:49 pm“Which of those two cut-and-paste definitions applied to the end of the first Gulf War against Iraq (in 1991)?
Was it a Cease-Fire (with conditions to be met), or was it a peace treaty?”
Why don’t you tell me and make whatever point you are angling at.
It’ll save us both time and seems the adult way to handle it.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:52 pmNo, you are the embarrassment, jharp. You claimed that there was no evidence of a connection. Your claim has been refuted so you move the goalpost away from that and decide that the single element of proof itself was the entire reason for the operation. Which is a stupid intentional lie on your part.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:53 pmWhy don’t you look it up for yourself? (This is called “the Socratic method”, and I’m using it, because simply presenting the facts doesn’t seem to reach you.
Answer the question or admit to utter ignorance.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:58 pmStevie,
Just FYI, Abdul Rahman Yasin, the maker of the bombs used in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center is an Iraqi citizen, and took refuge in Iraq after that bombing.
And so friggin what. Just FYI the state of Florida provided flight training to the 911 attackers. Because a terrorist flees to your country does not make you a threat. Just like the state of Florida, though providing training for terrorists, was also not threat.
“There’s evidence Saddam Hussein helped fund that attack.”
Let’s hear it.
“And all that money Hussein gave to the families of suicide bombers means nothing, I suppose.”
I thought I was pretty clear that Iraq was not a threat to THE UNITED STATES.
“It’s pretty clear that Iraq was giving cash, training and logistical support to international terrorists who were targeting US interests and US soil itself.”
Any evidence to back that up?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:58 pm“Why don’t you look it up for yourself?”
Because I don’t really give a dam and consider it irrelevant.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 1:59 pmYou consider the facts irrelevant?
Thank you.
Next contestant!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:00 pmThe Judge Baer quote was, maybe still is, frequently misused. But the misuse just amounts to taking away the “authority” that we accord to judicial (or jury) findings (not that those are 100% “true” either, see OJ Simpson).
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:01 pm.
It’s perfectly honest to point directly to the evidence provided by Woolsey, Mylorie and others. And Judge Baer may personally find the evidence credible, maybe even compelling. But his court didn’t come out with an official finding of connection.
.
Being a self-proclaimed fairly radical rightie, I hate to see folks “on my side” throwing out arguments that are easily attacked.
Yeah, who cares about a few (hundred) Jews getting killed anyway?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:01 pm“You claimed that there was no evidence of a connection.”
And I stand by my claim.
“The judge did NOT find true, any particular FACT asserted either by the experts or by the plaintiffs.”
And after 5 1/2 years and 40 posts today this is what the wingnuts come up with.
“decide that the single element of proof itself was the entire reason for the operation.”
I said Iraq was not a threat then and isn’t today. I stand by my words.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:05 pmSee the problem with you, jharp, is that you don’t understand the fundamental difference between “evidence” and differences of opinion on how to evaluate that evidence. There is ample evidence to show that Iraq and Al Qaeda had at the very least an understanding which allowed several key members of Al Qaeda to hide out in Iraq without interference from Saddam Hussein’s government (that’s very different from simply being present in Florida; Saddam knew they were there and allowed them to be there, though he had the means to easily arrest them). Saddam has supported other terrorists (there are plenty of other terrorist organizations out there, remember?). There’s ample evidence that, at the very least, he wanted the world to believe that he had WMD capability, or was developing it. It’s certainly true that he still had the basic know-how to resume production of biological weapons once the world stopped scrutinizing him so closely. Then there’s the fact that he plotted to kill former President Bush on a visit to Kuwait. There’s the evidence of his aggression against Kuwait (another Sunni nation), and against Iran (a Shi’ite nation).
So there’s all that evidence. Now it’s fine to decide that he doesn’t pose a sufficient threat, based on that evidence, to justify the war. I would disagree with that conclusion, but it would be a valid and honest topic of debate. But you choose to lie and deny the existence of evidence, so that you can maintain that your opponents are irrational and acting without any thought or analysis at all. That makes you a dishonest debater, one who’s truly not worth the time we’ve all been taking with you.
You and your ilk believe that fighting the terror threat against the United States and all of Western Civilization should be like criminal prosecutions. Arrest the guy who shot at you LAST time. Well, the problem with that is that the guy who shot at you last time is not the only threat. You’ve got to attack against the probable sources of the NEXT shot at you. It’s NOT and shouldn’t be about “getting Bin Laden.” It should be about “keeping the U.S. safe from future terror attacks.” If Osama Bin Laden were the only threat against us, then sure, focus entirely on him. But he’s not. Saddam was a threat, Iran is a threat, Syria, North Korea. They all support terrorist activities. Saddam, in my opinion based on the evidence available, was the biggest of the threats who was the easiest to take out at the time.
PatHMV (0e077d) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:06 pmI said Iraq was not a threat then and isn’t today. I stand by my words.
No, you don’t stand by your words. You move the goalpost. You keep changing your words. You said:
“Iraq never was a threat and isn’t today.“
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:10 pm“Yeah, who cares about a few (hundred) Jews getting killed anyway?”
I care. But I care more about the 4,100 dead Americans, and the 25,000 wounded, and the $1 trillion.
And I guess you think the well being of Israel is more important than the well being of the United States.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:10 pmBy the way, jharp, your failure to understand the difference between evidence – which Baer did find – and a conclusion of fact only reinforces your incompetence to discuss the issue.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:11 pmI said Iraq was not a threat then and isn’t today. I stand by my words.
No, you don’t stand by your words. You move the goalpost. You keep changing your words. You said:
“Iraq never was a threat and isn’t today.“
Wow, you really got me on that one.
How about you take your pick. I stand by both statements.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:12 pmyes, jharp, we did get you on that one. Because we showed you don’t have command of your own language much less the facts of the issues.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:14 pm“There is ample evidence to show that Iraq and Al Qaeda had at the very least an understanding which allowed several key members of Al Qaeda to hide out in Iraq without interference from Saddam Hussein’s government”
Would you be kind enough to share this?
And just curious, should we be attacking and invading Pakistan?
You know, where Osama is being given safe haven.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:18 pmStill waiting for harpie to tell us how the first Gulf War ended – conditional cease-fire or peace treaty.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:19 pmAnd you know this, how, exactly?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:19 pmjharp, so you just slandered the government of Pakistan – based on what evidence?
Can you prove your claim that Pakistan is giving Bin Laden a “safe haven”?
Or do your standards of proof not apply to you in your exalted position as a Greenwald cult member?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:22 pm— By the way, jharp, your failure to understand the difference between evidence – which Baer did find – and a conclusion of fact … —
.
The Baer quote that was proffered is, “I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
.
That comes off as Judge Baer reaching a conclusion of fact. Plaintiffs have shown that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.
.
At any rate, arguing over what a judge said, or what the court case stands for, is a step removed from reviewing the evidence and weighing its credibility.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:25 pmcboldt, true but the case was in a posture where the burden of proof was just that of presenting credible evidence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:27 pmGood Lord, that is so intellectually dishonest of you. Please show where The State of Florida knowingly provided cash and training to terrorists.
There’s a difference between Florida and Iraq on this, and you are deliberately smearing the line because you refuse to admit you’ve been proven wrong.
Fucking idiot.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:32 pmSteverino, he learned his tricks from his guru Greenwald/Ellersberg – like continuing to claim that Bush was “knowingly wrong” when bipartisan intelligence reports refute him. Like making accusations about Pakistan without any evidence but demanding others meet moving goalposts of proof for any claim he does not accept.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:35 pmcboldt, the Judge said that the evidence was “satisfactory to the Court”, and showed (“albeit barely”) that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda.
That “barely satisfactory evidence” is what harpie is ignoring. (I think the actual phrase is “preponderance of the evidence”.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:36 pm— That “barely satisfactory evidence” is what harpie is ignoring —
.
FWIW, the case itself catalogs and describes the evidence.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:40 pm— I think the actual phrase is “preponderance of the evidence” —
.
Not in this context. I cited the legal standard above. The standard of proof applied in rendering default judgement was whether there was “a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiff.”
.
The preponderance standard is used when there IS a trial.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:43 pmI apologize for my earlier outburst. Those who know me here know that I very rarely use curse words. But that doesn’t excuse my choice of the vernacular.
Before the FI comes back and attempts to once again equate Florida with Iraq on the harboring and training of terrorists, I want to make a few points clear:
1. At no time before the attacks of 9/11 did the State of Florida deliberately and knowingly harbor and train terrorists.
2. At no time after the attacks of 9/11 did the State of Florida provide refuge to known terrorists.
3. At no time did the State of Florida provide cash payments to terrorists or to their surviving parents or widows.
4. At no time did the State of Florida give its consent to any terrorist training anywhere within its borders.
THAT’s why jharp is intellectually dishonest. He knows these are all true, and he knows that Iraq actually did the things that Florida did not do. And he still tries to make them moral equals.
It boils my blood to see such lunacy.
By the way, cboldt, thank you for correcting me on Yasir’s birth citizenship.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:51 pmstevie,
“Good Lord, that is so intellectually dishonest of you. Please show where The State of Florida knowingly provided cash and training to terrorists.”
I did not claim the sate of florida knowingly provided cash and training.
You are claiming Saddam did without offering any proof.
My point is just because a terrorist is in your country or learns to ply the terror trade in your country DOES NOT MAKE YOU A STATE SPONSOR of terrorism.
Get it now? And you’re calling me fucking idiot?
That’s comedy gold.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:52 pmBull. Saddam gave cash payments to the surviving parents of suicide bombers. If that’s not a cash payment for terrorism, I don’t what is.
Right, the difference is Saddam Hussein knew terrorists were training in his country and allowed it. He provided them with refuge.
So, does paying people for terrorist acts and knowingly allowing terrorists to train in your country make you a state sponsor of terrorism?
Or is it your point that Iraq under Hussein was NOT a state sponsor of terrorism?
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:57 pmClosing thought and I’m out for the night.
Iraq was not a threat to United States pre invasion and still isn’t today.
Have a nice night all.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 2:59 pmAh, jharp chickens out. Here’s the last nail in the coffin for his argument that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism:
Here’s the link
By the way, do you think that a country which deliberately fires on US aircraft is a threat to the US? Or it harmless? Just wondering.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:03 pmjharp, that’s a claim you have no evidence for.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:03 pmStill waiting for harpie to tell us how the first Gulf War ended…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:04 pmjharp checks out “for the night” at 2:59pm (10:59 in London).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:08 pmIs our boy a Euro-Weenie? That would explain a lot.
What time is it in Brazil?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:27 pm“You claimed that there was no evidence of a connection.”
And I stand by my claim.
It’s clear Saddam had connections of some kind to al Qaeda. Attempts to claim otherwise are ignorant or dishonest.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/only_connected.asp
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020031.php
Gerald A (b9214e) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:41 pm— What time is it in Brazil? —
Coming up on wintertime.
cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:48 pm“Attempts to claim otherwise are ignorant or dishonest.”
You forgot “and”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:49 pmharp should take heart as an obamatard. It seems that the official mybarackobama site is concerned about Sammi al-arian’s absusivve treatment by the US authorities. “Dr Al-Arian is a prisoner in America fighting for the Palistineans.” per littelgreenfootballs. I’m not using links because the posts don’t go through for me most of the time.
imo harp doesn’t give a rat’s ass whether or not Iraq harbored terrorists or hid wmd in Syria. As a devotee of Greenwald and Barry Hussein he’s obviously down with inner “feelings” and communicating without preconditions with the oppressed by yankee pigs misunderstood arabs.
madmax333 (6670b8) — 6/28/2008 @ 3:56 pmLittle doubt if US were actually focused more on Afghanistan, the moonbats would be yelping about Saddam and Iraq being ignored. Guess the various trolls will aghast and mortified if Israel actually attacks before January. That Joo cabal again, disrupting innocent despots in their search for nirvana and Holocaust Redux. As if Jimmuh Carter II would do anything more than criticize the Jewish state for self-defense. I don’t think Harp has given his view on the rightness of stopping mad mullahs’ aims to exterminate Israel. I suppose pragmatists have little doubt that millions of Jews matter little when hundreds of millions in the Arab street are unhappy. I suppose actually using some of our own oil reserves that may well be triple Saudis makes little sense if US could then tell Arabs and Chavez to do the anatomically impossible thing. …as the fever swamp left should be emulating.
More fall-out from 9/11…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/28/2008 @ 4:33 pmIt seems that the FBI’s “person of interest” (Dr. Steven Hatfill) in the anthrax mailings is set to receive $5.8M for all the bad things they said about him.
That compares quite unfavorably with the $2.1M the Weaver family received for the deaths of wife/mother Vicki, and son, Samuel, at the hands of the Marshall’s Service, and the FBI.
Seems to be a disconnect here.
yep, Another Drew, another in a long line of FBI screwups.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 4:37 pmAs a matter of fact Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda.
So what’s the evidence?
Gerald A (b9214e) — 6/28/2008 @ 4:38 pmGerald, the adherents of the Four Pillars of Greatness have no need for your bourgeousie “evidence”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 4:42 pmIf he was such an enemy of AQ, just where are the lists of members that his secret police detained, tortured and executed? We certainly have that info from other groups that he didn’t fancy; but, we’ve seen zero names of AQ personnel that were fed into the shredders.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/28/2008 @ 4:43 pmThere you go, bringing up facts again. Hasn’t harpie already stated that he doesn’t care about facts (#244 supra)?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 4:54 pmMax should write a book. Seriously.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/28/2008 @ 5:30 pmSpeaking of someone with an allergy to facts…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 5:41 pmI’m back and haven’t yet caught up but I’ll ask just in case.
You guys figure out how to justify our $1 trillion dollar war, with 4,100 dead, and 25,000 wounded.
I feel as if we got off track earlier and I wanted to be clear.
Iraq was not then, nor is it now, nor has it ever been, a threat to the greatest country and military power in the world. The United States of America.
All the rest of it is nonsense.
Our leader made a monumental blunder. Some have paid for it with their lives. Some have lost body parts. Tens of thousands will have to deal with PTSD for the rest of their lives.
Most of us got off easy. We only have to pay for it.
$12 billion a month. And the 25% ers think it’s a good idea.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 6:48 pmjharp, you are now evidently trying to work yourself into redefining “threat”.
No one claimed that Iraq was an existential threat to the United States. Iraq was a threat to US interests and posed a threat to be a sponsor and safe haven to terrorism.
You are a rather poor troll with these silly strawmen arguments. Your command of your own talking points is poor.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 6:52 pmThe elected officials who got to see the raw intelligence data over several years would disagree with you.
To wit:
“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that’s presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.” (Senator Joe Biden)
and
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” (Madeleine Albright)
and
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” (Sen. John F. Kerry)
Good thing we have this stupid little girl to tell us that all of those elected officials were wrong about everything.
So tell us, SLG, what should we do about Iran telling the IAEA, the UN, and the EU to go pack sand because they were going to develop nuclear technology no matter what? Use that foresight you are claiming you have and tell the world how to resolve this issue.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:01 pmMore:
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
and
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
and
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
Tell us more about how Iraq wasn’t a threat. Please.
We could use the yux.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:04 pmHey, harpie, did you manage to figure out how the first Gulf War ended?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:05 pmIraq was not then, nor is it now, nor has it ever been, a threat to the greatest country and military power in the world. The United States of America.
Are you calling John Edwards, the presumptive Attorney General in an Obama administration, a liar?
Think I just made this up?
Here’s the video.
And hee’s the text of the resoution he mentions.
By the way: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Harry Reid all voted for it.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:06 pmOops, Drumwaster, we cross-posted.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:08 pmLOL 🙂
There’s no such thing as too much of the Fact Hammer when dealing with the primo-class stupidity being offered up by Gle… sorry, “harpie”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:11 pmGeorge Bush on Oct. 7, 2002.
“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof.”
And you know something else. You gentleman can gofornicate with yourselves. I know the truth. You know the truth. And why you choose to defend the worst blunder in U.S. history in unAmerican.
And you and your party have already paid for it with the loss of the house and senate. And are about to lose the Presidency.
Who can have ever imagined in their wildest dreams that George Bush could fuck things up so bad that we’d elect a black man with the name Hussein Obama.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:24 pmNo, jharp, that’s what we’ve established here. You don’t know “the truth”. You don’t even have full command of the talking points you trade in. You don’t even understand the issues you opine upon. You remind me of Levi in that utter incompetence by which you deal with the entire topic.
Frankly, even taking your vacuous spin, Iraq is not the “worse blunder” in US history – unless your history cuts off only 10 years back. As military operations go, it has been an above average success compared to such incompetents as FDR, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and LBJ.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:28 pmBy “final proof”, he meant “smoking crater over an America city”. You are ignoring the whole “clear evidence of peril”. (Apparently, in harpyland, “clear evidence of peril” does not equal “threat”.)
You moron.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:31 pmYou are also clearly a racist for thinking that ANYONE would judge Obama on his skin color or his name, rather than the idiocy of his positions, his general incompetence and the lack of any kind of significant experience.
And I’m not being facetious.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:35 pmAnd why you choose to defend the worst blunder in U.S. history in unAmerican.
Well then, the Dems were complicit in that blunder…if it were a blunder.
Here is a list of Democrats that voted for the Iraq War Resolution, a resolution on a country you claim posed no threat exists and never did. Are you calling all of these duly elected Democrats (some no longer hold office) liars?
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kennedy, Edward (D-MA)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Mikulski, Barbara (D-MD)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
***Obama, Barack (D-IL)***
Pryor, Mark (D-AR)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Salazar, Ken (D-CO)
Sarbanes, Paul (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Who can have ever imagined in their wildest dreams that George Bush could fuck things up so bad that we’d elect a black man with the name Hussein Obama.
Are you a racist?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:39 pmPaul, jharp just plays a racist. He thinks its “hip” to toss off lines like the hoi polloi.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:41 pm“Well then, the Dems were complicit in that blunder…if it were a blunder.”
Yes they were. And that somehow makes it OK for you to defend the war?
Honestly, what in the fuck are you thinking?
And no I’m not a racist.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:47 pmI cannot wait until President Obama and even heavier democratic house and senate majorities get us out of Iraq and back to a little truth from our government
Your presumptive President voted for the Iraq War.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:48 pmjharp, no you are just a foul-mouthed troll who wants to imply that everyone less enlightened than you is a racist. I guess.
Or more likely you are just incoherent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:50 pmI see nothing of substance here. The facts remain the same – you are a racist. My unsupported assertion is enough to prove the statement. (D’y’know, using your standards of evidence makes arguments a lot easier!)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:51 pmHonestly, what in the fuck are you thinking?
Exactly what I said.
And no I’m not a racist.
According to your presumptive President, you are.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:54 pm“Are you calling all of these duly elected Democrats (some no longer hold office) liars?”
No. Not liars. Maybe co conspirators is a good word. And I think they all have blood on their hands.
And I also think YOU, the defenders of the occupation to this day have blood on your hands.
And there is still blood to be spilled because of your support of the occupation.
Think about that for awhile.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:55 pmjharp, regardless of the justification for the initial operation, our army is doing good work today in cleaning out islamist radicals and fostering representative government in the middle east.
One can argue the relative worth, but your frothy incoherence adds nothing of any intelligence to the discussion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:59 pmPaul: “Well then, the Dems were complicit in that blunder…if it were a blunder.”
jharp: Yes they were. And that somehow makes it OK for you to defend the war?
So you want for your presumptive President someone who was complicit in the Iraq War? Someone who voted for it?
Apparently so:
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:00 pmNo. Not liars. Maybe co conspirators is a good word. And I think they all have blood on their hands.
So you want a co-conspirator President with bloody hands?
Obama voted for the Iraq War.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:03 pmAnd there is still blood to be spilled because of your support of the occupation.
And you presumptive President shares in that blood spilling.
After all, he voted for the “occupation.”
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:06 pmObviously jharp’s opinions have no rational basis.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:09 pmOkay, so jharp refuses to concede that (a) Hussein indeed sponsored international terrorism, (b) Hussein did have ties to al Qaeda (even though he didn’t work with them on 9/11), and (c) Hussein fired upon US aircraft in violation of the cease fire he agreed to.
And now he wants to lecture us on the war.
I’d sooner let Mickey Rooney let Mickey Rooney lecture me on the secret to a long marriage.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:14 pmAnd now he wants to lecture us on the war.
Steverino, he also wants a bloody-handed Iraq War
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:20 pmOccupationResolution co-conspirator for President.Oops, posted too fast:
And now he wants to lecture us on the war.
Steverino, he also wants a bloody-handed Iraq War
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:23 pmOccupationResolution co-conspirator for President.Pretty hilarious, isn’t it, Paul, given how much the Democrats are lying about events themselves.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:25 pmSPQR, yes, it is.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:33 pmI’ll try to address you all at once as I have a fire going that I need to tend. And I’ve been drinking.
Obama has pledged to withdraw the troops. And I’m well aware that is nor guarantee.
McCain has pledged to stay the course even if it takes 100 years.
Hussein indeed sponsored international terrorism.
Wrong. Though I will concede it seems he paid the families of those who attacked Israel.
(b) Hussein did have ties to al Qaeda (even though he didn’t work with them on 9/11), and
Wrong.
(c) Hussein fired upon US aircraft in violation of the cease fire he agreed to.
A new subject that deserves another thread. I’ll agree the were fired on but question the legitimacy if the no fly zone.
And I was not aware Obama voted in favor of the authorization to use military force. According to my records he was not a Senator at that time.
Gotta check the fire.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:39 pmBut no threat. (Meanwhile, violation of the cease-fire is sufficient reason to renew hostilities, under any kind of international rules you care to cite.)
You are deliberately ignoring facts. Why is that, exactly?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:44 pmjharp, even the recent report that Democrats are falsely flogging as “proving” that Bush was exaggerating intelligence admit to evidence of communications between Iraq and Al Queda.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:53 pmAnd Rockefeller’s Report shows that all – that is to say, every single one of them – of Bush’s statements about the war were backed up by available intelligence.
So Bush was neither lying, nor wrong to have made the decision he did.
More facts to be ignored.
“Reality is that part of the universe that doesn’t go away when I stop believing in it.” — Philip K. Dick
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:03 pmjharp – What was your evidence that Iraq had no WMD at the time we invaded. The evidence has to be contemporaneous, not based on hindsight, because that is all the decision makers had.
I’ll wait.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:04 pmReally. What in the fuck are you guys thinking?
You are splitting hairs over exactly what was known and what were lies.
I’ll give you that it’s in the past and ain’t nothing gonna happen about it but it’s quite obvious that we were misled and that it was a collosal blunder.
And you guys are supporting more Americans getting killed and another $12 billion a month for nothing. A goddam fucking goodwill mission that has become a political football that we have nothing to gain from.
Sleep tight tonight and don’t worry about a thing. Your kids will pick up the bill for the war. And it’s not you that has to worry about getting blown up and maimed while on patrol in Iraq.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:04 pmI was waiting for this one, and harpie doesn’t disappoint – the long since debunked “chickenhawk” meme!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:07 pmdaleyrocks,
Wait no longer’
“What was your evidence that Iraq had no WMD at the time we invaded.”
I don’t know? I guess just the fact that there weren’t any.
Does that suit you?
What’s your evidence there were WMD;s at the time we invaded?
And though I doubt you get it, the burden of proof is on you.
$1 trillion, 4,100 dead, and 25,000 wounded and 5 1/2 years later you’re asking a stupid fucking question about how I don’t know there weren’t any WMD’s.
What in the fuck is wrong with you?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:11 pmEvery time I got an honest commenter at Unclaimed Territory to admit that at the time of our invasion there was no way for us to know that we would not find stockpiles of WMD when we invaded, the mob would swarm that commenter telling him/her you can never admit that to the oher side even if it was true. The dishonesty of the place was amazing.
I’m guessing that jharp ignore my last question or put up some lame dodge. His assertion is that there were none, however, he offers no proof. His assertion is in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the major intelligence agencies of the world at the time. Who are you go to believe? International trade expert jharp or the worlds’ major intelligence agencies.
He beclowns himself more with every comment.
What is your evience jharp?
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:16 pmAnd what was your evidence that this was true? Can you even define WMD? Or give a few examples?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:20 pmI don’t know? I guess just the fact that there weren’t any.
Does that suit you?
jharp – No it doesn’t suit me. I’ve already explained. You are talking bullshit with the benefit of hindsight.
At the end of the First Gulf War there were documented stockpiles of WMD. Indepenent inspectors were supposed to witness their destruction. This never hapened. Saddam told us they were destroyed. We’re supposed to believe him because he’s a nice guy, correct? Where did those stockpiles go? Well he never let people check around to see. Why not? That made people suspicious.
There is plenty of positive evidence he had WMD jharp. It may not satify your standard but that is your problem.
Where is your definitive contemporaneous negative evidence that at the time we invaded he did not have WMD? Tha assertion is yours and the burden of proof is on you.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:23 pmYou are splitting hairs over exactly what was known and what were lies.
jhrp – No we are complaining about you lying about what was known. It’s about facts, not splitting hairs.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:26 pmIt “seems”??? There’s ample proof that he DID so, not merely “seems” to have done so. And how do you reach the conclusion that those payments do not constitute sponsoring international terrorism. It’s clear Hussein was rewarding it…providing an incentive for it. But somehow that’s not sponsoring it?
I posted plenty of evidence to back up my claim for both A and B, all you post is “wrong”. You are deliberately ignoring evidence, and not offering anything but gainsay. My assessment of you as an FI was right all along.
The no fly zone was set up as part of the terms of the cease fire. It was perfectly legitimate.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:32 pmdaley and drum,
You two are quite obviously two uneducated dimwits.
Please for your sake and for the the sake of patterico’s bandwidth limitations please go take a logic class.
You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.
“Well he never let people check around to see.”
Oh really. George Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out just before the invasion. And I’ve asked and asked and have never gotten an answer on why he did that.
Why do you suppose George Bush ordered the weapons inspectors to leave before they had found any.
I can’t wait for your answer.
Do you ever wonder how many morewill be killed as a result of your continued support for the war? Or have their legs blown off?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:36 pmjhrp – No we are complaining about you lying about what was known.
OK, douchebag.
What was known?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:37 pmHarpie, here’s your newest ulcer: Rockefeller – that would be Democratic Senator Rockefeller – wrote a report that says that Bush was neither wrong nor lying.
Which means that you are.
You ignore facts and repeat disproven talking points.
There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable. — From the speech JFK was prevented from giving on November 22, 1963
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:38 pmOh, OK. If a democrat said it it must be right.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:40 pmCan you guys get anything right?
The Iraqi no-fly zones are two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones “illegal” in a later interview with John Pilger[1][2].
Please, turn off Fox News, ElRushbo, Hannity, Savage, Medved and learn how to friggin read.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:42 pmI’m going to check my fire.
I sincerely hope to see a post at least halfway thought out when I return.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:44 pmBecause they were not accomplishing anything, the IAEA had reported that Saddam was deliberately interfering with the inspections (“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003) in defiance of UNSC Resolution 1441, and Bush didn’t want to give Saddam any more hostages.
(The “Human Shields” had just started realizing that they weren’t going to be allowed to select the locations they got to guard, knowing that they would be perfectly safe in doing so, since they would know that US planes wouldn’t target those sites deliberately.)
Of course, you seem to think that another couple of weeks would somehow have worked where the preceding 11 years had not. With no evidence whatsoever, mind…
That Saddam had WMD. (Try and keep up, moron.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:46 pmYou two are quite obviously two uneducated dimwits.
Please for your sake and for the the sake of patterico’s bandwidth limitations please go take a logic class.
You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you.
jharp – So you are admitting you have no proof for your assertion then? Just as I thought.
If you have something that makes you comfortable making the bold assertion that there were no WMD, please feel free to throw it out there. You’ve offered nothing so your credibility is worthless.
You could go shout fire in a crowded place or something.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:49 pmMeanwhile cut-and-paste is the best you can do. You aren’t even smart enough to remove the little footnote links. Where did you get it, Wikipedia? Democratic Underground? DailyKos? From the Gleens?
C’mon, if you’re going to use someone else’s words, word for word, they deserve the credit.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:50 pmWhat was known?
Comment by jharp — 6/28/2008 @ 9:37 pm
jharp – Try reading, it’s fundamental. The NIE as I said before was sufficient for everything in this thread.
How did YOU know there were no WMD at the time of the invasion again? Are you a psychic?
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:54 pmWhat was known?
That Saddam had WMD. (Try and keep up, moron.)
Is that right? You had better tip off King George because he;s going around saying he was wrong.
As you go to bed tonight please consider how many more deaths will be as a result of slime like you.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:56 pmjharp,
Eat it. Saddam is gone. We took him out because he needed to be taken out and we were the only ones with the balls and muscle to do it. Now we have a country we need to rehabilitate. We’re going to do it. That’s it.
If that does not fit with your 30-minute tryst at a bathouse or the backseat of your car philosophy, that’s your tough shit. This country does not exist to constantly please hedonistic morons.
What Brazilian cabana-boys would like is possibly relevant but not yet timely. Maybe if Barack Who-Loves-You-Baby Obama is selected President it will be.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:58 pmHow did YOU know there were no WMD at the time of the invasion again? Are you a psychic?
I didn’t know fuckwad.
But I’d have made dam sure there were before sending 4,100 to die and blowing $1 trillion in taxpayers money.
And another thing, I’d have let the weapons inspectors inspect. I would not have ordered them to leave.
Clear?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:59 pmAnd another thing, I’d have let the weapons inspectors inspect. I would not have ordered them to leave.
Saddam ordered them to leave, idiot.
nk (11c9c1) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:05 pm“Saddam is gone.”
Finally, some truth. Good for you.
“We took him out because he needed to be taken out”
According to some and how’d that turn out?
“and we were the only ones with the balls and muscle to do it.”
I think it’s more more accurate to say we were the only ones stupid enough to do it.
“Now we have a country we need to rehabilitate. We’re going to do it. That’s it.”
I don’t think so. President Obama is pulling us out of that hellhole.
“If that does not fit with your 30-minute tryst at a bathouse or the backseat of your car philosophy, that’s your tough shit.”
I don’t think so. Quite the opposite is true. We’re pulling out and there isn’t a goddam thing you can do about it. And also the democrats, yeah, that’s right the democrats are goint to have big, yes big majorities in both the house and the senate. And do you know what, there isn’t a dam thing you can do about it.
“This country does not exist to constantly please hedonistic morons.”
It has for the past seven but it’s morons like you. That’s about to change. Again, nothing you can d about it.
Heckavu job! W.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:09 pmAnd another thing, I’d have let the weapons inspectors inspect. I would not have ordered them to leave.
Saddam ordered them to leave, idiot.
You are out of your mind. King George ordered them out.
Please try the google.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:12 pmjharp – I hope you do the decent thing and withdraw what you now claim is your unprovable assertion that there were no WMD’s in Iraq and apologize to everyone on this blog for wasting their time in a useless debate.
The most you came here to say is that you disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq as you have no evidence to support any of your other assertions. That’s not acting in good faith. Your ilk give the left a bad name.
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:15 pmReally well. We managed to take over the entire country faster than Janet Reno could take over a compound in Waco, with fewer casualties than a Kennedy party weekend.
Despite the fact that he is already flip-flopping on this issue?
He also wants to invade an ally. A nuclear-capable ally, at that. Heckuvajob, Barry…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:18 pmNo, he isn’t. File that under Change you can Hope for.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:19 pmI’ve tried my best but I must get to bed.
There were no WMD’s.
Iraq was not a threat.
American’s will be killed over your continued support for a catastrophic mistake.
And Americans will have to pay the bill for it.
I wonder if you’re the enemy or simply have no concept of what the truth is.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:28 pmYes, there were. (You can’t say what was and was not there, given that you can’t even accurately define what was being sought.)
Everybody on the planet who was in a position to know the facts disagrees with you. You have deliberately chosen to ignore those facts.
Americans were being killed by the very terrorists that have been indicted, yet when custody was offered, Democrats refused him. How many American deaths could have been saved by accepting custody? EVERY SINGLE ONE of those deaths is laid directly at the feet of those who ignored the facts. Like you are.
Would that be the same “truth” you have ignored, or the one that you deemed “irrelevant”, or the one that you read on the pages of DU/DK?
Because nothing you have written shows that you have ever been introduced to anyone who ever met the truth. You couldn’t get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
That is assuming that you aren’t being actively seditious – a benefit I am willing to make only because this is not my domain.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 10:40 pmWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. — John Stuart Mill
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:54 pmListen people:
Talking point 1. You cannot deny it.
Talking point 2. It is incontrovertible.
Talking point 3. It pains you to accept it, you filthy scumbag.
There. I win.
Pablo (99243e) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:03 amI don’t watch Fox. I don’t listen to the radio at all, so I don’t listen to any of the commentators you mentioned.
You still haven’t refuted my post about Iraq training terrorists. Do you have any evidence to defend your claim that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism? If not, withdraw the claim.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:18 amJust to save me some time, which post is it that you’re talking about?
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:19 amDoes anyone but me find it unusual that harpie is building and tending a fire? Massive heat waves throughout the continent, nighttime lows for mountain communities (5,000+ feet) in the high 50s, summer is just getting started, and he’s building a fire? And checking out “for the night” at 3 in the afternoon?
Must be getting dark early in Brazil during the winter months. Cold, too.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:22 am#334, Levi. You had nothing to do with the comment.
Not everything is about you.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:24 amEveryone:
Yesterday, I deliberately placed a falsehood in one of my arguments to test jharp.
The assumption was, if he had elementary knowledge what he was arguing about, he would have decimated it instantly.
The fact that he didn’t proves to any stragglers still clinging to the notion jharp has any knowledge of the subjects he lectured us on beyond cut-and-paste that he doesn’t.
And my plant wasn’t a an intricate devious plan. No, in sporting terms, this was a ‘slow lob over the plate.’ One that should have been deposited in the upper deck.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:30 amWorse, he is a plagiarist. He will cut and paste as though they were his own original thoughts, rather than stealing them wholesale from smarter people than he, with neither link nor credit to the original post/author.
I’m not saying he’s wrong to use the arguments of smarter people than he (which, based on evidence provided by him, would be impossible for him to avoid), just that he should have the intellectual honesty to admit the original author’s name, or at least a link to allow us to search the context.
The only reason he wouldn’t do that is because he is using sources that have already been thoroughly discredited (maybe the one he has defended so vehemently?)…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:42 amI am flattered that there is such an interest in where I live and my fire.
If anyone cares I live in central Indiana.
And I was burning trees limbs from all of the storm damage we’ve had.
And everyone on the planet knows that Iraq did not have WMD’s and most everyone knows that Iraq was not a threat to the Unted States.
And I’m well aware that there are the 25% ers around still trying to sell the justification for war (as a matter of fact that’d be most of posters here) but I don’t even think they believe it anymore.
They are willing to see more Americans die and get maimed rather than admit they were and are wrong.
True patriots.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 9:52 amNever enough facts out there to ignore, eh?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 9:57 am“Iraq did not have WMD’s and Iraq was not a threat to the United States.”
That’s all I’m saying and I’m going to take nap.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:04 amSince Iraq was training terrorists, it was a state sponsor of terrorism. As part of the larger Global War on Terrorism, it was indeed a threat. We can sit here and argue over whether Iraq could have/would have attacked the US directly, but that doesn’t matter in the context of the War on Terrorism. The fact that it was a state sponsor of terrorism meant that it could have used proxies to attack the US anywhere.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:06 amAmusing how jharp still hasn’t read the Duelfer report but he “knows”.
I also get a large giggle out of jharp’s “catastrophic” mistake. Even if one accepts that Iraq was a mistake, which I certainly don’t because I’ve followed the great work that is being done in that country, it can’t really even make the top 10 “catastrophic” military or geopolitical mistakes.
Just one of the multitude of Union army incompetents in the Civil War uselessly killed more soldiers in a half-hour than the entire Iraq War’s US casualties. FDR’s incompetence in allowing MacArthur to command US troops in the Philippines resulted in more casualties not to mention MacArthur’s incompetent handling of the New Guinea campaign. Truman’s incompetent handling of foreign affairs allowed the North Koreans to think that they could invade the south without reaction from the US – more thousands dead.
Woodrow Wilson’s failure at Versailles doomed millions. LBJ’s incompetent handling of the Vietnam War – ten times the Iraq War KIA.
jharp – you are simply ignorant and incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:10 amThere are also the facts (that harpie will gleefully ignore) that Iraq was deeply involved in the original attack on the WTC, as well as the assassination attempt against the former President Bush.
You can’t even spell WMD’s without cut-and-paste, much less define what they are (despite repeated invitations), and you are apparently the only idiot on the planet still sticking to that “Iraq was not a threat” meme. Everyone – and a I DO mean “everyone” – who actually saw the intelligence reports disagrees with you. The UN Security Council disagrees with you. The IAEA disagrees with you. Every U.S. Administration in the last seventeen years disagrees with you. Congress disagrees with you (both Chambers, and bipartisan consensus).
Iraq is not a threat to the US now, but only because we went in and kicked over Saddam’s apple cart. The results are a democratically-elected government for the first time in a century, and a people that is deciding its own course, instead of the terrorist-supporting despotism that had been there before. All you see are the daily reports of deaths trickling in (ignoring the fact that the death rate is higher in Compton than in Anbar), focusing like a laser, and ignoring the reports from elsewhere in Iraq.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:20 amNot o mention jharp still hasn’t found my planted falsehood.
C’mon man–it’s easy to find. You almost stumbled onto it at one point.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:31 amMoron comma whatta, one each
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:39 am“Iraq is not a threat to the US now,”
I’m glad that you can see that.
Time to bring the troops home. The $1 trillion dollar goodwill mission is over.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:39 amI’ll be the first to admit that IANAL, although I could probably play one on TV (if I didn’t have a face made for radio and a voice made for mime, that is).
Can jharp admit that he clearly doesn’t understand anything about how arguments work, rules of evidence, the difference between contemporaneous and retroactive, et alia? Does he have the faintest glimmer of intellectual honesty (no more substantial than the fog gained from breathing on a cold window)?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:43 amNow there’s some good solid right wing thinking.
“Just one of the multitude of Union army incompetents in the Civil War uselessly killed more soldiers in a half-hour than the entire Iraq War’s US casualties. FDR’s incompetence in allowing MacArthur to command US troops in the Philippines resulted in more casualties not to mention MacArthur’s incompetent handling of the New Guinea campaign. Truman’s incompetent handling of foreign affairs allowed the North Koreans to think that they could invade the south without reaction from the US – more thousands dead.
Woodrow Wilson’s failure at Versailles doomed millions. LBJ’s incompetent handling of the Vietnam War – ten times the Iraq War KIA.”
We’ve had incompetence kill many thousands in the past so it is OK to have thousands more killed due to incompetence.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:43 amI said Iraq is no longer a threat. That does not mean that the overall threat has been abated. In fact, they have been even more cornered, and even a moron like you knows what happens to a animal when it gets cornered and exposed. (Even a baby mouse can try to defend itself.)
Just because we have successfully invaded Morocco doesn’t mean that WW2 is over.
Moron.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:47 am“Since Iraq was training terrorists, it was a state sponsor of terrorism.”
I’m going to say it one more time and I’m done.
Florida flight schools trained terrorists and Florida is not a state sponsor of terrorism.
Iraq was not training terrorists. Saddam was a secular Sunni, al Qaeda was the enemy.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:47 amThat’s not the argument SPQR made. You are deliberately setting up a strawman.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:49 amDrum,
“That does not mean that the overall threat has been abated.”
Hey, we agree again. Now let’s go get that Osama guy.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:49 amOsama is a smear of burnt protein on the wall of a cave in Tora Bora. Getting him is like killing Yamamoto – doesn’t mean that the war is over, just that someone else is waving the baton.
Moron.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:52 amYou keep offering gainsay instead of evidence, but just because you say something doesn’t make it true.
The flight schools were not run by Florida. The government of Florida was not involved in training any terrorists. Go back and read the post I made about Iraq training international terrorists. I’ll even repost a portion of it:
Clearly, the government of Iraq was involved in training terrorists. That you continue to equate Florida and Iraq not only speaks volumes about your inability to argue intelligently, it’s utterly reprehensible.
I’ve shown you evidence that Iraq was, in fact, training terrorists. It doesn’t matter that Saddam was a secular Sunni — have you not heard the saying “The enemy of my enemy is my friend?”
You have yet to provide any evidence which refutes my post.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:55 amjharp, you really remain quite incompetent. You are now lying about what I wrote.
And you keep saying things about Iraq and Saddam Hussein that are false. A great example is your claim that Saddam was secular – the implication being that he could not support Al Queda. It is amusing that you feel the need to make up stuff. While the Baathist party was nominally secular – being an amalgamation of arab nationalism and socialism not unlike fascism – Saddam used islamic belief and themes constantly in his propaganda. He has also supported fundamentalist islamic terrorism like Egyptian Jihad. Syria, also a Baathist government nominally, has likewise supported fundamentalist movements.
Your simplistic understanding of these issues is probably the most annoying thing about you. After the cult worship of Greenwald.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:59 amTrue. Harpie, both Osama and Saddam referred to the US as “The Great Satan” in internationally broadcast statements. As Dennis Miller said, “Why are you so loathe to believe they might have each other on lunatic speed dial?”
You are deliberately ignoring the facts. Why is this? Do they hurt your worldview that severely?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:01 am“The flight schools were not run by Florida. The government of Florida was not involved in training any terrorists.”
No shit. That is exactly my point. Yet the 911 hijackers were trained in flight schools in Florida.
Get it now?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:01 amYou are entitled to your own opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:02 amNo, no one can “get” your incoherent arguments.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:03 amFlorida flight schools trained terrorists and Florida is not a state sponsor of terrorism.
Steverino already lambasted this argument in #266. For the record:
1. At no time before the attacks of 9/11 did the State of Florida deliberately and knowingly harbor and train terrorists. (Iraq did-ed.)
2. At no time after the attacks of 9/11 did the State of Florida provide refuge to known terrorists. (Iraq did-ed.)
3. At no time did the State of Florida provide cash payments to terrorists or to their surviving parents or widows. (Iraq did-ed.)
4. At no time did the State of Florida give its consent to any terrorist training anywhere within its borders. (Iraq did-ed.)
Iraq was not training terrorists.
See #4.
Saddam was a secular Sunni, al Qaeda was the enemy.
So where your evidence al Qaeda was the enemy? I demand proof. If you provide it, I won’t claim it lacks anything substansive.
I’m going to say it one more time and I’m done.
You keep making that threat and you continue to come back for yet another round of getting your ass kicked.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:05 amNo. Spell it out. Be specific in your accusations. I want this on the record.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:07 amI’m going out to finish burning my downed tree limbs but since you all seem quite interested in me I thought I’d share another tidbit.
I’m a good golfer too.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:07 amSo is Kim Jong Il. According to official accounts, he hit seven holes in one on his first round of golf.
He has as much credibility as you do.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:11 amSay, did harpey get an EPA permit for all of that visible particulate matter he’s putting into the atmosphere? And, what about all of that CO2? Plus, it’s probably “wet” wood, and will likely have incomplete combustion, resulting in massive amounts of CO.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:23 amWhy is harpey trying to destroy our environement?
I’m a good golfer too.
I’d be willing to bet you cheat jharp.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:00 pmjharp – In comment 342 last night and in others you admitted your claim about WMD’s was bullshit:
“How did YOU know there were no WMD at the time of the invasion again? Are you a psychic?
I didn’t know fuckwad.
But I’d have made dam sure there were before sending 4,100 to die and blowing $1 trillion in taxpayers money.”
You owe people here an apology for wasting their time on a nongood faith debate – you endlessly repeating your mantra – with nothing to support your position.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:08 pmHey guys,
Glenn Greenwald has a good one up today that you should be taking very seriously unless you want another bloodbath in the Nov elections.
“Republican Nancy Johnson of Connecticut was first elected to Congress in 1982, and proceeded to win re-election 11 consecutive times, often quite easily. In 2004, she defeated her Democratic challenger by 22 points. The district is historically Republican…
“In 2006, Rep. Johnson was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the “false choice between war and civil liberties.” Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy’s opposition to warrantless eavesdropping….
The result? Johnson was crushed:”
And McCain is in perfect line with Johnson.
Too funny.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:08 pmIn fact, daleyrocks, your observation illustrates the essential irrationality of jharp perfectly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:09 pmWhat’s your problem?
You had nothing to do with my comment either, if you wanna play that stupid little game.
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:15 pmOff topic.
love2008 (1b037c) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:22 pmIs anyone watching the Euro finals? Fabulous football so far. I am rooting for Spain. I predict a Spanish win. 2:1 against Germany. Anyone ?
Spain has scored a goal now. 1:0 against Germany.
Exactly backwards, as usual. “The comment had nothing to do with you”, not “you didn’t have anything to do with the comment”.
You were asking about a comment made by another person made to yet still another person, as though you hadn’t understood why the comment was addressed to you.
It wasn’t.
It still isn’t.
I’m sure you can find someone else to nurture your fragile self-esteem, but I am not that someone else. You start talking like a fucking idiot, I will treat you like a fucking idiot until you provide substantial evidence to the contrary.
Haven’t seen any yet, but I’m keeping my options open.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:25 pmjharp #388:
I looked at your comment and I see nothing of substance there.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:28 pmWow.
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:40 pmI looked at your comment and I see nothing of substance there.
Comment by Paul — 6/29/2008 @ 12:28 pm
Interesting.
A 12 term republican in a republican district gets crushed by a 31 year old democrat running on ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the “false choice between war and civil liberties.
And you don’t see anything of substance?
Are you pulling for a democrat landslide?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:41 pmI looked at your comment, harpie, and saw nothing of substance there. No facts, no evidence, not even a passing wave at reality.
Does it take practice to be that wrong, or is it a native talent?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:43 pmAnd you don’t see anything of substance?
No. I don’t see anything substansive in Greenwald’s opinion, because he has zero credibiity…the same credibility you assign to any facts that demolish your arguments.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:14 pmSince you didn’t provide a link, did the Sockpuppet King bother to provide these details?
Or did he leave all that out?
That’s why he has no credibility. Along with praising himself with numerous alternate identities.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:38 pmDrum/Paul,
So I guess you two are going to use the Karl Rove math for the Nov election.
How did that turn out last time?
Bwahahahaha.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:38 pmSpain wins the finals! My prediction was correct. 1:0. Though i predicted 2:1 against Germany. But who cares. they won and I was right.
love2008 (1b037c) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:40 pmPaul,
Since you didn’t provide a link how am I to know what to make of your post.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:41 pmMurphy was also busted by Factcheck.org for running misleading negative ads about Johnson but refused to stop running them. Greenwald neglected to mention that tidbit somehow.
He also forgot to mention that Johnson was a target of the DCCC, so that even if Murphy underspent Johnson directly, there was plenty of other support there. Greenwald is just a blatant hack, all it takes is a few minutes of research to expose him.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:47 pmSo I guess you two are going to use the Karl Rove math for the Nov election.
Your presumptive President is a man who not only is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry, but is branded a northern-type liberal by 57% of the electorate…a proven historical loser over the last 40 years.
The last northern liberal to win the presidency was JFK, who, incidentally had to cheat to win…in addition, were he running today, he would have been disqualified from the presidency by the Dems on his tax policies alone.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:50 pmdaleyrocks, it has never taken more than a few minutes to find Greenwald’s BS. Which is why it is so hilarious that jellersharp praises him.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:51 pmPaul, JFK was not really a “liberal” especially not in the sense of the word today. He actually ran a bit more conservative than Nixon on many issues in ’60 including foreign policy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:52 pmThe last time Karl Rove ran an election? Beat your boy (and I mean that literally) Kerry in the first Presidential popular vote majority since his father’s victory in ’88.
You don’t know what to make of the sunrise every morning. And speaking of not providing a link…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:53 pmSince you didn’t provide a link how am I to know what to make of your post.
This from the cut-and-paste king who provides no evidence, no links, nothing at all to back up his claims.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:53 pmPaul, JFK was not really a “liberal” especially not in the sense of the word today. He actually ran a bit more conservative than Nixon on many issues in ‘60 including foreign policy.
Absolutely right, SPQR. By today’s standards, he was conservative on many issues.
In that time, he was a liberal, but probably would have switched parties or become an independent were he alive today in in his forties. Best evidence of this is Joe Liebermann.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:59 pmPaul,
Please your killin me.
“Your presumptive President is a man who not only is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry”
McCain has made flips flops than a fish out of water.
You are a funny man.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:09 pm“Paul, JFK was not really a “liberal” especially not in the sense of the word today.”
Yeah, right. That Civil rights act was a real piece of conservatism.
So conservative, in fact, that it drove the dixiecrats into being right wing republicans.
And the changes in party affiliation remains to this day.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:34 pmGiven that Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, and Democrats overwhelmingly opposed it, yeah…
They were called Dixiecrats, in case that little bit of information passed you by in your urge to plagiarize someone else.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:44 pmHarpy has a convenient memory lapse about current dem deity bobby byrd- the renowned Grand Kleagle of the KKK. His icon status gives him a pass on any segment of his past or present enunciations. It was ok for him to use the term “white ni**ers not all that long ago.
I confess that inmy ignorant youth I myself voted for the dixiecrat party in guise of George Wallace for the ’68 election. Something to do with working alongside some blacks with very nasty attitude didn’t help. There are loads of double standards of political correctness about what you can say in the workplace, then and now. I don’t know about the south, but Philly denizens were down with honky mf’er as righteous and yet any reference to blacks was very constrained. Of course blacks can say whatever the hell they want UNLESS they are perceived as an Uncle Tom like Justice Thomas.
madmax333 (cbd23e) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:04 pm“Given that Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, and Democrats overwhelmingly opposed it, yeah…”
I was aware. And the democrats lost the south the day it passed and it continues to this day.
They were called “Dixiecrats”, in case that little bit of information passed you by in your urge to plagiarize someone else.
I thought I had mentioned that. Oh, that’s right, I did.
So conservative, in fact, that it drove the “dixiecrats” into being right wing republicans.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:09 pmjharp, still showing your ignorance of history I see. Conservative Democrats were driven out of the party – but not over civil rights, a topic that Republicans have been ahead of Democrats for a century and a half. The alliance between the KKK and Democrats is historic fact and the fact that a KKK official is still in the Senate as a Democrat not coincidence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:11 pm“Given that Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, and Democrats overwhelmingly opposed it, yeah…”
I’m sorry, do you mean the Civil rights act was conservative piece of legislation?
I misunderstood. And you have got to be kidding.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:12 pm“Conservative Democrats were driven out of the party – but not over civil rights”
Please share. I am under the belief i was overwhelmingly over civil rights.
“a topic that Republicans have been ahead of Democrats for a century and a half.”
I wouldn’t say so today.
Gay marriage.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:14 pmYou are under a lot of false beliefs. Not to mention ignorance. The KKK was essentially the terrorist wing of the Democratic party for half a century and you blithely ignore it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:16 pm“Conservative Democrats were driven out of the party – but not over civil rights”
Please share. I am under the belief i was overwhelmingly over civil rights.
“The KKK was essentially the terrorist wing of the Democratic party for half a century and you blithely ignore it.”
Is this your answer?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:19 pmMcCain has made flips flops than a fish out of water.
Like what?
Since there’s so many, you should be able to document them. Like how this site and others have been documenting Obama’s fish flapping.
For example: just yesterday, our host posted about Obama’s flop on the DC gun ban.
Seen it yet?
Yeah, right. That Civil rights act was a real piece of conservatism.
You are aware that the Democrats filibustered it, right? Led by J. William Fullbright (Bill Clinton’s political mentor) and some guy from Tennessee named Albert Gore, Sr.?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:19 pmJohnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, and signed it into law in 1964. … as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation,”
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:21 pmYou are aware that the Democrats filibustered it, right?
Yeah, I am aware. And the democratic president signed it into law anyways.
And the racist southerners have been right wing republicans ever since.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:23 pmAnybody else notice that when every time jharp gets his ass kicked he changes the subject?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:23 pm“Conservative Democrats were driven out of the party – but not over civil rights”
So what was it?
Anyone? I’d like to know.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:24 pmPut forward by the Democratic Governors of the southern states, in case you were wondering.
No wonder the Dems lost the South. Blacks saw the filibustering going on by the Dems, and the protection offered by the Democratic powers-that-be in those southern States in the 50s and 60s to those that committed murder and terrorism against Blacks, and they recognized that the Republicans were actually fighting for their rights.
You’d better be careful. You’re exposing your racist roots.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:27 pmYep, conservative southern Democrats went to the party of Lincoln ( the party of the Union army ) to avoid civil rights legislation that the Republican party supported in greater numbers than Democrats.
The reality was that beginning with the 60’s, the Democratic party began to be more identified with liberal/leftist ideology and at the same time, Republicans became identified more with conservative ideology. This ideological stratification had accelerated after the collapse of the historic New Deal alliance that FDR had forged between different Democratic constituencies. The New Deal alliance itself cracked under civil rights legislation pressures ( FDR himself happily allied himself with segregationists ever since he had run for Vice President with Cox in 1920’s and ran a very racist campaign ). But civil rights legislation cracked the alliance, and caused the conservative wing of Democrats to leave – but they did not find Republicans to be more supported of segregation but rather to be more supportive of the conservative ideology that they shared.
People like Greenwald lie about this history.
Basically, jharp, you are the perfect Greenwald cult member – your entire world view distorted by irrational positions based on unreasoning hatred.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:28 pmAnybody else notice that when every time jharp gets his ass kicked he changes the subject?
Comment by Paul — 6/29/2008 @ 3:23 pm
If you are referring to flip flops try this. www carpetbaggerreport.com
I know it’s long but it’s just there’s been so many.
The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops.
* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
And these come after these other reversals from April and May:
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:29 pmjharp, copying others’ work is copyright infringment. Doing so without attribution is especially the mark of a troll. Frankly, if I were Patterico, you’d be banned for doing the above.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:31 pmMore cut and paste plagiarism, yet he still does exactly what was predicted – changes the subject.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:32 pmStill waiting for harpie to answer my questions. (I realize that overcoming his allergy to facts may take a while, but the longer he waits, the dumber he looks.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:33 pmI took a look at carpetbagger.com. Get a load of the blogroll:
* Talking Points Memo
* Daily Kos
* Tapped
* Atrios’ Eschaton
* Crooks and Liars
* Firedoglake
* Seeing The Forest
* Cursor
* No More Mr. Nice Blog
* Mark A. R. Kleiman
* Matthew Yglesias
* Cliff Schecter
* Political Animal
* Digby’s Hullabaloo
* Political Wire
* Discourse.net
* Upper Left
* James Wolcott
* The Reaction
* The Left Coaster
* Think Progress
* Ezra Klein
* Glenn Greenwald
* MyDD
* Oliver Willis
* The Poor Man Institute
* Balloon Juice
* Shakesville
* Needlenose
* Campaign for America’s Future
* Obsidian Wings
* Anonymous Liberal
* A Tiny Revolution
That roll explains everything: sites containing authors that write completely free of ethical restraints, and are impervious to reason, logic or facts.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:40 pmOnly thing is, Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister aren’t listed. Why leave them out?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:43 pmAslo MIA: Wonkette.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:45 pmBy the way, jharp: since you didn’t provide a link to your plagiarism how am I to know what to make of your post.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:09 pmMore cut and paste plagiarism
He cut-and-pasted 1105 words.
Lucky this wasn’t an AP article…at $2.50 a word, Patterico would be on the hook for $2762.50 for that commentary plagiarism.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:22 pmWhich one of you jackasses was I debating the price of oil with recently?
You like the $4.00 gas Bush has delivered?
Then vote McCain. He can easily get it to $5.00.
OPEC Chief Sees $150-170 Oil in Coming Months
26 Jun 2008 | 08:47 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25386960
Crude oil prices could rise to as high as $170 per barrel in the coming months but are unlikely to hit $200 and should ease towards the end of the year, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said in an interview on Thursday.
The comments came as crude prices neared $135 per barrel, after rising about 40 percent this year.
“I think that the devaluation of the dollar against the euro, if everything goes as I think it will, will be of the order of perhaps 1-2 percent and this will probably generate an $8 rise in the price of oil,” he said.
Asked what the main factor behind the rise in prices had been, he replied: “I think it’s the devaluation of the dollar.”
“You can see, every time the dollar strengthens, there is a fall in prices,” he said.
http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=21856&t=1&c=34&cg=4&mset=1011
The rising cost of crude is not linked to supply, Khelil told Bloomberg today. “There is more than enough oil in the market to meet the international demand,” added the OPEC president, who will take part 30 June in an international energy forum in Madrid.
“The decisions made by the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank helped the devaluation of the dollar, which pushed up oil prices,” Khelil said.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:37 pmI looked at your comment and I see nothing of substance there.
But whoever is keeping track, chalk up another subject change.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:42 pmDrum,
I’m starting to like you.
$170 barrel oil. Nothing of substance?
Due to the weak dollar? Nothing to see here, just move along.
“more than enough oil in the market to meet the international demand” …nothing of substance there.
You are quite the comic.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:48 pmAnd the fact that we import over 60% of our oil at prices they demand while ignoring domestic development of our supply of oil, no new refineries built in the last 30 years, a dozen different formulations and heavy taxation have no impact on the price of gasoline.
Not to mention that OPEC has no problem taking advantage of our reliance on imported oil to price-gouge us.
Right.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:03 pmjharp, you remain the comic. The President does not set the price of oil or gasoline. You just make up stuff.
It would be helpful if you actually learned who sells us the largest fraction of our imported oil.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:07 pmI see nothing of substance in anything you say, jharp, and until you start showing that your allergy to facts has been abated, you will have nothing of substance to say.
Liar, plagiarist and moron – you’re certainly the Democrat triple threat, aren’t you?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:10 pmSPQR,
“The President does not set the price of oil or gasoline. You just make up stuff.”
Good one.
“It would be helpful if you actually learned who sells us the largest fraction of our imported oil.”
It wouldn’t be these guys, would it?
Ever since the Canadian dollar bottomed out at 61.79 cents US on Jan. 21, 2002, it has been on a seemingly unstoppable charge higher.
Since then, the loonie’s value has risen by more than 70 per cent, driven by surging commodity prices, a healthy economy and rising interest rates.
On Sept. 20, 2007, the dollar finally hit a level that seemed most unlikely just a year earlier — parity with the U.S. greenback for the first time in almost 31 years.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:20 pmYet more plagiarism. Bet you’re proud of your intellectual dishonesty, eh?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:22 pmAnybody notice jharp skips over any arguments that are inconvenient to his cut-and-paste narrative? In addition to changing the subject when he gets his ass kicked?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:26 pmPaul, I doubt he can sit down. Must be surfing standing up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:28 pmSince we’re talking about high price of oil, it is interesting that some of the liberal politicians want to nationalize the US oil industry. Might get some idea of the effects of that by looking at Mexican nationalized oil Pemex, endemic with corruption and not making much money, even at these prices. See-Dubya has an interesting take on the story over at michelle malkin’s site. Mexico’s corrution problem is our own and falling prices would put pressure on more people to exit for the relatively more prosperous life in the good old USA.
madmax333 (a11ea0) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:28 pmI’m sure suing OPEC will do wonders to bring the price too. Can’t counter that be doing some simple things here to develop our own resources because that would mean energy piggy america would not need rest of world so much and fat boy Gore’s AGW kingdom building might be stymied. I find it interesting that many Brits believe that AGW is so much BS to gouge them for higher taxes.
Would be so lovely to see these pols’ heads sitting atop poles. Or Goracle roasting on a spit serving as pork loin for some starving African villageS, rhetorically of course.
*raises hand*
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:28 pmJust imagine.
The crazy canadians used to get .62 US dollars per canadian dollar and now it is even. 1 US$ = 1 Canadian dollar.
Just think about that when you are using US$’s to trade with Canada.
And they are our biggest oil supplier.
Naw, nothing to see here. The weak US$ has nothing to do with oil prices. Just move right along.
Hey, how about this. Let’s blow another borrowed $1 trillion in Iraq further weakening the U.S. dollar. The greenhouse gas problem is solved. No one could afford to drive.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:42 pmYou couldn’t get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:45 pmjharp,
I’m confused by your argument and I hope you can clarify it.
US currency rates are generally set by the free market and thus I think devaluation is a result rather than a cause of trade imbalances. In other words, the free-market value of a national currency is determined by the interaction of supply and demand.
Thus, when demand for imported products increases faster than supply, that causes prices to increase and can cause trade imbalances that affect currency values. At some point, the prices rise to the point that US companies will produce those products at comparable rates. We’ve seen that happen with automobiles and electronics. The problem with oil is that the US doesn’t have domestic production it can substitute for oil imports, so the price continues to increase and trade imbalances get larger.
I think currency devaluation contributes to this problem but it’s more of a result than a cause. The basic problem is one of supply and demand.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:48 pmmax,
“it is interesting that some of the liberal politicians want to nationalize the US oil industry.”
What in the hell are you talking about? I know of no one who has proposed any any legislation to nationalize the oil industry. If you’ve got something please share.
“Might get some idea of the effects of that by looking at Mexican nationalized oil Pemex, endemic with corruption and not making much money,”
And just how much is gasoline in Mexico. And who gives a rats ass if the Mexican oil companies are money much money or not?
Corruption? Who gives a dam about corruption in Mexico. We’ve got enough here to keep us busy.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:49 pmjharp, Rep. Maxine Waters threatened nationalization of the oil industry at hearings broadcast on CSPAN.
Your ignorance of something makes it more likely that it happened, not less.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:53 pmjharp,
In Congressional hearings on oil prices, Maxine Waters threatened to nationalize the oil industry.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:55 pmMy last link didn’t work so I’ll try again: Maxine Waters.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:57 pmAnother straw man. Lack of proposed legislation doesn’t mean some people don’t want it to happen.
But here are some Democrats, in their own words:
Dems calling for nationalizing oil refineries
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:00 pm“In Congressional hearings on oil prices, Maxine Waters threatened to nationalize the oil industry”
Holy Toledo!
One congressperson made one threat!
It’s over. Nationalization of the oil industry is a done deal.
How about the other 434 congressman, the senate, and the president?
You guys are lunatics.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:02 pmDems calling for nationalizing oil refineries.
Fox News. Good one.
If it’s on Fox it must be true. Fair and balanced.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:04 pmIf it’s on Fox it must be true. Fair and balanced.
This from a commenter that cites Greenwald as a paragon of virtue, truth and integrity. On this blog.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:08 pmI think currency devaluation contributes to this problem but it’s more of a result than a cause. The basic problem is one of supply and demand.
Comment by DRJ
It’s quite complex and way to difficult to explain on a message board.
A generalization. Deficits bad. And we’ve had $4 trillion dollars worth under George Bush and the republican Congress.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:13 pmLove the goalpost moving also:
to
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:13 pmIt’s quite complex and way to difficult to explain on a message board.
“There are things going on here beyond your simple comprehension.”
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:15 pmjharp #455,
I made an effort to courteously discuss this subject with you. It’s a shame you aren’t willing to respond in kind but that’s your choice. It’s also apparent that you do not intend to respond to my inquiry regarding your theory of currency values and trade imbalances, so I will leave you in peace.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:15 pmWhy would that be, O Half-Vast One? Given your credibility, I wouldn’t believe you if you asserted that the Earth rotated west-to-east.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:20 pmjharp #458,
It’s been my experience that people who can’t provide a big picture explanation of a concept probably don’t understand it to begin with. I know there are many subjects that I could not explain, and this is a subject that I admit is very confusing. But the general concept can be understood and explained.
Trade imbalances occur when a country imports more than it exports. When that happens, money to purchase those goods flows out of the country to the country exporting the goods. Thus, currency devaluations can occur when there are ongoing outflows of money to purchase ever-increasing imports.
At some point, domestic markets should kick in and produce those goods and stop the outflow of money so the currency values can stabilize. Since you are 47, you undoubtedly remember when that happened 20+ years ago with automobiles and electronics. The problem with oil imports is that the US has no replacement energy source so the price increases, trade imbalances, and currency fluctuations are continuing.
If my understanding is incorrect, please educate me. I always like to learn new things and I’m sure you’ve learned enough in your 47 years to explain it to me.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:25 pmWhat in the hell are you talking about? I know of no one who has proposed any any legislation to nationalize the oil industry.
to
Holy Toledo!
One congressperson made one threat!
It’s over. Nationalization of the oil industry is a done deal.
Comment by Paul
And just what as the proposed legislation?
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:36 pmNationalization of the oil industry, dummy!
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:38 pmjharp, we watched Maxine Waters say that on CSPAN. That the particular link came from Fox is irrelevant.
That comment about Fox news is exactly why you have no credibility. You are about misdirection and misrepresentation – not facts.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:39 pmDRJ, you’re asking for another trip to Levi-World here.
Another Drew (758608) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:40 pmI had thought your previous trip would have been enough.
By the way, jharp, deficits as a percentage of GDP is currently below the historic average of recent decades. So you are exaggerating their influence.
But that would be consistent with your practice of misdirection and misrepresentation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:41 pmcertain obamabots/’tards could actually see what I’m talking about if they read the Pemex article at michellemalkin dot com. I don’t cut and paste or plagiarize from others like certain politicans- Urkel and Joe Biden to name two. As for urkel you can compare the content of some of his speeches to his fellow moonbat the guv of taxachusetts. fellow travelers of the lightness being don’t care that barry hussein wants high energy costs since we need to emulate the euroweenies in everything, eh? Funny too, that all sorts of mindless bimbos in Obambi’s camps are using his no-to-be-mentioned by whiteys middle name as their own. Big whoop there too. Who are the bigger bootlickers/mindless replicants….the obamaturds or the nor luap paultards and did the paultards now defect over to the chicago gangster-enabling empty suit? Enquiring minds desire to know.
madmax333 (5acdcd) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:46 pmI’m not trying to be a wise guy but quite a few things enter into it.
I’ll try a patterico readers version for the folks who think it is all supply and demand.
In 2002 Canada sells one barrel of oil for US$.
The price is $.62 US.
In 2008 Canada sells one barrel of oil for US$.
Price = $1.00
In 2008 Canada sells one barrel of oil for Euros
Price = $1.55 Canada dollars
In 2008 Canada sells one barrel of oil for Euros.
Price = 1.55 Canada dollars.
Only because of the change in currency exchange rates.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 6:55 pmjharp, you got your butt kicked in another thread on this topic. It is really showing your unhealthy obsession and trollish character to continue it here, off topic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:01 pmNot true. There have several alternative reasons given in this thread, and you are deliberately lying to say otherwise.
Why do you need to lie to defend your position?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:01 pmNot to mention, your post is utterly incoherent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:02 pmjharp’s obsession with exchange rates is starting to remind me of a small business owner acquaintance of mine who is always on the latest loony monetary theory. A Paulnaut, his reading material is whatever loony “survive the coming economic apocalypse” book, and he’s been hoarding nickels lately.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:05 pmDrum, You are a stupid, stupid man.
“Only because of the change in currency exchange rates.”
“Not true. There have several alternative reasons given in this thread, and you are deliberately lying to say otherwise.”
I tried to be nice and give a simple explanation and tried to make it clear that I was only noting the currency exchange difference in oil prices.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:06 pm“jharp, we watched Maxine Waters say that on CSPAN.”
So friggin what. One idiotic remark does not translate into “some of the liberal politicians want to nationalize the US oil industry”
Put the bong away.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:09 pmjharp, except that your numbers had no relation to the actual price of oil in any particular commodity market. You plugged in numbers that were not related to the price of oil. Your attempt to boldly defeat your own strawman was just incoherent gibberish.
And I don’t know if you notice but this topic has nothing to do with the price of oil.
This is FISA. The price of oil came up in another thread where you got your tail kicked up one side and down another.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:10 pmSo you’re saying that the change in currency exchange rates is responsible for the change in currency exchange rates? Really? Really?
Bullshit, you liar. Your exact words were: “Only because of the change in currency exchange rates”, and you were referring to the change in gasoline prices being “Only because of the change in currency exchange rates.”
You are deliberately ignoring many other alternative reasons for those changes, that is a lie, and you just got caught repeating it. That makes you a liar.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:14 pmI keep going to my acqaintences retail store expecting to hear that the next inflation hedge he’s into is saving the foil wrappers on the top of his yogurt cartons.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:16 pmActually, yes it does. That is exactly what it means.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:16 pmjharp #470,
This CNN article addresses the argument (that you are apparently unwilling to articulate) regarding why “[m]any analysts believe the dollar’s protracted decline has been a major reason why oil prices have nearly doubled from year-ago levels.” But the underlying problem remains that there is not enough oil to meet demand.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:31 pmDRJ, jharp’s claim that those who disagreed with him on the other thread denied that exchange rates were a factor is just a lie. We denied that it was the largest factor. And the best jharp could do in the other thread – where it was barely topical – was find someone who claimed, by cherry picking the size of the time period, that it was 51% of the price increase. A time period that omitted the more recent price increases just by the nature of publishing deadlines.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:34 pmAmong the amusing parts of that exchange was jharp demonstrating that he did not understand the difference between 51% of the increase and 51% of the total price.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:35 pmI need to do a better job keeping up with all the threads. There’s nothing worse than driving the same road over and over.
DRJ (fdd611) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:46 pmOr of the fact that 51% is a fraction.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:49 pmGentlemen,
I tried. I guess it didn’t come out very clear.
I’ll see you guys around.
And to close.
The major reason for the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is the decline of the US$.
And Iraq was not a threat to the United States pre invasion and still isn’t today.
Good health and a good nights rest to all.
jharp (9b1a32) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:55 pmFWIW – Central Indiana apologizes to the rest of the world for jharpy. He is an abject liar. And daleyrocks is probably right. If it is a good golfer, it cheats.
JD (5f0e11) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:58 pmBut you just said that the increase is “[o]nly because of the change in currency exchange rates.”
Both of them can’t be right.
Which time were you lying?
Everyone else in the country who is in a position to know the facts (the same facts that you have deemed “irrelevant”) disagrees with you. But you think you are the only one who is right while all those others are wrong?
There’s a phrase used for such thought processes…
Scaranoid pitzophrenic, or something like that…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:00 pmGenetic Fallacy. Good one.
I wasn’t presenting Fox news or commentary, I was presenting Democrats speaking in their own words. Did Fox get any of that incorrect? If not, shut up about it.
Steverino (b42fd7) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:02 pmThe major reason for the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is the decline of the US$.
And Iraq was not a threat to the United States pre invasion and still isn’t today.
So jharp finishes the day same as he started…impervious to facts, logic, reason or ethics.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:15 pmRight. That would explain why we’re all whining about paying $1.58 for a gallon of gas that used to cost us only $1.00, while Canada and Europe’s gas prices in their stronger currencies haven’t budged at all. O-kay.
If you honestly believe that, you were not playing with a full deck pre invasion, and still aren’t today.
Xrlq (b71926) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:38 amAt least he dropped his stupid WMD claim which is progress
daleyrocks (1cc55d) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:22 am