PeterDavid.net

I've always thought that American politics would be much improved if our legislators followed the British model of confrontational debate. It would at least be more entertaining.

I'm glad someone else caught his "slip"...

I would give my life savings if i could actually be there if i could be there if the Opposition went at him...

Ra!

I wish Wubja would get brought down for a so many reasons. And I often wonder if the people who voted for him would again vote for him if they knew that when you call the GOP to donate..the call is taken in India? Or in 19 states right now if you call for social security, unemployment and what not..you're again calling India to check on this. Yes, the call centers are in India. Our tax dollars at work. Nothing against India or it's people but I think their are a few million unemployed people here who would love to punch a number into a box on a screen and read the output to someone. :)

omg, is that true? I didn't know that... that's disgusting... Ya know, the more i see of our government, the more disgusted and ashamed i become...

Ra!

Well, the story about the state social programs was run on CNN.com about three months ago. But you know with the Scott Peterson and Cobe Bryant cases making such headlines ..and the Iraq death tolls. I guess quite a few people missed it. :(

So by the logic your going by now - you'd just adore a bunch of crazed fans yelling at you, and you having to come up with a defence on the fly?

Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan. What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that "fan" wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can't defend yourself on-the-fly.

Orrrr.... is this one of those situations where it's a double standard. You like it to happen to people you don't like - but don't like it when it's about you.

Plus - if America is so "Anti-Free-Speech" why are you able to get up on this blog and denounce Bush? Hummmmm.... Could it be we still, stopped, living in the land of the Free?

Oh, didn't have cable at the time. Doesn't make it any better, so I'll just add it to my list of things that this country has done to make me ashamed of being an American. Ya know, that would have been the perfect job for all the telemarketers who are getting laid off now too... shame...

Ra!

I believe that President Bush was speaking of the freedom to speak out against something freely. You know, unlike Iraq under the rule of Saddam.

With this continued talk of "Ashcroft America", can someone point out an specific example where someone's freedom of speech and/or expression has been quashed? Any example, other than speaking about Christanity or Judaism?

And if you want to see people yelling and screaming and calling Bush all kinds of names, just watch any of the democrats running for president...or better yet, their debates.

Sorry, post i didn't see before I responded before...

Well, aren't Q&A's generally unrehearsed? I know i've asked random questions before... besides, i think there is a bit of difference between a reckless blundering idiot threatening you and a politician saying what they want to say how they want to say... rather than having to make sure it pleases bloody everyone...

Ra!

Just another case of making something out of nothing. Sigh.

heres an idea

after the elections are over, the new president should turn Bush over to the United Nations for War Crimes Trials...

now before you immediately say "no, no, no"...

He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations, lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it.

Sounds like a good idea to me, and probably the best way to apologize to the rest of the world.

>> With this continued talk of "Ashcroft America", can someone point out an specific example where someone's freedom of speech and/or expression has been quashed?

Well, when President Bush came and gave a speech here in Pittsburgh in 2002, a 65-year-old man was arrested -- let me repeat, actually arrested -- because he politely insisted that the police had no right to confine him and other sign-carrying protesters to a fenced-in area while people carrying pro-Bush signs were allowed to walk freely around the street. Please don't take my word for it: Read the news story at www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021101protester3.asp for yourself.

We can at least sigh in relief that the judge threw the case out upon hearing the facts, upon which both the defendant and the arresting police officer agreed. Still, I find it a bit unsettling to read that it was the Secret Service who'd ordered the local police to proactively keep the protesters confined behind a fence in the first place. The right of assembly isn't selectively dependent on partisan views, folks.

Surges: So by the logic your going by now - you'd just adore a bunch of crazed fans yelling at you, and you having to come up with a defence on the fly? Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan.

Luigi Novi: No, he condemned threats from such people. Not confrontational debate. In addition, Peter is not an elected official who must answer to 290 million Americans for his actions as leader.

Surges: What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that "fan" wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can't defend yourself on-the-fly.

Luigi Novi: If you subscribe to intellectual relativism, saying that “this thing” is the same as “that thing,” and so forth, then yeah, the two things “sound alike.” If, on the other hand, you agree to recognize the important distinctions, you’ll admit that in that earlier blog thread, Peter was not talking about confrontational debates or questions toward an President by those he leads, but vague, veiled threats by a fan. Not the same thing.

Surges: Plus - if America is so "Anti-Free-Speech" why are you able to get up on this blog and denounce Bush? Hummmmm.... Could it be we still, stopped, living in the land of the Free?

Luigi Novi: A fallacious argument. The fact that Peter has a blog does not mean that there aren’t others in this country who have suffered under Bush and Ashcroft’s Patriot Act. Who is targeted by this Act will tend to be dictated by a combination of happenstance and fame. To name some examples from Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore:

In May 2002, six French journalists were stopped at LAX, interrogated, subject to body searches, detained for more than a day, and expelled from the U.S., having been denied travel to their intended destination, a video game trade show.

Vermont high school current-events teacher Tom Treece was removed from his position after a uniformed police officer entered his classroom at 1:30am to photograph a student art project depicting George W. Bush with duct tape over mouth with the caption, “Put your duct tape to good use. Shut your mouth.”

North Carolina college student A.J. Brown was questioned by Secret Service agents regarding her possession of anti-death-penalty posters showing Bush and a group of lynched bodies with the caption “We hang on your every word” which were seen as “anti-Amercian” material.

North Carolina Green Party activist Doug Stuber was detained and questioned while trying to fly to Prague, told no Greens were allowed to fly that day, had his mug shot taken, and forced to turn back because, according to a Justice Department document shown to him by his interrogators, Greens were likely terrorists.

Your argument, therefore, that free speech is not coming under attack because Peter is able to denounce Bush on this blog, is a fallacy.

He's peddling that line over there in the UK? He tried that here in Oz only to watch Senator Bob Brown get thrown out for protesting while he was talking about something or other.

>> Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan. What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that "fan" wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can't defend yourself on-the-fly.

Peter David is a private citizen who makes his living by writing fiction that consumers buy and read. He is gracious enough, but in no way obligated, to interact with his fans.

George Bush is an elected public official whose tremendous authority and power is sanctioned (via the Constitution) by the will of the American citizenry, as expressed through their chosen state electors. He chose to seek the office of the President -- to accept a federal government job in which he is officially employed by the American people. And, if I may borrow the words of a certain well-proven patriot, with great power (over the American people) comes great responsibility (to the American people).

To wit: Peter David is not answerable to the public for his views. The President of the United States most certainly is.

Peter, come on. I know you can do better than this. "Ashcroft America" really? Oh, please. This hatred of Bush is so petty. You know what hurts democrats is that when it comes to choosing between legitamate critiques of administration policy in a mature rational manner or a personal attack accusing Bush of being satan himself who wants to poison the water, starve children, and trip little old ladies, the democrats always choose the personal attack. Also, I for one don't want to hear a bunch of people yell at each other and exchange name calling. What does that accomplish? I thought the best debate in the last presidential election was the Liberman-Cheyney debate. Very straight forward and well articulated views on policy.

Oh, regarding a prior statement saying Bush invaded a soveriegn nation without UN approval, you forget that Saddam invaded a sovereign nation and for that act was placed under restricitions by the UN, which Saddam broke continuously. Saddam did use chemical weapons after the gulf war to quell an unprising. That is a fact. The UN inspection teams were never able to account for what Saddam did with those weapons. President Bill Clinton stated many times at the end of his presidency that Saddam was becoming an increasing danger and that the US would eventually have to involve itself militarily. The fact that that the UN would not enforce its own restictions showed how inept(and some would argue corrupt regarding the food for oil program) the UN has become. Speaking of sovereignty, the US needs to look out for itself, not let third world leaders in the UN dictate to us how to defend ourselves. The fight is in Iraq right now, and if it weren't there it would be in our streets.

Last thought, I don't think it is right that we allow ourselves to go after the enemy, but we tell Israel to play nice, and not be too agressive in going after their attackers. That does seem hypocritical.

"Oh, regarding a prior statement saying Bush invaded a soveriegn nation without UN approval, you forget that Saddam invaded a sovereign nation and for that act was placed under restricitions by the UN, which Saddam broke continuously."

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

Ra!

George W. Bush stated, in regards to protestors, that he was pleased to be in a country where people are allowed to speak their minds.

I may have missed a memo, but...isn't he *usually* in a country where people are allowed to speak their minds?

Um... maybe *I* missed something, but where in the above statement is it implied that he's *not* usually in a free-speaking country? I think you're reaching, but given the facts, I guess that's all you can do.

Your argument, therefore, that free speech is not coming under attack because Peter is able to denounce Bush on this blog, is a fallacy.

Quoting Michael Moore, as though facts were a priority for him, is a fallacy.

It seems to me that complaints about infringed free speech have long pre-dated Bush's presidency, so this notion that somehow Ashcroft is responsible for all the current oppression is pretty limp.

Oh, look! Evidence of a Saddam/Al-Quaida link. How about that?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Oh, look! Evidence of a Saddam/Al-Quaida link. How about that?

That's old news, the Pentagon has already debunked it:

http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480

Note that GWB's original schedule called for an address to the entire Parliament assembled, which was cancelled shortly before his arrival, supposedly due to the prospect of his being 'commented' at from the gallery. The mild (in comparison) heckling he received when he addressed the Australian legislature not long ago apparently got the admin's hackles up.

As for the article in the Weekly Standard, that is entirely regurgitated, carefully cherry-picked material, most from a year (or more) ago, unverified by intelligence agencies at the time, and unverified by those agencies since:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_16.html#002219

It has not been widely picked-up on, primarily because it is truly 'old news' and old news that has been thoroughly debunked, unverified or is otherwise unsubstantiated and questionable in fact or in source.

The rash of detentions of folks of Middle Eastern extraction, without recourse to lawyers, whisked to undisclosed detention, with no proof evident nor offered of any wrongdoing (alleged, anticipated or proven) in so many cases (thankfully at least reported well after the fact in many instances) is but one troublesome example of 'Ashcroft's America.' There are literally scores of other cases, many of which have been reported on reputable news sites available to anyone who cares to go looking for the information.

Framnkly, the reason so many of the powers and authorities given to intelligence and law-enforcement agencies by the PATRIOT Act were stripped from those same agencies and auuhtorities years before is because those agencies had been proven to have abused those powers. They will do so again; there is simply no 'if' about it.

Totally off-topic:

Not reported other than in select venues, and perhaps in a later graf on the jump page in some newspapers, but the currretly in-debate Medicare drug bill includes a proviso expressly forbidding, by law, the Secretary of HHS from negotiating lower drug prices with drug manufacturers:

http://www.swtimes.com/archive/2003/November/18/news/medicare_bill.html

Let's have some fun, Eric. I'm going to change two words throughout part of your statement, and let's see if you still feel the same way:

This hatred of Clinton is so petty. You know what hurts republicans is that when it comes to choosing between legitamate critiques of administration policy in a mature rational manner or a personal attack accusing Clinton of being satan himself who wants to poison the water, starve children, and trip little old ladies, the republicans always choose the personal attack. Also, I for one don't want to hear a bunch of people yell at each other and exchange name calling. What does that accomplish?

Well?

JSM

Jeff? You're point? I agree both are reprehensible. I don't want either of them to be subjected to such trash.

'S'funny, I heard Bush's rejoinder to the moron reporter and thought it was a perfect response. If 50,000 protestors hated Saddam in Iraq before the war, there would be 50,000 dead protestors. It IS great to be in a country where that doesn't happen. Talk about putting the proper light on things.

"He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations, lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it."

We're a sovereign nation, the UN was wrong in not siding with us, hampered as it was by biased member nations more interested in their own agenda than in World Peace.

He didn't lie about going to war with Iraq. I knew, why didn't you?

There is a difference between erroneous evidence and falsified evidence. And it's sad that people don't comprehend that culling useful information from the mountains of data collected is an art not a science. To crucify him for not acting on a scrap of info about 9/11, then complain when he acts on something that appears just as dangerous is just plain ridiculous.

It should probably be pointed out that conservatives who accuse the Democrats of hatemongering neither understand the difference between hate and justifiable anger nor have any moral ground on which to stand considering their still-active vendetta against everyone who doesn't agree with their political views (in specific the Clinton administratin, but by extension most Democrats).

As for Bush's remark about free speech, it's not the first time he's said it. It's his standard press conference rebuttal to any question regarding even the hint of opposition to his policies, and it's almost always said with a sarcastic, smirking tone and accompanying body language designed to convey the exact opposite meaning to the words. If he actually celebrated free speech he wouldn't have all these "sterile zone" and "free speech zone" bubbles around him practically at all times. He reminds me of Frank Miller's and Dave Gibbons' portrayal of the president in the Martha Washington books - the first time you see him he's in a relatively sane-looking motorcade, then as the story progresses and he keeps being re-elected or just outright does away with the electoral process, every inaugural parade gets more and more militarized and armored-car bubble-like. Bush only needed three years to go from the relative openness of the previous administration to living within a fortress, utterly unanswerable to We the People. As with Orwell's 1984, Miller's work is supposed to be SATIRE, not a blueprint.

Um... maybe *I* missed something, but where in the above statement is it implied that he's *not* usually in a free-speaking country? I think you're reaching, but given the facts, I guess that's all you can do.

Wow, what a nice dismissive little insult there. Did you get that from O'Reilly or Hannity?

The fact is that the Bush administration is doing its best to try and sweep protesters under the rug. Even the so-called "liberal media" is rare to report on their tactics.

It seems to me that complaints about infringed free speech have long pre-dated Bush's presidency, so this notion that somehow Ashcroft is responsible for all the current oppression is pretty limp.

Ah, I see. So your logic here is that since other things have been done wrong in the past, we should just roll over and accept wrong things now?

We'll just forget about how on 9/12, Ashcroft was on TV practically boasting about how he was going to be able to push through many measures in what would be called "The Patriot Act" that had been struck down time and time again as being unconstitutional.

About the USA PATRIOT Act, I wonder how many people realize it's an ackronym and not a word, as most print media present it. The full name is the United and Stengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. It should be referred to as the PATRIOT Act or the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, so people will know it's a marginally clever ackronym and not the word "Patriot" with all that it implies.

On another note, in a book about M*A*S*H, the late Larry Linville talked about the Frank Burnses of the world and warned that people like that shouldn't be elected to important positions or promoted to important jobs in the business world because they don't "get it." Their lack of understanding-- and to some degree intelligence-- make them dangerous. Unfortunately, we now have a real life Frank Burns in the White House. The question is whether the president is letting himself be influenced by bad advice from his staff and/or various cronies; or whether he is ignoring good advice from said staff in favor of what Spock described as "Cowboy diplomacy." Let's hope that in 2005, the next president can restore some of the respect we've lost in the international community.

Rick

Wow, what an incredibly narrow and slanted view most of you have.

By Elayne Riggs:It should probably be pointed out that conservatives who accuse the Democrats of hatemongering neither understand the difference between hate and justifiable anger nor have any moral ground on which to stand considering their still-active vendetta against everyone who doesn't agree with their political views (in specific the Clinton administratin, but by extension most Democrats).

This is an incredibly biased opinion, not based in reality or fact.

By Scott Bland:We'll just forget about how on 9/12, Ashcroft was on TV practically boasting about how he was going to be able to push through many measures in what would be called "The Patriot Act" that had been struck down time and time again as being unconstitutional.

Or as most rational people saw it, he was a concerned person trying to reassure America that action would be taken to prevent a tragedy like that from happening again. Your calling his actions boastful is you transferring your personal opinions about him, not what really happened.

Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can't be trusted.

I ain't touching any of this with a ten-foot pole. With one exception...

C-SPAN could probably start charging people money if they broadcasted Bush speaking to Congress, and congress loudly and uneloquently speaking back, ala the Parliament deal. I certainly would fork over some cash for that kind of real reality television.

Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can't be trusted

I would hesitantly use the word truth in a public forum. Facts and truth are two different things.

Truth depends on an inner conviction instead of facts. Facts depend on facts.

Travis

Truth depends on an inner conviction instead of facts.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, I am not talking about a philosophical truth but the actual truth. One of the definitions of truth in my dictionary is fact. The are synonyms.

Should be:

They are synonyms.

You know, I'm going to make this short. I've always been a fan of PADs writing and wit, and I will continue to be a fan of his writing and wit. But I have to say that I've been coming to this site more and more infrequently, because it has seemed to have morphed into mostly an outlet to decry the president and the GOP, and seems to be much more just a liberal forum not for bashing of conservative ideals, particularly of this administration. While I understand that PAD is more than entitled to his own opinions (as is everybody) the effect of all this is simply to drive me away. There is so much hostility and radicalism in the way that Bush and the GOP is being attacked here. I'm not here to say that anyone is wrong, I'm just saying it's getting to be a real drag coming here and seeing everyone argue about this stuff. It also, quite honestly, makes me see PAD in a different light and it is not exactly one that is positive. I understand that this is PADs site and he can say anything he wants, but I am just saying that with the decidedly political turn this site has taken, it has ceased to become a "fun" place to visit.

Ken spewed: "Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can't be trusted. "

It, it's Bush, Ashcroft and their fellow dirtbags that are interfering with truth and reality. They are weakening the very freedoms this country was founded on. Hell, Bush was "elected" in 2000, I though every 20 years a president had a shot taken at him... (Reagan first elected in 1980 survived the attempt on his life [and amazingly John Hinkley is complaining he's not crazy anymore and needs more freedom..., JFK had won his election in the 1960 elections, too bad he didn't survive...)

The "Patriot Act" is unpoatriotic and does NOTHING to protect America, just like the attack on Iraq does nothing to protect America, and in fact weakens it by wasting vast quantities of American troops and now tons of money as well...

The only thing Ashcroft is concerned about is his own insane power grab....

Gee Matt, can't stand seeing others opinions and learning the truth about your idol Bush?

Gee "Bladestar" (by the way, what an incredibly witty name! You must be so proud!), funny you would say that. First, never did it say Bush was my idol...but so nice of you to put words in my mouth! And you know, why in the world would I call the environment hostile with response like yours? Crazy me!

So by the logic your going by now - you'd just adore a bunch of crazed fans yelling at you, and you having to come up with a defence on the fly?

I've been in any number of forums just like that, ranging from workshops to Q&A's to the occasional debate (you may have heard about it) to back in my sales manager days when I would host fan and/or retailer and/or distributor talk-back sessions and have to defend a variety of unpopular Marvel corporate decisions to irate customers of all stripes. Did I *adore* it? No. But it certainly was challenging and it was part of the job.

Just a week ago you condemed this kind of stuff from an angry and possibly violent fan. What you just described sounds very much like the stuff that "fan" wanted to do to you: confront you, yell at you, and do it so you can't defend yourself on-the-fly.

Well, yeah, it sounds like it if you can't read. My opining that having angry opponents openly challenging George W. Bush in Parliament because it would be fascinating to see him desperately try to match their articulateness is one thing. And if I added, "And I hope one of them hauls off and belts him or knocks him over," then you might have a point. But I didn't. So you don't. And since you bring it up twice: What's wrong with having to defend one's opinions on the fly? If those opinions are capable of--when instituted--sending 150,000 people to war and destroying thousands of lives, shouldn't one have thought them through enough to be able to defend them off the cuff in a heated challenging forum? If not, then either the opinions should be rethought, or the person who has them should be rethought.

Orrrr.... is this one of those situations where it's a double standard. You like it to happen to people you don't like - but don't like it when it's about you.

No, this is one of those situations where someone is deliberately distorting the clear intent of what I said and comparing two wildly different circumstances in order to make it *look* as if I have a double standard.

Plus - if America is so "Anti-Free-Speech" why are you able to get up on this blog and denounce Bush? Hummmmm.... Could it be we still, stopped, living in the land of the Free?

Would you care to tell me where in the quote, "Or is that an intriguing Freudian slip as to how he views the Ashcroft America in which we currently reside?" states that we've stopped living in the land of the Free? (Although the Patriot Act is certainly a challenge to it.) Now as I *have* said in the past, all Americans are in favor of free speech...for themselves. It's supporting free speech for others on which a sizable percentage of our citizens falls down.

PAD

In Regards to Luigi Novi's Michael Moore quotes "Ashcroft's america", I did a bit of research.

Turns out, once again, Mr. Moore streches the truth.

Tom Treece, the Vermont Teacher investigated by Barre Police for a "student art project" and "removed from his position" was neither. A single cop, did ask for and received permission to photograph a project, but Mr. Treece was investigated by local school officals for presenting a disruptive and one-sided view of american politics in his current studies class. He stamped "Impeach Bush" stickers to his classroom door and rather than removed from his position, was directed by his department head to teach history classes rather than current events.

N. C. College student A.J. Brown was investigated by Secret Service agents for an anti -death penalty poster, which according to the report, they found "was nothing". Ms. Brown reportedly co-operated fully with the Secret Service.

Doug Stuber, former Chair of the 2000 Green Party Nader Campaign may or may not have been stopped from flying to Prauge, but in any case, the story has been reported without co-cobberation and is Mr. Stuber's personal report. What we do know is that Mr. Stuber, former NC Green Treasurer, was removed from his position by the Greens themselves for checking "irregulatities" and has been denounced as any kind of Gren spokesperson.

There's four sides to every story, your, mine, the truth and Michael Moore's.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, I am not talking about a philosophical truth but the actual truth. One of the definitions of truth in my dictionary is fact. The are synonyms.

In an ideal world maybe, but there are still people who believe that the truth is that no jews were killed in the holocaust. That white people are superior to any other race. And that needles were injected into candy bars and handed out at Halloween in the mid-eighties.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Truth has and always will be subjective. Something that is believed. That is why religion is sooo messy. Because everyone believes that theirs is truth.

Facts are things that are documented. This is a computer, I am typing at: fact. GWB is an idiot... truth or not truth? up to you and whomever. Depends on what they believe.

Travis

There's four sides to every story, your, mine, the truth and Michael Moore's.

Make that five. Ann Coulter should be in there somewhere...

Travis

I still don't see a Freudian slip. He said it's nice to be in a free country, not that his (ours) isn't.

"If he actually celebrated free speech he wouldn't have all these "sterile zone" and "free speech zone" bubbles around him practically at all times."

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. I think the fact that Pres. Bush goes out in public at all is incredibly brave. With the bile spewed his way regularly the potential for violence seems high. Yet he does go out in public.

I don't see arrogance and sarcasm in his tone or body language at all. I don't see how anyone could.

Travis, it seems like you need to read a dictionary because you have truth mixed up with opinion.

The things you listed may be believed to be the truth but they are not the truth. Whether believed or not. It maybe some peoples opinion that is the truth, but that is their opinion.

See, as I have stated the dictionary defines truth to be a fact. That is the bottom line.

What someone believes is not going to change the fact that GW Bush is a very educated man. It is an opinion of some that he is an idiot. That is not truth, it is opinion.

Travis,

It seems to me, that outside of confusing footnotes with endnotes, neither you, nor Al Franken, have yet to debunk an Ann Coulter comment yet.

KR

Wow, what an incredibly narrow and slanted view most of you have.

Right, because so many extreme conservatives are renowned for their broadmindedness.

By Elayne Riggs:It should probably be pointed out that conservatives who accuse the Democrats of hatemongering neither understand the difference between hate and justifiable anger nor have any moral ground on which to stand considering their still-active vendetta against everyone who doesn't agree with their political views (in specific the Clinton administratin, but by extension most Democrats).

This is an incredibly biased opinion, not based in reality or fact.

The Onion did a piece a while ago which had a liberal putting forward opinions and the conservative responding with quick, dismissive brush-offs. Just like that one. The humor reflecting reality is almost as funny as the notion that *anyone* has an opinion that's *not* biased.

And elsewhere...

But I have to say that I've been coming to this site more and more infrequently, because it has seemed to have morphed into mostly an outlet to decry the president and the GOP, and seems to be much more just a liberal forum not for bashing of conservative ideals, particularly of this administration...I understand that this is PADs site and he can say anything he wants, but I am just saying that with the decidedly political turn this site has taken, it has ceased to become a "fun" place to visit.

It's not a "liberal forum." It's my forum at which I allow both liberals and conservatives to voice their opinions. Furthermore, your post mystifies me for two reasons: First, the number of blog entries I make regarding Bush and the GOP are a small fraction of the total. "Mostly?" Averaging out to once a month or so, if that. I'm not counting the responses I make to those who both agree and disagree, but that brings me to my second point: If you see that my entry in my blog for that day is regarding politics or a subject that you wish to avoid...you don't have to read the responses if they're that upsetting to you. I mean, hell, how many people pick up a newspaper and read *every single thing*. Local, national, foreign, obits, editorials, letters to the editor, lifestyle, sports, TV, religion, advice columns, and every word contained therein.

If the debate bothers you, it's because you're letting it bother you. Now if that prompts you to stop coming to this board altogether, fine. But it seems to me that you're doing so not because the discussion bothers you--since you could easily avoid it--but rather because I have opinions with which you disagree and you're increasingly having trouble getting past that in order to read the vast majority of blog entries that are wholly apolitical. Which says far more about you than me.

PAD

Peter,

I am a conservative, and while extreme anything is by definition, rarely broadminded, I consider myself to be so.

I have found conservatives (at least of note) to be far less guilty of "brush-offs" than liberals in their response to insightful commentary.

In debating points of political fact, I frequently find myself responded to with charges of racism, bigotry, ingorance or simple lack of knowledge by those who would take a more left-wing position.

That having been said, you're still a darn fine writer, if a hair politically misguided. :)

luke said:

heres an idea

after the elections are over, the new president should turn Bush over to the United Nations for War Crimes Trials...

now before you immediately say "no, no, no"...

He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations . . .

If that's such a good idea, lets put Bill Clinton on trial, too. Because last I checked there was no U.N. resolution authorizing the war in Bosnia, which was also a sovereign nation.

The Definition of Truth Dictionary.com

Look at definition numero dos.

A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

I think the operative word here is accepted. If it's proven, I definitely agree. But accepted? Nope. Not necessarily. One guy, a long time ago, was beheaded because he went against what was truth at that time. But then again, maybe the earth IS the center of the universe.

And I am not getting into an argument over this. All I'm saying is that races and countries have been wiped out over something called truth.

It seems to me, that outside of confusing footnotes with endnotes, neither you, nor Al Franken, have yet to debunk an Ann Coulter comment yet.

I will quote her.

Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don't

She can bite me. I'm a liberal, and I love America.

Second of All, Franken is a comic. He's a political comic, but he's a comic. Take him for what he's worth.

Want to read a funny, but very poignant populist book? Read "All that's in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armodillos." I know I misspelled that last word. It's by Jim Hightower. And it's worth reading.

Travis

the conservative responding with quick, dismissive brush-offs. Just like that one.

Sure, it may have been quick and dismissive, but her statements are very narrowminded and she is stereotyping a whole group based on her opinion. She may feel that the anger pointed at the President is justified but for the most part many liberals do tend to exprress their anger in non-justifiable wording.

I agree with you that all of us base our opinions on some amount of bias, but there should be some amount of objectivety to offset the incredible amount of bias that so many use to base their opinion.

Travis,

You just don't get it.

Your talking philosophy and opinion, I am talking reality.

Just to re-iterate, I already said what definition of truth I was using so as to remove your confusion, yet you still want to use a different definition. I can't help past that.

This is fun stuff to read all the very different opions. Some of you are very funny writers. At least I hope some of you are trying to be funny.

Either way, this blog is alway a good read, especially this kind of topic. Love to see what both extremes see going on.

Travis,

Here's the CORRECT Quote from Coulter- "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."

So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?

Show me a example please, or Ms. Coulter's comment will stand as accurate and uncorrected.

KR

Finding misstatements and lies from Ann Coulter is like finding bluster from John Byrne -- just throw a rock and you'll hit a dozen examples.

Aside from the well-researched examples from Al Franken (and, as far as I know, no one has managed to find any mistakes/lies in Fanken's latest book), just hop over to http://www.spinsanity.com/ and search for "Coulter" and read away. Make sure you allocate several hours, though...

If I may...

I'm not American and don't know who Ashcroft is or anything about the other civil violations discussed above. What I do see is the effect of the current Bush policies on the rest of the world. As much as I wish it wasn't so, as the strongest world power the US does to some degree set to tone for the rest of the world and right now it seems to be "you can get away with anything if you call your enemy a terrorist and claim your actions as in national security". If anything the world seems less safe now than what it was pre-Patriot act.

Right, because so many extreme conservatives are renowned for their broadmindedness.

This slipped by me on first reading. So are you saying that the opinions here are mainly extreme liberals???

Also, anyone on the extreme side of their politics, whether liberal or conservative are very rarely considered broadminded.

So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?

Show me a example please, or Ms. Coulter's comment will stand as accurate and uncorrected.

Hmm...

FDR and WWII

Carter and the Iran Hostages

The majority of the democrats in congress after 9/11.

Such a broad sweeping statement, I'll have to do more research.

on truth

Since I don't get it, I refuse to comment anymore. Because you don't get what I was trying to say.

Travis

Lord,, I'm embarassed that we speak the same language.

after the elections are over, the new president

You honestly think Dean will win? The illogic begins.

should turn Bush over to the United Nations for War Crimes Trials...

All hail the UN as a superior power. This is silly.

now before you immediately say "no, no, no"...

He invaded a sovereign nation

The United States, under the administration of the current President, invaded a totalitarian nation-state that was under the rule of a fascist dictator and his corrupt family, all of which used the population and power for their own evil and sadistic purposes.

against the vote of the united nations,

All of the events occurred above over the protests of an organization with no power of its own. In other words, the United Nation has no might or no right that in regards to American policy that we don't give it. As a sovereign nation we can tell the United Nations to go %$#@ themselves and w/o a decent showing of military force there ain't thing one they can do about it.

lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it.

I'm still very hesitant to believe these kinds of accusations given.... just because I'd rather wait a few years to determine this kind of stuff. Mostly because assuming that the President lied and falsified all that makes me assume that those accusing him know better regarding all the relevent facts. That assumption is just plain silly to me.

Sounds like a good idea to me, and probably the best way to apologize to the rest of the world.

Apologizing for freeing people from tyranny? Sounds sick to me.

Apologizing to the rest of the world for lying or something? At what point and to what extent does the United States, its leaders and its most common citizens owe the rest of the world?

CJA

You are a writer PAD not a leader of a country. You example doesn't work.

Luigi Novi, I am perfectly content to take any of your comments and opinions seriously as long as you don't suggest that I ever use a Michael Moore book as a source of information.

CJA

When did liberals take a Pro America stance during Vietnam? Um, that would be in protesting what they felt was an unjust and immoral war (and there were no doubt conservative protestors as well) and the lies being told to the American people by their government.

Just as those who supported the war believed that America was protecting freedom and democracy by preventing the spread of Communism (though I always found the so called "domino theory" argument to be a fallacy), those who opposed it believed the country and the government were going in the wrong direction and needed to be brought back on course. Both sides were "pro America" as they understood it.

To suggest that people who opposed the Vietnam war were anti-America is curious, to say the least.

Rick

Someone says "Wow, what an incredibly narrow and slanted view most of you have."

PAD replies "Right, because so many extreme conservatives are renowned for their broadmindedness".

From the "two wrongs make a right (and two rights make a left)" school of thoughtful discourse.

Seriously, isn't Bush prone enough to genuine gaffes that this sort of incredible nit pickiness is not needed? EVERY politician says this. When some clowns in the audience start heckling them about NAFTA or Animal Rights or Lyndon Larouch or what the hell ever, the smart politician smiles and says something like "you know, that's the beauty of America, where anyone can yadda yadda yadda" and the audience applauds so loudly I sometimes wonder if the hecklers were planted.(Said hecklers are then escorted out by the nice security guards.)

But given the rather sad showing of the "peace" protestors, (definitely a case where they should not have raised expectations so high--where, in the name of all that is holy, were the giant puppets we were promised?)I'm not surprised to see the Bushwhackers grabbing at straws.

I hope PAD will write this entry off as a loss and get to what we REALLY want to hear--how much of a double whammy bummer was SURVIVOR and ER last night? The two best characters on thurday night offed! I'm predicting that Tijuana takes it all.

Oh, look! Evidence of a Saddam/Al-Quaida link. How about that?

That's old news, the Pentagon has already debunked it:

http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480

The Pentagon did no such thing. They didn't say anything in it was false, just that DIA hadn't analyzed it. There was analysis by the CIA of some points. Jack Shafer examines it in Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091381/

Quote: Many a reporter has hitched a ride onto Page One with the leak of intelligence much rawer than the stuff in Feith's memo. You can bet the farm that if a mainstream publication had gotten the Feith memo first, it would have used it immediately—perhaps as a hook to re-examine the ongoing war between the Pentagon and CIA about how to interpret intelligence. Likewise, you'd be wise to bet your wife's farm that had a similar memo arguing no Saddam-Osama connection been leaked to the press, it would have generated 100 times the news interest as the Hayes story.

Stephen Hayes, the author of the piece, responds here: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp

For all this talk of "debunking", no one's disproven anything in the memo. Atta's meeting in Prague is still open: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091354 Two of them in 2000 have been confirmed.

There's analysis of it at Winds of Change: http://windsofchange.net/archives/004286.html and

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004296.html

James Woosley, CIA director under Clinton, is convinced:"Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s--they can only say that if they're illiterate. This is a slam dunk."

The Justice department under Janet Reno made it part of its indictment of al Qaeda: "In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm

Luigi Novi: A fallacious argument. The fact that Peter has a blog does not mean that there aren’t others in this country who have suffered under Bush and Ashcroft’s Patriot Act. Who is targeted by this Act will tend to be dictated by a combination of happenstance and fame. To name some examples from Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore:

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with what you cite. It concerns electronic interception and information gathering. As someone said, hatred of the Patriot Act is inversely proportional to one's understanding of it. The fallacy of relying on Michael Moore for facts has already been pointed out. The only thing about the Greens I've found is this:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/oden.asp

Here's what actual suppression of dissent looks like:

http://www.gweilodiaries.com/archives/001621.html#001621

Note the difference between this and letting French journalists into the country. You don't even offer any evidence it had anything to do with free speech.

It has not been widely picked-up on, primarily because it is truly 'old news' and old news that has been thoroughly debunked, unverified or is otherwise unsubstantiated and questionable in fact or in source.

Not true, as I've posted above. the people who say that apparently never read it. More on it:

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/399roadd.asp

The rash of detentions of folks of Middle Eastern extraction, without recourse to lawyers, whisked to undisclosed detention, with no proof evident nor offered of any wrongdoing (alleged, anticipated or proven) in so many cases (thankfully at least reported well after the fact in many instances) is but one troublesome example of 'Ashcroft's America.' There are literally scores of other cases, many of which have been reported on reputable news sites available to anyone who cares to go looking for the information.

They were being held on immigration charges or in a few cases, material witness warrants. Established law long before John Ashcroft. Don't want to get picked up? Don't overstay your visa.

He invaded a sovereign nation against the vote of the united nations, lied to his own people about doing it, and falsified evidence to do it.

What vote? The only vote was a unanimous resolution threatening Hussein with consequences if he didn't fully disclose his weapons programs. He didn't, as the Kay report makes clear. Just the illegal missiles he was trying to get was a causus belli. We also have a unanimous vote ratifying our occupation.

As for falsified evidence, the UN must have been in on it since the info on unaccounted stockpiles came from there. Hussein trying to get uranium from Africa was even reported in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,798497,00.html

Sounds like a good idea to me, and probably the best way to apologize to the rest of the world.

Sounds like a dumb idea from an America-laster. As for an apology, how about one to this guy:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#106908590931527369

\\He invaded a sovereign nation

The United States, under the administration of the current President, invaded a totalitarian nation-state that was under the rule of a fascist dictator and his corrupt family, all of which used the population and power for their own evil and sadistic purposes.\\

From www.dictionary.com:

sov·er·eign--adj.

Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.

Doesn't matter what kind of government Iraq had. It was an independent state and we invaded it.

//against the vote of the united nations,

All of the events occurred above over the protests of an organization with no power of its own. In other words, the United Nation has no might or no right that in regards to American policy that we don't give it. As a sovereign nation we can tell the United Nations to go %$#@ themselves and w/o a decent showing of military force there ain't thing one they can do about it.//

Until, of course, we come back to them, hat in our hands, asking for assistance in both troops and money to bail us out of the disaster we're in. Then they can do plenty...by doing nothing.

Never a good idea to piss people off today when you might need them tomorrow.

JSM

The big problem with Coulter (and a lot of other writers of all political stripes) is that she takes something complex and tries to make it simple, and in doing so, distorts it beyond any resemblance to reality. Note two phrases in her quote: our "nation under attack" and "pro-American position." What counts as an attack to "our nation?" Which is the "pro-American position?" Who were more pro-American, the people who insisted we stay in Vietnam until the war was won, or the people who wanted to get our soldiers out of harm's way? My point is, both political extremes think that their goals are good for America, and the goals of the other extreme are bad for America. Where Coulter screws up royally is in thinking that liberals do what they do because they actually HATE America. Does anyone REALLY believe this?

I heard President Bush's comments as they were broadcast, and it didn't occur to me to compare that comment about being in a country where the protesters can speak their mind with being in America. It was clear that he was comparing the rights of the protesters to the rights of the Iraqis under Saddam's rule. I must have missed the part where the President said that we don't have freedom of speech in America.

So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?

How did liberals take an anti-America position on 9-11? Are you talking about going after the Taliban? I think most of America was in general agreement about taking military action when the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden. I also think liberals were, for the most part, in favor of the first Bush's action against Iraq. I'm sure there were some extremists who opposed that action, but I don't think they were in a majority.

As far as that goes, I think most people supported going into Bosnia, despite not having a UN resolution to do so. If I remember correctly, there was never any question as to why we were taking action there. That really hasn't been the case with the current situation in Iraq. Bush did not say we were going to go in there and get rid of Saddam because he was a bad guy, nor did he say we had to go there as the next step in fighting terrorism. He said we were going to to in there because Saddam had WMDs that posed a serious threat to the US and to the rest of the free world. To date, no WMDs have been found, yet a lot of people have lost their lives over there.

If the president, and it makes no difference if that president is a republican or a democrat, is going to send people over to a foreign country where they are going to die, that president has a responsibility to let both congress and the public at large, kknow why these people are being put in harms way. If Bush was misled by his inner circle as to the threat Iraq posed, why isn't he furios about that and why aren't heads rolling. If Bush did in fact lie about the threat Iraq posed, why isn't congress more concerned? The cry of the conservative is that Saddam was a bad guy and the world is a better place now that he is gone. We did not go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. We went there because he had WMDs. That is the reason Bush gave both to America and to the UN. You can't change midstream and say, Oh sorry, we actually went to war because ... (pick the reason of the week).

I know people who died over in Viet Nam. Thirty years later, these people are still dead. None of them had the opportunity to get married, raise kids, and all the other stuff people of my age take for granted. At this point, these people have been dead more years than they were alive. The people who died over in Iraq are going to remain dead long after Bush is out of office. If they didn't die because Saddam had WMDs, why are they dead?

I don't oppose Bush's Iraq policy because I fail to take a pro-America stance. The weapons aren't there and Bush assured everyone they were. How is it taking an anti-American stance to question why this guy caused so many people to die?

Anyone hear Bush say this week that we had to use force in Iraq to "defend our values"? Wow, when you add that to the "weapons of mass destruction" reason and the "free the oppressed Iraqi people" reason, we tend to come of as kind of inconsistant don't we?

The bit I liked was Dubya explaining how democratic countries have the right to respond with force in the face of agression.

I mean, yeah, sure, true, but what the Hell has that got to do with the invasion of Iraq?

The most un-Americna phrase ever is "America, Love it or Leave it"

"Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis?

Despite the things Bush said in the 2001 State of the Union Address, it is possible to be for the US without being directly against its enemies."

on Iraq?

Liberals want to know why attacking Iraq without proof of its connection to bin Laden or of its weapons of mass destruction (I know, I know -- we know Saddam had WoMDs because we gave them to him, but whatever happened, they were clearly gone) was more important than paying some attention to domestic issues, such as the severely crippled economy, which Bush asked Congress to make some 80 billion dollars poorer. Since Iraq was a purely fabricated "national crisis" (in other words, they were not an immediate threat -- Iraq was as proactive a military action as we've seen since Vietnam), supporting the effort to dispose of the threat isn't "anti-American," it's just a different opinion. Further, nearly every liberal on the road to the White House is saying, "We should never have gone in there, but now that we're there, we need to finish the job." Support the army, not the war, as it were.

9-11?

Liberals all got on board after 9-11. It wasn't until Bush started implementing impractical methods to combat the terrorists that they started with the quizzical expressions. Nobody was siding with the terrorists save for other terrorists.

Vietnam?

Being against Vietnam was never an un-American stance; the political motivation for our involvement was shaky at best (Domino theory? Come on!) and saying that wanting to end a war we were losing so our undertrained military could stop dying isn't pro-American is just narrow-minded. The US wasn't the good guy in the Vietnam war, and it's not un-American to say that, either.

Even if you don't agree with it, denying the patriotism of my own philosophical perspective on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a war that my country happens to be involved in is far more anti-American than what you're denying me in the first place.

This hatred of Clinton is so petty. You know what hurts republicans is that when it comes to choosing between legitamate critiques of administration policy in a mature rational manner or a personal attack accusing Clinton of being satan himself who wants to poison the water, starve children, and trip little old ladies, the republicans always choose the personal attack. Also, I for one don't want to hear a bunch of people yell at each other and exchange name calling. What does that accomplish?

A large part of the electorate did feel that way in 1998, which is why Republicans lost seats despite the impeachment hearings. This is why Dean is Karl Rove's favorite candidate.

Well?

Anyone hear Bush say this week that we had to use force in Iraq to "defend our values"? Wow, when you add that to the "weapons of mass destruction" reason and the "free the oppressed Iraqi people" reason, we tend to come of as kind of inconsistant don't we?

I don't understand how having three unrelated reasons to perform one task is a sign of inconsistancy.

Here's the CORRECT Quote from Coulter- "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."

If that's the correct quote, then it's gone from simply stupid to vomitous.

Does she actually believe that after the destruction of the World Trade Center, liberals SIDED WITH BIN LADEN? Taken to its logical extreme, she's contending that every single liberal is a traitor, supporting those who would destroy the United States.

This woman's essence is poison.

PAD

I knew I liked Mr. David for some reason.

Travis

Doesn't matter what kind of government Iraq had. It was an independent state and we invaded it.

So? You are telling me that because the nation had 'sovereignty' its existence was good and justifiable? That its sovereignty justified its existence? I don't quite get your point. A nation's sovereignty is not a protection against foreign invasion. Sovereignty is what you get when you prove you're immune from invasion. A military force of some sort, any sort, can preserve a nation's power and its rights. Iraq lost its sovereignty and that isn't a bad thing.

Until, of course, we come back to them, hat in our hands, asking for assistance in both troops and money to bail us out of the disaster we're in. Then they can do plenty...by doing nothing.

Never a good idea to piss people off today when you might need them tomorrow.

You have an odd definition of "we" and "need". Basically the deposing of a horrific, murderous dictator has left the nation of Iraq in a violent transitional state. In order to save the greater number of lives over a long term a smaller number of lives have been placed in temporary jeopardy. This state of transition parallels almost directly the respective states and historical sequences of Post-World War II Germany and Japan (you do know that those nations turned out okay, right?).

If there wasn't a nation, such as the United States or Great Britain or even France, occupying Iraq and helping with the reconstruction the aftermath would be another regime which would bring negative consequences to the region. After every war there is either a successful reconstruction period, typically with massive help by an ally or a former enemy, or there is a bedlam and we get nations like East Germany and the other Soviet satellite states. There are arguments that the discontinuing of reconstuction in the South after our own Civil War left the local economy in ruins and fostered greater racism, as well as resentment towards other targets.

The United States doesn't need the United Nations for anything. Iraq needs help and support for the purposes of reconstuction. Splitting hairs is neccessary. Being against a war is one thing, but to go so far as to refuse to help in the least bit in the recovery of a people after that war is truly truly sick.

MSNBC's coverage supposedly had Bush referring to North Korea as a contrast. That's appropriate, considering the group organizing the protests: "The Stop the War Coalition is a coalition only in the sense that it contains several far-Left parties rather than just one. Its chairman, Andrew Murray, is a declared Communist and a supporter of North Korea; its 'convenor', Lindsey German, is the editor of the Socialist Workers' Party's monthly magazine."

A little while ago, Yahoo news had a report up of a U.S. General saying that Bin Laden has "taken himself out of the picture," and that his capture is 'no longer a military priority.' I wonder how much longer it will be before Saddam, his weapons of mass destruction, and in fact, the entire Iraqi war are determined to be 'no longer military priorities?'

(Move along folks, nothing to see here, go about your business, your government is here to help you)

Here's the CORRECT Quote from Coulter- "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."

"The Jews are out to destroy our superior Aryan race by interbreeding with us to dilute or bloodline. Their sole purpose to to bring down Germany. They are not even human. They are vermin gnawing at the roots of German society." (This is not a direct quote, but I believe it is a fair summary or some the pre-WWII German propaganda about the Jews.)

Does anyone but me see a disturbing resemblance between these arguements. I'll grant that Ms. Coulter has not yet quite gone as far labeling liberals to be an entirely seperate speces...yet. This type of vitriol (I can't bring myself to justify it with the work "arguement") is the reason why I dispise Rush Limbaugh so much. I'm sorry to see that there is another person out there who makes a living by saying that a group whose political views differ from theirs are not simply wrong, but evil.

I suppose it takes some pressure off of me. I thought that I considered myself to be more of a liberal because I think that the U.S. needs to do more to support civil rights, such as free speech, right to privacy, and equality in the criminal justice system. Now that I know that being liberal means that my essence is to oppose America and side with its enemies, I can start plotting how to bring down America or at least look out only for myself and let everyone else rot.

What rubbish! Anyone who can look at that statement and think of it as more than simple hate-mongering needs to give some serious re-evaluation to their politial views. Specifically, they need to develop their own, because right now they're just parroting what someone else is telling them.

Here's the CORRECT Quote from Coulter- "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."

If that's the correct quote, then it's gone from simply stupid to vomitous.

How about this for vomitous: Ted Rall calling for the deaths of US troops.

http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_11_09_dish_archive.html#106870294027804545

As Sullivan says, Ann Coulter couldn't come up with something this depraved.

Does she actually believe that after the destruction of the World Trade Center, liberals SIDED WITH BIN LADEN? Taken to its logical extreme, she's contending that every single liberal is a traitor, supporting those who would destroy the United States.

Not all liberals, but as Orwell observed (Notes on Nationalism, May 1945), "[T]here is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries."

There were plenty of leftists whose response to 9/11 was to say America brought it upon itself. Rall said invading Afghanistan was a plot to build a pipeline (that was never built). Noam Chomsky said the administration planned a "silent genocide" by starvation (that never happened). Molly Ivins said we'd just kill innocent people and inflame the Arab street.

This woman's essence is poison.

This would have more moral authority if it didn't come from someone who implies his ideological opponents are fascists.

Geez. I consider myself a fairly conservative individual, but I really wish other conservatives wouldn't be so quick to trot out Ann Coulter as if she wasn't a madwoman. All she is is a crazy hatemonger with one message -- the liberals are in league with the devil. She's the right wing version of Michael Moore, representing a crazy, extremist view that even most conservatives don't really agree with. Quoting her is not going to help any conservative position, but is only going to undermine it.

Amen, Gorginfoogle.

There's far too much mud-slingling going on from both sides of the political fence in our country these days. I'd love to see time when opposing sides in a political arguement would look for places where their opposition was also working for the good instead of just villifying them. I'd decry (sp?) this trend as a sign of our political decline, but I've read that Jefferson's and Hamiliton's political camps were far more cruel to each other than our we our to our political opposites.

How did liberals take an anti-America position on 9-11? Are you talking about going after the Taliban? I think most of America was in general agreement about taking military action when the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden. I also think liberals were, for the most part, in favor of the first Bush's action against Iraq. I'm sure there were some extremists who opposed that action, but I don't think they were in a majority.

Actually, most of the Democrats running for president opposed the first Gulf War. As for Afghanistan, you must have missed Rall, Chomsky, and Ivins and the Green Party. James Lileks noted that the protests against the Afghan war were a rehearsal for the ones against Gulf War II, with same predictions of quagmire and disaster.

As far as that goes, I think most people supported going into Bosnia, despite not having a UN resolution to do so. If I remember correctly, there was never any question as to why we were taking action there. That really hasn't been the case with the current situation in Iraq. Bush did not say we were going to go in there and get rid of Saddam because he was a bad guy, nor did he say we had to go there as the next step in fighting terrorism. He said we were going to to in there because Saddam had WMDs that posed a serious threat to the US and to the rest of the free world. To date, no WMDs have been found, yet a lot of people have lost their lives over there.

Untrue. "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time." -- New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.

The reason a lot of reasons were given is that there were a lot of reasons. More than for intervening in Kosovo. You want humanitarian? We saved the Marsh Arabs from extinction and people from being fed into plastic shredders. As for the WMDs, Hussein had to prove he had dismantled all his weapons and programs. The war would never have happened if Hans Blix had been able to make one statement: Iraq is fully cooperating. He couldn't.

Oh, come on, PAD. That's parsing it a bit fine. He was asked about what he wished to say to the protesters.

Saying he values GOING to a country with free speech does not imply that he's LEAVING a country that doesn't have it. A first year logic student can sort through that - and also tell an ad hominem attack when it's presented - which might be considered more of a dismissive brush-off than an opinion, don't you think?

--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3274781.stm

Asked what message he would give the protestors, the President said;

"Well, freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and it's, aren't you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind? And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say."

This is officially the stupidest thing that I have ever read:

"It seems to me, that outside of confusing footnotes with endnotes, neither you, nor Al Franken, have yet to debunk an Ann Coulter comment yet."

I literally had to stop reading and stare at this for a second.

Could Kevin Ryan have *actually* believed this?

Anyone who has read the new Al Franken book Lies knows that Ann Coulter is more full of shit than a whale with no ass.

I will now prove Ann Coulter wrong:

"Liberals hate all religions except for Islam."

Wrong. I don't. PAD doesn't.

So stfu Kevin Ryan.

- Max

There were plenty of leftists whose response to 9/11 was to say America brought it upon itself.

And let's not forget the paragons of virtue in Falwell and Robertson.

Listen: There will always be people like that. Anni DeFranco actually had the nerve in Oklahoma (which is where I'm from) to stand up and say that the Death Penalty was wrong, and we shouldn't put Tim McVeigh to death for what he did. (This is a 2nd hand account... from a conservative friend of mine.)... I actually admired her for saying it, but am astonished that she would think it would go over here especially with McVeigh.

But the problem is that it is such a generalization, that even the words "plenty of leftists" means nothing. Her statement is that all liberals. The word "all" might not be there, but it is implied.

and...

How about this for vomitous: Ted Rall calling for the deaths of US troops.

Did you read the main story that this was referenced to?

Really?

Because that's not what he was doing. At all.

At all.

It was a political statement. He was writing as if he were a member of a terrorist group.

I'm not saying it was a good statement, or metaphor. But after reading Rall wrote and what he writes, I understood that he was not calling for deaths of American troops. He was trying to put us in their shoes. He failed, from my opinion. But he tried.

Travis

Hey PAD,

Here's a thought...when you want to post something polical, maybe you should close the thread for comments so we don't get spammed by every republican and his grandfather.

And before someone hits me with something about freedom of speech, I'll point out that this forum is privately owned, and thus PAD has the right to moderate as he sees fit.

And before someone hits me with something about freedom of speech, I'll point out that this forum is privately owned, and thus PAD has the right to moderate as he sees fit.

Coinsidering that these discussions are occuring, and PAD has actively contributed, I'd guess that PAD is doing what he sees fit - letting the discussion take it's course.

I come here to escape poltics and the Bush bashing. Guess I woun't be coming here much longer. Why does everything have to be Dem/Reb lib/con in this country? And, who ever said the US believes in freedom of speech??? Thats a joke onto its self. Amercia is in the toliet and not because of Bush.

Here's a thought...when you want to post something polical, maybe you should close the thread for comments so we don't get spammed by every republican and his grandfather.

so, does that mean this is ony a Dem retarded lib forum???

Oh and by the way I am neither. I dont conform to any party.

Ken spewed: "Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can't be trusted. "

It, it's Bush, Ashcroft and their fellow dirtbags that are interfering with truth and reality. They are weakening the very freedoms this country was founded on. Hell, Bush was "elected" in 2000, I though every 20 years a president had a shot taken at him... (Reagan first elected in 1980 survived the attempt on his life [and amazingly John Hinkley is complaining he's not crazy anymore and needs more freedom..., JFK had won his election in the 1960 elections, too bad he didn't survive...)

The "Patriot Act" is unpoatriotic and does NOTHING to protect America, just like the attack on Iraq does nothing to protect America, and in fact weakens it by wasting vast quantities of American troops and now tons of money as well...

The only thing Ashcroft is concerned about is his own insane power grab....

On behalf of my fellow Republicans, I would like to apologize for my compatriot's comment earlier that implied that Democrats and other leftists engage in unjustified and ill-mannered ad hominem attacks against the President, or make vague references to having him shot. Clearly, no such attacks have taken place, particularly not in this forum, and it was a low blow for Eric to suggest that it is a common tactic among the political Left. No person of sense would ever believe that leftists engage in ill-tempered rantings devoid of logic or reason in an attempt to win arguments through volume.

Fnord, y'all.

**Does she actually believe that after the destruction of the World Trade Center, liberals SIDED WITH BIN LADEN? Taken to its logical extreme, she's contending that every single liberal is a traitor, supporting those who would destroy the United States.

This woman's essence is poison.

**

Yeah, so conservatives have an extremist or two...so do Democrats. You guys get upset when republicans quote her, yet democrats quote their extremists left and right...lets just get consitant...

But of course, consistancy??

"Liberals hate all religions except for Islam."

I've got a better proof that this is wrong - Christian liberals. There are liberals in every faith, denomination and church. I've got Catholic friends who consider themselves devout in spite of their liberal views -- nevermind that most of the gays I know (and all of the self-hating ones) are Catholic. Yet they all swear by their faith.

Me, I'm not a liberal, because I harbor some conservative beliefs. I could be considered largely liberal, but I understand my political opinions -- all of which are based primarily on the concept of fairness, by the way -- share more in common with Libertarians, who are radicals.

Of course, I'm voting Democrat next election, because I consider it important to balance Congress and the President. Having them both on the same side, no matter which side it is, is just a bad idea.

"Liberals hate all religions except for Islam."

Could we get a specific, in-context quote reference for this? Just curious, not doubting or anything. But making sure it's not a paraphrase...

Never mind. I found the full quote...

All I've got to say is, both parties tend to define themselves lately by what they are against, and what they hate, rather that what they are for. And the fact of the matter is, the Republicans have done a better job of being "for" something lately, that just against everything. This makes it east for people like Ann to make these comments...

Not saying it's correct...mind you...it's just that it's a message issue..

Yes, and that is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives in this country.

Conservatives tend to see issues in black and white, right and wrong. It makes everything easy... “This is the problem, and this is the only answer.” It makes for great 30-second sound-bytes, and it’s a very attractive style of thought.

Us liberals, on the other hand, are more skeptical of authority, of the government. They see all the layers of an issue, and it is often not possible for us to see issues in black and white. This means that we are less content with the easy answers, the quick fixes, and the simple solutions. We look deeper into issues, and we choose an educated opinion even if it is difficult to accept, or runs contrary to what we are told to choose by the government.

Does this mean that all Republicans or conservatives are simple or stupid? No, but to quote John Stewart Mill, “Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.”

I can see it in my high school, in my community, and in my country, and conservatives in all of those places attack me because I challenge their preconceptions and their black-and-white viewpoints. We need to take a stand, and embrace that which is right and true, even if it’s difficult to do so. I commend Peter David for continuing to stand strong, and to defend his choice to the conservatives posting on this blog.

This is truly how a progressive social agenda is achieved, and we all owe Mr. David a great thanks for pushing in the right direction.

- Max

"Republicans have done a better job of being "for" something lately, that just against everything."

Democrats have done fine. They're "for" (why the quotes, again?) gay marriage/civil unions, gay adoption rights, addressing the faltering economy (rather than Bush's economic strategy of tactical misdirection), handling the Iraq situation in a way that doesn't piss the rest of the world off, and so on.

It's hard to be against one thing without being for another. The fact that they're forced to play on the defensive right now doesn't mean they lack convictions or ideas of their own.

Nah, Shutting the F up is not an option when I'm right....

I'd like take PAD to task for his quote -"Does she actually believe that after the destruction of the World Trade Center, liberals SIDED WITH BIN LADEN? Taken to its logical extreme, she's contending that every single liberal is a traitor, supporting those who would destroy the United States."

Yeah, Pete, a lot of them did. They speculated that since the United States has been so involved in the politcal direction of the middle east, that this was bound to happen, and that if we'd minded our own business, it wouldn't have. They didn't out and out advocate that the WTC should have been bombed, but they sure made excuses for it.

And, yes, Coulter does actually speculate that Liberalism in America has a long tradition of supporting it's enemies and that it borders on treasonous. Now I don't know if I'd go that far, but certainly Liberalism in its modern politcal form is not consitant with core America values such as freedom of idea , speech and self-determination.

Before I get jumped on for that comment, I should add that I recognize that there are conservative ideas not consitant with them either, however, by and large, the core concept behind conservatism is that people can run there own lives without governance and with liberalism, the core value is that people require government to function in their daily lives.

Today, in a speech broadcast on VPR, Robert Kennedy Jr. states that "one cannot have free market economy without additional government oversight of business and corporations as without it, the community will have no say as to how business conducts itself."

Neat idea Bob, except that free market economy is, by definition, a marketplace free of government intrusion. And that, Peter, is how liberals hate America.

While I'm on it,

Coulter did say Liberals hate all religon except Islam (after 9-11).

What she refered to, given the correct context, is that whenever a public issue arises involving a religous belief or issue, the liberal concensus is to oppose that position....until 9/11, when liberals all across the nation defended Islam as a peaceful, moderate religon. Maybe on paper....

and while were at it....given what I know of Al Franken's "research", I'm more likely to beleive in Superman and Santa Claus than support it's accuracy.

One last item.....Yep, The Liberals did oppose World War 2. FDR got elected on a platform of keeping us out of "the european war"

I find it interesting that Ann Coulter is being vilified for being a consertive and voicing her opinion. Yet, Al Franken is defended, until something he says is proven wrong, then the excuse is "but he's a comedian".

Apologies for the long, rambling post.

Or as most rational people saw it, he was a concerned person trying to reassure America that action would be taken to prevent a tragedy like that from happening again.

Ken

How useful is it to a debate to say that "rational" people agree with your side? I know some pretty rational people who are pretty upset with the Patriot Act.

Of course, since I don't agree with you, and think the Patriot Act is horrendous betrayal of American ideals in the name of security, you'll probably discount what I say.

As far as I can see, Ashcroft is indeed concerned, and is doing what he thinks is best for the nation.

Too many of you let your personal biases and opinions interfere with truth and reality to the point that your perception of what is happening can't be trusted.

Ken

Yes, too many people do that.

But I have to say that I've been coming to this site more and more infrequently, because it has seemed to have morphed into mostly an outlet to decry the president and the GOP, and seems to be much more just a liberal forum not for bashing of conservative ideals, particularly of this administration.

Matt Richard

I think one of the many problems which has caused a huge divide in this country over the past few years has been the fact that each side (liberal, conservative), cannot identify or recognize the other side's ideals, or cannot acknowledge that they are worthy of being held as overriding ideals. I could be wrong, though. Matt, as a conservative, what are your ideals? What do you think Ashcrofts's ideals are? What about Bush's?

So, there you are. Tell me, at what point did liberals take a pro-america position in a national crisis? on Iraq? 9-11? Vietnam?

Kevin Ryan

Depends on what you mean by "pro-America." Look at Vietnam. Tell me what threat they posed to the US. No WMDs there, I'm guessing. So how does opposing US attacks on a country which poses no immediate threat to the US constitute an anti-American position? The arguments and protests around the Vietnam War, at their core, were about different visions, on both sides of the debate, of what America, as a nation should be. How is that anti-American?

Iraq ... I know of no liberal who thought Saddam Hussein was a good guy or a good leader. I think all of us liberals would agree that he's much, much worst than Bush, and a lot of us, (a lot of the ones I've spoken with) agree that the guy should have been out of power. Some of us (self included) are unsure as to whether or not the Bush administration's as yet unfinished solution to the problem was worth its cost in human life. But a bit of time has passed since we "won" over there. No WMDs, which the administration insisted were identifiably there, have been found. Iraq posed no real national security threat to the US that I can see. So how is opposing the War and protesting against the way the Occupation has been conducted in any way an anti-American position?

9-11? Come on, seriously and objectively. Show me some indication about how liberals took an anti-American position in the wake of this disaster. At worst, as far as I can see, some liberals pointed to US policies that might have contributed to a political environment in the Middle East to which the terrorists were responding. That's not even remotely close to saying the terrorists were justified in what they did. I live in a mostly liberal city. Everyone I know, and every person I saw on the streets in the days after 9-11 was horrified, angered and saddened by what happened. Accusing liberals of being anti-American in their response to 9-11 is at best misleading, at worst a reprehensible act of political opportunism.

So ... at what point have liberals taken an anti-American position in a national crisis?

And what do you mean by "anti-American"?

At what point and to what extent does the United States, its leaders and its most common citizens owe the rest of the world?

CJA

I think the argument runs something like this: America has access to greater technology and other resources than much of the rest of the world. America, as a nation, can potentially help to improve the lives of many people in the rest of the world. America is part of the world. Americans share with other people in the world a common humanity. America, as a nation, should do what it can to help improve the lives of people in the rest of the world.

Something like that. It's not a matter of "owing." It's a matter of doing what's right. It's called "compassion", and it's a core value held by every liberal I've ever met. Of course, I suppose it's a bit of a loopy ideal - I've heard they once nailed a guy up for expressing similar ideals.

It's also difficult at times to decide the best way to pursue this ideal - one could argue that Bush invaded Iraq out of compassion for the suffering of the Iraqi people, (not that I necessarily believe this was the case). In the short term, however, this action seems to have caused those same people much, much hardship.

Whether, in the long term, the people of Iraq will lead better lives, and whether, in the long term, this will decrease or increase instability in the Middle East, remains to be seen. Whether Bush acted out of political and/or financial self-interest but nevertheless in the long term improved the lot of the people of Iraq, remains to be seen. Whether the actions taken by the Bush government during and after the war, in the wake of 9-11 and during the continuing course of so-called "War on Terrorism" improve or worsen the state of the world, whether or not these actions ultimately ensure or interfere with the realization of American ideals within our own country, remains to be seen. Personally, I'm not an optimist on these issues.

editHad some more typed, but just lost it for some reason. In brief: I'll bet that, if you asked a liberal to write down his/her core ideals, and asked a conservative his/her core ideals, they wouldn't be that far apart. It's the realization of those ideals through concrete actions, particularly on a political/governmental level, that causes disagreement and has led the US to become more sharply divided politcally than I've ever seen in my life. Dialogue between both sides would be nice at this point. Bitter name-calling seems to be what we're getting.

The optimist in me says things will work out eventually. The pessimist in me says this is the beginning of the end of the "American Experiment" on the world stage, the end the American Ideal. (It's probably going to come to an end sooner or later, right?) The truth's probably somewhere between those two extremes.

We can go back and forth all day.

Much of the agrumentation of the reactionaries (as opposed to actual conservatives) has holes of logic and fact large enough to pilot a starship through. A lot of that is due to the limitations of the message format, but even so it seems a house of cards.

Not going to engage in a back-and-forth (time is precious and my stamina is not what it once was) but Feith's article is a transparent attempt to stop the eclipse of his star in the administation. He's already on the sh*tlist of the leading lights, and is trying to secure what credible position he has left.

Too many specifics to go into here, so just two examples:

The alleged Atta/Prague meeting came from a single, uncorroborated source, a disgruntled soul in the Czech Republic. It has been shot down repeatedly, including by the Czechs, since. The F.B.I.long ago announced they had signed (in Atta's hand) receipts from a motel in Virginia from the exact same day, plus corroborated witnesses who saw him in Virginia on that day.

Certainly detention for immigration violations existed prior to the PATRIOT Act. That situation also included the right to counsel, habeas corpus, and to appeal. Not all those detained were detained for immigration reasons. Many of 'material witnesses' were announced after release to not have been material witnesses at all. Their names were not even available to the courts system so it could be determined if they indeed were material witnesses (and for what case, if any). Among those released were those who lost their businesses, livelihoods, standing in the community and even family, all because of unwarranted detention and guilt by association, and those who have claimed physical abuse while in detention at the hands of their detainers.

Does anyone (anyone?) actually believe the PATRIOT Act was written, whole cloth, then vetted by the various services and individuals who normally do so, after 9/11 and submitted to Congress (in less than 2 weeks)? The powers that be swept up everything that had ever been on their wish list, added some new items they felt sure would squeak through in the uproar to 'do something,' and pushed it through without it even having being read by those voting for it. A power play - yes - and an ugly, naked one that produced a law that skirts shredding the Constitution. I honor as dyed-in-the-wool American patriots those intrepid librarians and bookstore owners who have spoken out and acted on their convictions against this noxious piece of legislation, and those states and local entities that have voted to urge non-cooperation with the most heinous parts of the bill.

Could go on (and on, and on) about the folly of pre-emptive war (especially so an essentially unilateral one) and occupation, the excesses of the so-called 'reconstruction' (example: Iraq had no wireless network before the war; how is giving a contract to construct one (leaving aside for the moment that the contract was given to a company that has never built one) RE-constructing anything (the stuff we broke, we should pay to replace - even rabid neo-con and attack Iraq promoter Richard Perle is on record that the war and occupation violates international law and standards), the rights (under the Geneva Conventions) of those occupied to act against the occupation power, and lots, lots more, but will leave it there.

Being against the war does not equal being in support of the Hussein regime (or what that regime 'might' or 'could' have done at some indeterminate time). Being against the occupation and/or the way it is being handled does not equate to being against the troops or in favor of violent retaliation by either side.

The seemingly fungible definition of 'terrorist' now seems to include any action against, or contrary to the dictates of, the West, not just attack against civilian non-combatants. THAT slow, deliberate, insidious change of outlook is deep-down, gooseflesh-inducing, bladder-emptying scary.

bet that, if you asked a liberal to write down his/her core ideals, and asked a conservative his/her core ideals, they wouldn't be that far apart.

Thomas Sowell would disagree. Heck, I'd disagree. Fascists and Socialists have much in common. Centrists are centrists. Conservatives and liberals are typically defined by diametrically opposite positions when micro-managing various issues. Then there's a comparison on which positions and issues are the highest priority and which public advocates champion which issues and topics and causes that determines what in the end someone usually labels himself as or what side they join. Or usually people just say "the hell with it" and call themselves "moderates" and end up as swing voters.

So it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. It's obscenely complicated.

Unless of course, by core ideals, you mean "I don't want to get punched in the head; I want to live happily and it'd be nice if everyone lived happily" then you might be right. Then again, are we arguing for classification of "decent human being" or something that differentiates the 'how' of the matter, because then we get into problems.

Let's continue the play until Glenn removes my piece from the board. Shall we?

On the one hand, we have this by Mr. MaxTemkin:

Conservatives tend to see issues in black and white, right and wrong. It makes everything easy... “This is the problem, and this is the only answer.” It makes for great 30-second sound-bytes, and it’s a very attractive style of thought.

Us liberals, on the other hand, are more skeptical of authority, of the government. They see all the layers of an issue, and it is often not possible for us to see issues in black and white. This means that we are less content with the easy answers, the quick fixes, and the simple solutions. We look deeper into issues, and we choose an educated opinion even if it is difficult to accept, or runs contrary to what we are told to choose by the government.

Now let's look at another thought by Mr. Kevin Ryan:

I should add that I recognize that there are conservative ideas not consitant with them either, however, by and large, the core concept behind conservatism is that people can run there own lives without governance and with liberalism, the core value is that people require government to function in their daily lives.

Which sounds more likely? Which sounds more reasonable? The one who didn't say that I was more likely to be a stupid person sounds a good deal more reasonable from my biased position.

Judging by history.... Mr. Ryan is correct and the other guy is wrong.

This is truly how a progressive social agenda is achieved, and we all owe Mr. David a great thanks for pushing in the right direction.

He means the left direction. I'm trying to push people in the right direction. I never get confused about my party.

CJA

the more i see of our government, the more disgusted and ashamed i become...

Which is why I prefer less government. Heck, I would love it if all of our Presidents took more time off. Centralizing control of our resources this much can be a baaaaad deal, regardless of whom you voted for.

Eric: Peter, come on. I know you can do better than this. "Ashcroft America" really? Oh, please. This hatred of Bush is so petty. You know what hurts democrats is that when it comes to choosing between legitamate critiques of administration policy in a mature rational manner or a personal attack accusing Bush of being satan himself who wants to poison the water, starve children, and trip little old ladies, the democrats always choose the personal attack.

Luigi Novi: This is something of an exaggeration. For one thing, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Bush and Ashcroft from reasoned critics. For another, personal attacks are hardly the sole domain of the Democratic Party. There is nothing inherently “high ground” of one party of the other.

Eric: Saddam did use chemical weapons after the gulf war to quell an unprising. That is a fact. The UN inspection teams were never able to account for what Saddam did with those weapons.

Luigi Novi: Those were chemicals we gave to Iraq. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that he acquired more after using them on his people.

Eric: The fight is in Iraq right now, and if it weren't there it would be in our streets.

Luigi Novi: Excuse me? If we didn’t go to Iraq, there would be fighting in our streets? Care to explain this a bit more?

Del: Um... maybe *I* missed something, but where in the above statement is it implied that he's *not* usually in a free-speaking country? I think you're reaching…

Tom: It was clear that he was comparing the rights of the protesters to the rights of the Iraqis under Saddam's rule.

Mark: Saying he values GOING to a country with free speech does not imply that he's LEAVING a country that doesn't have it.

Luigi Novi: This is pretty much what my reaction was to Peter’s comment. On this, I agree with you.

Luigi Novi: Your argument, therefore, that free speech is not coming under attack because Peter is able to denounce Bush on this blog, is a fallacy.

Del: Quoting Michael Moore, as though facts were a priority for him, is a fallacy.

Luigi Novi: Only if the information derived from the book is shown to be untrue. You have not done this. Therefore, such an argument is just an ad hominem one. If arbitrarily deciding that every single fact he provides is de facto untrue simply because some of the assertions made in his documentary were in question (as if reporters and documentarians never make mistakes or get things wrong), then I could just as easily do the same thing with The Weekly Standard website page that you linked to. I won’t do that. I will instead confine my arguments to the non-rhetorical, non-ad hominem variety:

REGARDING MOORE:

I do question some of the material in Bowling for Columbine. But that doesn’t mean that subsequently, every time he says “up,” that the truth is really “down.” Rather, the assertions should double-checked for their own validity. Moore includes an End Notes section in the back of Dude, Where’s My Country?, where the assertions in each section of book are attributed to their sources, which include such varied sources as The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, The Progressive, USA Today, The Guardian, The Economist, etc. The section on abuses under the Patriot Act in particular are attributed to “Report on U.S. antiterrorism law alleges violations of civil rights,” by Philip Sermon, New York Times, July 21, 2003. If you want to impeach the reliability of the assertions I’ve related here, Del, you’ll have to do so by showing how the source Moore provided was not reliable, not by simply arguing that the assertion itself is a logical fallacy because you don’t like the person reporting it. You can’t simply slap the label “logical fallacy” on anything you jolly well don’t feel like believing.

REGARDING THE SADDAM/AL-QUAIDA LINK:

The assertion is certainly interesting, and would bear further investigation, since it seems to contradict everything that U.S. and British intelligence have thus far been saying about Saddam’s participation in 9/11, and his relationship to Bin Laden, and I haven’t heard about this memo anywhere else. (And no, this in itself does not call it into question.) But the fact that they had a relationship is not in dispute, and is something that’s been common knowledge. What’s also common knowledge is that they hate each other. Bin Laden hates Hussein because he ran Iraq as a secular country, complete with churches and synagogues as well as mosques, because he killed his own people, and because his invasion of Kuwait was not only an attack against other Muslims, but lead to the U.S.-led coalition’s use of his country, Saudi Arabia, where the holy cities Mecca and Medina are located, as a base. But whether they had a relationship is not the question, because that’s well known. The question is whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

One question I would ask is, if their operational relationship included training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, and logistical support for terrorist attacks, and Hussein has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, then why didn’t the 9/11 terrorists use any? They simply used fueled airliners are missles with no chemical, biological or nuclear additions to those payloads.

Del: It seems to me that complaints about infringed free speech have long pre-dated Bush's presidency, so this notion that somehow Ashcroft is responsible for all the current oppression is pretty limp.

Luigi Novi: The fact is, such civil rights violations have increased, and because of the Patriot Act. You again using Straw Man argument, implying that someone is arguing that there were no free speech complaints prior to Ashcroft. That’s untrue, and no one ever said it was. John Stossel did an entire special on such free speech battles. But the Patriot Act is simply one more front on that battlefield. What’s limp is this “all-or-nothing” idea that it’s “all Ashcroft’s fault,” or “all not Ashcroft’s fault,” when the problem is that such violations have simply increased. It’s like arguing that Jeffrey Dahmer wasn’t really a murderer because, well, there were murders going on before him. One has nothing to do with the other.

Elayne Riggs: It should probably be pointed out that conservatives who accuse the Democrats of hatemongering neither understand the difference between hate and justifiable anger nor have any moral ground on which to stand considering their still-active vendetta against everyone who doesn't agree with their political views (in specific the Clinton administratin, but by extension most Democrats).

Ken: This is an incredibly biased opinion, not based in reality or fact.

Luigi Novi: It is based ENTIRELY in reality and fact. Should we discuss the Republicans’ distortion of Paul Wellstone’s memorial? Or at least three different lies they spread about things Al Gore said? Or the way they constantly mischaracterize the media as liberal, when in fact it’s far more conservative? Should we exa