Ann Althouse Responds: I Don’t Fact Check
Ann Althouse Responds: I Don’t Fact Check
Ann Althouse says she isn’t responsible for the content of the editorial she pushed to thousands of Instapundit.com readers because she didn’t fact check it:
Frankly, I haven’t traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn’t fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited.
Think Progress writes:
Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.
I didn’t fact-check that either.
Everyone can judge for themselves whether it’s right to reprint attacks on someone without any clue as to whether they’re true. But maybe now that we’ve pointed out that her information was wrong, she should let her readers know.
But remember, we are the real problem. By demanding the false smear on Gorelick be corrected we haven’t demostrated “a commitment to civil discourse.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If we insist on reporters and newscasters fact checking their stories and retracting errors, Fox News and many other MSM outlets will have to shut down.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:28 amWhat is this “fact check” thing you speak of? Are yo saying stories put out by the media should be factually correct?
/Sarcasm = off
Wow, where are those 700 NeoCOns from the last thread that were calling all of us names and telling us that we don’t know anything?
Let’s see just one of them apologize they way the talking heads have.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:36 amFact Check SpudgBoy!
There are only ~180 posts–and much of the name calling was not from NeoCOns…
For example:
#
“Regarding Clinton… What’s to blame–he was pathetic:”
Don’t be an ignorant moron, you ignorant moron. (See? A leopard can’t change his spots.)
Clinton was the best conswervative Republican preznit since Eisenhower, you John Birch POS!
Comment by Nostradammit — August 20, 2005 @ 2:54 am
I wrote about Pres. Clinton–The other person (on the left?) replies with calling me two names and no facts…
That is why it is a waste of time and brain cells to even try and discuss anything on blogs like this.
Good Luck!
August 20th, 2005 at 11:49 am-Bill
Yes, reading the last thread last night felt like being a Lib/Dem caught in a GOP rally. So many assaults, one would find it hard work determining where to start replying. So much of the Able Danger topic is yet unknown, though so many claim to know all the facts. I had a feeling that was going to happen.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:50 amThe funny thing is that Bill above doesn’t see the attack on Clinton (Typical talking point) that he has in his post. That would be exactly what I am talking about.
And he still didnt admit to being incorrect. Way to go!
Bad Luck!
August 20th, 2005 at 11:55 amSpudge-Boy
TP representation was pretty poor as well. Why bother posting some of that crap? A better idea would be to leave and read about the topic or just walk away.
August 20th, 2005 at 11:57 am“Regarding Clinton… What’s to blame–he was pathetic:â€
Like the man said… the leopard can’t change his spots. JBS is POS. What’s to discuss?
August 20th, 2005 at 11:59 amWrong, Spudgeboy. The true conservatives are already here, and have been since before the election. You are not dealing with the “right” or “independents”. You are dealing with radical extremists. There is no point in engaging them in discourse.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:02 pmI’m so glad that Bill from California won’t be comming back. I hope more of them feel the same way.
Mission Accomplished!
August 20th, 2005 at 12:03 pmMaybe you should read this. Do a little research.
http://www.institutefordemocracy.org/art/Insights_Vol01Iss02.pdf
The more reasonable they sound, the more dangerous they are. Unless you want to live in an extremist wonderland. I don’t.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:06 pmI know you can’t talk sense into these people. They jumped on here in mass to defend an incorrect story last night. Simply amazing. You would have thought that the holy-than-thou NeoCons would have checked their own facts. I guess not.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:06 pmThis is war, mate. Political warfare. They would like to make liberals and progressives history. I am not a dying breed. They are. And paraphrasing Patton, I intend to make the other guy die for his ideology. Since they are all cowards and chickenhawks, I expect it to be a short war.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:09 pmThe right wing has often stated (Rush Limbaugh in particular) that their goal is to eliminate liberalism. When I read or hear statements like that, I can only presume that they would eliminate liberals if they could.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:11 pm“I intend to make the other guy die for his ideology.”
How progressive of you.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:12 pmIn politics, civil discourse is flirting, ad hominem and hyperbole are heavy petting, dirty tricks, smears and mudslinging is missionary position and head bashing with bats is just rough sex.
So the next time they lay that “civil discourse” bullshit on you, if you fall for it, they will kick you in the balls and stab you in the back. Don’t be a patsy. Spit in their face and kick them in the balls. Backstabbing is for chickenhawks.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:14 pmCJ, you ponce, you don’t even know the history of the progressive party. So STFU.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:15 pmSee how it’s done, Spudge?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:16 pmHaha, thank you for proving my point.
Why is it that you people seem to jump on anyone and everyone before even hearing what they have to say or what their opinions even are? Were you abused as a child?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:19 pmI advocate only lawful (constitutional) and non-violent means to win this war of ideologies.
Whatever their beliefs, they are still Americans and I just cannot bring myself to do violence to other Americans.
The only thing that would change my mind about that would be a gun grab because that would really signify the end of America.
If they come for my gun, they’ll be getting bullets!
August 20th, 2005 at 12:20 pmA friend of mine thinks that the current political climate is leading us into another civil war. I disagree with him, but the more time I spend looking at the comments on this site, the more I’m not so sure.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:22 pmCJ, you have no point.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:22 pmA friend of mine thinks that the current political climate is leading us into another civil war. I disagree with him, but the more time I spend looking at the comments on this site, the more I’m not so sure.
Now you have a point. I say good. It must be my comments that caused it, right? I didn’t get elected, neither did Bush, but I’m really a uniter, not a divider.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:24 pmWell said.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:24 pmWe don’t fear chicken hawks. Any physical war with them would be over before it started. Who would fight it for them?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:26 pmCJ, you are the problem. Instead of being angry, you want to compromise and hold hands with criminal slime who have perverted democracy in this country. They don’t want democracy. Why would extremists want democracy? Extremists can come to power in a democracy. Peaceful people roll over and let them have it. And before you start prattling on about violence. All the violence and death caused by domestic terrorism and extremism in this country comes from foul smelling hippies, right? Jeebus! You people are sheep!
August 20th, 2005 at 12:29 pmFly-over state rednecks? Christ-died-for-your-sins Focus on the Family psychos? Personally, they scare me.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:29 pmFact-free news reporting? Welcome to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the club of loud-mouthed verbal bullies who are good at riling up the emotions of their toadies, but fail to check the facts.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:29 pm“A friend of mine thinks that the current political climate is leading us into another civil war. I disagree with him, but the more time I spend looking at the comments on this site, the more I’m not so sure.”
See, the way I feel is that CJ is correct in this statement. If things continue they way they are going, we will have a civil war on our hands. I would happily pretoect myself and my family from these right wing, red neck, facist, religious zealots anyday.
I am not a sit back and let others abuse me type of person. Everybody I know hates Bush, because of my work in showing them the truth.
You see, the biggest threat to my life and safety currently is the Bush administartion and his followers. Those people are going to start world war III. Russia and China performing joint military excersises, threats from all over South America, valed threats from Germany. Comdemnation from all around the world for what America is doing.
You don’t need to tell me how to treat these whackos. I am an expert.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:31 pmExtremists CAN’T come to power in a democracy. They are rarely a majority. I’m not swaeting it too much. When the troops come home from Iraq, there are going to be plenty of angry warriors with a bone to pick with these extremist slime. I’m actually quite sure that “radical extremist conservatism” has peaked. That doesn’t mean you can just relax.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:31 pmThe fact is that the liars you mention above Marie are not even journalists. Thats why they get away with their nonsense. Why anyone would listen to liars who are not regulated as journalists is beyond me.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:32 pmSorry to piss on the parade, but can someone get back on topic?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:34 pmTopic?
:P
August 20th, 2005 at 12:35 pmYes, topic.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:36 pmMy point is, the next time you see a bunch of anarchists kicking the crap out of some poor cop. Think Timothy McViegh and realize they are getting off light.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:36 pmOn Topic – I agree with Marie. :D
August 20th, 2005 at 12:41 pmSo, Skid post something about the Topic.
There isn’t much else to say but “Good fucking lord, can’t these people do some research!” That is why they are all sheep. TP points out that they are wrong and 700 NeoCons show up to spit in our face. Then, the “writer” admits to not fact checking her story and there isn’t but 2 NeoCons to be found.
What a bunch of spinless bitches.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:43 pmHowever – Let me say that, I believe that it is ultimately the readers responsibility to fact check.
If you really care about the truth, verify for yourself. Too many of us (myself included) have become intellectually lazy.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:43 pmEh, this topic isn’t that interesting to me. I don’t know, it’s another “the right wing distorted the truth/lied” story. No big surprise there. But, speaking of fact-checking, someone wanna help fact-check this??:
I read somewhere that the American troop death-count of 1800-something only includes the troops that died while actually, physically in Iraq, and that a great deal of severely wounded troops are moved to bases in Germany and elsewhere only to die there from the wounds they incurred while in Iraq. When you include these troops in the statistics, the number of American troop deaths from the war in Iraq jumps to over 9,000. I’m not sure if this is true though.
Any one know of any info on this topic?
August 20th, 2005 at 12:46 pmI have a simple solution that I think will satisfy everyone. Althouse, and anyone who reprints her writing can simply include a disclaimer in large print at the top of every page:
“Warning: No facts have been checked. We are not responsible and cannot vouch for the accuracy or truth of any statement contained within, nor would we want to. If you want verified facts, there are resources available to you elsewhere.”
August 20th, 2005 at 12:48 pmExactly MisterB.
If I read story here, I follow the links. That is why they are there. I read the blogs, news sites and what have you. As is stated in another post, I watch their shows from time to time, to remind myself how scary they realy are. I try to find the original transcripts of speeches, so I can interpret the wording myself.
What do the right wingers do? Read a story and start posting gibberish. Damn it would be a lot easier to be them. Sigh.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:49 pmApparently, Ann Althouse and John Podhoretz, like President Bush, are stuck on step 8 (”making amends”) of a 12 step program.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:51 pm“I read somewhere that the American troop death-count of 1800-something only includes the troops that died while actually, physically in Iraq, and that a great deal of severely wounded troops are moved to bases in Germany and elsewhere only to die there from the wounds they incurred while in Iraq. When you include these troops in the statistics, the number of American troop deaths from the war in Iraq jumps to over 9,000. I’m not sure if this is true though.”
I have heard that before, but cannot verify that its true. I haven’t found enough evidence. DOes anyone know, I am hoping that it is not true, but with the way things are going, it might be true. I just think it would be horrendis if they were fixing the death count aroound the facts.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:54 pmCJ, there is some truth to that. They play with stats, no big surprise there. Beware of stories circulating from TBRNews which is a neo-nazi and holocaust denial site that make claims that the number of troop deaths in the 5 digit range. That is anti-semitic BS.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:54 pm9000? That number is false, also.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:56 pmTry here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm
August 20th, 2005 at 12:58 pmAnd here
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
August 20th, 2005 at 12:59 pmThis is BS.
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1622.htm
And a good source for the TBRnews being BS is here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/4/15748/99064
August 20th, 2005 at 1:00 pmGood disinfo and propaganda has facts and falsehoods all mixed up in a nice tasty salad. There are elements of the TBR shit that are factually correct, but it’s mostly crap. Hope that helps. Sorry, couldn’t put it all in one post
August 20th, 2005 at 1:05 pmOT but a final note about civil war. The extremists have already begun to compare the abortion issue to slavery. It doesn’t take a genius to see where that is going. Read this.
http://www.wellesley.edu/Peace/Rosenwald/thoreau.html
and maybe this post and the comments therein
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/04/a_brief_and_sha.html
August 20th, 2005 at 1:10 pmJanitors–Yeah no, that helps a lot. I guess that’ll teach me not to get my news from the comics, hehe.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:15 pm#30, Susan,
August 20th, 2005 at 1:16 pmI stand corrected — Limbaugh and the entire Fox News team are not journalists, they just pretend.
CJ Wrote
“I read somewhere that the American troop death-count of 1800-something only includes the troops that died while actually, physically in Iraq, and that a great deal of severely wounded troops are moved to bases in Germany and elsewhere only to die there from the wounds they incurred while in Iraq. When you include these troops in the statistics, the number of American troop deaths from the war in Iraq jumps to over 9,000. I’m not sure if this is true though.
Any one know of any info on this topic?”
Acording to te following Web site (http://icasualties.org/oif/)the US has had a total of 13877 Armed Forces wounded so far acording to the DOD.
So for the fatality total to jump over 9000 from 1867 about 1/2 of the total wounded would have to die. And scince 7262 of the wounded returned to duty within 72 hours of being injured it would seem unlikely that they died from the same injuries.
So for the over 9000 American Troup’s dead from the Iraq war to be true all of the casualties which did not return to duty within 72 hours of being injured would have to have died from there injuries. That would mean that they were all fatalities, and that there were no amputations or other permanent problems.
Perhaps the numbers you heard were not in reference to Fatalities, but fatalities and serious life changing injuries like Amputations added together. If so the number would apear to be correct.
Hope that helps.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:19 pmCheck with the body bag manufacturers. I wonder how many have been sold and shipped to the USArmy in Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/dek.htm
August 20th, 2005 at 1:23 pmKIA -
killed in action (KIA). [JP 1-02] (DoD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries BEFORE(me) reaching a medical treatment facility.
There, thats better. I just get tired of the name-calling and “kill all conservatives” stuff. Thats part of why I am predominantly lib/dem and don’t bother with reading much of the rightie sites. Not that there isn’t a time or place for it, I’d just rather be the better man as much as I can.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:23 pmJanitor would apear to be a significantly faster writer than me
August 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pmNote also, “…other than the victim of a terrorist activity” Go figure.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:26 pmCivil war in America will be great. I can’t wait. It will make Iraq look like a Sunday school gathering. The Progressives versus the Conservatives. A ‘PC’ civil war. How can it be a ‘civil’ war, come to think of it? The barbaric, traitorous so-called ‘Conservatives’ will win… America will lose… big time.
“… Crown Thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea…”
wunnerful, wunnerful
What a crock.
This stuff is beginning to stink to high heaven.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:26 pmEddie,
You are quoting Iraq numbers and all of them are pretty right on. The argument, if you would have read anything that has been pointed out is that critically injured soldiers are being flown to Germany, before they die, so that way their death is not counted in the 1862 number. See, that number is phrased as such “1862 soldiers have been killed in Iraq” Okay, so 1862 soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Nobody here is saying that number is incorrect. What is being posed is that “XXX number of soldiers have died in Germany.” It is a second number. Not adding to the same. You would add the first Iraq number with the German number to get the “XXX number of soldiers have died due to fighting in Iraq”
August 20th, 2005 at 1:30 pmSpudgeboy wrote
“You are quoting Iraq numbers and all of them are pretty right on. The argument, if you would have read anything that has been pointed out is that critically injured soldiers are being flown to Germany, before they die, so that way their death is not counted in the 1862 number. See, that number is phrased as such “1862 soldiers have been killed in Iraq†Okay, so 1862 soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Nobody here is saying that number is incorrect. What is being posed is that “XXX number of soldiers have died in Germany.†It is a second number. Not adding to the same. You would add the first Iraq number with the German number to get the “XXX number of soldiers have died due to fighting in Iraq†”
no, I understood the argument. I agree the number probably is more than 1862, my point is that it is not as high as 9000. For that to be true all of the casualties who were not returned to duty within 72 hours would have had to die in Germany or elsewhere.
This would leave no amputies or other dibilitating wounds, so that number is too high.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:37 pm2000 – 9000 – what does it matter? Its nothing compared to what is comming soon with Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Russia and China.
We really don’t have time to debate with the looneys in the White House. They should be removed, arrested and tried for Treason.
We need to back off the PNAC-P2OG insanity immediately.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:48 pmA few different people here have said the number is not 9000 and I didn’t give a number. We agree with you on that point also. So, you conceed that there is a possibility that number of deaths maybe intentionally positioned as such to make it seem like less people have died during the Iraq war than there really is?
August 20th, 2005 at 1:53 pmSpudgeboy wrote
“So, you conceed that there is a possibility that number of deaths maybe intentionally positioned as such to make it seem like less people have died during the Iraq war than there really is? ”
I said as much in my post.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:56 pmI live near a guy (SGT. Gomez Wheaton, IL>) He is paralyzed from the neck down. He’s not dead but if his condition is similar to Chris Reeves he won’t live too long. The people of Wheaton and other Illinois residents are building him a home. My daughter in law lives in the same building as he lives in now and is watching his progess.
Lucky for Sgt. Gomez he is not relying on vetern benefits for his care.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:57 pmI’m a Veteran, Susan. Its shamefull what the chickenhawks do to our Vets. Shamefull.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:01 pmAboslutely shameful. They don’t feel it or see it, because nobody they know is going through it. Republicans don’t fight wars, they only start them. Democrats fight the wars. Maybe that is why we are against starting one for no reason.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:04 pmI think we need to be more concerned about the seriously injured than we currently are. All that ever seems to be discussed is the deaths. I like the 9000 number of dead and seriously wounded to be the one we focus on better than the 1800-2000 number of deaths. But we should call it what it is.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:06 pmNotice the marked disparity between Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have served. Remarkable.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
August 20th, 2005 at 2:07 pmSpudgeboy wrote
“Republicans don’t fight wars, they only start them. ”
The statistics I have read say that most soldiers vote Republican. Of the soldiers I know it runs about 50/50. But I do live in a spot of blue in a sea of Red.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:10 pmcheck the voting records when it comes to veterans benefits. Democrats overwhelmingly support veterans more than Republicans, its not even close. hypocrites.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:25 pmC wrote
“check the voting records when it comes to veterans benefits. Democrats overwhelmingly support veterans more than Republicans, its not even close.”
Its only fair. Democrats have sent more soldiers to be killed or wounded than Republicans have.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:32 pmSounds like Eddie needs some clarification of the facts.
Bush lied thousands died.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:36 pmLBJ lied Tens of thousand died
August 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pmwho sent troops to die in this quagmire without any post-war plan? Bush is republican if i remember correctly right?
August 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pmDid you hear that Bushie is going out to campaign for support of the war?
Proves he has little support if he feels the need to campaign. His own party is speaking out against the war now to try and save their jobs.
Its time the chickenhawks realize that the majority of their party has abandoned them.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:51 pmI love the Quagmire description.
This was one of the shortest major wars we have ever fought, and assuming we leave Iraq some time in the next 3 years it will be the shortest ocupation we have ever had, but somehow this is a quagmire.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:52 pmyes, hes going to mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence over and over again until the sheep in middle america remember that all muslims are connected to Al-Qaida. hahahahaha.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:53 pmGermany and Japan
those are the quagmires
August 20th, 2005 at 2:54 pmqaugmire isnt just about time spent at war, its about the plan, and its been proven Bush didnt have ANY post war plan.he should have taken his own fathers advice when he said this is what would happen when you conqoured baghdad.try and keep up Eddie, i know its hard trying to remember all those Fox News talking points.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:55 pmSusen wrote
“Did you hear that Bushie is going out to campaign for support of the war?
Proves he has little support if he feels the need to campaign. His own party is speaking out against the war now to try and save their jobs.
Its time the chickenhawks realize that the majority of their party has abandoned them.”
I think you are right. I am almost certain that Bush will not be elected again.
I am not convenced his sucsessor will be a democrat though.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:56 pmC Wrote
“Eddie, i know its hard trying to remember all those Fox News talking points. ”
I don’t watch Fox news.
I also do not think there has ever been a war where we have gone in with a post war plan.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:59 pmi think you need to check you history books. you can never know exactly how its going to be post-war, but you should at least have some concern about it.this administration showed none.check the history.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:01 pmGosh… Get a life… Somebody steps away from a computer because they have other things to do in life with family–and they are run off???
What a fact free zone.
Even a stupid comment like ” those 700 NeoCOns from the last thread” from poster #2–easily diproven as there where only ~180 posts on the other thread at the time of his post–on this same website! Given the mix on the other post and multiple postings by everyone–the 700 number is off by, at least, a factor of ten… Really demonstrates a lack of reality based thought of the poster.
But that is the method argument of any extremist (left, rigth, etc.). Make up facts–Or post “I heard something somewhere” without even a link. Let others then troll around the web for supporting arguments one way or another.
And change any statement of opinion (with facts to back them up) into a NeoCon atack. Don’t even bother to discuss the underlaying supporting information? Big whoop!
As I said before, this is a waste of time.
Best of Luck.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:05 pm-Bill
during Vietnam:Cheney got 5 deferments from the military. Bush was getting drunk and getting out of it with family connections.meanwhile, Cheney gets money from KBR and halliburton BECAUSE of war and your proud of that Eddie?
August 20th, 2005 at 3:05 pmDon’t let the door hit you in the ass, Bill.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:08 pmEddie, not only is Iraq a quagmire (just ask the Iraqi people) but the entire war is a crime. Your leader has committed a crime, do you get that?
It is against the law to attack/occupy another nation for the purpose of regime change.
I suppose if a serial killer goes out on a rampage you would support that also.
I only wonder why you’re too chicken to fight the war yourself. Whats the problem, are you afraid to die?
August 20th, 2005 at 3:17 pmIf this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:27 pm– President G. W. Bush
“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in ‘47, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo. ”
August 20th, 2005 at 3:31 pm– Harry S Truman (1961)
“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.” – Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D., former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werne
August 20th, 2005 at 3:32 pm“The United States is not nearly so concerned that its acts be kept secret from its intended victims as it is that the American people not know of them.” ?U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
August 20th, 2005 at 3:33 pmEddie, if you check the facts, it was Presiden Eisenhower that deployed 900 US troops to Viet Nam as advisors. He also sold the French US military surplus. Long before LBJ was on the scene, you see.
Stick around, you might learn something.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pm“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” — Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting
August 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pmStarting to get the picture? Wake up! Please! We are gonna need everyone to resist this new tyranny.
August 20th, 2005 at 3:35 pm“This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.
By 2000, the Justice Department was so addicted to the wall, it actually opposed legislation to lower the wall. Finally, the USA PATRIOT ACT tore down this wall between our intelligence and law enforcement personnel in 2001. And when the PATRIOT ACT was challenged, the FISA Court of Review upheld the law, ruling that the 1995 guidelines were required by neither the Constitution nor the law.
The third issue I would like to raise with the Commission this afternoon is another limitation government placed on our ability to “connect the dots” of the terrorist threat prior to September 11: the lack of support for information technology at the FBI.
After I became Attorney General in February 2001, it soon became clear that the FBI’s computer technology and information management was in terrible shape. The Bureau essentially had 42 separate information systems, none of which were connected. Agents lacked even the most basic Internet technology.
These problems did not just hamper interagency communication; they hindered information sharing with the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and state and local law enforcement. It is no wonder, given the state of its technology, that the Phoenix memo warning that terrorists may be training in commercial aviation was lost in the antique computers at Washington headquarters.
Yet for year after year, the FBI was denied the funds requested for its information technology. Over eight years, the Bureau was denied nearly $800 million of its information technology funding requests. To put this $800 million shortfall in perspective, the Trilogy program, which is now revolutionizing computer, data and information sharing at the Bureau, has cost $580 million.
On September 11, 2001, the FBI’s annual technology budget under the prior Administration was actually $36.1 million less than the last Bush budget eight years before. The FBI’s information infrastructure had been starved and by September 11 it collapsed from budgetary neglect.
When the Hannsen and McVeigh failures fully exposed that this neglect cost national security, I ordered four independent external reviews of the FBI’s information infrastructure under coordination from the Deputy Attorney General. And my first two budgets, both proposed before 9/11, requested a 50 percent increase for FBI information technology.
Finally, the Commission should study carefully the National Security Council plan to disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. that our government failed to implement fully seventeen months before September 11.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2004/041304terrorismtestimony.htm
The “wall” extended beyond DOJ, but the main reason DOD was reluctant to get involed was they had taken it on the head for the violation of “Posse Comitatus” during the Waco decacle, (you guys like to watch LINK TV, have you caught Waco:Terms of Engagment”?)
You keep going over every conservative’s written word with a fine tooth comb looking for any eror, when you overlook your own. TP made the assertion the other day that the Berger Docs were “copies”, this is not correct, they were diffent “versions.” I missed TP’s correction, or was Clarke, the author of the documents Berger has admitted he stole from the National Archive not telling the truth? Did Berger’s lawyer lie?
“Berger inadvertently took copies of several versions of an after-action memo on the millennium bombing plot from the Archives last fall, said his attorney Lanny Breuer. The lawyer said one or more of the copies were then inadvertently discarded. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62776-2004Jul19.html
August 20th, 2005 at 4:17 pmBerger discovered several versions of the classified memo in a leather portfolio he had taken to the Archives, his attorney said. He returned them and papers on which he had taken notes about materials he had reviewed. Those notes, Breuer said, were not supposed to have been removed from the Archives without review by employees there. Berger’s actions, said Breuer, were the result of “sloppiness” and were unintentional.
One or more missing versions of the 15-page memo could not be located among Berger’s possessions, and he thinks he probably discarded the papers, Breuer said.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pmSkid,
Someone said Republicans don’t fight wars, they only start them. That’s true and not true. It’s not true because the right has been at war, a serious, take no prisoners political war against America, for contro of America, since Goldwater got whipped in 1964. But these are not your father’s Republicans. They are extremists.
Politics *is* the art of grabbing power and using it for your own ends. To suggest that there is a one side that’s interested in power and one side that isn’t is stark raving nonsense and political suicide, or worse.
That’s why your comment at #54, although admirable, is also naive. As we have seen in the past, the “better men” don’t even win elections. Better get used to it if you want Progressives and Democrats to win elections. It takes a spine and wilingness to fight, and fight hard and even dirty. That’s American politics. Anyone who thinks this Progressive movement is a peace movement only, is in the wrong place, and should flush out there headgear. Progressives shouldn’t kid themselves. We will rock and roll at the drop of a hat, if the song is righteous and doesn’t go on forever.
#57, your comment was such gibberish I can only assume you are a frightened wingnut, or even moonbat. Good!
#57
August 20th, 2005 at 4:29 pmC wrote
“during Vietnam:Cheney got 5 deferments from the military. Bush was getting drunk and getting out of it with family connections.meanwhile, Cheney gets money from KBR and halliburton BECAUSE of war and your proud of that Eddie?”
I never said any of that. I never said I liked Bush or Cheney. Nice strawman argument
August 20th, 2005 at 4:54 pmI still prefer to live in the present fake. Presently men and women are dying for an illegal war.
Enough of what happened during the Clinton administration already. There were no criminal convictions in his administration and you need to deal with that and get over it.
Supporting the outing of a CIA agent is a very un-American thing to do and somebody in your administration will be convicted.
You have lost the Clinton vs. Bushie war. Your constituents agree that we went to Iraq to oust Hussein which is a crime no matter how you try to deny it. BushCo is going down and the entire nation knows it.
August 20th, 2005 at 4:56 pmRon wrote
“Eddie, if you check the facts, it was Presiden Eisenhower that deployed 900 US troops to Viet Nam as advisors. He also sold the French US military surplus. Long before LBJ was on the scene, you see.
Stick around, you might learn something.”
I am well aware that Ike sent the first advisors to Vietnam. Much as he sent them to Greece. There is a big difference in sending a small amount of Special Forces and sending an entire army like LBJ did
August 20th, 2005 at 4:57 pmI suspect when someone sends advisors it is the advisors who advise whether or not to send troops Eddie. Got ya there.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:03 pmC wrote
“i think you need to check you history books. you can never know exactly how its going to be post-war, but you should at least have some concern about it.this administration showed none.check the history. ”
Well I am back from checking the history Books and I can say I have found no instances of the US going into the war with a post war plan
August 20th, 2005 at 5:03 pmSign a People’s Petition for an Iraq Peace Process
Like Cindy Sheehan, we are tired of waiting for our troops to come home. We are tired of the bloodshed, tired of tax dollar waste, tired of torture cover-ups, tired of contractor scandals, tired of deceit and fabrication.
It is dishonest to admit there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, only to invent new reasons for inflicting mass destruction on that country.
It is dishonorable to fix the facts around the policy.
It is unacceptable to admit that going to war was a mistake, only to claim that the mistake must be perpetuated.
Sign a petition that will be delivered to Congress on September 15, 2005:
August 20th, 2005 at 5:04 pmhttp://www.pdamerica.org/
Susan wrote
“I suspect when someone sends advisors it is the advisors who advise whether or not to send troops Eddie. Got ya there. ”
The advisors were there to advise the South Vietnamese, not the president. I seem to recall that the advisors recomended bailing on the South Vietnamese.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:07 pmTell Us Where Your Representative Stands on Barbara Lee’s Resolution of Inquiry
In the past month, many of you have asked your Representative to co-sponsor Barbara Lee’s Resolution of Inquiry (H.Res 375) for Congress to investigate the Downing Street Memos.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902
August 20th, 2005 at 5:08 pmUrge Congress to Support Rush Holt’s Resolution of Inquiry on the Outing of Valerie Plame
August 20th, 2005 at 5:09 pmThere are 76 co-sponsors on Rush Holt’s Resolution of Inquiry on the Outing of Valerie Plame. This was a treasonous act by Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and other top administration officials. After two years of lies, it’s time for the administration to tell the truth!
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/55
suzan wrote
“It is dishonest to admit there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, only to invent new reasons for inflicting mass destruction on that country.”
All of the reasons given by Bush for invading were given before the war.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:10 pmPlan for Massive Anti-War Mobilization in September
August 20th, 2005 at 5:11 pmSeptember 24-26: End the War on Iraq!
Three Days of Mass Action in Washington, D.C.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/fallmobe
Suzan wrote
“Urge Congress to Support Rush Holt’s Resolution of Inquiry on the Outing of Valerie Plame”
There is already an ongoing investigation into the outing of Valery Plame.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:11 pmStay in denial all you want Eddie. I only suggest that if you support it you must fight it. I won’t hold my breath though I know your a chickenhawk.
Definition of Un-American: CHICKENHAWK
August 20th, 2005 at 5:13 pmReally Eddie? There’s an investigation of the Plame outing? I thought that it was just a waste of time and leftwing propaganda by a republican prosecuter. Thanks for clueing in your chickenhawk loyalists.
At least one of you aren’t in a constant state of denial.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:16 pmhey Judd,you like how the ARGUMENT and pointless back and forth , im right, your wrong bullshit is going? you reap what you sow.let the arguments continue.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:18 pmActually, I’d like it if the discussion were more substantive. But there is little I can do about that…
August 20th, 2005 at 5:30 pmRest in peace, GOP.
Until I come along and deposit something on your grave that won’t pass for flowers.
Via Attaturk
Fat, Fatuous, Fuck losing audience share in droves, and so is another major jackass
Conservative-talk icon Rush Limbaugh’s show has lost 43 percent of its audience among 25- to 54-year-olds in the past year. Sean Hannity’s show is down a whopping 63 percent. The shift is serious enough that “we’re weighing where these shows fit for us in the future,” according to Todd Fisher, general manager at KSTP (1500 AM), which carries both syndicated programs.
(…)
“We are giving a lot of consideration to the nationally syndicated shows like Rush and Hannity,” said KSTP’s Fisher. “We have really become concerned with what I would call their tight play list of topics revolving around politics. We respect them and they’ve done well for us, but we’re really in a quandary here.”
August 20th, 2005 at 5:34 pmActually, I’d like it if the discussion were more substantive. But there is little I can do about that…
To acheive this you would need a judge and a bailiff to ensure and enforce what is commonly known as a trial by jury with structure, rules of evidence and examination and cross-examination. Then you would need to voir dire and seat a jury that didn’t know the facts of the case and hadn’t already made up it’s mind. I would be excused from jury duty, as would most Americans, because most of us have already made up our minds about who is guilty and who is not telling the truth. Whether anyone fries for these crimes remains to be seen because this is one unusual case where the defendants have the power to pardon themselves.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:45 pmJudd wrote
“Actually, I’d like it if the discussion were more substantive. But there is little I can do about that… ”
I have been disapointed in the level of discourse here too. I started out trying to be civil and got jumped all over several times, and I admit that I have been feeding the trolls a little lately.
Is this what this place is usually like? If not could you direct me to some threads on your site that have a higher level of discourse. I promis to be good.
August 20th, 2005 at 6:13 pmI have never jumped on you Eddie. I only corrected you when you incorrectly said I had made the post I was responding to. There are many passionate and angry people here, as there are throughout this country. Don’t blame Judd, TP or the people here for that. I don’t think they are responsible for the state of politics in this country. If you want to visit a site where rules of decorum are strictly enforced, I can point you to quite a few, but I am sure you would be out of your depth there.
August 20th, 2005 at 6:46 pmThat’s not a slap, Eddie, here are two bipartisan sites where you may have at it politely, if you are up to it.
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/
August 20th, 2005 at 6:48 pmUnder the title of each post at Left2right is the name of the author. Next to the author’s name is a date that is also a link. That link opens up the comments section for each post, just so you know. There are many other sites that might suit you, look around. My own opinion is that the control of any progressive movement is going to be fought over, tooth and nail by both the left and the right, so it may tend to be fractious and vitriolic here for some time. It will settle down after 2008.
August 20th, 2005 at 6:54 pmNostradammit wrote
“If you want to visit a site where rules of decorum are strictly enforced, I can point you to quite a few, but I am sure you would be out of your depth there.”
and
“That’s not a slap, Eddie, here are two bipartisan sites where you may have at it politely, if you are up to it.”
In what way is that not a slap?
August 20th, 2005 at 6:56 pmNostradammit wrote
“That’s not a slap, Eddie, here are two bipartisan sites where you may have at it politely, if you are up to it.
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/”
Thanks for the heads up. I like the second more than the first. On the first site I found the argument against Gay marage baised on birth cirtificates to be unconvincing, and easily bypassed. The second about argument about contious objection in pharmacists to have a little too much Navel gazing for my taste.
August 20th, 2005 at 7:29 pmstill back and forth Judd, i could have had this annoying bastard gone by now……..
August 20th, 2005 at 7:41 pmbecause this REALLY looks like a real debate. really.
August 20th, 2005 at 7:43 pmPerhaps if Judd and TP do a post on immigration policy, you will see a real debate break out. When he does posts that are designed to rile the other side, it’s a bit naive to think reasoned discourse will ensue…
August 20th, 2005 at 8:05 pmThere is no spoon.
August 20th, 2005 at 8:16 pmSee, if Dan Rather had only defended his story the way Althouse did, the right wing attack blogs would never have gone after him.
August 20th, 2005 at 8:23 pmAbout the same as – i dont think my zipper was down, i didnt have sex with… etc, etc..
August 20th, 2005 at 8:57 pmIt’s God’s Fault.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:05 pmFrom arabnews
“For the American military, this latest outrage demonstrates the complexity and ever-changing nature of the task they have set themselves in eradicating terror in Iraq. They must now plan for the possibility that any of their naval ships, tied up in any port in the region, could come under attack from the shore. This could produce a policy of replenishment at sea with US vessels hardly ever docking. If that turns out to be the case, it will be another small but nevertheless telling victory for the terrorists and will once again put the US on the back foot in a fight, the difficulty of which it underestimated from the beginning. Amphibious warfare weapons carriers such as the USS Ashland are designed to project extremely powerful air and land forces into battle. Seeing two such ships hurrying out to sea after three home-made rockets were fired at them was, at the very least, an unfortunate spectacle.”
Thanks for all you do.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:33 pmFrom the Norwich Times
The analysts recommended that the information they had gathered from Internet sites by a process called “data mining from open sources” — along with a photograph of Atta, the mastermind of 9/11 — be passed along to the FBI so the members of the cell could be rounded up.
According to accounts in the New York Times and Associated Press, Pentagon lawyers determined that anyone possessing a green card had to be given the same legal protections afforded U.S. citizens. Therefore, the information assembled by Able Danger could not be shared with the FBI. This determination was in accord with a policy established in 1995 by President Bill Clinton’s assistant attorney general, Jamie Gorelik.
The policy, since dismantled by the Patriot Act, placed a wall between intelligence gatherers and law enforcement officials, directing both to exceed what the law demanded to keep both functions separate, a prohibition that should not have applied to the Brooklyn cell since its members were in the country on visas and did not have permanent resident status.
Gorelik, chiefly responsible for the erection of an informational Berlin Wall, was a member of the commission. Her own political interests could not have been advanced by the inclusion of the information excluded in the report.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:48 pmLeave Judd alone. Have a look at this. This is what makes TP better than any, ANY, right wing site out there.
http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/08/i_purposefully.html
August 20th, 2005 at 10:13 pmSorry, dont have any problem with that. If you lie you get booted, if you send in bad trackbacks you get banned.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:17 pmCynical,
It was reported in Time magazine awhile back that Dan Rather and Don Rumsfeld co-own a ranch in New Mexico? I don’t have a link that works to the original Time article. I don’t even know if this is accurate. It is interesting. I do know that if we think that CBS or even the NYTimes are not owned by by corporations beholden to anyone but the people, we are as deluded as the folks on the right who think there is a liberal bias in the media.
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=807
August 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pmKool! I’m gonna link to the Barber of LeShawn and tell the truth and get permanently banned! Like I have ever, noe would I ever, read that crap, or want to link to it. But now I will.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:33 pmThe Barber of LeShawn’s World
Neo-Americanism, (that’s no conservative I know)
AMERICANISM, n. 1) The desire to purge America of all those qualities which make it a more or less tolerable place in which to live; 2) The ability to simultaneously kiss ass, follow your boss’s orders, swallow a pay cut, piss in a bottle, cower in fear of job loss, and brag about your freedom.
– Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary.
http://www.seesharppress.com/index.html
August 20th, 2005 at 10:39 pmI don’t kiss ass. I don’t follow the ‘boss’s orders. I don’t give a rip about a pay cut. I don’t piss in a bottle. I’m on too many shit lists to fear any job loss. I don’t pay attention to them anymore. Jobs are a thing of the past. Damn glad I am free.
If you want a job that is full of asskissing and backstabbing, then you have the wron_g job.
Arbeit macht frei
August 21st, 2005 at 12:33 am#22, I believe the correct term used by chimpy was -
UNIFICATOR
August 21st, 2005 at 1:35 am#36, the job of the “journalist” is the CHECK FACTS AND REPORT BOTH SIDES.
The real fair and balanced.
FAUX NEWS- WE REPORT, WE DECIDE
August 21st, 2005 at 1:37 am#79- WRONG!
WWII – We went into that one with a post war plan. A REAL PLAN OF ACTION. WE WERE ATTACKED BY JAPAN, AND WE IDENTIFIED THE ENEMY, AND WENT TO WAR WITH THEM. WE DIDN’T INVADE JAPAN AND SAY, “LOOK AT THE KITTY, I’M THE p-RESIDENT, LET’S INVADE BRITIAN….THEY HAVE WEAPONS, AND THEY ARE LINKED TO JAPAN”. The post war plan for WWII was to STOP THE GENOCIDE, REMOVE HITLER AND THE JAPAN THREAT!!!! After that we (allied forces more then than now) were to rebuild Germany and Japan….I believe that we accomplished those goals, and we now buy a whole bunch of stuff from those countries…. Mercedes to mow down liberals, and laptops from Japan to inflict rightwing-wingnut opinions on blogs….
CATCH THE CLUE PHONE, IT’S FOR YOU!
August 21st, 2005 at 2:30 amSusan, #84 post – I hate to disagree, but althought it is true that is against the law to invade and occupy another country, the real issue is
Dumbya lied about the reasons…. but your statement is very very true
August 21st, 2005 at 2:34 amsorry, I didn’t complete my statement…
Dumbya lied about the reasons, and his REAL MOTIVES FOR “regime change” was PROFIT FOR THE CARLYLE GROUP AND HIS CRONIES…
PLAIN AND SIMPLE… JUST LIKE HIM.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:36 am“I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in ‘47, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo. â€
– Harry S Truman (1961)
Comment by MisterB — August 20, 2005
DITTO!!!!!!
August 21st, 2005 at 2:37 am#94 INCORRECT AGAIN. Rosevelt was a republican (before they became REPUGnicans) and his party disliked him because although rich he was for the rights of the poor. Although he didn’t start the war, he did FINISH IT.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:40 amAnd I believe, if memory serves me…. the LAST TIME WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ, WAS UNDER SHRUB-THE-SMARTER’S REGIME…..also REPUG-nican.
August 21st, 2005 at 2:41 amhey JUDD, you gonna be a hypocrite? or are you gonna ban annie outhouse for “impersonating? just wondering.
August 21st, 2005 at 8:48 amKJ Lovell wrote
“And I believe, if memory serves me…. the LAST TIME WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ, WAS UNDER SHRUB-THE-SMARTER’S REGIME…..also REPUG-nican.”
This is the only acurate statement you have writen on this thread. The rest are easily verified as incorrect by a quick trip to google. I have to go right now, but I will be back later.
You might want to start your search with the political party of Rosevelt. That would be FDR not Teddy who was the WWII leader.
Have fun.
August 21st, 2005 at 9:33 amKJ Lovell wrote
“#94 INCORRECT AGAIN. Rosevelt was a republican (before they became REPUGnicans) and his party disliked him because although rich he was for the rights of the poor. Although he didn’t start the war, he did FINISH IT. ”
Ok lets start by setting up some definitions.
Either you were talking about Teddy Roosevelt (Republican, President 1901-1909) or Franklin Delino Roosevelt (Democrat, President 1933-1945). This can sometimes be confusing, but fortunately in either case you are wrong.
If you meant Teddy, you are right he was a republican, but there were no declared wars in his presidency for him to not start but finish. There were several small military interventions, but He pretty much started them and finished them, so it seams unlikely you were referring to them.
If you meant FDR then he was quite clearly a Democrat.
August 21st, 2005 at 12:18 pmKJ wrote
” #79- WRONG!
WWII – We went into that one with a post war plan. A REAL PLAN OF ACTION. WE WERE ATTACKED BY JAPAN, AND WE IDENTIFIED THE ENEMY, AND WENT TO WAR WITH THEM. WE DIDN’T INVADE JAPAN AND SAY, “LOOK AT THE KITTY, I’M THE p-RESIDENT, LET’S INVADE BRITIAN….THEY HAVE WEAPONS, AND THEY ARE LINKED TO JAPANâ€. The post war plan for WWII was to STOP THE GENOCIDE, REMOVE HITLER AND THE JAPAN THREAT!!!! After that we (allied forces more then than now) were to rebuild Germany and Japan….I believe that we accomplished those goals, and we now buy a whole bunch of stuff from those countries…. Mercedes to mow down liberals, and laptops from Japan to inflict rightwing-wingnut opinions on blogs….
CATCH THE CLUE PHONE, IT’S FOR YOU!
”
Once again lets start with some definitions.
When I hear we did not go into Iraq with a post war plan I think it means that we did not have any Ideas about how to set up elections, perform De-Bathification, and most important how to make a stable enough Iraq so that we could get out in a reasonable amount of time.
I think that this is true.
I think that we basically dusted off our post WWII plan for Germany and Japan without making any alterations for the very different conditions in Iraq. I think we made a mistake in disbanding the Iraqi army and not working to set up elections immediately. When people say we should have had a plan for post war Iraq before we sent in troops I generally agree with them.
Now it appears from KJ Lovell’s post that he is under the impression that we went into WWII with our post WWII plan in place. This is just plain wrong. Remember we had 3 full years of war to come up with that plan. We bairly went into WWII with an army, much less a plan. We sent Armed trucks into North Africa to fight German panzers.
Now lets look at another couple of KJ’s statements.
“WE WERE ATTACKED BY JAPAN, AND WE IDENTIFIED THE ENEMY, AND WENT TO WAR WITH THEM. WE DIDN’T INVADE JAPAN AND SAY, “LOOK AT THE KITTY, I’M THE p-RESIDENT, LET’S INVADE BRITIAN….THEY HAVE WEAPONS, AND THEY ARE LINKED TO JAPANâ€.
Although I agree we didn’t do the bait and switch from Japan to Britain, if you switch the word Britain to Germany that’s pretty much exactly what we did. It was quite controversial at the time. We sent most of our Army and Industrial production to fight the Germans and basically fought a delaying action in the Pacific. Japan was much weaker, and was never going to be able to defeat us, so I think that it was the right thing to do.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:07 pmWe don’t have a post war plan for Iraq, because the Bush administrations plan was/is to stay there and occupy. Condi has already said that the war on terror “could last decades.” Iraq is to be our base of operations in the war on terror. That is the problem we are facing. These guys got us there under the assumtion they they will keep winning elections and keep our children (yes, 18 year olds are children, go talk to one) going to illegal wars.
They have no exit plan. Why do you need an exit plan, if you don’t plan on leaving.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:44 pmSpudgeBoy wrote
“We don’t have a post war plan for Iraq, because the Bush administrations plan was/is to stay there and occupy.”
So once again we are following the Germany and Japan plan. Won’t work. We will be out of there one way or another within 10 years. They will never let us stay 60+.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:54 pm“So once again we are following the Germany and Japan plan. Won’t work. We will be out of there one way or another within 10 years. They will never let us stay 60+.”
Exactly why the Bush administration shouldn’t have even tried their failed attempt at this military coup.
August 21st, 2005 at 1:56 pmEddie,
Some have claimed Mr.B is a wingnut for his conspiracy theories. I don’t share his views, I remain skeptical, but anything is possible. None of his conspiracy theories are as bizarre as your views and revisionist history. The very fact that most of our pacific fleet was damaged or destroyed in the raid on Pearl, with the fortuitous exception of the carriers, is what prevented us from waging war on Japan right away. You don’t just send carriers out, without a destroyer and escort screen, too vulnerable, high value targets. And destroyers and escorts without heavy cruisers and battleships, no way. Did you want us to drive there? You are the classic definition of a wingnut, moonbat, whatever.
August 21st, 2005 at 9:49 pmAnn Outhouse (Classy) wrote
“Some have claimed Mr.B is a wingnut for his conspiracy theories. I don’t share his views, I remain skeptical, but anything is possible. None of his conspiracy theories are as bizarre as your views and revisionist history. The very fact that most of our pacific fleet was damaged or destroyed in the raid on Pearl, with the fortuitous exception of the carriers, is what prevented us from waging war on Japan right away. You don’t just send carriers out, without a destroyer and escort screen, too vulnerable, high value targets. And destroyers and escorts without heavy cruisers and battleships, no way. Did you want us to drive there? You are the classic definition of a wingnut, moonbat, whatever.â€
There were 9 US Battleships at Pearl Harbor (You often hear 8 quoted because one of them was even more obsolete than the others and was only used for gunnery training). Of the active Battleships 6 were sunk and 2 were heavily damaged. Of these ships 3 of them (Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Nevada) were back in service within 4 months (Three of the others returned to service in 1944). 5 additional Battleships (Colorado, North Carolina, South South Dakota, Mississippi, and Idaho) joined them before June of 1942. An additional 3 battleships arrived before the end of the year.
We lost 3 (THREE) Destroyers at Pearl Harbor out of a total of 100 in the US fleet. By June of 1942 there were 130 Destroyers in the US fleet.
We lost 3 Light Cruisers at Pearl Harbor. All the Heavy Cruisers were off escorting the Carriers, and so were unhurt. We made up those losses quickly.
We had destroyed approximately ½ of the Japanese Carrier Fleet by 6 months after Pearl Harbor.
So that puts us at June or so of 1942 with our fleet back up to full strength, and their fleet down approximately ½ of it’s striking power.
Meanwhile over in Europe we invade Africa in NOVEMBER of 1942. Now It took a while to set up the logistical base and everything, so we will give you that one. Its not like we had any ground combats going on in the pacific that were short of men. No wait there was Guadalcanal; they could have used a brigade or 2 there.
Nothing I said in my post is even slightly revisionist. Every history of WWII will tell you that the US deliberately went with a Germany First strategy, which in practice turned into an Italy first policy. It was controversial at the time.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:10 amwhy is Mr.B a wingnut? because he has enough sense to see that 9/11 could not have occured without help from our own government? you sound like the real wingnut, you and the others that actually believe the governments story.the 9/11 Commisions findings are the REAL conspiracy theory.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:12 amand until we all accept that, we will get nowhere.when i saw we i dont mean liberals or democrats, i mean americans.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:13 amWhy should she bother doing any fact checking? It’s not like she’s a journalist or something. Her job is to help diseminate right-wing smears and lies in a ‘civil’ manner. So back off!
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:16 pmoff topic, I saw a video clip of Pat Robertson saying Hugo Chavez should be killed by the U.S.
WHAT A REAL CHRISTIAN!
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:05 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pmAttorney Bankruptcy Carolina South
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 amHow To Watch Kstp Tv On My Computer
how to watch tv on my computer
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 9:51 pmCheck And Fix Problems On My Computer
Computer Problems Repair
March 27th, 2008 at 8:12 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pmall hot trends
all hot trends
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 am