Rep. Tom Lantos passes away.
By on Feb 11th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Rep. Tom Lantos passes away.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) announced this morning that the 80-year old chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, the “only survivor of the Holocaust to serve in Congress,” has passed away. Last month, Lantos announced that he would not be seeking re-election because he had been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
How do they pick a replacement for him? Special election?
February 11th, 2008 at 9:47 amRest in peace , sir………
February 11th, 2008 at 9:47 amSad day. Thoughts are with the family.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:52 amRest in Peace Congressman Lantos.
-GSD
February 11th, 2008 at 9:57 amwow… it seems the end was swift…
we should all be so lucky…
Rest In Peace
February 11th, 2008 at 10:02 ami say flag #6… that was not necessary.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:03 amDr. Lantos was a professor of mine at San Francisco State before he entered Congress. He was always deeply thoughtful, always the gentleman, and will always be missed.
Kenneth Shelton
February 11th, 2008 at 10:04 amRest in Peace, Mr. Lantos, and thank you for your service to our country.
A story is told about how gracious Tom Lantros could be, even in the face of overwhelming stupidity.
During a 2002 conference to discuss how peace could be maintained between Israel and the Palestinians, Lantos suggested that the Swedish Army could be useful. Bush disagreed. From the link:
It also showed how Bush’s people were so cowed and intimidated by him, that they couldn’t even bring themselves to correct an obvious mistake. At least Mr. Lantos found a way to correct the erroneous Bush without making him look like an idiot (”…you may have thought that I said Switzerland…”). But Bush “decided” to forge ahead and prove his ignorance.
My thoughts and condolences are with the Lantos family.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:06 amCondolences for his family and friends.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:07 amHe was a good man.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:07 amMy condolences to the family and constituents.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:18 amEsophagal cancer is nearly always fatal. As a lung cancer survivor, this strikes so close to home. R.I.P. Mr Lantos.
Wayne, it is truly embarassing to have a president as completely clueless and fukcing stupid as Mr. George W. Bush.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:20 amHolocaust survivor and a Democrat.
Wow, I can’t imagine what he experienced in his younger days.
Rest in Peace, Mr. Lantos
February 11th, 2008 at 10:23 amSo sorry to hear this news. As a former resident of the San Francisco Bay area, I remember that Lantos was a respected public servant and generally thought to be “one of the good guys”.
He will be missed.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:29 amOne of the last of the old-school Democrats — Liberal on social domestic policy but an advocate of a strong military and national security. As a Holocaust survivor, he knew better than anyone the terrible price of appeasement. He’ll be missed.
(Side note: Wayne, I can’t help but notice that you failed to mention that Rep. Lantos never confirmed that story and anti-Bush journalist Ron Suskind’s only source for that story was Democrat Sen. Joe Biden. Full discosure next time, Wayne).
February 11th, 2008 at 10:35 amMy condolences to his family
February 11th, 2008 at 10:35 amCondolences to his family. We will miss him.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:38 amThinkProgress…Nice job removing Lefty Patriot’s inappropriate and hateful posting originally at #6. Well done.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:39 amMy condolences to Rep Lantos’ family.
My former mother-in-law survived the battle with esophageal cancer, but it was devastating to her body and mind.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:52 amRIP, sir. Thank god it was quick. It seems you suffered greatly in your life. And ours were richer for you.
RUC, I didn’t know that about you. I hope you are well. You’re one of my fav people. Take good care!
February 11th, 2008 at 11:09 amMiss Molly, You are correct.
the SF bay area has many strong Democratic Leaders. Sometimes we don’t pay enough attention to really how strong and forthright they are for their citizens the represent and the nation.
Mr Lanto’s was tops on the list. By virtue of his life, he settled lots of arguments in Washington.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:12 amThanks Ms Joanne!!
February 11th, 2008 at 11:15 amRUC is a great favorite on TP and the Zoo. :-)
February 11th, 2008 at 11:25 amRUC is a great favorite on TP and the Zoo. :-)
Comment by Zooey — February 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
I agree completely, Zooey. Both TP and The Zoo are better for having RUC post there. :-)
February 11th, 2008 at 11:39 amA loss we sure didn’t need in the era of declining representation, you know, for the people.
Tom Lantos never took for granted being an American, and he was a real American. It’s real easy for some to take citizenship in America for granted, especially through birthright. Tom Lantos always felt he had a debt to America for his opportunities here, and he paid the nation back more than just principle and interest, that’s for sure.
Thank you, Representative Lantos, for your living your wonderful life for us to appreciate well.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:40 amI agree completely, Zooey. Both TP and The Zoo are better for having RUC post there. :-)
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — February 11, 2008 @ 11:39 am
And you, Wayne. Your comments are always compassionate and well-informed.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:44 amI agree completely with McWars comment at 11:40.
Tom Lantos was a treasure for our nation, a great representative and a gracious man. He will be missed.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:45 amThanks, Zooey. The truth is that I’ve always enjoyed visiting TP because of people like you. You give me something to think about, and I enjoy that. That’s why I feel honored to have been invited to become a Critter at The Zoo.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:48 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — February 11, 2008 @ 11:48 am
full disclosure:
great post wayne!
February 11th, 2008 at 11:52 amHere’s Rep. Lantos said at the dedication ceremony of the Victims of Communism Memorial last year:
“Communism was not the only monstrous phenomenon determined to destroy free and open societies,” said Lantos, who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, said he had fought against Nazism and communism, and “it is now my privilege to fight against Islamic terrorism determined to take us back 13 centuries.”
He was a good man and a wonderful American success story.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pmex-lax forgot to note his source, from mr. suskind’s article:
“This story was told to me by one of the senators in the Oval Office that December day, Joe Biden. Lantos, a liberal Democrat, would not comment about it. In general, people who meet with Bush will not discuss their encounters. Lantos, through a spokesman, says it is a longstanding policy of his not to discuss Oval Office meetings.”
ex-lax, full disclosure next time.
eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm#32, Joe, Perhaps you should go back and read posting #16 more closely. There I clearly identify Sen. Biden as Suskind’s source for the story and clearly state that Lantos never confirmed the alleged incident. Try again.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pmComment by joe cantwell — February 11, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Thanks, joe. As I said on another thread, I have no reason to think the story isn’t true. I had conjectured that Rep Lantos was simply too much of a gentleman to discuss the incident, and I found it hard to believe that Biden would have made up a story like that and given credit to someone else for helping Bush make himself look bad.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm#34,
Right, Wayne….Joe Biden would never make anything up…Does the name Neil Kinnock mean anything to you?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pmComment by joe cantwell — February 11, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Also, you were right to note that Lantos’ office said he does not discuss Oval Office conversations. To omit that fact is to leave the reader with the impression that Lantos might not have wanted to confirm it because it wasn’t true. At least, that’s the way the other poster worded it, so as to create an aura of doubt about the story’s veracity where none was necessary. Has anyone come forward since that story was published to say emphatically that it never happened at all? I haven’t heard any.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pmComment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
and where did this information come from? why from “anti-Bush journalist” Ron Suskind’s own article. didn’t mention that, did you ex-lax? clearly mr. suskind practices full disclosure. it is equally clear, ex-lax, that you do not.
but then you are a troll. no standards require for that job, eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pmComment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
ex-lax an old “cut and paster” like you is upset about plagiarism?
pot meet kettle.
eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pmGive it a rest, Exley, and stop trying to claim that I said things I didn’t. You do not know how to honestly debate, you know that?
You deliberately omitted the point about Lantos’ office saying he wouldn’t discuss the incident because it took place in the Oval Office, and used his silence to imply that the story never happened. And I never said that Biden wouldn’t never make things up. Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pmJoe, You are flailing. I recommend your read posting #16 one more time. It is quite clear in the posting that the story comes from a Ron Suskind article and that Suskind admits in the article that he only has one source for the story and that is Joe Biden. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Lantos never confirmed the alleged incident
Now, if only Wayne had disclosed this information initially, it would have prevented your confusion. But I am happy to have cleared it up for you.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm#39, Next time you post something like this highly dubious story, you should disclose that it comes from an anti-Bush journalist who had only one questionable source and that that the person who allegedly had this conversation with Bush (Lantos) never confirmed the story.
You tried to play cute, Wayne, and you got caught. No big deal. Just be more upfront next time.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pm“(Side note: Wayne, I can’t help but notice that you failed to mention that Rep. Lantos never confirmed that story and anti-Bush journalist Ron Suskind’s only source for that story was Democrat Sen. Joe Biden. Full discosure next time, Wayne).”
ex-lax, show me the part where you credit your source for this information.
eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pmYou tried to play cute, Wayne, and you got caught. No big deal. Just be more upfront next time.
Comment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
don’t look now ex-lax but you’re “flailing”.
cute?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pmRUC is a great favorite on TP and the Zoo. :-)
Comment by Zooey — February 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
RUC is a great favorite on TP and the Zoo. :-)
Comment by Zooey — February 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
I agree completely, Zooey. Both TP and The Zoo are better for having RUC post there. :-)
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — February 11, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Recommend (2) | Report Abuse
Holy crap, now I can’t leave the room, as my head is too large to fit through the doorway!
February 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pmExley:
you failed to mention that Rep. Lantos never confirmed that story
Actual story:
Lantos, through a spokesman, says it is a longstanding policy of his not to discuss Oval Office meetings.
Not the same thing at all.
But we don’t expect trolls to understand the difference.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pmTo be sure, Mr. Lantos was a class act, a rarity in Congress these days.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pmComment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Your attempts to discredit the story are pathetic and typical of a conservative mindset. can you find a single source who will absolutely (and credibly) flat out say that oncident never, ever happened? Or are you just going to use the tired conservative tactic of attacking the messenger (Susskind) and not what the message?
You take great pains to point out that Susskind is “anti-Bush”, and imply that this alone is reason enough to discredit the story, as if there must be some bias in it. What, does that mean that Susskind would never tell the truth? So what if he dislikes Bush? What does that have to do with the veracity of his story? By your logic, shouldn’t we just assume that any story by a “pro-Bush” journalist should be treated as equally biased and untrustworthy?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pmmr. lantos was an accute observer of the political landscape.
his comments during the 2006 election cycle:
The Democrats will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives this fall thanks in part to the scandal surrounding Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Tom Lantos predicted Thursday.
“Our chances of taking the Senate have also improved,” said Rep. Lantos, D-San Mateo. Either way, he said, the party’s new power will lead to a more multilateral approach to foreign policy, more funding for education, and a more progressive tax system.
“Whether you’re liberal, conservative or moderate, you must be sickened by this episode,” Lantos said of Foley’s sexually provocative messages to congressional pages, which House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., reportedly knew about before they were made public. He said he believes the scandal will influence undecided voters and dampen turnout from the Republican party’s religious conservative base.
“If it turns out it was a deliberate attempt to cover up, I think he will resign,” Lantos said of Hastert. “If it’s a case of negligence, I wouldn’t want to second-guess him on that, but I would be very surprised if the Republicans next year elect him as speaker, or more likely, minority leader.”
The comment about Republicans electing a minority leader reflects Lantos’ belief that Democrats will gain more than the 15 seats needed to become the majority party in the House. That would make Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, majority leader, a prospect that Lantos said he welcomes.
Lantos, if re-elected, said he would work to rebuild the country’s fractured relations with allies and international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Lantos also said he expected that the bulk of U.S. troops would be out of Iraq within 12 to 15 months no matter who is elected. As for President Bush’s determination to “stay the course,” Lantos referred to the recent Bob Woodward book critical of the administration’s policies, saying, “In my judgment, the administration is indeed in a state of denial.”
from the redwood city daily news
10.06.06
rip tom lantos
February 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pmFlag the Exley troll.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pmThis is truly a sad day for his family, friends, and all who love America. This man was lucky enough to survive one of the most horrrible chapters of human history and able to serve Americans as a Congressman. He will be missed and those who really knew him are going to miss a good friend and ally. He was truly blessed not to have suffered the fate of millions who were murdered by Hilter and his evil empire. For those people who choose to bring up what ever negative things they can find I say: You are without honor if you attack a dead man who isn’t here to defend himself.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — February 11, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
there is no proof that suskind is an “anti bush” journalist. that is an ex-lax smear.
however there is proof he while working for the wall street journal in 1995 he won the pulitzer prize for feature writing.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pmFor some reason my mind read the headline as Rep. Tom Delay passes away. Just wishful thinking I guess.
Rest in peace Tom Lantos, the wrong Tom got cancer.
Buck Fush
February 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm#47 “By your logic, shouldn’t we just assume that any story by a “pro-Bush†journalist should be treated as equally biased and untrustworthy?”
Sure…And that, Wayne, is why you rarely see me using stories from, say, National Review or Weekly Standard, to prove or back up a point I am trying to make. Those are ideological / partisan publciations. You chose to cite a partisan writer to make a point. Accordingly, your assertion fell flat.
You should follow my example. Stick with objective, neutral sources of information.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pmYou should follow my example. Stick with objective, neutral sources of information.
Comment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
ex-lax you quote ron suskind, fail to source his article and then smear him without proof. a troll hat trick.
from the bible:
Luke 4:23. And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pmJoe, You really do seem to have reading comprehension problems today. Once again, read posting #16. You will notice that it was I — not Wayne — who pointed out that the source of Wayne’s inappropriate posting #9 was an article written by Ron Suskind
February 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pmI say that you are full of shit, Exley. Further, I claim that this is an undisputed fact.
Now, would your denying it make that statement any less true? No, it does not. Would you hiring people to say it wasn’t true make it any less true? No, it would not. Does the fact that I am a proud Liberal make what I said about you any less true? No, it does not.
The story I brought up happened, Exley, whether you like it or not. And you are incapable of finding a single credible source that says it never happened. So stop trying to make it sound like just because I don’t have affidavits from everyone who was in the room at the time, the story can’t be true. You have produced exactly ZERO evidence that it was not true. So STFU and go away.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm— who pointed out that the source of Wayne’s inappropriate posting #9 was an article written by Ron Suskind
Comment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
whom you failed to source, quoted without crediting and then smeared. further you then go on to lecture wayne about sticking to “objective, neutral sources of information.”
let’s review. you smear suskind as an “anti bush” journalist but then you quote him in your rebuttal. clearly your definition of “objective, neutral sources of information” is flexible.
ex-lax, caught trying to have your cake and eat too,
eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pmWayne,
Your child-like belief that the alleged incident happened based solely on the word of Joe Biden (I assume you have yet to Google ‘Neil Kinnock’…You really should) is amusing…I particularly enjoyed the fact that the blogger to whom you linked purposely omitted the fact that it was Biden, obviously knowing that Biden is hardly a credible source.
I can tell you are frustrated that I actually dug a little deeper and exposed the fact that the alleged incident was reported only by Joe ‘Kinnock’ Biden.
Your little hide-and-seek game failed, Wayne.
In a way, it is just that you are so embarrassed, Wayne. It was very tacky and inappropriate of you to use a thread dedicated to offering condolences to a great American to post some silly and highly suspect story in an effort to make President Bush seem uninformed.
Pick your spots better next time, Wayne. And cite more credible sources.
You may have good taste in baseball teams, but that does not excuse this display here today, Wayne.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pmex-lax. poor, poor ex-lax.
from the bible:
Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?
Luke 12:56
February 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pmExley thinks he can impugn the good name of Wayne A. Schneider, who has established a reputation as one of the most insightful and articulate posters on these boards.
Pick your targets a little better next time, Exley. You can’t touch Wayne.
You’re looking kind of silly.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:02 pmRalph.
Wayne is a good man and a fellow Mets fan. I respect Wayne. He simply dropped the ball here.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pmNo, Exley, he didn’t drop the ball here. You’re mistaken.
Your entire critique of his post was to smear the messenger. That’s a typical right-wing tactic that is losing its potency.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pmRalph.
Pointing out that the messengers (Suskind and Biden) are notoriously unreliable and biased is hardly “smearing.” As I pointed out, even the blogger to whom Wayne linked omitted the fact that Suskind’s only source for this tale was Joe Biden.
I also pointed out the unassailable fact that Rep. Lantos never confirmed Biden’s tale. Bringing all of these facts to light may make you uncomfortable since they utterly undermine the credibility of the tale, but they are facts nonetheless and therefore indisputable.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:45 pmComment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
sorry, ex-lax. you failed to mention that you quoted suskind’s article to try and make your point. you further compounded your error by sanctimoniously telling wayne that you only “use objective, neutral sources of information.” earlier you claimed that suskind was an “anti-Bush journalist.” you belie your own source ex-lax. that’s pretzel logic.
eh?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pmPointing out that the messengers (Suskind and Biden) are notoriously unreliable and biased is hardly “smearing.†As I pointed out, even the blogger to whom Wayne linked omitted the fact that Suskind’s only source for this tale was Joe Biden.
I also pointed out the unassailable fact that Rep. Lantos never confirmed Biden’s tale. Bringing all of these facts to light may make you uncomfortable since they utterly undermine the credibility of the tale, but they are facts nonetheless and therefore indisputable.
Comment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Wrong, Exley.
Susskind is a well-respected journalist who won a Pulitzer while writing for the Wall Street journal — hardly a bastion of leftist thinking, but world-renowned for its reporting excellence. What evidence do you have that he is “unreliable”?
Biden is a long-serving and distinguished Senator. The incident that you embrace in order to charaterize him as “unreliable” is described thusly in wikipedia:
In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video.
Third, as has been pointed out to you several times, the characterization that “Lantos never confirmed Biden’s tale” is dishonest in that you strive deperately to leave the impression that he refused because it was untrue. In fact, Lantos refused to break his longstanding policy of not commenting on oval office meetings. You take an honorable stance of an honorable man and try to use it to impugn the credibility of another dedicated public servant.
You try to spin an extremely ungenerous (more likely mean-spirited) reading of Joe Biden’s single mistake into a blanket condemnation of the man’s character, and as far as I can tell, the only beef you have with Suskind is that he wrote critically about the president.
Based on this collection of delusions, you have attempted to “prove” that the incident never happened, and that Wayne was being dishonest in presenting it.
You are the one who has dropped the ball, Exley. Every move you have made in this argument has been at the very least demeaning to the memory of an excellent gentleman and public service, and at the most has been dishonest.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:32 pmBut, credit where credit is due Exley — you inspired me to actually research “Biden Neil Kinnock”. If I hadn’t, I might have been more vulnerable to accepting the crap you were sowing.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
good post ralph, but in dealing with people like ex-lax please remember this; a paid political operative (”troll”) never admits error, fabrication or lying. it’s just not part of the job description. their task is to deny, obfuscate and to spin. and most importantly keep on lying. without lying conservatism would wither on the vine and die. it needs the fresh manure that trolls like ex-lax provide for it.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pmBut, credit where credit is due Exley — you inspired me to actually research “Biden Neil Kinnockâ€. If I hadn’t, I might have been more vulnerable to accepting the crap you were sowing.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
excellent follow ralph! can you imagine ex-lax looking at both sides of an argument? neither can i.
he’s just not that liberal.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pmThanks, joe.
Do you think I hurt Exley’s feelings?
Maybe I shouldn’t have said he was “dishonest”?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pmMaybe I shouldn’t have said he was “dishonest�
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
it’s his job, ralph.
what else can he do?
February 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pmYou’re right, joe, This is WAR, dammit! We can’t afford to worry about people’s damn feelings when we got the Islamoliberalfascistmoonbat horde out there just a-waitin’ to come slaughter us and plunder our wimmen!
February 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pmDo you think I hurt Exley’s feelings?
Maybe I shouldn’t have said he was “dishonest�
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Thanks, ralph. I appreciate the kind words. And don’t feel bad about calling him “dishonest”. I said he was full of shit. And your excellent anlysis shows that. I had already known about Biden and the Kinnock speech (though I did not know the detail about how the version caught on video was the only time he did not properly attribute it; that sucks.) I admire the way you deconstructed his argument and technique. You do understand how conservatives distort and manipulate the facts in order to make others believe something that is not true. And when you point this out to them, they change the subject and claim that you should have brought up x,y,and z and that because you didn’t, you weren’t being “honest”.
And our friend here deserves the treatment he gets because he is a dishonest debater. He has no proof that the story is not true, so he attacks the people who told it. I have not heard one person deny that this incident ever happened. It’s one thing to refuse to disclose the contents of actual Oval Office discusssions. It’s another thing to deny any such incidents happened. If it never did, I would have thought that at that meeting would have come forward and said so. That they didn’t, and that many people feel as Tom Lantos did about such conversations, leads me to believe that there is no reason to doubt that the incident took place.
Having said all of that, my point was to provide an example of how Mr. Lantos possessed a tremendous amount of class. Something our conservative detractors lack in abundance.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pmHTML error; the above should have read:
If it never did, I would have thought that someone at that meeting would have come forward and said so. That they didn’t, and that many people feel as Tom Lantos did about such conversations, leads me to believe that there is no reason to doubt that the incident took place.
Having said all of that, my point was to provide an example of how Mr. Lantos possessed a tremendous amount of class. Something our conservative detractors lack in abundance.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pmThank you, friends, for your support today.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pmYou’re right, Wayne. Your original point was well taken — that Mr. Lantos possessed a tremendous amount of class. It’s a shame that Exley had to miss that point entirely in his sad attempt to discredit the story, and by extension, you, in a thread devoted to the man’s passing.
It could have been pointed out, when Exley was claiming that Lantos “never confirmed the story” that one could just as truthfully say that Lantos never DENIED the story. But ultimately, I think it was unnecessary, as the troll has crawled back under his bridge for the time being.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pmThanks, ralph. You know, I know that people won’t talk about things that actually happened within the Oval Office, but why would not a single person have come forward to deny that this exchange happened if it really didn’t? If it never actually happened, I would have thought that we would have heard that from someone who was there by now. We haven’t, which just lends even more credence to the story. So, I believe it’s true: Bush made an ass of himself trying to assert something everyone else in the room knew was wrong. To date, no one who was there has come forward to deny this story’s truth. It happened, no matter what the trolls choose to believe.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pmWayne, your belief is well-supported by the extensive public record of Bush’s stupid comments and base ignorance of the world around him.
I’d say anyone who reviews the record has got to say that given the evidence, it’s a whole lot likelier that it happened.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:01 pmRalph, Wayne,
I am glad that at my suggestion you decided to do a little research and learn about the Joe Biden-Neil Kinnock story. It was quite clear that Wayne was not aware of it prior to my suggestion that he look it up. Otherwise he never would have attempted to argue that the most likely apocryphal story was accurate. I congratulate you on your willingness to learn about things about which you were previously unaware.
As much as you folks might try to obfuscate, the facts are that 1) the story told by Suskind is hearsay, which is not considered as reliable;
2) from one (partisan) source (in contravention of basic journalistic standards which call for at least two sources in such situations);
3) that the one partisan source is a known exaggerator and prevaricator (as I have taught you via the Kinnock incident);
and 4) Lantos never confirmed the alleged incident.
In spite of these undeniable facts, Wayne (amusingly and somewhat desperately) clings to his belief that the tale is true, despite a complete lack of reliable evidence.
I also find it interesting that while Suskind admits that he only had one source (Biden) for the alleged Oval Office conversation (A source that Wayne attempted to hide), Suskind fails to provide any source for the supposed conversation between Lantos and Bush at the White House Christmas Party. What was the source at that conversation, Wayne?
So, as my unassailable recitation of the facts show (as well as your newly discovered information about the Joe Biden-Neil Kinnock incident), the Suskind tale has almost zero support.
As I said, Wayne, next time you attempt to make an assertion, make certain of your facts and consider the source.
Meanwhile, let us remember Rep. Lantos not by the unproven and most likely false words attributed to him by Suskind and Biden and Wayne, let us remember him by his words that are on the public record and undeniably his:
Here’s Rep. Lantos said at the dedication ceremony of the Victims of Communism Memorial last year:
“Communism was not the only monstrous phenomenon determined to destroy free and open societies,†said Lantos, who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, said he had fought against Nazism and communism, and “it is now my privilege to fight against Islamic terrorism determined to take us back 13 centuries.â€
February 11th, 2008 at 9:59 pmfor CHRISSAKES !!!
bunch of inconsiderate idjits arguing like children…
this is not the PLACE.
ugh.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am