Will Bunch: ‘I Can’t Imagine’ Torture ‘Would Have Been Condoned’ By Reagan
Will Bunch: ‘I Can’t Imagine’ Torture ‘Would Have Been Condoned’ By Reagan
During the Bush administration, conservatives heralded Ronald Reagan’s own struggle against terrorism as the ideal model for George W. Bush. Frank Gaffney hoped Bush “not only memorializes Ronald Reagan’s moral compass and strategic vision but emulates them,” while Rich Lowry cited Reagan to boost Bush’s 2004 relection chances: “History does move, especially when determined men give it a push.”
ThinkProgress sat down with Will Bunch, author of “Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future” (and renowned blogger), to ask him whether he, too, saw a straight line from the Gipper to Bush’s war on terror. Bunch asserted that “Reagan’s words have been totally bastardized” by conservatives, and said that Reagan never would have condoned some of Bush’s techniques, especially torture:
BUNCH: I do think that some of the swaggering rhetoric that Reagan used…have been I think misinterpreted by Republicans that this was his actual policy, when actually his policies didn’t have the same kind of cowboy attitude that some of his rhetoric did. I can’t imagine, particularly torture, I just doubt that would have been something that would have been condoned during the Reagan administration.
He actually was kind of a — in fact this was used in a headline in the Washington Post — he was actually kind of a pussycat so to speak when it came to the job of killing people through various acts of war.
Watch it:
Indeed, in 1988 Reagan signed the U.N. convention against torture — which the Bush administration later called “quaint.” Bush’s departure from Reagan wasn’t confined to torture. According to Lou Cannon of the Washington Post, Reagan said that any retaliation that killed innocent civilians is “itself a terrorist act.” Bunch observed at TPM Cafe this week, “As relates to Iraq, Reagan would have been appalled at the military strategy underpinning the March 2003 assault, the heavy bombing tactic known as ’shock and awe.’”
Transcript:
BUNCH: I do think that some of the swaggering rhetoric that Reagan used — not just the “evil empire” speech, I mean the “tear down this wall” speech on which the title “Tear Down This Myth” is based on — have been I think misinterpreted by Republicans that this was his actual policy, when actually his policies didn’t have the same kind of cowboy attitude that some of his rhetoric did. I can’t imagine, particularly torture, I just doubt that would have been something that would have been condoned during the Reagan administration. He actually was kind of a — in fact, this was used in a headline in the Washington Post — he was actually kind of a pussycat so to speak, when it came to killing — the job of killing people through various acts of war. Reagan vetoed a number of proposed military actions that would have involved killing civilians in other countries. And in 25 years we’ve gone from that to Shock and Awe, where we have a military program that’s aimed at promoting massive civilian casualties to create this idea of shock and awe. So I think the moral there is the way that Reagan’s words have been totally bastardized, basically, to justify things in his name that I don’t think he would have done had he been president today.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Torture, no. Death squads, yes.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:38 amtorture no, providing terrorists in the mideast with weapons to fund death squads in central america, hells yeah.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:42 amI don’t think it would have mattered what – or if – Reagan condoned. He was the front man for a nefarious group of criminal — too simplistic in thought to realize that the script they gave him was just that – a script.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:42 amHe claims he didn’t know about Iran-Contra either.
two words: plausible deniability.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:44 amjust like bush. he claims he never said saddam had nukes, he just said he didn’t want the smoking gun to be in the shape of a mushroom cloud. he says he never said Al Quida was connected with saddam, his minions did, but not him, and they just claimed there was intel pointing at that.
They all claim that everyone was wrong, that the intel was bad, but they never admit they crafted the bad intel.
Bush never tortured, just ask him. what he did was change the definition of torture so he could claim he wasn’t doing that.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:48 amTrying to discern major differences between the republican ideologies of Reagan vs Bush is nothing more than turd polishing.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:52 amNothing is easier than attributing a position to someone who is dead and incapable of contradicting you.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:54 amJesus would disagree with you.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:56 amTorture suspected terrorists?
He’d have sold them weapons.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:56 amWhen a West Berlin disco was bombed in 1986 (officially blamed on agents working for Libya), Reagan awarded military survivors the Purple Heart for being wounded in the “War on Terror”. Many of us in the military at the time didn’t think people partying at a disco should be considered as wounded in action, especially in a “war” against a noun. Our then-Commander-in-Chief really had us guessing sometimes. Was he crazy or demented? Now we know.
Remember, Conservative America, Reagan is dead.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pmMr. Phlippy says:
It’s funny also how the ilicit and illegal operations of an individual or group of individuals are spun and softened and even conveniently forgotten by those who wish to hold said individuals up as saints.
Next.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pmWill Bunch: ‘I Can’t Imagine’ Torture ‘Would Have Been Condoned’ By Reagan
Tell that to the poor and middle class!
February 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pmTundra Says:
Jesus would disagree with you.
If he actually existed.
So would Buddha, for that matter.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pmhow apropos… found, via C&L:
Exhuming the Welfare Queen
by RussellKing
[...] What follows below may be helpful to you as you encounter the Welfare Queen talking point over the next few months.
[some amazing stats and graphs... so simple!]
http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2009/2/20/11316/1850
the ‘welfare industrial complex’ vx the ‘military industrial complex’…
February 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pmand don’t forget the “Wealthfare — welfare for the wealthy and for corporations.”
Will Bunch: ‘I Can’t Imagine’ Torture ‘Would Have Been Condoned’ By Reagan»
– - No? Listen pal, I know torture. I’ve had to watch Bedtime For Bonzo.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pmHow do you know oh wise one? People are always judged by thier behavior retrospectively….don’t be a ridiculous fool.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pmTundra sez: “Jesus would disagree with you.”
February 21st, 2009 at 11:56 am
How?
Being dead and all (if not actually a myth, which would have difficulty agreeing OR disagreeing).
February 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm/facepalm
A witty saying proves nothing.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:44 pmTundra says:
Oh, yes, and Tundra also said:
Witty!
February 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pmNice to see so many folks do, in fact, still remember what a blood-soaked monster Reagan was.
The mistake Will Bunch makes lies in taking the Raygun myth for fact.
Let me add one more: St. Ronnie (who never served in the military outside of WWII “Why Does It Hurt When I Pee” films) had the clear, cogent advice of his military commanders to leave those marines aboard ship off the Lebanese coast. From that ship, they could be choppered to any hotspot where they were needed. St. Ronnie, however, wanted to “show the flag,” and ordered those Marines into the barracks at Beirut. Then they got dead.
Will Bunch, for all I often admire his writing, would do well to leave the St. Ronnie hagiography to the wingnuts who do it endlessly. It’s not like there’s a vaccuum or anything.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pmAs relates to Iraq, Reagan would have been appalled at the military strategy underpinning the March 2003 assault, the heavy bombing tactic known as ’shock and awe.’
Wasn’t he as gung-ho as Nixon during Vietnam? He sure didn’t raise a fuss about the bombing then, and I don’t think his aggressive military stance changed much over the decades.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:50 pmNothing says competence more than a man who calls his wife “mommy”.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pmPerhaps I should have said his “aggressive military facade.” Because we all know when the chips were down, he chickened out, and made a deal with the same terrorists who were holding Americans hostage.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
RayGun supported the Contras, he obviously supported torture like the rest of the CONservative SCUM of the GOP!
Not just torture, but assassination — shoot a nun or a bishop, no big deal! It’s all in the name of anti-communism.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:56 pmCould you go easy on the all caps, RHF?
I’ve got a hangover, and you don’t need to shout. A wry chuckle works just as well, and it doesn’t add to the throbbing – the damned, ever present throbbing…
February 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pmIt is pretty clear to me that by the time Reagan had to testify on the Iran-Contra deal, he was beginning to be gripped by the Alzheimer’s that killed him.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pmI won’t be surprised if this a near-troll-less thread. Reagan groupies aren’t allowed on the rest-home computer until after the 3:00 sponge bath.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pmRepublican corruption is usually a building-block process, where one republican president ups the corruption ante to burnish the legacy of his republican predecessor(s). “I long for the days where corruption wasn’t as bad. I’d take the Reagan years over the Bush years any day.”
That is what George W. Bush means when he says history will vindicate him. He’s counting on his administration to be held unaccountable so the way is paved for more republicans to commit worse crimes. (At this point, wouldn’t that mean courting the largest asteroid to hit planet Earth?)
February 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pmThat is what George W. Bush means when he says history will vindicate him. He’s counting on his administration to be held unaccountable so the way is paved for more republicans to commit worse crimes. (At this point, wouldn’t that mean courting the largest asteroid to hit planet Earth?)
And Americans look back on the era, and consider it’s quaintness; that we only tortured them…
February 21st, 2009 at 1:11 pmWendyW Says:
It is pretty clear to me that by the time Reagan had to testify on the Iran-Contra deal, he was beginning to be gripped by the Alzheimer’s that killed him.
I remember seeing Reagan testify about that. He was asked if he was familiar with the operation that came to be known as the “Iran-Contra Affair.” He said it was an operation “taken at my behest.” It was, of course, illegal and unconstitutional. Reagan lovers often forget how far outside the law Reagan liked to act.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:18 pmFor if you consider it, if non-specific “enemy combattants” can be tortured, because they don’t fit the specific legal definition, what “laws” preclude using them for slave labor, and harvesting their organs? Where is the moral line?
February 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
I remember seeing Reagan testify about that. He was asked if he was familiar with the operation that came to be known as the “Iran-Contra Affair.” He said it was an operation “taken at my behest.” It was, of course, illegal and unconstitutional. Reagan lovers often forget how far outside the law Reagan liked to act.
I don’t think they “forget”, I think they either didn’t know or didn’t care. All they “know” is that Reagan single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Empire and brought sunlight to America once again. They ignore the support of the Contras, the dirty dealings with Iran, cutting and running in Beirut, the deficit . . . well, actually, they ignore the reality of the entire hideous eight years.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pmThe Entire Reagan Presidency was an ACT.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pmMr. Philby Says:
I wonder if the hostages would share your tarnished opinion…..
I forgot, sponge baths are after dinner, at Reagan Acres.
He was a traitor. Live with it.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:30 pmAnd Reagan’s perfidy actually spurred additional hostage taking, after the crisis was over.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pmTundra Says:
Nothing is easier than attributing a position to someone who is dead and incapable of contradicting you.
Jesus would disagree with you.
Jesus isn’t dead you pagan. On the third day he rose from the dead and walked among us,then he rose to the right hand of God where he sits to this day, to come down again and take the chosen few home while he sits in judgement on the rest of them. He will then reign supreme on earth for 1000 years of peace.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:36 pmOh I thought he was dead. Not that I’ve read the bible.
I shall rephrase then
Mother Theresa woulld disagree with you
February 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pmMr. Philby Says:
“That was an ACT OF TREASON!”
I wonder if the hostages would share your tarnished opinion…..
Ah, yes, the hostages. These would be the hostages “coincidentally” released when Reagan took office, right?
February 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pmMr. P,
Listen you idjut, post something worth rebutting. or S T F U
Pathetic Loser.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pmBunch: I can’t imagine, particularly torture, I just doubt that would have been something that would have been condoned during the Reagan administration.
This is what’s known as a fallacy; taking a presumption that cannot possibly be verified and creating a strawman argument to your advantage.
People arguing this position are arguing nothing at all.
Unfortunately, Obama does appear to condone infinite detention and imprisonment without legal recourse:
And this, from Greenwald, who has extended a great deal of latitude to Obama, still finds his continuing of the bush policies cause for concern:
If “Constitutional Scholar” Obama is just a smarter bush, he’s still a lying, unlawful b@stard to me, no better than bush.
Our Constitution is still viewed with contempt and an inconvenience to our leadershi(t).
February 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pmWow, only a month in Office and our new President is getting railed on for reversing everything the chimpfurer phucked up.
Doh! But, but I thought he has the “Magic Wand” ?
Geez, guess there is not satisfying some.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pmrailed on for not reversing everything
February 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pmPresident Reagan was an Actor, before entering the “Role of a Lifetime” as a Politician.
Actors make very dangerous Politicians, because they can Present a Script Convincingly…even if it is Fiction.
Reagan was very good at making Points that sounded really Good, but were Factually Baseless. The Press at the time, enamoured with Reagan’s Popularity, failed to Challenge his Accuracy…so he paid no Price for Being Wrong.
Fortunately, the Internet and the Blogosphere changed all that. Lies, half truths, and dissembling are now exposed in a nanosecond.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pmshould we ask all the peoples who’s lives bush saved if torture in thier name and on their behalf was treason?
When bad people like raygun and bush do bad things, people get hurt.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:00 pm58. RandomChaos Says: Wow, only a month in Office and our new President is getting railed on for reversing everything the chimpfurer phucked up.
Obviously, you didn’t read the linked article before displaying your ignorance. This was not a question of ‘time’ since Obama didn’t ask for any for further review of the situation (something he has employed before.)
Obama’s team signaled a continuation of bush’s policies. That is unacceptable whether you’ve been around a month, a year, or 10 minutes. It is a standing violation of the Constitution.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:05 pmActually, I don’t think the press was enamored with Reagan while he was president, as they were later. He was not wildly popular with the people.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pmI say….I said bad people.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:10 pmbf, do you believe in allah?
As an icon of belief for millions of people, like the others.
Well, obama just ok’d the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. What say you?
Good, they can go back up my grandson, who’s in a FOB.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pm63.Mr. Philby Says: Oh, the irony….
Oh, and philby, based on your previous posts, this is clearly less about your ‘concern’ for the Constitutional rights of US-detained prisoners and more about an opportunity to heap criticism on an opposition party that happens to have trounced the republicans: the most fascist, oligarchical gaggle of sub-humans this side of purgatory.
Don’t coast on my coattails, please. Your assent is not an asset.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pmWiley,
I don’t Agree with you assessment of Reagan’s Popularity.
In the 1984 Election (Following one of the worst recessions in American History) Reagan won Every State in the Union except Mondale’s Home State of Minnesota ( which Mondale Barely won by less than 1%) and the District of Columbia.
Sounds Popular to Me.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pmMr. Philby Says:
“Actors make very dangerous Politicians,”
An al franken supporter, I bet. :)
Touché
February 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pmyou got nothing. People get hurt sometimes when you do the right thing for the right reasons.
People always get hurt when you are an evil bastard war monger……
February 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pmAnd now..NOW..I am really..OUTTA HERE..good news for the Font Nazi’s I am sure…
It’s just ineffective after a few posts. But if it inflates your sense of self-worth, go right ahead and caps lock for all I care.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pmMr. Philby Says:
An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
So the violence is now internecine. Your point?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pmMr. Philby Says:
“Actors make very dangerous Politicians,”
An al franken supporter, I bet. :)
Franken is A Commedian…big difference.
And yes I do support him because he is Smart, Honest, and he does his Homework.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pmReagan wasn’t Funny!
February 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm74. Mr. Philby Says: An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period. So how about it? Will some enterprising MSM member ask Obama if he’ll call for a police surge to protect the lives of his own Illinois constitutents?
Lessee; you’re comparing a ‘free’ society with an illegal occupation, without even qualifying the population density numbers or the fact that we are wiping out thousands of Iraqis yearly via unregulated deathsquads that have no governing laws…and that’s just the beginning of the list of scatter-shot ignorance floating around in your post.
What kind of idiot are you, philby?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pmThat’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
And how many Iraqis? The situation is worse that during Saddam’s regime. At least then, we weren’t burning through 12 billion a month.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pmhttp://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090221/Terror.Detainees/
When Obama continues Bush policy, it weakens the argument that Bush was just a cowboy that wanted to deny people their rights and torture them.
When Obama continues Bush policy, it strengthens the possibility that some of those policies, while troubling, had some purpose.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pmWe haven’t forgotten that both of these wars are bush’s wars……you shouldn’t either.
If the situation had been handled correctly from the beginning how many people would still be alive, huh?
I mean, they would be in prison if Clinton had been running things at the time……facts can be so inconvenient.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pmHanshiro,
“We are trying to remain hopeful that the message being conveyed is that the new administration is still working on its position regarding the applicability of the laws of war — the Geneva Conventions — and international human rights treaties that apply to everyone in detention there.”
Before you go calling people ignorant Hans, take a look in the mirror.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pmIt is ignorant to assume that these decisions and changes are going to be taken emmediatly.
I am willing to wait awhile longer BEFORE I pass my judgement.
You obviously already have and that is too bad.
78. Mr. Philby Says: “the most fascist, oligarchical gaggle of sub-humans this side of purgatory.” Are you referring to obamas 5 executive decisions in one week?
No, about your ideological family, most of whom doubtless shares your basic inability to accurately cut-and-paste a simple sentence. My entire quote was this:
“Oh, and philby, based on your previous posts, this is clearly less about your ‘concern’ for the Constitutional rights of US-detained prisoners and more about an opportunity to heap criticism on an opposition party that happens to have trounced the republicans: the most fascist, oligarchical gaggle of sub-humans this side of purgatory.”
I said you were no asset…but you do have the ‘a ss’ part down.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pmor that the process was so perverted and convoluted that it will be hard to fix the mess that bush has gotten us all into…….
beat the drum you and hanshiro……but it’s just a thud.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pmMr. Philby Says:
Are you referring to obamas 5 executive decisions in one week?
You mean the executive orders reversing Bush’s executive orders? Obama’s been doing a pretty good job of getting out of Congress’ way.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pmYou’re smart…..figure it out. Do your own homework instead of playing games when you have been shown to be an ignorant ass.
World trade bombers under Clinton are still in prison…..inconvenient I know, because it is a fact.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pmHow’s life been, Dr. Matt? I’d have to say you and EugeneDebs are the go-to guys for giving the trolls an old-fashioned beating.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pmWhen Obama continues Bush policy, it strengthens the possibility that some of those policies, while troubling, had some purpose.
Weak conflation, considering detainees’ status is reviewed every six months, and while not all Bush policies were flawed, this Obama affirmation doesn’t extinguish Bush’s culpability for rendition-for-torture.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pmMr. Philby Says:
Mommy?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm87.backup Says: When Obama continues Bush policy, it strengthens the possibility that some of those policies, while troubling, had some purpose.
This is complete crap!
Greenwald predicted that bush-sucks would crawl out of the woodwork to justify their village idiot:
Also this:
Geez, read the article before declaring your uninformed position.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pmbarfly. I agree with what you are saying. I’m just saying that by continuing some of the practice, it strenghens the argument that Bush’s policy to deny prisoner rights, must of had some purpose. If there was no purpose, Obama would obviously not continue the practice.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pmOK hanshiro,
I give. Your right, Obama is Bush.
I have to go shoot myself now.
pffft
February 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pmI wish EugeneDebs was here to tell you just how ignorant you are.
Compare people put in prison or executed using police compared to bush’s illegal wars……you are a fool.
oh by the way….cole:
On 29 September 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing.
go blow your nose and go out and play.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm93.Fred Says: beat the drum you and hanshiro……but it’s just a thud.
Greenwald:
Oh, snap…
February 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm104. RandomChaos Says: OK hanshiro, I give. Your right, Obama is Bush. I have to go shoot myself now.
That’s not only not what I said, but not what the linked article says either…but don’t let that stop you..
February 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pmMr. Phily,
You do understand that the bombingof the USS Cole happened right before Clinton left office, don’t you? I mean, did you want him to stay in office so he could go after the perpetrators? There wasn’t enough time to find and prosecute them.
I’ll tell you what they did do. They came up with an anti-terrorism strategy and handed it off to the Bush Administration who then did nothing with those recommendations – until after 9/11. That’s when the Bush Adminsitration started implementing the recommendations from the Clinton Administration on how to respond to the Cole bombing.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pmWho was President that started the investigation leading to the capture and conviction of Cole Bombers?
Who was the President that did Nothing? ;-)
February 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pmMr. Philby Says:
“On 29 September 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing.”
Who was president? :)
Of Yemen?
February 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pmHanshiro says,
“If “Constitutional Scholar” Obama is just a smarter bush, he’s still a lying, unlawful b@stard to me, no better than bush.
Our Constitution is still viewed with contempt and an inconvenience to our leadershi(t).”
My reading comprehension is pretty decent friend.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pmMr. Felon
9/11
Anthrax
Virginia Tech
Allowed Bin Laden to escape
Detainees held indefinetely w/o charges
Who was president? :)
February 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pmYou’re so intent on being right that you make “snap” judgments. I don’t have much respect for that.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:12 pmI support Obama and trust he will try to make the best decisions for America. Much like I trusted Bush.
But, hanshiro has a point.
I believe progressives need to jump off the fence on this issue. Many people see that Obama is continuing many of Bush’s policies in foreign affairs:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83595§ionid=3510302
If you oppose Bush and his handling of foreign affairs, I understand. But what I don’t understand is opposing Bush policy and then ignoring the continuing of the same policies under Obama.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pmObama widens missile strikes inside Pakistan
The strikes are another sign that President Obama is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy in using American spy agencies against terrorism suspects in Pakistan, as he had promised to do during his presidential campaign. At the same time, Mr. Obama has begun to scale back some of the Bush policies on the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, which he has criticized as counterproductive.
Bold by me for emphesis
February 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pmBill Clinton
February 21st, 2009 at 3:14 pm112. RandomChaos Says: Hanshiro says,
“If “Constitutional Scholar” Obama is just a smarter bush, he’s still a lying, unlawful b@stard to me, no better than bush.
Our Constitution is still viewed with contempt and an inconvenience to our leadershi(t).”
My reading comprehension is pretty decent friend.
And you directly equate what I said to this?
104. RandomChaos Says: OK hanshiro, I give. Your(sic) right, Obama is Bush.
Notwithstanding the two sentiments are worlds apart, if you’re touting your ‘comprehension’ then you must intentionally have distorted my words and intent making you no better than a plain bush-suck liar…no, wait, according to your ‘comprehension’ you ARE a bush-suck liar.
Yes?
February 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pmWell sure he does, it’s on top of his head.
three weeks and you guys are condemning him…..silly and just sad.
We’re all paying attention and you guys know that. We will see but jumping to conclusions just to be right is pathetic.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm115. backup Says: If you oppose Bush and his handling of foreign affairs, I understand. But what I don’t understand is opposing Bush policy and then ignoring the continuing of the same policies under Obama.
This is the point. Thank you, B.
It is not a question of more time as the cases and Obama’s team have demonstrated. I’m not for or against Obama, I prefer the Constitution. (bush, on the other hand, should suffer by leeching in salt mines, but that’s another subject…)
February 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pmHans Hans Hans,
Oh, I’m sorry I misunderstood your intent. But, “no better than” does not “equal”?
My bad.
pffft
February 21st, 2009 at 3:23 pm119.Fred Says:
backup Says:
But, hanshiro has a point.
Well sure he does, it’s on top of his head.
Gotta hand it to you fred, you never let facts or expertise intrude on your indignity. You can’t dispute a Constitutional law and civil rights litigator, so you attack the messenger.
Very GOP…..
February 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pmnamecalling is very GOP, pointing out the fallacy of your logic, not so much…..carry on.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:28 pm121.RandomChaos Says:
Hans Hans Hans,
Oh, I’m sorry I misunderstood your intent. But, “no better than” does not “equal”?
My bad.
pffft
Remedial english:
When you chide someone for being “no better than,” X in your actions that doesn’t, in fact, make you X.
Obama is not bush, but Obama can behave no better than bush on detainee policy.
The US behaved no better than Hitler regarding torture. Is the US Hitler? According to the limited interpretation of RC, it’s the same…
Nope.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pmFred. I’m not condemning Obama. I support him. I think he’s doing a good job. I think he was the better man for the job over McCain. There could be no better person to help deal with social progressive ideas (race issues, gay rights, etc).
Despite my differences with some economic ideology, I am very happy with the job Obama is doing. I want him to be successful.
What I am saying is that progressives should be consistent. You’ve railed against Bush policy for 6 years. I understand that wholeheartedly. There were a lot of mistakes and many of the policies were troublesome. (I believed that although they were troubling, the Bush administration was making those decisions out of a belief that, in totality, they were in the best interest of America and the world). Maybe they weren’t.
But, if progressives opposed the policies under Bush, they should oppose them under Obama or concede that maybe Bush had some legitimate reasons for the policies in the first place.
I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:32 pm123. Fred Says: pointing out the fallacy of your logic
That ‘time’ excuse has been exploded effectively. You have nothing else but decreasingly shallow accusations.
Give me a source, link or even quantitative response that addresses any of my points instead of steadfastly ignoring the holes in your own weak claims and repeating them as if they’re more true the second, fifth or tenth time around.
..for a change.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pmWe do oppose them, stop saying we don’t. Obama has said that he opposes them.
He inherited wasp nests in every corner from bush. You can’t criticize him for how he handles fixing them until you see what he actually does……we aint there yet.
boom shakalaka…..beat the drum guys, we have serious problems right here, right now. this will pan out in time, you will see.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pmbackup Says:
What I am saying is that progressives should be consistent. You’ve railed against Bush policy for 6 years. I understand that wholeheartedly. There were a lot of mistakes and many of the policies were troublesome. (I believed that although they were troubling, the Bush administration was making those decisions out of a belief that, in totality, they were in the best interest of America and the world). Maybe they weren’t.
But, if progressives opposed the policies under Bush, they should oppose them under Obama or concede that maybe Bush had some legitimate reasons for the policies in the first place.
I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
First of all, the Bush System (as failed lawyer John Yoo referred to them) was illegal and unconstitutional. Do not delude yourself about that. Bush acted illegally, and he started doing it long before 9/11.
And what makes you think any of us do not oppose Obama’s continuation of Bush’s foreign policies? You want one of us to say it? Okay, I will:
President Obama is wrong to continue the Bush foreign policies.
There, now I’ve joined Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers on saying Obama is wrong. Satisfied?
We are not happy about this, and we will make him change his policies. But it will take time.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:47 pm127.Fred Says: We do oppose them, stop saying we don’t. Obama has said that he opposes them.
He inherited wasp nests in every corner from bush. You can’t criticize him for how he handles fixing them until you see what he actually does……we aint there yet.
Back to the discredited ‘time’ excuse. fred, facts aren’t even a blip on your radar, are they?
February 21st, 2009 at 3:47 pmBut Fred don’t you see the handwriting on the wall?
He Lied He Lied He Lied. President Obama is not changing anything. He is no better than, just like, no different, not opposite of, the same…. yada yada yada…
But absolutely. He is NOT Bush. Bush is a Pale white dude. Obama is not. LOL
February 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pmReagan didn’t know what his staff was doing, hence Iran-Contra. If he’d had Darth Cheney as VP, and Rummy as defense secretary. we would have tortured those we did not agree with, most often during Ronnie’s naps.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pmNa, you just keep up your anti-progress campaign, I’m sure it is helping everything.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm128. Wayne A. Schneider Says: And what makes you think any of us do not oppose Obama’s continuation of Bush’s foreign policies? You want one of us to say it? Okay, I will:
President Obama is wrong to continue the Bush foreign policies.
There, now I’ve joined Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers on saying Obama is wrong. Satisfied?
We are not happy about this, and we will make him change his policies. But it will take time.
This is the first step to correcting them, thank you, Wayne.
The idea was to bring attention and gravity to this ongoing problem. If Obama hears about it now, there will be more pressure brought to bear.
If people keep extending false race-course markers saying, “it’s too early,” the problem may never be addressed in a timely enough fashion to be effective.
Mainly, there’s a statute of limitations to be working against. The luxury of a honeymoon, in this case, is non-existent.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm130. RandomChaos Says: But Fred don’t you see the handwriting on the wall? He Lied He Lied He Lied. President Obama is not changing anything. He is no better than, just like, no different, not opposite of, the same…. yada yada yada…
So you depart poor english comprehension and go straight to nonsense? Funny how people react when they are demonstrably wrong and have their @ss handed to them; sourced, linked, pwned.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pmWell the sky is blue, why don’t you point that out about a thousand times a day to me?
February 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm132.Fred Says: Na, you just keep up your anti-progress campaign, I’m sure it is helping everything.
Translation: You got nuthin’.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pmAnyone have a count of the number of foreign and domestic policy issues this Administration is trying to address?
Anyone here or the MSM have first hand knowledge of how to deal with these issues?
Anyone here never ever take a look at what’s on the plate, and say. Well, we need to just leave that as it is for now, even though you know it is wrong, but there are other alterior motives at stake, that require my focus. This can wait?
February 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pmThis post by you totally defines you hans…..you must be right. You have posted your opinion 1000 times and we have posted ours. We show you respect for your opinion and you belittle us for ours……thusly it deteriorates into what you see here today. You get the credit for it.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pmhans is right, everyone bow to hans. He must be right or he will shit his pants. You are right hans…..you are right hans, you are right hans.
we must all march to washington and protest the way Obama is doing things, he has proven beyond all doubt that he is not representing us in the way he promised…..the evidence is before you as presented by hansiro and backup, people you can count on in a crisis…..we can’t trust Obama, hans said so.
happy?
February 21st, 2009 at 4:03 pmHanshiro,
All hail the pwner.
Lol not.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pmI’m an idiot and I have nothing adult to contribute and I absolutly refuse to be intimitdated into it-Mr. Philby
February 21st, 2009 at 4:09 pmhanshiro Says:
Translation: You got nuthin’.
What’s your goal here hanshiro?
Who do you think you will convince with your ‘pwning’ of the posters… you feel superior for a moment?
‘Cause if the last eight years have taught me anything it this…
You can be as sure you are right as you want, but without consensus, which is something you seem to intentionally spurn (that reminds me of someone, but who?), without cooperation, without concern for others point of view…
You got nuthin’
Glad you’re right. That alone should keep you company… call me when you wanna talk and not lecture…
February 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm139. Fred Says: hans is right, everyone bow to hans.
Nah, just you. Overstating to absurd degree to reject an issue is also defined as a fallacy. fred, your whole bag of tired rhetorical tricks is empty, and your adolescent tantrum to avoid admitting you’re wrong is on full display.
And here with more nuthin,’ is fred! Zzzzzzzzzzzz….
February 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pmHanshiro,
Take a chill pill dude. I am not the enemy. I normally enjoy reading your posts. Informitive and thought provoking most times.
From your own link friend.
“But overall, the truly controversial and weightiest questions have been pushed off to the future (e.g., he ordered Guantanamo closed but has not yet said whether he wants to retain the power to imprison accused Terrorists without a real trial). In sum: who and what Barack Obama is when it comes to the restoration of our core civil liberties and Constitutional protections remains to be seen. Those fights are still ones that will be waged.”
But he is no better than Bush. Check
February 21st, 2009 at 4:18 pmhans, you seem to be all alone. When everyone else is wrong except you, that is usually a clue.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:21 pmUnfortunately, bush did follow the Regan anti-terrorism template: bush’s appointed john negroponte to be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and shortly after negroponte arrived, we saw the emergence of the sectarian Iraqi death squads as they pursued their campaign of ethnic cleansing.
This was the same role negroponte served back during Regan’s era, teaching sociopaths in foreign countries how to assassinate their fellow countrymen with the goal of instilling fear within the entire population.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:22 pm143. belac Says: What’s your goal here hanshiro? Who do you think you will convince with your ‘pwning’ of the posters…
Actually, post # 133 was pretty spot-on. Just that I had to wade through a septic tank full of ‘experts’ like fred, randumbchaos and belac to get a cogent response rather than an Obamapologist.
The self-appointed hillbilly/bouncer attitude just delayed adding depth to the discussion.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:24 pmWayne. That is fair. It is early. I think Obama is doing a good job in a very difficult position.
BTW. You’ve put a lot of work into your blog. It’s interesting and would recommend it to others here.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:24 pmI see it as Obama saying he doesn’t need more time, because he thinks he can always revisit it when his plate isn’t so full of other world-threatening matters. If he hasn’t revisited this decision in six-eight months, then he should rightfully be stained with the Bush legacy.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pmAnd no, Im not suggesting giving him an endless supply of Freidman units. 6-8 months, tops.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:29 pmHey Hanshiro,
Show me where I ever claimed I was an EXPERT.
Just because I question you , I am DUMB? Just because I don’t ascribe to your belief, I am an ignorant idiot?
You are a peace of work friend.
To each his/her own.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm146. Fred Says: hans, you seem to be all alone. When everyone else is wrong except you, that is usually a clue.
Again, fred’s tired bag of tricks vomits forth another fallacy:
Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice)
Because I’m in the minority, fred decides I must be wrong; despite the supportable evidence that defeats that mindset.
Oy…
February 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pmObamapologis? That’s a good way to make friends here. Actually your list is fairly short. I was warned about engaging you for this very reason by several who are not on your list. see, you have developed a reputation as a “know it all”
How long must that list be in reality and how long must it be before you buy a clue?
February 21st, 2009 at 4:35 pmWatch out Barfly. Your going to be tagged as an uninformed ignoramous with comments like that.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:35 pm152. RandomChaos Says: Hey Hanshiro,
Show me where I ever claimed I was an EXPERT. Just because I question you , I am DUMB?
No, you’re deficient on your own merits. Observe the quote marks around ‘expert,’ genius. For example, the verbal equivalent of “air quotes.”
Can you figure it out from there, Joey?
Just because I don’t ascribe to your belief, I am an ignorant idiot?
No, never said that. You attack me when I’ve presented expert information and you offer no rebuttal or experts of your own outside of arrogantly presented knee-jerk debunked ignorance or, again, attacking me.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pmbarfly Says:
If he hasn’t revisited this decision in six-eight months, then he should rightfully be stained with the Bush legacy.
______________
What did the US do w/ German prisoners after WW II? How long did they hold them. From what I’ve read, the Allies felt compelled to hold both combatants and non-combatants for a while, just to make sure the situation didn’t get worse than it already was over there (Europe…).
I’m not pleased w/ some of the Obama Admin’s moves on these issues so far, and it’s an enormously tricky, complicated mess they’ve had to take over from BotchCo.
If nothing else, they prolly do have to be careful taking the lid off that pressure cooker, so it doesn’t explode in their faces. There isn’t much Obama can do about changing the mess he inherited. What’s done is done, and my gawd, does the man have his hands full.
If the Abu Ghraib sex torture type of BS continues under Obama, THEN it’s time to get out the pitch forks and torches…
February 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pmActually, post # 133 was pretty spot-on. Just that I had to wade through a septic tank full of ‘experts’ like fred, randumbchaos and belac to get a cogent response rather than an Obamapologist.
#133 is your post.
So you are quite satisfied with the response you gave yourself?
That pretty much sums up a ‘conversation’ with you, hanshiro… a question.
How exactly are you putting pressure on Obama to pursue these investigations other than posting on these boards?
I’m interested in your ‘expert’ status…
oh, and if you would be so kind as to explain what a ’self-appointed hillbilly/bouncer attitude’ is… is it something like this:
Funny how people react when they are demonstrably wrong and have their @ss handed to them; sourced, linked, pwned.
or is that more of an adolescent tantrum to avoid admitting you’re wrong?
February 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pmHanshiro,
I think you just revel in the belief that you are superior.
You seem to be ignoring my rebuttals. Why is that?
Please show me where I ATTACKED you?
RandomChaos Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hanshiro,
Take a chill pill dude. I am not the enemy. I normally enjoy reading your posts. Informitive and thought provoking most times.
From your own link friend.
“But overall, the truly controversial and weightiest questions have been pushed off to the future (e.g., he ordered Guantanamo closed but has not yet said whether he wants to retain the power to imprison accused Terrorists without a real trial). In sum: who and what Barack Obama is when it comes to the restoration of our core civil liberties and Constitutional protections remains to be seen. Those fights are still ones that will be waged.”
But he is no better than Bush. Check
February 21st, 2009 at 4:42 pm154. Fred Says: Obamapologis? That’s a good way to make friends here.
Your first response to me after my post concerning Obama’s policies was this:
beat the drum you and hanshiro……but it’s just a thud.
“That’s a good way to make friends here.”
You were both wrong and a hypocrite, freddy. You didn’t even read the thread first. Who needs ‘friends’ like that?
I was warned about engaging you for this very reason by several who are not on your list. see, you have developed a reputation as a “know it all”
More tired rhetorical garbage, freddy. “The appeal to majority,” where you attempt to ostracize by the suggestion of majority agreement. Your demonstration of stellar insecurity is rather pathetic, fred. The idea that you have to retreat to a mythical group is pretty desperate.
I really have you rankled, apparently…
February 21st, 2009 at 4:48 pmTimMcFarland Says:
Reagan didn’t know what his staff was doing, hence Iran-Contra.
Actually, Reagan admitted in sworn testimony that the Iran-Contra Affair was taken “at my [his] behest.” He knew about it, and lied until he had to testify under oath. GHW Bush knew, too. I believe that in his memoirs, he wrote that he was one of the few people who knew all the intimate details. I guess he forget that during the whole exposure of the operation, he kept denying he knew anything, claiming he was “out of the loop.” Actually, what he was was “lying.”
February 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm158.belac Says: #133 is your post.
So you are quite satisfied with the response you gave yourself?
Umm, look again B. I included Wayne’s post which summed up the core of your previous question. You’re either terribly slow or your parents were siblings. I’m thinking option ‘b.’
February 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pmno sonny, I just find you amusing. You have spent another day defening yourself….ha. bye, I’ve got better things to do the rest of the day.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm159. RandomChaos Says: But he is no better than Bush. Check
How fcking stupid are you, RC? Where have I said this? (Hint: Is there a qualifier preceding it?) First, you can’t divine the simple difference between ‘no better than’ and ‘is’, then you completely distort what I said.
Do you have one, one grain of reading comprehension? One? I guess not. Geezus…
February 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pmYeah, you included Wayne’s post but the post that was ’spot-on’ was #133… Wayne’s post with your commentary… so the reaction you are looking for from other posters is them saying you’re absolutely right with a little added commentary from you?
Got it.
Now about that ‘expert status’… or did you not see that there was more to my post?
I know it can be difficult to respond while your thinking up ways to call my parents incestuous… would that be an adolescent tantrum to avoid admitting you’re wrong?
February 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm163. Fred Says: no sonny, I just find you amusing. You have spent another day defening (sic)yourself….ha. bye, I’ve got better things to do the rest of the day.
Umm..okay gramps..
February 21st, 2009 at 5:01 pmThe endless TP slap fight…
Ya gotta love this place.
It’s beginning to remind of those old Warner Bros cartoons where the sheep dog and coyote come to work at the same time, punch in on the clock, fight like crazy until quitting time, then punch out on schedule and go home for the night, only to repeat it all the next day.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:05 pmHans,
Did you not say this?
If “Constitutional Scholar” Obama is just a smarter bush, he’s still a lying, unlawful b@stard to me, no better than bush.
Our Constitution is still viewed with contempt and an inconvenience to our leadershi(t).
Go ahead, twist it. I know your superior mind can do it.
Your name calling and holier than though attitude is not garnering much support friend.
just sayin.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:08 pm165. belac Says: Yeah, you included Wayne’s post but the post that was ’spot-on’ was #133… Wayne’s post with your commentary… so the reaction you are looking for from other posters is them saying you’re absolutely right with a little added commentary from you?
English not your forte, b?
The post I referred to encapsulated the salient bit from Wayne’s post concerning my post. Wayne explained the point I was making; I agreed with his assessment of my point. The inherent right or wrong of it was a different and separate issue.
You couldn’t figure this out? I apparently need to chew all your intellectual food for you….why am I not surprised?
February 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm167. The Republic of Stupidity Says:
The endless TP slap fight…
Ya gotta love this place.
It’s beginning to remind of those old Warner Bros cartoons where the sheep dog and coyote come to work at the same time, punch in on the clock, fight like crazy until quitting time, then punch out on schedule and go home for the night, only to repeat it all the next day.
It’s true… *chagrin*
February 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm168.RandomChaos Says:
Hans,
Did you not say this?
If “Constitutional Scholar” Obama is just a smarter bush, he’s still a lying, unlawful b@stard to me, no better than bush.
Which is NOT saying this:
159. RandomChaos Says: But he is no better than Bush. Check
How fcking stupid are you, RC? Where have I said this? (Hint: Is there a qualifier preceding it?) First, you can’t divine the simple difference between ‘no better than’ and ‘is’, then you completely distort what I said.
Oh look, there IS a qualifier preceding it! IF!
Do you have one, one grain of reading comprehension? One?
I guess not. Geezus…
February 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pmHanshiro,
Your right. I am a stupid uncomprehending illiterate ignoramous. My apologies for not being up to par with your obviously much more intellectually honed wit.
How fcking stupid are you, RC? Where have I said this? (Hint: Is there a qualifier preceding it?) First, you can’t divine the simple difference between ‘no better than’ and ‘is’, then you completely distort what I said.
Do you have one, one grain of reading comprehension? One? I guess not. Geezus…
pfffft
February 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm167.The Republic of Stupidity Says: The endless TP slap fight…
There is method to this madness, TRoS. Can you guess?
February 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pmhanshiro Says:
It’s true… *chagrin*
__________
But I meant it in a GOOD way. I love those old cartoons…
TP – we all come for the politics but stay for brawling!
I keep coming back…
February 21st, 2009 at 5:21 pm172. RandomChaos Says: Hanshiro, Your right. I am a stupid uncomprehending illiterate ignoramous. My apologies for not being up to par with your obviously much more intellectually honed wit.
Well, considering you routinely don’t know the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re,’ you make a persuasive case…
February 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pmhanshiro Says:
There is method to this madness, TRoS. Can you guess?
_____________
Uh… survival of the fittest?
Any idea that can manage to swim upstream thru this mess deserves to reproduce?
February 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pmHanshiro,
You said. Obama is not reversing the Bush Policies.
You also said. If it turns out he is lying he is no better than Bush.
I construed this to mean. Obama is doing the same thing Bush did. I therefore jumped to the conclusion that you believe Obama is/has lied. Is it not a stretch to take it another step? You think Obama is no better than Bush on this?
Enlighten me please. Where am I doing this wrong?
February 21st, 2009 at 5:29 pmI must be an idiot. Because your mom said you’re as well.
LOL.
Hans, you are nitpicking.
is that better?
geez
February 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm176. The Republic of Stupidity Says: Uh… survival of the fittest? Any idea that can manage to swim upstream thru this mess deserves to reproduce?
Heh..nothing so Darwinian. It just hones rhetorical skills. I really learned about how much people fall back on fallacies; they offer refuge from being shown as less informed or wrong.
Most of what is offered as reasons for defending political policies or heroes are documented fallacies. Fascinating stuff…
But I like your assessment better :-)
February 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm177. RandomChaos Says: Hanshiro,
You said. Obama is not reversing the Bush Policies.
Where?
You also said. If it turns out he is lying he is no better than Bush.
I did say and intend that his affirmations of bush’s Constitutional violations render him no better than bush, yes.
I construed this to mean. Obama is doing the same thing Bush did.
Misconstrued. Obama is not doing the same thing; however, perpetuating policies created and put into place in direct violation of our Constitution would render Obama no better than bush on this.
I therefore jumped to the conclusion that you believe Obama is/has lied.
You are responsible for your leap, not me, yet you’ve belabored me for not agreeing that it was somehow my intent rather than your assertion all along. Your error.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pm177. RandomChaos Says: Enlighten me please. Where am I doing this wrong?
You’re attacking me without any rebuttal or sourcing. Go read Glenn Greenwald’s column. Regularly. (I linked to it in my long post upthread.)
The idea that Obama may be slipping into bush policy is worthy of bringing to people’s attention and getting informed about. Greenwald is one of the best sources.
Obama has, in fact, lied rather brazenly, so I don’t extend him much latitude at all. His capitulation to the reviled telecom immunity bill was an absolute disgrace. If he can do it once, and offer completely lame, bush-era generalities for such a reversal, he can and will do it again.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pmHanshiro,
February 21st, 2009 at 5:54 pmWhere? Your post that started this all.
My assertion may have been incorrect (Your opinion). People make mistakes all the time. That does not make them stupid or idiots though.
I apparently need to chew all your intellectual food for you….why am I not surprised?
Ahh, hanshiro… so you’re willing to share your mental denture, thanks.
Awesome… I always suspected you were toothless..
February 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pmRaygun was as big a liar and crook as the Criminal Bush, just better at hiding it.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pmDont stop the music until it’s stops. Keep going
February 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pmI did read the article. I regularly follow posters links. I offered up snippets from that article in fact as rebuttal.
Where did I attack you?
Was it the Obama=Bush comment that tripped your wire? You showed me my conclusion was erronious.
You are overly sensitive I think though.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm182.RandomChaos Says: That does not make them stupid or idiots though.
No, it doesn’t; however, when opinions are delivered arrogantly or dismissively, or purposely being a smart-@ss (#58), without opposing or sourcing substantive information, then I take issue. You picked a fight, not a debate, as your followup in #90 shows. Still no substantive rebuttal, just sanctimony and sarcasm.
fred does the same thing, attacks the messenger with condescending and tired fallacies before even examining the information linked or provided. If he had, he could’ve saved himself several posts about Obama having the time, etc. which Greenwald and others conclusively proved unfounded.
It’s basically the attitude in which a difference of opinion is delivered, disagreement without being disagreeable.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:04 pmNo other president in recent history has committed this crime of torture. None.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm183. belac Says: Ahh, hanshiro… so you’re willing to share your mental denture, thanks. Awesome… I always suspected you were toothless..
You suck at puns, belac. Don’t…just don’t.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm186. RandomChaos Says: You are overly sensitive I think though.
Yes, after consistently misrepresenting what I said, jumping to the wrong conclusions and putting words in my mouth, I’m sure that’s it….
February 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pmhanshiro Says:
Heh..nothing so Darwinian. It just hones rhetorical skills.
_____________
Oh, totally. I was just thinking about that very point.
I know this has made me sharper. I’d like to think I’ve gotten pretty good at parsing out a comment, sussing out the false parts, and filleting it on the spot.
Total agreement on that one.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:21 pmHanshiro,
Sorry, if you think I misrepresented, misconstrued or think I put words in your mouth. I just call it as I see it and will continue to do so.
Gotta go now. I will try to do better at debating on your level in the future.
Cheers
February 21st, 2009 at 6:27 pm192. RandomChaos Says: Hanshiro, Sorry, if you think I misrepresented, misconstrued or think I put words in your mouth.
This is called a ‘non-apology’ apology. You aren’t apologizing for your errors, which you clearly committed, you’re ‘apologizing’ for my misunderstanding you, as if it’s my error.
This is the domain of weasels. If you’re going to apologize, do it correctly or not at all. Don’t palm-off this sleazy, cowardly crap on people.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:33 pmHanshiro,
February 21st, 2009 at 6:50 pmYour right, it’s not an apology. Your pretty bright.
Oops! You‘re
toodles
February 21st, 2009 at 6:52 pm194. RandomChaos Says: Hanshiro, Your right, it’s not an apology. Your pretty bright.
Especially the suggestion about you being a cowardly weasel. Particularly insightful.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pmEspecially the suggestion about you being a cowardly weasel. Particularly insightful.
Full of yourself are’nt you?
February 21st, 2009 at 6:58 pm197.RandomChaos Says: Full of yourself are’nt you?
Better’n being what you’re full of….
February 21st, 2009 at 7:03 pmBetter’n being what you’re full of….
Ooooooh! Ouch, how sophmoric.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:06 pm199.RandomChaos Says: Ooooooh! Ouch, how sophmoric.
Thanks, I gauge the capacity of my audience with care…
February 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pmWhat you are, is an arrogant gasbag so full of it, you can’t admit your own mistakes. Kind of reminds me of Rush Limpballs or the Chimpfurer.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:28 pm201. RandomChaos Says: What you are, is an arrogant gasbag so full of it, you can’t admit your own mistakes. Kind of reminds me of Rush Limpballs or the Chimpfurer.
Aww is somebody up past his bedtime, Mr. Cranky? You were so busy attributing your distortions to me, I didn’t have time, between correcting your comprehension shortcomings and your outright ignorance, to commit many mistakes. That and acknowledging your posts which, like making eye-contact with the imbecile at a turnpike Stuckeys, I shouldn’t have done either.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pmNope, not arrogant at all.
Aww is somebody up past his bedtime, Mr. Cranky? You were so busy attributing your distortions to me, I didn’t have time, between correcting your comprehension shortcomings and your outright ignorance, to commit many mistakes. That and acknowledging your posts which, like making eye-contact with the imbecile at a turnpike Stuckeys, I shouldn’t have done either.
Thanks for proving my point.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:46 pmUh, it appears that Bunch is unfamiliar with Reagan’s Latin American policies. El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, The School of the Americas, how can he ignore all that?
February 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pm203.RandomChaos Says: Thanks for proving my point.
Laboring against your ignorance and leaving precious little time for error doesn’t prove your point. You’re claiming proof of a negative (not possible) by claiming that the reduced incidence of mistake opportunities, reduced due to the overarching demands of correcting your distortions and comprehension lack, somehow means I’m incapable of admitting mistakes.
Your faulty logic is second only to your inability to construct a viable logic equation. Or understand one.
Capiche?
February 21st, 2009 at 8:43 pmand again.
thanks
February 21st, 2009 at 9:08 pmGrow up Mr. Bunch, that’s a bunch of crap. Sure he would have.
Reagan was who he was. A grade B movie actor who could follow a script someone else wrote down. Does anyone remember just how many of his administration went to jail or had to resign or was investigated? Somewhere over 120.
Does anyone remember Iran Contra? The S&L scandals we have still not paid for? I could run off a list here of all he did besides making us a debtor nation for the FIRST TIME.
Don’t kid yourself. He was an empty sleeve pointing to no where. The only thing he knew was what he learned making movies.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:45 pmMr. Philby Says:
Are ad hom attacks considered a “rebuttal” here?
Well, we do get a lot of trolls who think that “ad homo” attacks constitute factual discussion. . .
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 amMr. Philby Says:
THAT BELIEVES IN AMERICAN VALUES!
by factless
Says the enemy defender……
WTF???
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 amgummitch Says:
Wayne A. Schneider Says:
I remember seeing Reagan testify about that. He was asked if he was familiar with the operation that came to be known as the “Iran-Contra Affair.” He said it was an operation “taken at my behest.” It was, of course, illegal and unconstitutional. Reagan lovers often forget how far outside the law Reagan liked to act.
I don’t think they “forget”, I think they either didn’t know or didn’t care. All they “know” is that Reagan single-handedly destroyed the Soviet Empire and brought sunlight to America once again. They ignore the support of the Contras, the dirty dealings with Iran, cutting and running in Beirut, the deficit . . . well, actually, they ignore the reality of the entire hideous eight years.
crack
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 amhootie mama
north that it was cool to trade drugs for guns
electrified fences
north = drug pusher
north = liddy
Like others, I’m happy to see so many comments calling out Bunch on this blatant bullshit.
I kept reading, expecting the rug to be pulled out from under him, but no, it’s more like a freakin’ red carpet. What’s up with that, TP?
I was arrested several times, back in the day, for protesting the wars in Central America. Murder, slaughter, butchery, rape, and torture are still being taught as “security measures” at the renamed School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA. Not only did Reagan condone it, he used it as our main tool of foreign policy.
The story here is, Obama hasn’t renounced “full-spectrum dominance.”
And when DoD says “across the range of military operations,” that means dominating public opinion, too. Remember the Message Force Multipliers the Pentagon deployed to propagandize us? How are the any different than snipers armed with high-power microphones?
Has Bunch been in a coma since the day Reagan died? This puff piece sounds like the hagiographic crap that erupted that day.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 am