Hmmm, planting/screening questions to garner more favorable press coverage...this sounds strangely familiar. Where have I seen this before? Oh, that's right...it was routinely practiced by the GOP at W's meticulously staged campaign rallies! The NERVE of Mr. Pitts to adopt such an effective tactic against the very administration that so cherishes it! Has he no shame?

Thank you for that breaking news that campaign rallies are staged and no different from soldiers questioning the Secretary of Defense during a war...

It's okay for the administration and DOD to plant questions crafted get answers that cast a warm, confident glow over viewers back home but heaven forbid a Q&A session actually reflect reality! Regardless of where it came from, the question needed to be asked.

If my son or daughter were there, I'd want protection, not excuses from the DOD--and I expect no less for the many troops who are fighting and dying to protect our very right to sit here and complain.

This whole argument and "scandal" is simply ludicrous.

It's not as though Rumsfeld doesn't take questions from the press... it's a scandal because this newsman decided to become the news - that's a clear violation of journalistic standards and to this day, many people believe that this was a spontaneous question from the soldier to the Sec of Defense when it was not.

And the armor "scandal" was overblown too - http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/181162

HH,

It appears that the vehicles referred to in this exchange were quickly augmented. One must wonder if that would have been the case were this complaint not been so publicly aired. Facts, however, support the contention that the problem of insufficient armor isn't isolated to the Tennessee-based 278th Regimental Combat Team, whose vehicles were upgraded.

'Hillbilly Armor'

UNITS TRANSFORM THE WEAK INTO BLAST-BLOCKING VEHICLES

Lack Of Armor Claims Troops

We still hear reports of insufficient protection for our troops; from the military's vehicles and to our soldier's bodies.

U.S. Troops in Iraq Have Limited Body Armor

The administration would have us believe that these are isolated incidents, but mounting evidence suggests they are not.

U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear

Aren't you weary of the deception?

Paul,

There is no problem with debating a wide variety of issues on this side but recall that the issue we focus on here is about Keith and his tenuous connection to the field of journalism.

There is a real journalistic issue as to whether the reporter crossed the line and became the story...in other words, manufactured the news and then reported it without disclosing his own involvement. It's a pretty clear journalist no-no. The guy's boss thought so too and the paper issued a statement to that effect.

Henry raises a good point for THIS site; it is worth noting how quickly KO skips over an issue where if the shoe were on the other foot and a reporter from say, Fox News Channel, had planted a question that upset Keith's liberal agenda in some way he would be screaming bloody murder.

There is also a question as to whether what the soldier said was even true - that he or soldiers in his unit had been scavenging Kuwaiti junkyards to up-armor vehicles. I have also seen a report that more than 90% of the vehicles in this guy's brigade were up-armored at the time he asked the question. I am certain you don't to discuss that.

So let's set all of that aside and focus on your "point" - the deception.

In less than 100,000 words, what exactly is the deception?

Bob, I take your point on the purpose of this blog. I've been trying to serve it in other recent posts. Regarding the Pitts thing, though, beyond the question and its answer, there's meaningful sub-issues. First, was there any basis in fact for Specialist Thomas Wilson's question? Next, why would Wilson fail to observe the chain of command to air his grievance? As an embedded reporter, why would Pitts breach journalistic ethics to "plant" a question through Specialist Wilson? Was Wilson duped by an unscrupulous reporter in the latter's vain attempt to grab a few headlines? Did the reaction of those present indicate support for Wilson or was it even significant? One can go on and on.

Regarding the DECEPTION of which I spoke, of which the "hillbilly armor" was just the "deception du jour," I own several books on the subject. I'm sure you've read some of them. I truly don't know where to begin--and that's not a dodge. Let me think about it over the holidays and get back to you with a few categories--the individual lies, in just W's case can truly fill volumes.

Now, back to Pitts. Planted or not, the question needed to be asked. Our kids are dying over there and if rocking the boat can save a single life, let's rock it. Was it a breach of ethics on Pitt's behalf? Yes, but as an embedded reporter, he had every opportunity to witness these practices first-hand and could have felt that he had a moral imperative to forego his ethics as a newsman in order to affect necessary change. That he did so SAVED LIVES--even if only those who rode in the 20 vehicles the DOD immediately customized after this became public. My guess is that this public spectacle saved many more lives than just those�upon researching it a bit, I found many articles going back months lodging similar complaints. This wasn�t a recent development. I included several suck links in my previous post.

So, Pitts planted the question. Does that make him a bad journalist? Perhaps. But it also makes him a decent human being in my book. Was it a total �snow job� calculated to promote Pitts in the public eye? I doubt it. Judging from the crowd response, other soldiers were concerned about their safety. Was there any chance that Wilson had actually seen soldiers scrounge for armor? If we've seen pictures of it here in the states, how can we doubt that soldiers in the field don't witness it? Coached or not, Wilson wasn't Pitt's dummy. It was Wilson who put his butt on the line by asking an unsanctioned question, and it was Wilson�s peers who acknowledged his courage with their reaction.

We armchair quarterbacks can preen, posture and pontificate about journalist ethics or forgiving the messenger, we can take steps to ensure that every soldier who gambles his or her life on behalf of our nation is protected to the limits of our ability. Forget, for the moment, the esoteric, academic dialog. Save it for later, when lives aren't in the balance. Let�s just protect out troops.

Paul,

You might begin to see this incident as more than just an ends that justified the means case if we put it in another context. Instead of this occuring with Rumsfeld, let's say the reporter, in the same manner as he did in the real incident, arranged for the soldier to ask the same thing of John Kerry at a campaign rally.

The soldier asks, "Senator Kerry, you voted against funding for troops. We don't have the proper equiptment. As president are you going to supply us with the equiptment or not?"

Now Sen. Kerry could wax as eloquent as he pleased (as he did when reporters and political foes posed the same question) about how his vote had really been a protest about how the administration was "lying" about the costs of the war and Chris Matthews could talk about how "nuanced" the Kerry position was... but the fact is that the very dynamics of a soldier having posed this question makes it so loaded that Kerry can never give an answer that outweighs the PR impact of that one sound bite. No matter how reasoned or nuanced or whatever... his answer was.

Now say we discover that though Kerry speaks with reporters almost daily, and could easily have been called to account publicly, one of them had arranged for such a devastating scenario as this one. End justified the means?

Absolutely Rumsfeld is in a position of accountability. But with this sort of dynamic even the news that the particular regiment in question was in the process of having their vehicles completely armed seems incidental and contrived.

This journalist fired a devastating shot at Rumsfeld and then bragged about it privately in e-mail. There's no leader in the world, political or in business arena that can't be a victim to such a tactic. And it's a scary thing if journalists start justifing that sort of set-up.

Still bangin' on Kerry, eh? News flash...YOU WON! Let Kerry go, already. I'm prayin' for Bush. The next 4 years (at the very least) is on you. The next 20 (at the very least) is on our kids. Enjoy.

Now to your point re end v. means...If this sort of thing can bring accountability to government, I'm all for it, regardless of its target. If politicians can't take the heat, get 'em the heck out of the kitchen.

I wasn't indulging in Kerry bashing. I was attempting to use an example that was LESS politically charged for you, NOT more. This in hopes that you'd get the full impact of what you're suggesting.

Hiring actors to play gotcha games with government officials or running some sort of constant sting operation, might conceiveably make pols and government officials more accountable but not any way that doesn't run much more of a risk for corrupting the truth and potentially hurting the innocent.

McCarthy didn't understand that either.

Hey Cecilia,

Can you do me a favor? I'd like to play a little game. Close your eyes...take a deep breath.

This may be tough, if not downright impossible for you, but if you're able, I'd like you to pretend you're a Democrat (for mere seconds--don't worry, it's reversible and I won't tell a soul). Are you with me? Great! Now, and this one's even harder--try to imagine that you ALSO voted for KERRY. (Just ignore that creepy-crawly feeling, it's fleeting). Are you still with me? I hope so--we're almost done.

Finally, as a Kerry supporter, tell me--given the nastiness of this election and its result...which rightly or wrongly, you MAY question (I know it's crazy, but some lefty loons STILL don't accept that Kerry lost)--what would you perceive as MORE "politically charged" than a conservative continuing to impugn Kerry?

We're done! Count backwards from 10 and open your eyes. Thank you. You're a clear-thinker once again. All's RIGHT with the world.

Do you see how you may have chosen an even "less politically charged" example to make you point, given its intended target? I hope so.

That said, do I correctly understand that you feel the Pitts/Wilson/Rumsfeld incident is akin to a 'sting,' a scenario in which figures of authority role-play to catch suspected felons in commission of a crime? May we for the moment defer discussion of the whole 1950s 'Red Scare/McCarthy' thing? If so, I'd like to focus on 'stings'.

To my understanding, "stings" are attempted when suspicion of a crime is sufficient but evidence is inconclusive. The idea is to catch the criminals in the act--like the FBI did in ABSCAM, for lack of a more recent example. As I understand it, the downside of a sting is that if not seamlessly conducted, it may produce successful claims of entrapment and subsequently, dropped charges or successful appeals.

Now, I'm no lawyer--perhaps you are. If not, I know lawyers do post here. Perhaps one of you can explain what makes "Pitts/Wilson/Rumsfeldgate" a "Sting"?

Thanks,

Paul,

It might also take an attorney to explain why you seem to skim over, instead of truly reading, what anyone else writes and why you then insist on rendering the most concrete interpretation of that reading, when you've shown yourself capable of some abstract thinking.

If you'll reread what I did write on Kerry, you'll see that I said that Kerry acquitted himself very eloquently when asked by reporters and foes why he made the choice he made.

I'm not accountable for (and don't give a fig about) the emotional trauma poor you and yours have suffered at the hands of nasty wrascally Wrepublicans. I just take it for granted that you're able to process things intellectually instead of letting your resentment get the better of you. My bad...

In light of your comment about the end justifying the means regarding reporters working with audiences to help stage questions for the greatest impact ( "if this this sort of thing can bring accountability to government") I used your reasoning to draw other set-ups that are similar and have the results you seek. But they are also just as prejudical to the public(something reporters are supposed to be concerned about...)

And finally, since you are a guy who generally expresses himself in four or five paragraphs, I'll take the "take a breath, Cecelia..." business in my usual calm and collected stride... :D

C,

Point taken. I admit to not being an objective observer and it'll take some time before many of us will be. Is that so difficult to grasp? Again, to my closing question: perhaps you can explain what makes "Pitts/Wilson/Rumsfeldgate" a "Sting"?

Please note: one paragraph.

Paul,

I asked if you could explain what you mean by "deception." In your e-mail you wrote "One can go on and on." I wish you would just start with one! So far, your response has been 600 words on everything but the answer to that question - except to say "the 'hillbilly armor' was just the "deception du jour'." The problem is that you are using libspeak here. I don't agree that there was ANY deception in this case of in any other case during the past four years so you are going to have to PROVE things with me not make sweeping statements predicated on a shared belief that the Bush Administration contantly lies. It comes as no surprise to me that you can't make a case for "deception" here because, as a lib, you are used to tossing off defamatory comments about people like Rumsfeld to you libpals and getting a "knowing nod." Things get a little more difficult when you are expected to back up YOUR lies.

Now, since you feel need to repeat the point AS IF it is in dispute, let's stipulate that asking tough questions, protecting our troops and saving lives is good. To save your time digging through your book collection, let's also stipulate that people in the government and military do not always tell the truth. I think we can also stipulate that the soldiers ought to free to ask any questions, and there is nothing wrong with the reporter suggesting questions to the soldiers

Turning back to your comment, several of statements reflect an ignorance of Rumsfeld's tenure as SecDef: "why would Wilson fail to observe the chain of command to air his grievance?", "It was Wilson who put his butt on the line by asking an unsanctioned question", "It was Wilson’s peers who acknowledged his courage with their reaction."

Rumsfeld routinely holds the kinds of events he held in Kuwait, he encourages the troops to bypass the chain of command and these events and repeatedly asks for the toughest questions they can give him, there was no courage required to ask any of the questions asked at that event or any of the other hundreds of similar events Rumsfeld has held. It is part of Rumsfeld's management style; something he won wide praise for when he ran Searle Labs.

Your questions about the soldiers given questions by the reporter and the journalist ethics are irrelevent to your claim of "deception." The main thing is I don't know that there was some active effort by the Bush Administration to claim that all vehicles in Iraq were up-armored. In fact, it is not even clear to me that "up-armoring" every vehicle is desireable. While it is true that additional armor in certain places would mitigate certain types of attacks against vehicles but there is a COST to extra armor - weight. Heavier vehicles also move more slowly and make easier targets. There is no free lunch and bolting armor plating onto every inch of a humvee does not make it "safe" to be attacked by bullets and bombs.

So how about you stick to just ONE of your many loony-lib accusations and make that one case. Seems to me that for there to be deception about up-armoring vehicles there needs to be some claims made by the administration that have proven to be false. What are the claims and why are they false?

Easy now...you're right, I should have been clearer. On the 'deception du jour,' which I used to refer to the "Wilson/Rumsfeldgate" flap,
I didn't mean to imply that "I own several books on the subject" of 'hillbilly armor,' but rather, that I own several books on the larger issue of deception in this administration. But since it's 'hillbilly armor' that's on the table, that's what I'll speak to. Since you're concerned about the length of my posts, I'll try to be succinct.

Your biggest peeve appears to be that I've not presented one verifiable untruth, even though I believe lying to epidemic in the Bush administration. I said I didn't know where to begin but would get back to you after the holidays. Just because I haven't done so doesn't mean I've not been giving it thought. I don't want to burden you with a ponderous diatribe. You've mentioned length more than once.

While the most impressive lies belong to Bush, since we're on Rummie and 'hillbilly armor,' when asked why our soldiers must "dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal" to up-armor their vehicles, Rumsfeld said, "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it..."

Two days later, Cox News Service reported that both the company that makes the U.S. Army's Humvees and the one that adds armor to them could make plenty more if the Pentagon would simply ask them to do so. "If they call and say, 'You know, we really want more,' we'll get it done," said Lee Woodward, a spokesman for AM General.

The DOD immediately announced it was ordering 100 more up-armored Humvees a month from its main armoring supplier.

Please note that I'm not slinging any barbs here (except at Bush and Rummie). I'm not calling you names (like liar) or showing any disrespect or condecension. How `bout returning the coutresy? If for no other reason, MAYBE just to patronize me?

Thanks.

Do you have some evidence that Rumsfeld knew, at the time he gave his answer, the production capability of AM General?

(YES/NO)

No, I do not. But he was alerted to shortages in armored Humvees well a year ago and the DOD visited the manufacturers last February.

If he didn't know, at least he wasn't lying, just incompetent.

Do you have some evidence that Rumsfeld did not know, at the time he gave his answer, the production capability of AM General?

If I understand your reply it is...

"NO, I do not have any evidence that Rumsfeld knew, at the time he gave his answer, the production capability of AM General".

Now that we have established that this accusation is unfounded please off another one - and please include whatever "FACTS" you have to support your claim.

PS, I don't need to offer any evidence about what Rumsfeld did or did not know about "the production capability of AM General" because I did not make any claim in that regard. That was you, remember?

Dear Paul,

It is very easy to second guess officials conducting a war. The recent tent-suicide bombing is a great example. When critics heard that a shell caused the damage, they complained that a tent was used instead of a concrete bunker for a mess hall. When they found out it was a suicide bomber, they complained that security was too lax. If the tent had been a solid structure more would have died. Nobody will say "great move, eating in a tent instead of a building."

There is no question that a disingenuous reporter wanted to make the news. That soldier had been coached, and sounded like a rabid NY Times reporter when he asked the question. Most vehicles WERE armored. In addition, the reason most vehicles were not armored in the first place is thanks to Bill Clinton, not Don Rumsfeld. before you start typing a rebuttal, see when the majority of these Humvees were purchased and built. Then think about why Clinton's administration didn't bother with the armor (most notably in SOMALIA).

The major loss of life in Iraq is not due to a lack of armor. It is due to JOURNALISTS, ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS AND SECOND GUESSING ARMCHAIR POLITICIANS. If the United States sent a clear and resounding message to "insurgents" that their attacks would have no effect, and the American people showed resolve, the insurgency would not be able to get any mileage from terrorist acts and propaganda. Instead, the terrorists get great help from the media and people like you. In fact they FILMED THE BOMBING OF THE MESS TENT AND GAVE THE TAPE TO THE AP, WHO THEN GAVE IT TO AL JAZEERA! That's right, the "western" AP donated the tape to our friends at the Jazeera channel. No, my liberal and quite blood stained friend, it is PEOPLE LIKE YOU, NOT DON RUMSFELD, who are getting our soldiers killed in Iraq right now. If you think the resolve of a collective people means nothing in war, think again. Two nukes were dropped on Japan because the Japanese were percieved as fierce and unified, willing to fight to the last man. If we made it clear that we were so inclined, the insurgents would have little to buoy their spirits. Unfortunately for all of us, they have the likes of you to give them an audience and a little pick me up now and again. Keep crowing about how much you care about our "kids" over there while you stab them in the back.

Feel free to respond in Dickensian style, but remember, you ain't paid by the word.

Dear Anti-Paul,

I must admit that yours is the best-written piece of vindictive, unmitigated smegma I've ever seen posted here or for that matter, on any toilet wall. That's saying a lot...some very good writers post here.

How unfortunate...your absurd, vicious rant is so rife with errors, I'd love to rip it apart. If you had the decency to post with a real name rather than an alias with a hack email, I'd be tempted to indulge you, however this scurrilous, vitriolic, covert diatribe has prompted me to enact a NEW RULE:

Henceforth, I'll respectfully respond ONLY to those who refrain from insulting me.

I've forgiven a lot posting here, and few of you have reciprocated. There are simply too many of you who take delight in blindly spewing venom here for me to take you seriously, let alone lend credance by way of a response. It's just too time-consuming. Why should I extend you courtesy when you're clearly not couteous people?

If you want to attack my ideas, great! If you want to attack ME, go to Hell. Now, look what you made me do--I've gotta' go to confession.

Have a nice day.

Bob,

Yes, you understood my answer. Confined to your question, ya' got me. Thanks for not rubbing it in too badly. Some of your comrades can learn from your example.

Rummy freely admits he's not a "detail" man. While one would NOT expect the Sec'y of Defense to know details like how many spuds are served in the mess tent, after being notified in writing over a year ago that the number of up-armored Humvees in Iraq was insufficient given the type of warfare this administration failed to anticipate even though they'd been warned to expect it, I believe it a reasonable expectation that the top officer of our defense corps would know the max output of its vehicle manufacturers. If, as you suggest, he did not, as I said, it's not dishonest, merely incompetent.

So, if you’re keeping track--as I know you like to do—that’s point, RC. I’ll get back to you with better-substantiated claims of dishonesty in this administration when I have more time.

Thanks.
(169 words)

Paul,

I don't agree. I don't think Anti-Paul's screed is uniquely vicious. It's the typical sort of argument that states that dissention during war gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It's vicious in that it singles you out personally. And vicious it is. And stifling.

It's an equal opportunity argument. I heard this chorus chanted by Democrats fairly regularly at those who were against the Serbia and Bosnia intervention.

It has an element of truth, usually in just one instance, in that it always is more applicable toward governments than individuals. If our supposed allies had been more measured in their opposition to our action in Iraq I think it would have made the terrorists less bold. NOt that they have to give nod to every U.S. action, but they could have been more enigmatic and subtle and that would have gone a long way toward giving teeth to Bush's very strong rhetoric against nations who ignore terrorists in their midst or give aid to them.

Now we know these nations were partly motivated by the loot they were making off the misery in Iraq.

Anyway, peeps should dissent from things they are against and it's not like matters have gone so smoothly in Iraq and that the wisdom of going in is undebatable.

However, you remain wrong on just about everything you've ever opined on here. :D

Paul,

I don't agree. I don't think Anti-Paul's screed is uniquely vicious. It's the typical sort of argument that states that dissention during war gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It's vicious in that it singles you out personally. And vicious it is. And stifling.

It's an equal opportunity argument. I heard this chorus chanted by Democrats fairly regularly at those who were against the Serbia and Bosnia intervention.

It has an element of truth, usually in just one instance, in that it always is more applicable toward governments than individuals. If our supposed allies had been more measured in their opposition to our action in Iraq I think it would have made the terrorists less bold. NOt that they have to give nod to every U.S. action, but they could have been more enigmatic and subtle and that would have gone a long way toward giving teeth to Bush's very strong rhetoric against nations who ignore terrorists in their midst or give aid to them.

Now we know these nations were partly motivated by the loot they were making off the misery in Iraq.

Anyway, peeps should dissent from things they are against and it's not like matters have gone so smoothly in Iraq and that the wisdom of going in is undebatable.

However, you remain wrong on just about everything you've ever opined on here. :D

Paul,

I welcome your comments. I always love the reasoning.

Isn't it one of the tenent of lefty thinking that Bush went to War in Iraq do help Big Business? Isn't that the basis for the whole War for Oil/Hallburton rant?

Yet you slam Rumsfeld for failing to place big enough orders for armored Humvees.

If the first point is correct, why would Rumsfeld miss ANY opportunity to steer more business to his "war profiteering" pals?

The problem with the left is that in their mind each new rant can be LOGICALLY INDEPENDENT from all previous rants. And that is a very big part of the reason it so easy for the right to dominate the political debate. The left makes it too easy!

I'm weary of defending things I didn't say and being accused of things I haven't done. Name once that I mentioned "War for Oil," "Haliburton" or "big business?"

I profess to be a liberal, so you stereotype me. Anti-Paul claims I aid the enemy and have the blood of our troops on my hands. I'ts profoundly insulting. Is this supposed to exemplify your campassionate conservatism? I've got news for you...liberals don't all think alike. Your willingness to generalize only deepens the chasm between us.

If you're willing to hold rabidly to any ideology, regardless of it's relative centrism and continue to make grand generalizations about those who hold dissenting views, you're going to be wrong a good bit of the time. You insist I present fact-based arguments. Please hold to the same standard. Do us both a favor. Argue against what I say, not what you assume I believe.

You're better than this, Bob. And if you're not, you should be.

-p

146 words

Referring to Anti-Paul's post, Cecilia writes: "It's the typical sort of argument that states that dissention during war gives aid and comfort to the enemy...It's an equal opportunity argument. I heard this chorus chanted by Democrats fairly regularly at those who were against the Serbia and Bosnia intervention." That makes it valid, eh? Pray tell me, how does that pass for logic? What if those who chanted were wrong?

What's even more absurd is that Anti-thought- Paul pulls out the old saw "Let's drop the big one!" Problem solved... "Let's drop the big one." Given our current context, doesn't this strike the rest of you as absurd? Knowing the realities of today's world, doesn't this give you pause? There are reasons nukes expedited the effective end to WWII. That Anti-Paul suggests them in the context of fighting a "war on terror" indicates that his world view is anything but unimpaired.

"Anyway, peeps should dissent from things they are against and it's not like matters have gone so smoothly in Iraq and that the wisdom of going in is undebatable."

On this, we agree. Thanks, C. I value your opinions (even while you may disparage most of mine :D).

Paul,

If you're not whining about how traumatized you are from the election, you're whining about your treatment here.

I didn't say Anti-Paul's argument was valid. I said the opposite.

And I've never "disparaged" your positions, I've merely said they are wrong and have debated them.

If you keep on with persecution complex, the next post we get from Cindy Rhodes will be a plea to stop torturing you.

C,

Perhaps "valid" wasn't my best choice. My point was while Democrats (and others) may have taken this position during the Serbian/Bosnian interventions (that dissention during war gives aid and comfort to the enemy...) that doesn't in itself make it a valid contention AGAINST democrats (and others) who may oppose Iraq. If I totally missed your point, I'm just being thick.

Can we agree to be amicable adversaries? To me, you're one of the most even-handed of those who post here.

I'll add "whiner" to loon, loser, traitor, back-stabber, dope, hypocrite, idiot, wacko, tin-foil hatter, black-boxer, girly-man and the rest.

To make sure I hadn't misused the word, I looked up "disparage" and it seems to accurately describe how you react to most of my opinions... PLUS, i mentioned it as a JOKE--tongue-in-cheek, reactiong to your closing shot--I even included your little "smiley face (:D) as a tip-off. If not a "fair use" symbol, I'll discontinue using it.

If I present with an apparent persecution complex, it may be due to the fact that, other than on this site, I don't get insulted repeatedly on a daily basis. I realize that by expressing my dissent here, opposing views come with the turf, but to quote a line I can't reall the source of, "I wouldn't be so paranoid if so many people weren't out to get me!" (:D)

Hugs,
-p
229 words

Well, Paul, maybe you need to some back-up to help you feel less ganged-up-on.

Why don't you get some of your like-minded friends to come post here and rag on the election and the wrascally Wrepublicans and to defend Lord Bloggermann and such.

I'm pretty sure that Bob is utterly insensitive to the point of salivating at the thought of being sucker-punched. And I can't claim to be so lady-like as to avoid a bit of controversy.

So why don't you enlist some moral support. Bring it on... so to speak... :D

Dearest Paul,

I read with dismay your complete dismissal of all issues raised within my post. Instead of responding with some type (even a flimsy) argument, you state:

"How unfortunate...your absurd, vicious rant is so rife with errors, I'd love to rip it apart. . .this scurrilous, vitriolic, covert diatribe has prompted me to enact a NEW RULE:
Henceforth, I'll respectfully respond ONLY to those who refrain from insulting me."

If you read my post, you will see that I was attacking your IDEAS. The firm argument that your IDEAS are helping the terrorist cause implicates you, and hence may seem like a personal attack. I think it is necessary to point out that what you say and do is not benign. You are one negative voice among many, but in the aggregate all of these voices galvanize the terrorists. If you listen to Osama's recent speeches, they are filled with your talking points. That alone should tell you something.

If taking responsibility for your beliefs is that threatening to you, perhaps you haven't really thought through the reality of the situation in Iraq. It is not an abstract event. It is a war in which propaganda plays a major role, adds recruits to the enemies ranks, and undermines American morale. Our soldiers need the full support of the people in this country to limit the length of their engagement and discourage the enemy. This is a fact.

Someone else responded to his questioner the way you responded to my post. Take a look:

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/11/buck-stops-with-ken-starr.html

AP wrote:

"If you read my post, you will see that I was attacking your IDEAS. The firm argument that your IDEAS are helping the terrorist cause implicates you, and hence may seem like a personal attack."

Oh, I read your post repeatedly. And it's YOUR WORDS, my covert accuser, that make it seem so. To wit:

"No, my liberal and quite blood stained friend, it is PEOPLE LIKE YOU, NOT DON RUMSFELD, who are getting our soldiers killed in Iraq right now."

I am a murderer. I am the enemy.

"Keep crowing about how much you care about our "kids" over there while you stab them in the back."

I murder our kids.

"If taking responsibility for your beliefs is that threatening to you, perhaps you haven't really thought through the reality of the situation in Iraq. It is not an abstract event. It is a war in which propaganda plays a major role, adds recruits to the enemies ranks, and undermines American morale. Our soldiers need the full support of the people in this country to limit the length of their engagement and discourage the enemy. This is a fact."

Propaganda and all political events, including wars, are intertwined. It's true that our soldiers need every ounce of our support. To claim that my dissent aids the enemy, and WORSE, that my criticism, the right to which I'm guaranteed by our Constitution--makes me a killer is, well, propaganda, as is using "Support Our Troops" as a euphemism for "Support George W. Bush."

"I think it is necessary to point out that what you say and do is not benign. You are one negative voice among many, but in the aggregate all of these voices galvanize the terrorists. If you listen to Osama's recent speeches, they are filled with your talking points. That alone should tell you something."

What it tells me that Bin Laden is a skilled propagandist. If you want a poster boy for Jihad recruitment, George W. Bush is your man. That Iraq became the magnet for terrorists after Our Leader claimed victory for the U.S. is incontrovertible. W is the galvanizing factor here.

Let's outlaw dissent. Lock us up; send us to camps. Hell, why stop there? KILL us. Now there's a system of government we can hold up as a world model. Oh, wait--that's been done, and It didn't work out so well.

But what about just wiping out all the 'rag-heads'? Let's, as you suggest, blow everyone who hates us off the face of the earth. The world will be a much better place for decent folks like you and me (or, I guess you and yours). Tell me more about why that'll work.

"Boom goes Russia, Boom Paree--More room for you and more room for me... They all hate us anyhow, so let's drop the big one now. Let's drop the big one now." --Randy Newman, "Political Science"

BTW-thanks for at least treating me like a human being this time. Maybe you can lose the alias.

502 words-sorry (most of them aren't mine)

Oops-I misquoted. It's "Boom, goes LONDON, Boom, Paree..." My apologies to "The Rand".

Dear Paul,

You state: "To claim that my dissent aids the enemy, and WORSE, that my criticism, the right to which I'm guaranteed by our Constitution--makes me a killer is, well, propaganda, as is using "Support Our Troops" as a euphemism for "Support George W. Bush.""

Supporting our troops IS NOT a euphemism for supporting George W. Bush. You miss the point. We all now we NEED TO WIN THIS WAR. Your attacks on the running of the war, the need for the war, the success of the war, the conduct of Rumsfeld or our troops UNDERMINES THE WAR EFFORT and ENCOURAGES OUR ENEMY. The enemy will fight harder and kill more when he thinks he can win, hence you are helping these killers, Paul. This is NOT about Bush, although you'd surely love to make it so.

You state: "What it tells me that Bin Laden is a skilled propagandist. If you want a poster boy for Jihad recruitment, George W. Bush is your man. That Iraq became the magnet for terrorists after Our Leader claimed victory for the U.S. is incontrovertible. W is the galvanizing factor here."

So Bush is responsible for terrorism? For people willing to BLOW THEMSELVES UP? For people willing to BLOW UP INNOCENT CIVILIANS. For people willing to ENSLAVE WOMEN AND BEHEAD INNOCENTS? Blaming the United States and Bush for terrorism is like blaming the rape victim for "dressing sexy." Absurd.

You state: "Let's outlaw dissent. Lock us up; send us to camps. Hell, why stop there? KILL us. Now there's a system of government we can hold up as a world model. Oh, wait--that's been done, and It didn't work out so well."

What the hell are you talking about? Who even remotely suggested anything about "outlawing dissent" or "shutting you up?" Your cry of "victimhood" is a classic liberal tactic, and is transparent here. You will not silence me with it, nor will you garner sympathy.

You state: "But what about just wiping out all the 'rag-heads'? Let's, as you suggest, blow everyone who hates us off the face of the earth. The world will be a much better place for decent folks like you and me (or, I guess you and yours). Tell me more about why that'll work."

What the hell are you blathering about? Who suggested blowing people off the face of the earth? Why the sudden need to use RACIAL SLURS WHEN THEY WERE NEVER USED IN OUR "DISCOURSE" BEFORE? Trying to call me a racist by using terms I never used is another classic liberal trick and won't work here. And when did i say we should annihilate scores of people? If you think I was suggesting nuclear weapons use in an earlier post, you are wrong. I said: "Two nukes were dropped on Japan because the Japanese were percieved as fierce and unified, willing to fight to the last man. If we made it clear that we were so inclined, the insurgents would have little to buoy their spirits." I was saying if we made it clear that we were WILLING TO FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN, the insurgents would be disheartened, not "we should threaten to use nukes," which would be completely absurd and impractical, and result in the deaths of countless innocents, which is WHAT WE SHOULD ALL BE TRYING TO AVOID. My point was that the US feared the might of the Japanese because they were unified.

Basically, you resorted to race-baiting and cries of victomhood in your last post, and rationalized behavior that hurts our war effort. A classic liberal post if I've ever seen one.

AP,
You claim that "Supporting our troops IS NOT a euphemism for supporting George W. Bush." Tell this to your party. It's not apparent from where I sit.

"We all now we NEED TO WIN THIS WAR." Yes, we do. Even so, many of us feel we were duped into invading Iraq. You contend that our saying so sabotages the war effort and that by expressing our dissent we "stab our kids in the back." If you don't mean it, don't write it.

You say I say: So Bush is responsible for terrorism? (ETC.) C'mon, here's what I said: That Iraq became the magnet for terrorists after Our Leader claimed victory for the U.S. is incontrovertible. In other words, Bush made Iraq the 'Studio 54' of terrorism--the place to see and be seen. Every self-respecting Islamic jihadist is now online to get in.

"Blaming the United States and Bush for terrorism is like blaming the rape victim for "dressing sexy." Absurd.?" YEP! Did I say that? NOPE. I said what I said, and this isn't it.

I DID say: "But what about just wiping out all the 'rag-heads'? (Etc.)... That one struck a nerve. What a hateful, bigoted SOB I am to say such a thing! You're right. I deliberately used the slur 'rag heads' to amplify the absurdity of your nuke rhetoric. It's racist and intentionally inflammatory. My political party issued no directive instructing me to do so, even though you see it as a standard liberal tactic. While you may not be racist and I don't mean to paint you as one, the Wipe-out-all-the- (insert appropriate epithet here) argument is one that the fringes of the Republican party have spat out freely through the years. I realize that I'm raising the dead and generalizing here. I apologize for doing so and will try to refrain from such "Limbaughian" behavior in the future.

Your words: Two nukes were dropped on Japan because the Japanese were perceived as fierce and unified, willing to fight to the last man. "Willing to fight to the last man" could apply to anyone whose absolute dedication to a cause trumps personal needs...terrorists, for instance. I took you to mean that we should show our resolve by threatening to use nukes in Iraq. If you intended to convey that we must be "WILLING TO FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN, (so) the insurgents would be disheartened," you probably should have avoided the nuke reference, which launched me on a tirade I must now retract. Even so, "Political Science" is a wicked good song and I appreciate your giving me a reason to mention it.

Your trite, jaundiced, hackneyed Republican talking points are as baseless as your claim that my dissent is anathema to our cause.

458 words

Paul,

From your last post:

""Blaming the United States and Bush for terrorism is like blaming the rape victim for "dressing sexy." Absurd.?" YEP! Did I say that? NOPE. I said what I said, and this isn't it."

Here's what you said in the post before that (since you can't think beyond the post you have in front of your face):

"What it tells me that Bin Laden is a skilled propagandist. If you want a poster boy for Jihad recruitment, George W. Bush is your man. That Iraq became the magnet for terrorists after Our Leader claimed victory for the U.S. is incontrovertible. W is the galvanizing factor here."

Explain the difference. You say in one post that terrorists are coming to Iraq because of Bush, then you claim that you didn't say that Bush is responsible for terrorists. You make no sense. People willing to travel on a suicide mission to a country other than theirs just to sabotage free elections and democracy are lunatics, and Bush is not responsible for them. Read your own crap before you post.

You wrote:

"You claim that "Supporting our troops IS NOT a euphemism for supporting George W. Bush." Tell this to your party. It's not apparent from where I sit."

Well, it's hard to tell what's going on from "where you sit," since the giant dildo upon which you are perched is clearly affecting your ability to think. You are a master debater I must admit, capable of varying whimsical retorts at will. Your prose is shameful and your ideas absurd. Basically Paul, you are a giant douchebag. I hereby relinquish all rites to access this site voluntarily to avoid dealing with you.

You're both starting to make me mad.

AP:

There are many people who were very vocal in their opposition to not going into Iraq. You're arguing that since we have gone in and now must win, that it would be the in our interest if these dissenters held their tongues now.

I think that's correct. But it's an appeal that costs them much, starting with a complicit trust in the people who are running this war and in we who support it.

Frankly you haven't shown yourself the slightest bit capable of appreciating the cost you're asking of them, let alone of being capable of inspiring trust in anyone. You seem partisan, judgemental, and belligerent. All the things you're asking the other side not to be. You may try to wrap it up in concern for the troops, but you'd be more persuasive if you seemed like you wanted to persuade a fellow American. Instead you're just itching for fight with your opposition.

Paul:

Go back and read your reply to Bob and his Halliburton post.

You've far and way proven yourself to be the pot who called the kettle black.

C,

If you're referring to my criticism of Bob's asking me to defend claims I never made(about Halliburton, etc.) can you please provide specifics? I'm trying to focus on the words posted here. Where have I failed (and not acknowledged it)? If you're willing to invest the effort, I do want be as objective as I can be--but I'm probably not objective enough to see where I've gone wrong.

Thanks for your time and interest.

Yes, you made the sort of acknowledgements you generally make when you are called on what you chastise others for doing. YOu're sorry to have done such and such BUT:

1. We must understand you've been sucker-punched by the Bush beasties and the beasties who voted for them.

2. You're sorry and freely admit you shouldn't be acting as the beasties always act.

Well, let me acknowledge that my growing lack of patience and charity for #1 and #2 is something I can't lay at anyone else's door, it is strickly my own. And let me acknowledge that the self-indulgence and the lack of honesty in those excuses lies wholly within you.

Paul, I just reread what I wrote above and it sounds a lot surlier and judgemental than I meant it.

I get that way sometimes.

Sorry and happy new year to you and everyone.

Cecilia,

You are such a Lord Chamberlain I can't stand it. "Sowwy Paul, I don't wanna hurt your feewings!"

The guy thinks like an 18 year old Berkeley student. Why not tell him the truth? Or are you too busy with false emoticons and hugs to recognize the danger of this guy's ideas and his 40+ million pals who almost elected JOHN KERRY in the middle of a WAR??? Kerry is Jimmy Carter without morals. What would that have meant for us all?

Play nice in the sandbox if you wish. I'm sure your second grade teacher would be proud and give you a gold star. I'm outta here forever! Ciao!

When I apologize for being wrong or unfair, I don't intend to be disingenuous. At times I offer "mock" apologies as sarcasm -- these are indeed insincere. I also try to inject a little humor here and there -- I said I TRY; that’s not to suggest I succeed. Sometimes I think “out loud,� change my mind or am utterly convinced I’m right until you or someone like you shows me I’m wrong.

When I offer reasons for feeling as I do, I’m not consciously attempting to excuse or rationalize my behavior. Nor do I mean to mitigate, qualify or minimize instances I’ve admitted being wrong or unfair.

If you feel I lack integrity, it will forever cloud your openness to my arguments. I must convince you that I value honesty.

Your apology (while unnecessary) is accepted. I wish you a Happy New Year as well.

Thanks for your input, C.

"Anti-Paul": Thanks for caring and sharing your "emoticons" or whatever they were. Live long and fester.

PA, there's a guy named John Walker Lindt who shares a great many personality characteristics with you.

Here's a hug good-bye. :D

RC,

Welcome back. Hope you enjoyed the holidays. How `bout this one for Rummy?

Sept. 25, 2003: Sinclair Broadcasting's Morris Jones framed a question to Rumsfeld.

Jones: "Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said . . . they would welcome us with open arms..." Rumsfeld quickly cut him off, saying, "Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."

Feb. 20, 2003: Rumsfeld, interviewed on "The News Hour" by Jim Lehrer a month before the invasion of Iraq--

Lehrer: "Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?"
Rumsfeld: "There is no question but that they would be welcomed."

Full Article:
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031109/NEWS/211090375&SearchID=73195085265859