What's going on here is that the desire to "get" George Bush has become so overwhelming that it overrides all common sense; and who suffers or dies in the process doesn't matter as long as there is bad news to blame on GWB.

Nah...I don't think this has anything to do with George Bush as an individual so much as what he stands for....or the fact that he stands for anything. The vast majority of members of the press are out to paint America as the enemy. This Newsweek article had nothing to do with the President...it had EVERYTHING to do with making the USA look bad.

I've read folks lamenting our freedoms given to the Press and to ourselves in the guise of speech. With any freedom comes responsibility. Abuse or disregard of that responsibility cannot result in the elimination of the freedom. It should however be met with a harsh response of the rest of us and I think Newsweek is experiencing this wrath right now...and it's only gonna get worse. Drudge is flashing something about "top NEWSWEEK executive claims an emotional Isikoff offered to resign from the magazine over the weekend." That is interesting but...I can find no reputable source for this as yet. (yes...I just called Drudge unreputable...deal with it).

Hmmmm ....

Newsweek prints a story citing facts ...
Subsequent scrutiny shows the evidence was unreliable (facts remain unproven) ...
Newsweek apologizes, and then retracts the story.

The United States declares war citing facts ...
Subsequent scrutiny shows the evidence was unreliable (facts proven false, conspiracy theories notwithstanding) ...
The United States apologizes, and then retracts the war?

I'm not defending Newsweek. Just pointing out how important it is to get your facts straight before doing something consequential.

I doubt we have heard the last of this debacle. Ishikoff and Newsweek vetted the article with the Pentagon before publication. This post article tumult and retraction are politically motivated because of the unrest and seething anti-Americanism in Afghanistan which is going to happen anyway. As James accurately and amusingly points out - the bending or ignoring of facts is - unfortunately - a rather common practice now from all camps.

Oh, please. If your moral equivalence were sugar, I’d be diabetic by now.

When you yell “Bush lied! People died!”, you conveniently ignore the fact that we were hardly the only nation on the planet to believe Saddam had WMD. Never mind that UNR1441 demanded compliance with inspectors, which Saddam actively obstructed. Also never mind that stockpiles of undeclared materiel are still being discovered (just go back through the archives here at C-P to find some). You’re just all too happy to find something, anything to pile into your favorite GWB-fixated conspiracy theory.

Yet, when someone points out, “Newsweek 17, Abu Ghraib 0” and “Newsweek lied, Afghanis died”, you say, “Well, there’s plenty of that all around. We’re all doing it.”

No, we’re not. Newsweek pulled a Mary-Mapes: relax the rules of journalism and sources, if it might make GWB/Cheney/Republicans/the GWOT look bad. Only this time, people are dead. Hell, even Bush knew better than to take that route. Why are you so willing to cut Newsweek a break after such wanton recklessness, but GWB gets no such break for being far more careful?

But if you notice, Iraqis know better. They already know, from direct experience, that most reporters for the US media want to deny their freedom, all for an anti-Bush political agenda. And Newsweek is especially egregious about it.

I’m sorry James, but your statement vis-a-vis the war and WMD ignore some facts:

1) The thousands upon thousands of barrels of pesticides in ammo bunkers, which when mixed together; create nerve agents. Why this passed almost without notice, even WITH coverage by the MSM; is beyond me.
2) The 20 tons of nerve agents, obstensibly from Syria; that were used in that attempted bombing, in… help me out here… was that Lebanon? 2003 or 2004?
3) The incontrovertable fact that the weapons existed when the UN was kicked out.
4) The fact that every intelligence agency in the world believed they existed. Although, in the interests of intellectual honesty; I suppose that EVERYONE could have been wrong.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Keep in mind that we are not debating the existance of these WMD in absolute terms, merely their existance and/or whereabouts in 2003.
To find the WMD support infrastructure that we did and to decide that there were no actual weapons is like finding a basement grow room with thousands of dollars in hydroponic systems, hallide lights and a 3-phase electrical system but conclude the owner was growing tomatoes just because there was no pot in the room when you got there.

Finally, as to the reasons for the war:
The Bush administration was, in my opinion; quite foolish to let the press run with the sexy WMD story to the exclusion of the all the other reasons for war.
And there WERE other reasons…
To tell me they were not is to assume that I was off the planet at the time, instead of watching the news every night.
I can only assume that the administration figured that it didn’t matter if nobody paid attention to the other reasons because they anticipated finding the WMD shortly after the war began.

Frankly, you may not agree with the Bush administrations “Reverse-Domino/Drain-the-Swamp” theory of mideast stabilization, but you should at least give them credit for acknowledging that the 50 year old policy of “stability at any cost” was a miserable failure and trying something different.

A Vet,

James wasn't saying there wasn't WMD in Iraq, he was saying that the US has not apologised for getting their facts wrong.

BTW, there happens to be more evidence that the US military have flushed the Koran down the toilet than there has been evidence of WMD which could have justified the war.

Gus3
---
No, we’re not. Newsweek pulled a Mary-Mapes: relax the rules of journalism and sources, if it might make GWB/Cheney/Republicans/the GWOT look bad. Only this time, people are dead. Hell, even Bush knew better than to take that route. Why are you so willing to cut Newsweek a break after such wanton recklessness, but GWB gets no such break for being far more careful?
---

Are you for real?

Ever heard of Ahmed Chalabi or 'Curveball'?

GWB and friends don't need any assistance to look bad.

I was waiting for this...the comparison between this and our liberation of the people of Iraq. I tried to tell myself that it didn't make any sense but I knew it was coming anyway. Frankly, I don't think it merits a response but here's another comparison that is thought provoking if nothing else.

A story about a desecrated Quran gets 17 deaths, hundreds wounded, and world outrage.

A Crucifix in Urine is declared Art and is paid for by the American Tax payer while a few voices are raised in objection but no guns were fired, no bombs set off, and no riots killing anyone.

Now...I ask you...who are the extremists? Christians the world over have been insulted, enslaved, and murdered. Their symbols have been exposed to the worst forms of treatment, mocked, and ridiculed. Here in America we Christians are called extremists simply because we voted for laws banning Gay Marriage in 11 states and we rhetorically fight for the protection of innocent life. Sure, there are a few nut jobs that react violently and the mainstream Christian community condemns their behavior and encourages punishment under the law of the land.

With the past week in mind, how can any reasonable person claim Christians are extremists now?

Symptomless -

Why should the US apologize for "getting it's facts wrong" when in fact the US did NOT.

The issue is NOT that the WMD never existed... they certainly did, and if you cannot accept that reality then you are not dealing with this issue in a reality based context.

The REAL question is; WHERE did they go and WHEN did they go?

They certainly existed when the UN was kicked out in, what...? 1999 I think?
We certainly DID find binary nerve agents in ammo bunkers throughout Iraq, but for some reason Bush's opponents want to insist that it wasn't really the missing WMD because it wasn't MIXED yet.
Think about that for a minute...
If I have a bottle of ammonia in my left hand and a jar of chlorine tabs in my right hand, it is true that I do not have ammonium chloride gas, but it is manifestly NOT true that I don't posess a chemical weapon.

Coming back to the main issue, the common thread that is driving so much of the rhetoric from the left is the urge to GET BUSH.

I also see a lot of the nazi/hitler comparisons, which is really pretty sad, because it means that those people are either profoundly ignorant of history or they are completely out of touch with reality.

A Vet,

quote, "The fact that every intelligence agency in the world believed they existed. Although, in the interests of intellectual honesty; I suppose that EVERYONE could have been wrong"

quote, "Why should the US apologize for "getting it's facts wrong" when in fact the US did NOT."

The fundamental reason why the US should apologise is because they were the ones who used the incorrect intellegence to wage a war. The distinction between the US and the rest of the world is that it was the US and not the rest of the world who deemed it necessary invade a soveriegn state on that flawed basis.

And do you seriously think that possesion of a few vats of pesticide constitute an act of aggresion punishable by invasion and the waging of war?

The reason why the intelegence was flawed?

Does it not shock you that the main sources for the evidence that the US specifically gave regarding their justification came from Ahmed Chalabi and a drunken informant codenamed 'Curveball'?

Chalabi subsequently was found to be selling US intellegence to the Iranians, effectively enabling the US to do Iran's dirty work for them by ousting Saddam. And when the Germans found out that the CIA was using 'Curveball' as source of chemical weapons intellegence they laughed out loud.

The presedential commission that said that the US intellegence was 'dead wrong' regarding Iraq's WMD program also stated that the CIA also knew BEFOREHAND that their chief intellegence source, 'Curveball' was (laughably) unreliable.

Failures intellegence like this are rarely merely failures in intellegence. Rather, failures in policy.

The simple questions are: Was the US government decieved? Did they knowingly decieve the public? Since the intellence has proven to be incorrect did they apologise?

Wayne Fielder: With the past week in mind, how can any reasonable person claim Christians are extremists now?

I'm not a Christian and never have been. I disagree with Wayne on abortion, gay marriage and, no doubt, a host of other things. Relations between our faiths have never been cordial. But a few weeks ago, he offered to throw himself on pyre if necessary to protect me from persecution, and I would do the same for him. Thankfully absent that need, I'll willingly man the rhetorical barricades at his shoulder.

Sixteen people are dead. The blame for that lies not with an American interrogator who may or may not have tossed a book into a commode and not with a hack reporter and his leftista editors practicing tabloid journalism. Though my RWDB membership may be revoked for saying it, blame doesn't even lie with Islam, a religion practiced by millions of sane, peaceful people. Blame lies with those who chose to throw the collective tantrum known as a riot, murdering people in a fit of pique. It lies with the ones with the bloody hands.

If this had been even a single lone Christian wacko going on a rampage over the Maplethorpe stupidity, there wouldn't be mass media condemnation of the 'artist' for disrespecting Christianity. The NYT wouldn't be excoriated for running pictures of the exhibit. The killer's religion wouldn't be considered an excuse, either implicitly or explicitly -- in fact, it would be used to spread the blame to Christians and Christianity worldwide.

The double-standard is both amazing and shameful.

Symptomless -

You're still ignoring the facts:

1) The WMD issue was NOT the only reason we went to war. Not by a long shot. It's true that the press focused on that issue to the exclusion of all the others and the administration was dumb to allow that to go uncorrected, but I refuse to pretend that this was all about WMD, even if you seem to want to.

2) We're not talking about "a few vats of pesticide". We're talking about thousands of barrels of nerve agent in it's unmixed binary form; in ammo bunkers throughout Iraq.

3) Although you seem determined to ignore this FACT, there is ZERO doubt that Saddam's WMD existed at the time that the UN was kicked out of Iraq by Saddam. The burden of proof was on SADDAM to either produce the weapons or tell us where they went. He did not.
WHEN the WMD left Iraq and where they went is a valid question, but the existance of the weapons is NOT.

Finally, the subject of this particular thread is NOT Saddams failure to produce his WMD or explain where they went, no matter how hard you try to shift it that way.

The SUBJECT is the way the Left, which has long since included most of the media; has placed "Getting Bush" ahead of ALL other concerns, including whether or not anyone gets hurt in the process.

I would thank you to stop setting up Straw Men arguments and other diversions in an effort to hide that reality. If you want to sit around and gnash your teeth about how evil our President is, I suggest you try DU, where you can be assured that your views will NEVER be challanged.

A Vet,

quote, "Finally, the subject of this particular thread is NOT Saddams failure to produce his WMD or explain where they went, no matter how hard you try to shift it that way."

That's rich. You began this thread with the assertion that the Newsweek story was all about a smear on Bush.

quote, "What's going on here is that the desire to "get" George Bush has become so overwhelming, ..."

The debate has traversed somewhat to a parallel debate about the responsibility of blame for those that use single sources of intelligence and are thus caught out by their foolishness. Its a fair analogy to link the Newsweek dilemma to that of the Bush Administration debace on Iraqi intelligence.

The reason for Newsweek's apology isn't fully apparent, commercial pressure, inaccuracy (unlikely), diplomacy or whatever. It'll be as elusive as the reason why the US hasn't apologised for an illegal war.

That withstanding I may as well respond to your post,

1) WMD was the only LEGAL reason to go to war. It doesn't matter how many other sidelines there were, the only legal reason to launch preemptive a war is because of a real threat. In this case WMD. Justified loosely by a host of single sources which proved unjustifiable.

2) Don't tell me or the other loyal Command Post readers about your knowledge of the extent of Saddam's WMD, go straight to the top. Tony Blair and GWB would be more than happy to hear about your findings as they've given up realistic hope of finding any.

3) So you like to claim. Do you have evidence that WMD existed in 1999? There was evidently no real evidence in 2002. Apart from dodgy testimony.

Ultimately are you saying that the US govt have made no mistakes? Have nothing to apologise for?

--

Back on topic,

The argument that the American media is liberal is laughable when compared to, say to a normal democratic system where its the media's responsibility to bring leaders to account.

American mainstream media is too wrapped up in the corporate world to act in any freely independent manner.

Defend your leaders to the hilt because thats your responsibility as a loyal follower of ideology. Blind faith and obedience is a gift from god to the right wing America.

You're not serving your country, you're serving your ideology.

Symptomless -

1) You say that WMD was the only legal reason to go to war. Perhaps you forget that at the end of the first gulf war there was only a CEASE FIRE, not a peace or end to hostilities; and that was only contingent on Saddam cooperating in regards to his WMD programs and various other requirements. He had 12 years. He failed. We didn't.

2) The discovery of the chemical agents I mentioned is hardly a secret. The bacteriological reference strains, the new research on brucella and hemmoragic fever, the prison laboratory complexes, the UAVs and missile work, the Yellowcake, the 500 tons of natural uranium that even the IAEA admitted was for a clandestine nuke program...
Making strictly a W.A.G., I would say that the administration got tired of "talking to a wall".
You may find it useful to read the Kay's reports. Not the news stories about the report, the reports themselves.

3) My "evidence" for the existance of WMD in Iraq in 1999 (1998?) at the time that the UN was kicked out is that those WMD were under UN control at the time. Or are they part of the evil Bush cabal as well and are therefore lying?

Finally, I never made the claim that the govt makes no mistakes. They make them all the time, because governments are composed of humans, and humans are fallible. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's rude and disrespectful.


Now....

Back on topic?
Really?
Such a novel idea...

As to your statement about the american media not being liberal...
Only someone viewing the media from the extreme left (Democratic Underground?) could POSSIBLY think the media isn't hugely liberal. Surveys of the people that make up the media, you know... the reporter, producers, etc...?
Those folks overwhelmingly SELF-IDENTIFY as liberal.

As to me serving my ideology, not my country:

a) I don't HAVE an ideology. I have views, based on reality.
b) As my nickname implies, I HAVE served my country. Have you?

Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is operating on blind faith and ideology is at the core of what the TOPIC of this thread really is.

Pity that you cannot see the irony in your accusation.

So Vet. Just curious. What do you think of the Downing Street Memo? (See www.downingstreetmemo.com for those who need a place to start.)

James,

How does the Downing Street Memo figure in to Saddam’s twelve-year-long game of manipulating the UN? Are you saying that we shouldn’t hold Saddam accountable for his murders, lies, obstruction, and yes, even WMD? These are facts that nobody disputes. Are you saying somehow that we set him up, and all should therefore be forgiven?

If that's what you believe, then by all means, go to Iraq, take Saddam with you, apologize for what happened, announce that the election is null and void, and put him back into power. You'll have plenty of help from Newsweek, Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, CNN, etc etc etc. Go ahead, give it your best shot.

If you're not willing to do that much, then even you don't believe it was wrong to remove him from power. You simply can't stand that it was GWB and Tony Blair who finally did it. Your precious UN was dragged along kicking and screaming, only because their hypocritical appeasement was finally exposed.

The first post, also from "A Vet", was right, and the Downing Street Memo site is just more evidence of that.

James, you pre-empted me.

The reason that this Newsweek issue is related to the Bush Administration, and its loyal minions, is because if you can heat up the press and fill so many column inches with a blown up issue such as this you can control the agenda.

Its nearly two weeks since The (London) Times released this memo which shows that in July of 2002 Tony Blair was aware that the Administration was planning on going to war regardless of what they were saying publicly.

Where's the so called liberal media coverage of this event? Nowhere.

Surely this story is closer to a 'slam dunk' Bush expose than an passage buried deep in editorial about Abu Ghraib abuses, which incidentally, is probably true.

Don't kid yourself about the nature of the print media staffers. The output of these publications is WELL controlled and dictated.

When virtually all of the news is controlled by six immense multi-national corporations that are more concerned about profit then they are about serving the public interest its the bottom line that counts.

They'll capitulate to power everytime.

p.s. please forward evidence of the WMD finds in Iraq. I'd be interested.

p.p.s. I never put words into your mouth, I asked you a question.

"which incited the deaths of at least 15 people"

The right will harass the left if the left ever says Israel incites Palestinian suicide bombers (wrong, as bombing people is wrong period).

Now the right is saying Newsweek incited these killings.

Typical hypocrites.

symptomless, if you're too lazy to look back through the C-P archives, I'm not going to do your work for you.

Vince, Newsweek didn't incite. The mullahs did. Newsweek just handed them more propeganda, without caring a whit about its veracity. Ever heard of "complicity"?

Symptomless -

Here ya go:

Sarin Gas in Barbarian IED
Another one this time from BBC

Fox story on the Sarin find

and the TCP item referencing the Fox story

Now, I'm sure that out of the above links you'll find at least one you believe to be from a credible news source. ;)

Oh alright...I can't help myself. Quoting from UN Resolution 144:

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

and while I'm making myself later in leaving the office, let's look at UN Res 687, which set the terms of the ceasefire:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism; 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

So...UN Res 687 says a ceasefire is in effect if Iraq plays by the rules set out in 687. Not a Cessation of Hostilities but just a ceasefire.

Hussein continued his work in PUBLIC support of the Palestinian bombers, continued to SHOOT AT allied aircraft over the no fly zones, continued his nuclear ambitions.

That isn't playing by the rules...so the ceasefire ended.

Case Closed.

Drat...I'll repost this tonight on my blog with the lists deliniated properly. Sorry for the mess above but the quotes are accurate and the point is the same.

Symptomless -

You most certainly DID put words in my mouth.


Vince -
The Downing St memo...?
The one where the BFEE and his British Minion had already decided to go to war 8 months before the invasion, and then began looking for ways to explain to the general public why it was neccesary?

Well gosh...
I would HOPE that when our president takes us to war he spends many months planning it and explaining it.
Unless you're suggesting that the proper way to do it is to wake up one tuesday morning, realize you're bored and start pushing red buttons...?

Lost in all the chari vari, and colorful reparte' is the absurdity of the offending the supersensitivies of muslim's concerned about a book - who support beheading a woman on video, or sending thier 14-year-old daughters to suicide by mass murdering other peoples 14-year-old daughter.

Perhaps if Islam showed as much concern for human beings as they do for the Koran, - we would not be having this discussion.

I call on all American's to purchase a Koran, spit on it, tear out pages, burn it, and tossed the refuse down the toilet!

Nothing would be any different. These freaks and shaitans already desire our total destruction. Perhaps a few more muslims would hate American's, but I doubt it. I spit on the Koran and cannot wait to toss one into the toilet!

Wayne,

That's really very poor, four links pointing to the same story. Worse, four links pointing to the same decaying shell.

It was basically a 20+ year old shell scavenged from the Iran/Iraq war and stuffed with explosives.

It was used as an Improvised Explosive Device, emphasis on 'improvised', because the people who made it probably didn't know what it was. In order for it to be dangerous it needs to be launched so that the chemicals mix.

From USA Today: "Two former weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and David Kay, said the shell probably was a stray weapon scavenged by militants. It likely does not signify that Iraq still had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, they said."

Justification for War? Do you think?

---

And its fine quoting the conditions of the various UN resolutions but you haven't quoted the consequences of noncompliance. From memory, the consequences were deemed along the typically wooly lines of "serious consequences", which is vague, but in terms of a UN resolution means referral back to the Security Council for clarification in order to deem action necessary. Possibly war, possibly not, it was up to Security Council to decide, that's the point. Its not up to George Bush's Neocons and their drunken, fraudulent advisors.

----

A Vet,

QUOTE, "The one where the BFEE and his British Minion had already decided to go to war 8 months before the invasion, and then began looking for ways to explain to the general public why it was neccesary?"

QUOTE, "Well gosh...
I would HOPE that when our president takes us to war he spends many months planning it and explaining it."

I'd check that the stopper on your bottle of ammonia is on; you're admitting that Bush lied to take the US to war.

Symptomless -

1441 was clear I think. The original language was serious MILITARY consequences but the frenchies made us take "Military" out. Since the Oil-For-Food scandal I think we all know WHY they made us take "military" out. Everyone on the Security Council knew what the resolution meant...sorry if you missed the nuance.

I think you missed the part in the resolutions about how Hussein was supposed to turn over all existing WMD or report how they were destroyed. That, sir, was a condition of the CEASEFIRE. The very existence of that single shell, regardless of it's age, was condition enough to set aside the ceasefire let alone his daily tracking or firing on our warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones. Welcome to the Rules of War.

If you disagree with the President of the US that's fine. If you hate him because he works by principles that you abhor I wish you and those like you would just come out and admit it. Until then I will continue to wear the "warmonger" hat you would place on us Americans and be content in the fact that we have freed 50 million people from the tyranny they had lived under. You can go place a flower on the grave of Neville Chamberlain while I honor the memory of Winston Churchill.

Please don't metion Oil-for-Food, you're making a rod for your own back with that one. I refer you to the answers of George Galloway, the blind-eye turned by US authorities & military to US & Jordanian companies running oil out of Iraq and the fact, ellusive in reporting of those American agencies outraged by the Oil-for-Food scandal, that the majority of companies accused of abusing the sanctions were American companies.

BTW, the lack of quality and balance in US broadcast and print media, and the ridiculous smear tactics employed, has stifled honest reporting so much that when viewed from outside the US they appear extremely transparent and ludicrous. Look at Galloway's performance in the Senate, they didn't know where to look.

Whilst you have a smearing right-wing press and an underperforming left-wing press your gonna be short changed and have an ill informed public.

---

Anyway, I don't get paid enough to argue the finer points of a UN resolution. If you're adamant that a discarded shell and pot shots at military aircraft is justification for war I'll leave that to you and your conscience.

---

If you and your president are happy to wear 'warmonger' hats I'll leave you to your principles. Maybe you should fix the divisions in your own country before foisting your 'principles' down the throats (or should that be the toilets) of the rest of the world.

Here's hoping Iraqi's one day are free. I'm afraid I won't be around to see it.

Symptomless -

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

I would also thank you to at least TRY to stay on topic for more than 5 minutes at a time.


THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS, SPECIFICALLY; NEWSWEEKS FAKE STORY, AND IN A WIDER SENSE; THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR FROM THE MOSTLY LIBERAL MEDIA AND FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF TO KEEP TRYING TO "GET" BUSH, REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES, COMMON SENSE OR HOW FAR FROM REALITY THAT YOU HAVE TO STRAY.

Hopefully, putting things in all caps will help you to hold on to the TOPIC for a little while.


I also suggest that you, and your friends, look up the word "LIE" and it's various conjugates.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a LIE actually is.

Well, it's either that or you are completely detached from reality. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Another thing...
You need to stop assuming that anyone who finds your BFEE theories to be laughable is running on blind faith.

Try to keep in mind that the US Givt was unable to pull off a simple coverup of a break-in at a hotel over 30 years ago.

Your conspiracy theories aren't laughable because we have political differences, they are laughable because they call for a level of competence, coordination and secrecy that are beyond the demonstrated ability of the human race.


Finally, and this is on a personal note...

I lost family in the holocaust, and I find the comparisons between our current government and naziz to be personally offensive. The "punch-in-the-nose" kind of offensive.
One; because it displays a profound ignorance of just exactly who the nazis were and what they did, and Two; because it pisses all over the metaphorical graves of the 11-someodd-million victims of the nazi death machine.
less.

"Here's hoping Iraqi's one day are free."

Iraq is, right now, the freest Arab-majority nation on the planet. This wouldn't be so bad in your mind, except that George W. Bush is the one who made it happen. The only way you can rationalize this, is to deny that they are free, because as you see it, GWB isn't capable of doing anything right.

Do you think the average voting Iraqi gives a rodent's anus if you don't like GWB?

"Here's hoping Iraqi's one day are free."

Somehow, I doubt the Iraqis who suffered for so long now think they aren't "free."

Symptomless -

I'm sorry to tell you that we hold your Mr. Galloway almost as credible as we hold our own Howard Dean. That is to say that we don't. Dean is quickly becoming the laughing stock of his own party and that's no mean feat when you have Nancy Pilosi, Ted Kennedy, and Sheila Jackson Lee in there with him.

Also sorry to see you leaving the field on the UN Res discussion. THEY are the reason we went to war. The violation of UN Res 1441 is what led 41 countries to set aside the ceasefire which ultimately led to the first free elections in Iraq.

But...I guess because the Frogs and the Germans didn't participate those 41 countries are just American puppet regimes. Ah well....

It's interesting the way this thread has become an example of it's own subject.

Can't give any credit to Bush for anything good, so anything good must either be someone ELSE'S doing, or it's not real. Plus of course, we must pray that the US fails in Iraq and everywhere else as long as Bush is in office. Bust must be "gotten" at all costs, even if it means that you have to abuse the power of the press to attempt to manipulate an election (Rathergate) or if a couple of dozen people die. (Newsweek)
After all, these are only foreigners...
Who cares if they die if it helps to "get Bush"?

WF,
quote, "I'm sorry to tell you that we hold your Mr. Galloway almost as credible as we hold our own Howard Dean. That is to say that we don't."

I know you don't. That's why it was so satisfying to see him totally stick one on the US Senate the way he did. He hasn't got many friends here either but there was a general consensus of satisfaction that he showed the impotent smear campaign of the US Right's OFF up for what it is, "the mother of all smokescreens". Live on TV too.

Maybe if he throws enough truth at the the American public some of it will stick.

I'll leave the small print of UN resolutions to the experts, since there's a legal case being put forward that the UK's involvement was indeed illegal.

The only legal brain in the counry that deemed it legal was the Attornay General and even he had to have his mind changed that way 10 days before the war began.

A Vet,

Never mind sticking to the topic of the thread, are you sure you're on the right thread? Myself and probably everyone here are sorry you lost family members to the Nazi's but please explain the reason why you bring this up. Nobody except yourself has mentioned the Nazi's.

Whilst you checking back please explain where, precisely, I put words into your mouth.

Also regards the Downing Street Memo, you say that: "I would HOPE that when our president takes us to war he spends many months planning it and explaining it." (your words - not mine).

The memo claims that the president was determined to go to war months before the invasion no matter what, i.e. he really wanted to go to war because (insert reason here), and justify it with (insert plausible sounding reason here) whilst telling the public that he and his Administration were trying all possible means to avoid war and were actively seeking a diplomatic solution.

You're ok with that?

I'm not, because if its true its corruption. And, dare I say it, lying. Get yourself a decent dictionary.

And neither am I ok with the fantasy notion of the US bringing freedom whilst committing atrocities such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in dozens of U.S. detention facilities worldwide.

Whilst you sully the Newsweek article but don't condemn the ACTUAL proven abuses you gain no respect from me, nor any credibility. Nor, I should imagine, anyone in Iraq whose freedom it is you're supposed to be manufacturing with President Bush's magic wand.

symptomless:

Thank you so much for proving my point. I could not have asked for better proof, so quickly.

Really?

You had a point?

Symptomless -

I don't see anything contradictory or deceptive about deciding to go to war, but holding open the door to diplomacy if something can be worked out at the last minute.

Quite the opposite in fact...
If someone decides to go to war, spends 3/4 of a year prepping for it, but REFUSED to allow for a diplomatic solution should one be offered, THAT would be upsetting.


In fact, the only way that this could be conceived of as something bad is if you had ALREADY decided in advance to ONLY ascribe bad motives to a persons actions.

Thank you once again for providing evidence supporting my statement about people (like yourself being "out to get" Bush.


Oh and, by the way...

I realize that the concept is a little on the simple side for people more accustomed to looking for convoluted machinations, but the FIRST gulf war never ended. We didn't need a new authorization to resume hostilities, because all that happened in 1991 was a CEASE FIRE, contingent on certain actions from Saddam "Look who we've got our Hanes on now" Hussein.

Do you understand that? The original state of hostilities authorized by the UN in 1991WAS STILL IN EFFECT IN 2003.

A Vet,

Its deceptive because according to the memo the Bush Administration had decided to go to war and then attempted to find justification, and claimed that they hadn't yet decided to go to war.

And suspicion isn't the ONLY way that this could be concieved as something bad. You're forgetting the scenario where it actually happens. This memo goes towards proving that scenario.

Also, it wasn't up to Bush's Administration to decide whether a UN Security Council resolution has been breached, believe it or not its up to the UN Security Council.

Symptomless -

In Re: Memo;
That's the interpretation you're putting on it because you don't like Bush and you therefore see everything through that lens.

In Re: Violation of resolutions;
You're still not getting it.
The 1991 gulf war was never ended with a treaty. There was never an END to it at all, there was only a cease fire. Saddam did not live up to his end of the bargain and the cease fire ended.

I know you love talking about the war, because you're under the mistaken impression that you're right, but once again; the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS THE CONSTANT ATTACKING OF BUSH REGARDLESS OF REALITY OR WHO GETS HURT.

Vet,

To be honest I think America "up a creek" regards media bias. I watch Fox News, believe it or not its actually up there as one of my favourite channels. I watch it when I need a laugh, or when I need to get a handle on how you guys on the CP get your agenda. (I'm not saying you watch or believe in Fox but I use it as a barometer of right wing "news" coverage. Incidentally, I'm amazed by how little news it does contain).

I believe that US media is totally screwed whilst the media laws in the US don't require balanced reporting. Was it Reagan who abolished such laws? The American public is incredibly misinformed and misrepresented by the American media, both left and right.

Firstly, whilst the media is defined in terms of left or right you've got problems.

Secondly, since the media is controlled by huge corporations reporting will never free from those corporate demands.

What you get is a kind of ideological commodity.

In order to have a functioning democracy you need an independent press, independent from political and commercial influence, which is what you don't have. In order to have a functioning democracy you need a press which will hold the serving government to account, no matter who it is that happens to be serving at the time.

Is that a fair assumption?

And on that basis is that not the Newsweek article attempting to do that? On this occasional they appear to have made a mistake but if it weren't for what you call the "left wing" media we wouldn't have been made aware of Abu Ghraib.

Putting your political beliefs aside for a moment, you sound like a rational person, would you not prefer a media that holds your government accountable for their actions, ignoring for a moment who it is that's the current ruling party? If they don't do it, who would?

If there were a Liberal agenda to get Bush though would the memo story not be top of the agenda?

Incidentally "Malfeasance" actually means "misconduct by a public official" so maybe there's a Freudian element to this whole thread.

Vet -

Symptomless is always polite and well spoken in his posts. It's one of the reasons I always engage him when we stumble into the same thread. One thing you can always count on with him is the "Bush Lied! People Died!" mantra. It doesn't matter if you provide a solid arguement or not, he's convinced he's right. I suppose we are as well but at least we have the facts on our side. ;)

sorry Symptomless...couldn't avoid that poke...

Erm, probably not. Just for fun, go back though functioning democracies throughout history and see how many you can match up with these "essential" requirements:

"In order to have a functioning democracy you need an independent press, independent from political and commercial influence, which is what you don't have. In order to have a functioning democracy you need a press which will hold the serving government to account, no matter who it is that happens to be serving at the time. Is that a fair assumption?"

The last bit is true. The most robust way to have that hapen is via a diverse press. As the surveys and other sources referenced in our Winds of Change.NET post show, however, the American press is not diverse. It tends, in fact, to be very socially and politically homogeneous... and it's discovering that this is shrinking its market.

Reactions to this discovery vary, though to date denial and malfeasance seem to be the dominant responses. Some will adapt, some will shrink and fade. The justice of the market is a beautiful thing.

Symptomless -

I watch Fox News ... when I need to get a handle on how you guys on the CP get your agenda


I stopped reading right there.
If you truly believe that FoxNews is somehow a vehicle for the conveyance of an agenda to the brainwashed loyal minions, then you are ever FURTHER out of touch with reality than I thought, and that's saying something.

Furthermore, you have once again proved my point, something you have been doing throughout this thread.

One of the components of the whole "Get Bush" philosophy that you induldge in; is that any news outlet that isn't in bed with you philosophically must either be lying, being manipulated by the NeoCon Cabal, or quite possibly both.

To believe otherwise would create intolerable cognitive disonance for you.

Theleft is does not want to "get Bush" A Vet. Rather theleft desires that our leadership be accountable for deceptions, failures, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, abuses, and dereliction of duty. Since there is never in vetting of facts, and no accoutability the divides are more fierce and pronounced.

Relating to this thread, Newsweeks article shines a light on the neocrusader Bush government complete and total failure of leadership in Iraq and beyond.

Soldiers do what they are told. They are a tool, the hammer to advance the policies of leadership.

The neocrusaders in the Bush government have eroded and attempted to redefiine the most essential principles defining America. This quote here is alarmingly hypocritical and telling; (""In order to have a functioning democracy you need an independent press, independent from political and commercial influence, which is what you don't have. In order to have a functioning democracy you need a press which will hold the serving government to account, no matter who it is that happens to be serving at the time. Is that a fair assumption?")

By this standard, a solid case can be made that America is NOT a functioning democracy!

Gonzalez and others in the neocrusader Bush government shunned the Geneva Convention and morphed and mangled America's policies toward prisoners in Iraq and beyond, and have shame America.

Heaping the blame on a few privates and excusing or ignoring the systemic and endemic perverted policies that pervade the US military prison system in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, and whoknowswhere - and failing to address the CIA, and PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANY agents involvement (some say directives) in the matter further discredits America's already tattered legitimacy.

The neocrusader Bush government craven appeasment of the muslim world for this Newsweek debacle is laughable to anyone other than the 51% Bush apologist here in America.

Muslim sensitivites toward a book are ridiculous in the context of muslim willingness to slaughter even fellow muslims in the most unholy manner.

How can sensitivities to flushing the Koran down a toilet be taken serious when the same people behead women on video. You don't see Israeli's, American's, Russians, Europeans, Latins, Japanese, Chinese, or any other civilized human being storming the streas and killing each other after a beheading.

Until the Bush government is held acountable for the monumental failures of leadership, (redefining of American law and principles, total lack of accounting, wildly obscene profiteering, manifold deceptions and cloaking of fact, and sliming our fellow Americans for posing critical and legitimate and it proves not CORRECT question regarding the colonization of Iraq - America has no legitimacy.

"The left is does not want to "get Bush"..."



Your actions ("The Left's actions), are speaking so loudly, that I can't hear a word you're saying.

Wayne,

"It doesn't matter if you provide a solid arguement or not".

Oh, if only. If only.

:)

Vet,

Shame, just when I thought we were getting somewhere.

BTW, I haven't appreciated, or indeed understood all of your personal criticisms. My cogno disno what what? Sorry I left my babelfish at home today and don't don't understand what that is. I've asked for clarification of your accusations but haven't got any.

I appreciate that accusing anyone of watching Fox is below the belt. But that's part the problem. I can't honestly see the anti-Bush stance in the main stream media in the US to the extent that you/this thread/Fox claim. Blogs, message boards, websites etc of course, but nothing in the MSM that goes beyond the normal discourse 'required' to exercise the basic right's of democratic citizens to engage in rational-critical debate.

What I see from right wing media, and particularly on Fox, is a systematic attempt to stifle the debate. Discredit the MSM and therefore the natural rights of a free society.

I'm not expecting you to agree but at least engage in the debate.

Cogno Disco What...?

Good lord.

You kids are really getting stiffed by the current educational system.

I had a Thatcherite education so I guess that explains a lot.

Bloody Conservatives.

The end of this sentence should have read: (....and sliming our fellow Americans for posing critical and legitimate and it proves {now} CORRECT question{s} regarding the colonization of Iraq - America has no legitimacy.


No surprizing A Vet, since I am writing, not speaking.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about, albeit on a small scale:

"...sliming our fellow Americans for posing critical and legitimate and it proves {now} CORRECT question{s} regarding the colonization of Iraq..."

Here we see a typical left wing mudsling, and it's structure is fairly simple:
First, you come up with whatever ridiculous assertion/comment/question/attack that strikes your fancy.
You then look for ANYTHING to support your assertion, and of course, you can support any crazy notion that you want. All you have to do is a quick Google search to find many coherent, well structured and thought out arguments that support the notion that the moon landing was faked.
In doing this, it is often helpful to redefine words that have a negative connotation. In this case it's Tony's use of the word; "Colonization".
A simple dictionary check confirms that regardless of what we ARE doing in Iraq, it isn't even REMOTELY colonization. But that doesn't matter, as long as the word you are using has a negative connotation.

Once you have your assertion and have built an argument around it, you then declare yourself to be correct, regardless of whether or not you actually are. In the example that Tony refers to it turns out that the Bush administration decided to go to war 8 months before we actually went. Apparently, Tony wanted Bush to decide to send our troops into Iraq on Monday and start bombing on Tuesday.
You also want to ignore any inconvenient facts, such as the fact that regime change in Iraq has been official American Policy since the Clinton administration.

Step three is to accuse anyone questioning your crazy assertions of "sliming" you, or words to that effect. The Democrats and the Media used this technique to great effect on the Swift Boat Veterans, even though at the end of the day they couldn't hide the fact that the SBVFT were actually CORRECT.
It's important at this stage to be loud and repititious, as a prohylactic against anyone noticing that it is actually YOU doing the exact thing you are accusing your target of doing.

Once you have completed those three steps, you cap it with a slogan. In this case Tony chose the following:

"America has no legitimacy!"

It doesn't matter that the slogan doesn't actually MEAN anything, it only has to be short enough to fit on a placard and convey a sense of emotional urgency.


Of course, the problem with this sort of technique is that if you push it too far, people begin to notice that you're doing it. The danger for the left is; if you spend too much time hanging out with people who share your exact same views, such as Democratic Underground; you can easily fail to notice how detached from reality you are getting.

I'll speak for myself A Vet, thanks. You cannot morph and mangle my statements and pretend to know what I am feeling or believe.

Tony wanted threats eliminated - not hurling America to a woefully planned, deceptive, yet be accounted for, bloody, costly, noendinsight occupation and attempted colonization of Iraq.

The Swift Boat's were right? Really? About what? That Bush failed to complete his flight assignment, and was missing for almost a year in 1972-73, and that our commander and chief simply cannot remember where he was, or what he was doing? Kerry served his nation in combat, unlike most of the chickenhawks pretending to lead, but actually plundering America today including most particularly the President and Vice President.

I do not recall mentioning a lunar landing.

The gospel according to Fox fictions, myths, disinformation, and propaganda parroted by the right have nothing to do with truth or fact based reality, but only serve as apologies, cloaking, and misdirects for the monumental failures, abuses, deceptions, and dereliction of duty by the neocrusader Bush government.

The sad reality you cannot ignore, excuse or defend is that the neocrusader Bush government, Delay, Frist, herr Ashcroft, herr Cheney, and herr Rumsfeld and thier propaganda and disinformation sloganeers like that potty mouthed wench Coulter, and that porcine drug addict Limbaugh continually and relentlessly questioned and slimed the patriotism and loyalty of every American (not just Kerry, or Cleland daring to pose LEGITIMATE, CRITICAL, and now QUITE ACCURATE questions relating to the Bush governments deceptions and wayward policies in Iraq and beyond.

Regime change is one thing, - invasion and occupation (woefully mismanaged, deceptively conducted and YET TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR) is quite another.


You guys dance around language, and create new terms and change context everytime you have to defend a policy or an action on the merits.

I stand on the term colonize.

I also stand firm on the claim in the context in which it was written that outside of the truebeliever 51% here in America who blindly defend the neocrusader Bush governments redefining, shaming, decieving, and bankrupting of America on purely ideological partisan grounds - America has no legitimacy in the rest of the world, and absolutely zero in the muslim world.

The neocrusader Bush governments radical deceptions, failures, abuses, malfeasance and perfidy, and obscene profiteering have wrecked America's standing and legitimacy outside your partisan circle.


You can slime me all you want, but you cannot excuse, defend, or ignore the festering legacy of abuses, deceptions, monumental failures, dereliction of duty, wildly obscene profiteering, and scurrilous slander heaped on your fellow American's by the neocrusaders in the Bush government.

"...I stand on the term colonize...."


That single statement is emblematic of your entire post.

The word "Colonize" actually has a meaning. You choose to ignore that reality and instead twist the word to mean what you want it to, counting on the negative connotations of the word to carry sufficient emotional impact that nobody will notice that your statement does not match reality.

As the one statement goes, so goes the rest of your post.

I'm sorry, but at my age I don't have sufficient stamina to endlessly debate reality with someone who is so detached from it.

Have it your way A Vet. Choose your own word and I will accept it, - then if you dare - get back to the point and quit parsing language. The neocrusader Bush government decieved America prior to the war, and is decieving America today. Our hypersuperior $451bn dollar defense industry is bogged down fighting insurgent in Iraq with AK-47's, RPG's, and IED's. The math is incontrivertable and appallingly awry. The neocrusader Bush government craven cowardice in attacking Newsweek for printing a truth, and cloaking and flying like bats from accepting any responsibility or accountablity for policies, or the lack thereof communicated to our valiant warriors in Iraq and beyond.

How dare these cowards heap the blame for systemic and endimic abuse through-out the entire waronterror theater, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, and whoknowswhere, on privates and lower ranks for obeying orders neocrusaders in the Bush government drafted? Shame!

The Bush government is accountable and heaping the blame for neocrusader abuses, deceptions, monumental failures, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, and obscene profiteering on the shoulders of our fighting men and women, is beyond repugnant!

The neocrusaders in the Bush government are accountable!!!!

get back to the point and quit parsing language.

Tony, in case you hadn't noticed, the point is "Newsweek's Malfeasance and Media Bias." A Vet understands this very well; either you can't, or you refuse to.

Tony -

In your last post you strung together no less than six slogans, made ten different accusations without supporting evidence and managed to insert the word "neocrusader" five times.

Essentially, your posts are nothing more than an endless string of propaganda slogans, glued together with vitriol.

Also, and I ask you to do this as a simple courtesy to those who read your work; if you are going to insist on using what are colloquially known as "Ten-Dollar Words" in an effort to impress us with your erudition, would you be kind enough to take just a few moments to check your spelling, grammer and sentence structure?

I'm not perfect myself, as my run on sentences and not infrequent typos will attest, but please son... make a LITTLE effort.


Now, if you would like to be taken seriously, you might try to stay on topic, debate one subject at a time and instead of constantly the same tired and rather inane sloganeering, try actually DISCUSSING the issue.

The issue, in case you have forgotten, is the way that the media has a long pattern of hyping anything that makes the President and the Military look bad, and ignoring anything that makes them look good.

So the question is, and I mean this quite seriously; are you CAPABLE of having an actual ON TOPIC discussion?

I apologize A Vet for my spelling and grammatical errors. Most of the time my posts are made in haste and I have no time to edit. I'll head your advise and work on it.

The point I have been making all along is that Newsweeks retraction is only a symptom of a much larger problem, (that will not go away) as long as those who are truly responsible for the abuses, deceptions, and, failures in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Iraq remain unaccountable. The neocrusader Bush government have purposefully redefined the American constitution, and the spurned the Geneva Convention and every fiber of decency by implementing torture policies, refusing to recognize the most basic human rights of socalled prisoners, and then - continue to act like craven cowards by blaming the abuse on privates who are simply following orders from the CIA, and various private military company spooks.

My other point is that Newsweeks exposure of the terrible act of flushing a Koran down a toilet, is a laughable and trivial offense coming from the muslim world that beheads women on video, and blows up thier fellow muslims, and kills each other over the desecration of a book.

The larger point, (which may seem and indeed is repetitive on my part) is that the Bush government is accountable for a long and festering list of abuses, failures, deceptions, act of malfeasance and perfidy, dereliction of duty, and obscene profiteering in Iraq and the neverendingwaronterror.

If you so desire I will liink you tomorrow when I have more time pages of proofs, (which you all well know) to back up my claims.

The media backed down, took responsibility for the error, (which I do not believer was an error) and made a formal retraction. The media should be exposing the truth about this war, like where our 300bn dollars is, when is it going to end, how much will it eventually cost, what will define victory, and why are all these companies beholden to the neocrusader Bush government making such a killing in Iraq and the neverendingwaronterror?

Tony, is there something wrong with you?

Seriously.


If you want to be treated AS an adult, BY adults, then act like one.


If you feel you have something to say, then say it without the slogans. And DEFINITELY drop the "neocrusader" nonsense.

How you got past the age of 10 without figuring this out on your own, I don't understand; but I'm going to TRY to teach you something.


When you speak in soundbites, slogans and propaganda, you give people an excuse to NOT LISTEN.

Now, it's entirely possible that that you really DON'T have anything to say. I honestly don't know, because so far you can't seem to make even a single post that is on topic and is filled with CONTENT, as opposed to, well... what you have been posting.

Tony, this isn't D.U.
It's also not F.R., but that's a different issue.
If you want to spout soundbites right out of the A.N.S.W.E.R. handbook, there are plenty of True Believers on left wing websites all over the web who love to hear that stuff and will pat you on the back for it.


If you have something to SAY, which is assuming facts thus far not in evidence; then try speaking like a normal person.

For what must be the 20th time, the topic is Newsweek's malfeasance. If you have an opinion OF YOUR OWN on that topic, then tell us what that opinion is and why you feel that way.

That will enable us to engage you in discussion about IDEAS, not nonsense.

You do a nice job of sliming my commentary, A Vet, but fail completely to address the issues or defend the deceptive, abusive, failing, and derelict policies of the neocrusader Bush government.


My language is intended to define the Bush government in the most potent terms I can muster, and I stand by the language. The terms are accurate.

Theright has thier little catchphrases and trigger words and so do I. Evading the issue by attacking the messenger proves nothing.

We divide on what you define as "nonsense". The redefining and shaming of America (and the systemic and endemic abuses through-out the neocrusader Bush governments' interrogation and waronterror prison system is only one example) may be "nonsense" to you, - but I find the redefining and shaming of America by the cabal of war profiteers and rightwingideologue neocrusaders in the Bush government a grievous abuse of power.

The neocrusader Bush government is accountable!

"You do a nice job of sliming my commentary..."
I'm sorry but; your commentary was already slimy before I commented on it. Which, in case you missed the point; WAS the point.


"...but fail completely to address the issues or defend the deceptive, abusive, failing, and derelict policies of the neocrusader Bush government"
Leaving aside the fact that "Neo-Crusader" is a made up word that you are using strictly for it's emotional impact as opposed to any factual content; AND leaving aside the fact that you are very fond of stringing together words with heavy negative connotation without offering any supporting evidence; the ALLEGEDLY deceptive, abusive, etc actions of the Bush administration is NOT the subject of this thread. Furthermore, not only will it not BECOME the subject no matter how many times you say it; everyone here is aware that you are only slinging that particular mud to distract the reader from the MALFEASANCE of Newsweek, which IS the subject of this thread.


"My language is intended to define the Bush government in the most potent terms I can muster, and I stand by the language. The terms are accurate."
With all due respect; your language is intended to convey negative emotional impact without providing supporting evidence for the accusations. As such, they are NOT accurate, because they assume facts not in evidence.


"Theright has thier little catchphrases and trigger words and so do I."
You're not speaking to "The Right", you're speaking to ME, and I would thank you to not continue to insult my intelligence by using logical fallacies and rhetorical trickery.


"Evading the issue by attacking the messenger proves nothing."
The only person here that is evading the issue; which is NEWSWEEKS MALFEASANCE, is YOU.
Attempting to change the subject and switch the blame is dishonest and insulting.



"We divide on what you define as "nonsense"."
I define your posts as nonsense because they are designed to convey emotional impact without any concurrent factual content; making them dishonest and devoid of useful information.



Tony, once again I am forced to wonder if you actually HAVE anything to say.

Is it simply your plan to keep posting nonsense until everyone who disagrees with you gives up in disgust so that you can declare victory; having simply annoyed everyone else into submission?

I ask only because your BEHAVIOR certainly seems to indicate that that is your strategy.

This thread as usual is devolving into an attack and slime the messenger moment, and loosing it's potency. I realize you do not like my language A Vet, and niether do I appreciate the cheap attempt to associate me with ANSWER, - a group I reject, have no affiliation with, and do not in anyway support. Yet, you have your speak, and I have mine. Let's stick to the issues.

I'll repeat my points which if you go back through this thread, you will see have been continually repeated as requested, - and NEVER addressed.

{"The point I have been making all along is that Newsweeks retraction is only a symptom of a much larger problem, (that will not go away) as long as those who are truly responsible for the abuses, deceptions, and, failures in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Iraq remain unaccountable. The neocrusader Bush government have purposefully redefined the American constitution, and the spurned the Geneva Convention and every fiber of decency by implementing torture policies, refusing to recognize the most basic human rights of socalled prisoners, and then - continue to act like craven cowards by blaming the abuse on privates who are simply following orders from the CIA, and various private military company spooks.

My other point is that Newsweeks exposure of the terrible act of flushing a Koran down a toilet, is a laughable and trivial offense coming from the muslim world that beheads women on video, and blows up thier fellow muslims, and kills each other over the desecration of a book.

The larger point, (which may seem and indeed is repetitive on my part) is that the Bush government is accountable for a long and festering list of abuses, failures, deceptions, act of malfeasance and perfidy, dereliction of duty, and obscene profiteering in Iraq and the neverendingwaronterror."}

Once again Tony, you abandon the subject matter of this thread to repetitiously post the same unsubstantiated nonsense that you have been posting throughout this entire thread.

Leaving aside the fact that you constantly ACCUSE but never PROVE, the subject is NEWSWEEKS MALFEASANCE.

You're right, it is a symptom of a larger problem, but the only connection Bush has to the problem is that he is the victim of it.


It's become obvious that you don't actually have anything to say on the subject and I am forced to conclude that you never will. Feel free to prove me wrong, but before you wast your time posting yet another string of invective against Bush, do try to FOR ONCE keep in mind that Bush is not the subject of this thread.

Vet,

You say that this story is about Newsweek's alledged malfeasance and not about Bush.

Yet you then interpret that alledged malfeasance an attempt to '"get" George Bush' and claim he's the 'victim' of the malfeasance.

Since the story itself doesn't pin those specific abuses on Bush are you interpretting reported abuses at Guantanemo as Bush's responsibility?

Probably not, but since you first brought up the subject of George Bush in you first comment its a bit late try put him back in the box.

You say that this story is about Newsweek's alledged malfeasance and not about Bush.
That is correct. In fact, you may have noticed that the TITLE of the thread is "Newsweek's Malfeasance & Media Bias".
Bush is only involved in the sense that he, and the military; is the TARGET of the bias and malfeasance the media in general and Newsweek in particular.


Yet you then interpret that alledged malfeasance an attempt to '"get" George Bush' and claim he's the 'victim' of the malfeasance.
My interpretation is based on observable fact and apparent motivation. If you behave consistantly in a certain way, when a certain person(s) is involved, then it is entirely fair for people to see the obvious motivation in your actions.


Since the story itself doesn't pin those specific abuses on Bush are you interpretting reported abuses at Guantanemo as Bush's responsibility?
The title of the thread refers to both Newsweeks actions and to the actions of the media in general. An excellent example would be the Rather story on the eve of the 2004 election. The Newsweek story was an improperly vetted attack on the military; of which Bush is commander in chief and the the Rather story was a direct attack on Bush.


Probably not, but since you first brought up the subject of George Bush in you first comment its a bit late try put him back in the box.
"Putting him in the box" is YOUR characterization.
I am merely disallowing you to change the subject by blaming the victim.

quote, "Bush is only involved in the sense that he, and the military; is the TARGET of the bias and malfeasance the media in general and Newsweek in particular."

That's your perception. Please provide evidence that this is proven to be the case. At least that it is something that is exclusive to the left 'getting' at Bush, as you put it.

Regards the Dan Rather story, I believe that the story was correct but the documents were fake.

quote, "The Newsweek story was an improperly vetted attack on the military; of which Bush is commander in chief..."

So, using your logic, if by claiming that the military are abusing prisoners and that Bush is responsible for the military then Bush is responsible for the ACTUAL abuses by the military in Guantanemo and Abu Ghraib? You know, the vetted ones. The ones where there have been proof of abuse and actual convictions.

That's your perception.
It's my PERCEPTION that Newsweek published a story attacking the military that wasn't fact checked?
It's my PERCEPTION that Dan Rather published a false story using false documents, on the eve of the 2004 election; which only a fool would believe would not have an effect on the election?
Strictly as an aside, it's my belief that it did affect the election, although not in the direction that Dan Rather was hoping.


Regards the Dan Rather story, I believe that the story was correct but the documents were fake.
You can BELIEVE anything you want, and I'll even go so far as to tell you that I have no doubt that, should it have been neccesary; G.H.W. Bush would have gotten G.W. Bush into the guard.
However, the particular unit that GWB wanted to get into was understrength and GWB therefore didn't need any help to get in. Furthermore, since you opened the door by making your false "draft-dodging" accusation, I will take this opportunity to point out that; AT THE TIME HE JOINED THE TANG, the planes GWB was flying were being rotated to Vietnam, and GWB would have known that. In other words, GWB fully EXPECTED to go to Vietnam and his airplane was only re-missioned AFTER he joined. Ironically, Kerry joined the Swift Boats BEFORE they became the Brown Water Navy, and HE fully expected to serve out his time far from where the bullets were flying.
I just love little twists like that. It proves God has a sense of humor and irony.


So, using your logic, if by claiming that the military are abusing prisoners and that Bush is responsible for the military then Bush is responsible for the ACTUAL abuses by the military in Guantanemo and Abu Ghraib?
No, that's using YOUR logic.
But thank you for providing another example of someone trying to twist reality and use dizzyingly convoluted logic to attack Bush.

I don't know if it's occurred to you, I suppose not, but if you constantly attack someone with SILLINESS, then nobody is going to take you seriously when you actually have something legitimate to say.

Read Peter Wolf sometime...
It's in the childrens section at your local library.

symptomless:

You mean the abuses which were already under investigation, which have now netted convictions, in which prisoners were (gasp!) humiliated, and which the talking heads on Sunday morning still make hay from?

When you start showing a bit more outrage over the torturous murder of Daniel Pearl, your comment might not ring so hollow.

So, still no evidence.

I'm not using dizzying logic, I'm merely stating that you claim Bush is responsible for the military's actions. Now you seem to be saying the opposite.

Incidentally, regards the election, its says a lot about American media/politics that the biggest issues/talking points of the election weren't the major issues effecting your country.

Who's responsibility is that? An inept main stream media or a skilled White House Press secretary?

Whoever controlled the agenda during the election directed everyone's attention away from the major issues such as such as the economy, the war, health or EVEN social security, towards 30 year old war records and gay marriage, etc.

Why don't the so called liberal media now question Bush about the fact that Social Security reform is NOW his major goal when he never even mentioned it during the election campaign? When Kerry brought it up he was accused of conspiracy theories.

Surely if they were out to 'get' Bush they'd even make the public aware of this.

You can tell when there's something important is going on because the US media distract you from it. When the Downing Street Memo was emerging the Newsweek story blew up out of all proportion.

And just at the time that no WMDs were being found in Iraq there was a huge media furore regarding the UN Oil for Food corruption. That was until the majority of the culprits and sources of corruption were revealed to be American, or American friendly nations. The legs have seemed to gone from that story now. It was all the rage when the suspects were supposedly the ones that opposed the war in Iraq.

I'm sure though you're not hypocritical enough to have ignored the right wing press hounding Clinton for his impeachable actions. It puts things into perspective when you regard what Bush is being accused of.

If your claim of media bias is true why don't the mainstream media put questions to Bush directly about some of the crucial issues?

Maybe the media is so tame because the White House pay pundits to advocate their policies and supply daily press passes for White House briefings for allies like James Guckert/Jeff Gannon.

Where's the 'left' wing conspiracy theory in light of this?

How about some actual evidence instead of paranoid fantasy.

quote, "Read Peter Wolf sometime...
It's in the childrens section at your local library."

Do you mean "Peter and the Wolf" or the boy who cried wolf? Or even, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", because that one has characters called George and Martha who weave a web of lies and deceit until they're eventually found out.

So, still no evidence.


Evidence?

Precisely what would you have me do?

Post pictures of the newsweek article or host streaming video of Dan Rather showing off his fake documents?

Are you denying the existance of those two media events?

Perhaps you wish to deny the existance of Newsweek itself? Or suggest that Dan Rather is a figment of our imagination?

quote, "Precisely what would you have me do?"

Provide evidence that this is media bias.

Newsweek making a claim that the Koran was flushed down a toilet in the middle of an article, not even a front page story, is hardly evidence of a systematic campaign to bring down the President of the United States.

If that and the Dan Rather story are the sum of the evidence then that would hardly register a blip on the conspiracy meter, especially compared to the daily partisan reporting of Fox News or the stories of proven White House deceptive media practices posted above.

Provide evidence that this is media bias.

Newsweek sat on both the Kathleen Willey story and the Monica Lewinski story, despite having enough information they claim to require. The accused was William J. Clinton. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek both times. (BTW, Clinton was fined for perjury and later stripped of his license to practice law in Arkansas.)

Newsweek ran with a story about religious "bigotry" that a simple thought experiment could disprove. The story was designed to impugn the military under the command of George W. Bush.

Why the greater “care” when Clinton was the accused? Bias, pure and simple.

I look forward to the mental gyrations trying to explain this away.

Newsweek making a claim that the Koran was flushed down a toilet in the middle of an article, not even a front page story, is hardly evidence of a systematic campaign to bring down the President of the United States.

I'm going to take a moment to acknowledge your dishonest and deceptive attempt to put words in my mouth via the use of the phrase: "...systematic campaign to bring down the President of the United States."

That is a blatant attempt to change the subject and is not only dishonest, it is insulting; because it assumes that nobody here is smart enough to notice that you did it.

If you continue to use dishonest rhetorical methods of that nature, I will make a point of making the webmaster aware of it.

Now, moving on...


The Newsweek story is not proof of media bias. It IS, however; evidence. Evidence of media bias. It's only one item, but it is one of many.
However, in the context of this thread, the point about the Newsweek story is that it was Malfeasance, capitalization intentional. I'd go so far as to say Malpractice The sort of thing that would get a 1st year journalism student an F.

Now, before I move on to the pattern of consistant and persistant media bias, now that you have been kind enough to throw me into the Briar Patch, I want to put the Newsweek issue to bed.

As you may have noticed, the title of the thread is: "Newsweek's Malfeasance & Media Bias"

Newsweek is half the issue, media bias is the other half.


Sobefore moving on, lets finish the first half, shall we?


Do you or do you not conceed that Newsweek failed to properly and adequately vet their story about a copy of the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo; thus commiting an act of Malfeasance?

One thousand thanks symptomless for you valiant effort to defend logic.

First, the silly baseless, unsubstantiated, myths and fictions claiming the Newsweek, or any journal, or broadcaster is capable of bringing down the President of the United States - is absurd.

As we have witnessed with the preemtive unilateral regime change and pornographic witch hunt involving Clinton, elements of thefarright abusing the grand jury, and the complicit parrots in the media attempted to bring down a president, - but this process is a task for congress, and in the light of day, with all the facts brought to the table, and in the face of hysterical fenzied desire by the rebublican right- there simply was not enough evidence to impeach Clinton. He served his term as President.

Now regarding Bush, and this article; it was vetted with the Pentagon, there are well documented instances of Koran abuse already on the record, - the activities of our soldiers, (and blaming privates is a sham) redefine what America views as torture, due process, and basic human rights, and essential principals of American democracy. None of these issues have been addressed with leadership who parrots the hollow sloganeering claiming to condemn torture on TV, but then condones and conducts torture, rendition, and some new kind of neocrusader code of law diametrically opposed to the Geneva Convention, and our own Constitution.

The neocrusaders in the Bush government are accountable for these problems, - not privates.

Newsweek is a world renowned news journal, not a conduit for sedition.

Theright gets all huffy when they are forced to defend the indefensible, and excuse the inexcusable actions of the neocrusader Bush government. Then we hear the infantile, and appallingly hypocritical cries of incivility, and communists spawn of the devils wanting to get Bush.

The people want accountability from our leadership, and until we have it, (and quite obviously accountability would uncork a Pandora's Box or troubles for the neocrusader Bush government) - these and more serious kinds of problems will persist, - not to mention the bloody, costly, noendinsight nightmare in Iraq, or the fact that bin Laden is still out there working on the WMD sequel to 9/11, or that Afghanistan is hardly democratic, or the Saudi Arabia continues to lavishly fund and nurture all the jihadist mass murder gangs, and it's state wahabi religion continues to condition 4-year-old muslim children to kill American, Jews, and all infidels as their perversion of the will of Allah.....

The list is long and festering, and we want accountability from the neocrusader Bush government.

"One thousand thanks symptomless for you valiant effort to defend logic."
He hasn't tried to defend logic. He's simply doing a poor impression of YOU.

-

"First, the silly baseless, unsubstantiated, myths and fictions claiming the Newsweek, or any journal, or broadcaster is capable of bringing down the President of the United States - is absurd."
Ever hear of Woodward & Bernstein?


-

Oh, and; don't think I didn't notice the LIE you just told by attempting to change the subject from "bias" to "bringing down the president". It didn't work for symptomless and it won't work for you.

-

-

-

"...this article; it was vetted with the Pentagon..."
Is it your contention that this article was properly and adequately vetted by Newsweek?

-

NOTE: That is a "Yes" or "No" question.

-

If you attempt to cloud the issue or duck the question with your usual "neocrusader" nonsense, you will be conceeding the point and admitting that the article was NOT properly and adequately vetted.

QUOTE, "I'm going to take a moment to acknowledge your dishonest and deceptive attempt to put words in my mouth via the use of the phrase: "...systematic campaign to bring down the President of the United States." "

QUOTE, "If you continue to use dishonest rhetorical methods of that nature, I will make a point of making the webmaster aware of it. "

WHAT? What are you on about?

You're a joke! You set up your stall when you said, "What's going on here is that the desire to "get" George Bush ...", and continued to view him as the 'victim' of the story. Your association skills are that advanced but you fail to remember your own claims when used later in the discussion.

Considering that was your first statement, you'll have to define what you meant by "'get' Bush" before claiming I'm in some sort of violation of the rules of the board.

QUOTE, "Do you or do you not conceed that Newsweek failed to properly and adequately vet their story about a copy of the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo; thus commiting an act of Malfeasance? "

Malfeasance, or missconduct or wrongdoing, could mean incompetence or deliberate deception.

Missconduct would mean they not fullfilling their journalistic ambitions. That's pretty bad.

Deliberate disseption is more serious. It would mean that they published this story deliberately knowing that it was false.

If you believe this to be the case explain why would they do that? You talk of the 'apparent motivation' of the media to do so.

Please explain in simple terms exactly what this 'apparent motivation' is. That would help determine whether it was missconduct or wrongdoing. Assuming it waas either.

Come on, be clear and explain your views and why can then determine why this story is so important.

(If you like you can explain why its more important to you than the actual abuses that are occuring in Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo and Afghanistan).

And if you want to talk about "media bias" I'd be more than happy to hear your views. It'll be interesting provided we avoid the use of partisan 'feelings', stick with the facts, (and I suggest having them fact checked).

Symptomless, I asked you a question:

Do you or do you not conceed that Newsweek failed to properly and adequately vet their story about a copy of the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo; thus commiting an act of Malfeasance?

That is a yes or no question. Any attempt to obfuscate the issue or change the subject will be interpreted as your concession that Newsweek failed to properly and adequately vet their story.

I get it. It's a Freudian thing: "How did that make you feel? Why do you think it made you feel that way?"

Stop trying to psychoanalyze, and just answer the question.

Vet,

Here's a clue.

If you want to know my views on Newsweek/Koran/toilet/malfeasance.

Actually read my post.

Or are you too lazy? Or too arrogant to be interested in the opinions of others? Or just looking to have an rant and not a discussion.

Unless you start to make a little effort in a dialog, i.e. the give and TAKE of ideas, there's no point carrying on.

In order to answer a question such as the above you'd need to define what you mean by 'malfeasance'.

By the way, you haven't answered any of my questions. Either you're being rude or you're afraid to.

Once you've re-read my previous post be kind enough to answer my questions, I after all answered yours. And the discussion will make more sense.

Or are you more intertested in boring your adversaries into submittion?

Gus,

?

I read your comment. Your #1 tactic is to dodge the question by turning it back on A Vet.

And you still haven't answered his question: Do you or do you not concede that Newsweek committed an act of malfeasance by failing to properly and adequately vet their story about a copy of the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo? It is a Yes/No question. Asking a question about A Vet's motivation, or a slamming the C-P readers, or attempting to distract from the original topic of this thread, will only confirm that you know you cannot answer the question without admitting the tenuous nature of your position.

Oh, and A Vet doesn't need to define "malfeasance." You have a dictionary. Use it.

Here's a clue.
I would dispute that you are in a position to provide anyone with a clue, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, I'll wait and see.


If you want to know my views on Newsweek/Koran/toilet/malfeasance... Actually read my post.
I HAVE read your posts and I have noticed an astonishing inability on your part to stay on topic. That is why I have found it neccesary to break this discussion down to it's individual components and discuss these issues ONE point at a time.


Or are you too lazy?
I believe that my extraordinary patience with you over the last few weeks is Prima Facie evidence that I am not lazy.


Or too arrogant to be interested in the opinions of others?
When you actually post an opinion, instead of angry rhetoric; we will be in a position to explore that question.


Or just looking to have an rant and not a discussion.
Considering that I have been attempting to HAVE a discussion, while your posts have been nothing BUT rants, that question is more than a little disingenuous. I also notice that are beginning to get more blatantly insulting.


Unless you start to make a little effort in a dialog, i.e. the give and TAKE of ideas...
In order for me to engage in a "give & take" of ideas, YOU first have be willing to drop the rhetoric & propagenda and actually PRESENT ideas.


...there's no point carrying on.
Ahhh, I see... you are beginning to feel trapped and are now attempting to lay the groundwork for your withdrawl. I suspect that it is your desire to declare victory and get away from this thread before you dig yourself any deeper. If that's the case, you may as well just do so now as the only people who are going to believe that you "won" anything are your fellow propagandists. Perhaps you should consider staying on D.U. in the future, where you can be safely ensconced in your fantasy and not run the risk of having your paradigm challanged awkward questions.


In order to answer a question such as the above you'd need to define what you mean by 'malfeasance'.
mal·fea·sance - noun
The commission (as by a public official) of a wrongful or unlawful act involving or affecting the performance of one's duties .

_

I think I've indulged your usual obfuscation and subject changing enough.

The question that I asked you, specifically:
"Do you or do you not concede that Newsweek committed an act of malfeasance by failing to properly and adequately vet their story about a copy of the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Gitmo?";
was a YES or NO question.
I told you that any attempt to obfuscate the issue or change the subject will be interpreted as your concession that Newsweek failed to properly and adequately vet their story.

At this point you have in fact attempted to confuse the issue, change the subject, attack the questioner, AND you have violated C-P rules by becoming openly insulting by accusing me of being lazy, arrogant, rude and cowardly.

As a direct result of your behavior, you will now be considered to have conceeded the point on Newsweek's failure to properly and adequately vet their Koran/Toilet story.
Something, by the way; that Newsweek already conceeded a couple of weeks ago.

QUOTE, "I also notice that are beginning to get more blatantly insulting. "

Incorrect. I've been getting more and more fustrated from lack of productiev discussion.

VICTORY? Define victory. Do you think we are in battle? Are you trying to 'win' something or have a debate? Or find a clearer picture of what is an interesting subject. I am trying to define terms so that we can continue this debate; 'mafeasance', 'victim', 'motivation' are three terms that I've asked for clarification of. If we're talking with differing definitions we'll not get anywhere. I'm getting very frustrated because I believe I've been very honest in trying to lay a foundation of definitions that we may go forward.

You believe that is dishonest rhetoric.

You believe I'm using rhetoric. Communication is a two way process. Its delievered and interpretted. Neither relies on the other.
End of my rant.
---
Definition: (thank you)
mal·fea·sance - noun

The commission (as by a public official) of a wrongful or unlawful act involving or affecting the performance of one's duties .

Under this definition: Honestly. No.
Newsweek didn't commit malfeasance under this definition. Technically because they are not a public official. Journalists are not public officials.

They are tradesmen like carpenters or bus drivers.

They do not represent anyone publically, apart from in this case their shareholders. They have great responsibility, but so do carpenters and bus drivers.

I kow that's a very cold and clinical definition, but I kow that its not in the spirit of the discussion. So, in the spirit of the discussion lets ignoer that and consider whether they committed a, "wrongful or unlawful act involving or affecting the performance of one's duties ."

I refer you to my post above.Wrongful, certainly they should have fact checked everything. That's patr of the what, why, where, when, how responsibility of a journalist.

Unlawful? I don't kow. I would hope not. If you think the were, then its up to you to provide evidence. Or at least opinion. Do you think they
---
You see, not everything is has clear cut to give a 'yes or no' answer.

I hope that you think that I haven't been obstructive. I'm sorry if you think I've been abusive, please accept an apology if any offence was taken. All anger has been a result of frustration at unjust accusations and lack of discussion.

I await your honest reply with anticipation.

Symptomless -

You're confusing "public official" with "elected official". You also seem to have reading comprehension problems with the definition.

More importantly, you have already conceeded the point by choosing to continue clouding the issue and changing the subject.

Which is only appropriate, as Newsweek conceeded their own malfeasance weeks ago.


You don't get to play games forever, son.
Eventually you have to sh*t or get off the pot.

Vet,

I have not clouded the issue [but tried to clarify it], nor have I changed the subject, I've directly addressed your question.

Nor have I provided you with a concession; so don't claim 'Mission Accomplished' prematurely.

The ball is presently is in your court.

I've agreed that Newsweek have committed a 'wrongful act' in that they didn't fact check a claim. They've apologised for that. That's bad journalism. They're not the first and won't be the last journalists to screw up, left or right.

If you think they've committed an 'unlawful act' please provide proof, or at least a convincing argument.

Incidentally, and merely for accuracy's sake:

Public Official n.
A person holding a public office the nature of which requires that in order for the person to prevail in a defamation action he or she must show actual malice on the part of the defendant.

public office n.
An office created by a constitution or legislative act, having a definite tenure, and involving the power to carry out some governmental function.

---

Not necessarily elected, I agree. But involved in some governmental function.

Just me being pedantic.

I have not clouded the issue [but tried to clarify it],

No, you have only tried to delay the inevitable...

nor have I changed the subject,

...except through distraction, diversion, tangents, and reflection...

I've directly addressed your question.

Where did you answer "yes" or "no"? I see nowhere on this thread that you have done that. You had plenty of time in which to do so, but you chose to waste it.

Regarding pedantism: Malfeasance is not restricted to public officials. The parentheses make it typical, not normative.

More typical in some public officials than others.

--

For those of the difficulty of understanding:

"Wrongful act": yes. They certainly failed in their journalistic responsibilities of fact checking.

"Unlawful Act": No. I've got no evidence. If you'd like to provide some or a convincing argument I'm listening.

That's about the third time of answering.

If you're accusing me of avoiding questions why are you avoiding my answers?

Symptomless -

You are having a reading comprehension problem with the definition I posted.
That's not my fault, nor is it my responsibility to fix it, in no small part because your behavior over the course of this discussion strongly implies that you are in fact PRETENDING to misunderstand the definition so that you may "argue the definition of IS".

Furthermore, you HAVE conceeded the point whether you like it or not.

You were presented with a YES or NO question, and you chose obfuscation, misdirection and subject changing.

Your rhetorical games backfired son, the point is conceeded BY YOU, as a direct result of your behavior. You had DOZENS of opportunities to discuss the issue, but you chose to play games instead.

Well guess what...?

Game over.

Ok.OK.

I concede. You win.

You're right.

I have failed to answer a question that has filled thousands of column inches, thousands of blogs and dozens of posts on this thread alone with a one word answer.

I've also failed to comprehend any of your arguments, recieve any answers I've posed to you two super intellects and obtain ONE SINGLE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT for your accusation Newsweek 'malfeasance'.

I have however learned what it takes to 'discuss' politics with you guys. Initially start with a wild accusation, like the media are out to 'get' Bush, then accuse others of changing the subject. Setting up a riduculously narrow question with the pretext of opening up debate [clue, the definition you gave had many parts, you wanted a one word answer(?)] and then ignoring answers to that question, requests for clarification or opinions that differ to yours or the precise pre-defined answer that you're looking for.

Ignore all differing arguments regardless of honesty and fairness, all the time accusing people of obstructing debate, breaking board rules [?], and somehow claiming 'victory' [whatever that is] without actually providing ANY evidence for your argument.

Who ever said the Right is self-righteous?

Clue, 'Yes' and 'No' answers are not debate.

Oh and by the way.

Regards your question, NO, on your evidence Newsweek were not guilty of Malfeasance.

Does that mean, under your rules, I win?

After all, I answered your question.

I have failed to answer a question that has filled thousands of column inches, thousands of blogs and dozens of posts on this thread alone with a one word answer.


You have failed to engage in honest debate.

Vet,

I'm afraid I can't allow you to get away with that.

I have engaged in honest debate.

Trying to debase any arguments or statements that I've made without actually detailing them or even highlighting them is very poor.

Point to a single instance of me being dishonest. You have made many accusations which have absolutely no substance or justification.

Neither have you provided any arguments or evidence regarding the the topic!

If your arguments were as forthcoming as your accusations then your beliefs wouldn't appear as hollow as they do.

If you want to spray around unjustified accusations at least provide examples. Maybe you've forgotten what honest discourse is because you've been listening to your government for too long.

When A Vet asked a simple yes/no question, you refused to answer. You hemmed and hawed and pointed everywhere and asked for clarification, but you still didn’t answer. And now you try to call that “honest debate.” It didn’t work for Bill Clinton, and it won’t work for you. The only difference is that you aren’t giving court testimony under oath. It doesn’t lessen the equivocation.

I did answer the question.

Would you like to contribute to the discussion?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: