Lindaland
  Global Unity
  THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT - Harper's (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 7 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT - Harper's
Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 04, 2006 08:30 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[Essay]

The Case for Impeachment

WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD GEORGE W BUSH

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006. An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine. By Lewis H. Lapham.

quote:
A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates.

—Kurt Tucholsky


On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking? In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad. Unless the congressman intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections? Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:


quote:
“I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”

Which turned out to be the purpose of his House Resolution 635—not a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes, assembled by Conyers's staff during the six months prior to its presentation to Congress, that describes the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq as the perpetration of a crime against the American people. It is a fair description. Drawing on evidence furnished over the last four years by a sizable crowd of credible witnesses—government officials both extant and former, journalists, military officers, politicians, diplomats domestic and foreign—the authors of the report find a conspiracy to commit fraud, the administration talking out of all sides of its lying mouth, secretly planning a frivolous and unnecessary war while at the same time pretending in its public statements that nothing was further from the truth.

The result has proved tragic, but on reading through the report's corroborating testimony I sometimes could counter its inducements to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater of the absurd. Entitled “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War,” the Conyers report examines the administration's chronic abuse of power from more angles than can be explored within the compass of a single essay. The nature of the administration's criminal DNA and modus operandi, however, shows up in a usefully robust specimen of its characteristic dishonesty.

The above is a brief excerpt from the complete essay, available in the March 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine.

(bold letters in essay by Rainbow)

* * *

continued.....

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 04, 2006 08:33 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Notes

1. The report borrows from hundreds of open sources that have become a matter of public record—newspaper accounts, television broadcasts (Frontline, Meet the Press, Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, etc.), magazine articles (in The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The New York Review of Books), sworn testimony in both the Senate and House of Representatives, books written by, among others, Bob Woodward, George Packer, Richard A. Clarke, James Mann, Mark Danner, Seymour Hersh, David Corn, James Bamford, Hans Blix, James Risen, Ron Suskind, Joseph Wilson. As the congressman had said, “Everything in plain sight; it isn't as if we don't know.”

2. In January of 1998 the neoconservative Washington think tank The Project for the New American Century (which counts among its founding members Dick Cheney) sent a letter to Bill Clinton demanding “the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power” with a strong-minded “willingness to undertake military action.” Together with Rumsfeld, six of the other seventeen signatories became members of the Bush's first administration—Elliott Abrams (now George W. Bush's deputy national security advisor), Richard Armitage (deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005), John Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the U.N.), Richard Perle (chairman of the Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2003), Paul Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005), Robert Zoellick (now deputy secretary of state). President Clinton responded to the request by signing the Iraq Liberation Act, for which Congress appropriated $97 million for various clandestine operations inside the borders of Iraq.
Two years later, in September 2000, The Project for the New American Century issued a document noting that the “unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification” for the presence of the substantial American force in the Persian Gulf.

3. In a subsequent interview on 60 Minutes, Paul O'Neill, present in the meeting as the newly appointed secretary of the treasury, remembered being surprised by the degree of certainty: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.... It was all about finding a way to do it.”

4. As early as September 20, Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, drafted a memo suggesting that in retaliation for the September 11 attacks the United States should consider hitting terrorists outside the Middle East in the initial offensive, or perhaps deliberately selecting a non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.


5. Abstracts of the notes and memoranda,
known collectively as “The Downing Street Minutes,” were published in the Sunday Times (London) in May 2005; their authenticity was undisputed by the British government.

6. The work didn't go unnoticed by people in the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department accustomed to making distinctions between a well-dressed rumor and a naked lie. In the spring of 2004, talking to a reporter from Vanity Fair, Greg Thielmann, the State Department officer responsible for assessing the threats of nuclear proliferation, said, “The American public was seriously misled. The Administration twisted, distorted and simplified intelligence in a way that led Americans to seriously misunderstand the nature of the Iraq threat. I'm not sure I can think of a worse act against the people in a democracy than a President distorting critical classified information.”

7. The Group counted among its copywriters Karl Rove, senior political strategist, Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

8. Card later told the New York Times that “from a marketing point of view...you don't introduce new products in August.”

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted March 04, 2006 08:37 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Rainbow..Good Stuff!

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 04, 2006 08:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think so too, Lotus...well, maybe not necessarly "good" but informative...which is what people need now...

and btw....

(in case anyone hasn't noticed..."somebody out there" (ahem) is looking for stuff on John Conyers, to to discredit him...funnee it comes up at THIS time.....reminds me of Kerry's SWIFTBOAT GANG!)

...but even if true, the charges against Conyers, come no where near the CRIMES THAT DUBYA AND HIS GANG HAVE PULLED OFF!!!

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 05, 2006 03:04 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 05, 2006 09:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 12:53 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You can paint all the lipstick you want to on a pig Rainbow but it's still a pig. Conyers is a loudmouthed lying progressive..read that communist and an utterly corrupt member of the House.

Conyers has his own problems with ethical challenges and no amount of diversionary tactics on his part is going to quash the investigation now underway into his campaign practices or misuse of his staff.

I rate Conyers rants a zero, a zero just like Conyers himself. Conyers is never going to be the committee chair again and all the lying charges Conyers can bring aren't going to get him there.

But if it makes you feel good, by all means continue your jihad against Bush.

I rather enjoy watching the radical left..including the radical leftist democrats and the leftist press rip their credibility to shreds.

By the way Rainbow, I still remember how overjoyed you were over the demonstrations against the war...in favor of Saddam. I also remember who was behind those demonstrations and who was behind that group too. A.N.S.W.E.R. is a communist front organization for the Workers World Party...a Stalinist communist organization...and I told you that at the time.

I also remember you yacking on about signing a petition to impeach Bush way back then..before the war. A petition circulated and generated by the communist and former Attorney General of the incompetent, bungling, birdbrained Carter administration. Ramsey Clark, defender of communists everywhere including Saddam Hussein.

Enjoy your delusion.

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 01:07 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay...


IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 01:10 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
abracadbra, hehe

IP: Logged

Cardinalgal
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 05:48 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"progressive"

Dictionary definition: Moving forward; ongoing; advancing. Believing in or striving for constant improvement or new advances. Characterised by an advance over the established forms; very modern. Promoting or favouring political and social reform. A person who favours or strives for advances or reform in politics, education or other fields.

Hmmm.... strange how such a positive word seems to have been given a negative slant by those who are allergic to the very thing the word describes; progress

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 11:02 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
United Nations..an international organization of nations for world peace and security: formed in 1945..

Divided we Fall..

security from our OurSelves?

World Peace...hmmmm..you see how we bicker here and oppose each other..now imagine the big picture..ouch!

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 11:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Indeed CardinalGal.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 12:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
North Korea
Democratic People's Republic of Korea

What's in a name eh, Cardinalgal?

Democratic
with equal participation by all: characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group

Republic
1. political system with elected representatives: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them
2. state with elected representatives: a country or other political unit whose government or political system is that of a republic

OK Cardinalgal, I've just shown you how communists adopt the buzz words of freedom to obscure what they really are...democratic and republic...neither of which describes the reality of communist North Korea, which is a Stalinist communist regime.

So now, you give a dictionary definition of "progressive"; advancing, moving forward, striving for improvement...blah, blah, blah.

Progressives or so called progressives are not forward looking, not advancing, not moving forward but rather regressing to the 19th century ranting of Karl Marx, one of whose axioms was genocide. The murder by the state of whole groups of people, religious and otherwise. Nor do the rantings of progressives/communists that true communism hasn't been tried but was rather co-opted and perverted sway anyone who can actually think. Nothing could be further from the truth. The communist regimes of the 20th and now the 21st century have murdered an estimated 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 of their own citizens. Not in war but by elimination....murder of their own citizens who opposed their communist masters, just as Karl Marx envisioned it. These communist regimes implemented Marxist doctrine, they did not pervert it.

Further Cardinalgal, the "progressive movement" is a political entity with a new name and is the repository of the old hard line American Communist Party. The Communist Party USA which was feeling the heat from being identified as taking their marching orders from the butcher Stalin and the association with the name communist which developed a decidedly foul stench.

So who are these so called "progressives"? What do they believe? What do they talk about? Here Cardinalgal, try on some of their new buzz words...aside from the buzz word..."progressives". They talk about social justice, a classless society, equality but those concepts cannot be found in one single communist government that ever existed on earth. Instead, you find murder, genocide, a rigid class structure...communists verses all others and the benefits of membership in the communist party within the country being denied to all others....non members.

So who are one of the groups self identifying with "progressives" and what do they discuss?

I don't need to go beyond the Common Dreams website to prove my point.

This is a discussion on the site about Marxist political and economic theory and you will notice the insane, genocidal Marx is well accepted there, as opposed to being reviled as the insane genocidal little despot he would have been if he had ever gotten the opportunity to put his rantings into practice.

RETHINKING MARXISM
Friday, April 15, 2005
Focusing and expanding class analysis
by Jonathan Diskin

This paper reviews the modalities of Marxian class analysis in two recent edited volumes, Class and Its Others and Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, edited by Stephen Resnick, Richard Wolff, and J. K. Gibson-Graham. The essays in these volumes focus Marxian class analysis--by adopting a specific Marxian conception of class as the processes of producing (or performing), appropriating, and distributing surplus labor time--and expand that class analysis--by specifying the conditions of existence of class processes in concrete cases in a series of provocative class narratives and analyses.

The other of class
by Andrew Parker

Class and Its Others is a landmark collection of adventurous and often surprising essays that move well beyond what have become the shibboleths of antiessentialism to imagining new objects and discourses of class analysis. But how much aleatoriness can materialism absorb and still remain … materialist? Is the economic any less "itself" when conceived as an "entry point" rather than a ground? Can a specifically Marxist understanding of class survive an encounter with forms of otherness that may not be its own?

Class analysis and politics: pushing the boundaries
by S. Charusheela

This review essay highlights postmodern Marxism's ability to address issues of social change without modernism, Eurocentrism, telos, and essentialism. By raising questions about how we define the distinctions between modes of production and how we theorize spaces of transformative hope, the essay suggests that postmodern Marxist scholarship can go still further. Focusing on communal subject formation, the essay suggests that the tools for addressing these limits may be found within postmodern Marxist scholarship itself and argues that, if pushed further, the political tensions that the arena of [/b]collective subject formation creates can be usefully unpacked by postmodern Marxists in productive ways.[/b]

The point and purpose of Marx's notion of class
by Stephen Resnick & Richard Wolff

This response to comments made on Class and Its Others and Re/Presenting Class explains why class exploitation conceived in Marx's surplus labor terms is an outrage. The point of Marx's class analysis is to expose this outrage and its pernicious effects on our lives. The hope is that the resulting awareness will motivate us to eliminate it from our lives, much like any other socially recognized disease or crime. Working for that elimination is a new kind of politics, one aimed squarely at placing workers who produced the surplus in the position to collectively appropriate it.

So Cardinalgal, I won't bother telling you what you can do with "Progressives/Marxists/Stalinists/Leninists/Maoists" and all the other "Collectivists". Besides, they wouldn't all fit.
http://www.nd.edu/%7Eremarx/

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 12:21 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
(oops! jwhop's post above came in while I was writing this, and I didn't see it until after I had posted. )

jwhop said....

quote:
Conyers is a loudmouthed lying progressive..

and Cardinalgal said....

quote:
"progressive"
Dictionary definition: Moving forward; ongoing; advancing. Believing in or striving for constant improvement or new advances. Characterised by an advance over the established forms; very modern. Promoting or favouring political and social reform. A person who favours or strives for advances or reform in politics, education or other fields.

then goes on to say.....

quote:
Hmmm.... strange how such a positive word seems to have been given a negative slant by those who are allergic to the very thing the word describes; progress.

So you're against progress jwhop?

******

Jwhop also said....

quote:
...and no amount of diversionary tactics on his [Conyers] part is going to quash the investigation now underway into his campaign practices....

Diversionary tactics???

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I could be) but it was my understanding that Conyers had this thing going to get bush out of office, LONG before they started trying to dig up $hit on Conyers.

...So you tell me...

WHO'S USING DIVERSIONARY TACTICS?

That little trick belongs to the "other side."

It's called "wag the dog."

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 12:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop again...

quote:
OK Cardinalgal, I've just shown you how communists adopt the buzz words of freedom to obscure what they really are...democratic and republic...neither of which describes the reality of communist North Korea, which is a Stalinist communist regime.

Oh jwhop...kinda reminds me of the one bush uses...

PATRIOT ACT

How far off the track is that????

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 12:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I recall plowing this ground before..on the other Linda Goodman site...the one where I was asked to make my presence scarce..non existent actually. One thing a little coven of leftists cannot abide is dissent from and examination of the leftist view. And yet it is the leftists who whine about their freedom of speech and that makes leftists hypocrites.

The Patriot Act is mostly a codification of and extension of existing law which covered RICO statutes to Terrorist activities.

Seems leftists think it's OK to wiretap, surveil, break in and monitor organized crime engaged in loan sharking, drug trafficking, prostitution and gambling but it's not OK to do the same to those attempting to kill us.

Do you ever wonder how the loony left got that name?

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 01:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You know..jwhop..makes very good sense..he tells it like it is..and it's not pretty..hehe

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Do you ever wonder how the loony left got that name?

Nope. Republicans are name-callers. http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.name.html http://www.nonamecallingweek.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home.html http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa101600c.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2952537.stm
Hope you don't have kids.

quote:
One thing a little coven of leftists cannot abide is dissent from and examination of the leftist view.

Is that the case, or is it just that you don't provide the grounds/means to justify calling it dissent and examination? It would be one thing if you were a disimpassioned fact finder, however you're nothing remotely close to that description. You lead with your emotions and hope that the facts back you up.

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 01:27 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Acoustic God..you are making more assumptions..you are not jwhop..when you assume to know someone..well..how can you do that..you are not them..

IP: Logged

Cardinalgal
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 01:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh jwhop you do tickle me! I knew you'd leap all over that and turn it into your statutory "Yikes!! There's Red's in them there hills!" knee jerk reaction to anything left of centre. It's almost comforting that you behave with such predictable regularity - I can practically set my watch by you!

quote:
Further Cardinalgal, the "progressive movement" is a political entity with a new name and is the repository of the old hard line American Communist Party. The Communist Party USA which was feeling the heat from being identified as taking their marching orders from the butcher Stalin and the association with the name communist which developed a decidedly foul stench.

Now do calm down dear because you'll do yourself an injury; after all you don't want to end up like McCarthy do you? His health declined through heavy drinking before he died. Probably due to seeing red devils crawling out of the wood work at him round every corner!

Who said anything about Communists anyway jwhop? In fact did I mention politics in my post at all? It may surprise you to know that Communists and Democrats/socialists are not from the same 'egg'. You see you're off again, jumping on anything that moves and assuming all sorts! I was merely interested in your inference that being 'progressive' was something to be frowned upon. Once again though, you have decided to turn it into a one man crusade against Communism. Oh well, whatever floats your boat

We all know that not all Communists are progressive, not all Democrats are democratic and not all Republicans are evil, greedy money grabbing bigots who's only goal in life is to bow down before the God of Economic growth in the hope they may one day achieve the Conservative/Republican Nirvana; 'Profit'

In the same vain, not all 'progressives' as you call them, are Marxists, Communists or any other 'ist'. They are simply people who wish to see progress in areas which they feel have stagnated and become out of date.

There you go again you see jwhop... stuffing political beliefs into your cosy little boxes

Oh and...

quote:
Republic
1. political system with elected representatives: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them

Well that's heavily debatable in the case of your present administration isn't it?

IP: Logged

Cardinalgal
unregistered
posted March 06, 2006 01:33 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Back later hopefully for more hilarity!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 02:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ummm, let's see Cardinalgal. Politics came up in this discussion about John Conyers...who is a radical leftist progressive/communist politician. How did you miss that when you were defining progressive?

Liberals are left of center Cardinalgal. I love liberals, like to talk to them, see their points, approve their goals, which are the same goals as conservatives. We differ on how to bring those goals into reality.

Leftists are a different matter entirely. Their goals are well defined and do not include a United States of America or anything which would resemble a representative Constitutional Republic with a Capitalist economic system. Up theirs!

For certain, old Joe McCarthy was hot on Communists tails. But all the pants wetting of the radical left will not obscure the fact that McCarthy was right about Communist spy penetration of the US government and Hollywood. If you want verification, check the Verona Report.

When the Soviet Union fell...thanks Ronald Reagan...KGB and GRU files were opened to inspection by the US government and within those files were the names of Communist spies in the US government, before the era of McCarthy and during that era. In fact, when Roosevelt was presented with findings of communist penetration of his government, he laughed it off....saying some of my best friends are communists. He was most certainly right about that..including the Communist in his government most responsible for turning over Central and Eastern Europe to Soviet oppression, repression, murder and genocide....at the Yalta Conference.

Bush has apologized for that and it drove leftists almost insane..in the press and among leftists/communists everywhere.

KGB Exonerates McCarthyism
KGB EXONERATES McCARTHYISM
COMMUNIST SPIES HAD SATURATED U.S. GOVERNMENT

The opening of the KGB archives and the release of the VENONA intercepts (decoded Soviet KGB and GRU traffic) proved that in the 1950's Senator Joseph McCarthy was absolutely right about the extensive Soviet penetration of the U.S. government in all the most sensitive sections and its danger to America. According to the KGB archives, the NKVD had 221 agents in the Roosevelt administration in April 1941 and the Soviet military GRU probably had a like number. He was proved right that the Communist Party, U.S.A., was an arm of the Soviet intelligence apparatus and the Soviet Union considered the U.S. as their "main enemy".

His liberal critics in academe and the mainstream media, who denied there was Communist subversion and made excuses for it, were proved absolutely wrong! This should have discredited the liberal ideology and those who mouthed it. Because the left had no answer or effective reply to the challenge McCarthy posed, they engaged in personal destruction -- they smeared and demonized McCarthy because he was truth.
http://www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/kgb_exonerates_mccarthyism.htm

BTW, thanks for your concern about my health but I feel just fine

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 04:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Is that the case, or is it just that you don't provide the grounds/means to justify calling it dissent and examination? It would be one thing if you were a disimpassioned fact finder, however you're nothing remotely close to that description. You lead with your emotions and hope that the facts back you up.....acoustic

I know it galls you acoustic that you've gotten your hide nailed to the barn door upon every occasion you've spouted your nonsense but anyone with a lick of common sense would immediately discount anything you say..because of things you've already said...some of them so far out in left field that loony doesn't even cover it.

The guy who was a 60's radical leftist and who had left the loony left and adopted liberal views, which he expressed and which were indeed liberal.....you called a conservative Which only shows how far to the radical fringe of the loony left you really are.

And then there was the episode where you accused the United States of repressing the Iraqi people....because the sanctions against Iraq included the sale and importation to Iraq of Chlorine....with which Saddam made WMD....which was the purpose of the sanctions in the first place...to not give any materials to Saddam to continue his WMD production or anything of military value. To bolster your allegation, you called on a loony leftist professor of philosophy. Loons supporting loons. This loon...who had no standing at the UN, was supposedly in possession of confidential UN documents...documents which were not disclosed by the way but no loony leftist would need a shred of evidence to believe any accusation against the United States.

To compound your error, you accused the US of further repressing the Iraqi people because the President didn't package up a water treatment plant and ship it to Iraq. One which didn't use Chlorine. As if it was the President's responsibility to see to the welfare of Iraqi citizens and not Saddam Hussein. The welfare of the Iraqi people, supposedly seen to by Saddam with the Oil for Food program money which Saddam, the UN, French politicians, a British politician and various European corporations ripped off in the biggest rip-off moneywise in the history of planet earth...and at the expense of the Iraqi people. No wonder eh, that the UN and some European leaders didn't want Saddam overthrown...end of the Oil for Food money gravy train.

Now acoustic, Saddam was a brutal murderer who oversaw the murder of close to or perhaps more than 1 million Iraqi citizens. A Stalinist dictator who routinely tortured, murdered and raped Iraqi citizens for decades. A Stalinist dictator who used chemical weapons against not only the Iranians but against Iraqi citizens.

Now acoustic, most people could and would work up a high degree of moral indignation against someone so brutal, so repressive/oppressive and so vile that he killed citizens not because they had done anything wrong but merely to terrorize the people of Iraq and those who might be thinking about getting rid of him. In other words acoustic, Joseph Stalin of the desert. But the most you could do was to say..."Saddam wasn't good for the Iraqi people".

No condemnation of Saddam from acoustic. It's America who you condemn. So, up yours and if you get caught in a loony left broadside, you've earned the title.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 05:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Feel better? ... Feels good just to get it all out doesn't it?

My positions and arguments are all a matter of record here. I invite anyone who would care to look at them to look at them. (It's really great entertainment for those who haven't had the pleasure of being here for them.)

As far as sympathizing with violence, Jwhop, you've shown yourself to be the more violent between us on several occasions, and I no more sympathize with you than I do with Saddam.

As far as using other people's testimony to back up my views, it strikes me that at least I was able to do so, and with experts in their fields no less. Unfortunately, you couldn't counter with the same level of diligence. You lost that argument. Trying to bring it up now as if it says something bad about me is more than a little bit silly.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 06, 2006 05:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
The guy who was a 60's radical leftist and who had left the loony left and adopted liberal views, which he expressed and which were indeed liberal.....you called a conservative Which only shows how far to the radical fringe of the loony left you really are.

I'm not even sure who you are referring to here.

IP: Logged


This topic is 7 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a