Asymmetrical Information

This is the kind of crap that makes many of us think that for many (no, not all by any means), leftism has become a religion.

No, this is the kind of crap that both sides put out based on the guy they hate...see Clinton.

Kate's right. But I have to admit that I've been seeing more of it from the Left in recent years. And the rhetoric is getting rather extreme, such as calls for the extermination of all conservatives.

I think Bill Whittle said it best when he wrote (paraphreased here) that the Left thinks it's all about words and not facts, and they will win because they can turn their rhetoric up to eleven.

James

Exactly, Kate. I find it amusing that so many can't see that there are people on both the left and the right that engage in this type of rhetoric. For every William Rivers Pitt there is an R. Emmett Tyrell or Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who saw the idiotic "Clinton Body Counts" being pushed by those on the right during the 90s can attest to that. Hell, the Wall St. Journal Editorial page passed off crazier anti-Clinton stuff that Truthout.

So much of political debate is simply a manifestation of tribal loyalties and tribal conflict, with about as much rationality. Oh well, at least nobody is getting gasoline- filled tires placed around their necks yet.

Kate and Eamon,

Oh really? Kindly point me to the guy from the Right (or the WSJ piece) that said EVERY big problem facing us today is Clinton's fault, to say nothing of rhetoric claiming that [X Democratic politician]'s policies put us on the brink of "apocalypse."

There is a significant difference in the irresponsibility of rhetoric between Left and Right. THis quote illustrates that fact nicely.

Fantastic video tribute to Ronald Reagan

It is self-serving for the left to claim that there is no difference between their vitriol and that of the right. While it is true that one can find one bizarro right wingnut statement to counterbalance those of the left, the difference is the right wingnuts are generally minority voices, little heeded on the right, perhaps the tolerated idiot brother-in-law type one learns to avoid discussing all but the weather with.

But the left has its biggest stars and statesmen frothing at the mouth: Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Kerry, and at one point Dean. The difference is critical. The left's leaders are Orwellian. The right's idiots are orwellian too, but at least we know they are idiots

I think it's funny to watch the right wing claim that THEIR version of vitriol is somehow less toxic than that on the right. First, it is emphatically not true that the bomb throwers on the right are little regarded fringe figures. Dan Burton called Clinton a "scumbag". He's the chair of the House Oversight Committee. Jesse Helms warned Clinton that he might be assasinated if he came to North Carolina. He was the Chair of the Foreign relations Committee at the time. Tom Delay called the EPA "The Gestapo of Government", he's the House Majoriy Leader. The GOP House Class of 94 made Rush Limabaugh, who had made any number of vitriolic attacks, an honorary member of their class. Jerry Falwell, who said we in New York deserved 9/11 for being too tolerant of abortion and homosexuals, got VIP seating at the 92 GOP convention. Rich Bond claimed that "those people" (meaning democrats)" are "not America" on prime time at the GOP convention, was the party's national chairman. To suggest that the only extreme rhetoric on the right comes from fringe figures flies in the face of record.

One of the best ways to counter the vitriol is to state the positive, so here goes:

I'm a 54 year old man. The personal example that Ronald Regan set is beautiful and inspirational. He became president at the age of 69, a time when most people have packed it in, and he survived an assassination attempt in his first year of office. Despite that, he won. And I mean that sincerely. This man won as decisively as any man I can think of. I think that most of the vitriol is a result of the fact that he just plain won on every front.

I admit I was stupid as a kid and I talked about this man the way leftists now talk about George W. Bush. God, was I wrong! It's humbling and instructional to remember just how wrong I was about my fellow Illinoian, Ronald Reagan.

You know, when I was a kid, growing up in a town not 50 miles from Ronald Reagan's home town, my dad always told me that no matter how humble the origins, a poor kid from the stix of Illinois could be anything in this world. Even president!

Thanks, President Reagan, for proving that my dad was telling the truth.

Russell:

Were you in a coma during the nineties by any chance?

What was amazing about the Republicans was that they not only blamed Democrats for every political or economic problem, they blamed them for every problem. After Susan Smith drowned her two children, Newt Gingrich claimed, "I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

When the Enron/accounting scandals broke, Republicans wasted little time in blaming the fraud on Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances.

Disagree with Pitt if you like, but the things he is laying at the feet of the Reagan administration (supporting Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, dealing with Saddam, deregulating the S&L industry, ignoring the rise of AIDS, support of South Africa's apartheid regime) fell within the purview of Reagan's exectutive authority.

James R. Rummel:

You seem to be engaging in some rather creative projection. It is not the Left that is engaging in eliminationist rhetoric - I would love to see just one example that isn't culled from an anonymous post on a message board. It is the Right. And they do it ALL THE TIME.

Furthermore, while many Democrats now view the Republican party as being lead by a few corrupt thugs who deserve prison, the vast, vast majority do not attribute their thuggishness to an inherent weakness of conservative ideology. That is, they wish the Republican party could clean itself up, not be destroyed. The constant refrain from Democrats is that the adults, like McCain, should take their party back.

In contrast, Republicans frequently do not accept the Democratic party as a legitimate institution. They want to destroy it. Liberals should be rounded up and shot ("I'm joking! Ha ha") or at least removed from all positions of public authority. They are unAmerican. They want our enemies to succeed. They sympathize with terrorists. They hate America. That, sir, is the rhetoric of the Right.

Extreme rhetoric is one thing Eamon, re-writing history is another.

Interesting to note that re-writing history was/is a forte of marxist inspired states - the very ones Reagan deemed evil. What do you think the odds are that those ferverously attempting to edit out all positives of Reagan's revolution harbor marxist inspired idealogies?

Eamon:

Exactly. The vitriol on the Right is pervasive. Do not forget Burton was shooting gourds in his backyard to "prove" Clinton killed Vince Foster.

As for Gore, Dean, Soros, and Kennedy, you will note that while they are repeatedly described as "angry" or even "unstable" no quotes have been presented that demonstrate any vitriol that is remotely beyond the pale.

bains:

What history is being rewritten? Please indulge us with your wisdom.

Russell -

One can't, of course, point to an exact parallel statement. If that is your standard of comparison, then there is clearly no way to talk to you.

But for more general comparable statements, please run, don't walk, to:

http://www.anncoulter.org/ (Recent hightlight: "Remove Dennis Kucinich's Feeding Tube!")

Eamon O'Brochlain already picked up the slack on many other instances that any rational person would find both (a) mainstream conservative and (b) as fringe-nutty as Pitt.

So, now that the original topic of this post has been completely hijacked by how evil Republicans are/were, I just want to know if we're all in agreement that the "Reagan dysology" was a Bad Thing?

jdm:

Simply declaring it a Bad Thing is rather a cop-out. As Pitt himself acknowledges, "How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you ask."

I'd be shocked if you agreed with Pitt's viewpoint, but tsk, tsk-ing does not a rebuttal make. If you think that Pitt has raised any factual innacuracies then please point them out. Coming to a different conclusion than Republicans is not "rewriting history."

Examples abound Space, yet reading your posts I suspect that you already believe the re-writes.

But for those who dont, here is just one...

Pitt's re-write: The urban poor were left to rot because Ronald Reagan believed in 'self-sufficiency.'

Reality: During the Reagan era, an unprecedented period of economic growth led to the lowest poverty rate in recent history--despite criticism at the time that welfare programs were being cut. Even this year's [1995] good news for families--a drop to 11.6 percent of Americans in poverty--is still above Reagan's legacy of 10.3 percent.

The notion that the Reagan administation failed to fund AIDs research is a lie.

Andrew Sullivan has debunked it.

Nearly $6 billion appropriated for research during the Reagan administration.

Eamon and Kate:
Sometimes the diversion helps you guys..... But, let's get back on track.....

While it's easy to focus on a single personality and then everyone can just claim "well you did it to our guy", let's step back a bit and look at what the left claims period.

Before we do that, I need to mention that at least conservatives convey the message that they understand that liberals (who are rank-and-file) are "well-intentioned", or do-gooders, or have rose-colored glasses on and want a utopia..... but that for all of the good intentions and the "feelings" that their solutions are right, our message on the conservative side is that the solutions do not bring out the results that we all want.

Conversely, the left doesn't even give the right good-intentions.

THIS IS THE KEY. The left claims to know what our intentions are. The left speaks for us and asserts that they know our motives. The left thinks of conservatives as "mean-spirited", trying to kill the elderly, wanting to poison the air and water, anti-education, racist, sexist..... you name it.

We try to debate with you guys on the topics by sticking to the facts but it is impossible. When the left completely ignores our message and continues to propagandize and state what our intentions are, this is the problem.

Forget the personalities of Clinton or Newt or Ronald Reagan.

For us conservatives usually it comes down to issues and policy. It is bigger than Bush to us. It is about the direction of the country. We realize that Bush is pretty darn moderate. Liberals like Kate continue to spout rhetoric that he/she thinks that Bush is an extreme right-winger with intentions for this or that (as if Kate can speak to Bush's intentions).

It would be wise for liberals to stop looking at what they think a person's intentions are and look at what actions have occurred.

Again, I have run down the list of automatic pistol like accusations by Kate and described what Bush had actually done and why I think it makes him a moderate. We conservatives would actually like a more conservative president instead of one who keeps trying to appease the Kennedy's and Daschle's. We want our "well thought out solutions" to be tried and implemented. But Kate (and Eamon) continue to ignore the facts about what Bush has actually done and they continue to speak to Bush's intentions or supposed intelligence (Gore doesn't have his Masters degree and Bush does. Gore failed out of law school. But why are we focusing on personalities again. Because people like to do that and it gets us off topic). :) :)

"It is not the Left that is engaging in eliminationist rhetoric - I would love to see just one example that isn't culled from an anonymous post on a message board."

As you wish:

"...Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm."

--Village Voice, January 21 issue.

Eamon and Kate and Space,
I corrected you Kate on the NCLB act. You claimed that it wasn't funded as YOUR sources must've told you. You graciously said that you looked it up and stood corrected and admitted to the fact that the Department of Education has had an increased budget under Bush that exceeded the increase during the 8 years of Clinton.

Now Kate and Eamon and Space, I challenge you to go to www.andrewsullivan.com and find the word Billion on his front page. There you will find Andrew Sullivan's praise of the Reagan administration and how he handled AID and funded AIDS research with massive increases in the budget every year directed towards AIDS research.

Now, once you do that, are you willing to concede that you've been lied to by your leftist sources and that Andrew Sullivan (a homosezual centrist) is telling you the truth or will you continue to propagandize on the AIDS issue with Reagan.

This is what happens on 90% of issues. There is two sides to a story. This is why I converted from liberalism in 1991. I did the research. I visited the library 3 times a week that year to figure out what was the truth. It was a dramatic time in my life where my core beliefs were upended.

I have successfully converted others from liberalism including African Americans. It all starts from pointing to the fact that there are two sets of information out there and really getting to the core on example after example (just like this Reagan and AIDS example) to see which set of information is more on target.

You start to see patterns.......

Pat,a Few points:

1. Please cite an instance where I have focused on Bush's intelligence or spoken to his intentions. If you are going to accuse me of something, please back it up. OTherwise, don't make the charge.
2. If you are going to debate on facts, please get them right yourself. Gore didn not fail out of laws school, he voluntarily dropped out to run for Congress. Probably a good career move on his part.
3. You deal in generalizations. Certainly ALL conservatives don't say that liberals mean well etc. Ann Coulter says "liberals are no damn good" and that we should be made to feel that we "can be killed too". Rich Bond said that we aren't Americans. Ditto to James Watt. Newt Gingrich has called us traitors and anti-family and blamed us for Republican Susan Smith drowning her kids. Even Reagan said that we were "so far left, we left the country". Many conservatives call us disloyal Americans and anti God, and anti-Family.Pat Buchanan certainly didn't accuse of havign good intentions at the 1992 convention. Converesly, not all liberals say that people like you want to starve people etc. You claim to want honest debate, but you do nothing to advance it by engaging in generalizations, which fall apart when confronted with facts.
4. The subject of this post is not personalities, but supposed extremist rhetoric. My contention is that both sides engage in it. If anyone is trying to divert from the topic at hand, it is you. This post and the comments don't concern themselves with attacking Bush's personality, but about the use of vitriol on both sides.

> If you think that Pitt has raised any factual innacuracies then please point them out.

OK, how about this: "Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan."?

Saddam ruled officially as President of Iraq from July 16, 1979. Prior to Reagan's presidency.

But you didn't really care to discuss the actual topic (Pitt's article) when the new topic (vitriolic Republicans) was so much more interesting.

That's fine and in your roundabout way, thanks for answering my question.

bains:

Congratulations, Michael Feingold of the Villiage Voice used eliminationist rhetoric. Wow. I have no idea who that is and do not even know if he is a Democrat (although I certainly concede that the Villiage Voice falls generally under the umbrella of "Lefty").

The fact is that the Right invokes violent threats far, far more than the Left. And it is far more tolerated by the established Republican party. Eamon's example of Jesse Helms implying that Clinton might get assassinated if he visited his district is a case in point. Ann Coulter's violent statements are too numerous to list here.

If the best example you can provide is from Mr. Feingold - admittedly better than a Democratic Underground post - then I think my point is made.

Pat,

I'm sorry? I made one comment in the beginning of string which has nothing to do with the NLRB, AIDS research or any other damn-fool thing you list in your post. How did I get dragged into this?

And while I think Andrew Sullivan has some valuable things to say on a variety of subjects, when you get right down to it he is a blogger or essayist, not an impartial journalist. Show me a similar article in the WSJ, NYT, Time, Newsweek, Economist or other commonly read newspaper/periodical. Don't cite Sullivan at me. It has not value. No offense Jane, but it's like citing Jane Galt to me as fact. Certainly it is an opinion, perhaps even a valuable analysis, but it is by no means fact.

Pat, the fact that you speak in irrelevent generalizations while accusing others of doing the same is an example of why many of us can not take you seriously. This fight about who is worse in their partisan vitrol is stupid. "Your guy is worse" "NO! Your guy is worse" is preposerous. Reagan was not a monster, neither was Clinton. They may have done things you or I don't like, but they are most likely not responsible for all the bad things in this world. Everyone should just get over thenselves and take a pill. Especially you Pat.

Pat,

Finally, you are making an argument. The truth is that I don't know how much Reagan contributed to funding AIDS research in the 1980s. He may have put it in his budget willingly. The Democrats in Congress may have funded it over his dead body. My suspicion is that if Reagan was so interested in the issue his administration wouldn't have literally laughed on multiple occasions at inquires into what Reagan was doing on the issue. I am also deeply skeptical that the advocates for AIDS research would hold so much animosity towards Reagan if he had an open door to their concerns. It is not typical of constituents to punish those who are helping them the most. But I could be convinced otherwise.

The point is that you can't simply assert that Pitt is engaging in lies or "revisionist history." You have to make a credible argument. So far you have presented some data that supports your argument. But it doesn't show that Pitt is a liar. Indeed his admission that a final conclusion "depends on who you ask" is more honest than anything you have posted.

Kate, I think your Posted by: went awry on your at June 10, 2004 01:01 PM post.

Eamon,
1)If you haven't spoken about Bush's intelligence, I apologize. I do generalize for expediency as you can see I addressed liberals in general, you, Kate and space in the same note.

However, if you haven't you don't deserve to be accused of having done so.

2) You are halfway correct about Gore. He failed 8 classes in the school (can't remember the name) and it was decided by him that he wasn't going any further but everyone could probably see the writing on the wall.

3) Many, most conservatives I talk to do say that liberal (rank and files) mean well. When we speak about the Daschle's, Kennedy's, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Clinton, Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry (the non rank and file - the leaders - the disseminators of missinformation to the press who are too lazy to do the research about the conservative position) that is when we say that those people aren't well intentioned because THEY ARE IN THE POSITION TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY AND THIS IS THEIR LIFE AND THEY CHOOSE to LIE ABOUT US and put out a false message and ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. You misrepresent Newt's message and Ann Coulter's message. I don't know Rich Bond.

Yes. This past 2 years after 9/11 many of us have really gotten the "feeling" that the people speaking anti-Bush, hate Bush rhetoric and anti-War rhetoric (lying when doing so) are traitors and committing sedition. That is our feeling. The rhetoric has gotten so bad and we've gotten off topic and off issue because of this really really poisoned rhetoric. To speak to Bush's intentions as though he intentionally misled the American public on the weapons and that he intended to occupy Iraq for it's oil is what causes us to step back and wonder it you guys really do want what's best for this country.

This country can go through a major healing process if people on the left could strive to get the facts right and stop attacking people personally. Sure it isn't right for us have a reactive feeling that you guys are committing sedition or traitorous.

Again you mispoke on what Reagan said. This is the pattern we have to defend based on the fact that you mislead. Reagan was saying that he didn't leave the Democrat party (because he once was a Democrat) but that the Democrat party left him. Far different that what you accused Reagan of saying. Will you continue to propagandize and misrepresent and accuse or will you find out for sure what was said?

I won't touch the God stuff. People want to lionize others about God this and that and I won't.

It doesn't fall apart when confronted with facts. The leaders of the Democrat party just about ALL with a few exceptions engage in the most hate filled speech about us, asserting they know that are intentions are bad. Al Gore, Bill Clinton did it when in power. Nancy Pelosi and Daschle have done so and ALL of the presidential candidates with the exception of Lieberman have done so. I watched the debates, I'm not rewriting history. I am confronting the facts.

You are right the subject of the post isn't personalities but a high percentage of the time the left leaning posters to most of these posts go off topic and bash Bush and now recently Reagan as he is a topic.

To us it's bigger than Bush. It's about the issues.

One day us libertarians/conservaties would actually like to see an actual reduction of spending in the budget. We can't get there because the country has moved left for 50+ years. Libertarians have long said that we could provide the essential services laid out by the constitution for 20% of the spending that we do. Conservatives are nowhere near the libertarian position and yet we get lambasted as being extreme......

'can be traced back to the policies and PEOPLE that came from the Reagan administration..'

'Mommy, where did I come from ?'
'You came from the Reagan administration, darling.'

geez, this guy's a writer?

Sorry, the above response to bains should have been directed at David Fleck.

jdm: Do you really want to call that a factual inaccuracy? Or are you willing to concede for the sake of honest debate that "creating" Saddam clearly was intended to mean instituting policies which enabled him to become a regional tyrant?

How about the rest of Pitt's assertions:
The Reagan administration supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents sent to Iraq during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.

    The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite public American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret and in violation of scores of laws.

Is any of that inaccurate? Because if it isn't then I would say that Pitt has made a pretty damning case against Reagan and your pedantic critique is fairly petty.

Space, you attribute to me a post by David Fleck. At best, it indicates a lack of attention to details...

But seeing as you dont like the Village Voice as representative of Democrat invectiveness, I give you the St Petersburg Democratic club:

"Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, 'We have our good days and our bad days...' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."

Kate,

You got dragged into this because you are a common poster with the theme that Bush is an extreme guy and conservatives are extreme and you have rattled off in the past with automatic pistol like fashion Stem Cell research, Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Iraq.

Once I define the debate and clarify what Bush has done on these issues you ignore and continue to use those issues without delving any deeper. Shallow I'd say. :) :) :) I'll take that back if you can go deeper for once.

You attacked Andrew Sullivan the messenger but apparently didn't read his facts that he laid out. He laid out concrete facts with percentages dollar amounts and years. Pattern of you lefties. :) :O

Your last paragraph was my point. We give for the fact that at least you want to solve the world's problems but your well-intentioned or bleeding heart "felt" solutions when thought out to the actual results would not get to the results that we all (99% of us) want. We all want clean air, and water and no racism and good education and for as many people to be healthy and what not. WHERE WE DIFFER IS THE SOLUTIONS.

I would be glad to debate the solutions. Conservatives talk about personal responsibility, a strong safety net, the economic system of capitalism (understanding how economics works is key), to helping the most people and being able to provide the best commond defense. And a prosperous nation is most able to help it's environment.

space, words either mean something or they don't. He used the word "create" without any qualifiers.

If calling my critique pedantic and petty is what you call honest debate, then I guess this debate is over.

bains:

Fair enough. But I would distinguish it from Republican statements in two important ways.

1. Other Democrats distanced the party from the remarks.
2. It was directed at Rumsfeld, not at Republicans in general. I admit that it was an inappropriately violent remark, but it in no way indicates a desire to eliminate Republicans.

And that is the key difference. Pat can talk all he wants about what he and his conservative friends think about Democrats, but the fact of the matter is that acceptance of the liberal point of view is not shared by the Republicans who have the loudest voices and most power. They literally want to destroy liberals and the Democratic party. You will NEVER hear Gore, Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, Boxer, or Kennedy say that the Republican party should be abolished. These are people who appreciate the value of political debate and democracy.

Space,

You continue to personally attack Reagan.....

While doing so you mislead or were misled yourself. :)

If you take out all of the adjectives and spin and just put in the facts the 2 paragraphs you inserted would look completely different.

If you added back the conservative thought (as the liberal placed in what they thought were Reagans intentions - common practice) you might see that it might just have been the U.S. giving intelligence to Iraq (which we've done with many countries - it wasn't to help Iraq hurt Iran with chemical weapons as Pitt ASSERTED) and a representative of the U.S. Donald Rumsfeld meeting with whomever to try to work out better foriegn relations on a wider variety of topics.

The left could be accusing Reagan as one who didn't try to work with Iraq or other countries diplomatically at all if Rumsfeld didn't meet with foriegn leaders.

Common practice again of the left to:
1) Accuse
2) Assert intentions
3) While doing so come up with a buch that they can rattle off and call a "laundry list"
4) And not pay attention to the conservative message or even debate the facts.

Keep it up and you make yourself irrelevant on these postings because people can see your pattern (who are new to politics) :)

jdm,

if feigning being insulted and ignoring the substance of Pitt's charges is your idea of a debate then it never got started.

Space,

You continue...
Pitt's charges are common place for the left. Adjectives, assertions of knowing intentions, laced into every sentence and coming up with a supposed laundry list.

It is nothing new.
It doesn't require any serious critique. For us to do so we would spend ALL THE TIME DEFENDING OURSELVES as is commonplace.

We already are pur on the defensive enough by leftists who want to accuse.

The whole reason that we have a REACTION that our FEELING is that you guys are seditious is because of the ORIGINAL SET OF ACCUSATIONS in the first place.

You control the tempo. You control who has the ball. We are either put on defense or feel that you are on the attack and left to wonder if you are seditious.

Hmm, Pat in CA, I've already passed the first two stages. I'm accused of being pedantic and petty, and then of intentionally feigning insult.

How prophetic ;-)

Pat,

Yes. This past 2 years after 9/11 many of us have really gotten the "feeling" that the people speaking anti-Bush, hate Bush rhetoric and anti-War rhetoric (lying when doing so) are traitors and committing sedition. That is our feeling. The rhetoric has gotten so bad and we've gotten off topic and off issue because of this really really poisoned rhetoric. To speak to Bush's intentions as though he intentionally misled the American public on the weapons and that he intended to occupy Iraq for it's oil is what causes us to step back and wonder it you guys really do want what's best for this country.

I'm going to be completely honest. I no longer care about the "feelings" of self-proclaimed patriots. In the run-up to the war there were many legitimate concerns raised. Instead of being legitimately addressed they were either ignored or, worse, those who raised concerns were smeared by association to A.N.S.W.E.R.

You wonder if we really want to do what's best for this country? What arrogance. What unbelievable arrogance.

Meanwhile George Bush allows his administration to leak the names of CIA agents, disclose vital national security secrets to Iran, engage in blatant torture, claim "inherent" power to ignore anti-torture legislation, and trust a convicted fraudster (Ahmed Chalabi) to run the Iraqi government. And those who question this "don't want to do what's best for this country." What arrogance.

Pat,

It is nothing new. It doesn't require any serious critique.

Am I supposed to take this seriously? This is such a cop-out. You don't deny the actual facts (after all there is that awkward photo of Rummy and Saddam) and yet with a wave of your hand you imply that it is all made up. Very clever. An outright denial can be refuted but by not offering "any serious response" you sidestep that minor problem.

jdm,

The left posters in this arena don't get it. I do this not for them but for the newbies out there who are just starting to engage in politics.

I was a liberal in 1991 and was converted. I've seen others convert. There are those who will convert. I don't think Eamon or Kate or space will convert. I'm not doing this for them. They are stuck.

For all of the accusations and assertion of knowledge of our intentions, the people who are new to politics can see that message and understand it.

When we as conservatives want NO discrimiation or preferential treatment based on race and we agree whole-heartedly with Ward Connerly and ask people to read his book "Creating Equal" it is a message that can appeal to the people just coming into politics.

But when the argument breaks down into a name calling by the left saying that we are racist, Reagan was racist, Bush is a racist and on and on... that's where the left loses.

When the NAACP ran that ad in 2000 about James Byrd's death it did more harm to Gore but the left doesn't understand it.

They won't. I engage with them to help any potential passing by reader understand clearly what the left is doing.

Space continues on and feeds the problem.

Pat, in response:

1. I am 100% correct about Gore and grad school (although it was Divinity School, not law school) Leaving voluntarily is not flunking out. You are simply repeating a right wing internet lie, yet you have the audacity to accuse others of "propagandizing. I hope you can see the irony there.
2. Many conservatives do say that people on the left have good intentions, but many, many don't. I have heard them call CSPAN, listened to them call talk radio, read their postings on the interent and in chat rooms. At least as many
conservatives accuse liberals of having improper motives and vice versa. Again, look at Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Delay, Gingrich, Barr, Tyrell, Falwell, Robertson and many many others. Trust me, conservatives have their share of extremeist attack dogs.
3. I was not referring to Reagan's statement about why he left the Democratic Party, or why it left him. I was referring to a statement he made about liberal positions in which he did in fact say that many liberal positions are so far left they have left the country. It's not the same quote and I have not misquoted Reagan on this. Please don't accuse me of lying or propagandizing.
4.If you really want a healing process, why not start with yourself? You certainly can't expect a decrease in "poisonous" rhetoric, when you accuse people of sedition or hate speech or "propgandizing", simply because they have a take on issues that doesn't square with yours.
5. With respect to Kate, she did not attack Andrew Sullivan as a source per se. What she did was note that he is an opinion writer on the web and that what he posts is not necessariy fact. In other words, its not a good idea to base a claim of fact on an editorial work. All she was saying was to try and find a less biased source.

jdm:

Wait till you called seditious. That might piss you off.

Alternatively you could just answer my question: Was there anything specific in Pitt's assertions that you claim is false with regard to Saddam? We can agree that Reagan did not install him.

Pat,

I think you'll find that I did respond, with citations, the last time we got into this. The fact that I generally don't live on this board, monitoring it every hour is hardly my ignoring you. Besides, you're inability to admit that, or your paranoid belief that some how these discussions are about you and not about policy, or that perhaps, people can have different opinions than yours leads me to believe that you are unstable. Let me assure you, my beliefs are opinions are not some type of personal attack.

In addition, I think that if you remember when you emailed me PERSONALLY about an issue, I responded immediately and had to wait many days for your response.

The topic of my post on this string had nothing to do with Reagan's positions and certainly had nothing to do with Bush I or II. It was simply a reaction to some guy who chose to blame Reagan for every little thing which has ever gone wrong in the world. My reaction was to laugh and to say, yeah, conservatives did it to Clinton too...what do you want, there are wack-jobs on both sides of the isle.

The fact that you chose that opportunity to attack me on issues that have nothing to do with the post is primarily poor blog etiquette and secondarily, it leads me to not take you seriously. And you have still, never, ever, cited to a single source for all of your opinions, you have only attacked others for not doing the same.

Quite honestly Pat, I'm happy to have an intelligent discourse on and issue based on facts and figures. I have done it before with many friends (including one who writes for the National Review, lest you think I only have liberal-hippie friends). But I find your style of discurse so unpleasant and so inappropriate that I suspect this will be the last time I attempt to discuss anything civilly with you again, as you are so blinded by your own "correct" opinions that you are incapable of seeing anyone elses somewhat different opinions.

Goodbye Pat, it'll be not nice talking to you.

When the rhetoric of the democrats cannot be differentiated from the rhetoric of the groups with whom we are at war, and when those enemy groups routinely cite democrat statements as evidence that the United States is no better than its enemies, I find it difficult to accept the eqquivalency argument. But then I want my side to win.

re:Iraq

Don;t forget that the Eighties were a different World. The United States could not act against many despots because they were supported by the Soviets. We also had to accept some stained alliances because the ally was anti-Soviet, and we needed to chase the bigger picture victory, in much the same way we allied with Stalin against Hitler.

Also note that the Iraqi army was equipped by the Soviets, French, and Germans -- not the US. We merely provided a modicum of support due to Iraq in the 80s as a containment measure against Iran's radical fundamentalism.

Space,
Your laundry list responded to (if you choose to get it wrong that is your choice):

Accusation that isn't true and needs no response- In the run-up to the war there were many legitimate concerns raised. Instead of being legitimately addressed they were either ignored or, worse, those who raised concerns were smeared by association to A.N.S.W.E.R.

Accusation that isn't true and needs no response- Meanwhile George Bush allows his administration to leak the names of CIA agents, disclose vital national security secrets to Iran, engage in blatant torture, claim "inherent" power to ignore anti-torture legislation, and trust a convicted fraudster (Ahmed Chalabi) to run the Iraqi government.

You accuse.
You assert knowledge of intentions.
You create a laundry list

All without understanding what the conservative position was.

Your post right aftewards claims I did something that I didn't do. I didn't imply it was ALL made up. Read what I said. The adjectives and insertions of knowledge of why Reagan or Rumsfeld did this or that is INCREDIBLE.

The author actually inserts that he knows that Reagan gave intelligence to help Iraq unleash chemical weapons on Iran more accurately.

I have seen nobody deny that intelligence was given as we give intelligence to many countries that we deem is the lesser of evils or the better country in a conflict. What we don't like is the accusations you make as to why. And you choose not to understand what I'm saying. Why? Evading the argument? Delve into what I'm saying. You'll see that everything you are reading is laced with knowledge of intentions and adjectives that could be laced the exact opposite way to be a so-called right wing spin.

We may have given intelligence to Iraq to see how they operated. It may have been false intelligence. We may have wanted to see the internal workings of how they dealt with information given. We may have been trying to feel Saddam out who just came into power in 1979 and 90% of the people back then thought was the lesser of evils because of the Iranian Hostage situation.

You don't put into perspective anything but what Pitt says as supposed fact when it's laced.

And you don't understand our argument back. But others who come to this post will and that's where I sit back and take satisfaction that we will win this November if the liberals like you keep it up.

pat,

I was a liberal in 1991 and was converted. I've seen others convert. There are those who will convert. I don't think Eamon or Kate or space will convert. I'm not doing this for them. They are stuck.

Once again, you display your arrogance. You don't know the first thing about my beliefs on any policy issues.

On this comment thread, I have focused on three main issues, none of which are inherently "liberal" in any philosophical sense.

1. The original criticisms of Pitt's article were utterly devoid of any substance. It was empty charges of "revising history" not backed up by any counter-evidence.

2. The vitriol in our public discourse started in the Republican party and has been fed by an inherent belief that the Democratic party is a seditious organization, liberals are not legitimate citizens, and rank-and-file Democrats actively seek to undermine the country. I specifically mentioned that this is not due to a philisophical flaw in conservatism but rather that the Republican party has been hijacked by corrupt thugs. Indeed, many Republicans - particularly libertarians - have had to completely compromise their beliefs in order to support the Bush administration.

My personal beliefs run fairly middle of the road. I have a lot of problems with the Democratic party and if the Republican party was run by people like McCain or Jack Kemp I would probably switch. Unfortunately it is not. It is run by Bush and Delay. It's spokepeople, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity are wilfully dishonest and divisive. It doesn't have to be this way but it is.

And I wouldn't think I would need to tell a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians that a doctrine of preventive military strikes is not conservative.

space, the debate's off.

You asked if there were any inaccuracies in Pitt's rant, I found one, and now you've acknowledged my little contribution.

I'm not sure to what end you wanted these pointed out since I and others had to get into all sorts of inanities for you to acknowledge them. But there you are...

As to being termed seditious, if fighting the Left is what the Right does in its day job, then fighting libertarians is their hobby. But then we're not real popular with the Left either.

Eamon,

By calling Andrew Sullivan (a homosexuasl centrist) a biased source is attacking the messenger without addressing the facts in his article. He laid out the $5.7 Billion spent the over 100% increases on multiple years for spending on AIDS research. You chose just like Kate to attack the messenger.

Kate,

Boy you are filled with hate. Essentially you turn a continued conversation with you over the past month into a "hey, I wanted to just talk about they did it to Clinton to now just respond to that". Then you do attack people personally including calling me unstable.

What I find unstable is someone who can't understand that Bush is not extremely right wing when I laid out all of the positions for you that you rattled off over the last month and then just wave your hand and act like it's just nonsense.

What is it for instance that makes you think that Bush was extreme on Stem CEll research when Bush in the summer of 2001 tried to split the difference and take a centrist position and allow for federal funding of stem cell research on some stem cells but not others? Do you recognize that there are many conservatives and libertarians that would like the federal government to not be in that business and think that the private sector can do a more efficient job at funding that research?

Waiting for your answer..... But instead I know what you'll do. You'll continue to just USE stem cell research as one of your laundry list of issues against Bush without ever delving into the topic. This informs newbies to politics that you aren't interested in understanding both sides of the debate but just "attacking Bush"

Space,

Your post "The vitriol in our public discourse started in the Republican party and has been fed by an inherent belief that the Democratic party is a seditious organization" is probabematic to me because conservatives didn't start the seditious argument until a year or so ago IN REACTION TO the liberals ACCUSATIONS of Bush lying to the people with the State of the Union Speech and saying that Bush said Iraq was an "imminent" threat when he didn't say that and saying that Bush said that this war will be easy when Bush didn't say that etc. etc.

I go back to the 1980's or even earlier. I've watched the presidential debates of the 60's and 70's on C-SPAN. Going into the 80's and 90's and 2000's it's the same pattern.

1) Attack the right as being racist, sexist, anti-education, anti-elderly, against the poor, againt the environment
2) Us having to defend ourselves.

The tempo is controlled by you guys. You continue to attack instead of coming up with what you think is the better solution on all of the issues of the day.

If you want to start, let's start. Pick a topic. Preferential Treatment, ozone holes, tax cuts helping the economy, the role of the federal government and should it even spend on stem cell research?

I know you won't. :)

From Mr Pitts:

"The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies and people that came from the Reagan administration"

I cannot think of a better sendoff for Reagan. Here's a man who hates Republicans so much he can't even think straight. He has just credited the Reagan administration with solving every single problem facing America when his term began. There's never an easy time to be President, but the problems Reagan solved had baffled at least 3 Presidents before him.

pat,

1. It is a fact that the war protests were deliberately smeared by association. This Fox News story is but one example. Virtually the only anti-war guests on talk shows were actors, who could be easily dismissed as not being experts.

2. Chalabi is a crook who should never have been trusted. That Bush was a fool to do so isn't the "conservative position." Disclosing national security secrets is not the "conservative position. " It is a crime.

3. It is simply not contested that the U.S. was selling biological agents to Iraq, as well as chemical weapons precusors and plans and at the same time the U.S. was aware that Iraq was using these munitions in the Iran-Iraq war. This has been determined, not by Noam Chomsky, but by Senate investigations. The suggestion that Reagan's administration was merely engaging in routine diplomacy is laughable.

Weird. Last comment was by me.

1) I saw the war protests on C-SPAN. The Fox News story doesn't even begin to tell the story as it should've been told.

2) I have no comment on Chalabi. Haven't done the research. But I notice your second sentence was quite a "slap" at Bush as you tend to do. And the third sentence was ANOTHER accusation. What national security secrets when and by whom? The U.S. shares intelligence with many many nations. Is that the comment you are referring to? It's neither conservative not liberal but fact and has happened across administrations. We can debate about what the U.S. should share or not but to BLAME someone as if they are the sole provider of information is not so smart.

3) It is contested. Iraq got about 2% of it's weapons from us during that time and they were conventional. The other 98% came from France, Germany, Russia and other sources. Sorry. But it is contested. Laugh all you want as you assert whatever you want to assert. It's laughable to see you dig and poke and accuse.

Space wrote:

You don't deny the actual facts (after all there is that awkward photo of Rummy and Saddam)

And there’s also several "awkward photos" of FDR with Joseph Stalin. Other than the fact that if you engage in any sort of international diplomacy, you probably get your picture taken smiling with other people (some of whom are unsavory) or shaking their hand, what’s your point?

Thorley,

Spaces point is an accusation that Reagan and Rumsfled "Created" Saddam. :)

Most people can assess the facts and come up to different conclusions I think. :)

Thorley,

My point is that the general reaction to the Pitt article was a collective "ha!" and a charge of "revisionist history making." Unfortunately nobody bothered to actually specify what part of Pitt's article they claimed was false until repeatedly prodded. Mostly the replies amounted to "I can't be bothered to address any of that swill."

I don't disagree with your argument that a photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam isn't an indictment of the Reagan presidency, although it does indicate a certain level of tolerance of a known dictator.

Pat's problem is that he revels in his ignorance. He doesn't know the facts and can't be bothered with the research. It is simply not a secret that we sold biological and chemical weapons components to Iraq. Sticking your head in the sand is not an argument. Nor can he be bothered with finding out about what is going on today "I have no comment on Chalabi. Haven't done the research."

Pat,

1) I saw the war protests on C-SPAN. The Fox News story doesn't even begin to tell the story as it should've been told.

Oh, I get it. All the protestors were Marxists. Thank you. You've proved my point.

2) I have no comment on Chalabi. Haven't done the research. But I notice your second sentence was quite a "slap" at Bush as you tend to do. And the third sentence was ANOTHER accusation. What national security secrets when and by whom? The U.S. shares intelligence with many many nations. Is that the comment you are referring to? It's neither conservative not liberal but fact and has happened across administrations. We can debate about what the U.S. should share or not but to BLAME someone as if they are the sole provider of information is not so smart.

Man, you are ignorant. Do yourself a favor. Go Google "Chalabi, CIA, and Iran" and see what you come up with. Hopefully, you'll be smart enough to figure out why the CIA wants to cut Bush's nuts off (this on top of the plame leak).

3) It is contested. Iraq got about 2% of it's weapons from us during that time and they were conventional.

Whatever. I'll take the findings of the Senate investigation over your opinion. You'd probably contest Iran-Contra happened.

pat,

Spaces point is an accusation that Reagan and Rumsfled "Created" Saddam.

Wow. This is right out of the "Al Gore invented the internet" file. Do you have no shame?" Is this the only way you can "win" an argument? By misrepresenting what people have said?

The problem is I've bothered with the research too many times for the left's ACCUSATIONS. Every time the story turns out to be somthing different.

You guys want to believe the worst about conservatives. You proved it repeatedly in this thread.

You can't tell me that every sentence in Pitt's article isn't an assertion of knowledge of "intentions" or "adjectives" inserted by him that are laced with the facts.

You ignored the FDR and Stalin photo. Does it mean that FDR had a "certain level of tolerance of a known communist dictator" to you?

Why do you operate the way you do?

Why can't you delve into SOLUTIONS and why you think a solution to a problem is better than a conservative person's SOLUTION without doing what you liberals do best.

I have 13 years in this game. I'm not going to be dictated to anymore. I won't do research to find out if Reagan was evil or had a "certain level of tolerance to a dictator" when Reagan's intentions in my eyes were good.

It's OK for you to believe otherwise. But nobody has to be put on the defensive and we don't have to defend Reagan just because you and Pitt insist.

You guys can hate and accuse all you want. We will point out your pattern for newbies. Once in a while we will point out the facts that counter your accusation if we so desire.

Otherwise we can talk about what we think are solutions to problems and newbies can see who they agree with. Do they agree with granting preferential treatment based on race? Or is it time in America where my daughters and someone elses daughters don't have to fill out checkboxes and deal with quotas?

Will Reagan or conservatives be called names and have assertions of knowledge about our intentions of being racist because we have a position? Yes. You guys will do it. We will see it in the next few posts by you. :)

Space,
You can't wiggle out of it. This was Pitt's statement, "Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan"

Match it up with mine (Spaces point is an accusation that Reagan and Rumsfled "Created" Saddam), and tell me how it was a lie like Al Gore's invention of the Internet"

Do you support Pitt's statements or not? Or are you finally willing to distance yourself from his work? :) :) :) :O

space,

In the run-up to the war there were many legitimate concerns raised. Instead of being legitimately addressed they were either ignored or, worse, those who raised concerns were smeared by association to A.N.S.W.E.R.

The obvious way not to get "smeared by association to A.N.S.W.E.R." is not to associate with A.N.S.W.E.R. We are not talking about WWII here. We are talking about organizing protests. And the standard defense of the legitimate Left ( you know, the people who don't think North Korea is paradise on Earth) signing on to A.N.S.W.E.R. protests is "well, but they're such good organizers." Well, geez, folks, if you can't organize a rally without the expert help of a bunch of Stalinists, who would want you to organize a government all by yourselves? Just sayin' ;-)

(piling on)

Please note the time stamps Space. I accused Pitt of revisionism (11:24am), you asked for examples (11:30am), I provided one - with links (12:17pm).

"nobody bothered to actually specify what part of Pitt's article they claimed was false until repeatedly prodded."
Oh Really...

Regarding your claim to be middle of the road, I am doubtful. You claim that Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity are spokespersons for the GOP, yet dismiss any suggestion that outspoken lefties such as Moore or Franken or Soros are spokespeople for the Dems. Funny thing, logic: if the thought process is valid in one instance, it should be valid in all instances. Knowingly or not, every time counterparts to your evil Republicans are brought up, you counter not with differing rationale, but differing degree.

Funny how for every wrong committed by the left, you trot out a 'more' wrong by the right, but never visa versa.

...middle of the road indeed. /s

Bains, I don't think it is accurate to claim Moore as a spokesperson for the Democrats. He backed Ralph Nader in the last election, going so far as to help raise funds and attend a rally for him. He generally lambasts the Democrats as being too conciliatory to Bush, big business and Republicans in general. In Stupid White Men, for example, he suggests defeating Daniel Innoye, because he voted with Bush something like 25% of the time. Franken is a better case, since he generally admires the Clintons and helps raise funds for Democratic candidates and causes. As for Soros, I have never seen any indication of his party affiliation. One can be anti Bush and not a Democrat, after all.

Eamon,

:) :) :) HA

You spoke too soon.

The DNC is purchasing 500,000 copies of Michael Moore's new film to disseminate to voters in October.

That was great news to see and perfect timing for your quote.

Your leaders not only distance but pay for the Moore's of the world..

So, let's debate issues and facts and not personalities....

Pitt in his article had a whole paragraph of names. Almost like a hit list of people he despises, the left despise and he smears them with accusations. What purposed does that serve?

Why can't the left talk about the issues instead of trying to SMEAR and ACCUSE?

Pat, do you have a source for this claim?(My google search yielded nothing) It strikes me as unlikely that the DNC would do this given the expense and the fact that we don't know
the impact of the film on American audiences yet. A new DVD of would cost about $15.00 min. Unless my math is wrong, this would cost the DNC $7, 500,000. at minimum. According to the DNC website, it had $42 million cash on hand as of May 10. It just strikes me as unlikely that the DNC would spend such a substantial portion of its cash at the expense of things like traditional advertising, polling, Get out the vote efforts, consutlants etc with not only the Presidency, but control of the House and Senate at stake. Especially on a film, which as I said, is untested on American audiences and we don't even know the cost of the films yet. I find it hard to believe that the DNC, which is run by people with political experience, would commit to buying half a millioin copies of a movie while not knowing how well it will do at the box office financially and what reaction it will have on voters.

I copied the text. We'll see if it is really true before I tell you the source.
--------------
DNC DVD
The DNC has worked out a deal with the distributor of left-wing extremist Michael Moore's new anti-Bush film that will ensure more than a half-million DVD copies of the film will be distributed nationwide in October 2004, just a month before the general election.
-----------
By the way. It shouldn't matter how it fairs with audiences. It should matter if it is truthful or not. And it isn't.

The unprecedented deal, in which the DNC will pay essentially a wholesale price for the DVD. "This could be a huge boost for our grassroots," says a DNC furndraiser. "We have such a network now of folks getting together on a local basis that the movie will give them a reason to gather, perhaps fundraise and certainly expand their circle of friends."
---------------

sigh...

Frankly Eamon, I don’t think anybody other than the official spokesperson for either party can speak for the party. I merely posit that the brush one uses to paint ones opponent is equally suitable to paint oneself. If Rush typifies the Reps, Al typifies the Dems, if Pat Robertson speaks for the right; George Soros speaks for the left.

And the link for the Dems seeking to distribute Moore's Farenhiet 911, I'd wait for more corroboration.

Hey, Bains and Eamon,

Isn't it interesting that someone can call a film untruthful without having seen it.

Bains, thanks for the link. Although, I think you are wise in saying to wait for more corroboration. A column written by an anonymous writer with anonymous sources doesn't exactly convince me. I still find this a highly risky proposition. Even if they get a great rate, it will still cost them tons of money. At two dollars a piece, that, a million dollars that can't go to things like last minute advertising or GOTV efforts. It could be argued that having the films could raise more money, but its a risky proposition. It wouldn't surprise me to see this deal not materialize.

Kate, I find it interesting of course, but not at all surprising. When you have a mindet that YOUR way is the only way and everyone is lying, what can you expect? It reminds me of when "Living History" came out. There were people on Amazon.com claiming to have read a 500 page book after having "borrowed" it from a friend the day after it was released and saying the whole thing was lies. Oh well!

You are so right... I was wrong....

I should've thought that Michael Moore had an awakening right before the creation of the film and then went right back to sleep after the creation of the film. All so that he was untruthful before and after making the film but was awakened enough during the creation of the film that he was truthful..

Oh my. The twists and turns you must go through. :) :)

this is worth reading:
"President Reagan's death brought to the fore his outstanding accomplishment of ending the Cold War. Like American presidents before him he led the U.S. in the charge against communism by forging alliances and sending troops to remote theaters at high cost in blood and treasury. What made Reagan's vision for victory particularly remarkable is that it stemmed from the belief in the power of technology as both a force multiplier and a game changer. "
Reagan's way of war

Given the howlers in Micheal Moore's last "documentary" - Bowling for Columbine - it's safe to approach anything the man commits to celluloid with a very healthy dose of skepticism.

I am, however, skeptical of the claim that the Democrats are buying copies of Moore's movie. For the reason I stated in the above paragraph, I don't believe that the Dems would use hard-earned money on something that may turn out to be an embarrassment. You'd better believe that every Republican op-ed writer, pundit and blogger will be going over that movie with a fine-tooth comb to pick up the slightest inaccuracy or distortion of facts. And, for the record, I'll bet they'll find plenty.

Two, the "swing" voters that both parties will be fervently courting are not particularly enamored with Michael Moore and his brand of far-left politics.

The lefties who love Michael Moore aren't about to vote Republican, and their antipathy to Bush is so strong that they won't vote for a third-party candidate this time around, so there is no need for the Democrats to worry about them. After Kerry has the nomination in the bag, he'll try to move to the center, and the last thing he needs is a Michael Moore movie with the Democratic seal of approval floating around out there.

If nothing else, the Democrats should have learned a lesson when the antiwar movement became identified with ANSWER and other fringe groups. That pretty much sunk it. And before anyone starts whining about those mean old Republicans linking the entire movement to a bunch of Stalinist windbags - the charges stuck because they had substance.

If the Klan had organized a series of big protests against gun control, wouldn't the posters from the left side of the spectrum have trumpeted the connection, and wondered why, if the cause is so popular, a fringe group was the only one that could successfully organize the rallies? Wouldn't those posters have used the Klan connection to discredit the protests, and, by extension, the entire cause?

Just a warning - any resident liberals who answer with other than a "yes" will probably have their nose grow about a foot after hitting the "post" key...

The real nastiness in politics started with the left against their own, LBJ.
The left, then as now, overtly took the side of communism against the interests of the United States.

It is simply not a secret that we sold biological and chemical weapons components to Iraq.

Not only is not a secret, it is also not true.

Great post by mj at June 10, 2004 02:42 PM. I wonder why I didn't notice that implication of Pitt's statement. Clearly, either America was perfect on Jan 20,1981, or else Reagan must have cleaned up every existing problem so that the only ones left were the ones that originated during his adminstration.

Then again, I wonder how many of these leftists had been taking so many drugs during the 70's that they didn't notice that Carter left a few problems behind him... You know, little things like the entire Iranian embassy's staff held hostage. (Encouraged, I'm sure, by the disrespect the USA was held in internationally after a long series of foul-ups in Vietnam was followed by the Mayaguez and Pueblo incidents.) Sky high inflation, unemployment, and interest rates, simultaneously. Gas prices even higher in constant dollars than they are now.

Comments are Closed.