Partisan Clash, Senate Closed Session, Right Now!

[Destino]

Seriously, how much can one person embarass himself? You finally come out and clarify your desperate interpretation, your last stand if you will. In chomerics' mind, neoconservatism = evangelical conservatism. Pray tell chomerics, how does that equate with the raft of traditional conservatives, "paleocons" if you will, that are quite religiously conservative, and yet diverge 180 degrees from neoconservative foreign policy agendas?

You're sitting here, wasting everyone's time on this board because you think you can defend the position of calling a dog a rabbit. Its nonsensical. Seriously, grow up and move on. Your flawed understanding of politics and economics are really holding you back, due solely to your pathological inability to learn from those with a better understanding of the situation.

After reading through that giant post in which you succeed only in patting yourself on the back and declaring yourself correct with no real argument provided I was shocked to find some substance at the end. Too bad I disagree with all of it.

What you failed to account for in your little attempt to prove Chom wrong is that merging of evangelical conservatism and neoconservatism is evidenced with the massive turnout in the recent election. Bush's foriegn policy and consistent pattern of raising spending clearly lands him in the neoconservative ideological camp, yet his swell in support was creditted in large part of a massive turnout in the religious conservative republican base.

You are ignoring this and pretending the two groups still remain divided. Save the words and show me where this is proven. Show me the massive inner party struggles within the GOP where the evangelical conservatives are holding this administration accountable and are demanding a smaller government and less hawkish foreign policy.

What you argue simply doesn't mesh with current events. Next time you decide to declare yourself right try including reality instead of arguing that ideologies can't mix because they just can't in your mind. I see no rift and thus I see nothing to support your position.

[Thiebear]

I re-edited the post bear after I found out some more information. It appears that the state department official who claimed that Wilson's wife sent him was not at the meeting when the alleged conversation took place.

As I understand it, Plame's boss wanted Wilson to go on the trip, so he had Plame act as the mediator and asked her to run it buy him. It was not Plame's decision to send him, and she did not even bring up his name, her boss brought it to her attention, and the official word from the CIA states that the department official who caimed to witness the meeting was not at the meeting. THe person was somewhere else when the conversation took place. In other words, the CIA claims that the validity of the intel report in regards to Plame sending him is not valid.

Ugh, and to think i was so proud of you.... one day....

So now your saying Her boss told her to recommend her husband to her boss and then took him to the meeting and left right away but didnt have anything to do with sending him . It was really an Agnostic Alien that sent him...

[chomerics]

Ugh, and to think i was so proud of you.... one day....

So now your saying Her boss told her to recommend her husband to her boss and then took him to the meeting and left right away but didnt have anything to do with sending him . It was really an Agnostic Alien that sent him...

Ummmm, no. Her boss asked her if her husband would go on the trip, and she facilitated as a mediator. This is what both the CIA, the Democrats and Wilson himself have claimed. The only person to claim otherwise is a state department official who could not have possibly been at the meeting (I am assuming he was out of the country during that time)

[Zen-like Todd]

Man... you leave for a day, and look what happens...

After reading through that giant post in which you succeed only in patting yourself on the back and declaring yourself correct with no real argument provided I was shocked to find some substance at the end. Too bad I disagree with all of it.

I have no urge to pat myself on the back. I get no joy from message board posturing, or propagandizing, unlike many in the tailgate. My patience simply wears thin when I see the same ridiculously inaccurate statements made over and over again, and people let them go by without a mention. In any event, thats irrelevant to the substance of the argument. Now, keep in mind as you read this that the "argument" about the definition was essentially over after my first post following the one pointing out that NavyDave isnt remotely a neoconservative, where I described neoconservatism. That you felt my destruction of chomerics weak reply lacked substance is only a reflection of a lack of substance in the post to which I replied.

What you failed to account for in your little attempt to prove Chom wrong is that merging of evangelical conservatism and neoconservatism is evidenced with the massive turnout in the recent election.

I didn't faily to account for anything. It seems you completely fail to understand the difference between political philosophies, political parties, and elections. Philosophies are based on a coherent vision... parties align groups with significant overlap in positions (not philosophies), and elections are composed of political manuevering in order to satisfy the majority of voters.

Bush's foriegn policy and consistent pattern of raising spending clearly lands him in the neoconservative ideological camp, yet his swell in support was creditted in large part of a massive turnout in the religious conservative republican base.

I think I need to give you an example so you can actually understand the difference between positions and philosophies. Lets use Israel. Many right wing evangelical christian conservatives are very supportive of Israel, and go to some length to make sure our country supports Israel both economically and diplomatically. Their motivation is not the spread of democracy, but the fulfillment of a prophecy that requires Israel to be in the hands of Jews. Neoconservatives are also philosophically supportive of Israel, but of course this has nothing to do with biblical prophecies. The basic neoconservative philosophy is supportive of Israel, but for completely different reasons. Basic neoconservatism embraces an aggressive spread of democratic regimes and values, and feels that democratic regimes in relatively undemocratic regions are therefore particularly in need of our support. Same position, for completely different reasons (read: philosophies). Make sense?

The argument that aggressive foreign policy from a republican president is evidence of neoconservatism falls short due to the simple fact that neoconservatism was, as mentioned, born of liberals who believed in a more aggressive anti-communist foreign policy than existed in the DemocraticParty of the time, a foreign policy that already existed in the Republican Party.

So, you would need the other part. The socially liberal undercurrent. Let's see what Bush is up to. Before the election, he made a speech about the constitutional ban of gay marriages (something that has no chance of happening). He is strongly pro life. He is anti stem cell research. Right after the election, he made an extremely poor attempt at privatizing social security. Its funny to think that this is somehow socially liberal. Bush's failure to control spending has nothing to do with a love of social programs (is this even up for debate?), it has to do with his highly political administration, which lines pockets with subsidies, handouts, and pork barrel projects in order to firm up his electoral base.

I find it extremely bizarre that you attempted to use the election to support a counter argument. Elections, as mentioned before, align different groups on particular issues in an attempt to provide a voting majority. If the "war on terror" was the overriding issue, as most believe to be the case, it makes perfect sense that both neoconservatives, and the much larger evangelical base would turn out to support the president. For neoconservatives, there was no alternative. They are neoconservatives rather than hawkish liberals precisely because they place a higher priority on their conception of foreign policy. Jumping over to Kerry was not an option for them. For evangelicals, the choice was clear. Abortion, Gay marriage ban, a born again christian candidate, and the "war on terror" (in evangelical terms, christianity vs. islam) make that a no brainer. So the turnout of disparate groups in support of one candidate is in no way evidence of a merging of political philosophies.

You are ignoring this and pretending the two groups still remain divided.

If you read what I wrote, and actually think about it carefully, I believe you will see that you are mistaken.

Save the words and show me where this is proven.

Is that a trick question? Its an internet message board. I have to use words. I suppose I could whip up a modernist painting if you give me some time though. What exactly would you like me to prove? Are you questioning the formation of neoconservatism? Do you not realize that neoconservatism is a philosophy, and not a party? Do you not realize that if it matched up with evangelical conservatism, then there would be no neoconservatism, just some liberals who jumped ship? Its all proven, its all in the logic. You just have to sit back and consider things thoughtfully.

Show me the massive inner party struggles within the GOP where the evangelical conservatives are holding this administration accountable and are demanding a smaller government and less hawkish foreign policy.

1) There is no suggestion that evangelical conservatives would think we shouldnt be pursuing the current foreign policy agenda. Don't confuse them with libertarians, because nothing could be further from the truth.

2) Chom posts 5 times a day about the massive inner party struggles of the GOP, at least as he perceives them to exist.

What you argue simply doesn't mesh with current events.

Of course it does. It meshes perfectly. I really don't understand how so many people in the Tailgate can spend so much time engaged in mental masturbation over political issues without even being able to make distinctions between parties, philosophies, and electoral bases.

Next time you decide to declare yourself right try including reality instead of arguing that ideologies can't mix because they just can't in your mind. I see no rift and thus I see nothing to support your position.

Open your eyes. I was very clear from the start, and the correctness of the argument was self-evident. Just because you want something else to be true doesnt make it true.

[chomerics]

Man... you leave for a day, and look what happens...

I have no urge to pat myself on the back. I get no joy from message board posturing, or propagandizing, unlike many in the tailgate. My patience simply wears thin when I see the same ridiculously inaccurate statements made over and over again, and people let them go by without a mention. In any event, thats irrelevant to the substance of the argument. Now, keep in mind as you read this that the "argument" about the definition was essentially over after my first post following the one pointing out that NavyDave isnt remotely a neoconservative, where I described neoconservatism. That you felt my destruction of chomerics weak reply lacked substance is only a reflection of a lack of substance in the post to which I replied.

I didn't faily to account for anything. It seems you completely fail to understand the difference between political philosophies, political parties, and elections. Philosophies are based on a coherent vision... parties align groups with significant overlap in positions (not philosophies), and elections are composed of political manuevering in order to satisfy the majority of voters.

I think I need to give you an example so you can actually understand the difference between positions and philosophies. Lets use Israel. Many right wing evangelical christian conservatives are very supportive of Israel, and go to some length to make sure our country supports Israel both economically and diplomatically. Their motivation is not the spread of democracy, but the fulfillment of a prophecy that requires Israel to be in the hands of Jews. Neoconservatives are also philosophically supportive of Israel, but of course this has nothing to do with biblical prophecies. The basic neoconservative philosophy is supportive of Israel, but for completely different reasons. Basic neoconservatism embraces an aggressive spread of democratic regimes and values, and feels that democratic regimes in relatively undemocratic regions are therefore particularly in need of our support. Same position, for completely different reasons (read: philosophies). Make sense?

The argument that aggressive foreign policy from a republican president is evidence of neoconservatism falls short due to the simple fact that neoconservatism was, as mentioned, born of liberals who believed in a more aggressive anti-communist foreign policy than existed in the DemocraticParty of the time, a foreign policy that already existed in the Republican Party.

So, you would need the other part. The socially liberal undercurrent. Let's see what Bush is up to. Before the election, he made a speech about the constitutional ban of gay marriages (something that has no chance of happening). He is strongly pro life. He is anti stem cell research. Right after the election, he made an extremely poor attempt at privatizing social security. Its funny to think that this is somehow socially liberal. Bush's failure to control spending has nothing to do with a love of social programs (is this even up for debate?), it has to do with his highly political administration, which lines pockets with subsidies, handouts, and pork barrel projects in order to firm up his electoral base.

I find it extremely bizarre that you attempted to use the election to support a counter argument. Elections, as mentioned before, align different groups on particular issues in an attempt to provide a voting majority. If the "war on terror" was the overriding issue, as most believe to be the case, it makes perfect sense that both neoconservatives, and the much larger evangelical base would turn out to support the president. For neoconservatives, there was no alternative. They are neoconservatives rather than hawkish liberals precisely because they place a higher priority on their conception of foreign policy. Jumping over to Kerry was not an option for them. For evangelicals, the choice was clear. Abortion, Gay marriage ban, a born again christian candidate, and the "war on terror" (in evangelical terms, christianity vs. islam) make that a no brainer. So the turnout of disparate groups in support of one candidate is in no way evidence of a merging of political philosophies.

If you read what I wrote, and actually think about it carefully, I believe you will see that you are mistaken.

Is that a trick question? Its an internet message board. I have to use words. I suppose I could whip up a modernist painting if you give me some time though. What exactly would you like me to prove? Are you questioning the formation of neoconservatism? Do you not realize that neoconservatism is a philosophy, and not a party? Do you not realize that if it matched up with evangelical conservatism, then there would be no neoconservatism, just some liberals who jumped ship? Its all proven, its all in the logic. You just have to sit back and consider things thoughtfully.

1) There is no suggestion that evangelical conservatives would think we shouldnt be pursuing the current foreign policy agenda. Don't confuse them with libertarians, because nothing could be further from the truth.

2) Chom posts 5 times a day about the massive inner party struggles of the GOP, at least as he perceives them to exist.

Of course it does. It meshes perfectly. I really don't understand how so many people in the Tailgate can spend so much time engaged in mental masturbation over political issues without even being able to make distinctions between parties, philosophies, and electoral bases.

Open your eyes. I was very clear from the start, and the correctness of the argument was self-evident. Just because you want something else to be true doesnt make it true.

And I used to think I was the one who was long winded. :laugh:

Zen, after reading through two and a half pages of your diatribes, you in fact proved nothing, only that you like to hear yourself talk. You have completely ignored a melding of two platforms, or philosophies being the evangelical christians and the neoconservatives, and instead tried slander the other person, and declared victory. So to save you a lot of time, here are a few questions for YOU to consider.

1. Can political philosophies evolve over time?

2. What philosophy would you say our current administration is closest to?

3. Who is the most ardent supporters of the current administration in terms of demographics?

Three simple questions to at least start with some boundaries far a debate. Maybe you can actually spend some time thinking about the questions and provide an honest answer, instead of going on a 1/2 page diatribe about how you are so much superior then anyone else on this board.

[Larry]

3. Who is the most ardent supporters of the current administration in terms of demographics?

Fox viewers, and

Extremeskins posters with military-based names.

[Thiebear]

Ummmm, no. Her boss asked her if her husband would go on the trip, and she facilitated as a mediator. This is what both the CIA, the Democrats and Wilson himself have claimed. The only person to claim otherwise is a state department official who could not have possibly been at the meeting (I am assuming he was out of the country during that time)

So in two days you've gone from she had nothing to do with it and Everyone is just LYING. To Sorry I guess she did do it but it has nothing to do with the issue. To She did it because her boss asked her to.

Wow.. And he asked her about her husband out of the blue because? His deep investigative CIA skills and they didnt want to bother the current Ambassador.. Lets got with the last ambassador that wont speak to the current officials in Niger... gotcha. :applause:

[chomerics]

Wrong again, as usual. Standard message board trolling tactic, eh, try to misconstrue the other person's post, and try to shift the debate.

No Zen, not wrong, you were the one that said it not me. . . Here, follow the logic.

Sorry, but I don't consider being "Jewish" a pre-req for being a neo-con. I know it was a bunch of Jewish Liberals that founded the movement, but they are not the symbol of the party now.

What you consider is irrelevant in this case. The origins are the origins, the intellectual history is the intellectual history

You are saying not only that my assertion that being Jewish is not a pre-req for being a neo-con, that the history tell us that it IS one. They you have the unmitigated gall to say I am mis-construing your words. This is probably the most intellectually dishonest post I've come across in a while.

Honestly chom, stop embarassing yourself. ND is so obviously, and so publically opposed to social welfare systems, and so clearly not intellectually grounded in neoconservatism that its not even worth my time to hit the search button. It's like asking someone to find a picture of a whale in the water. The fact that you have a mental block regarding the acceptance of your incorrect usage of the term doesnt indicate the necessity for others to run around on silly errands for you.

Again, a single post which basically states that ND is not a neocon because you say he isn't, then two more sentences of slanderous diatribe.

Show me where ND is opposed to a Bush policy. It isn't that hard to do, and I have challenged you to do it for a few days now. Hell, in the first post I stated that if you could, then I would change my mind.

I have not seen him opposed to a single Bush policy in my entire time here. Maybe if you actually took the time to understand positions of others, and stepped down off your high horse once in a while to face the real world, you would realize that you are in fact not correct.

And here again, you admit that you don't know what a neoconservative is, and are simply using it as a substitution for any policy of the current administration, regardless of the philiosophy. Its fairly insane to try to apply evangelical philosophy to neoconservatism when, as far as his policies overlap those, they are largely driven by the input of the true neoconservatives in his administration, such as former Asst. Sec Def Wolfowitz.

So here you say I don't know what neo-conservatism is, yet you admit that the two philosophies overlap. You state the military interventionism policy which is loved by both evangelicals and neoconservatives means nothing.

So what is your point? That the neoconservative party has completely duped the evangelicals into believing they are one of them? That the are using religion and propaganda to sway a group of people that are easily duped? Please tell me this is not the sole reason you think that neoconservatives ane evangelicals aren't intertwined at the hip. Please tell me you have brought more to this debate then the neo-cons like Wolfowitcz, Pearle, Kirkpatrick et all are so superior to the evangelicals that they have manipulated them to believe that they are for their platform, when they should be diametrically opposed to it.

This is the position you are arguing from, and this is where your argument leads if everyone is to follow your path.

Republican is a party, not a political philosophy. Terrible analogy.

Never stated that it was, yet you again completely ignored the question. Nice spin tactic, doesn't works though, try to answer the question next time. Do you think that political platforms change over time?

You see Zen, the advent of neoconservatism is nothing like the neo-cons running the office now.

Not remotely true. You're just frantically backpedaling, attempting to find cause for the inaccurate use of a term.

Right now, neo-conservatism IS evangelical conservatism

Already established as ridiculous. The truth is, you were being intellectually lazy in your attempt to use a perjorative term to attack conservatives on the board. Called out for it, you have no defense other than to pretend you live on a different planet.

Actually, you answered the question with your two responses Zen, you have emphatically stated above that platforms can not change over time.

The only out you have is if you state that philosophies never evolve, but people and platforms do. Well, if that is the case, then you could have saved everyone a hell of a lot of time, and just stated that at the beginning. You see, using this outlook in politics, there isn't really a single person who falls into a single category. I can not be a liberal because I am pro-death penalty. I can not be conservative because I am pro-choice. Politics does not work that way, you know it as well as I do.

I also consider it quite ironic that you feel the need to call me our for using a pejorative attack on Navy Dave with the term Neoconservative, when in 70% of his posts he uses the same pejorative attack calling out liberals. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty that exposes your true character Zen, but that's OK. Every message board needs the conservative who thinks he is smarter then the entire board and has to exalt his intellectual superiority by ridiculing others because it makes him feel important.

[chomerics]

So in two days you've gone from she had nothing to do with it and Everyone is just LYING. To Sorry I guess she did do it but it has nothing to do with the issue. To She did it because her boss asked her to.

Bear, my initial position was that she did not suggest to her boss that he go to Niger. You then brought up the senate intel report which states that she did, so I said I was wrong. Then, I found more information which stated my initial position that she did not suggest him. It is a point contested by the CIA and by the democrats in the addendum to your senate intel report (read the bottom of it)

Wow.. And he asked her about her husband out of the blue because? His deep investigative CIA skills and they didnt want to bother the current Ambassador.. Lets got with the last ambassador that wont speak to the current officials in Niger... gotcha. :applause:

Actually Bear, if you knew a little bit more about the case you would know that they DID ask the Ambassador to Niger, and he came back with the same result Wilson did. . .Wilson was the THIRD person to look into the case, and a Marine General also came back with a report that said it was false.

Sorry bear, but you just owned yourself in this thread for trying to call me out. Maybe you should investgate the story better next time.

:2cents:

[Thiebear]

Bear, my initial position was that she did not suggest to her boss that he go to Niger. You then brought up the senate intel report which states that she did, so I said I was wrong. Then, I found more information which stated my initial position that she did not suggest him. It is a point contested by the CIA and by the democrats in the addendum to your senate intel report (read the bottom of it)

Actually Bear, if you knew a little bit more about the case you would know that they DID ask the Ambassador to Niger, and he came back with the same result Wilson did. . .Wilson was the THIRD person to look into the case, and a Marine General also came back with a report that said it was false.

Sorry bear, but you just owned yourself in this thread for trying to call me out. Maybe you should investgate the story better next time.

:2cents:

Actually I've never said the documents you talk about werent forgeries that you have been talking about the entire time.. I would like to read the documents that got you to change your mind on the she didnt/did/helped send him though... I can change my mind ... it is possible.

[chomerics]

Actually I've never said the documents you talk about werent forgeries that you have been talking about the entire time.. I would like to read the documents that got you to change your mind on the she didnt/did/helped send him though... I can change my mind ... it is possible.

It was in the other thread, but there are similar articles posted in this thread on the previous page.

[Thiebear]

It was in the other thread, but there are similar articles posted in this thread on the previous page.

I might be a little lost here but:

The INR document they are refering to it the meeting that Wilson admits his wife took him to and left right away so as not to put herself in it? Then this guy takes notes as one of the 7 people Wilson said he didnt know before the mission? But he wasnt actually there?

Is that right?

Whats that have to do with before that day?

Page 451 is the opinion of a couple of Senators at the end of the document: Not hard facts... Its like me saying look at 441 The Republican part of the This is my opinion:

While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refuse to allow the follwing conclusions to appear in the report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee.

_____

One more time: You say the Her boss asked Her to get ahold of her husband.

But, she sent the email to him about his credentials anyway?

[Thiebear]

Look we agree on the:

Wilson went and basically said the same thing about the Uranium that the CIA said: NO chance that much could have been requested by any means.

Wilson didnt see the document and was just quoting what the media was saying because the forgery was horrible.

The wife was outed: if she was outed 1 year after being covert it doesnt matter as it takes 5 years to get out completely from what i understand.. Therefore it still counts.

What we are sticking on is the email from her and her taking him to the meeting... I see that and say she basically helped in sending him and you say she didnt. Of all the things to argue about.. thats the least so

[chomerics]

I might be a little lost here but:

The INR document they are refering to it the meeting that Wilson admits his wife took him to and left right away so as not to put herself in it? Then this guy takes notes as one of the 7 people Wilson said he didnt know before the mission? But he wasnt actually there?

Is that right?

You kind of lost me, but this is the way I see it. Wilson says she was not responsible for suggesting him (I assume she told him she didn't do it), and the CIA, who is the organization in question, says it did not happen the way the INR report claims. The CIA also stated that the source used from the state dept. that reported to the Senate was not telling the truth. This is because the CIA says person x could not have been at the meeting.

In my own opinion, this is how I think it went down. The CIA gets word that the VPs office wants to investegate the claim. They knoe Joe through Valerie, and they also know his credentials (he was a well known diplomat) and that he knows Niger. They ask Valerie P for his resume and if she would talk to Joe, which she does. He agrees and goes on the trip.

This is how it was reported in his book, this is how the CIA claims it happened and this is how the democrats say it hapened. The INR report is the only document that states id didn't go down that way. The CIA claims that the INR's source on Plame was not present when the matter was discussed.

This is from everything I have read about the incident, and from the onset, it appears to be a smear job by the RNC (I have a link to thier talking points memo to discredit him if you want). For what does her involvement hae to do with anything? All it does is muddy the water and make people think there was some sort of nepotisim going on. In fact, when it is examined even more closely (he was not paid, only reimbursed) and Niger is not quite Paris, even motive for nepotism is discredited.

That is how I currently look at the situation. . .

:2cents:

[chomerics]

Look we agree on the:

Wilson went and basically said the same thing about the Uranium that the CIA said: NO chance that much could have been requested by any means.

Wilson didnt see the document and was just quoting what the media was saying because the forgery was horrible.

The wife was outed: if she was outed 1 year after being covert it doesnt matter as it takes 5 years to get out completely from what i understand.. Therefore it still counts.

What we are sticking on is the email from her and her taking him to the meeting... I see that and say she basically helped in sending him and you say she didnt. Of all the things to argue about.. thats the least so

I agree, but I didn't think we were arguing;)