Bill Bennett

[phanatic]

Well thank God the moderators here to not conduct their tailgate like the democratic underground conducts their website. After all, there is a CONSERVATIVE majority here. I love the fact we can have discussions from both the left and right's perspective. I only lasted 4 post at DU. All I did was ask why Tom Daschle stated in 98' that diplomacy had failed and their only course of action was to use military force. Now he states that the president has failed miserably in diplomacy? So upon trying to make my fifth post i received this message.

Nothing like a good debate. So why do they want a site where all they do is clap and cheer every response. Maybe they can add those laugh sound effects you hear in TV sitcoms. At least you would'nt be in danger of laughing inappropriately.

:doh: :gus: :shootinth

[codeorama]

Art, You still haven't acknowledged my last post.

[Sarge]

I have but one question. When clinton was in the Oval Office getting a hummer when he should have been chasing taliban, it was deemed a "personal matter that did not affect his performance" and was a, "Private matter between him and the first lady". So.........Why is it diffent now? Granted, I'm a little disapponted in the guy, but at least his behavior didn't affect national security or anyone else for that matter.

[The Evil Genius]

Here is what's odd to me...

If Bush were applying to work at the White House or if he were a Cabinet nominee he would have had to answer detailed questions about possible past drug use.

If Bush were applying to be an FBI agent Bush would have had to provide detailed information about any past drug use. If he walked into a Marine Corps recruiting office, he would be asked if he had ever used illegal drugs and rejected if he refused to answer.

But since he ran for President, he didn't have to give an answer. All he had to do was give a partial answer and say if you dont like it, so what.

Pardon my french, but thats very Clintonesque isn't it?

[Burgold]

Phanatic,

Honestly that is the fun of this message board. There are some truly insightful and inciteful people on here and usually the discussions are decent, though on occassion it is a little beligerent or global for my tastes (IE the _________ is the root of all evil argument)

Air Sarge,

I think you are right and I think it was a forgiven sin (if he ever did it) primarily because it was in the past. Though to be honest, I remember more of a stink being made of his alcohol problems than cocaine. And I think there were some contradictions in his statements about that, but I really don't remember. Regardless, we live in a country where for the most part you are allowed to overcome and be forgiven for your mistakes and that is generally a good thing.

Art,

We have absolute proof that Bush lied. He is a politician.

Seriously, very little can be absolutely known and I was just struck by your statements of absolute proof. The proof wasn't absolute. The fact that you can present it and within minutes say, "I suspect that may be true (that he used cocaine.)" indicates that you are at least willing to concede that there is a liklihood that he knowingly twisted the truth or sought to twist the question until he could answer it the way he wanted. Reminds me a lot of the Clinton "is" outrage.

Most importantly, can you prove that Frodo isn't alive?

[phanatic]

You missed one Sarge, he should have responded.."yes, I smoked crack cocaine, but I did not inhale".:laugh:

[The Evil Genius]

And if we are throwing dirt here, there always is Funeralgate

And Bush's alleged desertion of post.

But I honestly like the guy, for the most part. He cracks me up and more importantly, keeps me employed.

[luckydevil]

The posts and threads at democraticunderground.com are downright scary. They have had threads that have supported the Soviet Union policies. They just had a thread about Castro and many posted how he is a great leader.

[Burgold]

That's weird... they must be way underground... kind of blind, maybe a little too much CO2 as well.

Got to hate names like that. Why not call themselves the Socialist Underground.... Or Paranoid Utopianists or something. :doh:

[luckydevil]

I am pretty sure that phishhead is a poster at DU

It would be a perfect place for Jack

[codeorama]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Here is what's odd to me...

If Bush were applying to work at the White House or if he were a Cabinet nominee he would have had to answer detailed questions about possible past drug use.

If Bush were applying to be an FBI agent Bush would have had to provide detailed information about any past drug use. If he walked into a Marine Corps recruiting office, he would be asked if he had ever used illegal drugs and rejected if he refused to answer.

But since he ran for President, he didn't have to give an answer. All he had to do was give a partial answer and say if you dont like it, so what.

Pardon my french, but thats very Clintonesque isn't it?

TEG... Right on.

I get paid by the taxpayers, one of the first questions I had to answer was "do you or have you used illegal drugs?". Art's contention that the question is inappropriate is nuts.

Lets have a recap.

- Made a post that was not "to the letter accurate" because of my use of quotes.

- The jist of my post was that by Bush NOT answering a direct question "Have you used illegal drugs", it makes it seem as if he is hiding something because 1, by not answering, he is covering himself in case of future "discoveries" and 2, if he admits that he did, he's going to lose a bunch of conservative voters who live in a fantasy world and think that "their" politicians are beyond reproach.

-Numerous links by Art, JackC and myself have shown that Bush didn't answer.

-Art has mysteriously redirected the thread to make it about whether a "not in the last 7 years" quote was made or not made, when if fact, it's irrelevant, the point is that Bush did not answer the drug question that 12 other candidates were asked.

-Art has verified himself that the question to the 12 candidates did in fact take place.

-Art and Bush say it's inappropriate for someone to be questioned over rumors. In my job, I hear rumors and question people all the time. Gotta get the scoop somewhere. But lets not forget, Bush is a govt. employee, does he not have an opligation to at the very least, answer questions that would qualify or disqualify him from govt. service?

Bottom line, Bush has something to hide in terms of drug use. Do I personally care if he did or didn't, NO. But a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that Bush had used drugs based on his avoidance of the question. Bush himself, as Art has pointed out, has said he has many indescretions in his past.

Air Sarge, I won't ever defend Clinton's behavior outright, but I will defend it in regards to other politicians. I'm not saying it was ok, but I am saying it's no worse than the others.

[Sarge]

If Bush were applying to work at the White House or if he were a Cabinet nominee he would have had to answer detailed questions about possible past drug use.

Not quite true EG. Clinton had people that worked for him in the White House for years that NEVER filled out a security clearance because of past drug use. So, evidently there are ways around this.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

Not quite true EG. Clinton had people that worked for him in the White House for years that NEVER filled out a security clearance because of past drug use. So, evidently there are ways around this.

That, I did not know.

Who?

[Art]

TEG,

Also untrue is the suggestion Bush wouldn't have answered the background drug use questions asked on the forms we're discussing. In fact, Bush openly stated he'd answer those questions and how he'd answer them. How'd you miss it? It's right here directly attributed in this thread.

Code,

I find you to be a liar who's been exposed as a left-wing fruit. You can say all day and all night without making it so that your post had a specific gist to it. But, you and I both know, from previous threads on this topic, that you said precisely what you attributed Bush to have said. You and I both know that you defended that point. You and I both know that when challenged the best response you could make was to point out that Bush, in fact, didn't state anything you said he stated on multiple occasions.

The SAME thing happened to you last time YOU brought this topic up. You gave the Bush quote. I challenged you and you replied that Bush's response was the statute of limitations, meaning and reinforcing precisely what you were saying Bush said. Your gist was not that Bush wouldn't answer. You didn't figure that out until you were forced to actually read beyond the bullet points on bushwatch.com.

Once you figured out that the quote you thought you knew wasn't there, you responded with what is a very innocuous statement. That Bush didn't answer the question. He didn't. No one denies that. That, however, didn't occur to you until after you were challenged, defended your position, called out and then finally you figured out you were dead.

But, Jack gave you hope. After backing off your statements Jack came in with links that proved also that Bush didn't say what you said he said. I challenged him and you felt so comforted by the support you jumped back in to say there were the quotes, thinking he'd done what you couldn't. You still believed that Bush said what you've repeatedly said.

At no time has he ever said he hasn't used drugs for seven years. He said assuming the federal form were to say that he'd answer no on that form in response to a question about what the federal form asks. Then the I decided to stop playing with you and posted the actual information YOU couldn't find, and you immediately pulled back into the generic argument position. Again, if that's your position, great. But, it's now been differing threads and multiple posts that have seen you post what was initially considered a mistake and is now clearly an open misleading position.

I promise if you ever use THAT quote again without showing where Bush said it all doubt will be removed as to your rationale for posting it. Right now you can pretend you are this neo-independent thinker. But, in fact, you're an unapologetic supporter of the left. And that's fine. I prefer that type of person to the disingenuous person you are fraudently attempting to persuade others you are. Hell, I prefer that type of person to an actual independent thinker.

And then TEG comes in with his piece and you hump onto his coat tails with, "does he not have an opligation to at the very least, answer questions that would qualify or disqualify him from govt. service?" Once again showing a frightening tone deaf quality in you. In fact, the precise quote in this thread from Bush expresses Bush's answer. In fact, the question that would federal employees and appointees have to answer is have you used illegal drugs in the past seven years. He not only said he'd answer that question, but he did answer that question.

Apparently the question in your mind is not one of what is asked in qualification forms -- though a President is qualified by being elected -- but, why won't the President answer any question about his past that you decide is appropriate. I think the answer is because you've no business asking

[Sarge]

EG,

Right off the top of my head, Dee Dee Myers for one. I'd have to look a little for the others.

[codeorama]

Art, As always, you use your "shock and awe" campaign.

How many times now, how many times do I have to say, I was mistaken by saying Bush said "not in 7 years". I have just said it again. But what does that change? Nothing... Nothing at all. The fact and sentiment remains intact. I won't say it again, I will spare the other posters as I have made my point 3 times as to what the gist of my post was. The disagreement boils down to this and only this.... You asked for a quote and I mistakenly thought I provided it. I misunderstood that you were asking for a quote from Bush himself's mouth, rather than a quote, any quote saying that the question to the candidates took place. Once I realized what you were asking for, I searched and realized that Bush didn't make the "not in 7 years" comment, that was speculation thrown at him. The fact remains, you have contributed yourself, that Bush avoided answering the question no one else had a problem answering.

You have successfully avoided the central part of the matter while redirecting everything to something that really has no signifigance either way. That's what you always do. You study a post and find one thing you can nitpick that will redirect the what the end result is intended to be. Great job.. I'm supprised you are not a politician yourself. Don't answer the question, divert it to something else and take your high ground.

I honestly don't care what you personally think of me Art, because my opinion of you is pretty low. I can bring up a past confrontation with you as well, seems we were talking about the geneva convention... same result. You divert the main issue and bring up points that have no real meat, then challenge me, I deliver the Geneva convention code that proves that you are full of hot air, but you never respond. Why?

I have admitted that I posted inaccurately, it still doesn't change the point. You still avoid the point.

The sad part is, I can't use the "ignore user" button because your'e a moderator.

JimboDaMan's post earlier sumed this whole debate up for me.

[Art]

Code,

You'll have to remind me of the Geneva Convention thread, but, it does go to figure you have deeper seated resentment at being embarrassed in another thread and your life's goal now is to simply avoid the experience again. As such, you should avoid getting your position so twisted and turned that you clearly have no point, as has happened here.

Let's recap though.

You here say you made a mistake to use the phrase you did and attribute it to Bush. Though you've done the SAME phrase another time, you still say this time it was a mistaken use. You've now asked how many times you have to say that before it sinks in for me. A whole lot more times than now is my answer and here's why.

After you repositioned yourself out of the fictional conversation, into the "Bush didn't deny what I wanted him to deny and that's wrong," paraphrased stance you're now trying to recapture, you visited this thread, on page 6 of the thread with"

"Art...Look up.. There are your quotes."

"Art......

"According to an AP report today, Bush held another press conference and said that "he could have passed stringent background checks for illegal drug use when his father was president, from 1989-1993."

What part of that don't you understand?

They have in quotes that Bush said this based on an AP report."

In fact, you meant just what you said. You meant it and I attacked you for it and you defended yourself. I called you out and you realized you couldn't support what you said, so, you backed away. But, why it is that I'm ignoring your now repeated statements that you made a mistake is because AFTER you backed away in the first place, the first opportunity you thought you'd seen that gave you a chance to PROVE just what you've repeatedly said and defended was true, you jumped in, laughably supporting the quote you said was a mistake.

Only after I finally pulled the string on the game have you maintained some semblance of your current position. So, simply put, I don't believe you. I think you are a fool who got himself caught, hated that he wasn't able to support his position, tried to sneak out -- at which point you and I would have been totally fine in this thread -- but then you wormed BACK in to your initial quote as soon as you thought it was there again.

I haven't avoided the "central" part of your position Code. You've captured the "central" part of your position by saying that it is defined as Bush avoiding answering a question no one else had a problem answering. I'm not sure if you are just a stupid person, or if you are simply desperate not to yield, but, in order to be CENTRAL to your position, you'd have actually bothered to mention the ingredients you now point to as essential to the conversation PRIOR to your fourth post.

Here's your first in this thread on this issue:

"The media has also stayed low key on Bush's past scandals. Bush himself was asked "Have you ever used Cocaine" and his reply was not "No" as mine would have been, his reply was "not in the past seven years". It amazes me that the media doesn't follow up on that. The reason why is because there is a certain line that you don't cross. Until these "rape" charges are more substantial or there is some evidence, what do you expect."

There is no mention of Bush not answering a question others did answer. No pointing to the fact that other candidates did answer the same question. Simply the fallacy that he was asked and he said not in the past seven years. Obviously, as this is what I replied to, it's hard for me to have seen your central point when it wasn't BORN yet. I replied to the language you used. You'd not mentioned any OTHER people in the post that began this. After I replied you defended yourself with:

"Art, I've decided it's gospel because doing a "google" search on Bush cocaine yeilds many sources for the question that was asked to Bush and what his response was."

Again, I ask, where is the central point of Bush not answering the question that others did? You point to Google and the multiple sites that say the question was have you used illegal drugs and his answer was not in the last seven years. As demonstrated by me, later, the question was wildly different and the quote was entirely different. So, again, you say the central point is that Bush was asked a question others answered but he didn't. I still don't see that central point.

I then replied to you again, demanding you show a single quote that you said you found multiple ones on Google. You got busted in the chops with a lie. Realizing this you then introduced your central theme in your third post on this topic:

"Art..... I said that Bush didn't answer the question, here's just one of tons of articles that say he was the only one of 12 candidates that would not answer the question."

Notice how you said you spoke to Bush not answering the question here, yet in the first two posts you didn't write that. You wrote that Bush replied not in the last seven years, which would be a clear answer. In fact, you twice attributed Bush WITH an answer, only to now introduce that he didn't answer the question. The central point here clearly was you saw something was asked of Bush and you saw what his answer was and both the question you offered twice and the answer you supported twice, were invalid.

Granted, you backed away hard in the third post on this topic in this thread. Seeing you couldn't support your actual central theme I said you need to support the quote by showing it and you almost broke your legs JUMPING out of the way of your mouth in your fourth and fifth posts, using MY words to say what you were meaning to discuss and essentially saying what you said in the first two wasn't really what you were saying at all because you were just using quotations to use quotations and you didn't mean it. Only, after all that, you lept back in to point out that you did as outlined above.

Now, not to belabor the issue, but, let me say this. You are clearly upset about another discussion I don't recall. In it, I presume I demanded you support a position you were offering. I assume we went back and forth on that. I assume if you actually DID put forth the time to support a position that I probably wouldn't have replied to you because you would have done all you needed to do. These conversations here only go as long as the person refuses to be intelligent. Not any longer.

If you were smart enough to at least pretend to support your other position with actual documenation, I'd probably have smiled and said great. The phrase we'll agree to disagree would come to mind in a case where two people have the same information and read differently how it can be understood. But, that can't be the case if one person HASN'T educated himself on the matter, as is the case with you. So, if I was silent at the end, I'd take it on good faith that you did good. You answered well enough that your position was supportable, if not correct.

Here, you've fallen short. So, you can keep twisting trying to create something you didn't say or you can leave it alone. Up to you.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Not true. The Catholic church says it's not immoral.

I think Baptists find it immoral. I know Islam does-may that's why I've never won the lottery?:laugh:

[codeorama]

Art........ Wrong.

First, for you to say that I or anyone would be "embarrassed" about something that goes on at an online message board is so freakin funny... it kills me. I don't know anyone on this board from jack to be embarrassed. So who freaking cares.

Second, Here's my origninal post as you have also quoted:

"The media has also stayed low key on Bush's past scandals. Bush himself was asked "Have you ever used Cocaine" and his reply was not "No" as mine would have been, his reply was "not in the past seven years". It amazes me that the media doesn't follow up on that. The reason why is because there is a certain line that you don't cross. Until these "rape" charges are more substantial or there is some evidence, what do you expect."

Yes... I say everything there, but the key is "and his reply was not "NO" as mine would have been. That has been the point from the get go... You on the other hand have tried to invalidate my points because I inaccurately added the "not in the past seven years"... to which, I did not make up, do a google search on "bush cocaine" and you will see plenty of quotes saying as such. That was my mistake, implying that Bush himself said that, it was unintended, but it still doesn't change the point.

You wanted proof that bush said the 7 year quote himself, I thought I was giving you proof by others saying it. That's done.

So what do I have to gain from lying? Do I win a prize or something?

The facts are, you know good and well that I don't spend the time that you do researching each and every post. If I'm wrong, sorry, I stand corrected. But you keep trying to say I changed my gist, NO, my gist was there at the beginning, just as I said and pointed out above.

Here is the second quote:

"According to an AP report today, Bush held another press conference and said that "he could have passed stringent background checks for illegal drug use when his father was president, from 1989-1993."

That's where the 7 year quote comes from. The AP attributes that Bush said this... Should I not trust the AP? Thus the confusion on my part... Was it totally unreasonable for me to read that quote from an AP source and believe that those words came out of Bush's mouth? I don't think so.

Basically Art, once again, you resort to name calling, just like you always do... classy for a moderator.

What you are Art is a magician. You distract from the obvious, you redirect people to look where you want them to while you do your magic.

I'm not angry with you because of a past thread, the way I see it, I won. I supplied the quotes and you never responed. I just thought that sucked that you wouldn't even throw in a "good job code, you found it and proved me wrong" or maybe something a little more humble, but some acknowledgement that you were wrong.

I've countered everything you can throw at me. You seem to have selective memory just like me... You remember having this conversation before, I vaguely do, but you don't remember others... I can understand you not remembering a thread, why is it that I am "super memory man" in your opinion? Amazing.

[luckydevil]

At one time making a profit was considered immoral( 100 of years ago).

Religion .

[Art]

Code,

I just looked up the thread you're discussing, and, forgive me for not saying to you that you'd proved me wrong. I didn't say it because you didn't. What you did, finally, after being an ignorant wretch all day, figured you MIGHT want to at least GLANCE at the article you were citing in your earlier posts. You accomplished that, and though you remain entirely dopey for the stance you took, at LEAST you passed the first grade and actually bettered your intelligence in that thread.

Perhaps I should not let you off the hook by simply accepting that when you decide to actually research a post it's good enough. Perhaps I should demand you not only glance at the topic, but, also understand it, though, as demonstrated here, that'll be terribly hard because you once again can't even get your own words straight.

What you might want to do is take this advice on faith. If it takes you 20 posts to even read a document you've cited a half a dozen times, it's unlikely you really had any opinion worth offering in the first place. So, when you decide to mull through it, don't expect a huge attaboy for your decision to at least be thoughtful, if late to the thoughtful party.

But, leaving that behind, and not wishing to recapture the relative insanity you displayed by attempting to equate Fox News and Iraqi State Television, we again, know something very simple in this thread. You did make it up when you quoted Bush as you did, because we know Bush never used the words you said. You may have taken the fiction of another, but, that doesn't mean it wasn't make believe. If you tell your children a fairy tale, you're making it up, because it's not real.

You don't have to like that, but that's the case.

Other than that, we're really not breaking any new ground. But, since, as you said, I'm on the high ground here we can continue covering it, because, I can't lose .

[codeorama]

Art, you can't even admit you are wrong when you are wrong... sad.

Your whole argument was that Al Jazeera was state sanctioned and Fox is not, guess what, take your own advice and read the Geneva convention code... no where does it say anything about state sanctions or sponsors... no where. You did the same thing on that thread, the jist was that fox had shown POW's on tv and that was a violation of the Geneva Convention... since the code doesn't make any mention of if the media is sanctioned by the state, your point is out the window.

Beyond that, believe what you want, I showed that I clearly had represented what I set out to on this thread and acknowledged my mistake. You're no one to me. I find it facinating that you find yourself so important that I should be worried by your non acceptance...

[Art]

Code,

There are lines. You'll have to step back from crossing it.

Please point out where I stated Al Jazeera was state sanctioned. That's all you have to do. Now, since I didn't say that in the slightest, you will say sorry. That's the two things you get to do next. No other post except the statement I made that says Al Jazeera was state sanctioned and Fox is not.

We don't really have to rehash that argument, but, the point of that thread was simple. Al Jazeera showed Iraqi Television footage that was a violation of the Geneva Convention. The images of the American soldiers, as put on display by the detaining power of Iraq, was a violation of the Geneva Convention. Fox was critical of Al Jazeera for displaying clear violations of the Geneva Convention. Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of America media have not shown a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Further, though you said so in your post, it is not true that the media of any sort, Fox, Al Jazeera or the rest, can commit crimes against the Geneva Convention of this sort. The crime you described would be on the part of the United States or Iraq, not the individual news networks here or abroad.

Now, to put the point on the conversation, here, it basically is, in a nut shell.

Al Jazeera showed images given them by the state run media of Iraq. Those images, as produced by the state of Iraq, were in direct violation of the Geneva Convention as Iraq is a party involved in the war and violated a term of the agreement it signed by holding up prisoners to public display. Al Jazeera did not violate the Geneva Convention. In fact, I said it didn't in that thread. What they did do, however, was replay what was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

No American media outlet showed a similar image. No American media outlet displayed the violation of the Geneva Convention. The critique against Al Jazeera was that it was rebroadcasting a clear Geneva Convention violation.

Now, because you seem to think Fox News, or Al Jazeera or CNN or any other media outlet itself can be in violation of the Geneva Convention is amusing, and pathetic, and generally displays your lack of comprehension when you engage in these conversations. But, NONE of that matters.

What you're going to do is show my quote where I said Al Jazeera was state sanctioned and Fox was not.

And, just so I complete the education, the Geneva Convention defines a prisoner of war, in Article 12, as:

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

Note the FIRST sentence. "Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them." Every single picture you've seen on American television was of Iraqi soldiers in the process of becomming a Prisoner of War. Every single picture that was shown on American television showed Iraqis in the hands of the individuals who captured them. This means, they aren't Prisoners of War yet.

You don't grasp that, and that's fine. But, let's continue.

Now, as Article 12 outlines, the detaining power is responsible for the Prisoner of War. It is not until the detaining power, meaning transferred off the front lines from the hands of those who captured them into the hands of government officials charged with their detention, do they become Prisoners of War according to the Geneva Convention. ONCE they become Prisoners of War, which is after they are captured and turned over for processing to the detaining power they must be protected against many things, including public curiosity.

The thread we had this discussion in you insisted that Fox was in violation of the Geneva Convention. Sadly you hadn't read the articles and failed to know that Fox can't be in violation of this provision, but, the United States could be. To prove that the United States was, you would simply have to show that the United States sanctioned pictures taken of prisoners once they were in our hands.

I don't know why you require me to explain the simple nature of things to you, Code, but, it's not fun for me and I assume you must dislike being treated like you're 10.

In that thread your point was that Fox was in violation of the Geneva Convention like they were saying Al Jazeera was. I had to tell you that, in fact, neither party was in violation of the Geneva Convention, but, Iraq was, and if you are inclined to believe so, the United States could have been.

But, again, the United States could ONLY have been after the Prisoners of War became so by the definition contained in the Geneva Convention. All shots shown by the American media were prior to the surrendering Iraqis attaining Prisoner of War status as defined by the Geneva Convention.

What was at issue then, as now, is that you decided, in your typical liberal boosting way to equate something American media did with what Iraqi Television did, and Al Jazeera helped to facilitate. But, for now, all you have to focus on is pointing out where I said Al Jazeera was state sanctioned and Fox was not. My non-acceptance will come right after you fail to measure up to that charge.

As a hint for you if you're looking to save time, since I never said the word sanctioned in that entire thread, your next words will be, "Sorry Art. I didn't mean to attribute to you something you didn't say." You really ought to make me sweat on this stuff Code .

[codeorama]

Ok Art, I reread the thread and you're right, You personally didn't say it was state sanctioned, that was another poster.. However, your point is still invallid.

I saw the report on Fox that aired on that Saturday that MSNBC brought into question. They were not JUST captured, they were in the hands of the US.. however you want to spin, Like I said in the thread, I know the difference between showing the troops walking by in the background and having a camera shoved in their faces and putting them in an embarassing situation. The difference is that in your mind, because Al Jazerra did what they did, it's ok, it doesn't matter. I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I enjoy pointing out Fox's hypocracity. There were lots of articles on the net that agreed with MSNBC's assesment's as well.

Bottomline, your'e not going to get it because you don't want to get it. I pointed out that Fox did nothing nearly as low as what Al Jazerra did, but that doesn't remove that fact that they still broke the code.

"Yesterday, Saddam Hussein issued a statement that all Geneva Convention rights of POWs taken by Iraq will be respected. However, he has already broken this by showing films of allied POWs on Iraqi TV (horribly, these also include shots of dead allied soldiers, also a violation of the same article). They have also been shown on al-Jazeera. Donald Rumsfeld says that this violation will be prosecuted. In a news conference, he also said that the US would never show Iraqi POWs on TV.

However, Fox News filled the airwaves on Saturday showing Iraqi POWs, up close and looking humiliated. Military handlers guided the camera crew through the groups of POWs. This story was shown at least 5 times on Saturday on Fox, and there was a news story on their Website, but the story has been pulled. Fox has quickly moved to airbrush any evidence of their "violation."

Geneva Convention article 13 forbids the displaying of POWs for the purposes of "public curiosity," exactly what Fox News did on Saturday. One wonders whether there will be equal prosecution of this violation for both sides.

All morning, Fox News has been parading commentators who are outraged by this "war crime." Centcom has issued a statement condemning the actions of al-Jazeera TV for showing the footage of American POWs. One after another, the Fox News anchors and correspondents are talking about how upset they are and how the US would never do such a thing, ignoring the fact that they did exactly the same thing 24 hours earlier."

Let's see... who am I supposed to believe.. Art, the extremeskins moderator or MSNBC and other professionals that have reported as such........hmmmm...

:doh:

[Art]

Code,

I think you are lying because, clearly, you have lost sleep over this because in a festering splurge if ignorance you've rehashed an old thread that wasn't all that powerful in the first place. Clearly it's on your mind. Clearly you can't let it go. Clearly you're obsessed by the fact that you do not understand something, and you're bought and paid for by the blame America first crowd that sees similarities in something we do that has nothing in common with something someone else does.

This is how your type sleeps at night. You need to believe we're just as bad, or, as you've stated, while not just as bad, that we do the same thing. In fact, you should trust me. You trusted MSNBC type professionals in believing that Bush said something he never said. You're trusting MSNBC type professionals to something here to express to you something that they want to think make Fox look bad. In fact it makes them look so.

But, what's really at issue here, Code, is your own mental abilities. Again, you simply don't UNDERSTAND something so you've fixed in your mind how it is and refuse to recognize just how incredibly incorrect you are. While I don't want you to continue obsessing over this long dead conversation and I don't want to see you spontaneously show just how little you care by bringing it up again and again in the future, I have to say that you should clearly stop believing the professionals that have allowed you to appear so easily manipulated and so clearly colors your agenda because it's caused you to make repeatedly false statements throughout this and other threads.

You've gleaned from one line nuggets on anti-conservative web sites your belief system as to how things are and you only later try to find some mild support for it. Unfortunately it is your own lack of understanding of any given topic, caused by years of mental neglect in actually keeping yourself current, that leads you to have to regurgitate long-concluded debates and then say you're not losing any sleep over it.

So desperate are you to "prove" yourself, you've actually posted a quote from what appears to be a person's BLOG site and you don't even have where the actual information comes from, calling into question why. No matter though.

What's clear is you don't understand the topic. What's clear is your beliefs are colored by the fact that you take, as true, the wonderful fiction of professionals like these when you should be listening to an Extremeskins moderator because reality is different than the spoon-feeding you're getting from your "professionals".

Again, Fox and CNN and MSNBC were not at all hypocritical in showing Iraqis in the process of transfer from the hands of those capturing them to a Prisoner of War detention facility. Of course there are lots of articles that may say this. As you've shown already, there are lots of articles that say Bush said it'd been seven years since he'd used cocaine, and you believed them to.

Given the fact that in at least 10 posts in this thread you've made openly false or misleading statements, not to mention the statements you've made that just show faulty opinion, you can rest assured, your ability to discern and disseminate the information you're getting is what's more at issue than where you're getting it from. Essentially, Code, you're a follower and you've picked a side to follow. Good luck.