SLT: The Tea Party's Toxic Take on History

[Baculus]

Baculus don't sweat NavyDave if he thinks that Obama is a socialist because it only goes to show that he doesn't have any idea what a real socialist is.

Along with many on the Right.

Socialism has become a meme.

[thebluefood]

I feel sorry for you and people like you. And for liberterians and Paul-ites. While I don't agree with you all on much, I do think the country would be a lot better place if they were the right wing, the second party, and not this disgrace that is the GOP and its base. At least there is logic, reason and rationality with you all--open minds open to real debates about the role of government and the future of the country. None of this, OMGZ Obama is a CommuNazi and anyone who is open to comprimise with him is a traitor to the nation.

It's really frustrating, man. I think members of the "old-right" (traditional conservatives, classical liberals, jeffersonians, libertarians, Paul-ites, etc.) have a great message to share with the nation and the world. I truly believe we're advocates not only for reasonable, prudent fiscal policies and limited government; but also lovers of peace and diplomacy. I can't speak for all of "my kind", but I do believe most of our problems at home and abroad can be discussed and hashed out civilly and thoughtfully.

Alas, the Republican Party and now the "Tea Party" have been hijacked by irrational, xenophobic, jingoists that love the sound of their own voice and denounce anyone that dares to raise a dissenting opinion.

I really, really hope the time is coming when a third party or a large group of independent candidates will rise up and seize power

[Burgold]

It's really frustrating, man. I think members of the "old-right" (traditional conservatives, classical liberals, jeffersonians, libertarians, Paul-ites, etc.) have a great message to share with the nation and the world. I truly believe we're advocates not only for reasonable, prudent fiscal policies and limited government; but also lovers of peace and diplomacy. I can't speak for all of "my kind", but I do believe most of our problems at home and abroad can be discussed and hashed out civilly and thoughtfully.

I agree. I've always viewed it as a battle between compassion and cold logic. Liberalism was about defending the little guy, championing rights and freedom, and making sure everyone got their shot. Conservatism was about cold logic and bottom lines. The result of the friction between the two creates the best out comes.

Today, the "Right" and "Conservatives" are about power and its accumulation. They are not about small gov't. They are not anti-abortion. They are not about fiscal restraint. They probably are about lower taxes.

When I define them, I'm using the old rule... watch what I do versus what I say.

I want a strong, responsible, reasonable right. They need to return to sanity and fulfill their role. As yet, I don't see it... at least not on the national stage. I just see obfuscation, demonization, and power games.

The dems aren't much better. They have been greedy, spineless wimps. They need to rediscover themselves as well.

[Mad Mike]

Are you kidding me?

Actually I have 100% proof. Were they lieing in 2002 in the lead up the Iraq War? Or were they lieing in 2007 when they told us they were lieing in 2002? Either way they were lieing... I personally take them at their word in 2007. That they became part of the Bush administrations propaganda campagne against Iraq. We have countless studies and bi partisan commissions which have come to this conclusion....

We even have the Pentagon's own inspector generals report which comes to the same conclusion.

Mike, they lied to us. They fabricated the evidence which you are clinging too; and that's come out in countless investigations...

Dude. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, you still haven't posted any proof of anything, and the reality is that the facts I posted came out in a post war report AFTER the bi-partisan commissions. They come from captured Iraqi documents.

The Iraqi Perspectives Project. In September 2003 the Commander, United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), asked the Joint Advanced Warfighting Program (JAWP) at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to help develop the operational and strategic lessons from OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) from the perspectives of former senior Iraqi decision-makers. By creating a historical narrative of the events surrounding OIF, interviewing captured prisoners, and reviewing translations of enemy documents and media archives, IDA researchers were able to report on the inner workings-and sometimes delusional behavior en masse-of the Saddam Hussein regime. For this paper, the JAWP Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) research team screened more than 600,000 original captured documents I and several thousand hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense (DOD) database called Harmony.

Abstract

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Now if you can explain how a study or commission can come to a conclusion about facts that were not yet known, please do. I'd love to hear it. Do you suppose they had a time machine? Maybe they were psychic?

But you don't really care about the truth. You don't care about facts. You have bought the anti-war goupthink bull**** hook, line, and sinker. You've made up your mind and you are so sure you are right that you aren't about to let a little thing like the facts change your mind. I'll be you have never read the report I quoted. I'll further bet that you barely scanned the facts I've posted. Yet you sit there and smugly tell me how those facts were disproved before they were known. It's like a bad joke.

Ignorance because you have not been exposed to information is one thing. Ignorance because you refuse to consider the facts put in front of you is quite another.

[JMS]

Dude. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, you still haven't posted any proof of anything, and the reality is that the facts I posted came out in a post war report AFTER the bi-partisan commissions. They come from captured Iraqi documents.

September 2003

I posted a link to a very well respected newspaper which discusses a 2007 report by the Pentagon's Inspector General "debunking" Iraq AlQuada ties. Which the Pentagon's inspector general terms were manufactured by political appointees which he names inside it's ranks.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

And you respond with a 2003 report, and incorrectly claim it came after the bi partisan 911 report (On July 22, 2004),

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

or the bipartisan Iraqi study group report, (Dec 6, 2006).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group

Or even Richard Clarks book, where the fore most terrorism expert in the nation shocked the nation saying Iraq was never involved in international terrorism, and had nothing to do with 9/11 ( Against all Enemies, March 22, 2004).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke#Book:_Against_All_Enemies

And you claim I haven't proven anything?....

Now if you can explain how a study or commission can come to a conclusion about facts that were not yet known, please do. I'd love to hear it. Do you suppose they had a time machine? Maybe they were psychic?

The point is the administration always knew Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Al Quada, or terrorism. That's what we know today. They made up evidence, manufactured bogus studies, and even paid people to write stories to support their position and planted them in newspapers (paid the newspapers to publish them like advertisments, but they were represented as actual stories!). Those are just some of the strategies they used to manufacture bogus evidence. They used bogus briefings, leaked to the press, then reported on as news. They used annonomous sources, some of which have been tracked back to top Bush administration officials. They used intimidation. They used firings, promotions, and announcements of early retirement... All in order to manufacture their bogus case and move the country to war. We know all this today because it's come to light... It's been documented and None of it has been denied or refuted.

But you don't really care about the truth. You don't care about facts. You have bought the anti-war goupthink bull**** hook, line, and sinker. You've made up your mind and you are so sure you are right that you aren't about to let a little thing like the facts change your mind. I'll be you have never read the report I quoted. I'll further bet that you barely scanned the facts I've posted. Yet you sit there and smugly tell me how those facts were disproved before they were known. It's like a bad joke.

Ignorance because you have not been exposed to information is one thing. Ignorance because you refuse to consider the facts put in front of you is quite another.

All the reports I cited as shown above were published after your 2003 report... AFTER.. So factually and unambigously you are the one who has failed to read, or understand the oposing point of view which you so venomously pointed at me. Take a long pause, and consider that point.

That the entire argument you pointed at me, is directly applicable to you.

I don't think you are a bad guy, or an idiot. I think you are a guy having a hard time comprehending that your government lied to you, even though your government has stated so numerous times in a bipartison fashion. Even though the foremost experts in the country on terrorism and foreign intelligence, Clark and Tenant have stated so unambigously...

You are still klinging to the discredited reports...

[Mad Mike]

Thank you for proving me correct. You have not even looked at the report I quoted.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Iraqi Perspectives Project

Saddam and Terrorism:

Emerging Insights from

Captured Iraqi Documents

Volume 1 (Redacted)

November 2007

Approved for public release;

distribution unlimited.

IDA Paper P-4287

Log: H 07-001575

Until you actually read the report, you are choosing to remain ignorant of the facts and I don't have time for you.

Have a nice day.

*Edited to comply with forum rules.

[Jumbo]

Until you actually read the report you are just another ignorant fool. Worse, you are an ignorant fool by choice and I don't have time for you.

Mikey, lately you're wandering into temp-vacation territory. So there's your "heads-up."

[Mad Mike]

Mikey, lately you're wandering into temp-vacation territory. So there's your "heads-up."

Appreciate the heads-up on this issue. I apologize. That wasn't one of my better posts. I will curb my temper better moving forward.

But I have to ask. Honestly. What do you mean lately? I thought I have been doing pretty well. I haven't even been in a heated debate outside of this thread in a long, long time. Admittedly, my tone could have been better but the worst of my other posts in this thread slammed an argument, not the person. If that is what you are referring to, fair enough. Tone counts too. But if not, in all fairness, I sure would like to know what else I have said or done that would qualify me for a vacation.