August 20, 2005

"A woman named Ann Althouse" responds.

Did I make trouble for Glenn with this Instapundit post? Read this, from Think Progress.

"Think Progress" — if you want to call yourself that, don't make the "think" part seem like a joke.

(Why does it irk me that TP referred to me as "a woman named Ann Althouse"? A whiff of sexism there? Or is it like "A Man Called Horse" — kind of noble? I'll put it on my list of possible titles for the memoir I'm writing about my life as a blogger. A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.)

In the comments at the Think Progress link:
Trying to insist Reynolds is vicariously part of this “smear” campaign you charge is being perpetrated, through Althouse’s bringing notice to an editorial in Investors Business Daily and calling it harsh, while guestblogging at Instapundit, is an absolute textbook example of what people mean when they use the term “moonbat.”
Indeed.

Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes:
Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.
I didn't fact-check that either. I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been? I don't want to see Gorelick (or anyone else) smeared, but by serving on the Commission, she contributed to the feeling many of us have now that we were deprived of the whole story.

This isn't a vendetta about Gorelick. The only other mention of her on this blog is in this post linking to my own Instapundit post (to make a place for comments). I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story. But now that Think Progress is drawing attention to Gorelick, I can see that her presence on the 9/11 Commission impairs the credibility of its report. That's terribly important!

Isn't it?

If it's not, explain why, respectfully and rationally, and I'll discuss it with you. Don't just go into that ridiculous hysterical mode. My recent experience with lefty blogs that misread, freak out, and hurl insults makes me unwilling to engage with people who don't show a commitment to civil discourse. I'm going to save time by assuming it's not going to go anywhere.

UPDATE: A shorter Atrios... Wait! You can't get any shorter. I mean: Thanks to Atrios for providing an instant example of what I'm saying about lefty blogs. Sigh.

IN THE COMMENTS: Lots of hardcore types making fools of themselves and some good observations too. I just wanted to highlight this statement of mine about fact-checking:
Bloggers link to articles and opinion pieces all the time without independently checking the facts in them. If someone just sent me a friendly email when there's an error, I'd check into it and make a correction. There's nothing to flake out about. You're just being hardcore partisans looking for ways to attack all the terribly many people you view as your enemies.

I'm supposed to do independent research before I blog about anything that contains factual statements? That's a weird requirement, yet Atrios and Think Progress are acting all triumphant as if this post admits to some big failing! Really, is it their contention that you can't link to an opinion piece without checking any facts it includes? Do they follow that rule? I think not!

186 comments:

genoasail said...

Ahh, yes. It's the rightwing bloggers that are known for their decorum and ability to discuss things calmly and factually.

Please feel free to memo Michelle Malkin. et al. Especially with regard to their treatment of Cindy Sheehan, AKA, "whore". Redstate.org, which used to be fairly sane, has gone completely over the edge of civility, and they are not alone.

Though I will agree with you on one point, Ms. Althouse--the "woman named" business is just silly, and an editor should have caught that one.

genoasail said...

And on the subject of "A woman named..." I am not sure that it connotes sexism, so much as it connotes to me, a distinct sniff of the nose that accompanies an "I'm better than you are" sort of attitude.

You might want to ask Paula Zahn more about the attitude behind such a remark, as she recently used a similar phrase when discussing Cindy Sheehan, calling her "that woman".

konopelli/WGG said...

"She's smarter than me." – Glenn Reynolds

i have dandruff that is smarter than Glenn Reynolds...

Jack said...

Regarding nasty comments, I'm now left of center (center moved right somewhere along the way, because when I was younger, I recall being right of center...), and I have had a few posts get sprayed with quite a bit of vitriol from those who quote "conservative" talking points.

I should post a "greatest hits of insults towards me from the right."

There's more than enough hate out there to go around, viciousness that is being generated from both extremes. Which side hits you depends on who feels you are offensive to their existence. I had an entire series of posts in 2004 decrying the complete lack of civility from the extremists. Eventually, even though I had many say "Yes, I agree, and someone needed to say it!" I felt like a voice in the wilderness and directed my efforts elsewhere.

Jacques Cuze said...

I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been?

Yes, we all would have loved to have seen this, fortunately though, your Chimp guaranteed this wasn't going to happen. I am not certain why you are upset with Gorelick being on the commission, it seems that Senator Roberts being on the commission was a great deal worse.

I don't think anyone is asking you to fact check editorials run in the major papers. But once you have printed one, I think everyone would agree that if the facts come out against the editorial, that you have an obligation to let your readers know.

I notice that a "feature" of most rightwing lawyer bloggers is that they don't believe they have this obligation to their readers or the objective facts. I've always thought this was due to how their legal training as an advocate of one side in trial overcame the morals that society tried and failed to implant.

Or shorter me, rightwing lawyers have a tendency to be what the rest of us would consider to be a liar, I wonder why, is it because you're rightwingers, or because you are lawyers?

bcf said...

A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.

I'll save you the trouble of writing the chapter to inform you that Most people already know that they generally are treated better by people who agree with them than those that don't.

YatPundit said...

Your reaction to the "Think Progress" entry is silly. I've read it and it's a well-thought-out piece. Unless you're not a woman, I don't see what your problem is. They don't agree with you, get over it.

EZSmirkzz said...

One of the nice things, I suppose, about blogging and bloggers is that it allows other people to discern the limited range of the bloggers thinking, and our own, if we are sufficiently mature enough to do so, as well as express intelligent thoughts and insights.

I think the data showing that 90% of bloggers are 19-29 years old is reflected in both blogs and comments, and so as per your previous brouhaha over the London shooting, it isn't what you say so much as what people think you have said, or more apropos, what they want to wish they hear you to have said.

Many commenters are either cheerleaders or self appointed nemesis' on most blogs, so I read them for links to interesting blogs like yours, and not for the content of the comments, usually, although others are really pretty informative or enlightened in their own way.

So, long story short, I wouldn't sweat the small stuff.

As for the 9/11 Commission I think that we have enough concern on both sides of the aisle about its' composition so as to caste doubt on its' worth when it touches on any politically sensitive point, which these days may even includes its' title page.

Historians will look back through our times and discover far more flaws in the system than the ones we are aware of because we are all too emotionally involved with the events and the politics of the events. Systems do not, nor can they, anticipate asymmetric events. The 9/11 Commission is as useless as the system they investigated. Just as security is a myth when it comes to networked computers, so too is a logical algorithm to an abstract concept.

That's my point of view from the left side of the blogosphere, the old fart, high school degree side of the left.

gunther said...

"A woman named..."

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. You should only take offense if you have an inflated sense of your own importance and feel that this introductory descriptive isn't needed. Believe me, it is.

"Or shorter me, rightwing lawyers have a tendency to be what the rest of us would consider to be a liar, I wonder why, is it because you're rightwingers, or because you are lawyers?"

This site is LGF with a thesaurus.

Ann Althouse said...

genoasail: I'm only talking about how people have treated me, a blogger trying to be a centrist and trying to talk to everyone and not supporting either party. (I voted for Bush and Feingold.) I agree that there are firebrand bloggers on the right.

Alcibiades said...

One interesting thing about this Able Danger situation - which appears currently to be a real mess of a story - with respect to Jamie Gorelick and the wall is that before she was the deputy attorney general, she was the general counsel at the Pentagon.

Which goes a certain distance in explaining how the culture she established with her Wall might have been applied more zealously than need be at DOD.

After all, she had been their boss and then was promoted.

Athenae said...

A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.

This was tongue in cheek, correct? Sarcasm is so hard to detect on the Internets.

Because otherwise ... wow.

People are mean on the Internet. People are mean in real life, too, which has always been, to me, the larger issue.

A.

Jacques Cuze said...

a blogger trying to be a centrist

Uh, it's not working. You should probably just strive to be yourself. More honest to yourself and to your readers and will make you that much more credible.

Please see Heisenberg, Picasso, and Thompson for details.

Ann Althouse said...

quxxo: You talk about "most rightwing lawyers," but I doubt that you're familiar with my blog. I've taken many strong position that go to the left and not the right. I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that? Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement? It's been a distinct trend the whole time I've been blogging that lefties link what they don't like and assume they've found an enemy. They don't follow the blog generally and see the things they'd agree with. It's like they just want to alienate me. It's really sad. It makes me think: no wonder they lose elections. People on the right have been linking to what they agree with and ignoring the things they disagree with. That's a better strategy from my perspective. I have lots more to say on this subject, but need to rush off.

Vicki said...

The fact that you voted for Bush tells me all I need to know about you. I have no respect for anyone who voted for George effin Bush. Anyone who voted for Bush, with the exception of the very rich, is merely a tool for this god awful administration.

You seem to be an intelligent woman. You write fairly well. With all of the information available to you, why in the world would you vote for Bush?

If you bought into the Swift Boat bullshit, then you're not terribly savvy. The information was out there, you know, the truth, but too many people like you prefer to ignore it. Look at the facts sometime ~ you might actually learn something.

"W" stands for Worst. president. ever.

dave said...

Funny how the only posts that get any comment here are the ones Atrios links to.

You'd think those precious endorsements from Instacracker and the Pillsbury Doughboy would be worth more...

jsmdlawyer said...

I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story.

Followed by:

Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes: Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.I didn't fact-check that either. I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot.

Let's boil it down, "Ms. Althouse." You don't know what you're talking about, you cited links that don't know any more than you do about this "important issue," and you have the nerve to complain about those that disagree with you? I mean, all you've done is spout right-wing talking points about what is now turning out to be the biggest non-story since Joe McCarthy's "list," and NOW, now that others have criticized you, NOW you want to know the facts? Sorry, lady, the time to learn the facts is BEFORE you open your big yap and stick your foot in it. Sheesh.

Miss Ann Thrope said...

don't want to see Gorelick (or anyone else) smeared, but by serving on the Commission, she contributed to the feeling many of us have now that we were deprived of the whole story.

Really, Ann? How would Gorelick's mere presence on the committee "contribute to the feeling many of us have now that we were deprived of the whole story"?

Did Gorelick have dictatorial powers over the committee? Was she the final arbiter of which witnesses to call, what questions to ask, and what to include in the final report? Was she even one of the committee chairs?

I, along with you, share that feeling many of us have. However, that feeling was generated in me not by a sole committee member who did not signify a quorum and furthermore did not chair the committee, but by a series of events and facts, such as: the administration's year-long foot-dragging in even recognizing that an investigation was in order. The smear campaigns against any and all who made the slightest suggestion that (DUH!) mistakes were made. The president's refusal to meet with the committee without Mr. Cheney at his side. And last but not least, the insertion in the end-notes of non-factual, politically-motivated assertions that benefit only the administration and the Republican Party.

All of those things gave me pause, Ann. The fact that Jamie Gorelick served on the committee with no more power than any other committee member, and with considerably less than some, would for any reasonable person rank far, far down the list of things that "contributed to the feeling many of us now have that we were deprived of the whole story." In fact, the reasonable people among us were raising these concerns at the time, rather than trying to go back now and re-write the historical record in an attempt at further smearing.

Were you innocent of attempting to smear, thanks to not having read the relevant documents you were citing as one of the causes for 9/11? I don't know if you were or not. But my experience with people of good conscience is that when they discover they have unfairly blamed someone for something they didn't do, they apologize and set the record straight. Which for all of your flourishes in the faux mea-culpa above, you didn't do. Instead, we're hearing about how mean the people who pointed out to you that you're wrong are. You could change that dynamic toot sweet by simply admitting that you didn't know what you were talking about in your initial post.

Davebo said...

Ann,

Your post would have been perfectly acceptable had you began it with Glenn's patented "Disturbing if True" prefix.

Remember, plausible deniability is a must.

Jacques Cuze said...

Woohoo! You don't bother to update your readers about past posts with the current known facts, but you do support gay marriage and abortion rights. Near as I can tell, that is your answer to my original question. Seems like a non sequitur to me.

Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement?

Well Ms. Five Shots to the Noggin is Okay By Me, it's probably because all of us on the left are part of the fifth column, objectively pro-fascist, traitorous, treasonous, idiotarians that should be kicked out of the country, and we're upset about that, because if that occurred, we don't know when we could get the terrorists into therapy.

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot said...

Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement?

I'm with you on this. Core values aren't worth a damn unless someone rewards you for having them. That's why I decided to stop being tolerant and joined the Klan. They're very supportive of my new beliefs.

ntodd said...

The dishonest quxxo failed to mention that we also eat Christian babies wrapped in bacon.

Oh, and would the woman named Ann Althouse have preferred "a pusillanimous, jiggling sac of bile who can't write worth a shit named Ann Althouse"? Note that I'm not calling you that--just asking a question because I'm sincerely interested in the answer.

Freeman Hunt said...

Goesh, did you leave the lid off of the moonbat bait again? They're infesting all the crawl spaces.

Ploopus better show up or someone may usurp her position.

EZSmirkzz said...

Actually Dave, I came over here from Lawyers, Guns and Money, who were discussing another one of Ann's posts, but are now dissing&cussing John Gibsons attempt to not look like a weasel for his remarks about shooting people in the head, which is what they were taking issue with with Ann. Small world.

Atrios was still in bed when I went through there.

ponderer said...

1. If you're genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story, then you might want to fact check those op-eds and do further investigating yourself. I, too, would be interested in reading objectively driven, rigorous research into the matter -- the kind that doesn't omit what doesn't fit with a predetermined POV.

2. I don't believe it's a venetta against Gorelick, either, at least not per se. What I do believe is that partisans dredged up a memo by her and used it in a propaganda campaign to: a) deflect attention from their own culpability; and b) sell a simplistic narrative in which a single action within the previousious administration is portrayed as the embodiment of all its flaws and the locus of blame for everything.

I'm concerned about the Able Danger story, too. Why is it being raised just now? Is it connected to the Franklin, et al., indictments in any way, or is it being used to deflect attention from that story of spying and espionage by officials within our own government? Why did whistleblower Shaffer adamently claim that he specifically mentioned Atta when he briefed 911 Commission staffers in Afghanistan? Why has he now retracted the claim? He said initially that he knew he was ending his career by coming forward in this matter, but he felt he just had to do the right thing. And now he retreats from the public statements he claimed to have made from a profound sense of duty to country? Why would someone genuinely driven to "do the right thing" behave thus?

Though we've been told he is under paid suspension for unauthorized phone use or some such thing, maybe Shaffer's current job assignment has been to stir up this hornet's nest and then retreat. If so, why and by whom was he given such an assignment?

Surely you've seen and read enough about various techniques for disseminating propaganda and disinformation to wonder about the who/what/when/where/why of all this.

Or then again, if your genuine concern about the Able Danger story is concern for where to lay blame rather than dig into what's really going on, maybe not . . .

Brando said...

Give me a break, Althouse. You are no better than your scum sucking Dear Leader who has all the sudden silenced himself over the Plame leak because of its faux concerns for "an ongoing investigation" when it turned out that their previous talking points turned out to be BALD FACE LIES.

Thersites said...

Ms Althouse, I'd find your claim to being a centrist a lot more credible if you would in the future... FACT CHECK before disseminating something through Instapundit, which you must know is going to spread rapidly through the Right blogosphere.

If you want to be seen as objective, FACT CHECK. And be gracious when caught in an error.

You also seem remarkably self-absorbed, focusing almost entirely in this post on your own personal feelings.

What about Gorelick's? She didn't insult anyone, but is being singled out as the person who "fostered a culture" which led to 9/11. And nobody knows if this is true!

I'm sorry, but if you really want to be taken seriously as independent and objective, you would need to act like it.

Athenae said...

I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that?

Because you also support Bush and, I presume, the war. Right-wing bloggers seem rather exclusively concerned with those two positions. Everything else is secondary.

Should you start criticizing the president, or pointing out the vast network of manipulations and lies on which his war was based, I'd expect your shiny new friends to disappear rather quickly.

A.

pseudolus said...

Ann,

Why don't the left wingers give you any support? Just look at your self-serving list of reviews at the top of your blog.

"Formidable law blogger Ann Althouse." – Slate
"The divine Ms. Althouse." — Terry Teachout
"Althouse is cool." – Jonah Goldberg
"She's smarter than me." – Glenn Reynolds


umm, maybe if you weren't such a 'suck-up' to the rabid Reichwingers' you would be more credible. So you believe in gay marriage and abortion rights. Well, John Gotti threw wonderful block parties for his 'neighbors', it din't make him any less of a scumbag or relieve his moral responsibilties for his other behaviors.

Jon Cipriani said...

Wow, what a ridiculously ad hominem comments thread. Maybe all the folks screaming epithets at Prof. Althouse and demanding that she FACT CHECK should check a few facts of their own. Prof. Althouse's re-posting of the IBD article mentioned Gorelick exactly once, in this paragraph:

"And this is the same commission that included one Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department. She's also architect of the policy that established a wall between intel and law enforcement, making 'connecting the dots' before 9-11 a virtual impossibility."

Now, all the Think Progress hysteria notwithstanding, this is hardly a "smear". Now, implying that someone is, or outright calling them a "fascist", a "tool", or a "jiggling sac of bile"- those would all be "smears". NB.

Also note that nowhere does the above paragraph state what Think Progress seems to be trying to refute: that Gorelick's "wall" was erected between DoD and FBI. TP is tilting at windmills here. On the other hand you can quibble over the meaning over the word "intel"- but this is something that you must do in order to make TP's critique fit what Prof. Althouse re-posted.

TP even goes so far as to say that there was no "wall" whatsoever, not only between DoD and FBI, but even between DoJ and FBI. Well, in that case, I guess this has all just been a big misunderstanding. I guess Clinton-appointed Mary Jo White, the US Atty for the Southern District of NY, was just confused when she complained about Gorelick's policy. I gues Andy McCarthy, who served in the Clinton DoJ as prosecutor of the first WTC bombers and has criticized the wall, is just confused as well.

The story of Able Danger, and indeed, the whole story of 9/11, is an exceedingly complex one. That's no reason to launch vile, ad hominem assaults on someone who disputes what you hold to be the gospel truth of the event- especially in the name of correcting a "smear".

pseudolus said...

Ann,

Why don't the left wingers give you any support? Just look at your self-serving list of reviews at the top of your blog.

Maybe if you weren't such a 'suck-up' to the rabid Reichwingers' you would be more credible. So you believe in gay marriage and abortion rights. Well, John Gotti threw wonderful block parties for his 'neighbors', it didn't make him any less of a scumbag or relieve his moral responsibilties for his other behaviors or beliefs.

chevyvega said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chevyvega said...

Yawn.

P. Froward said...

I thought that Atrios post very reasonable, by left-wing blogger standards: No foul language, no playground insults, no metaphors involving aggravated assault and/or sexual sadism, no bizarrely inappropriate use of words like "radical" or "extremist", no conspiracy theories, and he didn't call anybody a Nazi.

In short, he didn't come off as an irrationally belligerent, narcissistic, drunk teenager with Tourette's Syndrome. For that, he deserves encouragement. It was lazy and partisan, but I see that on right wing blogs all the time. No stones to throw there.

pseudolus: It sounds like you're saying that to be "credible" is to agree with all of your opinions. Not everybody uses that definition.

genoasail: The phrase was "media whore", which is metaphorical rather than literal, but you're right that it's unacceptable language, whether or not it's accurate. If it were acceptable, it wouldn't appear on 376 different pages of one the most popular left-wing blogs. Only seven instances on Atrios, by the way. Good for him.

Extra credit: Explain why you'll admit that it's unacceptable for Malkin to use sexist language, but you gave Harry Belafonte a pass when he called Colin Powell a "house n****r". Mad props if you're one of the few lefties who called him on that.

Miss Ann Thrope said...

Jon Cipriani - Perhaps you should read my post at 10:37, wherein I take Ms. Althouse to task (in a non-derogatory and respectful way, I might add) for first of all, not verifying that what she said about Gorelick was true (in fact, Gorelick's memo did nothing to stop the flow of intel from FBI to DOD) and secondly, for the patently ridiculous assertion in the current post that Gorelick's role on the committee should be a primary cause for distrusting its findings. GORELICK DIDN'T DO WHAT ALTHOUSE CLAIMED IN THE FIRST PLACE. And yet she remains a reason for distrusting the findings of the committee?

Please elaborate on how this makes any sense whatsoever.

Bottom line remains: Althouse was wrong in the first instance on point of fact; and in the second, she's wrong to claim that even though Gorelick didn't do what was claimed in the first instance, her mere presence on the committee undermines its credibility. A person who accepts responsibility for their own words and actions would apologize for the initial error and cede the point that the second instance is baseless due to her error in the first instance.

Aaron said...

I don't think I've ever supported or denounced any positions (left or right) on this blog because, well, I don't think I've ever read it.

If it helps....

"I support gay marriage"

Brava!

"and abortion rights"

Attagirl!

Sebastian said...

Wow... all these comments are sure making me feel like I should be checking out more of the left blogsphere. You all just make it seem to welcoming to people who might agree with you some of the times, but disagree others.

I will certainly not argue that the left has a monopoly on inflamatory and childish discourse, but I can't ever remember seeing such a display from the far right on Ann's blog as I'm seeing here today.

As a frequent reader, but not often commenter, of Ann's blog, any alternative universe where she is regarded as a far right wingnut is a frightening world indeed. What you folks coming here from the left blogsphere need to understand is that it's people like Ms. Althouse that you need to start building coalitions with if you want to have any prayer of winning elections again. I think the right is doing a far better job of reaching out to the center than the left is, and the posts I'm seeing here today are just reinforcing that.

Matt Stoller said...

I've taken many strong position that go to the left and not the right. I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that? Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement? It's been a distinct trend the whole time I've been blogging that lefties link what they don't like and assume they've found an enemy. They don't follow the blog generally and see the things they'd agree with. It's like they just want to alienate me. It's really sad. It makes me think: no wonder they lose elections. People on the right have been linking to what they agree with and ignoring the things they disagree with. That's a better strategy from my perspective.

It's all about you, Ann.

The Mechanical Eye said...

My, my, the comments section on this post should be Exhibit A for the prosecution in the Case For Heavy-Handed Moderating.


i have dandruff that is smarter than Glenn Reynolds...

The fact that you voted for Bush tells me all I need to know about you... Anyone who voted for Bush, with the exception of the very rich, is merely a tool for this god awful administration.

Give me a break, Althouse. You are no better than your scum sucking Dear Leader...


The recent visitors of this blog are doing a tremendous disservice to their cause, spraying invective like this - talk of "reichwingers" and "The worst. president. ever." strikes me less as commentary about Abel Danger and more like calculated venting.

It's all too obvious you were directed here and told to just scream and rant and moan as loudly as possible against your Villian of the Week.

You clearly no context as to the tone and attitude of this blog, and regular readers like me don't find you terribly convincing when you start putting words like FACT CHECK in big caps.

In all fairness, you can point to lots of nasty, fire-breathing, simplistic commentary from blogs all over the spectrum. Althouse's blog isn't one of them, and the lot of you sound like complete fools for targeting her as if she was the LGF or DailyKos comments section.

The lot of you would be far more convincing to those of us who aren't following this story closely if you didn't quite have your amps up to 11. Us reichwingers would appreciate it.

Sebastian said...

The fact that you voted for Bush tells me all I need to know about you. I have no respect for anyone who voted for George effin Bush. Anyone who voted for Bush, with the exception of the very rich, is merely a tool for this god awful administration.

vicki...

By implying that no intelligent person could possibly vote for Bush, you're not doing a very effective job at trying to convince those people, like myself, who did vote for Bush, but weren't really happy about either choice.

I have a really hard time understanding this hatred for Bush. I certainly had my disagreements with Kerry, but wouldn't consider him evil, or anyone who voted for him lacking in intelligence. There were plenty of good and bad things about both candidates, and to me any reasonable person would be able to see that.

genoasail said...

Dr. Althouse,

Your position is that you are centrist, and you support gay marriage are pro-choice.

I find myself confused then, by your vote for George Bush?

Of course it is your right to keep not only your vote private, but your reason(s) for voting for that person private as well. But I am genuinely curious. Why?

I am not trying to pick a fight, or use you reasons to then pick apart why you are/were wrong, blah, blah, blah.

I am trying to gain some reasonable insight into people who support issues like gay marriage and pro-choice, but vote for someone who is so clearly opposed to them, that he will deconstruct years of Supreme Court decided law to do it. Meaning, you voted for someone who not only is against those things, but has a plan that is meant to destroy the things you support.

So, if you are so inclined, I would appreciate any insight you could offer me as to why it is you voted for George Bush. It would be extremely helpful in my conversation with others who hold the same or similar beliefs as you do.

J said...

Sigh.

Many of my fellow lefty travelers are indeed exhibiting awfully poor manners.

I apologize on their behalf.

That said, I do think TP had a general point that many folks have made an awful quick & probably wrong leap of logic to begin attacking Gorelick, frequently mixing up the fact that the relevant communication was between DoD & FBI, while Gorelick's memo pertained to other communications. In a small way, your piece at Insty contributed to that growing groundswell of misplaced criticism.

It didn't merit lumping you or him in with "smearing" Gorelick, but it wasn't a particularly accurate or insightful post.

But again, the vitriol being slung your way here is extremely regrettable, and I'm saddened to see my fellow travelers stoop to it. Altho we are often called traitors for our opposition to Bush & the war -- and the temptation to fight back with fire of our own is strong -- that's not the right way to fight.

I'm sorry.

16 said...

Althouse, wrong.

Indeed.

Maybe that nonsense flys among the slf-pitying conservatives in Madison, here in Milwaukee it just makes us laugh.

J said...

genoasail, the archives might shed some light on her 2004 vote -- which, I agree, is quite near unbelievable when taken alongside her professed beliefs in this post.

Arachnae said...

There were plenty of good and bad things about both candidates, and to me any reasonable person would be able to see that.

Sebastian, I predict that in twenty years, when the national 9/11-induced insanity has had a chance to dissipate and the facts about the Bush Administration's behavior before, during and after are widely known, you will be denying you ever said this.

Avedon said...

You're correct - Judd should have called you "a blogger named Ann Althouse".

But your ass has been fact-checked, and he was right about that.

SJP said...

I've taken many strong position that go to the left and not the right. I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that? Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement?

Easy answer. Because the wing blogger finally know you're there. "A woman named" says it all, don't you think?

StanUllman said...

Professor Froward

I must call your "media whore" search technique into question. Is it fair to include occurrences in user comments when saying that a site contains a term? Maybe so - but the implication is that the site's authors regularly use it. Can you consider commentors to be authors? I think we can agree that that's a stretch.

Of course, you also find instances of a term being quoted.

This method also makes the numbers, well, wrong. The dailykos site, where its comments reside, gets searched. So does Eschaton - but those comments are on haloscan, not Eschaton... so it guarantees the result you found.

While it'd be interesting to do google searches for all sorts of unpleasant phrases lurking within websites of all stripes, it's not particularly instructive.

Sirkowski said...

You got owned!

Larry said...

These posts sure seem to attract the leftwing dregs, Ann -- why do you suppose that is? I'll suggest an answer to my own question: it's because you exhibit concern over their opinion, and in general a certain anxiety to be thought "centrist", or at least not "rightwing". This just brings out the schoolyard bullies (predominantly on the left, interestingly), who think they smell weakness. But all such labels are relative at best, misleading at worst. It makes better sense, in my opinion, to aim for what's good and/or true -- and let people label that how they will. If, in the present context, that turns out to be more right than left, so be it.

As for the good opinion of the dregs -- increasingly all that remains of the left anyway -- I'd leave them to stew in their own derangement.

Wave Maker said...

Trying to make sense of this:

If you voted for George Bush, you're an idiot rightwinger.

Such high-minded debate.

buma said...

I'm just waiting for that woman named Althouse to close this thread too. If she is a 'centrist' as she claims, then her political spectrum needs an adjustment. She is a warblogger, just like that dandruff-fer-brains Reynolds.

Jack Roy said...

Aaron at 12:02---are you incorporating NYT crossword clues into your blog comments? Excellent!

Prof. Althouse:

It's been a distinct trend the whole time I've been blogging that lefties link what they don't like and assume they've found an enemy.

First, go read Powerline and LGF and try to say with a straight face that's peculiar to leftists. And then go read Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall, and Ezra Klein and try to pretend it's universal among liberals. There are childish voices on both sides; I'm unconvinced that there's really any difference between the two sides of Blogsylvania.

Second, and more centrally, there's something deeply off-putting about a blogger complaining that commenters are too mean. You're a grown-up, and a law professor. If you make an ideogical point and leave comments open, expect the ideological underpinnings to be challenged. If you make a factual assumption, especially if it's not supported in fact, expect to be called on it. And if you're wrong, you're wrong; do the adult thing and admit it, don't complain that the bigger kids are picking on you.

Actually, that's not unique to blogging. You might remember it from, you know, law school.

Wave Maker said...

Oh but perhaps she not wrong at all.

Elizabeth said...

Count me in with J when he says:
Many of my fellow lefty travelers are indeed exhibiting awfully poor manners. and In a small way, your piece at Insty contributed to that growing groundswell of misplaced criticism. I am embarrased by and angry at the juvenile level of rhetoric aimed at you here, but I am also disappointed in your anemic response to the legitimate criticism. The upshot is that I don't think you've been fair and evenhanded in following the Able Danger story developments.

I look at self-identified moderates who voted for Bush but say they support abortion rights and gay rights (Glenn Reynolds would be one of those), and it seems like cognitive dissonance to me. But human decisionmaking is full of compromises and rationalizing, so I trust that somewhere, a logic exists, even if I don't find it to be sound.

The important message for the left is that all this caterwauling and bile isn't going to change the course we're on in America. It is indeed people who self-identify as centrists that we have to understand and contend with, rather than be angry with.

For many, I think the key issue in 2004 was national security, and centrists were willing to overlook the danger a Bush administration poses to civil rights, possibly because the rights threatened weren't their own. The support Ann expresses for gay rights and abortion rights is a bit benign, without a vote behind it. Nonetheless, the left has to find a clear position on dealing with Islamist terrorism; it is a fact, not a fantasy of the right, that we have been under attack by a fascist ideology whose faithful are true threats to democracy. So long as the left has little more than criticism of Bush to offer, the center will break to the right in national elections.

Finally, Ann, it isn't a mystery why you're treated more politely from the right; if you started to criticize Bush, you'd get it full bore from that side. As simplistic as the left is with the "Bush voter=bad blogger," the right is just as banal with "Bush voter=good blogger." I have little doubt that had you voted for Kerry, and discussed it as publicly as you have with Bush, your centrist positions that lean right wouldn't get you much slack from the Malkin/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage fans out there. There are just way too many fleck-foamed mouths braying in cyberspace. I regret the display from the left that we've seen here today.

miklos rosza said...

wow, all the name-calling sure convinces me. ad hominems strewn all over is charming as all hell. clever, too. i didnt realize... is this really the tone of the left? is this the left?

Alcibiades said...

Elizabeth and J wrote the only articulate leftist posts on this thread.

As far as I can tell, Ann made one or two comments about Able Danger here and there. She wasn't covering it incessantly, moment to moment. And at various points the information has changed. If she got caught up in the emotion of a moment, and 5 days later the story changed, and she didn't go back to update, so what ultimately.

The people covering Able Danger more intensively are Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute and Andy McCarthy and John Podhoretz at the Corner. And many of their posts have included caveats and backtracking, because that is the nature of the information flow on this story.

Elizabeth, if you are interested in the process of how Ann came to support Bush for president for sociological reasons or to break through on your cognitive dissonance, she has a long post about it here.

And finally, Ann has criticized both left and right freely during her time blogging. Nevertheless, plenty of people both more left than she is and more right read her blog and enjoy it.

So it's a bit disingenuous for people who have never read her blog until today to answer that she's treated more politely from the right than the left because she never criticizes Bush. That's simply not true. And it's a question she has pondered before today's lamentable outpouring from the left, which is completely contrary to the tone of comments from her regular readers, both left and right.

J said...

alcibiades, thanks for the link to that post of Ann's.

It sure doesn't help with the cognitive dissonance tho. Complaining about Kerry for being wooden, not listening to questions & repeating the same stump speech lines? Has Ann ever watched Bush in action? Or heck, Scotty or Ari?

Furthermore, she got turned off by Kerry's "wrong war, wrong time" & an Iraq strategy of "trust me to do it better, aiming at the same goals."

Sooo, whattya think now Ann? Impressed with the Bushies competence? Think this was the right war? We have Colin Powell's former aide remarking that helping Powell's bogus presentation to the UN was the lowest day of his life. We constantly get more & more evidence of the shoddy planning for post-invasion, and the daily headlines of deaths & bombings (and stats like our inability, still, to return Iraq's electricity levels to those before the war) show how messed up the situation is. The 53 year-old National Guard father of a childhood friend was recently called into service & ships to Iraq soon. That, excuse me, is fucked up. And we're sure to hear more about Abu Ghraib soon, if the "Rule of Law -- Not!" Administration ever complies with Court orders to turn over further photos...for that disaster alone, there should no longer have been a respectable choice to vote for Bush.

I'd love to see either an apology to the country, world, and history, for voting for Bush, or a defense of why this was the Right War and how it has been carried out competently.

genoasail said...

Dr. Froward,

I know the phrase was 'media whore'. It could just has easily have been corporate whore or grief whore. My point being that clearly in the context of the post, the blogger did not trip over his hands and accidentally type the word whore. He meant whore when he wrote it. He meant to say a person that would whore for media attention. To interpret that initial post as anything else, is intellectually dishonest. And since the discussion was of vitriol in posts, I think that was a damn good example.

And help me out here--who were the left side bloggers who made a case for Belafonte, or anyone for that matter, using the term "house nigger" as an acceptable way to describe any other human being?

As far as expressing personal vitriol in blog posts, for me, it's not my style. If someone pisses me off that much, I would much rather do something constructive to vent--like give money to the ACLU.

Except I did write something once which expressed my stupification at a particular writer's continued defense of idiocy. And while not vitriolic per se, it wasn't terribly constructive. For which, I got a raft of crap from my commenters about the tone of the post detracting from the facts. Sometimes that is true, and in that case, it was.

On the otherhand, if something is a lie, I get annoyed when people call it misleading. And when something is spewing bullshit, I get annoyed by it being described as misinformation.

Right now in this country, there are liars in front of microphones, telling lies about important issues facing America, and there is proof of that. And Right now in America, there are also people spreading bullshit because it serves their political interests to do so.

So while I agree that vitriol tends to be counterproductive, I would concomitantly warn against tamping down your correct and continual impulse to call, "Liar" when you are being lied to, and "Bullshit" when you know some is deliberately disseminating information that the know to be substantively untrue, or has had the truth of it materially altered.

Brian said...

Ms. Althouse writes, "I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been?"

That's what Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Report is about, particularly subsection 2. Always helpful to verify something at the source when one expresses an opinion. I think that along with benefiting Ms. Althouse, it would also help the commenters here on both sides if they actually read the report.

mrgumby2u said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jon Cipriani said...

I think the basic lesson we can take from this thread is the following: no matter how socially liberal you are, if you are something of a hawk on foreign policy generally or Iraq specifically, you will be openly and viciously ostracized by the left.

If this attitude ever begins to fade, expect Republicans to start losing elections again. Otherwise, expect results like the last three election cycles.

miklos rosza said...

mr gumby,

in france, michel houellebecq (a very popular and critically acclaimed novelist, somewhat along the lines of a young saul bellow or philip roth or norman mailer) was prosecuted for "hate speech" because one of his fictional characters, who was an atheist, talked about how all religions are stupid but islam is the stupidest. i contributed to his defense fund.

theo van gogh was assassinated in amsterdam after making a short film detailing about islamic abuse of women, including marriage of children, "honor-rapes"", "honor" killings, female circumcison, etc.

70% of all reported rapes in norway are committed by muslim men.

in vancouver bc and toronto there have been movements to bring "voluntary" sharia law for muslims. how voluntary would this be and where would this lead? would the aclu support this in detroit or newark?

in florida a woman went to court because she did not, as a muslim (a convert, by the way) want her photo on her driver's license. do you support this, mr gumby?

in britain, the "right" for a teenage girl to wear the hijab to school was won in court. would you support this here in the u.s. mr humby?

do you think women should wear be covered from head to toe because the sight of their hair or bare arms or legs inflames men to rape?

do you think muslims who leave the muslim religion or become atheists should be killed? it says they should be in the koran. are you against the koran?

the fatwa against salman rushdie has never been rescinded. do you think he should be killed for his satirical novel "the satanic verses"?

in thailand recently muslims threatened anyone who opened their shop on friday that they would have their ears cut off? is this acceptable to you?

in australia a recent spate of gang-rapes (many captured on video) was found to be the work of a muslim gang of young men who saw no sin in raping infidel women or muslim girls who wore revealing clothes.

muslim groups in canada and france have tried to restrtict the sale of alcohol and pork products and ham.

if you know of a case in which anyone other than islamists have blown up innocent civilians, please share it us. (and let's rule out sri lanka and the IRA.)

do you remember beslan, in russia, where chechen islamists murdered chldren at school?

no trend yet?

and by the way, OF COURSE most muslims are reasonable human beings. i have lived in morocco and marseille and perhaps know this fairly well.

but it's like the black power movement of the late 60s. it's a fashion. you can't hear a rap song in marseille without the fool throwing in how he'd like to go on jihad.

this isn't going away on its own.

and the root causes are bikinis and feminism as much as anything else. do you know that under the burkhas the women often wear victoria's secret lingerie?

this isn't a politics you should be using to score points. i've never been a republican. but thank god for the u.s. military even if the leadership above them makes mistakes. they always do, always, in every war. and this is a war.

Thersites said...

and regular readers like me don't find you terribly convincing when you start putting words like FACT CHECK in big caps

So you think Althouse's credibility is not at all damaged by her admission that she didn't check her facts.

However, drawing attention to this rather extraordinary admission in capital letters is a terrible Sin against Civil Discourse.

Interesting values you got there.

miklos rosza said...

pleases forgive my many typos in the above post. i'm sleepy.

i left out the iranian teenage girl hanged for premarital sex and the two iranian teenage boys hanged for being gay.

all of this is worse than a cancer. there exists in this war a hard component and a soft. the hard component involves weaponry and death. the soft is bogus political correctness, multiculturalism which has been deformed so that it closes rather than opens, and a great number of poseurs who parade as ultra-virtuous, ultra-righteous scolds -- the jerry falwells of the left.

Jacques Cuze said...

if you know of a case in which anyone other than islamists have blown up innocent civilians, please share it us.

Are you kidding me or just yourself.

Hint: Oklahoma.

miklos rosza said...

mt qxxo,

since 11 september 2001? as a trend? a group?

ohnobettemidler said...

Moon. Bats. Just shitting all over everywhere.

Control yourselves, people. You really think you're changing any minds?

Thersites said...

If this attitude ever begins to fade, expect Republicans to start losing elections again. Otherwise, expect results like the last three election cycles.

A lot of you seem to think that way. Why, I'm not sure. Every major poll has shown a steady, major erosion in support for the war.

I've also never seen a single scrap of objective evidence for the theory that being mean to Bush lost anyone any election.

But regardless. The notion that it's bad politics to denounce Bush head-on when he has totally lost moderate Democrats and Independents, largely because of the Iraqi disaster, is silly.

And I do indeed have nothing but contempt for people who sold out the rights of American citizens on reproductive and sexual issues because they supported an obviously ill-planned war that was dishionestly "sold."

By all means, though, continue to pretend that being called names by strangers on the internet puts you in the moral or intellectual right. It must be pretty to think so.

Oh, I am enjoying Mr. Rosza's contribution to the Evlevated Discourse which animates the right blogosphere. Good for you!

Thersites said...

Moon. Bats. Just shitting all over everywhere.

Control yourselves, people. You really think you're changing any minds?


You really think you are?

Ann Althouse said...

genoasail: I voted for Bush because I regard foreign policy as the most important function of the President. I gave Kerry a chance, but in the end I just couldn't trust him. Note that I voted for Feingold for Senator. I have a different view of what is needed in a Senator. By the way, a lot of people in Wisconsin did the same thing. Feingold got many more votes than Kerry.

To all the hotheads posting here: I could delete your posts, but I'm leaving them up because they disserve you.

Ann Althouse said...

Re fact-checking: Bloggers link to articles and opinion pieces all the time without independently checking the facts in them. If someone just sent me a friendly email when there's an error, I'd check into it and make a correction. There's nothing to flake out about. You're just being hardcore partisans looking for ways to attack all the terribly many people you view as your enemies.

Re the quotes in the header: They are a pretty recent addition, beginning with the Slate one, which I liked. (Slate's liberal, you know!) Then I just went back to other ones I could remember that were nice. If I had any from the left, I'd have loved to use them! That's my point. I didn't have them. Other than the Slate one.

Ann Althouse said...

buma: You think I'm a warblogger. Why? Read through the last month or year or whatever. Only a small percent of my posts are about the war!

JT Davis said...

J said...
Sigh.

Many of my fellow lefty travelers are indeed exhibiting awfully poor manners.

I apologize on their behalf.


We really need more apologists on the left.

(sarcasm off)

EddieP said...

Thank you Miklos for your summary of reasons we are at war with Islamofascists. The war in Iraq is Saddam's war not Bush's. Saddam could have sent Bush running home with a simple deception to give UNSCOM unfettered access. Had Saddam done that, there is no way Bush could have gotten the congress to authorize the action. I happen to believe that Bush would not have been disappointed had there been a way to avoid the invasion. I'm personally glad that Saddam didn't give him a choice.

For you lefties, as to the rest of the War on Terror, Bush is one of the world's leaders that recognize and are working on the problem. It was here a long time before Bush became president, and it will be here a long time after he's gone.

So, why don't the lefties try and help our side? Hillary says she believes in the WoT. If you want to regain the White House, and fight the war a different way, you need to start courtin' some of us red staters, like it or not. Insulting us is no way to get us on your wagon.

JT Davis said...

if you know of a case in which anyone other than islamists have blown up innocent civilians, please share it us.

Atlanta? Eric Rudolph? The anti-abortion, pro-life (snicker) wingnuts? Why bother? These people are sycophants. And apologists on the left are enablers, J.

sidewinder said...

"...a woman named Ann Althouse ..."

now there's something to put your nose out of joint ... unless you're a woman named Ann Althouse, then it's just a factual ID.

It does, however, imply (among those who aren't clinically insane) the the writer doesn't know who this 'woman named Ann Althouse' is.

I can see where such a remark could throw Ms. Althouse, who aspires to, one day, be known simply as 'Ann' (or maybe 'Althouse'), into fits of apoplectic "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM??!!??" rage. But for the rest of us it's just another ho-hum moment in a long series of the same.

Try to maintain a sense of perspective, Ms Althouse, it does a word of good for your blood pressure.

Ann Althouse said...

Elizabeth: Throughout the campaign season, I openly talked about the candidates and was undecided until the end of September. During that whole period, I got no attention from lefty bloggers, while righty bloggers were engaging with me. All I'm saying is, lefties, you're not very good at engaging people who aren't hard left! If I were more right wing, I'd just laugh at you for being so inept. Here I am, trying to help, willing to engage with you, not responding to your ugliness with ugliness, and all you want to do is keep being nasty. Good luck with that!

Larry: On bringing out bullies by being perceived as weak. I don't think a centrist needs to be wishy-washy and I don't think reaching out to the other side is being weak. Anyway, I am using this experience as a crucible and intend to become stronger. This kind of attack is part of getting visibility, and I want to be a high profile blogger, so I accept what comes with it. It's nice to finally get a link from Atrios, who has never bothered with me before. I think it should count as strength that I'm not letting the jerks in the group get to me. I spent a lot of time the other day really arguing over many of the points, and I've gotten better at predicting what's going to be fruitless. So let the bullies go ahead and try to bait me. I genuinely appreciate the extra traffic and I think their idiotic behavior stands is self-refuting.

JT Davis said...

Althouse,

If you think you are a "centrist" (I don't buy it), your equilibrium is out of whack and you must bang into walls with the lights on when executing 45 degree turns. Start calling Clinton the best Republican preznit since Eisenhower, he was, and people might take you seriously. Nah. Normal people will never take you Instaputz seriously. It's once again time to jump across your shallow little pond.

RIP GOP



Conservative-talk icon Rush Limbaugh's show has lost 43 percent of its audience among 25- to 54-year-olds in the past year. Sean Hannity's show is down a whopping 63 percent. The shift is serious enough that "we're weighing where these shows fit for us in the future," according to Todd Fisher, general manager at KSTP (1500 AM), which carries both syndicated programs.

(...)

"We are giving a lot of consideration to the nationally syndicated shows like Rush and Hannity," said KSTP's Fisher. "We have really become concerned with what I would call their tight play list of topics revolving around politics. We respect them and they've done well for us, but we're really in a quandary here."

Thersites said...

Anyway, I am using this experience as a crucible and intend to become stronger. This kind of attack is part of getting visibility, and I want to be a high profile blogger, so I accept what comes with it.

Glad to see the not-fact-checking policy is working out for you so well! Kudos! You're going to be a STAR!

JT Davis said...

During that whole period, I got no attention from lefty bloggers, while righty bloggers were engaging with me. All I'm saying is, lefties, you're not very good at engaging people who aren't hard left!

LMAO! Brainwashed! Or are you playing the lost damsel rescued by the right? Who wants you, you simpering wimp? They can keep you!

fishbane said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
miklos rosza said...

The election is over. GWB will never run again. So why don't any of you coming over here seem to care one tiny bit about the agenda of Islamists -- just as regards women? Let's ignore everything else.

It seems like all you care about is scoring minuscule "gotcha" political points or namecalling. Someone said "I have nothing but contempt for anyone who voted for Bush." Well, I don't have contempt for you, even if I think you're wrong. "Nothing but contempt" seems like awfully strong, dehumanizing language to me.

If you're uninterested in dialogue with anyone who disagrees with you on anything, then what is that?

Jacques Cuze said...

Counselor, you breathe some very rareified air if you think these "attacks" are ugly and nasty.

I would actually be very interested in a post from you in which discuss why you think the behavior of the posters here is anyway idiotic. Uncivil sure, but I think given the economic realities and incentives of the intarweb, teh behavior is completely rational, and far far from idiotic.

Arguably, unless you are a top-tier blogger, just participating in the intarweb as blogger or commenter is idiotic in the sense of this famous cliche:

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Also, regarding this quote of yours, I don't think a centrist needs to be wishy-washy and I don't think reaching out to the other side is being weak. Oxymoron alert. Self-contradiction inside. How can a centrist reach out to the other side?

That you have ambitions for your blog, that you think this attack is part of raising your visibility, that you pose that you are being nastily attacked when you really haven't been, that you market yourself as a centrist that reaches out to the other side. My conclusion: you're a wanker.

fishbane said...

miklos rosza asks many questions. I'm not 'mr. gumby' (I think I must have missed that comment, anyway), but I'll pull out the 'yes' questions; if I omit one, the answer is no.

- in florida a woman went to court because she did not, as a muslim (a convert, by the way) want her photo on her driver's license. do you support this, mr gumby?

yes.

- in britain, the "right" for a teenage girl to wear the hijab to school was won in court. would you support this here in the u.s. mr humby?

yes.

- if you know of a case in which anyone other than islamists have blown up innocent civilians, please share it us. (and let's rule out sri lanka and the IRA.)

Oklahoma; Unabomber; whats-his-face-the-abortion-clinic-bomber. Let's not forget the strong smell of domestic coverup with the whole anthrax thing; there's also the nutcase environmentalist that was torching SUVs. The latter two weren't bombs, and the last one wasn't directed at people, but I do count them all as terrorism. Also note that two on the list (maybe three; the anthrax case is unsolved) are "leftists", whatever that means today.

I did see you'd like to limit this to "since 9/11; I find that arbitrary. "Current generation" would appear to be better - fights tend not to last much longer without serious state aid.

- do you remember beslan, in russia, where chechen islamists murdered chldren at school?

yes.

-----

Now that we're clear on that, so what? I can come up with a list of (make your own!) : {white, black, jewish, asian, mexican, western, democrat, republican, catholic, libertarian, green, californian, cheese eating}, {murderer, pedophile, racist, sexist, fascist, embezzeler, athiest, psychotic, philanderer, puppy killer, vampiric minion of Dick Cheney}. (OK: not all of those options. As I understand it, the vampiric minions of Dick Cheney are forbidden from living in California - something about a labor dispute with the Governator's vampires.)

In any case, your list proves only that there are a lot of people in the world. Islam, I believe, is currently being singled out; and so of course there are flareups. If we declared "war on accounting fraud", you'd see a lot of misdeeds about that in the news; if we declared "war on white supremacy", I bet white supremacist violence would go up.

Ann Althouse said...

Brian: "That's what Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Report is about, particularly subsection 2. " I said I wanted something unbiased. My point here is that Gorelick's having played a role in the events being analyzed makes is a point of bias for the Commission.

Jacques Cuze said...

Companies occasionally produce a product and then market it with two different brands, both to appeal to different segments of the market, as well as to legitimize the product itself. Ford and Mercury. GM and Pontiac.

Michael Totten and Ann Althouse?

If you aren't Michael Totten (or Roger Simon or Jeff Jarvis) you may wish to be careful, I think one of them has the copyright on
"social liberal centrist war hawk trying to reach out to the left but being dissed" and who knows, they might come after you....

fishbane said...

Oh, and I forgot to add: Ann: Sorry you're singled out on the abuse here. A bunch of rude people are abusing you here, and personally I'd take it as a compliment.

I do disagree with you on this one; I think the obsession with either Gorelick or Shaffer is rather weird, and a big distraction from much more important things. But rude people, no matter what their politics, do indeed suck (94% of dental hygenists agree.), and I wish they'd go away. Heck, then the housing prices would go down, too, and I could buy the loft I'm currently renting.

Larry said...

Ann: I don't think a centrist needs to be wishy-washy and I don't think reaching out to the other side is being weak.

Okay. But what I'm trying to say is that there's an alternative to thinking of yourself as -- or, more pertinently, to striving to be, and be seen as -- a "centrist" or being on either "side". And that's simply to strive to say and to do "the right thing" (so to speak). If you do that, then after the fact you and others may find that you're predominantly right wing or left wing or dead in the middle. In that way, the center certainly wouldn't be wishy-washy, as you say, because it wouldn't be a goal but simply a result. What I'm arguing against, in other words, is label allegiance, especially of the sort we've seen from the left here.

I agree, by the way, that reaching out to the "other side" isn't necessarily weak, if by the "other side" you simply mean people who have different opinions. But if you're referring to people who have sunk their entire sense of self into an attachment to a political label -- then I'd say the project isn't weak (that's just how they perceive it), but it's hopeless.

This isn't to take anything away from you, your blog in general, and these posts in particular, all of which seem admirably thoughtful, interesting, and -- it needs to be said in this bizarre political climate -- sane.

Jon Cipriani said...

Thersites at 4:38 responding to my 3:53 comment:

"I've also never seen a single scrap of objective evidence for the theory that being mean to Bush lost anyone any election."

Uh, that was not my thesis; I never said anything about "being mean to Bush". My point was in regards to the left's utter rejection of socially liberal hawks, as manifest in this thread. Perhaps you would argue that people with such views don't comprise a significant segment of the population that can be persuaded to support the Democratic party. But calling them names is a good way to ensure that you'll never find out.

Jim C. said...

"As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year."

Daniel Okrent, then-public editor of the NY Times, Oct 10, 2004.

I see things haven't changed at all.

quxxo: given your calling Bush a "chimp", it follows that since Kerry's grades were no better than Bush's, Kerry's a chimp, too. Name-calling is rarely productive, but if the names apply to your own side just as well, you only look that much stupider.

Thersites said, "I've also never seen a single scrap of objective evidence for the theory that being mean to Bush lost anyone any election."

Granted one vote may not lose an election, but abuse like calling Bush "Hitler" and comparing the Gitmo guards' behavior to that of Nazis goes far beyond "being mean" and has lost my vote for a Democrat at the national level for the foreseeable future.

Even if by some miracle leftists sincerely apologize and condemn and forego such rhetoric, I won't believe it.

In fact, my patience with the left ended a while ago and I won't waste any energy wading through abuse to maybe find a grain or two of something worthwhile.

fishbane said...

Thersites at 4:38 responding to my 3:53 comment:

Did anyone else see that and (for a second) think there was an alternate reality biblical quotation war going on?

Ann Althouse said...

Larry: I don't "try" to be a centrist. I really am in the center. I'm not partisan and don't like either party much at all. I have an aversion to party politics and I don't like the excess passion in politics. I'm genuinely trying to speak honestly about the things I perceive that seem worth sharing for one reason or another. One of my main topics all along has been the quality of political discourse. I write about it not to complain about how I'm treated but because it's important and I think I have something to say on the topic. That's much of what this post is all about.

Ann Althouse said...

SJS: When Clinton was first running for President, in the primaries, I rejected him, saying "He's a Republican." I think it would be good for the Republican Party to have some people like him (as it used to). And I think it's good for the Democratic Party to have some hawks. Apparently, Hillary Clinton thinks so too.

fishbane said...

Thersites 4:38: Lo, and the wind cried, "Mary", and the rows between the corn flowed with the blood of the centrist bloggers, and distress did reign umong the mighty, and the humble did cast aspersions/

vs.

Cipriani 3:53: And verily, did the fortunes of those who would assert authority wax and wane under the pressure of the humble, until empire crumble, or spires rise, and the centrists did fortell, but for naught, for a mighty flood of discontent did overwelm them./

Sorry, I'll shut up now.

miklos rosza said...

fishbane,

i'm still adjusting to the fact that you think it's a fine thing for muslim women to have driver's licences with the photo having them wearing in effect a mask, so that as a meeans of ID it's worth exactly... what?

and that you are for young girls being forced by their families to wear the hijab to school (because if you think it's voluntary you're certainly kidding yourself other than in the occasional case -- where it pleases the teenage bullies and serves as a perverse form of rebellion). but you're ok with america being unfree for muslim females, and for this slavery to be manifest in their garb.

it's as if pat robertson said no girl should be allowed be wear a skirt above the ankles or short sleeves or go without a scarf covering her hair.

i don't like it when people overuse the term "racist," but that's getting there. read hirsa ali (before they murder her as they've promised to do).

and when we talk about bombing innocent civilians, everyone knows the reality. mcveigh is buried in the ground and eric rudolph is in jail. they're hardly a well-funded worldwide movement. it's utterly disingenuous to invoke them as being in any way equal to the islamists.

Larry said...

Ann: I don't "try" to be a centrist. I really am in the center.

Right, good. And I'm very much with you in your aversion to party -- esp. partisan -- politics. But what if you found yourself taking up positions that were increasingly labelled as one political wing or another -- would it trouble you that you wouldn't still be able to claim that your really are "in the center"? Would you feel a need to move away from some of those positions in order to stay in the center? I think, and hope, that the answer is probably not. But I make this point -- addressing it not just to you but to others reading this thread -- because I think such labelling exerts real, but illegitimate pressure on people, not least through their social relationships, and I'd like to see us all overcome that.

fishbane said...

Miklos,

i'm still adjusting to the fact that you think it's a fine thing for muslim women to have driver's licences with the photo having them wearing in effect a mask, so that as a meeans of ID it's worth exactly... what?

I'm one of those quaint people who thinks that a license is just that. If we issue ID to people, we should do so explicitly, no sneaking it in. The fact that the possession of a license might be the fraudulent use of someone elses should not enter in to it. There are other ways to prove identity, and if those are insufficient, let the government impose a national ID scheme.

and that you are for young girls being forced by their families to wear the hijab to school (because if you think it's voluntary you're certainly kidding yourself other than in the occasional case -- where it pleases the teenage bullies and serves as a perverse form of rebellion). but you're ok with america being unfree for muslim females, and for this slavery to be manifest in their garb.


I'm not saying I like it. I also wish that many of the folks who teach their children at home would give their kids a real education (no offense to a very few homeschoolers, you know who you are) instead if indoctrinating them into cultish behaviour, or that the various camps that "cure gay teens" didn't exist, But parents have a right to raise kids as they see fit, even if I think it is wrong to teach them the way certain people would like to do so. Of course there are limits, but I can't see how dress codes are part of that.


I also don't like the fact that the children in Kansas are being taught that the flying spagetti monster, excuse me, intelligent designers are being exchanged for biological fact. I think the government should stay out of education to a rather severe degree. That also includes allowing parents to choose clothing for their kids. To the extent it is involved, I'd rather that it stick to facts, while allowing that others have certain assumptions built in to their cultural makeup, one of which is religion.

If you are not prepared to accept that, I do wonder how much you're prepared to allow the government to, say, prepare meals for your child on your dime, help them pick a religion, and maybe help them affect an appropriate language that prepares them for the modern world. And of course, they have to dress for success.

ziemer said...

i remember a while back when i observed at this site that there is much more intellectual diversity and tolerance for disagreement on the right -- and that the left was an orthodoxy that punished any dissent with the label, "fascist."

and ann took issue with me, and defended the left.

as nice as it is to say, "i told you so," i wish it didn't have to take something as ugly as what happened here today to make the case.

Jacques Cuze said...

Better sit down Ann, you too Miklos. Iraq's women just got sold down the river by your chimpy d00d, the ferign policy exp3rt.

heh. heh. heh heh heh.

You may have misoverestimated him.

U.S. conceding to Iraqi Islamists, negotiators say

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Islam will be "the main source" of
Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position.

f agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq.

But an official from one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties and a leading Sunni Arab negotiator said agreement had been reached, reversing an understanding reached earlier in the recent talks that Islam would simply be "a main source" of law.

Parliament would not be able to pass legislation that contradicted the principles of Islam, several negotiators told Reuters. One Shi'ite official said that a constitutional court would decide whether laws conformed to Islamic faith.

But Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak said that, at the insistence of U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the constitution would also contain language stating that the "principles of democracy" would be respected.

Khalilzad, who said this month there would be "no compromise" on equal rights for women and minorities, helped draft a constitution in his native
Afghanistan which declared it an "Islamic Republic" in which no law could contradict Muslim principles.

It also, however, contained language establishing equal rights for women and protecting religious minorities.

Other Arab states, including secularly ruled Egypt, have similar phrasing in their constitutions, alloting a special role for Islam in the law.

Brian said...

Ms. Althouse writes, "My point here is that Gorelick's having played a role in the events being analyzed makes is a point of bias for the Commission." That's a reasonable point, although she was only one of ten Commission members, and the final report is substantially similar to the papers prepared by staff and not the Commission members.

But what you're really saying is that neither she nor anyone else who played a role in national security since the 1993 WTC bombing should have been on the Commission. Not sure I'd advise that, but I will stick with my advice that people commenting on the report should actually read it.

Freeman Hunt said...

Sometimes I have days when I think, "The left's not so bad. Both sides say some rash things." Then I see stuff like this. This thread is utterly pathetic. I hope it is not representative of the average.

Alcibiades said...

brian said: "But what you're really saying is that neither she nor anyone else who played a role in national security since the 1993 WTC bombing should have been on the Commission"

I think she is saying something narrower.

That people who wrote the policy should not have been on the Commission.

fishbane said...

quxxo: Better sit down Ann, you too Miklos. Iraq's women just got sold down the river by your chimpy d00d, the ferign policy exp3rt.

heh. heh. heh heh heh.

You may have misoverestimated him.


Are you simply a partisan jerk, or do you actually take pleasure in this outcome?

I'm actually curious. That the war in Iraq was a bad idea, I don't think you'd disagree with. That you're apparently happy that the constitution isn't going to turn out to be what we hoped is... inhuman, and partisan to the point where I (who have never supported this war in the first place) find your notion rather distresing.

Good lord. I can't imagine yet another Republican national sweep (look at the little boils of corrption breaking out), but this kind of partisan discourse is just embarrassing. At least hope that the Iraqis don't suffer a failed state, for dog's sake. Please.

Jacques Cuze said...

No, I take no pleasure in this outcome at all. It is a tragedy pure and simple. I think I was not clear, "heh. heh. heh heh heh" was my imitation of the chimp's notion of a snicker, not my taking pleasure at this at all.

I do think that Ann Althouse, who voted for Bush because she felt foreign policy was job one, and she couldn't trust Kerry, should be deep in rethink. Rice's current "success" is widely regarded as those things that Kerry had said we should be doing. Not only should she be rethinking her support of Bush, she should be taking responsibility for her actions. If she is of age, I would suggest she sign up. I also suggest she consider how she made such an egregious mistake, and what other possible mistakes she may have made.

In the meantime, Miklos, who claims to be concerned about women's rights and what muslim's are doing, well, I assume he is aghast about this as anyone.

And I assume he is about to apologize for his believing that the chimp was going to stand behind Iraq.

It seems we are not about to get the new democracy in Iraq that will transform the area. And tonight General Schoomaker is announcing plans to stay in Iraq at levels of 100,000 for four more years. Four more years. Four more years.

So much for Iran. And North Korea. And China.

This is a tragedy pure and simple. It would be good to see a centrist admit it.

Ann Althouse said...

Quxxo: What would Kerry have done differently? He had to deal with the situation that had already developed. What would he have done that would have made things work out better? By the way, I voted for Gore in 2000.

Thersites said...

So Jon C & Jim C concede that they have no evidence whatsoever that the "mean language" or whatever of the Left has ever substantially affected an election.

What a surprise.

You all DO realize, by the way, that all major polls now say independents tend to side Democratic by about 60-40 -- and that's generous?

Jacques Cuze said...

What might Kerry have done differently, starting in November 2004?

Not put such an intense focus on a deadline for a constitution?

Placed a firm timetable (based on benchmarks) for our withdrawal?

Increased the number of troops as appropriate? Improved how we train Iraqi troops? Improved how we train the leaders of those Iraqi troops (which many people say we are NOT doing at all.)

Moved to move NATO, or the UN, or Arab troops in? Reconciled with our allies? Moved to get rid of Halliburton as much as possible, favoring local companies in rebuilding their country? Redoubled, retripled efforts to improve local conditions by importing large numbers of electrical generators and then using locals to guard those and connect them to the grid?

Placed more women in the constitutional committees? Made agreement that sharia law not be the primary source of law and a pro-women's right laws be a benchmark in our withdrawal?

Ann, so go on vacation already.

Thersites said...

What would Kerry have done differently?

He would not have felt politically compelled to avoid copping to the rather spectacular errors made by another administration. In other words, he wouldn't have had to keep lying to the American people.

Mr. Rosza is one sick puppy. I can see where your moral authority over there on the Right springs from.

fishbane said...

quxxo,

As an anti-Bush person (I'll say it; I don't like him, what he's done to our nation, nor what he's done to the world in our name), as a person who doesn't like legitimized torture, or curtailed liberties in a 'war time' that does not seem terribly limited, I've got to say, you're not a fellow traveller. I wish I could say "get off the bus", but I ain't a hippy, we're not driving anywhere, and, honestly, I think you are directing your energy poorly. Hint (1): Ann is not the problem, and attacking her does nothing. Concentrate your energy on whatever you believe is most important right now (personally, I believe it is getting out of Iraq with minimal loss of life and money, while balancing against the future costs of a failed state sitting right in the middle of ...sorry... the oil fields needed to sustain our way of life. I think everyone is close to agreeing that we can't put down the rebellion without conscription. How do we minimze harm?) (2) if you haven't noticed, being rude is not really something that advances your point, (3) raise money for someone, whomever you feel should be in place. Becase, yes, it sucks, that's how it works now.

But for the love of dog, quit attacking Ann. Don't be a goofball.

Ann Althouse said...

You're free to fantasize that Kerry would have solved all the problems, but you don't convince me. I didn't vote for him because I thought he'd make things worse. He couldn't commit to following through, and I'm afraid he would have abandoned Iraq into chaos, which would have led to further bad effects.

fishbane said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thersites said...

You're free to fantasize that Kerry would have solved all the problems, but you don't convince me.

You mean, all the problems caused by the guy he was running against?

Right.

Thersites said...

I'm an anarcho-capitalist

I'm an anarcho-communo-syndicalist. Help, I'm being oppressed.

I agree that attacking Ms. Althouse is pointless; she is, however, a delightfully ludicrous human being, and continues to say the most hilarious things.

fishbane said...

Ann, that is interesting. While we're replaying history with alternate actors, what do you think would have happened given a Gore win?

In that case, we might have an Iraq much like it stood; nothing anyone likes, but not that different than many other nations. We would be richer, both in money spent and in military strength, which I don't think anyone disputes, (our nation's military is starting to look rather threadbare at the moment - this is a simple fact). What if that money went elsewhere? I'm sure we could have knocked North Korea over, for instance. Not that I'm saying that was more worthwhile, but I do think this sort of question should be asked. Honestly - what should we buy for a baseline $300B, and the military sunk costs (which I have no idea how to calculate, 'cause I'm not that kind of accountant)?

As far as it goes, I'm an anarcho-capitalist; I am rather sure my political bent would be similar to our founding fathers. For the most part, I am really disturbed by how statist our government under Bush is. While he makes lots of noise about freedom, it seriously looks like nothing more than a hip up on history, and a pile of folks that are interested in the next election.

fishbane said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

Mr. Rosza,

Your list was a good one, and fair, but you omit that Iraq will likely be under Sharia law after this new constitution goes into place, and Iraqi women will now be much more restricted than they were under the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. How's that for irony, huh?

And add, please, Eric Alan Rudolph to your list of people who kill innocent civilians in the name of patriarchal religion/ideology.

fishbane said...

I'm an anarcho-communo-syndicalist. Help, I'm being oppressed.

I agree that attacking Ms. Althouse is pointless; she is, however, a delightfully ludicrous human being, and continues to say the most hilarious things.


Perhaps all of that is true. I would encourage you to fill trains full of clowns, or play at burning man, or do funny things with teddybears from time to time. Yes, I find that funny, but no, I don't find it funny when you attack people who might agree with you. Bah, screw it, I'm going back to learning Swedish. That way, I'll get into Finland without too many questions.

Elizabeth said...

Ann, in your response to me you say

Here I am, trying to help, willing to engage with you, not responding to your ugliness with ugliness, and all you want to do is keep being nasty. Good luck with that!

I hope that second person was directed at some general idea of leftists and not me specifically, as I've been quite careful to avoid ugliness and nastiness in the midst of this discussion, and indeed overall as I enjoy reading and posting to your blog, despite disagreeing with political bent of many of your readers. Maybe I'm being a bit oversensitive; am I?

Thersites said...

Yes, I find that funny, but no, I don't find it funny when you attack people who might agree with you.

Nah, she'll never agree with me. She wants to be an Important Blogger? Sorry, but she's a clown.

I gotta say, lots of people on this thread are basically saying, waaaaah, the left was mean, so I voted for Bush.

Look, it's a Bad Word... but wow, what a bunch of wankers. Nobody needs to court you, or will. Bye-bye.

Swopa said...

I don't "try" to be a centrist. I really am in the center. I'm not partisan and don't like either party much at all. . . . One of my main topics all along has been the quality of political discourse.

Which, of course, is why Ann is posting items from the Investor's Business Daily editorial page ... which is where centrists always go for sensible, objective, non-partisan information.

That's some prizewinning hypocrisy you've got there, Ann. No wonder Glenn saw you as a fitting substitute.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Wow... Reading through all of the comments here has made me physically ill.

A couple of things. Politics, you know, involves compromise.

Like Ms. Althouse, I am pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage, but voted for Bush.

There are many reasons for this, but the primary ones were: that it was not at all clear what Kerry stood for (I am not sure that he knew what he stood for); I prefer the people Bush would appoint as agency heads and judges than those Kerry would appoint (because I still believe, in you know, that doctrine called federalism which the NYT seems to think is discredited); as bad as Bush's economic policies have been on the spending side, those of the Democrats would have been worse; in the end, I really do think that democratization in the Middle East is important, even if I do think that a lot of what Bush has done to that end has been incompetent. As far as abortion and gay rights: there is no way that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. It just won't happen, in my opinion. And there is also no way that the Federal Marriage Amendment will ever pass. So, the things I did care about, Bush was essentially harmless on.

Now, certainly Kerry had his allure in some ways, but I could not reasonably vote for him.

Does that make me evil?

If you people ever read this blog, you would have maybe noticed Prof. Althouse criticizing the Bush administration and Republicans many many times. But no, I guess it is more convenient for you to come here and thump your chest at her.

If you think that people like Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse are partisan hacks for the Right, well, your credibility has now officially been shot. Go back to your daily Atrios and Think Progress reading. Because you know, Duncan Black, a strategist for the Democratic Party, he's not partisan or anything. Naah.

P. Froward said...

Scott: Good points about comments, Haloscan, quoted text, etc. 376 is not an accurate count of posts using that phrase. But remarkably foul language does crop up regularly in posts on Kos, outside of quotation marks; that's no secret. Glance down the first page of that Google search and you'll see several. I don't see much of that on conservative blogs, certainly not on ones as popular as Kos (Kim du Toit does swear like a sailor sometimes, and No Pasaran! is often wildly scurrilous, but those don't hold a fraction of the audience Kos does).

I wonder if H. S. Thompson isn't the problem. Have you ever run into any of those third-rate writers of the '30s and '40s who imitated Hemingway very obviously, and very badly? It's painfully awful stuff to read now, but at the time it must have looked very stylish to some people, if it found its way into print.

genoasail: The "whore" in "media whore" is figurative, not literal. "Media whore" is a stock phrase, commonly used. Malkin used it to mean what it means, and that meaning has nothing to do with literal prostitution. As I said before, and as I am about to say again, I'm not too keen on that kind of abusive language in debates about serious issues. And once more: I find it objectionable regardless of who does it.

I'm not sure what your point is about "misinformation" vs. "bullshit". If you run around yelling obscenities, most people will write you off as immature and overexcitable. You may think they ought not to, but they will anyway. If you figure you can find each one of them and talk each one into seeing it your way (probably by swearing at them), I won't try to stop you.

Is it that you think your feelings are a crucial component of your message? The thing is, your feelings interest me about as much as mine interest you: Zero.

Thersites said...

Because you know, Duncan Black, a strategist for the Democratic Party, he's not partisan or anything. Naah.

A "strategist for the Democratic Party"?

Uh, what are you smoking, and can I have some?

Your opinions don't make you evil. They don't make you especially smart, either.

The Exalted said...

Ann Althouse said...
Quxxo: What would Kerry have done differently? He had to deal with the situation that had already developed. What would he have done that would have made things work out better? By the way, I voted for Gore in 2000.


For starters, he would have seriously investigated 1) torture in Guantanamo Bay, 2) torture in Abu Gharaib, and 3) torture in Afghanistan.

As a law professor, I would hope you are concerned with the fact that our military has tortured and killed prisoners in a systemic fashion.

It is the disdain that this administration treats the rule of law that most concerns me.

I am a liberal hawk, yet I feel that Iraq was a ridiculous war based on lies that has made the situation much worse. Unless you think that an anti-American, pro-Iranian Islamist state is a good outcome.

ziemer said...

hate to interrupt the invective, but somebody has to say the following, which actually concerns the origin of this whole post:

the wall street journal was shouting to anyone who would listen, many, many, months ago that gorelick was an important witness, and as such, should not have been a member of the commission.

those shouts were ignored.

now, the report has come out, and people who don't read wsj have realized that one of the commissionsers actually should have been a witness, rather than a commissioner.

that's not to say 9/11 was gorelick's fault. it was not.

it just means that she shouldn't have been on the commission, because it was known long ago that she was a witness who would need to be subpoenaed.

but nobody listened.

and so here we are now, the report's released, and its credibility is being questioned, because one of the commissioners should have been a party subpoenaed, rather than a party issuing subpoenaes.

like i said, i'm not saying gorelick is at fault. i'm just saying she didn't belong on the commission, given her status as as someone who needed to testify befre the commission, and that point was made strenuously by the wsj long, long, ago.

the result of the refusal to pay attention is what we see today -- that the report of the commission is not taken seriously, but is deemed a whitewash.

i'm not saying its a whitewash. i'm just saying that its considered one by many people, for a reason that was obvious to anyone paying attention long ago.

Ann Althouse said...

Fishbane: What do I think Gore would have done? That's a topic discussed on this blog a week ago: here.

Ann Althouse said...

Elizabeth: I'm not talking about you. The statement you quoted is about lefty bloggers who pay attention to me. You're a great commenter, and I appreciate the comments from the left like yours. My local friends are mostly to my left as well, and they are in no way jerks. And I should also give credit to Kevin Drum, who started out doing the usual lefty blogger thing to me, but stopped (for various reasons).

Ann Althouse said...

Swopa: Re quoting Investor's Business Daily: I introduced a quote from them with the statement that it was "harsh." My whole post that people freaked out about what just one of those, look what some people are saying posts. I never said I agree or they're right or anything. So your comment makes no sense.

You know, if you folks are so interested in getting facts straight, why do you continually fail to get the facts you state about ME straight? Apparently, your concern isn't with truth, but with your own politics. Truth is just a means to an end for you. A lot of bloggers should be apologizing to me for smearing me and unleashing this ugliness on me. But you're concerned about Gorelick's reputation. Why? Because of Truth? Ha!

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

A "strategist for the Democratic Party"?

Uh, what are you smoking, and can I have some?

Your opinions don't make you evil. They don't make you especially smart, either.


Oh, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. A strategist for groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. Happy now? Is there any other way to interpret what Media Matters does other than to spread DNC talking points? Wasn't it created by a Clintonite DNC operative? I apologize that I conflated Media Matters with DNC. It's just too hard to tell the distinction sometimes.

Simon Kenton said...

It seems to me a maximo lider fantasy to think you can vote for any candidate from any party and expect to enjoy the sleep of reason and blessed inactivity for the next 4 years. It was obvious, for instance, that if Bush won we'd have to have more environmental vigilance; that if Kerry won there'd be more of the Kelo type decisions in prospect and more need for vigilance about gun control.

Like most of the regular commenters (and, I expect, readers) of this blog, I normally split my vote - in my case, among three parties. When I told some friends I was voting for a new, upstart Democrat for Senator because he had a good record on the local scene, they told me, "You're not voting for Salazar. When the chips are down, you're voting for Boxer, Kennedy, and Schumer."

I'm maintaining hopes I was right, but this comment thread suggests there is less and less room for the likes of me among the Democrats.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

For starters, he would have seriously investigated 1) torture in Guantanamo Bay, 2) torture in Abu Gharaib, and 3) torture in Afghanistan.

Umm... the military was already doing this. The only reason that you and I know about the fact that there was torture is because the lawyers for the yahoos who engaged in torture leaked the details of the investigation to embarass the military. Yes, just what we all would have needed: another blue ribbon fact-finding panel like the 9/11 commission. Give me a break!


As a law professor, I would hope you are concerned with the fact that our military has tortured and killed prisoners in a systemic fashion.

In a systemic fashion? Have you ever studied history? Do you have ANY perspective on the matter? Look, I think that the torture was atrocious, it embarassed us as a nation, it dehumanized us not just the detainees, and it should be investigated and punished vigorously. But when you guys start whining about how it is systematic and about how this administration is uniquely responsible for bad behavior by American soldiers, it makes me really wonder. American soldiers have committed torture in numerous wars. In fact, all soldiers have done that. Sometimes even at the command and direction of their superiors and even when the Geneva Convention does apply as a matter of law. Maybe before you start calling us callous, evil, stupid, etc. we should first agree on what the definition of torture is so that we can properly characterize behaviors afterwards. But before then, save the flamethrowing for the Democratic Underground blog.

28kwdws said...

"If someone takes the war on terrorism seriously, you start right in calling them not just conservative but right wing and even go for the Nazi references. What a sad, sorry display!"

First of all, terrorism is not a target, it is a tactic. You can't have a war against a tactic. The "war on terrorism" is a euphemism for something else.

The "war on terror" includes the probable crime of aggression against Iraq. It includes torture. It includes dumping everything that the US and others created at Nuremberg. It threatens to kill international law. The US, spearheaded by the "war on terror", is rapidly becoming globally known as the premiere terrorist state. I suspect that the left in the US takes the war on terrorism very, very seriously. This is doubly true, as the left believes that they are potential targets. This can be seen by the six-fold increase in the number of hits on the Canadian Immigration web site immediately following the re-election of George Bush.

If you want to end terrorism (an impossibility, but a very worthy dream) then the last thing you want to do is have a war.

Nazism is not accurate. On the other hand, there is some interesting discussion on the rise of fascism in the United States.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fascism.pdf

As for the sad sorry display, I would have said the same thing about a distinguished law professor making statements that could be construed as supporting crimes for which people where hung at Nuremberg.

Sebastian said...

The "war on terror" includes the probable crime of aggression against Iraq.

It continually amazes me how short some people's memories are. It's as if we attacked Iraq out of the blue after they were kind and friendly to us an their neighbors over the last 15 years.

A state of war has existed between Iraq and the US since 1991, ended only by a cease fire agreement which Saddam broke on a regular basis by firing on British and American warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone. Did Bill Clinton engage in a war of aggression against Iraq with the cruise missile attacks for both trying to assassinate a former president, and for kicking out the UN inspectors?

Saddam has been a long standing problem, and there was plenty of justification for taking him out.

Ann Althouse said...

28: your continual resort to Nazi imagery hurts your side of the argument more than you realize. An you're anti-war, but do you forget that it took war to defeat the Nazis? Perhaps you are a very young person. I hope you are, because if you're not, I just don't know what to say to you. I just wouldn't be interested in talking to you at all. But on the assumption that you are, I hope you take your studies seriously and keep your wits about you.

pseudolus said...

Oh, so cool and detached. A centrist, you say. Disgusted and alarmed by the inflammatory and juvenile comments here, written by nobodies from 'The Left'.

So, this is what makes you turn away from "The Left"? But the rabid rightwing bloviators with national audiences of millions don't disturb you. Hannity, Coulter, the Limbaughs, Savage, Dobson, Falwell, Frist, Santorum, Krauthammer, Horowitz, Scarborough, Malkin et al who appear constantly on TV and radio, and/or publish hate-filled books calling people who disagree with them 'TRAITORS' and worse. These folks make you feel all warm and cozy? You'd rather hang with THEM? There are few 'lefty' equivalents to those folks.

Oh, and Slate is Liberal like the DLC is Liberal, NOT! Republican-lite is what they are.

My comments rude? Hell! I'm angry. I'm angry at 25-30 years of being smeared and libeled by the right as a communist and traitor. I'm angry to see this country steered in a fascist direction by the likes of your pals on the right. The middle class is dieing while the rich get richer. Oh, yeah, I'm angry.

But, OK, Ann, get up on your high horse and sneer at the "lefty" commentors here. And you other commentors so appalled because you never see comments like that at your favorite right wing sites. What a narrow list of urls that must be, because the right is filled with hate mongers and venom spewers.

Here are a couple of posters who say it better than I can.

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

Jacques Cuze said...

Hi Ann,

Instead of just dismissing 28's comments as the comments of someone very young, or someone you would not be interested in speaking with, may I ask you to give him (and me and others) a full-fledged response in a blog post.

Please explain to us your views on why the rising power of the religious right, as seen in Schiavo, Justice Sunday and Justice Sunday II, in America and specifically within the Administration and within Congress, the attacks against academia and intellectuals ala Intelligent Design and Global Warming and how the closeness of the Administration to corporate entities, Halliburton, Enron, the Steel Industry, and how the dumbing down of our civil rights ala the Patriot Act, and the repeal of Habeas ala Gitmo, and the repeal of the Geneva Convention ala Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the rejection of the UN, the greater ease and allure of military solutions, the demonizing of allies that disagree with us, why all of this together should not alarm 28, or myself, or many of the friends I have that work with me in a very conservative state for a defense contractor?

I would think all of this taken together, as a pattern would be alarming to left and right.

So how is this different today than the rise of facism, or nazism was 70 years ago?

This is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to know. My father fought in WWII. I had relatives in the camps. I want to make sure that my daughters and their children do not face a similar fate.

Is this akin to the rise of nazism, or fascism, or just a swing of the American Pendulum?

My historical understanding and reading leads me to be very worried, and I would appreciate your insights.

pseudolus said...

Ann says: By the way, I voted for Gore in 2000.

And you aren't angry at the theft of that election? You are a Professor of Constitutional law and you are OK with that? Vincent Bugliosi pointed out what a poor bit of legal flim-flam that was, and he's no flaming lefty.

Yep, you're a centrist, alright. Afraid to make any enemies on either side, are you? Riding that fence as long as you can, hoping you'll fall off on the correct side when the smoke of battle clears.

There are conservative principles that I admire and liberal ones that I dislike. But, if I have to choose (and in a 2 party system you have to choose), being a leftwinger fits me better than being a rightwinger.

"In the middle of the road you only find yellow stripes and dead armadillos."

Thersites said...

Is there any other way to interpret what Media Matters does other than to spread DNC talking points? Wasn't it created by a Clintonite DNC operative?

Yes.

No.

Ratigan said...

Because someone calls you names, you are disgusted. Ann, that is relatively low in the register of what I would consider disgusting.

What I would consider disgusting is when trolls from the right attempt to shut down a blog by posting hundreds of blank lines, assuming regular commenters' identities while posting racist and anti-semitic comments, and linking to child porn over and over again, like what happened here. Atrios has had to put up with trolls like that as well.

pseudolus said...

miklos rosza said...

The election is over. GWB will never run again. So why don't any of you coming over here seem to care one tiny bit about the agenda of Islamists -- just as regards women? Let's ignore everything else.


Oh, we do care, Miklos, we do. But Iraq was a secular Islamic state. Women had more rights there than in most any other ME country. And today we find that Bush is giving in and letting Sharia law dominate their new constitution.

You are still conflating Iraq and Al Quada. Bush dropped his pursuit of the real criminals of 9/11 to pursue his Iraqui war. What a great success that has been. And you can't blame its failure on the left. The right has control of both houses of Congress, the White House and most of the Supreme Court and yet you righties can't get anything done because of us LIE-BRALS (sic). Boo Hoo Hoo. Either you are incompetent or we are so all powerful we will be running the universe in a few years and forcing all conservatives to have abortions and be homosexuals.

Thersites said...

the report of the commission is not taken seriously, but is deemed a whitewash.

Uh, the 9/11 Report is indeed taken very seriously.

On the other hand, nobody genuinely interested in, well, *anything* looks at the WSJ opinion page as anything but a sick joke.

Jacques Cuze said...

Kurds and Sunnis complain about Islamic Law in the Constitution and the forced timetable

The working draft of the constitution stipulates that no law can contradict Islamic principles. In talks with Shiite religious parties, Kurdish negotiators said they have pressed unsuccessfully to limit the definition of Islamic law to principles agreed upon by all groups. The Kurds said current language in the draft would subject Iraqis to extreme interpretations of Islamic law.

Kurds also contend that provisions in the draft would allow Islamic clerics to serve on the high court, which would interpret the constitution. That would potentially subject marriage, divorce, inheritance and other civil matters to religious law and could harm women's rights, according to the Kurdish negotiators and some women's groups.

Khalilzad supported those provisions and urged other groups to accept them, according to Kurds involved in the talks.

"Really, we are disappointed with that. It seems like the Americans want to have a constitution at any cost," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the constitutional committee. "These things are not good -- giving the constitution an Islamic face.

"It is not good to have a constitution that would limit the liberties of people, the human rights, the freedoms," Othman said.

Other delegates also complained about pressure from Khalilzad.

"His main interest is to push the constitution on time, no matter what the constitution has in it,'' said Salih Mutlak, a Sunni delegate who has been outspoken against some compromise proposals.

"No country in the world can draft their constitution in three months. They themselves took 10 years," Mutlak said, referring to the United States. "Why do they wish to impose a silly constitution on us?"

Jacques Cuze said...

Militias on the Rise Across Iraq
Shiite and Kurdish Groups Seizing Control, Instilling Fear in North and South. BASRA, Iraq -- Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents have said they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.


This doesn't seem like a foreign policy success to me.

rainlion said...

"I didn't fact check"

That pretty much seems to sum up the greatest weakness in all of your arguments. You consistently make these proclamations, and doggedly stick to them regardless of facts...

Then you get ticked when people respond to your blunt needle pricklings. Please...

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Thersites--

You're right about the Clintonite part. It's run by David Brock. For some reason I thought that it was run by John Podesta. As for the other point, it is clearly a mouthpiece for the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Read their own mission statement!

Ratigan--

How do you know that it is trolls from the Right and not spambots or some such. Have you been over to Greg Djerejian's in the past year so? His comments had been taken over by the same "trolls from the Right." Regardless, so are you saying that you're taking it out on Ann for the fact that some idiot who votes Republican decided to ruin one of Atrios' comments' sections? Wow, I'm really glad that our political discourse has become so mature.

Pseudolus--

Slate and the DLC are Republican lite? So in other words, anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a right-winger. Ahh, I see.

Also, you really fail to understand nuance. Anyone who lumps Charles Krauthamer (who is pro-choice, pro-evolution, pro-gun control) with Dobson and Falwell is so blinded by ideology that he fails to see the gradations and distinctions among his opponents. It's like the people who call Thomas a Scalia clone and yet completely fail to understand the traditionalist/libertarian divide on the Right. Keep trucking my friend. There's many more elections for your side to lose yet!

quxxo--

Please explain your views on the rise of the laborite left (as far as its influence in the DNC goes) that is willing to throw the rest of America overboard to protect a few. Please explain your views on the rise of Ralph Neas and Nan Aron who find it ok to smear good people's names and distort judges' rulings. Please explain your views on the rise of Michael Moore who seems to think it is ok to say that the insurgents in Iraq are the moral ones and our soldiers deserve to die for only then will God forgive us. Please explain your views on the rise of Ward Churchill and his newfound fame on college speaking circuits.

Also, why do you think that this is a discussion about the Religious Right and about the war in Iraq? Is it to give you moral cover for comporting yourself like a pig? I guess if you think that Ann is pure evil, you're justified, huh?


rainlion--

It is one thing to respond, and it is another to berate, bash, and call someone evil. Sorry, but there's a difference. As Ann said, if someone had sent her a civil email, she would have done further research on it.


Disgusting, just disgusting. Maybe you guys should stop hiding behind handles and put your real names on here. That might make you more responsible.

Jacques Cuze said...

Yevgeny, tovarich, fellow mathematican and physicist, what is your obsession with evil? You are the only person to bring up evil in this discussion? No one has called Ann evil. No one has called you evil.

I think you may be projecting again. You also have been misreading these comments and putting words into people's mouths. My bringing up the religious right was in direct response to Ann's patronizing dismissal to 28.

And yeah, when Nan and Ralph have the name recognition and power of James Dobson and ID is not being taught in the classrooms, then I will tell you what I think of the laborite left in the DNC.

In the meantime my precise mathematician, I will note that Michael Moore, movie maker, classifies himself as an independent.

Yevgeny, tovarich, you call me a pig and then tell me that your reading of these comments make you physically ill?

pseudolus said...

Please explain your views on the rise of Ward Churchill and his newfound fame on college speaking circuits.

The right wing bloggers brought him to public attention. Nobody knew who he was until then. As for speaking engagements, if no one is interested no one will hire him. It's called the free market, remember? As for me, I think he's a dipshit.

Disgusting, just disgusting. Maybe you guys should stop hiding behind handles and put your real names on here. That might make you more responsible.

Been there, done that. Got flamed and threatened by LGF and Freepers.

And where is the right's sense of nuance in differentiating lefty personalities. Oh, wait that's a French word. Can't adopt that in the English language.

And just because Krauthammer differs from Falwell on evolution and such doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me when they both support this corrupt regime. I have noted all along that the right is not as monolithic as some would like to claim it is. I see the differences all the time on such sites as Free Republic. I see atheists and xtian fundamentalists arguing all the time over there, as well as other factions. They are all joined at the hip though in believing Bush and the right can do no wrong and Clintons and the left can do no right.

Thersites said...

For some reason I thought that it was run by John Podesta. As for the other point, it is clearly a mouthpiece for the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Read their own mission statement!

Center for American Progress is the Podesta outfit.

MM is no such thing as you say it is. Your charge is, indeed, patently ridiculous -- as a quick look at their site should inform you.

The conception of "civil discourse" I see at this site is pretty debased. Mostly it seems to mean not using curse words. Regard for knowing what you're talking about? Not so much.

You, for instance, clearly know nothing about MM, but continue to pretend that you do. You prefer the conservative fantasy of that organization to finding out anything about it before you shoot your mouth off.

And you won't take responsibility for doing this, either.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Thersites--

I just agreed with you and admitted that I had been mistaken. And then that's how you treat someone?

As for Media Matters:

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation -- news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda -- every day, in real time.

Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."

"Media Matters for America -- a progressive, Washington-based, nonprofit research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media -- seeks dedicated, talented individuals to fill a number of job openings:"

This is from their own website. For some reason, they always criticize Republicans. And hmmm.... Democratic Senators ALWAYS use them as cover for their own slants on things. Hmm... I wonder if they have any ideological bias??? Hmm... I wonder if they repeated Dem talking points on the Memogate scandal? Hmmm.... Maybe you should take a look at their website before you start hurling insults at people.

quxxo--

Yes, I apologize you didn't call Ann evil. Someone else referred to anyone who voted for Bush as evil. You just referred to Ann as a liar:

" notice that a "feature" of most rightwing lawyer bloggers is that they don't believe they have this obligation to their readers or the objective facts. I've always thought this was due to how their legal training as an advocate of one side in trial overcame the morals that society tried and failed to implant.

Or shorter me, rightwing lawyers have a tendency to be what the rest of us would consider to be a liar, I wonder why, is it because you're rightwingers, or because you are lawyers?"

Please spare me quxxo, you're a martyr for the cause of secularism. Look, I hate the whole ID as much as anyone. But why the hell are you bringing it up? Ann's dismissal of 28 had NOTHING to do with the religious right. Nothing! And maybe she would not have been so dismissive had Nazi/Hitler comparisons not been thrown around by your esteemed 28.

As for calling you a pig, I apologize, but I did not call you a pig. I said that your behavior was that of one. Again, I am sorry I hurt your feeble feelings. But when you come on someone else's blog and start trolling her comments sections and instead of politely disagreeing, start hurling whatever insults you can at her, well, then there really is no other way to describe such behavior. Boorish. Now, is that better?


pseudolus--

Maybe the reason you got thrown out from LGF and Freepers is because you comport yourself on their site the same way you do here. Besides, this isn't LGF nor Freepers. This is Althouse. I still don't know of a single right-wing law prof threatening the career of a blogger who disagreed with him or her. But for some reason, this is a common feature on the Left (Francis Boyle at UIUC Law and Brian Leiter, Herr Philosophe himself).

Finally, you just gave away the game my friend by admitting that to you, anyone who votes for Bush are all the same.

Look, people let me just recap the events that happened here: Ann linked to some op-ed in the IBD which may have repeated an unsubstantiated claim. She didn't fact-check said claim. Some people started bashing her over at Think Progress. She complained. Atrios bashed her some more. A bunch of trolls came over here and started hurling insults at her for daring to suggest that she was not treated in a particularly polite manner. Then, Ann responds to ridiculous insults and insinuation with some pointed comments. And she's the bad guy in all of this? What planet are you on people!?

Look, this blog is actually extremely civil all of the other times. That's one of the main reasons I visit it almost daily. I find it interesting that it is the people who don't read it regularly who come over here to take rhetorical dumps in the comments sections. Please, if you don't like Ann or what she wrote, stop visiting this blog. I'm sure you can find Bush-hatred to which you are accustomed spewed elsewhere. I hear that Democratic Underground is good for those things. Or, hey, just go to a college campus. If you'd like, I can get you in touch with the Larouchies who stand outside of Zabar's on the Upper West Side every day screaming that Cheney is a Nazi because he reads Strauss. You can form new friends; maybe it'll take the edge off.

Thersites said...

I just agreed with you and admitted that I had been mistaken. And then that's how you treat someone?

No, this is how I treat someone who shoots his mouth off sarcastically about things of which he is totally ignorant. Like what a 501(c)(3) is.

You called Duncan Black a "Democratic Party strategist" for working with MM. Then you said they spread DNC talking points. If they did either of these things, it would be against the law.

They exclusively focus on countering conservative disinformation in the media. Gosh, what a shock that they contradict Republicans. Gosh, what a shock that Democrats cite their independently produced, public reports.

I've just shown, very clearly, that you are the kind of person who makes outrageous charges without bothering to first check whether or not they are accurate or even make sense. Indeed, what you've said about MM is laughable. And your retreat from your first comments into claiming that MM is ideological is pathetic and dishonest.

So, how again are you the kind of person who has any right to lecture anyone else about "civil discourse"?

Ratigan said...

Yevgeny Vilensky:

How do you know that it is trolls from the Right and not spambots or some such.

- Do spambots single out a Muslim commenter and call him raghead? When he leaves for a while then comes back, does a spambot say "Welcome back, how's the wife? Beat her for me, will you? :)"? (yes, smiley included). Maybe they do, but I doubt it.

Also, same said trolls still engaged in discussion with the commenters (if you can call it that) amongst all the kiddie fiddling. If you read the post I linked to, you will see that it was a discussion between two LGFers over the "Muslim Problem" that ended up in the vile spamming.

******

Regardless, so are you saying that you're taking it out on Ann for the fact that some idiot who votes Republican decided to ruin one of Atrios' comments' sections? Wow, I'm really glad that our political discourse has become so mature.

- When else have I posted here? Where have I taken it out on Ann? I'm saying that it could be a lot worse in this blog than a little name calling.

I'm saying to Ann that it's a good thing she doesn't get on some of the Right's bad side.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Riiiiight, because being a 501(c)3 really does mean you're nonpartisan. So, the People For the American Way are nonpartisan too? How about the Christian Coalition. They are all 501(c)3's. It seems as though you are the one ignorant about 501(c)3's. They're allowed to be as partisan as they want in the sense of making statements criticizing one political party; they're just not allowed to make any statements endorsing the election or defeat of a candidate running for office. They also are not allowed to take money from political parties. That does not mean that they are not allowed to be mouthpieces for the Democratic or Republican Party.

28kwdws said...

Sebastian said...
The "war on terror" includes the probable crime of aggression against Iraq.

It continually amazes me how short some people's memories are. It's as if we attacked Iraq out of the blue after they were kind and friendly to us an their neighbors over the last 15 years.


General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Ah no. Officially the US attacked Iraq in order to destroy their non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Unofficially, it appears that the attack on Iraq is part of an attempt to bring democracy to the entire middle east – sort of a modern day domino theory. Nice try though. At the time I suspect that the powers that be thought that the average person would not support the crime of aggression – let alone distinguished law professors.

Ann Althouse said...
28: your continual resort to Nazi imagery hurts your side of the argument more than you realize. An you're anti-war, but do you forget that it took war to defeat the Nazis?


When it comes to the crime of aggression, just what imagery would you like me to use? I'm open to suggestions.

Seems you have a bit of a problem with history yourself. So one day mean old Hitler just happened on the scene and all the people of Germany just went along for the ride. Nothing about the Treaty of Versaille and what lead up the rise of Hitler. Similarly mean old Sadam just one day got power and, well you know the white man's burden – it was up to the US to remove him. Nothing about who helped him to get into power, and provided him with weapons, including biological and chemical weapons. Nothing about who provided the surveillance when he used them against Iran. Nothing about what type of threat Iraq was to the US, or anyone else at the time of the invasion. Nothing about what the neighbours of Iraq want, and especially nothing about what the people of Iraq want. And you accuse me of being short sighted!

Wars do not just happen. Usually the seeds of one war are sown in the ending of the previous. Al Quada became a serious threat after US support, during the cold war in Afghanistan. I remember talking with friends about the stupidity of supporting religious fundamentalists at the time.

After Sebastian's support for the crime of aggression, Ann Althouse is again alluding to her own support of the crime of aggression. Unlike Hitler, we are to get a kinder, gentler, made in America aggression - responsible aggression.

Suicide bombings don't just happen. There are reasons. One of those reasons is current American/British foreign policy and the desire to bring civilisation to Iraqi. Bringing civilisation to Upper Canada didn't go over very well in 1812, and it doesn't look like its going over any better in Iraq now. It certainly isn't making friends in any of the Muslim countries – though it certainly is influencing people.

Since this is all about the responsibility of America to shove its brand of "democracy" down others throats at the point of a gun – sorry I mean America's war on terror, you can safely ignore the following post from girl blog in Iraq.


Friday, May 07, 2004


Just Go...
People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places… seeing the pictures simply made it all more real and tangible somehow. American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but…" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained. Some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others were detained 'under suspicion'. In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent by some miracle of God".

People are so angry. There’s no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can’t explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison.

There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops. No matter what one's attitude was towards the occupation, there were moments of pity towards the troops, regardless of their nationality. We would see them suffering the Iraqi sun, obviously wishing they were somewhere else and somehow, that vulnerability made them seem less monstrous and more human. That time has passed. People look at troops now and see the pictures of Abu Ghraib… and we burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Falloojeh?

I'm avoiding the internet because it feels like the pictures are somehow available on every site I visit. I'm torn between wishing they weren't there and feeling, somehow, that it's important that the whole world sees them. The thing, I guess, that bothers me most is that the children can see it all. How do you explain the face of the American soldier, leering over the faceless, naked bodies to a child? How do you explain the sick, twisted minds? How do you explain what is happening to a seven-year-old?

There have been demonstrations in Baghdad and other places. There was a large demonstration outside of the Abu Ghraib prison itself. The families of some of the inmates of the prison were out there protesting the detentions and the atrocities… faces streaked with tears of rage and brows furrowed with anxiety. Each and every one of those people was wondering what their loved ones had suffered inside the walls of the hell that makes Guantanamo look like a health spa.

And through all this, Bush gives his repulsive speeches. He makes an appearance on Arabic tv channels looking sheepish and attempting to look sincere, babbling on about how this 'incident' wasn't representative of the American people or even the army, regardless of the fact that it's been going on for so long. He asks Iraqis to not let these pictures reflect on their attitude towards the American people… and yet when the bodies were dragged through the streets of Falloojeh, the American troops took it upon themselves to punish the whole city.

He's claiming it's a "stain on our country's honor"... I think not. The stain on your country's honor, Bush dear, was the one on the infamous blue dress that made headlines while Clinton was in the White House... this isn't a 'stain' this is a catastrophe. Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD... your reputation never existed.

So are the atrocities being committed in Abu Ghraib really not characteristic of the American army? What about the atrocities committed by Americans in Guantanamo? And Afghanistan? I won't bother bringing up the sordid past, let's just focus on the present. It seems that torture and humiliation are common techniques used in countries blessed with the American presence. The most pathetic excuse I heard so far was that the American troops weren't taught the fundamentals of human rights mentioned in the Geneva Convention… Right- morals, values and compassion have to be taught.

All I can think about is the universal outrage when the former government showed pictures of American POWs on television, looking frightened and unsure about their fate. I remember the outcries from American citizens, claiming that Iraqis were animals for showing 'America's finest' fully clothed and unharmed. So what does this make Americans now?

We heard about it all… we heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation about prisoners being made to sit for several hours on their knees… being deprived of sleep for days at a time by being splashed with cold water or kicked or slapped… about the infamous 'red rooms' where prisoners are kept for prolonged periods of time… about the rape, the degradations, the emotional and physical torture… and there were moments when I actually wanted to believe that what we heard was exaggerated. I realize now that it was only a small fragment of the truth. There is nothing that is going to make this 'better'. Nothing.

Through all of this, where is the Governing Council? Under what rock are the Puppets hiding? Why is no one condemning this? What does Bremer have to say for himself and for the Americans? Why this unbearable silence?

I don't understand the 'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?

The number of killings in the south has also risen. The Americans and British are saying that they are 'insurgents' and people who are a part of Al-Sadir's militia, but people from Najaf are claiming that innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis. Today the troops entered Najaf and there was fighting in the streets. This is going to cause a commotion because Najaf is considered a holy city and is especially valuable to Shi'a all over the world. The current situation in the south makes one wonder who, now, is going to implement a no-fly zone over areas like Falloojeh and Najaf to 'protect' the people this time around?

I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

The Exalted said...

Yevgeny,

I am quite familiar with history, thanks for the interest.

I would point out words like "callous," "stupid" and "evil" came from your keyboard and no one else's.

In fact, most of your argument is directed at strawmen of your own creation. Nobody is denying that torture has occurred before, and no one is saying that American soldiers are "uniquely" responsible for such tragic acts. But I suppose stating the obvious makes you feel better.

Now, you might have noticed, I worded my comment carefully. Kerry would have seriously investigated the torture. If you think any investigation that leads to the removal of no one with command responsibility, then you are living in another world than I am. The torture at Abu Gharaib was carried out in the open, on a daily basis. If this occurred at a United States prison, do you really think the warden would not be removed and criminally prosecuted? Do you have any conception of command responsibility?

And if you think the evidence that the same gross and disgusting tactics were used in three separate locations around the world does not indicate systemic torture, then, again, you are simply living in another world.

I am not sure where you came up with this "blame the lawyers" idea for the torture revelations, but they have come from many, many sources, including soldiers, civilians, and the press. And the FBI.

Lastly, besides the fact that such torture is illegal and grossly immoral, it is devestatingly counterproductive.

Even before our rationale shifted from "eliminate the imminent Iraqi threat" to "giving the Iraqi people freedom and democracy," we had the eyes of the world on us for our unpopular, illegal war. It was paramount that we conduct ourselves in the best possible fashion. And then, once we decided our new imperative was to "win their hearts and minds," it became doubly important that we conduct ourselves with honor and nobility.

We did not. And now, tragically, our nation will bear the consequences.

Ann Althouse said...

pseudolus: Am I angry about the 2000 election being stolen, you ask. I don't regard it as stolen. I voted for Gore and I rooted for him to the end, but accepted the result as legitimate. If you want to knew my analysis of Bush v. Gore, you can read my law review article, from a symposium about the case: THE AUTHORITATIVE LAWSAYING POWER OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: CONFLICTS OF JUDICIAL ORTHODOXY IN THE BUSH-GORE LITIGATION, 61 Md. L. Rev. 508 (2002).

Thersites said...

Riiiiight, because being a 501(c)3 really does mean you're nonpartisan.

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't be honest about this. You have no evidence for anything you've said about MM and have no interest whatsoever in whether or not what you say is accurate.

Typical of the utter debasement of civil discourse on display here on the part of the blogger and the "regulars."

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Thersites--

What do you want as far as evidence goes? I quoted from MM's own website! They admit that their entire point is to bash what conservatives say. They admit that they are "progressive." They get much of their money from George Soros. I am not quite sure how more explicit it can be that Media Matters is not a neutral arbitrer of truth. They're not FactCheck, which is more or less neutral. Thersites, tell me of a single instance of Media Matters slamming a liberal source for innacuracy. It doesn't happen. Why? Because their very mission statement says that they want to slam conservative sources. And they're actually wrong or manipulative of the truth themselves half the time. But that's a whole 'nother story.


The Exalted--

I never said blame the lawyers. The female general who was in charge of Abu Ghraib was reassigned. There are numerous investigations currently going on within the military to investigate the matter. Again, I ask you, would a "blue ribbon" panel have been a good idea? Would it have unearthed some truths? Would it have Constitutional authority to actually remove those members of the command who failed in their responibilities?

As for torture, again, that is why I said, "define torture." I do not agree that what is happening in Guantanamo is torture. I would hope that reasonable people could disagree on this issue. And what of the fact that the reason Abu Ghraib was investigated in the first place is that the military itself thought it was disgusting what went on there and went forward to conduct an investigation?

As for the war being illegal, that is also a matter up for debate. Kofi Annan is not an authority on international law. Not sure why his statement on this matters. As far as international law is concerned, we were on the right side here, since Saddam broke a treaty he signed to end a war he had started (by not allowing inspectors in). Now, I am not saying that this necessarily rose to the level of going to war, just that on international law grounds, we were well within our rights. The prudence of the war can and ought be debated. But not when people start hurling Nazi epithets and calling Bush and those who voted for him "scum-sucking."

You implied in your post that Ann was being callous. If "I hope as a law professor..." was not a sarcastic remark, then I apologize. But the implication in this entire thread is that those who voted for Bush are either willfully ignoring evil, are tools of evil, or are stupid. Read vicki's post. Read quxxo's early posts where he called Ann a liar because she's supposedly a Right-wing lawyer. Read the post by ntodd where he called Althouse all kinds of epithets. Read the post by Brando where he said:

"You are no better than your scum sucking Dear Leader who has all the sudden silenced himself over the Plame leak because of its faux concerns for "an ongoing investigation" when it turned out that their previous talking points turned out to be BALD FACE LIES."

Maybe you haven't been following this thread.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Oh wait, or is scum-sucking supposed to mean something other than evil?

The Exalted said...

Yevgeny,

I ask why do you bring up other's posts? I have not commented in anything less than a civil fahsion, so, please, if you have problems with others direct your ire at them, not me. I really could care less what they have written if it is juvenile, it has nothing to do with me.

Now, some major points here.

1) The treatment of prisoners in Guantamo is torture.

How you can posit this is not so is hard to understand. Prisoners have been chained to the floor for upwards of 36 hours in 100+ degree temperatures, forced to defecate and urinate on themselves, without food and water. This has been documented by the FBI.

The use of hooding, stress positions, nudity and dogs, all of which the pictures of from Abu Gharaib so shocked the world, were all pioneered at Guantamo. Again, this is documented by many sources from within the government.

A American MP, during an exercise simulating an uncooperative prisoner, was beaten so badly he suffered brain damage. This is significant because it demonstrates the MO at this sad, degenerate place. Beat, beat, and beat some more.

The doctors that treat the prisoners, in apparent disregard of their Hippocratic oaths, inform the guards of methods that they think, based on their personal examinations, will allow them to more easily break the prisoners.

Intelligence officers pose as their lawyers to obtain information.

Need I remind you that the majority of these prisoners have not been charged with crimes.

Yes, this sounds like an upstanding institution run well in accordance with our American values...um.

2) The Iraq war was illegal.

I suspect this position is shared by 95% of legal academians. In international law, as determined by the UN Charter of which we are a creator of and signatory to, war is allowed only in 1) self defense, or 2) with explict Security Council authorization. Neither was present here. Now, I do not think that the United States should have to wait for the UN's mandate before engaging in a war it deems absolutely necessary (Kosovo, for one), but we do so in full knowledge that our actions are illegal to the world at large. To argue otherwise is disingenous and/or ignorant.

3) Your whole "blue ribbon" stuff is blowing smoke. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, can lean on the military to clean this up. Do you really think that reassigning the general in charge is the appropriate remedy? Do you understand that prisoners were tortured, raped, sodomized and murdered in the open? Good christ man.

A prisoner in Afghanistan had his legs beaten so badly that he died. Imagine the sadism involved that he died from injuries to his legs! Initially, this death was deemed from "natural causes." It was not investigated until, I believe, 2 years later. You don't think something smells?

Going into Iraq, our troops should have been given a dictate that they should treat everyone with the utmost respect, because 1) we wanted to prove to the world that we are the ones in the right, and 2) we are trying to win "the hearts and minds" of the iraqis so that they will create a liberal democracy to begin the transformation of the middle east.

Instead, we imported our tactics from Guantamo, all of which were explicitly sanctioned by Rumsfeld, and indirectly sanctioned by the White House through Alberto Gonzalez's office in its Geneva Convention memos.

Yet, no high profile heads have rolled. In fact, no heads have rolled at all, except for a few low level "bad apples." And guess who called these people "a few bad apples" so famously? Right, Rumsfeld, the same man who signed off on the tactics they were using in those photos.

Amazing, contemptible, disgusting.

I've said a lot here, but it is all rolled up in the same rotten package.

Brando said...

okay, mr. vilenski, perhaps i should be more flowery. the GOP have been responsible for the out and out debasing of civil discourse in this country. Just look at how effective the propaganda machine was at putting out deceptions and lies leading up to the war in Iraq and thereby misleading the public into a war of choice which was sold to us as a war of necessity. Look at the orchestrated character assinations carried out by prime leaker-in-chief Rove against McCain, Kerry, Richard Clark, Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and whole cast of people who dare to question the Dear Leader, um, i mean, the President.

The fact that Althouse revealed ho-hum "oh boy i didn't fact check" suggests to me a complicity with the debasing of our country, a disregard for an ethos of truth. hence the invective "scum sucker" in that she is complicit (perhaps passively) in promoting one of the prime disinformation tactics of the riecht, oh, i mean "the right." and you don't have to be liberal to be offended by this. the GOP has hijacked the conservative agenda.

fine, perhaps you voted for bush even had thoughtful reasons to do so. but anyone who holds this dimwit of a man in anything other than scorn and contempt now is truly lost.

judge a tree by its fruits.

ziemer said...

hey, 28kwdws, there is only one reason suicide why suicide bombings happen:

islamic fascists cannot accept that women should be entitled to equal rights.

we only have two choices: veil our women; or fight back. do the math.

and you, thersites:

its been more than well proven here that "MM" is just a mouthpiece for the DNC. please, give it up.

JT Davis said...

Speaking of the wingnut fringe...


The current so called Compassionate Conservative republican sitting in the White House is a far cry from what Reagan, George Sr. and Richard Nixon were for their party. He is both inept and a follower being driven by the NEOCON warlords he mistakenly appointed. Little by little real conservative republicans are realizing they were duped by this man. These are the drops you are seeing in the polls.

Pat Buchanan was the first to see what GWB is really all about and what he would be doing to our country if elected. God help us, he was even re-elected.


If this comment came from a thread at Free Republic, you should start to sweat. Start sweating, and don't ever admit you voted for the moron. Nobody will like you, no matter how smart you think you are.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467744/posts#8

JT Davis said...

STFU, you morons. And ram yer civil discourse up that tight spot you got where the sun don't shine. The party's over.

JT Davis said...

Civil Discourse 101

You instructor will Professor Charles Johnson / Ann Outhouse as T&A

LGF: Like Flypaper to Sociopaths [1]

Julian Sanchez notes that some of the outrage at Kos is a bit rich, considering it comes from the likes of the LGF crowd. Charles Johnson and friends seem never to have met an Arab they didn’t want to string up. Now Johnson seems to be on a rampage, egging his commenters on to spew filth at Kathryn Cramer’s and Nathan Newman’s blogs. Their tactics include posting Kathryn’s address and telephone number, making death threats, and threatening her children. This isn’t just trollishness – it’s an attempt to intimidate and to silence. Not a proud moment for the blogosphere. Via Rivka.


http://crookedtimber.org/2004/04/08/lgf-like-flypaper-to-sociopaths-1

Sadly, No offers a course in Counter Civil Discourse.

http://sadlyno.com/archives/001651.html


The right is pathetic. It will be thrashed into submission.

Surrender or die, we don't care.

Kathy Herrmann said...

Whew, what venom is being spewed in this post. As a regular reader, I'm sorry computer problems prevented me from jumping into this discussion sooner because I'm someone who loves Althouse. It's both quirky and thoughtful, and the comments reflect variable opinions on both left, right, and center.

You know it's interesting. I'm a conservative, although I don't subscribe to all of Bush's domestic policies, starting with ID and gay marriage. However, I gain value from hearing variable opinions and numerous lefties in both Ann's blog and others have gotten my attention with thoughtful posts and commentaries. They make me think, even if they don't always change my opinion.

Then you have the ranters on both the left and right. What a bore. Most times it's hate-filled rhetoric that does little to alter any one's opinion because it's flooded with venom. Kind of like the commenters here that throw vendictive against Ann, and engage in name calling, rather than provide insight and analysis. Thank goodness, none of the spewers are in our diplomatic core.

Isn't it amazing that folks that seem to feel the least empowered are the ones that degenerate the fastest to profanity and name calling? It's intension is to shock, and maybe deflect from the emptiness of their arguments, but all it really does is highlight the sense of powerlessness.

There are smart people on the left and right and the smartest stick to the issues, the weakest to the personalities.

Thersites said...

its been more than well proven here that "MM" is just a mouthpiece for the DNC. please, give it up.

No it hasn't. If you had proof of that, you could put them out of business right now, because that would be against the law.

Thersites said...

What do you want as far as evidence goes?

Evidence that Duncan Black is a "strategist for the Democratic Party," as you claimed, citing his association with MM. For one thing. Or that there is any sort of collaboration between the Democratic Party and MM in the spread of "talking points." For another.

Both of these statements are ludicrous, so you're left with the accusation that MM has a particular point of view. Horrors. Oh, and fevered wingnut demonization of George Soros.

You seem unclear on the nature of "evidence," and frankly you sound like a cultist. You need help.

I see no evidence from any of the "regulars" here that you are capable of participating in any form of adult debate, which requires honesty and objectivity, not childish snivelling about the Evil Soros.

Ace said...

Hilarious to see the lefties scream "fact check" when they are ignorant of the facts on this matter. Branding any question of Gorelick as a "smear" and in silly emails denying there was any wall in place.
I guess Mary Jo White wrote 2 memos in response to this "non existent" wall for shits & giggles.

Hey, keep it up though. Keep yourselfs ignorant, put Mike Moore, little Howie, "Mother Cindy" out front and center as your spokespeople, it will continue the R's electoral dominance for the next decade.

The Exalted said...

Considering the previous two presidential elections were two of the closest in history, the republican triumphalism here would be amusing, if it were not so mean spirited.

Of course Media Matters is a liberal organization. Of course Media Matters only targets conservatives. It is silly to dispute this.

But are their articles factually correct and fair? I challenge anyone here to find one that is not.

Brando said...

Republican dominance for the next decade? I think Georgie is taking care of that problem as we speak as he enjoys his well-deserved vacation out at the ranch.

Ace said...

I think Georgie is taking care of that problem

Really, you "think"? Didn't you silly, ignorant liberals "think" that after F9-11 was released as well?

What does the closeness of the outcome have to do with the fact that you lost? You libs realize you can't win motivating your base, and your hysteria over the war, and all the other faux American bashing outrages ("torture" at gitmo) can't help you expand, right?
Good luck with that.
As I said, keep it up. Please, please do.

Thersites said...

Keep yourselfs ignorant

Outstanding.

Brando said...

okay, the ace, keep on drinkin that koolaid. perhaps you can join your fellow wingnut, Pat Roberson, in assasinating Hugo Chavez too. I'm sure with all that experience you gained fighting in Iraq you'd do a super job.

Ace said...

Brando, this isn't terribly complicated. You and your ilk tried everything, including making a propoganda filled movie, in the last election cycle, and still lost big at the ballot box.

Ask Tom Daschle how well this current strategy is working.

The Exalted said...

Mm, 3% is losing "big" now eh..my, how things have changed. I don't recall democrats saying such idiotic things after Clinton's 9 point victory in 1996 . . .I guess Clinton's 4 point win in 1992 was a cataclysmic landslide!

And it is funny you mention "propaganda movies," perhaps you are familiar with the current administration's creation of fake news reports and payments to journalists. I suppose these are equal in your eyes, even though one is the product of the federal government in contravention of clearly defined rules and procedures, while F9/11 was the creation of an independent filmmaker.

Nice.

Brando said...

ace, why don't you sign up for a tour in Iraq and see for yourself how well the the last-throws-greet-us-like-liberators-noble-cause-stay-the-course propaganda of BushCo is serving the troops, defeating terrorists, and bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Say what you want about Michael Moore, but last time i checked, he didn't lead us into a war on false pretenses that has been entirely mismanaged from the get-go and is sinking us into billions upon billions into debt.

Oh right, but you "won." I forgot. forget about governing, about taking responsibility, it's all about winning. guess the 49% of the population who voted against Bush should just shut up. Guess Pat Buchanon and Chuck Hagel should shut up too, since they don't seem to be toting the party line. Perhaps they ran out of koolaid.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

The Exalted and Thersites---

Look at their "info" on the Manuel Miranda case and Memogate. While hypertechnically accurate, their reports are clearly unfair, as they fail to mention that the only reason there is an investigation into the matter is that the Democrats demanded it and fail to acknowledge that the memos Miranda found on the shared computers had not been secured. For some reason they fail to mention that.

Also, for some reason they fail to discuss the contents of those memos because I seem to recall they got the NAACP legal head disbarred in Virginia for trying to improperly influence a Court while it was reviewing a case before it.

Thersites said...

So, you nitwit, you can't support your charge that Atrios is a "Democratic Party strategist" or that MM deliberately spreads DNC talking points.

You're dishonestly trying to change the subject because you know you made reckless accusations without checking the facts.

So we'll ignore your silly, irrlevant statements about Miranda for the moment and reiterate: what makes you qualified to participate in civil discourse when you are so obviously a liar and a fool?

I will generously permit you to escape my contempt when you copy me your apology to Duncan Black and to Media Matters for your reckless and untrue allegations.

jojotom said...

In 1964 Barry Goldwater suffered such a crushing defeat, that many predicted the end of the Republican Party. Yet he garnered 39% of the vote. (Just as a comparison, Clinton won 43% of the vote in 1992, a magnificent victory.) Goldwater’s defeat, however, taught me an important (albeit 4th grade) lesson: no matter whom I supported for president, at least 40% of America will disagree with me. So I don’t worry about that. I enjoy Ann’s comments whether she voted for Bush, Kerry, Gore, or Nader. I enjoy vigorous viewpoints from all perspectives. These discussions (preferably civil) and the tension they engender, help ensure that this country never elects an extremist from either the right or the left.

Thersites said...

These discussions (preferably civil) and the tension they engender, help ensure that this country never elects an extremist from either the right or the left.

Well, you messed that one up pretty royally, then.

ziemer said...

simple request from some an ultra-hard-core conservative:

please don't ever refer to pat buchanan or anyone else who supports tariffs as a conservative.

unlesss you do not support the unilateral repeal of all tariffs, you are not a conservative.

and yes, i know, this includes the president.

i may support the war, and how bush has handled it, but that does not mean i consider bush one of us.

ziemer said...

ack!

please disregard the words "do not" in the third paragraph of the last post.

it should read, "unless you support the unilateral repeal of all tariffs, you are not a conservative."

and then the next paragraph should actually say "excludes" the paragraph, not "includes."

sorry.

the point is, either you oppose all tariffs, or you oppose freedom. and the current administration has not done well on this score.

Yevgeny Vilensky said...

Thersites--

Namecalling certainly reflects well on you.

The Exalted said...

Sorry, you picked a rather obscure item, and you conceded at the outset that the Media Matters piece is accurate.

So, I will expend no further energy on it.

Identify something they have written that is false (a challenge that is all too easy with the polemicists on the right) or let them be.

I see you ignored all else I wrote.

Thersites said...


Namecalling certainly reflects well on you.


You got nothing.