Salon: A Nation of Scared Sheep

[JellyBaby]

When it can be shown the Bush Administration lied, instead of merely being wrong about the (rather small portion of) intelligence, then I'll call it a lie. Until then, its far from a foregone conclusion.

It's much like the intel judgement call scenario you mentioned earlier where decisions are made based on a judgement call and pieces of information rather than stark facts. At that level of power, proving anything concretely is very difficult. Holding anyone accountable for wrongdoing is nearly impossible.

In the meantime we have speculation to entertain us.

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You didn't need Salon. I've told you this for years. We are afraid to feel.

Hey...you're darn right I am! I am most certainly afraid to feel what comes out of the business end of a nuke, or gun, or any type of weapon that can be used against us...

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's a healthy attitude. Label it an 'error' and suddenly it is acceptable. Maybe if someone murdered a family member of yours and said it was in self defense, but that turns out to be false, you would accept his apologies as an error?

When it can be shown the Bush Administration lied, instead of merely being wrong about the (rather small portion of) intelligence, then I'll call it a lie. Until then, its far from a foregone conclusion.

Thats ironic...

here is BowFinger accusing you of illegitematizing the article he posted based on a moot point:

Originally posted by: BowFinger

You would have to start by actually reading the article. The "quote" you keep disputing came from my description of the article, not the article itself.

None of your comments has much to do with the focus of the article. They are side issues at best.

And now here you are defending the war on Iraq by essentially using the same argument: that the Uranium document was a moot point.

Originally posted by: tcsenter

When it can be shown the Bush Administration lied, instead of merely being wrong about the (rather small portion of) intelligence, then I'll call it a lie. Until then, its far from a foregone conclusion.

 

[tcsenter]

Thats ironic...

here is BowFinger accusing you of illegitematizing the article he posted based on a moot point.....And now here you are defending the war on Iraq by essentially using the same argument: that the Uranium document was a moot point.

You have a peculiar definition of "irony". It would be "ironic" for BowFinger to accuse me of attacking a moot point, only to be guilty of attacking moot points himself. It would be "ironic" for me to accuse BowFinger of attacking a moot point, only to be guilty of attacking a moot point myself.

It would not be "ironic" for BowFinger to accuse me of attacking a moot point, only to have you to accuse me of doing the same thing. That's not "irony", sorry. Its something, but not irony.

Moreover, I have not at any time in this thread 'defended' the war on Iraq. Get it right.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You didn't need Salon. I've told you this for years. We are afraid to feel.

Hey...you're darn right I am! I am most certainly afraid to feel what comes out of the business end of a nuke, or gun, or any type of weapon that can be used against us...

So much so that any means justifies your peace of mind?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Thats ironic...

here is BowFinger accusing you of illegitematizing the article he posted based on a moot point.....And now here you are defending the war on Iraq by essentially using the same argument: that the Uranium document was a moot point.

You have a peculiar definition of "irony". It would be "ironic" for BowFinger to accuse me of attacking a moot point, only to be guilty of attacking moot points himself. It would be "ironic" for me to accuse BowFinger of attacking a moot point, only to be guilty of attacking a moot point myself.

It would not be "ironic" for BowFinger to accuse me of attacking a moot point, only to have you to accuse me of doing the same thing. That's not "irony", sorry. Its something, but not irony.

Moreover, I have not at any time in this thread 'defended' the war on Iraq. Get it right.

You're right, though it may be considered irony in some sense, it wasn't the best choice of word. Therefore I offer you a more fitting word: hypocritical.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

An interesting look into why so many Americans excuse Bush though they vilified Clinton; why they cheer the prosecution of Martha Stewart while ignoring the fact that Ken Lay has not been prosecuted for a much more egregious example of the same conduct.

All based on classic strawman. Whom is 'cheering' the prosecution of Martha Stewart while ignoring the fact that Ken Lay has not been prosecuted for a more egregious example of the same conduct? Was there some 'poll' taken, whose results were similar to:

What is your opinion on Martha Stewart being prosecuted for obstruction?

A. Cheer! - 78%

B. Booo! - 14%

C. Undecided - 8%

What is your opinion on Ken Lay not yet being prosecuted for his role in the Enron debacle?

A. Cheer! - 6%

B. Booo! - 21%

C. I'm ignoring it - 73%

When or if Ken Lay is prosecuted, I cannot think of anyone who will not cheer that announcement. What does Witt expect people to do in the meantime? Quit their jobs and picket the Justice Department until charges are filed against Lay? Did they do that with Stewart? Nope.

In fact, Witt tells a little fib herself when she says that Lay committed a more egregious example of the same conduct for which Stewart is being prosecuted, obviously drawing a similarity between Stewart and Lay's dumping of stocks before the crash. Stewart is being prosecuted for obstruction of justice, namely, lying to federal investigators, not for insider trading. If Louise Witt has evidence that Ken Lay lied to federal investigators, as it is alleged Stewart did, she should promptly report this crucial information to the Department of Justice.

I will not hold my breath waiting for the announcement that Witt has 'broken' the Enron case wide open and given prosecutors 'new' ammunition to seek charges against Kenneth Lay. While a columnist can make pronouncements and judgements against people based on 'hunch', federal prosecutors have to concern themselves with facts which they can prove, unlike Witt.

To whom is Louise Witt referring when she talks of 'so many Americans' vilifying Clinton? As I recall, the impeachment of Clinton was not popularly supported. Most people seemed to think Clinton's transgressions, though inexcusible, were rather trivial in the grand scheme of his official duties and didn't warrant impeachment.

I would love to see this evidence Louise Witt is relying upon as the basis for her rather fascinating theories. So would Witt, I'm sure. It would have made for a far more credible article than Witt's supposition and personal conjecture.

Actions speak louder than words.

Justice rushed to charge Stewart while languishing regarding Lay and Skilling.

Stewart - A few hundred thousand dollars.

Lay and Skilling (it was Skilling, wasn't it? It's been so long I'm forgetting their names!) - A few billion dollars.

You decide.

And I believe the villification of Clinton refers to more than the impeachment proceedings. There are many people villifying Clinton today.

 

[tcsenter]

You're right, though it may be considered irony in some sense, it wasn't the best choice of word. Therefore I offer you a more fitting word: hypocritical

Just replace all instances of "ironic" with "hypocritical" in my previous post. Same results.

Justice rushed to charge Stewart while languishing regarding Lay and Skilling.

Stewart - A few hundred thousand dollars.

Lay and Skilling (it was Skilling, wasn't it? It's been so long I'm forgetting their names!) - A few billion dollars.

"Rushed" and "languishing"?

Do you concede that the depth and sophistication of deception and fraud at Enron might be exponentially more complex than getting caught lying to federal investigators about a simple matter of fact?

19 individuals have been indicted on more than 100 counts in the Enron case, yet the Justice Department has failed to ensnare Skilling and Lay. Perhaps you could explain to me what crimes you believe Skilling and Lay have committed?

And 'losing billions' of dollars doesn't cut it, nor does 'they drove the company into bankruptcy'. Losing a billion dollars is no more of a crime than losing a nickel, nor is 'driving a company into bankruptcy'. Tell me what criminal conduct Skilling and Lay were engaged in.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You didn't need Salon. I've told you this for years. We are afraid to feel.

Hey...you're darn right I am! I am most certainly afraid to feel what comes out of the business end of a nuke, or gun, or any type of weapon that can be used against us...

So much so that any means justifies your peace of mind?

We all just need to remember to take our soma.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Sternfan
Salon is fair and balanced and very main stream. They always give both side of every story that's what I like about them.

Salon is more liberal slanted," Fair and balanced" no way... that's FOXnews!

bah...bah...bah...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You would have to start by actually reading the article. The "quote" you keep disputing came from my description of the article, not the article itself.

Ah, so its your summation and paraphrasing of the article which I'm demolishing, not Witt's own words. Thank you for that confession. I knew I'd get it out of you sooner or later.

Demolishing?!?! LOL! Like a fly demolishes an elephant.

Now shoo before I swat you.

(PS. You would have to start by actually reading the article.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's a healthy attitude. Label it an 'error' and suddenly it is acceptable. Maybe if someone murdered a family member of yours and said it was in self defense, but that turns out to be false, you would accept his apologies as an error?

When it can be shown the Bush Administration lied, instead of merely being wrong about the (rather small portion of) intelligence, then I'll call it a lie. Until then, its far from a foregone conclusion.

Interesting definitions of "rather small". We know they were "wrong" about the uranium, the aluminum tubes, and everything else pertaining to Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program. We know that Iraq had no connection to September 11, and no significant connection to al Qaeda. We also know that the CIA told the White House these things, and that the CIA said Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States. We also know that both Rumsfeld and Cheney repeatedly pressured the CIA and others to change their analysis.

Bush and his minions directly and forcefully contradicted these facts many times. I call them "lies". What do you call them?

We now suspect they were "wrong" about Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons. While there was less certainty among the experts in these areas, we do know that many experts (including Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector) offered their opinions that Iraq no longer had any significant stocks of such weapons, and that they lacked the programs to manufacture them and the weapons systems to deliver them at any significant range. We do know that Ritter's teams destroyed most - possibly all - of these materials, and that this information was provided to the White House long before the war. We even know that Ritter revealed this information publicly about one year ago, in at least two news articles I found.

In short, Bush was "wrong" about pretty much everything important he said about Iraq and the invasion, except for Saddam Hussein being an evil thug. That's more than a "rather small portion of intelligence" in my book.

I could go on and on, but the truth is out there if you have the self-honesty to accept it.

 

[YellowRose]

they must be using the same dict. as clinton did for his definitio n of "is"

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You didn't need Salon. I've told you this for years. We are afraid to feel.

Hey...you're darn right I am! I am most certainly afraid to feel what comes out of the business end of a nuke, or gun, or any type of weapon that can be used against us...

So much so that any means justifies your peace of mind?

Hmmm...probably not. If I had it my way, people wouldn't kill each other at all, and everyone would be happy. But, that's simply not the world we (well, I, anyway) live in. One of my favorite quotes:

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

-Whitman

 

[phantom309]

I'd rather be called a reptilian brain than sh!t for brains like the author of this blatantly Anti-American pieceslanted piece.

You were doing great until that last line. There is nothing anti-American about questioning the honesty, competence and/or motivations of one's elected leaders. I wouldn't want to live in a country where I was not permitted to do so. Would you?

 

[Moonbeam]

The first thing that happens to people who are acting out of fear is that when they get told so they get angry, but naturally only if it's safe.

 

[LunarRay]

Fear is the deepest buried... for fear it might be seen .... for another to see it .... OMG.... not me ... see... I've no feaaaaarrrrrrrrrr... plop....

 

[JellyBaby]

OMG.... not me ... see... I've no feaaaaarrrrrrrrrr... plop....

Plop? So scared you soiled yourself?

 

[Bowfinger]

There was an article on 60 Minutes tonight about SUVs and why they are so popular in spite of their many drawbacks. One person they interviewed was a psychologist who specializes in helping companies define their marketing strategies for consumer products. He has substantial experience with the auto industry, and is apparently considered a guru in the psychology of selling automobiles.

When talking about SUV marketing, he used many of the same phrases used in the Salon article about selling the war. He talked about appealing to the "reptilian brain", where logic is subordinated by primal instincts like fear and power and survival. He suggests that these instincts can be manipulated to override our higher reasoning functions. People buy SUVs because they feel powerful and safe and sexy, even though they know intellectually that they are expensive, unnecessary, and in some ways less safe.

It would be interesting to see if there's a statistical correlation between SUV owners and continuing support of Bush & Co.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There was an article on 60 Minutes tonight about SUVs and why they are so popular in spite of their many drawbacks. One person they interviewed was a psychologist who specializes in helping companies define their marketing strategies for consumer products. He has substantial experience with the auto industry, and is apparently considered a guru in the psychology of selling automobiles.

When talking about SUV marketing, he used many of the same phrases used in the Salon article about selling the war. He talked about appealing to the "reptilian brain", where logic is subordinated by primal instincts like fear and power and survival. He suggests that these instincts can be manipulated to override our higher reasoning functions. People buy SUVs because they feel powerful and safe and sexy, even though they know intellectually that they are expensive, unnecessary, and in some ways less safe.

It would be interesting to see if there's a statistical correlation between SUV owners and continuing support of Bush & Co.

But of course there is. Both think nothing but oil.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
There was an article on 60 Minutes tonight about SUVs and why they are so popular in spite of their many drawbacks. One person they interviewed was a psychologist who specializes in helping companies define their marketing strategies for consumer products. He has substantial experience with the auto industry, and is apparently considered a guru in the psychology of selling automobiles.

When talking about SUV marketing, he used many of the same phrases used in the Salon article about selling the war. He talked about appealing to the "reptilian brain", where logic is subordinated by primal instincts like fear and power and survival. He suggests that these instincts can be manipulated to override our higher reasoning functions. People buy SUVs because they feel powerful and safe and sexy, even though they know intellectually that they are expensive, unnecessary, and in some ways less safe.

It would be interesting to see if there's a statistical correlation between SUV owners and continuing support of Bush & Co.

But of course there is. Both think nothing but oil.

LOL. Good point, never thought of that. I suppose oil prices are near and dear to the hearts of people driving 8 mpg Hummers.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

OMG.... not me ... see... I've no feaaaaarrrrrrrrrr... plop....

Plop? So scared you soiled yourself?

Plop Plop fiz fiz... no fear .... tis Bush I hear.... Oh... dear... now I've went and....

 

[JellyBaby]

Bowfinger, it's all about the little reptile in us eh? Government plays to our fears constantly but rewards our courage infrequently.

Yes it was clear me and many here what Bush was doing from the word "go". We questioned the lack of compelling evidence and the lack of moral justification to invade a sovereign nation.

I think etech asked me straight out if I thought Bush would lie to start a war. When I said yes he didn't respond. I don't think that possibility occurs to many staunch Rs. They don't even see what the R party is morphing into...but I suppose if you read only the National Review, Wall Street Journal and George Will you'd get that impression.

I complained Bush Inc. wasn't revealing the true motives for invasion, what the costs would be, how long it would take, the exit strategy, etc. All of those details were hardly questioned by the media either. The result? Imperialist behavior on the part of the executive is emboldened (sp?). Bush can now decree "case closed" so the nation can do that funky dance called the "Move Forward".

And we follow (well most of us do).

"Don't give in to fear. That leads to the Dark Side."