MoveOn.org

[Lavie Enrose]

This web site called

MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/)

has the attention of some of the news media here in Canada, mainly for the 'Bush In 30 Seconds Contest'. I have seen stories on the web site in the newspaper, and on T.V..

I would be interested in hearing comments on the site from my American friends here.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose
This web site called

MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/)

has the attention of some of the news media here in Canada, mainly for the 'Bush In 30 Seconds Contest'. I have seen stories on the web site in the newspaper, and on T.V..

I would be interested in hearing comments on the site from my American friends here.

Glad to oblige. A reactionary organization with "judges" including James "mad dog" Carville and Michael Moore, Move On has become the web presence for the radical left.

Too bad they didn't call it "Bush in 8 years," because their efforts are directly bringing that about.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Never heard of them.

[corplinx]

Apparently, moveon was a reaction to Clinton being charged for obstruction of justice and perjuring himself before a federal grand jury. Instead of holding the top man in the country accountable, they wanted America to "move on" because it was just a blowjob after all. Moveon represented the sentiment that because the American public were sick of scandal politics that we should just forget about giving crimes their hearings before congress and instead "moveon" since public sentiment should always come before the rule of law.

Note, the following are things moveon hasn't moved on from:
florida 2000
cheney energy task force
novak cia leak
anything with the name Haliburton

[Cain]

Halliburton actually has two 'l's. Lots of people don't know that. It's only one of the few things that makes me better than most everyone else.

florida 2000

Seems a little more important than a blow-job.

cheney energy task force

Again, seems slightly more important than a blow-job.

novak cia leak

For a President who talks a good game on national security, this would seem more important than a blow-job. (Look at how fast an investigation was launched on a "secret" document that may have appeared on "Sixty Minutes".

MoveOn supports Democratic candidates. They're not really very left-wing. Just basically liberals.

EDIT: Why isn't blowjob one of the words that needs an asterisk? It's bleeped on television and radio.

[Zero]

You can almost smell the fear of the far right wing...unlike their made-up, phony 'grass roots' organizations, MoveOn isn't a front organization for a political party's top financeers(well, until George Soros got involved, but that was after the fact)

Basically, the more the far right extremists foam at the mouth, the more you know a person or organization is worth listening to(except Michael Moore, that putz!)

[Zero]

Oh, and to answer your specific question, the two Bush/Hitler ads were made by people not affiliated with MoveOn, for a contest, and neither ad won. Further, neither ad was saying that Bush was Hitler reborn, but simply pointing out where jingoism and blind obedience to political leaders can lead. Much ado about nada, in other words. Note that no one on the right seems to mind accusing their opponents of being anti-American communist terrorist sympathizers. Ann Coulter's books are worse than either ad, and yet she is makes regular appearances in the 'liberal media'.

[Scott]

MoveOn.org, can't.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Cain

EDIT: Why isn't blowjob one of the words that needs an asterisk? It's bleeped on television and radio.
Apparently not. One of the news readers on a local network TV affiliate here used it last week (several times I believe) in all it's unedited glory during a story on a sexual harassment lawsuit.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx
Apparently, moveon was a reaction to Clinton being charged for obstruction of justice and perjuring himself before a federal grand jury. Instead of holding the top man in the country accountable, they wanted America to "move on" because it was just a blowjob after all. Moveon represented the sentiment that because the American public were sick of scandal politics that we should just forget about giving crimes their hearings before congress and instead "moveon" since public sentiment should always come before the rule of law.

Note, the following are things moveon hasn't moved on from:
florida 2000
cheney energy task force
novak cia leak
anything with the name Haliburton

Not everyone believes that Clinton did, in fact, obstruct justice. Sorry, corplinx just because you think it's a fact doesn't make it true.

You seem to know more about moveon.org than I do, but three of the issues you list are solid examples of bad government that violate liberal ideologies:

- Intentional disenfranchisement of a population.
- Lack of transparency within the government.

The fourth (the Novak CIA leak), is, I think, a crime more heinous than lying in a civil court about past sexual relations. My personal opinion.

These seem like good issues to not "move on" from.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Not everyone believes that Clinton did, in fact, obstruct justice. Sorry, corplinx just because you think it's a fact doesn't make it true.

The fourth (the Novak CIA leak), is, I think, a crime more heinous than lying in a civil court about past sexual relations. My personal opinion.


Are you kidding?
A. its a pretty clearcut case of perjury and obstruction, it made the senate look like the the OJ jurors (mind you, i dont hate Clinton and if you read my old threads you will see me support him). Mind you, even nonviolent crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice are all the more serious because the man is president. Bush/Clinton should be held to the same standard you or I would if we deliberately lied to a grand jury. In fact, they should probably be held to a much higher standard.

B. the CIA leak has was about someone who was no longer an undercover agent so its arguable about whether or not the leak law even still applies, the intent of that law is to protect field agents. Given that and the fact that Novak is the only witness to the leak and he is not talking, I don't see why we shouldn't "moveon". Sorry, you aren't going to prove who leaked this by going through phone records.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


Are you kidding?
A. its a pretty clearcut case of perjury and obstruction, it made the senate look like the the OJ jurors (mind you, i dont hate Clinton and if you read my old threads you will see me support him). Mind you, even nonviolent crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice are all the more serious because the man is president. Bush/Clinton should be held to the same standard you or I would if we deliberately lied to a grand jury. In fact, they should probably be held to a much higher standard.

B. the CIA leak has was about someone who was no longer an undercover agent so its arguable about whether or not the leak law even still applies, the intent of that law is to protect field agents. Given that and the fact that Novak is the only witness to the leak and he is not talking, I don't see why we shouldn't "moveon". Sorry, you aren't going to prove who leaked this by going through phone records. A)You can have perjury, I'm contesting obstruction...perjury is a fine and a slap on the wrist, especially since the whole process was a sham and an embarassment. You might not mind corrupting the law for partisan smear tactics, but I do.

B) She may or may not have been an active agent, but now everything she was involved with is put at risk, again for partisan smear tactics.

Why should anyone support a party that takes actions such as this as a matter of course?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by corplinx

...the CIA leak has was about someone who was no longer an undercover agent
Your right rear meme (http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html) is low on air.

Some Bush partisans have suggested that the outing of Plame is no big deal, that she was "just an analyst" or maybe, as a G.O.P. Congressman told CNN, "a glorified secretary." But the facts tell otherwise. Plame was, for starters, a former NOC — that is, a spy with nonofficial cover who worked overseas as a private individual with no apparent connection to the U.S. government. NOCs are among the government's most closely guarded secrets, because they often work for real or fictive private companies overseas and are set loose to spy solo. NOCs are harder to train, more expensive to place and can remain undercover longer than conventional spooks. They can also go places and see people whom those under official cover cannot. They are in some ways the most vulnerable of all clandestine officers, since they have no claim to diplomatic immunity if they get caught.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose
I would be interested in hearing comments on the site from my American friends here.

Inconsequencial at worst, counterproductive at best...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Your right rear meme (http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html) is low on air.



Read your own post: "Plame was...a former NOC..."

[Charles Livingston]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Your right rear meme (http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html) is low on air.



I'm by no means saying your source is wrong (i didnt even click on the link afterall), but I read that she wasnt a NOC in a major magazine (newsweek i think) at a doctor's appointment around the time this whole thing came out. Can anyone confirm (I'm lazy)?

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx

cheney energy task force


Man, I can't imagine why moveon keeps b*tching about that. I mean, Cheney only allowed the biggest con-man in the world (Ken Lay) to have a say in our country's energy plans. I mean, what's the big deal, right corplinx?

[Zero]

1) Even if Plame was no longer active, I'm sure her official cover still existed, as well as the dummy corporation behind which her network hid. Revealing her real job puts all her contacts at risk.

2) Funny, about the Hitler/Bush thing...Rush Limbaugh just linked Howard Dean to Nikita Kruschev in his daily ramblings. I guarantee you'll only hear about it from me.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
1) Even if Plame was no longer active, I'm sure her official cover still existed, as well as the dummy corporation behind which her network hid. Revealing her real job puts all her contacts at risk.

2) Funny, about the Hitler/Bush thing...Rush Limbaugh just linked Howard Dean to Nikita Kruschev in his daily ramblings. I guarantee you'll only hear about it from me.

It's been said that Dean has a temper and a good extreme example of a leader with a temper is Nikita. The best example of that is Nikita's speech at the UN where he took his shoe off and started banging it on the podium as he spouted miner insults at I forget who -- probably USA. While I have not seen Dean do the same or near the same thing, I don't see this comparison to be anywhere near as bad as splicing Bush and Hitler speaches and alluding to the fact that the two are almost the same person. If Rush starts mixing tapes to show Dean to be exactly like some ex-soviet leader, than we'll talk.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
...I'm sure her official cover still existed, as well as the dummy corporation behind which her network hid.

How are you sure? Please share your evidence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


How are you sure? Please share your evidence. Between the fact that the Justice Department is involved, and teh facts of what a NOC does, and how that works, of course this compromises existing intelligence networks. NOCs operate out of various shell corporations, and now the one the Plame worked out of is exposed. Every person linked to her or that corporation are sure to face extra scrutiny from foreign intel agencies. Even if she wasn't active when she was outed, do you really believe that every person she was associated with retired with her?

Either way, this was a crime, and needs to be dealt with rather harshly.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's been said that Dean has a temper and a good extreme example of a leader with a temper is Nikita. The best example of that is Nikita's speech at the UN where he took his shoe off and started banging it on the podium as he spouted miner insults at I forget who -- probably USA. While I have not seen Dean do the same or near the same thing, I don't see this comparison to be anywhere near as bad as splicing Bush and Hitler speaches and alluding to the fact that the two are almost the same person. If Rush starts mixing tapes to show Dean to be exactly like some ex-soviet leader, than we'll talk. The Hitler/Bush thing was more accurate than the Dean/Kruschev. It is the different between political comparison and comparing temperment. Plus, the view in the ad was the opinion of a single filmmaker while Rush is a nationally syndicated radio host.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
The Hitler/Bush thing was more accurate than the Dean/Kruschev. It is the different between political comparison and comparing temperment. Plus, the view in the ad was the opinion of a single filmmaker while Rush is a nationally syndicated radio host.

Well you obviously appear to share some part of that view if you claim it to be somewhat accurate. Please, do share with us how accurate Hitler/Bush comparison was.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well you obviously appear to share some part of that view if you claim it to be somewhat accurate. Please, do share with us how accurate Hitler/Bush comparison was. Its just the rhetorical tactic of garnering support through fear and cries for vengance. That's it, no claims that Bush is going to invade Poland or create concentration camps.

An accurate comparison to Dean and his outbursts would actually be Bush, I think...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Its just the rhetorical tactic of garnering support through fear and cries for vengance. That's it, no claims that Bush is going to invade Poland or create concentration camps.

An accurate comparison to Dean and his outbursts would actually be Bush, I think...

I do not see it at all and that goes for both points. Could you be so kind as to provide a more specific example?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I do not see it at all and that goes for both points. Could you be so kind as to provide a more specific example? As to the first point, it is obvious from watching the ads. Here's a good article: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=14446




The second point may only be obvious to me, but Dean and Bush(as a candidate) both shoot from the lip, and sometimes stumble in making their point. Jesus, but Bush is a clumsy speaker when he strays from memorized talking points, isn't he?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
As to the first point, it is obvious from watching the ads. Here's a good article: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=14446




The second point may only be obvious to me, but Dean and Bush(as a candidate) both shoot from the lip, and sometimes stumble in making their point. Jesus, but Bush is a clumsy speaker when he strays from memorized talking points, isn't he?

That website is as biased as it can get, I lose interest whenever someone resorts to a comparison of a person to an animal in order to make their point. That and the article you linked to does not show up, can you paste some of it in here that best represent your point?

[Zero]

The truth is that the two ads are pretty darned good. The first shows Hitler in a parade and speaking, followed by scenes of German troops attacking, planes bombing, tanks firing, and victorious troops goose-stepping into occupied territory, as a voiceover says "A nation warped by lies--lies fuel fear--fear fuels aggression--invasion--occupation." As the scene fades from Hitler giving a raised arm salute to Bush with his hand raised at his inauguration, the voiceover says, "What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."

And the truth: The Bush administration deliberately stoked public fears after 9/11--just as the Nazi's used the Reichstag Fire--to win support for an illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, an act of aggression which, at the Nuremberg Trials, was specifically determined to be a war crime. The ad might have added that the "shock and awe" terror campaign that was the centerpiece of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was also by definition a war crime, since its target was the Iraqi public.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx


Are you kidding?
A. its a pretty clearcut case of perjury and obstruction, it made the senate look like the the OJ jurors (mind you, i dont hate Clinton and if you read my old threads you will see me support him). Mind you, even nonviolent crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice are all the more serious because the man is president. Bush/Clinton should be held to the same standard you or I would if we deliberately lied to a grand jury. In fact, they should probably be held to a much higher standard.

No, I'm not: I read the transcript of Clinton's testimony. I personally think he was attempting to not answer the question while not actually committing perjury.

I personally think he failed. It doesn't mean that others view it like that.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
The truth is that the two ads are pretty darned good. The first shows Hitler in a parade and speaking, followed by scenes of German troops attacking, planes bombing, tanks firing, and victorious troops goose-stepping into occupied territory, as a voiceover says "A nation warped by lies--lies fuel fear--fear fuels aggression--invasion--occupation." As the scene fades from Hitler giving a raised arm salute to Bush with his hand raised at his inauguration, the voiceover says, "What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."

And the truth: The Bush administration deliberately stoked public fears after 9/11--just as the Nazi's used the Reichstag Fire--to win support for an illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq, an act of aggression which, at the Nuremberg Trials, was specifically determined to be a war crime. The ad might have added that the "shock and awe" terror campaign that was the centerpiece of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was also by definition a war crime, since its target was the Iraqi public.

Firstly, I do not believe the act of invasion of Poland or any other country was ever presented to be a war crime on the part of Germany (if I am wrong please let me know because this is the first I would hear of this). War in Iraq is not a war crime either, not is it any type of crime otherwise there would be some UN resolution claiming it to be such and I for one never heard of such. Furthermore, there is still a heated debate on whether or not war in Iraq was justified or not -- and let's not forget, Hitler did not stop with Poland, he went on to Conquer everything in his sight -- I for one think the war was justified, but that's a different argument all together.

So, all in all that's pretty much an inaccurate portrayal of Bush and nothing more than a cheap trick to get support for a video.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron



So, all in all that's pretty much an inaccurate portrayal of Bush and nothing more than a cheap trick to get support for a video. No, and if you knew anything about it,you wouldn't say that. It is focusing on the speeches Bush makes, and that's it. And I don't understand what you mean by 'cheap trick to get support for a video'. There is no video, there was an ad submitted to MoveOn that was rejected and deleted from the site.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
No, and if you knew anything about it,you wouldn't say that. It is focusing on the speeches Bush makes, and that's it. And I don't understand what you mean by 'cheap trick to get support for a video'. There is no video, there was an ad submitted to MoveOn that was rejected and deleted from the site.

I'm sorry, I meant cheap trick to get support for that ad.

That means nothing, though. With enough video of any US President's speeches I can splice it together to make them look like Hitler too and it would also be completely meaningless.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
No, and if you knew anything about it,you wouldn't say that. It is focusing on the speeches Bush makes, and that's it. And I don't understand what you mean by 'cheap trick to get support for a video'. There is no video, there was an ad submitted to MoveOn that was rejected and deleted from the site.

In the last moveon.org thread, I mentioned a good article at everyone's favorite news source, FoxNews.com that pretty much showed moveon was in the clear on this issue.

Moveon didn't produce the video, didn't endorse it, and when they were made aware they removed it. End of story.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


In the last moveon.org thread, I mentioned a good article at everyone's favorite news source, FoxNews.com that pretty much showed moveon was in the clear on this issue.

Moveon didn't produce the video, didn't endorse it, and when they were made aware they removed it. End of story. Can you drag that link over here?:D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
Between the fact that the Justice Department is involved, and teh facts of what a NOC does, and how that works, of course this compromises existing intelligence networks. NOCs operate out of various shell corporations, and now the one the Plame worked out of is exposed. Every person linked to her or that corporation are sure to face extra scrutiny from foreign intel agencies. Even if she wasn't active when she was outed, do you really believe that every person she was associated with retired with her?

Either way, this was a crime, and needs to be dealt with rather harshly.

Those are assumptions, not evidence.

Your knowledge of spycraft seems based on too many Ahhnold movies.

A better, though hardly perfect, fictional source would be any of Clancy's novels.

NOC's are almost always placed in positions with legit companies (sometimes without even the company's knowledge), and they never know the identity of their internal contact(s). Also, their methods for emergeny egress or extraction consist of preplanned drops and signals meaningless to outsiders.

If she were a current, and not a former NOC, she, and anyone she recruited, would indeed be at risk. Luckily, this is not the case.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak



If she were a current, and not a former NOC, she, and anyone she recruited, would indeed be at risk. Luckily, this is not the case. Well, since you concede half the point, you ought to just come over the rest of the way,no? Again,I ask you: do you think that everyone she contacted and recruited has simply disappeared because she is no longer active?

[Skeptic]

Those are assumptions, not evidence.

Your knowledge of spycraft seems based on too many Ahhnold movies.

A better, though hardly perfect, fictional source would be any of Clancy's novels.

Surprised? Zero's understanding of the middle east seems to come out of Lawrence of Arabia, too, but that doesn't stop him from having an opinion...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Those are assumptions, not evidence.

Your knowledge of spycraft seems based on too many Ahhnold movies.

A better, though hardly perfect, fictional source would be any of Clancy's novels.

Surprised? Zero's understanding of the middle east seems to come out of Lawrence of Arabia, too, but that doesn't stop him from having an opinion... Do you have a hard time reading, or thinking?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, since you concede half the point, you ought to just come over the rest of the way,no? Again,I ask you: do you think that everyone she contacted and recruited has simply disappeared because she is no longer active?

I've conceded nothing.

To answer your question: I don't know, and neither do you.

You were the one claiming you were sure. I still contend that you have no evidence to back you up - only assumptions.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I've conceded nothing.

To answer your question: I don't know, and neither do you.

You were the one claiming you were sure. I still contend that you have no evidence to back you up - only assumptions. Is this part of some quasi-religious faith in Republicans? That you cannot accept that there is any possibility of wrongdoing, so you grasp for any excuse,like the felony violation of American security is no big deal, because she isn't active.

Its ok, though, I won't hold it against you.:D The Justice Department is taking it seriously enough to investigate, and John Ashcroft takes it seriously enough to have recused himself.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
Is this part of some quasi-religious faith in Republicans? That you cannot accept that there is any possibility of wrongdoing, so you grasp for any excuse,like the felony violation of American security is no big deal, because she isn't active.

Its ok, though, I won't hold it against you.:D The Justice Department is taking it seriously enough to investigate, and John Ashcroft takes it seriously enough to have recused himself.

How can me posting "I don't know" and "you have no evidence", as well as stating the simple fact that she is indeed a former NOC, be interpreted as quasi-religious faith?!?! :confused:

[MLynn]

I would value anyone's opinions on MoveOn in regard to:

* Are they legit?
* Besides being leaning to the "left" what agendas do they have?
* How bad are their biases and would they lie because they have an axe to grind?

The reason I ask - there is now a rift between two people I care about. "One" is not a "liberal" but a free-thinker and has been forwarding the other MoveOn emails. The "other" who is very much a "conservative" politically has been responding to "one" in an angry venomous way.

I'm trying to sort things out so I can have a conversation with both of them. Thanks for any help!

[Cleon]

Originally posted by MLynn
I would value anyone's opinions on MoveOn in regard to:

* Are they legit?
* Besides being leaning to the "left" what agendas do they have?
* How bad are their biases and would they lie because they have an axe to grind?


I've never heard of MoveOn.org lying outright; but they do have a left-Democrat agenda. No getting around that--hell, that's why they're there. As such, they're no more "legit" or "illegit" as anyone else.

The criticisms I've seen of them have more to do with the fact that they have the political opinions that they do than whether they're being truthful or not, which makes me suspect that they're fairly honest.

[MLynn]

Thanks, Cleon - great dalek, by the way. ;)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by MLynn
Thanks, Cleon - great dalek, by the way. ;)

Man, I've been using that avatar for MONTHS and this is the first anyone's said about it. :)

(They've announced who the new Doctor will be...Thank Jebus it won't be that dork from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)

[Oso]

moveon.org? Why yes, quite a nice group of people. I regularly send them money so they can amuse me with such things as the following link. Donald Rumsfeld doing a spit-take after being caught in a lie, and not just any ol' lie.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

ain't the internet wonderful

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Oso
moveon.org? Why yes, quite a nice group of people. I regularly send them money so they can amuse me with such things as the following link. Donald Rumsfeld doing a spit-take after being caught in a lie, and not just any ol' lie.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

ain't the internet wonderful

Jeez.... As if I haven't done a good enough job debunking this in other threads.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by corplinx


Jeez.... As if I haven't done a good enough job debunking this in other threads.

Sorry, I don't think you have.

Dancing around the phasing of what he said is sort of like
"It depends on what your definition of "is" is"
The guy lied. So what? He does that.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by MLynn
I would value anyone's opinions on MoveOn in regard to:

* Are they legit?
* Besides being leaning to the "left" what agendas do they have?
* How bad are their biases and would they lie because they have an axe to grind?

The reason I ask - there is now a rift between two people I care about. "One" is not a "liberal" but a free-thinker and has been forwarding the other MoveOn emails. The "other" who is very much a "conservative" politically has been responding to "one" in an angry venomous way.

I'm trying to sort things out so I can have a conversation with both of them. Thanks for any help!

Here is all you need to know about them:

1) Legit? Is any political group "legit"? I mean, yes they really exist. But I wouldn't send them any money.
2) George W Bush seems to be their obsession...err...I mean "agenda"
3) They are a political organization. All of them lie.

What I find funny is that they were formed when the nut right was having a hissy fit about Bill getting a hummer. Their name ment "get over it" aka "move on". But now they can't seem to get past the fact that George W Bush won the election.

Move On indeed.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Evolver


Sorry, I don't think you have.

Dancing around the phasing of what he said is sort of like
"It depends on what your definition of "is" is"
The guy lied. So what? He does that.

That's a stretch. His statement clearly showed an intent to not write off Iraq as a threat. However, neither of the statements says that Iraq is an immediate threat.

So how is that redefining "is" ?

His first statement was that he would not conclude that Iraq was not an urgent threat.

His second statement was that perhaps Iraq was the most immediate of threats of the threats there are.

I'm sorry, but even though these statements are lame or whatever, he still didn't say Iraq was an immediate threat.

This isn't redefining "is".

I hate word parsing as much as the next guy but this is just the sort of crapola you see on snopes.

"But what about the way he stammered?"
So what? There are more reasons for getting flustered other than "being caught in a lie". For instance, Rumsfeld doesn't suffer fools lightly. He probably wanted to wring Friedman's neck at that point for bringing out quotes that it would look bad to split hairs on.

Debunked. QED.

[Oso]

Originally posted by corplinx
That's a stretch. His statement clearly showed an intent to not write off Iraq as a threat. However, neither of the statements says that Iraq is an immediate threat.
...
You talkin' about this statement quoted to Donald Rumsfeld on Face The Nation?
No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

-- Donald Rumsfeld September 18, 2002

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Oso
You talkin' about this statement quoted to Donald Rumsfeld on Face The Nation?


Don't pull a moveon and highlight the words immediate threat to downplay the fact that the statement itself only says that Iraq was a more timely threat than say North Korea.

We already went through this same rigamarole in the "nothing up our sleeve" thread.

[Oso]

Originally posted by corplinx
Don't pull a moveon and highlight the words immediate threat to downplay the fact that the statement itself only says that Iraq was a more timely threat than say North Korea.
-- my emphasis, Oso --Which was also wrong.

But you are in fact making the correct point. They did not understand the difference between Iraq, North Korea and Al Qaeda and apparently still don't.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Oso
They did not understand the difference between Iraq, North Korea and Al Qaeda and apparently still don't.

Yeah, Dick Cheney, Dr. Rice, Gen. Powell, and Don Rumsfeld are all idiots who don't get it but you are enlightened and understand world affairs.

[Silicon]

No terror state poses a greater immediate threat than Iraq?


Who says that, and then says they never said "Immediate threat?"


Can you imagine this exchange:

Rumsfeld: "No terror state poses a greater immediate threat than Iraq."

Reporter: "So your saying that Iraq is an immediate threat to America?"

Rumsfeld: "Woah woah, slow down there, cowboy. I said 'no state poses a GREATER imediate threat.' Actually, no state poses any immediate threat at all. I might as well have said that Iceland poses no greater immediate threat! Nobody's an immediate threat. Iraq is just an ordinary threat. I'm not going to say immediate, because that would scare people unduely, and then I'll have to answer for that later."



Those words WERE MEANT by Rumsfeld to scare the American public into supporting the war. He CHOSE to say "immediate", and he CHOSE to couch it in a little bit of weasel language, as shown above.


And what I hate is that I trusted him when he said that. I trusted Colin Powell when he showed all those photos with arrows to the UN. After all, Colin Powell doesn't lie.

ARRRRGH.



Oh, yeah, and MoveOn is a political pac. They seem to be getting in hot water about their spending practices running afoul of McCain/Finegold. Not good.

But they just have the point of view of electing anybody but Bush. So if that's your thing, they've got a lot of money to spend.

[patnray]

Originally posted by corplinx
Apparently, moveon was a reaction to Clinton being charged for obstruction of justice and perjuring himself before a federal grand jury. Instead of holding the top man in the country accountable, they wanted America to "move on" because it was just a blowjob after all.

A very deft mis-statement of moveon's position. They did not say he should not be held accountable. Their point was that impeachment was not the proper course. It was a foregone conclusion that it would fail, and it was pushed by Republicans for political purposes. Moveon, and others, suggested that it would have been more appropriate to censure him and then "move on". By insisting on impeachment, the Republicans allowed Clinton to escape any other consequences...

[MLynn]

Thanks to everyone for your responses - I appreciated it!

[Oso]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yeah, Dick Cheney, Dr. Rice, Gen. Powell, and Don Rumsfeld are all idiots who don't get it but you are enlightened and understand world affairs. Yeah, scares sh*t out of me.