FINALLY! Bipartisan Agreement

[Mephisto]

Bush Staff Wanted Bomb-Detect Cash Moved
By John Solomon
The Associated Press

Friday 11 August 2006

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

emphasis mine

For the whole article . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081206Y.shtml

[Apollyon]

Truthout really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to damn the admin with in this story. I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about. However, I wonder if a Federal building had been hit, and if liquid explosives weren't the topic de jour, would they whine that the admin wanted to divert 6 million to the FPS but a bi-partisan commission prevented the funds from being transfered? Doubtful. That wouldn't be Truthout's particular flavor of kool-aid.

As someone else in here once observed though, any website that has "truth, progress, or think" in their name generally doesn't subscribe to any of those notions.

[varwoche]

Corrected for accuracy...

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Truthout Associated Press really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to damn the admin with in this story. I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about. However, I wonder if a Federal building had been hit, and if liquid explosives weren't the topic de jour, would they whine that the admin wanted to divert 6 million to the FPS but a bi-partisan commission prevented the funds from being transfered? Doubtful. That wouldn't be Truthout's Associated Press' particular flavor of kool-aid.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Corrected for accuracy...

Oh. Great. Thanks for pointing that out.

I shall start linking to Free Republic to provide URLs to press stories. After all, we all know Free Republic has no particular agenda behind presenting stories with a particular viewpoint. They certainly would never scrape the bottom of the barrel just to enhance the flavor of their own kool-aid, would they?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Oh. Great. Thanks for pointing that out.

I shall start linking to Free Republic to provide URLs to press stories. After all, we all know Free Republic has no particular agenda behind presenting stories with a particular viewpoint. They certainly would never scrape the bottom of the barrel just to enhance the flavor of their own kool-aid, would they?

You were aware it was an AP story and yet you still reemed Truthout? Or are you simply adjusting your rant after the fact?

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by varwoche

You were aware it was an AP story and yet you still reemed Truthout? Or are you simply adjusting your rant after the fact?

I never claimed that Truthout wrote the story in the first place. But nice try running blocking for them.

Are you saying that Truthout doesn't make their agenda and political slant very clear?

[Charlie Monoxide]

Good one Apollyon. Let's make sure we don't discus the OP subject ....

Charlie (silence the messenger) Monoxide

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

I never claimed that Truthout wrote the story in the first place.

Then I suggest you be more precise with your words in order not to create misconceptions.

Quote:

Are you saying that Truthout doesn't make their agenda and political slant very clear?

To the limited extent that I'm familiar w/them, I'm not saying that or even vaguely suggesting it.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Then I suggest you be more precise with your words in order not to create misconceptions.

I would suggest you request clarification instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

Quote:

To the limited extent that I'm familiar w/them, I'm not saying that or even vaguely suggesting it.

Then maybe you should find out? Knowing that information just might help you understand why I wrote my original response to the OP.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Bush Staff Wanted Bomb-Detect Cash Moved
By John Solomon
The Associated Press

Friday 11 August 2006

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

emphasis mine

For the whole article . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081206Y.shtml

Your america hating is sickening!!!

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide

Good one Apollyon. Let's make sure we don't discus the OP subject ....

Charlie (silence the messenger) Monoxide

Help yourself, Charlie.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

I would suggest you request clarification instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

This is basically what I did. No matter, let's try again (underlines added)...

Quote:

I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about. However, I wonder if a Federal building had been hit, and if liquid explosives weren't the topic de jour, would they whine that the admin wanted to divert 6 million to the FPS...

Who exactly beefed and whined and could you quote some of the beefing and whining?

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by varwoche

This is basically what I did.

I see.

I was not aware that "corrected for accuracy" was actually a question.

Quote:

No matter, let's try again (underlines added)... Who exactly beefed and whined and could you quote some of the beefing and whining?

Sure.

The beef: The "Bush admin" (Nice generalization. Notice they don't specifically mention who was actually responsible. Surely just an oversight.) supposedly wanted to divert 6 million dollars from a 763 million dollar budget. (You have to look the budget figure up yourself since the article apparently doesn't deem the information relevant enough to mention.) Reportedly this money was dedicated to explosives detection technology. (The article leaves ti up to the reader to fill in the gap as to whether this was for detecting liquid explosives, plastic, or whatever.)

The whine: Since the Islamic fascists (Oops, I meant "British terror suspects," as per AP's nomenclature.) had a plan to attack us with liquid explosives, let's gin up some article on how the Bush admin is supposedly failing the people by way of a department within a department within the Department of Homeland Security. Let's pretend we should have a system in place right now to detect liquid explosives and fearmonger a bit.

The real problem that the article gives the briefest mention of: The DHS has been testing explosives detection equipment for some years now and has not found a system yet that performs satisfactorily and consistently for detecting liquid explosives. That's why we have none in place as of yet.

AP note for future story: Hopefully this story will force the admin into rushing equipment in place to placate those we've fooled with this story so we can subsequently report how the admin blew 6 million dollars buying equipment that doesn't work worth a crap.

[corplinx]

While terrorists are busy hatching a plot to harm innocent white american children, the bush administration was busy gutting the very program racing to stop them.

Man, that AP writer should go to work for Reuters in Lebanon. He's got the right stuff for that job.

[varwoche]

Apollyon, you are going on about non-specific beefing and whining from unspecified beefers and whiners.

Specifically, can you please quote the beef/whine, and link precisely to the beefers/whiners? I hope you can understand my confusion seeing as the page Mephisto linked to contains ONLY the AP article with zero beefing/whining/commentary from Truthout.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Apollyon, you are going on about non-specific beefing and whining from unspecified beefers and whiners.

Specifically, can you please quote the beef/whine, and link precisely to the beefers/whiners? I hope you can understand my confusion seeing as the page Mephisto linked to contains ONLY the AP article with zero beefing/whining/commentary from Truthout.

Sure. I'll provide that information to you right after you prove to me that the people who run Truthout disagree with the content of the article and had no particular motivation for carrying it on their website. Also prove that they don't have a history of being anti-Bush. It may take some time and research as you're admittedly unfamiliar with them.

Why, I bet even Mephisto disagrees with the article and merely posted this thread to show what a dupe Truthout is to be had by a veiled hatchet-job article by the AP. Could you check on that as well and get back to me?

Thanks.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Are you saying that Truthout doesn't make their agenda and political slant very clear?

At least their motto isn't (laughingly), "Fair & Balanced."

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Why, I bet even Mephisto disagrees with the article and merely posted this thread to show what a dupe Truthout is to be had by a veiled hatchet-job article by the AP. Could you check on that as well and get back to me?

Thanks.

No, you're wrong, Apollyon - I agree with the article and noted first that it was written by the Associated Press before I provided the link. Some people here have a knee jerk reaction to anything Truthout says, and I thought it was pretty funny that you did too, in spite of the fact that they're only quoting the Associated Press - but of course, the media is liberal (with the exception of Faux News).

(edited to add) I thought it interesting that the first major bipartisan agreement came from the inadequacies of Homeland Security.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

At least their motto isn't (laughingly), "Fair & Balanced."

If that were their motto, it certainly would be a laugh. Apparently though, getting the "truth out" precludes one from being fair and balanced.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

No, you're wrong, Apollyon - I agree with the article and noted first that it was written by the Associated Press before I provided the link. Some people here have a knee jerk reaction to anything Truthout says, and I thought it was pretty funny that you did too, in spite of the fact that they're only quoting the Associated Press - but of course, the media is liberal (with the exception of Faux News).

(edited to add) I thought it interesting that the first major bipartisan agreement came from the inadequacies of Homeland Security.

Yes, we know. The AP is only unfair when Fox News uses them. Only Fox News is skewed and biased.

And I thought the first bi-partisan agreement under Bush was voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution? iirc, most of the Democrats were on-board with that too.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Yes, we know. The AP is only unfair when Fox News uses them. Only Fox News is skewed and biased.

And I thought the first bi-partisan agreement under Bush was voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution? iirc, most of the Democrats were on-board with that too.

Yeah, we're keeping them in mind come November.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Yeah, we're keeping them in mind come November.

Good luck. That strategy didn't do the Dems any favors in '04.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Good luck. That strategy didn't do the Dems any favors in '04.

Yeah, but back in 04, Bush's approval ratings weren't hovering around his IQ. The Republicans and their Conservative Democrat friends are already trying to distance themselves from the fiasco that is this administration is responsible for, but it's going to prove difficult considering they've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Yeah, but back in 04, Bush's approval ratings weren't hovering around his IQ. The Republicans and their Conservative Democrat friends are already trying to distance themselves from the fiasco that is this administration is responsible for, but it's going to prove difficult considering they've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Bush can't run again so it doesn't really matter what his numbers are. Polls didn't help the Dems in '04. Don't count on them in '08 either. While the GOP is weak, Democrats don't have a compelling candidate either. Assuming Giuliani runs for the GOP - a guy who can actually speak, who does curry favor among the public, and is not GW Bush - the Democrats are going to need a miracle.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Bush can't run again so it doesn't really matter what his numbers are. Polls didn't help the Dems in '04. Don't count on them in '08 either. While the GOP is weak, Democrats don't have a compelling candidate either. Assuming Giuliani runs for the GOP - a guy who can actually speak, who does curry favor among the public, and is not GW Bush - the Democrats are going to need a miracle.

The Democrats aren't going to need a miracle - they just need to keep giving the Republicans the rope they need to hang themselves.

I am questioning Rudy's qualifications though - just because he was the mayor of a city hit by terrorists doesn't qualify him to be President. He basically did what any mayor would - bemoan the loss of life, send in the police and paramedics, ask for help from the government, go to funerals and take plenty of photo-ops. Look back at most of the photos of people working on the WTC rubble, hardly any of them are wearing breathing protection. Now people are succumbing to diseases and respiratory problems stemming from breathing the dust. Just an oversight that "a good leader" should have thought of.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Sure. I'll provide that information to you right after you prove to me that the people who run Truthout disagree with the content of the article and had no particular motivation for carrying it on their website. Also prove that they don't have a history of being anti-Bush.

I hear the sound of disjointed goalposts moving abruptly.

The next time you want to rant against Truthout I suggest that you create a thread for it (and include some evidence; what a concept) rather than derail unrelated threads with confusing posts.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

The Democrats aren't going to need a miracle - they just need to keep giving the Republicans the rope they need to hang themselves.

I am questioning Rudy's qualifications though - just because he was the mayor of a city hit by terrorists doesn't qualify him to be President. He basically did what any mayor would - bemoan the loss of life, send in the police and paramedics, ask for help from the government, go to funerals and take plenty of photo-ops. Look back at most of the photos of people working on the WTC rubble, hardly any of them are wearing breathing protection. Now people are succumbing to diseases and respiratory problems stemming from breathing the dust. Just an oversight that "a good leader" should have thought of.

We will see. A lot can happen in two years. But don't assume that your perception of Republican failure translates into Democratic success. It hasn't been a winning strategy recently and, like it or not, the folks on the left don't have near the numbers or support that they like to believe they have. They are going to have to woo (in the classical definition of the word, not the JREF one) the fence-sitters, where the important numbers of voters are, or risk getting trounced again.

As far as the WTC rescuers exposed to toxic substances, trying to pin that responsibility on Giuliani is a bit of a stretch and I don't believe a lot of people are going to buy it. If the left takes that approach against Giuliani, it will be confirmation that they are still "stuck on stupid."

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I hear the sound of disjointed goalposts moving abruptly.

The next time you want to rant against Truthout I suggest that you create a thread for it (and include some evidence; what a concept) rather than derail unrelated threads with confusing posts.

Next time you want to suggest something to me concerning my actions in this forum, I suggest you become a mod first.

I've already DIRECTLY addressed the issues brought up by the article that Truthout decided to post on their website, which is a far sight more than you have done in this thread. Do you care to actually address this issues or not? Or do you want to merely continue splitting fine hairs with your laughable argument of "Truthout didn't write this, the AP did!"?

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

We will see. A lot can happen in two years. But don't assume that your perception of Republican failure translates into Democratic success. It hasn't been a winning strategy recently and, like it or not, the folks on the left don't have near the numbers or support that they like to believe they have. They are going to have to woo (in the classical definition of the word, not the JREF one) the fence-sitters, where the important numbers of voters are, or risk getting trounced again.

Certainly a lot can happen in two years and there is absolutely no reason to assume any of it will be good (you're not still waiting for Iraq to become Democratic, are you?) judging by the dismal track record of this administration.

As for the "fence-sitters," most of them are being blown off the fence by the frequent concussions in Iraq as well as the turmoil in Lebanon. Only an idiot or an apologist will see "staying the course," as anything but pigheaded.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Certainly a lot can happen in two years and there is absolutely no reason to assume any of it will be good (you're not still waiting for Iraq to become Democratic, are you?) judging by the dismal track record of this administration.

Considering the left has been poo-pooing Iraq for years now yet, despite all their proclamations of doom & gloom, Iraq continues to wobble forward, you might want to consider that a lot of people don't view Iraq through the same spectacles as you. If Iraq is not democratic, why did so many Iraqis vote last time around?

The rhetoric and pessimism about Iraq, that is heavily partisan flavored, coming from the Democrats has not done them any favors.

Quote:

As for the "fence-sitters," most of them are being blown off the fence by the frequent concussions in Iraq as well as the turmoil in Lebanon. Only an idiot or an apologist will see "staying the course," as anything but pigheaded.

Using words like idiot, apologists, or pigheaded is not going to win the Dems any converts either. It's merely going to serve to make the Democrats look like haters and immature little children who stomp their feet when they don't get their way. Additionally, they need to stop worrying about what the GOP is doing and worry more about coming up with a coherent policy platform that describes what the Democrats are FOR, not what they are AGAINST.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Next time you want to suggest something to me concerning my actions in this forum, I suggest you become a mod first.

I'm unaware that suggesting is a mod thing, nor is it rational to respond to reasonable criticism this way even if you disagree.

And seeing as you too are a non-mod and a fellow suggester, I'm glad we have at least some common ground here!

Quote:

Or do you want to merely continue splitting fine hairs...

I disagree that clarifying a misleading attribution is splitting fine hairs.

(To be clear, I assume that you did not intend to mislead.)

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Considering the left has been poo-pooing Iraq for years now yet, despite all their proclamations of doom & gloom, Iraq continues to wobble forward, you might want to consider that a lot of people don't view Iraq through the same spectacles as you. If Iraq is not democratic, why did so many Iraqis vote last time around?

The Left was poo-pooing the "FACT" that Iraq had WMD, the Left poo-poo'ed the fact that "it was going to be a slam-dunk," or "that we'll be greeted as liberators." I think, in retrospect, you'll find the country less willing to eat the red herring that is served with a purple heart as a side dish all too often by this adminstration.

Originally Posted by Apollyon

The rhetoric and pessimism about Iraq, that is heavily partisan flavored, coming from the Democrats has not done them any favors.

Can you name anything good happening in Iraq right now? Go ahead, provide a link that will, once and for all, shut up anyone who believes that Iraq is nothing more than a major cluster-fu*k. For the record, the Iraqi government claimed that this past month over 3,000 people have died in violence (I heard it on CNN - you can run a search if you like). It doesn't sound like things are going well there at all.

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Using words like idiot, apologists, or pigheaded is not going to win the Dems any converts either. It's merely going to serve to make the Democrats look like haters and immature little children who stomp their feet when they don't get their way. Additionally, they need to stop worrying about what the GOP is doing and worry more about coming up with a coherent policy platform that describes what the Democrats are FOR, not what they are AGAINST.

I see, the Democrats are going to look like immature little children who stomp their feet when they don't get their way, but the Republicans don't hesitate to hire people like the Swiftboat ********** for Bush to discredit decorated veterans. As for what the Democrats stand for - I think this country is ready for almost anyone that DOESN'T stand for:

A. illegal and costly wars

B. an out-of-control deficit

C. spying on the American people

D. torture

E. secret prisons

F. insisting that WE support our troops while cutting V.A. benefits

G. disregard for the environment

H. helping big corporations make even more money

I. exporting American jobs to other countries

J. $hitting on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

K. pushing creationism in schools

L. blurring the line between church and state

M. blatant cronyism

N. "no-bid" contracts in a war zone for their corporate cronies

O. destroying our reputation as a nation

P. an economy in shambles (yes, I know it's doing great, just ask Halliburton and all the pharmeceutical companies)

Q. security leaks galore

R. widening the chasm between social classes (i.e. the disappearing middle class)

S. the comedy that is national disaster preparedness

T. permanent tax cuts for the richest 1%

U. the costly comedy known as Homeland Security

V. the Plame affair

W. the Jack Abramoff scandal

X. payment of columnists to push Bush agenda

Y. the Dubai ports controversy

Z. bugging the UN

and many things yet to come . . . as you said, two years is a long time, but maybe not long enough to undo what they've already done.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

I've already DIRECTLY addressed the issues brought up by the article that Truthout decided to post on their website, which is a far sight more than you have done in this thread. Do you care to actually address this issues or not? Or do you want to merely continue splitting fine hairs with your laughable argument of "Truthout didn't write this, the AP did!"?

But you DIDN'T address the OP which stated that BOTH Republican and Democratic congressmen agreed that 6 million dollars to develop bomb-detection technology should NOT be diverted elsewhere as the Bush administration wanted to do. You merely jumped on the notion that this was a Truthout article instead of an Associated Press article. Other than the fact that the Bush Administration wanted to spend 6 million dollars slated for actual security THERE WERE NO ISSUES. Hence, the subject title.

Here is your very first statement in this thread. You obviously took enough offense that the article was from Truthout to notice that BOTH Republicans and Democrats were agreeing about something important. So much for bipartisanship, huh?

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Truthout really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to damn the admin with in this story. I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

The Left was poo-pooing the "FACT" that Iraq had WMD, the Left poo-poo'ed the fact that "it was going to be a slam-dunk," or "that we'll be greeted as liberators." I think, in retrospect, you'll find the country less willing to eat the red herring that is served with a purple heart as a side dish all too often by this adminstration.

(rant snipped)

and many things yet to come . . . as you said, two years is a long time, but maybe not long enough to undo what they've already done.

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point, Mephisto.

"Additionally, they need to stop worrying about what the GOP is doing and worry more about coming up with a coherent policy platform that describes what the Democrats are FOR, not what they are AGAINST."

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point, Mephisto.

"Additionally, they need to stop worrying about what the GOP is doing and worry more about coming up with a coherent policy platform that describes what the Democrats are FOR, not what they are AGAINST."

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I think this country is ready for almost anyone that DOESN'T stand for:

A. illegal and costly wars

B. an out-of-control deficit

C. spying on the American people

D. torture

E. secret prisons

F. insisting that WE support our troops while cutting V.A. benefits

G. disregard for the environment

H. helping big corporations make even more money

I. exporting American jobs to other countries

J. $hitting on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

K. pushing creationism in schools

L. blurring the line between church and state

M. blatant cronyism

N. "no-bid" contracts in a war zone for their corporate cronies

O. destroying our reputation as a nation

P. an economy in shambles (yes, I know it's doing great, just ask Halliburton and all the pharmeceutical companies)

Q. security leaks galore

R. widening the chasm between social classes (i.e. the disappearing middle class)

S. the comedy that is national disaster preparedness

T. permanent tax cuts for the richest 1%

U. the costly comedy known as Homeland Security

V. the Plame affair

W. the Jack Abramoff scandal

X. payment of columnists to push Bush agenda

Y. the Dubai ports controversy

Z. bugging the UN

and many things yet to come . . . as you said, two years is a long time, but maybe not long enough to undo what they've already done.

And what did the Republicans promise us that has yet to be delivered?

A. make the world a safer place

B. make Iraq a Democratic country

C. capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"

D. spread Democracy throughout the middle-east

and so on and so forth - it seems the Republicans haven't exactly kept their word, have they? Terrorism is rampant, the U.S. is being targeted yet again, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, Iran is attempting to procure nuclear weapons, Palestine has VOTED in a terrorist organization to lead them, North Korea is becoming bolder with each passing day, Social Security is a confusing mess, the tax cuts for the rich that Bush promised would help the economy haven't done anything other than making the richest 1% even richer, oil prices have gone up . . . etc.

I think the American public is tired of political promises - it would seem logical to me that simply saying, "We WON'T do these thing to you," is a pretty enticing platform for any party.

(edited to add) You've yet to provide a link that proves once and for all that good things are happening in Iraq.

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

But you DIDN'T address the OP which stated that BOTH Republican and Democratic congressmen agreed that 6 million dollars to develop bomb-detection technology should NOT be diverted elsewhere as the Bush administration wanted to do. You merely jumped on the notion that this was a Truthout article instead of an Associated Press article. Other than the fact that the Bush Administration wanted to spend 6 million dollars slated for actual security THERE WERE NO ISSUES. Hence, the subject title.

Here is your very first statement in this thread. You obviously took enough offense that the article was from Truthout to notice that BOTH Republicans and Democrats were agreeing about something important. So much for bipartisanship, huh?

Erm, I made no claim that this was an article written by Truthout. That was a claim made by another member in a weak attempt to counter what I stated about Truthout.

Truthout uses AP just like Fox News does. I'm sure you'd agree that Fox carefully picks and chooses the AP articles they use to coincide with their conservative slant. Truthout is no different than Fox in that regard except that their slant is on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

You, Mr. Mephisto, won't hesitate to make mention of Fox and their bias in numerous threads in this forum. You do it quite regularly in here. Yet you get all bent out of shape when someone calls a website with a liberal bias to the floor? Seems to be a bit of "Do as I say but not as I do."

As far as the article - Bipartisan agreement? Important? :chuckle: Do you mean important like the bi-partisan agreement when the GOP rigged up a congressional vote for Iraq withdrawal to set up Murtha and make him look like a fool? C'mon, it's transparent what this article is about so please don't be coy. In doing so you underestimate your opposition greatly. You guys did it in '04 and you're still doing it today.

btw, I am not your opposition. I'm a registered independent; a former democrat and former liberal who has moved away from the left because of the absolute idiocy that has overtaken that portion of the political spectrum. I've been watching the last 5 years from the middle, hoping that some semblance of sense returns to the left and that classical liberalism will come back into vogue because the hateful, screechy-voiced little punks that fill their ranks now are a big turnoff.

[gumboot]

Wow...

If you want woo in a skeptic's webforum... go to the politics sections...

-Andrew

[Apollyon]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

And what did the Republicans promise us that has yet to be delivered?

A. make the world a safer place

B. make Iraq a Democratic country

C. capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"

D. spread Democracy throughout the middle-east

and so on and so forth - it seems the Republicans haven't exactly kept their word, have they? Terrorism is rampant, the U.S. is being targeted yet again, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, Iran is attempting to procure nuclear weapons, Palestine has VOTED in a terrorist organization to lead them, North Korea is becoming bolder with each passing day, Social Security is a confusing mess, the tax cuts for the rich that Bush promised would help the economy haven't done anything other than making the richest 1% even richer, oil prices have gone up . . . etc.

I think the American public is tired of political promises - it would seem logical to me that simply saying, "We WON'T do these thing to you," is a pretty enticing platform for any party.

Again you prove my point. You should be focusing on the Democrats and what they are for, not the GOP actions they are against.

Quote:

(edited to add) You've yet to provide a link that proves once and for all that good things are happening in Iraq.

Oh, is that what you're looking for? Well it's difficult to provide links to information that the media seemingly refuses to report on in Iraq. If you want an example of what I mean, I submit the following:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blo...h_the_msm.html

Quote:

Sunday, 06 August 2006

Maj. Gen. William H. McCoy Jr.
To the editor of the Washington Post,

After spending almost three days traveling with and being interviewed by one of the co-writers of a very poorly written article ("Much Undone in Rebuilding Iraq, Audit says", Washington Post, August 2, 2006), I'm astounded at how distorted a good story can become and what agenda drives a paper to see only the bad side to the reconstruction effort here in Iraq. Instead of distorting the facts, let's get to the truth.

There is no flailing reconstruction effort in Iraq. The United States has rightfully invested $20 billion in Iraq's reconstruction - in the opinion of many here, we should do more. This massive undertaking is part of a wider strategy for success in Iraq that involves the establishment of a democratic government, the development of professional Iraqi security forces, and the restoration of basic essential services and facilities to promote the sustained economic development of this new country.

Yes, this reconstruction effort has been challenged occasionally by security, poor materials, poor construction program management practices, and in some cases poor performance by contractors for a variety of reasons. The Department of State and Defense professionals over here, many of them civilian volunteers, and the Iraqi associates who risk their lives every day to have a future that approximates what America has today, continuously see the challenges and develop and implement solutions. This is a core part of managing construction anywhere in the world and, while somewhat more complex here, it is successfully being accomplished. Have we been guilty of poor planning and mismanagement? The answer to that is, at times, yes. But professionals constantly strive to overcome challenges that arise and we are succeeding and making Iraq better every day!

The heart of the article rests on several old statements by the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction which infer these are recent or recurring problems. The SIGIR knows that, in fact, program management, construction quality, progress, and accountability have all improved significantly since the early days of the effort some three years ago. Yet, the reporters' "project problems" comments infer that these are recent issues. Such actions inflame public opinion in the United States and create resentment by the very people so many conscientious Americans over here are trying to help here in Iraq and worse, embolden our very enemies.

...more at the site

Now you know at least one reason why we don't hear about the good things happening in Iraq.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Erm, I made no claim that this was an article written by Truthout. That was a claim made by another member in a weak attempt to counter what I stated about Truthout.

What do you call this then?

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Truthout really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to damn the admin with in this story. I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about.

You said Truthout is scraping the bottom of the barrel, yet the article was written by an Associated Press writer. Varwoche merely corrected you in the middle of your rant about Truthout.

Originally Posted by Apollyon

Truthout uses AP just like Fox News does. I'm sure you'd agree that Fox carefully picks and chooses the AP articles they use to coincide with their conservative slant. Truthout is no different than Fox in that regard except that their slant is on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

So how is the Associated Press scraping the "bottom of the barrel," then? You readily admit that Faux News also uses the AP, but slam Truthout for quoting the AP - did I miss something here?

Originally Posted by Apollyon

You, Mr. Mephisto, won't hesitate to make mention of Fox and their bias in numerous threads in this forum. You do it quite regularly in here. Yet you get all bent out of shape when someone calls a website with a liberal bias to the floor? Seems to be a bit of "Do as I say but not as I do."

I don't care what you think about Truthout and the only reason I posted the link to Truthout is because THAT is where I read the article. I used to be very careful in quoting from liberal sources, but since neo-cons here have taken to using Faux News as a source, I felt less apprehensive about using the flip side of the coin. It's the American way.

Originally Posted by Apollyon

As far as the article - Bipartisan agreement? Important? :chuckle: Do you mean important like the bi-partisan agreement when the GOP rigged up a congressional vote for Iraq withdrawal to set up Murtha and make him look like a fool? C'mon, it's transparent what this article is about so please don't be coy. In doing so you underestimate your opposition greatly. You guys did it in '04 and you're still doing it today.

What can you expect? Republican congressmen vote Republican and Murtha is voicing an opinion that is becoming more and more popular with the American public who is only now noticing how decorated combat veterans are treated by this administration. Ironic since the Republicans were the ones who insisted that not supporting the war in Iraq is the same as not supporting the troops. Why listen to Murtha anyway, he's got more combat experience in his little finger than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz put together - he's just talking out his a$$, right? No way a decorated combat veteran knows more about war that these clowns, right?

Originally Posted by Apollyon

btw, I am not your opposition. I'm a registered independent; a former democrat and former liberal who has moved away from the left because of the absolute idiocy that has overtaken that portion of the political spectrum. I've been watching the last 5 years from the middle, hoping that some semblance of sense returns to the left and that classical liberalism will come back into vogue because the hateful, screechy-voiced little punks that fill their ranks now are a big turnoff.

You ARE my opposition whether you know it or not. I've run into a multitude of conservatives claiming to be independants, but they're "red state" through and through.

Would you care to define "classical liberalism," for me? I've been a liberal since the Vietnam war so it's not just a fad with me. I don't see that liberalism has changed much since then; we're stuck in an unpopular, unnecessary war that liberals are against, we've got a Republican President who is taking liberties with the Constitution and may be involved in illegal spying (shades of Richard Nixon), war veterans are returning home with mysterious illnessness that they're not getting disability benefits for.

As for the screechy-voiced little punks, I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran exercising my right of free speech, so I'd really like you to either apologize or clarify who you were referring to.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Wow...

If you want woo in a skeptic's webforum... go to the politics sections...

-Andrew

If you want to really make a point then you should be specific with your criticism. Vague, insulting commentary like this achieves nothing positive -- it doesn't advance skepticism.