Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Miscellaneous 127

1) While Bill O'Reilly may not be quite as thin-skinned as Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz, the fellow is certainly well within the vicinity. Last week, for instance, after CNN's media critic, Howie Kurtz, criticized him for making a factual error, O'Reilly blasted him and accused him of "doing the bidding of Media Matters". It was a ridiculous accusation and I can say this because I watch Mr. Kurtz's show, "Reliable Sources", religiously and it isn't even remotely like "Media Matters". The dude is an equal opportunity critic and he probably criticizes MSNBC just as much as he does Fox News. As for the bottom-line here, it's simple. Mr. O'Reilly/the Factor was busted and he did what he almost always does in response to it; shoot the messenger.............2) The targeting of civilians during war-time is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Not only did FDR violate this central tenet, he did so repeatedly and to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead women, children, refugees, and the elderly. The fact that the progressive haters of Bush refuse even to consider this factor in their tarnishing of American Presidents obviously says more about them than it does the values that they supposedly espouse.............3) Paul Krugman, in one the stupidest utterances ever made by a Nobel Laureate, actually compared John Boehner to Herbert Hoover. Yep, that's right, folks, this supposedly brilliant man has apparently bought hook, line, and sinker this idiotically persistent myth that Herbert Hoover was some sort of free-market capitalist, and that he DIDN'T run up the largest peace-time deficits in American history, that he DIDN'T raise income-taxes a whopping 152%, that he DIDN'T majorly increase tariffs and protectionism, that he DIDN'T sponsor one massive  public works project after another, that he DIDN'T try and get businesses to fix prices, etc.. I mean, my God, this is absolutely unbelievable. And this is the guy that the modern-day progressives are turning to?

41 comments:

Ema Nymton said...

.

"...2) The targeting of civilians during war-time is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Not only did FDR violate this central tenet, he did so repeatedly and to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dead women, children, refugees, and the elderly. The fact that the progressive haters of Bush refuse even to consider this factor in their tarnishing of American Presidents obviously says more about them than it does the values that they supposedly espouse..."

You do realize, don't ja,that FDR died before World War II ended? After WWII, the Geneva Convention agreements were strengthened and adjusted to address these and other recognized weaknesses within the accords. The issues of torture were also clearly and directly addressed (they were banned).

You really think you can compare the strategic efforts of FDR and allies to wage a world war against three first world nations with GWB's efforts to wage a battle against a group of cave-dwelling religious zealots?

And somehow they are equal or the same? Really; go for it.!

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

w-dervish said...

Well said Ema. I agree. But, yes, Will does think FDR and bush are comparable. He has to in order to keep defending the war criminal bush. It's the same hypocrisy that allows him to say others definately lied (like Katherine Eban and David Voth), but we can't know if bush lied when he said we needed to invade Iraq to "disarm" it (even though all the evidence said Iraq was already disarmed).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Emma, dear, the gaps in your knowledge are quite expansive. a) The first Geneva Convention took place in 1864 and it expressly prohibited the targeting of civilians during war-time and b) I'm not talking about the dropping of the atomic bomb by Mr. Truman. I'm talking about the DOZENS(!!!!!!!!) of fire-bombing missions that FDR routinely ordered on Tokyo and other major metropolitan areas in Japan all throughout the war, areas that had absolutely ZERO military or strategic value.............And, no, I'm not comparing Bush and FDR. Bush never intentionally targeted civilians.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Sorry, wd, but the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Voth is lying through his teeth. It's a little something called evidence and a paper trail. Give me something similar with Bush and then we can talk.

w-dervish said...

Thousands of civilians were killed in bush's illegal invasions. Look it up.

As for the evidence that bush lied... I already gave it to you. And we can't "talk" because you ignored it and are pretending it doesn't exist.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Bush never targeted civilians, period. And for you to imply that he did is despicable. And you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public that there were some. No testimony. No paper trail. Zero.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,dont you get the message that your tired old rhetoric is just plain boring....you're a one trick pony.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It's never good enough to simply say (as I and others such as Les have) that Mr. Bush was a bad President. He's gotta put him in the same category as Bashir al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, etc. (never minding, of course, that Mr. Obama has in certain regards been even more reckless than Bush). I mean, it's almost as if he's got some sort of sick pathology about Bush.

Rational Nation USA said...

Emma, those cave dwelling religious zealots brought down the WTC and killed over 3,000 American souls.

Cut GWB a bit of slack.

And what about Obama and his targeted drone strikes at individuals?

But never mind all of that. Partisan political hyperbole and platitudes rule the day.

Rational Nation USA said...

More completely partisan BS from the resident partisan.

Rational Nation USA said...

wd, will you ever let it rest? Your Bush Derangement Syndrome is fascinating.

Rational Nation USA said...

Will, considering wd's BDS it is quite probable you are speaking to the wind.

Rational Nation USA said...

And a lame one at that Rusty.

Rational Nation USA said...

As I said, wd is most definitely suffering from sort of obsession with GWB. It is almost eery. Like something from the Twilight Zone.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, like I said, Les, nobody here is saying that Bush was great or anything. Just that maybe he wasn't a malevolent, war-mongering dictatorial fiend.......And the FDR insertion was essentially me playing devil's advocate here (you kinda already knew that, though, right?).

Rational Nation USA said...

Yes.

w-dervish said...

Will: It's never good enough to simply say... that Mr. Bush was a bad President. He's gotta put him in the same category as [blah, blah, blah] ... I mean, it's almost as if he's got some sort of sick pathology about Bush.

That's exactly what the bush apologists want. For those who DARE to refuse to let bush off the hook for his crimes to be quiet. They want to rewrite history to make bush into a terrorist fighting hero... and those people make their efforts more difficult. Anyone who believes in justice should NEVER stop speaking the truth about this war criminal president.

Rational Nation USA said...

Christ wd get a life why don't you?

dmarks said...

There is simply no evidence of war crimes. The fabricated charges get ignored by the actual authorities. Why? Because there is nothing to them. Yet in reponse to this WD said that Bush must be considered guilty unless proven innocent.

Bush has received one Nobel piece prize nomination. Which is more than the sum total of his Bush's war crimes, ICC charges against Bush, and UN resolutions and sanctions or similar findings against him.

Yes, get a life, WD. Stop obsessing on him. You do want to stay out of St. Elizabeth's, don' t you?

w-dervish said...

The charges are ignored because the lawbreaker was president of the most powerful nation in the world... that's the reason. The reason isn't because there is no evidence... there is PLENTY of evidence.

And, if either of us should be locked up for delusions, I think it should be dmarks. This loon believes war with Afghanistan and Iraq was "already on", takes seriously a nomination of bush for a Nobel Peace prize from an obvious flake, thinks the power to assess tariffs granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution is in there because the Founders thought tariffs were a bad idea, believes that is someone isn't charged with a crime that is proof positive of their innocence, hates working people and believes a large number of them are lazy and greedy, thinks most racism in the world is Blacks hating on Whites, believes that tax cuts increase revenue, believes free speech should be up for sale, and thinks that if someone exaggerates when making a joke they're lying. I've never encountered anyone nuttier.

Rational Nation USA said...

I have...

dmarks said...

All of your points are incorrect and have nothing to do with my views. The record is quite clear.

For example, I do not believe free speech 'should be up for sale'. I just am sticking to the Constitution, which completely lacks what you demand, such as the right of government to censor people because they are 'too rich'. The law of the land does not exempt people from rights for being rich.

Excusing a journalist /commentator's lies by calling them 'jokes' really lowers the bar. But if we think this way, Maddow is really a funny woman !

The charges against Bush are ignored not because of your nutty 'most powerful nation' lame excuse thing which has no place in international law, but because there is no case at all.

Also, I oppose all racism. While most is, as you imply, white againat black, other racism DOES exist and I refuse agree with you that this other racism is OK. I simply oppose all racism: both the type you also oppose and the type you like.

A working person is greedy if they expect more money as handouts, instead of working to earn it. That is only reasonable. I don't call working people 'lazy' if they are working.

Under that law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. I know you hate this principle. I'm just glad you are a mere rank armchair attorney instead of practicing in a court of law destroying people's lives.

Just because the Constitution gives the rulers the power to do something does not mean that they must do it.

If there is a war on already, of course there is a 'war on'.

Finally, for now, if the tax cuts are followed by increased money coming into the Treasury, they in fact do cause increased revenue. That is not a matter of my 'belief': it is math.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I was against the Iraq War (I thought that we has Saddam relatively bottled up) but I also realize that there was at least some ambiguity regarding WMD (Scott Ritter's inconsistent statements alone) and a strong case could have been made for deposing Saddam Husein on humanitarian grounds alone (he attempted genocide on the Kurds,for Christ). And for wd to so shamelessly and moronically go down this road (especially considering that Obmama is a full 90% of Bush) is very unfortunate, I think.

dmarks said...

Receiving a couple hundred thousands of dollars through Saddam's business network as Ritter did, in order to present the dictator's side explains any change there. In fact he was pretty consistent once he was in Saddam's employ. The reality which Ritter had formerly reported correctly in Iraq never changed. But Ritter's loyalties did.

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

All of my points are correct and a 100 percent accurate representation of dmarks' views. The record is quite clear.

For example, dmarks strongly believes free speech 'should be up for sale'. I just am sticking to the Constitution, which completely lacks what you demand, such as the right of organizations and wealthy people to be able to purchase more speech than the rest of us. The law of the land does not grant special group rights to anyone but the press.

Claiming that a comedian/political commentator making a joke is "lying" really lowers the bar when it comes to "intelligent" discussion. dmarks lowers it from intelligent down to moron. But if we avoid thinking this way, we all see that Rachel Maddow is irrelvent to the conversation, not being a comedian.

From Wikipedia: "Joy Behar (born Josephina Victoria Occhiuto; born October 7, 1942) is an American comedian, writer, actress, and a co-host of the talk show The View".

Rachel Maddow is not a comedian.

The charges against Bush are ignored because of my non-nutty 'most powerful nation' actual explaination thing which does not have place in international law, but is none-the-less the reason bush hasn't already been tried at the Hague and hung for his crimes.

Also, you only say you oppose all racism, but we all know you spend most of you time worrying about Blacks and other minorities "discriminating" against Whites. There is no type of racism that I like.

And, a working person is not greedy if they think they should be paid fairly. Except that dmarks has redefined "fair pay" as pay that is as low as the employer can get away with paying. Any more and he calls it a "handout", and then he lies and suggests workers and employers "negotiate" pay, when most middle and lower wage workers are presented with a "take it or leave it" proposition. dmarks lies about this because he knows employers have the upper hand, and that is just how he likes it (this is also why he hates unions so much).

BTW, "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal construct and does not apply to people's opinions. I know you hate this principle and would prefer it if you could stifle the free speech of people who point out the facts of the war criminal president you admire... I'm just glad you are a mere rank armchair attorney instead of practicing in a court of law and failing to hold someone accountable who is responsible for destroying people's lives.

Just because the Founders put something in the Constitution it means that they thought it was a good idea and future generations should continue doing it.

If there isn't a war on already, of course there isn't a 'war on'.

Finally, when tax cuts aren't followed by an increase in money coming into the Treasury (something that has never happened), they in fact do cause decreased revenue. That is not a matter of math, something you clearly do not believe in.

Finally #2: Scott Ritter was paid $0 to by Saddam and told the truth about Iraq having no WMD, the same as every weapon's inspector did.

What is "unfortunate" is Will saying Obama is 90 percent bush when that is a total lie. bush lied us into 2 wars and Obama lied us into none. On that count he is 0 percent bush.

Cheyenne Bella said...

W-dervish you are an extremist. Why do you always have to attribute evil motives to people who disagree with you politically?

dmarks said...

Amazing that WD defends a specific claim of a number of houses that is off by many magnitudes. Behar lied. I tell the truth. WD sticks with the lie. I already refuted every one of his claims, anyway. Like the 'Finally #2' in which in reality Scott Ritter was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Saddam's business network in order to produce a pro-Saddam documentary.

Bush lied us into zero wars. Both nations had already attacked us and Bush told the truth about them.

Rational Nation USA said...

Afghanistan attacked us by giving safe haven to the terrorists responsible for 911.

Iraq on the other hand was no threat to our national security. Saddam, the barbaric individual he was, did help to maintain stability in the region. He was a check against Iran and the mullahs.

Afghanistan a good decision. Iraq not.

dmarks said...

RN: a quite acceptible argument stated. I don't see you doing WD nuttiness like his thing where the war would have supposedly been avoided had 'we' turned over Bin Laden to a theocratic court made up largely of terrorists and despots.

w-dervish said...

Nonsense. You're just kissing RN's ass because you like him and don't like me. How is it not nutty to refuse to fight back *if* Iraq "already attacked us"?!

And how the hell could we turn bin Laden over to anyone when he was never in our custody? That's my whole point... we had a chance to get him and bush turned it down! That's pretty dumb IMO. And proof that bringing bin Laden to justice was never a priority for bush (in fact bush wanted him to get away).

bush wanted to attack Iraq from the first day of his presidency, and if they got bin Laden the American people would have thought "mission accomplished" and never went along with bush's desire to invade Iraq. Thus bin Laden HAD to get away.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The facts have eluded wd yet again, I see. a) The Afghanistan war was a bipartisan initiative that was strongly supported by every Democrat whose name isn't Cynthia McKinney. IN FACT, the Democrats were extremely critical of Mr. Bush for him not having spent ENOUGH timeand effort on it....b) Mr. Obama greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan, not listening to the good advice of his much more experienced Vice President, Mr. Biden (the end result being that more American soldiers have died in that country under Obama than Bush)....c) Obama has SEXTUPLED the number of drone attacks in Pakistan to the tune of thousands of dead Pakistani civilians....d) Obama has continued with the Bush policies of rendition, warrantless wire-tapping, indefinite detention, etc.....What, you have some problems with the 90% figure, wd? OK, I'll drop the son of a bitch to 85%.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And I gather that you think that Mr. Chomsky is wrong when he said that in many ways President Obama is WORSE than Bush.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And you're wrong about Mr. Bush wanting to attack Iraq from the first day of his Presidency. Thomas Ricks, whose book, "Fiasco", is probably the most seminal work on Iraq, says that the regime change proponents (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc.) were actually LOSING the debate in inside the White House to the containment faction (Powell, Armitage, etc.) early on. It was only after 9/11 when the tables started turning and, as Richard Haas has stated in his missive, the regime change folks started winning. You really need to get your head out of your ass and start reading some serious stuff.

dmarks said...

No nonsense, and no *if*.


I agreed with RN since he was being reasonable and pragmatic. I am sure you must be likeable also, as you love soundtracks,WD. So don' t fret.

w-dervish said...

Will: And you're wrong about Mr. Bush wanting to attack Iraq from the first day of his Presidency.

Former bush biographer Mickey Herskowitz: Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq.

Former bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: Bush decided to remove Saddam on day one.

Investigative Journalist Russ Baker on Donald Rumsfeld's book, "Known and Unknown": What Rumsfeld seems to be saying... is hugely important: that Bush's rush to war with Iraq seemed to make no sense. ...Rumsfeld suggests that Bush had some kind of prior agenda that had nothing to do with any role Iraq might have had (and in any case did not) in the events of 9/11. Bush simply wanted to invade that country.

I think Will needs to take his head out of his ass.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Talking privately with WHO?......And Mr. O'Neill's book was totally discredited by Thomas Ricks and Richard Haas, neither of who had an agenda.......Rumsfeld (and second-hand Rumsfeld, no less)? That's what you're basically reduced to now? Very weak research, wd. Learn something and read the Ricks book. It's pretty tough on Bush and, so, you'll probably like it.

w-dervish said...

HOW was he "totally discredited"? Your own comment says there was a debate, which means there were people in the administration who wanted to topple Saddam. Wanting to do something isn't the same as being able to. I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, there were people in the administration who wanted to topple Saddam. But they were losing the debate and it was only after 9/11 that Bush started listening to them. I agree with you. He should have kept listening to Powell.

w-dervish said...

It wasn't until after 9/11 that bush was able to listen to them. Which he wanted to do previously due to his desire to invade Iraq even before he was anointed president. But, at that time it couldn't be done.

dmarks said...

"Which he wanted to do previously due to his desire to invade Iraq even before he was anointed president."

1) Bush didn't want to invade Iraq in the first place. He gave Saddam Hussein a lot of time, years, in fact, to comply with reasonable cease-fire agreements that were supposed to have been all done in the early 1990s. Saddam Hussein flat out refused to comply, even after Bush gave him a generous "Way out" for a long time.

2) Civics 101. Presidents are elected, not annointed. And this includes George W. Bush, who was elected the exact same way that Clinton before him and Obama after him were elected. Only a person who really hates America, democracy, and the Constitution would say otherwise. Only a sore lower with sh*t for brains who can't deal with the fact that in democracy, sometimes someone you dislike gets elected.