The first sign should have been Ari Fleisher’s resignation. If things were coming that were so bad that he couldn’t find positive ways to spin them, that was a tip-off right there.
American soldiers are continuing to die and, at this rate, within a month or two more will have died since Bush declared fighting was over than before that point. The Iraqis who were supposed to have loved us are shooting at us while we pour billions into the new Vietnam. Saddam is just fine, thanks (as is bin Laden.) Deficits and unemployment are spiralling out of control. And it appears that the administration lied to the American people about matters of greater consequence than oral sex with an intern.
Am I happy about this? No. The wheels are coming off the wagon, the worldwide sympathy we had as a result of 9/11 is long-squandered, but hey…let’s get right to work on trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. Thank heavens our priorities are in order.
PAD
• 
Most of you clearly know more than I do about, well, just about everything. So, in my simplistic view, I look at the Catch 22 that any President is in when it comes to intelligence. Example:
* 9/11 occurs and it is ‘discovered’ that the administration has some intelligence that they “should” have acted on.
* We gain some seemingly-strong intelligence on a known despotic ruler who kills his own people in droves, who has also been known to be lusting after WMD, that indicates this psycho is pursuing nuclear weapons. So the admin. acts on it.
* If he had not, and SH did deploy a WMD toward us, that same intel source would have been used against the administration.
Why anyone would want the job of PotUS is beyond me. Ðámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t on EVERYTHING.
No wonder politicians are crazy.
“ONE DEAD IS TOO MANY!
IF Iraq was a threat to America, I might support the war, but it isn’t…”
OK, may I have your address, please? I’d like to move in next door to you so that, if I see someone breaking in through your back window, I can just sit back and ignore it because it isn’t a threat to me.
Or, as in the case of invading Iraq because they might attack the US someday, rather than ignoring someone breaking through the window of his house, you can instead ignore someone walking by his house that you know has done bad things and might break through the window.
Regarding the validity of “Dubya’s” reasons for attacking, the ever-shifting rationales, coupled with recent stories in Time and on CNN’s web site suggest to me that “Dubya” was simply looking for an excuse – any excuse – to attack Hussein/Iraq. The recent Time article stated that, in March of 2002, “Dubya” stuck his head in Condoleezza Rice’s office, grinned and said, “F— Saddam. We’re takin’ him down.” The CNN article featured a general who stated that, on 9/11, he received instructions coming from someone in the White House prior to an interview, to blame the attacks on Iraq.
The absence of the alleged “weapons of mass distruction” is also quite telling to me. Per “Dubya,” we knew where they were before we went in. The Iraqi government threatened to use them during the war. Logic suggests that they would/should have been used, seeing as conventional weapons weren’t doing any good against the US forces. But they weren’t. And now, these weapons that the US “knew” were there can’t be found.
Yep…Lex does look better as president more and more. And he looked like the best candidate back in 2000, too. I mean, yeah…he’s a reprehensible scumbag, but at least he’s a competent reprehensible scumbag.
NO REALLY A PRESIDENT THAT LIES…HEAVEN FORBID. Anyway now that my “Dennis Miller” rant is finished. What did you think a president that shouldn’t have even been elected to office was going to do once he got there. Honestly I would prefer [i]LEX LUTHOR[/i] in office. At least you know what you are getting and I believe Mr. Luthor could balance the budget.
That’s just my opinion I could be wrong.
Regards:
WSJ3
I think what we find so objectionable in the UK is the fact that certain members of both the UK and the US government are saying ‘Well, we were right, so whether all our sources were as reliable as we said, it all turned out well.”
This a) sets a dangerous precedent that being lucky is considered more expedient than being fully honest and b) seems to reflect the atmosphere that a few patriotic comments and inferences are better than fully factual answers and basic accountability.
It’s fine to honour the very brave men and women who sacrifice their lives. I just object to not being given the full picture as to why they are being asked to do so and simply asking that question is seen as somehow dishonourable.
Let’s forget the sound-bites. They aren’t a patch on the necessity of debate.
John Mosby
Tobin – yes, it would have been my conclusion that were wrong, not my doubt itself, I misspoke.
Rob – I’m glad that’s the case (that the discourse itself is important enough for you to support it) because if nothing else I’ve feared lately that we’re developing a national inability to engage in it. Glad to see I was wrong on that one to some extent.
Honestly, though, I can’t feel pessimistic about the moral fabric of our nation, because frankly, the current debate seems to me to be the case of two points of view colliding which both want to do what’s the most moral and ethical thing they can imagine. They may imagine totally different moralities, but in many cases they still want to do what would be considered good as best they know how. Not that believing that you are doing the right thing hasn’t been horribly twisted again and again in our history, but it does at least seem a step up from cynically exploiting others. (Keep in mind I see this desire for the moral action mostly in the people…I don’t see it in our leadership, and have not for quite some time, decades perhaps.) Any nation so filled with people who really, truly want to help others, even if they don’t always know how or are not always presented with the full picture…I’m unable to lose faith in those people, even when I disagree with what they’re doing.
I think gay marriage is ridiculous, who needs recognition for immoral acts? Just because there is a piece of paper with a government seal on it does that mean that a square peg now fits in a round hole? Of course not, homosexuality is a mental disorder and needs to be treated as such. Everyone loves people in a different way. There is love for family, the love you feel for your spouse, the love you feel for your kids. All are different and unique, but we know that sex is out of bounds as an expression of love in some cases. Homosexuality is based on a sexual act. No one is born wanting to have sex with another man, at some point they begin thinking that this is ok.
As for the war, one day people will actual sit back and realize that whenever the Republicans are in office the entire worlds suffers, they’ll smarten up and never vote for those idiots again. I myself would like to see Bush put on trial for his war crimes, not that the truth has come to light. A truth that anyone with a brain realized all along and those without one still defend with their shield of ignorance.
Pepper wrote:
No one is born wanting to have sex with another man, at some point they begin thinking that this is ok.
Um, I don’t think ANYONE is born wanting to have sex with ANYBODY. What they do as adults, however, is their own dámņ business.
Rob
I myself would like to see Bush put on trial for his war crimes, not that the truth has come to light. A truth that anyone with a brain realized all along and those without one still defend with their shield of ignorance.
So, in one breath you accuse Bush of war crimes, and in the next you acknowledge that there’s nothing proven or generally accepted to be true, that would constitute war crimes? Bill Shatner put it best: “A double dûmbášš on you!”
Could somebody PLEASE tell me where in The Bible that God or Jesus said Homosexuality was a sin? The only place I can find it is in Leviticus 18:22. Before and after that passage are quite a few things that seem out dated.
http://www.internetparodies.org/followthebible.html
Yes, I know that it’s humorous, but I like to make a point using humor. Now, MOST people would look at these articles and say,”Those were rules for another time. They don’t stand up to life today.” My question is WHY does homosexuality still count as a sin and not these?
“It’s not normal.” Normal? Meaning majority? Then all left-handers are going to Hëll too?
It’s always been my experience that NO ONE really READS the Bible. At least not with an open mind. They have their preconcieved notions and ideas before they read it. Whether those ideas are given to them by society or by their upbringing it is still there. When they read the Bible, they are looking to find scripture that could be interrupted to support what they believe or have been taught to believe.
So, very few people, at least in my experience, have ever read The Bible with an open mind.
It should have read I myself would like to see Bush put on trial for his war crimes, now that the truth has come to light. A truth that anyone with a brain realized all along and those without one still defend with their shield of ignorance.
Rob wrote:
Um, I don’t think ANYONE is born wanting to have sex with ANYBODY. What they do as adults, however, is their own dámņ business.
What people do is not exclusively their own dámņ business, perhaps anything that happens behind closed doors is ok according to you. Would you call the police if you knew your neighbour was beating his wife, or abusing a child in their home? Consent has little to do with anything, no law can make something spiritually moral.
Everything can be subjected as a case of morality and that is something that some people hold true to themselves and others do not. Some people drink beer just because other people do, to fit in, same with drugs and so on. If you take upon yourself to be moral and do moral things you are not being a slave to a bible, you are being true to your own self. How do you cure AIDS? Do you use it as a commercial for condoms and leave it at that? Will there ever be a cure for AIDS if it takes away the revenue of big business? Have they stopped selling tobacco because it’s a murder weapon that happens to make much more money than they think the average life is worth? If you follow the bible you may find some valid guidelines that make alot of sense. If everyone waited to get married to have sex and was tested prior, or didn’t do drugs or drink, AIDS would be wiped out within a matter of years, along with drunk driving fatalities and countless other things. People still continue to do these things and smoke as if it is ok to be a slave, not to the bible, oh no they can’t actually take advice from a moral source, instead they rather take it upon themselves to make their own decisions because they have the right to suddenly kill themselves. Last time I checked suicide was wrong, but when a smoker dies I guess they want us to celebrate because, heck they put alot of effort into their stupidity for so many years, not to mention contributing to the failing health of their kids or teaching them to continue the cycle through influence. It isn’t the folly of the bible, it is the folly of human beings who would rather do immoral acts to fit in than respect themselves and be individuals whether it be in the mind of God or their own.
Hey Peter, you ever notice that you get more responses to your political posts than to anything else?
So when’s the regime change? Do we really have to wait til November, 2004?
Are you pointing out the foolish attempt of the current administration to blame the softening economy on the Clinton years, or just being sarcastic?
I was just being sarcastic.
PAD
**Sorry, but I’m not abiding by your curtailment of what I can or can’t say. I wouldn’t have sent them in.
PAD
Ah, the Clinton approach. With 3000 extra dead on the side.
Saddam is just fine, thanks
Get real.
Deficits and unemployment are spiralling out of control.
Get extra real.**
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn’t get it at all. But basically it’s a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with “That’s stupid.” “Get real.” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “That’s dumb” and “Just shut up.”
PAD
What scares me most about this war is the fact that NO ONE is allowed to question it… i’m a true southern democrat and i live in the home of the 2nd Marine Division and it’s gotten to the point where i get hissed at for even looking questioningly at Bush’s Administration… What happened to this country when it’s Un-American to question the gov’t? That’s one of our fundamental rights… and when i’m told i’m un-American for asking for a visualization of the Sadam-Bin Laden link…there is something wrong…
Moral source? You mean the book that said it was o.k. to own slaves? The Bible is a book written BY man. Henceforth, it is flawed.
You can get all the morals you want from it. I have no problems with that. As long as you realize that anything written by man will be flawed and you need to approach it with an open mind. To not do so is just being a slave to the ideas of people that have been dead for centuries.
IF ANYTHING is going to be the solomn word of God to me, it’ll be the Ten Commandments. The stuff in the Bible(written by man, remember) are their own takes on it. To me, the Bible just points out ways the desciples believed of getting brownie points. “Hey! These Ten Commandments are THE word of what God DOESN’T want you to do! BUT, if you break any of them, here are some other things that if you don’t do, might help you get back in His good graces!”
I think what we find so objectionable in the UK is the fact that certain members of both the UK and the US government are saying ‘Well, we were right, so whether all our sources were as reliable as we said, it all turned out well.”
On the other hand, what I find cool about the UK is that regular thing they have where Blair has to go head-to-head with his opposition in an oratorical free for all. Man, can you *imagine* how Bush would fare in something like that? It’d be the most watched thing on television for the sheer entertainment value.
PAD
PAD: “Man, can you *imagine* how Bush would fare in something like that? It’d be the most watched thing on television for the sheer entertainment value.”
You’re right, Bush would probably consider “holding his own” as a major victory. However, his inarticulateness and quick thinking isn’t really at issue — its the issues that are at issue. Were it the doves in Congress vs. Rumsfeld, that would be a free-for-all worth watching.
What people do is not exclusively their own dámņ business, perhaps anything that happens behind closed doors is ok according to you. Would you call the police if you knew your neighbour was beating his wife, or abusing a child in their home? Consent has little to do with anything, no law can make something spiritually moral.
Uh, where did you get this nonsense that consent doesn’t carry value?
“>>OK, may I have your address, please? I’d like to move in next door to you so that, if I see someone breaking in through your back window, I can just sit back and ignore it because it isn’t a threat to me.
>Or, as in the case of invading Iraq because they might attack the US someday, rather than ignoring someone breaking through the window of his house, you can instead ignore someone walking by his house that you know has done bad things and might break through the window.”
Not surprisingly, you missed the point.
The point being, just because _I_ believe that _I_ am not at risk, I shouldn’t get involved to help someone else who is? Remember Kitty Genovese? “We didn’t want to get involved.” Translate that to the thousands upon thousands killed in Rwanda(sp?) because we “didn’t want to get involved” and one would be a sorry sentient who didn’t realize there’s something inherently WRONG with turning a blind eye when one has the ability to help.
Well before reading my first PAD book (ROCK…) I was a staunch believer in Quintin Stone’s Prime Directive: “Always lend a hand when things go down.”
We could do worse than to adopt that philosophy on the international scale. With, of course, the caveat that our help IS actually wanted and will count for something. For example I don’t mean throwing aid money to starving nation when their totalitarian rulers will simply abscond with it.
What people do is not exclusively their own dámņ business, perhaps anything that happens behind closed doors is ok according to you. Would you call the police if you knew your neighbour was beating his wife, or abusing a child in their home? Consent has little to do with anything, no law can make something spiritually moral.
That is so logicially warped that it’s almost impossible to track.
A neighbor beating his wife does not involve consent. Nor does child abuse. When speaking of “what people do in their own homes,” implicit in that is that the activities don’t involve victims. No one is claiming that right to privacy supercedes right to safety.
This is just another case of wretched argumentation. Of taking something that people didn’t say, twisting it into an untenable position, and then pretend that’s what was said in order to tear down the people holding an opposing viewpoint. It’s transparent.
PAD
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn’t get it at all. But basically it’s a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with “That’s stupid.” “Get real.” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “That’s dumb” and “Just shut up.”
Actually, that sounds like Bill O’Reilly to me.
PAD said, “A neighbor beating his wife does not involve consent. Nor does child abuse.”
I agree, that post was hyperbole. However, there are situations where adults can “consent” to performing illegal acts, which don’t make them any less illegal. Prostitution, for instance. A man and a woman — in private — can agree to exchange money for sex, and upon completion, both of them can feel that the other fulfilled their end of the contract. However, that’s still illegal.
I conclude from that that “consent is not enough.”
I agree, that post was hyperbole. However, there are situations where adults can “consent” to performing illegal acts, which don’t make them any less illegal. Prostitution, for instance. A man and a woman — in private — can agree to exchange money for sex, and upon completion, both of them can feel that the other fulfilled their end of the contract. However, that’s still illegal.
Yeah, I don’t quite understand that one, either. I think George Carlin said it best: “Selling is legal. F*cking is legal. How can selling f*cking be illegal?”
If we’re to defend a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body after it gets pregnant, how can we deny her the right to do so before it gets pregnant?
PAD
I think George Carlin said it best: “Selling is legal. F*cking is legal. How can selling f*cking be illegal?”
No argument from me. Outlawing Prostition seems anti-Liberty to me, since you should be free to do something to your own body without anyone’s permission. Plus, it’s enterprising 🙂 If you have no other means of support, at least you have something, natch.
While I’m still up in the air about Pro-Choice, this one seems clearer to me. With the baby, I can at least see the POV that the unborn is a “victim.” With protitution, I see no victim at all.
Wow, I’m glad I scrolled down on the thread before I posted a reply. Peter’s rebuttal was much more concise than mine would have been, and heck, I have a train to catch. But thanks for devoting a rant to me, Pepper. It makes me feel special.
Rob
If we’re to defend a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body after it gets pregnant, how can we deny her the right to do so before it gets pregnant?
It’s a matter of how you look at it. I believe in pro-choice, that is the “choice” to have or not have sex. Once you decide to do so however you should take all the responsibility that goes along with it whether that be pregnancy or disease, we all know the consequences. What makes this even an issue is not morality or immorality but a case of medical advancement being capable of removing an unborn fetus within a certain time span. Technology doesn’t become basis for an act just because it is possible. I’m sure if we found a cure for death no one would ever allow themselves to die. The most ironic thing I’ve ever heard was the phrase “Born to choose.” It is funny that it is supposed to be a slogan for a group who believes that 20 minutes of sexual activity is worth more than actually allowing someone to be born. Pro-choice should only refer to the fork in the road type of decisions, not as a way out of a mess.
Leave it to me to refute Mr. David again. Mr. Fleisher was not a spin machine like most American liberals are today. The Democratic Party has become so used to deception that they assume it exists in the same volume in the Republican Party. There still is an American political party of virtues…..The Republicans. Just to let you know, this is war, and people die. Our completely volunteer servicemen and women know this when signing up and we should commend them and lift up our heads and be proud for their ultimate sacrifice. It is sad but sometimes necessary in order to deliver the natural yearning of freedom to people. Arabs deserve liberty just as Americans do. The only Iraqis firing at our troops are militants and hold offs of the old regime. They hope to continue in the old ways of extremism and seeing women as less than human. We will eventually find UBL and Sadaam if they aren’t dead already and I will expect an apology from Peter David. Deficits are high due to the repairs needed to our much needed military after the devastating cuts implemented by Bill Clinton. Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help. Jobs will get better with the tax cuts helping and the economy rebounding at the end of the year. Markets have hills and valleys and September did not help our economy at all. Things are changing for the better though and I hope you Dems are ready for a world of hurt in 2004 and 2006. Bush did not lie at all in his speech and I hope you guys know that you are opening the door into your own face on that one. Bush’s offensive began with the recent Tony Blair speech. Oh yeah, it wasn’t about oral sex silly, it was about perjury and obstruction of justice. I told you guys that you have been jaded by Clinton. Mr. David, the wheels are coming off the wagon, but there is a logo on the side of that wagon and it is a donkey. Have a nice day!
Richard
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
Did you listen to Colin Powell’s speech? Links to terrorism were in there. As were two weapons labs that were labelled “cartoons” by opponents, which were found in Iraq.
By the way…if Bush is the biggest liar ever for Iraq and Clinton was an innocent person (guilty of perjury in reality), then why are you not roasting him over bombing Iraq in 1998 (conveniently before his impeachment vote)? Clinton went on the air and listed all the weapons of mass destruction Saddam possessed and then bombed Iraq for 4 days and then stopped (thus, sparing Saddam’s rule again).
If you choose to believe and trust clinton, where are all the weapons he said were there first? Do you think it is in Saddam’s nature to give them up once he finally got rid of inspectors?
Or what about Tony Blair? He stood by Clinton in 1998. He stood by Bush in 2003. You think he would stand by Clinton, then stand by Bush (an unpopular person even in his own country) if the Iraq claim was a lie?
Come now, think through this logically…could we have gotten the support of all those countries that we did if there were no WMD? Could we have gotten the UN to declare Iraq had WMD in 1441 if there was nothing to the claim?
Of course not.
Deficits are high due to the repairs needed to our much needed military after the devastating cuts implemented by Bill Clinton. Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help.
Wrong.
“Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help.”
What a crock that is. Let’s say you don’t have enough money to pay your bills every month. Then your boss cuts your wages by 10%. How do you now propose to pay your bills?
Tax cuts do not significantly spur the economy. Jobs do. There are no jobs available for those who want or need to work. We currently have the highest unemployment rate since some other idiot put “trickle down economics” into effect. Even this president’s father called that theory “voodoo economics”.
Deficits are high due to the repairs needed to our much needed military after the devastating cuts implemented by Bill Clinton. Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help.
Remember my earlier posting about the standard issue GOP stance? If it’s going well, it’s to the GOP’s credit; if it’s not, it’s the earlier Democrat’s fault?
There y’go.
PAD
You don’t have to justify yourself for any of your posts, PAD… But thanks.
I won’t say anything about this war (I don’t want to be drown in a tidal wave of angry answers or insults towards Frenchies), but I’m glad that american people finally open their eyes…
PS : remember the Fremen?
FYI,
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Romans 1:26-27 NIV
Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The ability to flawlessly accessorize?
PAD
“Mr. Fleisher was not a spin machine like most American liberals are today. The Democratic Party has become so used to deception that they assume it exists in the same volume in the Republican Party.”
Here’s Ari The Not Spin Machine, spinning away merrily:
“[D]uring the campaign the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building. What the president has said is, the military should be used for the purpose of fighting and winning wars, exactly as we did in Afghanistan.”
—Ari Fleischer, answering a reporter’s question at the Feb. 27 White House press briefing
“I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
—Candidate George W. Bush in the second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000
As to the economy, the White House Budget documents don’t say a word about Clinton’s cuts to the military. Their ‘fact sheet’ does say this: “The budget returned to deficit because of war, recession and emergencies associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11th”.
Inside the budget itself, however, some spoilsport bureaucrat wrote this: “The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief … produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits”. Didja catch that? Together with income tax relief!! Oh, and of course the deficit now stands at $455B, as we all know.
Yes, the Bush Administration is so spin-free…
Just for fun, here’s Ari’s successor, the Also Not A Spin Machine:
QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I’m wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office?
Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You’re talking about some of the comments that — some that are —
QUESTION: I’m not talking about anybody else’s comments. I’m asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President’s own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else?
Scott McClellan: This has been discussed.
QUESTION: So you won’t say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech?
Scott McClellan: It’s been addressed.
QUESTION: Well, that’s an excellent question. That is an excellent question. (Laughter.) Isn’t the President responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth?
Scott McClellan: We’ve already acknowledged, Terry, that it should not have been included in there. I think that the American people appreciate that recognition.
QUESTION: You acknowledge that, but you blame somebody else for it. Is the President responsible for the things that he said in the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: Well, the intelligence — you’re talking about intelligence that — sometimes you later learn more information about intelligence that you didn’t have previously. But when we’re clearing a speech like that, it goes through the various agencies to look at that information and —
QUESTION: And so when there’s intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that?
Scott McClellan: We appreciate Director Tenet saying that he should have said, take it out.
QUESTION: But it’s the President’s fault.
Scott McClellan: In fact, if you look back at it, I mean, we did take out a different reference, a reference based on different sources in a previous speech because it was said — the CIA Director said, take it out.
QUESTION: Let me come back to your “nonsense” statement here, and let me slice it as thinly as I possibly can, just growing out of what Scott asked. Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information included in the State of the Union and negotiated with the CIA to find a way to put it in to the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and went through negotiations with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: That there were discussions? Speech drafts go — we’ve stated that these speeches go out to the principals, it goes out to the State, it goes out to DOD, it goes out to CIA, when it’s going through the drafting process.
QUESTION: Scott, you said it was “nonsense” to say that the White House was pressuring the CIA to put this in the speech. Is it nonsense to say —
Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting —
QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted —
Scott McClellan: — insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what —
QUESTION: You didn’t explicitly give a motive.
Scott McClellan: And I said I think that’s just nonsense.
QUESTION: I’m just trying to slice it a little bit narrowly, to say, is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: Are you asking me to characterize the discussions that occur going on during the speech drafting process? I don’t —
QUESTION: I’m saying, does your “nonsense” statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That’s the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that’s what the information was based on in that speech.
QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your “nonsense” statement —
Scott McClellan: I’m trying to walk you —
QUESTION: You’re trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: I’m trying to walk you through this.
QUESTION: So your nonsense statement doesn’t apply to what I just asked you?
Scott McClellan: I’m trying to walk you through the drafting process. And that’s why I was trying to put it in context, so you understand how this occurs.
QUESTION: Scott, on Keith’s question, why can’t we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that’s a non-answer. Why can’t you just say that?
Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days.
QUESTION: Why won’t you say that, though, that’s, like, so innocuous and benign.
Scott McClellan: The issue has been addressed.
In response to the person quoting Romans 1:26-27:
1. This passage is referring to heterosexuals who go against their own nature by committing homosexual acts, as a consequence of denying God. I know of several homosexuals who not only do not deny God, but are devout Christians. (And if you feed me the line about not being “born that way,” I don’t buy it. I can’t imagine anyone actively choosing a lifestyle that would possibly entail alienation from one’s parents, being stigmatized among one’s friends, and [until recently] being an outcast from society. [Hey, wait a minute! I’m a science-fiction fan– I have all those in spades! :-p])
2. It is ironic that you use the New International Version, which has two homosexuals on its translation committee.
–BV
In reply to Brother Vinny:
1. If Romans 1:26-27 does not imply that all “sex” between two people of the same gender is
detestable, then it is a contradiction to Leviticus 18:22:
“‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
I do not believe that people collectively violate the other commands in Leviticus 18 as
frequently as they violate the one in verse 22. This neither makes those commands archaic, nor
does it make Leviticus 18:22 archaic. Nevertheless, they still apply today as much as they did back
then with regard to the “Law of Moses.” In addition, Hebrews 13:8 states, “Jesus Christ is the
same yesterday and today and forever.” This may apply to God since, “He [Jesus] is the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15). God does not call something
detestable and change his mind several thousand years later. Therefore Romans 1:26-27 must
refer to all forms of homosexuality so that the continuity of the Bible may be maintained. If there
is a contradiction in the Bible, then it is not creditable, and all Christians must “start from square
one”.
However, if your interpretation of the aforementioned scripture and your belief that
some/most homosexuals are “born that way” are correct, then God made man without the freedom
to obey his command (Leviticus 18:22). If this is so, then the Bible is contradictory (“It is for
freedom that Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).) and either Christians’ faiths are futile,
Christianity in not the true religion, and the Bible is not creditable; God is unjust and the Scriptures
are unreliable (“What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!”(Romans 9:14)) for salvation;
or that God is just according the Scriptures and his ways are unfair according to humans. I do not
like any of these choices (If you think of any preferable choices, I appreciate any input).
Furthermore, I have heard an eyewitness report by some missionaries from Italy that those
who convert from Catholicism to Christianity (get immersed) are almost always alienated from
their families. In fact, one man even told the missionary that his father threatened to kill him if he
ever saw him again. Therefore, people have chosen to live a lifestyle such that they would face
alienation from their parents. In addition, countless Christians have been persecuted by their
“friends” for their faith. As for being an outcast from society, being thrown in jail is the closest
example I can think, and there are several instances throughout the book of Acts where Christians
are thrown in jail for their faith. I believe that a person chooses to become a Christian, especially
in Biblical times, and I can imagine those people choosing to live such a lifestyle. If you cannot
“buy” any of this, then we may have to agree to disagree.
2. Although I am a homophobe according to my human nature, the fact of two homosexuals
serving on that translating committee can only show that God chooses to work through everyone,
and it demonstrates the glory of God such that he will work through all of us for his glory.
In reply to PAD:
Although my fifteen-year-old self does not understand your statement, I am sure that it was
hilarious. However, I think that AIDS developed within the homosexual community and that
could possibly be a “due penalty for their perversion.” (If I’m wrong, please correct me.)
Disclaimer: Of course this all seems like nonsense to those who do not believe the bible, but this is
all based on the Bible being true, since LARRY brought it up. All references are:
Taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNA-
TIONAL VERSION
Bible Reader,
I hope that, in your cusade to keep the Levitical law and then impose it upon others, you remember to not eat pork or shellfish, and not to wear mixed fabrics.
Sheesh!
Er– crusade, I mean.
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn’t get it at all. But basically it’s a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with “That’s stupid.” “Get real.” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “That’s dumb” and “Just shut up.”
PAD
Hmmm…not one of The Onion’s stronger pieces. I hope you don’t actually believe that stereotype. Some of the conservative-minded posters here have made some well-reasoned arguments.
Right now, I think the prevailing stereotype about liberalism is that it’s a joke. Certainly not across-the-board, but definitely a joke when it comes to the Iraq situation. Let’s look at the facts: For the most part, liberals weren’t pushing for inspectors to resume their work after Hussein kicked them out. Then when Bush decided to get tough on Hussein after four years of that nonsense, liberals suddenly thought inspections were a good thing. Earlier this year, when war seemed inevitable, the liberals decided, ‘Hey, North Korea is a greater danger than Iraq—why aren’t we attacking them first?’ This in stark contrast to a) their earlier howls of protest when Bush included North Korea in the Axis of Evil and b) their gloating over having “defused” the North Korea situation back in the mid 90s when they (led by Clinton and Jimmy Carter) threw large sums of money at their leader in exchange for something of great value to all Americans: a promise from a dictator. So why the protests? They voted for this war when they supported U.N. resolution 1441, right? Yeah, but…they changed their minds?
That’s what liberals are calling reason? Sounds to me like more of the emotional ‘let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings, ever’ attitude that too often characterizes liberalism than anything having to do with intellect.
-David O’Connell
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn’t get it at all. But basically it’s a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with “That’s stupid.” “Get real.” “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” “That’s dumb” and “Just shut up.”
PAD
Hmmm…not one of The Onion’s stronger pieces. I hope you don’t actually believe that stereotype. Some of the conservative-minded posters here have made some well-reasoned arguments.
Right now, I think the prevailing stereotype about liberalism is that it’s a joke. Certainly not across-the-board, but definitely a joke when it comes to the Iraq situation. Let’s look at the facts: For the most part, liberals weren’t pushing for inspectors to resume their work after Hussein kicked them out. Then when Bush decided to get tough on Hussein after four years of that nonsense, liberals suddenly thought inspections were a good thing. Earlier this year, when war seemed inevitable, the liberals decided, ‘Hey, North Korea is a greater danger than Iraq—why aren’t we attacking them first?’ This in stark contrast to a) their earlier howls of protest when Bush included North Korea in the Axis of Evil and b) their gloating over having “defused” the North Korea situation back in the mid 90s when they (led by Clinton and Jimmy Carter) threw large sums of money at their leader in exchange for something of great value to all Americans: a promise from a dictator. So why the protests? They voted for this war when they supported U.N. resolution 1441, right? Yeah, but…they changed their minds?
That’s what liberals are calling reason? Sounds to me like more of the emotional ‘let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings, ever’ attitude that too often characterizes liberalism than anything having to do with intellect.
-David O’Connell
fbgfdhgfhxg