Basham & Cornell Web Site / Blog

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URL to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.bashamandcornell.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=788

  1. […] Basham and Cornell […]

    Pingback by My take on the Rocky Anderson / Sean Hasn’t Any debate Friday night « Suzie-Q — May 7, 2007 @ 8:30 pm

  2. Doug:

    Nice post and thanks for posting it on my blog too! :)

    Comment by Suzie-Q — May 8, 2007 @ 7:34 am

  3. P.S.

    I cannot stand Sean Hannity! Ugh!

    Comment by Suzie-Q — May 8, 2007 @ 7:54 am

  4. Yep…I remember when Hillary and Kerry were parroting the WMD thing. Their problem was that they couldn’t keep their mouth shut, and repeated what they thought the people wanted to hear. The basic rule here is to never play another mans game, especially if he can change the rules. The same applies to Rocky. It’s all about playing a game that you know well, as well as carrying the book of Hoyle.

    Comment by geezerpower — May 8, 2007 @ 8:19 am

  5. Sign the petition to end the war:

    Petition

    Comment by Suzie-Q — May 8, 2007 @ 12:20 pm

  6. Hey DOug and Lydia!

    I published an article on my blog this morning about the 35,000 troops about to be deployed and apparently it was on the AOL blog news. I want to share this with you because of some of the comments. Also, Impeachment is now at nearly 40% approval of Americans. :)

    35,000 to deploy

    Comment by Suzie-Q — May 8, 2007 @ 4:31 pm

  7. Everyone was talking about Saddam’s WMD and removing him during the previous administration too. Did Bush give Clinton HIS talking points?

    Comment by Anonymous — May 8, 2007 @ 5:21 pm

  8. Geeeez, did you even read the article? The point is, who cares what Bill Clinton’s talking points were or who gave them to him? Or what Clinton was - and you said the key word - “talking” about? That’s all he did was talk. He didn’t act. He didn’t take this country to war against Iraq. Same with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. It doesn’t matter what they said. They didn’t take us to war against Iraq either. It doesn’t even matter what George W. Bush said. All that matters (or at least would matter if you hadn’t been so brainwashed and dumbed down by dishonest right wing talking points) is what George W. Bush did. It was Bush who invaded Iraq, not Bill, Hill, nor JK. Get it? I drew an analogy in my article. Let me draw another one here. Applying your logic, Bill Clinton is just as guilty for talking about Iraq, as George W. Bush is for invading Iraq. Does that really make any sense to you? I mean… really? Come on. Think - don’t repeat your GOP master’s talking points - think for yourself. Don’t you resent your hallowed GOP bombarding you with talking points that upon examination, just don’t make any sense, and only serve to make you look like a fool while you defend the indefensible? Doesn’t that trouble you at least a little?

    Comment by Doug Basham — May 8, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

  9. What many who like to claim that the Democrats also claimed that there were WMD’s forget is the intelligence they had access to. The pre Desert Fox “Quotes” were supported by the intelligence; the post 9-11 quotes were based on the BS Bush fed Congress. After 9-11 he signed an executive order restricting the intelligence to 8 members of congress. None of the 4 Democrats on that list made any WMD claims.

    And you will NOT find any “quotes” by Democrats claiming that Saddam had WMD’s after Desert Fox till Bush restricted what Intelligence Congress could see.

    Below is what the Democrats had access to.

    [b]Pre Desert Fox[/b]

    https://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol1.pdf
    [i]. . . During the summer of 1998, when UNSCOM surfaced its concern over the evidence it found that Iraq had, contrary to its declarations, weaponized VX in missile warheads . . .[/i]

    [b]Post Desert Fox[/b]

    [i] The CIA’s “Report to Congress on Acquisition of Technology Related to WMD, January through June, 1999” says: “we do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [Operation] Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs.”[/i]

    [b]What Bush let them see.[/b]

    Shortly after 9-11, Bush issued an [url=http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/bushrestrictedintel.pdf]order[/url] to the CIA, DoD, FBI, State Department, and his cabinet members that severely curtailed intelligence oversight by restricting classified information to just eight members of Congress.

    Comment by Kuni — May 8, 2007 @ 6:46 pm

  10. Doug Basham’s cogent comments made good sense to me. I bet Mayor Rocky Anderson wishes now he had Doug to coach him before he went on FAUX Noise to face Sean Hasn’t Any (I like to call him Ham-inanity).

    However, I have a more cynical approach, from watching FAUX Noise misuse the public communications channels to rig ANY debate in favor of the NeoCons. Ham-inanity has HUNDREDS of Doug Basham-calibre advisors (as many as Murdoch needs to buy) to rig the outcome in Ham-inanity’s favor. It is FAUX Noise’s playground, bought at public expense, and he who controls the playground controls the contest.

    No matter how sophistcated the progressive is who takes on FAUX Noise, that person is playing FROM BEHIND!

    It comes to me, that if a Progressive is tempted to take on FAUX Noise, the words of “War Games” (and in the hands of the FAUX Noise Warmongers, it is indeed WAR!) - “The only way to win is not to play at all!”

    Comment by hterrya — May 9, 2007 @ 1:17 am

  11. Bill Clinton maintained a constant level of low level warfare in Iraq all through the 90’s and compromised the integrity of UN inspections by using them as a cover for espionage.
    As for the debate itself, there was no debate. For Rocky Anderson this was a forum to present his case for impeachment. In response, Hannity’s presentation in supposed defense of US policy in Iraq and counter to the call for impeachment was predictably shallow, dishonest, and offensive.

    Comment by Ian — May 9, 2007 @ 5:31 am

  12. Doug’s “Take…” is perfect!
    But, the key is ‘debate’-which he pointed out never happened-which should be pointed out failed at all key points and started with the failed debates in the 2000 election. Lehrer put out nonprobing puffball quetions and swooned at the ‘no difference’ between you two guys, Gore and Bush.
    And those debates were also scored to the guy on the ‘right’ who exceeded low expectations.

    Kerry, Hillary and all saw the ‘work up to the war’ as a piece of cake and they wanted their fair slice and you don’t get that slice by saying “no thanks let’s talk about it”. Years later their faces are still smeared with residual cake and there is nothing to wash it off. Pehaps they can use bush’s blood smeared shorts, huh?

    Comment by Cole... — May 9, 2007 @ 10:56 am

  13. Ok now that I know it works, I’ll add my 2 cents. I’ve heard the critisism that Kerry and Hilary parroted the Bush party line. And it’s true, they did. Of course those who didn’t are no longer in public service. For a politican, that’s no small point. You have to stay at the party if you’re going to have any fun. The fact is, and I know this is true because I lived through it as did you: Following 911, the nation, even large parts of the world, turned to one man and one man only to make sense of it for us. That person, Dubya not only set the mood after 911, he set the very oxygeon level in the world. He made the world turn. What he said set the tone in a way that I’ve never before seen in my life and I’ve been around for more then a few years. Did every relevant politican of the day sign on? Yes they did, but then again, think back. Did they really have a choice?

    What others did in response to 911 isn’t really the question. The question is, what did others do, with ambitions of their own, in response to Bush’s response to 911.

    Good God, when the ship is foundering or precieved to be foundering you follow the captians lead. You either bail water or jump overboard. Hilary, Kerry and a lot of others bailed, and by doing that they stayed aboard. I know it’s a lousey analogy, but it’s the best I can do on short notice, especially considering that probably not more than one or two people will read this far down in the comments section.

    No Hannity’s comparisson is absurd. People need to point that out. At that critical time, only one person set the tone, established the perceptions etc. True, I never supported the idea. I was never afraid that Saddam was going to get me. But then again, I wasn’t a very big fish trying to survive in a very turbulant sea at that time. Hell I’m barely a minnow, not even worth the effort to clamp down on. I could afford the luxury of being honest with myself and those in my immediate circle about how abusrd and stupid I thought the war was. How it was an obvious bait and switch operation.

    The real question is, the next time something like this happens, who do you want in that singular position of responsibility, a reasoned intelligent politican or a stupid venal thug. You vote Democrat, maybe you get the former. You keep voiting Rethugican, chances are you get the thug.

    Comment by rivernet — May 9, 2007 @ 8:08 pm

  14. “Applying your flawed logic, I would be just as guilty for saying I wished someone were dead, as I would be if I actually killed them.”

    Henry II spent the rest of his life with regret at having said “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Then again I doubt he was much of a progressive.

    Excuse the ad hominem but I was channelling Hannity’s possible response.

    Comment by Ian — May 10, 2007 @ 11:33 am

  15. Ian,
    No problem, I think you channeled Hannity to a tee. The response made no sense, was not related in any relevant way to anything I said and didn’t answer the question. You nailed it.

    Comment by rivernet — May 11, 2007 @ 8:28 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>


Close this window.

0.230 Powered by Wordpress