Friday, December 16, 2005
OK, here's the deal with comments.
Sadly, it's a truism that, if you write a left-leaning/progressive blog and allow universal comments, you will get the occasional ignorant, dumbfuck, neo-con wanker who decides to take exception to every single thing you write and uses the comments section of your blog as a general dumping ground for his imbecility and uninformed propaganda. This blog, unfortunately, is no different.
From its inception, we've seen the appearance (and, in some cases, the subsequent disappearance) of American bloggers Jay Gatsby, Dizzy Gillespie and Jinx McHue. To a lesser extent, we have the moderately annoying Pete Rempel and Anonalogue. For the most part, I try to be as accommodating as possible but, over the last couple of days, one "The Fly" has managed to, in that short a time, piss me right off by being one of the dumbest human beings I've ever run across, as well as one of the most irritating in the sense of posting nothing but complete crap at this blog.
Because of this, I'm going to lay down a few rules for those who wish to comment here. If you don't like the rules, take a hike. My blog, my rules. Deal with it. If you can't play by the rules, I will simply delete everything you submit until you go away. And now, the rules.
First, you don't have the right to leave a comment on every post I make. That's just being an infantile dipshit. If you have that much to say, get your own blog. I didn't start this one to give you a vehicle for publishing every asinine thing that comes to your mind. If you already have your own blog, consider actually using it and stop abusing mine. Are we clear on that?
Next, I have very little patience with people who leave comments that have nothing to do with the post itself. If you have an urge to ramble, wait for an open thread. If you have lots of urges to ramble, see above: get your own blog.
Moving on, if you want to take exception to something I said, then be prepared to back it up with at least moderately objective sources that can be independently verified by interested readers. Looking back through the last several postings, virtually every single comment from the aforementioned "Fly" is just a link to a GOP-related web site (FOX News, gop.com, state.gov or whatever). That tells me nothing, and I have no interest in having my site turning into a collection of links to right-wing, neo-con swill. That's what your blog is for.
And, finally (although I'm sure I could go on for some time), if you're going to leave a comment, make sure it actually addresses the issue as it was written and not as you perceive it from your perch atop the walls of Wanker Castle.
As one example, back here, the thoroughly-annoying Fly takes exception to my claim that there is finally proof that the Bush administration lied about everyone having had "the same intelligence" on Iraq. Mr. Fly snarkily claims that he's been there and done that, but provides a link only to his entire month's archive, making interested readers wonder just what the fuck he's talking about.
If one goes to that page and searches for the word "intelligence" hoping to find what he was talking about, the closest one gets is perhaps this article, which talks only of a public poll on that issue and, as I'm sure you realize if you have a minimally-functioning brain stem, asking the American public is not normally the most reliable way to ascertain actual objective fact. And it certainly doesn't come close to addressing what I wrote.
So here's how it's going to work. I'm going to leave comments off for a while for readers to digest the above. And as for Mr. Fly, here's how it's going to work for you. When I eventually turn comments back on, you will, like everyone else, be able to leave them. What I want from you (and the only thing I want from you) is a specific link to a minimally reliable source that proves that everyone had access to "the same intelligence" on Iraq.
I don't give a rip what the general American public thinks -- it's pretty well established that the American public (and the public of other countries as well) are abysmally short on critical thinking skills, so telling me how many of them agree with George W. Bush is utterly irrelevant. I want to see your alleged proof for your claim and that's the only comment I'm going to allow you to make until we've resolved this issue.
In short, you have two options: prove your claim, or publicly retract it. There is no door number three.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I people were actually paying attention back in 2002 and early 2003, it was already well established that the USA and Britian were using seriously flaw intelligence, everything from the yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, renewed nuclear programs, plagerized articles from the 1990's and passed off as new intell, yadda, yaddam yadda. All of these issues were debunked back in 2002 and 2003 prior to the war. Not so much in the USA MSM but the BBC and other news sources tore it apart.
Now of course the Fly can come on here and ask for this proof. Sorry Fly, it is not my job to your research for you. Once apon a time I use to carry all these 100's of new links but I go sick of tracking the shit and having to repeat it again for people like you.
Now the question is this Fly, do you not care enough about the truth to seek it out?
Me, I no longer care about educating ignorant fools.
Sorry CC, I'm not going to back up claims with links, the info is out there, I'm sure someone will be more than willing to educate the Fly on how wrong he has been, but that person will not be me.
"Sadly, it's a truism that, if you write a left-leaning/progressive blog and allow universal comments, you will get the occasional ignorant, dumbfuck, neo-con wanker who decides to take exception to every single thing you write and uses the comments section of your blog as a general dumping ground for his imbecility and uninformed propaganda."
Yeah, and we all know that this never, EVER happens to right-leaning/conservative blogs.
Damn, you're a whiny fricking baby. Need your bottle and blankie?
Ooops,
Comments are back on, I better get right back to you on this one...
Under the title:
"'The same intelligence': Another Bush lie exposed." We find your remarks:
"Oh, just go read it."
Following the link, we find the core "evidence" of "Bush Lied" allegation #121,851.
President Bush: "Some of the most irresponsible comments - about manipulating intelligence - have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein, These charges are pure politics." Note that Bush is responding here to critics that accused him of “manipulating intelligence” when he made the famous “saw the same intelligence I saw” remark.
Sounds reasonable enough so far, particularly when you factor in CC’s observation: “All of these issues were debunked back in 2002 and 2003 prior to the war. So, we can safely assume that even after the President submitted the matter to Congress, and even after they voted overwhelmingly in favor of war, one would hope that if questions remained to be raised, Congress would have taken action to reverse course before the war began at 5:30 AM Baghdad time (9:30 PM EST, March 19, 2003).
Au Contraire,
Before us are "Knight Ridder" Exhibits A-C from the "Daily KOS"
A) WASHINGTON - President Bush and top administration officials have access to a much broader range of intelligence reports than members of Congress do, a nonpartisan congressional research agency said in a report Thursday, raising questions about recent assertions by the president.
Note the operative phrase here: “raising questions about recent assertions by the president.” Nothing here demonstrating Bush purposely withheld information on Iraq, just a ”nonpartisan congressional research agency” thinking out loud.
B) The Congressional Research Service, by contrast, said: "The president, and a small number of presidentially designated Cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ... have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods."
Nothing here, the ”Congressional Research Service” simply concurs with the findings of “Knight Ridder” in “A” but adds ”more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods." to the mix.
C) ”The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters.”
Nothing here either, the ”CRS” (Congressional Research Service, by any chance?) simply concurs with the findings of “Knight Ridder” in “A” and of itself in “B” but adds ”nine key U.S. intelligence 'products' that aren't generally shared with Congress." to this tossed salad of idle speculation.
I especially like the line “that are’nt generally shared with Congress”. The old maybe they all were, maybe none of them were shell game. WOW, that’s quite the smoking gun you uncovered there CC.
Check here and here for more.
On "the point of contention" an aftersnark,
RE: "Bush Lied" allegation #121,851. Subject: As I recall, it was "Another Bush lie exposed", and not whether Congress "saw the same intelligence".
Boiled down, the "Evidence" in allegation #121,851 is: ”nine key U.S. intelligence 'products' that aren't generally shared with Congress."
What each member of Congress "saw" for intelligence, remains an open question because "CRS" does not offer evidence as to what intelligence contained in these "nine products" would be relevent here. By adding generally not shared they do create a conundrum, i.e. (maybe shared, maybe not).
Hence the outrage over the "Bush Lied" allegation(s). If it's just your opinion, thats fine. But when you imply this stuff is factual Is THIS enough for impeachment?" you should submit proof, not just your opinion of some other guy's theory.
Without evidence, you are just creating an endless loop. Proof in the "Spy" case would be court records, times and dates of surveilance, and testimony from the attorney general needed to establish a violation of the laws cited.
Have a nice day.
The Fly makes a good point here so let's go with that. We can consider two separate claims:
1) Whether Congress saw the same intelligence.
2) Whether Bush "lied" about that claim.
Note that one can claim that Congress never saw the same intelligence without subsequently claiming that Bush lied about that. Perhaps Bush was sincerely mistaken, that's always possible. But notice how The Fly moves the goalposts even on that first point.
The Fly's own quoted sources make it abundantly that the administration had access to considerably more intelligence info than did Congress. So how does The Fly address this point? By redefining the issue thusly:
"What each member of Congress "saw" for intelligence, remains an open question because "CRS" does not offer evidence as to what intelligence contained in these "nine products" would be relevent here.
Hold on there -- when exactly did we add the qualifier that that intelligence had to be "relevant"? Whether it was "relevant" was never part of the original issue -- the original issue addressed simply whether the administration had more intelligence than did Congress, so for The Fly to suddenly add the relevance qualifier is changing the subject of conversation.
If The Fly wants to play at semantics, then I expect him to retract that part of his presentation before we go any further.
Nice try, Fly, but we here at CC HQ are pretty good at that semantics game.
On "the relevance qualifier" a second aftersnark,
RE: "Bush Lied" allegation #121,851.
1) Without first establishing what intelligence found within the "nine products" is even relevent here, if any, how can you find that Congress was not fully informed on Iraq if they did not have access to the "nine products"?
2) That being the case, even if the "nine products" were full of relevent intelligence, "not generally shared" in the authors opinion, does not in this case translate to "never shared" without more detail.
Hence, we have an endless loop: Bush may or may not have shared with Congress the "nine products" that may or may not have been relevent to WMD in Iraq.
You are really starting to piss me off, and this is a major reason I have so little interest in arguing with right-wing wankers -- trying to get a straight claim out of them is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.
The original claim was that the Bush administration didn't share all their "intelligence" with Congress.
You, on the other hand, have re-written that original claim to now apparently refer only to "relevant" intelligence based on "nine products."
You have effectively given up discussing the original claim and have simply written your own. At this point, we can safely conclude that you and I have nothing left to discuss.
Take your act elsewhere, it's not welcome here anymore. And, yes, given that you refuse to address the original claims, further comments from you will be deleted. You're more than welcome to do all this dodging and weaving on your own blog.
Post a Comment