Fact Check the Truth

Doug has one of those "everything but the kitchen sink" posts this week, called "Banning Truth". I had a lot of fun parsing his last screed, so I'll do it again with this one.

As an aside, I noticed no reaction from the loons to it. I think they're tacking and have decided to just ignore the debate. That's cool. Again, I'm not doing this sort of thing for the benefit of the 26 percenters. As Doug said when he quoted a Nazi war criminal, he's not going to change his mind regardless of the merits of the argument. They are the hard-core, whose identities are completely tied to the ideology. They simply could not function in the world, without the vile hatred that consumes them for everything unlike them.



Isn't that great? It truly is a wonderful symbolism for them. I laughed when I saw it, and I'm quite sure they have no fucking idea why I would.



LOL

I do this stuff because it's fun to highlight the absurdity of their ideology, and because I consider this "culture war" to be the war of humanity. The "war on terra" is small potatoes compared to the battle of global ideas. It's important that we shine a light on the abject insanity that would lead misery for humanity.

Just remember - and you can ask Steve Law - their ultimate goal is the Return of the Jesus, which heralds the final destruction of the world. It's important that we reduce the influence of right wing ideology until it evaporates.

Anyway.. on with the show...

Last year reports rose out of Britain that the Parliment was banning the term "Global War on Terror," because it might send the wrong message.

Earlier this year the Democrats wished to do the same because the term is considered by them to be "too broad." (Meaning that they don't like the idea it's Global - they want everybody to think the whole war is all about Iraq)

Notice, yet again, the complete lack of sourcing. I just have to stick that in each post I write about Doug because it's important to note he's just making all this shit up, completely out of context. He should title each of his posts, "Strawman Argument of the Day".

Anyway.. the term "Global War on Terror" is just simply silly. You can't have a war against a tactic. I thought Doug preferred the term "War against Islam" anyway.

It's pretty universally agreed that we understand there are people who want to do us harm. They have done us harm, and they will try again. Conservative idiots like Doug like to use the simplest terms, either because he's so stupid that's all he can understand, or because it fits his propagandist style of painting issues in broad "them versus us" mentality. He has said that he's "educated" and reads a lot and so on, but it's still difficult for me to figure out if he does that shit because he's really intellectually limited or because it's because he's trying to influence other intellectually limited people. Judging by how shitty his writing is, generally, I think the former is the case.

But hey.. being a good liberal, I have to say bravo to him for getting the most out of his limited skills.

The Left wishes to impeach Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeaners - adding Cheney is ridiculous because Cheney is a part of the Leglislative Branch of government serving as head of the Senate - and any impeachment idea is insane. Think about it. One of the cries for impeachment is calling the current battle in Iraq illegal (does the Left forget that in 2001 by a margin of 98-0 the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against terrorists and any nation that provided safe harbor and support to them?)

I'll bet Doug didn't think Cheney was part of the legislature until Cheney used that excuse as a means of blocking congressional subpoenas. I remember watching this issue discussed by various constitutional scholars, describing it as "ridiculous".

But this idea of impeachment; it's not just for liberals anymore. As you can see in this paragraph from Doug, he's writing like a 5 year old, boiling a very complex topic down to ridiculous talking points, devoid of context, substance, or any semblance of reality.

In terms of the justification of impeachment, I once again refer readers to the Bill Moyers program. The discussion is fascinating, and should be required viewing for all Americans.

From the Moyers site;

A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.

Notice Doug says "The Left wishes to impeach Bush and Cheney". Is 45-54 percent of the American public "The Left"?

It's not a liberal issue - it's an American issue, and if you watch the program you'll see a fantastically reasoned and nuanced justification from a conservative constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein. Fein wrote the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, and argues that absolute necessity of impeaching the administration.

Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan.

It's highly amusing to me that the loons don't seem to understand that a Democrat is going to be the next President. There's a good chance it will be Hillary Clinton.

Doug - she's not going to turn down the box of tools that Bush hands her. That should terrify you.

No doubt, when such a condition comes to pass, Doug and others like him will suddenly decide that violating the law is a bad idea. It's revealing in that the rule of law means nothing to somebody like Doug. It's all about the political ideology, isn't it Doug?

Doug then shifts gears to opine on criminal law.. you know because he has such a sharp legal mind, but once again he totally neglects that "rule of law" thing.

And now, in another attempt to ban truth, in Nebraska a judge has decided to ban the words "rape," "victim," "assailant" and "sexual-assault kit," in a rape case, and ordered witnesses to sign papers saying they wouldn't use the words. Words such as "sex" and "intercourse" were allowed. The reason? He didn't want the words to prejudice or mislead the jury.

If you follow the link (it's always important to read the links the loons offer, it often contradicts their own points), you find this nugget;

State law allows judges to bar words or phrases that could prejudice or mislead a jury.

There is this concept in American justice called "presumption of innocence". In the land of the loon, that concept does not apply when one is accused of doing something that causes an emotional reaction in the loon.

In the liberal world, a person can be accused of the most horrendous deeds that would curl your blood. A liberal, and a judge, would ensure that emotion has nothing to do with the legal proceedings, and that the letter of the law be followed, and the accused be presumed to be innocent until convicted.

Now, as for this particular case, we have a woman accusing a man of raping her, and the man claims it was consensual. The case will come down to who the jury believes. Doug is aghast at the judges ruling, but Doug leaves out this bit of information because, you know, he's a shitty writer and just spewing his propaganda again. It's a really dishonest writing style Doug - and part and parcel to why I call you a liar.

In a written explanation of his ruling, Cheuvront (the judge) said Bowen (accuser) and her friends drummed up pretrial publicity that tainted potential jurors.

They signed a petition decrying the word ban and posted it on a Web site that encouraged people to gather in front of the courthouse Monday to protest, Cheuvront wrote. Monday was the first day of jury selection; another rally occurred Wednesday.

"The inescapable conclusion from the petition promoting the rally is that Ms. Bowen and her friends hoped to intimidate this court and interfere with the selection of a fair and impartial jury," Cheuvront wrote in his order released Thursday afternoon.

The judge is upholding the rule of law, and making really god damn sure this man gets a fair trial. Doug despises the rule of law, despises a judge doing his job, and despises the idea that a judge can control his own courtroom according to the laws of the land.

The use of certain words evokes an extreme emotional reaction in people who have an inability to distinguish between rhetoric and factual information. Most human beings can be lead to form an opinion easily by choice of language. A smart lawyer could convict a man of rape merely from his choice of words, in that the jury is probably going to include people of average intelligence (or worse), who cannot disregard the terminology in favor of the facts. This is how O.J. got acquitted.

If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.

Never mind the blood splatter in the Bronco....

And it goes back to why Bush and Cheney needs to be impeached, but Doug does not agree. The rule of law means nothing to the conservative right wing loons, and if we were to live by their standards, it would be an anarchy of injustice.

Then all of a sudden, Doug tacks again and veers back to the "terraists". Do you even read your own posts Doug? Holy shit the writing is horrid.

Listen, my dear liberal friends, when a group says that they wish to destroy your civilization and then fly planes into buildings and kill over 3,000 people it is an act of war. And how, pray tell, should a nation respond to an act of war? Oh, I don't know, maybe we ought to take the war to the enemy so that they learn not to attack America again!

We've been over this a million times. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, with ties to terrorist groups in Afghanistan.

I like the phrase "take the war to the enemy". It's so butch. Flex those muscles and "hit them hard". Problem is, who is the enemy? Where are they? Who do you bomb? Who do you kill?

Doug is not interested in issues of practicality and nuance. He just wants the bombs to rain down. Kill.. kill.. and kill some more. After all, "they" want to kill us, right? Then turn around and call those that wonder what the fuck that all means as "anti-American".

How's that "taking the war to the enemy" working out for you Doug? Is the body count big enough yet? Have the terrorists run away in fear, convinced that they should like us and want to be friends? Are we "safer", because we all know the right wing loons simply piss themselves in fear at the very idea of getting "hit again".

So Doug, if I describe for you the liberal philosophy in "fighting terrorism" will you stop mischaracterizing our point of view? I'll lay it all out for you, so you won't have to keep asking "And how, pray tell, should a nation respond to an act of war?" I'll do this in hopes that you stop making up strawman arguments, and actually argue against my point instead, okay? I really want you to stop lying about the liberal philosophy. Is it possible for you to do that? Can you reference the teachings of the Bible for one moment and, armed with the truth about liberals, stop lying?

So, here it is in a nutshell, simplified a bit for the gray matter impaired.

Put a maximum amount of money and effort into achieving an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. That conflict is, more than anything else, the source of tension in the Middle East. George Bush has done nothing on this front.

Redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and focus on Afghanistan. Nothing the military does in Iraq will change the situation in Iraq. The U.S. military spent less time fighting the juggernaut of Nazism and Imperial Japan, winning those wars, then it has spent in Iraq.

Improve security at our ports, shores, and borders. Improve response to domestic disasters, either weather or terror related.

Essentially, solve the reason why they want to kill us, because you will never, never in thousands of years, kill them all through violence. In my view, the best way to achieve this is to reduce the influence of all religions all over the world. Religion causes wars. Eliminate the religion, eliminate that which divides people, wars become a thing of the past. Eliminate religion through secular/humanist principles.

There.. got that? I sure hope so because I'm really tired of you lying.

Now, Doug shifts again back to the impeachment issue.

As for this idiotic impeachment movement, name a crime. The Left says Bush has set himself up as King, or something like that. Are you kidding me? Radical Islam committed an act of war against the United States of America. And he didn't lie about the WMD either, idiots. We telegraphed that we were coming to look for the damn things and Saddam had plenty of time to ship them out. That's not lying, that's the Left warning the enemy before we come and then trying to shift the stupidy to the right.

Name a crime? Warrentless wiretapping in violation of FISA statutes. Again, see the Moyers program for the answer to your question.

I do like this idea that somehow Iraq shipped out all the WMD's before the U.N. Weapons Inspectors arrived. Doug even calls us "idiots" - which is hilariously ironic. It's borderline psychosis is what it is.

The more nuanced argument, of course, is that the administration simply "cooked the intelligence", as the Downing Street Memos describe;

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Now for a classic Doug-ism;

If Bush is guilty of anything, it's handcuffing the troops. It's a war, and should be fought as a war. Let's take the gloves off and fight the dang thing!

"Oh, but Doug, don't you know that poor, innocent people may get killed. Not all Muslims are terrorists."

True. But all of the terrorists have been Muslim. And it's war. It's unfortunate, but sometimes innocents are lost in a war - especially when the cowardly enemy uses innocent people as human shields.

If only we used nuclear weapons, right? If only we killed more people, the middle east would embrace Western values, right Doug? If only we turned "sand to glass", we'd solve the problem of "terrorism"!

Naturally.... because Doug is a shitty writer, he doesn't explain what "take the gloves off" means, other than it's going to cause the death of "unfortunate innocents".

So.. Doug.. how would you feel being one of the "lost innocents"? How about if it's your wife? How about your son? Would you write them off as simply "unfortunate"?

Once again, all the right wing loons can see is death and destruction. That's the solution to the world's problems. Kill more people, and this time, don't worry about the innocent people that get caught in the middle.

Fucking vile. Just fucking insane. Just disgusting the thoughts that permeate the minds of these people.

Fact: The Jihadists brought the war to us, not the other way around. They wish to kill us and destroy our society. Wouldn't it be prudent to take the threat seriously? All that the Left is doing is playing these stupid games for political reasons. America is the least of their worries. They are out to get the White House.

Doug assumed the left doesn't take the threat seriously. We do.. so stop lying about that asshole.

So.. Democrats are "out to get the White House"? You mean, thinking our political ideology is better than yours and wanting to take political leadership is a bad thing? Democrats shouldn't try to win elections? Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury at some point in your life? If you did, I admire your attempts to form a persuasive argument, but it's failing horribly.

I'm actually quite pleased the Democratic field is so strong. I'm looking forward to pushing our agenda in the coming decades, and I'll enjoy the right wing loons furiously writing their irrelevant bile on their blogs. It's going to be fun.

In order to seize power in America, the Left has realized that they cannot win on the issues, so the Democratic Party has decided to wage an all out war single-mindedly bent on discrediting the President, thus winning back he White House - even if it means compromising our national security while in the process of shutting down intelligence procedures in the name of civil rights, shutting down a containment facility in Gitmo by accusing it of using torture, and proclaiming that the war in the Middle East is illegal even though the majority of them voted in favor of it in the beginning. The Democratic Party has ignored the lessons of history.

Lets debate the issues Doug. I've asked. You've refused. Now you say that the left can't win on the issues? Coward.

The Democrats have ignored the lessons of history? I think you've got that backwards. Think.... World War II. We did not suspend the Constitution, and had very effective national security. We did not torture as a matter of policy. In fact, Germans were executed for committing that war crime.

Why was the United States able to defeat vastly more powerful foes 60+ years ago without employing these illegal techniques? Is our current leadership that much worse?

Bad guys do bad things and must be stopped, and they can only be stopped from a position of strength. The Left's ambitions, it turns out, are more important than the National Welfare of this country.

The Left's ambitions are to improve the National Welfare of the country. That's why we're fighting these political battles, because we know our policies are vastly better then the disaster the loons have brought us. Americans agree, hence Democrats winning both houses of Congress in the mid-terms.

And just remember. Doug and the rest of the loons are going to blame the left for "losing" the war in Iraq despite the left having nothing to do with it. It was launched and managed by the Neo-con ideology, and completely botched by the conservative right wing.

Never let the loons blame anyone other than themselves for their total incompetence.

And before any of you liberals that may be reading this gets too high on your horse, think about this. The Taliban has been successfully driven from Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein has been removed from power (and executed) in Iraq.

High on my horse? You mean, debunking your completely inane babblings?

The Taliban has been successfully driven out? You are lying Douglas V. Gibbs.

From The Economist;

ACROSS a wide swathe of southern and south-eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban have never looked stronger since they were driven from power by an American-backed alliance in November 2001. And the government of President Hamid Karzai has never looked weaker, controlling only the towns and, during daylight hours, the main roads. The Taliban are not in a position to unseat the government and win the war; not while Western troops remain.…

This is exactly why Iraq is such a disaster, and why right wing ideology is so dangerous to America. Dangerously stupid.

Afghanistan and Iraq no longer sponsors terrorism. Neither of these nations live under the evils of tyranny any longer. The seeds of democracy have been planted in these nations. If Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq his ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction would be reached by now and he would be either using them, or distributing them to terrorists. Our actions in Iraq stopped that innevitability.

The term "sponsor" is very nebulous. Both nations are now the training and breeding ground of terrorism. The wars have been a huge boon to those groups, as they've seen a massive influx of ideologically driven fighters.

And it's worth noting that prior to the launch of the Iraq war, the U.N. Weapons Inspectors were in Iraq looking for WMDs and related programs. They found none. Saddam Hussein would not have been able to manufacture these weapons, as the sanctions and inspections were proven effective.

It was not "inevitable".

The truth, however, according to the liberals, may prejudice or mislead the American People, so the Left would rather smear lies all around, toss in a few accusations, and then try to throw the "Fairness Doctrine" in there as well for the soul purpose of silencing the conservative voice.

There must be a prominent right wing loon pushing this "Fairness Doctrine" screed because Doug has not mentioned it until recently, and references it in virtually every post now. It's a minor issue.

Still, notice how I document Doug's lies, and all Doug can do is make feeble accusations?

Here's a challenge to you Doug. Show me how I have "lied". I challenge you to do that. Quote me in context, and prove me wrong. Of course you can't, and we both know that.. which is part in parcel to why you won't debate me. Your every post is completely divorced from reality, and I find it refreshing to have someone so easy to highlight and rebut.

Spain suffered the terrorist attack on the train station after an anti-war candidate took office in order to more quickly persuade him to pull out their troops from Iraq. Now Britain has suffered attacks shortly after Blair resigned and a more anti-war Minister has taken office. The message is clear - The Islamists realize that liberals, when faced with an attack, will pull out as fast as possible.

America suffered a horrible terrorist attack on the WTC after a pro-war candidate took office in order to provoke him into a war that would prove to be a huge boon to their movement.

The Islamists realize that conservatives, when faced with an attack, will wet their diaper and send other's kids to die instead of enlisting and fighting the war themselves. They won't even support a draft.

We must stay strong. We must continue to wage the global war on terror, and that is the truth.

It's going to be interesting to see your insanity-in-words when there is no longer a world consumed by hatred. People like you, Doug, have to have an enemy to have an identity and sense of self worth. Who will be your next enemy?

Fini...