Thursday, August 28, 2008

Deeds Of The "Worst"

This article is like a "Part Two" of the previous post, which it pretty much is since it's by the same guy, Randall Hoven. An additional plus for me is considering how well the last one went over, this should bring lots of well documented counter arguments and/or guffaws by Dan meant to imply that he knows better, the thought of which brings guffaws from me.

But I think it should be kept in mind that the points made by Hoven are not hidden, they are not that which most are truly unaware, and they make it hard to take seriously anyone who claims that Bush is the "worst president ever". Seems to me a lot was accomplished for by a guy who's supposed to be a "moron".

But back to the fun. If the usual suspects want to dispute the points made and the sources used to support them, I'm gonna stick my neck way out there and assume they won't dispute those stats of the first paragraph. Those stats they'll likely leave alone. Let's watch.


Dan Trabue said...

Well, in his first paragraph, he cites a source - a fairly reliable source - and states what that source says, no spin, just stating the fact that an "unscientific poll" of historians found Bush's presidency to be among the worst ever.

When writers do that, there is a decent basis for their claim. It's when writers then say, "What that means is that these historians hate America!" or some such - in other words, when they spin it to fit their own political agenda - that is when they get in trouble.

Marshall Art said...

Dan's response is not unexpected. Regarding the first paragraph of the article, he finds that source "fairly reliable". Why would that be? Hmmm. Let me think. Could it be possible that it's because it aligns with his own feelings?

And here's the definition of spin, and one can apply it to both sides of political opinion: interpretation of stats or info that does NOT align with one's position.

Regarding the opinions of these historians, it seems a bit early to be making such sweeping statements about the man and his legacy, so it's taken with a grain of salt.

Marshall Art said...

By the way, I wonder how those historians voted in 2000 and 2004.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall opined:

Regarding the first paragraph of the article, he finds that source "fairly reliable". Why would that be? Hmmm. Let me think. Could it be possible that it's because it aligns with his own feelings?

Well speaking for myself, the one who HAS the opinion, I'd suggest it is because:

1. The source is a University poll

2. It is an acknowledgedly unscientific poll (ie, it's not claiming to be something it's not)

3. It rings true to other anectdotal evidence I've heard.

4. It rings true with other scientific polls showing that the majority of PEOPLE in general are dissatisfied with this presidency (ie, if 70% of the people at large think that Bush is doing a horrible job, it sounds entirely reasonable that at least 70% of historians would think the same)

5. My statement was that the writer of the article was CORRECT in thinking that "The current narrative of the Bush Presidency is that it is a failure" and his source supported that thinking. The writer of the article himself thinks that this unscientific survey is probably reflecting reality.

In other words, he is just stating what someone else has stated, and the writer is indicating that he thinks it correct that this is what people are thinking. In so doing, he hasn't gone out on a limb and offered an opinion, yet, he's just stated what seems to be reality.

And so, to answer your question: No, it is NOT because it aligns with my "feelings," as my feelings have nothing to do with the facts presented. Rather, I agreed with the author's first paragraph because it reflects reality and sounds to be a valid, true statement.

Do you disagree with the author's statement that the current narrative of the Bush Presidency is that it is a failure?

Cameron said...

I agree that it's the current narrative. It's been the "narrative" almost since day 1.

But that part's boring. The author then presents his case for why the narrative is wrong. What say ye to the facts and sources found there?

Marty said...

Quotes are from American Thinker.

"Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?"

No. My paycheck is smaller due to my hours being cut. Plus, I have not had a pay raise in 9 years. The cost of my utilities, insurance, gas, and food have increased considerably.

"I think these are tremendous achievements, and ones that would not have occurred under either a President Gore or President Kerry."

That is pure speculation and not based on any facts.

"In US lives, 4,147 servicemen lost their lives due to hostile or non-hostile action in Iraq to date."

AT goes on to list the deaths from other wars making it look like the lives we've lost in Iraq aren't really that many, tragic though they are.

The occupation of Iraq (remember Bush declared the war over in May 2003) is now closing in on six years and counting.

Vietnam. From 1956-1965 there were 2,264 deaths. The majority of the 58,209 fatalities occured in a 4 year period from 1966-1970 with 51,585 losing their lives.

So far Iraq is ahead of Vietnam with regard to casualties. Also, not listed in the 4,147 are those who have committed suicide and those who have died from their injuries after returning home.

Civilian death toll in Iraq, some sources say, may have surpassed 1 million while the more respected Lancet study puts the death toll at 655,000.

Civilian deaths were estimated to be about 587,000 in Vietnam.

This is only the beginning of what came to my mind while reading American Thinker's attempt to pat the Bush Administration on the back for a job well done. I have much more, but no time now.

Marty said...

Also I want to add that U.S. casualties have been lessened because of the heroic efforts of the medical personnel and the speed with which we can now transport from the field. Casualties would have been much higher had that not been possible.

Democracy Lover said...

Well, after reading how the country was in such sad shape at the end of the Clinton presidency, what with the budget surplus and all, then reading that the Gore v. Bush decision was constitutional, I gave up in disgust.

You say you want to gain knowledge. If so, I suggest you stop reading the American Thunker and try reading some sites that actually report facts instead of making them up as the go along.

Marshall Art said...


OK. Link to the sites you think are factual on these points and explain to me why the hell I should believe them rather than this guy's article in the "Thunker". Right now, I'm saying you're just blowing smoke from your BDS pipe.

I'll respond to the rest later.

Marty said...

"This is the worst President ever. He is the worst President in all of American history."

Hey, if Helen Thomas says it, it must be true!

AT: "Despite being handed one of the worst situations in history from President Clinton"....

I'm not sure what AT is referring to...some forthcoming clarity would be nice... but here is some info on the Clinton/Bush years with regard to the budget deficit/surplus.

The federal deficit for all of 2008 will total $410 billion, very close to the all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004.

Heck of a job Georgie! You're bringing that deficit down nicely.

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

You're in such good company George.

Marshall Art said...

No Dan I do not disagree with the current narrative, but like the author, I agree the current narrative is crap and distorted for two main reasons:

1. It is furthered by Bush-haters who disregard any shred of positive news regarding Bush and his actions as president.

2. It is left to fester by a president unconcerned with the opinions of his opponents and polls when facing decisions he must make.

These two points have far more to do with the current narrative than the actual facts, which is the point of the articles by Hoven, and because you agree with the poll of historians, you do not challenge it in the least. In fact, you disregard the facts as indicated in my first point above. Therefor, how could you NOT agree with it. And you dare talk about lies and slander.

So you agree with the "unscientific" poll, but what of these sources:

-Authorization For Use Of Military Force Againts Iraq Resolution Of 2002
-Washington Post
-Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-US Gov Census
-US Dept of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics
-US Dept of Defense-(which showed the lie of Bush actin "unilaterally" against Iraq-a common lib lie at the time
-Congressional Research Service

These are the sources for Hoven's "dubious" facts. You're more than willing, eager I'd say, to buy into an "unscientific" poll which disparages Bush, but what of the facts from the sources listed above? They support Hoven's contention strongly, thereby diminishing the credibility of the historians polled. I'd say chances are good these guys aren't looking at all the facts, either.

Marshall Art said...


Are you saying your money woes are Bush's fault? In the best of economies there are always some who struggle. Why would you continue to work at such a company as the one you describe? I haven't had a raise in several years either. They say I'm basically capped out without further training, for which they don't reveal what further training will actually do for my wallet. But that's my fault. No one's forcing me to stay there. And I'm currently about to embark on a new venture that I hope at the least will supplement. As far as my economic situation, the guy in the White House has limited effect.

"That is pure speculation and not based on any facts."

It's likely based on what is known about both of those dudes, including their economic policies. Do you really think they wouldn't spend a lot if given the chance? And how much does a president spend versus the Congress in place at the time? To be sure, however, Bush's spending is a point over which conservatives have always lamented. More proof we don't fall in lockstep with him.

Actually it is Hoven, of course, who is going on to list the casualty figures from other wars, not AT. But the reason is due to the constant whining, and it is whining, from Bush opponents who eagerly report each milestone in death totals to use against Bush, rather than really giving a flying rat's patootie about the deaths themselves. It's just another bludgeon with which lib media members beat on George. So the use of such figures from other wars shows the true measure of the tragedy of loss from this action and puts it into better perspective than that which the libs present.

"The occupation of Iraq (remember Bush declared the war over in May 2003) is now closing in on six years and counting."

First of all, Bush never said the war was over in May 2003. He was referring to the operation of invasion and deposing Hussein. That mission was accomplished. Even when the action in Iraq comes to and end, the war will not be over, even if the worst happens and that jerk Obama is prez and does his thing. Wars only end when one side surrenders or is wiped out. And no war was ever fought under time limits. "OK. We're gonna fight for two years and if we haven't won by then, we're just going home." Uh uh. Never happens. So the length of any war means only that it took that long.

I don't think you helped your case with your stats, unless I'm missing your point. Four thousand dead in a six year period versus over 51K in a four year period? Sounds like we're fighting with fewer dead to me. That's a good thing. As to suicides, does your stat include them? I don't think it does since that number is always used regarding war dead from Viet Nam.

The difference in civilian casualties is a poor measure when one considers the tactics used by each force. I might be mistaken but I think there has been much more urban fighting in Iraq which seems to me explains higher civilian casualty numbers. Also, because the scumbags don't wear uniforms, it is sometimes difficult to identify a dead guy as a bystander or participant.

I don't think you can use the advances in medical care to support whatever case you're trying to make. There'd likely have been fewer dead in 1812 if they knew then what they knew during the civil war. The fact that we can save more people now works better for Bush's side of the argument.

Regarding Helen Thomas, she's an old, liberal buffoon who is likely senile. I clicked on the wordy link that began your comment on her. It carried a Brent Bozell article that I think was meant to show something good about Thomas, but in fact, rips her to shreds. And how can she say that Bush is the only president who ever wanted to go to war? What proof does she have for this when he would never cop to such a foolish statement? It is her own extremely lib bias and BDS that provokes these patently stupid pronouncements. I'm saying you just put that Helen Thomas stuff in for fun.

Finally, as I said, we never like Bush's spending habits either. But regarding the Clinton years and a balanced budget, Bubba didn't have all that much to do with it.

One of the pledges of the Contract With America of the House Republicans led by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a balanced budget amendment which lost in the Senate. But the House Repubs decided to balance it anyway and it led to a government shutdown that really only closed tourist attractions. $405 billion of the federal debt was paid off after the shutdown and the Repub majority was re-elected after the shutdown as well. (The previous info was taken from Gingrich's book, "Real Change", so I'm expecting it to be trashed by the usual suspects.)

But yeah, Bush spent a lot. Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because of eight earmarks attached. Bush signed a transportation bill with 6200 earmarks. He should have vetoed it as well, but he didn't put the earmarks in the bill, congressmen did. A Bush failing to be sure nonetheless.

Marshall Art said...

"It carried a Brent Bozell article that I think was meant to show something good about Thomas..."

That is, meant by the guy who posted the link to Bozell's article.

Mark said...

Why do you kick against the pricks, Art? the Libs you graciously allow to post comments here will always refuse to believe facts, even those well documented, in favor of believing the pablum spoon fed to them by the Leftist, Communist, Marxist, treasonous, Liberal Bush haters in this country.

I have stopped responding to them myself, because it is an exercise in futility. How does one talk sense to the senseless? You cannot reason with fools.

I know Dan and Geoff et al, will bluster on about how hateful I am but I say, "Who cares?" I don't give a tinkers damn about what traitors think about me.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I was going to point out that the author's claim that Sadaam Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998 was factually inaccurate; they were told to leave by the Clinton Administration just before the largest bombing campaign in Iraq between 1991 and 2003. Hussein had nothing to do with it. You want a source? Try any newspaper accounts on the run-up to that particular brouhaha.

I have mentioned it, but I will move on, because Dan and DL have covered the bases nicely. I then came to Mark's comment:
"the Libs you graciously allow to post comments here will always refuse to believe facts, even those well documented, in favor of believing the pablum spoon fed to them by the Leftist, Communist, Marxist, treasonous, Liberal Bush haters in this country.

I have stopped responding to them myself, because it is an exercise in futility. How does one talk sense to the senseless? You cannot reason with fools."

First, while I know Mark claims to be smart, and I believe him, this is among the stupidest things I have ever read.

I mean, seriously. I honestly don't believe Mark thinks this about us. How can he? I don't believe he's a fascist, racist, gay-killing thug willing to torture Muslim children in front of their parents (that's the kind of thing Pres. Bush had the CIA and military do; I'm assuming Mark is not now and was not during the height of the Iraq war in the military although I might be wrong). I don't believe Mark has a blood lust for those not of the Christian religion. I do not believe Mark wishes our country to be less safe, less prosperous, less sure of itself, and less dedicated to our Constitutional Principles - I don't believe Mark supports these policies personally, or would advocate them, even though the politicians he supports, and the policies he vocally endorses include these little tidbits.

Are there die-hard Marxists in America anymore? Are there traitors out there? The answers to both questions are a resounding "Yes". Are either Dan or I representative of such people? Since it's impossible to prove a negative, all I can say is that I think America is so awesome a place, we don't deserve a Pres. as bad as Bush has been and as much worse as McCain would be if he were elected.

Oh, and Mark? I know you've got your little blogger hands over your little blogger ears (or perhaps eyes?) and are chanting, "La-la-la-la-la-la-I'm not listening to you!", but I would remind you that, unlike (say) abortion or gay marriage, Jesus actually said something quite harsh about a person calling another person "fool". It's in that big black book you're always quoting, what's the name of it again?

Help me here, because you have a genius IQ.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Most historians agree that Buchanan, our only unmarried and quite possibly homosexual President, the last Democrat to occupy the White House until Grover Cleveland, and whose policy of drift and support for the fugitive slave law and by ignoring the mini rebellion and Civil War brewing between Kansas and Nebraska led directly to the Civil War - he was the worst President ever.

It's a pretty low bar, to be sure.

Marty said...

"Are you saying your money woes are Bush's fault?"

I was only answering the question. I figure I'm pretty average and he seemed to think I should be better off. I've work a long time at a church that's seen better days and I refuse to walk out on them unless it's necessary.

"So the use of such figures from other wars shows the true measure of the tragedy of loss from this action and puts it into better perspective than that which the libs present."

The true measure of the tragedy? You can measure tragedy? Tell that to the families who have been struck by such tragedy.

One death or terrible injury for an ill-conceived war is one too many imo.

And how shall we continue this "war" Marshall? With the same troops over and over and over? The reality is, that just isn't going to be possible. I don't see that Obama has a good plan for that either.

"I don't think you helped your case with your stats, unless I'm missing your point."

You missed my point. I was comparing the first few years of each war. We had troops in Vietnam 10 years before the massive casualties began.

The longer we stay in Iraq or Afghanistan the more creative the insurgency becomes as is evidenced by the latest weapon of choice: Lob-Bombs. My friend, Sgt. Porter, did a film about them here. They have the capacity to kill en masse.

"That mission was accomplished."

Ok. So why are we still there? I suggest to you that it has nothing to do with the "war on terror", but that is has everything to do with this.

"I'm saying you just put that Helen Thomas stuff in for fun."

Yep. That I did. :)

Have a save holiday weekend.

Marty said...

Er, safe holiday weekend.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey and Mark,

You are both welcome here. Take your personal fight elsewhere.

Marshall Art said...


I have heard that Hussein kicked out the inspectors many times from many sources. Since Hoven has documented most of his points, I give him the benefit of the doubt here. I'll look at any link you care to provide in dispute and go from there. It could be a matter of splitting hairs about details and chronology. In any case, it's a minor point. I fully doubt that he was totally open when they were there, so it really doesn't matter, does it?

I can't say as I can see that Dan or DL covered anything.

I demand something to substantiate the claim that Bush instructed or supported the type of action by the CIA that you describe. This is a serious charge to make. Prove it or retract it or be guilty of the type of slander that so puts Dan's panties in a twist.

I love how the left loves to paint historical figures as homosexuals. No, really I don't. It's low class to the extreme.

Once again, the case for Bush as the worst prez has not been made. It is the opinion of those who voted Dem and nothing more.

Marshall Art said...


"I was only answering the question."

Cool. I was looking for clarification. But really, you're not average if you work for a church. A church is not a business and to speak of wage issues in that context is reflective only of the level of generosity of the congregants. I'm in a very small congregation. Our music director asked for a raise when her contract expired. We gave it to her. Sounds like you work for cheapskates.

"You can measure tragedy?"

Everyone does, even if they don't use such terminology. And in this case, the left certainly has by touting the numbers of dead and injured in this war in their vile attacks on the president. Vile because they shouldn't be using such numbers to satisfy their childish attitudes about a guy they thought would surely be beaten in both 2000 and 2004. It is YOUR side that points to the deaths as if they truly care and as if the right wing doesn't. Everything has its context and perspective. They have inflated what was already tragic and such shameful rhetoric cannot go unanswered. Hence the comparisons.

"The reality is, that just isn't going to be possible."

The reality is that it might not have to be. It is beginning to look more and more like the goals are being reached as the Iraqis are proving themselves to be more and more self-sufficient in dealing with their own security. You remember. It's the "exit plan".

"We had troops in Vietnam 10 years before the massive casualties began."

The two wars were not fought in the same manner. Our initial involvement in Viet Nam was not in lead positions. Our involvement was direct from the beginning in both Iraq and Afghan.

" The longer we stay in Iraq or Afghanistan the more creative the insurgency becomes..."

This shouldn't surprise. It's how wars are fought. It's how common criminals operate as well. Evil finds its way as long as it is able.

"Ok. So why are we still there?"

Because it ain't over. A mission is not a war, but an action within a war. That one was completed, but the war was still on.

Hussein was a supporter of terror. He controlled a supply of oil. He attempted to destroy the supply in Kuwait. Oil is a factor but not the only factor in fighting those who's ideology so conflicts with ours. That they are from oil controlling countries means that oil is involved. Oil is important to many different industries that would suffer if the supply of oil was negatively affected. How much plastic is in your home, in your life? Oil is needed to produce it all. That control of oil might be a further incentive to kick some ass is totally justifiable, unless an economic collapse doesn't bother you much.

I went to your Hightower link. But as I just ate a lot of pizza, I had to bail out. Looks like a lot of the usual stuff and spin. Maybe later.

Cameron said...

It's a matter of semantics.

The inspectors were pulled out, not forced out. And then they were never allowed back in, though the UN asked very nicely numerous times.

Marty said...

"It is YOUR side that points to the deaths as if they truly care and as if the right wing doesn't. Everything has its context and perspective."

My side? As long as we separate ouselves into "sides" we will never come together to find common ground. I assure you that I care deeply about the troops. Especially those who are haunted and racked with guilt by what they saw and did while at war in Iraq.

"I went to your Hightower link. But as I just ate a lot of pizza, I had to bail out. Looks like a lot of the usual stuff and spin. Maybe later."

Well, Marshall, I've read through all the links and articles you have provided. I was hoping you would reciprocate. Maybe later.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, first things first. Mark threw down the gauntlet by calling me and other liberals all sorts of names. I responded. That's all.

Second, I do so love it when a factual inaccuracy is described as "splitting hairs about chronology". You asked in your post for anyone to call in to question any factual information in the American Thinker article. I did so, but was distracted by Mark's little comment, which I found hysterically funny.

In response to your query for a link, here's the link to the Wikipedia article on Operation Desert Fox (a most undesirable choice for a code-name for a military operation, in my opinion), and below is the specific quote on the disputed issue:
UNSCOM weapons inspectors were not expelled by Iraq as has often been reported. Rather, according to Richard Butler himself, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British air strikes: "I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.' ... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq." The quote is footnoted with a reference to an article Richard Butler published in 2000; yet I quite clearly remember the incidents in question in real time, and CNN and other news outlets reporting that the inspectors were asked to leave. Had I time, and inclination, I would probably list many primary sources - from the Marxist New York Times to the all-American Wall Street Journal - that could make my case quite clearly. If this isn't enough for you, and you are not honest enough to admit that the author was doing a bit more than "splitting hairs on chronology", then I can't help you.

In fact, the Wikipedia article in question is a good summary both of the Clinton Administration excuses for the air strike and the reality on the ground in Iraq, the political context in Washington, and the way this played in to the rush to war four-and-a-half years later.

Mark said...

Sorry, Art. I was talking to you. I am no longer responding to Liberals who refuse to admit they are wrong. ABOUT ANYTHING. I'm just saying you are beating a dead horse. They will never see things from your perspective.

If you want to continue to argue with people who will never accept it when they are bested, argue on, brother.

I won't waste my time. I personally don't have enough time to blog as it is.

Marshall Art said...


There are always sides in disputes, discussions and debates regarding politics and policies. It can't be helped. I stand by my statements.

For those racked with guilt, if they did something for which they should feel guilty, then their emotions are appropriate. If they feel guilty for something that is part of their duty as soldiers, then they need to seek help for it. Cops often feel guilty the first time they have to use lethal force even though it is justified. For soldiers going through this, of course they are amongst those for whom I pray and support.

I remarked only about the Hightower link. As you well know, or must assume by my responses, I have looked at your other links. The Hightower link carries the smell. Not on a full stomach if you don't mind.

Marshall Art said...


Your response regarding the feud smacks of "two wrongs..." Not necessary or appreciated here. Feud elsewhere. I reserve the right to be the center of all feuds at my own blog. If not at the center, I feel left out and get all jealous.

Secondly, I was suggesting a possibility for that which I had not the whole story. Keep it in your pants.

I appreciate the link (if not the actual source) and as it gives me something with which to start researching the issue, I can now begin. Thanks again. However, I find it to be a minor point within the context of the entire Hoven article, and hardly a reason to dismiss the whole thing. No one here has reached the perfection demanded of authors who's writings I present. Still waiting for support about the Bush/torture point.

Marty said...

Marshall, I'll give you that about Jim Hightower. But he did give some interesting facts on Corporations taking over our country further down had you been able to get past his disdain for Bush.

Last month at my United Methodist Women's circle meeting we watched the film Iraq for Sale. It was suggested viewing for our study on Globalization. You can view the film at Google here.

I'm done with this...THE END.

...You are allowed to offer a huge sigh of relief here....

Thanks for the polite conversation. I am mulling over some things you've said and hopefully you will check out Casey's YouTube page from time to time. I got an e-mail from him yesterday. He is having computer problems, so it will be a while before he is able to uplodad any more videos. He will be back in Texas on leave in October. Please pray for his safety and for his family. Thanks.

Jim said...

Iraq for Sale is a terrific film and very enlightening as to not only why we are there but why under the bush/mccain administrations we will be there for years to come. Too much money is being made to pull the plug.

As I always ask, "Who benefits?"

Ron said...

It's true that there are many people that are not looking for the good news in the Bush administration. There is also good reason for them to doubt good news or to feel like it's spun. Like this:

"And no war was ever fought under time limits. "OK. We're gonna fight for two years and if we haven't won by then, we're just going home." Uh uh. Never happens. So the length of any war means only that it took that long."

You make the leap that it is a war instead of an occupation. You seem to make the leap that we are fighting Iraq. I know, but be careful. You say we win a war when one side surrenders or one side is wiped out. Which is going to happen this time? Who is going to raise their hands and sign the treaty?

Worst President ever because of all the things he did that most on the right won't admit he did and will debate in vain, but will be shown in the light of history.

Violating our Constitution at the top of the list.

Violating our international treaties

The Concept of waaay preemtive war.

Serving the corporate and wealthy grip on power.

But you are correct. I am not really looking for good news from Bush/Cheney.
By BDS is true,earned and pure.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "I love how the left loves to paint historical figures as homosexuals. No, really I don't. It's low class to the extreme."

It can only be seen as "low class" by those who have already judged the human state of homosexuality as something to be considered as "low" and those fellow human beings who are homosexual as almost, if not actually, less than human.

The rest of is see it simply as a fact or, assertion, to consider.

Marshall Art said...

Nonsense, ER. Those who support and enable the sin of homosexual behavior look for every opportunity to suggest that historical figures may have been homosexuals as well in the mistaken belief that a well known figure being homosexual might result in more acceptance for their sinfulness. That's what makes it low, and it's also cheap. They don't care who the figure might be as evidenced by some who suggest homosexuality in David because of his love for Jonathan, or even Jesus because of his love for the apostle John. It's a ploy and a lame one at that.

Marshall Art said...


Thanks for the link, but I haven't even found time to view Jim's lengthy Moyers interview yet. It could be quite awhile as I'm getting very busy over the next month or so.


Do you ask who benefits from running such movies?

Marshall Art said...


It's a war. People are shooting guns and using explosives and military equipment. This particular phase of the war is coming to a close as reports of Iraqi self-reliance have been in the news. They are eager to handle things on their own. Should things continue as they have been over the last few months, it may actually happen.

As to the war, which is the battle against radical Islamists, that is likely to go on for some time. That isn't because anyone in this country wants it, no matter what Helen Thomas thinks, but because radical Islamists want it. With any luck, we won't be cursed with a Barry Obama as president and these bastards won't see us as easy pickings.

Regarding victory, that may have to be assumed by the lack of terrorist activity since the cowards don't fight like men in regular miltary garb.

We won't "admit" what the prez allegedly did because the case hasn't been made. Liberal whining about their fantasies regarding his evil activities isn't enough. Real evidence of wrongdoing cannot be suppressed because honorable men won't allow it. Should any be in existence indicting Bush, it hasn't been presented. Until it does, history must lie to say otherwise.

What violations do you feel have taken place? Please back up your accusations. What grip on what power do you feel the corps and wealthy have that Bush has supported? That sounds like class envy to me.

Your BDS is a serious malady that is spread through nonsensical lib propaganda.

Jim said...

"Do you ask who benefits from running such movies?"

Marshall, little if any money is being made by the makers of "Iraq for Sale", especially compared to the billions upon billions being made by the executives of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater and others.

But glad to hear you are still considering watching the Moyers interview of Bacevich.

Marshall Art said...


Are you saying that these execs of which you speak have had their earnings publicized? Everyone knows how much they made as "war profiteers"? Do you suspect that in previous wars there were none who made money supplying arms to our forces? In other words, are the manufacturers of weapons, uniforms, supplies, machines and other things used by the military, including office equipment, food, housing, etc, etc, etc, not entitled to be paid for their work? All these things are to be donated? I really don't understand the accusations. And I don't buy into the notion that there are people sitting in an office somewhere plotting ways to start and maintain wars in order to build wealth. Everything they do can be done without wars being fought and people dying. The whole thing just doesn't make sense. It just seems like too much trouble when money and wealth is created in so many different ways for even people of average intelligence that do not require death. Who's really doing the spinning here?

As to the specific film in question, the actual producer might not make "billions", but some are content with power or the idea of helping like minded people to gain power where they see personal benefits in the future. Just take a look at the outrageous number of earmarks being attached to bills by people from both sides of the aisle. Wars are totally unnecessary for wealth creation and I don't buy the bullshit that says it's being done.

Jim said...

One of the many things shown in the film is that Halliburton gets $100 per load of laundry and the soldiers complain that they do a lousy job. When they wanted to have locals do their laundry, they were ordered to have it done by Halliburton.

Watch the film. Then it will "make sense."

Of course companies have always made money from war. I don't have a problem with that. But with the kinds of profiteering going on in Iraq and on into its sixth year as well as the associations between the companies' executives and those who have promoted and carried out the Iraq war, one has to question motives.

Watch the movie yourself and then ignore its findings or not.

Marshall Art said...


I intend to watch the movie, absolutely. My problem is that motives were questioned first without any justification other than the fact that the people of which the left speaks are not of the left themselves. Then they go looking for that which they can pin to them, no matter how specious the argument. But watch I shall and then go from there.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Did you actually say you wanted evidence that the Bush Administration actively supports the torture of military detainees? Have you not been paying attention for the past few years?

That's all I'll say about that. I refuse to argue a point that is so belabored it is now in retirement.

As for the whole "it's a niggling point in the larger scheme of things", I resound with an unqualified "No". One of the major selling points for the war - attempting to point out what a bad guy Sadaam Hussein was (as if anyone had doubts about that) - was that "he kicked out UN inspectors in 1998 and wouldn't let them back in." Except, of course, he didn't and he invited them back. They refused because not only had the US violated the terms of the UN Resolution in resorting to Operation Desert Fox, they were also attempting to use UN weapons inspectors as intelligence sources, a direct violation of the UN Charter, to which the US is a ratified signatory member. Under the Constitution, a ratified treaty has the force of law, so not only was the US violating international law, it was violating its own law. That is why the UN refused to send inspectors after they were told to leave ahead of Operation Desert Fox. It had nothing to do with Sadaam Hussein, and everything to do with US bullying and attempted intrigue.

This oft-repeated Zombie lie became such common currency, it was never once questioned, to my recollection, by any journalist whatsoever. Indeed, when many were calling on the UN weapons inspectors to be reinserted in Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, many on the right kept saying, "But Sadaam doesn't want them! He kicked them out!" A lie is a lie is a lie, no matter how many times people pretend it isn't. If someone prints a lie without first examining whether or not it is in fact the truth, that person is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest. In either case it calls in to question the factual status of the entire article.

I am going to offer a counter-challenge at my own blog, and I do hope you take it.

Marshall Art said...


"Did you actually say you wanted evidence that the Bush Administration actively supports the torture of military detainees?"

More specifically, evidence of the exact charge you put forth, that is, " I don't believe he's a fascist, racist, gay-killing thug willing to torture Muslim children in front of their parents (that's the kind of thing Pres. Bush had the CIA and military do;"

"Have you not been paying attention for the past few years?"

Of course, and I've heard all sorts of charges without hearing or seeing proof or evidence, even of the circumstantial variety. Talk about saying a lie often enough... It's only been belabored by those who haven't proven it. If there was proof, there'd have been legal action taken on the subject. There hasn't been.

The rest of your comment says much in a very nicely laid out manner, but without anything I can check easily. What resolution was violated, for example? Where are you getting your version of events? Again, if these "lies" had rebutting proofs, where have they been? I don't mean just people talking (and being believed by people who already hate Bush), but something over which a prosecutor would get excited.

I also don't believe that any treaty is on par with our Constitution. We are, until the left totally abdicates it, a sovereign nation beholden to our own people first. No treaty can take precedence over that unless we allow it.

"If someone prints a lie without first examining whether or not it is in fact the truth, that person is either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest. In either case it calls in to question the factual status of the entire article."

If someone prints what he believes to be true after having examined the issue, your saying it is a lie doesn't make it so until you have offered something besides your own version of events to prove your point. And no, one mistake or even one blatant lie amongst all else presented only shows that one point is false, and only those reading with preconceived notions would dismiss the rest. (I don't believe the author is purposely printing blatant lies--I was only making a point). Hoven has supplied quite a few links to support his case and on the contrary, it lends credence to the rest, rather than as you say, one lie or falsehood discredits the rest.

As I said, I offer these articles in the hope that if someone like yourself disagrees, you could provide something solid that would enable me to enlighten myself, but still, after creating a post on that very point, I'm still getting nothing but "THAT'S NOT TRUE!!" So forgive me if I appear unimpressed or not persuaded by your arguments.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

The Bush Administration has admitted, publicly, to practicing water-boarding on detainees. This practice was singled-out in many international covenants on torture, having been sited as practiced as far back as the early-modern era by the Inquisition. Even if only one detainee had this done to him or her, it would have been an abomination, a disgusting betrayal of everything the US has ever stood for. Yet, there is a remarkable amount of evidence in the public sector on its multiple uses. Ditto sleep- and sensory-deprivation (also specifically prohibited practices), stress positions and, of course, the ad hoc violence at Abu Ghraib prison. If you choose not to believe, that is, of course, your prerogative.

Yet, the evidence is overwhelming that, in fact the United States not only tortured those it held in custody, it also transported detainees to third-party countries so they could be tortured. This is all quite public, acknowledged, and hardly an issue whose reality should even be brought in to question. Like any question concerning evolution, people can choose to deny the obvious, but that doesn't make it any less obvious or real.

Erudite Redneck said...

What you need, MA, is some you know and love DEARLY to come out of the closet and knock your judgementalism on its ass. And I pray it happens soon, and is someone so close to you that you weep bitterly, and then, finding yourself back, again, at the foot of the Cross where He was MURDERED for ALL OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, you shut up with the rhetoric and actually let love, like His blood, flow.

I am SICK of this. Thanks for being yet another confirmation opf my calling: to extend GRACE to ALL to make up, in some small way, for the likes of your own pathetic stinginess with it.

You're stopped up, man. Spiritually constipated.; You need some holy prunes! The kind that usually only come when one's biases are annihilated by a loved one coming clean.

I hope it happens to you fast. You're a good man, MA. And you need to find out that someone ypu love dearly, admire, and accept as a close brother in Christ -- is as queer as a $3 bill. Lord, bring it on quickly!

Marshall Art said...


Nice quote, but here's two problems:

1. The quote is not related to any link, and though I'm not accusing you of such, could easily have been authored by yourself. What part of "provide a ling/evidence/proof" is it that you find so confusing?

2. Waterboarding is a technique that has been used effectively and has been shown to be non-life threatening. It leaves no physical scars and is part of military training for some of our own troops. There is a big disagreement with labeling this as torture and throwing in the same group as, say, bamboo shoots up the fingernails, or constant beatings.

The other techniques mentioned are also non-life threatening (assuming no pre-existing medical conditions, such as high blood pressure) and are used to weaken teh spirit of the subject. (I do not include the Abu Graib situation because of the extenuating circumstances sets it apart from the issue at hand regarding what is or is not supported by anyone on our side.) I reject the "comfy chair only" form of interrogation that the left feels is all that honorable men can employ, since the left has such a hard time with what is or isn't honorable for one, and for the risks such an approach holds for our own people and allies for another. So, like so much the left finds objectionable regarding the means and methods of the Bush Administration, this is a very subjective perspective. The main problem, as I've always stated, is not so much what we do in such circumstances, but that anyone would suggest that we should officially and publicly commit to abandoning agressive techniques, referred to as "torture" by the left in order to further obstruct the progress of Bush initiatives, which emboldens the type of enemy we face in today's world. It leaves them little to fear about being a prisoner. My feeling is that it is far better that they assume we are as vicious as they are. KSM thought so and it is said that he broke almost with the first drop of water. Your protestations endangers people. Bad people take advantage of the type of kindness that exemplifies the average American. Your notion of how things should be gives them no reason to fear us or to think twice about attacking us. That's goes a long way toward explaining why they have attacked us as they have over the years. They didn't think we'd do anything about it.

It has been said that we have delivered prisoners to third parties to be tortured. I have not seen what you have called acknowledgement, and it's getting very tedious to continually claim that such things are matters of record when no one seems to be able to provide any links, evidences or proofs in these discussions. What is true, is only that you insist that's the case. Freakin' prove it. Please. Just once. That's all I've ever asked and hoped for. That's what I've been continually denied. You want me to look at the evidence and not take Bush's word or the right wing's version or to be objective. I plead for such evidence and am always denied. I present something like this Hoven piece, which contains his links for support and all I get is nothing but your opinion (and others') unsupported because "it's been shown so much to be the case that I'm not gonna waste my time" bullshit, when it's only been claimed by those like yourself over and over and over until it's put forth as truth. From the beginning I've asked for proof. When will any of you people provide any? There's nothing obvious about it. There's only your biased beliefs.

Marshall Art said...


What's your problem, dude? I'm only referring to the practice of labeling historical figures as homosexuals when there is no proof to back it up. Even if, say, Charles Dickens wore skirts, that only means he liked wearing skirts unless there was some proof of a male lover. It's a ploy to elicit acceptance for bad behavior.

But for your info, I've had someone close to me who was homosexual, or rather, engaged in that behavior. I say that because he himself really wasn't sure of himself to lable himself in that way, but in contracting AIDS, it became moot. You think I will deny the Will of God should my daughter decide she's a lesbian? What kind of Christian would I be if I did? I'll tell you. I'd be one who is not only in the world, but of it. I'd be one who lets culture define my faith rather than God's revealed Word in Scripture. I'd be sad, I'd be concerned, but I'd like to think I'd be resolute. What did my Lord say? "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother....Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me..." Matt 10:35-37. I love my daughter, and I was fond of my friend who died of AIDS. His confession did nothing to lessen that. I had another friend of whom I was fond who sold drugs. I didn't like that either. And my hope for you, my friend, is that you soon understand that you do not show love because you tolerate their sinfulness. Instead, you are helping them to their condemnation. Neither grace nor judgement is ours to give. But His Message untainted by modern perspectives and desires is. Should the whole world view this issue as you, God still will not bless their unions or sexual behaviors. Take it up with Him. I refuse to pretend.

Marty said...

Sigh. I really didn't want to get back into this. So why am I? Because I can't keep my mouth shut.

"It has been said that we have delivered prisoners to third parties to be tortured."

I've heard that too. If I find any proof I'll provide you with the link.

But there is a report, released in June, regarding torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guatanamo Bay:
Broken Laws, Broken Lives.

In the preface of the report Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.)states:

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Marshall, if you've already been provided this link or discussed this report, then forgive the duplication. I've not read all of your posts.

Marshall Art said...


I took a little time and read the Executive Summary so far. I will read the other later when time allows. What follows is my response so far. No response to it is needed as my study is incomplete and thus so is my critique.

The first thing that troubles me is the fact that there is only the testimonies of the detainees. The Executive Summary (ES) provides no rebuttal, counter-version or defense by any who may be accused. The ES demonstrates no attempt to corroborate the stories given by the detainees other than their own medical exams, which can only show that harm was done, but not by whom. This obviously is important.

Before anyone thinks to berate me at this point, I want to again insist upon biting the bullet until I can read the other, supposedly more detailed report. The ES expends a lot of ink repeating themselves over and over as if the point might be missed.

Next, I want to acknowledge that incidents of harsh treatment at Abu Graib are now public knowledge and perpetrators have been tried and convicted. How many more shall be remains to be seen. How high up the chain of command the guilt for such resides also remains to be seen.

Next, it has been said that it is standard operating procedure for any terrorist taken prisoner to exploit the situation by claiming abuse upon release, whether or not abuse actually took place. A knowledge of our laws and sensibilities by terrorist leaders is beyond doubt and exploited whenever possible. In other words, they lie with exteme prejudice.

Very little is said regarding the arrests of these detainees and it would be helpful to know the details, especially by those who actually arrested them. Perhaps the other report has this info, and perhaps eye-witness testimony, the other side of the story and explanations as to why the PHB believes the testimonies of the detainees, as well. We'll see. Again, no comments on this will be appreciated or acknowledge until after the second report is studied.

In the meantime, I once again thank Marty for getting it, and at least attempting to provide some proofs. Now I've got something to work with.

Marshall Art said...


As I squeeze in a little research between a busy weekend and what looks to be a busy several months, I have come across this piece that shows comparisons under the title, "What a Difference Four Years Make". I offer it for this reason: though it supports your comments regarding the false statements surrounding the weapons inspectors, it continually states that Butler reported that Hussein was uncooperative with inspectors, it led to their being pulled out after the decision to raid came down. The decision was a result of the lack of cooperation. While this isn't the same as being kicked out of Iraq, being prevented from pursuing that which was the reason for being there constitutes the same thing. Thus, though you are technically right about the inspectors' status, Hoven wasn't so terribly wrong as to justify dismissing the rest of his points, or the larger point of his article, which the status of the inspectors does nothing to tarnish. Kicked out vs being prevented from doing their job. What's the difference and why is that so important to you? Seems very much like splitting hairs to me.

Ron said...

"That's all I'll say about that. I refuse to argue a point that is so belabored it is now in retirement."

Well, that pretty much says it for me too. If somebody Democrat or Republican could stand up and get impeachment going maybe we could all at least hear the evidence.....24/7. I'm willing to let them make their case against my charges. So far they have not even agreed to speak UNDER OATH.

All of this is so obvious that your argument against it looks like argument for the sake of it.

You can support all that S*it and make excuses if you want to but I won't be joining you.

Marshall Art said...

"...maybe we could all at least hear the evidence.....24/7."

Perhaps if there was evidence, we'd have heard some of it by now. I'm guessing that the Bush haters are hoping for a fishing expedition that might turn up enough circumstantial evidence a lib jury or judge might consider enough. Kinda worked that way for Scooter.

Mark said...

I will go on record, in spite of what my Conservative brothers and sisters say, and even in spite of what Hannity, Rush, and Levin say, to say I believe waterboarding to absolutely be torture.

They have admitted doing it to CIA operatives and Marines etc, and even the toughest caved in within about 5 minutes. I'm sorry, but the only thing I can think of that would turn Marines into quivering sniveling jello would be torture.

That said, I have absolutely no sympathy for terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, and if waterboarding, or any other kind of torture saves American lives, or brings a quicker end to the hostilities, or leads to the capture or death of bin Laden, I say go for it. They should suffer whatever torture it takes to make them talk.

May I please pour the water?

Jim said...

If you haven't read or watched Andrew Bacevich, I heartily recommend it. He is non-partisan and criticizes democrats and republicans. He says the following in a column you can find here:

"Iraq merely offered a convenient place from which to launch a much larger and infinitely more ambitious project. "After Hussein is removed," enthused Hudson Institute analyst Max Singer, "there will be an earthquake through the region." Success in Iraq promised to endow the United States with hitherto unprecedented leverage. Once the United States had made an example of Saddam Hussein, as the influential neoconservative Richard Perle put it, dealing with other ne'er-do-wells would become simple: "We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'" Faced with the prospect of sharing Saddam's fate, Syrians, Iranians, Sudanese, and other recalcitrant regimes would see submission as the wiser course -- so Perle and others believed."

Read more.

Watch this 8-minute video of Andrew Bacevich.