David Adesnik takes issue with (Gawd- I can’t believe we are going over all this AGAIN) my view that Kevin Drum misquoted Glenn, and states:
It is wrong and offensive to argue that simply changing one’s opinion is unpatriotic, regardless of the motive.
I think it is wholly appropriate for people to change their minds, and I think one of the major shortcomings of this administration is their utter inability and/or unwillingness to change their mind and to try new approaches, particularly when the evidence would seem to indicate a change in position is appropriate. I change my mind all the time, and have, in the recent past, changed my position on issues such as stem cell research, legal rights for detainees, gay marriage, and so on. Hell, I have changed my opinion, in large part, about the fitness of the Republican party and this administration.
In short, simply changing one’s mind about the war does not make one unpatriotic, as I honestly do think that dissent is not only patriotic, but a duty of all citizens. What I take issue with, and what Glenn takes issue with, is those individuals who change their minds for no reason other than for rank political opportunism, and who, as has been discussed in detail here and elsewhere, are attempting to re-write the record on the run-up to war. But changing one’s position merely for political gain (or, as Dave writes, to represent changes in constituent desiress), on a matter such as a war effort, in a way that will have a dangerous impact on the mission, is not, as some would have you believe, kosher.
As I read Kevin’s post, it pretty clearly attempted to paint Glenn as saying anyone who opposed the war was unpatriotic, which I believed was a disingenuous interpretation of Glenn’s statement. I thought it was rather clear that Glenn was stating what I thought he was saying- those individuals who are merely changing their position for partisan gain are, in fact, not acting as patriots.
DougJ
That’s all well and good but are you prepared to deal with the smoldering crater of a city?
Jcricket
John, in theory I agree with you. But Glenn is not dispassionately pointing out that some Democrats are being “crassly political” in changing their views. He’s got no evidence, other than that they are Democrats, and are also using this opportunity to do their job (i.e. point out how they differ, politically, from the opposition party).
He’s clearly trying to paint as many Democratic critics of the war as unpatriotic as he can with a single stroke, and no discussion. Seriously, you can’t ask us to give Glenn the benefit of the doubt, given his track record on things like this.
Again, I respect that you are willing to give Glenn the benefit of the doubt, but I believe Kevin’s got a fair read on the situation, especially with the unnecessary use of the word “unpatriotic” – which is not something that should be tossed around so lightly, as Glenn so often does.
Jcricket
I forgot to add, it’s a very small leap from what Glenn said to the comments made during the run-up to the war that stated the left was mounting a “fifth column”.
John Cole
Jcricket- I read Gtlenn’s statement, and said to myself, “I know what he means, but I know what someone is going to do with that quote.”
A couple of hours later, I see Kevin Drum do precisely as I predicted.
When it comes to Glenn, people make no effort whatsoever to understand what he is saying, and instead simply flail out at him. Glenn in no way was attempting to smear all dissent- he specifically laid out a case. That peoiple chose to see what they wanted to see, and not, as they should, attempted to interpret Glenn’s comments the way he intended, is not my fault.
John Cole
Jcricket- And some people would argue it is a small leap between letting Terri Schiavo die and euthanizing all people with brain damage, however slight.
there is a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.
demimondian
You know, John, I don’t think I agree with you. I can see how Glenn’s posting could have been read that way — but when he talked about “pandering to the anti-war left”, I decided that he was trying to smear.
Here’s the problem: the anti-war left (of which I was not a part) was right on the facts, and the rest of us were wrong. I don’t happen to be convinced that “bush lied”, but I am now convinced that he took us to war chasing a chimera. Saying that is hardly pandering.
John Cole
Nonsense- Glenn is not painting the anti-war left as unpatriotic, he is painting those individuals who are pandering to them and changing their positions for simple partisan reasons as unpatriotic.
As to whetehr Bush was right or not, I would submit their is a big difference between these three statements:
Bush lied about WMD.
Bush was wrong about WMD.
Or, as the current folks attempting to-rewrite history would have it- “Bush was the only one who thought Saddam had WMD and he lied to the rest of us.”
The first and the third are, from my standpoint, untenable positions.
ppGaz
I’m continually amazed at the extent to which we’ll go to defend poorly worded or poorly written speech. Bill Bennett’s stupid gaffe, Glen’s … uh … “misunderstood” blurb. Etc.
Why don’t people just say what they mean? Wouldn’t that be simpler than saying something sideways, and then relying on ten billion lines of blogposts and comments to straighten it out? Arguments and debates about the best way to gave into the blahsphere’s navel?
Here’s the deal: Dissent and questioning are never unpatriotic in this country. Not under any circumstances, ever. If somebody says something that hints at the contrary, or can be taken to mean the contrary, then THAT PERSON has the duty to either straighten it out, or take the slings and arrows of outrageous communication skills.
Why does every two-but blogger, politician and pundit need a goddam LAWYER???????????????????????
Mr Furious
Reynolds is a big boy, and so is Drum.
Without even going back and reading the particulars, I would imagine Drum took full advantage of Reynolds’ quote. Just as Drum’s relatively reasonable charge of heart regarding the War is being portrayed as a pure partisan flip-flop. Such is the life of a blogger…
ppGaz
gave => gaze
two but => two bit
Kimmitt
Me too. Except that we know different things.
John Cole
I contend neither was poorly worded or a gaffe, but attempts by people to willfully misinterpret people. That answers this question:
Because there are people out there who willfully and intentionally misinterpret or distort people at every opportunity.
John Cole
Kimmitt- Turns out I was right.
Perry Como
Besides the entire Democratic caucus, who is changing their positions because of rank political opportunism? Seriously though, I’m curious to see names named. Which politicians are pandering to the anti-war base?
Reynolds makes statements like:
And links to a critique of Berger and Cleland. Say wha..? Cleland is no longer a politician (because he has a crush on bin Laden) and Berger never was (too busy stuffing things in his socks).
Mr. Reynolds also links to a scathing piece written by a bunch of ankle biters (their words, not mine) that addresses Barbara Boxer. You know, the one who didn’t vote to authorize the use of force.
Kimmitt
Again, this statement does not exist in a vacuum. Reynolds has his opinions, and he likes to weasel around them in order to maintain a patina of respectability. Neither the opinions nor the weaseling speak well of the man.
KC
Jcricket, I think you’ve really hit it on the nose here. I’ll grant what John’s saying because I’m honestly bothered by some of the crass political opportunism too. There’s no doubt to me that some Democrats are trying to wash over a mistake they made. I think all Democrats can see this to some extent. Lets face it, some Senators and Representatives voted for the war out of fear–fear of the President, fear of looking weak on FOX News, fear of losing elections. If the war were popular or was going well, they’d all be happy cats right now.
Unfortunately, the war is not going alll that well though. Some of these Democrats are trying to roll down the administration’s bed sheets to make up for their failure to stand tough when they should have. So, to me, John’s got a good point here. There really is some obvious CYA going on.
On the other hand, I totally agree with what you’re saying about Kevin. I don’t think Kevin was out of line. He linked to Glen’s commentary, everyone could read it if they wanted too. And I think Glen’s point really was painting all Dems with one stroke. I think you got it about right.
demimondian
Give me an example of a case where you see pandering, John.
I’m going to put two restrictions on you. First, I’m goint to require you to accept that people of good will can differ on whether the claim that Bush lied is untenable. (I don’t think it’s true, but I certainly don’t see it as untenable.) Second, I’m going to require you to not use the fact that members of the SSCI had six days’ worth of access to the classified NIE. Six days is a pretty short time to read a document that dense, particularly if there’s only one copy, and it must be checked out by the senators, not their staffs.
ppGaz
.
Good lord. People are adults, and are responsible for being understood.
Now we have the interpretation police?
They were right. The government should have force-fed Terri Schiavo. We are not equipped to think and act for ourselves out here.
DougJ
How about Bush was wrong about WMD because Dick Cheney lied to him about them?
Or Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pressured the CIA to produce bogus reports about WMD, which resulted in Bush being wrong about them?
Or Bush had no idea if Saddam had WMD, but went around talking about them because Karl Rove told him to?
No matter whether or not Glenn Reynolds thinks that everyone who questions Lord George Jesus Bush is an America-hating terrorist-lover (and let’s face it, John, you know he does, whether he admits it or not), most Americans think they were deliberately misled about WMD. Whether Bush lied, or Cheney lied to Bush, or whatever, isn’t clear. But I think they’d like answers.
John Cole
How about my very own Senator Rockefeller? He fits, eevn with your seemingly random requirements.
I wonder why you chose to limit me to the six who read the NIE, because I can give you a whole bunch of people who were making really belligerent statements about iuraq and Saddam Hussein without reading it, but now, several years later, not reading the NIE is a valid excuse to change their opinions and call Bush a liar, simply because they sense there is political gain to be had?
DougJ
We dealt with him in another thread, John. He killed Vince Foster.
Andrei
So…. is Glenn saying Kerry is out of line with this speech?
Kerry attacks Bush
If that is how you read Glenn — that Kerry is way out of line here — then we are violent disagreement. I think Kerry is finally finding the voice he showed promise of during the election last year. A little too late, but it’s a very good speech nonetheless and if we take Kerry for his word, it’s also perfectly logical with nothing conflicting or pandering whatsoever.
I’m still extremely disappointed in many of those in govenrment who gave Bush a blank check. I blame them for is being played for the dupes they were back then. But I don’t find they are being crass in their new found will of finally opposing this adminsitration openly and vigorously.
John Cole
Bastard.
Paddy O'Shea
Judging by Bush’s 37% approval number in today’s Gallup Poll (lowest ever for this poll, but then again what poll isn’t publishing “lowest ever” numbers for Georgie these days?), it doesn’t look like the American people really are all that upset by anyone calling Bush a liar.
Gallup did most of their poll calls for these findings after Bush gave his “I Am Not A liar” speech Friday.
What they do seem to be upset about are people agreeing with the President of the United States. According to the article I have here: “Fewer than one in 10 adults say they would prefer a congressional candidate who is a Republican and who agrees with Bush on most major issues… Even among Republicans, seven of 10 are most likely to back a candidate who has had at least some disagreements with the president.”
You want to know something? All this whining about people calling Bush a liar is a real nonstarter for the Kenny Bunkport Apologist Choir. My guess is it is because most people actually do think he is a liar.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-poll_x.htm
SomeCallMeTim
When it comes to Glenn, people make no effort whatsoever to understand what he is saying
What crap. Context matters, John. After three-odd years of calling the anti-Iraq war folks “objectively pro-terrorist,” we make certain inferences. That doesn’t seem so crazy. I don’t see you arguing that when Hussein said the US would be in for the “Mother of all Wars,” he might have meant that the war would be gentle and kind, like a good mother.
No one’s terribly confused about Reynold’s commitments except you.
Perry Como
Is Rockefeller pandering to the enormous West Virginia MoveOn crowd or does he genuinely believe he was misled? If it’s the former then lynch him (oh wait, that’s Byrd). If it’s the latter…
I’m not familiar with Senator Rockefeller’s change of position. Perhaps you could pick up where Mr. Reynolds left off and give us a list of the pandering crowd.
Jcricket
John, I don’t think it’s a slippery slope to say that an ambiguously worded Instapundit post that implies a pretty low standard for calling Democratic politicans unpatriotic (a serious charge) is a very small leap away from talking about 5th columns.
As others have mentioned, this post doesn’t exist in a vacuum and Glenn went out of his way to also state the following:
(emphasis mine). “All about”? Pandering to the anti-war base (which by polls now might be 60% of the country), is “deeply” dishonest and hurts our troops. These are not idle charges, and they’re not backed up with anything other than Glenn’s mind-reading assertion (must be hanging out with Frist) that the Dems are pandering.
To ape your point, “I know what Glenn’s written, but I know what he’s really trying to say.” It’s similar to all the code words that are used in political discourse: “states rights”, “judicial activism”, etc. As you pointed out elsewhere, those words are infused with extra meaning, especially for the “base” the statements are aimed at. Sure, naively we could assume those words mean what they say in the dictionary, but that’s just ridiculous.
Glenn knew what he was doing, and given my reading of the entire post, and other things he has posted, Kevin’s reading is closer in spirit to what he intended. My guess is that the ambiguous wording was simply cover in order to avoid charges of flame-throwing (like saying “SF should get blown up by Al Queda”)
ppGaz
What’s the point of this harangue? To defend Bush?
Or to play line judge in a political tennis match?
The more you talk about political gain, the more it looks like that is your primary concern.
Mine is that the country was bamboozled into a war that cannot serve its intended purpose and has lost and will continue to lose the support of the people for that reason. The blahsphere is not the real world. It does not reflect the real world. It is to the real world as Jay Leno’s monologue is to the real world.
rilkefan
There’s a reason “glennuendo” is a noun.
You’re ten times the writer and thinker GR is but – wait, that’s a meaningless statement – uhh, it’s not possible for Glenn to be that worse a writer and thinker than you are as to have been unable to come up with the simple clear sentence, “Those individuals who are merely changing their position for partisan gain are, in fact, not acting as patriots”.
And as I pointed out in the other thread, the evidence he linked to included a lot of crickets and straw-man-bashing.
Of course, I’m not going to even get into the difference between not acting as a patriot and acting unpatriotically. I’m cooking some pasta right now – I’m not acting as a patriot.
Steve S
One of the failures of the Democratic party post-Vietnam, was the “I told ya so syndrome”… not to the Republicans, but intra-party. That is, Democrats who had been against the war from the start had nothing but disdain for those who arrived at the conclusion later, and vice versa. It split the party assunder and it has not recovered since. It was this identity politics which Nixon took advantage of in ’72, and later Reagan in ’80.
Some thought those who changed their positions were doing it merely for political reasons, accusing them of being crass. Oddly enough, these are the same arguments Glenn Reynolds now makes.
But Glenn is not an impartial observer. He’s been a pro-Iraq war cheerleader before there even was an Iraq war to cheerleader. So he’s not exactly unbiased. If he was a Democrat, I’d say he was acting irrationally and stupid. Since he’s a biased cheerleader, he’s clearly doing it for political motives.
Whatever their reasons, they were wrong before. Now they are right. The only historic revisionism occuring here is on the part of the Iraq war cheerleaders who refuse to take into consideration new evidence showing they were wrong all along.
Steve S
That’s generally because Glenn is a disengenuous ass.
I’ve read his sight for years. I honestly cannot believe he is a lawyer, much less a professor of law. His arguments lack logic, they are generally either building of strawmen, or emotional tripe.
Sorry, if you can’t see that maybe you aren’t spending enough time trying to understand what he is saying.
Pan Pan (anon)
How dare these Democrats play politics with our precious, precious, PRECIOUS little war! Politics are so dirty and wicked, and our war is so dazzling and pristine, to think they are now besmirching it with their craven partisanship!
Steve S
Uh huh.
It’s not that President Bush eats babies. He just likes the taste of babies. But he’s never actually eaten a baby so it is unfair to accuse him of liking to eat babies.
See, this is the kind of illogical crap that Glenn is famous for. He’s a weasel. Just because he may be “technically correct” doesn’t make him right. It makes him disengenuous.
If you don’t know what that word means, go look it up in a dictionary.
Steve S
Might help if I spelled it right. :-)
disingenuous ass
Perry Como
Wasn’t that Mr. Reynolds’ original point?
rilkefan
Steve S, “disinglennuous” is also a word.
Mark-NC
I for one will never believe Bush lied.
Lying implies that you know what is true and then intentionally say something that you know does not fit the facts. That would be Hannity or Limbaugh. They know the facts well, but look in your face and lie.
Bush doesn’t know much about anything. Therefore, he can’t lie about much of anything.
ppGaz
What the world desperately needs are more bloggers and pundits and fat pigs who get $50k for a speaking engagement who make technically correct but easily misunderstood arguments …. you know, to teach the rest of us a FUCKING LESSON.
ARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Would that every one of these arrogant word-twisters would go fuck themselves.
Perry Como
What exactly are you trying to say ppGaz?
Oliver
Reynolds has been consistent in his attack on anyone opposed to the war as unpatriotic, I frankly don’t understand why you feel the need to defend and parse him John. The professor ought to be able to defend his poorly reasoned beliefs on his own, I’d think.
DougJ
I agree with Oliver. I think John was right on Bill Bennett, who just put his foot in his mouth. Reynolds isn’t like that: he’s insidious. He goes right up to the line of McCarthyism and then screams at anyone who accuses him of going over it. It’s a cheap trick and I don’t see why decent people like John would want to be associated with it.
Nate
“Reynolds has been consistent in his attack on anyone opposed to the war as unpatriotic”
Ugh. What a dishonest statement.
ppGaz
I’m trying to make the case for autoeroticism.
It’s the one relationship you can count on.
demimondian
OK, Rockefeller does indeed fit.
My requirements aren’t random, as you guessed.
They’re based on two things. The first one, that its tenable to believe that Bush lied, is a simple rhetorical basis. Whether true or not — and we can freely argue about it, since I think it’s pretty clear we disagree — if it’s an untenable claim, then anyone who argues that we need to find out if Bush lied, or the Bush might have lied, or anything else of that stripe is pandering.
The second one is based on the notion that the Democrats who voted for the war resolution did so with the full knowledge that there were deep divisions in the Executive about all of the major claims upon which the war was based. Again, if you know that and vote for the war anyway, then changing your position is…well, pandering. If the evidence supported the war, and the war didn’t turn out well, then that’s the planners fault, but hardly a flaw in the war itself.
The NIE seems to have pretty clearly laid those disagreements out — so senators who read it can’t claim they were misled. On the other hand, other senators had to depend on the President’s word. Trust him or no, it was inconceivable to me that he would so completely misstate the truth. (Notice that I merely say he misstated the truth. He may honestly have believed what he said; at this point, I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t.) I doubt I was the only one so misled.
stickler
1) Glenn Reynolds is to intelligent political analysis as Vegamite is to Nutella.
2) Mr. PpGaz is in high dudgeon. Again. This simply will not do.
ppGaz
Har. I haven’t done High Dudgeon for years. Medium Dudgeon is about as far as I’ll go now, and that’s reserved for the neighbor who blows his sidewalk debris into my driveway right after I’ve washed the Mustang.
This stuff in here? All theatrics, man. Performance art. DougJ is not the only spoofer around here.
Unless I am going at it with Darrell, and then I really am homicidal.
Cyrus
I’ve got to agree with Perry here. (So he’s usually a spoofer – sorry, satirist, apparently calling someone that is actionable now – but he’s not DougJ, right? It’s getting hard to keep track.)
Where we are now is not too different from where we’d be if Reynolds had said
In fact, I will grant you that at some point in the history of the Democratic Party, that exact event has happened. Just like Rockefeller might really have done what Reynolds is talking about. After about 175 years of the party’s existence, some American must have thought the symbolism of a flag pie would be a good idea for some bizarre reason, and there’s almost a 50/50 chance it was a Democrat. But here’s the million dollar question… so what? Even if he’s right about the last sentence of it – which by the way I don’t agree with just because of choice of words, “stupid” or “opportunist politician” are not the same as “unpatriotic,” words don’t mean whatever Reynolds wants them to mean – even if he is right about that, what difference does it make? Is he just bringing up a random, imaginary hypothetical? Probably not. So is he suggesting that specific people are doing this? If so, who, and how does he know, and most importantly, why didn’t he just come right out and say it?
Someone else was right to bring up the term Glennuendo upthread. His words are correct and fair (again, only if you substitute “opportunist politician” for “unpatriotic”), but you have to ignore everything else he has ever said about the anti-war crowd.
rilkefan
“This stuff in here? All theatrics, man.”
DougJ, is that you again?
Pb
I concur. And I must say, I never thought I’d see you guys implicitly call out the Bush administration like that! Bravo, well done!
Perry Como
I’m not DougJ.
A brilliant idea, actually. How about a cherry, blueberry and cream filling? We can sell them parcooked and market them as the “Half Baked Patriot Pie”.
ppGaz
No, I am not DougJ. But I am not above, or below, some artistic license here.
Perry Como appears to be a DougJ impersonator. If so, he is quite good. I can also do a good DougJ but it takes a lot of work and I am, above all, lazy.
ppGaz
I should add that DougJ has reeled me in so many times that I should get some kind of star on the BJ walk of flame, or something.
In the fullness of time, he will be punished.
demimondian
That’s…err…quite a…demanding analogy.
Let’s see: Vegemite and Nutella are roughly the same color. Glenn Reynolds is transparent, like intelligent political analysis.
Vegemite is made of mold, Nutella is made of fermented cacao nuts. Glenn Reynolds, like intelligent political analysis, benefits from fermentation?
Help me here. I’m confused.
Cyrus
You and me both. BJ walks of fame are really underused.
rilkefan
“In the fullness of time, he will be punished.”
Time eats everything and stays famished. Time will never be full.
Matt
Well, you could also say these flip-flops are the inevitable result of an asinne war plan that only ever survived on its political merits. Fault the dems all you want (I do too), but remember that political loss and political gain are, in many cases, defined by the opposition party.
PotVsKtl
More and more transparent by the hour.
Frank
John- In recognizing your amazing powers to mind read Democrats I present to you and Glen this gleaming case full of Karnak awards. Enjoy them in good health buddy!
Rob
If you really don’t think Bush lied, go here
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702
to see if any of these meet your standard
Rob
You really should go to “Talking Points Memo”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
For example:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007011.php
and
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007008.php
It might clear up your lying problem with Bush
Slide
Is this telling the whole truth? misleading? or lying? You be the judge:
But, on the other hand:
Is misleading too strong a word? Please, get your heads out of your asses and stop making excuses for this criminal administration..
Slide
John Cole:
John its not as simple as that as much as you and other Bush apologists would like us to believe. Its not just about whether or not Bush believed Iraq had WMD. I’ll stipulate for the sake of argument that Bush believed Iraq had WMD. That does not mean that you can then say anything you want to convince the world of your belief. And more than just the broad WMD argument, many of us are having a big problem with the way the administration hyped the nuclear threat and ties to al Qaeda which were NOT supported by the intelligence.
They said those aluminum tubes were evidence of a uranium enrichment program when there was strong evidence by the Energy department experts that they were unsuited for that purpose.
they said that Iraq trained al-Qaeda on the use of bio and chem weapons when that info came from DISCREDITED statements from al-Libe who the DIA did not believe and the CIA said was not in a position to know.
Cheney said it was pretty well confirmed that Atta met with Iraq intelligence agents in Prague when the intelligence agencies were discounting that.
John, these are lies. Sorry. They are lies. And the American public are slowly coming to that sad realization. I assume you will be left in the small company with the Darrells of the world clinging to the fantasy that Bush is an honest person despite all the evidence to the contrary. Does it comfort you to do so?
John Cole
Slide- Call me a Bush apologist again, and you are out of here.
Last warning.
Mark-NC
And, all of the above ignores the fact that inspectors were on the ground for weeks with unfettered access – and they found NOTHING!
Bush ignored this, threw out the inspectors, and did what he planned to do anyway – invade!
There is nothing the Bush apologists can do to sugar-coat this!
Krista
I know that this is a very, very fine distinction, but there is another option between the “Bush lied” and “Bush was wrong” options. My opinion is that Bush so desperately wanted there to be WMDs that he started to believe it himself. Then, anytime intelligence told him something to the contrary, he stuck his fingers in his ears and didn’t want to hear it. From everything I’ve heard, his attitude seemed to be, “I’m right about this, no matter what you say, and you better go out and find something that proves I’m right or else!” It’s that fine line between being wrong and being a liar. If he was just wrong, we could forgive that. But he was so incredibly arrogant and blind, and evidently refused to even consider other options than his own. So he might not be a liar, but he certainly didn’t make an innocent mistake, either.
Slide
what a coward. Debate the issue? nah… provide countervailing evidence? nope… Articulate an opposing view? not a chance… Threaten to ban me? Ahhh… thats the ticket. Lol… pathetic Professor, truly pathetic.
Impugn the patriotism of those of us on the left is fine and dandy but don’t call me an apologist. Do what you wish John its your blog, its clear you can’t handle criticism.
Zach
I think if Glenn has an issue with people basing their opinions on political opportunism his beef should be with the initial war vote. Held in an election year, put forth by a popular (at the time) President, how many people who voted for that bill voted out of political opportunism? Cry me a river. It’s only unpatriotic when Democrats do it.
John Cole
Slide- I have neither refused to ‘debate the issues’ (which really means put up with you heaving insults and refusing to cede any point), nor have I called you anti-American.
You, on the other hand, repeatedly call me names, and the one that pisses me off the most is ‘Bush apologist.’
So stop it, or don’t let the door hit you in your whiny ass. I am sure Armando and John Aravosis have up new threads where your ‘debate’ and insults will be met with open acceptance.
Slide
whatever john. You totally mis characterize my posts. There are plenty on here that all they do is insult and attack. My posts generally include links, documentary evidence, quotes etc. Agree with them or not but I am not just “heaving insults” (from the guy that just called everyone pricks) as you imply. I’ll let others decide for themselves.
Rob
OK so Slide violated a rule in name calling. I will cede the point because I don’t read every day, and may have missed the warning.
BUT, he otherwise has an excellent post. His points are:
1. Bush said – aluminum tubes were evidence of a uranium enrichment program – and he had been told they were not.
and
2. Iraq trained al-Qaeda on the use of bio and chem weapons – The source had been discredited for months before this statement.
How can it possibly be an untenable position to believe he lied?
Now that you have cooled off (I hope) could you address the substance of his post.
———————————————————–
un·ten·a·ble adj.
1. Being such that defense or maintenance is impossible: an untenable position.
2. Being such that occupation or habitation is impossible: untenable quarters.
Bush Lied is not even close to untenable.
Slide
Don’t hold your breath. Its a lot easier to personally attack those that point out Bush’s suspect statements than to debate their arguments.
Davebo
Perhaps it’s just a tea leaf problem.
You’ve determined what Glenn really means and determined what’s motivating the opposition from democrats. Based on what I don’t know. But I’d guess, like Glenn you’ve based it on the assumption that all democrats do is posture politically.
Which is pretty freakin hilarious given Bush’s Veteran’s Day speech.
Zach
I just followed Rob’s post pointing to the TPM post pointing to EJ Dionne that more forcefully elucidates the point I was making in my post.
That almost reads like english.
Geek, Esq.
Maybe coming from you this would have been perceived differently, JC.
But this is the man whose constant jingoism and attacks on the patriotism of war opponents spawned the term Glennuendo.
Bernard Yomtov
What about those who refuse to change their minds for no reason other than rank political opportunism, or an utter unwillingness to admit error?
Aren’t they just as bad? And doesn’t this apply to all those who continue desperately to seek ex post justifications for the war?
Darrell
How dare Glenn Reynolds question the patriotism of all those noble individuals who disagree with Bush’s ‘war based on lies’
byrd
It may be useful to stop referring to the people in question as having changed their minds for rank opportunism since the crux of the accusation is that they haven’t changed their minds at all. They’ve changed their rhetoric and position.
The offense is not that they’ve changed their minds, but that their rhetoric and position are attuned to political advantage rather than actual beliefs. That’s where the whole lying part comes in.
Personally, my biggest complaint with Adesnick’s essay is the unreasonably narrow definition he gives to ‘lie’. I think ‘claiming as true something you don’t believe to be true’ covers it well enough without pointless carve outs for “playing dirty”.