Heated
That’s how I would describe the discussion on Pete’s Big Mouth today. The whole day’s conversation revolved around our guest, Vincent Bugliosi, and his book, The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder. Is Bugliosi right? His argument here, along with many other Americans, is that someone should be responsible for getting us into a war that has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.
A key issue brought up was that of the Downing Street Memo, where an aide to former Prime Minister Tony Blair said President Bush planned to go to war all along by misleading the public. Plus the Manning Memo, about how Bush wanted a spy plane flown, painted to look like a UN plane over Iraqi air space and hoped it would be shot down, giving him a reason to invade Saddam’s Iraq.
Also, something to think about. Originally, we were going to invade Iraq due to its storing of WMD. When it was later found there were no WMD, we were then going into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. So why are we there? Has being in Iraq really made it better for the country and its people? Civil war and refugees are telling me not. What do you think?
Listen to Pete’s discussion with Stop Loss director Kimberly Pierce and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman who will speak about his ‘Working 4 Utah’ initiative tomorrow, only on Pete’s Big Mouth on Indie Talk, SIRIUS 110.
Hey Pete, First time listner. I have some questions regarding the prosecution of this war & bugliosi’s prosection of Bush. 1. Is there a difference between facts or proof sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause & those sufficient to establish or prove guilt? In the prosecution of war what is the objective basis of the prosecutor of the war? Is it reasonable suspicion? Probable cause? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Or is there a continuum between reasonable suspicion & proof beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Is it criminal, immoral, or unethical for a prosecutor, who already believing that reasonable suspicion exists that an individual, or a state, has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, also reasonably suspects that more facts & circumstances exist which would make a stronger, more solid case, to seek out those facts & circumstances? In other words, is it not the job of investigators & prosecutors to make connections? Investigators connect suspects to evidence & motives like pieces in a puzzle. Prosecutors connect the accused to various elements of a crime. And though I’m just a social worker, in my experience, in order to petition hospitalization for a client posing a threat to himself &/or others, we had to ‘sell’ our case to supervisory clinicians, & clinicians to mental health lawyers & mental health lawyers to the mental health courts. It is unfortunate to use the word ‘sell’ in such a confusing & ambiguous manner. For it certainly does not follow that in all instance of ‘selling’ an idea, case or argument one is trying to deceive, mislead or foist off some sort of canard on a naïve & unsuspecting other. This is absolutely true in my experiences in mental health & in fact I would argue that in most instance where ideas, cases & arguments are being ‘sold’ those doing the ‘selling’ are only fairly, reasonably & honestly attempting to convince & persuade others of their position & free of nefarious motives or intentions. Granted, it is not always the case. But what should always be the case is3. Is it criminal, immoral, or unethical for a government to present an opportunity for a suspect to commit a crime if the suspect a) has demonstrated a willingness to commit similar offenses, b) is predisposed to commit such offenses, c) has prior convictions for similar offenses, d) the suspect possess ready ability to commit such offenses? Are all acts by government A to encouragement government B to commit a crime sufficient condition for criminality & malfeasance? Or only some times such as when a) government A makes repeated requests of government B to commit an offense, b) forms close diplomatic relations with government B, or c) promises diplomatic or economic from committing the offense? If none of the above are present does not criminal intent originate in the suspect government (government B)? Re: Manning mem0
Pete Dominick Reply:
July 10th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I think that my answer is NO.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Tycho,
I can confidently say Pete did not read your post - you have to imagine your post as a show at the Short Attention Span Theater!
I did read it, but found the formatting made it difficult to get your point. It is always a good idea to group your sub points in separate paragraphs.
A few things occur to me after hearing most of Bugliosi’s hyperventilating and emotionalist manipulation.
A question for Pete: You like to say you listen to both sides, but if one reviews your guest list, especially on Iraq and Bush, you have only interviewed critics, rarely discuss books or claims which support Bush and tend to dismiss sources from the right as biased, yet accept with little skepticism claims from obvious partisans on the left, such as Bugliosi and Seymour Hersh, both of whom have demonstrable records of false and misleading claims.
Considering all that, how can you really call yourself independent? The views you put forward are almost uniformly from the left and you want me to believe you’re independent? Give me a break!
Steve from Jasper Reply:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Political labels are passe. I think Pete is a humanist first an foremost. Humanism is a philosophy of life rather than a political attachment. Almost like Buddhism.
I’m sure you will like to attach some kind of political affiliation to it because that is how we are raised in the good ole USA.
If you say he is liberal simply because he believes all human beings deserve respect, food on the table, and medical care then it is a sad day for conservatism.
Right to life, but not right to basic human needs?
We like to put people in neat little boxes but the box is often the wrong size.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Forgive me for saying so, Steve, but I don’t believe I’ve labeled Pete. I asked him to defend the label he prefers.
There is nothing wrong with a label if it is accurate, is there?
I also don’t think I attached any political affiliation to Pete. I don’t say he’s liberal, I just find his claim to take in both sides with an independent view to be laughable, considering how one sided Pete’s version of ‘all points of view’ seems to be. He certainly doesn’t seek out opposing views. He certainly does seem to dismiss sources which contradict his statements as biased or partisan while maintaining or believing somehow that his sources are, at the least, correct even if biased.
Finally, I haven’t said he’s liberal and I think your premises that only liberals have compassion for those in need isn’t based on any facts, unless one measure compassion by the budgets and size of the federal bureaus purported created to help people. I think a fairly convincing case can be made that federal anti-poverty measures do more harm than good.
Anyway, I reject your idea that I’m putting anyone in a box. The fact is, most of Pete’s guests and opinions originate from the political left. You want to call it something other than left or progressive or liberal? Call the faith in government to solve our collective and individual problems candy cane gumdrops and it won’t change what candy cane gumdroppers are.
Steve from Jasper Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:22 am
You say his ideas are left which is the same as liberal to conservatives.
I really don’t want to get into this as a worldwide humanity ideal is much different than a "I’m out for myself ideal".
We will never see eye to eye.
It’s not politics, it is the human condition.
I’m not a communist but uncontrolled capitalism can be just as ugly.
People become just assets and a means to improve the bottom line.
Communism and Capitalism can both turn the worker into nothing.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Steve,
Aren’t you doing exactly as you decry by characterizing those who oppose your view as out for themselves?
I’m not calling Pete a liberal, I’m just noting that it seems he doesn’t really consider all sides, as he frequently says he does. If he did, he’d be more familiar with the points raised which contest his own, whether they’re labeled left wing, right wing, or chicken wing.
Do you also realize that you come off as someone who considers their politics morally superior? You are for world humanity, I am for myself, etc…
I’m not for world humanity, because there is no such thing. There are individual humans, each with their own values, none of whom should be forced to serve yours or anyone else’s idea of ‘world humanity’. Life, Liberty, Property. Each individual has these rights, which end where the next person’s begin.
Steve from Jasper Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Todd, something went screwy but my reply is in number 9 below.
Love the discussion!
Todd in FL Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I’m enjoying it too. There are some bugs in the way this blog is rendered. It needs fixin.
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Todd, I don’t know if you remember, but I was the one who phoned in and defended you last month when Pete interrupted you and caused the conversation to go south quickly. Pete was certainly open minded and gave you your time. That being said, can we agree that it is probably very hard to put one’s bias aside completely while doing a job like Pete’s? I agree with some of what you’ve put out here, but I don’t think that there is probably anyone on radio today that is more neutral and open-minded than Pete. I think that Pete is doing his best, and perhaps that isn’t good enough for you, but it is for me. You’ve been fairly polite here, but may I ask why it seems that you are so frequently on "the attack?" I don’t understand why you choose to open threads this way Todd.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
B.C.,
As with Steve, I’m sorry to disagree and sorry to seem always on ‘the attack’ - I think my questions are valid and so are my observations. Pete says he’s open to criticism and that is one of the things I really like about him.
My questions above are specific criticisms - how can Pete call himself independent when his guest list is uniformly on the left? How can he say he listens to all sides (especially on Bush and the war) when half the time he’s not even familiar with the arguments put forward by ‘the other side’?
Thank you for defending me the day Pete let me have one sentence, then proceeded to run his mouth and distort my views, however, to say he was open minded with that call seems contradictory on its face. He wasn’t open minded, he didn’t listen and wasn’t really interested in hearing my comparisons of Iraq to Japan or Germany (which I never got to because he was such a jerk from the get-go).
See, I’m familiar with just about every anti-conservative, anti-religion, anti-Bush, anti-Republican claim Pete airs on his show. The reason is because I truly do seek out all sides - to a point. As soon as it is clear a person or organization is distorting the facts, I don’t lend much of what they say any credibility and demand solid evidence in support any future claims.
Bugliosi wrote a book about the 2000 election which was so full of distortions, one has to believe he’s either a craven partisan liar or an incompetent fool. Either option make his current utterances on Bush’s criminality highly suspect. Indeed, as I’ve looked into specifics, I’ve had my previous judgments confirmed. (if my Bugliosi post on this thread were released from the moderation queue, you’d see what I mean).
Moreover, there are groups and persons on the right in whom I also cannot take their words on a given matter at face value - that is, I don’t believe what the say until I see the evidence supporting it. Sean Hannity & Micheal Savage, for instance.
Anyway, I do think Pete is doing his best. I think he believes he really is independent, but he’s going to have to honestly address my valid criticisms to convince this skeptic, because anyone who truly does listen to all sides wouldn’t have such a one sided guest list. Or is that not fair to say?
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
yes, it’s probably fair to say that. Perhaps the independency of the show is a label best put on the viewpoints provided by us, the callers. It’s certainly hard to argue that there isn’t a broad spectrum of opinions presented there. I agree with you Todd, and feel that the show could be improved even more if after a guest was on, a critic of the guest’s work, or someone from the opposite end of the issue would follow. Be it that day, or the next. I would love to hear a pro-Bush guest someday on the show. I cannot argue against this contributing greatly to the whole idea of what the show, and Pete, stands for. Hopefully this conversation will get to Pete and he’ll consider these ideas. Question for you though: If you feel that "Pete is doing his best," why do you expect more from him? (Regardless of how it would improve the show.)
I believe you when you say that you’ve researched and informed yourself enough to say that Bugliosi’s book is "full of distortions." Could you provide me with evidence to support this, or direct me to your sources??
Lastly, I want to say to you that I still feel that Pete interrupts you at times, like yesterday. This could most likely be attributed to the "baggage" both he, and you carry from your previous "encounters." lol. It is his show of course, and I think that you’ve recognized that, and are doing your part to keep the conversations between the two of you civil, and enjoyable to listen to. Plus it protects me from Pete busting my balls as a "Peacemongering Canadian" haha!!
tks. Todd.
Eric.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 16th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Eric wrote,
I suppose I think he can do better. Plus, he really seems to think he’s an independent thinker, which he may be (or have potential to be), but given what I’ve described above, it seems to me such a thought is a bit delusional.
So somebody’s gotta burst that bubble, and that somebody is me.
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
understood. I guess that for me, because he seems to be much more independant than most others, is good enough. I still cannot argue with you that the guest list could include a broader spectrum though. I think we could agree that neither of us are near looking for another radio show?? yes?
Todd in FL Reply:
July 16th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Yeah, Pete isn’t typical, though I think he’s very much like Bill O’Reilly in his argument style. I know he’d consider that an insult, but I’ve listened to O’Reilly and there are some similarities in the way both handle callers who disagree.
I chalk it up to them both bein’ Yankee bastages.
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 18th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
what is up with you Google Mapping Pete’s house Todd??
E.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
What do you mean what’s up? I’m surprised he made a public issue of it, and I certainly didn’t email it to him in any way to be threatening, which I hope he knows. It would probably be best if we drop any further public discussion, but if you’d like some background, email me and I’ll be glad to explain more fully. (be glad to here, if Pete asks)
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
woops, I guess a lot of your arguement against Bugliosi is in the blog already. I’ll read more of your posts also.
The only guest that was pro-conservative was that British-sounding lady from some institute. I can not recall the name, though.
While the guest list may tend to swim in the same pool, he has ventured outside the war haters from time to time.
As for Bugliosi (whom I will henceforth refer to as "Bug"), his BS is so extensive it would take pages to unravel. I’ll take a shot at a few of his most misleading comments.
First, the Manning Memo link in the above blog does not go to the one Bug referred on the show, it goes to a memo written before 2003, when Bug claimed Bush wanted to get a U2 shot down. I searched for close to an hour for any page with a link to the entire text of this memo and could only find partisan blogs and a few news stories which quoted from the memo.
I also discovered, in the course of looking for this memo, that the original Downing street memos were transcribed and destroyed by the journalist who first obtained them. Media accounts have all reported no official denials as to their accuracy and that is it.
Assuming the memos are accurate, they aren’t by any stretch ’smoking guns’ which prove Bush lied, or even hint that he lied.
They are in the context of the two leaders deciding what to do about Hussein based upon the intelligence they had going in. From the wikipedia link in Sean’s blog:
The only way this counts as evidence is if one is already convinced Bush lied. Moreover, in the larger context of all the publicly available memos, it is clear Bushco personnel believe the intelligence provide to them by the National Security team held over from the Clinton administration.
On the so-called Manning Memo, which Bug offers as damning proof, assuming the quoted lines I found in press acounts are accurate, I note two things:
1. Bug is the one saying Bush wanted Hussein to shoot down a UN colored U2 spy plane, the quotes in the media do not say these were plans, only that some in the US gov’t had floated three ides: 1. to fly fighter escorted UN colored U2 to get Hussein to shoot at it (not shoot it down) and be in irrefutable breech of UN sanctions 2. get a defector out of Iraq who could testify about Iraqi WMD and 3. Assassinate Hussein.
Again, in the context of all the other memos, which seem to believe the intelligence on the WMD threat, and the various investigations by Congress and British parliament, one has to uncritically believe Bush guilty to swallow this.
2. I find the lack of an orginal copy, or even a COMPLETE transcription of the memo to be suspicious. I want to see the context of the entire memo before I take the word of a foaming and discreditied partisan like Bug.
Finally, Bug said Bush was telling us all the threat from Hussein was ‘imminent’. This is a flat out DISTORTION. Bush had to answer his critics on the grounds that the action he was proposing in Iraq was NOT a response to a smoking gun, Go look up the text of his 2003 speech with the ‘16 words’ (which were supported by Britain’s Butler Commisssion), in it, Bush directly addressed those who demanded a smoking gun.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am
The comment I’m replying to is locked in moderation. Please free it. For hope. For change. For the future. For the children.
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Todd, you’ve said:
Assuming the memos are accurate, they aren’t by any stretch ’smoking guns’ which prove Bush lied, or even hint that he lied.
Your research has convinced you that these memos are not accurate, and in all likelihood Bug does not even posess them. How big are his stones then to publish an entire book based on these claims?? My analysis of Bug’s explanation of the relevancy of these memos tells me that they don’t necessarily prove Bush lied, but that his/their intent to deceive and provoke was obvious. Also, Bush himself may not have used the word imminent, but didn’t Pete provide quotes and audio that day made by Cheney or Rumsfeld (I don’t recall) to the contrary? The way I read your own post below of Bush’s State of the Union Address, tells me that he’s making the case for imminency right there by saying that if you wait until it’s imminent it’s too late. Sounds like action is needed RFN!!! I could go so far as to interpret that as fear mongering over here in B.C., not a distortion as you feel it is.
I also think that for every site you find that claims someone is a "discredited partisan" quack, there will be another claiming he/she’s a bulletproof genius. Perhaps now it is you who is "omitting" arguements that don’t support your claims? no?
Thanks Todd,
Eric.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 16th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Eric,
My research says nothing really about the memos Bug refers, except that there appear to be no copies of the entire memo floating around, only excerpted lines in various press accounts.
I’m willing to accept the quoted lines as accurate, what I have trouble with is the interpretation Bug applies to them given the facts:
1. Bug. has a record of radically distorting facts to score partisan points.
2. In the context of all the other publicly available documents, it is really hard to swallow these Manning/Downing St. memos as conclusive proof of anything. Indeed, within the context of the supposedly damning memos themselves, it is clear the principals believed Hussein a threat for the reasons they publicly stated.
As for Bush’s SOTU speech below, I don’t get what you mean. He was arguing imminence, in light of the hit we took on 9/11, was no longer a standard we could afford to apply, for with WMDs it would be too late to act and still effectively provide security from attack!
He said the threat was grave and gathering. That it couldn’t be ignored, that we couldn’t wait for it to materialize in any substantial way.
As for my link to NRO (which is generally pro-Bush and uniformly pro-Iraq war), did you read it? While it was hosted by an outfit with a clear bias, the author has pretty impeccable and decidedly NOT right wing credentials. His critique pretty much obliviates Bug. as a credible source and exposes him as a craven partisan.
And believe me, Eric, I’ve looked for Bug supporters who have offered any argument against the link I provided impeaching his credibility or answering for the weak evidence these memos are purported to provide.
I welcome your pointers to anything which may refute my points.
best,
Todd
B.C. Weasel Reply:
July 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
yup, I did read the NRO page your link brought me to, and I guess I’m as reluctant to accept it as truth as I am to accept most anything that I hear, that I myself have not been close to. And really, aren’t we all just speculating and formulating our opinons from sources who’s credibility we’ve found nothing to discredit?? However, i do believe you, when you say you cannot find supporters who offer argument against this NRO page impeaching his credibility because I’m quite convinced that you do a lot of research Todd. Perhaps we’d have to do a little less research if, like we’ve talked about earlier, the guest list would include the "against," as well as the "for."
tks. Todd.
E.
Unfortunately, my big comment of Bugliosi has more hyperlinks than the spam filter will allow and it trapped in moderation.
Unfortunately, my big comment of Bugliosi has more hyperlinks than the spam filter will allow and it trapped in moderation.
Some trivia - who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Anyone? Bueller?
Sean wrote,
This isn’t accurate. Originally, Bush’s case for war consisted of 3 planks:
1. threat of WMD (either in undeclared chem and bio stores or renewed pursuit of nukes)
2. support of terrorism (not just al Qaeda, though intelligence indicated there were high level contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda)
3. oppression of political dissenters
From Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech:
There’s also these Bush remarks, on Feb 20, 2003:
That sounds to me like Bush made freeing the Iraqi people a part of his case, well before we discovered Hussein’s WMD program was a fiction of Hussein’s regime.
I don’t know why the last quoted part mashed up like that (maybe it is just on Firefox), So I’ll try to post it in a readable format one more time:There’s also these Bush remarks, on Feb 20, 2003:
That sounds to me like Bush made freeing the Iraqi people a part of his case, well before we discovered Hussein’s WMD program was a fiction of Hussein’s regime.
This site needs some CSS first aid.
I come off as someone who considers their politics morally superior? Have you listened to any of the pundits on terrestrial radio and television including the beloved Rush?
I guess it’s only a morally superior attitude when it differs from yours.
You think your right and I think I’m right, the basis of politics, wars, religion, and countries.
I guess I may be dumber than I already thought but just what does "Life, Liberty, Property. Each individual has these rights, which end where the next person’s begin." mean exactly? So does ones right to life end where someone else’s begins? I don’t get it.
It’s interesting you didn’t address my comment about both communism and capitalism (uncontrolled) being able to turn the worker into nothing.
Our government definitely isn’t putting any controls on capitalism right now and we are seeing the results.
My superior attitude showing again!wash
Todd in FL Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Steve,
I wasn’t talking about talk show hosts on the right. I was talking about YOU. You come of as kind of holier than thou with statements such as "I really don’t want to get into this as a worldwide humanity ideal is much different than a "I’m out for myself ideal"."
So you’re looking out for the world and I’m just looking out for myself? Is that what you’re saying?
As for comments I didn’t address, I don’t think unfettered capitalism turns the worker into nothing. But then, I think what you consider ‘capitalism’ is what I call ‘corporatism’, which is better than communism, but not by much as it is a brother of syndicalism .
If a group of people, either as a corporation or a government suppresses basic human rights to life, liberty and property they should be opposed, because they violate the fundamentals of good laissez faire liberalism, which is the standard I think produces the most ideal communal system.
Steve from Jasper Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Todd,
I’m really not trying to attack you personally and sorry if you’re taking it that way.
I’m trying to speak in generalities. When I said the thing about "out for myself ideal" I wasn’t directing it at you just many capitalists in general. Very sorry if your taking all this personally. Maybe I’m not phrasing things correctly.
Really just trying to compare run wild capitalism which has no soul to something a bit more compassionate towards human beings in general.
Believe me, there is nothing holy about me!
I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph!
I want to talk about yesterday’s show for a second. I do believe to some degree that we are a nation that is full of whiners and people who lack accountability.
Examples:
1. My credit is bad because the bank let me borrow the money
2. My mortgage payment is too high and have to move.
2A. I can’t afford to live in my house of 25 years because the bank hates me.
3. My kid is failing because the teacher hates him, the administration hates him, or my personal favorite he has ADD/ADHD (remember that from the late 90s?).
4. I need 12 months of unemployment because there are no jobs out there.
5. My house flooded because the levee’s failed (NOT New Orleans)
6. Doctor’s killed my 80 year old spouse because they misdiagnosed him… and I deserve millions in punitive damages.
Let’s set the record straight:
1. You are a freaking deadbeat and have never paid your bills anyways.
2. You bought a house outside your means on a crazy mortgage with the hopes that your house would appreciate.
2A. You bought your house 25 years ago for $16k… You’ve re-financed your house 5 times in the past decade to borrow against it so you can have more "stuff" (thanks G. Carlin) than the neighbors. You now owe $250k on a $200k house.
3. Your kid is failing because you don’t spend any time with them. They probably have $2,000 in game machines, televisions, stereos, and computers in their room too.
4. You probably had a factory job and got paid $25/hr on the union scale. I bet you have a boat, a truck, and possibly a camper too. I bet that you believed that the union pension would always be there too. Have you looked around to see how the rest of the world lives life?
5. You live in a flood plain… If the levee in the back yard is higher than the roof of your house, don’t bitch if your house floods.
6. When a doctor hears hooves, they assume horses… NOT zebras. Your spouse already lived past their expected lifespan. Why should a doctor be punished for millions of dollars because what he thought was the flu and not some rare disease.
Sorry to rant… I am just annoyed with some people too. And, the media gives and glamorizes these stories because it generates viewership (viewership = ad $$$).
Mark in NC Reply:
July 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Well said !
John your point is fair (albeit self evident and really long-winded… but so be it), however, the problem I have with the modern Right, is that they are very eager to insist that people are personally responsible for their actions, while allowing corporations to be wildly irresponsible for theirs.
None of this stuff exists in a vacuum. People borrow money because someone lends it to them. By your logic we should not be at war right now since we didn’t have the resources to conduct said war. But we are, because our government was perfectly happy to borrow the money from China (amongst others).
Why is it reasonable for the tax-payers to bail out airlines, banks, and other corporate entities who acted badly and wound up broke, but not individuals who did the same?
The solution is not, unfortunately, as simple as pundits make it out to be. There are definitely times when it is in the overall, long-term, national interest for the collective tax-paying public (which, ideally, executes upon its own will via the government) to step in and bail out both individuals and corporations. Even if, in the short term, it might be tempting to say "go fuck yourselves, you got yourselves into this mess, it’s not our responsibility to get you out."
John from Cleveland Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
There are certain industries that I believe in helping and others that I do not. When it comes to airlines, I feel that so many other parts of our economy hinge on travel and tourism. What banks since the S&L scandal have been bailed out by the government. I can not recall Citi, Chase, Wachovia, Wells, or US Bank ever getting a gov’t check. AND they are accountable. Look at the stocks of all of these companies some have dropped 75% in the past two years (National City).
I am not for the war and find spending for it to be extremely irresponsible.
Our country, with its borrowing, is doing just what the American people have been. No savings, spending more than they are making, and simply hoping that conditions are right later so that the debt can eventually be repaid.
I, however, hold every president since Reagan responsible for heavy deficit spending. Why, on the other hand, hasn’t a balanced budget amendment been demanded by the people? Remember, Congress works for us.
My post was mainly to deal with the people who constantly bitch and moan about their lives when they themselves are the cause of their problems. That was it. There was no underlying reason or double entendre. I am just annoyed by what I hear daily.
as I said, i don’t disagree with your position. And it sounds like you’re on board with most of what I said. Citibank is not going to be allowed to fold even though they are just about on the brink of total collapse. I GUARANTEE you that when they declare that they’re about to go under we (you and me) will be tasked with the business of their salvation.
What I really meant to say (I know, I should have just said it) is that I don’t agree with some sort of uniform approach of demanding self reliance from everyone. That assumes that there are even some (much less many) perfect people out there. Everyone should be guided towards responsible living from day 1, but if they fail, as a society it is in our collective interest (just as in your example with the airlines) to help them. Again… not always, and not without repercussions, but to some extent because if we allow people to just fail it could ultimately bring about a massive economic slowdown and greatly hinder this nation’s forward momentum. Oh wait.. that’s exactly where we’re at now! yay.
There was a really excellent article in the New Yorker a few months back where the author noted how preposterous the bankruptsy law modifications were and how they served to help only the credit card companies, but even THEY will ultimately be hurt by them. if you’re interested, I’m sure I can dig up a link to it.
^^ please do, I’d love to read the article.
Having to defend lenders again, I can tell you that I have personally seen people with multiple BKs (bankruptcies) on their credit reports. There are so many people that were repeat filers that something needed to be done. Lawyers on TV telling people "pay me $500 and I will make all your debts go away". Again… people have no responsiblity for their actions.
Todd,
Thanks for the response.
Here is my point Pete along with Bugliosi present a conclusion:
Bush is a criminal, a murderer. They offer as evidence of his being a murderer Bushs’ alleged lies, misleadings & selling of the war. They also offer Bushs’ mental health as evidence of his being a criminal. So,
follow the logic
1. All that which is apathetic, lies, misleads & sells a war is that which is criminal.
2. George Bush is apathetic, lied, mislead & sold a war
3. Therefore, George Bush is a criminal.
What I’m questioning is the validity of the major premise #1. above. If it is not always the case lies, misleadings & the selling of an argument is that which is criminal, then the rest of the argument crumbles.
As evidence against #1., I offer these facts:
A. A prosecutor looks at a totality of evidence before arguing his case before a jury. Prosecution of a war is, by its nature, an adversarial process. The prosecutor of war (U.S.) will do his best to line up all of the admissible facts to prove the necessity of war. While those opposing war attempt to ensure that that the prosecutor is following the rules & is unable to make his case for war (U.N.) Within the prosecutors body of facts that he will present to the jury will always be conflicting evidences & facts. As a result, in some cases the adversarial process can lead to excesses. Through sophistry, emotional appeals, & greater resources on either side the truth is jeopardized allowing, lies, half truths & distortions to carry the day. However, surely not all investigators & prosecutors are lying or misleading when they present only the facts which makes for the strongest possible case. In my experience with child protective services, there may be one set of facts argued by party A claiming probable cause of abuse, & another set of facts presented by party B denying A’s claim of probable cause & preferring reasonable suspicion. As someone given the responsibility to protect children, while at the same time respecting a suspects fourth amendment rights, I must look at the totality of evidence & choose between one of these sets of facts. If I choose the first set, believing that probable cause exists, allowing me to violate the suspects rights or sovereignty, I thereby disregard, to some extent, the second set. The fact that in making this decision, I have given greater weight to one set of facts over another does not in any way make me a liar. It makes me a human. And by ’selling’ this case to the DA based upon what I believe to be the best facts & circumstances connecting the suspect to the crime, I’m not claiming absolute certainty, only that in my opinion there are enough facts & circumstance to lead me to reasonably believe that abuse has taken place, is taking place or is about to take place. If I say to the DA I have fact A-history, B-physical evidence, & C-motive, which connect John Doe to this crime & the defense asks what about D? You dont have D-which is a friend of the suspect who puts him somewhere else around the time of the crime. This doesn’t mean I don’t have a case. And by playing down D, the friend, during the trial & only ’selling’ all the other facts connecting the suspect to the crime to the jury, the DA is not a liar anymore then the defense when they put on their best case by playing down our best evidence & selling what is their best case - the friend.
B. If a judge agrees that I have probable cause then I get my warrant & proceed. But if he says there is not enough evidence here to issue a warrant, is that sufficient cause to throw up my hands & say the second set of facts must prevail & will no longer pursue this case of child abuse. No! I if I reasonably believe this guy is pimping out his daughter I’m believe as an an investigator or prosecutor, I have a moral obligation to catch this guy & prevent him from hurting children. So in order to solidify my case against the suspect I look for other avenues other ways to connect him to his crime. Is that criminal? Is that immoral? In fact I want this guy off the street so bad I decide to set up a sting. So, I use an undercover officer to solicit the suspect for an evening of sex with his underage daughter. The suspect agrees & I have strengthened my case. But according to you & Bugliosi I’m a criminal or a monster. See, where we differ is I believe he is the monster & I have only provided this monster an opportunity to do what he is already predisposed to do hurt children. The intent to harm lay not with me but with him. My intent is to protect. (Manning memo)
C. If in the process of serving this warrant, police officers & civilians are killed, how can it be demonstrated that I am culpable of murder because I reasonably chose one set of facts over another. In making your case, you have to prove that my voluntary act of serving this warrant is a criminal act because I did knowingly & with intent cause the deaths of police & civilians. Or Perhaps your argument is that I acted recklessly or with negligence causing the deaths of police & civilians. Here is your burden. You must prove that the first set of facts so contradicted the second set that any reasonable person would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that probable cause does not exist. The irony is that in my line of work we are often sued for not taking action. We can be charged with criminal omission for either not reporting or failing to intervene or prevent child abuse that often results in injury & death. So how do you win? I guess it’s easier to stand by & rationalize our paralytic complacency - that is to stand around & do nothing but debate if we have the right to bust through someones front door who is selling his children as sex instruments. In my experience, the the majority of individuals who worked with monsters could only overcome their fear of real monsters & their own disavowed rage was by both identifying with what frightens them, by befriending & justifying these monsters horrible actions; and by displacing that disavowed hate & rage onto safer, less threatening persons. Typically, these safer, less threatening people were those of us willing to take action & confront these monsters. That gets me to my final point.
D. You call Bush "crazy." And think that Bugliosi attempts to suggest that Bush is a sociopath. Now I know Bugliosi tried a diagnosed sociopath but does that make him an expert on mental illness? Is he considered an expert witness in the field of psychopathology? I personally, do not feel that the term "crazy" is a useful term. It certainly does not serve the mentally ill & does not further open & honest debate. Because once it comes out in an argument the one wielding it undermines his credibility as an objective & sensitive person. Certainly if you have any experience in mental health you would not use that term & as an intelligent debater there would be no reason to resort to ad hominems which is the only way you could be using it. I mean, if you truly believe that Bush is "Crazy" what in your expert opinion does he suffer from? Is it an Axis I or Axis II spectrum diagnose that you would apply? Maybe a dual diagnosis? Also, how do you arrive at the conclusion, that because one who doesn’t present an affect ( appearance & mannerisms) consistent with what you feel are appropriate within a given circumstance, is crazy. How can you prove that your response is the appropriate one & his inappropriate? By guessing? By projecting? I’ve worked with both victims & perpetrators of violence. I’ve worked with witnesses & those whose daily work exposes them to the worst this world has to offer. I wonder, if you were me, & in the effort to counsel these individuals, who, for many justifiable reasons, must present on the outside something quite different then what is on the inside, would it be your counsel to them, ‘Because you don’t emote & present yourself as I feel you must given the circumstance you are a monster. I see soldiers, firefighters, police officers & mental health workers who experience horrible things daily, & no one would ever know if they met them in the street. There is within them a great anguish. Yet, they laugh, they exercise, they socialize. That is the prescription . . . keep talking, keep moving, keep living. Do you have even the slightest idea of what it is like to be in anothers head . . . truly do you? I have seen what you are prescribing destroy families & lives. Come on Pete! I know there is hate in you. But where is love? It is not love if it is reserved only for those easiest to love or who love us in return. That’s narcissism.
So, here is my argument.
1. Not all decisions based upon choosing one set of facts over another is that which is a lie.
2. Not all presentations or ’selling’ of this set facts which contradict or is contrary to another set is that which is sufficient for a lie.
3. That which is ’selling’ of a case whether it be war or anything else is not that which is in & of itself immoral, unethical or criminal. In fact, the case can be made, Bugliosi is ’selling’ his readers only selective facts & evidence & is omitting facts & evidence damming to his argument that Bush is a murderer. Is he liar?
4. If Bush had not invaded Iraq a savvy Lawyer could have also made a case for Criminal omission. Either way you cannot win.
5. If you possess the academic & practical expertise to diagnose mental illnes so removed from your subject, show your work. If Bush is a case study explain what objective & empirical instruments you used to arrive at your diagnosis. Not all who present happy, apathetic & energetic affects during difficult circumstances are monsters. Consider soldiers, police, fire & mental health workers.
6. The president of the United States is under no constitutional obligation to disclose all matters of foreign affairs & national defense to the citizens.
And though his power is not unlimited, the president is under no obligation to submit to or seek the approval of foreign powers in matters of the state. The constitution is not open to foreign interpretation or popularity contest. If you are ashamed of being an American because of how you perceive were viewed by Europeans. Get help. How is it that in the counselors office we say your shame & guilt comes from an irrational & unrealistic expectation, and this from unfairly comparing yourself to others & not accepting yourself as is. I cannot remember ever encouraging a client in these beliefs . . . ‘Yes, of course you should be ashamed. You suck compared to France, their much smarter, more cultured & better looking. If only you could be more like them.’ On the contrary, we encourage our clients to abandon such irrational & self defeating self concepts.
7. Combat experience is not a sufficient condition to produce a good war president. Practical, boots on the ground, blood & guts experience is but one aspect of war. Experience in war may be a necessary condition for a good war president. It is not however, in & of itself a guarantee of a good war president. There is more to virtue then temperance or self control, which is what you argue comes from combat experience. There is prudence, justice & the courage to confront fear, that fear which may come with sending young men to their deaths in war.
John from Cleveland Reply:
July 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
owwww… my eyes… they hurt.
Note to all: Write as if you are talking to hard core stoners. Keep your posts short and concise. Think of us as having an attention span of a goldfish.
John,
Sorry about your eyes! But, all day I work with addicts & the mentally ill on one side & extreme Bush hating progressive social workers on the other. I love all of them. So, I keep my mouth shut. When they unthoughtfully blame every negative thing that happens on Bush. . . I remain quiet. When they say things about Christians & conservatives that they would never say about child molesters & murderers . . . I am quiet.
So, you all sound intelligent & willing to have a reasoned dialogue; and I had questions. But I’m new to speaking up & been saving it up for a long time. Anyway thanks & I’ll keep em concise from here out.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Tycho,
I understand the impulse. Some things are difficult to explain in sound bites - therein lies the challenge - how to get to those who only digest small bites to understand topics they considering boring.
Todd,
You know I’m not looking for a fight - just a little clarity. I’m asking - Do I have your position right? Help me understand what it is your saying? But what I get back is silence or disdain. There seems to be an almost elitist . . . ‘If you have to ask, then you could never understand. Come back when you receive enlightenment. Until then F%$#@ off!’ I guess I’m not one of the elect. Oh well:(
Todd in FL Reply:
July 14th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Tycho,
I don’t know that’s fair as far as Pete’s concerned - I think he probably doesn’t type much and it is much easier for him to express himself with his big mouth!
I’m going to repost my Bugliosi comments, since they are trapped now almost a week.
Todd in FL on July 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm. This comment was awaiting moderation. As for Bugliosi (whom I will henceforth refer to as "Bug"), his BS is so extensive it would take pages to unravel. I’ll take a shot at a few of his most misleading comments. First, the Manning Memo link in the above blog does not go to the one Bug referred on the show, it goes to a memo written before 2003, when Bug claimed Bush wanted to get a U2 shot down. I searched for close to an hour for any page with a link to the entire text of this memo and could only find partisan blogs and a few news stories which quoted from the memo. I also discovered, in the course of looking for this memo, that the original Downing street memos were transcribed and destroyed by the journalist who first obtained them. Media accounts have all reported no official denials as to their accuracy and that is it. Assuming the memos are accurate, they aren’t by any stretch ’smoking guns’ which prove Bush lied, or even hint that he lied. They are in the context of the two leaders deciding what to do about Hussein based upon the intelligence they had going in. From the wikipedia link in Sean’s blog:
The only way this counts as evidence is if one is already convinced Bush lied. Moreover, in the larger context of all the publicly available memos, it is clear Bushco personnel believe the intelligence provided to them by the National Security team held over from the Clinton administration. On the so-called Manning Memo, which Bug. offers as damning proof, assuming the quoted lines I found in press accounts are accurate, I note two things: 1. Bug is the one saying Bush wanted Hussein to shoot down a UN colored U2 spy plane, the quotes in the media do not say these were plans, only that some in the US gov’t had floated three ideas:
Again, in the context of all the other memos, which seem to believe the intelligence on the WMD threat, and the various investigations by Congress and British parliament, one has to uncritically believe Bush guilty to swallow this. 2. I find the lack of an orginal copy, or even a COMPLETE transcription of the memo to be suspicious. I want to see the context of the entire memo before I take the word of a foaming and discreditied partisan like Bug. Finally, Bug. said Bush was telling us all the threat from Hussein was ‘imminent’. This is a flat out DISTORTION. Bush had to answer his critics on the grounds that the action he was proposing in Iraq was NOT a response to a smoking gun, Go look up the text of his 2003 speech with the ‘16 words’ (which were supported by Britain’s Butler Commisssion) - in it, Bush directly addressed those who demanded a smoking gun.
Todd in FL Reply:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
As god is my witness, that last post had line breaks when I was viewing it in the comment window.
Brian, 10 lashes for you!