Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

You keep ranting on about the pistol! :lol:
What is it about that pistol that bothers you so much? :-

It is bizarre, in the most dramatic, homoerotic,

Note here that you are the one who implies sexual motives. For some reason, I've noticed that when the subject of guns comes up in any context, many liberals somehow see sexual implications that never even occur to right-wingers.

archvillain vs. superhero passion play kind of way. Frankly, it's not the kind of behavior I'd expect from a mature individual aware of the costs of war.

Better take a look at the GIs who came home from World War II, the Silent who returned from Korea, or the Boomers from Vietnam. Bringing back 'souvenirs' is common, and very human.

By the way, TK, I haven't forgotten our earlier discussions on the nature of morality on this thread, I just haven't had time to get back to them lately.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Better take a look at the GIs who came home from World War II, the Silent who returned from Korea, or the Boomers from Vietnam. Bringing back 'souvenirs' is common, and very human.

Absolutely. My Vietnam vet neighbor while I was growing up liked to show pictures of the "souvenirs" he and his friends collected in Vietnam, namely necklaces strung with the ears of the men they had killed.
But you are forgetting something. Bush didn't go to Vietnam. He didn't even go to Iraq, except on Thanksgiving for a photo shoot. He sent other people's kids to take out his archnemesis. And he still hasn't mounted Osama's walking stick on his wall yet. Let's keep our fingers crossed for teh October Surprise!

This isn't exactly surprising news. When the recent LA Times poll came out, a lot of right-wingers took one look at the numbers, compared them to the other data sources, and deduced pretty much what had happened.

Note that 'weighting' polls is not alwasy illegitimate. But taken too far it can turn a poll into a rigged statement.

http://drudgereport.com/flash5.htm


TWISTED: LA Times Poll Had Sample With 38% Democrats, 25% Republicans
Tue Jun 15 2004 10:13:47 ET

Sen. John Kerry "has taken big lead," according "to an L.A. Times poll."

But the Times poll that showed Kerry "beating Bush by 7 points" has created a controversy over whether the poll's sample accurately reflects the population as whole, ROLL CALL reports on Tuesday.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Developing...

Bush vindicated (again); all must face the fact: it was Joe Wilson who lied

When 4T comes, it is MSNBCNNABCNPR that need to go against the wall. The fourth estate is rotten.

Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Robert Novak sez:

Wilson contradictions leave Democrat senators speechless

Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that did not bark, the most remarkable aspect of last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report is what its Democratic members did not say. They did not dissent from the committee's findings that Iraq apparently asked about buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary.

Wilson's activities constituted the only aspects of the yearlong investigation for which the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, was unable to win unanimous agreement. According to committee sources, Roberts felt Wilson had been such a ''cause celebre'' for Democrats that they could not face the facts about him.

For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth.

Because a Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since October. However, I feel compelled to describe how the committee report treats the Niger-Wilson affair because it has received scant coverage except in a few media outlets. The unanimously approved report said, ''interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD (CIA counterproliferation division) employee, suggested his name for the trip.'' That's what I reported, and what Wilson flatly denied and still does.

Plame sent out an internal CIA memo saying ''my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'' A State Department analyst told the committee about an inter-agency meeting in 2002 that was ''apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife, who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.''

The committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report ''did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.'' As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.'' In fact, the intelligence community agreed that ''Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.''

''While there was no dispute with the underlying facts,'' Chairman Roberts wrote separately, ''my Democrat colleagues refused to allow'' two conclusions in the report. The first conclusion merely said that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion. The second conclusion is devastating: ''Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.''

The normally mild Roberts is harsh in his condemnation: ''Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. . . . [N]ot only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.'' Roberts called it ''important'' for the committee to declare much of what Wilson said ''had no basis in fact.'' In response, Democrats were silent.

Originally Posted by sopopo

Bush vindicated (again); all must face the fact: it was Joe Wilson who lied

When 4T comes, it is MSNBCNNABCNPR that need to go against the wall. The fourth estate is rotten.

When you say go against the wall, do you mean like, go in front of firing squad? Will those be arms provided at the expense of the state or via your 2nd Amendment rights?
Just asking...