Home > Uncategorized > Women on the Blog

Women on the Blog

Sorry to have been away from the blog. I’ll try to make up for it this week.

As a programming note, we have two important on-air debates scheduled this week. On Tuesday at 5, we’ll start a discussion with local high school students about global warming. I would encourage your phone calls for our young debaters. And then on Wednesday, we’ll have a second debate, starting at 4:05, about the Atascadero creek setback issue.

Also, Tom and I will be at the Clark Center in Arroyo Grande on Friday, broadcasting our show from there for their 5th anniversary, so swing by between 3 and 7 and say hello if you’re in the neighborhood.

OK. Well, something that I’ver experience in the last 18 months of this blog has been what I consider to be a souble standard for women who dare to engage discussion, either on the blog or the radio show. I’m thinking specifically about Marilyn and Michele.

So imagine my reaction to this excerpt from a recent article in the Washington Post. As far as I’m concerned, it explains a lot about the mentality that seems tro exist out there. Your comments, please.

“As women gain visibility in the blogosphere, they are targets of sexual harassment and threats. Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms — a trend that was first evident in chat rooms in the early 1990s and is now moving to the blogosphere, experts and bloggers said.

A 2006 University of Maryland study on chat rooms found that female participants received 25 times as many sexually explicit and malicious messages as males. A 2005 study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that the proportion of Internet users who took part in chats and discussion groups plunged from 28 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2005, entirely because of the exodus of women. The study attributed the trend to “sensitivity to worrisome behavior in chat rooms.”

Joan Walsh, editor in chief of the online magazine Salon, said that since the letters section of her site was automated a year and a half ago, “it’s been hard to ignore that the criticisms of women writers are much more brutal and vicious than those about men.”

Arianna Huffington, whose Huffington Post site is among the most prominent of blogs founded by women, said anonymity online has allowed “a lot of those dark prejudices towards women to surface.” Her site takes a “zero tolerance” policy toward abusive and excessively foul language, and employs moderators “24/7” to filter the comments, she said.

Sierra, whose recent case has attracted international attention, has suspended blogging. Other women have censored themselves, turned to private forums or closed comments on blogs. Many use gender-neutral pseudonyms. Some just gut it out. But the effect of repeated harassment, bloggers and experts interviewed said, is to make women reluctant to participate online — undercutting the promise of the Internet as an egalitarian forum.

Robert Scoble, a technology blogger who took a week off in solidarity with Sierra, said women have told him that harassment is a “disincentive” to participate online. That, he said, will affect their job prospects in the male-dominated tech industry. “If women aren’t willing to show up for networking events, either offline or online, then they’re never going to be included in the industry,” he said.

The treatment of women online is not just an equivalent of what happens offline, some women say. The Internet allows the content to be seen immediately, often permanently and far more widely than a remark scribbled on a restroom wall.

“The sad thing is, I’ve had thousands of messages from women saying, ‘You were a role model for me,’ ” Sierra said in an interview, describing communications she received after suspending her blog. Sierra was the first woman to deliver a keynote speech at a conference on the Linux operating system. Her blog was No. 23 in the Technorati.com Top 100 list of blogs, measured by the number of blogs that linked to her site.

Her Web site, Creating Passionate Users, was about “the most fluffy and nice things,” she said. Sierra occasionally got the random “comment troll,” she said, but a little over a month ago, the posts became more threatening. Someone typed a comment on her blog about slitting her throat and ejaculating. The noose photo appeared next, on a site that sprang up to harass her. On the site, someone contributed this comment: “the only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size.”

Advertisements
  1. Anonymous
    May 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    political correctness-the 100% complete, total, absolute opposite of common sense.

  2. A E
    May 1, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

  3. Anonymous
    May 1, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    Very disturbing article. I had no idea. Thank you for sharing, Dave.

  4. Steve
    May 2, 2007 at 12:47 am

    I am amazed the way women are treated on blogs. Maybe if women would post anonymous, kind of like posting wearing a burka, we could make progress on this front.The great religon of peace Islam, has been doing this for years.

  5. Anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 1:42 am

    Paaaaleeeze! marilyn digs her own holes and hides behind dave.
    get a grip! it’s a blog!
    post or don’t post…but don’t look for political correctness here.
    if ya can play with the big dogs stay on porch…or the kitchen for that matter.

  6. proud and confident
    May 2, 2007 at 2:25 am

    The article was distressing but if Sierra was packing heat she would have no worries.

  7. Marilyn
    May 2, 2007 at 4:43 am

    I just came back from listening to Shirin Ebadi at the PAC. She reminds of all the gutsy Arab and Middle Eastern women I grew up around despite the abuse of the men.

    The tone of the presentation was set when we were “ordered” to stand (all 1000 of us) because a judge had just entered the hall. It was an awesome sight. A very articulate woman from Iran and a Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work in assisting prisoners of conscience and the rights of women and children.

    Compare that with the trolls on this and other blogs whose only contribution to society are sarcasm and hate.

    Did you know that 65% if all university students in Iran are women? A testament to the resilience, resourcefulness, and intelligence of women despite oppression. How many coherent and intelligent sentences can a troll string together?

  8. Bob from San Luis
    May 2, 2007 at 5:19 am

    Oh boy, it’s the evil political correctness attack; run away, turn tail, oh no! Why is it considered an issue of PC when the subject how women are treated, or black or hispanics or Muslims or Christians; You either treat other people with respect or you disrespect them, period. I will agree that doing absolutely everything as PC as possible is overkill bordering on stupid, but if you have a problem with treating women or minorities with respect, face up to your latent sexism or racism and get some help.
    Steve, nice dig at Islam. Posting while wearing a burka; brilliant!
    Dave: Marilyn and Michelle have been attacked here repeatedly and it does illustrate a wider online problem that some men have towards women who will not be cowed in stating their opinion. Another blog that I read occasionally had post about this issue recently and the proprietor of that blog had his theory about why it is that some men behave so badly towards women; they (the men) have a fear of the vagina. Think about it; it would explain quite a bit. Regardless of the motivations of those who disparage women, the effect is of the attacks cannot be disputed. How about if you are one who has done this in the past, you go ahead and grow up, now. You have issues with Marilyn or Michelle, fine, take them on, on the issues, not their gender or their religion or their ethnicity.

  9. Marilyn
    May 2, 2007 at 5:44 am

    Hey, Last Anonymous,

    Are you saying it is o.k. to abuse people because they deserve it?

    What holes are you exactly talking about? And I didn’t realize you were such a “big dog.” What exactly are you a “big dog” at?

  10. Anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 6:09 am

    and THIS is the “award winning blog”?

  11. Dave Congalton
    May 2, 2007 at 6:12 am

    Five bucks says all these Anonymous posts are from men.

  12. Bob from San Luis
    May 2, 2007 at 7:00 am

    Dave: I’ll go you one better; all of the anonymous posters are conservative, Christian, white males.

  13. golfingslo
    May 2, 2007 at 7:06 am

    Why such a bigot tonight Bob?

  14. Bob from San Luis
    May 2, 2007 at 7:28 am

    Okay then, I am lashing out at men who disparage women and minorities, and I’m the bigot? Damn, that is some fine cognitive dissonance ya got going there son.

  15. Dave Congalton
    May 2, 2007 at 7:31 am

    Bob,

    I think you’re pushing it by tossing out the C-word and suggesting that these anonymous yahoos are Christian. That may be too much of a stereotype.

  16. Bob from San Luis
    May 2, 2007 at 7:39 am

    Okay, I’m sorry. The anonymous commentors are most likely conservative, white, males. I am sorry if I have disparaged Christians; I mean I am a white Christian male, just not conservative.

  17. Anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Bob must be stressed out after his huge May Day celebrations. I suggest Bob read something about Stalin, it will make him “feel better”

  18. Anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Bob & Rosey…when backed into a corner they cant get out of they attack christianity…
    I fell over laufing! You libs are so predictable…but now it’s actually funny.
    Ya cant change the facts…it’s a man’s world. Always has been always will be…just ask the arab men, they’ll fill you in on the role of women.
    grow up libs. If yu are going to support muslims and terrorists and their agent plants in America you have to grasp reality.
    You cant spin away the deep truth.
    It’s 2007 and women still make less than men…and why? Because that’s the way it has been and that’s the way it will be.
    Sorry to slap you with the truth so early…before you had a chance to drink your heab tea, and recharge your crystals, and clear your chakras!

  19. ACLU
    May 2, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    I agree with Bob, Christians are the problem.

  20. A white male christian conservative American
    May 2, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Yes I am a man, a man still wondering why all these lefty feminist women rail about the inequities put on them by men and then Dave and Bob feel it necessary to protect them and defend them in their patented paternalistic liberal way. Marilyn is a big girl and she appears to be able to stand on her own intellectually. Same with Michele Dostert; she has had no problem going toe to toe with men in the intellectual arena. So here comes Dave with an article about the abuse of women on blogs in general. And just like dawn follows the night, Bob comes along to throw stones at all us trolls on the right that abuse women on this blog. He even goes so far as to regurgitate someone’s theory that men that stand up to Marilyn and her “hate men” & “hate America” hate speech, that somehow we are afraid of her vagina. How ridiculous!! Afraid of a hole in her body! What a laugh. Anyhow, leftist hypocracy is on parade here. Liberals want their cake and eat it too. Only liberals get the freedom of speech and only liberals can ad hominem attack people and only liberals on this blog can lable people as “haters” or “trolls” or any other bilge. If you are either white, male, christian, conservative or any combination therein, you cannot challenge the loyalties of Marilyn, you are by virtue of birth and political affiliation a subhuman that hates women, gays, ethnic groups and other religions, but loves Wal-Mart, Bush, Haliburton and bombing innocent people all around the world.

    Bob, Marilyn and Dave’s response: (and I quote) “Well, yeah, that’s pretty much it.”

    What a load of crap hypocrasy! Freedom of speech does mean that I can say whatever I want about Marilyn and her hezbollah ties. Of course, Dave does have the right to censor his blog. But what does that say about Marilyn if Dave feels he needs to censor to protect her? What does that say about the strength of Dave’s beliefs if he has to censor to protect them? I say, the more you censor and delete posts to protect certain segments of this blog-populace, the weaker and weaker your position becomes.

    Finally, I love how Bob and others paint with a broad brush but don’t bother to cite specific examples. Brett on another post lashed out at Rush and Hannity as racist, bigot, homophobic sexists but doesn’t bother to give examples. It is like everything else with liberals: the seriousness of the charge outweighs any need to provide evidence to support their claims.

  21. Dave Congalton
    May 2, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    I posted the article because I found it both surprising and disturbing. But it also explains the overly hostile attitude women like Marilyn, Michele and Dawn get when they dare have an opinion.

    And I absolutely LOVE all these anonymous men who pooh-pooh the argument. Merely reinforces the point to me.

  22. Brett
    May 2, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    “Brett on another post lashed out at Rush and Hannity as racist, bigot, homophobic sexists but doesn’t bother to give examples. It is like everything else with liberals: the seriousness of the charge outweighs any need to provide evidence to support their claims.”

    I don’t think I “lashed” out. I think I pointed out that the right which included the likes of Rush, Hannity, O’reilly and Coulter use language to incite their audiences.

    They bring out the worst in folks who are looking for a scapegoat for the ills of society as the right sees them.

  23. SLO Bear
    May 2, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    Can’t we all just get along? Dave, I love your show and blog, but I am gunning for you next year! All men and women are welcome – even Santa Maria Bill.

    http://centralcoasthousingbubble.blogspot.com/

  24. mr. anonymous
    May 2, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    The reason why I choose to post anonymously or with a made up name is I saw how you liberal hate mongers savaged Jerry in Az, New Tone and Paso Rich. You liberal hate mongers drove them off the blog with your intolerance of anyone conservative or even a little right of center. It does not prove anything to me except the intolerance and hypocracy of the liberals on this blog: sure lets have a debate of the issues so long as you don’t say anything that is outside the approved liberal orthodoxy, otherwise you will be called everything but human.

    Brett: you prove the point that was made. Exactly what is it that incites Rush’s and Hannity’s audience? I’m betting that you will bring up some flakey point that will only prove you have no sense of humor. Whom do they scapegoat? I’m also willing to bet you are just talking out your “hate conservative” ass on this one. As for Ann Coulter, she is doing exactly what she wants to do: say inflamatory things so the liberal media will report on her to sell more books and thus make more money. It’s free-market capitalism at it’s finest. What is the old saw? –any press is good press. I just say to all you haters of the right-wing: Lighten up, Francis.

  25. golfingslo
    May 2, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    And once again Bob from SLO states the old double standard in his response to my bigot comment. It is okay to stereotype all white males but no one else. If you disparage or stereotype “anyone” because of whom they are or what they believe, you are a bigot. But don’t worries Bob from SLO, even the most well meaning people can still be bigots. I do not want you to feel any guilt Bob from SLO, as a white male (non conservative), I am not offended by your stereotype or generalization of all white males because I choose not to be offended by what people say or do. By choosing to not be offended I get to keep my power and not give it way for other people to dictate how I feel.

  26. Brett
    May 3, 2007 at 12:50 am

    “You liberal hate mongers drove them off the blog with your intolerance of anyone conservative or even a little right of center.”

    Nice argument. You’ve somehow connected the intolerance of bigots, racists, and theocracy with being intolerant of conservatives.

  27. Steve
    May 3, 2007 at 1:41 am

    I don’t think the generic liberal spouts hate, but the progressives are dangerous and should be called out.

  28. Marilyn
    May 3, 2007 at 2:46 am

    I think the topic of this post is extremely important. The issues raised here have been raised by other bloggers across the globe. I was wondering when the issue would be addressed here and I am glad Dave did address it.

    I left this blog for a period of time last year after the barrage of hatred, insults, racist, religiously bigoted, and misogynistic comments that were constant, and the ridiculous challenges and name calling. The two most notorious were JerryD and Rich.

    I did give it some thought after a while and after Dave said he would control some of the insults. I would be damned if I let any idiot with a pea brain drive me away from anything any more.

    I despise many of the views held by some of the bloggers here but I do my best not to focus on the person unless they do not back off the personal insults.

    I am also a firm believer that if we do not want to be insulted, we should not insult others. I frankly do not care what anyone thinks of Muslims, Conservatives, liberals, gays, women, little green men, or UFOs as long as the focus of the discussion is the topic and not the person posting.

    It is always comical to observe how the same people who complain about the liberals being hateful have no problem, and actually, revel in hurling insults and cold and not so cold threats on individual posters, especially Brett, Bob, and Dave.

    I personally have been threatened on multiple occasions. I will put up with the occasional asinine idiotic remark and the occasional joke (after all humor is good for the soul) but what I will not put up with are threats and I will be damned if I let anyone intimidate me and I am not afraid to say my name.

    For those who cannot hack it, you can join JerryD and Rich and don’t let the door slam you in the behind. After all, if you find it amusing to insult women, you should not feel indignant when women do the same to you.

    Maybe a few more women would start posting on this “hometown community” blog for a change. After all, we are more than half the population, aren’t we?

  29. Anonymous
    May 3, 2007 at 4:30 am

    leave again marilyn. You add noting. Your pro terrorist rants are old.

  30. Bob from San Luis
    May 3, 2007 at 5:22 am

    To all of the “anonymouses”: Cognitive Dissonance and Psychological Projection are two means that allow individuals to hold beliefs and viewpoints that either contradict how you normally think or are in conflict with what you usually hold as your ideals. My point here is that when I point out that white men who continue to subjugate women because they are women, they are practicing sexism. I wonder how these same men treat the women of their lives; you know, like their mother, wife, sisters or daughters. Surely you treat your mother and your wife with respect; surely you want your daughter(s) to have every advantage possible, and that they are not attacked for their viewpoints simply due to their gender. I made a point earlier about how if you want to take any woman to task about an issue, please do so about the issue. I do find it amusing that I am being portrayed as “protecting” Marilyn and Michelle when I have never assumed that either one of them needed “protecting”. Bringing my point full circle, the “anonymouses” that attack women bloggers and commentors because they are women might be “projecting” their own shortcomings by attacking those women. The “cognitive dissonance” occurs when I point out the hypocrisy of a sexist/racist remark and I am called a racist. The regrettable remark I made about Christians was directed at my perception that if those remarks were being made by Christians, it would seem very unChristian like to speak in that manner.

  31. Lani
    May 3, 2007 at 6:35 am

    Bravo Dave for talking about this.
    These are some of the hidden or subtle parts of sexism. It’s everywhere: on blogs,in movies, in schools, in newspapers. It’s shocking that we haven’t come very far. Then again, we have, but change is slow.
    When I was in graduate school in Political Science, the women weren’t allowed to talk much in class. Philosophy is the realm of men. Blogging has some of that. Things get better if they are talked about. Thanks so much Dave, it’s super unusual for a man to raise such things.

  32. Steve
    May 3, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    I agree with Bob and Marilyn on everything because they are great Americans. We should all aspire to be as informed and politically correct as they are. These people are on the cutting edge of the “New America” that will have no guns,no borders,free health care, abortion on demand,and the virtues of the homosexual life style being taught in grade schools.
    Here’s a fair warning, DO NOT challenge these people on anything, because you will be labeled a racist, woman hater,muslim hater,homophobic or even a christian.
    Uniformed outsiders(oldtimers who built the country) might think this is some version of socialism but as I’ve come to understand, DO NOT question these great minds, they have all the answers.

  33. Bob from San Luis
    May 3, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Steve: Nice snark. I do not provide anyone with answers, just my opinion. I will attempt to back up my assertions with facts from time to time, but my goal is not to indoctrinate any one into thinking as I do, but to present the ideal that maybe there is a different way of thinking or doing than we have been doing. The most effective way is to ask questions; on this thread those questions would be along the line of, why can’t men confront women on issues, not because of their gender? How is it that so many men have such a low regard for women who have a different political philosophy? If these men can treat their mothers and wives and daughters with respect, why can’t they do the same to those that they don’t agree with? Let’s move the conversation forward, not regress back to when all women were subservient. If any man feels threatened by questions like these, they have some issues that might be best explored with some professional help. Please notice that I said might. If you hold the view that you are doing nothing wrong in slamming women who think differently than you, there is nothing I or anyone can say to give you pause. Good day to you.

  34. golfingslo
    May 3, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Bob from SLO, I made the bigot comment because you were stereotyping the anonymous poster who degrade and or attack woman as “white males”. Do you know for a fact that all posters were white males? Are you also saying that no other race or gender is capable of degrading or attacking woman? You were willing to bet that the remarks had to come from “conservative, Christian, white males” because in you mind conservative, Christian, white males are the only ones capable of such remarks. That is why I said” Why such a bigot tonight Bob?”

  35. Michele
    May 3, 2007 at 9:47 pm

    Ok, I’ll weigh in here.

    The point of the article – and of Dave’s comments – is NOT that either Marilyn or I or any other of the women Dave has on his show need prtection.

    The question is why some men – when presented with a logical, factual argument by a woman with which they disagree – do NOT attempt to refute her arguments with logic and facts of their own – but, instead, resort to vicious, personal attacks on her AS A WOMAN.

    (I’ve been subjected to some of these, both on the radio and on this blog, so I know whereof I speak.)

    You disagree with my assessment of the political situation and the war in Iraq? Fine. Bring your facts, bring your data, and we’ll argue it out.

    The overwhelming majority of the callers and bloggers who disagree with me have done just that. I’ve been party to a lot of of stimulating discussions on the show and on the blog with conservatives, moderates, and liberals of all stripes. 90% of the time, it’s a passionate political argument between combatants who treat each other with respect.

    But a few haven’t. They don’t engage the argument on a factual level at all. Either they don’t HAVE facts and logic to bring to the argument – or they don’t understand the difference between vicious personal attacks and informed debate.

    And no, I don’t think rage against women is necessarily a hallmark of most Christians, or conservatives.

    I DO think that it is a hallmark of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and others of their ilk, who confuse personal insult with reasoned argument.

    In fact, Indiana University just did a study showing that Bill O’Reilly calls names more than once every seven seconds on his show.

    here is the link to the study:

    http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html

    I think most of the anonymous posters here, and the personally insulting commenters on the radio show, are just trying to imitate the rhetorical (and fact-free) style of their heros. Sad, really.

    I’m neither a delicate flower, nor a shrinking violet, and I’ve never hidden behind Dave – or anybody wlese – in my life. You want to argue facts and logic with me, bring it on.

    But if you have neither facts nor logic to contribute to the discourse, but only insults and personal attacks – why should I waste my time responding to you? And why should anyone else, either on the show or on the blog, pay any attention to you?

    Prime example: the anonymous posters here claim that “Freedom of speech means that I can say whatever I want about Marilyn and her Hezbollah ties. “

    Note, there’s no FACTS here – no refutation of Marilyn’s or my position on anything – just O’Reilly-esque name calling.

    Well, sure, you CAN SAY anything you want about anybody. The pertinent questions are:

    A. Didn’t your mother teach you that calling people names is juvenile and rude, and

    B. if you have nothing but name-calling and personal attacks to add to the discussion – why would the rest of us bother to listen to you?

  36. NewsstandGreg
    May 3, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    Michele, you have stated it as well as possible in my estimation.

    When a person can’t argue the facts, they attack the messenger.

    One thing I think when I read some guy personally attacking a woman:

    What’s the personal problem that’s eating at him? –Newsstand Greg

  37. Robyn
    May 3, 2007 at 11:00 pm

    Michele said:
    “The question is why some men – when presented with a logical, factual argument by a woman with which they disagree – do NOT attempt to refute her arguments with logic and facts of their own – but, instead, resort to vicious, personal attacks on her AS A WOMAN.”

    I am a regular listener of Dave’s show and check his blog everyday. I stopped reading the comments a long time ago due in large part to what Michele has so aptly put. It’s sad to see women attacked here and on blogs due to their gender (and in Marilyn’s case, her ethnic background). The other reason I stopped reading the comments is because Jerry just got far too annoying, everyone was playing into it and it was quickly becoming Jerry’s blog as well.

    Back to the topic at hand though. I regularly read a few other blogs, all by women. One in particular ( http://www.dooce.com) is interesting, thought-provoking and often very, very funny. Heather Armstrong was fired from her job for her blog, something I’m not sure would have happened to a man in the “good old boys” technology club. She often shares some of the e-mail she gets, and it’s alarming how sexist and violent some of it is. I am not sure if her husband, John, recieves the same type of e-mail regarding his famous blog, but I seriously doubt it. By the way Heather and John are now making a living from their blogs, writing full time from home.

    As humans we have been on this planet millions of years yet we still have not found a way to treat each other with the respect we all deserve, why should cyber-space by any different? All it’s done is air the sexism and racism many people feel but don’t express out loud anymore.

  38. new Tone
    May 3, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    sorry…to continue:

    and that those of us on the blog have no experience like she has had in Lebanon. She has told a person who told her to return to Lebanon if it is so great there to “go to whatever scum country” came from. The only problem was the guy was a Native American.

    Michelle, you have been rebuffed so many times by the facts it should make your head spin. You never are able to respond to the fact that we invaded Iraq due to 23 different reasons, including WMD’s, safe haven for terrorist like Al Zacari and the mastermind of the 93 WTC bombing living in bagdad, the violations of the no-fly zone, and the rest. Not to mention the fact that corrupt Kofi Annon was skimming the oil for food project and Iraq was selling its oil to France and buying French and Russion equipment in violation of the UN.

    Not to mention that all of the democrats no crying the loudest including Algore all supported the use of force voted upon. All had seen the intelligence provided by the CIA and Tenent personally. All declared the treats from Iraq in 2003 as well as in 1998 when Clinton bombed an office in Baghdad at night.

    You ignore all of the above and think you have never been proven to be foolish. Get real! Your HATRED for conservatives and BUSH has caused your mind to overheat and to not even consider the facts. So sorry to tell you the TRUTH.

  39. new tone
    May 4, 2007 at 12:35 am

    This is priceless. I am going to be attacked for attacking a woman. Oh no. And, by the way, what makes Bob so certain that I am a white christian conservative. How thoughtless can you be. I am one of the three, man!

    What Laurie David said producer of the fictional movie with Algore:

    5 What changes have you made in your own life?

    I don’t believe everyone has to do everything. I don’t do everything. It’s about everyone doing something. I have changed as many lightbulbs as I could to (higher efficiency) bulbs. I started a new idling rule at the school carpool lane (cars dropping and picking up kids can’t idle their engines more than 30 seconds). I bring a garment bag to the dry cleaners (instead of having the dry cleaners wrap her clothes in petroleum-based plastic). I drive a hybrid.

    (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/)

    Wikipedia stuff on Laurie David.

    Criticism

    Laurie David has been subject to persistent criticism for being less than consistent in her environmental positioning. For example, she was fined by a local regulatory body on Martha’s Vinyard for violating local environmental ordinances in the construction of her large home.[5] Further, The Atlantic Monthly has termed David “a Gulfstream liberal”. The magazine explains that, ” Laurie David, who dedicates herself to fighting for improved fuel-economy standards and reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable: a private plane.”[6] By way of comparison, David’s choice to use a Gulfstream aircraft to fly between her large Los Angeles home and her large Martha’s Vineyard home is some ten times less efficient than using a standard Boeing 737.[7] In an interview with The Guardian in November of 2006, Ms. David acknowledged that owning two homes on opposite sides of the country and flying in a private jet several times per year is at odds with her message to others. In the interview she notes “Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn’t do it. But the truth is, I’m not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don’t expect anybody else to be perfect either. That’s what hurts the environmental movement – holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away

    To sum it up….do as I say, not as I do since I am of a higher class than the masses.

  40. New Tone
    May 4, 2007 at 12:37 am

    (the last sentence is mine, not Ms. David’s)

  41. liberal
    May 4, 2007 at 12:46 am

    I’m a victim

  42. Brett
    May 4, 2007 at 1:00 am

    “respond to the fact that we invaded Iraq due to 23 different reasons, including WMD’s, safe haven for terrorist like Al Zacari and the mastermind of the 93 WTC bombing living in bagdad, the violations of the no-fly zone, and the rest.”

    New Tone, gawd I hope you didn’t come to those conclusions of your own thinking. They seem to be nearly identical to the BS I heard out of Rush on Monday, I believe.

    Obviously there were no weapons of mass destruction. I know your argument is going to be that “we” didn’t know that until we overthrew Saddam. The only problem with that argument is that you and the rest of the folks who keep hanging onto that thread conveniently forget that weapons inspectors were in Iraq and couldn’t find any.

    The issue of Al Qaeda being in Iraq fails to note two important things. Saddam would never trust Al Qaeda and “Al Qaeda and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.” New York Post

    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in the Northern Kurdish portion of Iraq which was not under the control of Saddam. “US officials argue that it was at al-Qaeda’s behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam – a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country.” BBC News Middle East.

    I strongly suggest you watch Bill Moyers special Buying the War. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

    After you watch his special segment tell me if you still believe your statements.

  43. liberal
    May 4, 2007 at 1:21 am

    who are these terrorists you speak about?

  44. New Tone
    May 4, 2007 at 2:44 am

    Brett,

    Ok, check out this link and tell me what you think. It is totally referenced and documented for your beady eyes to view. Tell me what the democrats said and why they did not really say it. Tell me what happened to the WMD’s that they talked about?

    Point #2 The reasons for the war. Right here. No where is there anything saying Iraq and Al Queda are together, just that they were in Iraq. Read if for yourself.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
    releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2
    .html

    So, were there ever WMD’s in Iraq? What did they ALL say? What were the ACTUAL reasons given for the invasion of Iraq?

    PBS Special.

    Duh! Dan Rather makes up news, nightline lights trucks on fire to cause them to explode…and you thought they were all just giving you the total and complete truth. Maybe that is why you need to CHECK STUFF OUT! Goodnight.

  45. Brett
    May 4, 2007 at 3:11 am

    “Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

    The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

    We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

    And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

    We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

    The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

    Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

    Remarks by the President on Iraq
    Cincinnati Museum Center – Cincinnati Union Terminal
    Cincinnati, Ohio

    A war based on deception and outright lies.

  46. Brett
    May 4, 2007 at 3:12 am

    Oh, those are portions of his speech not the entire text.

  47. golfingslo
    May 4, 2007 at 4:34 am

    Robyn, I do not belive as humans we have been on this planet millions of years.

  48. New Tone
    May 4, 2007 at 4:56 am

    Brett, did you have a chance to check out the link to what the democrats said? You seemed to have forgotten to comment on that? Were they lying?

    Links to what the democrats said and the sources

    The link did not come through. Sorry. Now tell me how this stuff is ANY DIFFERENT that what you wrote from a good and accurate speach by President George W. Bush.

    USA

    USA

    USA

    USA

  49. Anonymous
    May 4, 2007 at 5:04 am

    xdlwzkuoWow. I thought this was supposed to be about women and blogging, instead it’s once again boiled down to a debate about Iraq. Women don’t even rate enough to be discussed at length around here, and that’s sad.

  50. new tone
    May 4, 2007 at 5:05 am

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    WAS GORE LOOKING AT BUSH LIES, WHY DIDN’T GORE ALERT US IT WAS A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    WHY DID BYRD, FORMER KKK LEADER, TELL US A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    HOW IN THE HELL DID BUSH TRICK THE BRAIN SURGEON?!?!?!?!

    Brett, here is your proof. You are falling for the revision of history. Everyone thought there WERE WMD’s! Check out the sources in my link if your doubt it. You are falling for political manipulations. If not, then all these people lied to be popular like in the PBS “Special” that you glommed on to.

    Brett: Where’s the Beef?

    (I have called out Brett and he is not even a woman. Shame on me!)

  51. new tone
    May 4, 2007 at 5:08 am

    The article about woman on here was a bogus story. Who knows how many are females here and post? What difference does it make anyway? I am glad to agree with or disagree with a male, female, or other. It does not matter. That is why this blog is great, because I can start talking about how protected Marilyn is and how Dave will not hold her to the same standards as other, then Brett and I whip out our knives and start cutting on each other about Bush Lied and People Died. (Mostly terrorist types) 🙂

  52. gender-neutral pseudonym
    May 4, 2007 at 5:17 am

    WARNING!

    This post has been rated X by the THOUGHT POLICE.

    Bob professes:

    “Dave: I’ll go you one better; all of the anonymous posters are conservative, Christian, white males”.

    Very disturbing and offensive. Rev Al Sharpton has been notified.

  53. Dave Congalton
    May 4, 2007 at 5:18 am

    It is very, very sad to read the multiple postings by New Tone. You have to wonder why he hates women so.

    I think the article is really underscoring hate-filled people like New Tone. How sad.

  54. Bob from San Luis
    May 4, 2007 at 5:19 am

    new tone: I am not going to attack you for your rant against Michelle; all I will do is point out to anyone who didn’t notice it, you made Michelle’s point for her, perfectly. I don’t care if you are a male, Caucasian, or Christian; whatever else you are, the one sure category that you belong in is that of being pathetic. And not just for your attitude towards intelligent women, but for your inability to face reality. You gave the address for the press release from the White House that showed the resolution for the authorization of force; link here to an article written by Scott Ritter who was the lead weapons inspector in Iraq (notice the date of the article). Most of what was in that infamous resolution has been proven categorically false, as in there has been no, provable reason for our invading Iraq period. Pathetic, truly.

  55. Dave Congalton
    May 4, 2007 at 5:24 am

    I also find it interesting that the women on this blog typically post by name — not afraid to be who they are. Thank you for that.

    And I remind people that I am deleting personal attacks and crass comments. Michele is absolutely right — you resort to this because you have no arguments.

    We can do better, folks.

  56. Brett
    May 4, 2007 at 5:52 am

    “Everyone thought there WERE WMD’s!”

    Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Not everybody.

    Watch the Moyers segment and then comment.

  57. Michele
    May 4, 2007 at 6:09 am

    Dear Newtone:

    So nice to hear from one of the 22-per-centers – those people who still approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq. Aren’t you getting even a LITTLE tired of all that kool-aid you’re drinking? The rest of the country has long since come to its senses.

    Let’s have a little damn historical accuracy here, shall we? About who has been right and who has been wrong about this whole Iraq debacle? And about who, exactly, looks like the fool here?

    I started to refute your posting point by point – but what would be the use? People with this much invested in denying reality are not usually amenable to real data.

    (just to pick up on the most amazing falsehood – Al Gore spoke out strongly against this war before it started – and was called a traitor for it. Here’s the link:)

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x

    You guys are amazing – you cherry-pick statements from vehement war opponents like Gore and Robert Byrd, made BEFORE weapons inspectors were back in Iraq – and IGNORE both Byrd’s and Gore’s vehement opposition to the war. Boy,
    Before the war started, I argued against it strongly. I had three main reasons for opposing the war

    1. I didn’t believe that Iraq’s WMD – if they had any – posed an imminent threat. I based that opinion on writings from many knowledgeable people – – including UN Weapons inspectors, General Anthony Zinni, (former commander of CentComm, and responsible for Iraq) , General William Odom (Director of the NSA under Reagan) and Vice President Al Gore.

    All of you Bush worshippers screamed at me loudly, before the war started, that I was a traitor and a fool for questioning our President – of COURSE Saddam had weapons, and boy, was I going to look like a fool when we found them. To which I replied that history answered all argument, and we’d soon see who was right about the Iraq WMD.

    Guess what? I was. Right, that is, and you were wrong. Wrong, wrong, mistaken, deluded, wrong. Foolish, and Wrong. As opposed to me. Who was right.

    And rather than do the grown-up thing and ADMIT that you were wrong, you desperate dead-enders have three lines of defense:

    A.You deny that Bush ever said what he damn well did say (here’s the link)
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

    B.You claim that “Everybody believed it” – conveniently ignoring the weapons inspectors, and Democrats who voted against the war, and knowledgeable generals – who DIDN’T believe it.

    C.The WMD are – um, they are- they are in SYRIA! Yeah, THAT’S The TICKET! Syria!

    2. I thought we would get bogged down in sectarian violence, wearing out our armed forces and burning through cash, while INCREASING the threat of terrorism against the US.

    On this point, too, I was right, and the war supporters – who believed Rumsfeld and Cheny’s predictions about a short, easy war – were wrong. Deluded, incorrect, short-sighted, foolish, and just plain wrong. Wrong and foolish. Also wrong.

    3.I wanted to FINISH the JOB in Afghanistan and capture Osama Bin Laden.

    Now The Taliban are gaining strength in Afghanistan every day, and Osama is still posting messages mocking the US. So on this point, too, I was Right. And war supporters such as Newtone were, in fact, wrong. Incorrect, deluded, misinformed, foolish, and wrong. Did I mention wrong?

    And I’M the one who’s been foolish? So, how’s this whole “denial of reality” strategy been working out for you guys so far?

    You know, I used to be nicer about stuff like this – but with almost 3400 dead soldiers, almost 1000 dead contractors, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, our armed forces and our international reputation in shamble – I’m not so nice anymore.

    The country can’t afford Bush’s delusions – or yours.

    Newtone is a prime example of the “Fox News Syndrome” – people who THINK they are very well informed on current events, but in actual fact are woefully MIS-informed – not to say propagandized.

    Pew did an interesting study on this – where 54% of PBS Newshour viewers were well informed (by taking tests on stuff they actually knew) – and only 35% of Fox news Viewers were.

    Newtone, turn off Fox news, Turn off Rush and Sean, and read a couple of actual books. (Start with Fiasco and Cobra II. ) Then we’ll talk.

    (See? Female bloggers are more than willing to dish it out – and take it. I’ts just the sexist, and/or violent, stuff we object to – we’re more than willing to play the “You’re wrong, and here’s why” game!)

  58. Dave Congalton
    May 4, 2007 at 6:26 am

    Great post, Michele! Nice job!

  59. Marilyn
    May 4, 2007 at 7:39 am

    Michele,

    It is so nice to finally get to meet you (across cyberspace). I have heard so much about you. Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to listen to your segments on the Congalton Show. I will do my best not to miss them next time.

    I remember the horrible days last year when the vicious war on the people of Lebanon was being waged by the “most moral army” and the 4th largest nuclear power in the world and, to this day, the only nuclear power in the Middle East (India and Pakistan are not in the Middle East for those who are ready to jump on this one). I remember the days when my mother as well as countless children sat huddled in corners under the brutal Israeli bombardment day and night every day for 34 days as the hateful racists on this blog and on the radio called me a terrorist sympathizer because I said it was wrong to kill civilians and destroy a whole country for any reason, let alone for two soldiers and for a skirmish with Hezbollah (a skirmish among countless others before it, I might add).

    Here we are, almost one year later, the Israeli soldiers are still in captivity, Hezbollah is not destroyed. The only people who suffered were the Lebanese and some of the Israeli civilians living in the northern towns of Israel.

    250 towns and villages have been destroyed and, to this day, there remain thousands of unexploded cluster bombs littering the landscapes and farms of the country. Many of those bombs were dropped AFTER Israel made a decision to withdraw from Lebanon. It was nothing more than a contemptible and malicious act on the part of a racist state bent on a final act of revenge before its humiliating defeat and withdrawal.

    Imagine, Israel lost 119 soliders (most of whom died in hand to hand combat with Lebanese people defending their homeland) and about 35 civlians. Compare that with the 1200 Lebanese dead (most of whom were incinerated with white phosphorous) and the few hundred Hezbollah and other Lebanese resistance fighters.

    I had to listen to the armchair commando ignorant and hateful comments as I was told that the people of Lebanon deserved what was happening to them.

    I will tell you for a fact that I will never forget those horrible times for people did show their true colors and their racism and hatred. Something has changed forever and I sense it among the different people I talk to.

    People, in Lebanon at least, are flabbergasted that Americans have not been able to get rid of Bush yet. Most people I met in 2005 when I was there last asked me the same questions:

    What is the matter with Bush? Does he not care about his men? Why don’t you do something about it? You have all these freedoms. What are you doing to stop him?

    There was a certain sadness in their questions because I think they too finally came to realize that even powerful democracies are not just democracies and even people with the most awesome constitution in the world can elect idiots and criminals for leaders. As such, democracies really are defunct. They are not all they are cracked up to be if there is no historical literacy and if there is no universal morality attached to that democracy. We have lost credibility when we chose to support certain tyrants and racist states while condemning others.

    We continue to do this by the way.

    Watch Lebanon again. The rise of the Salafis, the Ansar al Islam and others like them (all Sunni Muslims trained in Al Qaida camps and with fighting experience against Americans and the current Iraqi government) is being facilitated with the help of the U.S. and their proxy government in power in Lebanon.

    Do not believe all the hype. More than 80% support the Lebanese resistance, General Aoun, and those who want power sharing and justice for the poor, as opposed to domination and fragmented states.

    The Sunni extremists are financed by the U.S. now in the hope that they would engage in a war of attrition with Hezbollah. The tactic is to erase the popular base of the support for that political party, all at the expense of the people. But the question is, can we really erase 80% of the population?

    It has been 0ver 4 years since this criminal war on the Iraqi people started and since the blatant theft of their resources started. I do not feel sorry any more for any adult who chooses to engage in that conflict. People who still justify the crimes committed in the Middle East under the banner of fighting terrorism are stupid, delusional, or plain criminal, heartless, and self-centered.

    Anyone who justifies killing, especially of innocent people, for the purpose of “security” or to fight “terrorism” is a criminal in their thinking as far as I am concerned.

    But experience has taught me that most people are self-centered in varying degrees. Most people in the world do not delve beneath the surface of things and just repeat what they hear on their favorite shows that reinforce their way of thinking in the first place.

    That is why democracies can be double edged swords: on the one hand, democracies are great for personal freedom; on the other hand, if the citizens are misinformed, they can give up that freedom very easily and they can pass criminal laws through a majority vote (are we there yet?).

    Democracies with the capacity to inflict widespread damage on the world should exercise that responsibility prudently. We, as Americans, have failed at this and we are beginning to see the repercussion in our economy and in the chaos all over the world. We have made human rights and international law obsolete by our disregard for the common rules of decency and in abrogating our moral responsibility in the name of security and out of fear. We are in a permanent actual and pseudo war with ourselves and the rest of the world.

    Dave was right. I am becoming cynical. I see deer in the headlight. I hear a lot of talk about impeaching Bush but little substance to go with it.

    Racism and condescension remain rampant even among the “liberal” elements.

    I am very upset with the surprise of some people who have heard of Tenet’s book and who have watched the Bill Moyers report on the media. It was new news to them when many had been saying exactly the same thing for years.

    I have no respect for the late blooming “whistleblowers.” It is a bit too little too late now. They should have opened their mouths before the war on the people of the Middle East started and before the rape of this democracy was initiated with the help of the “liberals.”

    We are seeing the beginnings of the end of this short-lived democracy. In the future, we will live in a world governed by the corporate-military-industrial complex with one half of the people of the world as poverty stricken consumers and the other half as grunt soldiers or mercenaries and god help our children and their children.

    I think we should all stop buying stuff and just hit the streets and the voting booths. WE should stop buying the guns that finance the companies that are waging war on the poor people of the world. We should all be vocal and active. After all, what good is a democracy without its popular base, WE, THE PEOPLE.

    And, democracy and freedom are not just about owning guns and buying the cars we like; they are about being responsible for each other and looking out for the weaker citizens and advocating for those who are unable to speak for themselves.

    Meanwhile, you have people whose only list of vocabulary consists of “terrorist sympathizer, go back home, Tokyo Rose,” and other things too personal to mention here.

    Man, if that is the norm for our “enlightened” citizens, especially the male gender which bears the bulk of the fighting and aggression responsibility across the planet, no wonder we are all in trouble.

  60. Marilyn
    May 4, 2007 at 7:57 am

    One final point:

    Powerful democracies worthy of leadership lead by example, not with the barrel of a gun.

  61. hoosier
    May 4, 2007 at 8:52 am

    I did not find the post all that great. It includes too many distortions of the truth, just like most arguments. If you actually read the poll results, you will see Rush and O’Reilly in the top third and one stat that shows fewer Republicans than Democrats in the bottom third. If one is going to quote or post an URL, it should support your argument, not disprove it. Even your URL that is listed, once digested, disproves your point more than proves it.

  62. Anonymous
    May 4, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    “Powerful democracies worthy of leadership lead by example, not with the barrel of a gun.”

    Correct!
    They lead by strapping bombs to the chests of women and children to blow up their enemies.

    Allah is great!

  63. new tone
    May 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Ok, this blog sucks. I did nothing to personally attack Michelle. I certainly do not post hateful things against anybody. I do hate terrorists. Marilyn supports Hezbolla. She absolutely does! Dave, you took my comments off when I documented how Michelle’s points were incorrect point by point, and I called her foolish for thinking it. Even in this very blog, she falsely claims that Algore did not say there were WMD when right above her post is the EVIDENCE of him claiming there WERE WMD’s. And you praise her for a great post! I have to laugh. THere is no room here for a conservative voice, no I take that back. There is no room here for truth in this blog. You are not willing to take any discussion serious here. We have to remember to put on the soft gloves when dealing with Marilyn or Michelle. I have respect for women, especially intelligent women with a high degree of integrity. With Dave, he wants to celebrate mediocre posters because they are women and especially when they are wrong. They get praise for a great post when right above their very post is the documented history shows that they are wrong! Unbelievable! We have to accuse someone of hate when you don’t agree with them. Dave, how sad indeed.

  64. new tone
    May 4, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Michelle’s “great post”

    1. I didn’t believe that Iraq’s WMD – if they had any – posed an imminent threat. I based that opinion on writings from many knowledgeable people – – including UN Weapons inspectors, General Anthony Zinni, (former commander of CentComm, and responsible for Iraq) , General William Odom (Director of the NSA under Reagan) and Vice President Al Gore.

    The truth on just one for lack of time.

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    I am just so hate filled for showing someone has no integrity.

  65. gender-neutral
    May 4, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    The posts by Marilyn and Michelle are must reads. The brilliance and knowledge put into these posts is just inspiring.
    Congress should consider having these essays engraved into the base of the Washington Monument or Lincoln Memorial.

  66. Dave Congalton
    May 4, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    New Tone,

    You keep whining and complaining about this blog and how you’re never going to post again.

    And then here you come again.

    It’s OK. Leave. We’ll be fine. But please go do something about your anger.

  67. Bob from San Luis
    May 4, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    New Tone: Your debunking needs to be viewed with a little more clarity: This is from a site that has many quotes by leading Democrats about Iraq and its capabilities. All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.” LInk here to the site so you can read the article yourself. Have an open mind and read the entire article, but remember- the executive branch is entirely in control of the intelligence services. The information that the administration had was not made available to Congress; only what the White House wanted them to see is what they got. That goes for the administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but more for the Bush Administration because they were gaming the “facts” to make their case for invading Iraq.

  68. gender-neutral
    May 4, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Amazing post Bob!
    The country needs more intellectuals like yourself,Michelle and Marilyn. Have you ever considered running for the Senate?

  69. Thomas W
    May 4, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    As most of you know, Both I and Dave opposed the Iraqi conflict for at least 10 months to a year before we went in there.
    I felt that if we went in, we would destabalize the entire mideast and that has happened to some extent.
    I felt that we were attacking a third world country with no army to speak of and very little resources or training to sustain any kind of defense.
    I felt that all we would be providing would be a training ground for more terrorists and more converts to religious extremists.
    I also felt that once we were in, there would be no easy way out. We were and are very poorly equiped to either maintain a basicly different civilization or to maintain the civil necessities to sustain a country.
    So far, I have been proven correct. We are caught in a morass that ever deapens like a quicksand trap in the swamp. There is really no easy way out that is not going to cost millions, nay let me say BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of lives. And it does not matter whether we leave tomorrow or ten years from now. We are trapped.
    As for the apparent anymosity toward women of opinion, I cannot understand why anyone would want to discount over 50% of the population as being less than human. Women are not gadgets/trinkets, they are human beings.
    I do not always agree with either Michelle or Marilyn, but I value their opinions and do listen to them.
    I do find it uncomfotable that there are some whose only methods of rationality are to attack others. I also wonder as to their ability to reason out an argument without resorting to a blatantly emotional response. Where is reason when one uses these methods or hide behind a shield of an anonymous posting? I’m afraid these are the same people who attack the ACLU with such visciousness.

  70. Michele
    May 4, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    Bob, thanks for debunking the “Democrats believed it too” nonsense from Newtone.

    All the right-wing websites put up these quotes – as you say, taken totally out of context, or truncated to remove the speaker’s opposition to the war.

    Somehow, they think that because Bush lied so effectively that even some Democrats believed the lies – that that ABSOLVES the Liar in Chief.

    The thing is the Bush worshippers never READ books, or newspapers, or anything that could contradict their “Bush is God! The War is a huge Success” fantasies.

    I know we started talking about rage against women on this thread – but as the cognitive dissonance grows between what the war supporters so deparately need to believe, and what the reality is – the rage of the right truly knows no boundaries.

    Being an adult means changing your judgement when presented with facts, and accepting repronsibility for the consequences of your actions.

    Bush – and his rabid supporters – are so desperate to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of their policies that they cling tighter and tighter to their denial of facts – and get angrier and angrier at people who bring them up.

    They’re like little kids, stamping thier feet and screaming louder and louder that the window ISN’T broken, and they DIDN’T throw the ball that broke the window, and anyway, it’s SOMEBODY ELSE’S FAULT for having given them the ball in the first place.

    Unfortunately, the consequences to the nation – of first putting a child in charge, and then letting him continued to stamp his feet and throw tantrums – have been catastrophic.

    And thousands more US soldiers will die – just so Bush can leave office without facing responsibility for what he did, and he and his cultists won’t be forced to grow up.

  71. gender-neutral
    May 4, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Excellent post Michelle.
    Your truly unbiased insight into world politics makes me long for you to become the next woman Secretary of State.

  72. CAIR
    May 4, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Congrats to Lois Capps on her vote that helped pass H.R. 1592.

  73. Not New Tone
    May 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm

    Hey Bob,

    Since you are not a woman my comment won’t be deleted, so I can say if you read the links supplied my me of what the democrats said, you will also be able to link to the source document which provides in context the entire communication from which the quote was written.

    Some of the quotes are 2003,20002, even as far back as 1996. If there were WMD’s then, what do you think happened to them in five years? Do you think Saddam took them to the recycling center and turned them in?

    Gore was a member of the executive branch from 1993-2000. Why did he say what he did al late as 9/2003 if he all of the evidence he saw and oversaw as it was produced showed him there were no WMD’s

    I don’t mind critical thinking, or questions. Makes me think too. I don’t feel it is fair to call someone hateful when they clearly show that a person’s logic is incorrect. Being incorrect, even by me is not a hateful act. Just because Michelle or SM Bill or Marilyn say it is so does not make it true.

    Check my facts before you say they are out of context. Shows me you never really checked, just going by your code pink talking points printout.

  74. Michele
    May 4, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    The reason that newtone and others fixate so desperately on what Al Gore said before the war (and misrepresent it)is because it prevents them from having to face the true issues – and take responspsibility for them.

    Did I miss something? Has Al Gore been president for the last six years? Was he the one on TV every night, making false links between Iraq and 9/11? Was it a Democratic NSA advisor threatening the American people with mushroom clouds?

    Did a Democrat appoint Donald Rumsfeld, and set up Feith’s Defense Intelligence shop to push false Iraqi intelligence?

    Was it a Democratic president who formed the “White House Iraq Group,” tasked with selling the war to the American public?

    (from Wiki) The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG’s functions and influence is the “escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term ‘mushroom cloud'”[1].

    A truly great editorial by Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal on the issue of taking responsibility

    Atlanta journal column.

    A sample quote:

    “Any claim that President Bush is committed to victory in Iraq is contradicted by the facts. He is instead committing us to slow defeat, a defeat timed to come after he leaves office, on another president’s watch so another president takes blame.

    And if the current president has to purchase another 20 months in Iraq with the lives and limbs of our soldiers, and with the continued degradation of a military that we may need again in the not-so-distant future — well, he is apparently willing to make that deal.

    If Bush had been truly committed to victory, he would have paid the price for it. Sometime in the past five years, he would have found the hundreds of thousands of additional troops our generals have said from the beginning that they needed to succeed.

    Being truly committed to winning also would have meant not just sending our military off to war, which was easy. It would have meant sending this nation to war as well, which was hard and something the president has never dared ask of the American people. For most of us, this is a war in which other people fight and die, and that other people will pay for. Under the president’s leadership, we have become the only generation in U.S. history so selfish that we gave ourselves major tax cuts while our kids were fighting and dying, and for that we ought to be ashamed.”

    Most of all, a commitment to winning would have required taking the war effort seriously. It was not. It was not seriously planned, it was not seriously considered, it has not been seriously fought. And as a result, we find ourselves in a terrible dilemma.

    Newtone, you can drag red herrings across the track all you want, but it doesn’t change the truth. Goerge Bush lied to start this war, and then messed it up beyond belief. He – and those of you who supported this war – have to accept the responsibility for the consequences.

    Or, of course, you could just stamp your feet and scream louder.

    The nation, however, is too busy trying to figure out how to clean up the mess you made to pay attention to tantrums anymore.

  75. american soldiers defending your right
    May 5, 2007 at 12:09 am

    michele disparages with insight

    “He – and those of you who supported this war – have to accept the responsibility for the consequences”.

    please withhold our funding and thank you for the unwavering support.

  76. Not New Tone-don't delete!
    May 5, 2007 at 12:42 am

    Wait just a min Michelle! The argument got started by Brett incorrectly stating that Bush lied about WMD’s. I showed the quotes and context of the quotes from prominent democrats from the early 1990’s through 2004. Bob accused me of cherry picking the quotes out of context. I reminded him that the context was available in the linked article. You stated that you and Algore and others denied WMD’s even before the war started. You also stated the Bush (by saying the executive branch) controlled the intelligence or lack thereof. I pointed out correctly that Algore did say that there were WMD’s as late as 9/2003 and provided that documentation. Michelle accuses my of throwing up the Gore speech about WMD’s because I have nothing else so say and so what if he did say it, he has not been president for over 6 years! Huh?! Um, wasn’t Gore the VP until Jan 20, 2001? Are you saying he discounted all he had seen for the 8 years in office and made that speech because of Bush in 2003? The fact remains that he thought there were WMD’s

  77. Brett
    May 5, 2007 at 3:33 am

    “The argument got started by Brett incorrectly stating that Bush lied about WMD’s.’

    No, he lied. Watch the PBS-Moyers special.

    I’ve always wondered what type of person would join a cult and then commit suicide to hitch a ride on a spaceship that is in the tail of a comet. Now I know.

    Someone who despite all the evidence in the world to the contrary won’t accept the facts and will go to their grave in belief of something utterly untrue.

  78. Hiasl
    May 5, 2007 at 3:45 am

    me love liberal

  79. Bob from San Luis
    May 5, 2007 at 3:49 am

    not New Tone: Vice-President Al Gore was in office until Jan. 21, 2001. The weapons inspections in Iraq were suspended in 1998. From Jan. 21 till March of 2003, former Vice-President Al Gore was not privy to the information that the White House had (and/or was manufacturing). Weapons Inspections resumed again in 2002 and were curtailed in March of 2003, right before we invaded. Results of the later weapons inspections are published at the embedded link, and if you read the article you can deduce that not only did the Bush Administration hype the so-called evidence and that not only was Vice-President Gore kept out of the loop, but so was Congress and the entire American public. Michelle is right, you can be presented with all of the information needed to make an enlightened decision of your own, but your steadfast refusal to recognize facts and supporting data has you twisted into pretzel like logic loop that cannot face reality.

  80. Hiasl
    May 5, 2007 at 4:07 am

    Nobody can pontificate like Bob

  81. Anonymous
    May 5, 2007 at 9:35 am

    If news is not reported by the MSM, did it happen? This seems to be the case here. Tons of captured Iraqi documents are being translated and for the most part, no one is reporting it.
    The DNC’s mantra that President Bush “misled the nation into war” is losing whatever clout it once had as more and more people become better informed. The massive post-invasion evidence mounts confirming that it was the mainstream media and leading Democrats — not the Bush Administration — who lied to the American people on the issue of pre-war ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida terrorists. We now know that during the years before 9/11/01 and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, over 8,000 terrorists were trained inside Iraq by the Iraqi military. Was our pre war intel shoddy….yes it was, but the consensus among Israeli, British and American agencies was that he had WMD. I use the word consensus as AL Gore uses it in “consensus of scientist believes humans are the cause of Global warming”. This does not mean all as the 19,000 signatures on the Oregon papers show.
    Are we bogged down in a sectarian war? Yes we are. You can not fight and win a war playing defense.
    Incidentally, Congress was not kept out of the loop
    In September 2002, four Democratic senators-Richard Durbin (111.), Bob Graham (Fia.), Diane Feinstein (Calif.) and Carl Levin (Mich.)-asked the CIA to produce a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) detailing what was known about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and their threat to the United States. Do you believe members of Congress had a moral obligation to read the NIE before taking the vote to authorize war in Iraq? I do. But I guess you can surmise from this post that not one of them did.
    So, instead of arguing over our shoddy prewar intelligence, let’s discuss what is known today .
    And yes, the according to the Iraqi documents, WMD did go to Syria.
    Before you all label me with your neocon, childish names, I did not vote for Bush.

  82. Marilyn
    May 5, 2007 at 10:03 am

    This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. Learn more.

  83. not new tone-don't delete!
    May 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    marilyn, that is totally and completely false. Israel has a uniformed army and does not use children as human shield. That is a big fat lie that you can get away with as an LPN, but not here on a blog with both conservatives and progressives. Sadly, Hezbolla uses iranian military people dressed in civilian clothes in civilian areas as they launch thousands of rockets into the nation of Israel. Do you even know that?

    Do you understand that Saddam gave 20,000 dollars to the families of the poor who were sent to be suicide bombers in Israel? Even if you somehow discount the other ties with terrorism, or its mere existence, it is still a support of terrorist to give money to the family of the suicide bombers.

    You know nothing about the school of the americas, and you apparent disaprroval shows.

  84. gender-neutral
    May 5, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Marilyn I believe those terrorist your playing dumb about are Muslim 7th century throwbacks who enjoy killing on behalf of Allah.
    Anyways Marilyn, it was a incredible post worthy of being published in the NY Times. Thank you so much.

  85. gender-neutral
    May 5, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    Marilyn declares

    “I mean, why do we hold ourselves to a different standard, especially when we and Israel are the single largest international law breakers on the planet, especially in the last 6 years?”

    Spoken like a “true American”.
    It’s nice to hear from someone who really CAIRs. The nonpartisan view and clarity Marilyn brings to her posts is staggering.

  86. Marilyn
    May 5, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    To slo bear,

    Just wanted to let you know that I did check your blog a couple of times and I found it extremely informative and helpful. I can sense the frustration of most homeowners.

    I will not talk about that blog on this thread though. But I do like the information as well as the friendly and dialogue type conversation that takes place there.

    I do not believe in owning property (I think it is morally wrong to own land) so I do not face the same issues that homeowners do, but I can empathize with them and their frustrations and fears. Renters are in a bind as well though.

    It is a great blog. Thank you for starting it.

  87. gender-neutral
    May 6, 2007 at 3:28 am

    Marilyn’s words

    I do not believe in owning property (I think it is morally wrong to own land) so I do not face the same issues that homeowners do, but I can empathize with them and their frustrations and fears. Renters are in a bind as well though

    Correct Marilyn, anyone who owns property would gladly understand your postion.
    The patriotic approach Marilyn takes on issues like property ownership illustrates how she wants the best for her country.

  88. Anonymous
    May 6, 2007 at 4:08 am

    This blog is getting weirder & weider….amazing. Just thought I’d check in after a LOA. More LOA to continue. And I won’t let the door hit me on the way out.

  89. Bob from San Luis
    May 6, 2007 at 4:43 am

    anonymous said: If news is not reported by the MSM, did it happen?

    Um, it was reported, by the New York Times, no less, on March 28, 2007, by reporter Scott Shane. Interesting read, sentences like: … some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.

    On his blog last week, Ray Robison, a former Army officer from Alabama, quoted a document reporting a supposed scheme to put anthrax into American leaflets dropped in Iraq and declared: “Saddam’s W.M.D. and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!”

    Not so, American intelligence officials say. “Our view is there’s nothing in here that changes what we know today,” said a senior intelligence official,… Or: Another administration official described the political logic: “If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions — W.M.D. or Al Qaeda — they would have shouted them from the rooftops.”
    Get a clue, please. All of the new “discoveries” that the right will trot out as new “evidence” has all been seen, screened and processed by intelligence professionals. There is no “there” there. I’m just wondering which right wing blog you cut-n-pasted your comment from. I know they are not your words because Al Gore’s name is spelled correctly. I still assert that Congress did not have all of the intelligence that was available because the White House controlled every single page or document that anyone outside the tight inner circle in the White House had access to. You want us to believe that the Senators you listed would not question that maybe the CIA didn’t quite have all of the information that the administration had? How could they be sworn to secrecy about what they had seen, but then vote against what everyone else was given as the “intelligence”? Those Senators were between Iraq and a hard place. Are you a neo-con or a Bushie? I can’t say for sure, but if you want a label to describe how you are coming across to those of us in reality, it would have to either delusional or myopic. Oh, and as for the meme about the “terrorist training camps” in Iraq; as much as a neo-con’s wet dream as that may sound, where is the evidence that such camps existed? Source please. More than one defected Iraqi Army Captain, meaning, corroboration and conformation, the hallmark of verifying intelligence reports. And no, right wing blogs do not count as corroboration or conformation.

  90. certainly not New Tone
    May 6, 2007 at 5:00 am

    Marilyn, not only does not believe in God like, who was it? Oh yeah, she said like Karl Marx. What a complete coincidence that she does not believe in private property rights…just like Karl Marx! She does love her country, Lebanon, but I think I choos Karl Rove and his good theories rather than the rot and killing propagated by Karl Marx. Ever heard of Stalin Marilyn. Great guy! Carried out Karl’s plans and killed millions of people.

  91. Marilyn
    May 6, 2007 at 5:46 am

    Dave and Interested Bloggers:

    Just giving you heads up that the PATRIOTS Tour is coming to SLO on May 25 – Vets’ Building – 7 p.m.

    Dr. Bob Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (retd.) will be speaking. He is President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies and is one of the country’s foremost authorities on national security. He ran for President in the Reform Party in 2000 and was the Democratic candidate for the US Congress from the 15th Congressional District of Florida in 2006. He spent several years as an unpaid “People’s Lobbyist” to congress. Col. Bowman flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam and directed all the DoD “Star Wars” programs under presidents Ford and Carter. The recipient of numerous awards including the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, and the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, he has lectured at the National War College, the United Nations, Congressional Caucuses, the Academies of Science of six nations, and the House of Lords.

    He will be addressing what being patriotic means (the Constitution versus political parties). I heard he was really good.

    He wrote an article which was published in the May issue of Information Press locally. You can check it out before you go and hear him.

  92. Anonymous
    May 6, 2007 at 10:14 am

    I am new here and want to thank Bob for relaying the groundrules of this forum. Liberal assertions are gospel and need no proof while conservative points require redundant and verifyable sources. I get the picture.

    So, the democrats did not want to vote for the war, even though they said they were for it, but voted for it anyway because the popular opinion was to go to war. This tells me alot about character.

    Took less than 24 hours for someone to call me a Bushie (who I did not vote for) and a neocon, whatever that is.

  93. Marilyn
    May 6, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Dave,

    I will touch on an issue that is at the heart of the subject matter of this topic and that I do not usually talk about on this blog, and that is the relationship of organized religions to the negative image of women across the world.

    I know there have been a couple of comments about not generalizing about “Christian.” However, the roots of the problem go further than the “individual.” While you may have individual people who identify with certain faiths (Christian, Muslim, or Jewish), or individuals who may or may not respect women, the symbols and cultural paradigms of those religions and the cultures within which they evolved have perpetuated the negative image of women and their mistreatment on the personal and public levels across history.

    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have their roots in the Middle East. All evolved during periods of extreme social injustice and war. All were philosophies that advocated for the “underdogs” in their societies (the persecution of the Hebrews in Egypt, the persecution of the Jews in Palestine under the Romans, and the abject poverty and exploitation of women along with the conflict with the declining Byzantine Empire during the latter part of the first millennium in the Levant).

    Women in those societies and during the period of the emergence of all three religions were strictly the property of their men. Ironically, the “prophets” who supposedly preached equality and who advocated for the oppressed and for the rights of their women were not able to change the cultural paradigms of control over them. That is why power in the churches of all three religions rests solely with the men and the religious establishment in all three religious is engaging in an active campaign of resistance to the rights of women in the power structure of the churches.

    Old habits die hard and all teachings and laws are subject to corruption. That is why the status of women has not changed much in 4000 years (most of the gains made have been made in the last 50 years).

    Women continue to be belittled when they attempt to express an opinion or when they do not go with the “status quo.”

    In places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, if women do not “tow the line” that the men set, they get a whack on the head or a kick in the shin. We can’t do that in the West because we have better laws that protect the women (technically), so instead, they get a “symbolic” whack, one thats hits into their essence as a female. It is the same thing really, it is abuse.

    It is also worthwhile to note that despite the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad on the importance of women in society, the culture of those people refuses to give up male domination in areas of power, and ultimate power rests with those who have a “direct” line to the divine (the clergy). I am speaking in strictly anthropological terms here, but I think you get my drift.

    Women encounter veiled sexual threats and intimidation on a daily basis. It is something we have all learned to live and deal with but, speaking for myself, something which I have never accepted and will never accept. The fact that women are targeted when speaking out on important issues because of their genders proves that there is no respect for women and, people who have no respect have no power.

    There are laws that are designed to protect women across the globe and they go as far up as the United Nations. Despite national and international laws, women continue to be abused, ridiculed, and exploited. The reason is that culture has not internalized the necessity and the morality of including women in the power sharing sphere. Even the most intelligent, wealthy, and politically active women continue to be criticized using sexually laden metaphors. In that sense, their overall status as human beings and as active and productive members of society with many positive traits to offer, are negated or minimized, making it easier to justify control over them. If you think about it, that is really an abusive way to treat women. It is similar to what we do to the “enemy” when we fight them. We minimize their humanity and reduce them to animal-like status so it becomes psychologically easier to kill them. Similarly, when women are viewed as incomplete, it becomes easier for society to accept their isolation or exploitation. Most women who are murdered in the United States and across the world are murdered by men they have a close relationship with (then there is war, of course).

    It is all about power and control and men will refuse to give it up. It is part of their nature. That is why I think it is important that women do it for themselves. Most people who have power will refuse to give it up or ever share it willingly.

    The fact that most wars and killing are done by men proves the detriment of this control to the world. We have weapons that can kill everything on this planet. We cannot afford more belligerency any more.

    Therefore, in this Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition of viewing women as either “seductresses” (along the lines of Eve)who need to be banished for the original and ultimate sin that they caused the men to commit (sex in Christianity is another topic in a very, very, very, long discussion) in the Bible, or as completely helpless bimbo-like dolls needing male protection, if the women stick to these two roles, most men can handle it. But dare they break away and insist that they be treated from a different cultural paradigm, many men (and women for that matter – and that too is another topic for a long discussion) cannot handle it. They become either silent or a primal survival spark erupts within them and they jump for the symbolic kill. IT IS all about power.

    The salvation of women across the globe will come through the struggle of the women themselves with the help of empathetic men friends, fellow male citizens, and male family members. It will not come because men will do it on behalf of the women as a “favor;” It will come when the women insist on it through self-respect and the willingness to assert their roles as equal partners on this finite planet.

    It will come when GOD is no longer a “FATHER,” but a “PARENT.”

  94. new tone he said she
    May 6, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    Col. Bowman flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam and directed all the DoD “Star Wars” programs under presidents Ford and Carter

    Please note that under both Ford and especially Carter, the “Star Wars” program in question was a group of trekkies trying to develop a transport ray to “beem up” president CArter and Jerry Brown of California.

    Also, note that Marilyn is not able to respond with any contradiction or facts so she is able to ignore haters like me and just give out public [dis]service announcements.

  95. eric
    May 7, 2007 at 1:25 am

    the poor muslim girl in iraq who was stoned to death on video because she dated a boy of another religon makes me think about what the west really needs to know and understand about islam: that its violent aspects are not the result of deviance but of orthodoxy. look around the globe. the senseless killing,women treated like dirt or worse, all because of throwback stone age stupidity.

  96. not the new tone 4 sure
    May 7, 2007 at 1:32 am

    I believe that certain liberal want that done to me here on this blog because I have a different point of view. Some here probably believe that if you have faith in Christ that you deserve to be stoned!

  97. Bob from San Luis
    May 7, 2007 at 5:12 am

    “new” anonymous: Your read of my assertions is that I don’t need any proof, but any right wing viewpoint needs to be sourced; this is my tenth comment on this thread and I embedded five links for people to check out my assertions. I would have embedded a link to the New York Times but to read anything there you need to be registered, so I cut-n-pasted a couple of paragraphs from the article, giving the date and reporter’s name so the article could be checked out. You, I believe, asserted that the MSM had not reported the release of the captured Iraqi documents and how this was going to show that the administration had gotten it right about the pre-war intelligence, including your assertion that the WMDs had been moved to Syria. All I asked for was a link or an article that proved your point, excluding any right wing blogs. I requested additional proof that the “terror training camps” that were “revealed” by an Iraqi Army Captain who had defected because even the newspapers require corroboration and verification before they make assumptions about any information they have gathered. Did I raise the bar too high for you? Can’t you find any reporting that backs up your assertions? In the reality based world, if you want to anyone to be able to verify what you are asserting, you will need to be able to source your information, if you are to have any credibility. I have made some wild assertions here before and my assertions were questioned by the likes of Rich from Paso, an Iraqi war veteran; his demands for verification from me have made me a better blog commentator because I have learned to back up what I am saying. If you want some credibility here, my suggestion is to obtain a screen name so you don’t get confused among the other anonymouses (follow the google account links, you can still protect your anonymity) , and learn how to back up your assertions. I would whole heartedly welcome your participation here if you will put some effort into participating on an informed and collegial attitude. Take care.
    And New Tone, I am against violence of any means, directed at anyone, for any reason. I do not wish for you to be “stoned”; but if getting high is how you can face the day, that is an issue you need to address.

  98. Jayson Blair
    May 7, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    Thanks for using the New York Times as a reference. Everything they print is gospel.

  99. liberal
    May 8, 2007 at 1:23 am

    Bob
    Check the results on the French election. I’m starting to think we got this wrong. If the socialists in France get wiped out there, what our we going to do?

  100. liberal
    May 8, 2007 at 3:16 am

    A Mickey Mouse look-alike named Farfur is teaching Palestinian children the ABCs of terror on Hamas’ official television station, Al-Aqsa TV.

    On the weekly program “Tomorrow’s Pioneers,” Farfur and a young girl name Saraa’ tell children to pray five times each day and drink their milk, while urging the children to “resist” the “oppressive invading Zionist occupation.”

    That darn George Bush and Israel

  101. Bob from San Luis
    May 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

    “New” anonymous (aka gender neutral, “liberal” jayson blair, et al): Your “wit” is very sharp, and you make your various points with much skill, even if your position is way off base of the majority of the rest of the country. You have had some time to come up with any supporting articles to back up your assertions, have you had any luck finding anything? Perhaps your various pseudonyms that you have used here are a simple diversion to avoid facing up to not having any means of backing up what you would wish would be reality. But you are amusing in your own desperate way. Good luck with that.

  102. Hoosier21
    May 8, 2007 at 8:45 am

    Thanks Bob for telling me how to get a screen name. I have made two previous posts here and that is it. I have brought my collegial attitude and look forward to discussions. There are so many articles relating to the captured documents and unless you can read Arabic, you are at the mercy of the translator. So, what I will give you is google “CMPC-2003” and you will get thousands of hits. There will be pro and cons and also the Arabic versions. I have spent countless hours reading these articles and opinions. It also helps having a boss who can translate some of this material also. Like I said, no other pseudonyms, just the two previous posts.

  103. golfingslo
    May 8, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    So what’s up with Gottschalks?

  104. Bob from San Luis
    May 9, 2007 at 3:57 am

    hoosier21: Thank you for taking my suggestion and getting your own I.D.. I not only welcome your input here, I want to apologize for suggesting that you were posting under different anonymous names. That was juvenile of me, in the same vein that those who post with the “cute” anonymous names are being juvenile as well, IMO.

    Did anyone listen to the segment with Gordon Mullen the other day? If ever there was a prime example of defining what the term “chickenhawk” means, Mr. Mullen seems to be it. First he “cut and ran” from his military obligation during Vietnam by running away to Canada, then when he comes back to the US, he not only becomes a conservative (no big deal to me), but, he then believes that our illegal invasion of Iraq along with our occupation is a good thing, including the extreme profit taking of the military contractors. “Chickenhawk” seems almost too tame. I also really liked how he touts “free trade” as the so-called “holy grail” of capitalism, without regard for how that affects the workers, the citizens who pay their taxes here. When I asked him if he thought it was ok that Halliburton is moving their corporate headquarters along with their CEO and officers to the United Arab Emerits, he had no problem with that either. And this is a defense contractor who has some very sensitive information about our military machinery; yes, Mr. Mullen is some kind of patriot.

  105. Bob from San Luis
    May 9, 2007 at 4:17 am

    hoosier21: CMPC-2003 is analyzed here as the potential fraud that it will most certainly work out to be. Yes, the link is to a left leaning blog, but please notice the links provided at the blog. I am not suggesting that the blog itself is proof, but if you follow the links you can see that the premise of the posting is valid.

  106. Marilyn
    May 9, 2007 at 4:43 am

    Bob or Hoosier,

    Do either of you have a valid link to the said document in its original Arabic version. I tried accessing the Arabic one through different links. None of the ones I used were able to connect.

    I have listened to a few translations of videos of bin Laden in the early days after 9-11. I do not know what the full versions of any of them are that are in the possession of the government. But I can assure you, none of the ones I listened to were accurately translated. There were extensive omissions to the point that the translation achieved the exact opposite of what the tape was designed to convey.

    I have also seen quite a number of documentaries about Iraq that had shoddy translations. I would not rely on the translation of any one person in any document.

    But the point remains that even IF per chance Saddam did have some kind of intent to develop or had actually developed WMDs, his country and his people should not have been subjected to the butchery and misery that they continue to face to this day.

    I am curious as to why we never budged when he actually used the chemical weapons, whose technology we and Germany gave him, in the 80s and 90s? What about the cyanide gas that Iran used during the war with Iraq. They were supposed to have used Cyanide first on the Kurds before Saddam.

    How about the Israeli use of nerve gas on civilians in Occupied Palestine.

    Maybe the question to ask is: why do we allow the murder of innocent people if the murderers are our allies or if we need those murderers for out own political and military motives while doing our best to exaggerate and fabricate evidence against nations we are bent on attacking for selfish reasons?

    Saddam’s potential nuclear or chemical threat paled when compared with that of North Korea and Israel. How about India and Pakistan? How about the old republics of the Soviet Union? Where is their stash?

  107. ACLU
    May 9, 2007 at 5:04 am

    Marilyn

    Store Clerk Helps Feds Bust 6 in Alleged ‘Jihad’ Plot to Kill U.S. Soldiers at Fort Dix.

    We can help

  108. Bob from San Luis
    May 9, 2007 at 6:17 am

    Oops, linkie broken. Actual link to the link I tried to embed earlier. Sorry.

    Marilyn: link here to what is purported to be the actual document. Apparently this document has been available for viewing on the internet since 1997. How is it possible that this is one of the newly captured documents “discovered” in Iraq after Saddam was deposed. Marilyn, if you can translate this document, and you think it is credible, please bring your translation back here. Thanks, Bob.

  109. Hiasl
    May 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Marilyn speaks

    “But the point remains that even IF per chance Saddam did have some kind of intent to develop or had actually developed WMDs, his country and his people should not have been subjected to the butchery and misery that they continue to face to this day”.

    What “religon” our these head choppers and car bombers?

  110. golfingslo
    May 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    Has Gonzales resigned yet?

  111. gender-neutral
    May 10, 2007 at 12:55 am

    The blog topic needs to change. Bob in SLO posts are so insipid that I may even start lisening to Air America for amusement.

  112. Marilyn
    May 10, 2007 at 2:57 am

    Bob,

    The automatic link to the document did not work. If you get a chance, can you please try and resend it. I will get to it some time after Saturday (long hours at work and other commitments).

    Thanks.

  113. Bob from San Luis
    May 10, 2007 at 3:53 am

    Okay dokie, my links are crashing for some reason let’s try those again. Link here to the blog posting debunking the so-called “captured Iraqi” documents.

    Marilyn, link here to the Arabic or Farsi document.

  114. steve
    May 10, 2007 at 5:39 am

    Bob sadly we will all(America) get our arabic or farsi translation with horrible results

  115. Marilyn
    May 10, 2007 at 6:02 am

    People who cannot tell the difference between Arabic and Farsi should not be making pre-judgment about other people’s translations.

    Logic dictates that those who do not speak a second language cannot really tell how good or bad a translation is, but having read most of the comments on this thread, I am not surprised that such people cannot form a logical deduction, let alone discuss political and other issues intelligently.

  116. Marilyn
    May 10, 2007 at 6:06 am

    Bob,

    That second link you sent worked. And the document is in Arabic. I will have the translation ready for you over the weekend. It is pretty simple and short. I have not read the English version and I will not read it until I get this one translated.

    Thanks.

  117. Anonymous
    May 10, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    NINE days & counting on this Blog subject Dave….And Marilyn’s beat goes on & on & on……so go ahead….attack me for using the anonymous option….one more time…

  118. gender-neutral
    May 10, 2007 at 10:36 pm

    Marilyn if you are in “translation mode”, please check into the cute jihadist rat mickey that is showing on Palestine TV. The rat seems be teaching children something but I don’t know the dialect.

  119. Hoosier21
    May 11, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    ?

  120. Bob from San Luis
    May 11, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    hoosier; that was not the real Marilyn, that was someone trying desperately to be cute, posing as Marilyn. Marilyn always comments here with her google/blogger identity that has her picture. Having your blogger name used here against you is the best reason to have the google/blogger i.d., so when someone tries to “punk” you, most everyone can figure it out. Even so, I’m not sure what they were trying to accomplish….

  121. Anonymous
    May 13, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    Marilyn needs a new girlfriend

  122. Anonymous
    May 13, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    my lord, some are you guys are so ‘pissy’ get your head outta your butt, and smell the ocean.cant we all just play nice? i am for free opinions and free speech, but its not necessary to call people names. general ‘names’ like left wing nut, right side fruit, that’s general. But directing to specific person, or as what you are talking about here, women, that’s just not cool. i, for one, don’t care if you’re male, female, white, black, green, purple, asian, 9 toed, whatever. it’s what comes out of your mouth that says who you are. off i go… Aarron (this is the 1st time i’ve been on the now famos dave blog)

  123. Anonymous
    May 14, 2007 at 1:29 am

    LOL! a rookie that doesn’t like personal name calling! hahahaha
    This is the wrong blog for you pal!
    Don’t believe me? go back and read some old posts!
    This blog is a war zone!

  124. Marilyn
    May 14, 2007 at 5:23 am

    Hi Bob,

    I am finally sending the translation to the piece you linked to. Please note the following:

    – I do not know the country of origin of the letter. There is no letter head and no official signature and title. There are two hand signatures on the bottom of the page without a legible name and without a title as to who is actually writing the memo. The paper is supposedly coming from the president’s office, but there is no presidential seal.

    – The letter is handwritten, something you would expect in the governments of the early 20th century Ottomans and not in the 21st century world of politics.

    – I have never heard of the mentioned committee (in Arabic, it is the NAWAYA Committee). I have no clue what that is. It may be country specific or party specific to the people writing the memo.

    – Having no knowledge of where this letter came from, and after reading it, I have no clue who actually wrote it because the source of the letter is not identified. It is a shoddy piece of official correspondence in the least.

    I still have not read the English version out there. Maybe you can compare and see.

    Office of the President
    Intelligence Division

    M/913/2

    In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

    Mr: M.A. M., the Honorable
    Subject: Information

    Our Afghan source, Number 002 (his relevant information included in Attachment 1), has informed us that the Consul of Afghanistan, Ahmad Dahmestany (his relevant information included in Attachment 2), has mentioned the following in his presence:

    1- that Usama bin Laden and the Taliban Group in Afghanistan have been in contact with Iraq and that, on a previous occasion, a delegation of the Taliban Group and Usama bin Laden undertook a visit to Iraq;

    2- that America possesses evidence that the government of Iraq and the Usama bin Laden Group have initiated a collaborative relationship to attack targets inside America;

    3- that in the event that allegations of the involvement of the Usama bin Laden and Taliban Group in such terrorist acts are confirmed, it is probable that America will direct strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan;

    4- that the Consul of Afghanistan had heard of the subject of the relationship between Iraq and the Usama bin Laden Group during the Consul’s stay in Iran;

    5- in light of the information presented above, we recommend that you provide a written communiqué to the ____________ Committee.

    For your attention, with reverence:
    (illegible signature)

    Memorandum Number 15/9

    For the immediate attention of the Chair of the ____________ Committee
    (illegible signature)

    A.M.M. 5/3

    15 September 2001.

  125. Anonymous
    May 14, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    good! now translate the US Constitution and learn and live it or leave!

  126. Michele
    May 14, 2007 at 11:36 pm

    just checking to see if the the HTML lik tags I typed in Word show up correcty when pasted into the blog –

    Army Strained to Near it’s Breaking Point
    .

  127. lefty the liberal
    May 14, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    The link is working great Harry Reid.

  128. crackpot liberal
    May 14, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    please give us some more “facts”

  129. don't buy the bs
    May 15, 2007 at 1:27 am

    Michele relishes in her reporting so much it cannot be unbiased. 99% of your talking points are cherry picked and distorted. Who pays you?

  130. Bob from San Luis
    May 15, 2007 at 4:07 am

    Marilyn: Link here to a translation that matches up very well to what you posted. My apologies because the link is to “FreeRepublic” .com, a very right wing sight.
    Michelle: Of course the anonymouses here will call you names and try to dimish what you or anyone intelligent will present. I’m sure you are used to it. It is sad though.

  131. focused enemy
    May 15, 2007 at 4:44 am

    Michelle? gets my vote as the most arrogant,smug,abrasive guest in the history of “hometown”.
    Dave gets Jerry Springer like when he turns her mic on. When she begins her “rant” we think its kind of entertaining.

  132. Hoosier21
    May 16, 2007 at 10:13 am

    Does anyone realize we have almost 200,000 troops occupying Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea almost 60 years after the war(s) ended? If we are so strained, why not ship a 100,000 out. I see no reason for them to remain, especially since the threat of Russian tanks rumbling into town has greatly diminished.

  133. Anonymous
    August 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    marilyn said:
    “I left this blog for a period of time last year after the barrage of hatred, insults, racist, religiously bigoted, and misogynistic comments that were constant, and the ridiculous challenges “

    Leave again! We do much better with you and all your hate of everything American!
    Go cash another one of my tax checks you call income!

    Ingrate!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: