New Obama ad claims that McCain will make abortion illegal

Politico has this discussion:

Obama’s new radio ad, airing widely in at least seven swing states, tells voters McCain “will make abortion illegal.” It’s airing as McCain courts female voters with the addition of the staunchly anti-abortion governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to his ticket. . . . .

The campaign didn’t release further details of the ad buy, but Politico readers reported that it’s airing in Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Colorado. . . . .

1) Abortion was not illegal in any states prior to Roe v. Wade. There were always exceptions for the life and health of the mother, where some states left it up to the doctor to decide and other states left it up to a panel of doctors to decide whether the mother's life or health was endangered if she didn't have the procedure.
2) Even if Roe was overturned, which seems quite unlikely at the moment, the decisions would be left to the states. I have a hard time believing that any of the states mentioned would ban abortion. Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Colorado all have Democratic governors who support abortion rights.



Blogger Dad29 said...

Wisconsin law allowed abortions prior to Roe.

9/03/2008 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Clark said...

You fail to include the fact that McCain has stated he favors overturning Roe v Wade and that Palin's stance is that all women whould be forced to carry the pregancy to term, even in the case of rape and incest.

While Palin and her supportters praise her 17-year old unwed daughter for getting pregnant and making the "beautiful choice" to have the baby, if she had her way, there would be not "choice" in the matter.

Two more things:
1) why is it that when the underage daughter of a white Republican governor gets pregnant it's a "beautiful choice," but when it's a black, inner-city girl it's a sign of irresponsible parenting?
2) How's that "abstinence-only" sexual non-education working for ya?

9/03/2008 10:19 AM  
Blogger Christen said...

A friend of mine (who happens to live in Chicago) and I had the same thought yesterday. Why is it OK to call us "Anti-abortion"? How angry would the liberals be if we called them "Anti-life"? This is just another way the media is negative towards conservatives.

9/03/2008 11:51 AM  
Anonymous AnotherWatcher said...

Since WHEN can a President outlaw abortion? That is news to me.

Does not the SCOTUS have that authority? Or WILL if any president tries to outlaw it.

9/03/2008 12:02 PM  
Blogger Dad29 said...

I retract my first comment (not yet posted.)

Wis. 940.04 remains on the books: abortion is (by and large) illegal in Wisconsin:


9/03/2008 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Clark said...

I think we all understand that the president's influence over Roe v Wade lies in what judges he will nominate to the Supreme Court. It's hardly any secret that this has become a Republican litmus test.

9/04/2008 12:48 AM  
Anonymous AnotherWatcher said...

With the political death of the feminist standard bearer at the hands of a further left unknown black man from the depths of the Chicago Daley machine, the feminist hoards in the media and elsewhere are ready for the blood of another woman. Not just any woman. A woman who, if elected in November, will have WON the 40 plus year old war against traditional values.
From burning their bras to going to work (and leaving the kids with a sitter) to entering the board room.

Now a woman has achieved ALL those things and is about to be the first woman Vice President of the United States. When Sarah Palin enters the WH as VP, HER side , the side with the traditional values, small town values, family values, will have won the cultural war against the feminists.
It is like being the first on the moon. Once its done its done, NOTHING can take it away. The far left feminists and their feminized male counterparts, will have to concede. The war of 40 years will have been won, and NOT by their side. They will do whatever it takes to stop this fine woman.
They WILL fail.

9/04/2008 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark said:

"1) why is it that when the underage daughter of a white Republican governor gets pregnant it's a "beautiful choice," but when it's a black, inner-city girl it's a sign of irresponsible parenting?
2) How's that "abstinence-only" sexual non-education working for ya?"

Point 1. Lets see. The parent of the teen and grandparent of the baby said that it was a beautiful choice. Don't parents/grandparents of "black, inner city girls" say the same thing? Oh wait, I forgot. Instead, every single one of them say, a la Obama, "I don't want my daughter punished with a baby."

In my humble opinion, it is incredibly irresponsible for any 17 year old to have a baby, whether they are white or black. So what if white and black parents/grandparents view the matter as a "beautiful choice."? I don't fault those parents/grandparents for feeling that way once there is a pregnancy.

Point 2. Since when has it ever been asserted that abstinence is 100% effective? How about contraceptive education? What, do you think that contraceptive education is 100% effective? How's that contraceptive education working for ya?

Finally, yes, yes, yes. Overturn the constitutional abortion known as Roe v. Wade. Clark doesn't think a baby resulting from rape or incest has the same human rights as any other baby. Tell me Clark. If a baby born under such circumstances is carried to term and grows up, should that man or woman be afforded fewer rights?

9/04/2008 3:14 PM  
Anonymous Clark said...

Since when is Hillary Clinton the feminist standard bearer and since when is she dead? Did John McCain die a political death when Bush beat him in 2000 with his smear campaign? You certainly have a lot of hostility against feminism, but let me remind you... without feminism, women would not have the right to vote, or own property or run for political office and Sarah Palin would not be where she is today. Sarah Palin is a direct beneficiary of feminism and the women's movement, so why do you see her as in opposition to feminism? I doubt that she would agree with you.

It's also funny how fans of Sarah Palin are already making two contradictory arguments about her: one, that she's small town, traditional, an outsider, etc... but on the other hand governor of the biggest state, commander in chief of the national guard (and I have to say that the first time I've ever heard that as some kind of credential for military or foreign relations experience -- by that standard Bill Clinton was an old war horse veteran!), a mature leader with a strong political history, etc.

Oh and by the way, you don't think that Sarah Palin used a baby sitter? Here's what Dr. Laura Shlesinger, standard bearer of te traditional values set (which you so admire) had to say:

I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. . . . I'm stunned -- couldn't the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn’t want a "mature" woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age. But really, what kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down Syndrome, and then goes back to the job of Governor within days of the birth?

When Mom and Dad both work full-time (no matter how many folks get involved with the children), it becomes a somewhat chaotic situation. Certainly, if a child becomes ill and is rushed to the hospital, and you're on the hotline with both Israel and Iran as nuclear tempers are flaring, where's your attention going to be? Where should your attention be? Well, once you put your hand on the Bible and make that oath, your attention has to be with the government of the United States of America. . . .

Any full-time working wife and mother knows that the family takes the short end of the stick. Marriages and the welfare of children suffer when a stressed-out mother doesn't have time to be a woman, a wife, and a hands-on Mommy.

Your apocalyptic vision of a war against feminism is bizarre at best.

9/05/2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Clark said...

Well at least we both agree that it's irresponsible for kids to be having babies. Common ground is a nice place to start when you can find it. I hope you will take my response in the serious way that it's intended.

As for abstinence education vs. contraceptive education, the evidence shows that contraceptive education is more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections than abstinence education.

You know that people are going to engage in sexual behavior, both kids and adults, and refusing to teach them about practical ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy or ways to prevent (or at least reduce the chances of) sexually transmitted infections in the name of ideology is short-sighted and damaging.

You know, the Bush administration has advocated the teaching of creation along side the teaching of scientific theory of evolution in the name of making more information available to kids and families, yet it has restricted making information available regarding sex. Practically speaking, which is more important? Does it matter, on a practical, day-to-day basis whether we emerged from the primordial ooze or all descended from a pair of highly fertile nudists running around the garden? Or is it more important to teach people about their own bodies, their sexuality, and how to deal with the reality of sex? Which of these things has more immediate impact for a horny 16-year old?

For many people in this country and around the world abstinence is impossible, and for many more it is a very, very difficult choice. To be snarky for a moment, it sounds like if anotherwatcher had his antifeminist way, no woman would have the choice to refuse her husband sex... shouldn't she have the freedom to avoid an unwanted pregnancy?

Abstinence-only education didn't work in the Palin household. They have the resources to deal with their daughter's pregnancy. Many, many other people don't.

Now as to abortion... it is a huuuge issue, and I'm being as honest and non-partisan as I can be.

I think abortion is a bad thing. And awful choice. It's one I will never have to make since I don't have a uterus. I have two amazing beautiful boys, and I can't imagine not having them.

But the real question in abortion is this: is human life sacred?

My answer is: I don't know.

And truthfully, I don't see a whole lot of people who really know either. Many people who are pro-life/anti-abortion are also the same people who are pro-death penalty or for the war in Iraq. They say that human life is sacred, but favor killing people convicted of murder, etc, when we know that the criminal justice system is extremely flawed and that many people who end up on death row didn't have a fair trial. If human life is sacred, truely sacred, then isn't the risk of killing one innocent person too much for us to engage in any executions?

(You'll have to forgive me, Anonymous, as I don't really know what your views are on capital punishment or the war in Iraq, so I'm just speaking in general terms about the usual Republican platform.)

If human life is sacred, then isn't starting a war based on false premises and deception of the American people a crime? Let's assume that overthrowing Saddam is a lesser evil than letting him live... I'll grant you that maybe it is... but isn't going into Iraq with such poor planning and ineptness in the service of ideology a crime against humanity?

I'm not trying to change the topic, but my point is that most people don't really have a clear, consistent answer on the sacredness of life. If you really believe that life is sacred, then I don't see why you aren't enraged over America's involvement in the stupid, pointless death of so many innocents in Iraq?

Or over our failure to intervene in Darfur where hundreds of thousand of people are killed every year?

Or why we accept the appalling infant mortality rate in this country?

Anonymous, you asked me whether I thought a baby born as a result of rape or incest has the same human rights as any other. Yes, I believe they do or at least they should. And yet, I think it would be wrong to overturn Roe v. Wade. And yet, I am opposed to capital punishment (though truthfully, if I had more confidence in the justice system... if there were some way to magically determine for certain guilt or innocence, I might be for it).

I'll admit it... I'm a hypocrite on this much bigger issue. I think most of us are.

When my wife was delivering our first child, I was faced with the possibility of having to choose her life over the baby's. As it turns out, both ended up fine, but the possibility of having to make the choice right there in the operating suite was very real. In my mind, I chose to save my wife's life. I chose the life of the woman I knew and loved over the baby that I didn't know and loved only in the abstract.

As a country, we make choices all the time about whose lives are more sacred than others and what lengths we will go to to preserve them. Abortion is only a fraction of the bigger picture and I think people who focus on abortion only miss a much larger issue.

Again, I hope you will take my response as an honest, respectful attempt to engage in dialogue.

9/05/2008 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark, your comments illustrate the difference between conservatives and liberals. For you, all problems are ones for government to solve. The only question is which government program is most effective. Thus, the problem of teen pregnancy becomes one where the goal is which government solution is most effective.

Conservatives, I will tell you, do not want government involved in teaching our children how to have safe sex, especially in the midst of the liberal social norms which involve sexualizing youth at younger and younger ages.

We also don't want government programs teaching our children how to use illegal drugs in a safe manner or needle exchange programs on the basis that we know that many will engage in drug use anyway.

As for the war in Iraq, the liberals have done a fantastic job of rewriting history. The intelligence agencies of Germany, England, France, Russia and the US all genuinely believed that Saddam had WMD. Iraq consistently acted as though it had WMD which it was hiding. Iraq was literally the only nation in the world that openly supported terrorism through cash payments to homicide bombers in Israel. Such a country is exceptionally dangerous.

Saddam went from the most powerful nation in the region besides Israel to a bitter and broken nation in the first gulf war. Sadam hated the US more than anything. Saddam was assessed by the CIA as posing a risk in joining with Al Qaida to inflict terrorist attacks.

Do the math. He had to go. It was the right decision.

As for as our having entered the war under false pretenses, consider the following from factcheck.org:



I would also suggest that you also read the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.


9/06/2008 3:45 AM  
Anonymous Clark said...

Wow... I though maybe we could have an intelligent discussion about practical solutions to real problems and moral responsibility and you turn it back into a conservative vs liberal thing again. You say that for me "all problems are ones for government to solve"? Where have I mentioned government solutions in any of my posts? You completely dodged the issue at hand, one that you originally raised.

I suppose this is what I get for venturing into the conservative echo chamber where everyone speaks in slogans and believes that reality as a well-known liberal bias.

9/06/2008 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Clark said...

I have looked at your references. Interesting and I'm sure accurate, but you must acknowledge their limitations... they are fairly dated and rely heavily on findings by Republican-controlled committees. If you look at the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction report, it says:

...we conclude that the Intelligence Community could and should have come much closer to assessing the true state of Iraq's weapons programs than it did. It should have been less wrong--and, more importantly, it should have been more candid about what it did not know. In particular, it should have recognized the serious--and knowable--weaknesses in the evidence it accepted as providing hard confirmation that Iraq had retained WMD capabilities and programs.

The Intelligence Community's errors
were the product of poor intelligence collection, an analytical process that was driven by assumptions and inferences rather than data, inadequate validation and vetting of dubious intelligence sources, and numerous other breakdowns in the various processes that Intelligence Community professionals collectively describe as intelligence "tradecraft." In many ways, the Intelligence Community simply did not do the job that it exists to do.

The thing is, you can't talk about "the Intelligent Community" as if it were some separate entity outside of the control of the Bush administration. It was run by Bush appointees with well-known and well-documented agendas.

For someone who is so distrustful of government, why do you rely on government sources to validate your point of view? Forget for a moment about what I said about "Republican-controlled" committees. Why would you trust the government to objectively assess its failures when you don't trust government for anything else?

This is not a snarky question. I don't understand why self-descibed conservatives defend Bush when he is so NOT conservative?

9/06/2008 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark said:

"Wow... I though maybe we could have an intelligent discussion about practical solutions to real problems and moral responsibility and you turn it back into a conservative vs liberal thing again. You say that for me "all problems are ones for government to solve"? Where have I mentioned government solutions in any of my posts?"

Clark, above you said, "Here's what Dr. Laura Shlesinger, standard bearer of the traditional values set (which you so admire) had to say:"

Where did the commenter you were responding to ever mention that he admired "the traditional values set"? Were you assuming that all conservatives / republicans admire "the traditional values set"? What does that even mean?

Of course, I am at fault in assuming that liberals look to government for solutions to all problems right?

Your hypocrisy is showing. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

9/06/2008 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Clark said...

Go back and look at anotherwatcher's post... his post is filled with "feminism" vs "traditional values"
oppositions. As for what traditional values means, it seems to mean whatever it is that Sarah Palin stands for.

And by the way, when I referred to Dr Laura as a "standard bearer," it was an ironic reference to his naming Clinton as the "feminist standard bearer."

I would think that most people would get that, but there don't seem to be too many people here who actually read the other posts or are actually interested in responding in a meaningful way. It's too bad... You seemed fairly erudite, Anonymous, and I thought we could have an interesting dialogue. I've looked at all of the references you've provided and thanked you for them and posed back some questions for you, but you seem to be a lot more interested in just pushing an agenda than engaging in critical thought.

9/06/2008 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those who engage in hypocrisy are often blind to it. I don't think you did it on purpose.

I said-
For you, all problems are ones for government to solve.

You replied-
You say that for me "all problems are ones for government to solve"? Where have I mentioned government solutions in any of my posts?

Actually contraceptive education qualifies as a government solution, does it not?

At any rate, I then pointed out that earlier you ascribed an assumption to another commenter in saying, "Here's what Dr. Laura Shlesinger, standard bearer of the traditional values set (which you so admire) had to say:"

You have no problem ascribing assumptions to others on the right.

That commenter never mentioned anything about admiration of "traditional values."

Something tells me that you still don't get it. Critical thought?

9/06/2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Clark said...

Good heavens, your pettiness seems to know no bounds. You have yet to respond to anything in a substantive way. You seem to be reading the words because you quote them back, but you don't seem to know what any of them mean. Especially words like "hypocrisy" or "critical thought."

I'll take a big leap here and assume that you identify as a "conservative" since you seem to be trying to defend that point of view. Would that be a correct assumption? You see, just like are defending the "conservative" point of view, anotherwatcher was championing "traditional values." That's called an "inference"... you might find in the dictionary.

I think the only one who doesn't get it is you.

9/07/2008 1:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark said, "The thing is, you can't talk about "the Intelligent Community" as if it were some separate entity outside of the control of the Bush administration. It was run by Bush appointees with well-known and well-documented agendas."

That was funny. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Let's see ... George Tenet. Who was he? Bush appointee, right? And if you are so ignorant as to miss that little gem, I assume that you also are unaware of the hostility and open defiance that the State Department has shown to Bush. I suggest you educate yourself and read "Shadow Warriors" by Kenneth Timmerman for a primer on this well documented subject.

By the way, remember that all important October 2002 National Intelligent Estimate? Here are a few tidbits for you:


Key Judgments

Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort,energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons;
most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Its capability was reduced during the
UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of them Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life probably have been improved.

All key aspects—R&D, production, and weaponization—of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than theywere before the Gulf war.

Clark, I find you bizarre. You criticize me for saying that for you, all problems are ones for government to solve pointing out that you didn't mention government solutions in any of you posts? Huh? For the second time, did you not advocate for contraceptive education in schools? Not a government program?

Are you here just to regurgitate talking points from your high school social studies class?

Next, you will be telling us that there is no widespread liberal indoctrination going on in our universities. After all, there is no liberal media bias either, right?

You think that because large corporations own CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, almost all major print media, etc. that there can't possibly be a left wing bias. You have not demonstrated any evidence of top down management in the selection of stories of their treatment though. Oops. Keep searching for that missing link Clark.

Now consider this:

There was a survey that was conducted about ten years ago by ASNE. It revealed that about 15% of news journalists self identified as conservative, 24% independent and 61% liberal.

Starting to get the picture? Do you think it is a coincidence that the media adores Obama like teenage girls at a rock concert? Even left wing Saturday Night Live did a skit on the media's crush on Obama.

Do you think that a media that overwhelmingly leans liberal might just end up slanting its coverage to the left? Hmmm.

9/07/2008 3:28 AM  
Anonymous clark said...

You keep going back to outdated government sources to find justification for government actions... a strange thing for a conservative who distrusts government in all things (again, an
inference... I'm sure you'll gleefully correct me if you think I'm wrong.) Again, go to the bipartisan commission's report:

This became clear as U.S. forces searched without success for the WMD that the Intelligence Community had predicted. Extensive post-war investigations were carried out by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical warfare (CW) stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW after 1991. Just about the only thing that the Intelligence Community got right was its pre-war conclusion that Iraq had deployed missiles with ranges exceeding United Nations limitations.

How could the Intelligence Community have been so mistaken?

The report refers to the NIE that you cite:

[Past experiences with Iraq] contributed decisively to the Intelligence Community's erroneous National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002. That is not to say that its fears and assumptions were foolish or even unreasonable. At some point, however, these premises stopped being working hypotheses and became more or less unrebuttable conclusions; worse, the intelligence system became too willing to find confirmations of them in evidence that should have been recognized at the time to be of dubious reliability. Collectors and analysts too readily accepted any evidence that supported their theory that Iraq had stockpiles and was developing weapons programs, and they explained away or simply disregarded evidence that pointed in the other direction. (emphasis added)

Even in hindsight, those assumptions have a powerful air of common sense. If the Intelligence Community's estimate and other pre-war intelligence had relied principally and explicitly on inferences the Community drew from Iraq's past conduct, the estimate would still have been wrong, but it would have been far more defensible. For good reason, it was hard to conclude that Saddam Hussein had indeed abandoned his weapons programs. But a central flaw of the NIE is that it took these defensible assumptions and swathed them in the mystique of intelligence, providing secret information that seemed to support them but was in fact nearly worthless, if not misleading. The NIE simply didn't communicate how weak the underlying intelligence was.

Former members of the intelligence community and former administration members such as Michael Scheuer, Philip Giraldi, Richard Clark, Paul O'Neil, and Scott McClellan have all told a consistent story about how obsessed Bush was with invading Iraq and how it was his administration's practice to exaggerate the evidence that supported the invasion and minimize the evidence contrary. Well-sourced articles and books have been written on the subject by insiders and people with inside access.

Even if you don't believe the Habbush letter was forged, the administration had direct access into Saddam's inner circle and refused to acknowledge the evidence that Saddam was basically toothless.

And of course you try to shift the topic a bit to the general threat Saddam supposedly was ("Sadam hated the US more than anything. Saddam was assessed by the CIA as posing a risk in joining with Al Qaida to inflict terrorist attacks.")and away from the Bush contention that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks... A tactic the administration used admirably when it became obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yes, George Tenet was a Clinton appointee, but he did Bush's bidding admirably. And where was the State Dept's open defiance when Powell was making his presentation to the U.N.? Yes, Collin Powell (correctly) tried to dissuade Bush from going to war on the basis of flimsy evidence, but "open defiance"? No it was not at all evident to the public, who was the audience for this charade.

And where was the "liberal" media in this? Even the New York Times, supposedly the most liberal paper around, if you believe Rush Limbaugh et al., had Judith Miller cheerleading the war, doing no real journalism on the matter. The "left wing" journalism establishment was largely silent in seriously questioning the administration.

Ok now I'll address your claims that I seem to think all problems are for the government to solve. Yes, sex-ed can be a government program and it often is. The current Republican platform calls for increased funding for abstinence-only sex ed.(http://www.gopplatform2008.com/2008Platform.pdf)
I did not advocate for school-based clinics. I did not advocate for an expanded government presence in sex ed (though the Republicans do in calling for more funding). That this is your basis for accusing me of wanting government to solve all problems is pretty flimsy.

Many liberals do want an increased government presence in dealing with some problems. So do Republicans, but the kind of problems or the approach to the problems they want to address are different.

I also understand that many conservatives say things like "liberals think government is the solution to everything." They also say things like "liberals want to take guns from law-abiding citizens and give them to criminals." That's called a straw-man argument and it's a logical fallacy. The tactic is to create an exaggerated or distorted view of the opposing side so that it's easier to make an argument against it. That's what you are doing here.

As for the "liberal
media thing again... this is such a tired argument from the conservative side... I'll repeat myself from an earlier post:

As I've said, the mainstream media are shallow and sensational... they will broadcast whatever they think will attract eyeballs, but liberal? No. A liberal media would be in a frenzy over allegations that the Bush administration forged evidence to support the case for war in Iraq. A liberal media would be all over the police brutality and unconstitutional arrests and searches in St. Paul during the Republican convention. A liberal media would never have tolerated a talking head like Tim Russert palling around with his Bush administration buddies. A liberal media wouldn't hang out at McCain's ranch or ever be referred to by McCain as "his base." A liberal media would never be one that the Bush administration would claim it could so easily manipulate.

We have a disgustingly lazy, shallow, sensational, celebrity-driven mainstream media... but not a liberal one.

Our mainstream news media is pretty awful in general. One of the jobs of a journalist is to investigate and question, something that our mainstream media has completely failed to do in any meaningful way in quite some time. They parrot "government sources" all the time, even when those sources prove to be wrong. Why should we, as consumers of information accept unsourced statements of "fact"? A liberal media would have been calling for Bush's impeachment a long time ago.

I've responded to many of your questions... try responding to a couple of mine:

Why would you trust the government to objectively assess its failures when it seems you don't trust government for anything else?

Why do you defend Bush when he is so NOT conservative?

In your view, what role should government play in our lives? I assume you enjoy clean water, the interstate highway system, safe food, safe pharmeceuticals, maybe government-sponsored education, etc. What do you think government should be for?

9/07/2008 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark, you keep asking me why I defend Bush on the premise that he is not a conservative. I will defend him when he makes the right decision and attack him when he does not. I don't think that needs further explanation.

You said, "You keep going back to outdated government sources to find justification for government actions... "

Clark, hindsight is always 20/20. The fact that no WMD were found after the fact is irrelevant with respect to what was known at the time. Decisions are made on the basis of what is known at the time action is taken. As I pointed out, the intelligence services of France, England, Germany and Russia all actually believed that Iraq had WMD. Saddam acted as though he was hiding active WMD programs. You will find NO evidence to the contrary.

The Bipartisan report does not anywhere indicate that George Bush unreasonably relied on the available intelligence or that the intelligence services were pressured to arrive at conclusions to support a war.

All you are left with is 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacking that at best argues that the war was not justified based on Saddam's actual capabilities. As I have indicated, Saddam had to go. He repeatedly violated the cease fire after Gulf War I, continuously shot at our planes that were authorized to fly over Iraq, openly supported terrorism and quite obviously desired the destruction of the US. There was also, at the time, evidence that suggested that Saddam planned an assassination of a former US president. (As you may recall, that is when Clinton made it the official policy of the US to effect regime change.)


As far as Bush making the case for war by exaggerating, you have mischaracterized what occurred. That is what we call leadership. When you are faced with incomplete facts and evidence but it strongly points in the direction that requires a specific course of action, you make the best case you can for that course of action because we live in a system of government that requires persuasion to garner support.

From Factcheck.org:

Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?

Bush says Congress had the same (faulty) intelligence he did. Howard Dean says intelligence was "corrupted." We give facts.

"The CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none."

Clark, go ahead and cling to your revisionist history. The left has amassed an enormous army of useful idiots through its rewriting of history. I am glad you have found something useful to do. Probably keeps you out of trouble.

On a number of occasions, you have tried to frame the issue of whether the media is liberal by claiming that the media is not left leaning; that it is instead just shallow and sensationalist. Of course, conservatives will not disagree with that assessment and if you buy into the either or approach of liberal or shallow / sensationalist, the fact that no one disagrees with you appears to lend credibility to your point.

The problem, though, is that it is not an either or construct. The media is shallow / sensationalist AND it is left leaning.

You also raise anecdotal examples that supposedly evidence that the media is not liberal. Anecdotal examples are just that, anecdotal and I am not going to offer competing anecdotes because I recognize that they are of no value in this discussion. I also am tired of the liberal argument that the media is not left leaning. I presented the UCLA study to you. Media donations favor democrats over republicans by a 100:1 margin.

A 1996 Harris poll of more than 3,000 adults conducted for the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that “nearly two-thirds (63 percent) believe one side is favored in presentation of the news; an even larger majority of 77 percent thinks that there is at least a fair amount of political bias in the news they see.”
“This bias is described as liberal by a plurality (43 percent) of all adults,” the report continued, while 19 percent described a conservative bias. CMPA discovered that “nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of all Republicans believe that the news media favor one side in their reporting...compared with only two of five (40 percent) Democrats.”
"Interestingly, CMPA’s analysis concluded that while “complaints about bias used to come mainly from political conservatives, our survey indicates that this limitation no longer exists....Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative. Among self-designated conservatives, of course, the spread is even greater: 57 percent say the media are liberal and 19 percent see them as conservative.”

Clark, I am frankly not invested in the need to convince you on either the Iraq war or media bias. Arguing with the reality challenged can only be successful is the challenged fellow can acknowledge reality.

9/07/2008 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Clark said...

On the Iraq issue, there are many well-documented investigations that show that individuals involved in the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence at the time Bush's obsessive campaign for war in Irag was being waged. Congressional committees comtrolled by Republicans obviously have a vested interest in showing how Congress and the President used good judgement do not prove anything. And it isn't a hypocrisy of the Republicans alone. Hillary Clinton's assertions of the invasion of Iraq being the right thing to do are just as laughable. Many of the facts have come out since then, forcing many to backpeddle, disavow, or cling absurdly to a mistake... anything to avoid admitting they were wrong. There has been a parade of administration and intelligence insiders describing how the intelligence was misused and how evidence contrary to Bush's obession was ignored.

And no, the governments of Europe were not all convinced of Saddam's threat. Look at the Downing Street Memo for starters. Read up on how the U.S. used the intelligence from Habbush in bad faith to further bolster the supposed case for war.

Who is clinging?

I'll admit, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, I was one of many who believed that Saddam was a threat. But over time, as the lies and corruption of the Bush administration have come out, I've learned from my mistakes.

You seem to be determined to continue to repeat yours.

9/11/2008 10:37 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home