Yesterday I posted a diary asking for the Kos community to think about taking a more proactive role in weeding out hate speech. I think I was misunderstood. Rather than respond to each comment individually, let me address some major points.
I write this as a longstanding Kos member. While I truly believe that the O'Reilly attacks and others like them are unfairly characterizing the Kos community, and are meant to scare Democrats away from using the power that we offer, I think we bear some of the blame.
So today I'm arguing with my winger officemate about just about everything, and he sends me a clip from Andy McCarthy at NRO on the escaped Al Qaeda guy. He says that this is one more piece of proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Why? Because the guy (who was originally picked up in Indonesia and extradited by the US to a prison in Afghanistan) was originally from Kuwait, but had IRAQI PARENTS!
So first I told him that based on this, I finally figured out how we keep catching the # 2 guy in Al Qaeda. We just let him escape and catch him over and over. Then I said, by his logic, if we found out that John Walker Lindh had Canadian ancestry, we should bomb Ottawa. He says "if thousands of Canadians were attacking us we should bomb Canada",
I think one point from yesterday's press conference that really needs to be followed up is Scotty's claim that he can't comment on Rove because he was asked by Fitzgerald to keep quiet.
In my continuing debates with my wingnut office mate, I brought up the outlandish claims by Rep. Robin Hayes of a solid connection. He responded with the following National Review Online article:
Front page news today is the announcement that a consortium of nations will build a test-bed nuclear fusion reactor in France. It is argued by some that fusion could be the answer to our problems - affordable, safe, limitless energy. My question relates to the fuel source for the fusion reactor - heavy hydrogen.
I write this as someone who would be categorized as a "tin-foiler" by the Kossack thought police. I truly believe that important facts about what happened on 9/11 are being kept from the American public.
So today's New York Times front-pages a story about the 9/11 commission:
Today's torment by my wingnut officemate is the allegedly fake GOP talking points memo outlining the potential political gains from the Schiavo mess. He sends me the latest Powerline post declaring that this must be a fake memo, planted by Dems, and as egregious an affront as the 60 minutes National Guard documents.
I just read a column by Rich Lowry crowing that the "Bushies were cleared on intel fumbles". He smugly points to page 50 of the report: "The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs".
So now I am having a debate with my resident office dittohead about the statements of James G Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior. It seems he's all bent out of shape over something Bill Moyers said in a recent speech.
As I was reading about GOP protest concerning the handling of military absentee ballots in Washington State, it once again struck me that there has been no widespread comprehensive reporting on how the military voted in the last presidential election. I was sure that Bush's mistreatment (outright abuse) of our armed forces would be his downfall this time.
It seems to me that there has been an embargo on any information concerning the military vote. Have polls been conducted? Can we start our own studies?
I'm reposting this from yesterday because I think it's really important. Every day I feel like I'm waking up to a topsy turvy bizzaro world. I think that in order to understand what's happening we need to stop thinking with our own logic and look at the world the way those in power do. Please start a discussion, because I think we need to get these ideas out of the realm of "crackpot conspiracy", and start some real investigations:
I'm about halfway through reading The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin. In this book, he examines all the inconsistencies and questions surrounding the events of 9-11, with specific attention to the question of whether the administration allowed the attacks to happen in order to advance their policies.
When I told my right wing coworker that no one has heard from Paul Bremer on the weapons mess, he said "that's not true....he spoke with Fox". He couldn't tell me what Bremer said, and the Fox site only has a video link, which I can't access. Does anyone know what he said?
I just saw a full page ad in the New York Times placed by the Club for Growth. They show a long line of seniors waiting for flu shots, and make the argument that there is only one company left in America to provide flu vaccine because of outrageous lawsuits. Of course, the lines are the fault of Kerry/Edwards and the vicious trial lawyers who support them.
Then they go on to say that Bush and Congress tried to shield vaccine producers from frivolous lawsuits, but the trial lawyers pressured their Democratic friends in Congress to "kill the legislation". I thought I read that a bill limiting vaccine makers liability was signed into law by Reagan in 1986. What legislation could this ad be referring to, and what additional protection would it add over the existing law? Also, what's the story with European producers of vaccines? Are those companies protected by similar laws? If not, why are they able to make a profit selling vaccines?
I just received this choice item from a right wing coworker. I had him hammered on the whole missing weapons issue. Now it becomes a "60 minutes" thing! It is curious that this story is just breaking now. If Bush knew that the stuff was missing for over a year, obviously, the UN guys did also. How come no one made a stink until now?
Don't get me wrong; I think it's fair game to raise it whenever we want..... and since many American voters can't keep an idea in their head past one new cycle, it's more effective to drop this bomb now.
Check this out. My recollection is that the snowmobile ban was the result of an extensive public comment process. In fact, the Bushies chose to ignore the overwhelming public opinion in favor of the ban, and relaxed it as a favor to the snowmobile industry. How can a judge say that the ban was the result of a "prejudged, political" move?
