Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil

[elSicomoro]

I was just answering tw's question on dirty Democrats...he specified no timeframe. Though I'll add Jim Wright to Robert Byrd.

I don't see a difference between the two parties in terms of higher ground...to me, it's a matter of attention and amount of power. The GOP look like shit right now because they controlled two branches of government for 6 years. The Dems looked like shit in 1994 because they controlled two branches. As with Clinton and the GOP during their 6 years together, we'll now see an equal amount thrown at the two parties.

[Happy Monkey]

Even if the Democrats looked right now like they did in '94, they would be the higher ground.

Here's Jim Wright:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Their report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his vanity book Reflections of a Public Man to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum, and that his wife, Betty, was given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts.

That scandal seems downright quaint compared to the past six years.

[Undertoad]

When you're partisan, you believe different facts. Don't forget William "Frozen Cash" Jefferson and Sandy "Document Pants" Berger. Plenty of shit to go around.

[Happy Monkey]

I didn't.

"Both Bad" does not mean "Equal".

"Stole a copy of an archive document" doesn't match up to "legalized torture".

Of course there is corruption on all sides. That does not mean that they are equal.

[KGZotU]

How about "interred American citizens based on their descent" and "outlawed dissent" and "targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians" and "tried to appoint extra Justices to the Supreme Court" and "only offensive use of The Bomb(*2)"?

[Undertoad]

"Stole a copy of an archive document" doesn't match up to "legalized torture".

That entirely depends on the intent of the theft, and the nature of the "legalized torture". (Since you added the scare quotes, I get to keep them.)

What if he stole documents to hide "legalizing torture"?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What if he stole documents to hide "legalizing torture"?

Did he? You could check the originals.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by KGZotU

How about "interred American citizens based on their descent" and "outlawed dissent" and "targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians" and "tried to appoint extra Justices to the Supreme Court" and "only offensive use of The Bomb(*2)"?

How about "over 50 years ago"?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Did he? You could check the originals.

So certain are you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

The report caused the Wall Street Journal, on January 13 2007, to retract their initial opinion of the case, saying there are substantial questions concerning the truth of Berger's statements and that other documents may have been removed.

[Happy Monkey]

Who can be certain about anything? But there's no evidence to the contrary.

From the same page:

In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror 'after-action' report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.
...
The report also stated "There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents."
...
“By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one in pencil on the back. When one of the—No. 217—was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According the the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy “under his portfolio also.”

All of this says he was stealing printouts of digitally stored data. He stole 217, they printed out another, and he stole it again.

Presumably, they could have printed out a ream of 217s for him to steal. If he had taken originals, a simple inventory would have made that clear.

[tw]

'Missing documents' is so obviously trivial by comparison that it is clearly only a debating tool to obfuscate the issue. Add Rostenkowski to the mix if we want to confuse all with the trivial. Where was any of this intended to subvert the American political system? Lies to protect drug company profits at the expense of $hundreds of billions? Peanuts compared to what George Jr is doing. Intentional lying and deceit intended to subvert the American political system, to openly create war for a self-serving political agenda, to literally encourage war in the Middle East (and I am not talking only about Iraq), and to intentionally destroy careers of any government body or person that was not working for a wacko extremist political agenda. ‘Missing papers’ is equivalent?

They intentionally perverted intelligence to create a war in Iraq. Where is this even Enron scale corruption? ‘Spying for the USSR for 20 years’ is trivial compared to lying for war. They almost did same to get America into war over a silly China spy plane because a political agenda was more important than the US government. Those same wackos were still living in a Cold War mentality back then. These people have that much contempt for the American system of government. Even uniltaterally break and destroy international agreements for a self serving agenda - no problem because corruption is now routine.

Foolishly, some here to claim ‘missing documents’ are somehow equivalent. Some here need to learn what the word ‘context’ means. Even torture is now routinely advocated. Yes, this government is so corrupt that international kidnapping and torture is not even a crime. Did Putin’s warnings about this American government mean nothing? Do you appreciate the threat of another Cold War only because this government is that corrupt – actually lies to create wars? Oh. That's not corruption. Taking some trivial papers is corruption.

Wow. I cannot believe some here are so brainwash as to associate pork by WV and AK senators with outright subversion of world stability for a self serving agenda. Wow. We just eliminate the word 'context' from the dictionary.

Whereas Halliburton ‘no bid contract’ at any other time would be a major scandal, well Halliburton is not even discussed or prosecuted. Whereas Enron would have probably gone unprosecuted if the state of OK had not filed suite – and that is not corruption at the highest levels of government? What other administration intentionally outs a CIA agent only for a self serving political agenda? What other adminstration intentionally fires civil servants – ie US Attorneys – to use the Attnorney General office to attack non-wacko extremists? What other administration repeatedly quashed investigations that would have exposed a major attack on the US (11 September)? None. None. None.

And what administration would let that attacker go free! No other administration was so corrupt as to not go after a bin Laden. How can anyone talk about corruption and not mention THE classic example of corruption by a President. When are we going after bin Laden? Why did we let bin Laden run free? If they tell you they tried, then they are lying again – like any corrupt government would.

They made zero effort to get bin Laden. A most treasonable crime and it is not mentioned here? bin Laden goes free because George Jr is that corrupt. How do we forget that fact? We talk about 'missing papers'. Context? Not relevant?

Richard Nixon also sent word to Ho Chi Minh to reject Johnson's cease fire so that Nixon could get elected. How silly these 'treasonist' accusations of some missing documents. How silly the crimes of Jim Wright by comparison. These did not intentionally pervert and destroy the US government for a self serving political agenda. What other administration would spy on its citizens in violation of the laws? Another who also tried to subvert the US government for his own personal agenda by doing same - J Edgar Hoover. And yet some here acutally endorse those actions today. Clearly some 'missing papers' is worse.

Lurkers - don't let them confuse you with above trivial and silly examples. It is Cheney's agenda: Enriching friends with government funds is trivial because intentional subversion of the US government is for a political extremist agenda. Those who can’t see that want you to “trip over gum on the sidewalk” – those irrelevant ‘missing documents’. How embarrassingly silly that we would talk about the subversion of the US government – and associate that with some missing papers.

When do we go after bin Laden? Want to talk about corruption? Everything else by comparison is legal, moral, ethical, righteous, ‘done for the glory of god’, etc. Why? Because #1 on the list of treasonable crimes – we made no effort to get bin Laden. And some here so hate America – are so corrupted - as to not even 'feel' that important. Instead of asking "when do we go after bin Laden" ... well there is no higher crime.

[Undertoad]

Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil.

point made...

[Griff]

I think there was evil involved in the administrations decision. To have believed the administration wasn't evil. To want to cause a decent outcome isn't evil.

[Hippikos]

To be careless and gambling on a war and the fate of the Iraqi people, is wrong, wreckless and yes, in the end, evil.

e·vil Pronunciation (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic
In an evil manner.