The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, whose mission is to "build the political power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community from the ground up," can't help leading off its response to the State of the Union by condemning Bush over Iraq. Here's the lead from a statement by Matt Foreman, NGLTF's executive director:
"Tonight, President Bush told us that he will ignore the central message of the 2006 congressional elections: end the unsupported, unwarranted and utterly unnecessary bloody war in Iraq. The nightmare in the Middle East continues unabated."
Do they think having U.S. helicopters take flight off the Bhagdad embassy roof (as with a former, glorious progressive victory "from the ground up") and leaving Iraq to be partitioned between Iran and Al-Qaida will be a good thing for the U.S.-not to mention Iraqi gays?
61 Comments for “Priority #1: Incite Hatred of Bush.”
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Agreed: the “I hate Bush” chanting is so tired. Has the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force ever said anything about the death penalty for homosexuals in Islamic law?
posted by James on
Wow! Thanks for the link to the NGLTF! Now I know about an organization which EXACTLY represents everything I despise about the gay community. My attraction to men does not connect me with this organization or the men who agree with it IN ANY WAY. It’s nice to know of a website which so completely encapsulates the self-indulgent, immature, narcissistic, adolescent, whiny approach to life which so many gays take as normative.
I’ll bookmark it next to PFLAG.
posted by kittynboi on
Who cares what happens to those people.
I miss the days when right wingers didn’t give a damn what happened to brown foreigners.
posted by Carl on
Hasn’t NGLTF long been a group that focuses on more than just gay rights? How does a statement in a press release mean that their “#1 priority” is inciting hatred of Bush? Hasn’t Bush already done that well enough on his own?
Using this logic, why have gay conservatives criticized Democrats or Nancy Pelosi, since they’re better on gay issues than Republicans?
And the situation in Iraq has not improved for gays since 2003. Some say it’s gotten even worse.
posted by John on
Why is it those on the extreme right are only capable of seeing two solutions? It is always presented as continue the same failed policies and stratagies we’ve been woking under for four years or abandon everything, walk away and let it blow up. This is stupid and no one is advocating it. Numerous alternative plans have been offere from all sides of teh political spectrum that have nothing to do with abandoning the Iraqi people and the Admin has ignored them all. Stop with the false dicotomies. It insults the intelligence of your readers.
posted by Marc on
As long as there are gays and lesbians serving in the military, the NGLTF has every right to criticize the failed policies of the administration. The idea they are simply trying to “incite hate” against the president smacks of the same insulting “if you aren’t with us, you are with the terrorist” line used for years by the Bush administration – until polls tipped out of its favor. What is really sad is such criticism is too little, too late. If such groups as the NGLTF had been more critical of this debacle years ago, we may not have found ourselves at the stalemate we now call Iraq.
posted by ETJB on
Once again a gay Republican seems to be following a mantra of “do as a say, not as a do.” With the added bonus of actually defending the Vietnam War.
On the narrow issue of Iraqi gays — the presence of U.S. troops has little or no impact. Iraqi gays have stated that attempts to have the U.S. protect them were met with no laughter.
The Iraqi government bashed a recent human rights report — in large part — because it was critical of the Iraqi government militas killing gays and transgender Iraqis.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think it’s an excellent commentary on Foreman that he considers putting an end to a brutal dictatorship that openly and systematically harassed, starved, imprisoned, tortured, and outright murdered millions of people, gays included, to be “unsupported, unwarranted and utterly unnecessary”.
One wonders what he thought about US intervention in Kosovo, or potential intervention in Darfur, or failing to act in Rwanda.
posted by Craig2 on
By intervening in Iraq, the Bush administration may have toppled a ruthless, genocidal tyrant, but at the cost of unleashing al Qaeda Sunni and Shi’ite Muslim fundamentalists, which has made the already difficult plight of their gay community under Saddam even worse.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. As well as the lives of US and allied servicemen and servicewomen, and Iraqi gay men.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mmmm….so you feel, Craig, that Saddam should have been left in power because you believe he was better to gay men, and because doing so has cost a few thousands of allied soldiers.
Never mind the 500,000 children that starved to death under him.
Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Kurds he murdered because of their ethnicity.
Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Shi’ites he murdered because of their religious beliefs.
Never mind the thousands of Marsh Arabs he murdered outright, or the ecosystem he destroyed to starve out the rest of them, because he didn’t trust them.
Never mind the thousands of children, even toddler-age and infants, he imprisoned for the crime of being born to political dissidents.
Never mind the fact that criticizing, or even telling a joke about, Saddam was a capital crime worthy of execution.
In short, never mind the millions of people who Saddam systematically repressed, starved, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered — as long as he was better for gay men and it didn’t cost any US or allied lives to get rid of him.
posted by Mark on
Mr. Miller neglects to disclose that the U.S. invasion was illegal and immoral. We were not attacked by Iraq and were in no danger of being attacked by Iraq. Of course, hatred should be incited against bush, probably the worst President in the past 50 years.
Iraq is lost. It’s not worth more American blood and treasure.
Jesus, it’s hard to believe that Mr. Miller actually live with a well known libertarian. Perhaps David Boaz can give you a primer about war and imperialism, unless he’s also gone to the dark side.
posted by Mark on
I’m through commenting on Steve Miller’s usually moronic “insights” and his disgusting defenses of war and imperialism, and the vile George Bush. Goodbye.
posted by James on
George Bush is not simply one of our worst presidents. As one comedian put it, there used to be a list of “good” presidents and “bad” presidents–now, there are only “good” presidents and Bush.
posted by Bill from FL on
I think anyone-who is not a bleeding heart liberal, trying to remain consistent in their opposition to the death penalty, total moron, or member of the Baath party would agree in their heart that Saddam Hussein got what he deserved-the end of a noose in a dusty, skanky prison. Frankly I think it was too easy for him. And now let’s focus on the other ruthless murderous dictators: N Korea, Cuba, China, Many African Countries, Iran, and the Saudi Royal Family isn’t very nice either so we should get rid of him. Republicans do not fight wars based on Human Rights issues! There are other things behind this war the average people don’t see. In this day and age with the technology we have, I just think 3K+ lives ended and nearly 20K wounded (thanks to modern medicine they are not Dead!)is alot…..and daily I pray for their safety and speedy return.
I think Americans got lied to, in at least s GOOD PART of the story and it’s a big mess that is costing us ALOT of money. Is it not at least A BIT niave to think Iraqis want our type of Democracy? What will be their alternative to Saddam?
I am very annoyed about the lack of leadership when it comes to the Iraqui gays issue. Iraqui gays are probably at the very bottom of the pecking order over there, and it’s a disgrace that there is nothing at least being said loud enough at the national level now that we are in the picture. We need to at least be writing our congressmen on this!
This is an awful mess and in the near future it’s not gonna get any prettier. Hopefully my generations kids will get to see some benefit.
posted by Bill from FL on
James
What is your issue with PFLAG? The fact that they stand up for their gay kids that don’t meet your model of propriety? Or is it that they tend to lean left because our conservative parents aren’t getting involved?
I have to say NGLTF is annoying at times, but that is to be expected from a PROGRESSIVE group like them. Often I wish we could replace them with an ” automatic random rhetoric generator”. Much more cost effective.
posted by James on
Here’s what I have against PFLAG. In my life, I’ve gotten a lot of acceptance for being gay–but that acceptance has come with a price tag. Amoral, promiscuous straight people have offered acceptance assuming that I, as a gay man (or gay young man) will naturally accept their lack of sexual values. In other words, there are a lot of amoral straight people who think that just because you are gay, you have no sexual morals, and they can use you as a recruit in their own agenda to overturn traditional sexual standards.
PFLAG is a group of those amoral straights and those gays who have chosen to align with their value-free agenda. PFLAG does not offer acceptance to those who have orthodox faith and traditional values. PFLAG damages the gay community by reinforcing the connection that gays, by virture of being gay, have no sexual morality.
I’m not a conservative–but I do think there is a movement to undermine traditional marriage and family in this country, PFLAG being one of the leading organizations. I wish those who want to protect the traditional marriage and family would realize that there are many gay men on their side, gay men who want to live in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, and raise healthy families. But PFLAG and NGLTF perpetuate the stereotype that gays want to change the rules and undermine the building blocks of a strong society.
posted by CLS on
It is no more a gay issue whether the US is in Iraq or whether the are out. NGLTF should stick to gay issues as they are a gay group. Just like I suggest Mr. Miller stick to gay issues here and not promote his idea that the US should remain in Iraq. I find it hypocrtical for Mr. Miller to attack NGLTF for taking a position on the war in the middle of a post where he himself is doing the exact same thing on a gay website. There is no doubt that life was bad for gays under Saddam and is now worse under the govt. Bush put into power since gays are now being executed by the militias rather regularly. I fnd this injection of Miller?s interventionism in this site disgusting. It is anti-liberty to the core.
posted by Marc on
James:
A recent survey shows that 51 perecent of women are now single, an indication that the “traditional family,” as you so call it, isn’t as important to them as it once was. That isn’t a result of groups like PFLAG, but a social structure in this country that is constantly redefining and changing. This isn’t about “undermining” tradition, either; it is about acknowledging, finally, that the world is not based on one set model. Your argument smacks of the same pretense of conservatives who think gays, marriage and adoption are some how the root to all evil. If anything, you should be happy that the gay community is finally challenging the absurd notion.
As for PFLAG, they have no agenda because, as a group, they don’t really need a political or moral code. Their purpose is to bring together gays, lesbians and straights in a neutral setting to allow them to get to know each other. If anything, it is a “moral” code that created the division in the first place.
posted by James on
By “neutral” I assume you mean “valueless.” I want gays to have clear, absolute values about what is healthy, loving homosexual behavior and unhealthy, exploitive behavior. I don’t think that “Whatever feels good is right” or “Whatever two consenting adults do is their own business.” I believe there are moral absolutes against which humans must measure their behavior. I believe God has revealed these absolutes. I believe that God has revealed that His plan for gays, like his plan for straights, is to form lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. To choose something else is to choose separation from God. Groups like PFLAG that suggest “Anything goes” encourage separation from God.
Do you tolerate me now? Can I still be gay? Please? Huh? It’s SO important that you guys like and accept me–which of my basic values do I have to sell out to be part of the gang?
posted by Randy on
ND30: In short, never mind the millions of people who Saddam systematically repressed, starved, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered — as long as he was better for gay men and it didn’t cost any US or allied lives to get rid of him.”
So then why isn’t Bush invading N. Korea? Kim Il Jong is at least as bad as Saddam, and since he might have nuclear weapons, far more of a threat. Or are you just going to ignore that, just as you accuse liberals from ignoring Saddam’s crimes?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So then why isn’t Bush invading N. Korea? Kim Il Jong is at least as bad as Saddam, and since he might have nuclear weapons, far more of a threat. Or are you just going to ignore that, just as you accuse liberals from ignoring Saddam’s crimes?
Of course not. Ignoring North Korea and taking away any sort of sanction on them was tried during the 1990s; it was called the “Agreed Framework”.
What you forget, Randy, is that North Korea just now went under UN sanction. Saddam had been there for well over a decade, with little to nothing happening. At that point, one should ask oneself whether or not there’s much point in trying to resolve matters non-militarily.
posted by Craig on
For the record, yes, I do think Saddam should have been overthrown, but by the Iraqi people, and not so he’d become a martyr later on. Hell, I’d even have supported the CIA helping them to do that.
Moreover, we also know that Saddam tried to appeal to Sunni religious conservatives during the nineties through intensified antigay harrassment. I have no illusions about what a monster he was.
ND30, I do not deny that Saddam massacred Shi’ites in Southern Iraq and attacked Kurds with chemical weapons in the eighties.
Unfortunately, the current situation is one where Moqtadr al
Sad’s Shi’ite militia have exploited the power vacuum and engage in sexuality cleansing, and al Qaeda’s record in Afghanistan
doesn’t inspire confidence either.
I’d summarise this as a no win situation. Either way, the end is bleak.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Bill from FL on
James-
Responding
Here’s what I have against PFLAG. In my life, I’ve gotten a lot of acceptance for being gay–but that acceptance has come with a price tag. Amoral, promiscuous straight people have offered acceptance assuming that I, as a gay man (or gay young man) will naturally accept their lack of sexual values. In other words, there are a lot of amoral straight people who think that just because you are gay, you have no sexual morals, and they can use you as a recruit in their own agenda to overturn traditional sexual standards.
-For the most part I can identify with you. My favorite thing is when such people say “well you are no better than me if I cheat on my wife cuz you are gay” etc. I am happy you are accepted among your own community. The bottom line is, though with PFLAG alot of them are just plain old parents that do not have the same style of sexual values, and feel that the Puritan Morality was bad for their kids. Can you really fault them for that? Yes, PFLAG is probably more Liberal…..but chances are if they are in a leadership position they were liberals to begin with!
PFLAG is a group of those amoral straights and those gays who have chosen to align with their value-free agenda. PFLAG does not offer acceptance to those who have orthodox faith and traditional values. PFLAG damages the gay community by reinforcing the connection that gays, by virture of being gay, have no sexual morality.
-I would love to see some specific citations to this. Never mind the fact that being gay in our society is still….like it or not….outside the “traditionalist fabric”. We were never allowed to be weaved into it!
I’m not a conservative–but I do think there is a movement to undermine traditional marriage and family in this country, PFLAG being one of the leading organizations. I wish those who want to protect the traditional marriage and family would realize that there are many gay men on their side, gay men who want to live in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, and raise healthy families.
-I think that PFLAG is a paper tiger compared to rampant divorce, consumerism, marrying for love instead of necessity, etc etc etc.
James,keep making friends among those in your church and various circles. Your life will preach better than your lips sometimes and the best way to break a stereotype is across the coffeetable!
But PFLAG and NGLTF perpetuate the stereotype that gays want to change the rules and undermine the building blocks of a strong society.
-Well, as for NGLTF it IS a progressive organization! I don’t see PFLAG doing this. Unfortunately, up until about 15 years ago they and NGLTF were all we had!
A problem also is this: Society still views our relationships as inferior and not “a standard” to acheive for us. There is still a “yuck” factor. Maybe not intentionally, but they do.
posted by Randy on
ND30: Of course not. Ignoring North Korea and taking away any sort of sanction on them was tried during the 1990s; it was called the “Agreed Framework”.
So when should Bush invade N. Korea? Seems like the time has passed, since he has gotten nothing but more dangerous and murderous than ever. I don’t see how he can improve. Better to invade now and remove the threat than take any further risks to our national security. If that was the purpose for invading Iraq, than why wait any longer for invading N. Korea?
And let’s not forget Cuba. Castro is no friend of gays. He’s murdered thousands over the years. It would be an easy pushover, and we would be greeted with flowers. Castro has gotten no better over the years, and Bush has had seven years to invade and rid the world of this tyrant. Why hasn’t he?
posted by John on
James, James, James – Nothing is ever good enough. Didn’t get that puppy I wanted so I’m going to go out and kill kittens. Take a look at the people joining SoulForce for people turning lemons into lemonade and quit you self-indulgent bitching.
posted by John on
Oh God, James, those straight people befriending us with their immoral agenda, pretending to like us, I know. I came out to one of them, I thought he accepted me but, lo and behold, he just assumed that I could hook him up with a swinger! Devastating!
posted by ETJB on
(1) I am not sure what PFLAG you have been involved with, but PFLAG chapters that I have been involved with have been very much involved in faith and morality issues.
(2) The Iraqi War had little to do with democracy or human rights. If we really cared about the oppression of the Iraqi people then we would have not set a path that was doomed to lead to disaster.
posted by Wolfe on
Before the whining about the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force criticizing George Bush gets too loud, , take a look at a recent article in the Washington Blade at:
http://washblade.com/2007/1-19/news/national/national/cfm
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And let’s not forget Cuba. Castro is no friend of gays. He’s murdered thousands over the years. It would be an easy pushover, and we would be greeted with flowers. Castro has gotten no better over the years, and Bush has had seven years to invade and rid the world of this tyrant. Why hasn’t he?
Because you won’t let him.
Personally, I would love to see gays demand Castro’s removal because of his abysmal human rights record.
But the Democratic Party has proclaimed ixnay on the removal of dictators they support, and given the adulation given Castro by such Democratic luminaries as Charlie Rangel, I think we could safely say he falls well into that category.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
North Dallas Thirty wrote:
Personally, I would love to see gays demand Castro’s removal because of his abysmal human rights record.
That won’t work because the “progressives” have defined “human rights” to mean “progressivism”. It’s by definition. Nevermind right to life, right to liberty, right to property. It’s not necessarily about any of that. Whatever is “progressive” supports “human rights”, and vice versa, by definition.
I think “progressives” suck, mainly because of their reflexive support for Islam and its death penalty for homosexuality that “progressives” pretend does not exist.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, don’t forget that George’s excuse for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, not human rights violations. By that logic he should be invading North Korea but we know he won’t because he was never sincere about his motives in the first place. If North Korea was sitting on a pile of oil you can bet it would have been a different story.
posted by ETJB on
Castro has in fact gotten better over the years in certain areas.
The status of gay Cuban has certainly improved since the concentration camp days of the 1960s. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal offense, or a forbidden topic for public discussion (or films). The new President’s daughter is running some Cuban organization that works on sex education and fighting homophobia.
Cuban religions have gotten more religious freedom over the years. They can express their religion in public, the government celebrates Catholic holidays.
If we are seriously going to talk about regime change in Cuba we might just want to learn a few things about the Iraqi War and look at what is likely going to happen with Castro gone. Not what we — through our propaganda want to happen or hope will happen.
We did not invade Iraq because of some sincere concern for liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrannt. If we did, then their would be more concern about the human rights violatings taking place in Iraq and the rise of pro-Iranian political parties.
I doubt that Democrats OR Republicans or Independents in Congress are truely pro-dictator. The simple reality is that people living under oppressive dictators often dont have a better alternative.
I.e.: Get rid of Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists take over.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, don’t forget that George’s excuse for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, not human rights violations. By that logic he should be invading North Korea but we know he won’t because he was never sincere about his motives in the first place. If North Korea was sitting on a pile of oil you can bet it would have been a different story.
LOL…..but what about the fact that Saddam was bribing the UN and the partly-nationalized oil companies of Europe and Asia with billions of dollars in contracts and cash payments to protect him at the UN and ensure that sanctions were not enforced against him?
What leftists like yourself are arguing, Randi, is that the prime motivator of the Bush administration to get rid of Saddam was oil — when there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence showing that the main motivation of the UN and your leftist allies to keep Saddam was the billions of dollars they were already making off Saddam’s oil.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Well, Northdallass, if someone proves they can’t be trusted in small things, then they can’t be trusted in large things.
You’ve repeatedly proven you can’t be trusted to tell the truth so I have no reason to blindly accept your assurances that that was going on. You’ll need some proof, your word alone is less than worthless.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And you still have no justification for George invading Iraq under the false pretences of WMD but not moving to act against North Korea where it is proven there are WMDs. I know how much you love to change the subject, but how about you shock us all and admit the truth of the immediate issue before trying to move on to something else?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’ve repeatedly proven you can’t be trusted to tell the truth so I have no reason to blindly accept your assurances that that was going on. You’ll need some proof, your word alone is less than worthless.
So you’re saying, Randi, that Saddam was NOT bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money?
Go ahead; you insist I’m lying, so you should have absolutely no trouble saying that. Prove that you have the courage of your convictions and say that I’m lying again, that I’m not telling the truth, that my word is worthless.
Or are you going to try to weasel out of this — since your dissent in this case was more an attempt to slander me than it was out of any real concern for the facts and the truth of the situation?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I’m saying that would be news to me and I certainly don’t take your word for it. You want me (and I suspect most regular readers) to believe it you’ll need good independent evidence.
And I notice you’re not even attempting to justify George’s invading Iraq on the false pretense of WMDs but not invading Korea when there clearly are WMDs. I suppose that’s progress with the likes of you. Now if you’ll just acknowledge that we’ll really have something. Go ahead, let’s see if you can be anything less than a partisan – admit George entered Iraq on false pretenses and that based on that logic he has no excuse for not invading North Korea.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, I see….so Randi insists that I lie all the time and that my word is worthless, but then she weasels and refuses to say that I’m lying now.
I understand why you’re trying to do this; you want to accuse me of lying, but as you were so rudely reminded with your previous failures, that has consequences when you get caught. What you’re doing now is trying to accuse me of lying indirectly — but then spin your way out of it when I provide evidence that I am not.
So there’s the challenge. Either say I am lying, or state publicly that your previous statements are wrong about how I can’t be trusted to tell the truth and how my word is worthless.
And once you manage that, then we’ll talk about the North Korea thing.
posted by ETJB on
You can pleease move this apparent macho pissing match off the IGF message abord.
Move over to the GayPolitics board at World Crossing if you like (I post their often and its a decent place).
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, your word is less than worthless, you can’t be trusted to tell the truth, but that doesn’t rule out the slight possibility that you may tell the truth. My guestimate is that there is a one in 10 or one in 20 chance that you are telling the truth about Saddam bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money. Obviously I can’t make a statement of certainty when I’ve never heard this allegation before. This isn’t a black and white situation where either everything you say is the truth or everything you say is a lie. On at least one occasion I’ve known you to be telling the truth when I thought you were lying so obviously I can’t rule that out. And I never said you lie all the time I said you lie regulary and habitually, there’s a big difference there – I’ve never said that everything you say is a lie, just that because you lie so regularly everything you say is suspect.
I’m not surprised you don’t want to provide independent evidence for the aforementioned, its more important to you to play games with me than to remove the doubt that surrounds you. Its also clear that your afraid to deal with the obvious – WMDs were George’s excuse for invading Iraq and based on that justification he has no reason not to invade North Korea.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not surprised you don’t want to provide independent evidence for the aforementioned, its more important to you to play games with me than to remove the doubt that surrounds you.
The “doubt”, Randi, comes from you insinuating that I’m lying.
It’s amusing to me how your leftist cowardice is such that you make all sorts of smears about how I’m lying, but then snivel and babble when you are cornered and forced to make a decision.
Since you said I was lying about this, here you go.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
See Northdallass, you expect me to think like you. I don’t. I don’t have to be right, I’m okay with being wrong and I’m okay with saying “I don’t know”. My self-esteem doesn’t take a beating in those situations like yours apparently does.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I never said you lied about that but obviously you have to falsely claim I did to salvage your self-esteem.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence showing that the main motivation of the UN and your leftist allies to keep Saddam was the billions of dollars they were already making off Saddam’s oil.”
And laughably your statement is undermined by the link you posted that shows it was a UN established committee that uncovered these abuses and nowhere in the article does it say the UN made any money from oil and oil money bribes from Sadam as you claimed.
And of course this is totally irrelevant to my original point that according to George’s WMD excuse for invading Iraq he should have invaded North Korea. Its not surprising that you want to talk about anything other than that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And laughably your statement is undermined by the link you posted that shows it was a UN established committee that uncovered these abuses and nowhere in the article does it say the UN made any money from oil and oil money bribes from Sadam as you claimed.
Gotcha.
And did you see when that UN committee made these discoveries? That would be AFTER Saddam was deposed — which, one might add, you opposed.
You’re very easy to manipulate into making stupid statements, Randi; all one has to do is give half the information, and watch you try to spin your way out — only to run smack into the other half.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Good for you Northdallass, you’re deceptive, and you deceived me. Congratulations, you must be very proud – this goes a long way towards showing people that I’m wrong to distrust you. Yessiree, this combined with your habitual lies makes you look really honourable, truthful, and straightforward.
But of course, as I said in my previous post this is totally irrelevant to my original point that according to George’s WMD excuse for invading Iraq he should have invaded North Korea. Its not surprising that you want to talk about anything other than that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Good for you Northdallass, you’re deceptive, and you deceived me.
Actually, Randi, the only person who deceived you was you yourself; I can’t take credit for that. I simply took advantage of the fact that your bigotry and prejudice invariably trumps your ability to think rationally. Given the absence of information, you assume the worst about me, and what’s better, you SPEAK the worst of me; all one needs do is sit still and wait.
But of course, as I said in my previous post this is totally irrelevant to my original point that according to George’s WMD excuse for invading Iraq he should have invaded North Korea. Its not surprising that you want to talk about anything other than that.
(shrug) North Korea isn’t in their second decade of violating UN sanctions on building WMDs — only their first few years. Indeed, up until 2001, the official US position, as espoused by the Clinton administration, was that North Korea should not be under sanction at all — during which time, of course, the North Koreans were busily continuing their bomb-building.
The reason Saddam got thrown out was because he had had over ten years to play ball and completely refused. Kim Jong-Il has the same; I wouldn’t give him that long, especially since China has suddenly seemed to realize the man is a nutjob who, if he continues on his current route, will destroy not only his country, but likely irradiate a good portion of theirs.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Actually, Randi, the only person who deceived you was you yourself; I can’t take credit for that”.
Too late, you already did, in your previous post you were just bragging about manipulating me. Given the knowledge I had my comments were perfectly rational. What’s funny is that you don’t get that being admittedly manipulative and deceptive doesn’t make you look good.
I don’t think the worst of you because of an absence of information, I think the worst of you because you are a habitual liar. The only reason your deception worked is because you are notoriously untrustworthy. If you think that makes you look good, by all means continue to deceive yourself.
As to North Korea your making excuses for George is typical of your inability to understand right and wrong. His justification for invading Iraq was the trumped up assertion that Saddam had or was soon to have WMD’s. We already know North Korea has WMDs the fact that it doesn’t have a long record of resisting weapons inspections is irrelevant to George’s supposed goal of trying to prevent the use of WMDs. If preventing the use of WMDs was George’s “reason” for invading Iraq he has no excuse not to invade North Korea.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Too late, you already did, in your previous post you were just bragging about manipulating me. Given the knowledge I had my comments were perfectly rational. What’s funny is that you don’t get that being admittedly manipulative and deceptive doesn’t make you look good.
LOL….the funny part is, Randi, I dare you to come up with where I was deceptive.
Where the manipulation came in was in making a statement, giving you half the evidence, playing on your proven habit of opening your mouth and jumping to conclusions without facts, and then presenting the remaining evidence.
No one forced you to go off about me allagedly lying. No one forced you to babble that the UN never accepted any bribes. You did that all yourself because you let your bigoted and hateful views trump reality.
We already know North Korea has WMDs the fact that it doesn’t have a long record of resisting weapons inspections is irrelevant to George’s supposed goal of trying to prevent the use of WMDs.
Unfortunately, Randi, your argument was that we didn’t need to invade Iraq because having weapons inspectors there would have been good enough.
The Bush administration pointed out that a) Saddam was not cooperating and b) the UN group in charge of the inspections and oversight of Saddam had been corrupted with bribes.
When Kim Jong-il makes it obvious that HE is not going to cooperate and that he in fact is planning to bribe his way out of trouble, as did Saddam, then we will talk. The military option used against Iraq was simply because the diplomatic one was collapsed and corrupt.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “No one forced you to go off about me allagedly lying”.
Now you’re making stuff up again. I never said you were lying about Saddam bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money. I said “My guestimate is that there is a one in 10 or one in 20 chance that you are telling the truth about Saddam bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money. Obviously I can’t make a statement of certainty when I’ve never heard this allegation before.”. Of course that doesn’t make as good a story as you saying I accused you of lying about this so you had to lie and say I did.
In this thread http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31164.html#commentform
at January 25, 2007, 6:44pm you provided a link to supposedly counter my point that gays were better off under Saddam than they are now. The link showed what I said to be true and disproved your assertion that the opposite was the case. You quoted Ali Hilli talking about bad times during Iraq but typical of your duplicitous nature failed to include the sentence immediately following that quote:
“Now, Hili says, he is heartbroken to see that, three years after Saddam?s fall, life for gay people in Iraq is even more unbearable than before.”
Naturally when you have a long history of doing stuff like that I assumed you had done the same thing with your link at January 30, 2007, 6:53pm in this thread. And of course that was much like the time in this thread http://indegayforum.org/blog/show/31151.html#commentform
where at January 11, 2007, 11:12pm after I challenged you to post a quote of mine showing that I had demanded public sex or to admit you lied when you said I had. In a pathetic attempt to cover your lie you provided a quote where I didn’t say anything of the sort. Its typical of you to provide links and quotes that don’t prove what your claims and no surprise that I would believe you had done it yet again.
Northdallass said “Unfortunately, Randi, your argument was that we didn’t need to invade Iraq because having weapons inspectors there would have been good enough.”.
What I believe about that is irrelevant to the fact that George’s “justification” for invading Iraq applies to North Korea. George’s “reason” for invading Iraq was to prevent Saddam from possessing weapons of mass destruction. Given that North Korea has WMDs he has no excuse for not invading North Korea. Not surprising he won’t given that he lied about Iraqi WMDs as an excuse to invade. And now you’re desperately trying to hide that fact by falsely claiming the invasion was about protecting Iraqi citizens.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said you were lying about Saddam bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money.
Mhm.
What I believe about that is irrelevant to the fact that George’s “justification” for invading Iraq applies to North Korea.
Or, in other words, you don’t want to acknowledge the corruption of the process at the UN, or the fact that the leftist governments and diplomats you idolize were taking money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for ignoring his brutality and defiance.
North Korea isn’t able to do that — and is now, thanks to the efforts of the Bush administration and despite the efforts of leftists like yourself, under REAL sanctions, out of which they can’t buy or bribe their way as did Saddam, and which, due to that fact, have an excellent chance of succeeding.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
So, where in that link did I say you were lying about Saddam bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money?! Again, you provide links that don’t prove what you claim. I never said you were lying about Saddam bribing UN diplomats and European governments with oil and oil money, I said you can’t be trusted to tell the truth, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that you may tell the truth – get over it.
Northdallass said “Or, in other words, you don’t want to acknowledge the corruption of the process at the UN, or the fact that the leftist governments and diplomats you idolize were taking money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for ignoring his brutality and defiance.”.
Oh no, I acknowledge that the sources you provided for that look authentic. The point is that’s irrelevant to the fact that George’s justification for invading Iraq was to prevent Saddam’s possession of WMDs and given that he has no excuse not to have invaded North Korea You’re the one doing a crazy dance to avoid admitting that.
And par for the course, you lie again when you say “despite the efforts of leftists like yourself [North korea is under] sanctions”. Obviously people like myself support the use of sanctions in North Korea just as we supported the use of sanctions in Iraq. Once again the fact that North Korea doesn’t yet have a long record of resisting sanctions is no excuse for not invading when George’s rationale is that you invade countries to prevent them from possessing WMDs. You can’t weasel your way out of that one.
The fact is that he’s scared, unlike with Iraq if he goes into North Korea he’ll get his ass handed to him on a platter. And his fear of attacking North Korea will only worsen with time as North Korea has the opportunity to amass more nuclear weapons. George better hope sanctions work there because its too late for him to bring the troops.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again the fact that North Korea doesn’t yet have a long record of resisting sanctions is no excuse for not invading when George’s rationale is that you invade countries to prevent them from possessing WMDs.
Actually, the rationale is that you invade countries to prevent them from possessing WMDs when you have no other way of dealing with it.
To cite from Bush’s speech of October 2002:
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.
The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.
Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities … only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people … and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps to keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.
Among those requirements, the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside of the country.
And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder.
And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself — or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
And Saddam chose not to cooperate, aided, no doubt, by his belief that his bribes would keep him safe — and the fact that the UN and the leftist countries he was bribing leaped to his defense immediately and did everything in their power to obstruct his removal and demise.
And also from that speech, to counter the leftist denialism that human rights were never mentioned as a reason for getting rid of Saddam:
Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own. Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security, and for the people of Iraq.
he lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban.
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights — to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.
People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture.
America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
And I love this:
The fact is that he’s scared, unlike with Iraq if he goes into North Korea he’ll get his ass handed to him on a platter.
So then can we assume that the reason you don’t want to invade North Korea is because you’re a coward — since you argue that anyone who wants to prevent North Korea from having WMDs but doesn’t invade is?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Trouble is Northdallass, George justified the invasion by saying Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction. I still remember rumsfeld on TV saying “we know they have WMDs and we know where they are, they’re in this area around Tikrite”.
By his rationale that invading Iraq was justified because Iraq had WMDs he has no excuse not to invade North Korea.
Northdallass said “So then can we assume that the reason you don’t want to invade North Korea is because you’re a coward — since you argue that anyone who wants to prevent North Korea from having WMDs but doesn’t invade is?”
Obviously I am not personally going to invade North Korea. I never said I did or didn’t want the U.S. to invade North Korea. And once again, I never said George was a coward, I said he was scared. Cowardice implies an excess of fear and I don’t think George’s fear of invading North Korea is excessive, its entirely justified. If you want to say I’d be scared to personally invade North Korea, damn right – I’m a lover not a fighter. George was too quick to invade Iraq and too slow to invade North Korea
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”
George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have”
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
“I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
“Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and there will be plenty.”
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
“We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.”
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
“I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now.”
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
“Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.”
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
“Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.”
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003
“It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.”
And to show its a lie when you say human rights was the reason for invading Iraq:
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
And for a flood of george’s lies about WMDs just google Iraq justification invastion wmd
A few of those links:
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/05/iraq-wmd-lie-that-wont-go-away.html
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1890.cfm
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And to prove the point I’ve been making since I started in this thread:
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, [Paul Wolfowitz] said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.” [Guardian 4/6/2003]
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And to demonstrate your accuracy in matters:
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading “Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil” misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, “The … difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.” The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
And what I find endlessly amusing is that your accuracy and expertise are venerated on IGF, and I am vilified.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, I agree, that’s different story than the partial quote I found elsewhere.
Northdallass said “And what I find endlessly amusing is that your accuracy and expertise are venerated on IGF, and I am vilified.”.
Funny, I don’t recall anyone venerating my accuracy or expertise here, I have been criticized however. As to your villification, that’s your own fault. If you wouldn’t lie and gay bash so regularly you wouldn’t be villified. I live a monogamous relationship with the most wonderful man in the world and while you claim to venerate that you lie about me saying I have sex “partners and that I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever I want and that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives”. Given the giddiness you show when you’re able to show me wrong and my willingness to admit it its laughable that you claim you don’t quote me saying these things because I’ve made up my mind that it didn’t happen – what pathetic atempt to cover your lies with more lies. You have to accept the reality that because you can’t quote me saying such things its clear to all you’re a liar.
A lot of where I have credibility that you don’t is that I admit when I’m wrong, and you don’t, you just keep telling more lies to cover up your other lies, even when its blatantly obvious you’re not telling the truth. You could make the points you want without telling lies about people, but you’re either too lazy or get too big a thrill out of smearing people to do so. You sacrifice your long term credibility for the short term thrill of wrongly tearing others down. You’re not so stupid as to not realize this, you must prefer it to be that way.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you wouldn’t lie and gay bash so regularly you wouldn’t be villified.
Yup, this is really lying and gaybashing.
Your response follows your typical pattern, though; whine and cry, accuse me of “lying and gaybashing”, and dig up all these examples of how I allegedly “lied” before.
That’s why you’re saying you were “wrong” is pretty worthless, Randi; it’s always followed with a, “but so and so is worse”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
I never said that in particular was gay bashing or lying, I agreed that puts a whole different light on the quote. What’s gay bashing is you lying about me saying I have sex “partners” and that I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever I want and that I “tear down normal and married couples as “Stepford Wives”. You can’t quote me saying those things because you lied. And you are worse, much, much, much worse. I’ve never intentionally said anything that isn’t true. You don’t admit the obvious lies you make and by my estimate you’ve lied over 100 times about me in the few weeks I’ve been holding you accountable for your B.S. Your villification on IGF is not without reason. You’ve got a damned tough row to how if you think you’re going to convince anyone everyone else is a liar and you aren’t when you make it so plain you are.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
So, Northdallass, are you claiming you didn’t tell those lies about me?