For those of you interested, Glenn Greenwald has responded to my long post yesterday on patriotism and the Democratic attack on the Bush administration. I don’t have time today to go through his argument at any length, so I’ll just respond briefly.
1) Greenwald continues to argue that neither Phase I of the Roberts investigation nor the Robb-Silberman investigation proves Bushco didn’t lie (as Howard Dean is publically asserting) or manipulate intelligence:
Goldstein seems to be suggesting that as long as a particular assertion found its way into the NIE, then the Bush Administration cannot be said to have done anything wrong by discussing it, no matter what they said when discussing it. But that is just illogical on its face. Surely, it was possible for Bush Administration officials to have characterized certain of the threats discussed in the NIE in inaccurate and misleading ways – by, for instance, describing potential threats as certain, by exaggerating the magnitude, immanence and nature of the threat, or by deliberately confusing Americans as to what the NIE said.
Moreover, as Administration officials surely knew, Americans would rely on the President to tell them the truth about the intelligence they had and the nature of the threats, so if he prevaricated about or exaggerated those threats, that is a very big deal regardless of what is in the NIE.
Again, there is no absolute certainty in intelligence—and Bush was looking at analysts reports, not raw intelligence (in this sense, certain Democratic Senators had more info than Bush)—so focusing on the individual pieces of WMD evidence used to “market” the case for war (which was done to give cover to Senate Democrats in the first place) is simply silly. The President and the Senate made the decision to go to war based on the totality of the intelligence. Which pieces of intelligence they then chose to highlight for the purposes of illuminating the threat is irrelevant, because non of it was objectively false—and it is not the job of the President to argue against what the totality of the intelligence is telling him to argue for. So Bush didn’t lie or manipulate evidence to take us into war any moreso than did anyone who voted to support the war—though its possible he and his administration foregrounded certain claims over others as a way of marketing the war to the American people and to provide cover for Senate Democrats. These are different and quite distinct charges with different and quite distinct motives. It is important to point out, too, that Senate Democrats at the time weren’t rushing to disabuse the President of any of those claims. In fact, they were repeating them. And that Senator Rockefeller is now so keen on Phase II is hardly surprising in light of his now infamous (though remarkably underpublicized) memo detailing how Democrats might politicize questions of intelligence.
Importantly, many of the charges of pre-war manipulation are being driven by hindsight and post-war intelligence. And so it is strange to see Democrats arguing that George Bush should be held accountable for failures of intelligence but that they should not.
2) Greenwald likewise continues to try to broaden my “unpatriotic” charge to include all those who are disbelieving of the President’s good faith. But my claim—and Professor Reynold’s, as well—went to those who know that the President didn’t “lie” or “mislead” us into war, but who continue to assert such anyway. Those people are who they are. I can’t see into their hearts, but—objectively—I can include most of the Congressional Democrats who had access to pre-war intelligence and who are now trying to walk back their positions.
3) Greenwald writes:
Does it really mean that someone is unpatriotic if they are “more concerned with damaging the Bush presidency than they are in winning the warâ€Â? What if they believe that the war can’t be won, or that the costs to U.S. national security of “winning” exceeds the benefits to be gained? Or what if they believe that the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse our national security becomes? Isn’t it then an exercise in patriotism for them to do what they can to discredit the Administration and the war in order to compel a faster withdrawal of troops?
No, of course it isn’t. We have elections to decide who determines policy. And while dissent is certainly allowed and encouraged, in an republic, we ultimately abide by the will of the elected officials chosen by the majority. This ends justify the means-type of political impulse is a willful assertion of arrogance—a manifest iteration of elitism. What animates such an impulse is the zealous belief in one’s own righteousness.
But none of this entitles you to level false charges in order to bring down a President. So no—it is not patriotic “to do what they can to discredit the Administration and the war in order to compel a faster withdrawal of troops” if, in order to do so, you find yourself attributing bad motives in bad faith to duly elected officials.
Greenwald continues:
The interests of George Bush are not synonymous with U.S. national interests. Harming the former is not tantamount to harming the latter. Indeed, many people believe that the greatest thing they can do for their country as American citizen is to undermine Bush at every turn and expose what they believe are his great flaws – just as many patriotic Americans believed this about Clinton and did exactly that. They are doing this not because they want to harm America (which ought to be the standard for being “unpatriotic”), but precisely because they think that’s what is best for their country.
This entire argument, however, is smoke and mirrors. It wants to laud the ends while hiding the unsavory means it is justifying to reach those ends.
Process does matter. And Americans, while they are willing to accept a certain degree of unsavory politicking, must, when all is said and done, be able to trust that in matters of life and death and war and peace, that their elected leaders are acting in good faith. Destroying that faith by lying to do so manifestly harms America. And so it fits into Greenwalds own standard for acting “unpatriotically”.
As Ted Kennedy himself said in September 2002, “Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us.”
Can today’s Democrats say the same thing?
****
more, from Tom Maguire.
You know what always puzzles me? You conservatives who think that what the president has proclaimed is actually the truth—do you really think this will be the judgment of history? Do you really think that no future Democratic president will remember the president who called his party traitors and just decide to declassify all the historical intelligence available to Bush at the time he made the decision? Do you really believe other than that the entire embarassing truth will eventually out, and you’ll be on record on the wrong side of things?
I’d like to add my normal caveat that this isn’t just a snarky rhetorical question, but it largely is.
You know what makes me jolt awake in a cold sweat in the middle of the night? Seeing instances like this where otherwise reasonable people like Mr. Greenwald place scare quotes around “winning”.
Winning is winning and losing is losing. Scare quotes should be reserved for talk about sports when you can imply that the victory was undeserved (Steinbrenner “won” his world series rings by outspending the competition, or Jerry Tarkanian had “winning” basketball teams at UNLV.) Whenever you’re talking about American & coalition personnel in harm’s way, the whole concept of “winning” is repugnant to me.
Let’s all be realistic about this:
1) We will lose Iraq…because the Left and the media wants us to lose Iraq.
2) The Iraq War will be a defeat…because Bush and the American people were shamed into submission by the Left and the media.
3) Bush will lose…because he and his supporters chose to listen to those who want the US to fail, mainly the Left and the media.
4) Bush and his supporters biggest failure will be trusting the Left and the media to not stab our military in the back.
5) The brave US military men and women will have died in vain because the Left and the media wanted them to.
6) Millions of Iraqis will perish, and it will be the fault of the US, Bush and the war supporters… because they let the Left and the media subvert the military effort.
7) The GOP will lose elections because it lost the war…because the Left and the media wanted to lose the war.
8) The Islamists will grow in power by beating the US and showing how weak and powerless the West is…because the Left and the media wants the West weak and powerless.
9) The US will lose the War on Terror, and deserve to..because it is really is weak and powerless in the face of Islam, which is what the Left and the media set out to prove in the first plance.
10) The Left and media wants the US to lose the War on Terror…and they will win because the anti-leftists let them win.
I’ll go on record right now and say no, I don’t think a Democratic president would declassify all the intelligence available to Bush in a million years. No way.
And I’ve never questioned the Democrats’ patriotism. I don’t think there’s any question at all that most of them (in the Senate, anyway) are nothing but a bunch of spineless political opportunists, who would sincerely rather we lose this war just to stick it to Bush, than win it to ensure a free Iraq and a safer nation at home.
Yes, it does. You can simply not be considered patriotic if you cannot stand behind your troops, your side, during a war. If you take as your first responisbility, willfully undermining the reasons for war, and do so knowing it is a lie, then you have put party over politics and you certainly should have your patriotism questioned.
The troops have a right to expect that you support them in their mission, and if you cannot, you are simply not a patriot. You may still be an overall good person, but you are not a patriot.
Yes, I believe other than that.
Jack Off,
I find it odd that Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller could not be held accountable for saying:
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years, and he could have it earlier.â€Â
Especially since he was one of only 6 Senators that saw a level of intelligence on par with what Bush received daily.
As a side note Jack Off: Why did Rockefeller become so agitated when Chris Wallace of FoxNews asked, “But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?â€Â
That should be ‘party over country’ – PIMF
Good point. Yet another reason why Bush would have had to be impossibly stupid to willfully lie about any prescient knowledge that there were no WMD. Moreover, the idea that Democrats are going to be campaigning for office on a disjointed platform of HEAAALLLLLING and spiteful retribution really just raises the question how many decades it will be before a Democratic President can be elected again.
There are conservatives (especially over at the Weekly Standard) who are practically begging Bush to declassify a bunch of defense department documents in order to defend himself from you and the Left’s nutso charges.
So, declassify this, beotch.
You know what puzzles me? Leftists who sputter and blather the line that “Bush lied” when you know full well that’s not true. This entire debate is actually rather tiring, because it’s merely a rebuttal to that asinine line of propaganda.
No one is claiming that what Bush says is always the truth. No one is saying that he is infallible. These are what intelligent, educated people instantly recognize as examples of the Strawman Argument—falsely attributing arguments to the opposition for the purpose of then knocking them down, thus purporting to advance your position by showing how weak the opposition’s position is.
Your own party’s political leaders spout this garbage. When we respond, you resort to old saw that we view Bush as the Infallible Leader.
It is transparent and childish. It’s as though you are not really trying all that hard to improve your party’s success rate, or even care that you look like a fool.
Like Dean and others, you are a clown, and you live in a cartoon world of your own imagining.
Actually, the Senate voted to give the President the power to decide whether or not to go to war. The Senate did not vote for war.
Bush lied. Pointng it out isn’t unpatriotic.
You know what always puzzles me? That people have declared saying what available information tells you to be a lie just because the available information later turns out to be wrong. It’s like they live in the town of “Perfection” from those commercials, and have never, ever had to make a decision on incomplete or imperfect information.
Then to turn around and try to justify their lies by saying “it’s for the good of the country”. It almost leaves me speechless.
And, really, what it comes down to is this admission from Greenwald:
It’s not about the war, it’s all about Bush. It’s either pure partisan politics—which proves Jeff’s point—or it’s pure BDS—which, IMHO, is worse.
The emphasis on the October NIE is misplaced. That “product,” as the intelligence community likes to call its output, was simply a reiteration of what everybody had believed since 1998 at the latest.After the inspectors were kicked out, there just wasn’t that much more intelligence data to be had, not necessarily because the intel community was incompetent but because Saddam made it that way. It is dishonest, therefore, to say that the public record of the Clinton administration and the statements of the Democratic leadership regarding Iraq before the war are irrelevant. The best compilation of Democratic statements is at http://rfraley301.blogspot.com/2005/11/double-jeopardy.html. The case agaist the Democrats is overwhelming.
GodDAMN this is getting old.
Bush didn’t lie. He had bad information—just as Clinton, Gore, Hillary, Reid, Rockefeller, etc. did. Doing the right thing in the face of information that proves incorrect is not “lying”. It’s part of reality.
Lying about that is unpatriotic. Making up false accusations of war crimes—not saying you did that, but that some on the left have—is treasonous.
No one’s saying it is. We’re not going to get anywhere as long as people keep throwing this argument out as if it’s being debated. It’s not.
If a person knows that Bush wasn’t lying, but acting in good faith based on the intelligence he had, but says he was lying DESPITE KNOWING OTHERWISE for political points, this person is unpatriotic.
If a person has evidence that Bush lied and says so in order to promote the truth and protect our troops, this person is patriotic.
If a person knows Bush didn’t lie and says so in order to advance a just cause, increase support of our troops and promote human rights, this person is patriotic.
If a person knows Bush lied and says so to score political points, or if a person knows Bush didn’t lie and says he didn’t to score political points, these people are partisans, but not necessarily patriotic or unpatriotic.
Can we at least agree on that much?
To Jack Roy,
In response to your question, I shall await the coming of the complete truth about the War on Terror. (Assuming I’ll live that long.) But I won’t be particularly fearful. After all, I’ve been here before.
Thirty odd years ago, people like you were braying about the really truly absolute truth coming out regarding the Vietnam War. And how bad it would look for my side, and how justified your side was for trashing our country every chance you got. The judgement of the world would be upon us. We would be shunned by all right-thinking nations. To hear your side talk, the very fabric of our country was in imminent danger of being rent asunder. Oh my, the horror.
Well, the really truly true truth about the Vietnam war mostly came out. We read, we discussed, we moved on.
I’ve learned my lesson, though. As far as your side of this debate goes, I’ve moved straight to the moving on part.
Fine, Congress delegated its war-making authority to the President. I happen to think that this reveals the Senate as the spineless duty-shirkers that they are. But fine.
Congress, including the Democrats, still has the fucking responsibility to only authorize the President to “decide” when to go to war when doing so would be an appropriate thing to do. Congress should only vote for such a resolution when the decision to go to war is within the range of acceptable choices.
Jesus, even by your own snivelling, half-baked bullshit standards of maturity and responsibility, you Democrats still fail to measure up!
I agree.
But if you don’t do anything to stop the river of sewage that keeps rolling toward you, eventually you end up living in world covered in shit.
Better check this:
Tenet’s 2001 testimony: manipulation of pre-war intelligence
Phinn, get a grip.
Sine.Qua.Non
Well there was something that happened between Tenet’s testimony in early 2001 and the eventual war in Iraq, something that made us rethink what could be termed a threat. I bet you even know what that thing was.
I want to believe that an argument presented with substantiated facts and notable quotes would help to reason the liberal-moonbat out of these mental midgets. I was wrong. I give up. Now it’s time for vicious attacks.
PREWAR INTELLIGENCE: Jack Roy fucks dead pigs.
POSTWAR INTELLIGENCE: Jack Roy fucks dead cats.
See that. It’s the difference between apples and oranges. BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!
I think I’ll stick with McCain’s moment of clarity – let’s call it the “‘Bush lied’ lie” for expediency.
As far as questioning of patriotism, I’m a few furlongs past that hurdle. Merely question?! Pfft. Try bugling it over Mount Rushmore. Some of those big “D” democrats deserve several choruses of balloon juice, too… not just an introductory bar.
Sine Qua Non, fuck you and your mother.
Hmmm.
@ Jack Roy
No. Do tell.
Considering that Bush hasn’t made any assertions that weren’t previously made by Clinton, it’ll be a curious thing to see.
And as I study history a great deal I have to point out that most of what people think of as history is little more than bullshit assembled by people with political or cultural agendas. So it’s very probable that some “historian” will write some longwinded treatise on how evil Bush was.
A similar bit of nonsense has been ongoing since the end of the Cold War. Prior to the end Democratic pundits were screaming about how the Soviet Union could never fall and that Reagan was just causing trouble. Ever since then these same Democratic pundits have been screaming that it was very obvious that the Soviet Union would fall and that Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Well that was certainly a painful sentence to parse. Being verbose isn’t a virtue, being concise is.
Frankly I welcome a future Democratic President who declassifies substantial quantities of classified national intelligence for the sole purpose of trying to discredit a previous administration. Such a baldfaced attempt would instantly discredit that Democratic President. It would also permanently cement the reputation of the Democratic Party as a group of schmekels who place domestic politics over national security.
As if any more cement were needed.
Really?
So what you’re trying to say, in an extraordinarily painful way, is that if Bush succeeds in defeating terrorism, bringing democracy and prosperity to Iraq and transforming the political landscape of the Middle East that somehow *we* will be on the “wrong side of things”?
Well that certainly is a judgement call I suppose.
I’m pleased you omitted “witty”.
Bush lied. Pointng it out isn’t unpatriotic.
My God, this is really like being in 6th grade again. Jeff lays it out clearly how Bush did not lie and instead of arguing that in any way, they just resort to “I know you are, but what am I?” type of arguing.
Somewhere there is a memo going around that says “Just repeat “Bush lied” no matter what anyone proves. That will be all the American public will remember.”
Hmmmm.
@ Sine Qua Non
I assure you that I have tremendously more important things to do than visit your blog. If you’ve got someone to contribute, then I’d suggest doing it here.
Sine Qua Non,
Basically, what you say in your post is that the CIA reports changed after 9/11. You’re not saying that the President put any pressure on the CIA to change them, just that they changed. Period. I’m not sure how you think this proves manipulation of intelligence by the administration. If you can show evidence that the reports changed because the administration pressured the CIA to change them, I’d love to see it.
It’s beyond a simple lack of patriotism. These folks are on the Islamo-facists’ side. The same way they were on Pol Pot’s side. The same way Walter Duranty was on Joseph Stalin’s side. Arguing patriotism with them is just as futile as arguing ethics with a man who has broken into your house and is making off with your tv. Reasoning with them will accomplish very little, pointing out their perfidy for all to see is the only recourse. And come the midterm elections, I have a feeling it will be pointed out. In many, many political advertisements which feature what Democratic leaders said before the hate-America part of their base started bleating and what they have said since the hate-America part of their base started bleating.
Wow, Phinn, I would but, hey, I don’t do 3-ways with my Mom.
Here you go ed, is this better for you, it’s exactly what is posted on my site, but then, I wouldn’t want you to have to actually GO there. It’s too long to post here so, you’ll just have to go to the source if you are curious enough:
Rediscovered testimony given by CIA director in 2001 suggests manipulation of pre-war intelligence
And, on my original point, more from David Corn:
(check the link for the whole story)
Bush lied.
It is seriously like banging my head against a brick wall here. Sine Qua Non. No one is saying that debate about the war is anti-American. No one is saying that claiming Bush lied, if you have good evidence that he did, is anti-American. Jeff, and others, are saying that if you say Bush lied while being fully aware that he did not, THAT is anti-American because you are putting partisanship above national interest.
Is this confusing in some way?
Sine.Qua.Non
As has been pointed out to you, and ignored, the CIA changed it’s position after 9/11 as to what constituted a threat to the United States. What you must do is prove that it was pressure by the administration that made them do this. As to the decision to remove Saddam from power, this is merely acting on the policy put in place by the preceding president, so I’d start with bitching to him about it. Which party was he from again?
Bush lied is not proof, it is childish ravings in spite of the evidence.
Wait: is this George ”Slam Dunk” Tenet you’re referring to?
Skip it, Ali.
We’ve reached that strange meta-moment where people like SineQuaNon are actually using the very methods of argumentation they used to charge Bush with “lying” to confound those of us who wish to point out rationally how that claim is false.
I simply cannot believe otherwise intelligent people can read my posts and come away saying that I’ve called the anti-war position in and of itself unpatriotic. Just as I simply cannot believe otherwise intelligent people wish to expand the definition of “lie” to include “shown to be mistaken after the fact, but submitted in good faith.”
Again, the pomo justification: Actions continue to act after the intentional subject has announced its completion.
How we think language works matters.
Ahh, I see Sine. Democratic congress-folks had nothing to do with any of this “government business” stuff. They weren’t even in session. They were all at their favorite commune grooving to the vibe and getting high on the American way.
But now that they’ve finally looked at it, they’ve decided that, by gosh, this Saddam Hussein guy was all right. Hey, those rape rooms, they were a good thing because free sex is where it’s at, dude. Those mass graves? If your going to build a paradise you got to break a few eggs , man. Look at Uncle Joe Stalin, he couldn’t have accomplished all those groovy things for the citizens of the Soviet Union if he hadn’t been willing to murder tens of millions of them. And Mao, hey babe, Mao was the man. He killed alot more people than Joe. So China must be at least twice as nice.
So yeah, GW lied…free Saddam…support Al Qeada… workers of the world unite…burn a Puegot for the cause…the mullahs are our friends…Kim Il Jung is my buddy. Yeah, you make perfect sense now.
And I have to admit, the time energy and zeal you’ve pouring into your support of Saddam Hussien, and all the causes of global jihad in general, is very impressive. If one didn’t know better one would assume you despise all of western civilization, and are an enemy of free-thought, women’s rights and democracy.
Yes. She’s talking about the same CIA that missed the Cole and 911 attacks. Suprisingly, after 911 they began to take certain potential threats of convergence more seriously.
A gaping hole in your major city, thousands dead, and an Athrax scare will do that to you.
Bush lied
And there, friends, in a nutshell, is the entire raison d’existence, political platform, agenda, and core ideal of today’s Democrat party.
Utter bankruptcy.
Mmm… Nope. No. Sorry. Still don’t believe you. How about you try to say that one more time and see if it makes it true?
Also, this part of Tenet’s super awesome testimony that you are jacking off too?
I don’t think that means what you think it means!
Here’s another piece of wheat within the chaff…
I, uh, took the liberty of highlighting and underscoring some things in both quotes that might not have penetrated your tinfoil.
Now, maybe you’d have some sort of half-assed point if the Bush administration suddenly declared Saddam an “imminent threat” to us instead of arguing that, post 9-11, it was no longer acceptable to wait for him to become an “imminent threat” but… oh… wait… the latter is exactly what the Bush administration argued.
A fact that your side struggles mightily to conceal by, er, lying. Why do you embrace lies, you lying liar? You make baby Al Franken cry!
I wonder, if the future world Jack Roy prays for doesn’t come to be, will he live with the shame or just pretend he’d always known otherwise?
TW: reached… They reached down with both hands but still could not locate their asses, forcing them to remain standing for the rest of their lives.
URGENT UPDATE!
PREWAR INTELLIGENCE: Sine.Qua.Non regularly performs oral sex on own father.
POSTWAR INTELLIGENCE: Sine.Qua.Non regularly performs oral sex on horses.
Once again, totaly different. Night and day really. BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!
Oh, I forgot…free Mumia.
Sine (Cosine/Tangent/Secant! Sorry, trig flashback):
Do you as a rational, thinking person really believe that Bush lied us into Iraq, knowing full well as he did so that if our effort succeeded there that his lies would be exposed as a consequence?
Because that’s what you’re asking us to accept.
Here’s the flaw with the calling people who are lying about Bush lying being unpatriotic… we’re assuming that they actually have the mental capacity to know better. Reading what they keep coming back with, I am not convinced. It’s okay guys, you’re too stupid to be unpatriotic!
As for the people who saw the intellegence and came to the reasonable conclusions based on what we knew at the time… Sure, I’d like to think the Senate Democrats have memories that reach back further than the name of last week’s escort service, but … eh … I’m not convinced.
Ali, I get that and Jeff, I never said you called the anti-war position unpatriotic. I’ve given you some proof, and believe me there is a vast load of it out there (I’d relay you to my site for the articles, but, you know…..ed wou;dn’t like it), that Bush did lie about the reasons, cause, justfication, and intelligence to go to war. He even did it on Veteran’s Day. He does it every time he opens his mouth.
Ofcourse, since he doesn’t write his own speeches, I guess you’d say that gets him off the hook too?
Lie is defined as:
I’ve got real work to do, reasoned judgements, analysis, and conclusions to prepare…see ya.
tw: Learned. Intentional dishonesty, if you are to perform it well, surely requires at least as much practice as telling the truth.
What British general from WWII was it who insisted that he and his men were not retreating, but merely “advancing towards the rear?”
Advance, Sine, advance.
Sine, I’m not calling the anti-war postion unpatriotic. I’m calling your position unpatritotic, and every time you post you confirm my judgement.
It’s amazing to me how you all have to resort to insults to make a point. Have fun.
I know that the pre-2001 intelligence was out of date, somewhat, prior to 9-11. That is only one very minor piece of evidence. I actually read the article and comprehend all sides of the testimony. Will wonders never cease.
SORRY GUYS I DON’T HAVE TIME TO ARGUE WITH YOU SO PLEASE TAKE IT ON GOOD FAITH THAT I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE SCUM SUCKING LIARS. HAVE A NICE DAY.
There’s loads of information out there. Loads of it! SO many loads that I can’t possibly imagine that anyone would read that information and come to the opposite conclusion as me, because that might imply that I’m stupid or something.
And I’m not. There’s loads of information about that too, on my blog, which my mother approves of.
PS: Loads of information out there, guys, go read it. LOADS. Kthxbai.
There’s a lot of information out there that purports to show the the earth is flat. None of that is true either.
“I’ve got real work to do, reasoned judgements, analysis, and conclusions to prepare…….”
……granola to eat, hemp chokers to make, trees to hug, Osama cock to suck, bombs to fabricate, US flags to desecrate, effigies to burn, Margot Chow DVDs to watch……
Sine sure is a busy gal these days.
SQN coins a new logical fallacy:
Is that a “begging the ad hominem?”
tw: Hit. One outta the park, will ya? Sweeng batta.
PATRIOTISM: Love of country.
It’s patriotic to accuse someone of lying, when clearly you are lying to do so. It’s patriotic to smear. Because lying and smearing are dissent, and all dissent is patriotic.
Lying and smearing are the definition of love. They have nothing to do with hate. We love our country by lying and smearing it’s leaders, and helping it’s enemies hurt it.
Free Saddam and Mumia
I like to wrap my arguments up with insults to give people a way out when they don’t feel like responding. So, you know, don’t have to thank me.
Oh, and by the way?
Kinda makes you bringing it up in the first place as your shiny bit of evidence silly, huh? I’m willing to bet that the loads, LOADS of other information you refer to has been as poorly processed as this one.
1) OK… some old tried and true questions
Yeah, and monkeys could fly out of my butt! He’s begging the question again. Next!
2) I must assume based on the left’s logic that the super evil genius idiot really was too stupid as to not plant WMD’s in Iraq. Oh… it didn’t matter. Once we were there Haliburton would already have the contracts. Oh… and no one would ever know.
3) The Dems should be not only supporting the war effort, but leading it. Giving everything 110% and making sure everyone damn well knows it. Then, they could take credit(even truthfully) for going further in the effort to win the damn thing and bring the majority of the troops home. 2008 is an open Whitehouse! Yet they continue to campaine against Bush like it’s 2004.
4) Had Bush not pushed for the toppling of Saddam Hussein, imagine the caterwauling from the left that we were doing nothing to topple “this emanate threat� Ok… that’s a straw man. But we must remember the level of screeching that was heard when we faced “the quagmire†because we didn’t have enough troops at the onset of the war in Iraq.
Forgive me for a bit of linear thinking here, but…
The “Bush lied” business is yet another case of motives over actions, which the Left has been specializing in since the Trotskyists came to power. But two can play at this game. Let’s say motives are the most important thing in the world. We’ll forget about Sortelli‘s point regarding the rape rooms, the paper shredders, the C.O.D. shipments of relatives’ body parts, the gassing of the Kurds, the paying of the families of suicide bombers, the starting of two wars, etc.
Oops, sorry, I guess we can’t forget about all that, because here is my point: Ending all those things were the motives [pluralâ€â€not singular]. For those of you counting, the CJR authorizing the president to use force against Saddam Hussein listed 21 separate reasons for going to war. Of these, eight pertained to WMD. Two of those eight involved historical use of WMD or tossing out inspectorsâ€â€neither of which were or are in question.
Therefore there were six motives pertaining to WMDs out of 21. If one wants to deny the value of the other 15, one must necessarily explain why the failure to find WMDs somehow discredit the following:
– Liberation of 25 million Muslims;
– Securing a basketcase state in the heart of the Middle East;
– Eliminating future potential for WMD programs, especially the passing of nuclear weaponry and/or secrets to terrorists; and
– Creation of only the second democracy in that terribly troubled and autocratic part of the world.
Then while you’re at it, explain why the two other biggies left off the list weren’t worth it: Libya’s dismantling of its very real, very large WMD program; and the elimination of Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists.
I see 15 of you couldn’t help yourself and came on by my site anyway…LMAO. Interesting.
By the way, hemp makes me itch.
Isn’t it then an exercise in patriotism for them to do what they can to discredit the Administration and the war in order to compel a faster withdrawal of troops?
That has to be the dumbest fucking thing anyone has said since “We had to destroy the village to save it.” It reeks with narcissism and confirms the “Bush Lied” campaign is an insincere gambit based on the ends-justifies-the-means sinkhole into which the Left has fallen.
These people are turning the laudable arguments in favor of patriotic dissent made during the Vietnam war into cynical license constituting an abuse of liberty. They don’t deserve respect as honorable opponents, or loyal Americans.
My hat’s off to you, Jeff, for your fallacy-destroying rhetoric, but mostly your patience. You must be very good with children.
But none of this entitles you to level false charges in order to bring down a President
“Whitewater”.
Look – it’s Jonathan Winters dressed as a ferret!
[Door slams as Sine advances to the rear]
Maybe it’s because the multiple counterpoints don’t seem to be having any effect. Pay attention, and maybe they’ll stop.
15 hits! LOOK OUT INSTAPUNDIT!
So, Sine, given that you acknowledge that our pre-2001 intellegence on Iraq was even less complete than it was later, how is it significant that some people made statements then that are different from what they said later on?
Another lie to report to everyone: The weatherman said yesterday it was supposed to rain today. It didn’t. The day isn’t over yet, but I know he knew he was giving out the wrong forecast. Just look at the satellite photos. Examine the weather balloon data. It’s all clear to anyone who takes the time. He cherrypicked the information. Dissenting points of view were not given appropriate weight.
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
[Cloud manipulator!]
1) We will lose Iraq…because the Left and the media wants us to lose Iraq.
It will have nothing to do with the people resisting the American invasion and occupation of their country?
2) The Iraq War will be a defeat…because Bush and the American people were shamed into submission by the Left and the media.
It will have nothing to do with the people resisting the American invasion and occupation of their country?
3) Bush will lose…because he and his supporters chose to listen to those who want the US to fail, mainly the Left and the media.
It will have nothing to do with the people resisting the American invasion and occupation of their country?
4) Bush and his supporters biggest failure will be trusting the Left and the media to not stab our military in the back.
It will have nothing to do with invading an occupying a foreign country on false pretences?
5) The brave US military men and women will have died in vain because the Left and the media wanted them to.
Would they have died if Bush hadn’t invaded and occupied a foreign country on false pretences?
6) Millions of Iraqis will perish, and it will be the fault of the US, Bush and the war supporters… because they let the Left and the media subvert the military effort.
Would they have died if Bush hadn’t invaded and occupied a foreign country on false pretences?
7) The GOP will lose elections because it lost the war…because the Left and the media wanted to lose the war.
This I disagree with. I think the GOP will win the next Presidential election, and the one after that.
8) The Islamists will grow in power by beating the US and showing how weak and powerless the West is…because the Left and the media wants the West weak and powerless.
Would they be as powerful if Bush hadn’t invaded and occupied a foreign country on false pretences?
9) The US will lose the War on Terror, and deserve to..because it is really is weak and powerless in the face of Islam, which is what the Left and the media set out to prove in the first plance.
Would the US be as weak if Bush hadn’t invaded and occupied a foreign country on false pretences?
10) The Left and media wants the US to lose the War on Terror…and they will win because the anti-leftists let them win.
Perhaps the Left believes that the US would have been better off if Bush hadn’t invaded and occupied a foreign country on false pretences?
“patriotic dissent made during the Vietnam war”
Get a clue, hippie. The Left’s leadership was working for the KGB and the American Communist Party to undermine the US during the Vietnam war. Read David Horowitz…he was there.
The.”anti-war”.subversion.has.ALWAYS.been.on.the.other.side.
I’m sorry to bring you the news about how rotten a generation you hippes were. Peace, love, dope! And a bunch of enslaved and murdered Vietnames in a pear treee.
I can’t wait for all of you Sixties-Kids to drop dead.
Beelzebub has obviously sent out his minions to shout out the drumbeat…”BUSH LIED” to all rightwing blogs. They are everywhere. Like the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz.
Citing facts is futile.
Washington Post:
[…]
But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.
In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.
[…]
Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed Iraq as what Hadley called “an enormous threat.” In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein’s Iraq: “Frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”
Phoenician 1.2 is online!
Those wacky Iraqis, why are so many of them, you know, voting and stuff instead of resisting the occupation like the brave few willing to blow up children and squander what local support they had left? Those migthy Minutemen! They will win just like Michael Moore said they would!
Those are the real patriots. The ones with the car bombs resisting the democraticly elected Iraqi government and constitution. Which, by the way, was stolen by Diebold.
I wonder about this, too. When there’s a lot of really strong evidence for something, you don’t try to make your point with the weakest evidence you’ve got. Since the link s/he gave had one or two observations coupled with tons of unsubstantiated supposition, that indicates to me that s/he doesn’t have strong evidence at ALL… in fact, the “loads” of evidence must be even weaker than the initial weak evidence that was given.
I double-majored in English and cellular biology in college. Post-modernism is one of the major things that turned me off to the idea of a career in the humanities, making me choose the latter for my post-graduate work. It’s no more appealing today than it was back then.
“It will have nothing to do with the people resisting the American invasion and occupation of their country?”
The “reistance” in this case are genocidal totalitarians, i.e. your peeps. They are criminals seeking to occupy Iraq and enslve it’s people. I.e. The Left’s Peeps.
“Would they have died if Bush hadn’t invaded and occupied a foreign country on false pretences?”
Well we know more Iraqis will have continued to die and 99% would have remained enslaved by the Baathists. But you are clearly racist against brown-skinned people and don’t care about that.
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.
WH response to WAPO.
“(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability  notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.”
 Text of President Clinton’s address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998
I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein. We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don’t fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. [December 18, 2002]-John Edwards
So many liars..Tsk. Tsk.
Oh, for those who refuse to follow links:
Intelligence Design
Bush Rewrites History
Phoenician, during the Whitewater investigation, false charges were not brought against President Clinton with the intention of bringing him down.
That’s why Starr obtained more than a dozen and a half convictions.
Sine qua non, amusing how the quotations you include above do not actually support the arguments they are intended to support.
Hilarious actually.
I have serious doubts as to her description of what she has to do, but one fact is indisputable: at the end of this statement she takes her leave. This was an hour ago.
Man, I hate it when people promise to leave and then hang on and on and on. It’s like they can’t help themselves or something.
Sine Qua Nonce Lied!
You know, folks, these trolls are zombies. Don’t waste your breath.
Interesting quote from an op-ed by Fred Hiatt n the Washington Post this morrning (emphases, mine):
Shameful.
Talking Points Memo
What a sorry, sorry unfortunate president.
And, Manipulating Intelligence
George Washington knew that the ONLY chance that the colonies might have to gain independence was to outlast the British army. It was this long protracted insurgency coupled with the renewal of (brokered) hostilities with the French which eventually gained our, well, freedom. Even as tories continued to hold hope for royal victory, and provided the succor for the King’s troops.
Imperial Japan had no clear chance of defeating the allies. Short of oil, the warlords hoped that a decisive, crippling strike on Pearl Harbor (eliminating the Pacific Fleet), and grabbing the Dutch East Indies, would serve to protract any offensive the west might bring to bear. Then, prolonged grinding defense, and hope that a European front would lead to a scenario in which the Allies would sue for peace. Obviously this did not go as planned, but the Pacific theatre was not the main focus of our efforts until after VE day either.
Ho Chi Minh knew these lessons. And was prepared to sacrifice another generation of people in the Vietnam War. It was the knowledge that they, the communists, were winning the psychological war in the United States that led to a continued effort. The moral succor which they (the North Vietnamese) found in this self-defeatism was a greater gift then he could have ever wished for. Why fight on the ground when your enemy was defeating themselves and dividing the effort for you?
Do the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq know this?
From TigerHawk
The answer can perhaps be found in al Qaeda’s own doctrine, which American scholars increasingly understand. According to Princeton’s Michael Scott Doran (now on the National Security Council), al Qaeda’s strategy is to “vex and exhaust” the apostate Muslim regimes and the United States, their principal sponsor:
So where does the war stand now, according to al Qaeda? A leading al Qaeda operative has written a book, the title of which translates loosely to “The Management of Chaos.†According to al Qaeda, the current stage of revolution is the stage of “vexation and exhaustion†of the enemy. They have a notion of how to do this to the Americans and to their ‘puppets’.
You vex and exhaust the Americans, according to al Qaeda, by making them spend a lot of money. The United States is a materialist society, and if forced to spend too much money it will “cut and run.â€Â
Folks, this is simple stuff. Providing comfort to the enemy in the form of presenting a divided front. Insinuating that at any moment we will cut and run, leaving the gates open for a very true terrorist wonderland. Scuttling ALL vestiges of good will and face in the middle east. For what gain? What will be gained by a defeat of Bush?
To quote Daffy Duck … “Still lurking about”.
Sin qua non, that is. Damn my poor typing speed!
It’s official, and his/her last post proves it – Sine Qua None really hasn’t read any of the original posts that inspired this string of comments.
Sine, I don’t question your patriotism. But, based on the evidence you provide, I do question your reading comprehension.
Or maybe it would work better this way…
[Assumes best Beavis voice] Heh…heh…you said “Loads.”
What’s frustrating is that this phase of the war is essentially a repeat of the early 70’s and its the same damn hate America crowd and their philosophical progeny doing their pathogenic little shuck and jive like this shit is fresh or something.
So, it looks like us “chickenhawks” do have a constructive role to play in this fight: verbally and rhetorically pimp slapping neo-hippies until their ears bleed.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not down with a repeat of the 70’s. For one thing, the fashions sucked and I don’t see another Reagan on the horizon to pull our bacon out of the fire.
WS
It’s just deja vu all over again in here.
I almost got sucked in again. This argument is bad for your health.
I prefer to just point and laugh at the moonbats who answer questions you haven’t asked and don’t answer the ones you have asked.
The ones who just never seem to admit that from 1997-2003 every prominent Dem was saying the say things as Bush while seeing the same info. He just had to nerve to actually mean what he said!
That’s as far as I’m going anymore. After that, I’ll just ridicule them. It’s more fun and achieves the same result: None.
Has it ever clearly been established that Iraq did not have WMD’s or the capability to produce them ?
I think it would have been very difficult for Iraq or any nation (re Iran ) to produce a nuclear weapon without the U.S. knowing it. The production of nuclear weapons requires operations (i.e. uranium enrichment) on such a large scale that our national technical intelligence (overhead reconnaissance) would be able to uncover that. Why do you think Israel bombed their nuclear reactor.
Even if Iraq had produced an actual nuclear device, to attack the U.S (and he would also have to have had the means of somehow delivering the weapon first) would have been suicide. Iraq could not have ever posed a direct threat to the U.S. The most that Saddam could have gained by obtaining nuclear weapons, would be to become a greater regional threat (but Israel already has nukes and , and the U.S. would probably not stand by and let Iraq invade Saudi Arabia even if Iraq did have nukes).
There is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11. There is however conclusive evidence that Iraq aided and abetting terrorist organizations including AQ. The actual threat that Iraq posed was that they could work with a terrorist organization to deliver a WMD surreptitiously, the threat of a chemical or biological weapon or perhaps a dirty nuke was more real than an actual nuclear weapon (our first nuclear weapons weighed about 10,000 lbs). These are the facts : 1. Iraq was hostile to the U.S. 2. Iraq had aided terrorist organizations. 3. Iraq had or was capable of producing WMD’s within short notice. 4. Iraq was not cooperating with the U.N. and had violated U.N. sanctions. 5. Iraq had used WMD’s’s (chemical weapons) against Iran and against the Kurds. 6. Iraq had invaded Iran and Kuwait and had demonstrated that they were an aggressive nation. On top of this Saddam Hussein was a vicious despot engaging in attrocities upon his own people on a large scale. There was moral justification alone to topple the Saddam regime by means of war; in light of 9/11 there was also an unacceptable risk posed by Iraq, so it was also clearly in the national interest to remove Saddam.
I do not believe that the Bush administration lied or manipulated intelligence to lead us to war. I do not believe that it has been proven that Iraq had no WMD’s or the capability and intent to produce them. Bush was acting upon the best information he had at the time, although large stockpiles of WMD’s have not been uncovered, the fact remains that Iraq was an unacceptable risk and the war was justified.
The democrats are basically asking “How long have you been beating your wife? “ By responding to the allegations that the administration manipulated or withheld intelligence , the administration is ceding that Iraq did not actually pose a threat and this is not the case. I am glad that Bush is starting to respond to the cynical, partisan, and dare I say traitorous attacks , but he needs to point out that the facts for which the was waged have not changed and that it was indeed a justified action. He also needs to reiterate that making untrue allegations which undermine our war efforts is treason.
I
Jesus. (oops, sorry, Mike)
Are we gonna have to fumigate again? And where the hell are my socks?
Sine, by dodging my question about the “small proof” you offered and resorting to just cutting and pasting other people’s arguments that you lack the intellectual power to digest and reiterate on your own, you are not really giving me any confidence that the “loads of information” you refer to really mean anything. Especially if this is it.
#1) – Intelligence Design
Your quote… doesn’t say a damn thing. Not one damn thing. It says that conservatives are wrong. When you want to back up your argument that conservatives are wrong, you need to point out relevant facts, not other people who share your opinion.
#2) – Bush Rewrites History
* If you’re going to claim that Bush had different information from Congress, you will need to step up and show the differences. The Congresscritters are big boys and girls who can do their own homework and research. If they found something different, they need to say so. Curiously, they are not. They are giving us the same thinly sourced bullcrap as you pulled with your first Raw Story link. If it turns out that the other information Bush had was different in scope but the same in content and implications, what is the point? Note that Sen. Rockefeller saw more of that super extra secret intellegence than the rest of Congress and went to even more extreme lengths than Bush. He was one of those who actually used the word “imminent” that is so often dishonestly attributed to the White House. That does not suggest that this extra special super duper intellegence threw any cold water on the Iraq situation that Bush hid.
* Again, this only says that Bush didn’t argue against himself before the public enough. That’s bullshit to expect him to. He reviewed the data, came to the reasonable conclusions, and presented it. Don’t expect him to make Saddam’s case for him. What were the words Tenet used? “Slam dunk”? And you expect Bush to get up and say “My intellegence people have told me it’s a slam dunk, but I’m not so sure. . .” It’s sure not like Saddam gave us many reasons to trust him.
* Okay, so France, Germany and Russia all agree that Iraq’s hiding WMD. But they don’t want to do anything about it. That does abso-fucking-lutely nothing to suggest that Bush lied by agreeing that Iraq was hiding WMD. Does that make sense to you? Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Are you so dishonest or stupid that that doesn’t make sense to you?
#3) – Talking Points Memo pt 1
This says that Italy gave us bad information based on forged documents. This does not bolster your argument that Bush lied at all.
– Talking Points Memo pt 2
And wow, I knew TPM was bad, but what a stinker the next part was with those four points.
One, there was no longstanding effort to tie Iraq to 9-11. No one in the Administration said Iraq had a hand in 9-11. The best you can say is that they didn’t run around constantly reminding people that Iraq DIDN’T have a hand in 9-11, and, you know, <i>not their job. Oh yeah, they pointed out that Saddam and Al Qaeda had links, but they didn’t say that was one of them despite all your side’s conflating attempts to he contrary. So who is lying?
Two, as already made clear, the CIA did not try to prevent the President from making those claims.
Three, “Consistent and longstanding effort to elide the distinction between chem-bio-weapons (which are terrible but no immediate threat to American security) and nuclear weapons (which are).” *intense look of impatience* … you stupid fucking assholes. Remember what a tiny bit of anthrax did? Chem-bio-weapons are a big fucking deal after 9/11. If they can crash our own planes into our own buildings, a terrorist group could do a lot with some chemical or biological weapons within our shores.
Also, I want you to read the part about “there was a strong consensus within the foreign policy establishment that. . .” Read it as hard as you can, read it slow, read it aloud and mouth the words with your stupid drooling lips. Tell me what the consensus was, and then try to reconcile that with your retarded idea that Bush lied about something.
Four, uh, yeah, we often mention that there was more to the invasion than just WMD. Thanks for getting on board with that, finally. And if there are people that e-mail Josh Marshall and claim that they “knew” Iraq had no WMD, well, they’re fucking idiots who never would have known if they were right without, you know, the US overthrowing Saddam to find out once and for all. Welcome to the real world, which is highly different than the way your “reality-based” grape drink universe works.
*sigh*
Here’s a little imagination game for you, Sine. I want you to think about it as hard as you fucking can.
Assume that UN inspectors were able to prove beyond all doubt that Saddam had no stockpiles. He remains in power, and likely has the sanctions on his country lifted. Inspectors go home. What does he do next? You read the Duefler report, right? It was part of your LOADS AND LOADS of information, right?
I’m so tired of arguing this shit! Any rational, reasonable person with an IQ over 70, after reviewing all the evidence would have to conclude that Bush was not lying or manipulating intelligence. I hate to admit it, but I’m getting worn down – the bastards are getting to me.
I’ll not respond to the likes of Phoenician or Sine. Phoenician has shown its true colors with its post on Iran’s nukes. No sense going down that road…sorta leads to nowhere. Sine shows the mental acuity of a six year old on crack. How are you going to reason with that? So I’ll discuss with the rationals and continue to “skip over” and otherwise ignore the bleating idiot posts.
Max Planck said that science progresses one funeral at a time.
And that was in a field where they at least profess to believe in an objective reality, the critical importance of verifiable evidence, and the supremacy of logical reasoning and rationality.
Imagine how hard it is to make real progress in the social and political realm.
I’m afraid that we must assume that this world will not appreciably improve until these fucking Boomer hippy losers (and their sycophantic cock-suckers like Sine Qua Non and Phoenician/Romans) are dead and buried.
Drop dead at your earliest convenience, you worthless meat sacks.
Bush did not manipulate the intelligence and the Democrats know this, the democrats want to use this as an issue in the upcoming elections, they want to start to promote an immediate pull out. Good luck I do not think this is going to wash in the end. Nothing has changed, there was justification before the war and there is justification now (see earlier post).
Trumping up wars on false basis (Gulf of Tonkin incident)and poor execution of war (LBJ’s bungling micro-management) are the domain of the democrats.
exactly john brown.
BECAUSE OF THE HORSE-FUCKING COCK-SUCKING MEAT SACKS!
Sorry, can’t find a single lefty source to link for background on that. Where’s Kos when you need him?
Sortelli nails it.
As a thought experiment, let’s fast forward 20 years. The sanctions have long since been lifted. Saddam has been funding terrorist activity around the world for over a decade. He croaks, there is another Shia uprising, hundreds of thousands are slaughtered, the insurgency is put down and guess which two psychopaths are now playing Sonny and Michael Corleone?
Just as with Social Security reform, the dishonest Democrats wanted to keep playing kick the can, avoid the problem, let someone else deal with it. And now they want to give themselves a retroactive note from their mother saying they weren’t responsible for their own actions two years agoâ€â€instead of being proud that they played at least a small part in removing a sadistic bastard from power in the ME.
They are not only cowards, they are weaselly, unpatriotic ones to boot.
[…] lying or misleading in the service of greater “Truths” — a position at one time openly advocated by Glenn Greenwald(s) and his supporters, some of whom, remarkably, are not even Greenwald himself. […]
[…] just that the need to do so is often precipitated by ideological opponents who, as Glenn Greenwald has admitted (though I don’t believe the admission was read into the Senate record), must be willing to […]
[…] at whom they sneer like Elizabeth Edwards at a plate of fish sticks — even as they attempt to redefine patriotism to track with their own illiberal attitudes and cynical distortions of truth […]