bleeding heart

I'm (still, even to this day!) a little surprised at the tendency--practically the insistence--on a view that is not only black and white, but in which the black and white is birthed from the inherent nationalism, which is the enemy of truth in so many cases. So let's get this little sub-topic straight in our heads: there is no argument about who is the Good guy and who is the bad guy: the United states versus Saddam Hussein. That is, no one here is arguing that Saddam was the Good Guy in the conflict. That is not part of the argument. The only people who are indulging in this foolishness are those who insist that the US did nothing wrong, or at least nothing too terribly wrong...and so all blame should be laid at the feet of the Iraqi dictator. The self-indulgence, and self-mythologizing (insofar as personal identities get caught up with the behavior of the Mother State, a common weakness) is evident enough. Here are the facts: Saddam Hussein was a murderer on a large scale. His behavior was so odious that he automatically shares responsibility for what happened. But here are some more facts: the United States, with allies either or both weak and venal, committed an act of international aggression that precipitated the deaths of (minimally) many hundreds of thousands of human beings, only a trivial percentage of whom can be argued to have somehow Asked For It. To defend this, even in the tepid deflection mode of "all Saddam's fault," is grotesque.

?? The points I made in the post to which you responded? Well, that begs a question or two, doesn't it?

You didn't explain why or how my points were incorrect; you pointed out that "others" agree with you. And you seem to think that political representatives make an especially good case, for...some reason, unstated. Perhaps they tend to be more honest and forthright than everyone else, I don't know. Also, there is context--in this case, posting history--which is to be taken into account. That is, if Rue posts, "Wow, Jews sure are evil"...well, we don't tend to read that the same way as when Lictor says, "Wow, Jews sure are evil." Just as if I moaned rapturously about the magnificence of Sarah Palin, few here would mistake my opinion for Shady's. Same with Black Dog, whose posting history puts things into context.

dp

Well, of course even an allegation of sexism is going to get political figures into damage-control mode, no matter what the case may be. It's part of the politically-correct culture which you elsewhere decry. As for your "oh please" response...do you have anything more substantial? Because I don't find that rebuttal terribly convincing.

But I thought Liberals hated the military......

At any rate, sharkman, your question about MLK's remarks about Reagan have been answered. And thank you, Bubber.

But he just contended--using some pretty convincing examples, particularly the last one--that it wasn't about sexism. That the phrase clearly exists in a decidedly non-sexist framework would make it a bit coincidental that he discovered this framework after the fact of his indulging in a sexist remark.

Nope. No one gives a rat's ass about that, which is as it should be.

That is exactly right, exactly what I think we should be doing.

I agree. "Cloud the issue" meaning what appears to be the sheer invention among some conservatives to Republicanize MLK. As far as his voting record goes, all we know for certain is that he claimed no party affiliation, and claimed that he usually voted Democrat. That's the extent of our knowledge. Personally, I'm not sure if it's terribly relevant. "Which party can lay claim to a late American political hero?" To which one might answer: "Who gives a rat's ass?" However, I take issue with the original claim, presented as if it's documented fact, which is why I responded at all.

The primary reasons were geostrategic; the wish to maintain (and increase) strategic control over the oil-rich reason, I suppose it was also meant as an object lesson, so that everybody would see what the US is capable of. That's how gangsters behave, and I think the analogy is accurate enough.

I['m not making excuses for Saddam. I never deny that he was a terrible dictator, a mass killer. You're the only one of us who is denying anyone's culpability. Why would you do that? http://www.scn.org/ccpi/HarpersJoyGordonNov02.html.

Incidentally, I hear that the new Ambassador to Canada is a Goldman Sachs guy. The lucrative (or prestigious) offers must never stop for these fine fellows!

Yes, sure. Honestly, I can't imagine where he thinks he is going with this kind of stuff. He's an odd duck.

I get it, though. I actually read it as "personal" too, but then just happened to look back up.

Are you sure about that? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/ And from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

I put it in quotations precisely because so many dainty little moral cowards--conservatives and liberals alike--have tried to justify behavior that is one short step above child-rape on any ethical scale you could summon.

you know what's even more interesting? That the US, along with its little sycophant (the UK) also violated the sanctions program. Intentionally violated it, for the express purpose of making Iraqis suffer. And suffer they did. It was a very serious crime, by any standard. Now, a person of principle will, it should go without saying, be more concerned, and more outraged, about the crimes committed by us...or, in this case, by two of our closest allies...than they will be concerned about the crimes of official enemies. So when you mention ugly truths like Saddam's intransigence and violations (all serious in and of themselves, I agree), how could you possibly avoid pointing to Western culpability for similar crimes, in the exact same timeframe and situation to which you're referring?

Well, that's another good point, BD. Twitter is not a private email account.

Yes, but that's boilerplate. We all feel the same way.

No. "Personnel issues," which is quite a different thing.

I already addressed the possibility that you meant to claim you did not mean what you have long asserted: that posters--except for yourself, who do it routinely--are remiss in speaking of "truth" and "misinformation." Because, you see, everyone is blinded by their biases (maybe but maybe not the IPCC--who sometimes you claim are blinded by bias, other times claim are outright liars.) Except TimG--bias-free!

But I am speaking precisely and only of your exact words: And then: But you're not saying the IPCC has noble motives; you have already stated the opposite. And simultaneously have determined your "right...to decide" nobility of motives...and lack thereof. Now, if you mean this all as some sort of object lesson to expose Michael Hardner's intransigence, it rather falls flat...since you explicitly DO consider NIPCC honest, and IPCC...not so much. So it appears your issue with MH is...wait, what again? Then you give us this jaw-dropper: Evidently, you think higher standards need be met along these lines by other posters....but aren't necessarily applicable to your own (continual) declarations about what indeed is truth and what is misinformation.

Hopefully the contradictions in your stance don't need to be made more explicit than they already are.