Bombing the Messenger?

From the Associated Press:

LONDON -- A civil servant has been charged under Britain's Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a government memo that a newspaper said Tuesday suggested that Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded President Bush not to bomb the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

The Daily Mirror reported that Bush spoke of targeting Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, when he met Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004.

Link via Sploid. Daily Mirror heavy-breather here; the White House is "not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," and I really can't recommend highly enough the BBC-produced journo-politico-murdero miniseries State of Play.

In October 2001, Michael Young wrote that "The Bush administration's efforts to censor [Al-Jazeera] are dumb."

Comments

[Thomas Greaves]

W probably jokingly suggested this, akin to Reagan's "the bombing begins in five minutes" deal.

I'd love to sit in on a Blair-Bush meeting/phone call. I like to think W has some sort of dumb nickname for Blair, like "Blairie" or "TB", or maybe "the Tonster", and that Blair hates it, but he's been using it for too long to stop now.

[Matt Welch]

I really hope it's "The Tonester."

[Steve]

"Are you sure you weren't in the scarey movie about that witch in the projects? The Blair Witch Projects?"

[Galius_Persnickety]

The nice thing about being satire-proof is that if you don't follow through with a course of action, you can simply deny that you ever considered it because it was so hare-brained as not to be believable.

"Nominate my own personal lawyer to the supreme court? How outlandish, I won't even dignify that with a response!"

[Pro Libertate]

As foolish as Bush and his posse can often be, I don't buy this one for a minute. If for no other reason than the amazingly obvious position our press would take against Bush after such an attack.

Thomas Greaves, I think Bush calls him "The Tonmeister" or, perhaps, "Tonaronavich".

[Pro Libertate]

Wait, I'm wrong. What really pisses Blair off is how Bush keeps saying, "They're great", amid many giggles.

[joe]

"That's too stupid, evil and crazy for this White House" is a sentiment that's made me look wrong on quite a few occasions.

No way they'd actually try to legalize torture! That's stupid, evil and crazy!

He's not going to approve the Swift Boat attacks - that's evil and crazy!

No way are they really going to refuse Red Cross personnel access to camps!

Etc etc etc.

[dhex]

yeah, i'm with joe on this one. this ain't the brightest bunch of amoral millionaires, ya know.

[British Libertarian]

This story might of been reasonble, if it wasnt for the fact that i wouldnt trust the daily mail as far as i could throw it, hell, they can lie about british soildiers toutouring people in iraq, this sounds like annother one of there fake cheap political points.

[Pro Libertate]

Maybe this was just a test assault before moving on to domestic targets. First Al-Jazeera, then The New York Times!

Hey, believing everything bad you read about Bush is fun! Ah, the soothing simplicity of complete paranoia 🙂 (I kid--paranoia about government is always the healthiest approach, even when it veers towards wackiness.)

[Ruthless]

"Bush spoke of targeting Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar"

We'd need to know Bush's definition of "targeting."
Is "targeting" more an Americanism or a Britishism?

[rob]

It's amazing to me that joe actually believes that 1) Bush tried to legalize torture, 2) Bush personally approved the Swift Boat Vet ads and 3)Bush somehow worked to prevent Red Cross personnel from going into New Orleans.

I'm no fan of the current administration, but Bush actually put out a Memo that that does the exact opposite of joe's 1st claim. http://www.slate.com/features/whatistorture/LegalMemos.html

For the second claim, the Swift Vets commercials actually had to run a statement that said "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee," as opposed to the ones that said "I'm George Bush and I approved this ad."

The last point is rebutted by the Red Cross's own web-site, which says that the STATE Homeland Security Dept. requested that the Red Cross not go in: "The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city." http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524

joe, c'mon dude, put the Kool-Aid DOWN!

[Pro Libertate]

Ruthless, are you suggesting that this administration is captured by--gasp--Big Retail? That Bush intends to assist Target in building a store right next to Al-Jazeera's headquarters? The horror.

Just kidding, Ruthless. Is there a difference in the meaning of "targeting" in American English and the Queen's variety?

[rob]

My bad, #3 is probably about Red Cross access to detention centers. The DoD lets ICRC into all of its facilities. joe might have a point about the claims regarding CIA detention centers... Time will tell, eh?

[gaius marius]

It's amazing to me that joe actually believes that ... Bush tried to legalize torture

and the state of denial of the worshippers of the holy bush continue to mire themsleves in amazes me. love your government -- they would *never* do anything so terrible, despite the scads of evidence that clearly demonstrates that they have!

i admit, i want to see the memo and transcript before taking it all as some kind of reality. but i have to agree with messrs joe and dhex -- this is far from out of bounds for this utterly immoral lot.

[Phil]

rob, I'm absolutely certain that joe's reference to not allowing the Red Cross access to camps has fuck-all to do with New Orleans and instead has to do with the administration's practice of "ghosting" detainees so that the ICRC did not have access to them. Which you'd know if you actually, like, read what joe said instead of assuming it just to show how smart you are. I'll let joe explain the other stuff to you.

[RA]

This is a great idea. Brittain should have taken out Sin Fein long ago and we should take ot Al Jezarra.... the NYT.... WAPO.... Atlanta Journal....LA Times.... all the real anti-American propagandists.

[rob]

Wow, Phil, that was a TIMELY post on your part.

[gaius marius]

all the real anti-American propagandists.

i wondered how long it would be before the resident moonbats mentioned that it's cbs that should be bombed.

unfortunately, i'm also left to wonder how long it will be before their blind drooling vitriol becomes the populist political cover necessary for an administration -- be it this one or the next or the next -- to act as an absolutely corrupted power eventually must.

[gaius marius]

TIMELY

your best criticism, mr rob?

[WSDave]

Maybe I'm too dumb for words, but doesn't it say that somebody was actually CHARGED with leaking a memo that "suggested" the very thing that the White House says didn't happen?

If it's all bull, why is anyone being charged under Britian's Official Secrets Act, versus a civil libal case?

[rob]

gaius marius - Let me spell it out for you:

After re-reading joe's post, I corrected myself. See my comment at 4:16 PM.

OTOH, I could berate Phil for failing to read my subsequent post, the way he berates me for initially misreading part of joe's, but what would pointing out Phil's hypocrisy achieve?

[rob]

Most accurate statement of the day award goes to Pro Libertate: "paranoia about government is always the healthiest approach, even when it veers towards wackiness."

gaius marius, the guy who believes that "Western Civilization" is going completely down the drain despite thousands of years of progress to the contrary, refers to someone else as a moonbat and actually being accurate in his statement: Priceless!

Speaking of gaius, has someone on this thread actually taken the position you're referring to here: "the state of denial of the worshippers of the holy bush continue to mire themsleves in amazes me. love your government -- they would *never* do anything so terrible, despite the scads of evidence that clearly demonstrates that they have!"

Or are you just building up a nice, fluffy straw man to attack?

[Ruthless]

"but i have to agree with messrs joe and dhex -- this is far from out of bounds for this utterly immoral lot."

Pro Libertate, and other messrs,
Upon further consideration, I'm cool with what gaius and the above messrs said.

[Ruthless]

Could this be the military definition of "targeting"?
"Meantime, NBC News analyst Bill Arkin says that while there is no military order to bomb any media outlet, the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha has been given responsibility for exploiting and disrupting the communications and computer systems of news media outlets worldwide.

Arkin says the center of this effort is the Network Attack Support Staff, which while assigned to Stratcom, is headquartered at Ft. Meade, Md."

[joe]

I'm not even going to refute rob's post. It's self-refuting. Or rather, it's rob-refuting.

Think about what he wrote the next time rob makes any sort of assertion.

[rob]

Good plan, joe. Retreat is probably a sound plan when faced with of superior opposing firepower and overwhelming numbers on the side of your opponent, especially if you're chronically suffering from total breakdown of your own command and control.

Just ask any member of the Iraqi Republican Guard who survived Desert Storm...

[Rick H.]

OTOH, I could berate Phil for failing to read my subsequent post, the way he berates me for initially misreading part of joe's, but what would pointing out Phil's hypocrisy achieve?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Phil's hypocrisy" here. Your correction and gaius's are 4 minutes apart. A short enough span to give the benefit of the doubt and not get pissy about it.

And your #3 was not the only misreading; you originally accused Joe of saying Bush tried to legalize torture when he clearly used the term "White House" to indicate the Bush administration. If you're going to parse the language, be accurate.

As for the Swiftboaters, I believe that in those weeks every man-hour and spare brain cell in the vicinity of GWB was devoted to his presidential campaign, and the Swifties were a critical part of that campaign. So, yes, Bush and his handlers approved the ads. Against those that deny this, it's pointless to argue.

So that's 3 for 3.

[Eric II]

I'm skeptical that this is anything more than wistful fantasizing on Dubya's simply because Al-Jazeera's headquarters are located in a friendly state, one that now houses an important air base and the command center for the military's Middle Eastern operations. If the network was based out of Damascus or Tripoli, then the notion of the Administration authorizing a B-2-induced blackout is more plausible, though still jaw-dropping on a certain level.

[TallDave]

Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded President Bush not to bomb the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Damn you Blair!

Seriously, this is just Reagan's "the bombing begins in five minutes" redux.

yes, Bush and his handlers approved the ads
And you base this on... your theory about brain cells? There's a lot of irony there.

There's no conspiracy theory re Bush that his detractors aren't stupid, evil, or crazy enough to talk themselves into believing.

[joe]

rob, we can all read what you wrote. I'm not retreating. I'm not even budging at your pinpricks.

Because you aren't shit. You wrote that it's been proven - proven! - that the White House hasn't worked to legalize torture, despite what we've all read over the past few months. You wrote that the White House had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads. You wrote that the Red Cross hasn't been denied access to prisoners being held.

You're a dupe, you're a liar, and everybody knows that now.

[Ethan]

As foolish as Bush and his posse can often be, I don't buy this one for a minute. If for no other reason than the amazingly obvious position our press would take against Bush after such an attack.

Didn't the AJ building in Baghdad get attacked during the war, resulting in the death of a reporter? Or has that story been proven false? I don't recall the story causing a significant uproar in our press. I was first made aware of the story in "Control Room," a documentary film about AJ's coverage of the Iraq War.

[joe]

Rick H.,

Swift Boating is an old Rove technique. In Rove's first race, which was for a judgeship, his boss's opponent was well known for all the work he'd done on behalf of children's charities. He had been given all kinds of civic awards for his work. Warm fuzzy stories about all he'd done for kids was the central "character/biography" theme of his campaign.

So Rove started a whispering campaign that the guy was a child molester. Poof, every image of the guy with a kid has to go out the window, because now it doesn't remind people of the true, inspiring story about the judge, but about the sensationalist slanders about him.

Does that sound familiar?

[TallDave]

joe,

Does that sound familiar?

Yes, it sounds like the ravings of lunatic homeless people I pass on my way to work sometimes.

Oh, and by the same insane logic you must believe that Kerry's handlers approved creating the Bush TANG memos, which unlike the Swift Vet claims were completely fake.

[Les]

There's no conspiracy theory re Bush that his detractors aren't stupid, evil, or crazy enough to talk themselves into believing.

Hold on, there! I'm a Bush detractor, but I often argue with insane liberals who accuse him of all sorts of secret plans and atrocities. I, too, suspect he made a bad joke and Blair laughingly played along.

I think that there's as much evidence that he's made secret plans or knowingly lied to the public as there is to suggest that he's not a willfully ignorant, spoiled frat-boy, who spent most of his life avoiding any real responsibilities and honest work. If there were conspiracies in the White House, I'm sure he was kept out of the loop as he'd be almost completely useless.

[Ethan]

By the same insane logic you must believe that Kerry's handlers approved creating the Bush TANG memos, which unlike the Swift Vet claims were completely fake.

I don't think so, unless Rove was working for the Kerry campaign. Was he? Can you point to a particular person who was a chief strategist in the Kerry campaign who has a history of Rove-like tactics? (I mean without feverishly looking around the internet NOW.)

[Rick H.]

I get it, TallDave. I'm wrong because I'm crazy. Thanks for the scintillating tete-a-tete.

[rob]

Rick H., I just retaliated in kind to Phil's pissiness. Not very big of me, I suppose, but there you have it. And it DOES seem hypocritical of him to blast me for mis-reading something after I've apologized for it. If I can retract and re-target in a subsequent post, surely right after time Phil hits "Post" he'll be able to see my subsequent post and do what I did when I realized I'd mis-read joe.

"And your #3 was not the only misreading; you originally accused Joe of saying Bush tried to legalize torture when he clearly used the term 'White House' to indicate the Bush administration. If you're going to parse the language, be accurate."

I fail to see how parsing it either way makes a difference. The White House and the Bush administration are synonymous. Maybe I'm missing your point here, but that seems like the difference between describing something as blue versus "aquamarine."

"I believe that in those weeks every man-hour and spare brain cell in the vicinity of GWB was devoted to his presidential campaign and the Swifties were a critical part of that campaign." - Rick H.

The first part is probably true about focusing on the presidential campaign. But what does your belief in regards to this have to do with the fact that the Swifties weren't part of the GWB campaign?

"So, yes, Bush and his handlers approved the ads. Against those that deny this, it's pointless to argue." - Rick H.

Well, since you say it's pointless to argue, I'll just let you have that one. Uh, on second thought, I'll take Option B, where I point out that the Bush campaign - tho it certainly benefitted - did not approve the ads. If Bush or his campaign handlers HAD, they would have had to note that at the end of the ad in accordance with campaign laws.

[TallDave]

Ethan,

Ah yes, the old double-reverse-secret-discredit-your-own-candidate-with-fake-evidence strategy. Thank you for providing support for my earlier statement regarding Bush detractors and conspiracy theories.

[rob]

"You're a dupe, you're a liar, and everybody knows that now." - joe

Ad hominem attack, usually resorted to when there isn't a way to refute actual facts.

See also, entries by "joe" on Hit & Run.

[Pro Libertate]

Ethan, I barely recall that story, though I think there were some conflicting reports. I suppose it's possible that it was an intentional attack, but I have no way of knowing. I'm rather inclined to doubt it--lots of stuff gets blown up in urban warfare, plenty of it unintentionally. But I don't really know.

Just to set things straight, I'm not saying the military or the Administration couldn't possibly do or plan to do something wrong, stupid, and/or evil; I'm just a little wary of this particular claim. It doesn't make much sense, anyway, since our allies in Qatar would be mildly unhappy if we bombed something on their soil.

[TallDave]

Rick,

No, you're wrong because 1) your logic is flawed, as I pointed out above and 2) you have no evidence besides ironic claims about working brain cells.

[Ethan]

Ah yes, the old double-reverse-secret-discredit-your-own-candidate-with-fake-evidence strategy. Thank you for providing support for my earlier statement regarding Bush detractors and conspiracy theories.

I would like to say "thank you for providing support for my belief that you have no idea what you are talking," but as it turns out I am the one who has no idea what you are talking about with this one. The strategy you cryptically "mention" here isn't the strategy that was being referred to with respect to Rove, was it? And what does this have to do with conspiracies? Please explain (if you feel like it).

[TallDave]

Heh. Remeber when Madeleine Albright said Bush had Osama on ice and was going to bring him just before the elections? Remember the very convincing email going to college kids saying the Selective Servive budget had been increased and that all of them (boy and girls!) would be drafted if Bush was re-elected?

Ahhhh, the good old days. I am sooooo looking forward to the utter insanity that will be the 2008 elections.

[Rick H.]

rob, you said:

The White House and the Bush administration are synonymous.

But your original comment was:

It's amazing to me that joe actually believes that 1) Bush tried to legalize torture,

See? You changed that about which you were amazed that joe was supposedly thinking.

the Swifties weren't part of the GWB campaign

Right, the anti-Kerry campaign was completely separate from the GWB re-election effort, and to lump them together is simply crazy moonbat conspiracy talk.

[TallDave]

Ethan,

You were just alleging Rove was behind the TANG memos.

[TallDave]

Oh, geez, I almost forgot about the tires of 20, count 'em, 20 GOP get-out-the-vote vans being slashed in Milwaukee by Dem opearives, one the son of a Congresswoman! That was very amusing, too. And the shots fired into Bush/Cheney offices (twice!). And the guy who tried to run over Katherine Harris with his car!

2008 is going to be great. I can't wait!

[Ethan]

You were just alleging Rove was behind the TANG memos.

No I wasn't. I think you should reread what I wrote.

[Ethan]

You were just alleging Rove was behind the TANG memos.

No I wasn't. I think you should reread what I wrote.

[TallDave]

Ethan,

Then you're arguing Dems couldn't have done that because they aren't sneaky like Rove? Well, where did all that stuff I mentioned come from?

I'm not sure what evidence there is that Rove actually has much to do with so-called "Rovian tactics," other than assuming any negative or dirty campaigning that happens to his political opponents was secretly inspired by Rove.

[David C.]

Joe,

Re: Swift Boats

I hate to even get into this but it seems to be a total blind spot for Democrats. Did it ever occur to you that the Swift Boat vets simply hated Kerry for what he did after coming home from Vietnam and that they hated him so much that they wanted to sink his chances to be President? Isn't it possible that they could have wills of their own and actually have acted against Kerry without needing some sort of grand Rove-orchestrated Republican conspiracy to propel them into action? Does everything have to involve some sort of conspiracy and Karl Rove?

I had this exact same argument before the election with a friend of mine who is a Democratic political consultant.

[Ethan]

TallDave,

No, I was not making any claim about the Dems' sneakiness. I was pointing out that your claim that "By that logic..." was not true, since Rove didn't work on the Dems campaign and the argument to which you were referring was about Rove. An argument that the swift-boating was Rove-like, given Rove's past, does not imply that the Kerry campaign was behind the fake documents you mention. One can believe one without the other.

[joe]

"By the same insane logic you must believe that Kerry's handlers approved creating the Bush TANG memos,"

The logic is that Rove has engaged in identical tactics before during campaigns. Which campaigns have any of Kerry's handlers been involved in that included false memos? Name me one. Go 'head.

"If Bush or his campaign handlers HAD, they would have had to note that at the end of the ad in accordance with campaign laws." LOL!

The thinking here is that people who leak CIA agents' names and slander the war records of decorated veterans wouldn't THINK of breaking a campaign finance law.

[ShortDave]

Hey, look over there! Look! Over there!!!

[Aakash]

I saw this on the television news (I unfortunately - or fortunately[?] don't have a television here, but I was at Bellacino's, and CNN was on) this afternoon. I hope that it was just a joke, not a real proposal... If it was real, this is quite disturbing. I remember this issue coming up during the Clinton/Blair/NATO illegal war in Kosovo.

[rob]

"See? You changed that about which you were amazed that joe was supposedly thinking." - Rick H.

Dude, I STILL don't see how it's a CHANGE when they're the SAME thing. Are you arguing that I swapped in Bush the individual for the Bush administration? Is that what you're all het up about? I just don't get it.

"Right, the anti-Kerry campaign was completely separate from the GWB re-election effort, and to lump them together is simply crazy moonbat conspiracy talk." - Rick H.

I didn't say that Bush's campaign didn't benefit, I just said that they weren't the same organization. That there might be more than one anti-Kerry or pro-Bush organization seems to not fit into your worldview, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Kind of like you can have a crap-load of organizations that are all anti-war without all being members of ANSWER, for example.

I tend to scoff at monolithic conspiracy theories - and I'd hate to be inconsistent - so I'm going to scoff at this theory. Right now.
I'm scoffing this very instant. Scoff. Scoffscoff. Scoffscoffscoff.

Ok, moving right along...

"The thinking here is that people who leak CIA agents' names and slander the war records of decorated veterans wouldn't THINK of breaking a campaign finance law." - joe

Ok, maybe in your world Kerry is the fourth member of the Holy Trinity (equivalent to the Fifth Beatle, maybe?). But last I checked, Bush was very respectful of Kerry's war record during the campaign, leaving the real mudslinging to the organization that was only too happy to do so.

joe might not think the Bush campaign would balk at breaking campaign laws, but I think that they WOULD - not because they're angels, but because getting caught doing so would hit them where it really hurts: GOP finances. Or, for a truly compelling argument about the separation, see David C's 6:26 PM post.

[rob]

OTOH, I can totally see why conspiracy theories and Karl Rove go hand-in-hand. I mean, the guy's name even SOUNDS like a James Bond villain!

[Rick H.]

Are you arguing that I swapped in Bush the individual for the Bush administration?

Yes.

[Steve]

joe,

I've read that Rove/child molesting rumor story before, but always second-hand, repeated as some sort of legend. Do you have a source for it?

[Josh]

When did joe turn his account over to his teenage son?

[joe]

Rob,

"But last I checked, Bush was very respectful of Kerry's war record during the campaign, leaving the real mudslinging to the organization that was only too happy to do so."

Now I feel bad, like "pick on someone your own size, you big bully" bad. Rob, my friend, allowing the candidate to take the high road and leaving the mudslinging to proxies is standard campaign practice, because it allows the candidate to be the upbeat, positive figure while still getting the dirty stuff out there. That you would absolve a campaign of being complicit in mudslinging because the guy at the top of the ticket did not make the charges himself is...well, it sort of cute, actually.

Steve,

Your google is as good as mine. I read it on a liberal political web site sometime last year.

[Jack]

Matt Welch wrote: "I really hope it's 'The Tonester.'"

Based on the picture here, I think "The Tonester" would fit: http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2695/bushandblair4xu.jpg

And yes, that is a real picture.

[TallDave]

joe,

The logic is that Rove has engaged in identical tactics before during campaigns.

Again, says you and the Dems. Where's the evidence?

[TallDave]

Ethan,

One can believe one without the other.

Sure, but only if you assume the GOP is sneakier or dirtier than Dems, which is tendentious at best. There were no fake Kerry memos, just 255 soldiers who didn't like what he did during and after the war and the lies he told about them. There were no GOP operatives slashing Dems' tires. There were no shots fired into Kerry/Edwards offices.

Now, we could do what Dems have done and just arbitrarily assign those (along with things like leaking Bush's DUI just before the 200 election, and that nasty commercial where they imply Bush supports dragging black men with chains behind a pickup) to Bob Shrum, and start calling them "Shrummiam tactics," and then you'd have your Karl Rove equivalency.

[Anonymous]

There were no shots fired into Kerry/Edwards offices.

It couldn't have been Democrats. Everyone knows Demmys hate guns.

[SR]

"And yes, that is a real picture."

Holy crap! "The Tonester" indeed!

[gaius marius]

A short enough span to give the benefit of the doubt and not get pissy about it.

unless the majority of your existence is split between stupidity and insecurity, mr h, and mr rob's alsmost certainly is. 🙂

[gaius marius]

Isn't it possible that they could have wills of their own and actually have acted against Kerry without needing some sort of grand Rove-orchestrated Republican conspiracy to propel them into action? Does everything have to involve some sort of conspiracy and Karl Rove?

i think, mr c, it would be more correct to say that rove utilized the swift boaters to implement his (quite cunning, imo) strategy. every politician has too many camps of enemies to count. rove was deft enough to use one of them very well.

[gaius marius]

Rob, my friend, allowing the candidate to take the high road and leaving the mudslinging to proxies is standard campaign practice, because it allows the candidate to be the upbeat, positive figure while still getting the dirty stuff out there. That you would absolve a campaign of being complicit in mudslinging because the guy at the top of the ticket did not make the charges himself is...well, it sort of cute, actually.

it's difficult to stay disgusted with someone so naive, isn't it, mr joe, mr ethan? sometimes i simply feel sorry for people like messrs rob and talldave, who have simply not been equipped to understand how the world might work.

[gaius marius]

steve --

this new yorker piece on rove's history is an interesting place to start. while i wonder if rove is in fact any worse than any other campaign manager, what one can certainly say is that maliciousness, unethicality and exposed lies follow the man doggedly.

[gaius marius]

steve --

this atlantic investigative history is where the trumped-up molestation was reported.

[joe]

Damn server ate this comment when I wrote it last night:

David C,

Yes, it was Kerry's actions after coming home - his opposition to the war and to the atrocities committed - that explain the Swift Boaters' ire at him. This is why John O'Neil went to work for the Nixon White House as the head of a group they put together called "Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace," and why he stood on the floor of the Republican convention and renominated Richard Nixon for president. This is also why he reformed his little group in Texas to work witht the Bush campaign - because of his personal and political hatred for Kerry.

[joe]

Thanks, gaius.

ToolDave won't believe the stories, anyway. More falsified information to make St. Karl and St. George look bad.

[TallDave]

gauis/joefool,

It's all speculation. As usual, you poor fools are gullible enough to lap it all up and beg for more.

[gaius marius]

More falsified information to make St. Karl and St. George look bad.

lol -- a democrat wrote that stuff, mr joe! and the rove staffers the democrat interviewed? democrats!!

*sigh* -- it's unfortunate that people of mr talldave's intellectual makeup and worse are in a large majority in any electorate, regardless of the "side" they think they are compelled to choose. it's why a democracy inevitably elects to destroy itself on the altar of tyranny. the united states is going to be no different -- and indeed might already be there.

[TallDave]

joe,

You're incredibly dense. What "information?" Show me one fact in that article that proves Rove did anything wrong.

Sounds like "Shrummian" tactics to me.

[TallDave]

ROTFLMAO It's incredibly fortunate that not everyone is as stupid as gaius.

We've heard from these idiotic doomsayers for decades. Evidence and facts never perturb their perfect state of ignorant bliss.

[TallDave]

So, while the son of a Dem congressperson is convicted of slashing GOP tires on election eve, and fake memos are presented on CBS followed the very next morning by a Kerry campaign ad on the subject, umpteen unsupported accusations prove that Rove is really the bad guy in all this.

I really feel sorry for you guys. I really do.

[TallDave]

Yes, it was Kerry's actions after coming home - his opposition to the war and to the atrocities committed - that explain the Swift Boaters' ire at him.

Yeah, most people like being accused of committing systematic atrocities, approved at all level of command, slaughtering children in a manner reminiscent of Ghenghis Khan. I can't imagine why that would bother anyone. All 255 Swift Vets must have been GOP operatives.

[TallDave]

sometimes i simply feel sorry for people like messrs rob and talldave, who have simply not been equipped to understand how the world might work.

LOL That's richly ironic coming from someone who keeps saying the US is a fascist tyranny and Western Civ is collapsing. Yeah, you're firmly grounded in reality.

Tell us again how large your hedge fund is? Oh right, too Lilliputian to be disclosed. Well, don't despair, maybe someday you'll be better equipped to understand how the world works.

[gaius marius]

i'd be interested to know how that pertains to the relevancy of my points of view, mr talldave -- although, as i'm sure we all know, it doesn't, and you're simply attacking mindlessly wht you don't comprehend and without anything more intelligent to hurl at your disposal.

but, fwiw, mr talldave, i don't ask you about the size of your portfolio because i think it's not the kind of information that polite people ask about -- and certainly not the kind of information that belongs in the public sphere.

moreover -- though you certainly would have no way of knowing this -- even if i were eager to brag, there are very strict laws regarding the solicitation of funds that i prefer to cut a very wide berth around, particularly in an undirected public forum like this. this is why you'll never hear me mention any detail about my gig beyond what i've already said.

believe that or don't -- it matters not.

[gaius marius]

So, while the son of a Dem congressperson is convicted of slashing GOP tires on election eve, and fake memos are presented on CBS followed the very next morning by a Kerry campaign ad on the subject, umpteen unsupported accusations prove that Rove is really the bad guy in all this.

tu quoque, again? what a common logical fallacy this has become.

[TallDave]

gauis,

How is that tu quoque? My point was always that if you believed Rove was responsible for the Swift Vets, it was ridiculous to not believe the Dems weren't responsible for the things that happened, not that because one did it it was OK for the other to. Also, it would be ridiculous to equate the Swift Vets campaign with actual violence.

How common rank stupidity cloaked in intellectualism has become.

[TallDave]

i'd be interested to know how that pertains to the relevancy of my points of view

Because you have raised it as support for them. Duh.

[Viking (cloaked in the pleasan]

"How common rank stupidity cloaked in intellectualism has become."

hmmmm.

[TallDave]

Viking,

I blame Chomsky and the echo chamber created by leftist intolerance of conservative opinions in academia. As evidence, I give you Ward Churchill.

[gaius marius]

How is that tu quoque?

lmao -- i'll let that stand as the succinct self-indictment it is.

[gaius marius]

hmmmm.

and that too, mr moose, and that too. 🙂

[TallDave]

gaius,

In other words, it's not and you can't defend it. Moron.

[gaius marius]

Because you have raised it as support for them.

lol -- do you remember in reference to which actual argument, mr talldave? and do you recall it having anything at all to do with karl rove, swift boats, fascism, civilization, the president or al-jazeera?

[gaius marius]

In other words, it's not and you can't defend it

in other words, mr talldave, it doesn't need defense from an attack of the likes you can muster.

[TallDave]

Well, happy Thanksgiving all. Try to purchase a turkey before Western Civ collapses and the fascist Bush regime crushes all free expression, as gaius will keep predicting until his prescription for lithium and prozac comes through.

[TallDave]

gaius,

In other words, you're an idiot and you lost the argument, and now you're only defense is to pretend it doesn't need one. Sad.

[TallDave]

gaius,

No, that was just in reference to your general stupidity, not a specific reference to the specific stupidity you've demonstrated on this thread.

I know, the likes of you finds that distinction confusing. Maybe you're simply not been equipped to understand how the world might work.

[Ethan]

Sure, but only if you assume the GOP is sneakier or dirtier than Dems, which is tendentious at best.

NO! Again you miss the point. Again you repeat:

My point was always that if you believed Rove was responsible for the Swift Vets, it was ridiculous to not believe the Dems weren't responsible for the things that happened.

You can't just assume the equivalence of the two campaigns on this point, you have to argue for it. Thus the claim that one side has done something untoward does NOT imply that the other side has. Think about the following argument:

Rove did bad thing X.
Therefore, the Democrats did bad thing Y.

Does that really strike you as a valid argument? Do you really think that if someone believes that if a particular known person was behind a particular action then that someone is logically bound to believe that there is some other person who is behind some other particular action? You seem to, since you claim that anyone who believes the first claim about Rove HAS TO believe the second claim about the Dems.

Rove has a particular history that is widely known with respect to his approaches to campaigns. There doesn't seem to have been an equivalent person or persons on the Kerry side, tire-slashing notwithstanding (wow, 20 vans! Why oh why do we not talk about that guy in the same way as we do Rove? After all, there's probably more metal in 20 vans than in a swift boat).

[TallDave]

No, Ethan, YOU have to prove Rove had anything to do with it. And you can't.

[TallDave]

The argument I made was that since you have no proof Rove did it, applying a similar standard of proof to the Kerry campaign one must accept they are responsible for all the dirty anti-Bush tacticts.

And again, I point there is apparently no actual evidence Rove has ever done anything dirty, just hearsay and accusations. I can find some people accusing Shrum of being dirty too.

[TallDave]

And again, it's not an ad hominem tu quoque as gaius claims (but can't argue, because he's wrong and knows it), because my point is NOT to refute the claim Rove was behind the Swift Vets with evidence that the Kerry campaign is just as bad or worse, my point is that the Rove claims are crazy and if you're going to believe that craziness you must do so in a bipartisan fashion, as not to do so demonstrates the bias and thus the non-credibility of the claim.

The direct refutation of the Rove claim itself is simply that there is no evidence he was behind it, and that the Swift Vets had ample reason to hate Kerry, which I made clear above.

[Viking (cross between Phyllis]

"I blame Chomsky and the echo chamber created by leftist intolerance of conservative opinions in academia. As evidence, I give you Ward Churchill."

sure. of course.

bob jones and hillsdale are on the other side.

"echo chamber created by intolerance of the Others' opinions in academia", the generalized case, i'd say is a better description. it's cool to point out when your own side engages in shitty, unethical tactics or junk science. the question of which is being supported by the argumentation, the policy or the people, is important. If both, then the transgressions of the personalities becomes important.

and i think you're giving ward and noam too much credit, btw. noam is only good for the blow up doll that bears his likeness.

ward is good for... um.... um.... oh look. something shiny and bright!

"No, Ethan, YOU have to prove Rove had anything to do with it. And you can't."

this is nothing new in the political debate. we see this deflection all the time about clinton - "we KNOW X about clinton, because all of the dead bodies". "we KNOW he forced himself on Y".

Sadly, clinton and rove (imagine if they mated!!!!!!!!) are the lightning rods for this.

(p.s, HOW tall?)

[Ethan]

Compare

My point was always that if you believed Rove was responsible for the Swift Vets, it was ridiculous to not believe the Dems weren't responsible for the things that happened

with

The argument I made was that since you have no proof Rove did it, applying a similar standard of proof to the Kerry campaign one must accept they are responsible for all the dirty anti-Bush tacticts.

These are 2 completely different claims. I was arguing against only the first. Thus this comment

No, Ethan, YOU have to prove Rove had anything to do with it.

is not only untrue, it is irrelevant. I am making no claim about Rove guilt or innocence. I am arguing that you can't presume the Dems guilt from Rove's guilt. Do you finally see? I am running out of ways to present the (simple) point.

[gaius marius]

Does that really strike you as a valid argument?

clearly, he does, mr ethan.

[TallDave]

Viking,

Good point re Bob Jones and Hillsdale, though I think I should point out that 1) polling indicates there are far more (self-described) leftist-dominated institutions out there than right and 2) I don't agree with a lot of what the right says either, esp at places like the ones you mentioned. But when either side creates an echo chamber, common sense suffers.

I agree, the Clinton-haters on the GOP side were just as bad. I still remember the "Clinton Death List" of people who he supposedly had killed. Nutty.

I'm about 6'4". I just picked that because in most large social situations, there are two or more Daves, and people have always distinguished me as "the tall Dave."

[gaius marius]

infuriating to argue with stupidity, isn't it, mr ethan? 🙂

[TallDave]

Ethan,

They aren't completely different. They're exactly the same. The second is just more elucidated.

I am arguing that you can't presume the Dems guilt from Rove's guilt.

I didn't say you could. I said it was wrong to apply different standards of proof. Since there's no proof of Rove's guilt, the same standard should be applied to Dems.

Since people are saying Rove is guilty (with no proof),it was ridiculous to not believe the Dems weren't responsible for the things that happened, to quote myself.

[TallDave]

gaius,

Anyone who's argued with you must know that well.

[Peacemaker]

Ethan, TallDave

The first statement you quote is just incomplete, not different from the second from Dave's point of view. If it read:

My point was always that if you believed Rove was responsible for the Swift Vets, it was ridiculous to not believe the Dems weren't responsible for the things that happened[, since there was no real evidence for either being true]

or words to that effect, it would be identical to the second. In the context of this discussion, it isn't unreasonable to think that the excluded clause should be understood by the reader, nor is it unreasonable for the reader not to see that.

[TallDave]

Yes, exactly.

[gaius marius]

the Rove claims are crazy

okay, now that you've moved your goalposts and made this assertion -- show why "they" are crazy. i cited two rather thorough pieces above that illustrate why we might believe some rather nasty things about rove are credible. take a few of them and debunk them.

go ahead, mr talldave. start with debunking the atlantic and its interview with a rove staffer who worked on the 1994 harold see campaign in which rove initiated the child molestation rumors against mark kennedy.

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out?he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."

go on. debunk it.

[Viking the Lugubrious Moose]

"I'm about 6'4". I just picked that because in most large social situations, there are two or more Daves, and people have always distinguished me as "the tall Dave.""

LOL!

[TallDave]

gaius,

Goalposts have always been in the same place -- the Rove accusations are crazy because there's no proof other than "Rove is dirty."

So you have people saying Rove is dirty. So now the assertion rests on the scant evidence that people say Rove is dirty, which can be counter-balanced on the believe-Kerry-did-it-too side by finding people who say Shrum or other Dem campaigners are dirty:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=bob+shrum+dirty

Not hard. Besides that, there's the dirty Dem tricks that are actually proved to have been committed by Dems, like the tire-slashing.

And even accepting the unsubstantiated claims, the Rove claim also rests on the obvious logical fallacy that A did X once, therefore if X occurred A must have done it.

Easy.

[gaius marius]

So now the assertion rests on the scant evidence that people say Rove is dirty, which can be counter-balanced on the believe-Kerry-did-it-too side by finding people who say Shrum or other Dem campaigners are dirty:

and you genuinely don't understand how that is a tu quoque logical fallacy?

really?

really?

i find that, even after all the stupid things you've said, hard to believe.

[TallDave]

gaius,

LOL I thought you would say that.

Again, you're apparently not smart enough to understand the difference between "both claims have similar levels of support" and "both sides are bad." The claim about Shrum has nothing to with ad hominems, it's strictly a counterbalance to the only evidence for the the Rove claim.

Try to keep up.

[gaius marius]

and you furthermore think that, because the accusations against rove re: 1994 have merely been made by several people (including people who worked for him at the time) without physical evidence, that their accusations are debunked?

and therefore, claims made against rove vis-a-vis the swift boaters are also debunked?

really?

... no, really?

i don't delve into the profane very often, but that is fucking amazing.

[gaius marius]

a counterbalance

and of what good is "a counterbalance" in debunking claims made about rove?

this is getting to be anthropologically interesting.

[TallDave]

gaius,

I didn't say they were debunked, I said they were weak, no stronger than the claims against Dems, and thus using them as evidence to claim Rove was behind the Swift Vets is so weak that to be consistent one must believe the Dems were behind all the dirty anti-Bush tricks enumerated above.

[TallDave]

gaius,

and of what good is "a counterbalance" in debunking claims made about rove?

LOL What is there to debunk? My whole points rests on the fact there are no supporting facts other than Rove's supposed penchant for dirty tricks.

Arguments with you are always interesting from a mental health standpoint.

[gaius marius]

I didn't say they were debunked, I said they were weak,

no, you said they were "crazy", meaning nonsensical or impossible or in contravention of fact. is the claim made by the atlantic any of these?

you still have done nothing to debunk the claim against rove.

using them as evidence to claim Rove was behind the Swift Vets is so weak that to be consistent one must believe the Dems were behind all the dirty anti-Bush tricks enumerated above.

and you REALLY don't see how this is a tu quoque logical fallacy? REALLY? believing that all sides must be equal, and therefore in believing or disbelieving one the observer must believe or disbelieve the other? REALLY?

[gaius marius]

What is there to debunk?

the testimony of several interviewees, including former employees of rove.

My whole points rests on the fact there are no supporting facts other than Rove's supposed penchant for dirty tricks.

no, your whole point is that

they were weak, no stronger than the claims against Dems, and thus using them as evidence to claim Rove was behind the Swift Vets is so weak that to be consistent one must believe the Dems were behind all the dirty anti-Bush tricks enumerated above.

which is clearly a logical fallacy -- and does nothing to counter the claims made by the atlantic based on the testimony of several witnesses to the events.

[Referee]

It's a holier-than-thou condescension battle of epic proportions! As usual gaius has a significant lead (greatly aided by his "anthropologically interesting" snark), but TallDave is coming on strong (good comeback with the "mental health standpoint" snark)! It's down to the wire! Bring it home, boys! Then get back inside - recess is almost over.

[Ethan]

In the context of this discussion, it isn't unreasonable to think that the excluded clause should be understood by the reader, nor is it unreasonable for the reader not to see that

Actually, TallDave made the former point originally before the talk of lack of evidence, and my point goes back to that exchange. He was responding to a post in which evidence was given that Rove could have had something to do with it. As someone has noted, TallDave has moved the goalposts. Of course if you have no evidence any conclusion is as good as any other--that is trivially true, and it would have been uncharitable of me to assume that he thinks that the evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Rove and the Democrats is exactly the same and completely nonexistent on both sides (how likely is that?). As it turns out though it seems he may actually believe that (all the while presenting claims of Dems' wrongdoing)!

[joe]

"The direct refutation of the Rove claim itself is simply that there is no evidence he was behind it,"

That's thar's some mighty direct refutation. LOL!

Then, when presented by a quote from a former Rove staffer, admitting that Rove carried out the pedophile-Swift Boating of the judge, he claims "people say Rove is dirty."

No, idiot, a campaign staffer who carried out the act admits to his, and his boss's, involvement.

But hey, he can show that some unnamed Dems who have zero connection to the Kerry campaign slashed some tires. Oooooh, that's just like the Deputy White House Chief of Staff and Senior Councillor to the President organizing a slander campaign against a decorated soldier who left his blood on a foreign battlefield. Identical, both in its gravity, and in the proximity of the wrongdoer to power.

You know, "Dems," the guy who works twelve steps form the Oval Office and who ran both of his presidential campaigns...

[TallDave]

you still have done nothing to debunk the claim against rove

LOL I was never trying to debunk them. My point was that the sole evidence that Rove is behind the Swift Vets is that he supposedly has a penchant for dirty tricks, and thus, if you believe the Rove claim re the Swift Vets, then using a consistent standard you must believe Shrum or other Dems were behind all the anti-Bush dirty tricks since people have accused them of similar behavior.

I've explained this several times. Again, please try to keep up.

and you REALLY don't see how this is a tu quoque logical fallacy? believing that all sides must be equal, and therefore in believing or disbelieving one the observer must believe or disbelieve the other?

Sigh. Apparently you don't understand what that means, either.

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

Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim is dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the person has made.

For about the millionth time, my argument has nothing to do with whether Dems are as bad as Rove, so my argument is not tu quoque. My argument is that there are similar levels of proof for either assertion (that Rove is behind Swift Vets and that Dems were behind anti-Bush dirty tricks), in both cases very low. My argument simply demands consistency when considering either claim.

[gaius marius]

(greatly aided by his "anthropologically interesting" snark)

why thank you, mr referee. 🙂

[TallDave]

joe,

If the staffer wants to be taken seriously, let him give his name and provide some evidence. Till then, it's just somebody saying Rove is dirty. Meanwhile, Donna Brazile calles Shrum a "dirty, nasty street-fighter."

The tire-slashing Dems are not unnamed; you can see their names (and mugshots) below. One is Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde, son of congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee). They slashed the tires of 20 GOP get-out-the-vote vans on the eve of the election. If that's not a dirty trick, I don't know what is.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003801.htm

[joe]

And it's worth remembering that the original point ToolDave raised, in an attempt to deny the charge that Rove and the Bush campaign were involved in Swift Boat effort was the following:

"Yes, it (that is, the charge that Rove organized the pedophile Swift Boating and that the existence of a similar campaign against Kerry is evidence that he was behind the Swift Vets) sounds like the ravings of lunatic homeless people I pass on my way to work sometimes."

I wonder, do Republican campaign operatives talking about their past work usually remind you of mentally ill homeless people?

[joe]

"My point was that the sole evidence that Rove is behind the Swift Vets is that he supposedly has a penchant for dirty tricks"

Well, that, and the testimony of his former aid.

But yeah, other than his history of similar dirty tricks, and the admissions by people who worked with him, the evidence is really thin.

I've never heard of "Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde." Was he the director of Kerry's campaign? Karl Rove was the director of Bush's campaigns, and of the campaign against Jude Kennedy.

[TallDave]

joe,

Not always, just in that case.

Again, where's any evidence he even worked for Rove?

[joe]

ToolDave,

No one on this thread has ever, even once, challenged the notion that some Democrats slashed some tires.

My point was that the evil behavior Bush is charged with - wanting to bomb a TV station full of civilians - is not out of line for this administration, given their past evil behavior. You recognize the evil of the two Swift Boat-ish campaigns, so much so that you declare it "insane" to suggest that people in the White House could have been involved. Except that they were.

[TallDave]

joe,

As I've pointed out, you can find lots of people saying Shrum and Dem campaign managers are dirty too, so using your standard of proof they must have been behind all the Dem dirty tricks, like the fake draft email, the shots fired into Bush/Cheney offices, the tire-slashing carried out by other Dems, etc.

[joe]

The evidence is in front of your face, you boob.

Deny it all you want - you're obviously good at that. It was still great to see it aired for everyone to see.

[gaius marius]

I was never trying to debunk them.

so when i said

go on. debunk it.

and you replied ten minutes later saying

the Rove accusations are crazy because there's no proof other than "Rove is dirty."

So you have people saying Rove is dirty. So now the assertion rests on the scant evidence that people say Rove is dirty, which can be counter-balanced on the believe-Kerry-did-it-too side by finding people who say Shrum or other Dem campaigners are dirty:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=bob+shrum+dirty

Not hard. Besides that, there's the dirty Dem tricks that are actually proved to have been committed by Dems, like the tire-slashing.

And even accepting the unsubstantiated claims, the Rove claim also rests on the obvious logical fallacy that A did X once, therefore if X occurred A must have done it.

Easy.

you were not trying to debunk the claims against rove? and you were not making a tu quoque argument?

[joe]

No, ToolDave, not "dirty tricks" in general. The specific set of Swift Boating attacks.

[TallDave]

joe,

Except that they were.

Again, no proof for that except your deluded Bush-hatred.

[gaius marius]

If the staffer wants to be taken seriously, let him give his name and provide some evidence. Till then, it's just somebody saying Rove is dirty. Meanwhile, Donna Brazile calles Shrum a "dirty, nasty street-fighter."

and you don't understand how this is tu quoque either, i gather, mr talldave?

[gaius marius]

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003801.htm

isn't citing malkin virtually a godwin violation of argumentative bankruptcy?

[Ethan]

I will take this as your summation of your view, all polished up:

My point was that the sole evidence that Rove is behind the Swift Vets is that he supposedly has a penchant for dirty tricks, and thus, if you believe the Rove claim re the Swift Vets, then using a consistent standard you must believe Shrum or other Dems were behind all the anti-Bush dirty tricks since people have accused them of similar behavior.

Ya know, it still doesn't follow. And the "supposedly" misconstrues the position of those you are arguing against. People here aren't arguing "Rove supposedly has done some bad things apparently, I guess. Therefore he must have been directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the Swift Boaters and the Swiftboaters were his operatives."

And it just now strikes me that even if we were to throw reason to the wind and follow your lead, what is the end result? Does it clear Rove? No. Does it show the Dems to be bad? No. All it seems to be in the end is a charge of hypocrisy against some of the folks here("Your political bias causes you believe X but not believe Y, but Y is equally warranted, so you should"), which would actually seem to fit the very definition of "tu quoque" that you present.

[TallDave]

gaius,

No, I've never tried to debunk the claims you made re Rove's past behavior. I don't need to. There are similar claims about Dems, so using that as proof is a similar standard in either case, which was my original point. And those claims about past behavior don't prove anything anyway; only the mentally ill (hmmm) would believe your article constitutes proof Rove was behind the Swift Vets.

ROTLFMAO Debunk what? Where is there a shred of proof Rove was behind the Swift Vets? That argument continues to rest on his alleged penchant for dirty tricks. So if you're crazy enough to believe that constitutes an argument, to be consistent you must also believe Kerry campaign managers, who have also been accused of having a penchant for dirty tricks, were behind the shootings, the draft email, etc.

[Lincoln]

Chief of Staff and Senior Councillor to the President organizing a slander campaign

Exactly how do you know this, joe? From the web of connections chart? I'm interested not because I know you're wrong but just because I'm completely baffled by some of the assertions in this thread. Given what we know it seems to me a reasonable man could deduce Karl Rove used the Swift Boat Veterans to his advantage in the campaign. But how can anyone say definitively state Karl Rove "masterminded" or "was not in any way involved with" the Swift Boat Veterans? Where is the smoking gun for either side? How does idle speculation justify hurling insults?

There must be some part of the story I'm missing. Please enlighten me.

[TallDave]

gaius,

Well, I've already explained at least three times that my arguments are not ad hominem, they simply reflect the similar levels of support for the claims of electioneering antics by Rove vs. by the Dems. If you're too thick to grasp that by now, it's safe to assume you never will, so I'm not explaining it again.

joe,

Does it clear Rove? No. Does it show the Dems to be bad? No.

That was never my aim.

All it seems to be in the end is a charge of hypocrisy against some of the folks here

Well, if saying "you're not using applying the standard of proof consistently in arguing Rove is behind the Swift Vets but Dems aren't behind the sneaky anti-Bush campaigns" is an ad hominem, then all criticism of any argument ever is ad hominem and so like anyone who ever argued anything, I'm guilty.

I'm also hungry. Enough explaining why water is wet, I'm off to lunch.

[gaius marius]

No, I've never tried to debunk the claims you made re Rove's past behavior.

while i agree at least that you haven't done a very good job of debunking, i'll let this lie stand against the entire thread above it to illustrate why so many people here find you to be stupid, duplicitous or both.

Debunk what?

again, the testimony of several witnesses to the event. you seem to think that, if you ignore it, it will go away.

Where is there a shred of proof Rove was behind the Swift Vets?

that isn't even what we're discussing -- although you continue to assiduously attempt to move the goalposts, either because you desperately want to or because you aren't bright enough to know where they were in the first place (which is, under the mixim that one should not explain by malice what can be explained by incompetence, what i tend to think is happening). we're talking and have been talking about the allegations made against rove vis-a-vis the 1994 see-kennedy campaign.

you said this claim (among others) was "crazy". i asked you to explain why. you offered that democrats are dirty too -- tu quoque. you have staggered and dissembled ever since, trying to spin your incompetence with a snark and condescension that you clearly haven't earned the right to delegate.

i knew you weren't very bright at the beginning of this, mr talldave, having read your comments and some of your blog. but i've actually lost what little respect i might have had for you as a result of this conversation.

[Ethan]

I hope you had a good lunch. I had baked ziti--it was pretty good.

That was never my aim.

Never said it was.

Well, if saying "you're not using applying the standard of proof consistently in arguing Rove is behind the Swift Vets but Dems aren't behind the sneaky anti-Bush campaigns" is an ad hominem, then all criticism of any argument ever is ad hominem and so like anyone who ever argued anything, I'm guilty.

That doesn't follow either. That being said, though, I think you are right that your argument here (your final, "polished" one, at least) is not a tu quoque fallacy, at least not in the sense that I understand that phrase. However, one could interpret it as one given the definition of tu quoque you present. People here argued that Rove was involved in the swiftboat affair. Your response to the argument what that it was not consistently applied ("you have to think the Dems were behind the anti-Bush stuff"). But the fact (it's not really a fact, but let's pretend) that the argument is not being consistently applied is NOT a problem with the argument. It's a failing of the person making the argument. Thus you are directing your criticism at the person rather than at the argument.

[gaius marius]

But the fact (it's not really a fact, but let's pretend) that the argument is not being consistently applied is NOT a problem with the argument. It's a failing of the person making the argument. Thus you are directing your criticism at the person rather than at the argument.

precisely, mr ethan -- tu quoque.

[rob]

Sorry I missed out on all of this. It's sad to watch joe and gaius try to place the burden of proof on TallDave, when they are the ones asserting that Rove is dirty and that the Bush campaign and the Swifties are all in it together.

I have to say it's interesting to watch gaius and joe give up on actually making arguments and resort to condescension as tho it's a better way to make their point than actually responding.

If you can prove collusion between the Swifties & the RNC/Rove/Bush campaign, let?s see it. But there's not, and there's no way to prove collusion. - other than this unprovable nonsense that seems to be the stock in trade of some posters here.

In that vein, the only thing you guys are missing in your little Legion of Doom Jr. clubhouse is Ken Schultz, possibly the master of pinning the burden of proof on those who question unproven claims with no supporting evidence.

You guys have a nice little love-fest going for one another. Either get a room or provide some freaking evidence to support your claims.

Watching you guys pat each other on the back over how dumb anyone who disagrees with you is truly entertaining. Now THAT is RICH irony.

In other news: HAPPY THANKSGIVING!