MargaretC:

Good point, but the world is not so simple for my friend Mr. Duran.  You see, Lou is a true believer in capitalism and letting the market sort things out for itself, but he makes a big exception when it comes to substantial numbers of people driving any market any direction which he might consider left . . .

I don't feel it a stretch to guess that when reading your latest post, Lou's initial reaction was to blame the liberal media (presumably including Disney's ESPN) for misreporting the event and spinning the whole thing to snooker the unaware public into believing that Rush did something wrong.  

How'd I do, Lou? . . . Maybe I can fill in for you on your radio show when you are on vacation?   Oh . . . I forgot, Rush is the on with the radio show.  Sorry, it is hard to tell the difference if I just look at the words . . .

Why did ESPN hire a non-sports commentator in the first place ?

Did they not watch ABC's Monday Night Football with Dennis Miller ?

What were they hoping to accomplish with his commentary ?

What did they think he would add, in the forum that they created, on a podium with others, with respect to sports commentary ?

Did he do anything unexpected, anything that might have surprised ESPN executives who made the decision to hire him ?

What role did ESPN play in this episode, and what have they said with respect to the purpose behind their hiring him ?

Why was Fazio retained at Merion ?   (golf related question)

JohnV:

President Bush did report to the American people that one of our closest allies - the British - believed Iraq attempted to source uranium from Africa. At the same time, the Bush Adminstration never claimed to know exactly when Iraq would acquire nuclear weapons capability. They openly stated there was a range of estimates - usually from 1-2 to 6-7 years.

One should note that intelligence assessments of Iraq's nuclear weapons program have a history of being off the mark and don't offer much comfort. That point was made clear in both 1991 and 1996.

While accusations about "lies" are being thrown about, we should not forget that Bush essentially adopted the Clinton administration view that sooner or later we would have to confront Saddam. He acknowledged we could put off the day of reckoning but argued it did not make sense to wait until the "gathering danger" got stronger.

Was anything typical about Crabapple....the party line can try to bury the truth under all your political posturing...I don't even care if anyone thinks that course was good or strategic...but it wain't easy and it wain't typical.

John, If you tell us how the typical party line differs from Mr. Tom Fazio's platform, we might better understand what you are constantly moaning about . . .

Just a few things on this thread's tangent . . .  

Lou was certainly on the fence on the eve of the war, as he stated well above.  Believe it or not, I think I was more hawkish about the war than Lou.  As Lou might recall, I think I told him that if the President of the United States said that Iraq had WMD which presented an imminent danger to us and our allies, then I supported the attack.  I dont see nat'l security as a partisan issue, nor do most who think like me . . . But I also remember telling Lou that it just seemed like Bush might have been overselling the whole thing, and that he had better come up with the goods after the attack. . . and he hasnt yet.  

For me, the question isnt about whether the war was right or wrong, whether it made sense or not, whether we were justified by international law, whether we will ultimately find some semblance of WMD buried somewhere  . . . .

It is about whether the President stretched and spun the truth to make the American people, the US Congress, and our Allies believe that President Bush knew-- knew-- that SH had his finger on the WMD trigger and that this presented an imminent danger.  

That is what he said . . . again and again and again . . . I know SH has WMD which present an imminent danger to America and its allies . . . I cant believe that anyone who listened to him in the months leading up to the attack recalls it any other way.  

Think about it, many of you wanted our last President removed from office because he lied about oral sex, then tried slither out of it by way of semantic tricks.  (Depo 101:  Huge screw-up on the part of the USDJ for not specifically defining sex during the questioning.)  We are talking about going to war here, putting America's armed forces and reserves into actual imminent danger.  

If Bush intentionally misled the American public (and Congress) regarding his knowledge of SH's WMD and delivery capabilities, this is absolutely unforgivable.  How could any American, left or right, feel any differently???
___________________________________
 
Rush, Rush, Rush . . . ESPN made a huge mistake hiring him.  They were blinded by the size and vehemence of his following on the way-right, and underestimated the distaste the rest of us have for his views and presentation.  

Rush injects politics, particularly the politics of race and so-called 'reverse-discrimination,' into absolutely everything.  I dont know why ESPN thought that his commentary regarding football would be any different.  It was just a matter of time . . .

[When the Feminists were trying figure out which direction they should march, some of them marched under the banner of "The Personal is Political."   This gave them an avenue to try to change the law regarding issues they really cared about, like outlawing marital rape, supporting anti-abuse legislation, and pushing for reproductive rights.   Rush and his band of angry men have taken a page from the feminist handbook and expanded it to: Everything is Political.]

Margaret,

I rarely respond to political comments, but...yours:

"...[T]hat's a no-brainer; however, the US and GB initiated the war under the guise that the threat of WMD was imminent..."

Prompts this response:

Keep in mind that, to maintain the peace, an officer of the law does not have to see a weapon to use deadly force. Only the possibility that a subject has a weapon and makes actions as if he/she were to use one against innocent people or the officer is necessary as fact in order to use deadly force against such a threat or possible action. I believe your (our) U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this is the law we live by — and the law we protect.

I will reserve all opinions until the facts are gathered. Certainly there is more question than if Mr. Iraq had gassed thousands and unleashed WMD on parts of the world in this recent year. We can all be fortunate that this was not the case — despite the situation now being one of question throughout the world.

Dr. Moriarty- you know me so well in some respects, so little in others.  In light of all that's been said by the Left about conservatives, white males, southerners, people with strong religious convictions, and most Republican presidents, Rush opining that the Philly sports media overrated McNabb because of his race should not have even made the news outside of that city.  Charles Barkley can openly disparage white basketball players for their inability to jump and play, Jesse Jackson can take very negative shots at Jews, and the Gore campaign ("not going to let a bunch of white boys win") can play the race card repeatedly without consequence.

BTW, while in NM, I retained the services of Doug Wright to represent me in any direct discussions with you.  While Doug is probably much closer to you philosophically than me, your propensity to deal artfully with the language and those things legal prompted me seek the assistance of someone with similar skills.  I hope that Doug will weigh in and start earning his fees.

The Limbaugh episode is prima facia evidence of the Left's strong media bias.  That ESPN and so many were surprised and offended by Rush's comments is pure drivel.  The show in question was rehearsed well before it went live, and it included Rush's allegedly racists remarks.  Not one of the black commentators nor the ESPN brass jumped in to argue against it nor to suggest that the remarks were inappropriate.  The show went on as rehearsed, ESPN received little if any negative feedback for nearly two days afterwards.  Only after the Philly press made it cause celebre on late Monday and the Dem presidential hopefuls piled on did the story get legs.  And just as a coincidence, the story about Rush's problem with pain-killers surfaces.

Rush is a big boy and he can defend himself.  Whether his opinion is right or wrong, it is debatable.  A thorough analysis of the QB's life statistics was presented this weekend and it does appear that something besides performance on the field accounts for the high reputation he  enjoys.  With the NFL's management hiring policy, it is clear that race is a major issue in the sport.   Rush is more than willing to go toe-to-toe or mano-a-mano with anyone on the issues.  Few take him up on it because they can't prevail.  That there is not a successful liberal program of this type is not by accident.  And those who believe that his 20MM listeners are a bunch of angry white guys, please keep deluding yourselves.  The malcontent, the unhappy, and the functionally disordered are in much larger proportions among the liberals than the conservatives.  Personally, I don't know how some of these people can get up in the morning with the world being so unfair, our unelected president such a fraud, the rich starving the poor, Republicans poisoning the environment, women being forced to bear children against their will, corporate CEOs (a white male, of course) making $40MM per year while  minority kids who can barely read and write have to hustle to make minimum wage.  If there is a God, he could not allow things be so unfair and unjust in this country!  Maybe adding Prozac to the water with the flouride would have similar salutory effects.

David, I was under the impression that you believed that my views were actually quite simple, i.e. that I failed to appreciate the great complexities and various shades of grey which underlie our society.  You are right that I am an unabashed capitalist wtih strong beliefs in markets.  While it is far from being a perfect system, it is far superio than having you determing what I should buy, what I should pay for it, and whether my means clearly exceed my needs.  I am not anti-regulation nor do I have a large problem with the will of the majority.  I am very concerned with the tyranny of the majority when it comes to taxes and expenditures, and with an insiduous minority which can misrepresent the world at large and preys upon those with much inferior intellectual capabilities.  As I have mentioned to you, if allowed to opt out from the continually failing, hyper-expensive social experiments, many of us conservatives would have no problems with the Left.  The unfortunate thing is that while the Left hates us, it can't survive without our money.  The art of the science is to keep the goose barely alive so the eggs keep on coming.

Laffler showed that there are two points where revenues to the government are maximized, one is at a low tax rate and the other is at the high end.  It is not by accident that the liberals keep searching for that high point though the impact on the overall economy is to make it weaker.  By definition a bigger government relative to the private sector means a stronger government.  And it is axiomatic that a bigger, stronger government means fewer individual freedoms.  Well, at least that way no one can say that the rich are getting richer; only that the bureaucrats are getting stronger.  Do we really want to be like so many of the European countries?

On the issue of Bush overhyping the need to go to war, if he did, he should be held fully accountable for it.  Do we begin processing a referral to the World Court to try President Clinton for bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan upon false pretenses?  Or could he have acted on information provided by the intelligence apparatus that he so carefully defunded and defanged?  Could Bush have unwittingly become the victim of an intelligence liability created by the great Mr. Clinton?   Tommy N. how much did Clinton earn last year from his book and giving speeches, primarily in Europe (where he is highly respected)?  Something about $15 to $20MM?  Not bad for a guy who only briefly drew a check from the private sector.  And who said that government employment can't be profitable?  Yes, I much prefer private sector elites than political elites.

JohnV- you are a fiscal conservative concerned with deficits?  Me too.  So why did Clinton allow the tech bubble to expand and burst?  Why did the recession start on his watch?  I know that the liberals believe that terrorist are not born, they are made and I guess that we make them in droves.  But do you think that 9/11 on top of an already lethargic economy may have had an impact on Clinton's forecast of surpluses becoming Bush's deficits?  As a computer guy, I suspect that you have a good understanding of mathematics.  Can you tell me how a $100 billion tax break (I know, primarily benefitting the rich) results in a $7.5 trillion negative change in variance?  I guess it must be the $80+ billion war, and the fact that people have more money in their own pocket and they will just piss it all away.  Have we forgotten about the $200 hammers, $300 toilet seats, and tons and tons of dairy products which are routinely disposed by our highly efficient government?  With the exception of national defense, what government programs do you know the liberals to be loathe to spend on?  Don't we all know that if only we could spend more and more money that we would solve everything that ails our society?  Pretty soon we will demand class sizes of one with a teacher making six figures for teaching two or three classes for eight months.

TEPaul- you are absolutely right, and I am a living example of it.  Procrastination along with an errant driver are two of my larger failings currently.  I have a lot of work to do, so, this is the end.  
 

         

 

I am proud to say that in Typical Fazio fashion this post will enter this wonderful and thoughtful thread into the Top Ten Rankings of all threads based on response....The Fazio name sells baby...

Mr. Hearst:  Yes, Clinton "lied under oath" . . .  You wont find me defending Clinton . . .  But surely the context doesnt raise Clinton's comments to the level or importance of national security.  I dont think that our President (Democrat or Republican) need be under oath before we expect him to be truthful to American People, the Congress, and our Allies.  Especially about something as monumental as going to war.

Mr. Hearst and Lou:  I actually should have been more narrow when describing the "Dittoheads"  . . . many on the far right dont like him either.   I am sure if I dug deep enough even I might agree with one or two of his views, but he is a rude, name-calling, and insulting bully whose ratings depend upon stirring up the worst in both his supporters and opponents.  As John Stewart recently commented:  "He got rid of the 'big fat' part, but couldn't shake the 'idiot' part."

Lou, the "liberal-left media" position is fallacious when Rush and the like spew it and equally fallacious when you try to parrot it.  This story had legs because people were interested and offended.  The free marketplace of ideas at its best.  

And Lou you are all wet with regard to your description of the events.  For example, there was no dress rehearsal, but was a run-through the day before, but Rush failed to mention the favored-because-black mumbo jumbo.  And the other commentators were offended.   One was visibly agitated, all disagreed.  If they didnt react quickly or loudly enough it was because they were caught off guard.   I read somewhere that one or more refused to continue to work with him.  As far as the Philadelphia press making too big a deal of it . . . I lived in the Philly area for some of the Cunningham years . . . if they made a big deal out if it, it is because they knew how brutal the Philly press is willing to be on black QBs.  

You also talk of stats without giving any.  McNabb accounted for about 75% of his teams offense over the last two full seasons.  That stat and the team's success must count for something.

But even if he is overrated, he certainly isnt the first successful QB to be overrated.  It is the huge leap from "overrated" to the accusation of racial-favoritism.  Why go there if you dont have an agenda which goes well football?  

My theory . . . Rush, talking football, was out of his element and in over his head . . . Like Dennis Miller with his esoteric puns and obscure references, Rush needed to find a comfort zone so he fell back on what knew best-- blaming the press and hate-mongering.

DMoriarty,

What if they didn't ?

Then what do you say ?

Shivas:

There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush made clear he wasn’t going to wait for the “imminent threat” case when it came to Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. That’s exactly what his UN “grave and gathering danger” speech was all about. It wasn’t what conservatives call “Clinton like lawyer-speak”. It was the culmination of years of policy making discussions about how to deal with so called “asymmetrical” threats, among them WMD falling into the hands of rogue states and/or terrorists.

We’ve entered the political season and the battle of sound bites, but there are some hard truths Americans need to understand that I believe our current political dialogue obscures:

For starters, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (WMD) exist. So do people who would use them against civilian populations without warning and without mercy. These are not things made up by the Bush administration. They will confront every future President, Democrat or Republican.

With all the best efforts, our intelligence agencies will never be able to tell our President exactly when, where and how WMD might be used against us and/or our allies. The intelligence process itself isn’t that perfect. It involves analyzing mountains of data everyday and providing our political leaders with the best judgment about what it all means – not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our adversaries have learned a few things over the years the Russians weren’t aware of when they put missiles in Cuba: America has spy satellites and various other forms of electronic surveillance. So, they aren’t going to make proving the case against them as easy as President Kennedy could do.

The danger is that all this talk about President Bush lying could come back to haunt us: will we elect leaders who don’t understand the nature of WMD, how easy forms of it are to conceal and how destructive it could be? Will we elect leaders who think our intelligence capability is so good that we can wait until dangers are proven “imminent” beyond a reasonable doubt?

As politicians banter, I wonder if Hollywood has done a disservice: do Americans believe we can wait until the last minute to avoid danger, a bit like Clint Eastwood jumping in front of the President to stop the assassin’s bullet at the last second? That’s what makes revisionism and counter charges of revisionism so important. Serious policy makers on both sides of the aisle actually understand the risks of waiting for threats to become “imminent”. They were laid out in Bush’s National Security Statement released last fall and were built on work done by the Clinton administration.

As the sound bite battle continues, let’s hope our public discussion can catch up with the sober analysis done behind the scenes. We’ve entered the world of “asymmetrical warfare”. We won’t have the luxury of waiting for dangers to be proven “imminent”. Americans should not be encouraged to think otherwise.

If you are not aware you really need to go to the More Stats section found on the Discussion Group opening page....We are going to number six with a bullet....I guess it is probably obvious based on my public school education...but I do love my President and Country....