Fundraisers get paid back

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Roy:
I think church mouse guy is being a sore winner.

No, I am just waiting for Peroutka's concession speech, Roy, and waiting for Peroutka to promise support for the majority leader. I have concluded that Peroutka will never say anything gracious about President George W. Bush.

Judge Moore got tangled up with the CP. He spoke here in Indianapolis at a Greg Dixon function at Jonathan Byrd Cafeteria in the Greenwood suburb south of downtown. Greg Dixon is the guy who hangs out with the militia in Spencer, Indiana, and other southern Indiana rural areas. Dixon refused to pay his federal taxes and render unto Caesar.

Judge Moore was betrayed by the Dixon bunch. Only 75 people turned out to hear him in Greenwood, a well-to-do conservative area. Maybe Judge Moore would do better to stay out of the CP, huh? The Fundamentalists here in Indianapolis have turned against Greg Dixon.

To me the CP is just a bunch like Greg Dixon, who probably is one of them.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian on Larry's assertion:
Good thing, too. I can't find (contrary to his assertion) any record of any such ambassadorial goof causing a war for the US.

Which makes you a liar. You are the one who made the charge that this ambassadorial goof caused a war.

See above. You said it was common.

Now you admit you can't find any evidence for it. I searched on google, and found no evidence from any respected news source.

I'll help you.

The New York Times obtained a transcript of the meeting with Glaspie, which was prepared for Saddam. This is what Saddam heard her say:

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

"Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in September 1991: "It seems [likely] that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/April+Glaspie

Glaspie testified that Saddam thought he had a green light from America, because he was "stupid."

I can't help thinking that a professional, rather than a fundraising socialite, might have been a better choice here. How about you?

Barbarian observes:
The habit of farming out "safe" ambassadorships for political cronys is a bad one, and it should stop.

It's killed enough American soldiers.

If you think that an ambassador has to power to bring on a war, you are in bad shape.

That's happened a lot. But normally, it's intentional. Would you like some examples?

Saddam did not invade Kuwait because some ambassador said it was OK. How crazy are you?

He invaded Kuwait because he thought we lacked the resolve to fight him over it. Do you suppose that he thought he could beat the full might of the United States military? I won't ask you how crazy you are, but I don't think it's very rational to hold your POV.

You need to stop posting here.

I like it here. People are mostly very nice, and most of them can accept disagreement without losing it.

Be one of them, Larry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Barbarian on Larry's assertion:
Good thing, too. I can't find (contrary to his assertion) any record of any such ambassadorial goof causing a war for the US.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Which makes you a liar. You are the one who made the charge that this ambassadorial goof caused a war.

See above. You said it was common.</font>[/QUOTE]No, I didn't. You can't read very well, apparently ... Or are dishonest. The story that was common was fund raisers getting appointments. That was clear in the original post, and it was clear in the clarification I made. THere is no reason for you to have missed it twice. You got caught misrepresenting my post.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

A couple of points. First, the reason why I didn't find anything about this on a search was because you mispelled her name (Gillaspie vs. Glaspie).

Second, you claimed she was a socialite fundraiser. Yet your own article says she was with the state department in Kuwait in the 60s. So once again (as you have done in the past), you post evidence that shows you to be wrong. And the funny thing is that you don't see it when you post it. You are self-refuting very often, making our job much easier.

As for her comments, they sound pretty good. There is no invitation to invade in that. And there was an emphasis on suitable methods. She did not encourage war in the least. She encouraged suitable methods. How much more clear does it get?

"Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in September 1991: "It seems [likely] that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait."

So now you are citing an opinion piece about an inference that Saddam "could well have drawn." And you use this opinion about an inference to make the absurd suggestion that an ambassador's comments started a war? Please tell us all that you are not serious. I don't think you even take yourself seriously about that.

Glaspie testified that Saddam thought he had a green light from America, because he was "stupid."

And where was this testified to?

I can't help thinking that a professional, rather than a fundraising socialite, might have been a better choice here. How about you?

Perhaps ... but that wasn't the discussion here. And your own evidence shows Glaspie to have had experience in foreign policy with the state department in the middle east. That doesn't sound like socialite fundraiser to me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you think that an ambassador has to power to bring on a war, you are in bad shape.

That's happened a lot. But normally, it's intentional. Would you like some examples?</font>[/QUOTE]Well, we weren't talking about intentional ones, but sure, I would be interested. I am always up for learning.

He invaded Kuwait because he thought we lacked the resolve to fight him over it. Do you suppose that he thought he could beat the full might of the United States military? I won't ask you how crazy you are, but I don't think it's very rational to hold your POV.

Turns out he was wrong. He thought the same thing 20 months ago. Turns out he was wrong again. Here is a guy that doesn't learn very well does he. He kept picking a fight with someone he couldn't beat. (I know that hits a little close to home for you.)

Somehow what you think is rational is not all that concerning to me. I have had enough experience with you to not place much faith in your declarations of rationality.

I like it here. People are mostly very nice, and most of them can accept disagreement without losing it.

Most of us do accept disagreement without losing it. I have no problem with disagreement. And I certainly have never "lost it." I enjoy a good discussion about issues.

What we do not accept is continual dishonesty and you are guilty of that. You have lied, you have distorted, you have twisted, you have misrepresented. YOu have been confronted about it and you have continued. That is unacceptable. You need to stop posting until your reform your ways and quit being dishonest. It is a simple proposition and it is a simple thing to do. You can handle it. It will just take the inner commitment on your part to change your ways.

Be one of them, Larry.

Have been for a long time. You simply need to change your ways. Your methods are unacceptable.

 

[The Galatian]

Let's see... one rational question in that mess...

Barbarian observes:
Glaspie testified that Saddam thought he had a green light from America, because he was "stupid."

And where was this testified to?

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1991.
"We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."

And the record shows that the second time around, Saddam was terrified of fighting the US, and was frantically trying to find a way to appease us without giving up power.

Ultimately, that's what Bush demanded. And so we had a war. It seems unlikely that he had any illusions about winning it, however.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Interesting ... And true apparently ... finally. Turns out Glaspie was a qualified ambassador, having served in the State Department in the Middle East and having the common sense to recognize that Saddam was a bad decision maker. Turns out she did apparently say what she was instructed to say. Saddam simply made a bad choice.

The second time around, the record shows that Saddam could have avoided the war by being truthful about his weapons and weapons programs. He decided it wasn't that important. He wanted to call the coalition's bluff. He gambled and lost. Once again, he demonstrates that he was a bad decision maker.

As for one rational question, there were actually three rational questions, two of which were rhetorical, and wisely avoided by you. However, there were a lot of rational statements and observations, all of which you avoided for obvious reasons ... They make you look bad. You made some wrong statements, some based on misreading/misunderstanding and some based on just being wrong. But in your typical way, you try to turn it against me and try to make me look bad ... and as usual, you failed.

 

[The Galatian]

Larry you craft your anwers in such a way that there's no way I can change them to make you look worse.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know. I do that intentionally. Well thought out answers such as mine usually leave little room for people to change them without being terribly obvious. YOu tried on that page one by trying to change what "story" I was talking about. You embarraassed yourself, not by only doing it once, but by doing it twice. Hopefully this is a new way on your part to start bowing out of conversations rather than being dishoneset and twisting people's words. We will all be better for it.

 

[The Galatian]

Well, that's not exactly what I meant, but I think everyone else got it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know that's not what you meant. But I took the opportunity once again to point out how you don't think clearly when you write. You said something hoping to get away with it; you didn't. You got caught making a ridiculous personal attack, completely unsubstantiated by the facts.

The truth stands as I said. I try to write carefully to leave little room for you to change it. (I do leave room from time to time.) You have tried to change my words a couple of times and got caught. Then you tried to get off the hook with your snide comment about my answers. I think we all saw that you simply did not have an answer and rather than bowing out semi-gracefully, you decided to try one last attack. And it backfired on you again.

Which brings me back to my suggestion to you: Whenever you feel the urge to respond, just close your browser. Until such time as you start being truthful and not misrepresenting facts, you should refrain from posting.

 

[The Galatian]

I think everyone here knows why you didn't answer the question, Larry.

At least you didn't try "I already answered it, but I won't tell you where" game with us this time.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So what question do you think I didn't answer??? (We will probably find that you are being dishonest on this too, but I will give you a chance to prove it.)

 

[The Galatian]

A simple yes or no, with no evasions, please.

Rep. Bell filed an ethics complaint against Tom DeLay. The House Ethics committee found DeLay guilty and reprimanded him.

DeLay now thinks Bell should pay his legal fees.

Yes or no?

 

[church mouse guy]

Excuse me for putting my two cents worth in here, but, Galatian, with all due respect, I think that you should apply for a job at the Clinton Library. I have never seen anyone take a Clinton viewpoint so often except Clinton himself.

 

[The Galatian]

I guess that's as straight an answer as we're going to get.

What did Clinton say about it, mouse?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
A simple yes or no, with no evasions, please.

Rep. Bell filed an ethics complaint against Tom DeLay. The House Ethics committee found DeLay guilty and reprimanded him.

DeLay now thinks Bell should pay his legal fees.

Yes or no?

Turns out you were lying and making a fool of yourself in the process. That question was not in this thread; that was in the thread on Tom DeLay. And I answered it numerous times. You just wanted to keep the conversation going so you lied about me by saying I didn't answer it.

You are confused if you think that was in this thread. You show yourself to be unethical and dishonest by saying I didn't answer the question. But none of that is new. Unfortunately, you haven't learned you can't win at this game.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
I guess that's as straight an answer as we're going to get.

What did Clinton say about it, mouse?

It's not that Clinton said anything about the subject as far as I know. It is just that you seem to take the viewpoint of a Clinton Democrat on everything except abortion. I am thinking that you must have been a Democrat for many years.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

That's not my perception at all. Clinton, Bush, and Kerry all believe in rapid and reckless expansion of the federal government, with wild spending. They pretty much accept the status quo on abortion, and careless use of the military.

I've not noticed Galatian promoting those policies, so much as you, CMG, defending them.

 

[The Galatian]

Well, CMG, like other good republicans have adapted very well to supporting democrat policies in those respects. Now that Bush is doing what Kerry or Gore would have done. I couldn't say Clinton, because Clinton actually presided over a reduction in federal nonmilitary workforce, a reduction in federal regulations, and a reduction in the deficit.

But Bush has reversed all these, wildly inflating the deficit, increasing federal regulations and employees, and extending federal power where Clinton reduced it.

But then, Clinton was quite properly termed a quasi-republican by the leftists in the democrat party. They only backed him because he was a winner.

Do you notice something about Larry and CMG doing the same thing for Bush?

Party for most people, trumps principle.

 

[church mouse guy]

You see, Galatian, that the Easterner has missed your ongoing rhapsody for Clinton but I have not. In fact, I cannot distinguish Clinton's liberalism from your objections to the GOP.

As for me, I am a Main Street Republican because liberalism does not work. I think that government causes poverty with high taxes and programs designed to help only a favored few but paid for my the unfavored many.

Clinton presided over a stock market bubble that made him look better than he was. Also, some of the progress such as welfare reform and the defense of marriage act was really forced upon Clinton by a GOP Congress. Clinton was a good enough politician to know which way the wind was blowing. He also was extremely glib, but his English education was that of a European socialist and his wife is a total leftist.

But I am sure that as a former Democrat (for how many years?), you are unlikely to agree with my points.

 

[The Galatian]

You see, Galatian, that the Easterner has missed your ongoing rhapsody for Clinton but I have not. In fact, I cannot distinguish Clinton's liberalism from your objections to the GOP.

Let's see...
Clinton - Reduced federal deficit
Dubya - Huge increase in federal deficit

Clinton - Reduced the number of nonmilitary federal workers.
Dubya - Greatly increased federal bureaucracy

Clinton - Reduced number of federal regulations
Dubya - Greatly increased number of new federal regulations

Clinton - Proposed huge new healthcare program
Dubya - Implemented huge new healthcare program

Clinton - Returned power to states (welfare reform)
Dubya - Took power from the states (No Child Left Behind)

And you're saying what Clinton did was liberal, and what Dubya did was conservative? Honestly?

As for me, I am a Main Street Republican because liberalism does not work.

So why are you backing someone who does all the liberal things? Some "main street republican" you are. Shouldn't you be opposed to more deficit, more federal power, more government handouts? So why aren't you?

I think that government causes poverty with high taxes and programs designed to help only a favored few but paid for my the unfavored many.

Yeah, did you see that Halliburton just "lost" millions of dollars of federal assets, again. Just like they "forgot" to charge us the right price for gasoline. So why are you supporting the guys who are doing it?

Clinton presided over a stock market bubble that made him look better than he was.

Longest period of prosperity in US history. Low inflation, full employment, businesses building and selling lots of products. Why should that be a bad thing?

Also, some of the progress such as welfare reform and the defense of marriage act was really forced upon Clinton by a GOP Congress.

Remember the budget battles? Remember who won? Clinton forced Congress to dance to his tune, remember?

Clinton was a good enough politician to know which way the wind was blowing. He also was extremely glib, but his English education was that of a European socialist

So why did Clinton do almost all the right things, and why is Dubya doing almost all the left things, um?

But I am sure that as a former Democrat (for how many years?), you are unlikely to agree with my points.

I left the democrats for just the kind of leftist stuff Dubya is doing. I know what irks you about Clinton. He hauled the democrat party to the right, and you obviously prefer a liberal like Bush.