Henry L posted:

"--I did not like your exclusion of John From Madison as a 'gentleman.'"


First, WHERE THE HELL IS EVERYONE'S SENSE OF HUMOR??? I was only teasing him a little, good naturedly!! I forgot to put a little smiley face there, I used them all up! OK, I'll edit the post and put a little smiley face there!

Second, WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU, HENRY, WHEN JFM WAS INSULTING THE S**T OUTTA ME AND VAL?! You never said ONE WORD to HIM about chivalry! Typical one sided right wing standards! He can say whatever he wants, but if I should give it back to him, you come out in his defense!

Just like the way those of you on the right complain about us "whiney, hypersensitive, PC liberals" who complain about the right saying things which offend people when you're only speaking the "truth", and are absolutely "correct", but when Kerry mentions that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, in the context of a question about homosexuality, everyone acts like he broke wind in church or something! :rolleyes:


Third, Respect and chivalry are reserved for those who demonstrate them to others, like Buck, or Bill Uconn, or YOU, or so many others that I have debated and disagreed respectfully with here! I replied to JFM and Jon h in a manner consistent with the way THEY reply to me and others. Respect and chivalry has to be EARNED! If that is what they expect, then that is how they should treat and address others. Otherwise I am under no obligation to be respectful and chivalrous to them!

I have stood up for and defended others on the board, even JFM, even against Spunfisher and Val, when I thought someone made a remark that was out of bounds or out of line. How dare you lecture ME about chivalry while turning a blind eye to JFM's repeated baiting and condescending, insulting, and disrespectful comments.

Please Henry, at least try to be consistent and unbiased. You are much smarter than that, and being inconsistent undermines your credibility!

BTW, I happen to be OVER my hostility towards JFM, I have sent him a concilitory PM, and I was only joking and teasing him with the "gentlemen" jab. I was trying to lighten up the tone, even as he has continued to disparage me and Val and anyone else he disagrees with.

Sincerely,

Jim

Henry,

And this one, too:

Here is another October surprize and this will blow your mind.

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA\'s Back Pocket

ROBERT SCHEER
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.
Robert Scheer

October 19, 2004

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

Den, thanks for posting the entire Ron Suskind article. I don't spend much time on cut and paste excerpts from any kind of article because it is too easy to take something out of context and create a misleading message.
That said, here are some "reality-based" thoughts:
--Suskind is the author of a book he is promoting.
--Suskind writes for the NY Times, a left wing liberal news media outlet.
--The article is written to appeal to those inclined to vote for Kerry or to persuade undecided voters to vote for Kerry.
--This type of article could be written for any sitting president or presidential candidate and postured in a negative way.
--A right wing conservative media outlet could write a similarly disparaging article about Kerry and his extreme left wing liberal positions and they probably have done so many times already.
--Both parties are hostage to extreme portions of their parties which leaves out the "silent majority" represented by moderates in both parties.
--The article, in general, if written a bit more objectively, would be viewed as a positive article by voters in the south, the middle of the country, Reagan Democrats and most moderates.
--The article plays to its audience, the east and west coasts and hard core liberals. It is slanted to promote the election of John Kerry.
--The media is not to be trusted. It is the age of misinformatinon, promoting agendas, and forcing personal opinions on others. Both sides are guilty of this.
--You are responsible for creating your own brand of truth and justice. You can't count on anyone else. If you believe Ron Suskind then you are voting the way this author wants you to vote. If you happen to agree with him anyway, no harm no foul but if you are looking for "reality-based" information then this is no more reality-based than something from Ann Coulter.

I still think people should stick to the topics at hand, I know the insults come from both sides, but everyone would be better served sticking to the issues, everything else is off topic. But thats just me, a huge fan of old school paleo-con patricians But I should know better than being a ref in a pissing match, because at some point the ref always gets wet.