The Concession Speech We'd Like to Hear

[The Duke]

Another demonstration of why Democrats lose.

[The Duke]

1) Trying to link illegitimacy to gay marriage is a pathetic stretch and I challenge you to provide a real source to back up such an argument.  It is like arguing that people who like the color blue are more inclined to have skin cancer.  One does not relate to the other.  Trying to pretend it does demonstrates your lack of understanding of cause and relation.

2) When asked about Bin Laden, Bush DID in fact say "You know I don't spend that much time on him.  I don't really think about him."  Denying that Bush said this is BLATANTLY lying.  Now you can try and spin WHY he said it, but he did say it.

3) Ok, so according to you, when Bush said, "These safeguard measures have now achieved their purpose and as a result of changed economic circumstances, it is time to lift them." about the steel tariffs he was lying?  According to you he was forced to do it by the WTO NOT because of "changed economic circumstances"?

4) Who sold Saddam chemical weapons?  The US.  Who facilitated the deal?

5) When I have a little more time I'll provide a list of all the programs cut by Bush.

6) Your blind devotion to the Republican Party and refusal to admit any wrongdoing by it is, in a word, sad.

Its easy to link illegitimacy to gay marriage.  Once you re-define an instiution, you change how people behave towards the institution.  You de-link marriage from family, you damage traditional families, and I have the data to back it up (see Eurostat).  You got nothin' on this one.

You and I both know that there are other words in that quote THAT CHANGE THE ENTIRE MEANING OF THE QUOTE!  The full quote includes Bush saying he is worried about Al Qaeda, not bin Laden, because Al Qaeda is bigger than one man.  Not only are you only providing a partial quote, you don't even provide the elipses that indicate that more words are being said!

Politicians do a lot of things to cover their ass.  What's he supposed to say?  "The WTO ruled against us and I'm backing down on a policy I never believed in anyway."?  The WTO ruled the tariffs illegal.  Read a newspaper every once and a while and these thing won't happen to you in public anymore.

The US never sold Iraq chemical weapons, and once again you prove that your mouth is bigger than your brain.  We sold them precursor chemicals, or what are called dual use materials, that were sold under the pretense of agricultural research.  And the chemicals in fact are used in the US for agricultural research.  However, Iraq tried to use them to develop anthrax. This is very different than giving Iraq their chemical weapons.  The bulk of Iraq's program was in Mustard, Sarin, VX, ricin, and botulinum.  Not anthrax, which Iraq never weaponized anyway.  So not only didn't we sell Iraq chemical weapons, we weren't even indirectly responsible for even a small protion of the Iraqi program because he never got far with his anthrax prgoram.

Social spending has gone up under Bush.  How do I know?  Becuase Republicans like me complain about his profligate spending!

You are a flaming idiot with a snotty attitude.  Your learning curve is non-existent.  You keep coming back with the same old tired crap and DNC talking points, and every time you get the same dominating rebuttal from some GOPer on the board.  When are you going to figure out that your attacks have no merit whatsoever?

[The Duke]

One reason no action is taken on the fronts you mention is that there is no support for the reform, as there is for gay marriage ballot initiatives.  Another is that most people consider the matter settled whether they liked the outcome or not.

I get very suspicious when social liberals tell me that they're really the pro-family conservatives.  When most of the drug users I know advocate legalizing drugs on the grounds that ti will reduce drug use, I smell something afoot.  Same here.  I find it a hard sell when Barney Frank tells me that he's the new advocate for monogamy and traditional families, especially when I have data that shows Scandanavia headed one direction while the rest of the world is headed another.

[The Duke]

I promised myself I wouldn't re-enter this fight, but I can't help it.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate.

Yep when the people on your side are calling the other candidate worse than Hitler it has tendency to hurt you not help you so he did misjudge it. Glad you wanted to see him say tha Wakie.

That was a few wacko's, it was not a party-wide thing.

Okay Michael Moore hated Bush so much he was willing to bind the truth every which way in order to tarnish the President. Howard Dean entertained theories that the President knew about Sept. 11th before it happened... Sorry but from what I saw the Democrats were a machine blinded by perhaps not a hate but a severe dislike for President Bush.. Remember all the ABBers? Both sides of their radicals the Republicans just did a much better job at hiding theirs then the Democrats did.

That is just my opinion take it or leave, shove it in the trash, frame it and put it over your fire place I dont care

I don't remember Dean entertaining theories that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.  I'd love to know the basis for your charges there.

I cannot understand how someone can say the left has more whackos than the right.  Just watch the conventions!  The left had a very temperate convention focused on policy disagreement.  The right had Zell "I challenge you to a Duel" Miller and Dick "vote for me or die" Cheney.

Howard Dean
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9661-2003Dec17?language=printer

"Bush is a f**king idiot."
-Jennifer Aniston

http://celiberal.com/showCached.php?id=126

""Despite all of this stupid bullsh-- that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f--- they call them, that they were saying that they're all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They're like fu--ing looking for Hitler in a hawstack. You now? I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he fu--ing applied himself." (big, extended applause) "I mean he just isn't.""

-Margaret Cho

Senator Biden calls Bush "brain dead"
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2004/10/20bidenbushbraind.html

George Soros compares Bush to the Nazi's

"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world...It [beating Bush] is the central focus of my life,... a matter of life and death... When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans. My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitised me,..It would be too immodest for a private person to set himself up against the president, but it is, in fact the Soros Doctrine”.

Rep. James P. Moran
 "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,... The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg031303.asp

Rep. Marcy Kaptur
"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73127970327425&Avis=TO&Dato=20030301&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=103010151&Ref=AR

Plenty, plenty more where this came from... The point I am trying to make is there is a lot of hate on both sides of the asile... Must I go over the number of Democrats who were saying things like Ronald Reagan is in hell just hours after he died?

Radicalism and hatred by any other name is still radicalism and hatred. Whether it be conservative or liberal.

HOWARD DEAN
Not to be rude here, but did you read that article about Dean?  Directly from it .... "Although Dean said he does not believe Bush was tipped off about the assaults that killed nearly 3,000, he has made no apologies for raising the rumor."  And the context in which he brought up the rumor was in saying that as long as information is supressed about what the government knew and when they knew it, people are going to develop outlandish theories.

JENNIFER ANNISTON & MARGARET CHO
Since when do the statements of 2 private citizens reflect on an entire political party?  I could cite dozens of quotes from Rush Limbaugh, Neil Borts, or any of the other Republican "talking heads".

THE REST
As you acknowledge, the crap flies from both sides.  But pretending that more flies from the left than the right is just plain blind.

Your defense of Dean is weak.  It allows him to slander the US government without having to provide evidence OR deal with the consequences of being a fringe lunatic.  I doubt that if George Bush had said, "There are theories that the homosexuals want to convert all our children." And the next day said, "I don't believe that, but I don't apologize for raising the issue." There is no way you'd give him the slack you give Dean.

I doubt you could come up with an expletive laden tirade insisting that Bill Clinton is an incompetent version of Hitler from any of the people you named.  I'd bet my house on it.

Wildcard has provided quoted from Democrats, including one who may be the next head of your party, demonstrated signs of serious mental instability.  You have speculated that there are probably similar quotes from GOPers.  Yet you provide none.  That’s the difference.  Republicans cite specific examples of this rap, Democrats claim "But everyone does it." And then provide no evidence that anyone BUT them does it.  Talk about double standards.

[The Duke]

You are a flaming idiot with a snotty attitude.  Your learning curve is non-existent.  You keep coming back with the same old tired crap and DNC talking points, and every time you get the same dominating rebuttal from some GOPer on the board.  When are you going to figure out that your attacks have no merit whatsoever?

You are an insulting little man who clearly cannot hold a rational conversation without turning to insults.  Some day you're going to come to the realization that there is good and there is bad in both parties.

GAY MARRIAGE
Years ago interracial marriage was taboo.  Many argued that allowing an interracial marriage was against biblical teachings and altered the nature of marriage.  Today I think we can agree that is ridiculous.

As for the argument about marriage, I do not believe that the state forms a marriage.  They can give certain legal rights to a couple who wishes to be recognized as married, but only GOD can form a marriage.  That being said, any 2 sane adults who want to be recognized by the state as married should be able to be recognized by the state as married.  This doesn't mean that any church or any outside individual has to think of them as married, but they do have to respect their rights.

If you don't believe a state forms a marriage, you need to take a class in the basics of civil law.  The state forms marriages, and their definitions affect how the rest of society behaves towards the institution.

BUSH BIN LADEN QUOTE
Ahh ... I see, so parsing a Bush quote is no fair but when the Bushies parsed a Kerry quote it was ok?  I see ... very nice.  Double standard.  Well done.

Once again, you make the "No fair, you do it too!" argument without feeling the need to provide an example of us actually doing what you say we're doing.  If you have a parsed or out of context quote you'd like to share with the rest of us, please do.  Until then, I stand by my positon (which you haven't even attempted to refute, for the effort would be futile) that you and John Kerry both lied about what the President said regarding bin Laden.

STEEL TARIFFS AND THE WTO
Actually the dropping of the steel tariffs had less to do with the WTO and more to do with the threat by European nations to impose tariffs on American goods.  They had been saying this for weeks.  The White House knew it was contemplating dropping the tariffs.  But Bush's political arm wanted to grab the last bit of money he could get before they were dropped.  It was a sleazy move.  Typical of a politician.

You leave out one critical point.  The Europeans could only contemplate tariffs in retaliation because the WTO had explicitly authorized them to do so!  That is the built in enforcement mechanism the WTO uses, is the authorization of retaliatory protectionist measures.  Without this approval, the Europeans would never have made their threat.  So in the end, the direct cause of the repeal of the steel tariffs was STILL the WTO, not the White house.

SADDAM CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Do you really need the history on this??

In 1981 US Sec of State, Alexander Haig reported to the Senate foreign relations committee that the relationship between the Soviet Union and Iraq was breaking down.  An opportunity existed for the US to become "friendly" with Iraq (who were currently at war with Iran).  They jumped at it.

Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched as a representative.  Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Declassified State Department cables described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.  The January 1, 1984 Washington Post reported that the US had “informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to US interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result”.

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.  The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment.

Former US Intelligence operatives have come forward to say not only were we providing Iraq with the materials to make chemical weapons, we had experts there to show them how.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be “taken out”, at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it “premature”. The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.

Let's begin by dispelling the irrelevant and/or circumstantial evidence so we can focus only on the substantive evidence.

Al Haig claiming the US had an opportunity to improve relations with Iraq demonstrates nothing about chemical weapons.  Sending a US envoy has nothing to do with chemical weapons either.  America inaction regarding human rights also demonstrates nothing about chemical weapons.  The weak response after Halabja likewise demonstrates nothing about the US providing weapons to Iraq.

Evidence that the US greased the wheels for Egypt and Jordan selling "huge supplies" of arms to Iraq (while in and of itself a less than credible claim) says nothing about chemical weapons either.  The claim that the US provided "huge supplies" of arms to Iraq is already a discredited claim.  I have repeatedly linked to information debunking this claim, demonstrating that the total value of US-Iraqi arms deals was only $25 million in deals, whereas the USSR did over $25 billion in deals.

You're going to need a citation demonstrating that the US government was teaching Iraq to make chemical weapons.

As for your information regarding US precursor chemical sales, it is not anything that I haven't already acknowledged.  We sold Iraq "dual use materials".  This is different than chemical weapons, and to claim other wise is either to not understand how chemical weapons are made and how international trade is done, or it is to willfully misrepresent the facts.

It appears that it is not I who needs a history lesson after all.

SOCIAL PROGRAM CUT BY BUSH
I think we can both agree that this administration spends uncontrollably.  That being said, I'd argue that what they spend on isn't necessarily what I would spend on.  38 different programs in the Dept of Education (including school counseling and programs designed to improve poor children's reading skills) were killed by this administration.  Bush cut funding for water projects, rural conservation, aid to state and local law enforcement agencies, the Amtrak passenger railroad, and federal prisons.

It is interesting to note that Bush proposed increasing defense spending by 7% (not including Iraq and Afghanistan costs this year and next) and domestic security by 10%.  To pay for much of this Bush proposed outright cuts in the budgets of 7 of the 16 Cabinet-level agencies, including Agriculture, Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency.

He didn't propose cuts in the budget he presented to Congress.  The only "cuts" proposed were cuts in the rate of growth.  When your friend Dean was accused of supporting cuts in Medicare, he pointed out that he supported was cuts in the rate of growth, which he said, is very different.