Rosie explains on her sub-literate cut-and-paste blog that somebody must have blown up the WTC to destroy IRS files on Enron and Worldcom. I guess Hillary Clinton should have just blown up the Rose Law Firm. What the hell, the whole city of Little Rock. Get rid of all those witnesses and cocktail waitresses.

So Rosie is pretty funny in an unintentional kind of way, but how "extreme" is she? There was the famous poll claiming that 30% of Americans believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, but I'll bet in the Democratic Party it's closer to 60%, easily. And unlike the public at large, which tends to quickly lose interest in grassy knolls and UFOs, that cancer is in there to stay.

And yet, Armed Liberal continues to defend public schools. When the Democratic Party implodes and collapses into its own footprint, I for one will know that it was an inside job.

While we can laugh and fairly easy prove that Rosie is a Idiot, She is asking and may get 40 million dollars in her next contract. Their something terrible wrong in a country when the elites(40 million dollar salary is a elite) are such fools

miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire

Somebody call Pittsburg and ask them how they melt their steel--fire or ice?

Has she been reading that absurd cinderblock/rabbitcage/fire "experiment" page that was on one of the loony left sites? As I recall, the loony lefty commenters savaged that guy.

Yes, do get in a physics expert. I was privileged to see the president of the engineering firm that designed WTC speak just months after the collapse. (I was a grad student at physics at the University of Washington at the time; the firm was in Seattle). Somehow I will take his failure analysis over this crap.

I can now say I have forgotten more physics than Rosie will ever know, but I'd be happy to appear on her show to explain, using words of one syllable, why she's an idiot.

Idiots are idiots regardless of their pollitical affiliation. I dislike your attempts at wrapping all liberals up into one kook's opinion.... I would like to think my PhD makes me a little smarter than these statements.

Again, Michael Savage has some choice comments on the reasons behind 9/11....

"I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

The mind reels. How does she think steel was first fabricated if fire couldn't melt it? Does she think steel girders develop like bananas on special trees found on Planet Gore?

Holy mother of willful ignorance.

alchemist...an interesting question is whether Joe Katzman realizes what he is doing (i.e., promoting mindless propoganda) or not (i.e., brainwashed into believing mindless propoganda).

To quote the Southpark episode that tackled the Truther 911 conspiracy:

"Stan: He was right, you did cause 9-11.

George W. Bush: Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9-11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed planm ever, ever."

---

"Cartman: Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?
Kyle: Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.
Stan: Yeah, at least one-fourth."

alchemist -

You are unjust to say that Joe is trying to wrap every liberal up in Rosie's failed Science Fair project, when he is only referring to the smug assumption of moral and intellectual superiority that some "liberals" - especially the really dumb ones, like Rosie - are prone to adopt.

You know, it's liberals who ought to be hitting the roof over this. You really ought to read Conspiracy by Daniel Pipes to appreciate the self-destructive effect that sick-think has.

It might be cute and funny when it seems to be at Bush's expense, but it isn't George Bush who is going to pay for this for the next 20-30 years.

wei - what we're promoting is intelligent dialog. Ad hominem isn't included in that set; if you disagree, why not make an argument and see if it's strong enough to support you? If you want to call people names, maybe this isn't the site for you.

A.L.

Regarding that South Park episode, the "Truthers" were especially purple-faced that Parker and Stone attributed anti-Semitism to 9/11 conspiracy buffs. It was nothing but the truth (WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF IT?). Anti-Semitism is part of 9/11 conspiracy theory, just as it is part of virtually every major conspiracy theory - as Daniel Pipes shows.

My vote for this week's idiots goes to several hundred Little Green Footballs commenters for their hysterical response to Nancy Pelosi dressing appropriately for a mosque. Just like Laura Bush and Condi Rice did.

Rosie just doesn't understand physics. It's no use saying she falls for conspiracy theories; the Bush Administration makes conspiracy theorists look good.

My vote for this week's idiots goes to several hundred Little Green Footballs commenters for their hysterical response to Nancy Pelosi dressing appropriately for a mosque.

You can add me to that, because I think it's a bloody outrage for a female leader from a fee nation to put on the yellow star of a woman under Shariah. Granted, Syria is not yet under Shariah, but Islamist chauvinism (religious, political, and sexual chauvinism) is the order of the day. You can consult MEMRI for clips from Syrian television, in which experts tell you what kind of stick you can use to beat a woman who won't wear the hijab.

So you think it's no big deal. If I think it is, that's the equivalent of believing Bush blew up the WTC?

Andrew's comment neatly encapsulates the Liberal and Dem Agenda:

Submission abroad to the worst sort of misogyny in the name of multiculturalism, followed by submission at home: banning the words "War on Terror" (demands of the Democratic Congress to the Pentagon) and defunding the troops in combat. Coupled with allowing terrorist agent provocateurs to sue people who report them (i.e. the Flying Terror Imams).

Nancy Pelosi makes a big stink about women's rights, the ERA, etc. but like all feminists when it comes time to stick up for the fundamentals she grovels, begs, and kneels like a good multiculturalist.

Rosie's par for that course. A lesbian who defends Iran (a regime which hangs gays, stones women to death, executes rape victims, imprisons women in chadors etc). A lesbian gifted by not just tolerance but enormous financial success who can't even back her own country against Dark Ages misogynist tyranny. A women echoing many of the sentiments that Father Coughlin spread ages ago (i.e. it's "the Jews fault") ... akin to the Dem HQ "hearings" on 9/11 that Howard Dean conducted more than a year ago with 9/11 Conspiracy nutcases getting approvals from Dem Congressmen Jim Moran and John Conyers and Charlie Rangel.

The sad fact of the matter is that leading Dem circles (Daily Kos, Moveon.org, ANSWER, Code Pink, UFPJ, MyDD, etc) and political figures (Rosie, Jim Moran, Conyers, Rangel, Ellison, etc) and power centers (African Americans in particular are by and large notoriously anti-Semitic) all have a huge problem with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Just like Dems could not handle the truth of the JFK and RFK assassinations (done by Communist Lee Harvey Oswald and Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan) because their political figures were not radical enough and thus invented conspiracies where there were none, so too they can't handle the truth of 9/11 and have to invent scapegoats (the "Jews did it!") again.

This is particularly ugly for the Dem Party. Particularly since Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (himself close to horrifically Anti-Semitic Black Ministers) and John Edwards have chosen to ignore or tolerate the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory cancer in the Democratic Party.

IMHO this makes the Dem Party unfit for national leadership. Much as I would like an alternative to Republicans on this.

A.L.

"If you want to call people names, maybe this isn't the site for you."

Are you refering to Katzman's use of "kook" "dishonest" and "certifiable" in reference to O'Donnell? Or are you referring to Wei's describing Katzman's use of same as mindless propoganda?

Can you explain where is the "intelligent dialog" in this:
"Along the way, they point out the canyonesque depth of ignorance and stupidity in the above statements. But liberals are smart - just ask them!"

You can have a little fun, or you can be sanctimonious. It's kind of hard to do both, isn't it, and stay honest?

You know, it's liberals who ought to be hitting the roof over this.

Why? Why do I care what Rosie says? I'm not a 'view' fan, I don't follow her politics. I've never even seen "field of dreams". When someone says something that should be ligitimately chastized, I'll get on board (as with the comment that soldiers should hold their tongue). But crazy talk isn't worth my time.

At one point, the jet fuel thing was a legitimate question. However, it was answered with much less fanfare than it was announced in the first place. (This is typically what happens in science, the dull boring explanations are overloaded by sensationlism).

I sometimes just get annoyed by Jim's Republican-tinted glasses. Every liberal doesn't beleive the same nonsense. There are plenty of right-wing morons out there, but he only has zeal for the liberal equivalent. At this point, he's just throwing mud from one yard and trying to make it stick to an entire city.

My gut reaction to the Pelosi pictures was outrage- until it turned out she only wore the scarf while visiting the Mosque. There are many other pictures (I checked) of her in the city, meeting with officials, and ultimately meeting with Assad where she didnt have it on and was dressed like she normally would.

I have no problem with complying with religious requirements when touring a place of worship. I would expect any American official to take their shoes off if visiting a Buddhist Temple- just as I would expect a foriegn dignitary to remove their hat if visiting the National Cathedral. And lest we get too caught up in the sexist element of requiring a woman to wear something specifically- i do believe the jews ask men to wear a yarmulke in Temple on certain occasions.

I cant standy Nancy Pelosi, and i think it was foolish for her to travel to Syria at all, but in this case she didnt do anything wrong.

"Are you refering to Katzman's use of "kook" "dishonest" and "certifiable" in reference to O'Donnell?"

I think 911 denyers meet all three of those epitaths without further need to clarify- just as Holocaust denyers, UFO running the government conspiracists, and Easter Bunny true believers do. Some catagories of debate are simply too painful, too outrageous, and too beaten down by facts to deserve anything more than derision.

Joe Katzman catagorizing O'Donnell as such while providing direct links to her ravings doesnt deserve the same in return unless you care to lump Truther Denial into the lunatic/sinister catagory. Which Truthers almost always do btw.

I have a horrible confession: Rosie attended Dickinson College at the same time I did, a class behind mine, but left before graduating. A dear friend of mine in college was a floor-mate of Rosie and only ever said good things about her. I believe, though I can't confirm this, Rosie was in the 101 astronomy course when I was the TA in the observatory. That means I may be partially responsible for her science education. If this is true, I will stand up to be stoned. Hell, I'll get stoned even if it turns out not to be true.

Mark B.,
I don't at all disagree with you that O'Donnell deserves the names she has been called, but it's still name-calling and not argument. I have nothing against it. I was pointing out that A.L. seems to have a selective prohibition against it.

I think, e.g., Rush Limbaugh IS, in fact, a big fat idiot and should be identified as such by the media whenever he is mentioned.

But to use Rosie as a stand-in for liberals or liberalism is, to my mind, as equally deserving of being denounced as idiotic and offensive as she herself is. A.L. & co. are trying to eat and have their cake at the same time. Frankly, it's very annoying. & it's cheap.

This is absolutely stupid.

But at the same time, X-File fans discover the best writer for new episodes: Rosie.

Yes, I want to believe.

Callimachus: As a TA for a number of years (and teacher), I prefer to think of teaching more as a guide. If your student isn't paying attention and fails the course, that's not really your responsibility. If a student Aces the course, it's nice to think we're responsible, but we're really we're just paving the road a little better. Aptitude is still up to the student. (You can lead a horse to water....)

mark (#14) - Joe made an argument to support his namecalling. If Joe had posted something that simply said that "Rosie is an idiot" -he'd be Atrios (sorry, cheap shot).

Wei is fully welcome to slag Joe as a propagandist - if he makes a case for it that is supported by some evidence and can be argued against.

Clearer?

A.L.

Mark B - I'm with you on the scarf thing. When you visit the Vatican, you can't wear shorts.

Does my compliance with that make me the Catholic equivalent of a dhimmi? At some point, manners matter.

A.L.

A.L.
No, not clearer at all. Muddier, in fact.

Katzman called her a horse's ass (which she is) based upon her own words. Wei called Katzman's post an example of propaganda based on his words. I don't see any name-calling in the latter.

Katzman's link to Popular Mechanics only makes an argument that the science underlying O'Donnell's claim is refutable. That doesn't make her a horse's ass or a kook or an idiot...it just makes her wrong about the science.

But worse, Katzman used O'Donnell to slam liberals without making any sort of argument or connection to Rosie's ridiculous beliefs about 9/11. She may be a liberal. I don't know. She's also a woman, fat, a comedienne, a lesbian, a talk show host, a daughter. In place of "But liberals are smart - just ask them!" He might as well have written: "But lesbians are smart - just ask them!" for all the connection he made between being liberal and believing in nonesensical 9/11 theories. There's a lot to take to task there. And it IS a form of propaganda. Wie slung no mud in pointing it out. I don't get why you, with all that was unfair in Katzman's post, chose to take Wie to task for calling it propoganda.

Katzman's post tried to sneak in a connection between O'Donnell's 9/11 crackpot theories and her alleged liberalism, in much the same propoganda-laden way that Bush tries to make a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

mark - well, there's an argument at least...if Wei had made one, I probably wouldn't have commented.

A.L.

Mark --

What is notable about Rosie O'Donnell is how many Liberals defend her, and how her noxious conspiracy theory views find acceptance and support in her largely female audience.

It would appear based on that support that there is a large portion of women who are unable to rationally think and instead only want to feel. No thinking person who approached 9/11 would find conspiracy theories in the least bit credible. While those desperate to "feel" that the Government was at fault ("it's all Bush/Jews fault") would certainly find Rosie's crackpot tinfoil lunatic views as something to applaud.

If Rosie's views turned off a large portion of her viewing audience she'd be canned. Her audience would boo her. Her co-hosts would ridicule and demean her. Instead she gets applause.

Conclusion? Her largely female audience is incapable (or refusing to engage in) of even elementary logical thought on matters they find emotionally uncomfortable. They take refuge in crackpot theories.

One of the more ominous trends in America has been the feminization of political discourse, particularly in the Democratic Party. Democrats, the Media, and particularly Liberals would rather feel than think. Like Rosie.

Really, Jim, how many "Liberals" defend Rosie O'Donnell? You can round to the nearest hundred-thousand...

AJL writes (#11):

"My vote for this week's idiots goes to several hundred Little Green Footballs commenters for their hysterical response to Nancy Pelosi dressing appropriately for a mosque. Just like Laura Bush and Condi Rice did."

Which they may see as an outward manifestation of her inner state of dhimmitude. As this is common practice, however, it is foolish to ascribe to it some sort of special status or value as evidence.

It's not of the same "the government's rays are controlling my brain"/ "Elvis' head is kept alive in a jar and runs the country" variety as Rosie's remarks, however. Thanks for an illustration of the difference between "kook" and "idiot."

"Rosie just doesn't understand physics. It's no use saying she falls for conspiracy theories; the Bush Administration makes conspiracy theorists look good."

Thanks for a second illustration of the difference between "kook" and "idiot." But really, the first one was sufficient.

Hear, hear, Joe.

alchemist,

The self-congratulatory "liberals are smart/educated and others aren't" is endemic among the liberal-left.

Thing is, it's actually a stupid thing for any political group to put out there, precisely because it's leading with your glass jaw. To put a twist on my favorite Frank Herbertism, "it is not that politics makes one a fool, but that it is magnetic to the foolish."

On-point juxtapositions involving prominent, influential liberal figures, that use their own words plus a reminder to turn the "liberals are smart/educated and others aren't" meme into a joke, are a proper response in argument. Hopefully, if done often enough, the result will be a bit more humility. Failing that, it sure makes for a fun "oh, really?" response.

And so what if it is "endemic" among the Left, Joe? I'd rather be associated with a group whose chief weakness is arrogance rather than one that is amoral.

If this alleged attitude is endemic, I don't see it hurting the Left anywhere except among the jealous and angry 30%, either.

And thanks for yet another profoundly interesting and important thread.

Mark:

And lest we get too caught up in the sexist element of requiring a woman to wear something specifically- i do believe the jews ask men to wear a yarmulke in Temple on certain occasions.

Have you ever heard of an Israeli Arab being forced to wear a yarmulke? Have you ever heard of a Jew beating somebody to death with a garden hose for not wearing a yarmulke?

The yarmulke is not a symbol of oppression. The hijab is, most especially when it is worn by a non-Muslim woman. If the hijab were a truly voluntary thing, it would be a silly affectation for Pelosi (or Laura Bush) to wear it. But when it is worn to avoid offending Islamist authoritarianism, it gives encouragement to people who think that all Western women are whores, and that we're all begging for dhimmitude.

The first time fire has melted steel??!! Has Rosie ever seen an acetylene torch? Yeesh

I don't know about Israeli Arabs, Glen, but I do know that when Anwar Sadat visited Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust Memorial, he was asked to put on a yarmulke because there was a service taking place. Sadat did so, although he removed it when it became clear there was no such service.

As Mark Buehner shows, you don't have to be the least bit sympathetic to Nancy Pelosi as a person or her politics to see the silliness (and spitefulness) of the new LGF/Drudge hijab meme.

And while we're at it, is Rep. Mike Pence's (R-Indiana) claim that the Sorja Market in Baghdad was "just like" a summer market in Indiana—was that, in view of the 100-plus accompanying armed troops, the pre-visit security sweep, the five helos overhead, the sharpshooters, and the bulletproof vests more or less delusional than Rosie's conspiracy theory?

The psychological attraction of conspiracy explain-it-all theories has been studied. What is a black mark against the Bush Administration is that, after its mendacious pre-war performance and the eight-fold increase in Cheneyburton stock price, what should be loony-tunes locked ward theories sound pretty sensible.

Just to make myself clear:

1. Pelosi toured a religious location and wore the Hajib of her own volition- this had nothing to do with state business. Had she worn it in general or certainly during any official meetings she would deserve all the scorn being attributed and more. She accepted local customs on a purely cultural religious tour.

2. Male diplomats visit the same and even worse mysoginist havens all the time- Saudi Arabia being a prime example. It is purely hypocritical to condemn a female for visiting one (even if you buy into this argument) while being perfectly ok with sending male diplomats to patty-cake with even worse thugs, in essence accepting and participating in their anti-female culture. Either you completely refuse to engage these people or not- playing by their rules by only sending men it NOT any better, but we do it all the time. Especially the Bush's btw (and i am a supporter, generally).

3. She shouldn't have gone at all. We need to stop indulging these people- it is the worst kind of cultural-relativism/enabling and Pelosi as a feminist should be on the forefront of this. For too long we have placated the Saudis especially- but they at least have the excuse of being allies. Regardless, we should take this opportunity to make it an American priority for nations to either embrace equality or be treated as diplomatic parriahs, period. For starters we should appoint a woman as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and if they refuse her tell them to go to hell. Enough of this bull-shit, lets start picking sides for real.

People, it makes not one dab of difference whether it was state business or not, or whether she went to a mosque or not. Why the hell did she go to a mosque, anyway? Syria is supposed to be a secular state; they were belly-up bitches for the god-forsaken Soviets the day before yesterday.

When a female leader - and Pelosi is, alas, not the only one - goes over there and does her photo-ops wearing that thing on her head, people see that and draw conclusions. Unfortunately the conclusion they draw is not "Gosh, maybe America is not the Great Satan after all, look how modest their women can be - perhaps we can reform them after all."

It's time that some people realized that not everybody in the world is ready to bend over for their sexist-fascist theocratic imperialist ambitions.

And no, Mark, we should not send only men to Syria. We should send nothing but biker chicks. Hell, we should send Rosie O'Donnell over there, and her girlfriend, and that Miss America contestant. All of them naked and roaring drunk. IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES.

You guys need to read some Camille Paglia or something and get your heads straight.

Say, Glen, over at the lefty blogs we have a bet going that people like you have their heads explode when they see Condi Rice wearing a head covering for a mosque visit. Is it true? Did brains splatter on the screen?

I think there's a credible argument against Pelosi's visit; I wasn't real enthusiastic when Denny Hastert tried to sabotage Clinton's foreign policy when the shoe was on the other foot. (The argument would be a little stronger if GWB hadn't been sending GOP Congressmen to Syria for some photo-op.)

But forget about the location. I would certainly hope that Nancy Pelosi will take her shoes off at the Buddhist temple (and at the mosque, too!) and whatever else would be courteous in such a visit, and not only Pelosi but every American tourist, too.

Yeah, Andrew, I saw that one already. I saw the one with Laura Bush, too. See how funny it is when your sister gets acid thrown in her face for not wearing one, at a Barbra Streisand concert, even.

But you know what? I guess you're right. All of that stuff about equal rights for women, and women being allowed to go to school and drive cars, is all just a scam. What women really want is to be beaten and gang-raped by a Pakistani city council. I should have figured this out during the Clinton administration. What the hell was I thinking?

I also concede everybody's point about fundamentalist Islamists being no different from Jews and Buddhists. They're certainly not a dangerous religion, like those Presbyterians who want to take over the world and force everybody to sing "Jesus Loves Me". Rosie O'Donnell must be right after all.

I don't know what I can do to repent to Allah for all my errors. Maybe I could go to work for Dennis Kucinich.

Re: #38 from Andrew J. Lazarus: if "people like you" includes people like me, then the meter is reading - to use one of John Howard's favorite phrases - "relaxed and comfortable".

I think Senator Pelosi was right. When in Syria, do as the Syrians do. I think Secreary of State Rice was right.

Further, I think Mr. Ahmadinejad was right when he said: "Why was the difficult task of searching the seas given to a mother thousands of miles from home?" he demanded.

"Why is there no respect for motherhood, for the love of her child? How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don’t they respect family values in the West?"

And I see nothing wrong with how Faye Turney was dressed.

I think complaints about the Geneva conventions in this context are silly and just whining.

And Ahmadinejad was right to hand out those medals to his men too, because was that a successful operation or what?

The system of Islam is our enemy, and those determined to enforce world domination for Islam are our deadly enemies and we should be theirs, but for real reasons like the effects of nuclear weapons and our unwillingness to suffer those effects, and because we intend not to accept the withering consequences of Islamic pressure - not over petty stuff like this.

tcg (#32) - Appreciate you confirming my point.

Obligatory on-topic comment: I believe Rosie O'Donnell's well-earned kook of the month award is an individual honor and may not be shared with a whole political persuasion.

I appreciate you avoiding mine.

Joe,

Isn't a post like this just the same thing as the liberal "Oh, we're college educated, we're so smart!". That's been my point. We all want to beleive we're in a party with generally inscrutible values and full of equally cognizant individuals (and that our opposition is filled with dunderheads who can't get their story straight).

The problem is that most americans are poorly informed at best, and intentionally uninformed at worst. If Rosie was a news anchor, or a pollitical motivator, I'd be concerned. However, her place is with the Springers, the Montells.... the place people go to worry about sleazy affairs and make up tips of the stars... I'm not only unsuprised by a stupid comment coming from this venue... I EXPECT IT.

My 2 cents.

You can question the morals of Springer, Montel, Maury, etc., in cynically playing ringmaster to their respective freakshows, but I don't think any of them is especially deluded in the fashion of O'Donnell.

While The View isn't technically a "news show", it definitely has journalistic, or at least "public affairs" pretentions. I've always found it particularly repulsive for that reason. Inasmuch as Barbara Walters seems to run the thing, I'd say that it's her reputation (such as remains) that should be made to suffer for this episode.

And while I think that the 9/11 Conspiracy community happens to be dominated by members of the political left, I'd agree that they're not representative of "liberals" as a whole. What I think has influenced Joe and others in the direction of thinking so is the extent to which the political left lets itself get carried away with the team-building exercise of gleefully scapegoating Bush for every perceived ill of the moment. That's what sets their hesitance to distance themselves from the 9/11 kooks from the political right not making much effort to distance itself from the Satanic Conspiracy/Jack Chick crowd.

Speaking of conspiracy theories and political persuasions, what I find even more amazing is that so many people still believe the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was involved with, or even behind, the 9/11 attacks in NY. This conflation, supported by the WH to this day, not only played a major role in supporting the drumbeat to the unprovoked invasion in 2003, but still sustains the wishful thinking of so may of the Pro-war folk that the war in Iraq had any bearing on the war against Islamic radical terrorism.

At least when liberals have crazy ideas, hundreds of thousands of people do not lose their life...and some of you still question who is better fit to lead us.

This conflation, supported by the WH to this day

Wei:

Cite, please? Saddam as a sponsor of terrorists != Saddam behind 9/11 .

Who in the White House has said the latter?

Who in the White House has said the latter on or about 5 April 2007?

Or are you just bloviating?

Not only can I provide evidence for the conflation, but I can substantiate the claim that it is continuing to this day.

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link

AP WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. "As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network during that period.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate.

The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President Bush took the country to war.

Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaida, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships.

I see that the issue of the Speaker's involvement in foreign policy was settled when it was Clinton and Gingrich. Eat crow guys.

As far as I'm concerned (and I'm just speaking for the majority of Americans here), the Speaker and other Democrats cannot get involved in foreign policy soon enough...

Of course this is not likely to please the fringe warmongers, who have a much sexier product to sell, which perhaps explains the MSM's inane parrotting of their sneering, hypocritical and child-like response to Pelosi's efforts. Which are on behalf of people like me.

In my view, the Republicans are only making themselves look even more stupid and irrelevant than they arleady are...and that's no easy task at this point!

"As far as I'm concerned (and I'm just speaking for the majority of Americans here), the Speaker and other Democrats cannot get involved in foreign policy soon enough"

And what makes you think you have the right to speak for most Americans in this, my poor diluded friend? I might point out to you the latest Gallup poll showing Congressional Approval rate at 28% (64% disapprove) as of March 14. That's lower than the President- and i dont think foriegn policy in particular is rated as their strong suit.

Thanks for the snark, Mark, but don't get hung up on the work "for"...[padding added by A.L. to move long urls off page]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/08/iran-syria-diplomacy/

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/283.php?nid=&id=&pnt=283&lb=hmpg1

Americans Strongly Endorse Engaging Iran and Syria,
Holding International Conference on Iraq

A new poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org finds that three out of four Americans believe that in order to stabilize Iraq the United States should enter into talks with Iran and Syria, and eight in ten support an international conference on Iraq. A majority also opposes keeping U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely and instead supports committing to a timetable for their withdrawal within two years or less.

Majority Favors Timeline for U.S. Withdrawal of Two Years or Less

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_121206.htm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll13dec13,0,3005760.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Im sorry- but how exactly do those polls indicate this supposed seething desire for individual congress folk to essentially create shadow governments to conduct their own foriegn policy?

A majority of American favor universal healthcare as well- but that doesnt mean they support Hillary Clinton running it from Capitol Hill.

Thanks for clearing that up, Wei - so when the vast majority in the US believed that black men and women were subhuman, or that women were too emotional to vote - it would have been wrong to disagree?

Or does majority rule only work when you're comfy the majority is right?

A.L.

I was responding to Marks' questioning of my claim that my views were consonant with a majority of Americans.

Of course I am not claiming that all public opinion polls are gospel, nor am I questioning Marks right to ask me to justify my claim.

Which I did, several times over.

Next time I'll simply ignore such snarky misinformed comments.

Wei, that cracking sound you hear is the limb you are trying to climb back in from.

Im sorry, did i miss the part where you justified your belief that the American people support the idea that: "the Speaker and other Democrats cannot get involved in foreign policy soon enough"?

To a careful thinker, the conflation, if any, is not evident from what Wei has posted. Asserting that people affiliated with Al Qaeda have had dealings with Saddam is not the same thing as saying Saddam had something directly to do with 9/11.

But people in general aren't logical or careful about these sorts of things. Even people who are supposed "authorities".

shrug

Does it grate the nerves to live in Santa Cruz and carry this hatred for 90% of the local population?

I'll confine myself to pointing out that distaste is not the same thing as hatred.

Re: 48
"Not only can I provide evidence for the conflation, but I can substantiate the claim that it is continuing to this day."

Would you care to share this evidence with the rest of us? The text you cite does not appear to support your allegation in #46 that the White House was/is saying that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

It's not name-calling if you cite chapter and verse to show that somebody is a flaming moron.

(And Rosie has provided plenty of evidence to show that she indeed that.)

pst314,

#63 -- "It's not name-calling if you cite chapter and verse to show that somebody is a flaming moron."

You must be a complete & utter idiot to write a thing like that. Of course it is name-calling. Name-calling is name-calling whether it is justified or not. In either case, it is undignified and decidely less than helpful. If you demonstrate that a particular person is wrong in a given instance and then call them a flaming moron or an utter idiot, you are still calling them a name.

In your moronic post, what you are really trying to say is that sometimes it is okay to engage in name-calling: when you think it is justified--not that it isn't name-calling.

But the problem with Katzman's post is not that he engaged in name-calling (I only brought that up to show A.L.'s selective opposition to that practice.), but because of his unabashed use of a propoganda technique. Rosie is an idiot, Rosie is a liberal, therefore liberal's are idiots. But what Katzman failed to provide was any connection between her belief in a consipiracy theory and liberal ideas. Is there, e.g., some connection between believing in consipracy theories and advocating that gay people in America be granted equal rights as straight people? Is there any reason at all to associate some comedian's wacko beliefs with American liberalism, or was it just another common cheap attempt by someone who is otherwise berift of worthwhile ideas to hear the sound of his own voice?

My guess is that it is the latter and I think that, in this instance, you, Katzman & A.L. are behaving like horses' asses, flaming morons and kooks because each of you should know better.

Yeah, Rosie O'Donnell is a kook. What she said was scientifically illiterate. So what? She runs a stupid TV show watched by retirees and shut-ins. How many countries has she invaded? Have you ever named George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld for Kook of the Month for the utterly insane invasion of Iraq?

Diana

PS It's possible to think that Islam is the chief engine of misogyny in the modern world (I do, as it happens) and that Nancy Pelosi was behaving respectfully towards her hosts. I also think the scarf was very pretty, and that she a damned good looking 66-year old.

Not that my opinions matter in the grand scheme of the universe. But you dudes are sounding a bit...whack.

PPS - Just to clarify something - I really DON'T like scientific illiteracy and if I sounded a bit blase about that, I apologize. Anyone's scientific illiteracy is to be deplored. But I sense that Joe doesn't much care about O'Donnell's scientific illiteracy. He cares about the politics. I don't read this blog much but I wonder if Joe has ever named a politician as Kook of the Month for calling himself a grown-up embryo, or for opposing stem-cell research, as Laura Bush did.

PPPS Armed liberal - calling someone a kook is not promoting intelligent dialog. Saying that she said kooky things is a different matter altogether. I don't know O'Donnell...she is probably sane on certain subjects and crazy on others, as we all are.

In any case, one of the first principles of promoting intelligent dialog is not to engage in name-calling. What you have said is thorough dissimulation.

(NOTE: I DID NOT CALL YOU A DISSIMULATOR. I WROTE, YOU ENGAGED IN DISSIMULATION. GET THE DIFFERENCE?)

mark (#63) - Joe's post is 100% vulnerable to a "Socrates is a triangle" challenge, and a dialog about that would possibly even be interesting.

Look, let me step back and remind folks of something. Everyone here has an (at least one) opinion. What the point of the place is - to me - encouraging a bunch of people of differing opinions to trot them out and see how the perform under scrutiny.

I'm not interested in drawing conclusions about people's character from what they write here (although there are things that might lead me to certain conclusions) as much as I am in the clash of ideas - because that's interesting and, God knows, I might learn something.

So from my point of view, meta-arguments about who is doing what tend to be ratholes.

What I will demand is a certain level of civility and mutual respect. I got my face rubbed in that by Adam Bellow, and I deserved it. There's a floor below which you can't go and continue to be a guest on this site. There's a level below which I'll feel free to ignore your arguments and even criticize your tone.

My goal is to get everyone to the level where we differ - because an echo chamber is boring and useless - and yet are willing to hear each other out and maybe, just maybe, convince each other of something.

I'll stick to that position with a lot of comfort.

A.L.

Armed Liberal:

First, I NEVER questioned Katzman's "character" in my original comments. I was (and am still) questioning his INTENT or PURPOSE in making a "Socrates Triangle" effort to smear Liberalism by association with O'Donnell. There's a big, and important, difference. I am still interested in understanding his motivation for doing so as it is not irrelevant to the topic of why people think this way, or if they do not why they continue to act as if they do. And, like other posters, I am still waiting for Katzman to defend his own comments and explain why he thinks it is important to draw this (completely unsubstantiated) connection between O'Donnell and "The Left".

Second, I have no idea why you've worked so hard on this thread to preserve "civility" among a select group of its participants when the instigator of the thread is your own colleague, and it is the vague and snide tone of his comments that led to this response. You are looking in all the wrong places for the root of the problem while it is there right under your own nose.

You guys really have quite the tag-team going here.

Wei, criticism of Joe (and me or anyone else who blogs here) is welcome - that's what debate is all about. If I say something lame - and I have and will again, I'm sure - people ought to let me know. But if the goal is to "norm" civility, responding to a lame post with lame comments doesn't push the converstaion to the norm, it pushes it away from it.

It's perfectly possible to dissect someone's arguments with civility, in fact, it's a much stronger takedown when you do that.

Make sense?

A.L.