F.T. Rea --- Moonbat Redux

F.T. Rea really hates it when someone turns the tables on him, and identifies his tactics and uses them on him. Of course, he fails to substantiate his claim that the President called Iraq an "imminent threat," but never mind that. Now he just attacks me, among others:

One angry defender of Bush’s Iraqi war policy writes on his blog: “...When F.T. [Rea] is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies!”
By “lies” the defender means that I disagree with his version of the run-up to the war in Iraq. This lathered up Bush defender claims the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction.
To suggest otherwise hurts Bush, so it simply makes one a liar.
****
Sadly, the lack of civility and lack of common decency illustrated above aren’t all that unusual today. It seems screaming insults at opponents has become acceptable in many circles. And, you know what -- none of this childish behavior has anything to do with making the world a better place.
None of it is really about candidates, or ideas, or the future. No. It has to do with self-promotion and meanness. It’s about brats being brats.
Perhaps when the heat weave passes, some of this will go away like bad air. But I'm not holding my breath.

A few pertinent points: (1) Nothing in my post "defend[s] ... Bush’s Iraqi war policy"; it merely notes that opponents based at least one element of their argument on a misrepresentation; (2) my comments do not illustrate a "lack of civility and lack of common decency," unless you count among those virtues the practice of couching in euphemism base and intentional misrepresentations of fact; and (3) it is amazing that someone who chooses to call the President of the United States and his Administration liars is now accusing someone else of "childish behavior."

Now, at least one thing F.T. gets right: "By 'lies' [I] mean[] that [F.T.] disagree[s] with [my] version of the run-up to the war in Iraq," to-wit, I "claim[] the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction." Now, reading that, you might conclude that the debate was about a matter of opinion, e.g., the merits and demerits of a policy of preemption, which is an eminently debatable point.

But this isn't about opinion; its about the fact that F.T.'s allegation that the President and his Administration advanced the notion that Iraq constituted an "imminent threat" is an utter, absolute falsehood. It's fact, and notwithstanding numerous opportunities to do so, F.T. persists in his failure to offer a countervailing fact. I can only conclude that he knows that there are none, since there would doubtless be numerous sources on the far Left happy to substantiate such an occurrence, had it ever occurred. In short, F.T. clearly indicate that he has suspended any pretense of relying upon evidence, instead preferring to rely upon a far Left urban legend. And since I assume that he is smart enough to know the difference, I can only conclude that he is engaging in an intentional mispresentation of fact, i.e., a "lie."

F.T.'s arrogance would be astounding, if it were not so pathetically unjustified in his inability to actually address the issue.

And BTW, I suppose that F.T. will try to dismiss the above as ad hominem argument. That would be incorrect. Ad hominem is like Mark Levin referring to Hillary Clinton as "Her Thighness" (a pretty funny line, truth be told). It's dismissing someone who demonstrates that you have been lying a "brat," or accusing them of "self-promotion and meanness." The above addresses F.T.'s misrepresentations of fact, and identifying a knowing falsehood and calling attention to its purveyor is hardly an ad hominem argument.

But --- getting back to the silly suggestion by F.T. that the President was involved in "Newspeak" and Orwellianism --- dismissing my argument as mere ad hominem would be so much easier than F.T. admitting that his attacks on me, like the major premise of his attack upon the President, are "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell, George, Politics and the English Language (1946).

UPDATE: F.T. has childish decided to delete my comments. Here's one that I have since posted, but as I expect it to be deleted, I'll reproduce it here:

You see, there you go again, F.T. You claim to not use the term "liar" lightly, implying that I do. In fact, I don't. I use it when it fits, and it manifestly fits when applied by those who set themselves up as authorities, make elaborate claims of presidential prevarication, and then fail to make their case. As you do. "Liar"? Absolutely.

And once again, you misrepresent the disagreement. It is not about politics. It is about the facts upon which you purport to premise your politics. Since one of those facts is so demonstrably false, it is difficult to imagine how you expect to have a civil conversation with those of us who are conversant with the facts.

Of course, with your childish decision to simply delete my posts, it is utterly clearly that you simply want to purvey your bilious myths, free of the bother of those who want to bring facts to the conversation.

Another far Left champion of free speech, and vigorous debate!

F.T. also offers some interesting comments about what he expect of lawyers, simply seeking to denigrate me. Of course, what he really seems to expect is that I will roll over and play dead for him.

Illegal Convention?

Riley's been all over this, and it appears that Chairman Sean's nomination to a post in the Bush Administration will be receiving the prompt attention it deserves (he seems well-qualified for the post).

Those in the blogosphere and elsewhere who have been screaming and hollering about an "illegal convention" --- some for self-serving political reasons and/or out of a desire to weaken a Conservative candidate --- should be preparing themselves for a hearty serving of crow.

New Kid in the Block

Well, it seems that there's a new organization out there, called "The Virginia Way."

I'm a little sick to death of those who appeal to objective criteria --- criteria they abandon when they become inconvenient --- to attack their political foes. Of course, one searches the website in vain for reference to any living individual willing to associate themselves with this group. One can only wonder whether their argument would be denigrated by their association with it, i.e., perhaps it is a front group for homosexual activists.

And, of course, Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe --- like John Adams in Massachusetts, whose state Constitution was used to justify gay "marriage" --- were well-known supporters of homosexual sodomy.

Remember When Flying Was Fun?

Via Drudge, another story on the joys of modern air travel.

A Reason to Celebrate

Well, according to at least one wise soul, I am now Virginia's eleventh most influential blogger, having risen in Republitarian's estimation from sixteenth. Either that, or the field has simply been thinned. I note that young Vince has dropped on the list significantly. 'Course, that could just be a function of his current location as a college student in Texas.

Nevertheless, never one to let a kindness go unrecognized, I offer my thanks to Republitarian.

Now, if I could only break the top ten!

Texas Air National Guard Jets Used to Help Oil Companies!

At least, that's what the environmentalist wackos at this website --- brought to my attention by Jim Riley over at Virtucon --- seem to think.

This is one of the more severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. I wonder if it's just a goof?

Excessive Heat Warning

According to the Style section of the Washington Post, the prediction for 101-degree heat in the Washington area for today is "Satan-in-a-Speedo hot."

I don't know about you, but this alone renders the 2000, Brenda Frazier remake of Bedazzled, with Elizabeth Hurley as Satan, superior to the 1967, Dudley Moore version, with Peter Cook as Beelzebub (though Raquel Welch was appropriately cast as Lust in the earlier version).

UPDATE: This might be a wonderful opportunity for a PhotoShop illustration, but: (a) I can't find a photo of Peter Cook; (b) I'm not competent to use it; and (c) the aesthetic horror would be unfit for viewing.

The OWW Reappears

After an all-too-brief, yet merciful, silence, one of those involved in attacking a young candidate with criminal charges reappears over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality. And only when greeted with response in kind does "NoVA Scout" notice that the thread has "degenerated."

I LOVE a good double-standard!

The Marriage Amendment

The ever-entertainingly insane Alice Marshall thinks supporters of Virginia's Marriage Amendment (which it's opponents call the Marshall-Newman Amendment, in the apparently ill-informed belief that they have successfully demonized Delegate Bob Marshall in the eyes of most Virginians) should reprint its text in full. No problem:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

Now, anybody who's not a homosexual activist or an anonymous/pseudonymous coward (this means you, "NoVA Scout"), why don't you explain why you are so threatened by this?

The Orwellianism of F.T Rea

Courtesy of Waldo's invaluable vapoliticalblogs.com, came across this nonsensical post by F.T. Rea, formerly, and perhaps presently a "real" journalist. In it, he quotes notable (for his afflication with Bush Derangement Syndrome) New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who cites a widely-held misapprehension as evidence of a lack of Liberal bias, rather than what it really is: evidence of the general ignorance of the American populace as to foreign affairs. Here's what F.T. said:

In “Reign of Error,” columnist Paul Krugman is depressed that a new Harris poll says 50 percent of Americans believe Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction when it was invaded in 2003. That figure is up from 36 percent in February of 2005, in spite of all the international reports that say nothing was found in Iraq to justify the “imminent threat” to America described by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion.

The problem? Well, F.T. misrepresents the facts by claiming that "the 'imminent threat' to America [was] described by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion." Of course, the whole point of a doctrine of pre-emption is to address a threat BEFORE it becomes imminent and that, of course, was the argument made by the Administration, for good or ill. That F.T. and the far Left have to misrepresent the argument made demonstrates the emptiness of their position.

And if F.T. wants to dispute the point, I cordially invite him to give me chapter and verse as to any time the President, Vice President, or any member of the Administration said the threat was imminent. A good discussion on the issue can be found here, and it makes the rational point that, while there may have been those in the Administration who tried to make the argument, the dominant argument was to the contrary. Indeed, the only examples that the author could find were instances of reporters putting words into the mouth of presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer:

Moreover, there are extremely few instances in which any member of the Bush administration even suggested that Iraq posed an "imminent threat."

Twice, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer affirmed questions from reporters using the phrase "imminent threat" to describe the administration's case against Iraq. As the liberal Center for American Progress pointed out, when Fleischer was asked by a reporter on May 7 of this year, "Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?" he replied, "Absolutely." And on October 16 of last year, a reporter asked, "Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth." Fleischer replied, simply, "Yes."

While Fleischer's affirmation of reporters' use of the phrase is indeed notable, it's important to keep in mind that he never uttered the words himself - hardly conclusive evidence in the matter.

In short, those who claim the Administration used the argument that Iraq was an "imminent threat" are not only misstating the facts. In fact, they are ignoring the uncontroverted evidence.

There is obviously some argument against the doctrine of preemption, and against virtually every Administration policy, and certainly, respectably people have respectably made them. However, any argument which begins from the premise that the term “imminent threat” to America was used by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, et al, in the run-up to the invasion is a bald-faced lie, and speaks volumes about both the integrity of its advocate, and the reason of their position.

Of course, in the modern world, that's what it takes to be on the far Left.

UPDATE: Oh my! When F.T. is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies! Now he's questioning my legal credentials. I guess it just demonstrates how far removed he is from being an actual journalist, since a real journalist --- or anyone capable of your basic Internet search --- would have little trouble confirming that I am, as F.T. puts it, "actually ... a lawyer."

Conspiracy Theory

One of the pseudonymous conspiracy-theorist moonbats over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Squishy" offers us his rantings on why it's a terrible thing for the PWC GOP to be prepared with a nominee in the even that their god, Chairman Sean, actually gets the job for which he appears to be well-qualified.

And get this: he trashes the GOP and those whom he perceives to be its Conservative leaders! I know this comes as a shock, Gentle Reader, but it's true. Or maybe it's just a function that the "moderates" (read: Liberal tax-and-spenders) don't have anyone who's quite ready for Prime Time.

This is the kind of thing, however, which demonstrates that there are good reasons why some people hide their identity.

The Alice Marshall Game

From GOTV, aka Alice Marshall's Insanity, we are treated to this little pearl of wisdom:

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) called Soros "pro-marijuana" because of Soros' advocacy of decriminalizing the drug (Soros also favors clean needle programs).

Question for Davis supporters, have you ever smoked marijuana? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

Well, gee, I guess Alice is right. But I've never smoked marijuana (never even SAW it until I interned in a U.S. Attorney's office, and then, it was in an evidence bag), and I've got no problem throwing people in jail for dealing it, and probably for smoking it to.

Let's use her "logic" a little more, though:

1. Have you ever [exceeded the speed limit]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

2. Have you ever [driven after having a few drinks]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

3. Have you ever [driven recklessly]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

4. Have you ever [taken office supplies, including paper clips and pens]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

5. Have you ever [made a rolling stop at a stop sign]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

6. Have you ever [changed lanes without signaling]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

7. Have you ever [cheated on your taxes, like failing to pay sales taxes on items ordered from out-of-state]? Because if you have, you have no business throwing people in jail for the same.

Teddy Kennedy Misses the Mainstream

Well, it's Sunday, and only in the Washington Post could Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) offer his musings on "the mainstream of legal thought" in the Outlook section, rather than in the Style section, where slapstick usually appears.

The only way Teddy Kennedy could find the "mainstream" is if he drove his car off of a bridge into it.

Things That Make You Scream "Aaaaaaaaaaahhh!"

Thanks to Doug Mataconis, we learn that the "artist" who gave us "Trailer Trash Birthing" ... er, "Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston," a sculpture of a nude Britney Spears on a bearskin rug giving birth, has released another work of "art," and hence, the title (which works on a number of levels).

This abomination also reminds me of a biblical admonition, something to the effect that "If thine right eye offend thee, pluck it out."

Believe me: this offends.

And if that were still the standard, I'd be investing in eye patches.

Caddigan v. Stewart for GOP Nomination

Well, according to Ben Tribbett and Vince Harris, Maureen Caddigan will run for the GOP nomination for PWC Board of County Supervisors Chairman.

If true --- while I respect Ben, Vince might just be making it all up --- then this virtually guarantees a Stewart nomination (Ben only calls it "Lean Stewart"). As I have said elsewhere, Maureen does not travel well outside of the Dumfries District, where she is no doubt "all that," as those who have dared to stray from her orbit --- yours truly included --- learn quickly. So it is entirely doubtful that she could win the GOP nomination, much less the County.

Actually, it seems to me that the former is even less likely than the latter. After all, simply having an "R" next to her name will garner her votes from those who don't know her.

Oh, to be sure, there are those who are spinning this as a Connaughton move. Who knows? They might even be correct. But it is difficult for me to believe that Connaughton is a puppet master here, particularly considering that Maureen supported Chairman Sean's opponent in 1999, Democrat incumbent Kathleen Seefeldt. It is equally difficult for me to believe that Republicans will not remember this fact and hold it against Maureen.

If growth is the issue, and Republicans are dominant in PWC, then it is looking very good for Corey Stewart. Maureen Caddigan is most assuredly in the tax-and-spend mode of Sean Connaughton, and she was tax-and-spend before tax-and-spend was cool, working hard for a "meals tax" twice rejected by voters in referenda (Chairman Sean was MIA in those battles in the mid-Nineties). So I can agree with Ben on one thing: she is definitely a "moderate" in the Chairman Sean mold. That is, she wants the GOP label for its electoral power, but spends like a Democrat.

It will be interesting to see how serious County Republicans are about protecting the GOP "name brand."

Home-Area Girl Among Hill's 50 Most Beautiful

While it's a list I never would have made when I was interning on the Hill (even if interns were eligible), it's nice to see that a girl from Central Pennsylvania, Maureen Ryan, made The Hill's list of the "50 Most Beautiful People" on Capitol Hill. She's the six-foot redhead at the top of the page. I think she may have been born the year I interned for Congressman George Gekas (R-17).

I can only imagine that, with her on the other side, the girls at Shikellamy didn't win too many games against Danville's girls' basketball team.

Where Are The Intermeddlers?

Back in 1998, Delegate Bob Marshall made headlines, along with Governor Jim Gilmore, when they tried to intervene to prevent the removal of Hugh Finn's feeding tube, an action sought by his wife. Finn, who was in a persistent vegetative state, was kept alive by a feeding tube, providing him with food and water, but was not subject to any extraordinary measures to maintain his life (no respirator, etc.).

And oh, how the far Left savaged them for interfering with family decisions.

Then, in the last two years, there was the even-more prominent case of Terri Schiavo. Even more politicos, including the United States Congress, tried to intervene on her behalf, when her "husband" --- who had already taken up with another woman and had two children with her --- sought (eventually, successfully) to remove her feeding tube.

And oh, how the far Left, Death Caucus savaged any who dared to speak out against denying her food and water, and interfering with her "husband's" decision to starve her.

Now, there's Abraham Cherrix, a sixteen-year-old boy on Virginia's Eastern Shore with Hodgkin's disease. On Friday, 21 July, an Accomack County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge ruled that Abraham must report to a hospital by this afternoon for testing, evaluation, and treatment as doctors deem necessary. He also found that Abraham's parents are neglectful for risking his health by permitting him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diate and herbal supplements supervised by a Mexican clinic.

Now, I agree with the judge as to his assessment of the Cherrix's decision. Were I Abraham's parents, and with all due respect to the well-known first-rate qualities and advances of Mexican medicine, I wouldn't treat him according to that clinic's recommendations. In fact, I think Abraham's parents --- like Abraham --- are a little loopy.

But my initial post might have left the impression that I agree with the judge's intereference with the family's decision, which is decidedly not true. I apologize for the confusion.

And while I know my limitations, and that I just can't read everything out there, I am mightily confused by the reaction by the far Left side of the Virginia blogosphere.

The silence from the far Left of the Virginia blogosphere on this judge's interference with the Cherrix family's decisionmaking process --- Doug Mataconis has been all over this story --- is positively deafening.

Or maybe they only support the privacy of family decisionmaking when it involves ending an innocent's life.

Get Your Talking Points Straight

Corey Stewart must be something pretty special, for all of the bile being poured out against him in the Squishy element of the Virginia Blogosphere. However, his opponents haven't quite gotten their talking points straight.

There's one element that seems to doubt my source as to the impending Convention, even though it was gold (and the only thing that made my post a scoop was simply that I posted it more quickly than anyone else; it was based upon an e-mail sent to the County GOP Committee's membership).

And then there are those who are suggesting that the speed with which the Committee is moving is somehow premature. This, of course, is belied by the fact that PWC Dems are doing the same thing, according to one of their bloggers.

And then there's the line that this is some sinister plot to make Corey's nomination a foregone conclusion, somehow "rigging" the process.

I don't know who will win a convention. I do know that it is cheaper to nominate through convention, and saves the taxpayers money. Of course, saving taxpayers money is not high on the list of priorities for Corey's opponents/Chairman Sean's sycophants. I also know that I will be little issue to it, if scheduled for 19 August, as I will be out of the country on that date.

What appears clear is that those who have little say in the County GOP --- because they aren't really Republicans, after all --- are launching a preemptive strike against a guy who might just actually govern like a Republican.

They have good cause to fear it. Proof of the wisdom of geniunely Conservative governance will likely have the same effect upon their ideology that sunlight has on a vampire. And bloodsuckers have good reason to fear sunlight.

John Dean's New Book

Was in BJ's after church this morning, and briefly perused John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without a Conscience.

I haven't read the book, and I certainly won't enrich Dean by purchasing it, even at BJ's price. Vivian Paige is fond of it; Shaun Kenney rightly calls it "silly."

Dean is just the latest in a ... well, rather short line of "conservatives" who have attempted to capitalize on demonizing the GOP and its dominant ideology from an "insider's" view.

But let's remember, after all, that John Dean probably was never really a "Conservative." After all, he was part of the Nixon Administration, an administration "Conservative" only in comparison to the naked socialism advanced by its predecessor and in comparison to Hubert H. Humphrey and George "No Enemies to the Left" McGovern. And let's remember, too, that the guy was part of the corruption of the Nixon Administration. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about his role:

Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice before Watergate trial judge John Sirica on October 19, 1973. He admitted supervising payments of "hush money" to the Watergate burglars, notably E. Howard Hunt, and revealed the existence of Nixon's enemies list. On August 2, 1974, Sirica handed down a sentence of one to four years in a minimum-security prison. However, when Dean surrendered himself as scheduled on September 3, he was diverted to the custody of U.S. Marshals and kept instead at Fort Holabird (near Baltimore, Maryland) in a special "safe house" holding facility primarily used for witnesses against the Mafia. He spent his days in the offices of the Watergate Special Prosecutor and testifying in the trial of Watergate conspirators Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson, which concluded on January 1, 1975. Dean's lawyer moved to have his sentence reduced, and on January 8, Sirica granted the motion, adjusting Dean's sentence to time served.

If he weren't trashing true "Conservatives," would MSM types like Keith Olbermann be giving him the time of day? Doubtful.

Dean is and seems to have always been, at his heart, little more than a sleazy opportunist. He is certainly a turncoat if, indeed, he ever was really a Conservative.

Membership Insurance Scam

The Washington Post had a great story today about a tactic used by "political groups to inflate their membership rosters -- and their bottom lines -- by taking dues from people with no interest in the groups' politics." It was a fascinating story, starting out as follows:

In 2001, Jennifer B. Chace heard an insurance broker's pitch for a new insurance company.... She jumped at the offer, but first, the broker told her, she would have to sign an application -- already filled out -- that would entitle her to a low group rate.

With that signature, Chace, a Florida dentist in the market for ... insurance, unwittingly joined one of Washington's most prominent ... organizations, ..., she would later testify.

Now, lest you think that this was a story about a public school teachers scammed into joining the National Education Association to enjoy its virtually useless professional liability insurance, it was a story about a tactic "marketing tax-free medical savings accounts" used to boost membership in the conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy (now known as FreedomWatch).

It's really amazing what the WaPo considers scandalous. Although this appears to be a story fed to a reporter by a plaintiffs' lawyer, the Post consistently ignores the scandal of what is legal in its own back yard --- the practice of District and Maryland groups "inflat[ing] their membership rosters -- and their bottom lines -- by taking dues from people with no interest in the groups' politics."

I guess if it's labor unions doing so, well, that's just perfectly fine with the WaPo.