I suppose you need to read the book, Liberal Fascism for the clearest explanation, but in the case of Facebook, it's found in Facebook's incessent need to "police" the site. In particular, Facebook gives the heckler "veto rights" over other users who've posted something on Facebook that offended them. Facebook shouldn't ban people who post things offensive, but should only block those users from each other.
Oh, geez... leftists and their Judith Miller idiocy.
The fact is, Judith Miller is a symptom of a problem with NYT, which is it's always been a tool for someone... But then again, that's not something specific to NYT. The WaPo, LAT and others have been tools for one political group or another.
I hate feeling like I have to step you through a debate like you're a 5 year old, with a bunch of "you saids" and "I saids", but with that said, in response to this comment of mine; "whether the terrorist groups or nations supporting those groups had a direct hand in the 9-11 attacks was never germane."
You said this; "Bullshit. When the invasion of Iraq was being sold to us, the only justification given was that we were pursuing the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them."
Ergo, you're stating the ONLY reason given for invasion was the pursuit of 9-11 co-conspirators and al Qaeda members.
So, without taking rhetorical license, let me restate the query; show us the news articles, op-ed from pro-war sources or any statement from the US government that shows "[w]hen the invasion of Iraq was being sold to us, the only justification given was that we were pursuing the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them."
As for the "No Fly Zones", you stated, "It is not clear that Iraq violated 687."
It's clear from the documentary trail, that the UN thought Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687.
a total cessation of armed hostilities, regulated by the same general principles as those governing armistice. In contemporary diplomatic usage the term implies that the belligerents are too far apart in their negotiating positions to permit the conclusion of a formal armistice agreement.
A ceasefire (or truce) is a temporary stoppage of a war in which each side agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions. Ceasefires may be declared as part of a formal treaty, but they have also been called as part of an informal understanding between opposing forces. An armistice is a formal agreement to end fighting.
So, since there was a formal treaty in the form of UN Resolution 687, we now must determine everything else from that, and the question that must be asked is, does the resolution prevent the belligerants from resuming hostilities if one side violates that ceasefire?
"Over 75% of US troops in Iraq thought we were there to get revenge for 9/11."
You can't prove that statement.
"Bush burned a CIA agent (which is classically really bad form) in the process of trying to frame Iraq as a greater threat than it was. We knew Hussein didn't have nukes. We even knew why he didn't want nukes. Hussein did have chemical weapons because we sold them to him. He wasn't supplying terror groups because Iraq couldn't afford to; they were still rebuilding from the Gulf War."
As soon as I see statements like this, I know I'm dealing with someone who is factually challenged.
* Bush didn't "burn" Valerie Plame. If anyone "burned" her, she did it herself recommending her husband for something he wasn't actually qualified to do, and then saying one thing about his findings to media circles, but another to government officials.
* The argument wasn't what he had, but his intent. That's the thing it seems those with Bush Derangement Syndrome actually want to avoid. Most all the talking points that Bush officials gave stressed the idea that it was a threat we didn't want to see come to full realization.
* The United States never sold the nation of Iraq chemical weapons. The most that Iraq acquired from the shores of the USA were "dual use" materials, in the form of oscilloscopes, multi-meters, computers and other electronics used in developing weapons. As well, Iraq attained a variety of biological samples from American businesses that provided those samples to colleges, universities and private researchers.
"In Iraqi Freedom we were supposed to be in and out within three months. Instead it took eight years and about a trillion dollars (not including Afghanistan). Iraqi Freedom was exactly the quagmire that we feared it would be. It was also regarded as an unjust war by pretty much every war ethicist across the planet, just not Bush's Evangelical advisers."
Nothing you've said in the above paragraph can be supported.
"If we are going to play world police, there's a way to do it, and Iraqi Freedom wasn't it. We have a policy as a superpower called proportional response: as a nation respectful of life, the US understands (or rather, once did understand) that the civilians in these belligerent nations are not responsible for the actions of the despots that govern them. And if the cost of Iraqi Freedom is an indicator, we so can't afford to play world peace until we've well resolved issues here at home."
If you wish to have a debate about the proper way to be "world police", be my guest. My answer is, no... we don't want to be world police.
"To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think Bush Derangement Syndrome means what you think it means."
Based on your response, it's exactly what I think it means... A person so crazed by hate for George W. Bush you'll spin any sort of story, misrepresent any opinion, misstate any fact, or just plain lie through your teeth if it serves the purpose of attacking GW Bush, his supporters and his policies.
"Bullshit. When the invasion of Iraq was being sold to us, the only justification given was that we were pursuing the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them."
Really now? Please do show us the news articles, op-ed from pro-war sources or any statement from the US government that categorically stated the perpetrators of 9-11 were in Iraq and we must chase them down.
Statements that some terrorists may take refuge in Iraq don't count.
"The broader justification came much later, after it became too obvious that Iraq wasn't one of those."
Prove it... I can actually give links to articles to support my premise, can you?
All you need to do is provide one article to refute my point.
"It is not clear that Iraq violated 687, but even if they did, doing so did not automatically give the US or UK the right to attack them."
Now you've strayed into "la la land". The "No Fly Zones" were created in the 1990's, because Saddam was violating the ceasefire agreement to not use his military to attack Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shia. In response, the US and the UK set up and maintain those "No Fly Zones" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
Saddam Hussein constantly violated the ceasefire agreement, and those violations were the casus belli for all the profound military actions taken against Iraq throughout the 1990's by the Clinton Administration.
You're a bit disconnected from reality, which is par for the course for a person with Bush Derangement Syndrome, but I learned a decade ago that people of your mental capabilities are "one trick ponies" and there's simply no need to point out that "War on Terror" wasn't aimed at al Qaeda exclusively, so whether the terrorist groups or nations supporting those groups had a direct hand in the 9-11 attacks was never germane. You can disagree with the policy all you wish, that is your right, but you're not allowed your own set of "facts". There's only one truth, and that is the Bush Administration framed the "War on Terror" as a war against more than al Qaeda, thus the inclusion of Iraq in this war isn't nearly as illogical as those with Bush Derangement Syndrome would have you believe.
Equally inane is the belief by those with Bush Derangement Syndrome that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, but let's set that aside for a minute and address Iran, Syria, and North Korea... The fact of the matter is, none of those nations had a ceasefire agreement with the United States, Great Britain and the UN, for which it had been in constant violation.
Iraq had such a ceasefire agreement in the form of UN Resolution #687. The mere act of violating that ceasefire agreement placed Iraq in jeopardy from military reprisals for its recalcitrant behavior. The real oddity is that the United States and Great Britain allowed Iraq to thwart their will, as expressed in Resolution #687.
Lastly, I think Saddam Hussein is so proud of the "arses" he "whooped"... In fact, he's dying to tell the world he kicked our butts.
Bush Bashers will continue their hate and vitriol, but those who truly want to protect Americans from Islamic inspired aggression while at the same time protecting American civil rights, will find Mr. Bush's words wanting for further explanation, just as we've waited for the same from Mr. Obama.