This is the same thing you pulled the other day where you grabbed a single, unnamed source quoted in the American Spectator and joined the Malkin parade to distract from the release of CIA documents.
Here you also have a dubious memo dubiously-sourced and presented for our enjoyment by a right-wing magazine.
You accept as factual a memo that is the KGB talking to itself in effect. The KGB. That's your source. Because it's not like they ever practiced disinformation. Seriously, if you can't trust the KGB, who can you trust?
A b.s. unnamed source in the last hit job, and the KGB in this one.
Is this your standard of proof, Rick? You trash the so-called MSM and this is what you've got? A figment of Emmet Tyrell's imagination and a communist spy?
But of course those are credible because they tell you what you want to believe. More to the point they give you some red meat to toss out to the birthers, deathers and assorted whackjobs that constitute the GOP.
Why now? Because the GOP is terrified that Obama might succeed in some way, so to hell with credibility, on with the slash and burn.
You obviously are clueless about that 1992 doc dump - read The Black Book of Communism or The Venona Intercepts which was a CIA cable intercept program but the book makes extensive use of the documents released to prove the intercepts were true.
I admit the possibility of misinterpretation. You do not admit that there is a possibility the memo could be the genuine article. That makes me careful and you a hack. You fail to address my point about Kengor's vetting. You fail to address Kennedy's statement where he hints at misinterpretation but significantly, does not deny the overture took place.
You obviously agree it is perfectly alright for a member of the opposition to be in private contact with the enemy and attempt to undermine policy. Glad you'd be so sanguine if a Republican senator communicated with Ahmadinejad and told him to go ahead and build his nukes, Obama won't take any military action.
You've gone so far off the rails that it has become an exercise in futility to get you to take off your blinders and see this Chicago pol for who and what he is. You are so far in the tank for this guy that it is impossible to debate anything with you - you refuse to adequately address anything I write anymore.
Perhaps its time for you to find greener pastures for debate.
ed.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 29.08.2009 @ 10:09
"I'm not sayin' he's a traitor, I'm just sayin'."
Go take a shower. You soil yourself with this kind of sleaze.
And you dare to call anyone else a hack?
So the memo is...what? A right wing fantasy? A plant? A case of misinterpretation?
The memo is there Michael. The journalist who originally ferreted it out in 1992 worked for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, the London Times. Kengor vetted the document's authenticity using retired soviet experts at the CIA.
And your interpretation of this post is laughable. I was being a helluva lot more cautious than any MSM reporter would be. But since Kennedy did not deny the existence of the overture, we must conclude that there was in fact an effort by Kennedy to communicate privately with the Soviets in 1983.
I make it plain as day that the KGB may be misinterpreting what Kennedy was trying to do. I also offer the less probable but still possible explanation that Tunney exceeded his mandate - by a lot.
What the fuck more do you want? ANY communication with the enemy undermines the duly elected leader's policy in this area.This is self evident and the fact that you refused to address ANY points I make in the post brands you once again as a partisan hack.
Is it treason? Was Kennedy a traitor? Legally, probably not. But it was behavior that should be included when summing up the totality of Kennedy's life and I think regardless of the interpretation, was despicable.
ed.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 29.08.2009 @ 09:30
A single unnamed source.
In the American Spectator.
On the same day the CIA report is coming out.
Either you took your stupid pills, Rick, or you've just given up entirely.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.08.2009 @ 11:37
You had it right. Reagan exploded the deficit. He did marry conservatism to religion, the fact that he was a screaming hypocrite about it changes nothing. The GOP is in a long-term, committed relationship with hypocrisy.
I'll add that at a time when Reagan could have moved away from the GOP's Nixon-era race-baiting he chose instead to perpetuate it. And then there's the number: 241. The number of Marines who were murdered by terrorists and who caused Ronald Reagan to turn tail and run.
The essential fact about Reagan is that most Republicans don't actually remember him. It was a long time ago. So they only have the myth, not the reality.
But come on, Chuck, let's have some pity for brother Rick: what's he going to do praise George H.W. Bush? Or his idiot son, the least capable president of the modern era?
Rick can't even name anyone on the GOP's presidential candidate list he doesn't actively despise. Palin? Hates her. Huckabee? hates him. Has he ever said a kind word about Romney or Boehner or McConnel?
So he rails against liberals and pounds on you and me because he's trapped in a party with people he knows are beneath him. Wedded to a dead ideology.
It's enough to make a guy cranky.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2009 @ 21:06
I'm a hack? You're continuing to hack for a depraved wreck of a party you don't even believe in, that doesn't want you and where you don't belong.
Pot: kettle.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2009 @ 15:58
When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces that idea was polling something like 13%. What do you think it polls today? 80%? 90%?
The 'public option' is still polling about half the population. Despite the usual barrage of Republican lies spread through their idiot constituency.
We didn't elect Obama just to clean up after George W. Bush's disastrous mess. We elected him to pursue his and our agenda.
Whether we end up with a public option or not, we're moving more of health care into the federal sphere of influence. And five years from now people will not only support it, they'll defend it with the same kind of crazy they bring to defending medicare. Which was also opposed by your party on grounds it was too much, too fast, too change-y, too communistic, too whatever the hell it is you people are forever terrified about.
But don't worry: we're also going to clean up the giant dung heap the GOP left us.
You have degenerated into nothing more than a hack - and a bad one at that.
ed.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2009 @ 12:18
The standard GOP dodge is to accuse anyone who wants to raise taxes of being a lazy, liberal thief. That's why I made the point that I pay plenty.
The vast majority of people who complain thusly either don't pay any actual tax, or do not face a tax increase. As it stands now only people making a quarter mill or more will face an increase.
In fact, right now I pay less than I did in the Clinton era. What we-re talking about here is jacking the rates back up to Clinton levels. During which many people did very well. (You recall: peace, prosperity, a balanced budget. You know: Democrats.)
This will affect a minuscule percentage of the American population. Those it affects can afford it.
So the question is: why are medicare retirees screaming at townhall meetings about taxes they don't pay?
Setting that question aside, I understand very well how hard it is for the middle class to get even a 2% increase. Been there. Done it. Most of my life. But the 'taxes' that hit the middle class hardest are not income tax but social security and medicare. Those taxes are murder on the middle class and essentially irrelevant to wealthier taxpayers.
But middle class taxpayers will also in most cases be favorably upside down on SS and medicare -- they will get back far more than they put in.
And of course one f the reasons we're trying to reform health care is precisely to avoid having to raise medicare deductions again and again, even as your health care premiums go up and up. (Doubling in the next 10 years is one projection.)
Summarizing: people who don't pay net taxes, but do suck at the federal teat, are the ones screaming loudest about a reform effort and a tax rate hike that would only help them and hurt me.
In other words: the usual GOP idiocy.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.08.2009 @ 08:22
In the last 15 years I've paid in excess of 6 million in federal taxes.
Let me know when you get close to paying as much as I have. I pay YOUR taxes. And I'm volunteering to pay more for the benefit of people who are in need.
Call me a thief? Who's paying the defense budget? You? Riiiight.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2009 @ 18:32
Moron: we already steal your money to keep grandma alive. What are you doing about it?Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.08.2009 @ 08:52
I try to avoid responding to people who clearly cannot read what I wrote. But what the hell:
I never said anyone should determine when an 80 year old lives or dies. In fact I described such a thing as an ABOMINATION. See the giant all caps word there? You'll find it in my comment as well.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.08.2009 @ 22:02
Pages (84) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84