Semi-Daily Journal

Krugman is so shrill. I used to like him when he wrote about economics blah blah blah

Krugman is completely discredited. He made a mistake about George Bush's role in the Texas Rangers and he wrote a column about Thomas White that cited a column that was accused of pliagarism blah blah blah blah blah

It's strange that the word "shrill" is applied to Krugman here. There's nothing shrill in his words. He points out that the intelligence surrounding the Iraq war was seriously distorted to support political goals. This assertion has plenty of basis in plenty of leaks and comments made by the people working in the government who aren't in Bush's pocket (notably, CIA analysts who are also not in the Democrats pockets and have no reason to lie).

Krugman is right on the money. I think most people are hesitating to point this stuff out because it's so horrific, they don't want to believe it.

I don't understand Conservatives. Bush stonewalled the 9-11 investigation. He managed to transform a Democratic initiative, Homeland security, into a political weapon against Democrats by trying to undermine Union rules, and since passing it has done little with Homeland Security. Finally, he made numerous allegations about Iraqi WMD and Al Qaeda connections. Have we found WMD? Have we neutralized any Al Qaeda camps in IRaq? What does it take to convince conservatives to look at the evidence and get upset?

Actually, we did neutralize an al qaeda camp in Iraq. It was in the Kurdish controlled area though.

nameless has the gall to defend Thomas White of Enron. The guy is a corporate criminal walking free.

Conservatives lost all sense of anything but political wins & losses way back when Newt Gingrich took over.

guys, nameless is parodying right-wing hectoring, not exemplifying it.

what i still can't get over is why it wasn't clearer to me earlier that this would be a nixonian administration, given how filled with nixon-trained characters it is....

guys, nameless is parodying right-wing hectoring, not exemplifying it.

what i still can't get over is why it wasn't clearer to me earlier that this would be a nixonian administration, given how filled with nixon-trained characters it is....

"I need to keep reminding myself that, as Adam Smith said, "there is much ruin in a nation." The amount of damage that these clowns have done to American national security in the past two and a half years is truly terrifying. But we are very strong, and very free. Not even they can put us into serious trouble. "

All Empires end. Yours will too and it may be that this is indeed the time that historians will look back at and say "this was the watershed."

The decline began in the 70's. That means you've got about another 40 years if you don't get your act together. That's a long time - but the last 40 years won't be very pleasant.

Not that it's inevitable - few things are. But don't kid yourself that the US can survive anything - no country can survive anything - at least not in any shape you want to see your country in.

Krugman has backup. The New Yorker has a piece that reviews the treatment of intelligence on the way to war with Iraq.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

My favorite is the Pentagon advisor who declares "Shulsky and Ludi wont the policy debate." Shulsk and Ludi are bigwigs in the Pentagon's make-it-up intelligence office, the Office of Special Plans. Winning the policy debate is a big deal in Washington (or anywhere else I guess), but this time, an office was created to say things the White House wanted, but that legitimate intelligence services refused to say. The Office of Special Plans won the policy debate because it was created specially to win the debate. It was no damn good at collecting, assessing and analyzing intelligence or drawing honest conclusions that proved true in the real world, but that was never what it was meant to do.

With all due respect, Paul Krugman is a naive amateur when it comes to intelligence and national security policy. He has Tenet's role all wrong, and he should have read Tenet's actual statement. Krugman is at his worst when paraphrasing USA Today. (For God's sake, how can someone with Krugman's obvious brains reason his way through an issue reading and believing crap like that? It's inexcusable. Do some research.)

I'm not defending the Administration and its misuse of intelligence, but it is worthwhile to recall that the previous Administration did not exactly put Osama and Al Qaida in a box. The fact is that most of the planning for September 11 happened on Bill Clinton's watch, probably beginning in 1997 or so. So much for blaming all of our national security problems on W.

Jim, where does he have Tenet's role wrong?

As for the planning happening on Clinton's watch, wasn't there a big Time story about how the Clinton security team tried to brief the Bush team on Al Qaeda but were turned down while the President focussed on domestic issues.

In any case, blaming all national securitiy problems on W is a different issue and it is his job to handle security problems. Before Clinton, some presidents actually trained and funded OBL.

Jim,

History is a good pursuit. History is interesting. However, using history to fix blame is not really all that helpful in deciding what to do now. Always beat up on the president in power. Always. Beating on them in honest fashion is important, but always beat. Party affiliations be damned. Beating up on past presidents gives the president in power a place to hide. (So does having agency heads willing to take blame.) We don't want them to have a place to hide. They have massive resources at their disposal. They behave as all agents do, neglecting the interests of those they serve, to some extent or other, to serve their own interests. So let's stop arguing about "oo killed oo" as Monty Python would say, and get down to keeping the president we have in line. The buck is supposed to stop with him, right?

Most of the planning for the first WTC bombing (Feb 26, 1993) happened on Bush Senior's watch. All of the planning for Waco was done by FBI and AFT officials on Bush's watch and was carried out before Janet Reno had installed a single member of her senior team. Did the Clinton Administration punt back to Bush Senior? No.

Message to BushCo. Take some responsibility. We are not blaming all failures on Bush, but this is a man who said to reporters on the issue of going to war "I get to make the decision". Well so you did, and it is your war, and you are responsible for all phases of it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030714-463080,00.html?cnn=yes

"...liberals have a tendency to take the position most disadvantageous to their country....

"They are rooting against America.....

"The Democratic Party has got to go away. It's got to just hang up its stirrups. I really think it has functionally gone the way of the Whigs, and it's just a matter of enough Democrats figuring that out. Can't both parties agree on the defense of America? I mean, it was not like this in World War II. The Republicans were not constantly taunting F.D.R., "Well, he doesn't have Hitler yet! He doesn't have Hitler! Where are these alleged death camps?" The country pulled together! Both parties!....

" [Q] Are you concerned that President Bush may have exaggerated evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

"No. People who love their country ought to be more concerned about what happened to those weapons. Are they in Syria? Are they in al-Qaeda's hands? Are they going to end up in New York? And instead, all we get is female taunting from the Democrats."

The psot by "nameless" at the beginning of this thread was a pretty good pardoy of rightwing hectoring on this topic, but "nameless" forgot two obvious rightwing positions. Fortunately, Jim Harris and Patrick Sullivan have helpfully cured this omission:

(1) It's all Bill Clinton's fault.

(2) Why do the Democrats hate America?

Patrick, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887

----------------
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.

Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.

THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ...

Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.

"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."

- - - - -

U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.

Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.

... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism." ....

- - - - -

United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...

- - - - -

The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.

International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries

By Rich Hood

... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....

- - - - -

Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition.
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk.
HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN

Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow....

- - - - -

National Public Radio (NPR)
MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET)
February 18, 1999.

THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW.
ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS
REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER

... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

....

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony....

Krugman tells the truth. That's why his opponents go bananas. He is a man who has nothing to prove to the world, so he doesn't need to lick the boots of power to feel good about himself. In essense the opposite of the WSJ editorial page and its "fans" - you know who you are ;)

American patriotism can be so totalitarian. Patrick R Sullivan why do you hate your fellow Americans so much, as to call them traitors? Isn't it the perogative of the free to judge their leaders? Or have you succumbed to the siren song of extremism. That the ends justify the means. Or in the words of Berry Goldwater "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

The Radical Right is destroying America and they don't even know it.

Good luck guys and if you ever tire of Manifest Destiny and all that jazz, you can come join me north of the border in the True North Strong and Free, where citizens are master of their fate not the tools of their betters. See you in 2005.

It is more than a litle ironic that a pundit's indisputable record of printing untruths about his political opponents is used to sarcastically denounce those who question the pundit's credibility. Is Krugman lying in this instance? I don't know, because I don't read him anymore. When Prof. Delong comes across a pundit with whom he politically disagrees who prints untruths, he labels them as no longer trustworthy. When an economist with whom he generally agrees and admires does the same, well, don't cha' know, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Casualties since May 1:

American soldiers 81
British soldiers 10

This is terribly sad.

I guess you guys may like this

"THE UNKNOWN"

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
(The Poetry of Donald.H. Rumsfeld)

Will, where are you on people who repeated the Gore "I invented the internet" untruth? Do you still listen to the President?

Which particular untruth gets your goat?

Don't you have any sense of decency, you conservatives?

" Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?

" How did we get into this mess? "

Jimmy Carter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/international/asia/15KORE.html?hp

North Korean officials told the Bush administration last week that they had finished producing enough plutonium to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs, and that they intended to move ahead quickly to turn the material into weapons, senior American officials said today.

Radical-conservatives have no sense of decency. Shooting pool at American Heritage is not being attaacked in Iraq. Notice how liitle is made of the continuing effect of the war in lives and material.

Nothing "gets my goat", Jack. I simply find it ironic that a pundit's record of printing untruths about his political oppoenets is used to denounce those who question the pundit's credibility. If one wishes to maintain one's credibility, one should refrain from printing things that are not true, and yes, that includes printing things that are not true about Al Gore. I wonder, has The Daily Howler ever taken Krugman to task for his untruths?

When one makes "mistakes", one should also retract said "mistakes" in a forthright and ethical manner, another endeavor that Krugman is incapable of. Finally, there is nothing I can say that damns Krugman more than to simply observe that his defenders in this forum have pursued their task more than once by asserting that Ann Coulter is much worse. When someone who is actually thought by some to be a Nobel economics candidate is defended with the assertion that he is preferable to someone whose primary qualifications are a toxic mouth and short skirts, well, there really is nothing more to say.

Krugman's Weltanchauung:

This farm has been hijacked by a sinister cabal. GWB is a callous FAT CAT. His team consists of HAWKS, with significant admixtures of TOADS and WOLVES; his supporters are either SHARKS, LEECHES or LEMMINGS. They control a TYRANNOSAURUS REX, which they let loose on harmless CAMEL farms, just because they like the sight of blood and the smell of carnage. At home, they are trying to organize an army of RATS which will finally deprive the ROOSTER of its right to crow, the NIGHTINGALE of its right to charm, and the ASS of its right to bray. Even though the CHICKEN pen has been leaking in the rain for years, their solution was to throw the DOG an extra bone. Truly, this farm is going to the DOGS.

I remember when conservatives said Gore was untrustworthy because he misspoke about which FEMA administrator he met once in Texas.

No shame at all

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/opinion/15KRIS.html

July 15, 2003

16 Words, and Counting
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

After I wrote a month ago about the Niger uranium hoax in the State of the Union address, a senior White House official chided me gently and explained that there was more to the story that I didn't know.

Yup. And now it's coming out....

" Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."

" In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further. "

Gee, seems Professor Paul is accusing Republicans of treason.

As usual, The Onion was out in front of this issue:

Bush Asks Congress for $30 Billion To Help Fight War On Criticism

WASHINGTON, DC - Citing the need to safeguard "America's most vital institutions and politicians" against potentially devastating attacks, President Bush asked Congress to sign off Monday on a $30 billion funding package to help fight the ongoing War On Criticism.

"Sadly, the threat of criticism is still with us," Bush told members of Congress during a 2 p.m. televised address. "We thought we had defeated criticism with our successes in Afghanistan and Iraq. We thought we had struck at its very heart with the broad discretionary powers of the USA Patriot Act. And we thought that the ratings victory of Fox News, America's News Channel, might signal the beginning of a lasting peace with the media. Yet, despite all this, criticism abounds."

Critical activities, Bush noted, have not returned to pre-Sept. 11 levels, when well-organized, coordinated attacks on his administration were carried out on a near-daily basis. But in spite of the National Criticism Alert Level holding steady at yellow (elevated), administration officials warn of severe impending attacks.

"We've become too complacent," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "We've grown accustomed to thinking of criticism as something that only happens to people in other political parties. But this administration needs this funding to counter a very real threat to its reputation." ...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3925/bush_asks_congress.html

Patrick, what exactly do your various comments on this post mean? seriously? the best i can extract from them is: a.) it would be a bad thing for osama bin laden and saddam hussein to form an alliance; b.) Jimmy Carter is busy creating nuclear weapons in north korea; and c.) no one in the gop ever criticized fdr during world war ii.

a is true and what of it?

b is ridiculous.

c is both untrue and irrelevant.

Will Allen, paul krugman's accuracy level is extraordinarily high, especially given the limitations of 700-word columns. Robert Bartley, Charles Krauthammer, Kathryn Lopez, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and many other members of the right wing echo chamber make more misstatements in a given 700 words than Krugman makes in six months worth of columns.

The loons of the radical right are singing. An honest critic is simply too much for radical right loons. Of course, they are not in Iraq.

Thanks, howard, for responding exactly as expected; "Never mind that Krugman prints untruths of the worst kind!" (and really, it doesn't get much worse than insinuating criminal behavior by printing things that are simply false), "The people we disagree with politically are much worse!" Gosh, it really is demanding too much to ask that someone who prints 700 words regularly in The Paper of Record (har, har) not lie about criminal behavior, or if they "inadverdantly" make a "mistake", that he acknowledge the "mistake" in an honest and ethical manner. And really, how could someone be so judgemental as to conclude that a pundit who prints untruths about criminal behavior, and then fails to honestly and ethically retract the untruths, when they are plainly shown to be untrue, is a pundit that is not worth reading anymore? Believe it or not, howard, crying, "He's more accurate than Rush Limbaugh!" ain't much of a defense, when one wishes to benefit from the professional reputation that Krugman has earned in other arenas.

I'd like to highlight theswe two posts as the best things I have read in a long time. Thank you sirs. Please be aware that I am going to share them with others.

Jim,

History is a good pursuit. History is interesting. However, using history to fix blame is not really all that helpful in deciding what to do now. Always beat up on the president in power. Always. Beating on them in honest fashion is important, but always beat. Party affiliations be damned. Beating up on past presidents gives the president in power a place to hide. (So does having agency heads willing to take blame.) We don't want them to have a place to hide. They have massive resources at their disposal. They behave as all agents do, neglecting the interests of those they serve, to some extent or other, to serve their own interests. So let's stop arguing about "oo killed oo" as Monty Python would say, and get down to keeping the president we have in line. The buck is supposed to stop with him, right?

Posted by K Harris at July 15, 2003 06:33 AM
Most of the planning for the first WTC bombing (Feb 26, 1993) happened on Bush Senior's watch. All of the planning for Waco was done by FBI and AFT officials on Bush's watch and was carried out before Janet Reno had installed a single member of her senior team. Did the Clinton Administration punt back to Bush Senior? No.

Message to BushCo. Take some responsibility. We are not blaming all failures on Bush, but this is a man who said to reporters on the issue of going to war "I get to make the decision". Well so you did, and it is your war, and you are responsible for all phases of it.

Posted by Bruce Webb at July 15, 2003 06:44 AM

Patrick,

The "looks like Krugman..." bit really isn't all that catchy.

I get a little tickle in my lbrain when people in high position (including a spot on the NYT editorial page) are called to task, if it's done well, but this doesn't tickle at all. Wanna go after Krugman? OK. Do a good job and it could be entertaining. Problem is, "those politicizing intelligence" is not the same as "Republicans". "Treason" is not the same as "politicizing". And, just to keep your rhetorical thinking straight, it is Bush backers and talk radio wingnuts, not center-lefties like Krugman, who tossed around treason accusations like they were parking tickets on the way into the war. Trying to rope Krugman with that one doesn't really work, ya know? Pick a fight with whomever you want, but keep your standards up.

And this "Krugman dishonest" thing. Well, name calling is such a bore,isn't it? I mean, how about a bit of wit, some clever writing, some facts? The whole routine of trying to discredit Krugman has been around long enough now that a good bit of it is just harping on some chewed over accusation, often already rebutted. It just rings hollow. Standards, standards, please!

Howard

Fine succinct comments!

Patrick:

Exerpts from newspapers are interesting, but a more detailed investigation into the published reports by experts on the middle east are a far better source of information.

For instance, the CATO Institute (those well-known left-wingers)article on terrorism published in December of 1998 catalogs the 70 attacks against the US and its interests since 1982, when Reagan declared the "war on terrorism". It documents the stated causes, etc. and argues that an interventionist foreign policy lead to a dramatic rise in attacks. That policy was started by Reagan, not Clinton.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf

The American University's highly regarded School of International service published a report on peacebuilding and development (print version online) that tracks the conflicts between Muslim groups and other regional powers, including the Baathists of both Syria and Iraq. I think you'd find it particularly interesting how bloody their history is.

JHU's Center for Strategic Studies houses a very extensive library of 9/11 resources.
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/cse/September11links.htm

And finally, the St. Andrew's Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence published an excellent report on the role of ideology in terrorism.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/intrel/research/cstpv/pdffiles/The%20Role%20of%20Ideology%20in.pdf

I would urge you to rely on peer-reviewed expert opinion rather than idle speculation by uninformed commentators. I think you'll find that some of what is written supports some of your arguments, and many do not.

In particular - I think it is true that our foreign policy since 1982 (and certainly under Clinton) did not really understand terrorism, political violence, and how to approach this issue. And I also think you'll realize that that bulk of the evidence argues against any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

To paraphrase Sam Spade - just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

sz

Will, it is fun writing the other guy's arguments for him, isn't it?

Still, i most assuredly did not say "Never mind that Krugman prints untruths of the worst kind."

That's because he doesn't do it.

Is that clear enough for you?

howard, if you dispute that Krugman has printed untruths in an attempt to insinuate or alledge criminal behavior, go do a google search on Krugman, George Bush's Texas Ranger Partnership, and Thomas White. In both cases, Krugman has written things that simply are not true, and, in the Partership example, Krugman made a dishonest and unethical retraction. This ground has been covered extensively in this forum before, and the facts are undeniable. I only bring it up again because this thread was led off by "nameless", who made the unintentionally,amusingly, ironic case that Krugman's track record of untruthfulness was a basis for a sarcastic comment regarding those who no longer find Krugman worth reading.

Will, i don't concede either of your points, especially the Texas Rangers point, but let's say i did.

Krugman writes 2 columns a weeks, takes what appears to be 6 weeks off, and therefore produces something like 90 columns annually.

Bush has been in office 2.5 years, so during that time (the time of "shrill" Krugman work), he's written 225 columns.

And your defense of your remarks that "Krugman prints untruths of the worst kind" are those 2 references, which despite your certainty are far from certain?

Please.

Folks

Them Paul Krugman haters and fearers is nutty and mean as horned toads [meaner].

Will,

It has not been demonstrated that what Krugman wrote about White was untrue. Krugman quoted an unreliable source, and promptly retracted when this became clear.

As far as White's criminality is concerned, the only contradiction we have so far is his own claim of ignorance, stupidity, and total catalepsis while on the job at Enron. Whether he can sell this defence to a judge or a jury has not yet been tested.

Mr. Jones, the easiest dodge in punditry is to use an unreliable source (whose unreliability is easily discovered by doing some phone work) to repeat an allegation of wrongdoing.

Funny funny. White knew nothin about nothin at
Enron. White knew nothin about nothin in the Defense Department. Evidently White is as dull as a clam.

Thomas White was showed that being incompetent at Enron was not the preparation needed for being Army Secretary. Bye, bye.

Patrick,
Again, and again, you seedm incapable of sustaining a dialogue.

Shouldn't a guy who doesn't no the deffinitions of apology and rebuff discretely fade away.

http://www.pkarchive.org/

Consider the case of Thomas White, secretary of the Army, a former general who became a top Enron executive in 1990....

The really important information about Mr. White is that the enterprise he ran, Enron Energy Services, was a fraud — a money-losing operation dressed up to appear highly profitable through deceptive accounting. It is possible though implausible that Mr. White was duped by his subordinates, that he honestly thought that he was doing a great job. But that only makes him a fool rather than a knave.

Stories about Mr. White's questionable behavior at his current job have emerged only recently, but it has been apparent for months that he was a Potemkin executive: all facade, with nothing behind it....

Patrick,
You quote,
"...liberals have a tendency to take the position most disadvantageous to their country....

Yet you don't name the source as being Coulter. Have you reached the point that you dare not call her by name.

Shouldn't a [person that is unable to define the words apology and rebuff discretely fade away.

I don't understand why those who disagree with the opinions of Mr. Krugman feel the need to attack him personally, instead of making a rational case for their own position. After all, PK writes an OPINION column. It is clear that PK is of the opinion that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and the current situation is worse than the pre-war state.

The position of Mr. Bush was that Saddam had to go, the sanctions, inspections and daily bombing of Iraq were unsustainable and now was the time to act and the way to act was to use the military to force Saddam out of power. Mr. Bush obviously feels that the situation in Iraq today is improved from last year. Because some things are better and some things are worse and people weight these subjectively there will be honest differences of opinion on whether or not the situation is improved. This is opinion and we are free to have them.

While some of the justifications for the war have stood (evil dictator, regional hegemony) others (weapons of mass destruction) have not. Clearly there is faulty intelligence, faulty interpretation of intelligence or outright cooking the intelligence or some combination of the three in order to make the case. This matters to some people who feel they were trampled and their voices unheard. To others, it does not matter. PK is expressing his opinion that it matters. What is clear is that Mr. Bush assesses the situation, makes his decision and does whatever it takes to see it through. If people like that style, fine. IF not, they can vote for someone else.

Personally, I do not think Mr. Bush cares. I see him as a JR Ewing type that is not beyond a little skullduggery if it gets him to his goal. Mr. Bush believes his policy is correct and did what it took to get us there. Mr. Bush needed the approval of Congress to go to Iraq. He got it, but is left with many Congressmen questioning his credibility. This may or may not cause difficulties in the future. Obviously, Mr. Bush values his credibility but those who must deal with him are free to make their own opinions.

Mr. Bush did not get UN approval or support from some of our closest allies and this is making it more difficult in Iraq. That is the way Mr. Bush has chosen to conduct our foreign policy. He is a unilateralist. He will run roughshod over Congress, international allies or whatever stands in the way at the moment. This works as a short term strategy. The longer term consequences of this strategy are unknown but debatable. We are stuck with it. If we don't like the policy or the process or the results, then we can vote for someone else. PK will obviously be voting for someone else.

People are either happy with the policy or not. Those unhappy with the policy may or may not be happy with the process. However, the responsiblity for Iraq and for our troops on the ground in Iraq rests squarely with Mr. Bush.

Left still to debate is where do we go from here. Regardless of how or why we got into Iraq, it is necessary to have a clear program and a clear exit strategy. There may have been an exit strategy going in, but that strategy may no longer be operational. The administration has produced neither and has not fully informed Congress or the American people how much it will cost or how long it will take. It will be up to us to decide whether or not we like where this president is leading our country. Opinions will differ. That is healthy. After all it is OUR future.

Brad,

I regret to point out that your opener is foolish.

The real ruin is two:

1) The American people have been divided into two equal camps who hold each other in mortal hatred and rigid contempt.

2) The rule of law has been entirely subverted.

Now, how in the light of 1) can you say that we are strong, and how in the light of 2) can you say that we are free? And how in the light of either can you say that we are not in serious trouble? Sweet God, Man, what would you CALL serious trouble? (On second thought, bite your tongue; don't give anyone any ideas.)

"Patrick,
"You quote,
" '...liberals have a tendency to take the position most disadvantageous to their country....'

" Yet you don't name the source as being Coulter. Have you reached the point that you dare not call her by name."

Just wondering, Lawrence, did you learn it was Coulter by clicking on the url I PROVIDED?

" Shouldn't a [person that is unable to define the words apology and rebuff discretely fade away."

"Unable to define"? Then what was this:

"apology. 1. A statement of acknowledgment asking pardon or expressing regret for a fault or offense"?

Miss it on the other thread, did you? If so, please explain how the above definition does not say anything about remorse (which you erroneously claimed to be necessary to an apology).

Do you really think that piling error upon error upon error, makes you look anything other than silly? So far, in addition to the two you just committed, we've got:

1. Ann Coulter is wrong about Truman inviting Stalin to Missouri to give a speech in rebuttal to Churchill. (Oops, Clark Clifford and others say he did)

2. Well, there was an invitation, but it was made before the Churchill speech (Oops, the Churchill speech was in March, and the invitation in April)

3. Well, he didn't apologize (Oops, the man who delivered the apology, Walter Bedell Smith, characterized it as an attempt to "set things right", and David McCullough said it was "to placate" Stalin)

4. Truman didn't rebuff Churchill (Oops, Lawrence himself provides a definition that says a rebuff is a "rejection of an approach", And Truman definitely rejected Churchill's approach. Ostentatiously and repeatedly)

5. Truman sent a task force to the Dardanelles in April to intimidate Stalin. (Oops, the very page from "Acheson", from which Lawrence supposedly got this, says it wasn't until August that the task force was ordered to the Dardanelles).

And the above is not a complete list at all. There is no substantive point upon which you have been correct. None. Nada.

" Patrick,
" Again, and again, you seedm incapable of sustaining a dialogue."

Another error, Lawrence. The ball is in YOUR court on this from another thread:

------------------------------------
I told you to stop digging, Lawrence.

" On the other hand you are chasing after the scenario that Stalin changed his behavior after the meeting on April 4. How he could do this based on the evidence is known only to you. (As is apparently the common meanings of words). Late night he meets with Smith, next morning he recieves news that the Missouri and naval task force are in the Dardenelles."

No he didn't. As Chace says, the task force wasn't even ordered to the Dardanelles until August. Read it and weep, (Chace, p.153):

"On August 7, 1946, Russia ...now demanded a joint Turkish-Soviet defense of the [Dardanelles], which would necessarily require Soviet bases.....

"Secretary of the Navy Forrestal ordered a naval task force, which included a new aircraft carrier, the Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two destroyers, to rendezvous off Lisbon with two cruisers and three more American destroyers ...to join the USS Missouri, which had already arrived in the Dardanelles on April 5.

"The pretext on which it was sent there was to bring back the body of Megmet Munir Ertegun, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, who had died in Washington during World War II. There was an old tradition that chiefs of mission who died in service were returned by warship."

Besides, you were claiming Smith was sent, in April, to demand Stalin leave IRAN, not Turkey.

As for this weak sister stuff:

"I was not making up a deffinition for either apology, nor rebuff, I was CITING the deffinition found in the Word dictionary. You could of course cite an alternative deffinition but you can't find one."

I told you that your definition of "rebuff" fits perfectly with what Truman did; he rejected Churchill's approach. As for my finding a definition of "apology" that does not mention "remorse", ask and you shall receive. (From Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary):

"apology...A statement of acknowledgment asking pardon or expressing regret for a fault or offense." Just as I said.

You've been wrong about EVERYTHING. Totally, completely, absolutely, WRONG. And, by contrast, Coulter has been correct.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 14, 2003 05:19 PM
-----------------------------------

SELF UNAWARENESS ALERT:

" I don't understand why those who disagree with the opinions of Mr. Krugman feel the need to attack him personally, instead of making a rational case for their own position.....

" Personally, I do not think Mr. Bush cares. I see him as a JR Ewing type that is not beyond a little skullduggery if it gets him to his goal."

" And I also think you'll realize that that bulk of the evidence argues against any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.'

SZ, where do you suppose Al Qaeda got those chemicals to poison dogs that we have on video tape captured in Afghanistan?

K. Harris claims, " 'those politicizing intelligence' is not the same as "Republicans".

"Senator Pat Roberts", "Bush administration officials", and Donald Rumsfeld are specifically named by Krugman. Which of them aren't Republicans?

" 'Treason' is not the same as 'politicizing' ".

No, but Krugman claimed the politicizing was:

" in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, [and] hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further"

And, I love this:

" And this "Krugman dishonest" thing. Well, name calling is such a bore,isn't it?"

You mean as in the phrase, "talk radio wingnuts"?

Anyway it was Will Allen who was calling Krugman dishonest, with much justification. It's not name calling, it's a statement of fact. And we both know I can come up with the proof at the drop of a Google.

K Harris claims:

"...it is Bush backers and talk radio wingnuts, not center-lefties like Krugman, who tossed around treason accusations...."

Paul Krugman in today's column:

" Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters...."

Are my standards and wit up to snuff in this?

I second Frank Wilhoit's point. Absolutely. And, on that basis, I will now express my mixed respect and contempt for the comments of Patrick Sullivan, the man who does not know the meaning of an argument.
Patrick, I am deeply disappointed to learn that you are now citing Ann Coulter without crediting her when you do so. Your citing of Ann Coulter in defense of your positions was the best thing about your comments. It showed the stubborn courage of your convictions, for which I have a certain respect (the entire world has ridiculed her, after all, and you're here on the blog of a high-profile economist), and it was entertaining. I urge you to cite her by name again in future. It's more respectful to her - for God's sake, give credit where credit is due, don't just steal stuff - and it is far more fun for your readers.
Not citing her is unethical.
Wahey! reading on, I see Patrick has come out swinging and is once again defending Coulter! Tell it like it is, Patrick. This I like.
And I have to say, I agree with your self unawareness alert, which startles me because it involves actual thought on your part.

" Patrick, I am deeply disappointed to learn that you are now citing Ann Coulter without crediting her when you do so."

Too lazy to avail yourself of the url I went to the trouble of providing for you? Here it is again (I believe it's the third time I've provided it on Semi-Daily Journal):

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030714-463080,00.html?cnn=yes

" Wahey! reading on, I see Patrick has come out swinging and is once again defending Coulter!'

Contrary to the claims of Lawrence, I've been "sustaining a dialogue" for some time, on three different threads. Now, how about you, are you capable of engaging in a substantive debate about Coulter's book?

Not Appeals to Andrew Sullivan's Authority, actual specific refutations of something Coulter wrote that you believe not factual. I just listed 5 points on which Lawrence spectacularly crashed and burned (i. e. Coulter turned out to be correct), can you list 5 on which she is incorrect?

"printing untruths"

Is that the newspeak term for making factual errors, or did you mean to imply something else?

In any case, I am very disappointed. I led off this thread by throwing down the gauntlet to you Krugman haters, and you haven't come up with anything other than the tired Texas Rangers and Thomas White columns. Surely if Mr. Krugman has such a nasty "record of printing untruths about his political opponents" you can list many more examples than that?

Btw, I did not "sarcastically denounce those who question the pundit's credibility." Its called parody. Its not strictly necessary, since you Krugman haters have long since sunk to self parody, but since no Krugman thread would feel right without the usual accusations, I thought I should get them out in the open.

" you haven't come up with anything other than the tired Texas Rangers and Thomas White columns"

Are they as "tired" as the leventieth rendition of Bush is Evil/Bush Wants to Destroy Civilization As We Know It?

//
" And I also think you'll realize that that bulk of the evidence argues against any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.'

SZ, where do you suppose Al Qaeda got those chemicals to poison dogs that we have on video tape captured in Afghanistan?
//

Common chemical procedures that are available to anyone with technical chemistry formation and money to buy the chemical products needed as precursors? COCl2 is a deadly gas, in spite of the easiness to get their contituents. I do not know if this was the one used in the cases you mention, however that does not modify the situation. What is difficult is getting a lot of stuff and a way to get it where one wants it.

DSW

Excellent question Patrick - and one with an answer that I think you will find interesting.

(1) During the trial-in-absentia of Osama bin Laden after the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the prosecutor's "star witness" Al-Fadl, a defector from Al Qaeda, described bin Laden's attempts to get uranium from Sudan (something that he most likely was unable to do), and their close links to the Sudanese regime which provided access to chemicals weapons.

(2) The testimony was given to the CIA and Congress on Febuary 5-7, 2001.

(3) Al-Fadl said that bin Laden wanted to procure WMD to continue his jihad against America, which he officially declared in a fatwa on August 23, 1996 - which calls on all Muslims to attack US military personnel in the Arabian holy lands.

(4) bin Laden issued a second, more violent public fatwa on February 23, 1998, calling on all Muslims to kill any non-Muslims on the holy lands (that, by the way, would include all of Israel) and Baathist leaders (Saddam Hussein and Syria's Assadd) and the ruling family in Saudi Arabia (who he accused on being corrupted by America and Israel).

(5) It is believed that this second fatwa represented a "coming out" party of sorts because it unified under al Qaeda several of the most powerful and violent Islamic fundamentalist groups, inclusing Islamic Jihad (from Bangladesh), the Egyptian Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, and the Pakistani Ansar (which has ties to several military generals in Pakistan).

---

But back to Patrick's question - the most likely source of the chemical weapons testing program found in Afgahnistan is either leftovers from al Qaeda's previous association with the Sudanese government, or stolen materials from Pakistan.

BTW, Al-Fadl's testimony is publicly available. You can find this, and many more interesting materials on the previously quoted websites.

In all seriousness Patrick, the world of political violence and terrorism is MUCH more complicated and nuanced than you're likely to get from a journal that is designed to push a particular ideological agenda.

Patrick,
You ask:
"Not Appeals to Andrew Sullivan's Authority, actual specific refutations of something Coulter wrote that you believe not factual."

As this quote from the London times indicates her own sources, specifically, Radosh believe she is lieing and decietful.

"One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments."

Radosh is one of her sources and he rebuts, rejects, or rebuffs Coulter, not Sullivan. You seem to have trouble following what is actually being said Patrick. Do you suffer from some sort of learning disability?

The plain meaning found in the Word dictionary is:
Apology: a written or spoken statement of expressing remorse for something.
Coulter says Truman "apologized" to Stalin. Since an apology is either "written or spoken" some record of that apology must exist. If it doesn't, then she lied. It doesn't therefore she lied. It is not the expression of remorse- it is thestatement of it that you have a problem with. Such a statement would exist in the historical record.

Thus you have a theory peculiar to yourself, that Stalin somehow interpreted an invitation to the US in a meeting with Smith on April 4th as an apology. The problem with this is the record of the meeting contains no "written or spoken statement" expressing remorse. Coulter could have said "implicitely" apologised, and then attempted to demonstrate that, as you have. But she would have come to the same sort of ruin you have.

She also says that Truman "ostentatiously rebuffed" Churchill by somehow not having Acheson (not the secretary of state as she claims) show up at a reception. We can, by the way, agree that Acheson was not Secretary of State at the time can't we- That counts as factually factually incorrect. Of course him not being, Secretary of anything, and not showing up would hardly be "ostentatious." Nor would Byrnes, who that same night endosed part of Churchill's speech.

Clearly rebuff means to "reject or snub an offer, advance, or approach, made by somebody."
Plainl;y the Truman administyration did no such thing. (Leaving aside the ostentatious part). To rebuff, in this case, would require something like the rebuff Radosh deliver above.

Once again you seem to be confused about events, Truman, and Forrestal, sent the Missouri and that arrived on April 5. They could have sent the equivalent of the Good Ship Lollipop, but then the message would not have been as clear as a battleship, would it Patrick?

In terms of the Stalin interpreting Churchills speech one way in March, an invitation in April as an apology, and hence a crisis in Turkey in Auguist, once again the timing is wrong.

Chace notes that it was in March that further Russian troop concentration occurred, "with at least 200 tanks crossing the Iranian border" and 1/3 othem threatening Turkey. Thus it was in the month of the speech that pressure was hieghtened. Troops were, under pressure from Truman, removed but this issue remained. He also cites Russian claims in this matter going back to 1945. And Truman's harder line, going back to 1945.

Why did Stalin pressure Turkey? Again we have ample evidence from those around Stalin at the time, including memoirs. Chace cites Kruschev, who claims it was Beria, who started harping on this question. The memoirs do not record that Stalin interpreted the meeting with Smith as anything other than what it was. No "implied" anything. No change in behavior.

Patrick,
More on the chronolgy concerning Truman's get tough policy with the Soviets. See Offner, _Another Such Victory_.

On February 25, 1946, after reviewing a series of Cables from his commander in Korea he tells his staff, "we are going to war with Russia" and Korea would be one of two fronts.
p. 133

On February 28, 1946 he approves a proposal by Byrnes and Forrestal to send a formidable task force to the Sea of Marmara with the Battleship Missouri.
p. 133

March 6, 1946: "The Missouri voyage was announced, the day after the Churchill's heralded address., although the task force could not be mobilized until that summer.

Then there is Churchill's response who was "privately informed by the administration," and "cheered this very 'important act of state."

On March 24 the Soviets "announced their troop withdrwal from Iran and that it would take 6 weeks." p 141 Why didn 't they stop it if they percieved that an apology had been given as you state Patrick?

March 25, 1946 the administration goes to the U.N, and demands that Russia withdraw from Iran [unconditionally] (p. 140).

On April 4 Byrnes agrees with Ambassodor Ala's proposal that if the Russians gave assurance of troop withdrawal by May 6. Iran would not press its case further. p141

"Late that same night General Walter Bedell Smith...had an interview with Stalin. Smith who had gone over his presentation with Truman, told Stalin that the president considered him a man of his word but that Russian troops in Iran, 'upset that theory.'"[Note Patrick that the meeting WAS ABOUT IRAN] "Smith also said that the U. S. was worried about how what the Russians wanted and how far they would go, and that while Truman and Byrnes believed they would hold to their commitment, THIS SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS A SIGN OF AMERICAN WEAKNESS."

Further "He [Stalin] was particularly resentful of Churchill's attitudes, citing the Allied intervention in 1919 and his recent 'iron curtain' speech. But in reply to Smith's query about how far Russia intended to go, the Soviet leader said 'we are not going to go much further." p. 141-142

I hope you are able to follow this Patrick. Note no "rebuff" no "apology" and above all no appeasement implicit or otherwise. This why Radosh refers to Coulter as making ludicrous, and historically inaccurate arguiments.

Since Coulter and you have so many problems with footnotes, chronolgy, countries, and even simple plain dictionary deffinitions let me footnote the April 4, 1946 meeting betweedn Smith and Stalin

Smith to Byrnes, Apr. 4 1946, Doreifn Relations of the United States, VI, 732-736
and Walter Beddell Smith,
_My Three Years in Moscow_ (Philadelphia, 1950), 50-54

In lieu of an Appeal to Andrew Sullivan's Authority, Lawrence now makes one to Ronald Radosh's. Not exactly quick on the uptake.

Then we're back to the semantically-challenged definition that Lawrence has locked onto with the tenacity of a angry pitbull, from that famous etymological authority, "Word". REMORSE it must be, for there to be an apology!

Which is nonsense, as Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary, proved. As does:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apology

" a·pol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-j)
n. pl. a·pol·o·gies
An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense."

Again, no remorse ("moral anguish and bitter regret") Has Lawrence ever spilled a glass of wine on a tablecloth? Forgot to buy flowers on Valentine's Day? Misread a Semi-Daily Journal entry?

BTW, I'll accept an apology for your false claim that I didn't identify Coulter as the source of the quotes from the Time interview, without demanding you show moral anguish over it.

Finally, it takes a lot of gall for a guy to continue to claim Coulter is in error, when the same guy disingenuously now says:

" Once again you seem to be confused about events, Truman, and Forrestal, sent the Missouri and that arrived on April 5. They could have sent the equivalent of the Good Ship Lollipop, but then the message would not have been as clear as a battleship, would it Patrick?"

Putting aside that The Good Ship Lollipop delivering the corpse of a Turkish diplomat would have been an ostentatious rebuff of a country we needed as an ally, Lawrence originally claimed:

"...on April 4. ....Late night he meets with Smith, next morning he recieves news that the Missouri and naval task force are in the Dardenelles."

I would think conjuring up an entire naval task force, complete with aircraft carrier, FOUR MONTHS prior to its even being ordered to the Dardanelles, would be a much greater error than merely forgetting that Dean Acheson had not yet been elevated to Sec'y of State, from Undersec'y (would Lawrence have known if I hadn't pointed out Coulter's minor error?).

Of course, Acheson was a more prominent figure than his nominal boss even then, and more importantly, had been officially scheduled to introduce Churchill at the reception in NYC. That's why it was an OSTENTATIOUS rebuff.

It was designed to send a clear public message that Truman "rejected...an approach" (i.e. an Anglo-American alliance) put forward by Churchill. And Lawrence didn't bother to "sustain...a dialogue" on the question of how ostentatious it would have looked had Stalin actually accepted Truman's offer (the offer Lawrence originally denied had even been made).

Patrick,
I'm so pleased that you found a dictionary.
" An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.""
You don't seem to get it Patrick, the deffinitions agree. "Asking" or "aknowlerding" are acts.
In other words some statement needs to be made. And none was given. Or I guess we could ask the philosophical question, "if
no apology is uttered then was one given." Or maybe if "no one hears the tree fall, did it fall." Is that where you are going with this Patrick?

No comment about the clear factual innacuracy that Acheson was not Secretary of State? That means we can chalk that one up as being innacurate. Of course she had to say that because it would not be very ostentatious for an under secretary not to show up.

I have hardly changed my tune. You seem to, continue to be confused about whom is saying what. I never cited Sullivan for his critique of Coulter, he merely provides access to the statements of others.

You will note how the 5 points you make are completely refuted by actual events cited above. You will also note no apology, implied or otherwise in the meeting between Smith and Stalin. That the timing of the announcement of the flotilla and the note coincided with when the speech was given.

Further you will note that Iran is clearly not Turkey, March preceeds April., and February preceeds both. But we could go on-You, like Coulter, seem to have evolved (or devolved) into a totally alternative reality. Of course that means that you both are delusional and I should not enjoy pricking your delusions as much as I do.

Patrick Sullivan: "BTW, I'll accept an apology for your false claim that I didn't identify Coulter as the source of the quotes from the Time interview, without demanding you show moral anguish over it."
No. You did not. You wimped out and provided an anonymous link, just like Peter denouncing Christ before the cock crowed. It was disgusting. If you're going to defend Coulter, defend Coulter, don't knife her in the back like that.
You are far more admirable when you come out firing for the loathsome, lying Coulter on all cylinders, as I hope you will in future.

Once again Patrick,
This is Coulter's statement.

"Truman apologized to Stalin AND invited him to the United states." Coulter p. 148

From webster's New College Dictionary 4th Ed.(I can't help but note how you keep hoping top find a dictionary that will agree with you.

Apologize:To MAKE an apology.

" a·pol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-j)
n. pl. a·pol·o·gies
An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense."

Here is what Webster says:
An acknowledgement of some fault, injury, or insult, etc. WITH AN EXPRESSION OF REGRET AND A PLEA FOR PARDON. Coulter p. 148

Note there is an act, an "expression of regret and a plea for pardon." Something needs to be said or written, none has thus far turned up.

I'm not sure what part of and you are hung up on.
But the sentewnce says apologize AND inviotation.

deffinition of "and: in addition to."
She says apologize plus invitation, not "gave Stalin an implied apology when he invited Stalin to the United States." My God she is your leader, you are "apologizing" for her: meaning defending a doctrine or belief. Can't you get the belief right, or are you merely an apprentice acolyte, who hasn't got quite got the text down?
QED
No statement or expression of regret has been found yet, and tyhis is true of the sources you cite Patrick.

On to other statements:
In the paragraph above this she opens with "Truman's natural instinct toward Stalwas goo goo minded liberalism." A phrase not sustained by the simplest knowledge of events.Hardly sustained by the events

Later she claims Kennedy, "lost a standoff with the Soviet Union resulting in U. S. missles being pulled from Turkey." She can't even name the crisis as "The Cuban Missle Crisis, " what a weenie. She knows that if she does the response she will get to that one. So its kind of buried in a way that no one would notice. Like buried in the since that it is not found in the index.

She claims Mac Author fought a "brilliant" campaign." Citing Chinese sources she claims that contradicting Truman the Chinese were mere waiting "to catch a big fish." Meaning preparing a trap for MacAurther when he crossed thew Yalu. She does the neat trick of thinking to thoughts at once. The sources claim the Chinese trapped MacAurther in an exposed position, patently he could not have had a brilliant campaign. Since he left 15k laregely Amewrican troops, to face 130k Chinese, leading to 9k to 12k casualties and a defeat, although it was an incredibly heroic one. Heroic because the Marines and Army combat teams never capitulated but engaged in one of the most heroic passage of arms in human history. Never succumbing but staging a fighting retreat. Still it is hardly brilliant for a commander to leave 15k troops to face 130k. He should have been fired for that alone.

More later.

Well, at least Lawrence has finally had it dawn on him that an apology needn't be an expression of remorse. After the third time I'd pointed it out, that is, contrary to his new assertion:

"I'm so pleased that you found a dictionary."

But, in the face of numerous demonstrations of the existence of the apology (The man who delivered it, Walter Bedell Smith, said: "It was obvious, that one of the President's major preoccupations was to set things right with the Soviet Union"), Lawrence continues on down the river in Egypt. However, he himself acknowledges the apology in his: "not gave Stalin an implied apology".

So, if Lawrence is astute enough to recognize the apology, wouldn't a man of Stalin's demonstrated intelligence also have seen it?

" Patrick Sullivan: 'BTW, I'll accept an apology for your false claim that I didn't identify Coulter as the source of the quotes from the Time interview, without demanding you show moral anguish over it.'

" No. You did not. You wimped out and provided an anonymous link, just like Peter denouncing Christ before the cock crowed. It was disgusting. If you're going to defend Coulter, defend Coulter, don't knife her in the back like that.
You are far more admirable when you come out firing for the loathsome, lying Coulter on all cylinders, as I hope you will in future."

Posted by John Isbell at July 16, 2003 09:06 PM

Ahem, clicking on the url I provided AND PRECEDING the quotes, gets one to an interview with the headline:

10 Questions For Ann Coulter

" No comment about the clear factual innacuracy that Acheson was not Secretary of State?"

It doesn't get much more bizarre than the above, what does Lawrence think this from me was:

" I would think conjuring up an entire naval task force, complete with aircraft carrier, FOUR MONTHS prior to its even being ordered to the Dardanelles, would be a much greater error than merely forgetting that Dean Acheson had not yet been elevated to Sec'y of State, from Undersec'y (would Lawrence have known if I hadn't pointed out Coulter's minor error?)."

Speaking of "no comment", WOULD LAWRENCE HAVE KNOWN, had I not pointed it out to him?

" That means we can chalk that one up as being innacurate. Of course she had to say that because it would not be very ostentatious for an under secretary not to show up."

I answered that too, Lawrence, right here:

" Of course, Acheson was a more prominent figure than his nominal boss even then, and more importantly, had been officially scheduled to introduce Churchill at the reception in NYC. That's why it was an OSTENTATIOUS rebuff.

" It was designed to send a clear public message that Truman 'rejected...an approach' (i.e. an Anglo-American alliance) put forward by Churchill. And Lawrence didn't bother to 'sustain...a dialogue' on the question of how ostentatious it would have looked had Stalin actually accepted Truman's offer (the offer Lawrence originally denied had even been made)."

Who is it, again, who has the learning disability?

Lawrence may soon strike oil, his hole is getting so deep:

"I have hardly changed my tune. ....

" You will note how the 5 points you make are completely refuted by actual events cited above. ....

" But we could go on-You, like Coulter, seem to have evolved (or devolved) into a totally alternative reality."

Now, Lawrence originally entered this controversy by loudly and repeatedly proclaiming that Coulter had "made up" the entire invitation to Stalin by Truman.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001715.html

" No somehow Truman's biographer's never discoverwed that gem-Indeed in over 1000 pages, the major biography of Truman has no mention of this-Does this mean that Annie Coulter is a superior scholar? No, she is simply less than honest, disingenious, a liar."
Posted by: Lawrence on July 8, 2003 04:14 PM

and:

" No mention is made of inviting Stalin to the US on the pages cited nor is it in the entire chapter…

" It appears that Coulter made this entire incident up."
Posted by: Lawrence on July 8, 2003 06:50 PM

Let me repeat Ann Coulter is a lier. ….
Posted by: Lawrence on July 8, 2003 07:43 PM

However, when he was confronted with the indisputable evidence that there WAS such an invitation, he tried to lie some more about it:

"Patrick,
"Nice to see you looked up the quote-It was one the wrong page, typical of Coulter- To bad for her that it does not in the least support the statement that Truman invited Stalin to the United States to counter Churchill's speach-Which is what Coulter alleges. He was invited before the speech, and nothing was said about a public appearence-"

".... The invitation was a normal diplomatic invitation to consult, not to oppose Churchill's speech.

" Coulter lied, and Patrick you are not telling the truth when you cite this particular passage."

Alas, for our shovelmaster, I was able to produce Clark Clifford, "Counsel to the President", and others, saying clearly that indeed it was an invitation to Stalin for the express purpose of answering Churchill's speech. And, of course, Churchill's speech was made on March 6, with the invitation to Stalin coming in April.

With that in mind, let's look back at the first two points that Lawrence is now claiming, "the 5 points you make are completely refuted", they were:

----------------------
1. [Lawrence claimed] Ann Coulter is wrong about Truman inviting Stalin to Missouri to give a speech in rebuttal to Churchill. (Oops, Clark Clifford and others say he did)

2. [Lawrence revised his claim] Well, there was an invitation, but it was made before the Churchill speech (Oops, the Churchill speech was in March, and the invitation in April)
---------------------

Somebody's nose is growing, and it isn't Ann Coulter's.

Patrick,
You seem to believe you can pick and choose with the English language.

"In lieu of an Appeal to Andrew Sullivan's Authority, Lawrence now makes one to Ronald Radosh's. Not exactly quick on the uptake."
[SIGH} So much like Coulter, when I cited Radosh earlier I said you can find him by going to Andrew S.'s. You are now doing the verbal equivelant of twisting in the wind. At least try and keep things straight in your own mind Patrick. This borders on the delusional.

You then state:
" I would think conjuring up an entire naval task force, complete with aircraft carrier, FOUR MONTHS prior to its even being ordered to the Dardanelles, would be a much greater error than merely forgetting that Dean Acheson had not yet been elevated to Sec'y of State, from Undersec'y (would Lawrence have known if I hadn't pointed out Coulter's minor error?)."

1) The orders for the task force were issued on February 28, 1946. As I cited in the chronology I posted above. That is actually 5 months before. Versus.
2) "Merely forgetting Dean Acheson had not yet been elevated to Secretary of State.

I was correct about the when the task force was ordered to Turkey, Patrick. Ergo a bigger mistake is when a mistake is actually made and therefore Coulter's mistake (or FALSEHOOD) is bigger.
It is very simple thing to describe a statement as false when one claims a certain person was Secretary of State of the United States when he wasn't. Avoidance, thy name is Patrick.

In addition you have incredible problems with conjunctions:
Coulter says:
"Truman apologized to Stalin AND invited him to the United states." Coulter p. 148

Once again what part of this statement don't you understand. She plainly says an apology was given AND an invitation therefore the two are seperate. You claim it is different from its plain meaning.
According to the deffinition you cite, and is no different from the one I cited, an apology needs to be stated. No apology was ever given. She not only claims that an apology (dictionary again: AN EXPRESSION OF REGRET AND A PLEA FOR PARDON.) But that it was seperate from the invitation. Patrick, an apologist for someone should at least be able to get the apologees text right.You are twisting and turning on this very point. No apology was ever given. (And Acheson was not Secretary of State at the time).

As the real history I cite above indicates-Not only was Churchill not rebuffed but concrete actions were being taken that he advocated even as he prepared his speech. As the actions I posted above indicate Coulter is lying when she says:"Truman's natural instinct toward Stalin was goo goo minded liberalism." A phrase not sustained by the simplest knowledge of events.

Then we have the even more ludicrous statement of Coulter's that Kennedy "lost a standoff with the Soviet Union resulting in United State missles being withdrawn from Cuba."

You can't keep claiming one is wrong when one can cite plain sentences. For examply you have claimed that I didn't know Iran from Turkey because the April 4th meeting was about Turkey. False it was about Iran. You claimed that Stalin had pulled troops out of Iran on March 26 when he had only stated an intent to. (And who is the goo-goo eyed liberal here Patrick; one who believes a statement by Stalin is going to happen, or one that continies to press to make sure it did happen). You stated the naval detachment to Turkey was ordered in August when it actually was ordered to sail in February. But you know what Patrick, all this further demonstrates is ignorance of facts, the April 4th meeting is irrelevent because Coulter STATES AN APOLOGY WAS DELIVERED SEPERATELY FROM THE MEETING. You constantly either make things up or seem to live in a sort of pretend world.

PK has virtually become the bin Laden of the middling Left's intellectualista set. This particular hyperbolic piece is, for one, decontextualized from the broader terror concerns. One aspect of that is WTC 1993 when Clinton failed to so much as visit the site and encouraged the American public not to "over react" to a situation that represented the worst terrorist attempt on domestic soil in our entire history. (It should be noted there are at least some, both al Queda and Iraqi connections to the WTC 1993 "incident," that was treated as little more than a domestic crime.)

The remainder, even if one chooses not to notice the overall decontextualized aspect of the piece, is essentially a flurry of kidney punches followed by some whiffs at the chin of the current administration. The facts have still not come out, it's clear (and long has been) the Brits are indicating the forged documents are not even part of their Iraq/Africa link, and it is not at all clear the "Iraq hawks set out to corrupt" the intelligence gathering process when viewed from the broader historical perspective. Still further, supposedly "suppressing" (yet more hyperbole) the real links between Saudi Arabia and al Queda can be viewed as a temporary, Real Politik tactic within the broader strategy. It remains to be seen how we will deal with Syria, Iran the Saudi's, etc., this is yet to be played out. (Is PK suggesting we should have militarily attacked the Saudi regime instead of Iraq? What more precisely is, in a positively stated sense, PK's strategy for dealing with each of these countries or the terrorist concern more generally?)

Hitchens recently and starkly illuminated Sydney Blumenthal for what he is, an apparatchik of the Clinton's cultish personas. PK has long been much the same. The reason it is not worthwhile to continually oppose all the acidic scribblings from PK's voluminous pen has to do with his MO, the venom, the virtual infestation of despising hate and malice and the thorough-going dishonesty that accompanies it, also the boorish predictability of it all in the end as well. Additionally, and not least of all, it generally takes an extensive effort to unravel all the contortionist casuistries and spewings from PK's pen. To indulge in some not so modest understatement, there are much better ways to spend one's time.

How pitiable you've become, Lawrence. It's bad enough you can't read your own sources, but you have the poorest grasp of grammar and English usage I think I've ever encountered among the usual suspects here.

Contrary to your attempt to change the subject of when the naval task force ARRIVED in the Eastern Mediterranean, you are wrong about BOTH the timing of the arrival and the order to sail.

Here's what you wrote:

" On February 28, 1946 he approves a proposal by Byrnes and Forrestal to send a formidable task force to the Sea of Marmara with the Battleship Missouri. p. 133

" March 6, 1946: "The Missouri voyage was announced, the day after the Churchill's heralded address., although the task force could not be mobilized until that summer."

First, March 6 was THE DAY OF Churchill's speech, but note that there is nothing about the order being given that day, nor on February 28, as you are now claiming:

" The orders for the task force were issued on February 28, 1946."

I've already demonstrated to you that those orders were not given until August. Forgotten this humiliation already??:

" As Chace says, the task force wasn't even ordered to the Dardanelles until August. Read it and weep, (Chace, p.153 [Lawrence had cited this very page, apparently without reading it]):

" 'On August 7, 1946, Russia ...now demanded a joint Turkish-Soviet defense of the [Dardanelles], which would necessarily require Soviet bases.....

" 'Secretary of the Navy Forrestal ordered a naval task force, which included a new aircraft carrier, the Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two destroyers, to rendezvous off Lisbon with two cruisers and three more American destroyers ...to join the USS Missouri, which had already arrived in the Dardanelles on April 5.' "

Now that we've cleared up the date of the ORDER (i.e., you are lying by saying: "I was correct about the when the task force was ordered to Turkey, Patrick.") let's return to what you originally claimed about the task force:

"...on April 4. ....Late night [Stalin] meets with Smith, next morning he recieves news that the Missouri and naval task force are in the Dardenelles."

As I pointed out above, NO HE DID NOT. The task force didn't even exist at that time. This was my point #5, that you claim to have refuted, btw. Lawrence, the man who shrilly accuses others of dishonesty, has been caught with his intellectual pants down around his ankles once more.

And, you ought to use that dictionary you claim to have access to more often. "In lieu of", means instead of, not in addition to.

As to your laughable contention that Coulter claimed there were two separate messages to Stalin, just because she used the word "and", that is one stage below risible. First, the guy who once loudly and repeatedly said there was no invitation, has been reduced to defending himself with pointing to that very invitation!

Second, one can easily construct BOTH an apology and an invitation, not only in ONE LETTER, but in one paragraph. Even in one sentence, say:

"Joe, sorry about Winston's big mouth, why don't you c'mon over yourself and set things right with a speech of your own."

BTW, now that you have quoted from Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, you also ought to own up to an earlier error. You had claimed that an apology would have to appear in that book. But as the footnote at the bottom of page 732 says, they can't even find THE LETTER. (In Bedell Smith's words, the "cordial letter", he delivered).

And since you've also quoted from the cable from Smith to Byrnes, you should know that Stalin bitterly denounced Churchill to Smith during the meeting, for making war on Russia and getting the U.S. to join him in 1919. Adding, "Lately, he has been at it again."

Smith replied with an apology: "I hold no brief for his Fulton speech." And Smith writes of being primed with, "Possible Points to Be Stressed in Conversations with Stalin", prior to this meeting. Add 2+2, and see if that doesn't get you the apology you've been claiming doesn't exist (as you originally claimed the invitation didn't exist).

Summing up in your last paragraph of your most recent post, you repeat a number of falsehoods:

" For examply you have claimed that I didn't know Iran from Turkey because the April 4th meeting was about Turkey. False it was about Iran."

First, that isn't what I said, and second the meeting was about several things, including Turkey (and I've demonstrated that several times). That's error number one.

" You claimed that Stalin had pulled troops out of Iran on March 26 when he had only stated an intent to. (And who is the goo-goo eyed liberal here Patrick; one who believes a statement by Stalin is going to happen, or one that continies to press to make sure it did happen)."

Error number two: Stalin did indeed begin to withdraw his troops from Iran in March. One source claims the announcement was on the 24th, with the withdrawal beginning on the 26th. Another source gives the announcement as the 26th, with the withdrawal beginning the next day. Again, this has been pointed out to you before.

" You stated the naval detachment to Turkey was ordered in August when it actually was ordered to sail in February."

Error three. We've just seen that the order came Forrestal in August.

" But you know what Patrick, all this further demonstrates is ignorance of facts, the April 4th meeting is irrelevent because Coulter STATES AN APOLOGY WAS DELIVERED SEPERATELY FROM THE MEETING. You constantly either make things up or seem to live in a sort of pretend world."

Error four. THE GOLDEN SOMBRERO in one paragraph! Coulter said no such thing. You invented this. You are a "lier". THE GREAT PRETENDER.

Earth to Patrick: I’ll be kayaking over the weekend, simply because you get no response to your rants that you have somehow dazzled me with your whatever, I will have read them. Consequently don't confuse a non-response with stupefication at your brilliance. That's a really bad habit, maybe you should try counseling. I’ll be back Monday.

Sad to see you degenerate to this point Patrick.
Patrick says:
Referring to the date of the order was issued to send the naval task force to Turkey:
[Lawrence had cited this very page, apparently without reading it]
I did not cite Chace I cited Offner! As you will notice I gave a source to my chronology. Offner is clearer on what hapopened when, along with original sources. Sources Chace obviously did not use because he was focused on Acheson. Or I could cite 1400 other books who give the same chronology and say the same things about the events and period in question.

For example February 28, 1946 Truman gave the order to send a naval task force to the Sea of Marmara.
Chace, on the other hand, doesn't give a date for when the order was given, read your own quote Patrick, you assumed a date was there (as you assume a non-existent apology).

Patrick says:
" 'Secretary of the Navy Forestall ordered a naval task force, which included a new aircraft carrier, the Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two destroyers, to rendezvous off Lisbon with two cruisers and three more American destroyers ...to join the USS Missouri, which had already arrived in the Dardanelles on April 5.' "

Offner gives the actual date, and his original sources include the Forestall diaries. He specifically says Truman appproved a proposal to "send a formidable task force."
In general battleships, like carriers, seldom went anyplace by themselves. BTW you seem to ignore the fact that the Big Mo’ was still there in August. How long does it take to drop off a body Patrick?

Patrick says:
"First, March 6 was THE DAY OF Churchill's speech, but note that there is nothing about the order being given that day, nor on February 28, as you are now claiming:"

The date of Churchill's Iron Curtain speech was March 5, 1946 see Chace p. 146, or any other source. Can’t we get together on this; who says it was the 6th, Coulter? You’ve been making this mistake from the beginning and now its really looks foolish.

Quoting Offner I wrote
March 6, 1946: "The Missouri voyage was announced, the day after the Churchill's heralded address, although the task force could not be mobilized until that summer." P. 133
Get it Patrick; task force ordered by the president to Turkey Feb. 28; announcement March 6, speech March 5. I am citing the point in time when a public announcement made of a previous decision.

On March 24 the Soviets "announced their troop withdrawal from Iran and that it would take 6 weeks." p 141 Why didn 't they stop it if they perceived that an apology had been given as you state Patrick? The world would like to know. If there was an apology and this in turn led to Stalin believing he could pressure Turkey, why not stop the withdrawal from Iran. It would be far simple, and make things much easier, to continue to have troops in Iran. You see you have a theory, based on circumstantial evidence, and thus you have to say this action in Turkey in August was created by the apology in April. Well a whole bunch of things happen following April 4,1946. Stalin moved out of Iran for example, with the last troops leaving in May.. You have another circumstance that does not help your theory.

Further signs of degeneration:
Patrick says:
"Oh, I know the chronology, and I know the difference between Iran and Turkey too. How about you? You claim to be using Chace's book on Acheson as a source, then you should know that when the deadline for withdrawal of troops from IRAN, of March 2, passed, George Kennan protested. A further message from Acheson asking for an explanation of Soviet troop movements was delivered on March 9th. Chace says there was no "ultimatum" delivered to Stalin. Churchill's speech was made March 6th, but it took a few days for the reaction and Truman's ostentatious rejection of its approach.

Finally, on March 26th Moscow announced it was withdrawing from Iran, and began to so withdraw the next day. So, by the time Bedell Smith met with Stalin the Iranian crisis was almost over.

Which would be why Smith pressed Stalin about TURKEY"

Patrick now says:
First, that isn't what I said, and second the meeting was about several things, including Turkey (and I've demonstrated that several times).

It’s all written down Patrick, try and keep track. Note the speech was the 5th. Does that mean you don’t know the chronology? "but it took a few days for the reaction to Truman’s ostentatious rejection of its approach."{??) I think you are saying that Stalin was reacting to Churchill’s speech when he announced the troop withdrawal, but it took him a while to get the message about the rejection, and then he got an apology (2+2), and then he knew he could do whatever he wanted in Turkey So why didn’t he stop the troop pullout?[see above]

Patrick says:
First, the guy who once loudly and repeatedly said there was no invitation, has been reduced to defending himself with pointing to that very invitation!
Ooops. I said there was no invitation mentioned in the source you provided. You say Coulter says something happened and it says so here. It doesn’t and I say it doesn’t. Isn’t this really being, well, UNTRUTHFUL. Or maybe I should apologize for mistakenly looking at the source you cite. I’m sorry Patrick your source doesn’t say anything about an invitation. I was wrong. On the broader point, as you so quaintly put it in another place, that "Truman kissed Stalin’s ass, " I said none of Truman’s biographers, and no historians would agree with that.

Patrick says:
As to your laughable contention that Coulter claimed there were two separate messages to Stalin, just because she used the word "and", that is one stage below risible.

As I keep pointing out the sentence, "Truman apologized and issued an invitation." Plainly means that an invitation was not an apology. You have proceeded down an entire wayward little tunnel assuming that an apology WAS an invitation.

Patrick now says:
"Second, one can easily construct BOTH an apology and an invitation,"
Patrick awakens, yes indeed Patrick, and the apology will not be the invitation

Patrick now says:
"not only in ONE LETTER, but in one paragraph. Even in one sentence, say:

"Joe, sorry about Winston's big mouth, why don't you c'mon over yourself and set things right with a speech of your own."

By George Patrick you’ve got it. It takes a little while but with proper instruction and patience, even you can learn what AND means. Note that the apology and the invitation are distinct and separate. Oh Joy!

Patrick says:
BTW, now that you have quoted from Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, you also ought to own up to an earlier error. You had claimed that an apology would have to appear in that book. But as the footnote at the bottom of page 732 says, they can't even find THE LETTER. (In Bedell Smith's words, the "cordial letter", he delivered).
If the letter does not exist then how could Coulter claim there was an apology! In general the source would say Smith to Byrnes "I delivered an apology and invited Stalin to the US and he responded…. "

But then Patrick also says:
"Smith replied with an apology: 'I hold no brief for his Fulton speech.'" And Smith writes of being primed with, "Possible Points to Be Stressed in Conversations with Stalin", prior to this meeting. Add 2+2, and see

Compare that with what Patrick says above is an apology:
Joe, Sorry….
Or Patrick above:
"You had claimed an apology would have to appear in that book … but they can’t even find the letter." So no apology found. Not at all but then Patrick can always make one up! And pretend 2+2 equals something.
Again we need to go to the dictionary, (Random House unabridged)
Brief: A short concise statement or written item, or a memorandum of points of fact or law for conducting a case.

He is not apologizing, he’s saying that he has no instructions to discuss that with Stalin. He is saying no comment. But nice to see you’ve abandoned the invitation is the apology hole you dug for yourself. Of course you are now burying yourself in a completely different way.

While we are on this topic we can go right to old Joe himself and see what he did say about Harry.

What Khrushchev says:
"One reason for Stalin’s obsession with Eastern Europe was that the Cold War had already set in. Churchill had already given his famous speech in Fulton urging the imperialistic forces of the world to mobilize against the Soviet Union….America was conducting its foreign policy from a position of strength…To make matters worse, the President at the time was Truman, who had neither an ounce of statesmanship nor a flexible mind and who was hostile and spiteful toward the Soviet Union." Memoirs p. 361
By the way Khrushchev liked Ike, see the passage where he lauds Ike for giving them Berlin above this passage.
Lest you think this was a late judgement;
Andre Gromyko says:
At Potsdam:
"We in the Soviet delegation watched Truman intently…Our common opinion was that Truman had come with the aim of conceding as little as possible to the Soviet Union." P. 107

"During a break Stalin said privately to his own delegation:’The English and the Americans want to throttle us.’" P. 112

"…One could not count the numbers of letters of sympathy and freindship we received…It was this feeling that Truman tried to stifle, by distorting history and by mocking the mutual history of the two nations. Admittedly Churchill made a speech on 5 March 1946 at Fulton Missouri, which was the signal for the formation of a broad anti-Soviet alliance, including the USA, but one speech would not have been enough to turn American Public opinion against Soviet Russia. Reactionary forces still had to stir up a wave of mass propaganda." Memoirs Gromyko p. 59

Somehow in all of these memoirs of the men around Stalin they never notice Stalin saying, "Gee Yesterday I got an apology from Truman about Churchill’s speech. Let’s take Turkey." What they noticed was Truman was not shall we say "flexible" enough for them. Or they just missed that darned apology that was in the letter that Foreign Affairs couldn’t find, and evidently the Russians couldn't either.

Patrick,
You are soo dead. I've followed this exchange and your responses seem so strange. You can't find an apology and so you make one up. Your main defense seems spewing missplaced invective.

"Patrick,
" You are soo dead. I've followed this exchange and your responses seem so strange. You can't find an apology and so you make one up. Your main defense seems spewing missplaced invective."

Funny, Bedell Smith found it.

There Is Much Ruin in a Semi-Daily Journal Commenter, too.

For a good example we can't find better than Lawrence's insistence that he is correct about a naval task force being ordered to the Eastern Mediterranean in February of 1946 (I hope Michelle is paying close attention, so she can see what being "soo dead" really looks like):

" You stated the naval detachment to Turkey was ordered in August when it actually was ordered to sail in February."

" February 28, 1946 Truman gave the order to send a naval task force to the Sea of Marmara."

"Offner gives the actual date, and his original sources include the Forestall diaries."

Offner does not "give the actual date", can't you read? And haven't you learned to check the original sources yet? Here's what the Forrestal Diaries actually say:

"28 February 1946
"...I asked Byrnes if he was agreeable to the Navy preparing plans for a task force in the Mediterranean. He said to go ahead, with the suggestion that it might accompany the battle ship Missouri..."

Reading the above in non-Lawrencian fashion (i.e. carefully) we see that all that happened on February 28 was an agreement from Byrnes, for the navy to PREPARE PLANS for a task force. Not for a (non-existent!)task force to sail.

Further, see what Forrestal had to say about this ten days later:

" 10 March 1946
"1....saw Churchill....
"2. Task Force in the Mediterranean: He was very glad of our sending the Missouri to the Mediterranean but was very much disappointed when I told him that the plans to have this ship accompanied by a task force of substantial proportions had been abandoned."

I repeat, "the plans [not the "order"]...had been abandoned". Offner, who Lawrence is ostentatiously parading as a source, got it wrong.

The person (verified by the Forrestal Diaries) who got it correct was Chace on p. 153 of "Acheson". After the demands of Stalin in early August 1946. Just as I said.

BTW, Lawrence did cite p. 153 in an earlier post, so he's wrong to deny that too. If he wants to persist in denying it, I'll be only too happy to produce him so doing.

So, alongside the error of when the Missouri arrived; (not in April as Lawrence claimed here:)

"...April 4. ... next morning [Stalin] recieves news that the Missouri and naval task force are in the Dardenelles."

We have just unequivocally proven that Lawrence is also in error about when the task force was ordered into the Mediterranean. You agree with that, don't you, Michelle?

Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence.

Or, a logical fallacy called the Appeal From Ignorance (a particular proposition is false because it has not been proved true). Which is the fallacy Lawrence has been committing over and over (and is now joined by Michelle in this error). Here are the particulars:

"If the letter does not exist then how could Coulter claim there was an apology!"

and: "So no apology found"

BTW, this is also a changing of the subject from his erroroneous claim that documents from the Truman Admin HAD to be in FRUS.

But, we are not without evidence of an apology. As I have been repeatedly reminding Lawrence, we have contemporary descriptions of what was in the letter. From the man who delivered it, and from Clark Clifford.

Further two historians appear to agree with me, Joseph Shattan and David McCullough ("To placate" Stalin).

Now, the little title I gave to this post is a COLLOQUIALISM, that is, a conversational manner of putting something. In this case, for the latin, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Another colloquialism is, "I hold no brief for". Which is a phrase someone uses to distance himself from something an ally has said or done, that it could be logically inferred is something with which you agree.

And, not only did Churchill give the famous Iron Curtain speech in the USA, but while Harry Truman was sitting alongside applauding.

Which is exactly what Bedell Smith did, under orders from Truman (or Chip Bohlen, iirc). I think Lawrence recognizes that too, since he felt compelled to produce a disingenuous definition of "brief" which ignores the phrase in which the word appears.

Finally, let's keep in mind that the burden of proof is on Lawrence to support libelous remarks heaped in abundance on Ann Coulter. Not that he seems to be aware of that.

" Patrick says:
" 'First, the guy who once loudly and repeatedly said there was no invitation, has been reduced to defending himself with pointing to that very invitation!'

"Ooops. I said there was no invitation mentioned in the source you provided. You say Coulter says something happened and it says so here. It doesn’t and I say it doesn’t. Isn’t this really being, well, UNTRUTHFUL. Or maybe I should apologize for mistakenly looking at the source you cite."

You are lying. And you are extremely stupid to think you could get away with it, since, in an earlier post in this thread, I provided you with the chronology that proves you are lying now. Immediately after my paraphrasing of Ann Coulter's remarks about the fallout from the Iron Curtain speech, your first post appears, here it is:

----------quote-----------
Patrick,
"BTW, is anyone aware that Truman and Dean Acheson were infuriated by Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' speech, and considered inviting Stalin to the U.S. to rebut it? "

No somehow Truman's biographer's never discoverwed that gem-Indeed in over 1000 pages, the major biography of Truman has no mention of this-Does this mean that Annie Coulter is a superior scholar? No, she is simply less than honest, disingenious, a liar.

....
Posted by: Lawrence on July 8, 2003 04:14 PM
--------endquote----------

Only AFTER you posted the above, Saam asked me:

" Could you site some sources for the Truman Acheson stuff, Patrick? I'd be curious to know where that can be found."

Posted by: Saam Barrager on July 8, 2003 04:17 PM

And only then did I produce the footnoted source from Coulter:

" Ann Coulter cites James Chace's "Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created the American World" (p 147)"

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 8, 2003 05:36 PM

As I accurately put it in an earlier post, someone's nose is growing, and it isn't Ann Coulter's. And would Michelle like to offer her professional coroner's opinion on the death of this corpse?

A Few Loose Ends for Our Favorite Kayaker

Lawrence had written:

" For examply you have claimed that I didn't know Iran from Turkey because the April 4th meeting was about Turkey. False it was about Iran."

To which I'd responded:

"First, that isn't what I said...."

Keeping in mind the numerous libels of Ann Coulter (and me, for that matter) regarding making stuff up, and being a liar, such as this doozy:

" Patrick,
" Like Coulter (and Stalin) you really do like rewriting history rewriting history.
First you cite a source, say that source says this, and when I checked that source, lo and behold, nothing was there."

As I said, keep the above in mind as we see how Lawrence treats the brief exchange with which I began this post. Here we go:

----------quote----------
Further signs of degeneration:
Patrick says:
"Oh, I know the chronology, and I know the difference between Iran and Turkey too. How about you? You claim to be using Chace's book on Acheson as a source, then you should know that when the deadline for withdrawal of troops from IRAN, of March 2, passed, George Kennan protested. A further message from Acheson asking for an explanation of Soviet troop movements was delivered on March 9th. Chace says there was no "ultimatum" delivered to Stalin. Churchill's speech was made March 6th, but it took a few days for the reaction and Truman's ostentatious rejection of its approach.

Finally, on March 26th Moscow announced it was withdrawing from Iran, and began to so withdraw the next day. So, by the time Bedell Smith met with Stalin the Iranian crisis was almost over.
Which would be why Smith pressed Stalin about TURKEY"

Patrick now says:
First, that isn't what I said, and second the meeting was about several things, including Turkey (and I've demonstrated that several times).
It’s all written down Patrick, try and keep track.
----------endquote----------

I hope everyone can see how devious Lawrence is being. He just eliminated his remark:

" For examply you have claimed that I didn't know Iran from Turkey because the April 4th meeting was about Turkey. False it was about Iran."

Which was where my, "First, that isn't what I said..." came from! AND he substituted several paragraphs of mine in which you will NOT find anything resembling what he claims is in there. I did not say "the meeting was about Turkey".

Lawrence must be the most inept reader ever to enter grad school. Or the most dishonest.

Example of how not to try weaseling your way out of having to admit looking stupid:

-------quote--------
Patrick now says:
"Second, one can easily construct BOTH an apology and an invitation,"

Patrick awakens, yes indeed Patrick, and the apology will not be the invitation

Patrick now says:
"not only in ONE LETTER, but in one paragraph. Even in one sentence, say:

"Joe, sorry about Winston's big mouth, why don't you c'mon over yourself and set things right with a speech of your own."

By George Patrick you’ve got it. It takes a little while but with proper instruction and patience, even you can learn what AND means. Note that the apology and the invitation are distinct and separate. Oh Joy!
-----------endquote-----------

Funny how so many things Lawrence claims to have known (remember the question about "Sec'y of State Acheson"?), never are mentioned until I bring them up. Let's revisit a somewhat different story Lawrence had going on the, A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste thread:

" As the definition clearly states an apology is a written or spoken statement and an expression of remorse. That did not happen. Coulter is writing in, that is falsifying, this incident.. If an apology was delivered then that would have been a specific message delivered by Smith and the content of that message would have been recorded in Foreign Relations of the United States. An apology is not recorded. Couter and you are saying that an apology was made "objectively" by the invitation. Not at all, words do have meaning. And diplomatic apologies are just that formal statements. Stalin would have understood such an apology as disagreemtn with Churchill. He clearly did not."

Oh Joy! The pleasures of watching a grad student run for his life.

" On March 24 the Soviets "announced their troop withdrawal from Iran and that it would take 6 weeks." p 141 Why didn 't they stop it if they perceived that an apology had been given as you state Patrick? The world would like to know. If there was an apology and this in turn led to Stalin believing he could pressure Turkey, why not stop the withdrawal from Iran. It would be far simple, and make things much easier, to continue to have troops in Iran. You see you have a theory, based on circumstantial evidence, and thus you have to say this action in Turkey in August was created by the apology in April. Well a whole bunch of things happen following April 4,1946. Stalin moved out of Iran for example, with the last troops leaving in May.. You have another circumstance that does not help your theory."

The above is hilariously simple-minded. And if Lawrence would actually read his own sources (Offner, for one) he'd see why Stalin didn't reverse himself on the troop withdrawals; he'd concluded an agreement on oil field concessions from Iran. Specifically 51% of a joint Iranian-Russian venture.

So, in addition to looking like either a fool or a mendacious tyrant, had he reversed on his announcement of troop withdrawal, he would have queered his deal on the oil. Stalin wasn't stupid. Unlike some I could name.