Amnesia is a terrible thing

Came here from Anchoress. You prove the point that she contended, and your quotes do little to refute the small and petty behaviour occurring at the King funeral. The reagan quote describes the actions of Reagan, and the King quote on the bombing was also relevent and on point. However, the snarking and attacking at the funeral has been echoed by your own snarking and attacking.

And you look small. Very. Very. small.

Anchoress’ objections to the remarks were that they were “political” and “partisan” — relevance wasn’t part of the equation. Trey merely demonstrates that the “rules” under which he criticizes liberals are suddenly relaxed when conservatives engage in the same behavior.

I can’t wait for Teddy to kick off. I’ve got a GREAT oldsmobile joke – it ought to play well with liberals, endorsing that kind of thing as you are.

I’ll hold it in abeyance out of respect for George’s chivalrous behavior and the example he sets, however.

Naturally, West, you miss the point.

No one told jokes about George W. Bush at Mrs. King’s funeral. No one repeated any of the ad hominem attacks that were aired against Dubya during the last election.

What happened during the funeral service was a very old tradition called “speaking truth to power”, and it goes back at least as far as the Quakers in 17th-century England. What strikes me about the rightwingers’ feigned outrage over this episode is that no one I have read suggests that anything untrue was said by the various speakers — only that it was somehow ‘inappropriate’ or ‘crass’. Someone explain to me please how mentioning the illegal wiretaps directed against Dr. and Mrs. King is “crass”, but a Republican Vice President telling a Democratic Senator to "go fuck yourself" is not...

Dr. Martin Luther King employed the technique often. And he told us why it must be done:

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right..

Well, we have the Tradition makes it Right™, the Straw Man and the Pithy Quote defense.

I am quiite happy that you feel that I missed your point in my knuckle dragging, open mouthed ignorance. The fact is that I understand your position all too well, and quite rightly find it unsupportive.

Discussing the ‘truth’ of the various charges is irelevant to the subject, and has been readily addressed hundreds of places —one of the salient points is that a funeral is no place to discuss those charges — as George declined to do. I am sure that the left would have been outraged had he chosen to do so. Just one more case of those “it’s OK for me, but not for you” positions the left takes so regularly.
As far as ‘tradition goes’, what about the traditiion of past presidents refraining from taking potshots at sitting ones? Oh, forgot, see the OKFMBNFY rule.

In any case, I don’t give a damn about convincing you, people with a sense of propriety and decency are all turned off by this behavior, and it is they, not you, that will determine the outcome of elections.

Keep up the good work, folks!

I am quiite happy that you feel that I missed your point in my knuckle dragging, open mouthed ignorance.

Ah, another ad hominem mumble.

Discussing the ‘truth’ of the various charges is irelevant to the subject, and has been readily addressed hundreds of places

If you are challenging the truth of anything that any of the speakers at Mrs. King’s funeral said, then you have to defend your views here. Waving your hands and airily proclaiming that it’s all been “readily addressed” elsewhere is the most transparent of ploys, West.

Now: Do you claim that anyhting said at the funeral was untrue? If so, what is the factual basis for each of your claims?

— one of the salient points is that a funeral is no place to discuss those charges — as George declined to do.

There was no invitation to discuss the facts (not charges, West — facts). So there was nothing to decline.

As far as ‘tradition goes’, what about the traditiion of past presidents refraining from taking potshots at sitting ones?

What was false about what Jimmy Carter said. Yes, we know you don’t like what he said. That’s your problem, Deal with it. But what did he say that was false?

In any case, I don’t give a damn about convincing you, people with a sense of propriety and decency are all turned off by this behavior, and it is they, not you, that will determine the outcome of elections.

Um…. who at the funeral was running for office, West? Talk about being irrelevant…

I am quiite happy that you feel that I missed your point in my knuckle dragging, open mouthed ignorance.

Ah, another ad hominem mumble.

Ah, another case of cognitive disability, eh? Try this: read, cogitate, THEN spout (Hint – maybe I was noit insulting you. Maybe if you read it lots of times…)

Discussing the 'truth' of the various charges is irelevant to the subject, and has been readily addressed hundreds of places

If you are challenging the truth of anything that any of the speakers at Mrs. King's funeral said, then you have to defend your views here. Waving your hands and airily proclaiming that it's all been "readily addressed" elsewhere is the most transparent of ploys, West.
Uh notice that I did not challenge the truth of what was said there – as I pointed out, that is not the point. Not the point. Not the point. Sink in yet? I am not interested in geting dragged arguing ‘truth’ here, especially since you have taken it upon yourself to define ‘truth’ – and it seems I get no say in the matter. (see below).The point is, regardless of the ‘truth’ of the insinuated charges, that was not the venue to bring those particular matters up. “Hey, you in the back can’t hear me spout the leftist litany? Howzabout I step up on this corpse – can you hear me now?”

Now: Do you claim that anyhting said at the funeral was untrue? If so, what is the factual basis for each of your claims? I did not claim that before, nor do I need to now, your attempt to shift the argument is pretty transparent. Here’s a truth for you. The purely domestic, illegal warrantless spying erformed upon the King family, and the subsequent delivery of doctored tapes indicsating infidelity on Dr. Kings part to Mrs. King was all ordered by a Democrat. And not just any Democrat, but by one of the icons of the party, Bobby Kennedy. How’s that for the nice truth? Funny, nobody mentioned THAT truth at the funeral. Not the venue, I suppose.

— one of the salient points is that a funeral is no place to discuss those charges — as George declined to do.

There was no invitation to discuss the facts (not charges, West — facts). So there was nothing to decline.
Uh, charges, bubba, charges. As i pointed out before, you do like to define the terms of a discussion, don’t you (as in you are always right and I am always wrong). Must be nice to live in your little world, where other peoples opinions and knowledge is deemed irrelevant by fiat.

As far as 'tradition goes', what about the traditiion of past presidents refraining from taking potshots at sitting ones?

What was false about what Jimmy Carter said. Yes, we know you don't like what he said. That's your problem, Deal with it. But what did he say that was false?
Hey, the tradition argument was YOURS. Try defending it instead of once again attempting to change the subject.

In any case, I don't give a damn about convincing you, people with a sense of propriety and decency are all turned off by this behavior, and it is they, not you, that will determine the outcome of elections.

Um…. who at the funeral was running for office, West? Talk about being irrelevant…

So, none of the things said at the funeral had anything to do with politics or winning elections, eh? My mistake. I guess you have just given up on the whole idea – that’s probably all for the best, it’ll save you lots of disappointment in the fall.

Ah, another case of cognitive disability, eh? Try this: read, cogitate, THEN spout (Hint – maybe I was noit insulting you. Maybe if you read it lots of times…)

We both know that insult was exactly your intent, West. Doing it a second time, and then lying about what you were doing, doesn’t enhance your credibility one jot.

Uh notice that I did not challenge the truth of what was said there

Horseshit. Putting ‘truth’ in quote marks is challenging the truth of what was said. Your coyness is wasted here. Are you able to discuss the facts, or not?

I am not interested in geting dragged arguing ‘truth’ here, especially since you have taken it upon yourself to define ‘truth’ – and it seems I get no say in the matter.

False. You get to present your case. But you’d better be able to back up what you say with facts. So far, you’re failing miserably in that regard.

The point is, regardless of the ‘truth’ of the insinuated charges, that was not the venue to bring those particular matters up.

Why? Because you don’t like it? Tough shit. Nobody died and made you arbiter of funeral etiquette.

The purely domestic, illegal warrantless spying erformed upon the King family, and the subsequent delivery of doctored tapes indicsating infidelity on Dr. Kings part to Mrs. King was all ordered by a Democrat.

Provide the facts to back up your claim.

Uh, charges, bubba, charges.

Uh, facts, Binky, facts. You disagree? Provide facts to back up your claims.

As i pointed out before, you do like to define the terms of a discussion, don’t you (as in you are always right and I am always wrong).

Stop lying, West. I haven’t said you’re wrong yet. I’ve challenged you to support your claims with facts. Can you do so, or not?

Try defending it instead of once again attempting to change the subject.

Try answering a question instead of running from it. What was false about what Jimmy Carter said?

So, none of the things said at the funeral had anything to do with politics or winning elections, eh?

Answer the question, West. Who at the funeral was running for office?

Ah, another case of cognitive disability, eh? Try this: read, cogitate, THEN spout (Hint – maybe I was noit insulting you. Maybe if you read it lots of times…)

We both know that insult was exactly your intent, West. Doing it a second time, and then lying about what you were doing, doesn't enhance your credibility one jot.

My, who’s with the ad hom now? Your insane interpretation of my intent doesn’t change the fact that I did not insult you there, I merely was commenting (admittedly obliquely- that definitely was a mistake) on your facile assumption that I was unable to understand your position (an insult on your part, perhaps unwitting, but an insult nonetheless) does not change the fact that I did not insult you. However, you DID just call me a liar. Nice try, but it takes a little more than that to get me angry. Keep trying, though, I’d hate to blunt your zeal.

Uh notice that I did not challenge the truth of what was said there

Horseshit. Putting 'truth' in quote marks is challenging the truth of what was said. Your coyness is wasted here. Are you able to discuss the facts, or not?

I am quite able to discuss facts when they are relevant, however your continuous attempt to shift the discussion onto ground where you feel comfortable is tiring.

The point of the Anchoress’s post was not the facts (I’ll omit the quotes – happy now?) put out by the esteemed guests at the funeral, but thye appropriatness of the venue for using these facts as attacks upon the President and his administration at a ceremony supposedly dedicated to honoring Ms. King and her accomplishments in life – not to political grandstanding. You ‘rebutted’ the Anchoress’s post, attempting, I suppose, to prove that that was he correct time and place to attack the President. Your continuous attempts to shift the discussion onto the facts themselves, rahter than the twisting of an occasion dedicated to mourning the passing of Mrs. King to one dedicated to attacking the current administration is sidestepping the issue. I am not being coy – I am merely staying on topic based upon the original post made by the Anchoress. It is you who is attempting to be coy & change the subject.

I am not interested in geting dragged arguing 'truth' here, especially since you have taken it upon yourself to define 'truth' – and it seems I get no say in the matter.

False. You get to present your case. But you'd better be able to back up what you say with facts. So far, you're failing miserably in that regard.

I cannot fail at something I never tried to do.

The point is, regardless of the 'truth' of the insinuated charges, that was not the venue to bring those particular matters up.

Why? Because you don't like it? Tough shit. Nobody died and made you arbiter of funeral etiquette.

So, I don’t even get to have an opinion, now, eh? How generous of you.

BTW, civilized people can express themselves without using profanity, and although I meant to mention it before I wuld like to point out that it was certainly rude to sully the Anchoress’s site with profanity, something I am sure she did not appreciate, but is to polite to mention herself. So I will do it myself in terms you just might understand. When you are a guest in someones house, it is impolite to shit on the carpet.

The purely domestic, illegal warrantless spying erformed upon the King family, and the subsequent delivery of doctored tapes indicsating infidelity on Dr. Kings part to Mrs. King was all ordered by a Democrat.

Provide the facts to back up your claim.

Happily. Here you go. Here are some excerpts to part III of the Staff Report of the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities – otherwise known as the Church Report. I recommend you read the whole thing. There is a copy here:http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

I am sure you could also get a copy via the FOIA. Enjoy.

“”“”

SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS
ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE
RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

_

BOOK III
_

FINAL REPORT

OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE
TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS

WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
UNITED STATES SENATE

APRIL 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., CASE STUDY

I. INTRODUCTION

From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI’s “war” against Dr. King:

No holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business. 1

The FBI collected information about Dr. King’s plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau’s disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy,

were maintained on Dr. King’s home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter’s telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King’s close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King’s hotel and motel rooms in an “attempt” to obtain information about the “private activities of King and his advisers” for use to “completely discredit” them.

The FBI’s program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him with churches, universities, and the press. Steps were taken to attempt to convince the National Council of Churches, the Baptist World Alliance, and leading Protestant ministers to halt financial support of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and to persuade them that “Negro leaders should completely isolate King and remove him from the role he is now occupying in civil rights activities.” 6 When the FBI learned that Dr. King intended to visit the Pope, an agent was dispatched to persuade Francis Cardinal Spellman to warn the Pope about “the likely embarrassment that may result to the Pope should he grant King an audience.” 7 The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find “friendly” news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King’s hotel rooms.

The FBI mailed Dr. King a tape recording made from its microphone coverage. According to the Chief of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, the tape was intended to precipitate a separation between Dr. King and his wife in the belief that the separation would reduce Dr. King’s stature. 7a The tape recording was accompanied by a note which Dr. King and his advisers interpreted as a threat to release the tape recording unless Dr. King committed suicide. The FBI also made preparations to promote someone “to assume the role of leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited.” 8

....

The FBI’s program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him with churches, universities, and the press. Steps were taken to attempt to convince the National Council of Churches, the Baptist World Alliance, and leading Protestant ministers to halt financial support of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and to persuade them that “Negro leaders should completely isolate King and remove him from the role he is now occupying in civil rights activities.” 6 When the FBI learned that Dr. King intended to visit the Pope, an agent was dispatched to persuade Francis Cardinal Spellman to warn the Pope about “the likely embarrassment that may result to the Pope should he grant King an audience.” 7 The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find “friendly” news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King’s hotel rooms.

The FBI mailed Dr. King a tape recording made from its microphone coverage. According to the Chief of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, the tape was intended to precipitate a separation between Dr. King and his wife in the belief that the separation would reduce Dr. King’s stature. 7a The tape recording was accompanied by a note which Dr. King and his advisers interpreted as a threat to release the tape recording unless Dr. King committed suicide. The FBI also made preparations to promote someone “to assume the role of leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited.” 8

The extent to which Government officials outside of the FBI must bear responsibility for the FBI’s campaign to discredit Dr. King is not clear. Government officials outside of the FBI were not aware of most of the specific FBI actions to discredit Dr. King. Officials in the Justice Department and White House were aware, however, that the FBI was conducting an intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation, of Dr. King; that the FBI had written authorization from the Attorney General…..

“”“”
The Attorney General at that time was Bobby Kennedy.

Happy now that you have some facts? Didn’t think so.

Uh, charges, bubba, charges.

Uh, facts, Binky, facts. You disagree? Provide facts to back up your claims.

As i pointed out before, you do like to define the terms of a discussion, don't you (as in you are always right and I am always wrong).

Stop lying, West. I haven't said you're wrong yet. I've challenged you to support your claims with facts. Can you do so, or not?

Keep up the ad hom, it really makes you look good.

Try defending it instead of once again attempting to change the subject.

Try answering a question instead of running from it. What was false about what Jimmy Carter said?

Why? The question is irrelevent. Not only that, but you brought up your’traditionalist’ argument before you attempted this line of attack, and you have failed to address my points on that score, so why should I be held to rules you will not follow?

So, none of the things said at the funeral had anything to do with politics or winning elections, eh?

Answer the question, West. Who at the funeral was running for office?

Once again, Why? We are discussing politics, and neither of us are running for office (at least I am not). That too is irrelevant.

You do squirm well, though, I’ll give you points for that. However, you do seem to be unable to discuss the point of the Anchoress’ post, so I’ll just leave off here. It has been a pleasure attempting to discuss the Anchoress’ post with your here, and thank you for for providing a venue for attempting to do so on your blog. Your hospitality and graciousness has been overwhelming.

I am quite able to discuss facts when they are relevant

They’re relevant here. Discuss them. Or run away again. Either way, we’ll learn something about you.

The point of the Anchoress’s post was not the facts (I’ll omit the quotes – happy now?) put out by the esteemed guests at the funeral, but thye appropriatness of the venue

You weren’t invited to that venue. You don’t get to arbitrate the “appropriateness” of anything that was said there.

I cannot fail at something I never tried to do.

I know you don’t try to discuss facts, West. That’s the whole point.

The Attorney General at that time was Bobby Kennedy.

No one disputes that. Again, you deliberately ignore the core of your own argument: that the wiretaps against Dr. King were illegal at the time. Provide the facts to back up your claim.

*What was false about what Jimmy Carter said?*Why?

Because I know you’re afraid to discuss the facts, that why. You just proved that point for me again.

The question is irrelevent.

Nope. The question terrifies you — but it isn’t irrelevant. Run away, West.

Once again, Why?

Once again: You make an argument and then run from any discussion of it.