Why we must resist the bullying of Will Pitt and others here.
Let's take a look at the account in Christopher Hedges' new book on REBELLION of the persecution of exemplary patriot Thomas Paine for his honest criticisms of government and those who govern.
*
Paine ... understood that despotic regimes -- and here the corporate state serves as a contemporary example -- make war on reason and rational thought. They circumscribe free speech and free assembly. They marginalize and silence critics. They seek to subjugate all institutions to despotism-- or in our case, corporate power. They use propaganda to rob people of the language to describe their daily reality and discredit those who seek radical change. The goal is to render a population politically alienated. Those who live under despotic regimes, Paine noted, are denied the ability to communicate and discuss in a national forum [the Internet?] their most basic concerns and grievances. And this suppression, Paine understood, has consequences. Said Paine: "Let men communicate their thoughts with freedom, and their indignation fly off like a fire spread on the surface; like gunpowder scattered, they kindle, they communicate, but the explosion is neither loud nor dangerous -- keep them under restraint, it is subterranean fire, whose agitation is unseen until it bursts into earthquake or volcano. Finally, Paine understood that war is always the preferred activity of despotic states, for war is "the art of conquering at home."
Paine paid for his honesty. When he returned to England where he wrote The Rights of Man, he was relentlessly persecuted by the state, as he would later be persecuted in France and in America upon his final return. John Keane, in his biography Tom Paine: A Political Life, describes some of what Paine endured as a radical in late-eighteenth-century England:
Government spies tailed him constantly on London's streets, sending back a stream of reports to the Home Secretary's office. Those parts of the press that functioned as government mouthpieces pelted him with abuse. "It is earnestly recommended to Mad Tom" snarled the Times, "that he should embark for France, and there be naturalized into the regular confusion of democracy." Broadsheets containing "intercepted correspondence from Satan to Citizen Paine" pictured him as a three-hearted, fire-breathing monster, named "Tom Stich". Open letters, often identically worded but signed with different pen names, were circulated through taverns and alehouses. "Brother Weavers and Artificers," thundered "a gentleman" to the inhabitants of Manchester and Salford, "Do not let us be humbugged by Mr. Paine, who tells us a great many Truths in his book, in order to shove of his Lies." Dozens of sermons and satires directed at Paine were published, many of them written anonymously for commoners by upper-class foes masquerading as commoners."
THIS is why we must resist the bullying of any member of DU and especially of those who speak for liberty, democracy, and good governance.
If we would have defended Thomas Paine then, we must defend Will Pitt now.
Yes, I know that flying monkeys and hooting hyenas will arrive to mock a comparison between Pitt and Paine. I am not equating the importance of the two writers in American literature or their impact on our history.
I AM saying that the ACT OF DEFENDING THEIR SPEECH AND SAFETY IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
If we would have defended Thomas Paine then, we must defend Will Pitt now.
Paine: My poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars, the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive, the rational world is my friend because I am a friend of happiness--when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and its government.
*Inspired by WAGES OF REBELLION: THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF REVOLT by Christopher Hedges, Pulitzer Prize winner. 2015 Nation Books
= new reply since forum marked as read
Me?
What'd I do?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
The "Will Pitt troll" didn't last long (about 20 accounts). The long-lived troll you're talking about is still at it, but isn't specific to WP. 
all that stuff got not one, yet several hides.
I recall several instances where his prognostications were, not just off; but, flat out wrong. I keep reading about the "mis-step" but must have missed, both, the "mis-step", and the thread calling out the "mis-step." It must have been a big'un, if it led to his exit.
I feel SOOOOO behind the curve!
that Rove was going to be indicted? It was Truthout's big scoop. Will Pitt was on DU claiming that and that's we'd soon see Rove frogmarched. That turned out to be wrong. Randomly 9 years later, someone made a thread recalling that. This apparently was bullying Pitt which caused him to leave DU (again). At least the OP so claims. And that's it's what happened to Thomas Paine. You know those bullies that caused Paine to quit writing (or in real comparison, caused Paine to quit making his opinions known at the local tavern).
"Bullying" means something completely different in my neighborhood.
And that Rove had been give 24 hours to get his affairs in order.
Then, when Rove wasn't frog-marched, 24 hours became "24 business hours".
Pitt responded to skepticism with the self-deleted but preserved at Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/05/15/210390/-Breakin-Will-Pitt-Home-From-Pub-Wilson-Leopold-Source
The martyr status being ascribed to Mr. Pitt is pretty unbelievable.
Sid
That was quite a weekend at DU.
bobbolink in the face...
...or that other time he got drunk and threated to gut a DUer and leave them to bleed out in a roadside ditch.
for most people here, just one threat of violence like that would be cause for a permanent banning...
vhat? vas you shaying shumthing, about being a martyr.. to meeee?
LOL! You shouldn't lie like that, your nose will grow. 
How are these two things remotely the same? 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Part of the rafter showed up. Some decided to hide this one out.
and go throw some flowers around.
it's childish. I can't imagine wasting time digging back years to find something to try to USE against another person.
What was the purpose, was there a goal, was there something important to accomplish? I didn't see the mess, whatever it was, I DID the attempt to bully and thankfully a majority of DUers responded and let the bullies know what they think of them.
If this is how DU is supposed to work, where small groups dig into people's years old comments then stalk them with them. HEY we can ALL do that, probably far better.
I'm game, let's make that a community standard. Everyone go digging for comments and statements of people they are jealous of or disagree with or dislike for one reason or another and let's turn DU into what these stalkers whoever they are, want it to be. Maybe they won't like it so much when the tables are turned.
What fun. Wait, I'm SURE there is nothing they have ever said or done that anyone could possibly dig up and throw at them.
I do think we all should do it for a week, let's see what DU looks like if we emulate the small group who spends their time on something so petty.
On second thought, let's not. What a waste of intelligence and time and effort.
As could we all.
influence anything, when all you do is turn people off.
There is no self awareness, I agree, so no doubt they think they are accomplishing something, blind to the reality that most people either have them on ignore or just pass them by, or as you say, leave, since they make DU seem like a children's playground and would prefer to spend their time with adults.
Not sure what the goal is, and don't really care much to be honest. It's not my problem, thankfully 
Un fucking believable! A high profile journalist is bullied if called out on a major mistake! What a double standard! Such hypocrisy! Then no more comments about Hillary and Goldwater or what Obama disappointed you on way back on 2009!
you in that category. We have disagreed but you have never been mean spirited or nasty about it. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me especially when they do it civilly, as you have done.
Even though you are wrong and I am right most of the time
You know ... the:
part.
No dog in this hunt right? Concern trolls disrupt GD and you are defending them, my I am shocked.
it's to see cowards being struck down 
aw man wouldn't it fun to be a fly on the IM walls - so much SH** to land on
yes INDEED
RIP Tupac!
FYI-
somebody has a GBCW post on a random message board doesn't = the greatness of Thomas Paine LOL
They used to express opinions to each other with the spoken word, not the intertubes 
'Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close up'
DRAMA!!!!!
can't you just tug your ear, and get the answer yourself?
maybe you have me confused with a warlock you met at a caldron?
It is the definition of integrity and abiding strength. The world needs much more of this.
"Th newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward".
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_Peter_Dunne
Many times referenced by H.L. Menken.
It's our job.
But I was told today that Public figures should EXPECT that kind of thing. Well this was in reference to Will Pitt 'who is a journalist and therefore a public figure so he should expect to be criticized'.
So I guess the President is less of a 'public figure' than WP?
Or is about WHO the public figure is?
Unbelievable, I hope I never get that deeply, personally invested in a politician.
How long ago was that?
And I hope the First Family survived this terrible event by now!
Indeed.
here on DU. Why? I have no idea. If I used the type of launguage and outright threatening behavior like he did I'd be out of here in five seconds.
Scroll down for announcement on the homepage (bottom left):
NIEMAN NEWS
Robert Parry wins I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence
The founder of consortiumnews.com, who broke many of the stories related to the Iran-Contra Affair, questions both conventional wisdom and mainstream media.
July 21, 2015
Investigative Reporter Robert Parry to receive I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence
In recognition of a career distinguished by meticulously researched investigations, intrepid questioning and reporting that has challenged both conventional wisdom and mainstream media, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard will present journalist Robert Parry with the 2015 I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence during a ceremony in Cambridge, Mass., on Oct. 22, 2015.
<>
Nieman tagline: To promote and elevate the standards of journalism
I posted a series of rather pointed OP's, or poignant ones, which received a modicum of attention. I felt I was "on my way", so to speak. One or two "wrong moves", and suddenly crickets. I presume a number of folks hid me, for various reasons. Whatevs. This ain't my day job, and I'm not here for heaps of praise. I also have no idea about why he left, and I don't care. I am pretty sure he will be just fine. Maybe he will hook up with any of a number of other outlets for his writing. Maybe Nance needs some help. ? We all have our moments. What we rarely find is any allowance for others' opinions. This a good place to come only if you have, after deep reflection, come to exactly the "correct" views.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Thank you Nance.
This has really gotten ridiculous.
On the afternoon before Obama's 2014 SOTU address, Will posted an OP praising Obama and discussing what he anticipated to be another kick-ass speech by the prez.
I watched that thread all day - because it had so few replies and recs, which was highly unusual for a WillPitt post. It never garnered more than a handful of recs, and pretty much sank like a stone.
After the SOTU speech, Will posted a scathing rant about Obama having "used a wounded soldier as a prop to glorify war". Despite the fact that it made absolutely NO sense (if you're trying to "glorify" war, you trot out a handsome, unscathed, medal-festooned soldier, not one who is visibly wounded and disabled), Will's tirade about Obama being a war-promoting fraud rocketed to the top of the Greatest Page will hundreds of recs and replies.
Will never posted anything but anti-Obama screeds after that. (And the OP singing Obama's praises posted that afternoon? "Self-deleted by author"
As I said, Will always knows which side of the bread is the buttered side - and his "fans" will attest to his Thomas Paine-like courage in speaking the truth - as long as it's the "truth" they want to hear.
This is like Xerxes complaining that Leonidas had an unfair advantage in numbers, and was picking on the Persian Empire.😖
"Let it go people, it's just some random dude on the internet" - Probably the most intelligent, profound and appropriate thing I've seen posted on DU in weeks!
Feel free to "Drop the Mic" gifted
I propose that we close this thread with gifted's very poignant post
...in fact, I can't think of one I disagree with. That said, I'm just not with it on this forum bullying thing. Maybe that's just me....old and thick skinned. If it spills into cyber stalking or libel / slander, that's a serious problem and we have legal remedies for that. People are going to hate and spew bullshit. People are going to be assholes. It's been that way since the early days of the inter-webs. I know. I've been around that long. If you agree with my point of view, great. If you don't, whatever. If you want to spew shit on a forum, well, Johnny has my back....
?w=700
I'm staying out of the WP threads from this point forward. You and others have said what needed to be said.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Sid
bullies be damned
free license to wage war and commit genocide with impunity.
Clinton trusted George W. Bush, and passionately and publicly encouraged other Senators and members of Congress to grant Bush his wish to have complete use of the US Armed Forces to attack, conquer, and occupy Iraq.
This, despite frantic widespread attempts by millions of sensible people telling her don't trust Bush, don't vote to give this neocon warmonger the ability to wage war like a vindictive toddler with ADHD, in the peak throes of the terrible twos. Criminy, a blind hamster could see through that deadly maniac.
So, why should we take any group that defends Bush's holocaust of Iraq in support of a Presidential candidate who can be duped by a total loser like George W. Bush seriously? We have more productive, very serious endeavors to engage in, rather than wasting our precious time dignifying contrived illusion by paying attention to it.
All we need to do is consider the statements below, and move on, and do our best to ensure that a candidate like Hillary Clinton, who can be so easily fooled by George W. Bush, is never given the chance to exercise her tragic, disastrous inability to make wise judgments as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States ~
"If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition...I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible....
....This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction....
.....So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President." - The actual words of Hillary Clinton.
A vote that puts that awesome responsibility in the hands of George W. Bush. Just so very wrong. Tragically wrong. Disastrously wrong.
When you give a 19 minute floor speech about going to war, it can not be called a mistake.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=433771
Here are the videos of Clinton's call to support Bush, and give him free rein to begin the Bush neocon war.
&feature=youtu.be
Text of Clinton's plea to support Bush and his war.
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (October 10, 2002)
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667891
Yes, Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you Senator Clinton, for the horror of holocaust you brought upon the sovereign peoples of Iraq, the shame you brought upon the United States, and the eternal wars you have brought into being as a consequence of your actions.
Grasswire, Will Pitt is no Thomas Paine
Thanks for exposing them in your thread - you knew they would come in here and crybaby about getting caught bullying a member. Well played.
you "defending" my posts.
Good for you standing by it.. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm clarifying how I feel about it.
Edit to put "changing" to "change"..
Sleepy time. 
or agree on. I really like his reporting back in the day of the BFEE and long before you showed up. I am always perplexed when I see so many people think I am talking about them. Why do you self-indentify when I speak of a small group of concern trolls? Did I mention you by name? I would bet good money you have no idea whom I am even talking about. They are all old timers that should know better.
Seriously this isn't about Pitt, someone wanted to get together with their little group and stir shit in GD and they did. IMO.
You don't have to agree with me, nobody does. It is my opinion and shared by many as you can see and not deny.
AGAIN, why do you ALWAYS bring up Obama and someone else...is it you are so unaware of what I am talking about that you just assume bringing up Obama is the point of all this? Total nonsense imo.
Pitt can do whatever he wants to and so can you and I. I don't need anyone to tell me what they think Obama is doing or not doing...I know exactly what he is doing and if you go and LOOK you will see I do NOT agree with anything about him being a car salesman etc..
Yeah, posting here seems useless sometimes, beause people are always trying to get an angle on you and not listen to you. Ever. Boy do I hear that. We can't have a META forum because of a few people and now that GD is somewhat nice they came in here and ruined it.
And I will keep pointing it out no matter who it pisses off...they can just learn to deal with it or not.
EDIT - sorry for sounding so angry sheshe2 not directed at you. I am coming off as supporting Pitt (it must seem that way) and what I am talking about is the 9 year old thread being brought up to fuck up a good mood in GD. As far as I am concerned, two distinct issues. You don't have to bring up Obama all the time, we all know Pitts view on him and I do believe it is NOT shared by the majority of people here.
Have a great night/morning.
Just got here myself...TGIF! 
to himself. 
