Speaking truth to pinheads
Jay Tea is doing just that, and It Is Good.
But in the end, we all know it’s a waste of time; you can’t bring fluttering, rabid moonbats back down to earth with hard facts, after all. You need something even more substantial — like, say, a brick, or a shotgun.
And if you’re using a shotgun, for God’s sake don’t shoot the guy you’re hunting with by mistake. It gets the moonbats all excited, and they’ll flap and twitter about madly, making it a lot of extra trouble to draw a bead on ‘em.
Update! Glenn Reynolds puts the boot in, for all the good it’ll do, and attempts a futile distinction-without-a-difference:
Did the antiwar left want us to lose? Quite a few did, and some even admitted it. Emails like this one, and the steady stream of self-satisfied gloating I get from antiwar lefties whenever there’s bad news about Iraq, hardly evidence a desire to see America do well, either. No, not all antiwar lefties want us to lose, as I’ve noted at tiresome length in the past, but most of the ones who email me seem to.
Face it, Glenn, there are way more America-haters in the antiwar Left than any other subspecie of the revolting breed. But even the strict and sincere America-haters are less in number than those who have become completely, entirely unhinged by BDS, although naturally there’s plenty of crossover.
There’s no point any longer in bothering with these artificial distinctions, and little if any in bothering to debate with these people, besides just to provide oneself with a slightly amusing diversion. They are impervious to reason and truth, as is sadly demonstrated by my little pissing contest with Maha mentioned below. After all, how do you debate in good faith with someone who finds Juan Cole’s argument re: doc CMPC-2003-006430, which depends on specious theorizing about what the IIS agent commenting on the FAS report might or might not have intended to convey, compelling? His pitiful assertion rests on “may refer to” and “probably refers to” and other such speculative phrases. Well, thanks but no thanks, guys; it’s just a lot simpler to assume the writer means what the fuck he says, which is this: “Otherwise, it does not do more than mention some correct and important matters…”
“Correct and important.” You can try explaining to me once more how this guy was using the phrase “correct and important” to express “incorrect and unimportant,” but you’re only providing further evidence of your complete disconnect from objective reality, and you’re wasting everyone’s time. The pallid nature of Cole’s cobbled-together “refutation” betrays the desperation born of a would-be spin-doctor left with little or nothing to work with. And that’s what the antiwar Left has been reduced to: feebly swatting at the eight-hundred-pound gorilla of Saddam’s support for Islamist terrorism with a rolled-up newspaper, in the form of psychoanalyzing one of Saddam’s henchmen in hopes of somehow proving that the words he uses mean the direct opposite of what they ordinarily do.
These people have been nothing more than a drag on America’s WoT heels right from the start; how much longer are we going to extend them the courtesy of pretending their delusions matter to anyone but themselves?
Updated update! Be sure to read the latest update to Insty’s post, which features this stinging smack upside some very pointy heads:
Iraq may indeed go sour, although with effort, help and much time, it probably won’t. But however Iraq turns out, we at least know it is no longer a threat. And whatever troubles it faces, they will not be greater than the horrors it has endured.
Iraq’s future we cannot tell, but one thing we do know is that most of those now preaching doom were spectacularly wrong about the war itself. Why would they be so right now?
It is time we held them accountable. No more must they lightly skip from one disreputable cause to another — preaching woe in the first Gulf War, disaster in Afghanistan, apocalypse in Iraq — and always warning of the catastrophic consequences of resisting evil.
The war in Iraq has been won well. Let’s move on to the next war — a war for our culture. A war for truth, rationality, humanity, democracy and wisdom. Let the accountability begin.
To purloin a phrase: In-friggin’-deed. These doomsaying warts have set themselves in opposition to our country’s duly-elected government unreasonably in time of war, based on nothing but their dislike of the President. Some of them even traveled to Iraq before the war, to more directly oppose our efforts there by acting as so-called “human shields.” Many more have openly and seriously advocated mutiny, revolution, and assassination when they failed to get their way by manipulating our system of government. Their actions have heartened our enemies and likely served to prolong the war as a result, and a settling of accounts is way, way overdue. I’d say this fall — right around the first week in November, say — would be a good time to start, by tossing the Democrats who have so cynically pandered to them out on their ears.
And thanks very much to Glenn for the mention, by the way.
- Entries
Tea's list is fecal droppings, garbage. A few cherry picked quotes proferred as evidence of GWB policy, entirely ignoring the remaining, very well documented 99.9%.
His "repeating a lie" explanation is laughable, as that's all Junior has done since the beginning: Frome 2k election ("We need finality"), to Ca. "Energy Crisis" (why has GWB admin never answered to this $32b ripoff they called "market forces at work"?), Environmental slight of hand ("Clear skies", "Healthy Forests".... How about Pacific Salmon Extinction?)... and we haven't begun to address W's Fed Debt.
Geezus, after violating the 1st rule of holes time after time after time... unbelievable.
Leftards continue to prove Coulter right: They just don't know how to argue. Note the idiots ranting away in response to Jay Tea, note jdm here. Lots of accusations, some of which actually take the right form, like "cherry picked quotes", for instance. Actual proof? Not so much. Just when you think they might actually present an argument that convinces, they wander right off the edge into little rants like that last paragraph jdm puts on offer above.
If this is what they have to offer, they're going to be out of power for a long time yet to come. I know I wouldn't vote for them even if threatened with immediate death, and neither would most of the rest of the adult population.
Why don't you try starting with a thesis, provide evidence in support of the thesis, so that you can actually have a well-supported conclusion? And use the investigations that have actually occurred as part of your evidence.
And don't wander away from the common dictionary definitions of words, either.
It'll be a rarity, and we like to see rare things.
Kike said:
I give you Exhibit A in my “it takes a shotgun” presentation, folks.
Tea's comments exactly as I said: Cherry Picked. I did leave out willfully ignorant, however. The sheer magnitude of GWB admin comments/statements one must ignore to write such tripe is... errr, used to be mind-numbing (eg. before W's NEWSPEAK took hold).
There's a decent compendium here
The irony of mocking the "repeat a lie" meme, as was purpose of author's (Mike) entire post here, is not lost on me. Or perhaps I'm mistaken... ya'll just think GWB handled Ca. Energy Crisis in admirable fashion?
try metamusal.
Oh, sorry... I presumed some of you guys may have actually investigated. I suppose of Tea said it, that's good enough, right? Anyway, link I posted for Mike ought'a get you started.
Please, just what is it in that "last paragraph" you disagree with? If you care to be specific, I'm happy to offer you attributions.
Jacko said:
To jdm . As a 25 yr. California resident I know all about the energy crisis. IT WAS CAUSED BY THE DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP OF CALIFORNIA !!!
It was not. The cause was...
- restricting gas flows into Ca
- Enron's "gaming"... selling contracts across state borders to fictitious entities and buying 'em back @ inflated prices.
- Phony generation plant shutdowns.
(etc., etc.)
All these accusations were strongly voiced by Ca. lawmakers. GWB/Spencer Abrams refused to meet with any of 'em. All those (and more) were confirmed by FERC, most published on it's website.
Davis was a lousy governor, I'll grant you that (not as bad as Ahnold, however). The energy ripoff, however, was entirely out of his hands.
2 things:
-Tea's was not a reasoned argument.
-I guess Websters is too deep a reading... so sorry.
(clicking "Bring it on" button)
Again, apologies.
You have one fucked up way of "speaking". My head hurts just reading your crap. Go away.
Yes, I 'll try and proofread better before posting. Having a "preview" option here would help.
Sorry your head hurts. Take a couple asprin, call me in the morning.
I live 1/2 mile from Kirtland AFB. I'm a software engineer, and among other things do contract work there. In last year, conversations there have gone from rare criticism/lack of support for Bush & co. to rampant critique... much of it shrouded in terms of "traitor" and such. I'd estimate 1/2 of enlisted people and +/- 1/3 of officer corp now fall in the "critical" category. I base this not just on my direct interactions, rather on responses I receive when I ask for numbers over there.
Funny thing is, when I announced a few weeks ago that my posting opportunities were going to be limited for a while, traffic almost immediately went up by about a thousand uniques a day. Make of it what you will. No, you don't need to tell me what you think it may mean.
For someone who wants debate, you sure aren't providing much to refute Jay Tea's original points, but then, I never expected you too.
Coulter was right: Leftards still don't know how to argue. Thanks for providing so much proof of that.
maybe try >this.
And BTW, tip of my hat to you for allowing my posts. I only occasionaly do rw blog stopbyes, but in (all)most every previous encounter I was either deleted or, in some cases, creatively edited.
So thanks for allowing me to shed some light around here.
whatever. Tea's comment is as I said. I gave you link full of documented quotes contradicting him.
Beyond that, GWB's Iraq invasion buildup long preceded date of Tea's quote. And there's good reason for that: Junior & co. was doing the WMD/Threat US theme exclusively for +/- 18 months prior. His compassionate rhetoric didn't begin until million man protest marches began all over Europe, Aus etc.
One only has to look back on Powell's UN presentation: not one item he cited was true. The timeline describing how that speach's contents came about is quite complete: it was dictated by Feith/Bolton and several others from W's hardliner s. And this after Powell rejected the majority of what they wanted him to say, on the grounds it was false.
The way W's hit squad went after Joe Wilson more of the same: eg. kill that ****er lest anyone believes what he says. And Wilson was correct... on every count.
Believe what you will. AFAIC, you don't debate because you can't. Real strong on cheap 2 bit name calling, embracing hateful talking heads and such... but doing nothing more than making stuff up as you go along. Quite obviously, this is the reason wheels are coming off Junior's show... long overdue.
Not a Kirtland. As I said, they believe him to be a liar.
Worse than being nuts, they are an utter drag on our efforts to win the war.
As for what my fellows in blue are saying, again, I don't think you know what they're saying, for several simple reasons:
1. You don't strike me as an ex-military type, thus you are completely incapable of differentiating between typical military personnel grousing and real complaints.
2. Your BDS is so strong you're filtering everything you hear to fit your silly little pre-concieved notions.
All of that aside, you still haven't refuted one word of Jay Tea's post, so don't sit in here and pretend you want a debate when you obviously don't even know how.
I have a lot of friends in uniform and each one of them has a different opinion on this entire situation as well as the President. But, they deploy and do their job to support the war effort regardless. Kirtland is a shithole and there are more civilians like you there than people in uniform. A good friend of mine is a cop there and he absolutely despises contractors. Imagine that. I was stationed at Edwards AFB in kalifornia and it was the same dynamic. So tell me, do you bitch when the gate guards stop you during an exercise? Do you stop when the National Anthem is played during retreat or do you keep driving like it doesn't apply to you? Or, have the civilians complained long and loud that retreat shouldn't be played everyday because it inconveniences them when trying to go home? Can you tell yet that I dislike contractors? I was trying to be subtle, but my lack of intellect and education has probably caused me to be to direct. After all, I was an enlisted puke for 21 years.
As a True Patriot, I expect you to turn over the IP addresses of these losers to the FBI. Its time someone came knocking on their doors. Its one thing to have political views. It is quite another to dare to criticize our Glorious Leader, who is ordained by God to eradicate all evil from the planet. By critizing our Leader, a man who talks to God, these liberals and democrats are providing aid and comfort to our Satan-loving enemies. I say arrest the whole lot of them for treason.
I hear our Commander has wisely invested $350 million in the construction of much needed emergency detention centers in the mid-West. We could send these terrorist loving losers there. Then we could trot out a couple dozen a week for televised executions. The ultimate reality show.
May God continue to bless our Glorious Leader
Why don't you, uh, go first with "The Project"? I mean, you're soooo enthusiastic about it and all that. Tell you what, I'll let the feds know that you're going to go pick up someone and provide them with your i.p. address so that they'll know to expect your drop-off, and know where to send their thanks. Sound like a plan?
(rolls eyes)
If you provide me with the IP addresses of the liberals and democrat traitors that have been criticizing our Commander, who speaks with God, I will be happy to forward it to the FBI. I have some friends that work in the ID department in Washington.
I think I'd be quite a comment-section despot at my place.
********************* Winger I ******************
Tim Said:
All the moonbats have are complaints. Ask them how we win the war on terrorism, and they sputter off in all directions, none of them sensible.
I see. So in your opinion, citing a documented record contradicting Tea's statement is not sensible?
Then they’ll start complaining again. It’s like having a conversation with someone suffering from short-term memory loss due to dementia.
Brilliant.
>Wolfowitz (5/9/03) from DOD website:
hmmm...
Worse than being nuts, they are an utter drag on our efforts to win the war.
That's funny. I seriously doubt you are able to define this "war", any more than you can define "liberal".
Regardless, Iraq is a disaster... in multiple ways. Even your own pundits... Billy Kristol, George Will, numerous Repub lawmakers now saying (what we've been saying from beginning): GWB is incompetant.
A rather generous assessment, IMO.
********************* Winger II ******************
Mikey Said:
And Wilson wasn’t correct - on any count.
ahhh... another example of "repeating a lie" hoping it becomes the truth.
********************* Winger III ****************
Randy said:
Yeah, that was a real non-partisan link you gave us there, wasn’t it?
It contained only links to quotes from GWB & admin officials. Whad'ya want?
BTW, real nice touch w/the "BDS" line... pure genuis. Just another articulate winger. You'all go to the same school around here?
********************* Winger IV ******************
Theresa said:
Kirtland is a shithole and there are more civilians like you there than people in uniform.
That's false: civilian ratio is less than 10%. Of that group, most are Professional Military lifers... engineers & such. Beyond that, Kirtland is largest nuke facility in the US. It's been tentatively designated as home for 1 of 3(?) squadrons of our next round of Stealth fighters. And you, purveyour of freedom and respect for US military, call it a shithole? I'll pass your opinion along.
My experience is it's a very, very professional installation, fortified by working relationships with people there over and over again.
A good friend of mine is a cop there and he absolutely despises contractors. Imagine that.
Ok, so both you and your buddy hate contractors. Want a medal?
So tell me, do you bitch when the gate guards stop you during an exercise? Do you stop when the National Anthem is played during retreat or do you keep driving like it doesn’t apply to you?
It doesn't apply to me (contractors): we are under no obligation or expectation to stop for such events. It's a non issue.
Can you tell yet that I dislike contractors?
Congratulations.
********************* Winger V *******************
firebird said:
The symbol of the antiwar wussies in the chicken footprint in a circle and now they want to replace the eagle with a stupid pink chicken have the rainbow flag instead of old glory and have THE AGE OF AQUARUIS as our nationa anthem
Ok, thanks folks. Been real nice chatting w/ya. Good luck w/your world conquest.
Have a nice day.
When I was little I had a pet skunk. It died but my parents lied to me to save me the grief and told me that one day the skunk would return.
Seeing your posts I realize they were right but my old pet never lied about what it did as you have. You're a contractor for computers at Kirkland right, so tell us all what SCI means.
Anyone willing to bet he never responds.
Seeing your posts I realize they were right but my old pet never lied about what it did as you have. You’re a contractor for computers at Kirkland right, so tell us all what SCI means.
There's a whole range of Security clerances: SCI/SAP and several others. Whole other requirements for Los Alamos (DOE).
Regardless... quite evident here nobody investigates anything. Tea's comment was as I said, with plenty of supporting docs. Yet not one response indicating anyone considered it. Whole lot of schoolyard bully O'Reilly type name calling, but not much else.
Kirland is exactly as I said... whole lot of well qualified professionals and whole lot of major discontent with GWB. Do you have a little skunk analogy for all those "traitors" as well?
Geeeeeezuss... what's the matter w/you guys.
All that aside, didn't you just imply that you were leaving? Typical Leftard problem with honesty, much?
As a result, my modus here shifted a long time ago, from serious debate to satire and mockery. As I've said many times: I'm no longer interested in debating you; I just want to defeat you. If someone wanders in who is leaning towards abandoning the Left/liberal world view or is otherwise undecided and can be swayed by the arguments presented here, well, great. But I have no illusions about being able to open closed, conformist liberal minds, and nowadays I'm doing this more for laughs and to mull over the ideas that my conservatarian readers present in response to my own musings than any other reason.
There is no dialogue to be had with Leftists, and there is no reason to hope for one. If nearly five years of doing this has taught me one thing, it's that. It might be sad, but it's also the truth.
jdm, the problem is that we’re tired of arguing with people who aren’t willing to even pretend to consider our position.
With all do respect, obviously I did pay attention to your position, as my comments on 2 of your posts fully acknowledge same post's content.
The 1st was your statement that MSM/DNC are to blame for problems in Iraq. I've since seen that echoed by Mehlman/RNC and various rw media/pundits. Your other post I contested was this one.
The 1st is absurd. The 2nd (Tea's comment) is factually false. It just is.
If you don't care (seriously)... as you stated above:
I’m no longer interested in debating you; I just want to defeat you.
... then so be it. The childish responses I recieved from your commenters here seem to echo a similar sentiment.
In my view, these things matter. Iraq is a mess, and seems to be getting worse. There will be big consequences both for US and world in coming years decades as a result of US actions there. Last year's Iranian election of hardliners was a direct result of GWB's Iraq actions and his/neocon's sword rattling at Iran. South/Central America has abondoned consideration of Washington/WTO etc. and struck out on their own path. Far east is moving to establish it's own regional trading floors/currency similar to Iran's oil Borsche.
All this is a direct reaction to GWB policies, and IMO not so hard to understand... wholly predictable in my view.
The consequences of ignoring reality are great.
Aside from the absurdity of your views I've contested, you obviously are not getting what you (eg: "conservatives") say you want: stable/productive economies, small government, burgeoning democracies and such. In fact, results are just the opposite across the board.
So, very honestly, your motivations are a mystery to me.
Iraq is NOT a mess, and if you paid attention to something besides the predictable MSM howling over it, you'd know that the overwhelming majority of Iraq (14 of 18 provinces) is stable, and actually better off in many ways than they were before the invasion. Such as, for example, the fact that the digging of mass graves is no longer a growth industry, which no one on the Left seems to give a tinker's dam about. This is a plain, inarguable fact, backed up not only by anecdotal evidence from the ground-pounders over there shouldering more than their share of the burden, but by statistics on things like the electrical grid and hospital construction, all of which are readily available from any number of places.
Four provinces in the center of the country have become playgrounds for terrorist killers from other countries like Iran and Syria, and Ba'athist dead-enders and Sunnis who are desperate to avoid Shi'ite retribution for their past crimes. We can argue about the best way to deal with that so-called "insurgency," which the MSM is now eager to conflate into a "civil war" -- a laughable diminution of that term -- but we both ought to agree that cutting and running Murtha-style is no solution, and I doubt I could get you to even agree to that. In fact, my guess is that your hackles just raised over my "misstatement" of Murtha's position, despite the fact that Murtha himself has used the phrase "immediate redeployment" several times, the meaning of which seems pretty clear to me.
And so, once again, we have nothing to talk about, because we aren't even speaking the same language. In your world, the goalposts are forever being moved; "no connections whatever between Saddam and al Qaeda" became "some connections, but not enough to suit me" when the Duelfer report came out, as "no WMDs in Iraq" suddenly became "we've found some, along with overwhelming evidence of programs lying dormant, waiting for the first opportunity to be restarted, but that doesn't matter." Kind of hard to hit a target that gets moved that much, and if you want a reason why people on my side of the aisle feel that nothing we say will ever be enough to convince your side of anything, go read the Duelfer report again, then check out how your side continues to lie about its findings, and then tell me what exactly we could possibly have to talk about.
I appreciate the sober, rational tone you've taken here, and I don't have anything whatever against you personally. But we're scarcely even speaking a common tongue, and until you're willing to admit that most of the sources you've cited above have some pretty damned serious credibility problems due to the fact that their starting assumption has always been that Bush is incompetent/venal/stupid/corrupt/evil and their findings inevitably twisted to fit it, I just don't see the point in rehashing over and over again arguments I've been making for going on five years now.
Prove it.
Mike said:
(...) the overwhelming majority of Iraq (14 of 18 provinces) is stable,
False... another mis-use of numbers/stats, as has become WH/RNC/FOX pattern.
75%+ of Iraqi population is in Baghdad/Basra provinces, extending to gulf. These areas are not stable. Other than north (Kurds), areas of stability are a few pockets here and there. From the State Dept site: (3/8/06):
Going outside of standard rw media, details are not so hard to find. Obviously, your statement ( "majority", "overwhelming evidence") is false... sorry, it's just not so.
It is, however, one of many deceptive WH circulated talking points making the rounds last few days. I did see Brit Hume saying "civil war" perceptions was MSM/DNC's fault, as you have said here.
and actually better off in many ways than they were before the invasion.
not by a long shot. A few isolated pockets, yes. A hospital here, a school there. Overall significant degradation, particularly security.
The evidence for this is vast. You will, however, not hear it on FOX or Limbaugh.
Regardless, you miss the whole point: depending on survey (DOD/USSD/CIA/Carnegy and others) anywhere from 60% up supports Iraqi "insurgency". They support it because they don't like what US is/has done, nor believe the stated motives. This is not "lefty" POV, it is Iraqi POV. It's also a predictable POV... some would say inevitable.
As CIA's own reports have shown w/increasing frequency, the Iraqi citizenry are both joining/supporting insurgency at increasing rates. This trend began 2+ yrs ago by CIA's own reports, and has accelerated. The 2 primary reasons are precisely what I've said previous:
- CPA actions: crony US contracts, elimination of Iraqi labor from rebuilding effort, US promotion of unpopular candidates (Chalabi/Allwai etc.). That Chalabi's family got Iraq telecom contracts a case in point. That DOD continues to hide most contract awards as "national security" matter only adds to the perception. CPA contractors have been importing labor to save a few pennies an hour while Iraq unemployment hovers +/- 60% (and r-wing media has lied/obscured that). There's been a lot of drip, drip, drip regarding personell assigned to CPA from beginning, only now beginning to trickle into MSM. Former GWB director of America's foreign-aid programAndrew Natsios is the latest. It was very similar to so many (dozens!!!) appointments... eg: young GWB ideological sypathizers w/no experience in jobs being filled. Recent resignation of NASA PR & Public Science Statement Editor George C. Deutsch. "Browny" another. There a re many, many such GWB appointments in critical positions.
- detainee/imprisonment/torture/"collateral" killing. Neighborhood midnight raids, sweeping up teen males throughout Baghdad, has become common place. People disappear, families are given no information, etc etc. Estimates are deatinees number 50-130k. But no accounting... none.
I'll leave it there.
have become playgrounds for terrorist killers from other countries like Iran and Syria
Deceptive half truth. DOD's own reports have said they really don't know who most of these "terrorists" are. And contrary to what you say, both DOD/CIA have used the term: training ground, not "playground". Which of course goes to issues of whether the world, indeed (as GWB likes to say) is safer, not to mention what that portends for the future.
and Ba’athist dead-enders and Sunnis who are desperate to avoid Shi’ite retribution for their past crimes.
More 1/2 truths. There a independent, well defined factions with different purposes and different methods.
And so, once again, we have nothing to talk about, because we aren’t even speaking the same language. In your world, the goalposts are forever being moved; "no connections whatever between Saddam and al Qaeda" became "some connections, but not enough to suit me" when the Duelfer report came out, as "no WMDs in Iraq" suddenly became "we’ve found some, along with overwhelming evidence of programs lying dormant, waiting for the first opportunity to be restarted, but that doesn’t matter."
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about (seriously). If you're saying there were WMD's, sorry, not so. I understand FOX/Weekly Standard keep trotting out "experts" saying so, but it's false. Same w/AQSH connections.
Kind of hard to hit a target that gets moved that much, and if you want a reason why people on my side of the aisle feel that nothing we say will ever be enough to convince your side of anything, go read the Duelfer report again, then check out how your side continues to lie about its findings, and then tell me what exactly we could possibly have to talk about.
Oh, but I have read it... over and over. It entirely politicized, almost comically. If you want a point by point, I'll give it to you.
But there is just so much evidence contradicting the few Deulfer tidbits r-wingers hang on to... it's one of the reasons I've become so opposed to current rw theology. If US Congress wanted to settle this, they could call in the key people, put 'em under oath, and let the chips fall.
They have chosen not to do that. The Deulfer "conclusions" were inserted out of committee, w/dems locked out, and inserted w/out evidence or agreement.
Multiple CIA reports since, Bremmer, all the ex-Iraqi scientists involved in the various programs... all have contradicted that stuff.
I appreciate the sober, rational tone you’ve taken here,
likewise, thanks.
(...)until you’re willing to admit that most of the sources you’ve cited above have some pretty damned serious credibility problems
sorry, can't agree. My one source is compilation of links to GWB & admin statements, verbatim. I can't possibly understand how that's a credibility problem.
As far as Bush claims of purpose for invasion, if you have Lexus/Nexus access you can check for yourself. Everything... everything was about "grave threat", "disarm", "WMD" until huge worlwide peace protests began. It's a fact. There was no mention of "liberation" and such until then... none.
You (or at least r-wingers/conservatives) seem to hate the implication of that, thereby ignoring the fact. There's a lot of that going on these days.
due to the fact that their starting assumption has always been that Bush is incompetent/venal/stupid/corrupt/evil and their findings inevitably twisted to fit it,
I've twisted nothing.
Not only is Iraq a mess, indications are violence in Afghanistan now is even worse. Antipathy towards US has grown exponentially. Taliban is back calling the shots. OBL is free, and who knows what he's been up to last few years.
You hang your hat on GWB & co's words, unwilling to examine his actions and results. Your comments at beginning (14 out of 18 provinces indicate progress) a case in point. There are many, many of those.
Ok... thanks for at minimum engaging me w/out firing shots. If this shows signs of moving towards agreemnt, I'll continue. Otherwise, I'll move on.
Best regards.
"If this shows signs of moving towards agreemnt, I’ll continue." That sounds more to me like "if this shows signs of moving towards my opinion..." etc.
The Iraq was, and is, justified; in fact, we'd been in a state of all-but-war with them anyway for more than ten years. If you think we ought to be fighting a tougher, less humane war, well, we can discuss that. But cutting and running is not an option and never will be for me.
As your side is so fond of shouting, "No more Vietnams!" It's the one thing your side has right, albeit from the wrong angle -- there should definitely not be another instance of the US breaking faith with its soldiers and its allies and leaving the battlefield to totalitarian killers, so that they can then wreak their murderous havoc on innocent civilians while the last US helicopter leaves the roof of the embassy with the last wealthy refugee (and the diplomat he bribed for his seat) on the outbound aboard.
And if you and the MSM get your way and we leave Iraq before the job is done, we'll see a repeat of just such a slaughter all over again -- followed by another thirty or forty years of American weakness and self-doubt, which, for the Left, is of course the whole point. I don't think that's good for this country; I don't think it's good for the world.
And I'll never, ever agree that the job of ridding Iraq and the world of Islamic terrorism is just too tough for the US to take on, and that we would be better off retreating behind a fence and staying there quietly while the UN decides whether or not to put our government on trial for "war crimes" while they decide which Third World kleptocrat tribal chieftan they want to use our troops to prop up next. Sorry, but if you're looking for me to move towards that position, it ain't gonna happen. Everything else follows from that.
no, that's not what it comes down to.
I have explained... I rely very little on MSM. They've proven unreliable. With NYT it was Judy Miller. WP was even more GWB compliant. Powell's entire UN presentation was presented to America just as Powell/GWB claimed: clear and convincing evidence of WMD. That was false... in dramatic fashion. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, MSM buried it.
So you return to your "it's MSM's" fault. Ridiculous.
I have more faith in the president and — above all else — the soldiers I hear from and the milblogs I read than I ever will in the dishonest antiwar propaganda the MSM tries to force down our throats.
If you have faith in the GWB, that's your business. But making it either/or propostion... GWB or MSM, is a self- deception. I gave you link to a current State Dept status report directly contradicting your "14 out of 18" statement: you ignore it and return to it's "MSM's fault".
The State Dept. is not MSM. Neither is all the CIA reports saying the same thing. What you're putting forth here are regurgitated lines from GWB's scripted and pre-screened publicity tour of the last week.
“If this shows signs of moving towards agreemnt, I’ll continue.” That sounds more to me like “if this shows signs of moving towards my opinion…” etc.
No.
Our lack of agreement relates to acknowledgement of what's so... what is happening in Iraq. You (apparantly) refuse to acknowledge that Abu Gahraib (and the other "detention" centers and all that goes on w/that) might possibly have something to do w/anti-US Iraqi sentiment. Same with grotesque CPA practices. Your claims of progress... electricty generation/hospitals improving, all false.
An elected Iraqi Islamic government aligned w/Iran... you don't acknowledge that or it's consequence. Same w/even worse situation in Afghanistan.
No, what separates us is a chasm of unacknowledge reality... a grand vision GWB propoganizes unfortunately accompanied by results that look like everyone's worst nightmare.
But you trust the president. CIA reports, State Dept, world wide news all saying the same... but you trust GWB.
You cite GWB's ending SH's killing graves as evidence of W's benevolent motives, but will not explain why Condi/Rummsfeld make good will trips to Uzbekistan and send our renditioned "detainees" their. Maybe because W' says "we don't torture"?
Vast majority of Gitmo detainnes were not detained on battlefield, nor was their any evidence they had AQ associations. But GWB maintains his judgement ursurps and due process for these people... that he can detain them indefinately, just because.
Sheesh...
The Iraq was, and is, justified;
In my experience, this has become r-wingers way: unilateral statements of certainty with no supporting evidence.
Well, good luck w/your ongoing trust of GWB. You're gon'na need it... we all are.
The supporting evidence is in the archives, jdm. As I keep saying, I don't have time to fritter away making arguments I already made, some of them years ago. You toss some cherry-picked (contextless) Bush admin quotes, Pacific Salmon extinction (?), and the State Department at me, complain about the untrustworthiness of the CIA when it came to evaluating the threat from Saddam just before approvingly quoting their assessment of the current situation, quote from some other antiBush and antiwar sources within Washington's permanent bureaucracy (no, the State Dept has no credibility with me at all, and hasn't for a very long time), and then expect me to pick my way through the pedantry like some demented Tiny Tim -- okay, some more-demented Tiny Tim?
Sorry, no. If you believe that the post-9/11 US should sit still for a mad dictator flinging missiles at our aircraft, plotting to assassinate former US presidents, and half a dozen other offenses against us that I've mentioned a thousand times here and won't bother doing again, more power to you. If you think Iraq is an ungovernable quagmire that could best be mitigated by our cutting and running, again, more power to you. I hope you'll be honest enough to try to sell it to the voting public that way, directly and unequivocally, rather than trying to obfuscate your real motivation the way the Democrats are usually so wont to do.
Oh please... (assuming you read some of 'em) the context was GWB admin's public face for justifying Iraq invasion. The context was premise of this thread (Tea's) article. If you are willing to blow off that body of quotes, how can you possibly argue Tea's proves anything.
and the State Department at me...
(sheesh...) that's current assessment from Condi's office.
complain about the untrustworthiness of the CIA when it came to evaluating the threat from Saddam
I said no such thing. What I said was Bush never relied on CIA, rather their Pentagon Office of Secret Plans (OSP... that was it's name) which relied on Chalabi, Curveball etc. It's been pretty well documented. It's also been pretty well documented that the CIA had told DOD all these people were untrustworthy and unreliable.
Or maybe that stuff hasn't recieved an appropriate conservative approved stamp of approval?... just stick with the "We painted a school" meme as "proof" the adventure is working?
Yah... the CIA's just out to get Bush I guess, right?
If you want to have "sober" debtate, putting (deceptive) words in my mouth is not the way to do it. As I said: our problem is not my "wanting you to adopt my opinon", rather even a willingess to acknowledge a self evident circumstance in reality.
just before approvingly quoting their assessment of the current situation
CIA reports have been ongoing for a long time now, saying just what I said. If you aren't aware (as I said), I'll give you links. Or maybe you just don't believe them either.
quote from some other antiBush and antiwar sources within Washington’s permanent bureaucracy (no, the State Dept has no credibility with me at all, and hasn’t for a very long time), and then expect me to pick my way through the pedantry like some demented Tiny Tim — okay, some more-demented Tiny Tim?
ok, fine.
Pacific Salmon extinction (?),
One AP report here (San Jose Mercury 3/8/06).