Saturday, May 05, 2007

dear cliche dissenting republicans - proving sean hannity does not have a monopoly on insults and name-calling.

(i stole the first half of the title from a southpark episode).

originally, this post was going to be titled 'rocky! rocky! rocky! rocky!' however, i decided that the title would not have been fitting. last night's debate between rocky anderson and sean hannity did not resemble the epic battles of rocky balboa, our beloved itallian stallion. while rocky anderson threw some fantastic punches, sean hannity was no formidable opponent. he was no apollo creed or ivan drago. rather, hannity resembled the snotty loud-mouthed fat kid who sat in the back of my 5th grade classroom spewing insults, somehow believing that his name-calling made him tough and intelligent.

in case you missed the debate, here is a short synopsis:

for thirty minutes, rocky gave a well organized argument, providing evidence that george w. bush intentionally (or extremely stupidly) deceived the american people in building his case to attack iraq.

for thiry minutes, hannity gave a strawman argument, providing 15 ad hominem fallacies, 6 uses of the term 'liberal' in a derogatory manner, and 5 unsubstatiated claims that american  servicemen and service women were fighting in iraq "for us."

then, for fiften minutes rocky took way too long trying to formulate questions for hannity, while hannity took just as long avoiding the questions.

then for fifteen minutes, hannity continued personally attacking rocky occasionally asking questions which anderson intelligently answered.

finally, for 10 minutes rocky answered questions asked by the audience, while hannity talked about stuff in response to questions.

i know. it sounds really exciting.

enough about the debate. this post is directed to all of the cliche dissenting republicans who have been so hannitized (apparently a sexually transmitted disease) that they managed to somehow leave the debate actually believing that hannity won the debate.

-------------------------------------------------

dear cliche dissenting republicans,

you, like me, are a member of the human race. we are intelligent beings. we do intelligent things that no other animal does (besides maybe apes, chimpanzees, dolphins, and crows). we drive cars. we use utinsils to eat. we utilize fire, electricity, chemical reactions, refrigeration, the internet, and the wheel. we do all of these relatively smart things. yet, even though you have these amazing capabilities, you can seem so... what's the word... stupid at the same time.

but i believe in you nonetheless. because you have the ability to write using pencils, pens, crayons, and scented markers i believe you are smarter than this. because you have been successfully potty-trained (included the ability to use toilet paper), i believe that you have the mental capacity to rise above your cliche dissenting ways.

i really don't believe your're that stupid. however, to think that intelligent people like you still hold these crazy ideas hurts my head, leaving me disoriented with a bit of vertigo.

instead i like to believe that you are just really ignorant. and hey, it's not all your fault. many of you have been hannitized against your will. it's ok. you're not alone.

and lucky for you, there is a cure. it's called 'information.'

and to get you started on your recovery, here is some of that information.

*there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. some of you still have this naive view that wmds (like the easter bunny) will be discovered buried somewhere in iraq. i know bush told you they were there. he was wrong. he admitted he was wrong. that's right, even your beloved bush has admitted that the intelligence was flawed and that those wmds just plain don't exist. again, there are no wmds in iraq. none.

*saddam hussein and osama bin laden were not working together. again, your own beloved bush has admitted it. there was no connection between hussein and 9/11. in fact, they hated each other. bin laden thought that hussein was just another capitalist spawn of satan.

*iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. the only connection that exists between 9/11 and iraq was bush's appeal to and abuse of the emotions of 9/11 to stir up support for his pre-9/11 plans to attack iraq.

*saddam hussein and iraq were not a threat to america. no wmds. no ties to terrorist attacks against america. no real power due to the u.n. and other watchdogs monitoring hussein's every action.

*american soldiers in iraq are not fighting "for us." they are not fighting for american freedoms and liberties. they are not fighting for your family, for your religion, or for anything else you hold dear (except maybe the gas in your suv). i know it sounds terriblt and un-american to you cliche dissenting republicans to say this, but it's true. the war in iraq is not protecting these things for us in any way, simply from the fact that they were not threatened in the first place. the war in iraq is defending your freedoms just as much as clipping my toenails is protecting the midwest from a massive zombie attack.

*america is not safer because of the war in iraq. in fact, quite the opposite is true. united states intelligence has shown that america is under a greater threat to terrorist attacks because of the war in iraq. middle-eastern hostility against the united states has sharply risen because of our occupation. iraq has become a vast breeding ground for terrorists. our neglect of afghanistan has allowed the taliban to regain strength and further support al qaida.

*informed and valid alternatives to bush's 'stay the course' plan have been offered. i am so sick and tired of hearing some of you cliche dissenting republicans ignorantly crying that 'liberals' and democrats are only criticizing bush and not offering up alternatives to bush's plan. several alternatives have been provided. in fact, one of the best and most developed plans was developed by a group headed by james baker (bush sr's secretary of state). it's called the iraq study group report. it is by far the most comprehensive plan made to deal with iraq, developed largely by conservative republicans. yet, your beloved bush has largely ignored the guidance offered by the plan. again, the iraq study group was headed by your beloved bush's daddy's secretary of state. please read it and quit your bitching.

*acknowledging that the war in iraq cannot be won is not defeatism - it is realism. the war in iraq cannot be won because it is a not a kind of war that can be won. there is no enemy to be defeated in iraq because there is no defined enemy. this isn't like world war two with america fighting the nazis or the japanese. the real war in iraq isn't america verses anyone. its a civil war between the shias and sunnis. its a civil war almost 1,400 years old. we cannot win the war in iraq militarily, because it's not our war to be won. we are merely there pointing our pistols telling people to stop fighting. the truth of it is, they don't care about our pistols. they are going to kep fighting until they decide they want to stop. our pistols only increase their aggression against eachother and us. to say that our military cannot win the war in iraq is not a claim against american soldiers and american military strength. it's a realist claim about the situation in iraq.

*iraq is not a better place because of america's invasion and occupation. i am not denying that some good things have happened in iraq. however, they are minimal compared to the atrocities and continual suffering occuring in iraq. saddam's regime of tyranny has been replaced with a government full of corruption. yes, we are building schools and hospitals, but those are only a fraction of the schools and hospitals we have destroyed, and much of what we build isn't lasting very long. stable infrastructure is practically non-existant in much of iraq. millions of iraqis have gone without stable water and electricity since we started bombing them - something they were easily able to count on before our invasion.


so my dear cliche dissenting republicans. please take this information. take it daily. take it hourly. take it any moment you can. take it with a meal, or take it on an empty stomache. but don't stop with this. there is so much more for you to take in. and don't just take it from me. seek a second, third, and fourth opinion. take this information in wherever you find it. take it in and then use that wonderful intelligent that you have. apply those things that make you different from tadpoles, sea lions, and tree stumps.

13 comments:

  1. My pen-twirling, infrequent-showering highschool debate team friends would agree with you that the Mayor won the debate. But to them, 20 weak arguments are better than 5 good arguments, and a wad of horsecrap skillfully articulated beats hard facts that are delivered with halting speech.

    As far as your "information," I have no serious qualms with the first 3 points you make. The 4th is where it begins to fall apart, and beyond that there is simply too much bullsh*t to warrant any intelligent response, but let me know if you're interested.

    Kind regards,

    ~cliche dissenting Republican

    P.S. I also think that Democrats must be willfully ignorant of history, economics, and common sense to believe the things they do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. s.o.,

    that response was perfect. very hannity-esque. full of accusations, but void of substance.

    can you please point out which of rocky's arguments you found weak? can you please tell me which of the points i made were "too much bullsh*t" and why.

    ReplyDelete
  3. hmmmm... now I'm curious to see a REAL argument against, myself...

    The Silent Observer post sounds to me like about 20 weak arguments, and a wad of horsecrap skillfully articulated. Hmmm... where have I heard that?

    And for the record, the ONLY viable response to "too much bullshi*t" IS an intelligent response, not complicit silence. Rocky went heavy on the intelligent responding to the bullsh*t we've been fed the last 5 years. Silent Observer seems to be going with silence. Eponymous, that.

    I'm a Democrat heavily versed in history, economics, and common sense. I fail to see how any of those things causes an invasion of Iraq to make sense. Yes, those things complicate a withdrawal from Iraq, immensely. But that has NOTHING to do with whether it made sense to be there in the first place. In fact, it provides credence to the argument that the whole thing was NOT thought through very well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. very hannity-esque. full of accusations, but void of substance

    And not entirely unlike the original post.

    I started actually responding to each of your "informations," but within the minutes the post had grown to several thousand words spanning several ideas and themes, and it quickly lost its controlling purpose, which is crucial to discussions on the internet.

    Also, I have been recently demoralized by a similar discussion with your homeboy, Joe Vogel. No sooner does he admit he was full of crap than he reverts to his old ways of thinking.

    But since you asked...

    As far as the Mayor's case for impeachment, without going into any details you can know that it is a farce from watching an interesting segment of the Democratic Presidential Debates last week. Brian Williams asked the candidates to show by a raise of hands who supported Dennis Kucinich in his move for impeachment --and none of them did.

    Secondly, while the Mayor wanted to impeach the President for "lying" about WMDs and decision to invade Iraq, he repeatedly refused to call for impeachment against members of his own party who made the same decision. This was the one good point that Hannity made --given the same actions they are either all guilty and deserve impeachment together, or none of them do.

    I don't even know where to start with the rest of the Mayor's arguments. The war was not illegal, nor were the wiretaps. The president didn't condone torture or the war crimes at Abu Ghraib, or breach the Geneva conventions. The Mayor benefits from 20/20 hindsight as he points out the dissenting voices against the intelligence community's conclusions, and there is far more to the claims of yellowcake uranium in Niger than forged documents and more to the aluminum tubes claims than the Dept. of Energy's conclusions.

    As requested, here are your points that I esteemed "too much bullsh*t" and why:

    saddam hussein and iraq were not a threat to america. no wmds.

    Since people keep needing to hear it, I will keep say it: WMDs was only one of the reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam was a threat to America in other ways; mostly through his support of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist activities.

    no ties to terrorist attacks against america.

    Not entirely true, one 1993 WTC bomber was an Iraqi citizens, another who planned it fled there where he was given safe haven by Saddam. Also a Kuwaiti bomb threat against George HW Bush was linked to Iraqi secret service.

    no real power due to the u.n. and other watchdogs monitoring hussein's every action

    Saddam flaunted the U.N.'s impotence by violating dozens of security resolutions, buying off members of the security council with the Oil-for-Food scandal, and maintaining the 4th largest standing army in the world. He was a disaster waiting to happen.

    american soldiers in iraq are not fighting "for us." they are not fighting for american freedoms and liberties ...simply from the fact that they were not threatened in the first place.

    US soldiers are hunting in Iraq the same kind of people who deprived 3,000 Americans of their families, freedoms, and liberties on 9/11. Tell them that there's no threat to those things. If the terrorists on the streets of Iraq had their way, they would do the same to you and your family, too.

    america is not safer because of the war in iraq.

    Every terrorist shot in Baghdad, is one less that can fly a plane into my office building. After we decided to throw our weight around the middle east, Saudi Arabia cracked down on terrorism, Syria withdrew from Lebanon, and Khaddafi voluntarily gave up his WMDs.

    united states intelligence has shown that america is under a greater threat to terrorist attacks because of the war in iraq.

    Before the war in Iraq, terrorist attacks against US targets worldwide gradually escalated culminating in 9/11. Since then, there have been zero attacks for the simple reason that they focus their efforts on our soldiers in Iraq. Since our soldiers can shoot back, I think you'd have to agree that this is much more preferable to the way it was before.

    your beloved bush has largely ignored the guidance offered by the Iraq Study Group Report.

    The "troop surge" is part of the plan. Last week's talks with Syria were part of the plan, as are the upcoming talks with Iran.

    again, the iraq study group was headed by your beloved bush's daddy's secretary of state. please read it and quit your bitching.

    You first.

    the war in iraq cannot be won because... there is no defined enemy.

    The enemy are the people who set off roadside bombs, man sectarian death squads, bomb markets, assassinate leaders. That wasn't too hard, was it?

    [Shiites and Sunnis] are going to keep fighting until they decide they want to stop.

    They also stop fighting when they are in jail or shot dead in the street.

    [Good things in Iraq] are minimal compared to the atrocities and continual suffering occuring in iraq.

    Talk to someone who is actually on the ground in Iraq, so that they can disabuse you of this warped perspective.

    millions of iraqis have gone without stable water and electricity since we started bombing them - something they were easily able to count on before our invasion.

    These are the kinds of statements that make people question the patriotism of those who say them. Tyranny with running water and electicity is better than freedom without. You're free to believe that, but I'm sure you'll have to agree this isn't exactly "Give me liberty or give me death."

    ReplyDelete
  5. silent observer - you make me smile

    ryan

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ryan, ignorance is bliss, so wipe the smile off your face.

    And why don't you ever get a blogger account, instead of "hiding" behind your anonymous posts tagged Ryan?

    S.O., when will you realize that the war in Iraq is different than the war on terror? This fact debunks the majority of your rebuttals to the narrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. h2oetry, be a little nice to ryan. he's a good friend of mine. though he should wipe that smirk off his face ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you narrator

    h2oetry - to answer your question about why I don't have an account. One of my quirks is that I don't like to be easily found. I spend all day everyday on a computer and I'm afraid of identity theft. I always figured that with the less "accounts" I have, I'm reducing my chances. True or not, it makes me feel better. So I decide to tag my posts with my name.

    Any other questions along those lines?

    ryan

    ReplyDelete
  9. s.o.,

    1. Brian Williams asked the candidates to show by a raise of hands who supported Dennis Kucinich in his move for impeachment --and none of them did.

    that is hardly evidence or a good argument that anderson's argument is flawed. in fact, your argument has at least 4 logical fallacies.

    a. false equivocation - you assume that just because they do not support the motion for impeachment that it means they disagree with the validity of the motion.

    b. appeal to authority - even if they did not believe the argument for impeachment was valid, them being democratic candidates does not make them authorities concerning the impeachment argument.

    c. appeal to false consensus. even if they were somehow authorities of it, there is not a consensus of 'authorities that such is the case.'

    d. biased sample. you are appealing to presidential candidates. whether or not the impeachment argument is valid, it can be bad politics and public relations. presidential candidates have a very biased reason for not supporting the motion.

    2. Secondly, while the Mayor wanted to impeach the President for "lying" about WMDs and decision to invade Iraq, he repeatedly refused to call for impeachment against members of his own party who made the same decision. This was the one good point that Hannity made --given the same actions they are either all guilty and deserve impeachment together, or none of them do.

    actually, this was a terrible argument for hannity. here are the two main reasons.

    a. there is much more evidence available that bush deliberately deceived the american people. while for the rest of senate, evidence for deception is much more difficult. instead for the, the evidence more points to ignorance. the former is much larger grounds for impeachment than the latter.

    b. while the rules for impeachment of the president are fairly clear, the rules for impeaching a senator or congressman are not. while one senator has been impeached (after already being expelled) it is still uncertain whether the impeachment process should be done by the federal government or the state government.

    c. furthermore, as anderson pointed out, he had been critical of his democratic colleagues for their support of the war.

    3. The war was not illegal.

    By international law, it was. Bush appealed to Iraq's failure to uphold the UN sanctions as reasons to go attack, but then went against the UN to attack. By appealing to the UN, the Bush administration acknowledged the UN as a legitimate international legal authority which they then directly went against.

    4. nor were the wiretaps.

    while the majority of legal interpreters have been arguing that it was illegal, there are some dissenters. only time will tell.

    5. The president didn't condone torture or the war crimes at Abu Ghraib, or breach the Geneva conventions.

    though it may not have been explicit, there is much evidence (as anderson and others have pointed out) that the bush administration has supported and rationalized torture in violation of international law.

    6. The Mayor benefits from 20/20 hindsight...

    his point is that bush had 20/20 foresight. bush had the intelligence and information that showed his claims and grounds for attacking iraq were false.

    7. there is far more to the claims of yellowcake uranium in Niger than forged documents and more to the aluminum tubes claims than the Dept. of Energy's conclusions.

    actually there isn't. this is the very reason why condoleeza rice was just subpoenaed by congress to see how much she personally knew about the falsity of bush's claims. the bush administration has admitted that intelligence concerning iraq's supposed attempts to acquire material for nuclear arms were wrong, just as bush admitted the 'evidence' for wmds were wrong.

    8. Saddam was a threat to America in other ways mostly through his support of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist activities.

    there is NO evidence that saddam and al qaida were cooperating or conspiring to attack america. none. as i already pointed out (and as you cliche dissenting republicans fail to grasp), saddam and bin laden were not buddies. bin laden saw saddam as satanic capitalist. while there was some al qaida activity in iraq, those were in providences of iraq largely out of saddam's control. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SADDAM WORKING WITH AL QAIDA TO ATTACK AMERICA. NONE.

    9. Not entirely true, one 1993 WTC bomber was an Iraqi citizens

    by your logic, bill clinton is tied to the oklahoma city bombings because timothy mcveigh was an american citizen.

    10. another who planned it fled there where he was given safe haven by Saddam.

    hardly evidence of saddam's cooperation with al qaida to attack. especially in the context of the war in iraq.

    11. Also a Kuwaiti bomb threat against George HW Bush was linked to Iraqi secret service.

    there is much evidence that the threat was not real and was fabricated by sheikh saud nasir al-sabah, kuwait's minister of information. he and his family had a bit of a history of lying about iraq and saddam's evil doings.

    12. Saddam flaunted the U.N.'s impotence by violating dozens of security resolutions

    not as many as israel, north korea, the sudan, syria, or iran. but we don't go attacking them.

    13. buying off members of the security council with the Oil-for-Food scandal

    hardly a threat to america.

    14. and maintaining the 4th largest standing army in the world.

    why not attack numbers 2 and 3?

    15. He was a disaster waiting to happen.

    actually, there is NO evidence that he was an imminent threat to america or his neighbors. evidence points to quite the opposite.

    16. US soldiers are hunting in Iraq the same kind of people who deprived 3,000 Americans of their families, freedoms, and liberties on 9/11. Tell them that there's no threat to those things. If the terrorists on the streets of Iraq had their way, they would do the same to you and your family, too.

    the problem is those people were not in iraq before we stirred up the pot there. as has been pointed out by u.s. intelligence, our fighting there is actually increasing the threat to america. yes, american soldiers in iraq are making america less safe.

    17. Every terrorist shot in Baghdad, is one less that can fly a plane into my office building.

    for every terrorist shot, five more rise up to take his place.

    18. After we decided to throw our weight around the middle east, Saudi Arabia cracked down on terrorism, Syria withdrew from Lebanon, and Khaddafi voluntarily gave up his WMDs.

    i won't deny that some good has been done, but as our own intelligence has shown, the terrorist threat in america is worse because of our invasion.

    it's like mickey mouse in fantasia. we created bin laden and al qaida to do our dirty work. when those damn brooms get out of control, we try to smash them up, only to watch those splinters multiply into a greater threat.

    19. Before the war in Iraq, terrorist attacks against US targets worldwide gradually escalated culminating in 9/11. Since then, there have been zero attacks for the simple reason that they focus their efforts on our soldiers in Iraq.

    actually, as our government is proud to declare that other attempts have been attempted but thwarted. the absence of a larger attack does not prove the efficacy of the iraq war. again you ignorantly fail to realize that al qaida has not at all been weakened by our attack on iraq, but has in fact grown because of it. the insurgents fighting in iraq and killin our soldiers were not the same ones planning terrorist attacks such as 9/11. see also: post hoc fallacy.

    20. The "troop surge" is part of the plan.

    the troop surge proposed by the iraq study group and the troop surge implemented by bush are drastically different. have you read the iraq study group?

    21. Last week's talks with Syria were part of the plan, as are the upcoming talks with Iran.

    this is only happening after immense pressure has been laid by congress. just a few months ago, the bush administration was adament that they would not talk with syria nor iran.

    22. The enemy are the people who set off roadside bombs, man sectarian death squads, bomb markets, assassinate leaders. That wasn't too hard, was it?

    you don't get it. they are not enemies of america. they are enemies against eachother. we no longer have an enemy in this war.

    23. They also stop fighting when they are in jail or shot dead in the street.

    so we jail or kill the vast populace of iraq?

    24. Talk to someone who is actually on the ground in Iraq, so that they can disabuse you of this warped perspective.

    such as the iraqis, the majority of which want america out?

    25. These are the kinds of statements that make people question the patriotism of those who say them. Tyranny with running water and electicity is better than freedom without.

    the iraqis hardly have freedom today. their government is corrupt and they hardly have the freedom to live a happy life.

    ReplyDelete
  10. H2oetry said:

    S.O., when will you realize that the war in Iraq is different than the war on terror?

    They're not. There are terrorists in Iraq (before and after the invasion). We wage war against them in the streets of Baghdad. How is it different?

    ReplyDelete
  11. that is hardly evidence or a good argument that anderson's argument is flawed. in fact, your argument has at least 4 logical fallacies.

    This is sorry drugstore-philosophy bullsh*t. You should know by now that I don't buy into this kind of stuff. Thnking people will realize it's kind of a slam against impeachment if the veritable cream of the Democratic crop won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.

    there is much more evidence available that bush deliberately deceived the american people.

    I would be interested in seeing this, because no one has been able to point me to any until now.

    the rules for impeaching a senator or congressman are not [clear]... as anderson pointed out, he had been critical of his democratic colleagues for their support of the war

    All Anderson had to do was SAY they SHOULD be impeached, which he repeatedly refused to do, exposing himself as a partisan hack.

    The members of Congress had access to the same intelligence, including the dissenting intelligence. After no WMDs were found, the Democrats actually held a closed session to examine the intelligence and see if they could nail the administration on this very thing. They failed. The debate in the run-up to the invasion was less about whether or not Saddam had WMDs, as it was only a small minority that questioned it, and more about whether we should go to war over it.

    Bush appealed to Iraq's failure to uphold the UN sanctions as reasons to go attack, but then went against the UN to attack.

    This is only half the story. France, Germany, and Russia voted against us because they were corrupt, not because they had a good reason. See also: Oil-for-Food scandal.

    though it may not have been explicit...

    This sounds like it has the makings of an airtight case...

    ...there is much evidence... that the bush administration has supported and rationalized torture in violation of international law

    I'd like to see this evidence, too.

    this is the very reason why condoleeza rice was just subpoenaed by congress

    As part of a piecemeal investigation into a number of things including the US attorney firings. There's nothing to this, it's just more partisan hackery.

    the bush administration has admitted that intelligence concerning iraq's supposed attempts to acquire material for nuclear arms were wrong

    This is news to me. Source?

    while there was some al qaida activity in iraq, those were in providences of iraq largely out of saddam's control.

    Because we all know, if Saddam had control of those areas, he would have dismantled those camps and brought the terrorists to justice. Even if that were true, there's still this one to explain.

    by your logic, bill clinton is tied to the oklahoma city bombings because timothy mcveigh was an american citizen... hardly evidence of saddam's cooperation with al qaida to attack. especially in the context of the war in iraq.

    The point is, after 9/11 Bush said no distinction would be drawn between terrorists and those who harbor them. Saddam was not against terrorism in the ways that other mideast countries such as Saudia Arabia and others I've mentioned are, in fact he personally and financially supported it, as well as looking the other way with they operated out of his country. To say that there was zero terrorist threat from Iraq is nonsense.

    not as many as israel, north korea, the sudan, syria, or iran. but we don't go attacking them.

    We started with the worst one. Their day is coming.

    buying off members of the security council with the Oil-for-Food scandal [is] hardly a threat to america.

    That's not what I said, but thanks for playing.

    why not attack numbers 2 and 3?

    Not that it has anything to do with what I was saying, but #2 is America and #3 is Russia, our ally. Duh.

    for every terrorist shot, five more rise up to take his place.


    Are you just making things up now? This defies logic. The terrorists were far more emboldened when they thought we would just leave at the first sign of resistance (ie, when Bill Clinton was president).

    the insurgents fighting in iraq and killin our soldiers were not the same ones planning terrorist attacks such as 9/11

    Absolutely false. There are a number of groups fighting us in Iraq, and Al-Qaeda and similar groups are definitely among them.

    the troop surge proposed by the iraq study group and the troop surge implemented by bush are drastically different. have you read the iraq study group?

    Yes. Have you?

    just a few months ago, the bush administration was adament that they would not talk with syria nor iran.

    You make the claim that Bush ignored the report. I point out that he hasn't. So what do you do? You find something else to kvetch about: "Well he didn't ignore the report because Congress wouldn't let him." It kills me, it really does. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the talks will amount to nothing and the administration knows this. What it does show is that they are willing to be flexible and find a way to a peaceful and secure Iraq, unlike the anti-war crowd which simply looks for any and every opportunity to bitch and moan.

    they are not enemies of america. they are enemies against eachother. we no longer have an enemy in this war.

    They are enemies of America. They target American solders. They want to impose their ideology on America and the rest of the world. They want the streets to flow red with the blood of infidels. As much as I know you would like to leave them to their own devices, hopefully you can understand why others think this is a bad idea.

    so we jail or kill the vast populace of iraq?

    It is hardly the vast populace of Iraq responsible for the civil unrest there. Again, talk to someone who has been on ground in Iraq to disabuse you of this warped perspective.

    such as the iraqis, the majority of which want america out?

    Oh, I'm 100% sure you have never spoken to an Iraqi, so yes, that would be a good start.

    the iraqis hardly have freedom today. their government is corrupt and they hardly have the freedom to live a happy life.

    Not true. Millions of Iraqis live under free and funcitoning government and better off today than they were under Saddam, if only counting the Kurds.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just 1 question, S.O. because I've debated these issues ad nauseum in other places on the web, and there seem to be two separate realities out there, and neither side is budging. Although, fwiw, I agree with Loyd on this one. BTW, I consider myself a libertarian with a few liberal leanings; however, I'm absolutely disgusted by both parties that run our country.

    Now, to the question:

    You talk an awful lot about "partisan hackery" in your comments here. In your mind, which was(is) more partisan, the impeachment of Bill Clinton or the discussing of impeaching George W. Bush?

    Okay, I now that you've pondered that for a second, I have a second question (I know that I promised only one, sorry):

    If you were handed incontrovertible evidence that Bush and his administration lied us into the war for political or economic gains, what would you suggest be done? (I know that no amount of evidence would actually convince you of this, but it's a nice little exercise in partisan hackery)

    While we're at it, one last question:

    You say that the wiretapping of Americans without a warrant is not illegal. I assume that you use the "power of the commander-in-chief" argument to justify it. Will you be silent when our next president exercises that same type of unchecked executive power, even if that president is Hillary Clinton?

    The reason I post these questions is that I see much more partisanship in your comments and in Hannity's remarks than from Loyd or Mayor Anderson. You appear to me to be one of the 30% of Americans that will never turn on the President no matter what. That's partisan hackery, my friend. It is not partisan to argue using facts and logical arguments to prove your point, which, imo, you fail to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. which was(is) more partisan, the impeachment of Bill Clinton or the discussing of impeaching George W. Bush?

    That is a close one. I agree there was much unfounded hysteria from the right vis-a-vis the Clintons (much like the unfounded hysteria from the left when it comes to Bush). However, because laws were actually broken in the case of Clinton, and he openly flaunted the justice system ("Depends what the definition of 'is' is"), and he also went to war and none of these so-called pacificists made a peep when it was their guy pushing the red button, I would say the impeachment of Clinton is just a hair less partisan.

    If you were handed incontrovertible evidence that Bush and his administration lied us into the war for political or economic gains, what would you suggest be done?

    Easy --impeachment, conviction, death penalty.

    I know that no amount of evidence would actually convince you of this

    This whole time I've been asking for evidence like fetching Jerry McGuire. Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence.

    Will you be silent when our next president exercises that same type of unchecked executive power, even if that president is Hillary Clinton?

    Been there, done that. There was hardly a peep when Bill Clinton did it.

    I'm actually a lot more thoughtful than you give me credit for. The Narrator knows this. I used to weave links to various news articles into my responses, and exercise a lot more forebearance responding to "Republicans = stupid" attacks, but it doesn't do any good. No, these days I just make sure to get the other side in there, and if called for, do it in a manner that demonstrates I was once in the 7th grade, too.

    ReplyDelete

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.