Say Anything Blog

The moral and intellectual confusion that the incompetent Rumsfeld---and 90% of the people on this blog---suffers from is simple.

They think that anyone who criticizes the Bush regime is a jihadist.

Which is, of course, asinine.

Those of us who critize the incompentence of the Bush regime WANT to contain global terrorism. The Bush regime has proven itself unable to that, and instead have gotten bogged down in Iraq.

Perhaps you don’t remember this, but it’s been 1,815 days since Dubya promised to capture the people responcible for 9/11.

I’m still waiting for them to do that. I’m just not holdiong my breath anymore.

Instead, Rumsfeld is going around calling his critics facists while the lunatic right-wing eats that shit up with a spoon.

Rummy was well spoken in the Freedom to Choose #2. Matter of fact, broad knowledge, and a bit of humor thrown in.

They think that anyone who criticizes the Bush regime is a jihadist.

Which is, of course, asinine.

Which, of course, isn’t true, but Don Myers and the truth are mortal enemies.

Those of us who critize the incompentence of the Bush regime WANT to contain global terrorism. The Bush regime has proven itself unable to that, and instead have gotten bogged down in Iraq.

And opposing the Patriot Act, wiretaps, and SWIFT is the Democratic way to ‘contain global terrorism’?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Perhaps you don’t remember this, but it’s been 1,815 days since Dubya promised to capture the people responcible for 9/11.

Well Don, if you could kindly provide the GPS coordinates of bin Laden’s exact location, I think the White House would be grateful.

Thanks for the laughs once again, Don.

Notice how liberals think that everything should be easy for the grown-ups.

Yeah, if only the evil Shrub would wave his magic wand and bring Osama in, right?

Don Meyers, um, he didn’t call “his critics fascists.”
I agree with you that some critics of US policy want to “contain global terrorism.”
Thankfully this is not US policy.

Yes, we want to defeat global terrorism; wipe it out.  Get the difference?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

R108:  Mostly I’ll be happy wiping out terrorists.

Don Meyers, um, he didn’t call “his critics fascists.”

uh...quite right. Mea Culpa.

Don Meyers, you pretend that Iraq is a bog, and imply that it’s not an integral part of the fight against terrorism, which you acknowledge is global. WTF?

Some words spoken by the “other Don” from 8/3/06:

I know there are calls in some quarters for withdrawal or arbitrary timelines for withdrawals.  The enemies hear those words as well.  We need to be realistic about the consequences.

If we left Iraq prematurely—as the terrorists demand—the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan.  And then withdraw from the Middle East.  And if we left the Middle East, they would order us—and all those who don’t share their militant ideology—to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines.  And then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists—but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do.

We can persevere in Iraq.  Or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home.  But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not.

The war on terror is going to be a long struggle.  It’s not something we asked for, but neither is it something we can avoid.  But I remain confident in our mission, in our commanders, in our troops and in our cause, and I remain confident in the good common sense of the American people.  Americans didn’t cross oceans and settle a wilderness and build history’s greatest democracy, only to run away from a bunch of murderers and extremists who try to kill everyone they cannot convert and to tear down what they could never build.

HTML error: that whole last part is Rummy quote, not editorializing on my part

Rumsfeld said that Gitmo is “arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility.”

Scrutinized by whom and how would we know?  Will they let me, as a taxpaying, proud, patriotic American, just drop in for a surprise visit and scrutinize it?  Can I actally see the videos of how the “detainees” somehow manage to throw feces, snot, semen, etc., all over the poor female soldiers “guarding” them*?  Not likely.  Why?  Because it’s just more BS from an idiot with a messiah/persecution complex who somehow manages to keep other folks with a messiah/persecution complex all comfy with how he’s “taking care of business” and “nailing it.”

The war in Iraq is being waged in the media?  Maybe y’all are that stupid.  Not me.

*What?  No videos of this abuse of our female soldiers at Guantanamo?  What kind of a facility are we running down there, they don’t got no video cameras?

Oh my goodness! Land sakes! I shuddered to think what might be keeping Rummy up late at night. I suspected that all that “leaning forward” was hard on the sciatic nerve.

But now we know it is the war’s rough ride in the media. Funny, I recall Editor& Publisher showing that the US media tub-thumped for the war almost universally.

No Rummy, it is your management of the war that is the problem.

Bloodstomper…

You need to find a prison guard from any state prison facility and ask them if domestic prisoners throw feces, snot, semen, etc., at the guards. You will be surprised to discover this is a common problem. It happens in every maximum facility. The subjet generally isn’t “newsworthy” because when it happens in the state prisons it doesn’t make President Bush look bad.

Wake up dumdum…

Greg wrote:

If we left Iraq prematurely—as the terrorists demand…

Well, okay—if that makes you feel any better.  Fact is, the so-called “terrorists” aren’t so-called “demanding” US armed forces leave Iraq, Sir.  Indeed, bin-Laden benefits every day this war goes on.  The bin-Laden crowd wants America to stay in Iraq and those in America who advocate for this war are doing bin-Laden’s work, I’m sorry to report.

No, it is the American people that are expressing a growing belief that the military portion of the war ended with Saddam’s capture and it is now time for Iraq to stand up and run their own country.

If you love America, end the war; if you love bin-Laden, support Rumsfeld.

Don Myers dreams, The moral and intellectual confusion that the incompetent Rumsfeld---and 90% of the people on this blog---suffers from is simple.

They think that anyone who criticizes the Bush regime is a jihadist.

Which is, of course, asinine.

The position you describe is, of course, purely a product of your imagination.

Those of us who critize the incompentence of the Bush regime WANT to contain global terrorism. The Bush regime has proven itself unable to that, and instead have gotten bogged down in Iraq.

Argument? Where’s the argument? Egh, on second thought - save it. I don’t want to read empty insults.

Bloodstomper said, The war in Iraq is being waged in the media? Maybe y’all are that stupid. Not me.

Perhaps you’re the stupid one for not realizing that part of any war is propaganda. Take a bow dumbass.

Parakeeta Byrd said, If you love America, end the war; if you love bin-Laden, support Rumsfeld.

If you love ridiculous ignorance, read Parakeeta Byrd’s above comment.

Any discussion of the US leaving Iraq is a waste of time. We have no intention of leaving and never had any. The line that “as the Iraqis stand up,we’ll stand down” was and is ridiculous.The Iraqi army has nothing to stand up with(or up with which to stand).
As an example,in the story today about the clash between the insurgents and the Iraqi militia,did you read the part where the Iraqi armor was called in,supported by air strikes,and defeated the insurgents? No? That’s because there isn’t any, to speak of. When the army that’s to replace us has been given (literally donated) tanks from Hungary (Soviet) trucks from other Eastern bloc countries,AK-47s and other old equipment that the Soviets used in Afghanistan,then they’re less well armed than the insurgents.
And as far as being an ally in the war on terror,to stand against their neighbors as a sovereign state? hahahahahaha!!!!!
We’re in Iraq for the long,long haul. And the war on terror is by definition basically forever.Why else would we build those bases and build them so well?
Rumsfeld must just love giving speeches like that.
My goodness,yes.

It seems to me that the terrorists would prefer the Americans stay in Iraq so that they can’t deploy elsewhere. One of bin Laden’s published strategies was to tie up Western forces in meaningless operations and I’m sure we can agree that Iraq is a perfect example...well maybe some of us can.

One of bin Laden’s published strategies was to tie up Western forces in meaningless operations and I’m sure we can agree that Iraq is a perfect example...well maybe some of us can.

Well,..just you, those who hate America, those who are blinded by partisanship, and terrorists.

Nice company Mike.

One of bin Laden’s published strategies was to tie up Western forces in meaningless operations and I’m sure we can agree that Iraq is a perfect example...well maybe some of us can.

That’s the first I’ve heard of this?  Can you link to something to illuminate me?

Though we should also remember that one of Osama’s published statements was that America was a paper tiger because we could be forced to pull out if we were hit enough times.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

One of bin Laden’s published strategies was to tie up Western forces in meaningless operations

You mean like searching for a guy that’s maybe not there.

I’m sure many of you are 100% pure Capitalists in favor of free-markets, too.

Yet you’re afraid of letting the “terrorists” throw the US out of the middle east, where so much of OUR precious oil is…

You hypocrites !

If you really wanted free-markets, you’d take care of business at home and let the markets decide the price of oil, but that’s not what is happening, is it?  The US just can’t seem to stay out of the middle east. So much for being honest about free-markets.

Anyone who thinks this “War on Terror” is not 100% about oil is lieing to themselves.  What a perfect excuse for securing more oil. What a God-send.

Where is all the talk about spreading democracy and freedom to all those African and SE Asian countries that don’t have any oil? Nowhere to be found, is it?

Bush is a liar and a loser...it’s everyone’s own fear and weakness that keeps them from admitting that.

Wake up…

Another leftie mind-numbed hater heard from.  I have the DailyKos line almost memorized by now…

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Paul, if the war in Iraq were about oil then why haven’t we taken over the oil wells?

Get real.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If you really wanted free-markets, you’d take care of business at home and let the markets decide the price of oil, but that’s not what is happening, is it?

How about letting the markets decide the price of oil.  It’s the enviro-lefties that are keeping us from developing our oil fields.  It’s the enviro-lefties that are keeping us from building refineries.

By the way, if the war was about oil I’d be ok with that. However that’s just another leftie lie.  They said it about the first Gulf war; we didn’t keep the oil. They said it was about Vietnam, but Vietnam has not turned out to be the huge oil source like they said.  They said it about the current war 3 years ago.  We haven’t taken the oil.

Give up the old lame canards.  Come up with something new would you?

Rob: “Though we should also remember that one of Osama’s published statements was that America was a paper tiger because we could be forced to pull out if we were hit enough times.”

The leftie parrots always seem to forget about that one.  They also conveniently forget that NVA General Giap was going to surrender in Vietnam when John Kerry’s buddies in VVAW gave him new hope.  Today’s lefties are trying to do the same for the terrorists.  SSDD

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

TW: B-but those are the DailyKos talking points!  Can’t deviate from the script!  Their minds are made up; don’t confuse them with facts.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Paul - where is your argument?

I’m sure many of you are 100% pure Capitalists in favor of free-markets, too.

Yet you’re afraid of letting the “terrorists” throw the US out of the middle east, where so much of OUR precious oil is...

Fallacious straw man.

You hypocrites !

Ad hominem.

If you really wanted free-markets, you’d take care of business at home and let the markets decide the price of oil, but that’s not what is happening, is it? The US just can’t seem to stay out of the middle east. So much for being honest about free-markets.

More of that fallacious straw man.

Anyone who thinks this “War on Terror” is not 100% about oil is lieing to themselves.

Assertion of straw man plus an ad hominem.

Where is all the talk about spreading democracy and freedom to all those African and SE Asian countries that don’t have any oil? Nowhere to be found, is it?

Sure! Let’s go into Sudan and take care of the Muslims who are busy killing everybody who isn’t Arab and Muslim. They’re even killing black Muslims, those racist little shits. But you’d complain about going into Sudan because you’re afraid to admit that there is an enemy. You’d rather invent conspiracy theories.

Bush is a liar and a loser...it’s everyone’s own fear and weakness that keeps them from admitting that.

Ad hominem.

Where’s your argument chief?

Wake up...

Oh,...I guess there it is.

Don babbles,

Perhaps you don’t remember this, but it’s been 1,815 days since Dubya promised to capture the people responcible (sic) for 9/11.

I’m still waiting for them to do that. I’m just not holding my breath anymore.

While it is true, as far as we know, that President Bush has not yet brought UBL to “justice,” it is also true that he has done far, far more to fight Islamist terrorism than his Democrat predecessor ever thought of doing.

So while you’re waiting for the intellectual hypoxia to subside, you might want to consider this, from an article by former FBI Director Louis Freeh about the aftermath of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US servicemen and wounded hundreds of others,

On June 25, 1996, President Clinton declared that “no stone would be left unturned” to find the bombers and bring them to “justice.” Within hours, teams of FBI agents, and forensic and technical personnel, were en route to Khobar. The president told the Saudis and the 19 victims’ families that I was responsible for the case. This assignment became very personal and solemn for me, as it meant that I was the one who dealt directly with the victims’ survivors. These disciplined military families asked only one thing of me and their country: “Please find out who did this to our sons, husbands, brothers and fathers and bring them to justice.”
It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the Towers. This is astounding, considering that the Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack. As FBI agents sifted through the remains of Building 131 in 115-degree heat, the bombers admitted they had been trained by the Iranian external security service (IRGC) in the Beka Valley, and received their passports at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi.
We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and the Spiritual Leader’s office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation. The Saudi police told us that FBI agents had to interview the bombers in custody in order to make our case. To make this happen, however, the U.S. president would need to personally make a request to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
So for 30 months, I wrote and rewrote the same set of simple talking points for the president, Mr. Berger, and others to press the FBI’s request to go inside a Saudi prison and interview the Khobar bombers. And for 30 months nothing happened. The Saudis reported back to us that the president and Mr. Berger would either fail to raise the matter with the crown prince or raise it without making any request. On one such occasion, our commander in chief instead hit up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library. Mr. Berger never once, in the course of the five-year investigation which coincided with his tenure, even asked how the investigation was going.

It gets even worse… if you can imagine worse.

Meanwhile, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Mr. Clinton ordered the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting Iranian wrestlers and cultural delegations entering the U.S. because the Iranians were complaining about the identification procedure. Of course they were complaining. It made it more difficult for their MOIS agents and terrorist coordinators to infiltrate into America. I was overruled by an “angry” president and Mr. Berger who said the FBI was interfering with their rapprochement with Iran.

Finally, frustrated in my attempts to execute Mr. Clinton’s “leave no stone unturned” order, I called former President George H.W. Bush. I had learned that he was about to meet Prince Abdullah on another matter. After fully briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and faxing him the talking points that I had now been working on for over two years, he personally asked the crown prince to allow FBI agents to interview the detained bombers.

After his Saturday meeting with now-King Abdullah, Mr. Bush called me to say that he made the request, and that the Saudis would be calling me. A few hours later, Prince Bandar asked me to come out to McLean, Va. on Monday to see Prince Abdullah. When I met him with Wyche Fowler, our Saudi ambassador, and FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson, the crown prince was holding my talking points. He told me Mr. Bush had made the request for the FBI, which he granted, and told Prince Bandar to instruct Nayef to arrange for FBI agents to interview the prisoners.

Several weeks later, agents interviewed the co-conspirators. For the first time since the 1996 attack, we obtained direct evidence of Iran’s complicity. What Mr. Clinton failed to do for three years was accomplished in minutes by his predecessor. This was the breakthrough we had been waiting for, and the attorney general and I immediately went to Mr. Berger with news of the Saudi prison interviews.

Upon being advised that our investigation now had proof that Iran blew up Khobar Towers, Mr. Berger’s astounding response was: “Who knows about this?” His next, and wrong, comment was: “That’s just hearsay.” When I explained that under the Rules of Federal Evidence the detainees’ comments were indeed more than “hearsay,” for the first time ever he became interested—and alarmed—about the case. But this interest translated into nothing more than Washington “damage control” meetings held out of the fear that Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers. After those meetings, neither the president, nor anyone else in the administration, was heard from again about Khobar.

So much for Democrats bringing terrorists to justice.

Great, I’m a fascist.  Does this mean that we should expect McCarthy like hearings.  The absurdity that is this current administration is laughable.  I do all I can not to cry.  Again, another Bush soldier who has complete disregard for my right and your right to disagree and protest the government.

IT’S CALLED THE CONSTITUTION.  READ IT RUMSFELD.  YOU TYRANT!!!!

Dave, tyrant?

I think you maybe need to review the definition of that word.

Stalin was a tyrant.  Hitler was a tyrant.  Saddam Hussein was a tyrant.  Donald Rumsfeld is just a political appointee with whom you disagree.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dave Miller: Your overheated hyperbole aside, McCarthy was right.  Ever read the Venona Papers?

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

R108:

McCarthy was right. Ever read the Venona Papers?

Right about what?  Ruining all of the careers of those he randomly attacked?  “I have the names of 208 people on this paper.” Ban books deemed too “pro communist.” Gain power by fear and intimidation.  Stalin and Saddam would have been proud.

I’m sure he was right about something, but his methods were those of a power-hungry fanatic.  I wouldn’t go to far out on a limb trying to defend him, were I you.

I have Robert, and this current administration is the most anti-American administration since...... King George III.

David Miller:

I have Robert, and this current administration is the most anti-American administration since...... King George III.

And you sir, are a flaming idiot.

Carrick: McCarthy was right about the State Department containing communist party members.  The Venona Papers reveal that the ACP was involved in covert and subversive activities in the US, and had been since at least the FDR admin.  All levels of the ACP were involved in those activities, from bottom to top.  That is how McCarthy was right.  Personally, I don’t think enough was done to purge the communists from our govt and popular culture.  The press was in favor of the commies, and portrayed McCarthy as a paranoid nutjob, when he wasn’t.  I have always been surprised at the level of denial.  They could have said that communism wasn’t really dangerous, but after the Korean War and the takeover of Eastern Europe, we knew better, so they couldn’t argue the facts.  So, like the lefties of today, they went for lying and smear.  I’m not saying that Joe was a great man, but he was unfairly and untruly villified.  They destroyed him because he told the truth about them.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I’m a fascist and a flaming idiot.  Real scary list that Venona Project put together.  McCarthy throws together a bunch of film producers who create movies that question the motives of the U.S. Government and because Communism was the buzzword of the day, all of these individuals are immediately communists.

Ergo, today’s buzzword… terrorist.  I question the government and I’m a terrorist.  Amazing!  The fact that Rumsfeld and Cheney have the fucking balls to stand in front of military groups or organizations to spew this hate and anti-American drivel makes me furious.  They are a joke.  Respect for America?  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld… how dare they label me, a conscientious American, a terrorist.  Because I’m not a sheep or just another lemming taking the slow walk towards the cliff, I’m now unpatriotic and a terrorist.  They can fuck themselves.  GOOD NIGHT!!!

Rob:

Stalin was a tyrant. Hitler was a tyrant. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. Donald Rumsfeld is just a political appointee with whom you disagree.

Dave: Those elections were fixed.  Ever hear of the Brownshirts? The BullyBoys?  Read up on it.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Hitler himself was never elected to anything.

He was appointed Chancellor by von Hindenburg.

Dave, I am glad you would have opposed Hitler, but, you would have merely disagreed with him?

Dave, I am glad you would have opposed Hitler, but, you would have merely disagreed with him?

I’m honestly not sure. I’d have to do more research, to be perfectly honest.

Dave: “Dave, I am glad you would have opposed Hitler, but, you would have merely disagreed with him?”
“I’m honestly not sure. I’d have to do more research, to be perfectly honest.”

You call yourself a Libertarian, right?  Just checking.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

R108, the Verona papers don’t come straight out and say how many people in the State Department were identified as communist sympathizers and agents of the Soviets.  They list the total number of agents and unresolved contacts.  That’s not exactly a rousing endorsement of McCarthy and his unnamed lists of co-conspirators.

Nor is there any correlation between the list of people from either the Verona papers or the Soviet files and those McCarthy accused of links with communism .

McCartney his attacks frequently using his chairman position vindictively and in an abusive manner, such his attack as on the WWI war hero General Zwicker.  So it wasn’t the press that got him in hot water with the public.  It was himself.

They ran six friggin’ weeks of broadcast hearings during which his credibility dropped through the floor, as it became obvious that he was a bully, a twister of the truth, and frankly more than a little unhinged.

He wasn’t destroyed because he told the truth, but rather because of who he really was.  For some people, it is the limelight itself that is dangerous.  McCarthy was one of those people, who always worked better when he controlled the version of the truth that the public saw.  When the facade was dropped, McCarthy’s credibility disappeared with it.

David Miller:

I’m a fascist and a flaming idiot.  Real scary list that Venona Project put together. McCarthy throws together a bunch of film producers who create movies that question the motives of the U.S. Government and because Communism was the buzzword of the day, all of these individuals are immediately communists.

The Verona list has nothing to do with the blacklist of actors, writers and film producers, and nor does McCarthy have anything to do with that blacklist.  (See the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and Alger Hiss for details.)

There.  I think you really have painted yourself the flaming idiot tonight.  And as for terrorists:

Well, we really are war with them.  Or at least they are at war with us, and being as it only takes one side to fight a war, then your reticence on the matter hardly matters.

Carrick: McCarthy was right about communists being in the State Department, and that communist infiltration of our govt was a threat, especially in the early days of the Cold War.  He certainly wasn’t perfect, and the news media of the day designed their coverage to make him look bad.(a lot like they do now, as a matter of fact).  He was right in general, but maybe not specifically.  The charge against him was that he was making up the threat of communist infiltration in our govt, and that was a successful lie, in that “McCarthyism” is still used by lefties to smear those who expose them.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

R108:

The charge against him was that he was making up the threat of communist infiltration in our govt,

I think you need to review your facts.  That was not the charge.

He was charged with running a lynch party, with making wild and unsubstantiated accusations aimed strictly at his political enemies, of acts of deliberate deception and fraud (for example with his lists of enemies, which were never made public), and so forth.  See the book by Senator Watkins (of “Watkins Committee” fame) for a detailed accounting of McCarthy and a record of his misdeeds, acts for which he was censured by his fellow senators.  I personally don’t have any doubt that in McCarthy we are dealing with a Grade A slime ball.

Nobody really doubted the threat of communist infiltration (I’ve seen no real evidence that even the media doubted or questioned this), which is why McCarthy got so much traction.  But I have little doubt that he did more harm than good, that he was utterly self-serving in his activities, and possibly did not even believe himself that a real threat existed!

...otherwise, you might suspect he would have operated in a more honorable and less obviously politically-motivated manner.

Carrick: I was around at the time.  I was pretty young, but remember noticing a disconnect with how he was talked about on TV and in the papers, and how he presented himself when he was on live TV(quite a bit of it at that time).  I doubt the one-sided portrayal you have acquired, as there are no historians, aside from Ann Coulter, who have anything favorable to say about him.  Have you inquired as to another side to this?  If not, you might give it a try.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

I guess it takes a NAZI fascist to know a fascist.  This whole administration are a bunch of jack boot thugs. This is the administration that has stopped looking for Bin Laden. This is the administration that went to war for WMD’s when there were none and it was proven that none existed.  Because the lemmings on the right believe everything that comes out of the mouth of this administration, they jump off the cliff anytime one these NAZI’s speak. Yeah, well Hitler, Bin Laden, all these wackos have their followers also, no different than the far right.  Just a bunch of followers who cannot think for themselves, and must have the government tell them what to do and how to do it. Why won’t any senior ranking official speak to the public? Just like everything else in their lives they are chicken.  No Balls, no guts, let the little guy do their dirty work and they reap the benefits.  Time for freedom to retake this country and get rid of this fascist Nazi administration.

Rob said

That’s the first I’ve heard of this? Can you link to something to illuminate me?

Here’s a link to the transcript of one of his videos...I wasn’t aware that he had said it either although it certainly makes strategic sense. I was led to the transcript by this blog post by Marc Lynch...he raises some good points.

"The Right Liberal” admits that he’s a “NAZI fascist”, I guess it takes a NAZI fascist to know a fascist. This whole administration are a bunch of jack boot thugs.

So,...I guess you’re telling us that you’re a “NAZI fascist”.

This is the administration that has stopped looking for Bin Laden.

No they haven’t.

This is the administration that went to war for WMD’s when there were none...

Wrong. This administration, along with Congress, went to war for a multitude of reasons. WMD was only one of the reasons. It was used as the major selling point because that’s the one point that everybody agreed on.

and it was proven that none existed.

I don’t know where you’re picking this up at.

Because the lemmings on the right believe everything that comes out of the mouth of this administration, they jump off the cliff anytime one these NAZI’s speak.

Perhaps you’re projecting here.

Yeah, well Hitler, Bin Laden, all these wackos have their followers also, no different than the far right.

Define “far right”.

Just like everything else in their lives they are chicken. No Balls, no guts, let the little guy do their dirty work and they reap the benefits. Time for freedom to retake this country and get rid of this fascist Nazi administration.

You must be old with amnesia. This isn’t 1930’s Germany. We’re in 2006 America.

Robert108:

I doubt the one-sided portrayal you have acquired, as there are no historians, aside from Ann Coulter, who have anything favorable to say about him.

Ann Coutler is no more a historian than she is a rocket scientist, but there may will be a good reason besides some vast left-wing conspiracy to explain why few historians have favorable things to say about him.  One sided doesn’t imply bias, if the facts match up.

And yes, I did go into his life with a relatively open mind, but there is little dispute about his words and his deeds, since they were so public (something he made sure of).  You don’t need to rely on a historian to judge his ethical behavior in attacking Zwicker for example, after Zwicker defended one of his personnel from McCarthy.

Attacking his enemies (including anybody on the Democratic Party) with colluding with Soviet Union was standard operation procedure for McCarthy as can be demonstrated by example after example.  Distorting the truth and outright lying about the record when attacking people at his hearings was another (leading to the famous “have you no shame sir?” comment).

Right Liberal:

n. This is the administration that went to war for WMD’s when there were none and it was proven that none existed.

No massive stockpiles you mean.  There were plenty of WMD discovered, at least 500 artillery shells with binary agent. 

As I’ve said previously, 500 shells probably doesn’t sound like that many to a layman, but in reality it’s a whopping big number (assuming full potency of the chemical of course). [...]

To calibrate the numbers, 75 chemical shells constitutes a battalion scale barrage, and would poison roughly a 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile area. Used against a city, the estimates are it would inflict about 3000 casualties. 500 shells would be enough to destroy a town of 20,000 people.

Mike, I assume that this is the passage you’re referring to:

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

I’d point out what comes in the next paragraph:

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

Osama clearly believes that if he attacks western powers long enough with guerrilla warfare that western powers will give up and go home.  Do we really want to reenforce that notion for him by leaving Iraq?

Also, I think we’re at something of a disconnect on the war on terror.  You seem to think that America can’t fight the war in Iraq and fight the global war on terrorism at the same time.  I think we can, and I think you underestimate the ability of the American military.

What would happen if America withdrew all our troops from Iraq?  How would those troops then be used elsewhere in the global war on terrorism?  They wouldn’t be, really.  The vast majority of them would go home and we’d likely continue fighting the war on terror as we already are.

Really, though, the war on terrorism is a two-pronged approach.  One prong is the global intelligence war to detect terror cells and plots, arrest those involved and do what we can to disrupt terror financing/communictions.  The other prong, though, is in Iraq and is just as important as the first.  Because we can stop terror plots and seize terrorist money all we want, but until some changes are brought about in the middle east the threat will never go away.

That’s what Iraq is about.  Fundamentally changing the social and political structure of the middle east.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

That’s what Iraq is about. Fundamentally changing the social and political structure of the middle east.

Rob, MikeAdamson has been told this countless times by quite a few people at this blog and yet he adamently holds onto the position that “Iraq is a perfect example” of a “meaningless operation”.

Disagreeing with the mission, reasons, etc., is one thing; but to come back after being told of the meaning and reasons and to actually state that it is “meaningless” leads me to believe that Mike is either a very rude guy, has some kind of brain damage that makes him forget, or is just a fucking idiot. I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt by assigning brain damage to him. I’ve come to the conclusion that MikeAdamson is just a rude idiot.

That’s what Iraq is about. Fundamentally changing the social and political structure of the middle east.

Which is what I’ve been saying since the day I started commenting here and my point has always been that you won’t change the social and political structure of the Middle East by toppling a sadistic monster and replacing him with a Shiite theocracy which is the most probable outcome in Iraq. You change the structures by inducing and encouraging the leadership to change and by encouraging the masses to demand the kind of change that is in their and our best interests and by discouraging them from choosing options that are decidedly not in our interest, such as jihadism.

lik said

Disagreeing with the mission, reasons, etc., is one thing; but to come back after being told of the meaning and reasons and to actually state that it is “meaningless” leads me to believe that Mike is either a very rude guy, has some kind of brain damage that makes him forget, or is just a fucking idiot.

There is a fourth option...maybe your position is wrong.  Lord knows I’ve been wrong a million times in my life but at least I’m not so doctrinaire that I won’t at least consider the possibility that the opposing view is right...or righter than mine. I am comforted, however, by the knowledge that your comments become more deranged the less sure you are about the adequacy of your position.

You change the structures by inducing and encouraging the leadership to change and by encouraging the masses to demand the kind of change that is in their and our best interests and by discouraging them from choosing options that are decidedly not in our interest, such as jihadism.

And while we do that people lik Saddam Hussein toss citizens who don’t vote the right way into industrial plastic shredders and people who speak up for religious moderation get their heads sawed off.

I hate to say it Mike, but I just don’t think you’re takin seriously exactly what we’re up against in the middle east.

you won’t change the social and political structure of the Middle East by toppling a sadistic monster and replacing him with a Shiite theocracy which is the most probable outcome in Iraq.

We didn’t install the current government.  The Iraqis voted and chose their own leaders.  And they will continue to do so and, over time, their democracy will evolve to be more in keeping with secular western democracies.  But that’s not a change you can expect overnight.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I hate to say it Mike, but I just don’t think you’re takin seriously exactly what we’re up against in the middle east.

I should temper that by saying that I know you’re aware of and abhor terrorism as much as I do.  I just don’t think the tactics you favor in fighting it are enough.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

MikeAdamson sells his bankruptcy, There is a fourth option...maybe your position is wrong.

Hello?! McFly?! Anybody home?!

I addressed this Mike. Once again for the slow:

Disagreeing with the mission, reasons, etc., is one thing; but to come back after being told of the meaning and reasons and to actually state that it is “meaningless” leads me to believe that Mike is either a very rude guy, has some kind of brain damage that makes him forget, or is just a fucking idiot.

I am comforted, however, by the knowledge that your comments become more deranged the less sure you are about the adequacy of your position.

If thinking that you’re a fucking idiot makes my comments appear “deranged”, then I am the king of Derangedville.

Seriously Mike, just pay attention to and acknowledge what has already been said.

Or, you could continue to keep your ignorant head firmly planted up your rear end by proclaiming that positions that you disagree with are “meaningless”. That would make you appear to be the one with the deranged comments.

Rob:

I just don’t think the tactics you favor in fighting it are enough.

Truthfully, I’m not sure I’ve seen MikeAdamson actually propose any tactics for fighting terrorism.

Exactly what are they?

I don’t doubt Mike’s intellectual integrity, but I’ve not exactly seen much more than the usual Canadian bashing of American foreign policy (a national past time rivaled only I think by curling).

MikeAdamson:

Which is what I’ve been saying since the day I started commenting here and my point has always been that you won’t change the social and political structure of the Middle East by toppling a sadistic monster and replacing him with a Shiite theocracy which is the most probable outcome in Iraq.

I find that assertion absurd.

Based on any public sentiment poll, there is a minimal chance of a Shi’ite theocracy forming in Iraq.  At this point the longevity of a cohesive central government is in doubt, but even in the event of a Balkan-like confederacy, there is little evidence that the Shi’ite population favors a theocratic government for their territories over a more secular democracy.

Nobody that matters, including the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, favors a theocracy.  So other than the usual antiwar polemics, I’m not sure why you think a Shi’ite theocratic government imminent.

Carrick,

Truthfully, I’m not sure I’ve seen MikeAdamson actually propose any tactics for fighting terrorism.

Exactly what are they?

Well, Mike did say this:

You change the structures by inducing and encouraging the leadership to change and by encouraging the masses to demand the kind of change that is in their and our best interests and by discouraging them from choosing options that are decidedly not in our interest, such as jihadism.

I’m just not sure how Mike proposes to do all that inducing, encouraging and discouraging.  Certainly international pressure from the UN wasn’t working.

Ultimately, I think the only time encouraging and persuading works with thugs like Saddam Hussein is if you back it up by showing a willingness to use force.  The UN fails again and again because that body is never willing to use force to do what is right.  The world’s thugs know that, and respond accordingly.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob...I think your comments sum up our differences and I appreciate your reasonableness.

lik...perhaps I wasn’t clear. I have read your reasons and I understand your meaning and I don’t accept your arguments. The Iraq mission is meningless in terms of the war on terror in my opinion but makes perfect sense in the desire to change the Middle East...it just won’t work though and is in fact counter productive because it facilitates the spread of jihadism rather than extinguishing it. You can blather on all you want about someone disagreeing with your position being rude or brain damaged or a fucking idiot but it doesn’t address my point nor does it bolster yours except in the schoolyard or barroom sense. You make lots of noise and get your friends going but it doesn’t address the problem let alone begin to solve it.

It is nice to see the old likwidshoe back though...your debating may be banal but at least it’s entertaining.

You change the structures by inducing and encouraging the leadership to change and by encouraging the masses to demand the kind of change that is in their and our best interests and by discouraging them from choosing options that are decidedly not in our interest, such as jihadism.

This isn’t so much a policy as a mission statement.

MikeAdamson, do you have a favored policy (other than oppose anything the United States does)?

Carrick...I am an American foreign policy basher and I would rather be curling so your comment is perceptive as usual. I want to end the terrorist threat but I just can’t see bombing it away...the jihadist threat will only become manageable when it loses its bases of support within the Moslem population. You can either eliminate the population or you can change the minds of those elements of the population that support the terrorists’ actions. Much of the Middle Eastern population live in unfree regimes propped up by outside interests and I suspect that the road to change runs through expanding the opportunities for freedom AND influencing the choices towards western friendly options. This approach is different in that we don’t merely support client and friendly regime leadership but support and encourage change in the society itself. It’s a long term project and there will be lots of obstacles and bumps along the way but I don’t believe we can win the war on terror without winning the propagandas war...and the West is losing that war when Hamas and Hizbollah and Al Qaeda are what the people turn to when they want change.

Rob: “I’m just not sure how Mike proposes to do all that inducing, encouraging and discouraging. Certainly international pressure from the UN wasn’t working.”

“The dictatorship of the proletariat”, perhaps?  His description of citizens as “the masses” might give you a clue.

MikeA: “The Iraq mission is meningless in terms of the war on terror in my opinion but makes perfect sense in the desire to change the Middle East...”

The key to winning the war on terror is changing the Middle East; the change is specifically about going from theocratic dictatorships promoting Islamic fundamentalism to secular, democratic, constitutional govt.  I thought that was obvious.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

MikeA: “You can either eliminate the population or you can change the minds of those elements of the population that support the terrorists’ actions.Those are not the only two choices, as you assert. You start by removing the dictator, so that “the masses"(as you put it) can regain power and freedom.  That is how we started in Iraq.  This is known as “a plan”. Much of the Middle Eastern population live in unfree regimes propped up by outside interests and I suspect that the road to change runs through expanding the opportunities for freedom AND influencing the choices towards western friendly options.”You have it here; just connect the dots with how that might be accomplished in the real world.  Your concept is good; how can it be implemented without first removing the dictators and eliminating the foreign influences?

Think about it.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

MikeAdamson said, lik...perhaps I wasn’t clear. I have read your reasons and I understand your meaning...

So how are they “meaningless”?

The Iraq mission is meningless in terms of the war on terror in my opinion but makes perfect sense in the desire to change the Middle East...it just won’t work though and is in fact counter productive because it facilitates the spread of jihadism rather than extinguishing it.

They said that about Japan as well.

You can blather on all you want about someone disagreeing with your position being rude or brain damaged or a fucking idiot...

You’re proving my fucking idiot point, that’s for sure. Now let’s hit up reality for a minute, okay? I didn’t say, in any way shape or form, that someone who merely disagrees with my positions are rude, brain damaged, or fucking idiots.

Learn to read Mike. That’s half of the problem here. Your shitty-ass comprehension.

...but it doesn’t address my point nor does it bolster yours except in the schoolyard or barroom sense.

You had a point? Oh yeah that’s right, we’re supposed to just wait for change to happen. Nuclear Mullahs, here we come!

You make lots of noise and get your friends going but it doesn’t address the problem let alone begin to solve it.

I’m only getting noisy here with fucking idiots with comprehension problems. Such as yourself here. My patience for your stupidity ran out Mike.

It is nice to see the old likwidshoe back though...your debating may be banal but at least it’s entertaining.

Like I said, my patience with your kind ran out. Talking to you is almost like talking to a brick wall. No wait - a brick wall would bounce back. That’s more like the commenter “realitybased"bob. You’re more like a black hole. Or some guy with swimmer’s ear only hearing some of what he thinks hears.

Disagreement is one thing Mike. What you are doing, outright dismissal and redirection, is plain abhorrent.

Carrick...such a change requires action on many fronts but the obvious first step lies in economic and trade policy. The Middle East’s perception of the World’s perception of it is as the source of oil and thus an area for exploitation. The population must see that its region can benefit from its position in the world economy and that the population shares in the benefit that accrues to the region. My other suggestions can likely be lumped in the category of touchy-feely so I won’t belabour them.

Mike,

You can either eliminate the population or you can change the minds of those elements of the population that support the terrorists’ actions. Much of the Middle Eastern population live in unfree regimes propped up by outside interests and I suspect that the road to change runs through expanding the opportunities for freedom AND influencing the choices towards western friendly options. This approach is different in that we don’t merely support client and friendly regime leadership but support and encourage change in the society itself.

But how do you expand opportunities for freedom when freedom is held hostage by thugs like Saddam Hussein by force?  It is obvious that diplomacy wasn’t working with Saddam.  He was using our diplomacy - in the form of the oil for food program - to fund his evil regime and international terrorism.

This from what I quoted above is particularly interesting:

This approach is different in that we don’t merely support client and friendly regime leadership but support and encourage change in the society itself.

Isn’t that what we’re doing by freeing the Iraqi people and allowing them to pick their own leaders?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

MikeAdamson:

the West is losing that war when Hamas and Hizbollah and Al Qaeda are what the people turn to when they want change.

I think that this is a very perceptive comment, and I agree with it.  This well states the philosophical basis for any long-term solutions in the Middle East.

The idea behind “regime change” is to offer opportunities for change besides through jihadism.  While invading Iraq would not have been my first choice for regime change, it probably was the only way it could have happened in that country.

In the long run, it is in everybody’s interests to democratize the Middle Rast.  For too long, it has been the US & the worlds policy to choose stability first, and unfortunately that has meant supporting authoritarian governments. 

Unfortunately we have our own baggage we are carrying around, especially with Iran.  For example, we still see Iran through the filter of 1979, and I think have squandered opportunities for to promote democratic change within that country (this policy failure spanned Clinton & Bush’s administration, and can be placed squarely on the shoulders of our State Department).

They said that about Japan as well.

Yes they did and they were wrong and maybe I’m wrong too but I don’t think that the Japanese threat and the jihadist threat are the same. What I reject is your “one size fits all” approach of applying military force and sorting it out later. If the terrorist threat emanated from one physical location, like a single country, then your suggestions would have more plausibility. Your position requires you to shoot up half of the world and expect the civilian population to welcome it and play merrily along and the real world just isn’t like that.

As for tolerating my stupidity...I’ve tolerated yours for a couple of years now so I’m not sure what your beef is.

I think that Rob is correct on this one.  Saddam represents the example where reasonable behavior fails.  When the assumption that a person is working in his own best long-term interests breaks down, then so does the prospects for a diplomatic solution.

As to Mike’s comment about “exploiting” Middle East oil, the world pays a fair market value for the oil, so I would disagree with that word choice.  We see stable oil production from the Middle East a necessity for economic growth in the West, so we are driven in our policies by fear of a disruption of oil supply far more than by greed over profits to be made.

Rob...I don’t have a problem with removing Saddam but there was little or no thought given to what came next. You can wait for the Iraqi people to choose the western-friendly and democratic option but I’m not as confident as you are. I know that they have an elected government but that doesn’t mean that democracy has won nor that it will win. The hearts of the people were against Saddam but they aren’t necessarily in favour of the West...that is the important battle.

Carrick: Yes. “Exploit” has a specific meaning, in that it indicates taking more than you give back.  Market economics generally prevents exploitation through the supply/demand/price relationship.  The only way to get exploitation is to get the govt to interfere with the market.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Now wish me luck because I’m taking four kids back-to-school shopping at Walmart. Ugh.

MikeA:  “...there was little or no thought given to what came next.”
This is a common leftie meme, but it’s just not true.  The plan was to have a constitution, and then a series of elections.  This is exactly what happened.  It should be obvious that Iraq is no longer a dictatorship, and shows no signs of becoming one again.  Even if the present leftie meme about a civil war were true, that isn’t the path to dictatorship, either.  Since the govt the Iraqis chose is a parliamentary democracy, it isn’t going to be like the US, which was never the goal.  The goal was, and still is, to allow the Iraqi people, after we freed them from a murdering dictator, to choose their govt, which they have done, and are continuing to do.

If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

Mike, there was plenty of thought about what to do after removing Saddam.  Some of it was followed, some wasn’t.  The general p