Say Anything Blog

Rob,

I’d far rather see the leakers and publishers thereof “frog marched” out of their offices.  I’d prefer even more to see them prosecuted and convicted.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Rodney,

“Frog Marched.” What a perfectly descriptive phrase!  Wherever did do find something so apt?

Bat One,

Few things in online life are as satisfying as re-using the sinistrosphere’s sound bites against them, and then waiting for them to complain that the shoe pinches when applied to their own foot.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Rodney,

Isn’t it every bit as satisfying not to have to annotate your sarcasm, secure in the knowledge that your intended audience is bright enough not to need coaching?

Enjoy!

It’s been released. 

The right move.  What will the lefties bitch about next?

For all interested, I just posted on the released report on the main page.

From my reading, it certainly isn’t what the media/Democrats told us it was.

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:

It’s interesting that the comments here on the NIE say nothing about the real issue. Has the invasion of Iraq really made the world less safe by offering al Qaeda and jihadists in general a cause celèbre to rally around, as claimed by the report? In other words, was it a mistake? Or will our intervention in Iraq make the world safer by helping to spread democracy? And, as such, does it represent an important building block towards a safer world in the future, despite the politically motivated negative aspects that opponents are so eager to point out? In other words was it a good move?

Mable: The only way to make that evaluation(if you must) is to compare it to what would be happening if we hadn’t gone into Iraq.  Saddam murdering, dismembering, torturing(real torture) his citizens, the continuing bribery of Europe and the UN through the “oil for food” program, ramping his WMD programs back up after the lifting of sanctions with the aforementioned bribery, continuing conflict with Iran, possibly nuclear in nature, and the financing and arming of terrorists all over the world.  What do you think?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert108 :

It’s not an easy question. While I agree with you with regard to Saddam’s human rights abuses, corruption as in the case of the Oil-for-Food program, and the potential for misuse of WMD, I think the most compelling justification for our action in Iraq should be the building of democracies as an alternative to dictatorships in general, and to those founded on theocratic fanaticism in particular. However, I don’t think we will ever be able to accomplish this militarily. We have got to defeat those elements of Islam that are not representative of that faith as a whole by exposing them as a violent, minority, and by making clear to the majority that we harbor no ill will towards them. Thus far, we have been making progress in Iraq, as demonstrated by peaceful elections in that country, as well as in Afghanistan, as Afghan president Hamid Karzai recently noted. Hopefully, we will be able to continue these advances in the region. Maybe we could start by initiating a diplomatic dialog with Iran, instead of waving a fist at them. What is more important, threatening Iran about a nuclear development program that may not really be a menace, or enhancing our image as a peaceful, negotiating friend of Islam anxious to resolve our differences on the basis of mutual respect?. This would help to undermine the arguments of terrorists claiming that American is at war with Islam.  All of this, of course, in my humble opinion