Say Anything Blog

Rob,

I’m glad you picked this up and put it on the front page.  Thompson, Havana cigar and all, is not only brilliant, but he is clearly having way more fun “than a human being ought to be allowed.”

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

As I said in the post, how can anyone not want this guy for President?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Good advise! I hope Michael Moore considers some mental help!

Here’s something to think about:

If the radical, Soros-funded Left, via Michael Moore, sees fit to attack Fred Thompson even before he announces his candidacy, must be that someone over in that far left corner must think of Fred as a pretty substantial threat.

John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney are all announced candidates and all are presumed to be ahead of Thompson in the polls.  At least so far.  So why the attack on Thompson, unless he is regarded as a bigger potential threat than any of the others?

Hmmm.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

In my own day to day conversations with people, Fred Thompson is the one I always hear…

Good advise! I hope Michael Moore considers some mental help!

The time he spent on the fat farm awhile back didn’t do much good.

No Free Lunch

He should get a refund!...

Too bad they don’t have liposuction on the brain? That would be beneficial for Michael Moore and his fat head problem.

If the radical, Soros-funded Left, via Michael Moore, sees fit to attack Fred Thompson even before he announces his candidacy, must be that someone over in that far left corner must think of Fred as a pretty substantial threat.

They are shaking in their boots, Thompson is a big time threat to get the nomination and make mince meat out of hillary.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

You all and Thompson are obviously anti-Cuban racists, filled with hate for the citizens of Cuba: Just think about it, feeding Michael Moore for one week would cause at least a million Cubans to starve to death. Feed him in that mental hospital for a month and evryone in Cuba dies of starvation.

On the other hand, with all Cubans on that island dead opf stravation, we could send the millions of Cubans in Florida back and make Cuba the 51st State.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman,

I LIKE it!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Florida is Cuba.
They ain’t going back,
they’re bringing over the
rest of the family.

I am sure alot of Cubans here in the USA would love to go home. IF Castro wasn’t around… Once upon a time Cuba was a great place to visit and live!

The man has style.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Once upon a time Cuba was a great place to visit and live!—Zsa Zsa

For wealthy whities, not Cubans though. That is why they had the revolution.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

Florida is Cuba.
They ain’t going back,
they’re bringing over the
rest of the family.

I’m confused.  I thought Moore told us that Cuba is a socialist paradise.  Why would people want to leave all that?

“Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

For wealthy whities, not Cubans though. That is why they had the revolution.

Yeah, well, THAT worked, didn’t it? The standard of living is SO mucch higher there now. Whew.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Since Fred Thompson’s brilliant put-down of Michael Moore began with Moore’s trip to Cuba to showcase the socialist ideal of universal healthcare, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at the reality of that island prison… uh… communist paradise.

In the April 2003 issue of INC. magazine, veteran entrepreneur and journalist Norm Brodsky detailed his then- recent trip to Cuba in a Street Smarts column titled Viva la revolucion!  Some pertinent excerpts:

Yes, Castro insists that Cuba is still a socialist country, and that he has no intention of letting capitalism rear its head again.  But, in fact, capitalism is thriving in Cuba, and its being advanced by the Cuban people themselves.

Take cars for example.  It seems as if half the automobiles in Cuba date to the pre-revolutionary era, and yet they’re still running.  Where exactly do you get parts for a ’57 Chevy or a ’49 Ford?  In Cuba, there are private shops that make them.  A whole underground economy has sprung up to keep the cars on the road…

Its not that the government is oblivious to the underground economy;  the authorities simply look the other way… But the system does produce some anomalies.  Raoul, who is in his late 20s, is a case in point.  As a tour guide, he makes a good living on the tips he earns from the tourists he shepherds around – enough for him, his ex- wife, his two children, his mother, his girlfriend, and girlfriend’s parents.  He has a regular housekeeper, whose family benefits from the trickle-down effect.

But Raoul’s cousin, a brain surgeon, is not so fortunate.  As a government employee with no outside income, he has to survive on his salary, the usual 200 to 300 pesos per month.  Raoul recently threw a party for his daughter.  The cousin came and stayed so late he missed the last bus.  He didn’t have enough money for a taxi, so Raoul paid the fare.

“That doesn’t make sense,” said Raoul.  “…Why does a brain surgeon have to ride the bus, and a tour guide can hire taxis?”

Why indeed?! 

Earlier in the article, Brodsky describes his tour of a Havana cigar factory, and tells of the very un-socialist incentives and bonuses offered the (government) workers to maximize production of Cuba’s foremost product.

Clearly, socialism, and its more extreme sibling, communism, don’t work.  Certainly not voluntarily they don’t.  For either flavor of economic subjugation to function, it must be forced upon the population.

Second, there is no innovation in a socialist system, for there is no incentive for innovation.  The medical equipment and supplies in Cuba are likely as outdated as the cars, and probably just as much in need of spare parts and repair.  If socialism can’t keep the cars running, what can it do for x-ray machines?

Finally, if the equipment is less than current and “cutting edge,” how up-to-date are the techniques employed and the medicines that are administered?

Leftist politicians and pundits can sneer at the drug companies and their “obscene” profits, but just as oil company profits pay for that next tankerful of oil or that next well or refinery, so too drug company profits fund the research the provides that next AIDs cocktail or Gardasil.

Lowest common denominator for everyone doesn’t work.  Profits, whether at the individual level as detailed by Brodsky, or at the multi-national corporate level, are the fuel that makes the hope of tomorrow better than today.

After all, how many new, life-saving drugs or medical techniques have come out of Cuba… or any other communist country?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Clearly, socialism, and its more extreme sibling, communism, don’t work.

Not only do they not work, but they have to be taught and imposed. They’re not natural systems.

Capitalism, by contrast, is natural. Watch little kids play bargain and see how they operate. They’re engaging in capitalism! Now occasionally the law (parent or guardian) will have to step in to enforce the private property rights, but make no mistake about the behavior they’re engaging in.

Yeah, well, THAT worked, didn’t it [the Cuban Revolution]? The standard of living is SO mucch higher there now. Whew.—Pilgrim

I wasn’t implying that thugs with guns are going to make Cuba any better, be it under capitalism or socialism. I was simply implying that they backed something else in the hope that their situation would improve.

Watch little kids play bargain and see how they operate. They’re engaging in capitalism! Now occasionally the law (parent or guardian) will have to step in to enforce the private property rights, but make no mistake about the behavior they’re engaging in.—Likwidshoe

Are you advocating kids games as an economic system, or advocating a (benevolent?) dictatorship (like the parent)?

If the parents don’t step in (which is more often the default state as a child, for me anyway), then it is anarchy, not capitalism. Since there isn’t an obvious natural source of authority above us adults, I maintain that anarchism is the natural state.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

Also, I don’t know why the fuss over Michael Moore. He isn’t a radical lefty, if he were in a wealthy European country, his beliefs would just be typical.

Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky, and countless others too, are real dissidents. And what they say tends to be unchallengeable (Chomsky quotes official govt. documents for example), so character attacks tend to be the only tactic employed by there opponents.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

I don’t know why the fuss over Michael Moore. He isn’t a radical lefty

...he just plays one on TV!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Vege, you’re funny! Really! Chomsky is unchallengable! HA! Moore isn’t a leftist! Tee-hee!

Comedy gold!

“Anarchist Vegetarian” - Are you advocating kids games as an economic system, or advocating a (benevolent?) dictatorship (like the parent)?

Neither. My only point was that capitalism is a natural system.

If the parents don’t step in (which is more often the default state as a child, for me anyway), then it is anarchy, not capitalism.

No kidding.

Since there isn’t an obvious natural source of authority above us adults, I maintain that anarchism is the natural state.

Point noted. It was left unsaid that people have to be civilized for capitalism to truly flourish. A “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” is all that is needed for the system to work.

And what they say tends to be unchallengeable (Chomsky quotes official govt. documents for example)...

Official government documents are unchallengeable? Are you saying that they’re unchallengeable because they’re never wrong?

Goodness, what world do you live in Mr. “Anarchist”?

Likwidshoe, if you are challenging the govt. documents, then it isn’t Chomsky being challenged. If he says that in military actions in Vietnam, it was common to have body counts of `Vietcong’ that were ten times higher than weapons recovered, and then cites govt. docs, then how can he wrong?

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

Likwidshoe, if you are challenging the govt. documents, then it isn’t Chomsky being challenged.

Alright. I see the angle you’re looking at it from.

To be fair, you had said that, “what they say tends to be unchallengeable”. The way it was said, it applied to everything they say; even their editorial conclusions.

Personally I find people like Chomsky to be skillful manipulators. He could look at a white sand beach and insist that it was really black sand there. When someone calls him on it, he’ll go down to the beach with tweezers and a jar and collect individual black sand grains. Viola! It really is a black sand beach and Chomsky has unchallengeable proof.

if you are challenging the govt. documents, then it isn’t Chomsky being challenged.

So, then, by this logic, if the government documents were British, say, and reported Saddam to have sought yellowcake in Niger, then folks would be challenging the documents and not President Bush for his SOTU speech, right?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Michael Moore? What ego! What gall!
What arrogance!  What a megalomaniac, he who
strains at gnats and swallows camels.  He must
be just about ready to gag and maybe even
choke on his own venomous, vile vomit.
He is one frightened man, fearing most of all
that a GOP candidate will once more win the
presidential election. And fear he should.  For
that is precisely what is going to happen.  The
man he has now recently demeaned, FDT, is going to
announce his candidacy and when he does, will go on
to win the presidency in 2008!  Moore may continue to
foam at the mouth, produce videos that are founded
on lies and propaganda, and still, while goosestepping
with his misquided Hollywood affiliates, go down to defeat.
Pride,arrogance,and a haughty spirit always precede
a vain person’s fall, and you, Michael Moore, are in for
a really big fall.
Last word:  Mark it, Moore, Fred Dalton Thompson will be
the next president of this nation.  He cannot save us from
our sins, but he can and will assuredly save us from being led into the political and moral abyss by those who think and act and propagandize like you.

Proof, if the documents had already been discredited, and GWB knew of this, and then he cited them anyway, then he is being dishonest.

Wow Sarah Sawyer, you are nuts. Someone even nuttier than Robert108.

“Keynes had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation’ and `enterprise.’ Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of ‘a bunch of speculators’ under the free market system.”—Prabhat Patnaik

if the documents had already been discredited

But they haven’t been. The Brits still stand behind them. I believe the Butler report backed this up. So, dishonesty (at least on the part of the President) doesn’t apply!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

I think Thompson’s dodging Moore like he’s the draft during Viet Nam.  He basically says Moore is crazy. 
Kind of childish of him, don’t you think?

Murph.  Your assertion is?  Sources?  How did Thompson dodge the draft during Vietnam?

Communism is evil

Fred Thompson actually ended college from about 1960 to 1967.  He was admitted to the Florida State Bar and was a US District Attorney after that.

How that makes him a “draft dodger” is beyond me.  Lots of people didn’t get drafted to go to Vietnam because they were in college.  Thompson didn’t “dodge” anything.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I see my little joke has stirred some, though not my assertion that Thompson childishly avoided Moore.
I do wonder what Thompson thought of Vietnam.  I know he wants to continue with Bush’s course in Iraq (“I would do essentially what the president’s doing,” he recently said).  But Vietnam?  Maybe he opposed the war.
It does seem he had “other priorities in the ‘60s than military service.”

Or maybe he tried to join but too many “minority youths” had signed on, filling up all the available slots.

Or maybe it was a medical issue.  An anal cyst perhaps?

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the Hollywood tough guy persona rubs off.  But hey, maybe it won’t—the media do adore it.

Rob is right, just because you went to college and didn’t go to Vietnam doesn’t make you a draft dodger. I know during that time if you have dropped out of college or flunked out of school the college would make the draft board aware of this fact.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon: What I find most amusing is that the lefties are now trying to silence advocates for the war on terrorism with the epithet “chickenhawk”, when during the Sixties, they were spreading antiwar propaganda(like lying about the Tet Offensive) in order to convince young men to avoid serving in the military.
As usual, lefties are hypocrites.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Well not only have they changed their stance since the 1960’s, they’ve changed their stance since the 1990’s.  Bill Clinton, a draft dodger if there ever was one, ran against two veterans and during each campaign we were told that military service wasn’t necessary for a candidate.

Well Fred Thompson doesn’t have any military service, and he’s not claiming to have any, and he’s not denigrating his political opponents for not having any, so why is it even an issue?  Other than to tickle the fancies of semi-literate internet trolls?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,
I agree the leftards are all over the place with their desperation to gain back control of the white house.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Robert, I hate the term “chickenhawk”.  It’s a misnomer.  Chickenhawks are tough fighting birds.  I’m no ornithologist but I don’t believe chickenhawks ever get other birds to fight for them. 
And yes, goon, liberals are desperate to regain the White House.  We’re desperate to save the United States from GOPers who violate the rule of law yet think it’s ok due to their fear of terror.  Or is it the terror of fear?
In any case, a lot of repair work needs to get done once Bush leaves office.  And from what I’ve seen of the candidates, GOPers ain’t gonna get it done.  Unless they start by running away from and denying Bush.
I doubt that cock (aka rooster for the censors…geez, the word is in the Bible) would crow twice before some hawks, chicken or otherwise, swooped in to silence it.

Murph,

Although Wikipedia is apparently too politically correct to mention it, the first pejorative use of the term “chickenhawk” that I’m aware of was to describe a street-wise and callous pimp who hustles young boys for vile, homosexual purposes.

Of course, those on the Left who ARE fond of using the term as an epithet against Republicans in general and Bush administration officials in particular, are probably not bright enough to recognize the hypocrisy of using a derogatory term for lascivious homosexual behavior, when those on the Left purport to be defenders of gay and lesbian rights.  Kinda like those who called Secretaries of State Rice and Powell “house niggers,” as did Ted Rall, Harry Belafonte, and any number of other crass, far-left trolls.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

So Murph, was Clinton (who never served in the military) a chickenhawk when he deployed our military to fight overseas?  Since you seem to think that only Presidents with military service have the “moral authority” to set war-time policy…  Or does that only apply to we vile, law-breaking Republicans?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,
As I said, I don’t like the term “chickenhawk.”  But I understand your point.  What I find interesting is that, among the most vocal proponents for war, few have served.  Still, should lack of service prohibit someone from expressing a pro-war opinion or should it keep a president from sending troops into combat?
Of course not.
As for Clinton, I think that the criticism he received for being a draft dodger may have made him hesitant to act in places like Bosnia and Rwanda.  Or maybe the reluctance was informed from the same place as his opposition to the Vietnam War—an aversion to war.  I don’t know.
Each case is different, of course, but I do find it odd that so many who have never served and who called for the optional and disastrous war in Iraq, continue to support the occupation and escalation (or surging), with many even advocating for extending the war into Iran and/or Syria.
When it becomes clear, as it has, that the war is adversely affecting our military preparedness (among other things) I find it difficult to listen to those who have not only been repeatedly wrong, but who also have no experience with the military and no skin in the game.

And Bat One.  Thanks for the etymology, but aside from what I sense is a strong desire to work in your homophobic feelings, what’s the point?

Each case is different, of course, but I do find it odd that so many who have never served and who called for the optional and disastrous war in Iraq, continue to support the occupation and escalation (or surging), with many even advocating for extending the war into Iran and/or Syria.

Whether a proponent of war against Iran/Syria has served or not tells you absolutely nothing about whether such an attack is advisable or not.

This is a version of the ad hominem fallacy.

And Bat One.  Thanks for the etymology, but aside from what I sense is a strong desire to work in your homophobic feelings, what’s the point?

Bat made it quite clear that his comment was yet another example of the hypocrisy of the Left.  You made up the part about “homophobia”.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Murph - Each case is different, of course, but I do find it odd that so many who have never served and who called for the optional and disastrous war in Iraq…

It’s weird that such a successful war on so many fronts can be called “disastrous”.

It might be comforting (for Christopher Hitchens types and especially younger versions) to think that I’m offering only an ad hominem attack, but I thought I was clear.  I find it interesting that, in general, those most willing to have our country go to war are (or were) not themselves willing.
Hell, they’re not even willing to pay for the war.  Now I know that many (like young GOPer Jason Mattera) are busy “fighting the battle of ideas” in the “culture war” at home, so I suppose it’s simply a matter of having to pick your battles.  But Ken, have you ever wondered about that?
And, more importantly, have you ever wondered how people (take Bill Kristol for example) who were so wrong about Iraq continue to push for more war and somehow manage to still get taken seriously by the network and cable news shows?

I find it interesting that, in general, those most willing to have our country go to war are (or were) not themselves willing.

Yep. And many of those staunch law and order types are not willing to become cops.

BFD.

It’s weird that such a successful war on so many fronts can be called “disastrous”.

You should make a pros and cons list for our invasion of Iraq.
The cons list would include things like our casualties, our loss of national credibility, Iraqi civilian deaths, the effect on military and national guard preparedness, giving extremist groups a recruitment tool, and monetary costs.
The pro list would include that we got Saddam.  Oh yeah, and his rotten kids.  Good things to be sure, but the ledger is weighted to the “con” side.

Murph: I will agree with you in one respect: that list you provided is certainly a “con”.  All the things on that list are a result of the lies, half-truths and fabrications of the MSM/Dem propaganda campaign against the President, which utilizes endangering the lives of all Americans and especially our soldiers in combat with the terrorists.  The purpose of this cynical campaign is short-term political gain for the Dem(Eurosocialist) Party.  Shame on all of you!

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

But Ken, have you ever wondered about that?

Why would I wasted time pondering obvious logical fallacies?

Murph,

Your “thinking” is nowhere near as clear, or clear-headed, as you obviously would like to think it is.  Sorry!

By throwing the tired, old “homophobia” ad hominem at me, you demonstrate the very same hypocritical, shallowness of mind I described above.  I certainly owe you no defense of my life, nor any explanations either, but homophobia is nowhere near the top 100 of my sins.  Of course, knowing nothing more of me than what I write here certainly doesn’t inhibit you from casting personal aspersions.  But that is exactly the sort typically hypocritical response I would expect from those on the Left whose modest intellectual gifts make them think that attacking the messenger is somehow equivalent to a well-crafted, sentient discussion of the issues on their merits.  Though you obviously have trouble making the distinction, I assure you they are not the same at all.

I have to say I find your defense of Clinton’s inaction in the case of Rawanda and Bosnia more than a little curious.  You defend him for NOT doing anything, apparently, by blaming critics of his admitted draft-dodging… which makes no sense at all.  The incessant braying from your aide of the aisle has been that Saddam presented no immediate threat to the US.  Thus the illegitimacy of the Iraq war.  But if that is to be the criteria we use, if Iraq was no threat, why would anyone think that either Rawanda or Bosnia constituted a threat such that the US ought have intervened in either situation?  The majority of the 800,000 - 900,000 killed in Rawanda were hacked to death with machetes.  Hardly the strategic equivalent of the North Korean ballistic missiles and the nuclear weapons program located in the south Libyan desert and paid for with Saddam’s Oil-for Food “revenues.”  So, what was your point?

Next, you offer this strange observation,

When it becomes clear, as it has, that the war is adversely affecting our military preparedness (among other things) I find it difficult to listen to those who have not only been repeatedly wrong, but who also have no experience with the military and no skin in the game.

Please explain, are you referring to our current situation… or are you back to describing the Clinton years, when our nation’s military preparedness was decimated by cuts that averaged some 40% and more?

Finally, again, your argument about who advocates for military action in our nation’s defense and who has actually served in uniform, is patently specious, as has already been demonstrated.  By that “reasoning, none of Clinton’s military misadventures, in Kosovo, in Haiti, or even lobbing cruise missiles at vacant AQ training camps, none were justified.

(Incidentally, I’ll save you the trouble.  I did two tours in Vietnam, ‘66 thru ‘68…  And I did not throw my medals over the fence.  Any of them.)

Look, if you’re so maudlin for the Clinton era, you may yet get your chance again.  The odds are probably 2 to 1 against the Hildabeast, despite what Dick Morris says.  But if not, you can always comfort yourself with the notion that the country is far, far better off with someone else at the controls… almost anyone else, as a matter of fact.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Murphy - You should make a pros and cons list for our invasion of Iraq.
The cons list would include things like our casualties

Which are historically low. This is a major war, halfway around the world, that toppled the fifth largest military in the world with no problem, that saw a fledgling democracy rise in record time, that saw a Constitution hammered out in record time, that saw three very successful elections in record time, that saw the death of a very deserving dictator along with his men and his two sadistic sons, and all with a four year war death number that in all other times would be the single battle death toll. Rejoice! This war has been a resounding success on that front. We haven’t been asked to heavily sacrifice yet.

...our loss of national credibility…

Among who? Among the Australians after they reelected the pro-American, pro-war against Islamic terrorism Prime Minister John Howard?

Perhaps you mean the Germans after they elected the pro-American, pro-war against Islamic terrorism German Chancellor Andrea Merkel?

Perhaps you mean the Canadians after they elected the pro-American, pro-war against Islamic terrorism Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

Perhaps you mean the French, after they elected the pro-American President Nicolas Sarkozy?

...Iraqi civilian deaths…

Are in the hands of other Iraqis and the infiltrators from the cesspools of countries they border. With the recent news that fellow Sunni groups are rising up against al Qaeda and working with the Americans to route them out, this is a major pro. They’re now focusing their killing energies onto the bad guys. This is major progress for that area of the world.

...the effect on military and national guard preparedness…

It’s made military men of the National Guard. The preparedness is better than before because they now have the experience.

...giving extremist groups a recruitment tool…

They are in a fourteen hundred year war against all who aren’t Muslim. They already have ample recruitment tools. This is your con.

...and monetary costs.

Historically low. We haven’t really made big sacrifices yet. This is your con.

The pro list would include that we got Saddam.  Oh yeah, and his rotten kids.  Good things to be sure, but the ledger is weighted to the “con” side.

You have no real cons. The successes outweigh. But even if they didn’t, we didn’t chose this war against Islamic fundamentalism. It chose us. We don’t get to pick all of our enemies. Such things, by their vary nature, have a way of picking us.

So count this one as a “pro”, but an ultimately meaningless pro. The rightness of a war is not counted upon by the successes or failures of that war.

In closing, we haven’t been asked for a big sacrifice yet. We are in a major war. Those normally don’t come on the cheap.

Wow Bat, didn’t know that about you.

Thanks for your dedication to the country, and whether you were drafted or not makes not one whit of difference.

We owe you, man!

Ken,

Nah!  Besides, that wasn’t the point.  I simply wanted to head off that silly argument before it started.  But thank you, all the same.

The problem is the astounding obtuseness of those on the Left.  It almost congenital.  Fact is, if we could identify a genetic cause for liberals’ persistnet immunity to reason, we could apply it to AIDS, malaria, virulent TB.  Hell, we might one day develop a cure for liberalism!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Lik,

A brilliantly crafted response!  Thank you!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Modest and self-deprecating.

Typical veteran.

Ken,

Again, thank you.  But it’s today’s servicemen and women who deserve the attention… and the thanks.  The threat that they are meeting, and defeating daily, is real, and the battles they win today over there are ones we would much rather not have to fight here.  They are today’s heroes, and they deserve our full support and respect.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”