Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter
Elizabeth Edwards called in to “Hardball” yesterday afternoon to confront Ann Coulter.
Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to “stop the personal attacks,” a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards’ husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.
“The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it,” Edwards said by phone on MSNBC’s “Hardball” program, where Coulter was a guest. Elizabeth Edwards said she did not consult her husband before confronting Coulter on the air, adding that she felt the pundit’s remarks were “a dialogue on hatefulness and ugliness.”
“It debases political dialogue,” Edwards said. “It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about issues if you’re using this kind of language.”
Coulter responded with a laugh and charged that Edwards was calling on her to stop speaking altogether. She questioned why Elizabeth Edwards was making a phone call on behalf of her husband, and she criticized John Edwards for “stealing doctors’ money” during his successful career as a trial lawyer. “I don’t think I need to be told to stop writing by Elizabeth Edwards, thank you,” Coulter said.
On ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards. “If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO’s Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that “people wouldn’t be dying needlessly” if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.
Coulter’s warped sense of humor, displayed in these remarks and the infamous “faggot” line at CPAC, demonstrates an amazingly poor sense of ironic delivery for someone who apparently aspires to be a professional humorist. Certainly, she’s long given up on serious political commentary.
Here’s a video of the exchange:
A full transcript, courtesy Nico @ Think Progress, appears below the fold.
This is getting, as one might imagine, quite a bit of play on the blogs, especially on the left. Amusingly, many seem angry at Matthews for having Coulter on and acting as her “cheerleader,” even though he clearly sandbagged her by allowing Edwards to call in as a surprise guest.
John Amato observes that “Coulter was not ready for this one.”
John Aravosis says of the assassination remarks, “If you or I said this, we’d be arrested. And we certainly wouldn’t be given TV time on ABC, NBC or any other show than FOX. Why did NBC let her on the show after this? Why would anyone?”
Steve Benen agrees:
This has been another installment of “There Is Nothing A Conservative Can Say To Get Ostracized From The Mainstream Media.” Indeed, Coulter will make her first Hardball appearance in a year tonight. (The last time she was on, she referred to Al Gore as a “total fag.”)
Rationalizing a return invitation for Coulter, Chris Matthews said, “Say what you will, she sells books.” I don’t know what that has to do with having her on his show, but then again, I find most of Matthews’ observations incoherent.
On his worst day, Michael Moore is Cicero compared to Coulter, but what do you suppose would happen if, during his ongoing promotional tour for his new movie, Moore told a national television audience, “I’ll just wish (insert Republican presidential candidate here) had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot”? Do you think we might hear something about it?
Of course, Bill Maher said the same thing about Dick Cheney and he’s free — and on television — too. People are allowed to say incredibly disgusting things so long as they aren’t actually inciting people to commit crimes. And she’s allowed on television because she gets ratings. I couldn’t tell you who was on “Hardball” any other show in the past month; everyone’s talking about Coulter, though.
Echidne agrees, although she’s not happy about it.
The Romans knew that if you give people enough food and enough entertainment they are much less likely to rebel. Too bad about the Barbarians and the Vandals and so on. Today they wouldn’t be much of a problem as we have television, and the Romans could have beamed the goodies all over the European continent.
The irony is that this is a very conservative sentiment. That Coulter, one of the chief propagandists of the modern conservative movement, has to be lectured on civility by the left is sad commentary, indeed.
Unqualified Offerings‘ Mona wonders “When is the Right Going to Rise Up and Utterly Shun this Vile Creature?”
Coulter is routinely asked to appear at right-wing festivals such as the Conservative Political Action Conference. When will they have the decency to stop?
Sean Hackbarth, who organized the Open Letter to CPAC asking them (in futility) not to invite Coulter back next year, adds,
Ann Coulter creates controversy. It’s not shocking. What’s shocking is the timing. Coulter doesn’t have a book coming out until October. She had no reason to be controversial and mean other than she’s internalized it so much she can’t help herself.
Digby notes that the Edwards comments are the least offensive things Coulter says on the show. He paraphrases her remarks as, “our problem in Iraq is because we haven’t killed enough civilians.”
You know, I often hear about how the liberals are sending the wrong message to the enemy. Yet, they let this unhinged homicidal maniac on television to spew this toxic swill.
If Matthews is so desperate for ratings he should have just showed Paris Hilton’s sex tape. It’s far less obscene than what I’m looking at right now. This is just vile.
She’s a piece of work, indeed. Unfortunately, anger and ugliness sells.
UPDATE: Dave Weigel has a point, though:
Yes, that’s the way to rebut charges of wimpery: Send your wife to beg people to stop hitting you.
Well, there is that.
MATTHEWS: You know who’s on the line? Someone to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today, we said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You’re on the line with Ann Coulter.
E: Hello Chris.
M: Do you want to say something directly to the person who’s with me?
E: I’m calling — you know, in the south, when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it. I would like to ask Ann Coulter to — if she wants to debate on issues, on positions — we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today — but it is quite another matter for these personal attacks. The things that she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity, which I don’t get much because Ann and I don’t hang out with the same people…
C: I don’t have enough money.
E: …to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.
C: Okay, so I made a joke, let’s see, six months ago, and as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months since then.
M: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.
C: I didn’t say anything about him, actually, either time.
E: But that — Ann, Ann, you know that’s not true, and once more, this has been going on for some time.
C: And I don’t mind you trying to raise money. It’s better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor just to use my name on the webpages. But as for a debate with me, yeah, sure. Yeah, we’ll have a debate.
E: I’m asking you politely to stop, to stop personal attacks —
C: How about you stop raising money on your web page then? No, you don’t have to because I don’t mind.
E: I did not start with that. You had a column a number of years ago where you suggested — wait till I finish talking please…
C: Okay, the wife of a presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking.
M: Let her finish the point. Let her finish the point.
C: You’re asking me to stop speaking? “Stop writing your columns. Stop writing your books.”
M: Ann, please.
E: You had a column several years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean’s death and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car saying, “Ask me about my dead son.” This is not legitimate political dialogue.
C: This is now three years ago.
E: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about the issues.
C: Yeah, why isn’t John Edwards making this call?
M: Well, do you want to respond? We’ll end the conversation.
E: I haven’t talked to John about this call. I’m making the call as a mother. I’m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate — these young people behind you are the age of my children. You’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.
M: Thank you very much Elizabeth. You wanna respond? You have all the time in the world to respond.
C: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.
M: No, she asked you to stop being so negative to people individually.
C: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a schyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries based on science — wait, you said I’d have as long as I would have, then you instantly interrupt me.
M: Go ahead, go ahead.
C: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors who now can’t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don’t talk to me about how to use language.
E: …the language of hate, and I’m going to ask you again to politely stop using personal attacks as part of your dialogue.
C: Okay, I’ll stop writing books.
E: If you can’t write them without them, that is fine.
M: Why do you call out Hillary’s chubby legs in your book? Why do you — this may fall under the category of personal attacks, I don’t know, but why do you do that? Why do you talkabout Monica Lewinsky’s chubbiness? If she were skinny, would it have been okay?
C: Um, I don’t know, read the sentence.
E: I read the whole sentence. I couldn’t feel the context.
C: Well you have to give it to me and I could explain.
E: Why do you make fun of Hillary’s chubby legs?
C: I don’t know, you’re going to have to give me the sentence.
M: It’s in the afterword of your book, I just read it this morning.
C: Then read the sentence.
M: We’ll be back and read the entire sentence. We’ll come right back. I don’t know why we’re reading — the full intellectual context will be coming in just a moment.
She has her little niche as the mean as a snake cute little blonde right wing radical but i don’t see how anyone takes her seriously – she is a headline but that is it.
It always amazes who certain networks chose as their house conservatives. MSNBC has long had on Pat Buchanan who if he isn’t an anti-Semite is as close as possible. Now they have an Ann Coutler on. Maybe that’s the idea to use distasteful conservatives in the name of balance. They could easily have David Brooks, John Fund, James Tarranto, Dan Henniger, Jonah Goldberg, etc. Instead they chose to have someone who will start a fire. Btw, it is pretty wimpy having your wife fight for you.
Coulter thinks she’s funny but doesn’t have the guts to go out on the stand-up comedian circuit where she’d crash like a tungsten zeppelin. Instead, she puts her ugly “Coulterism” in front of the conservatism she claims to espouse.
Comment in violation of site policies deleted.
Strange isn’t it? The person who was behind the anti-catholic bloggers and who attacked her neighbor is now worried about political discourse.
I find the two of them to be very similar people.
Wow Pudge, you need to up your meds – i hope you were being dramatic or sarcastic – otherwise, i will pray for you.
Bravo “jim” ! Their hypocrisy is something one could rant on for a fortnight. We should call them on it, not join them in their mock outrage.
Oh, please. Clearly, her being there serve the purpose of the left, by providing them a punching bag. Which, I would further suggest was the purpose of having Edwards wife on.
Interestingly, however, the point that Dave Wiegel makes goes a long way to suggesting that Coulters reference to Edwards as a wuss, wasn’t all that far off base.
Humor is only humor, you see, when there’s a grain of truth in it. Seems to me that grain of truth, has just been demonstrated quite clearly.
Nice substantive response there Mike. Do tell,were you the guy wearing the “Kick Me” sign in school ?
Than you “site policies” for showing us that sensorship isn’t just for the left anymore.
And by the way, have those complaining about Coulter, seen what Wonkette’s been saying of late?
When I see Elizabeth Edwards going after her, I’ll be able to take the charge of “hypocrisy” seriously. as it is, it seems to me that the charge could be leveled against Edwards and his wife, and their defenders.
I hate to defend Coulter, but she didn’t say she wished Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. She said something along the lines of: “While I was getting criticism for calling Edwards a f*****, Bill Maher was on TV saying he’d wished Cheney died in the suicide bombing attack on the airbase he was visiting in Afghanistan. So I guess the next time I want to mock Edwards I should say I want him to die in a terrorist attack.”
Now there’s plenty of things to criticize in that statement, beginning with the obvious tu quoque fallacy, continuing through the rather lame ‘I didn’t call Edwards gay, I just implied it’ line which led up to that particular remark, and ending with a rather muddled recollection of recent history that makes simultaneous two events that took place months apart.
But it’s also pretty clear it’s a sarcastic attack on double standards, not an actual expression of a desire for Edwards to die in a terrorist attack and that Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards are distorting her words by taking them out of context.
As a good democrat I think Ann Coulter should be in and on every show in town. She’s great for us.
Listening to the audience you can tell they don’t see her as a serious commentator, she’s a crazy woman who will say anything, just wait, shush, here it comes….
Best of all, she’s recognised as a spokesperson for the present day republican party, invited to all their big events and photographed with their presidential front runners. Is this how they all think? Are all republicans this crazy, this nasty, did she really insult the Edward’s son? YES!!!!
More Ann, please.
Pudge – there is no use in trying to reason w/ someone like you – good luck in life, you will need it.
our we have the liberal comics, who’s main forte are swearwords,racism,hatred of Conservatives,hatred of Christians,gay sex, perverted sex, or once in a while when their funny making fun of their ignorant selves.
Phillips: No point in trying to use reason on them, particularly when you’re right.
The transcript cannot convey the whiney,vacuous,presumptuous attitude displayed by Elizabeth Edwards.Her “emotional pain” is clearly contrived and disingenuous.
Steve Benen is either attempting his own stand-up routine, or he reads through a lens of bias that denies comprehension.
Wow. Why are so many on ‘my side’ so soft ? Miss Coulter PROVES that they are lying, Godless, communist, traitors, so naturally, the left responds to her more provokative little one liners (usually out of context,as with the mantra,”Coulter rips ALL 911 widows” -A total lie by the Godless,commie,traitor set) with the usual,”She’s so mean!” whine-line. And what does ‘our side’ do ? Otherwise sensible people like Hugh Hewitt call her “disgusting”, Mr. Joyner says she has “A warped sense of humor” etc.
People, this woman is a warrior for the cause and you simply must get over the knee-jerk, Bushian desire to let the other side know that we mean them no harm. I mean them great harm. I would like to lock-up, and throw away the key, the side that calls Marines “cold blooded killers” and others in uniform, the likes of “Pol Pot,nazis and Gulag thugs” or,”Abu Graib is open under new management, U.S. management.” and on and on DURING TIME OF WAR!
My God, there is treason on the front page of the NY Times on a regular basis and we are worrying about the sensibilities of the prime committers of those and other attrocities against us ? Don’t you realize that recordings of john kerry were played to our P.O.W.s in VN ? Haven’t you ever considered that recordings of people like edwards are played to our captured troops when they are recieving power drills to their skulls and other unspeakable kinds of torture ? We are at war and showing any sort of weakness to our enemies, at home or abroad, only emboldens them to commit more of the same (hypocrisy and treason at home / a tougher fight for our troops abroad). So why not cheer on the warrior Ann, as she fights for those who bleed every day, instead of having academic exercises about the “inappropriate behavior” of this one little woman ? A woman those bloodied ones love by the way, and would probably kill for, given the chance.
I don’t question your intentions Mr. Joyner. But maybe your value judgement. Ann Coulter is of great moral value to America. The American left is of great value and a boost to the moral of our blood enemies. The line between the two should not be blurred simply because Miss Ann chooses to bring something sharp and dangerous to a knife fight. To come to the aid of those so diametrically opposed to anything even resembling the truth, is an act that I truly do not understand. They don’t simply have disagreements with the right, they are actively undermining the constitution and our way of life and actually run on the promise of doing just that. That is outrageous. Ann Coulter is outraged and likes to provoke those commiting the outrage. You may want to use “The Marcus of Queensbury” rules when engaging the likes of a caged animal, but that is why people like Bush are bent over and savaged and they don’t even know they’ve been violated. Instead he says, “Hooray for ‘bipartisanship’ ” as the maulers plan their next assault. We need warriors, people with the guts to call teddy kennedy for the lying,traitorous sack of blank that he is, not the “courage” to get along with him as he sells out our country once more.
Lindsay Grahmnesty is a joke and yes, just like she meant it (in the realm of the playground) john edwards IS a, well, you know. Ann Coulter takes the arrows so that someone who wouldn’t otherwise have heard of her, or OUR point of view, might pick up her book and see how the arguement for Darwinism is as dogmatic, insipid and pedantic as the stereotype of Christianity. The least we can do is to support her and let folks like Tucker Carlson say, “Oh,oh, she’s the mean one,NOT ME!”
Please Mr. Joyner, won’t you join me in saying, “Hooray for Ann the Brave!” ? Hooray for a merciless sense of patriotism over decorum ? Mark D.
Excellent points Podge. Clear thinking, straight talking. You need to get your ideas out to a wider audience, however. The 67% of Americans who disagree are crying out for a truth seeker like yourself, and don’t change your tone one bit, buddy. The crazy speak you employ is exactly what the republican party needs right now. Go tell it to the country.
Please, please go work for your favorite candidates as loudly and as publicly as you can. Don’t be afraid to keep switching horses as those you prefer (inevitably) drop out of the race; the country needs dialogue like yours to show it who really believes in the American ideal.
Colter, Maher, they are all the same, straw men working for the other side.
I would urge James, Steve, and the other bloggers to refrain from raising these stories. Colter doesn’t represent mainstream Republican thought and is far from leadership. Matthews trotted her out to give Edwards the chance to bring her down. Conservatives like myself fall prey to doing the same when Bill Maher spouts his nonsense. Both sides are using the extremes of the opposition build a generic straw man.
Most who visit these pages are wiser than that. We are wasting our time defending/attacking Colter and attacking/defending Maher or whoever else. A country of 300 million is going to have extremes of all sort but using those extremes as a rhetorical tactic serves no one.
Clearly the guilty party in all of this is Matthews who knew darn well what he was doing. Not only do on air fights boost ratings but straw men such as Colter serve his political prejudices.
It’s a little more complicated than that. She’s not a mere kook who would otherwise be ignored.
People like Coulter, Michael Savage, Michael Moore, and their ilk on both sides of the spectrum have huge followings. Coulter sells millions of books and is constantly invited to represent conservative thought in a wide variety of forums — including those run by the ostensible flamekeepers of the movement like the American Conservative Union.
>Ann Coulter takes the arrows so that someone
>who wouldn’t otherwise have heard of her, or
>OUR point of view
She certainly isn’t expressing my point of view. But the execrable things she has said are more than enough to condemn her without the need to accuse her of saying things she hasn’t.
A quite reasonable point, James. Which of course readers this not a conversation about and Coulter a loan, but about all such individuals. Which is why, for my part, this is not merely an exercise in defending Coulter. She just happens to be a convenient target, for some people, at the moment. The issue is the amount of hypocrisy being heaped on this situation, by those attacking Coulter, while keeping their silence about the others as you mention. The Michael Moore’s, the Whoopi Goldberg’s, the Wonkette, who I lined, and so on.
It’s as I suggested previously, when I see the left raising Cain about these, as they have been about Coulter, I’ll take their complaints about Coulter with some added seriousness.
Not before. Until that point in time, this takes on the quality of nothing more than a little political back and forth. Which, to bring in full circle, is why I found Elizabeth Edwards and her “obvious pain ” so obviously staged, and worthy of scorn.
Aside from the idea that the entire exchange did nothing but confirm Coulter’s comments….
execrable \EK-sih-kruh-buhl\, adjective:
1. Deserving to be execrated; detestable; abominable.
2. Extremely bad; of very poor quality; very inferior.
Wow! I’m still just an ig’nant 33 percenter but I feel so much smarter having learned that word.(And to think, at first I thought you were making some sophisticated reference to what hicks like me call “#2”) I’m in way over my head fellas. I’m gwine to go hit the books so’s I mights be able to reach the stratosfears within wich ya’all gravitates. My name is Mudd
(Isn’t it great when an argument is so self-evidently vacuous that one need not address it directly ? “Why yes Mudd old boy, that IS quite ‘great’ as you say.”
I thought ya’all might agree.)
p.s. Can one of you kind sirs explain to me how to get that vertical stick thingy as a kind of “quote mark” that ya’all use ? Just curious, causin I best sticks to caption contests from here on out.Come to think of it, they don’t respond to me either.
So long cruel blog, you’ll not have Podge Mudd to kick around anymore…
stick thingy around for awhile,don’t take the liberal way out.
Okay, trying to figure out how use of the word ‘execrable’ gets interpreted as an attempt to insult the intelligence of all of rural America.
Come on Stormy baby!
Your shorts (that you apparently have a predeliction, approximate to, the overstarching thereof) are showing.
Oh yeah, site policy requires that I mention the fact that Mrs. Edwards is patently disingenuous and her husband is a hypocrite of Biblical proportions. Therfore, the barring of any holds, whatsoever,has already been established as a ground rule when engaging these titanically foibled political animals. Which is to say, I am of the opinion that they have absolutely no moral base from which to work. Baseless are their contrived, staged and otherwise scripted complaints. Amoral are their souls. Reptilian is their nature. And needing of a good,”Nudge,nudge.Wink,wink.No what I mean?” type of explanation, are the people who find Ann Coulter to be obtuse and wicked.
She observes things honestly, and, ironically enough,the only time she gets the ‘rights’ pan***s in a bunch is when they think she’s being too mean to the opposition. It boggles the mind.
Well, I didn’t see the comment that got deleted so I don’t know what policy you violated (I assume profanity was involved since your other posts that are relatively free of it are still here). But I certainly don’t decry Ann Coulter because she’s too “mean” to the opposition. My problem with Coulter is that she could be an effective voice for conservative ideas but she consciously chooses not to be.
Coulter has the kind of legal credentials most of us lawyers would kill for. She can actually write pretty well and, when she’s on her game, she can be very funny. The problem is that she takes a notion with a kernel of truth and blows it so far out of proportion with her inflammatory rhetoric that she not only loses any chance she might have had to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with her, she obscures the good point she could have made to the point of undermining it, driving people away – and making excellent fodder for left-of-center fundraising (Edwards is already using this little kerfuffle for that, in fact).
That’s why for years I’ve referred to her as the Right’s Michael Moore – she feeds red meat to the rabid, and in so doing actively undermines what should be the shared gaol of all conservatives: Promoting our ideas. As such, she does more harm than good to the side she purports to support. And, being quite bright, she certainly knows it – if she didn’t early on, she certainly must by now, as many mainstream conservative outlets as she’s been banned from.
With her resume and skill as a wordsmith, she’d be a highly respected and persuasive commentator if she moderated her rhetoric. But that doesn’t get headlines or sell as many books. Hence, one must conclude that she’s less interested in the ideas than she is in making money.
I’m sure that Elizabeth wasn’t at all offended with a women caliing her husband a “faggot” and using her dead son as a punchline for one of her jokes. I’m sure that we would have caught her at her house laughing up a storm at Coulter’s barbs.
And as for John’s hypocrisy, I guess that you would prefer a world where the rich advocated for their own and avoided the hypocrisy of defending the poor. That kind of consistency would make life much easier for the simple-minded.
pudge: “We are at war and showing any sort of weakness to our enemies, at home or abroad, only emboldens them”
I hear you saying that when we are at war, it’s wrong to show “any sort of weakness to our enemies.” Please consider the following statement:
Simple question: does that statement strike you as “showing any sort of weakness to our enemies?”
james: “Coulter sells millions of books and is constantly invited to represent conservative thought in a wide variety of forums — including those run by the ostensible flamekeepers of the movement like the American Conservative Union.”
Thanks for making this important point.
I think it’s important to understand that your statement is true, and it’s equally important to understand why it’s true. It’s true because the heart of the GOP is people just like pudge, and worse. These people love Coulter. They are the fuel that drives her success, and they are also the fuel that drives the GOP. That’s why people like ACU repeatedly give Coulter a platform.
At the heart of the GOP are people who think that dissent is a form of treason and that Islam should be destroyed. It’s easy to find people expressing those views, and making death threats against people opposing those views. URLs available upon request.
Any group needs to deal with its own extremists. Muslims are properly reminded of this. Democrats are properly reminded of this (although I don’t accept the premise that Coulter=Moore; I’m more inclined to accept the premise that Coulter=Ward Churchill). When ACU embraces Coulter, it’s pandering to extremism, instead of dealing with it. If you want to understand the implosion of the GOP, this is what it is, in a nutshell. Righty comment areas are looking more and more like stormfront. Speaking of nuts.
People who consider themselves center-right need to decide if they’re going to own the GOP, or if Coulter is. Decisions made by ACU et al indicate that Coulter is winning that fight. This is the force driving the marginalization of the GOP. Fine by me.
Dodd, once upon a time Coulter didn’t shriek. That was during the Clinton impeachment mess.
Yes, well, neither did about a half a dozen democrat pundits I can think of, who do now, and yet we don’t see nearly the complaints about them, do we?
The point about the hypocrisy involved with that double standard aside, what this boils down to is normal politics, amplified somewhat. Everybody’s making this aim points, as they were back in the day, they’re just be King a little more loudly. As such, I’m not overly convinced that it’s a true matter of concern.
I won’t call you a traitor (I’ll reserve that for my rabid kook blog postings), but I must categorize you as among the set that says,”Don’t do or say anything that ‘they’ can use against us in the court of emotion laden public opinion.” Well, I look at it differently. I think that what happened to Miguel Estrada is criminal, not the part where the left savages him as a virtual “Jim Crow” wack job, but the part where it was allowed by our side to stick. Why did that happen? So we would not appear to be too extreme (You know, can’t appear to be too loyal to a potential racist and all that). And it only gets worse,not better. The appologetic “Gang of 14” wiped out the possibilty of getting many to the bench for the sake of saving a couple. For that,you may see them as heroes. They are cowards. It is that kindly thinking,your kindly thinking, that by extension, makes it seem perfectly reasonable to persecute border guards Ramos and Compean for the sake of maintaining “smooth relations” with the scoundrels of Mexico, or destroying the lives of some “rich white brats” because the “victim” is black.
I don’t want to appease them, I want to crush them. It’s much easier to train my site on their vacuous,biggoted,hateful domes when they are screaming in full-feathered,mock outrage. They are the enemy sir, do you not understand? In all of your,”I am fair.I make sure to always point up the virtues and faults of BOTH sides when I pontificate!” style of “debate”, you completely miss the point that there is a good side and a bad side. Or maybe you just don’t believe in such “over simplified notions of antiquity”. I do.I love old things. Michael Savage may be a dope, but he’s my dope. They’ll pick his bones clean. Why should I pile on when it’s much more amusing poking them with a sharp stick ? I’ll tell you why. It’s because I have chosen sides. I don’t agree with everyone on my side, but I don’t see the point in ripping them to shreds every time they step out of line any more than I see the point of lionizing a flaming liberal like Joe Lieberman just because he is serious about ONE issue.The worst sin is not being wrong, it’s aligning yourself with the enemy.
Remember when you were young, and everything was so crystal clear ? Well, you were a moron. Now you have the experience and wisdom of a grown man. Why not take that youthful confidence and apply it to your hard earned practical knowledge?
Trust me, you’d be dangerous.
Weren’t you taught that telling untruths will get you a oneway ticket to Hell ? I think you just violated “site policies”. SECURITY!
Yeah yeah,very clever.I agree that that is a lame quote and you spring up saying, “Aha! Little Georgie Jr. said that! Now you gotta eat crow old man! Here! Eat it with a spoon!” WINNING is the only exit stratedgy, regardless of what quotes you may find -out of context or otherwise.
Question: Why do you want so much, for America herself, to lose and suffer all of the accompanying humiliation ? (Not to mention all of the poor people of color who will be slaughtered as a result of us abandoning them just as we did the Vietnamese.) Is that why you folks hate Michelle Malkni so ? Because she brings back the guilt of your cowardice? And all of the destruction that it has wrought ? Why not pull out of Bosnia ? Or Germany? Do you have something against non-whites ?
pudge: “The worst sin is not being wrong, it’s aligning yourself with the enemy.”
That’s a pretty good description of unprincipled partisanship, which consists of going along with my team even when it’s doing wrong.
“regardless of what quotes you may find -out of context or otherwise”
The quote was not out-of-context, so I don’t appreciate you implying that it was. You should either withdraw that claim or prove that it’s something other than pure baloney.
“I agree that that is a lame quote”
That’s nice. The problem is that there’s a very long list of similar quotes, that you can see here. Virtually every Republican leader made similar statements. Is that OK with you? Is it OK with you when Republicans make statements that show “weakness to our enemies,” or do you only have a problem when Democrats do it?
You’ve already told us that you think siding with your team is pretty much your highest priority, so I think I can guess that the answer is the latter. But I’d prefer not to guess.
“Why do you want so much, for America herself, to lose”
It’s not a question of wanting America to lose. It’s a question of facing the reality that the loss has already occurred, thanks to the GOP’s blunders. You wish otherwise, and you pretend otherwise, but that doesn’t make it so. Denial is a powerful force, but reality is an even more powerful force.
Certain people in Iraq are currently operating a meat-grinder, and they’re perfectly happy to see us provide a fresh supply of young American meat. It serves their interests. It also happens to serve the interests of certain Americans who are profiting greatly.
“Why not pull out of Bosnia ? Or Germany?”
If in those places we were suffering 800 casualties a month (killed and wounded), for no good reason, and with no end in sight, then it would indeed make sense for us to pull out of those places.
“Not to mention all of the poor people of color who will be slaughtered as a result of us abandoning them just as we did the Vietnamese.”
Multiple polls show that Iraqis want us to leave. I think they don’t appreciate your paternalistic attitude, that you are in a better position than they are to know what’s good for them.
The GOP attitude is highly schizoid, in this manner. It alternates between claiming that we need to be there to save them (what you said), and claiming that we need to be there to save ourselves, even if it means inflicting lots of ‘collateral damage’ on Iraq.
All along we’ve been deeply confused about our goals, so it’s no surprise that we’re having a great deal of difficulty achieving goals (aside from this goal: enriching certain groups).
“It’s not a question of wanting America to lose. It’s a question of facing the reality that the loss has already occurred, thanks to the GOP’s blunders. You wish otherwise, and you pretend otherwise, but that doesn’t make it so. Denial is a powerful force, but reality is an even more powerful force.”(sorry, still don’t know how to do the virtical stick thingy when quoting)
I think that pretty much illustrates our differences. You think America has not only lost in Iraq, but that she also has no choice but to surrender. The fact that there are mushy spined folks (who by the way call themselves republicans,not conservatives) ostensibly on my side, does not lend to any proof that my argument is flawed. Rather, it illustrates the severe need for a fresh supply of spines.
In regards to the suggestion that you would take a quote(s) out of context, apparently I was prescient because you say that I am an advocate of,”going along with my team even when it’s doing wrong.” That is not true and you know it. But,you have a liberal mind and I know you.
As far as the multiple polls that “show that Iraqis want us to leave” goes, that is also wrong, intentionally or otherwise. Listening to john zogby,who may as well be president of c.a.i.r., is tenuous at best and shows a willingness to blind ones self much the way you accuse me of doing. If the Iraqi PEOPLE did not want us there,we would not be there sir! It is the terrorists who do not want us there. Civilized people love us as they have always loved Americans.
If we were so scorned as you claim, they never would have voted by the millions,by benefit of U.S. military escort, at the risk of torture and death by “those who don’t want us there”.
The time for cozy sleep is over man, WAKE-UP.
I don’t accept the premise that Coulter=Moore; I’m more inclined to accept the premise that Coulter=Ward Churchill
A distinction without a difference, but telling that you’d try to make it. Substitute “Moore” for “Coulter” and “Democrats” for “GOP” in your second paragraph. I’d say it no more or less accurately portrays the “heart” of the Democrat party as the original does the GOP.
pudge: “still don’t know how to do the virtical stick thingy when quoting”
Quote marks work fine. But if you want to “the virtical stick thingy,” all you have to do is play with the button below (just above the area where you type your comment) called “b-quote.” It will insert some text. Click on it again and it will insert some slightly different text. You’ll find you can also type that text directly. You can read more about this html command (blockquote) in lots of places, like here.
“You think America has not only lost in Iraq, but that she also has no choice but to surrender.”
No. There are obviously a number of choices. One is the Bush/pudge plan, which is to continue to feed American flesh into a meat grinder, ad infinitum. This has one distinct benefit: certain very rich people continue to become even richer. And Chinese bankers get to own more and more of America. It has another distinct benefit: people like Bush and pudge get to defer the day of reckoning, when they will be forced to acknowledge that they were wrong, right from the start.
Also, whether you treat ‘surrender’ as a synonym for withdrawal is a matter of semantics, to a great extent. Next year, about ten minutes before the election, Bush will make a last-ditch effort to save some R bacon, and he’ll do this by withdrawing some number of troops. He’ll say this is definitely not surrender. On the contrary; he’ll declare victory. He’ll act as if he suddenly noticed that we achieved, years ago, what was nominally the main thing we set out to achieve: make sure Iraq had no WMD, and topple Saddam. So he’ll say “mission accomplished” (again).
Withdrawal is only ‘surrender’ when Dems do it. When Bush does it, people like you will call it victory. Funny how that works.
Anyway, nice job putting words in my mouth. Not only did I not say surrender is our only choice; I didn’t even say withdrawal is our only choice. What I believe (which I mentioned recently in another thread) is that we can still ‘win’ in the conventional sense, but only with a draft.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that our current activities are suddenly going to lead to new results, different from the results that those activities have achieved in the last four years. This is called magical thinking. It’s like a gambler thinking that a losing game is suddenly going to turn into a winning game, even though it’s the same game. You should explain where you got this wacky idea.
pudge: “does not lend to any proof that my argument is flawed”
Here’s one of many things you don’t understand: the difference between an ‘argument’ and an assertion. You’ve offered the latter, not the former. If you’re in a position to ‘argue’ that the next four years of surging are going to create different results than the last four years of surging, we’re eager to hear your argument. But so far you’ve only asserted that (by implication). You haven’t backed that assertion with anything remotely resembling an actual argument. Arguments involve such things as proof, and facts. The facts are not on your side. All that’s on your side are your own hopes and fantasies.
“it illustrates the severe need for a fresh supply of spines”
I think you’re suggesting that everything would be fine if the rest of the country shared your belief in magic. Anyway, we’re a democracy. This means that starting a war is a bad idea unless you’re confident in your ability to convince the country to go along with you for the full distance, whatever that happens to be. Part of the problem is that Bush, pre-war, told many lies, including this one: that it would be quick and easy (such claims by Bush et al are documented here).
“you say that I am an advocate of, ‘going along with my team even when it’s doing wrong.’ That is not true”
Then I guess it must have been a different pudge who said this:
In my opinion, what I said is a fair paraphrase of what you said. Let me make it really simple for you. Consider these statements:
A) The worst sin is not being wrong, it’s aligning yourself with the enemy.
B) I believe in going along with my team even when it’s doing wrong.
You said A, verbatim. I claim that B is an inescapable corollary of A. Good luck convincing anyone that it’s not. And here’s another way to say it: my team, right or wrong.
I think you’re trying to run away from your own words, because you realize that you’ve explicitly announced what we already knew about you: you’re an unprincipled partisan hack. No one ever taught you that being loyal to your team is not the highest form of morality. This goes hand-in-hand with lacking your own sense of morality, and therefore defining morality in the following manner: if my team is doing it, it must be OK. This kind of self-serving, circular thinking is illustrated when you say something like this: “civilized people love us as they have always loved Americans.” On other words, everyone who doesn’t love us is automatically defined as uncivilized, because it’s impossible to contemplate the possibility that my team is anything other than purely lovable.
Speaking of running away from your own words, I see you’re not going to explain why you accused me of taking a quote out-of-context. I didn’t. This is another instance of you demonstrating that you don’t understand the difference between an assertion and an argument.
pudge: “Listening to john zogby”
None of the polls that I have in mind were done by Zogby. As far as I know, he’s never done a poll measuring whether or not Iraqis want us to leave. Nice job exercising your imagination, though. You do lots of that.
Pay attention to this (9/27/06):
Is “the State Department” part of Zogby’s organization? I don’t think so. Unless you have a hard time telling the difference between John Zogby and Condi Rice.
And then there’s this (10/22/05):
That poll was conducted by another odd branch of Zogby’s organization: the UK Ministry of Defence.
“If the Iraqi PEOPLE did not want us there,we would not be there”
That must be nice for you, living on your own strange planet where you get to invent your own facts.
“If we were so scorned as you claim, they never would have voted by the millions”
You have some serious problems with basic logic. What you’re claiming is a complete non sequitur.
The fact that an Iraqi voted simply means that he wanted to vote. It doesn’t prove that he’s glad we invaded. It certainly doesn’t prove that he’s glad we stayed. It could mean that he simply wanted to make the best of a bad situation. More importantly, the elections were years ago. Even if he was glad we were there then, that doesn’t mean he’s glad that we’re still there now. I’ve shown ample proof that what’s true is the opposite of that. You, on the other hand, have only proved that the idea of proof is foreign to you.
I see you like ignoring lots of things, including questions that are too hard for you. You’ve ducked my question, twice. Here it is, for the third time. Do you think it’s OK when Republicans make statements that show “weakness to our enemies,” or do you only have a problem when Democrats do it?
dodd: “Substitute ‘Moore’ for ‘Coulter’ and ‘Democrats’ for ‘GOP’ in your second paragraph”
You’re essentially asserting two things:
A) Moore is as frequently, radically, gratuitously inflammatory as Coulter is.
B) Moore is routinely handed major platforms, the equivalent of ACU and CPAC.
As far as I can tell, both of those claims are false. If you can prove otherwise, that would be nice.
I’m willing to bet you were around, at the end of the amount. I was. That was the argument they presented, then, too. It was only years later we found out from the Viet Kong generals, who defected, that we were less than three weeks away from their surrender.
Indications are we are in exactly the same situation as we were then. By its very definition, a guerrilla war is a war of emotions and misinformation. It is one fought by people who know darn well there’s no way they can win militarily so they must win in the theater of propaganda.
ANd as for:
Every movie the man has ever made move makes Coulter look like a piker so far is being gratuitously inflammatory. and as for being handed major platforms I’d call a nationally released movie a major platform I would also call the amount of funding attention the news media’s been paying him, a major platform. I would consider the seat next to Jimmy Carter at the democratic party national convention, to be a major platform
It should also be said that any place that Moore sits down is a major platform. With his butt, you need it. Or so PETA says.
bit: “I’m willing to bet you were around, at the end of the amount. I was.”
You’re being slightly incoherent. Maybe you should switch to a non-alcoholic beverage.
“It was only years later we found out from the Viet Kong generals, who defected, that we were less than three weeks away from their surrender.”
I’m sure you read that somewhere in freeperville. Let us know when you’ve got something ordinary humans would consider proof.
And let’s translate you into English: ‘please Ma, I realize we’re out of money, but I swear if you let me roll the dice for just another three weeks, I’m sure I can start winning.’ Because the insurgency is in its “last throes,” right?
What’s really astonishing is that the people who have been wrong about everything are acting as if they have any credibility left.
By the way, it’s poor form to criticize poor typing, but “Viet Kong” looks like a sign of blatant ignorance, not bad typing.
“Indications are we are in exactly the same situation as we were then.”
Indeed. A quagmire that gets dragged out for reasons that are purely political. In both cases we failed miserably at nation-building because we thought we could use military means to impose our values on cultures that were completely foreign to us. If you see any other “indications” you should let us in on the secret and tell us what they are.
“there’s no way they can win militarily so they must win in the theater of propaganda”
A nice description of Bush’s situation. He knows “darn well” there’s no way he can win militarily (in the absence of a draft), so he’s trying to eke out a “win in the theater of propaganda,” which means kicking the can down the road in order to transfer as much blame as possible to his successor.
Here’s a clue: for many of the people we’re fighting, they’ve already won. Their goal is chaos in Iraq, as much as possible, for as long as possible. They’re in no hurry. They’re happy with the current stalemate. It’s a financing, recruiting, training and propaganda bonanza for them. Bush is giving them lots of help. So are you.
For years they’ve been telling their people that the US wants to crush Islam, dominate the Middle East, and control the oil. How nice for them that we rise to the occasion and offer lots of proof.
“Every movie the man has ever made move makes Coulter look like a piker”
Show me the most inflammatory thing he’s ever said, and I’ll show you ten Coulterisms that are clearly worse.
“I’d call a nationally released movie a major platform I would also call the amount of funding attention the news media’s been paying him, a major platform”
The success of his movies is the equivalent, roughly, of the success of her books. On this aspect, it’s a draw.
“I would consider the seat next to Jimmy Carter at the democratic party national convention, to be a major platform”
Big deal. The organizers of the convention didn’t invite Moore. Carter did. So Moore was in the room. So what? Did he speak? No. Coulter, on the other hand, repeatedly gets invited, officially, to major events by ACU and CPAC. And she’s not offered a seat. She’s offered a microphone. Big difference.
(thanks for the “block quotes” help)
jukeboxgrad: Hello, I must be asserting (again)
This is a point of argument (assertion?):
“It’s not a question of wanting America to lose. It’s a question of facing THE REALITY THAT THE LOSS HAS ALREADY OCCURED, thanks to the GOP’s blunders. You wish otherwise, and you pretend otherwise, but that doesn’t make it so. Denial is a powerful force, but reality is an even more powerful force.”
This is YOUR assertion, which curiously,dawns the garb of an argument:”No. There are obviously a number of choices. One is the Bush/pudge plan, which is to continue to feed American flesh into a meat grinder, ad infinitum. This has one distinct benefit: certain very rich people continue to become even richer. And Chinese bankers get to own more and more of America. It has another distinct benefit: people like Bush and pudge get to defer the day of reckoning, when they will be forced to acknowledge that they were wrong, right from the start.”
Okay Mr. Grad, can you tell the class, where in the above text(s) was your other idea(s) for winning the war. Come,come now, we’re all waiting…..Ah, the bittersweet refrain of surrenders’ dulcet tones. No, not you silly, your true desire for the outcome of the war.
Here’s another line of mine you cherry picked: “The worst sin is not being wrong, it’s aligning yourself with the enemy.”
And here’s the part you so willingly left out: “Michael Savage may be a dope, but he’s my dope. THEY’LL PICK HIS BONES CLEAN. WHY SHOULD I PILE ON WHEN IT’S MUCH MORE AMUSING POKING THEM WITH A SHARP STICK ? I’ll tell you why. It’s because I have chosen sides. I DON’T AGREE WITH EVERYONE ON MY SIDE, BUT I DON’T SEE THE POINT IN RIPPING THEM TO SHREDS EVERY TIME THEY STEP OUT OF LINE any more than I see the point of lionizing a flaming liberal like Joe Lieberman just because he is serious about ONE issue.” What’s up with that ? You should cop to that one jukeboxgrad old chum.
Also,for what it’s worth, (I believe you referenced this subject above -so much to respond to,so little of my life left) military leaders ARE running the show now, and after all of the caterwauling by the left for Bush to “listen to the Generals”, they prove that their only strategy is defeat because they now say it’s WRONG for Petraeus to mount a surge.The troops believe in their mission.That’s good enough fo me.
Look, I have been more than a little sharp with you and others since coming to this fine blog, and it can’t be denied that you obviously care,else you wouldn’t be so da** passionate and irritable yourself. All I would ask,is for you to consider this: “Do I,jukeboxgrad,on the whole,believe that the American fighting man is the single greatest earthly force for freedom and liberty that has existed in the known history of man,AND,are our current enemies,of the islamo-nazi brand,evil incarnate, and that we must never cease resistance against their vile,biggoted,sexist brand of mass murdering hate ?” Or more simply, do you more often find yourself thinking things like: “The Gulf of Tonkin was a CIA set-up man!” or,”WE suckered Japan into the war by starving them out!” or,”Bush just made up a bunch of lies so he and his chronies could make out big time!” or is the average thought bouncing around in your head something more like: “Countless millions freed.Western slavery abolished at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American souls.China: Liberated -Europe: Liberated -Afghanistan & Iraq= Tens of millions of formerly enslaved souls voting in free elections for the first time. The whole world enriched and inspired by the goodness that is a relatively capitalistic and free America.” If so, we just disagree on how to get it done and who should be administrating the done getting.
I hope that you are in the latter camp. I have thrown untoward, or at least questionable comments in your direction. That is because I think you are attacking my country. My country is great.It is goodness personified, not because we are perfect, but because we are based on a perfect ideal, so we will get there if it is possible.
Now maybe I’m wrong, but the above sort of sentiment I do not detect in you.
This illustrates our basic views and the diferences therein. Me: America the good and improving – You: America the ugly,thoughtless boob at the dinner party with the lampshade on her head.
I hold no allegiance to any party (I’m a card carrying wack…oh,er,um Libertarian). My allegiances are to God and country. You’re obviously more book smart than I, but that doesn’t matter a hill of beans. What matters is, where is your heart ? Mine is wrapped in the flag, all enemies be d****d. If my brother gets outta line, I’ll deal with him on my own.I’m not going to rip him in front of our enemy. This was true of much more of the American people during WWII than it is now. Not coincidentally, we won. I think that was a good thing. Do you ? (And please remember that WWII was just as “questionable” and, at its worst, much more horrible and seemingly hopeless than we can even imagine the current conflict as being.That is a fact.)
p.s. Are you and “Dodd” the same person ? No offense, but you have responded to posts directed at him as well as yourself.
p.p.s. I find it enormously callous and without sympathy to refer to American service personal as being “fed to a …. …….” I can’t even type that,much less say it. That is exploitation of the cruelest level and says a great deal about what you must think of, or rather don’t think of,those fine young men and women who proudly serve. Sincerely sir, you should appologize to them and their families. Even if you do believe that Bush is a warmongerer, it gives you no cause to speak of them that way.I think that someone who could say such a thing is not predisposed to understanding the level of thoughtlessness with which it is used. I hope you prove me wrong on that one. At least then you will have tallied one point.
Ah, my dictation program screwed up and I didn’t notce. My bad.
Given your attitude, I must wonder what would be considered ‘proof’ of anything that ran afoul of your worldview.
I doubt that. Example:
“We” being the left, of course.
And of course, cheering for Alquieda is something Ann’s never done:
Liberals from Moore, to Cindy Sheehan, to Chris Matthews, to the “Countdown” embarassmant have made statements to the effect that American men and women in uniform are actually fighting the equivalent of our own patriots during the revolution. Nope, nothing of a boost, moral wise, to the spirits of our enemies as a result of all of that “bulletin board material” being spewed over the airwaves on a daily basis.
(For those who’ve never engaged in competitive sport, or found yourself in a bad fight, you may not understand why telling ones enemy that they are great, is a bad thing -but now that I’ve read what I just wrote,I can’t imagine how that is possible- but just take my word for it: Encouraging your blood enemies by saying that your side is essentially bad, and that their side is good, is a really dangerous thing.)
Guess ol’ jukeboxgrad didn’t have any response(s) to my winning zingers above, but really, what could he possibly say ? I almost feel sorry for the guy.(And before anyone says that last crack was outta line,please revisit the “meds” shot Mr. Grad took at a fellow poster.) Oh yeah, Ann Coulter is great and John Edwards is a sad cowardly little fellow that even his own party can’t muster any support for.(Watch the grad man spend 10 paragraphs taking that last line apart instead of addressing the meat of my earlier post.Boy, getting a little too big for my britches here, somebody slap me down.)
pudge: “where in the above text(s) was your other idea(s) for winning the war”
Indeed, in my passage which you cited, I didn’t mention that we could win via a draft. That’s because although it’s true, it’s hardly worth mentioning, because it’s one of many things that’s not going to happen.
“Here’s another line of mine you cherry picked”
You’re implying I quoted you out-of-context. I didn’t. You still haven’t explained why your remark (“the worst sin is not being wrong, it’s aligning yourself with the enemy”) means something other than the obvious: that you place partisanship over principle.
“military leaders ARE running the show now”
What a joke. One by one, Bush methodically purges all the military leaders who disagree with him, and this is all it takes to convince Einsteins like you that “military leaders ARE running the show now.”
Simple question. If “military leaders ARE running the show” now, then who was running the show before? Barbara and Jenna? Bush has claimed all along that “military leaders ARE running the show.” Was he lying? Was it a false claim before, but is suddenly to be considered a truthful claim now?
When you demonstrate your eagerness to trust and follow someone who has been wrong about everything, and has zero credibility, here’s what you become: someone with zero credibility.
“The troops believe in their mission”
Really? Most are not willing to say that they do. Only 41%, a 4% plurality, say that the US should have gone to war in Iraq. Only 13% think we’re very likely so succeed. Only 22% think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops in less than 3 years. A majority thinks that we’ll need to stay there more than another five years to reach our goals. A plurality disapproves of the way Bush is handling the war. Less than half consider the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism.
A majority agrees with the following statement: “today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective” (see raw data here).
I guess all this is your idea of “believe in their mission.”
“Bush just made up a bunch of lies so he and his chronies could make out big time!”
I can’t prove that Bush lied us into war for the purpose of making his pals rich. However, I can prove that Bush lied us into war, and I can prove that this made his very rich pals even richer.
“the American fighting man is the single greatest earthly force for freedom and liberty that has existed in the known history of man”
We used to have that reputation. The GOP has done a great deal to trash that reputation.
“The whole world enriched and inspired by the goodness that is a relatively capitalistic and free America”
We have indeed done a lot to enrich and inspire the world. That’s no excuse to bury our heads in the sand when a bunch of crooks and thugs drag us in a different direction.
“we are based on a perfect ideal, so we will get there if it is possible”
How ironic, since you’ve announced that partisanship trumps ideals. Which is exactly how the GOP behaves.
“Me: America the good and improving”
Improving is impossible when you invent your own facts in order to deny the reality of what needs to be improved.
“You’re obviously more book smart than I, but that doesn’t matter a hill of beans.”
Thanks for the compliment. I agree with you that “book smart” is overrated, but I also think Bush and the GOP has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism. A truly pro-education president does not brag about his bad grades.
Anyway, integrity is more important than knowledge. Trouble is, Bush and the GOP also have a very big problem with integrity.
“If my brother gets outta line, I’ll deal with him on my own.I’m not going to rip him in front of our enemy.”
You still insist on dodging the very simple and fair question I asked regarding the many R statements which violated this ethic you just outlined.
“WWII was just as ‘questionable’ and, at its worst, much more horrible and seemingly hopeless than we can even imagine the current conflict as being.That is a fact”
There you go, making absurd comparisons with WWII. You can’t tell the difference between a war against several very advanced, powerful, highly-industrialized nations, which were fully mobilized and conducting war on a massive scale, and a bunch of nuts whose highest technology is their ability to blow up jeeps. Thanks for giving us yet another indication of the very large gap between you and reality.
Here’s one of the many contradictions and hypocrisies that are embodied in the Bushist narrative: if this is truly an existential struggle, as serious as WWII, we should act that way. That means, among other things, special war taxes and massive industrial mobilization. Instead, Bush gives Paris Hilton a big tax cut and tells the rest of us to go shopping. And the parking lot at the mall is full of SUVs covered with yellow magnets, made in China. That’s the Bushist concept of how to pursue an ostensibly existential struggle. What nonsense.
“Are you and ‘Dodd’ the same person”
“you have responded to posts directed at him”
Maybe you’re new to blogs. It’s not a private conversation. It’s a public discussion.
“I find it enormously callous and without sympathy to refer to American service personal as being ‘fed to a …. …….’ ”
I find it enormously callous and without sympathy that what upsets you is the saying of it, rather than the doing of it. Refusing to acknowledge the gruesome reality does not change the gruesome reality. The word for what you’re doing is denial.
“That is exploitation of the cruelest level”
Exactly. Continuing to feed American flesh into a meat grinder, for no good reason and with no end in sight, simply so Bush can continue to try to evade accountability for his colossal blunders, is indeed “exploitation of the cruelest level.”
“says a great deal about what you must think of, or rather don’t think of,those fine young men and women who proudly serve”
You are refusing to acknowledge the grim reality of how they are being ruthlessly exploited, which indeed “says a great deal about what you must think of, or rather don’t think of,those fine young men and women who proudly serve.”
jukeboxgrad said, “Indeed, in my passage which you cited, I didn’t mention that we could win via a draft. That’s because although it’s true, it’s hardly worth mentioning, because it’s one of many things that’s not going to happen.”
What’s all this talk about DRAFTING people to be sent to a “—- grinder” ? You’re embarassing yourself once more grad baby.
pudge: “Guess ol’ jukeboxgrad didn’t have any response”
What a joke. I took a break. Here’s a clue: when you ask a question, it’s poor form to wait only seven hours before you start whining that you haven’t gotten an answer. Especially when you ask the question at 4 am.
The further irony is that I’ve answered all your questions, while you’ve repeatedly ducked most of mine. And I predict that you will continue to do so.
“please revisit the ‘meds’ shot Mr. Grad took at a fellow poster”
Please try to avoid making things up. The only prior reference to “meds” in this thread is here. That post was not written by me. It was someone other than me, taking a shot at you. You obviously have a hard time keeping your facts straight.
“American men and women in uniform are actually fighting the equivalent of our own patriots during the revolution”
Simple question: if people speaking a foreign language came from halfway around the world and set up shop in your neighborhood and starting killing your neighbors, what would you do? Would you fight back? How patient would you be, if they kept doing this for a while? Would your decision take minutes, months, or years?
Not everyone who is fighting us there has justification to look at the situation this way. Trouble is, many do.
“Encouraging your blood enemies by saying that your side is essentially bad”
True, saying that our side behaves badly encourages our enemies. Here’s what encourages our enemies even more: when our side behaves badly. Once again you’re indicating that you’re upset with the person who describes the problem, rather than the problem itself. Once again you’re indicating that you’re in favor of sweeping our problems under the rug, instead of solving them.
pudge: “What’s all this talk about DRAFTING people to be sent to a ‘—- grinder’ ?”
Here’s an idea: try responding to what I’ve actually said, rather than your fantasy of what you think I believe.
I didn’t say I was in favor of a draft. I said that the only way we could now ‘win’ in the conventional sense was if we had a draft. Let us know if you’re really too thick too grasp the difference.
Aside from that, there’s a plausible argument to be made that it would no longer be a pointless meat-grinder, because we would actually have enough boots to establish calm over the entire country, instead of running all over the place playing whack-a-mole, and pretending that unreliable Iraqi forces are something other than unreliable.
On the “out of context” thing,I’m sorry, I take it back,you have NO superiority in smarts to me or the military, whose intelligence you insult repeatedly, or ANYONE posting here. I laid it out so as to be comprehensible to a grade-schooler and still you humiliate yourself. Pathetic. I’ll not waste any more of my time having a battle of wits with a brain that is stuck in the hell of its own imaginary meatgrinder. You are thick man. You do not listen when spoken to. Read up on how to read. Comprehension: GOOOOOOOD Muddled and,intentionally or otherwise, obfuscating communications: BAAAAAAD
As I told Bit today, your persistence is exceeded only by your wrongness. Pathetic.
bit: “my dictation program screwed up and I didn’t notce”
Thanks for clarifying. That explains it. I wouldn’t have complained if I had understood you were using a dictation program. In the future I’ll keep that in mind.
“Given your attitude, I must wonder what would be considered ‘proof’ of anything that ran afoul of your worldview”
It’s not that complicated. Any proof at all is better than no proof at all. What you’ve offered so far is the latter (regarding your remarkable claim that the Viet Nam war just needed to last three weeks longer).
Speaking of making things up, you’re suggesting that I gratuitously reject proof when it runs “afoul of [my] worldview.” Really? Prove it. If you can’t present an example of me doing what you claimed I do, then you should withdraw the false accusation.
“These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.”
Strikes me as a completely accurate statement. The “conniving” and “thieving” parts have been proven in various courtrooms, over the last couple of years. Judging from presidential and congressional approval ratings, I think most Americans would agree that DC is full of “conniving, thieving, smug pricks.” And I can’t imagine how the remark is offensive to anyone who isn’t in the category of “conniving, thieving, smug pricks.”
He’s expressing a political belief, and it’s a reasonable belief. And it’s entirely different than mocking someone’s dead son, or suggesting that certain 9/11 widows are happy about 9/11, or suggesting that we forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity.
“They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow”
I already addressed that. I see you have no intention of explaining why you think Moore’s seat next to Carter is the equivalent of Coulter being repeatedly handed a microphone.
Headline: pudge lies
One last argument,er,assertion: jukeboxgrad said, “Simple question: if people speaking a foreign language came from halfway around the world and set up shop in your neighborhood and starting killing your neighbors, what would you do? Would you fight back? How patient would you be, if they kept doing this for a while? Would your decision take minutes, months, or years?”
That is how you see the American fighting man.A wandering killer doing his evil deeds on bad orders from the “idiot in chief”. That says it all. I knew you would come out eventually. You speak THE EXACT talking points of the Sheehans,Moores and nutroots et al.There is an obvious hate for your own country imbeded in your speak. That can not be penetrated without massive and compassionate counseling. But first, you must admit that you have a problem. Go ahead, say it,”My name is jukeboxgrad, and I’m a hater.” I pray for your mind to recieve the serenity of knowing the truth of that statement.
Your anger is of a bitterness and selfrighteousness that I haven’t seen since I was on townhall.com a couple of days ago. Shocking,sinply shocking. I am outraged that a liberal would have such sentiments. Well actually, it’s the same thing one always sees when encountering your type. Why don’t you go have some BBQ ribs and talk to a pretty girl ? Man,you is one angry ball of liberal hate. May you find ‘peace in (y)our (life)time’.
Correction: jukeboxgrad used the “maybe you should switch to a non-alcoholic beverage” cleche,when insulting the other poster, not the meds one. My mistake.
That’s simply not true. Indeed, that’s been discussed on this and other web sites , with the conclusions being the exact opposite of what you draw.
That such a common strikes you as reasonable, tells me more about you than you may imagine.
When combined with the idea that you don’t support a draft and you think the only way that we could win in Iraq was with the draft, the completed picture does not look pretty.
pudge: “I’ll not waste any more of my time”
You posted those words exactly ten minutes after I predicted that you were going to continue to duck my questions. Thanks for helping me look so prescient.
Anyway, it’s not true that you’ve been wasting time. You’ve been providing an inadvertent public service by proving that the GOP base is composed of people who make false claims and then run and hide when those claims are challenged by facts. A couple of very simple and relevant examples: your claim that the Iraqis want us to stay, and your claim that the troops “believe in their mission.”
I didn’t say that. I only pointed out that you made false claims. But if you’re now admitting that they were intentional lies, I’ll take your word for it.
“That is how you see the American fighting man.”
No. I’m pointing out that this is how certain people we’re fighting “see the American fighting man.” Yet another simple distinction that’s over your head. Understanding how our enemies view us is a smart thing to do. Too bad you have no interest in doing this.
“There is an obvious hate for your own country imbeded in your speak”
Uh, no. The hate is for certain things my leaders have done, in my name, things which harm my country. You, on the other hand, have a hard time realizing that loyalty to your government and loyalty to your country aren’t the same thing. As a famous patriot once said: “it is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government.”
“I’m a hater”
I’m not ashamed of the fact that I hate liars, thugs and crooks. On the contrary. I’m proud of it.
“maybe you should switch to a non-alcoholic beverage”
I said that for a good reason, and the poster essentially acknowledged that.
Frankly, I understand both sides of this business about Coulter.
Disclosure; as I think I said at my own place, Dodd, and his site’s success were large reason why I decided to get going on my own blog, years ago. I have a good deal of respect for him.
I understand Dodd’s objections to Coulter, but I think the emphasis on those objections is misplaced. While I suppose it is only fair to say that there are occasions when her comments can be considered over the top, which seems to be his main objection….that is by definition the task of any satirist. And that’s really what’s going on here.
IMV, There is nothing that the woman has said which cannot be directly compared to with comments from the side opposite. Nothing.
Further, what she is generating is demonstrably the same kind of heat that’s been tossed at Republicans for generations, now. What annoys so many people on the left is that she’s giving it back.
At the risk of speaking for him , what annoys people like Dodd, best I can tell, is that either side is generating such heat. I respect that, but I suspect that it is time for somebody like Coulter, who has the ability of fighting fire with fire.
Such things are defensive mechanism. When you’re trying to survive in hell, you simply become part of the hell. I view such matters as any other kind of war. The best way to lose, is to limit yourself in terms of weaponry. Until recently that’s what the republicans have been doing. Coulter is remarkable (And becomes such a lightning rod) because she is among the first in recent times to stem that trend.
And unfortunately, that’s what politics has become anymore; a war, carried on by other means… to coin the phrase from the opposite side. Believe me when I tell you, I understand the wish that it wasn’t. Hell… I share it. But it is that way, and the biggest issue now is not succumbing to it.
Add to that, that Coulter, unlike most of those on the left is a satirist. Most of the people who we are comparing two here on the opposite side do not use satire. Moore, since his name is being brought up in this thread, certainly doesn’t make such a claim. But that’s precisely what Coulter is doing.
How such matters are defined, seems to me to be dancing on the head of a fairness doctrine.
I think the left, is finding her as distasteful as they are, for two reasons:
First of all, they can’t control her , though seemingly most of their effort has expanded on that control.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is she it’s too close to home when she makes those kind of comments.
Let’s see, here… an example; , A a video of John Edwards spending at least ten minutes fussing over as hair and is makeup, to the tune of “I feel pretty” and simply coming out and calling the guy a faggot… I think most people will admit there’s kind of a fine line between those two. Granted, at least the video had the advantage of proving the point wordlessly, frame by frame. In any event , ultimately, they both mean the same thing. And as I suggested earlier in this thread Wiegel’s comments, lend some serious truth to the allegation. and that’s the point.
Any kind of humor, regardless of the genre, doesn’t work unless there’s a grain of truth of the center. The bottom line is, Coulter’s comments in general and in the case of Edwards specifically, had that grain of truth as the video and Wiegel’s comments bear out.
as to the comments from her as regards the suicide bomber, how was that any different than the comment she was actually responding to? Seems kind of a draw, to me.
However, in fairness I make an offer; when I see democrats denouncing Bill Maher for his comments as regards Dick Cheney (which, it should be noted, was the context within which Ann was working, at the time… as people would know, if they’d actually play the entire clip as opposed to editing it for their own advantage ) when I see the left going after Wonkette for her excesses, on the same subject no less, when I see them going after Michael Moore, on the same score, and so on, I’ll start taking their complaints about and Coulter a little more seriously.
Since none of that is happened, Nor, it isn’t likely to, they have not a leg to stand on with the complaints.
Wow. Fairness… what a concept, huh? I mean, of course, actual fairness, as opposed to governmental control.
See also, heat, kitchen, Withdrawal therefrom.
And perhaps the issue about governmental control is a point to be made here. We just got through daunting a bullet as regards the “fairness doctrine”. Do we really need to impose another false set of standards on political speech?
bit: “That’s simply not true”
You’re claiming that we can ‘win,’ in the conventional sense, without a draft. Really? How? And if such a thing was going to happen, why hasn’t it happened yet?
You’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but that’s all it is: opinion.
“that’s been discussed on this and other web sites , with the conclusions being the exact opposite of what you draw”
Really? And who exactly drew those “conclusions?” You and pudge? Or was Barney also involved? Maybe Ophelia was part of the discussion.
It would interest me if you could point out where such “conclusions” are documented. I suppose in the same place where you found your claim about the famous Viet Nam three-week surrender.
And after you show proof for those remarkable claims, you can show us your long list of official events where leaders in the Democratic party handed Moore a microphone.
Ever consider a career in fiction?
“Maher … Wonkette … Moore”
Still waiting for you to tell us about all the times these folks have been featured on the official schedule at major events, the equivalent of ACU and CPAC.
“Coulter is doing … satire”
Sure. Mocking someone’s dead son is just fine, because the GOP is made up of fine, upstanding people who see this as a perfectly acceptable form of “satire.” That’s good to know.
Because guerrilla wars are invariably longer than the more normal variety. It takes a while, for the message to sink into the vanquished, that no, there isn’t going to be significant amounts of pity spent on them. which, in turn, is precisely why the stand of the democrats, these days is so damaging.
But it if it’s between your opinion in mind is, the people on the ground over there agree with me. Oh, and there’s one more difference ; history supports it, as well.
So, when you have your own movies, several of them, and you have every leftie blog from hell to breakfast quoting you, you NEED such speaking engagements?
Well, let’s see. Let’s discuss the fact that Mr. Moore is engaged by a “all Americans speakers” (an ironic title that, given Mr. Moore and his political attitudes…) I believe the going rate for such speeches from him is $35,000.00 pop. At least, that was the figure cited when George Mason university canceled his appearance.
Moore has been speaking at colleges and universities all over the country; he hasn’t been dealing with mainstream democrats, because he knows as audience. Mainstream democrats you see, are not socialist enough.
He’s been on TV often enough as well. Jon Stewart for example drooled all over himself just recently when Moore appeared.
(Aside…personally I’d be interested in Mr. Moore asking Gwyneth Paltrow about her childbirth expereinces in government hospitals in the UK.)
“someone’s dead son”
Ummm… as opposed to mocking dead troops?
You seem you have your priorities a little askew.
Could we please dispense with the leftwing talking points. Coulter was refering to the lengths to which the Edwards would go to get the sympathy vote. She never mocked their dead son.She never said that “911 widows enjoy their husbands deaths”, she did however have the guts to skewer a liberal sacred cow: Victimhood, as in the “Jersey Girls”. Her comments about “wanting” Sen. Edwards dead have been twisted in the same way. What else is new.
bit: “guerrilla wars are invariably longer than the more normal variety. It takes a while, for the message to sink into the vanquished”
Let’s review. I said we can’t win without a draft. You scoffed at that. You seem to think we can win without a draft. Really? How? I asked you to tell us what your victory strategy is. Now you’ve told us: stay the course. Because “it takes a while.” You’ve said nothing about what we can or should do differently, or why the next four years are going to look any different than the last four years. Really? Is that it? Final answer, as Regis says?
Thanks for confirming what we already know: that the GOP has run out of ideas. Most of the country has decided that ‘stay the course’ isn’t good enough, because the people who are asking to be trusted on ‘stay the course’ have been dead-wrong about every other claim and prediction they’ve made. Fool me once etc.
If you and the rest of the GOP decide to ‘stay the course’ on ‘stay the course,’ the silver lining is that 11/4/08 will make 11/7/06 look like a great GOP victory.
“precisely why the stand of the democrats, these days is so damaging”
You’re implying that the anti-war crowd is what stands between us and victory. It’s nice to have this vivid demonstration of the GOP concept of accountability: find a way to blame the failed war on everyone except the people who actually ran it.
Anyway, if the majority of the country that opposes the war is all that stands between us and victory, how do you propose addressing that? I see only two possibilities:
A) The majority of the country that opposes the war will suddenly shut up, because they’ll spontaneously decide that the folks who have been wrong all along are right about ‘stay the course.’
B) Bush will declare that dissent is a form of treason, and he’ll silence all opposition via martial law and cancelled elections, because we’re in an existential struggle and we can’t afford to let the anti-war majority stand between us and victory.
So which is it? If one accepts all the ideas you’re promoting, one either has to believe A will happen, or B will happen, or we’re going to lose. What other option did I miss?
Further, if one accepts all the ideas you’re promoting, then isn’t B the right thing? Are you calling for B? If not, why not? You seem to be claiming that B is the obvious path to victory, and that there is no other path, and that victory is essential to our survival. Right?
“the people on the ground over there agree with me”
How typical that you make all sorts of remarkable claims without even pretending to back them with an iota of proof. Less than half the troops say that going to war was the right thing. Most say that we are stretched too thin to be effective. A plurality disapproves of the way Bush is handling the war. I’ve cited proof for all this. Who are these mysterious “people on the ground over there” who agree with you? What do they know that our troops don’t know?
“history supports it”
What history tells us, in Viet Nam and elsewhere, is that using military force to conduct nation-building in a hostile foreign culture doesn’t work, especially when that culture has no history with democracy. History also tells us that the folks who conduct wars like this sacrifice lives needlessly because it takes them so long to admit they were wrong.
“So, when you have your own movies, several of them, and you have every leftie blog from hell to breakfast quoting you, you NEED such speaking engagements?”
Nice job missing the point. Moore and Coulter both have lots of fans. The difference is that Coulter’s fans happen to include leaders of the GOP. Romney happily introducing Coulter can be seen here. I’ll be waiting patiently while you go find the comparable video where Moore, about to speak at a major Dem event, is introduced glowingly by Clinton, Obama or Edwards.
“he hasn’t been dealing with mainstream democrats, because he knows as audience. Mainstream democrats you see, are not socialist enough.”
Thanks for making my point for me. You point out correctly that Moore doesn’t represent “mainstream democrats.” Trouble is, Coulter indeed represents mainstream GOP. If she didn’t, major organizations (like ACU and CPAC) that are purportedly mainstream GOP would not be repeatedly embracing her with formal speaking invitations at major events.
“mocking dead troops”
You seem to be claiming you’ve seen a statement “mocking dead troops.” Really? Then you should quote the statement and explain why you find it “mocking.”
As usual, you have no regard for the concept of proof, and you have no idea that there’s a difference between an assertion and an argument.
pudge: “Coulter was refering to the lengths to which the Edwards would go to get the sympathy vote. She never mocked their dead son”
Really? She said this:
Sounds like mockery to me. Why not just claim that he’s exploiting his wife’s cancer? Why draw the line at talking about the son? What’s the difference? If he should be keeping his son’s death a secret, shouldn’t he be doing the same with his wife’s cancer?
Coulter’s claim is that Edwards talks about his dead son too much. Really? How much is the right amount? And what are Coulter’s credentials on this? Who appointed her as the judge, with regard to what is the right amount? Does Emily Post have some guidelines?
“She never said that ‘911 widows enjoy their husbands deaths’ ”
Why are you lying? That is indeed what she said, almost verbatim. She said this:
Let us know if you need help finding her book on Amazon, so you can see those words with your own eyes.
Next up, Coulter will be claiming that she’s never seen somone enjoying their wife’s cancer so much, and that she’s never seen someone enjoying their son’s death so much.
I see you’re determined to condone her outrageous behavior. That’s great. Some people still haven’t caught on to what the GOP is all about. You’re helping them to find out.
By staying in it.
Correct. We’re doing the right things. This is not a TV show, where we’re going to see results before 47 minutes goes by.
Yes it is… Of Edwards himself and his reaction… not his son’s death per se’. It’s as I said earlier; the democrats have been taking anything and everything and everybody and turning it into a fund raising event. If anybody ought to be taken to task here it’s John Edwards for doing it to his dead son.
Not at all. Your complaint is that she’s being provided publicity. I would suggest by virtue of his films, more doesn’t need the publicity. He generates himself. Moore as a filmmaker. Coluter is a commentator. Each is Gaining publicity doing what they do. Frankly, I feel this year problem. Unless perchance it’s that somebody besides the democrats had the floor.
The point is we didn’t stay and finished the job. We didn’t lose the war. The left lost it for us. And by the way, before you start, I include Nixon on this. Let’s remember; Nixon was a liberal republican.
I’d say calling our troops “occupiers” qualifies. you see this is speaking out and mocking the efforts of our men and women in uniform the very people who are giving their lives to protect his oversized backside. And of course, it’s factually wrong people these are insurgents. People coming in from other countries to store on rest within Iraq. People coming from places like Pakistan and Iran for example. People, who, by the way, would be coming to America to store their run rest here if we weren’t in Iraq. The bottom line is the majority of a rocky support the American troops because they see that the American soldiers are giving their own lives to free someone they don’t even know.
Most Americans, even, understand that. I wonder why Michael Moore cannot?
bit: “By staying in it. Not withdrawing.”
You’re still dodging the question. You’re providing the boilerplate talking point, but you’re ignoring the questions the talking point fails to address.
Yes, we realize that in your view, withdrawal=surrender=defeat. No news there. We already know that. But I didn’t ask you how you define defeat. I asked you how you define victory.
Is victory simply the absence of defeat? If so, then presumably you envision that we stay there forever. Is that what you advocate? It turns out that this seems to be what Bush has in mind (staying there forever). Is it what you have in mind?
If you don’t envision staying forever, that means you contemplate withdrawing at some point. But doesn’t withdrawal=defeat? The stock answer is that once the country is stable (whatever that means), we can withdraw in victory. But why should anyone believe that the same actions which have created chaos over the last four years are going to create anything other than chaos over the next four years? Or forty years?
“We’re doing the right things.”
Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a common definition of insanity. If I spend four years beating my head against a wall, the wall doesn’t really care very much, but I end up with a bloody head. You’re taking the position that we should simply stay the course, because suddenly the wall is going to realize that it’s no match for us. Really? What you don’t realize is that this particular wall loves blood, and we’re simply making the wall stronger.
Your position would be a little less ridiculous if you were advocating a different approach to the wall (like, say, a draft and a truly massive infusion of troops). But you’re not. I’m not saying it’s beyond our ability to knock down this wall. I’m saying that our current methods are not going to lead to that result, and there’s no reason to believe that we are ready, willing and able to make serious changes in our methods.
Maybe you haven’t noticed that the last three months have been deadlier for us than any three month period since the beginning. Presumably you’re going to do the Orwellian thing and tell us this is a sign of progress.
How long are you willing to continue to write blank checks for a failed strategy? Another four years? Ten? Twenty? Forty? Sunni and Shia have been at war for well-over a thousand years. What makes you think they’re suddenly going to decide they’re done?
“This is not a TV show, where we’re going to see results before 47 minutes goes by.”
Rumsfeld didn’t tell us we’d be done in 47 minutes. However, he did say we’d be done in six months. That prediction was wrong, by at least a factor of ten, roughly. Defeating whoever it is we’re trying to defeat has now taken us longer than it took us to defeat our enemies in WWII, enemies who were much more powerful and dangerous. What interval needs to elapse before you admit that you’re advocating a failed policy?
You seem to be saying the interval is infinite: that we should simply stay, period, even though there’s no end anywhere in sight, and no rational plan for creating an end. Do I understand you correctly?
“If anybody ought to be taken to task here it’s John Edwards for doing it to his dead son.”
As usual, you’re dodging the question. Are you claiming he should never talk about his son? At least that’s an honest, clear answer, if that’s your answer. If he’s allowed to talk about his son, but only a certain amount, then what’s the proper amount? And who appointed you as the judge of that? Who appointed Coulter as the judge of that?
“Your complaint is that she’s being provided publicity.”
Of course that’s not my primary complaint. You’re incredibly obtuse. What I’ve said several times is that the problem is not particularly that she’s being “provided publicity.” The problem is that she’s being “provided publicity” by major organizations that purportedly represent the mainstream of the GOP. This is a problem, but it’s a problem I’m personally happy to see. I think it’s great that the rest of the country is getting find out what the GOP is really all about.
“Each is Gaining publicity doing what they do.”
Indeed. Except that Coulter is also getting official recognition from major GOP organizations. That’s where the comparison to Moore falls apart.
You can’t address this point, so you’re pretending I haven’t made it. How charming.
“we didn’t stay and finished the job [in Viet Nam]. We didn’t lose the war. The left lost it for us”
Thanks for giving us this nice preview of what Bushists will be saying about Iraq until the end of time: that accountability for the failed war lies with everyone except the people who were in charge of the war.
“I’d say calling our troops “occupiers” qualifies [as ‘mockery’]”
That’s fascinating. The first thing I notice is that you put “occupiers” in quotes, as if I or someone else has used that word in this thread. That’s not the case. Why did you do that?
Aside from that, what’s your point? Are you claiming that we’re not conducting an occupation? Because even Tony Snow has acknowledged that we are, indeed, conducting an occupation (12/19/06):
(Emphasis added.) It’s interesting to note that a while back Dubya himself acknowledged the same thing (5/24/04):
(Emphasis added.) What’s really funny is how much trouble you guys are having picking one story and sticking with it. In Dubya’s narrative, we were occupiers and then we weren’t. But Snow didn’t get the memo; in his narrative, we’re still occupiers. And you didn’t get Snow’s memo; in your narrative, we’re not occupiers, after all.
Anyway, I think you need to explain why Snow is conducting “mockery” of our troops, since you’ve claimed that calling our troops occupiers is a form of “mockery.”
“it’s factually wrong people these are insurgents. People coming in from other countries to store on rest within Iraq. People coming from places like Pakistan and Iran for example.”
You’re suggesting, as Bush has often done, that most of the people we’re fighting are not Iraqi. Trouble is, the one who’s “factually wrong” is you. Here’s the Council on Foreign Relations, discussing al-Qaeda in Iraq (4/6/07):
In case you never heard of CFR, you should know that it’s a respected bipartisan organization that’s currently being run by a Republican.
This is discussed further here:
Incidentally, this has been true for years, and we’ve known this for years (3/12/05):
“People, who … would be coming to America to store their run rest here if we weren’t in Iraq”
Your dictation program is a pain-in-the-neck, but I can’t say it doesn’t have a sense of humor.
You’re promoting the famous flypaper theory, which is, with all due respect, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. The flypaper effect hasn’t prevented deadly attacks in London and Madrid, and various attempts in various places. Why isn’t it working?
Americans understand this. Polls repeatedly show that most Americans believe the war has not made us safer.
By the way, the flypaper theory essentially asserts that we have decided to turn Iraq into a battlefield in order to prevent our own country from becoming a battlefield. First of all, how is this moral? Where do I get the right to make a huge mess in your back yard because I want to avoid having a mess in my own back yard?
And how does this square with the idea that we’re there to liberate the Iraqis? How does turning their country into a battlefield constitute “liberation?”
The shifting rationales used as excuses for the war are incoherent and contradictory.
“The bottom line is the majority of a rocky support the American troops”
There’s that witty dictation program again.
You exemplify that charming Bushist quality: completely ignore all facts you don’t like. I cited proof that most Iraqis want us out. Why are you pretending otherwise? Why do you insist on making all sorts of claims that are probably false?
“Most Americans, even, understand that.”
It is very, very easy to find proof that most Americans want us out. Why do you keep making things up?
A lot of people are wondering how we got into this mess. You’re helping to answer the question, by vividly demonstrating that the GOP runs on emotion (hate and fear, in particular), fantasy and denial, rather than reason and fact. That kind of attitude leads to exactly where we find ourselves. I hope you’ll continue doing such a fine job of illustrating what the GOP is all about.
There haven’t been any attacks here… did you notice?
and you tell me that I ignnore all the facts I don’t like?
You and your horse, pal.
They’re wrong. Nothing new, there.
You know, this level of twisting is nothing short of amazing. You go after Bush, because you claim that Iraq didn’t have anything to do with al-Qaida, and then at need, you turn that around and tell us that al-Qaida fighters are mostly Iraqis.
No I’m saying it’s the height of crass, in other words tentacle democrat, to you the event as a fundraising tool for your own political power. Then to complain when somebody else come inside, is having your cake and eating it too.
Correct. That occupation ended the moment that the new Iraqi government was voted into place, and in turn asked us to stay on to help with security concerns.
by definition, that is not an occupation that as an aide to an internationally recognized government. Are you tell us now that you don’t recognize the new government of Iraq?
bit: “There haven’t been any attacks here”
I thought that was because Bush was doing such a good job of keeping tabs on the terrorists with warrantless wiretaps. He’s claimed that he’s stopped all sorts of plots this way. But how is it that they have time for plots, since we’re trapping them so effectively with flypaper in Iraq?
Anyway, there have never been any major attacks here, except when there are. If I remember correctly, that would be 1993 and 2001. Since you’re claiming that what has kept us safe for the last several years is Bush’s occupying Iraq, then you need to explain how it is that Clinton kept us safe from 1994-2000. He somehow managed to accomplish that without occupying Iraq, and without suffering 30,000 US killed and wounded. How did he do that?
The flypaper theory simply makes no sense. People who want to kill Americans are not going to forget that there are lots of killable Americans in America, simply because we are currently obliging their needs by delivering a bunch of killable Americans right into their hometown, or country, or region. I’m sure they appreciate the way our efforts boost their recruiting and training activities, but they’re not going to express their gratitude by forever refraining from attacking us here.
And if the premise is that we need to fight them there in order to avoid fighting them here, when does that end? Isn’t that just another way of promoting the idea of a permanent occupation? Isn’t that really what you’re calling for? This is one of many questions you insist on ducking.
“You go after Bush, because you claim that Iraq didn’t have anything to do with al-Qaida, and then at need, you turn that around and tell us that al-Qaida fighters are mostly Iraqis.”
I turned nothing around. I don’t know why you’re confused. Both of the following are facts, and the facts do not contradict each other:
A) Before we invaded, “Iraq didn’t have anything to do with al-Qaida”
B) Today, as a result of the occupation, many Iraqis have decided to identify with, support, and join AQ, and, therefore, “al-Qaida fighters [in Iraq] are mostly Iraqis”
Let’s go through this slowly. First of all, it’s not me that says “Iraq didn’t have anything to do with al-Qaida.” It’s the Senate Intelligence Committee, when it was still controlled by Republicans (pdf):
Get it? Before we invaded, AQ was not in Iraq. And Dubya told us so (3/13/02):
Later, when it was time to sell the war, Bush sang a different tune, and told us that OBL and Saddam were buddies. But that’s not because the underlying reality changed; it’s because Bush’s propaganda needs changed. He often relies on the fact that there are lots of people like you who have an exceedingly short memory.
“and then at need, you turn that around and tell us that al-Qaida fighters are mostly Iraqis.”
What about this do you find so hard to grasp? AQ wasn’t there before, but they’re there now, thanks to us. And, for the most part, this does not mean that AQ fighters came from elsewhere. It means that, thanks to us, many Iraqis have decided to join AQ and become AQ fighters.
Here’s something you might not understand: AQ is not an organization with strict membership requirements. It’s more of a movement, or a philosophy. An AQ fighter is anyone who decides to identify with AQ and fight for AQ goals. Thanks to us, lots of Iraqis have decided to jump on that bandwagon.
One more time: before we invaded, there was no such thing as AQ in Iraq. Thanks to us, now there is. And AQ in Iraq consists mostly of Iraqis. I’ve cited a number of credible sources to demonstrate that.
“this level of twisting is nothing short of amazing”
I’ve twisted nothing. The “twisting” is all yours.
“That occupation ended the moment that the new Iraqi government was voted into place”
Then why did Snow call it an “occupation,” when he was spoke on 12/19/06? What do you know that he doesn’t? And why are you pretending I didn’t already mention this? I know the answer: you’re determined to remind us that you regularly ignore any and all facts that you don’t like.
“it’s the height of crass, in other words tentacle democrat, to you the event as a fundraising tool for your own political power”
There’s that witty dictation program again. Here’s what you and that program have in common: you’re both inadvertently funny.
I’ve seen evidence that Edwards talks about his son, and I’ve seen evidence that he raises money for a foundation he created to honor his son. I haven’t seen evidence that he uses his son “as a fundraising tool for [his] own political power.” Where’s your proof?
Speaking of proof, I need to remind you again that your posts are full of false claims, which you should either withdraw or substantiate. Why did you claim the Iraqis want us there? I proved that was false. Why did you claim that the troops believe in the mission? I proved that was false, too. Those are just two prominent examples.
jukeboxgrad, you need to go back to JBU and get your money back, you got robbed, you could have learned all that D-poop your regurgitating for free by studying the posts written by the masterfully brilliant KookooDonkaPooPoo propaganda professors that we of sound minds and reason share the prestigious OTB think-tank with.
I know precisely what I said; they’re asking us to stay. First of all how would we be their subsequent to the new government being installed, unless that new government has asked us to remain? (Otherwise, you know as well as I that the democrats to be all over us for remaining past the time we were legally requested, and that would be the focus of your argument.)
As it is, they’re asking us to stay until the job’s done. As an example, consider the (I think under-reprted) comments of Dr. Ali Aldabbagh, of the Iraqi government.
I suppose you won’t take the comments of a member of Iraqi government seriously. But there they are.
Are you sure you want to expose the remainder of your statements to similar scrutiny?
And yet all you offer is opinion.
I demand from you the same level of proof you demand of me. Prove to us Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. And here’s a clue; The senate intelligence committee also was rendering opinions, not facts,a nd has been widely disputed, by even the anti-war left on this point.
What about the difference between facts and opinions is so difficult for you to grasp?
Indeed. Nothing new here.
phillips: “[vapid, puerile nonsense]”
Thanks, we can never have too much of that.
bit: “they’re [the Iraqi people] asking us to stay”
I cited multiple credible polls demonstrating otherwise. Those polls were done by our State Dept. and by the UK Ministry of Defence. Nice job doing what you do: invent your own facts. Of course you’re not going to present anything remotely resembling proof of your claim. And of course you are so completely devoid of intellectual honesty you’re not even going to acknowledge the proof I cited.
“how would we be their subsequent to the new government being installed, unless that new government has asked us to remain”
Of course Maliki wants us to stay for a while. He knows that his life expectancy is currently measured in nanoseconds, without US troops risking their lives to keep him upright.
By the way, I didn’t say Maliki’s government wants us to leave. I said the Iraqi people want us to leave, and I proved it. Maybe your theory is that Maliki is doing a great job of following the will of his people. That’s pretty ironic, since Bush is ignoring his people just like Maliki is.
“they’re asking us to stay until the job’s done”
Maliki has his own self-serving concept of how to define “until the job’s done.” This mostly means giving him all time he needs to crush his various internal enemies, both Sunni and Shiite. The moment he doesn’t need us anymore, he’ll go back to being the same Hezbollah-supporting terrorist he’s been his whole life.
“the … comments of Dr. Ali Aldabbagh, of the Iraqi government”
What a big surprise: the government Bush props up is willing to regurgitate Bush’s talking points. There’s a word for this: puppetry.
“I suppose you won’t take the comments of a member of Iraqi government seriously.”
True. I’m not impressed by a puppet government. Neither are most Iraqis.
By the way, did you notice that your “member of Iraqi government” explicitly called for a “withdrawal timetable?” Why aren’t we respecting his wishes? Is it because “you won’t take the comments of a member of Iraqi government seriously?”
“Are you sure you want to expose the remainder of your statements to similar scrutiny?”
Your idea of “scrutiny” is quite a joke. It consists of inventing your own facts and ignoring all facts that you don’t like.
“all you offer is opinion”
I realize you have no idea how to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. Surveys done by US and UK government agencies are not my “opinion.” They’re fact.
“Prove to us Iraq had nothing to do with AQ”
That conclusion was reached by a committee controlled by Republican senators. Nice job proving that no proof is good enough for you, except when you present assertions backed by no proof at all.
“The senate intelligence committee also was rendering opinions, not facts”
They applied the following label to their conclusions: “conclusions.” Not opinion. “Conclusions.” If you don’t like that, take it up with them.
“a nd has been widely disputed, by even the anti-war left on this point”
Yes, we know that people like you have “disputed” the conclusion reached by Republican senators, that Saddam and AQ had no relationship. Please let us know who in “the anti-war left” disputes them “on this point.” Maybe you’re about to argue that Power Line is part of “the anti-war left.” That makes about as much sense as your other claims.
“What about the difference between facts and opinions is so difficult for you to grasp?”
By the way, you’re still ducking all sorts of questions. Why did Snow call it an “occupation?” Why is it OK with you that he mocked our troops?
Right,I’m glad you admit it, so why are still making arguments with worthlessly self delusional liberal talking points?