56-41 and fight: the Senate’s latest vote on Iraq
It wasn’t really a vote about Iraq, not directly. The bill was a proposal by Senators Hagel and Webb that members of the US military be given the same amount of time at home as they’ve served overseas. If passed, it would have effectively limited the number of troops serving in Iraq at any one time.
But the bill never made it to an actual vote on the merits, because the preliminary poll on the question of limiting debate failed to muster the needed sixty “ayes.” This is an indication that, at least at present, at least in the Senate, the support does not exist to override a Presidential veto (two-thirds), even if the bills in question were to come to a vote and to pass with a simple majority.
This particular bill was a mild one compared to some others; so if it was a trial balloon, it was a bust. And since Bush has recently made it clear he’s not caving—despite many earlier wish-fulfillment articles in the MSM speculating that he might—it seems that current attempts to curtail the Iraqi campaign are probably not going to work.
That doesn’t mean that things can’t change, and momentum build for successful antiwar legislation a bit later in the game.
The jihadis, of course, are probably watching the whole thing with great amusement.
Meanwhile, the almost comatose campaign of the beleagured John McCain limps on. But McCain himself does’t sound beaten, especially on this topic. Yesterday he gave a speech that masterfully summed up the situation in Iraq and in Congress. Read it.
The MSM continues to trumpet every possible Republican defection—or even any Republican voicing of doubt (see this, for example, in which Elizabeth Dole repeats what Bush already has said about the amount of time available to the Iraqi government not being indefinite; see this for a fuller explanation of where Dole actually stands at present and her relatively mild differences with the official party line).
And Harry Reid continues to exist in his own alternate reality:
“If there were real signs of progress or real reason for hope, that might make sense,” he said, before adding: “Mr. President, there is no evidence the escalation is working.”
It’s clear that Reid doesn’t read the Wall Street Journal. Or if he does, he doesn’t believe it. Or if he does read it and believe it, he doesn’t think his constituency does either, so he can safely ignore it.
But Reid and ilk don’t need no steenking evidence, nor do they really want it. What they want is out, and they want it ASAP, before they are left holding a rather large, unwieldy—and steenking—bag.
The Wall Street Journal article was written by Kimberly Kagan.
Isn’t she the wife of Fred Kagan, the guy who came up with the “surge” plan in the first place?
She hardly seems like an objective judge of whether her husband’s plan is working or not.
alph:
Read Michael Yon. Really read. Then see if you can think for one tiny moment. Read the NYT editorial of July 9. Really read. Then see if you can think again.
Do that, come back, and give us your insight, if any. Otherwise, please, please, offer some on-topic commentary that contributes to the discussion. You’re a waste of bandwidth now, don’t be a waste of oxygen.
Gotta hand it to Alphie on that one. Was she sent on a junket??
Pingback:The Selling of Defeat…. at Amused Cynic
Unknown Baby,
You mean, like Joe Wilson?
The point is not who Kagan is, the point is whether there is any evidence that the surge is working (Yon provides evidence as well, as does McCain in his speech if you care to read any of this evidence).
Would one expect this evidence to be marshaled by those who are and have been against the surge from the start? Of course it’s presented by those who are supporters. The real point is that Reid and company are ignoring the evidence and saying (and I quote, emphasis mine): “there is no evidence that the surge is working.”
Refute the evidence, challenge it on its merits, rebut it point by point if you wish and if you can. But don’t say it doesn’t exist, or dismiss it out of hand from the comforts of your living rooms (or the halls of Congress) because it happens to suit your purposes.
If anyone has noticed(I have), the left can’t knock the surge based on it’s failure on the ground(because it’s succeeding), the escalation of violence(because it’s declining), or the Iraqi people’s objection to our presence(because they’re joining us). Nope, the one part left is the only one Bush and Petraeus can’t directly control, the Iraqi government. And based solely on that, and prematurely, by the way, do they consider the surge to be a failure.
One would think, based on their insistence that they are “objective observers” and not “partisan obstructionists”, that they could acknowledge at least that much. Sadly, for this group of “patriots”, failure must be manufactured. “Support” for the troops is telling them “you failed”, and “support for the Iraqi people is “When Al Qaeda takes over, things will calm down”.
Lee,
Why don’t you link to some objective evidence that the surge is working?
You certainly don’t mean Yon’s latest article, which says we’re so desperate, we’re arming and training the very people we’re supposed to be fighting now.
“Just months ago our forces would have shot Abu Ali on sight, and he surely would have done the same to us. Today we are allies, for now.”
If we wanted to go that route, we could have just left Saddam in power and spared ourselves the trouble.
You know what the group we’re siding with now calls itself?
Hamas in Iraq.
Alph,
Why don’t you sef darwinate?
Sure, Alpo,
Just as soon as you you give us your sources, I’ll be more than happy to. I get tired of being asked to provide sources by people like you who never do.
Let’s see…You’ve already been provided with The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The BBC, Michael Yon, Michael Totten. Yet now, you’re asking for something already provided to you, which you refuse to come up with to back your assertions. Provide one “objective” source that backs your assertions, or bugger off, loser.
iraqslogger.comIn fact, Alpo, just to prove a point(and prove you wrong, again), let me show you how it’s done:
Those that disagree with the 1920 Revolution Brigade have splintered off and started a new organization which calls itself “Hamas in Iraq”. They are not those we now support.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2149/Hamas_of_Iraq_Splits_from_1920_Brigades
See how easy that was, providing links and proving you wrong?
This is twice now I’ve had to take you by the hand and show you these things. But, like a petulant brat, you refuse to learn.
Lee,
We may have a vague idea what our new buddiesare doing 9-5, but we have no clue what they’re up to after hours.
Funding from the U.S. is the same way the Taliban got its start…
Well, then, Alpo, be sure to keep an eye on them for us, won’t you?
But until you have evidence(there’s your lack of source problem again) they are being duplicitous, try giving them the benefit of the doubt.
The Italians we fought in WWII proved to be excellent allies against their former friends, the Germans.
Isn’t she the wife of Fred Kagan, the guy who came up with the “surge” plan in the first place?
And who are you wife of to think that the surge came from Kagan?
Then see if you can think for one tiny moment
Thinking is at a premium these days, Stumb.
Was she sent on a junket??
Plame certainly was.
The point is not who Kagan is, the point is whether there is any evidence that the surge is working
The point is whatever penetrates people’s defenses, and it seems the Left believes certain character assassinations can pierce our defenses. That being that, I don’t suppose anything else matters to them.
They are simple creatures at heart, really.
challenge it on its merits
One will not challenge it on its merits if one believes that all things being equal, their argument is not strong enough to defeat their opponents. The principle by which the 1st Ammendment works is not a principle by which they abide, or if they do, they understand that in a fair fight they will lose, so why not cheat?
Why don’t you link to some objective evidence that the surge is working?
Why don’t you tell us who you are the wife of, because that is obviously more important as a point of contest to you than meer evidence.
we’re arming and training the very people we’re supposed to be fighting now.
Alphie sort of proves the point that even if you gave the Left “evidence”, they wouldn’t know what to do with them. They know in a sense, at the gut level, that because of that lack of understand that they would be hopelessly outclassed in a fair fight over ideas and policies. So they must make needs meet.
If we wanted to go that route, we could have just left Saddam in power and spared ourselves the trouble.
The point is, you would have left Saddam in power because that’s the status quo you wanted to keep. Others are not satisfied with your attempt to seek the moral high ground by watching the slaughter from the Arena stands, Alphie. Everyone has already said often that the military is sparing the US civilians the trouble of doing much of anything. Why don’t you pay heed to your own side’s advice and trouble yourself no more with things others are doing for you.
You know what the group we’re siding with now calls itself?
I don’t know, which group has the Left sided themselves with in the quest for political expedience and power?
Btw, I have all confidence that Lee and Alphie can go at it until the sun itself burns out; or one of them dies, whichever comes first.
Lee,
We had another soldier killed by one of our Afghan army “allies” this week:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6288180.stm
Turned out the killer was Taliban.
I’m not sure what the administration’s Iraq end game really is, but all I see is that they’ve decided to become the largest supporter of Sunni terrorists in the Middle east and call it a win.
Forgive me if I withhold my applause.
You’re not very bright, neo. Not at all.
Yulin-
Are you a character from a play? Royalty, perhaps? You remind of the Viscount from Cyrano De Bergerac:
THE VISCOUNT:
No one? But wait!
I’ll treat him to. . .one of my quips!. . .See here!. . .
(He goes up to Cyrano, who is watching him, and with a conceited air):
Sir, your nose is. . .hmm. . .it is. . .very big!
CYRANO (gravely):
Very!
THE VISCOUNT (laughing):
Ha!
CYRANO (imperturbably):
Is that all?. . .
THE VISCOUNT:
What do you mean?
CYRANO:
Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short!
You might have said at least a hundred things
By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . .
Aggressive: ‘Sir, if I had such a nose
I’d amputate it!’ Friendly: ‘When you sup
It must annoy you, dipping in your cup;
You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!’
Descriptive: ”Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape!
–A cape, forsooth! ‘Tis a peninsular!’
Curious: ‘How serves that oblong capsular?
For scissor-sheath? Or pot to hold your ink?’
Gracious: ‘You love the little birds, I think?
I see you’ve managed with a fond research
To find their tiny claws a roomy perch!’
Truculent: ‘When you smoke your pipe. . .suppose
That the tobacco-smoke spouts from your nose–
Do not the neighbors, as the fumes rise higher,
Cry terror-struck: “The chimney is afire”?’
Considerate: ‘Take care,. . .your head bowed low
By such a weight. . .lest head o’er heels you go!’
Tender: ‘Pray get a small umbrella made,
Lest its bright color in the sun should fade!’
Pedantic: ‘That beast Aristophanes
Names Hippocamelelephantoles
Must have possessed just such a solid lump
Of flesh and bone, beneath his forehead’s bump!’
Cavalier: ‘The last fashion, friend, that hook?
To hang your hat on? ‘Tis a useful crook!’
Emphatic: ‘No wind, O majestic nose,
Can give THEE cold!–save when the mistral blows!’
Dramatic: ‘When it bleeds, what a Red Sea!’
Admiring: ‘Sign for a perfumery!’
Lyric: ‘Is this a conch?. . .a Triton you?’
Simple: ‘When is the monument on view?’
Rustic: ‘That thing a nose? Marry-come-up!
‘Tis a dwarf pumpkin, or a prize turnip!’
Military: ‘Point against cavalry!’
Practical: ‘Put it in a lottery!
Assuredly ‘twould be the biggest prize!’
Or. . .parodying Pyramus’ sighs. . .
‘Behold the nose that mars the harmony
Of its master’s phiz! blushing its treachery!’
–Such, my dear sir, is what you might have said,
Had you of wit or letters the least jot:
But, O most lamentable man!–of wit
You never had an atom, and of letters
You have three letters only!–they spell Ass!
And–had you had the necessary wit,
To serve me all the pleasantries I quote
Before this noble audience. . .e’en so,
You would not have been let to utter one–
Nay, not the half or quarter of such jest!
I take them from myself all in good part,
But not from any other man that breathes!
I think Cyrano described you to a “T.”
The WSJ is a first-rate newspaper, and a news story of theirs showing that the surge is working would be difficult to ignore. Sincewhat you’ve linked to is an editorial, I presume you couldn’t find one.
all I see is that they’ve decided to become the largest supporter of Sunni terrorists in the Middle east and call it a win.
The Left was calling Bush an ally of Iran last time. And before then, they were saying why not Iran instead of Iraq, as if they would support anything against Iran.
The point is to tie the mobility of the enemy army in knots so they cannot move, and when they cannot move the spider comes in for the kill.
The Left will never allow the United States real allies in the fight for humanity. They will destroy every ally you have and will ever have, whether that includes Japan, Vietnamese folks that are now corpses, or Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whoa, Ymar,
You’re like Don Rickles AND Phil Hendrie, tonight!
Slappin’ em down.
Ymar,
Is somebody your wife?
Is Iraq worth it? Is this war actually a just one? Is this war in the national interest?
In a word, no.
There is no real American interest that required or even hinted at the need for an invasion of Iraq, and I am convinced that the United States should never risk the lives of American soldiers except where some real American interest requires that risk. There can be arguments over what constitutes a “real” American interest, but I would like to think that there ought to be a general consensus, at least among conservatives, that if there is no such interest our government has no business getting involved.
I know what the foreign policy and political establishment types have said and what they continue to say about ”threats” to this country from countries in the Near East, and they are almost always wrong. They were spectacularly wrong about Iraq, but not simply in the obvious “bad intelligence” ways. Almost every assumption they made about how Iraq supposedly threatened the United States was wrong. In no conceivable way did it threaten the mainland U.S., nor was there any real threat to Europe, nor was there an uncontainable threat to Israel or the Gulf states. A weak, fractured despotism that had been economically half-starved into compliance not only didn’t pose a serious threat to anyone, but couldn’t even begin to do so. We might as well regard Zimbabwe as a major threat to the world by the standards used to judge Iraq to be a threat. Whether these establishment folks are very bad at what they do, or whether they are dishonest, I cannot tell for most of them, but wrong they certainly are. I say “almost” in these statements simply because I do not want to rule out entirely the possibility that they may, at some point, get something right. But it has been a while since that happened.
Besides, any invasion of Iraq was inevitably going to be a war of aggression, which cannot be squared with a commitment to international law or justice. As it happens, the war is also unconstitutional and is being run by executive fiat, which ought to trump everything else in conservative circles, but I have long since given up hope of trying to convince war supporters of anything related to the Constitution. People who believe the executive has broad, undefined ”inherent powers” will believe just about anything.
This is, I suppose, about as hard-line antiwar as you are likely to find, but the reasons for this position seem to me to be abundant. There are three elements to my position: strategic, legal and moral.
For there to have been anything in the national interest that actually might compel the government to invade Iraq, at least one of the following three things had to be true: 1) Iraq was an uncontainable threat to vital resources or allies; 2) Iraq was an uncontainable threat to the United States itself; 3) Iraq was working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda. Some opponents of the war (rightly) never believed government claims about WMDs, and many correctly dismissed claims about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda as being essentially inherently absurd. (Interestingly, having pushed this falsehood as strongly as he could, watch how Feith now runs from this position as quickly as he can.) This latter claim was entirely untrue as far as any meaningful or active cooperation between the two were concerned. The WMD question was somewhat more vexed, but there were inspectors who correctly claimed prior to the invasion that the weapons had been eliminated and the programs shut down. It is therefore not true if anyone should say that we did not have good reason to think government claims were false. These claims, which were by far the most accurate, were simply ignored or brushed aside.
Success in its most optimistic, pre-invasion terms of a genuinely liberal democratic Iraq that would make peace with Israel and serve as a model for the region was not actually ever possible for many of the reasons antiwar conservatives gave before the war, but suppose for a moment that it was possible. Wouldn’t that great dream have been worth it? No, not at all. Two reasons: 1) America should never, barring an attack or uncontainable threat from that country’s government, attempt to dictate through the use of force the political future of any other country; 2) even the most optimistic scenario of liberal democratic Eden serves no compelling U.S. interests.
Does it actually matter to American security whether people in the Near East vote in their bad governments or not? Well, no, it doesn’t. Latin American countries are going hog-wild with democratic mass movements, most of which seem antithetical to U.S. interests and liberal values, just as would be the inevitable outcome of any kind of democracy in the Near East.
Let’s ask a different, related question: is it the proper business of the United States government to use its military so that people in other nations can be liberated from repressive governments? Quite simply, no, it isn’t. That isn’t what our government exists to do. It should use its military to defend our country, any allies with which we may have defense treaties and vital resources. It cannot be worthwhile to liberate other peoples because it is a kind of war that not only goes far beyond what our government is supposed to be doing and engages in conflicts that it has no right to involve our people in, but also because it quite clearly harms the United States in the process.
More basically, any such intervention is, by definition, an act of aggression by one state against another. An intervention with the stated goal of regime change is even more obviously an act of aggression. This has no justification in international law and clearly violates international law in its infringement on the sovereignty of another state.
Aggressive war cannot be moral and it cannot be just. To choose war, as our government indeed did, is to choose to unleash all the horrors of war on people who have done no lasting, grave or permanent harm to us. They may or may not be wretched, awful people. They may or may not be tyrants. Whether they are or not is actually irrelevant to the question of whether our government has the right to commit aggression against another state. The bottom line is that the attacked state has done nothing to deserve our attack on it. How much less, then, do the civilians killed in the process deserve it? How can a war of aggression ever be “worth” the moral stain and illegality that it entails? How can unleashing hell on earth without cause ever be worthwhile? It cannot be.
Neo-
I rather doubt the Dems will realize their ambition to hold the whole steenking bag come Nov. 08. The next Pres will not be a Dem. Alphie and Sashal will be left once again frothing and moaning, with their ilk, in their parallel universe.
Thanks, Tom,
for proving utter stupidity and inability to comprehend. Read sashal posts again. See if you can get some useful info for yourself, dummy.
Just to be clear, the dems are not much better then the lowest scum on Earth -the neocons , who were spectacularly wrong on everything in their Utopian trotskyism and bloodthirsty fantasies.
Neo, I wonder if it’s time to start calling Reid and his ilk “Copperheads.” If nothing else, the MSM will have to spend enough time explaining it that some people will learn that we’ve been there, done that, and almost made the mistake. “Harry Reid and the Copperheads.” Has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
spectacularly wrong on everything in their Utopian trotskyism
The Communist Revolution was taken by Stalin loyalists, who then purged Trotsky and all their ilk. Like all internal factional fights designed to accrue power for the masters, they keep going at it because if you can’t find any jews or trotskyites, you just make them up.
Is Iraq worth it? Is this war actually a just one? Is this war in the national interest?
In a word, no.
As people can see, when the Masters speak, we must listen, for we are meer mortals compared to their transcendence.
They know all and speak little, and we must be humble in our treatment of they who rule over all.
sashal: There are three elements to my position: strategic, legal and moral.
And he’s wrong on every one.
This is all, of course, merely retreading ground that’s already been worn down to bedrock, but it’s as good a chance as any to summarize:
Strategic:
The first requirement of strategy is to know who and what your enemy is. Here, the enemy isn’t just Al Qaeda, which is simply the latest name and group to pop up — the enemy is a global islamist movement that has gone, and goes now, under many names and leaders, that has variants ranging from largely secular, fascist-inspired offshoots to religious fundamentalists, but that sees a common enemy in the capitalist, industrial, individualistic modern world, of which the US is both symbol and leader. The general strategy is not to be frozen into a defensive posture that can only sit and await the next blow, as terror slowly spreads, but to strike at the heart of this hydra, which is the Middle-East swamp of terror-supporting state tyrannies, of which Iraq is both symbol and keystone.
Legal:
First, there’s no such thing as “international law” in any legitimate sense — it exists solely as an occasionally useful diplomatic fiction. For law to be legitimate there must be a legitimate legislature that makes and modifies such law, a legitimate judiciary that interprets and applies such law, and a legitimate police force able to enforce such law — none of those bodies exists in the case of so-called “international law”.
Second, if Bush or any current administration has exceeded the constitutionally prescribed limits of his authority, then the remedy is to bring that case to a court of law — not to try to “convince war supporters”. You, sashal, or anyone else may be quite convinced that Bush is acting illegally, but your personal opinions are of little relevance — what you have to do is convince a court (and ultimately the Supreme Court) that your view is correct. And if what you’re saying is so obvious, you shouldn’t have any trouble doing so, should you? But since, after five years, no one has even tried to do so, maybe that’s evidence in itself that Bush is well within his constitutional authority.
Moral:
We were attacked and we have every moral right to defend ourselves as best we can, including proactive offense. This is a different kind of war, using extra-state proxies, and we have every moral right to adjust our own strategies and tactics accordingly, including singling out those states that are at the heart of a region wherein these extra-state proxies are concentrated, tolerated and supported — just as, some while back, states had every moral right to attack and “change the regime” of other states that tolerated and supported pirates. We have, in fact, more than every moral right — we have a moral obligation to do so, an obligation that much of the current left-lib faction is anxious to run from.
Thanks, Sally,
I always enjoy seeing the mental gymnastic routine the pro-war crowd has to perform each day to get from reality to their worldview.
Perhaps you could favor us with one more triple backflip?
If the “real” enemy is the Global Islamist Movement, why have we allied ourselves with groups like 1920 Revolution Brigade (see: Michael Yon)?
The terroorism knowledge base has this desciption of them:
The 1920 Revolution Brigades is the military wing of the Islamic Resistance Movement in Iraq, formerly called the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance. The group is named after the 1920 Iraqi uprising against British colonial occupation following World War I, when the League of Nations granted the United Kingdom control over three Ottoman territories — Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra — that make up present day Iraq. Arabic script in the group’s logo contains a verse from the Quran popular among Jihadists, “Fight them, God shall torture them by your hands,” below which reads, “Islamic Resistance Movement, Twentieth Revolution Brigades.”
Stick the landing.
Thanks sally, for expressing true fascistic views.
Wonder what secular people of Iraq think, the ones who are still alive and hadn’t been liberated to death , about us picking them out as our exercise in Neoconservative ideas ?
Here are the reason for the Iraq war , you duped by neocons’ fascists still can not comprehend.
The fact stands that the majority of the hijackers were Saudis and the man ultimately behind the operation, Bin Laden, was a rich Saudi. Saudi Arabia represents the pinnacle of Islamist autocracy and stands 100% opposed to American values — and yet we were dependent upon them for military bases to protect the Gulf’s oil assets. Couple this also with these facts:
1. World, but especially Chinese, demand for oil had been growing and continues to grow exponentially.
2. Western and western-friendly oil assets are either all in sustained decline or approaching the point of decline from peak oil production.
3. The last time world oil discovery outpaced world oil consumption was twenty years ago.
4. The remaining massive, potentially politically accessible deposits of oil left remaining available to the industrialized West were all contained in the Middle East.
Under these conditions the Iraq War makes sense geo-strategically, politically, in fact in almost every way. Regime change creates a secure client state in the middle of the world’s last remaining great oil patch at time of dwindling supplies. It protects Israel, and so satisfies the pro-Israel part of the party. Insofar as it uses the rhetoric of ‘freedom versus terrorism’ it can be spun ideologically in a way that garners support and splits the opposition — thus creating the political el dorado of Rove’s ‘permanent majority’. It provided lucrative contracts to the military-industrial complex. It gave the pro-Republican officer corps a prestige boost and something to put on their resumes. It appealed to liberal interventionists like Thomas Friedman, nauseating moralists like you, and salivating imperialists like Bill Kristol. Throw in an arrogant, ignorant president with a messianic complex and a chip on his shoulder, a subservient, politicized mass media, an incompetent opposition, and a supremely ignorant, panicked, and fearful citizenry and the question inverts itself. Under these conditions, how could we NOT go to war against Iraq in 2003?
The rest, as they say, is history.
sl_kadet Says:
You will never attack the Saudis for your allies have always benefited from an understanding with Saudi princes.
You were not part of the liberation of Iraq, and all you do now is sabotage it. Don’t try to steal credit by saying “we” did anything. You did nothing except sabotage the work of good men and women.
It’s good to see alph actually doing a little reading, isn’t it? For a troll that’s a real accomplishment — now he just has to learn about things like context, interpretation, and judgment. Keep at it, though, alph — another five or six years and you may be able to understand a little about strategy and tactics. (Hint and exercise: look up what Churchill had to say about his alliance with Stalin.)
As for sl, he just comes across as an alien from the ConspiracyTheory Planet — I mean, the neocon’s “Utopian trotskyism”?! I’m only surprised he didn’t mention the TriLateral Commission, the Illuminati, and of course The Protocols, but maybe he just thinks we’re not ready for that yet.
Nice try, Sally.
The U.S. backing Sunni terrorists in Iraq today would be more like the U.S. and Britain backing the Nazis during WWII.
You can do better than that.
Crank out that rationalization for us!
yes, yes, Sally.
keep dodging with trotskyism shtick.
Try to answer to another post, about the real reason.
Your lies and manipulation can work somewhere in the deep south, or with Hannity faithful listeners.
Your false and anti-humanitarian ideology which has roots in Jacobin maximalism( educate yourself-fascist, before you blame somebody for conspiracy theories) has already discredited itself in the eyes of 70% of Americans.
Neo, truly, it’s time for alphie to go. It just surfaces long enough to drop its rancid little pellets and then hangs around to watch how we react to the stink. There’s no attempt at honest debate or criticism; it’s just like the “Argument Clinic” of Monty Python:
“M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.”
…and on, ad infinitum. I could always just ignore its posts, but there are so many of them in some threads that it takes away from what are usually very cogent discussions.
Please, ban it.
…and sl_kadet, while you’re at it.
Oh, Ymarsakar.
Are you always that stupid ?
Or just pretend
Hey, neo neocon, nice to see the authoritarians like stumbley are welcomed here.
Just confirms my statement, about who you guys really are.
go ahead ban me, wallow in your self pity and self masturbation, if you can’t stand the competition.
Well, alph’s entertainment value has certainly depreciated lately — too predictable to bother about.
But that kadet guy — wow! Your false and anti-humanitarian ideology which has roots in Jacobin maximalism( educate yourself-fascist, before you blame somebody for conspiracy theories) has already discredited itself in the eyes of 70% of Americans. — that’s gold, stumbley, gold!
“that’s gold, stumbley, gold!”
…I was thinking in terms of something a shade darker….
well, Sally ,
at least you are gracious in your defeat.
I understand that you have no arguments about my post at 3:52 regarding the real reasons for Iraq war
Well, of course, junior birdman, it’s always been ALL ABOUT OOOOOOILLLLLL!!!!!!
When it’s not about Israel and the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!
Sally and I are just crushed by your wisdom.
pretend
Next time, bring something more powerful than a toy to a battle of wits. Do you truly think that you may defeat Nazis and Trotsky loyalists with toys?
you are gracious
She can always call you stupid, that would obviously be your version of a totally effective argument.
Simple creatures, as I said.
Stumb, if you get frustrated by Alphie, why then do you spend so much time with time that you could spend reading other things and commenting at other blogs?
Life’s short, kadet, and taking time to refute “nonsense on stilts” (to use somebody else’s phrase) just wastes it. Your type have thousands of these stories, ranging, as I’ve indicated, from some conspiracy of the Yale Skull and Bones Society, to the Rosicrucians, to the Jooos, to Flying Saucers and Mother Ships — and as long as you’re not an active danger to those around you, you’re welcome to them.
Yes Sally, the life is short and to refute the truth in Kadet’s post will take the whole bunch of lies to bring to into discussion. you made a good point.
BTW, I have a question to you , Sally, cause you seem a bit more intelligent poster then the other nut jobs, who see all over the place ‘JOOOWS” discrimination, even though neither kadet nor alpo mentioned them in their posts.
well, sorry, back to the question.: you said that life is short to refute legitimate points brought by kadet, how short the life’s expectancy is permissible by you neoconservatives to the people you are trying to liberate around the globe, what probability and statistical chance would you give to those unwilling participants from the native population who were killed by well meaning troops.
Say, if you were Iraqi and hated Saddam would you be still glad for his removal using the methods employed by historically and diplomatically illiterate neoconservatives if that would cause the death of one of your children or husband or relative? Or even you-yourself ?
Ymar, I mostly ignore it. And I read quite a few other blogs, and comment there occasionally. I’ve resolved mostly to not bother anymore with folks like alph, kadet and UB, but, you know, rampant stupidity annoys me.
I’ll be quiet for a while now.
I also have a question to the owner of this blog.
What is your impression regarding today’s Bush press conference?
Here is mine:
I watched the entire presser.
These were my impressions:
1. This man is seriously mentally ill. Totally delusional
2. He has no respect for the people whatever
3. He takes no responsibility for the giant train wreck
4. He is coached and rehearsed to use big lies and inversions to talk his way out of anything and everything
5. He has no respect for democracy, but wants to pimp it in a faraway land that has never had it before
6. He claims that we are safer today and that Al Qaeda is diminished, in the face of evidence to the contrary
7. He is trying to muddy the magical “September” thing where we look at the surge and ascertain its effects
8. He constantly tries to separate Congress from the people, when in his job, Congress IS the people
9. He resorts to fearmongering about once every five minutes, while at the same time telling us that he’s made us safer
It was a true visit to the Twilight Zone. Material that could have been written by Joseph Heller.
yes stumbley, you are an intellectual light weight.
Keep ignoring , you have no other choice for fear to be exposed as a duped brainwashed fraud, the member of the GOP fan club, no matter how bad or well they play in the tournament.
sashel: Say, if you were Iraqi and hated Saddam would you be still glad for his removal using the methods employed by historically and diplomatically illiterate neoconservatives if that would cause the death of one of your children or husband or relative? Or even you-yourself ?
See, sash, this is just the sort of question that just makes you and your ilk look — and there’s no polite term for it, I’m afraid — a bit slow. Let me make a few changes and see if that helps you see why (or, if not you, others): “Say, if you were Iraqi and hated America would you be still side with that country’s historically and diplomatically illiterate enemies if that would cause the death of one of your children or husband or relative? Or even you-yourself?”
And if you think kadet’s points were “legitimate”, I can only speculate what you might think about Bin Laden’s “points”.
matt-sanchez.comThere are plenty of liberators that have spoken well for the cause of the United States
But none of that matters if one will not believe.
One thing that will make people believe is if Bush uses MIRV nukes via authorization to his submarine force, and also starts executing folks in the United States on demand.
That’ll convince almost anybody.
8. He constantly tries to separate Congress from the people, when in his job, Congress IS the people
Right. That’s what the South said concerning State’s Rights to use slaves as parts of a man concerning population votes and representation. The “states” are the people, obviously.
very disappointing , Sally.
Now you can of course keep conflating Bin Laden and Saddam, after all your bettors do it all the time, but that shtick only works for a few delusioned ones, that’s all.
So you were not able to justify the attack on Iraq .
That’s what I thought. If I were you, I would acknowledge the defeat and inability to refute even one of kadet’s points.
Ymarsakar, do you know what is the interesting point you inadvertently brought into our discussion?( thanks for the link, btw)
90% of Americans, including me were on the Bush’s side regarding Afghanistan. Only when he started uncalled for and unnecessary invasion of Iraq , only then he started to lose the support of American people.
some could see it right away how stupid and hurting our cause against AQ that Iraq war was(including me), for some it took a little longer.
Where are you?
Still on the brainwashed deluded side?
“for fear to be exposed as a duped brainwashed fraud, the member of the GOP fan club, no matter how bad or well they play in the tournament.”
Dang! I forgot to launder my brown shirt today…guess I’ll have to wear the sheet tonight…
I cower before the onslaught of such withering humiliation! I’ll never be able to comment again!
90% of Americans, including me were on the Bush’s side regarding Afghanistan.
Every American likes a cheap war for funs and giggles. Maybe not every American, but certainly every American Leftist.
only then he started to lose the support of American people.
Only when the slaves started getting uppity and disagreeing with the cheap war loving Left, did he start losing support.
Of course the same WSJ was editorially supporting the Taliban during the Clinton years.
“Every American likes a cheap war for funs and giggles. Maybe not every American, but certainly every American Leftist.”
So Noam Chomsky ordered Grenada.
“Only when the slaves started getting uppity and disagreeing with the cheap war loving Left, did he start losing support.”
Usually conservatives are good writers. Why are the ones here so inept?