|
 |
September 12, 2003 "ODIOUS DRECK"....Jack O'Toole is really, really tired of people like Andrew Sullivan — well, Andrew Sullivan — trying to pretend that Democrats "by and large" don't even believe in Middle East terrorism and simply want to give up and surrender to al-Qaeda. Me too. Posted by Kevin Drum at September 12, 2003 09:33 AM | TrackBackComments
Well, Jack is tired of broad statements like this, but when Drum makes broad statements like "conservatives want to poisen the water" and people in the comment section write "republicans are racists", I guess THAT'S okay? Last line of the link: "But I do know this: Democrats, like Republicans, "by and large" get up and go to work in the morning, do their best to treat other people decently, cherish their families, and love America with a deep and abiding passion" So perhaps both sides could d debate without calling each other names? Well, I'll won't hold my breath waiting for A.N.S.W.E.R to get rid of their "Bush=Hitler" signs. Posted by: whatever at September 12, 2003 09:48 AM | PERMALINKI'm convinced by now that when Sullivan or any other loudmouth (Coulter, etc.) make such outrageous claims, they themselves don't believe them; rather, it is an effective strategy that aims to put people on the left constantly on defensive. By asking "So for how many years have you beaten your wife," we're supposed to spend all our time explaining that we don't beat our wives at all, meanwhile, the dishes pile up in the sink. Posted by: Commisar at September 12, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINKBoy, ANSWER must be in league with the Trilateral Commission or something. Otherwise how could a group of a few dozen people be so scary. Posted by: Rob at September 12, 2003 10:08 AM | PERMALINKMeanwhile, the Republicans "by and large" have a policy of invading random foreign countries only in order to secure no-bid contracts for Halliburton and for no other reason. They "by and large" want to take money away from poor starving people (how one "takes money away from" poor people, who by definition have almost no money to take away, is unclear, but anyway...) to give to billionaires. Finally, "by and large" Republicans want to enslave us all and take away our Precious Bodily Flui....er, Civil Liberties, because that's exactly what a law like the Patriot Act does, even though no one can explain how exactly and few who say any of this have even read the thing. Oh yeah, and Bush is Hitler, and Ashcroft is a monster (because he's religious). As I understand things, Ashcroft's deepest darkest wish is to prevent everyone from having sex (or something). Anyway, he's evil, everyone knows that. (Not that any of the Ashcroft-is-evil people actually know a damn thing about Ashcroft, of course... except for the fact that he's religious. Which, apparently, is enough these days.) And all that isn't odious dreck, a slur, or garbage at all. That's enlightened commentary for intelligent people. You have to be dumb (like Bush) to disagree with any of that! Posted by: Name: at September 12, 2003 10:19 AM | PERMALINKActually, Rob - I think they get their black helicopters from the UN . On a more serious note, at what point did the Democratic Party == ANSWER thing become the standard line amongst conservative commentators, although I can see the attraction, if you reinforce the idea that capitalism is republicanism and everything else communism, you never have to compromise ( a familiar concept). It seems most of them couldn't recognize the difference between even the mildest Social Democracy (even if you could call Democrat policy social democracy) and Marxist idealogy unless they were hit over the head with a rolled-up manuscript of 'Das Kapital'. Posted by: Mark at September 12, 2003 10:26 AM | PERMALINKYea, like how many members does ANSWER have? Like a couple hundred? Posted by: taktile at September 12, 2003 10:34 AM | PERMALINKIt would be lovely if we could have a public discourse that was free from slurs and loaded language, but that's a prospect that requires the agreement of all sides taking part. Progressives tend to be more interested in keeping the moral high ground, but as the cons have gotten more and more strident, making a case that progs have to be the ones to keep the discourse from sinking into mudslinging is difficult. We're figuring out that when the cons are willing to say and do anything to see to it that they remain in power, that the progs trying to remain calm and reasonable are having our voices drowned out of the debate. Beyond that, "conservatives want to poison the water" and
"republicans are racist" are certainly loaded language, and have little
place in a serious debate. But there is a difference between those
comments, which could (and probably should) be rephrased so as not to be
antagonistic, but which are essentially true: and statements which are plainly untrue, such as "Democrats ... deny the nexus of terror in the Middle East." I don't know a single Democrat who denies the empirical fact that most large-scale acts of terrorism seem to connect to the Middle East, or who thinks of the Middle East as anything but a vital security issue, not just for the USA, but the whole world. There may be ways to rephrase that so that it can be claimed not to imply that Democrats are so blinded by ideology that they are willing to deny facts, but as it is, that is what it says. And though the cons' language does leave them more wiggle room, I don't think it's acceptable to reward them, by backing down, for the fact that they've been using words as weapons for so long that they've gotten quite good at it now. Posted by: alsafi at September 12, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKWow! So also, apparently, "by and large", all Republicans can't tell the difference between the Democratic Party and "ANSWER". Fascinating! This is off topic, but it's also fascinating to learn that it's invalid to say anything bad about an organization, or comment on people who associate with that organization, as long as that organization "only" consists of a few hundred people or so. 'Course, it does make me wonder just how many people are actually in the "KKK"... presumably, if that number is small enough, nobody's allowed to mention the "KKK" anymore. Heck even if some say Republicans had a link to the "KKK" or went to some rally sponsored by the "KKK", as long as the "KKK" has only a few hundred people, what is everyone scared of? It becomes laughable! So, nobody would be allowed to say a word, and those that would, would be laughed at. Right!? Enlightened. Commentary. Posted by: Name: at September 12, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINKName, trying to see how much bullshit you can fit into one post? I have read the Patriot Act, and so have many libertarians, and we
all agree that it's a steaming dungheap. Maybe if you actually read it,
then you'd know that the reason people don't like Ashcroft is because
he wants to expand the scope of the Patriot Act. Combine that with his
focus on pornography as opposed to counter-terrorism before 9/11, and
you've got a clown who isn't fit to be a mall cop, much less AG. When you whine about being painted with a broad brush, then turn around in the same post and commit the same offense, you look like a complete idiot. Posted by: Ringo at September 12, 2003 10:47 AM | PERMALINKWell, I heard it from Howie Kurtz and Michelle Malkin that the Democratic Party is going to drop its regular, unwieldy 2004 platform for the spartan, Stalinist simplicity of the A.N.S.W.E.R. manifesto. However, a spike in hyper-nationalism is inevitably going to occur on 9/11, and I don't begrudge pathetic, publicity-seeking shit-for-brains like Andrew Sullivan for exploiting it for all it's worth. Posted by: Norbizness at September 12, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKHere's the fascinating thing about people like whatever and name:: they don't actually provide any quotes to back up what they say. It couldn't possibly be because no one (meaning, so that they don't get carried away in their responses, no one of the visibility and stature of sully or coulter or rush or hannity or bartley or krauthammer or gillespie or delay) actually says what they claim (least of all Kevin, the world's most tolerant human being, despite whatever's notions to the contrary)? I think the commisar has it right: people like sully and coulter (and name:) like these wild charges, because they distort real discourse about real issues. Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 10:50 AM | PERMALINKI have never read a liberal blog that blamed Republican voters and party members for wilfully, knowingly, "by and large" voting the way they do specifically in order to secure no-bid contracts for Halliburton, fight unprovoked wars, and take valuable government services away from poor people. More likely, if a liberal blog talks about Republican voters, they muse about why the very people who stand to suffer from these policies continue to elect Republicans. There's no such uncertainty in certain familiar voices from the right: The Sullivans and Coulters and all their imitators are very eager to psychoanalyze any individual's vote for a Democratic candidate, and the result isn't pretty. It's obviously little more than an attempt to browbeat readers, to make them afraid to be mistaken for one of these treasonous fifth-columnists. I don't have time right now to do what O'Toole does and dig up more links supporting (or disproving) this juxtaposition, but I hope that someone who disagrees with me will try to catch Atrios or Kevin or Kos or any other liberal blogger denouncing anything other than Republican politicians, policy, or pundits. You can even bring in BartCop if you want. I still doubt that there's much there. Posted by: neil at September 12, 2003 10:56 AM | PERMALINKLet's see, Sullivan refers to everyone in the blue states as potential fifth columnists, Coulter accuses everyone to the left of Bush of treason, but it's those damn Democrats who are the real broad brushers, and no evidence need be provided. Posted by: Ringo at September 12, 2003 11:10 AM | PERMALINKalsafi: ....makes a very good post, except for the part in which he (successfully IMHO, and admirably) takes great pains to rephrase the statements "Republicans want to poison your water" and "Republicans are racist" so that they sound reasonable and empirical, but then turns around and pretends that the exact same thing couldn't possibly be done for Sullivan's (much less of a slur) statement "Democrats ... deny the nexus of terror in the Middle East." Of course it could. Ringo: You misinterpret my intent. I am not whining about painting-with-a-broad-brush because I don't really mind it per se. P.w.a.b.b. is inevitable in political discussions, which probably would be impossible (or at least interminably lengthy) without it :) My intent, instead, is to respond to people who do whine about (one side's) p.w.a.b.b. (like Calpundit and commenters), by saying, essentially, "get used to it, it happens on both sides". I'm somewhat in awe of people's heroic and charming attempts here to somehow "prove" that Repubs or "cons" (because it's in their very nature! because they will do anything for power!! or whatever) make such slurs far more than lefties or "progs", but I ain't buying it. Mostly I find the whole discussion rather hilarious. If "progressives tend to be more interested than conservatives in keeping the moral high ground, that's why conservatives make so many more unfounded sweeping generalizations" isn't delicious irony, I don't know what it :-) About Patriot Act, I'm glad you've read it. Bravo! The vast majority of people who hate it, have not. And yes, that's a sweeping generalization. However, I believe it to be true. I also believe it to be true that the "Ashcroft = evil" meme sure has found receptive hosts in quite a lot of people who know very little about "Ashcroft" other than the fact that he's a religious white guy with (R) after his name. I'm glad you're not one of them (you have good valid reasons). My sweeping generalization therefore does not include you. howard: If you really think that "no one" on the "left" side of the dial ever says statements like (1) Iraq war was about Halliburton, (2) Republican tax policies "take money away from" poor people to give to rich people, and (3) Ashcroft wants to take away our civil liberties... then you ain't paying attention. Posted by: Name: at September 12, 2003 11:13 AM | PERMALINKI find arguments over which side is more juvenile and unreasonable tedious. It's fairly easy to establish that Andrew Sullivan is a hack. If someone else is a hack, this doesn't mean Andrew isn't one. Similarly, these arguments that imply, or explicitly state, that Democrats and the Democratic presidential candidates don't care about terrorism are ridiculous, and should be called out as such. If we lefties make arguments that are equally ridiculous, fine. It's fair to point them out, and we can respond. But it doesn't change the point. Changing the subject keeps up from talking about what really matters, namely, figuring out the best ways to deal with terrorism. Posted by: Brandonimac at September 12, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINKI hate to ask, but does anyone really take Sullivan seriously any more? I mean, he seems to be so off the wall so often, particularly on Shrub's war with Iraq, that it isn't worth the time to read him. And his whining about the ravings of Stanley Kurtz at NRO regarding "gay marriage" is downright painful to read. Posted by: raj at September 12, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKWhatever: "Well, Jack is tired of broad statements like this, but when Drum makes broad statements like "conservatives want to poisen the water" and people in the comment section write "republicans are racists", I guess THAT'S okay?" I hadn't thought of it before, but now that you mention it, yes, it is ok. And clearly you've been drinking too much of that arsenic-tainted Republican water. "Poison" does not have an "e" in it. Posted by: tristero at September 12, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINKIt's been said before, but I highly doubt that folks such as
Instapundit or Sullivan would be so popular if they hadn't been some of
the first to start "blogs". Hmmm. When people write "Republicans hate foreigners and want to napalm children", they base that (I hope) on the actions of some specific Republicans, namely the ones in Washington who are running the government. It's easy to generalize from there to all of their supposed supporters. For example, just in this morning's LA Times, there is a letter from someone ranting about how evil the administration is, etc, etc, the usual stuff, but at the end he write "as a Republican, I can hardly wait to vote these guys out." I'll admit that brought me up short. You just expect that everyone with the (R) is on the same page, and then you have to stop and realize that it ain't necessarily so. But meanwhile, there are lots of Dems (and none-of-the-aboves) running around doing and saying things, and they represent nobody but themselves. And Sullivan and Coulter and those boneheads just pick use any or all or none of them to represent the entirety of "people who would dare criticize the great boy king." It's easy for them to do that because it requires no actual thinking. Unfortunately, you can't just ignore them, because their gibberish often gets turned into received wisdom (Wellstone memorial, anyone?) Posted by: craigie at September 12, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINKIt would be a lot easier to believe that Democrats were concerned about Islamic extremism if they ever gave concrete suggestions as to how they would deal with it. So far all I've heard are complaints that President Bush is stupid or evil or incompetent or whatever, and not a lot of useful suggestions for how to take the war to our enemies in a more effacious manner. Posted by: DougLevene at September 12, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINK'Nowadays, everything I read by them is just poorly written and ridiculous.' Well, they are defending a poorly written and ridiculous administration. Sullivan is nothing if not consistent and obedient in the crusade to make fighting terrorism equal to merely possessing an ineluctable quality that says you are against terrorism, or at least says it to the enlightened. Posted by: Thomas at September 12, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINKName:, i just knew you wouldn't read me carefully. I said "no one of the visibility and stature of" and ran off a lengthy list of high-profilie columnists, bloggers, and GOP leaders who push crap all the time. That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that the postwar is benefitting Haliburton obscenely, that george bush's tax policies do favor high-income individuals, and loads of people - including anyone who is really a libertarian - recognize that john ashcroft is trying to eviscerate civil liberties. DougLevene, here we go again. Broadly speaking, the Democratic position has been: a.) fighting international terrorism requires broad-based support from a large number of countries, so gratuitously insulting a large number of countries at every opportunity is a dumb idea; b.) attacking iraq on our own was likely to exacerbate problem "a," which it has; c.) most rank-and-file democrats (although not all high-profile democrats) argued that attacking iraq was likely to distract from efforts to dismantle al qaeda (which it most assuredly has) and was likely to provide a demonstration of the power of the law of unintended consequences (which it most assuredly has); d.) a real investigation of 9/11 would help us identify weaknesses and improve them; e.) instead of unproductive tax cuts, we should be spending money ($94B was the estimate of the hart-rudman commission) to improve conditions for first responders and harden potential terrorist target sites; f.) we weren't doing enough to "nation build" in afghanistan, thereby allowing the taliban and al qaeda to regroup; g.) stop covering up for the saudis and their funding of terrorist activities; and so on. At a minimum, Dems would say follow the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. The backbone administration seems to have forgotten that, and they deserve to be criticized as a result. Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINKDoug, yes it is telling that liberals aren't exactly keen to announce ten-point plans on how they're going to change the thoughts of other actual human beings. I mean, throughout history, one of the easiest things to do is to make people amiable and peaceful, especially through force, overwhelming power, and knowing what's best. And generally speaking, those who insist that the only things holding back the future are caution and pessimism have been right on the mark. Posted by: Thomas at September 12, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINKthe fucker's not even 'merikin Posted by: andy the wanker at September 12, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINKDougLevene> I was gonna make the case yet again, but then Howard did it quite nicely. So what part do you not understand. Then go to blogforamerica and read Howard Deans quite convincing statement. Biggest point we should have finished our work in Afganastan and killed or disabled OBL. You do remember him dont you? You know, I can almost feel the fear of some of you guys. Its like a drug addict in denial. BTW I must make a confession. I have always been a Republican. But if being a Republican means supporting this lame ass adminastration than I quit. See how easy that was. Posted by: Shaun at September 12, 2003 12:24 PM | PERMALINKYes I know I speel terribly when I am pissed of. Sue me. Posted by: Shaun at September 12, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKHere's the link to the letter to the editor mentioned upthread. Posted by: Gregory at September 12, 2003 01:00 PM | PERMALINK"Coulter accuses everyone to the left of Bush of treason, but it's those damn Democrats who are the real broad brushers" This is the unintentionally hilarious post of the day! Thank you. Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Posted by: right-winger at September 12, 2003 01:18 PM | PERMALINKLending credence to the views of Sullivan and many other Republicans is Howard Dean's recent description of Hamas terrorists as " soldiers ". Now, Dean could easily have been tired and maybe this was a slip of the tongue and for that I would not fault him. Or it could have been a signal to Arab Americans and frankly pro-terrorist apologist lobby groups like CAIR that the Dean campaign is a good place to send donations. Or it could be yet another example that on foreign affairs Dean has a lot to learn and doesn't know what the hell he's talking about compared to Gephardt, Kerry or Lieberman. Or it could be an example that some people in the Democratic Party, as Sullivan wrote today, just don't " get it " and want the whole issue to go away regardless of the logical consequences of abandoning a pro-active, wartime stance toward terrorists and their rogue state sponsors. Much of the chanting for " law enforcement " is a desire to bureaucratically dial down terrorism as a Federal budgetary and policy priority in favor of other things dearer to Democratic political hearts. Opinions vary I realize in a party the size of the Democrats but Dean seems to represent a fair amount of those folks, some of whom are more extreme than he is. Sullivan has a legitimate point. Posted by: mark safranski at September 12, 2003 01:26 PM | PERMALINKOf course, Mark, the National Review referred to Hamas "soldiers" as well, here: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/2002_04_07_corner-archive.asp#85001539 so perhaps you're just trying too hard. Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 01:36 PM | PERMALINKShaun, As for the spelling, mine is terrible also when I'm writing quickly! :) Posted by: buffpilot at September 12, 2003 02:16 PM | PERMALINKActually, mark, it turns out that atrios noticed not only the corner reference that i just cited, but two others: conservative blogger pejman and the LA Times: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_09_07_atrios_archive.html#106339469512754845 As i say, you're trying too hard. Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 02:16 PM | PERMALINKhoward, Dean obviously misspoke. The Hamas memebers are not soldiers they are terrorist (or legally, 'unlawful combatants'). To give these cowards who hide behind their women and childrens skirts the title of soldiers is a big stretch. Posted by: buffpilot at September 12, 2003 02:18 PM | PERMALINKbuffpilot: perhaps you may want to spend a few moments studying the israeli experience. Treating the problem of terrorism as a military problem alone hasn't helped the israelis either. Meanwhile, i have no idea what president backbone decided, but what the congress decided was that bush had made a good case that there was reason to fear that iraq could supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorists (whether I think it was a good case or not doesn't matter). Congress did not decide that we should enter into a unilateral reconstruction of iraq - that was a neocon fantasy that did not get authorized by anyone other than the bush administration's inner circles. Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 02:21 PM | PERMALINKAt some point, we're going to have to do away with such kind words as "Sullivan is a hack." Truth is, he is a liar. Yesterday, he wrote, in response to Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate, that GWB "offered his hand in friendship" (or something like that) to the United Nations prior to going to war. The hand of friendship. See how many friends I get to keep after a few days of saying "We're going to go to dinner only where I want to ear, or you'll just be proving your irrelevance." Posted by: Amitava Mazumdar at September 12, 2003 02:25 PM | PERMALINKAll right Mark! You get bonus points for not only repeating the gopper dreck, but doing it so quickly! Kewl! Dean's statement was clear: There's a war on over there, and Hamas leaders are going to have to expect to get hit as combatants. Dean's statement was in support of Isreal's right to hit Hamas leaders as soldiers, not political leaders. From CNN: 'Asked if he would oppose the Israeli policy of selectively killing leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Dean said, "I think no one likes to see violence of any kind." But he also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war." '
Buffpilot I have some Idea you are a military man. I was light and mech infantry for 4 years. Doesn't it bother you at all that we the nation where either blatenly lied to or taken to war on some of the crappiest intellegence in the history of man? Either one of those scenarios is unacceptable to me. And 3500.00 worth of debt for everyman woman and child with more to come? I think the Neo-cons have set off a powderkeg with people like you and me caught in the crossfire. And I really really believe some people are doing this to try to prove we could have won veitnam. Our military is just right for punishing the hell out of those who would do us harm. but occuppying(sic) a hellhole in the middle east is not on mission. You realy should jump that sinking GOP ship over there that you are on. You sound like a decent sort. Cause I think that the time when saying you are a republican will be like saying you like to molest children. Do not underestimate the genuine Hate that is festering over here. And it is not hatered towards America. Its Hatred towards those who would hijack 9/11 for there own selfish intrests. Thats not Hyporbole, its a genuine assesment. Posted by: Shaun at September 12, 2003 03:08 PM | PERMALINKbuffpilot, somehow i missed your reference to dean, and only commented on your previous posting. But Dasboat has said what i would have said: Dean didn't mis-speak at all. His meaning is crystal clear, and it in no way distracts from our understanding of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, you might notice the other references that I (and Atrios) have noted on the use of the term "Hamas soldiers." I'm sure that the residents of the Corner would appreciate being told that they are part of the liberal blindness to the real threat of Al Qaeda (or whatever drivel Sully et al are pushing). Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINKMark — Courtesy of busybusybusy, here's the Dean quote in context: Asked if he would oppose the Israeli policy of selectively killing leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Dean said, "I think no one likes to see violence of any kind." But he also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war." Coincidentally, you're promulgating the same ass-backwards interpretation offered up yesterday by the brain trust at Fox News. I want to avoid offensive, hurtful generalizations, so I'll pose a question: is Fox really your primary source of news and information, or are you a self-made simpleton? Posted by: nina at September 12, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINKDamn! I missed another enlightening debate with thoughtful conservatives. I could kick myself! In particular, ":Name" is a real found of wisdom. Posted by: zizka at September 12, 2003 03:36 PM | PERMALINK"What we should have done is tried to focus on establishing a democracy in a Palestinian state and bring peace to the Middle East instead of invading Iraq and causing more complications and more death and more pain for our American families." - Dean. That's exactly what Sullivan was talking about. Posted by: Ron at September 12, 2003 03:55 PM | PERMALINKSo let me get this straight, Ron: inventing a bunch of phony reasons to invade iraq; lowballing the costs; misjudging the aftermath in every respect; and alienating allies - these things constitute a realistic strategy about terrorism. Whereas suggesting that the real way to influence events on the ground in the Middle East was to endeavor to address the most obvious flashpoint in the region rather than pursuing utopian fantasies about Iraq - that constitutes a failure to believe in Middle Eastern terrorism? I just want to be sure that I understand your position.... Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 04:14 PM | PERMALINKActually, the real offensive thing Sullivan is doing these days is implying that if Dean is elected, he would move the capital to Haiti. And that he hates Jews. Go read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Posted by: sym at September 12, 2003 04:35 PM | PERMALINKI think Mark Safranski must not know that Grover Norquist has the donations from CAIR and similar Islamic groups all sewn up for the Bushies and Republicans. It's Bush that keeps saying, "Islam is a peaceful religion." and "The Saudis are our friends." So I don't think Dean is seeking the Saudi/Islamic money, and why would he need it. Safranski's comment is just an attempted slur against Dean, somehow associating him with terrorists, kinda like Bush does with Saddam = 9/11 = Al Qaeda. Instead, what people don't realize is how much of a traitor to this country Bush and his Bushco cronies really are. I mean, we know for a fact that the Saudi ruling families are financing and fomenting terror across the globe and in the US, but Bushco/Carlyle Group does nothing but coddle them and shield them. The invasion of Iraq was, inter alia, ultimately a smokescreen, but a costly one, as it turns out. If that isn't treason during a real war on terror, I don't know what is. And in the Bushco pack, Sullivan is simply a rabid cur, a pathetic one at that, even now sitting in his beach house in P-town, probably wearing a camoflage jockstrap bravely pounding on his i-mac. Posted by: Nolatab at September 12, 2003 04:38 PM | PERMALINKAh, aside from Kevin Drum's erudition the best thing about Calpundit as a website is that a conservative can measure the degree to which he has made a good, solid, debating point by the speed at which the Lefty posters go ad hominem. First, I allowed plenty of qualifications for Dean having misspoke out of weariness, pressure or ignorance. Secondly, regarding Hamas terrorists as " soldiers " is not only factually incorrect from a legal standpoint, as Buffpilot pointed out, but it's a slur on real soldiers - regular or guerilla, who follow the laws of war. That bunch prefer targeting women and children and the elderly and avoid real soldiers. They're simply war criminals until they begin acting otherwise (that includes the Saruman look-a-like chief Hamas nutcase Yassin who winds the killers up and sends them on their way. He's a legal target). Thirdly, aside from the fact that I read and subscribe to a wide range of publications,most of which might be considered at least " liberal" the source is really irrelevant logically so long as the information at the point of debate is accurate.In fact, it's often helpful to read publications holding a viewpoint with which you disagree. Some of you might consider trying that sometime -it might help the validity of your rebuttals Posted by: mark safranski at September 12, 2003 04:43 PM | PERMALINKMark, you know, i was prepared to think of you as a serious commenter until you made this follow-up posting, which ignores everything that challenges your mindset. Read what Dean actually said - he was using (get ready) a metaphor, not making a legal presentation. Read what others who aren't Dean have said (i gave you the links). And then, give it up.... Posted by: howard at September 12, 2003 05:11 PM | PERMALINKYes I do fly the beast. I have already been over. And yes I'm not much happy with Pres Bush's second tax cut - I thought it very irresponsible during wartime. Not much happy with the Patriot Act either, though I think it bad parts are a little overhyped (we are not turning into a Nazi state, I'm more pissed by the opt-out provisions passed way earlier for stopping personel data collection, it should be opt in only, but that is old history (95?96?) As for the War, I am very pleased with how its going so far. We liberated 30 million from rather evil dictatorships. I expect Afghanistan to take at least a decade just to get it up to equivelent of today's Turkey. And we will be fighting there the entire time with our allies (I believe there are Germans and a few other nationalitie sover there). Iraq will look a lot like post-war Germany. By '05 I expect to see families going there with the soldiers and airmen. The bases are being built as we type. I have said before if there was a Dem who could clean up the domestic mess while continueing the WoT he/she would get my vote. And I have worked for Clark and think he's an idiot (sorry for you Clark fans but he really screwed up in Kosovo initially, recovered nicely at the end though). Glad you served! Go Air Force! Posted by: buffpilot at September 12, 2003 05:37 PM | PERMALINKMark, a free clue: whenever someone gets so emphatically jumped on by so many individuals, it ain't because their arguments are too good... ...(as you subsequently proved by completely ignoring the points that others had raised in their responses to you). Posted by: PaulB at September 12, 2003 08:05 PM | PERMALINKHere it is four months after our illustrous leader wore a Navy flight suit (I guess after his National Guard record the Air force wouldn't let him have another.) and told us major combat operations were over. Now he asks for a supplemental budget request of $87 billion for twelve more months in Iraq, with $66 billion of that for one more year of combat operations. This is in addition to regular military appropriations. We have 160 thousand total troops in Iraq, including the British. That is $412,500 per soldier in Iraq for one year. Or assuming 25 million Iraqis, that is $3,840 per Iraqi for twelve months. Since that is also about $312 per person in the US (assuming 280,000,000 people in the US), that is a LOT of money! Does anyone trust this administration to spend it in a rational manner? I haven't seen them do ANYTHING in a rational manner since January 2001. Posted by: Rick B at September 12, 2003 09:10 PM | PERMALINKHoward wrote: Presidential campaigns are not English Lit 101. Words have policy implications when spoken by would-be presidents, including legal implications. If Bush ( or another conservative)had spoken " metaphorically " would you or would you not be jumping on his case demanding to know what the hell he meant ? PaulB wrote: "Mark, a free clue: whenever someone gets so emphatically jumped on by so many individuals, it ain't because their arguments are too good... ...(as you subsequently proved by completely ignoring the points that others had raised in their responses to you)." Gee, and all the threads here where the lefties ignored the main thrust a conservative's post to quibble about peripheral or minor points must be my imagination. As for the points raised - anybody - Dean, National Review, the Pope - who uses "soldiers" as a descriptor for terrorists is guilty of the same kind of sloppy thinking. I hold no briefs for Grover Norquist so if he's intriguing with CAIR then he's a short-sighted jackass Posted by: mark safranski at September 13, 2003 06:14 AM | PERMALINKThis criticism of Dean's off-hand reference to Hamas militants as "soldiers" is what is usually called by conservatives ... you guessed it ... "political correctness." How could that be? Conservatives don't engaged in PCness, do they? Posted by: Amitava Mazumdar at September 13, 2003 07:49 AM | PERMALINKMark wrote: "Gee, and all the threads here where the lefties ignored the main thrust a conservative's post to quibble about peripheral or minor points must be my imagination." Talk about a non sequitur. Did you have a point to make? Posted by: PaulB at September 13, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKPaulB Yes-and ironically you are demonstrating it Posted by: mark safranski at September 13, 2003 09:32 AM | PERMALINKMark — You initially stated a possible range of rationales behind a comment from Dean. I, among others, corrected your interpretation of that comment, providing documentation; I, among others, also included a few cheap shots at your expense. (Specifically, I pointed out that your interpretation matches that Fox News, and referred slightingly to your cognitive capacity.) You responded with some sniveling about our attacks (fair enough), a bit of huffery and puffery about the breadth of your reading (congrats!), a slam at our credibility (what about the credibility of our documentation, i.e., the quote's original source?) — and not a word about our basic point. Which, it pains me to note, seems to be the standard conservative response when one is faced with proof of one's own error (cf. O'Reilly, Coulter, National Review, and rightwing commentariat passim). I do hate to fall back on those ugly generalizations. It's just that they're often so accurate, you know. Face it, love — you fucked up. Admit it, and move on. Posted by: nina at September 13, 2003 09:52 AM | PERMALINKShaun, I don't have the time to respond in detail to your thoughtful post, but I do have one question: what, exactly, do you think the United States should be doing to kill/capture OBL that it is not doing? Posted by: DougLevene at September 13, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINK Cialis Ashtons Direct can provide you with the best self-drive vehicle hire
option at the most affordable price - worldwide. Alternatively you can
look at this site for more ideas South Africa car rental Lesbian Adult Movie Matrix - Teen Adult Movie Matrix - Kendra Jade - Krystal Steal - Tera Patrick - Milssa Lincoln - Tranny Trouble - Rate My Tranny - Heavy Knockers - Evil Escorts - Tranny Trick - Milf Hunter Password Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 09:12 AM | PERMALINK
5383 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com 4275 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 4751 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINK6489 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 06:55 AM | PERMALINK162 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 02:02 PM | PERMALINK967 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 16, 2004 05:48 PM | PERMALINK2568 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 8574 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:27 PM | PERMALINK4960 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 6777 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 07:52 AM | PERMALINK7535 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 11:58 PM | PERMALINK8855 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 03:19 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
