Light Posting
For another day or two. Tied up in meetings.
63 Responses to “Light Posting”
Leave a Reply
Light Posting
I'm doing some reporting on the politics of Indian casinos this week in Southern California's Coachella Valley. Posting will be light over the next few days.
20 Responses to “Light Posting”
-
steve Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 12:08 pmSpeaking of lite fare, i notice on the warrior blogs, the powell admission that the so-called report on terrorism that understimated the extent of terrorist acts in the post-911 period has gone unnoticed. they were citing it madly in the war blogs only a week ago. Instead ya find things like Roger Simon going on about Russert the ‘liberal’ [a man who thinks highly of Limbaugh is a 'liberal' in the view of the slightly nervous] or calling for a Saudi Monarchy partner to run for office in the US…though that’s an odd wish, we’ve already got one in the office of the presidency.
The Sarin gas hurrah seems to have fizzled almost as fast as the excitement about the farcical arrest of Brandon Mayfield for the Spanish bombings…Nada on the war blogs….
-
a plea Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 2:03 pmsteve, enough already…
-
steve Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 4:39 pmmy apology to the echo chamber seekers.
-
Michael J. Totten Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 7:40 pmSteve,
This is not a “war blog.” It’s in no danger of becoming a “war blogger echo chamber” without your contributing to it.
-
steve Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 8:59 pmThis is not a “war blog.” It’s in no danger of becoming a “war blogger echo chamber” without your contributing to it.
–I know it’s not a war blog, but the war lovers sure do like an echo chamber, thus anytime they encounter a point of view they can’t handle, it’s cries of “troll” and calls for banning. for crying out loud, all i did was put up a few thoughts, ya’d think i’d called someone a traitor or sworn my head off like the cons do on the warblogs…
how about i leave out the sarcasm and simply note that the same loonies who were going absolutely wild on your list and roger’s list about the fake report on terrorism seem awfully quite about this latest revelation. i suppose that explains their sensitivity to my bringing it up at all.
btw, a serious book on the media just came out, one that puts goldberg’s to shame bigtime. it’s by david brock, who has a really fine analysis of the whole echo chamber syndrome out on far right and ‘center right’ blogs. and he also has a fine analysis of the utterly joke level analysis that informs the screeds against Tim Russert’s “liberalism”.
marc really should do an interview with Brock.
-
Michael J. Totten Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 9:20 pmSteve: “I know it’s not a war blog, but the war lovers sure do like an echo chamber, thus anytime they encounter a point of view they can’t handle, it’s cries of “troll” and calls for banning.”
If I required a pro-war echo chamber I wouldn’t bother to read Marc’s blog or his books. And if I did what you say I do I wouldn’t allow him in the comments of my Web site let alone in my house.
Some of the people who argue with me here also argue with me on my own blog and I haven’t banned any of them. You’re the only one I’ve called a troll, even though plenty of people like to argue with me and present counter points of view. Just something to think about.
-
steve Says:
June 15th, 2004 at 9:58 pmAnd if I did what you say I do I wouldn’t allow him in the comments of my Web site let alone in my house.
–from what i’ve seen on your blog, you ban faster than the CPA bans newspapers and that’s not easy. i’ve seen the echo chamber over there, the minute you receive a challenge from the left that you don’t want to deal with, you claim someone is trolling. all the swearing, name calling from right wing commentators goes unpunished comparatively. then the same guys who are swearing and name calling come over here and do the same thing, only to demand that left wing perspectives they don’t want to hear be banned on this list as well.
–
Some of the people who argue with me here also argue with me on my own blog and I haven’t banned any of them. You’re the only one I’ve called a troll, even though plenty of people like to argue with me and present counter points of view. Just something to think about.
–my impression is you’re quick to ban anyone who brings up a point that makes you uncomfortable if they are on the left. the antics of the far right patriotically correct are subject to far more toleration, though they tend to resort to name calling and swearing almost instinctively in lieu of serious argument. it’s interesting, like i’ve said before, that although you complain about “PC” on the left, you’re far quicker to ban than someone on the left like Max Sawicky, whose comment section is quite rich in diversity of views and intellectual backgrounds. I’ve never seen Max expel people for the kinds of things that set you off. Henwood’s LBO list is another fine example of far more toleration of diverse views and a high level of discussion, ditto the Progressive economists list that michael perleman runs. that is no small irony.
-
Michael J. Totten Says:
June 16th, 2004 at 9:52 amI’m not going to argue with Steve about this any more. But for anyone else who is reading this thread, I’d like to defend myself from Steve’s slanderous and utterly false accusation. I have banned people from my site but always and only for obnoxious behavior, never once for disagreeing with me. Right-wingers get banned as often as left-wingers. Party registration is not and never will be a bannable offense. I’m a registered Democrat in any case.
-
Marc Cooper Says:
June 16th, 2004 at 2:08 pmsteve.. this is pointless and totally boring. Please stop now– no one cares but you are sure are boring the shit out of the rest of us. Blogs, to me, are like someone’s living room. You are on one as a courtesy to the host. He or she is free to slam the door on anyone. Now just move on off this subject.
-
yfb Says:
June 16th, 2004 at 8:39 pmIt’s only boring because Totten et. al. refuse to address the substantive issue.
The war was supposed to make us safer, but numerous intelligence and terrorism
analysts have said the opposite. Presumably that’s why war apologists seized
upon the report that said that terrorism post-9/11 had declined. But now that
it has been confirmed that terrorism has in fact increased, they are silent.
It’s hard to interpret that as anything other than intellectual dishonesty.
-
topo gigio Says:
June 16th, 2004 at 10:08 pm>>Blogs, to me, are like someone’s living room. You are on one as a courtesy to the host. He or she is free to slam the door on anyone. Now just move on off this subject.< <
Et tu, Marchetto? People who use the “living room” cliché ought to be gelded
The blog racket it’s more like pitching one’s tent and setting up one’s table in the free zone that’s the Net. Just look at the inviting wares showcased on the left side of your own cyber bazaar, each appropriately hyped. And it’s telling that you write “as a courtesy TO” rather than “BY the host”.Without us compulsive shoppers or looky-loos logging on, your baby would be dead in the water. You’re free to shut anybody out, just like a proprietor can refuse to serve a riotous customer, but beyond that you’d be cutting your nose to spite your face.
-
steve Says:
June 17th, 2004 at 5:09 pmBut now that
it has been confirmed that terrorism has in fact increased, they are silent.
It’s hard to interpret that as anything other than intellectual dishonesty.
–I think that is an important part of the fear of antiwar perspectives and the nearly paranoid belief that they are prominent in the media, universities, etc. when you hear people describing russert as a ‘liberal’ or as someone who is not supportive of the occupation of Iraq, ya know you’re dealing with some wierd levels of heightened anxiety.
-
yfb Says:
June 17th, 2004 at 5:50 pm> I think that is an important part of the fear of antiwar perspectives and the nearly paranoid belief that they are prominent in the media, universities, etc.
“etc” is right:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/in_a_world_of_shit.php
I guess the Naval War College is now “liberal”.
> when you hear people describing russert as a ‘liberal’ or as someone who is not supportive of the occupation of Iraq, ya know you’re dealing with some wierd levels of heightened anxiety.
This sort of intellectual corruption is far too common for me to find it weird. There are two basic elements involved; one is self-interest — the right wingers and “cruise missile liberals” love American power and what it brings them, and wish to justify its unilateral exertion. The other is avoiding the cognitive dissonance of coming to believe that one was in error — this is independent of politics or subject. Willard V. O. Quine, the pre-eminent American philosopher of the 20th century, put it this way:
“The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all accounts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge.”
-
yfb Says:
June 18th, 2004 at 1:48 amChickens coming home to roost:
-
steve Says:
June 18th, 2004 at 6:30 amexcellent url yfb. note how the armchair warrior blogs will tell us that it is wrong to make links between poverty, inequality, and terrorism. that article is one of the best responses to the kneejerk reaction of ‘poverty doesn’t cause terrorism’ from the armchair warrior bloggers.
even phillipino president (a right wing US ally) has made as much a connection in the presence of Bush. Then again, the NYT article can now be cited out in Blogistan as more ‘evidence’ that the media is ‘antiwar’, reproducing the already heightened state of anxiety about antiwar influences in the media!
-
steve Says:
June 18th, 2004 at 8:26 amOr consider the bizarre comparisons of Michael Moore to Ann Coulter. Can you imagine if Moore made even 1/10th of the huge errors she makes in her ‘books’? Sometimes ya read stuff out there in the prowar blogs that makes your head spin. What has Moore said, for example, that is anything that Martin Luther King wasn’t saying in his time? Then again, since both had strong views, I guess we could say that King was to George Wallace as Coulter is to Moore [!].
and in the ‘anti-war’ media, guess who has a far easier time showing up as a commentator on the big newstalk shows?
-
yfb Says:
June 18th, 2004 at 3:17 pm> and in the ‘anti-war’ media, guess who has a far easier time showing up as a commentator on the big newstalk shows?
Ann Coulter just has to call all liberals traitors and threaten them with death; Michael Moore has to win the Palme d’Or (ah, those French! — like Quentin Tarantino).
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
“Also, I am going to be on the “Late Show with David Letterman” on Friday night. It’s on CBS at 11:35 PM Eastern and Pacific. And on Monday morning (June 21) I will be on “The Today Show” on NBC. Next week, Jon Stewart and Conan. I’d go on O’Reilly but, like a coward, he walked out on a screening we invited him to (with Al Franken just a few rows away!). I personally caught him sneaking out. Embarrassed, he tried to change the subject. He said, “When are you coming on my show?” and I said, “Turn around and watch the rest of the movie and I will come on your show.” He walked out. Fair and balanced.”
-
Tom Grey Says:
June 22nd, 2004 at 6:55 amTerrorism in the US is certainly down from 2001.
I think terrorism in Israel is down for 2004 from the first half of 2003.
Hard to know how to count terrorism in Iraq, vs. “normal” oppressive mass grave creation. I’d say fewer are dying — certainly fewer are dying than the number many Leftists claimed were dying under sanctions.
Does the Dafur genocide, so underdiscussed because of Abu and Bush-hate, count? If so the count goes way up.
But, unfortunately, these aren’t good measures of terrorism. There aren’t any, globally. Maybe some locally.
-
steve Says:
June 23rd, 2004 at 11:12 amHard to know how to count terrorism in Iraq, vs. “normal” oppressive mass grave creation. I’d say fewer are dying — certainly fewer are dying than the number many Leftists claimed were dying under sanctions.
–no serious scholar of Iraq would agree with that statement.
-
yfb Says:
June 24th, 2004 at 12:21 am> Does the Dafur genocide, so underdiscussed because of Abu and Bush-hate, count? If so the count goes way up.
So was Rwandan genocide underdiscussed because of Clinton-hate? I suggest that it’s for other reasons.
And since this is state-executed terror, you’re not
supposed to call it terrorism — that’s against the
rules, lest we or one of our allies gets tarred with
that brush.
> I’d say fewer are dying
And you would say that catsup is a vegetable. You don’t seem to know much about either.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:55 pm
No topic means, I guess, we can discuss whatever, as long as we play by the rules, so:
http://snow.he.net/~ozone/Misc/PCD.htm
Then, there’s: http://snow.he.net/~ozone/Misc/Lawsburo.htm
MT - beats me why you are on the list.
Shannon’s information theory says that the less shared information on each side of communications, the more information has to be exchanged. Since youse guys are mostly not too deep into conservative thought and perhapss other facts from the real reality based world, sometimes I need to give a lot of details.
Yes, botulinum can be used for botox. Do you really think Saddam’s people ordered the doctor to keep the botulinum for the purpose of cosmetics? How about the binary Sarin rounds? The trucks that travelled from weapons dumps to Syria?
I have yet to hear a leftist give a rational argument about why the WMD intelligence failure was a great sin of those of us on the right? Please explain how you would have known (links to long leftist screeds do not count). Then please explain what you would have done, if you had been in Bush’s position in, say Sept 2002?
As to the reference on food and voting certificates, there is no evidence that whether one voted or not, and who one voted for, was tied to whether one got food. Unlike in socialist paradises, the vote was relatively clean and clearly voluntary. That just cannot be denied.
The insurrection has two hopes:
1) Kill enough of those who voted (and facilitated voting) to scare people off of voting again.
2) Hope that the anti-crowd in the world and the US, especially the MSM, will continue to criticize everything about the Iraq occupation until the American people get tired of it. The anti-crowd, which includes many on this blog, are an integral part of Saddam’s Plan Orange.
I’d say things are looking pretty good.
The anti’s would say “yeah - look at all the failures in infrastructure in the economy.”
To which the answer is: That isn’t our failure, but Iraqis (and foreign terrorists) have been trying to make life difficult for Iraqis, in hopes of creating disenchantment.
Will the Iraqis trade a promise of regular electricity for freedom and democracy? Not likely. They instead are fighting - with guns and ballots - for the ability to make the decisions themselves. Many in the Sunni minority have yet to figure out that their privilege is ended. Some of them lived in Fallujah, and no longer have that fantasy. Who’s next?
February 1st, 2005 at 11:33 pm
Can anybody validate the rumor that Marc went up north to do an undercover investigation in Bohemian Grove?
February 1st, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Jim.. I wish to hell I was running around nekkid in Bohemian Grove and getting plastered with a pack of debauched aristocrats. Instead Im bunkered in on Nob Hill in SF at a very sober and august and mostly dry four day conference spondsored by USC’s Inst. For Justice Journalism– where I am rumored to work. Did have a world-clas Chinese dinner tonite at the R and G Lounge on Kearney Street. Five forks!
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:07 am
“Did have a world-clas Chinese dinner tonite at the R and G Lounge on Kearney Street. Five forks!”
If you’re in the mood for Chinese again, do House of Nanking over on Kearny near Columbus. Its divey, delicious, and the line is often out the door. And order the dumplings. They’re not on the menu, and they’ll think you’re a local.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:14 am
Jim H. I agree with you. Marc says he is too busy to blog, but he has time to check on us, enter a comment AND attend a five fork meal. Now, I don’t know about you or the others in this wolf pack of a blog, but I have been to a few world class chinese dinners (bye the bye, there were, in the late 60’s some really terrific mom and pop type chinese restaurants in Panama City, Panama) and they take some time. So, time to eat, time to comment indicates Bohemian Grove to me.
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:40 am
“The anti-crowd, which includes many on this blog, are an integral part of Saddam’s Plan Orange.”
This (and the decades old “botulism-in-the-refigerator” and rusting sarin shells as rationales for war) is a good example of why discussing serious issues with you from the perspective of American national security and an effective war on Islamic terrorists is an exercise in futility…time better spent catching up on one’s reading.
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:42 am
correction - “decade-old”, not “decades”. That was a typo…
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:13 am
Sounds to me, JM, that you’re ready for a declaration of “Mission Accomplished II”. You’ll likely get that tonight. Maybe banners behind the Senate podium is a bit much, but don’t count it out.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:15 am
Seriously, do we really have to rehash the WMD’s in Iraq question? Cripes, that topic is old and boring. Even if John and Reg were to somehow come to agreement we would still be in Iraq, the Iraqis would still have voted last Sunday, the insurgents would still be a threat, etc, etc.
You know, I’ve read alot over the past few days about the silence of the Left regarding the election. Well, as a supporter of the war and elections I don’t see that as a bad thing. Were I in their shoes I would hope to have the same good sense. Perhaps the silent folks are happy for the Iraqis but still upset about the official US Govt policy and unwilling to give public kudos for something they worry is only a momentary success, and that might be used to further a policy they believe is misguided. I like silence much better than the Eeyore-ish musings of the dour junior Senator from MA on Russert’s program any day.
And I like this blog/comment much better when it is seriously discussing current events and attempting to define a reasonable prognosis for the future. But that’s just me.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:16 am
Correction: make that the “House podium”
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:11 am
Well said, too many steves
JM, this is a ridiculous line. We already know we can’t convince you of anything. Why should we try and prove something, on your terms, that turned out to be correct? You should just admit you were wrong or take too many steves’ advice and pipe down.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:14 am
Mark Brown of the Chicago Sun-Times described the future horror of Iraq. What if this becomes true?! It’s not a bad article for a liberal journalist. Below is the executive version of it with a link to the entire article at the end.
-
“What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
February 1, 2005
BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Maybe you’re like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started…
And while you cheered Saddam’s capture, you couldn’t help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
But after watching Sunday’s election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It’s hard to swallow, isn’t it?
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice….
I think it’s possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
But on Sunday, ….(w)e could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of “Yankee Go Home,” their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven’t died in vain.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I’d have to vote Republican in 2008.”
In fairness to the journalist, it’s best to read the entire article. Here’s the link:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:21 am
– wish to hell I was running around nekkid in Bohemian Grove and getting plastered with a pack of debauched aristocrats— MC
If an opportunity for that ever comes up,can you ask if you can bring guests?
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:26 am
Uh, Woody, if you’d paid attention to the last thread, you’d have seen that GMRoper posted the exact same article. Let’s not get too predictable, people!
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Oops. As Emily Latella (Gilda Radner) would say, “Nevermind.” Sorry that I didn’t pick up on that.
Does this mean that I can void that last post so that it doesn’t count against my limit?
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Still waiting for the “What if the people who said this was a foolish and unnecessary waste of American lives and treasure turn out to be right?” article from your side Woody. As George Will acknowledged in his most recent column, this is still a long slog, far from over and anyone who draws a conclusion from this election about our “success” is replacing the realities on the ground with faith in pretty pictures. It’s likely a ten year window before we see all of the fallout and can make a serious assessment. From today’s news about the Shiite clergy pushing for an Islamic constitution, it looks like my own prediction that the Iranians will come out bigger winners in the long term than the U.S. is unfolding on schedule. Also, that the Iraqis won’t be in a mood to reward their occupiers, even though they did some very dirty work for them that they would have had to reckon with themselves sooner or later.
Since my own primary concern is - horror of selfish horrors - American interests and national security, I can’t really say that another Shiite Islamic state allied with Iran to control the Gulf is high on my list of priorities. But if the bar for successful outcomes when Bush faces the Gold Star mothers and widows is “better than Saddam”, I guess I can’t argue. He needs to take rhetorical refuge somewhere after all the blunders.
As for Georgie Boy’s speech tonite, wake me when it’s over. I’m saving my energy to fight the lying little fool over Social Security.
February 2nd, 2005 at 1:56 pm
This article is from a top Republican on the subject of WMDs. I posted it in the wrong section the other day.
“John Dean is a former counsel to President Richard Nixon, a Watergate co-conspirator, the author of the book Blind Justice”
Dean Writes “Even before formally declaring war against Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into the country to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.”
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:25312
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
reg wrote: “What if the people who said this was a foolish and unnecessary waste of American lives and treasure turn out to be right?”
That’s a legitimate question and I don’t have a great answer. When the dust settles and we can look at the Iraq actions from a historical context (like we now do with the cold war) and it may be a decade from now–well, based upon what I know at the moment, I think that we will conclude that our actions were right. I had my own doubts from the beginning and I’m not here to defend President Bush, but I’m willing to let this play out. If your side is correct, then we have made a big mistake and should learn from it. Either way, it will probably be like most wars we have had. We win the war and lose the peace.
—
On another matter, who wants to side with Castro who is calling Bush deranged? (Has ANYONE posted this yet so that I don’t get embarrassed again?) Here’s the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&u=/ap/20050202/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_castro_1&printer=1
Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Castro ranted about how he didn’t need the U.S. or Europe and defended socialism while still wearing his tired military uniform and continued by saying, “This country (Cuba) is heaven, in the spiritual sense of the word. And I say (to Bush), we prefer to die in heaven than survive in hell.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if the citizens of Cuba could express their feelings about that?
–
Anyway, stay tuned for tonight’s President’s State of the Union address. I hear that some of the Republicans may show up displaying blue fingers as a symbol that we did the right thing for freedom in Iraq. The Democrats will have blue expressions.
I can hardly wait for the Democrat response, in which I’m sure we will hear from them that they are saddened, etc. That “saddened” response will end once John Dean takes over the leadership of the party and whips everyone into the same frenzy that professional wrestling fans exhibit.
Don’t miss either one. We’ll have a quiz on Thursday.
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Nuts, after reading artbob’s post about John Dean, I had a mental lapse and confused his name with that of Howard Dean, who will lead the Democrats in this decade. Unknown at the time to Nixon, John Dean led the Democrats behind the scenes in the 1970’s.
I think I need to start this day over.
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
I hope most Americans who see the “blue fingers” will see them for what they are, a silly display of “in-your-face” political opportunism. There is no solidarity between these people and the long and continually suffering Iraqis. I won’t have to be making this call, because I won’t be watching.
February 2nd, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Damn. Blue dog Democrats and blue finger Republicans. Sounds like the makings of a good square dance.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Well, I’m sure the blue finger thing is a mix of opportunism and genuine feeling, depending on the politician involved. They are, after all, politicians regardless of the D or R appellation.
And speaking of changing people’s minds, at least we all disagree with each other very prettily. There is always room for beauty in this world….
Me, i’m still happy that the elections went well and am hoping (tempered with the knowledge that it won’t be easy) that things keep moving forward toward some sort of democracy.
PS. I miss Northern California and yummy Northern California food.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:15 pm
I would think a minimum definition of “success†in this enterprise would be: Restoring order, averting civil war, quashing violent opposition, repairing and maintaining basic services such as utilities, restoring oil production to its pre-Gulf War I level, establishing a representative government that respects the rights of minorities, winning the trust of a significant portion of the Iraqi population, moving the image of the United States in the Moslem world in a positive direction, and preventing future acts of terrorism in the United States. I don’t see how any of this has been achieved by the election. The election is like the assault on Fallujah: A victory so far as it goes but not a decisive victory, and not by any means a vindication of the policy.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:44 pm
First, I apologize to the group.. toomanysteves is right. Furthermore, I will never convince many here about either of the following:
1)There were terrorist quantities of WMD’s in Iraq and plans to make much more once the sanctions lifted, and
2)The war was justified and legal without the existence of WMDs, and was consistent with the goals of the War on Terror Bush Doctrine. I posted those justifications on my blog to avoid clogging up this one and there’s not much evidence than anyone even bothered to see them, since WMD’s are still the anti’s favorite way to attack the justification of the war.
3)Bush didn’t lie about WMDs and neither did Powell. They were mislead, as were the rest of the worlds’ intelligence agencies - effectively fooled by Saddam’s maskirova tactics and his past history.
Those are the only assertions I care about regarding WMDs. If you want to dispute them, lets do it like real men - meet me outside at http://snow.he.net/~ozone//miscblog/archives/000899.html outside and bring your best shootin’ iron.
Seriously, please go there for the justification of the war on Iraq issue, so as to not clutter any more. toomanysteves is right.
I know where MarcC really is, btw. See below.
Mavis, my mind has already been changed on Chile, with some assertions moved from “false” to “tentatively true, want to learn more.” Can you say the same? Have you changed your mind since I’ve been posting? The problem with your “proofs” is you (a) cite leftist sources, and (b) you just toss out links to very long articles. If you want to communicate those “facts” to me, at least highlight which part of the articles are relevant. I don’t have time to read the whole thing.
Third, the election was a major victory. But it was just one battle in a complex war. We have not won yet. As I have said before, we have made mistakes in planning and execution. It is hardly surprising, given that this *always* happens in war, and that our intelligence agencies had gotten sclerotic, and had been damaged by Frank Church’s inquisition in the ’70s, and in the Clinton years, the effective prohibition on CIA officers from using bad people as assets (thus avoiding embarrassment of the CIA like it got when folks learned that Noriega was - quite properly - on the CIA payroll), and the famous “wall” memo preventing FBI counter-intelligence from working effectively with FBI law enforcement. And no, not all the fault was Democrats’. There was too much optimism about how the Iraqis would greet us, for example. We can list faults for a long time, but it doesn’t change a darn thing.
MarcD, if you understood the military, you would know that “Mission Accomplished I” was accurate and appropriate. If you had been a military aviator like I was, you would know that Bush *earned* the right to wear that flight suit (unlike Clinton when he wore military clothing), and any one of us would have done the same thing - no fighter pilot on earth would pass up the chance to do a carrier landing (with a skilled guy doing the final work). You also need to read some Iraqi blogs to understand that Iraqis do in fact consider themselves a single nation. That doesn’t make it the dominant factor, but its hardly “political opportunism.” In fact, I can’t imagine where that characterization comes from, when some ordinary Iraqi celebrates this even by waving the blue finger. By the way, Marc is actually in a small motel in Daly City, being de-programmed by a highly skilled crew of neocons. GMRoper is directing the strategy.
Reg, you know a lot about leftist things. But you are confused on the Shia + Shia equals allies. For the most part, the Iraqis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persians. The Iraqis are not Islamofascist, while Iran is controlled by an Islamofascist dictatorship. It is possible that your fear could come true (especially if Sistani were killed with no one to replace him). It is also possible that you could be hit crossing the street. Sadr was an exception, but he got nowhere because he basically recruited Shia criminals whom Saddam had let of prison (his version of the Mariel Boat Lift) The bigger danger in the Iraq experiment is conflict between special interest groups, which is more complex than just religious labels. Tribes are very important in Iraq, and represent a non-parallel axis to religious affiliation. Furhermore, many Iraqi’s are secular. My president isn’t “Georgie Boy,” but since it used to be “Slick Willy” what the heck - at least Slick Willy was a nice pun.
“John Dean” is a top Republican? Not since he went to jail THIRTY-SOME years ago. Puleeze. Of course, his quote is probably accurate, and irrelevant.
Robert Fiore - defining goals is good. You have defined what I would call “the best possible outcome” as success. I would say success would be: a reduction in danger to the United States. I would expect that to require an Iraq not hostile to the US to the point of working with international mega-terrorists, which would require either a democracy or a mild autocratic regime. That’s the minimum success in my “realists” book. Having a democracy would be far, far better than that minimum. The rest is icing on the cake, from the US short to medium term security, but something we all desire for humanitarian reasons.
And now I’m late to a Mensa get-together where people are just as far left and less polite than many here.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Mensa-dropping! Well I’m late for a party at the Playboy mansion. Don’t wait up.
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:08 pm
GMRoper is directing the strategy.
Not me, I’m at the Bohemian Grove!!!!!
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:14 pm
“Unknown at the time to Nixon, John Dean led the Democrats behind the scenes in the 1970’s.”
Hellllloooooo! So now we’re supposed to get baited into Watergate era revisionism. I’ll pass….
JM - As for the Iranian influence among Iraq’s Shia, it’s well known and it runs deep. Sistani is an Iranian citizen, incidentally. If you think the ongoing Iranian connection and the prospect of a Shia alliance, despite the differences in ethnicity, is on par with the liklihood of my getting hit by a car, you truly are ignorant and shouldn’t embarrass yourself with public diatribes on what’s happening in Iraq. Juan Cole has gone into this in depth in various articles, among others. And please don’t try to top Juan Cole with your homebrew Middle East “analysis”, since what you have to say appears to be gleaned from Daniel Pipes columns and Laurie Mylroie’s expert analysis. John, you get some kind of a prize for pure partisan revisionism, ideological hackery and ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your worldview. (A good place for you to start on the WMD issue might be Kenneth Pollack’s piece about a year ago in The Atlantic. It’s not definitive, but it’s interesting since he was the guy who was most consistently cited by sane people who supported the invasion.)
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Links, Steve? Do you have any? Do you do any thinking for yourself, or are you just a librarian of the left?
BTW, you can get humor transplants just across the river from Del Rio, TX - I think you need one to understand Woody’s posting re: Dean.
Out of 184 words in your last post, 72 were used in ad-hominem attacks on me.
In spite of your incredible rudeness, I may still check out actual arguments if you present something to read.
Meanwhile:
Michael Ledeen:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141734,00.html
They tried desperately to manipulate the Shiite community in Iraq and they have failed because the Iraqi Shiites don’t want an Islamic republic. Iraqi Shiism is different from the radical Iranian version of it, and they want a separation of mosque and state.
And so, if the Iranian people see a flourishing Shiite democracy on one side and a flourishing Sunni democracy in Afghanistan, why would they put up with this regime? More than 70 percent of them, we know, hate the Iranian regime.
Finally, I asked that WMD arguments be made on my overflow blog. You put your pitiful excuse for an argument here. That is rude to our host and I will not answer them here. If you have the courage of your convictions, come out of this safe echo chamber and debate with facts, not names of left wing writers.
My apologies to Marc for letting the predictable toad-licker to annoy me.
And that’s it for me. No more attacks on Steve in this thread.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Michael Ledeen is a full-fledged lunatic. And I’m not “steve’…
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:28 pm
“Links, Steve? Do you have any? Do you do any thinking for yourself, or are you just a librarian of the left?”
I hope you’re not “insulted”, but are you having a nervous breakdown? I haven’t even posted on this thread yet…
But, as long as I’m here and I haven’t posted any mile long posts yet…here’s a doozy…
“CNN) — Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein’s regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq’s neighbors.
The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the U.S. government and the United Nations for years.
The unclassified State Department documents sent to congressional committees with oversight of U.S. foreign policy divulge that the United States deemed such sales to be in the “national interest,” even though they generated billions of dollars in unmonitored revenue for Saddam’s regime.
The trade also generated a needed source of oil and commerce for Iraq’s major trading partners, Turkey and Jordan.”
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:07 pm
“Either way, it will probably be like most wars we have had. We win the war and lose the peace.”
Woody, not true of WWII…not at all.
What’s the difference between that one and most of the other military adventures of the past century plus ? Think about it…
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:13 pm
“librarian of the left?”
Assuming that was directed at me, since Steve didn’t post anything prior to your outburst, hardly. Frankly, that’s an absurd charge. But what else is new. You’ll have to go to the library yourself to read Pollack’s article from last Feb (I think), since the Atlantic is now charging and I had a hard drive melt-down since I archived it. Sounds like you don’t even know who he is…since you’re accusing me of being a “leftist librarian.” If you don’t, you really shouldn’t be blowing crap out of your ass about Iraq and WMDs in public.
Juan Cole’s excellent, scholarly, informed blog can be linked via Marc’s suggested websites to the left.
Jeeeezus…why do I respond to this crap?
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Is “Eeyore” the latest meme coming out of the “W went to war and all I got was this T-shirt, but I’m happy as hell” faction ? I’ve read it three times today in reference to anti-war Dems…is that grounds for already being bored ?
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:24 pm
The ad that the “left-wing” “liberal” media refused to air tonight:
http://www.fenn-group.com/usact/fix/Fix_windowsmedia.html
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:29 pm
uh reg, the librarian quote was not directed at you I believe.
“”Links, Steve? Do you have any? Do you do any thinking for yourself, or are you just a librarian of the left?”"
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:49 pm
GM, like usual I got those guys confused. I don’t know whether it was reg or steve. But reg displayed his usual reading comprehension problem, not realizing the library reference was to his (or is it steve’s) habit of throwing out a name as the answer to any argument, rather than the details, leaving one to wonder if stevereg is capable of making an argument itself.
Stevereg, it may be fun, but you aren’t going to convince anyone by telling them to go to the library to read how their argument is wrong. Which leads me to conclude that your responses are, in fact, trolling - with no intent to convince.
Anyway, I watched the ad. It was highly deceptive, but typical of political ads. It should have been run, unless the media decided not to run any political ads near the SOTU, which is my guess. It is deceptive because the purpose of that ad is to make sure that malpractice attorneys like Edwards continue to reap huge amounts of money in punitive damages, awarded by sympathetic juries who have no way of knowing whether the OB doctor was right or wrong.
The Democratic party is owned by the billionaire trial lawyers (remember all the sweetheart deals on the tobacco class action suits?) and the teachers’ unions (although other greedy special interest groups such as Indian casino owners are giving the first two competition).
The left imagines somehow that corporations are evil, while trial lawyers like the ones this ad was made for are not. Clue time: the difference between trial lawyers and corporations is that most corporations produce something, while malpractice lawyers are, for the most part, parasites on society.
A true advocate for economic justice would never have run that ad, the purpose of which is to continue the parasitism of a special interest group that fills Democratic coffers by driving up medical costs (and driving OB’s away from the worst states entirely) and enriching fat pocket lawyers.
California’s one sensible thing was to limit non-compensatory damages on medical malpractice to a mere $250,000. What the targets of the ad don’t know is that compensatory damages in the case of a “bad baby” as the docs and lawyers call them, can be huge amounts already - enough to guarantee a completely disabled and essentially decerebrated baby to live to a natural death in 60 or 70 years. That is why people like Edwards went after OB’s - they have the highest potential for generating cases that have huge awards BEFORE the punitive phase. So the lawyer gets a double dip.
Punitive damages were essentially invented by the liberal FDR courts to use the civil justice system to punish those who lose lawsuits. Huge awards usually have huge punitive damages, of which, naturally, the lawyer gets 30-50 percent.
Class action suits are another fraud (in most cases) that transfer money from consumers and stockholders to lawyers, giving the members of the class typically a coupon worth $5 to buy a product from the company that allegedly wronged them, while the lawyers walk off with millions.
Fire away stevereg with the name of some leftist who has proven that the above is nonsense.
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:52 pm
With Marc’s indulgence (I hope), another post: Steve, do you have a point about the oil sales? They don’t represent corruption of our officials (but rather financial judo to bribe allies - a necessary tactic sometimes). There was plenty of money in the oil sales (outside of the bribes) to solve the problems supposedly caused by the sanctions - look at all the palaces built during that time (over 40) for Saddam.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:07 pm
“It is deceptive because the purpose of that ad is to make sure that malpractice attorneys like Edwards continue to reap huge amounts of money in punitive damages, awarded by sympathetic juries who have no way of knowing whether the OB doctor was right or wrong.”
Yeah I”m sure the father of that boy was a liar. So is Linda McDougal, the lady who lost both breasts due to a mistake.
Solid counterevidence you have provided there.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘libraries’. I provided an excellent easily accessible document that picked apart all of Bush/Blair/Powell’s false claims about the so-called “WMD”s, you choose to ignore that such documents were easily available before the official invasion. Instead, when confronted with such documents, you resort to crying “troll, troll, troll”.
Translation: A troll is anyone that John MOore doesn’t agree with.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
John, you’re addled…and that’s on a good day.
I’ve never linked to a “leftist” article on this blog, ever. You are truly one of the biggest fools I’ve ever encountered. And if you can’t tell the difference between my politics and steves (no offense steve, but you surely recognize major, obvious differences) it’s one more indication of just how pointless it is to argue with you.
And you can shove the wingnut shit about “some of you are part of Saddam’s Orange plan” - or whatever the hell that was - up your ass. I have nothing but contempt for you. Officially off my radar.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
“steves (no offense steve, but you surely recognize major, obvious differences)”
Sure, and I recognise that you’re able to disagree with me and respond with counterarguments that are based on coherent logic [or coherent arguments that I might or might not disagree with] and even, gasp!, counterevidence.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:13 pm
John, I have to say, it’s very hard to take your posts seriously. You throw out several new topics at a time, together with partisan and partial (if not overgeneralizing) explanations, and then act shocked when people start to pick at pieces of your post. I find you a very intelligent and sometimes interesting contributor, when you stick to a topic or two. Just my 2 centavos.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:13 pm
“uh reg, the librarian quote was not directed at you I believe.”
GM, until only about 4 posts ago, I hadn’t even posted anything. So, though MOore didn’t realise it, he was actually directing his commentts at stuff that Reg had written while imagining that I had written what Reg had written…
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Rich,
I appreciate your comments and politeness. Sometimes I do that on purpose - there is a conflict between a 3 post limit and a desire to keep on one topic. Also, other topics came up - I didn’t bring up tort reform, for example - it was a response to the ad that the “leftist media wouldn’t run.”
I think there are two problems. One is that multiple topics come up, and I disagree with most of the posts on them. Hence I’m addressing too many in a single thread. The other is the attempt to keep to the three post limits. My posts are completley serious (except when the humor node wakes up, which isn’t often enough).
Thank you for politely reminding me.
Stevereg - addled is the wrong word. Try A.D.D. and you’ll be a lot closer. It leads to these kinds of little mistakes of using the wrong name. I thought you guys didn’t like to pick on the “differently abled.”
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:41 pm
“I thought you guys didn’t like to pick on the “differently abled.”
I throw urine at and defecate on them.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Lighten up, youse guys…someone’s going to have to attend to the frostbite of the extremities GM suffered while running nekkid through the woods…
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Jim,
Is it that cold there? And the images that brings up are, well, beyond painful. And I don’t even know what GM looks like.
Nope, he’s lying. He really is supervising the deprogramming of Marc C.
The fun part comes when he gets to Stevereg. That may require some Abu Ghraib techniques, some Narcan, and frontal lobe therapy applied with a Craftsman portable drill. I’d volunteer to be on the capture team but if they are in California, I couldn’t bring in my AK-47’s without causing heart attacks all over the place.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:50 pm
I thought you were over 50 and unable to defend yourself against young leftists…?
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
I am over 50. It might take a small hoard of us. Or I’ll just bring the AK’s and let daughter join our grab team. Besides, how do I know youse guys are young?
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Having serially offended on the 3 post rule (which I suspect is not such a big deal near the end of this random thread), I should mention that on Jan 20th in DC, I voluntered myself and my daughter to help protect our guy who had been attacked by young leftists (punched and spat on while someone else damaged his sign trying to take it). He didn’t want our help, and as it turned out, he didn’t need it. They need to teach the leftists not to pick on an old combat veteransm especially a biker, and especially when they have a bunch of retired SEALs nearby.
Nuff said.
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Ouch. I’ve heard of firing for effect, but drilling for it?
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Different desired effect
February 2nd, 2005 at 11:43 pm
None of you people know what you’re talking about. George Bush is right. Freedom is on the march in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. No children are being left behind. The clean skies have been initiated. My personal account has made me a millionaire. And marriage is still between a man and his dog. Or something like that…
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:45 am
“I voluntered myself and my daughter to help protect our guy who had been attacked by young leftists (punched and spat on while someone else damaged his sign trying to take it).”
Alas, the guy, if the story is true, was attacked for having a sign, not for being a veteran. classic.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
At Crimeshare.net HELP IS AT HAND!
Have you been trying to sell your timeshare week, points, holiday Club membership?
Are you FEED UP with spiralling maintenance fee costs?!
Are you sick of phone calls “out of the blue” with ridiculous offers?
Do you simply want to GET OUT?!
At Crimeshare.net we show you the fraudsters so you know you can trust US !!
For a one time registration fee of $295 the value of your week can be redeemed within a six month period or YOUR MONEY BACK!
43de0d2a738027dbf907b2cfea766546
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Has anybody seen any software that will unlock a Motorola mobile phone without cables?
Heard a rumour of some software called ‘Mototools 6′ that will unlock without cables.
Anybody used this software, does it exist?
Sorry if posting in wrong section, new to this. Thanks in advance for any help.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Hi Sam! Photos i send on e-mail.
Green
June 9th, 2007 at 11:26 am
1
Funny Pictures here
July 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
WOW! The most popular online casino present…!!!
Win Jackpot NOW!!! The best gambling, slots, poker BlackJack and others licensed casino games.
Visit now and WIN!!
November 10th, 2007 at 8:27 am
i’m eric. joining a couple boards and looking
forward to participating. hehe unless i get
too distracted!
eric
December 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
What is the Dejа vu? What is this fleeting imprinted in the memory?
P.S. Please administrator marccooper.com. If the thread is not to be in category Ñтот, I ask you to move my thread to the correct category.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Click here to buy Tramadol and Ultram online without a prescription … buy tramadol buy vicodin buy xylocaine buy painmed buy tramadol with paypal …
Price comparison shopping; how to avoid getting ripped off when buying tramadol; strategies regarding obtaining best prices, etc. …
looery We are developing a once-daily formulation of the analgesic tramadol. Tramadol is a non-scheduled, centrally acting analgesic for the treatment of moderate …
Buy Ultram (Tramadol) tramadol buy tramadol tramadol online buy tramadol online order tramadol tramadol prescription ultram tramadol cheap tramadol …
oogle Ultracet (Tramadol APAP) drug information, dosage, side effects, drug interactions, and warnings. Ultracet, generic drug name tramadol with acetaminophen, …
Tramadol is used to relieve pain, including pain after surgery. The long-acting tablets are used for chronic ongoing pain. . The effects of tramadol are …
online pill identifier Price comparison shopping; how to avoid getting ripped off when buying tramadol; strategies regarding obtaining best prices, etc. …
P.S. Please administrator marccooper.com. If the thread is not to be in category this, I ask you to move my thread to the correct category.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
[color=#0035a9]
Tramadol was approved for marketing as a noncontrolled analgesic in 1995 under the trade name of Ultram®. Although the company initially claimed that this …
[/color]
March 26th, 2008 at 11:41 am
undespising cocainize smurr poneramoeba vaginervose exsanguination ectoplasy strychnic
Xavier Consulting Group
http://www.theshots.co.uk/