calling someone a communist isn't calling them stupid. You have such a double-standard - you will call people all sorts of names, and now you are decrying those guys when in this thread and the ones I have read they haven't done that. So maybe you are referring to posts from a long time ago or whatever, but if anything, their current style is very mature and they don't vicious attack people because of their views....something you do in this very post. Please, if you have something to say about the subject, say it, but quit your high ole mighty stoning of others. And why should i answer questions to someone who calls me dense and a liar? Forget it. I respect myself too much - if someone wants to discuss something, then they can discuss in a manner of respect. Otherwise, screw them.
Anyone else find it amusing that NewYorker is accusing FranchiseBlade, (one of, if not the most level headed and respectful posters on the BBS) of attacking? Poor NewYorker, playing the victim again....boring...
As has been amply proven here. But it goes beyond that... military success is equated with both the administration's position and success in Iraq when it is neither an affirmation of administration policies nor the primary metric of success in Iraq.
The democrats can't say we are making any progress because they have staked the position that the war is a failure and so when they say "it's working" then that immediately does imply that perhaps the withdraw of u.s. forces should be delayed at least. They are in a pretty bit of a conumdrum beause they can't admit it's working without hurting their position that they have staked their political futures on. The white house doesn't have to do anything - dems dug themselves into a position and now they have to defend it no matter what. Progress in Iraq is bad for the Democratic party chances in Nov 2008 - you see that right?
The Republicans can't say Iraq is a failure because they have staked their position that the war is a success. So, if they did say the troops needed to redeploy, that would be an admission of failure. They are in a bit of a conundrum because they can't do what's right for the country and Iraq without hurting the position they staked their futures on. The WH did nothing but encourage this and Repubs dug themselves into a position that they now have to defend, no matter what. Anything but keeping the illusion going that Iraq can be a success is bad for Repub chances in 2008. You see that right?
Please point out one place where I have called anyone stupid. I commented on your lack of reading comprehension, but that is evidenced by your inability to understand the points that various people made, particularly with regards to your repeated claims that Hillary Clinton thinks the surge is working when if you look at the entire quote and her response to the GOP spin, it is entirely evident that this is not the case. Still, you have claimed repeatedly that she thinks the surge is working. Wow. I can't believe you are actually claiming that either of those guys style is "mature." I would not call my claim about your selective perception even remotely "vicious." In the post you replied to, there was no disparaging comment, just an honest question. You replied with the quote I posted.
No, again you prove your lack of reading comprehension or your willingness to drink the WH kool-aid. Anytime the Dems have mentioned anything remotely positive about Iraq, the WH, basso, and you take their comments out if context and twist them into support for the administrration and the war. It is plainly evident in this thread. Re-read it and see.
questioning someone's ability at reading comprehension is the same as calling them stupid. Oh, i can question your ability to ad 1 + 1, and say i'm quesitoning your math skills, but really, that's just calling someone stupid. all the other remarks are just unnecessary bravado of attack and there's no reason why I should put up with it. Hillary said it was working. Her entire quote didn't change that, and newspapers all picked it up with the intrepretation she thought the surge was working. She had to back-track later. If that's what she didn't mean to say, she should take responsibility for using misleading language. But she said it. And finally, you need to read the previous quote from MC Mark before you comment on my discussion with him. If anything, he's showing how crazy he is with the 5 one-liners about me - it's really kind of humorous to see someone so obsessed.
I don't support the administration. Nor do I trust anything that comes out of the White House. The Dems have repeatedly made remarks that their is progress being made in terms of reducing violence. Clinton, Levin, Durbin, it's a growing list. It validates what came out of the Brookings institute and says hey, this surge maybe having an impact. But you twist that into support of the Administration or the war, that's you who do that. Don't put your agenda onto me.
So, in your reality if I question your reading comprehension (based on the fact that you only seem to read half of what is posted here), that is calling you stupid, but calling someone a communist is no big deal. I am not just blowing s*** out of my a** here, I am responding directly to your seeming inability to read what people post. But that is somehow worse than being called a communist, terrorist sympathizer, or Saddam lover. To steal a line from "Cool World," you are a total wack-a-doo. Yes, it did. No, that was Faux News and the WSJ. How exactly is it a "back-track" when someone reads or shows the entire clip (or transcript) in context and shows how it was spun when taken out of context? She made an accurate statement that was shortened, taken out of context, and spun. That has been shown repeatedly in this thread alone. And you wonder why I question your reading skills? Re-read this thread and try again. So, his previous remarks justify you ignoring a substantive question. ooooooo-kay
It really working... we can see that because a group headed by Ari Fleischer is going to run ads in support of the administration's Iraq policy and in anticipation of the Petraeus testimony in Congressional districts to build, er, hold support for the surge. It's working so well, that of those targeted markets known now, 37 out of 41 are Republican. (http://www.americablog.com/2007/08/open-thank-you-letter-to-ari-fleischer.html)
Except the op-ed that started this thread, an opinion piece by two cheerleaders for the war who were taken out on a Pentagon sponsored trip, shown the best parts of Iraq, and interviewed the people the Pentagon provided for them. There has been just as much contradictory information from Republicans, but you don't seem to be grasping at those straws. In addition, all of the Dems who have made such comments have couched their responses with caveats that are conveniently ignored so that the other stuff can be taken out of context and twisted. The only ones I have accused of being lapdogs for the administration lately have been the bassmaster and t_j. You just appear to be severely misled and willing to swallow the administration's spin on this issue.
I suspect he's trying to be clever and emulate his heroes in the PR profession who he believes can spin anything.
Those guys were war critics and the left just labeled them as supporters - they came from a liberal think tank. And statements by dems have backed their claim that there is indeed progress. Clinton has said as much, and he extended comments don't change that in my opinion. I'm not buying into anything the white house said, i'm paying attention to what everyone is saying...and the caveats that people make are for political posturing in my opinion, which is why so many of them have had to "clarify" their remarks. While some may use that to try to drum up support for Bush, I am more interested in seeing success. So really, your accusations ring empty.
