Terrorist representatives today announced they were abandoning further retaliatory plans against allies of the US-led war on Iraq when a nine year old girl pointed out to them that–had terrorists not destroyed the World Trade Center–George W. Bush would never have been able to muster the support to attack Iraq in the first place.
“Yeah, that lapse in clear thinking was our bad,” said terrorist spokesman Abu Al Bumen. “If 9/11 hadn’t happened, Bush could never had ridden a wave of fear and anger right into the middle of Baghdad. I mean, the kid had it right. She didn’t really leave us a lot of wiggle room, y’know?”
The startling turnabout began when nine year old Terri Schwindenhamer of Tulsa, OK, wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Tuesday New York Times. Young Schwindenhamer, whose letter was headlined “Could Someone Explain This To me,” pointed out in part, “I don’t understand why the terrorists are hurting people over stuff the terrorists themselves helped to happen.”
Al Bunem, in a taped interview airing on the Spike Network, stated, “We just hadn’t considered it that we…I mean, we were blowing up innocent people over events that we initiated. Frankly, I don’t know what the hëll we were thinking. Bottom line is, we pretty much screwed the pooch on this whole revenge thing. So, y’know, we’re reconsidering our options.”
“Actually, we’re thinking of getting into management of national political campaigns. Turns out we’re pretty good at that.”
• 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I like Abu Al Bumen. He seems to be a very intelligent and polite terrorist. I wish they were all like that.
Not to deflate a chuckle-worthy short story from Peter, but in a big way, Bush’s ouster of Saddam Hussein is really a great thing for al Qaeda.
I mean, Saddam and Osama were never buddies to begin with (al Qaeda even offered the Saudis their services in the first Gulf War against Iraq), and the removal of Saddam’s secular government means more room for an Islamic theocracy to take hold there. The anti-war backlash in the Muslem community is also a terrific recruiting point for al Qaeda, as well as the extra benefits of (a) concentrating American forces in one easy-to-target location and (b) weakening American presence elsewhere, such as Afghanistan.
I’m hard pressed to think of a single downside that the Iraq invasion gives to Osama and his ilk.
Robert,
It depends on whether you believe the rumors that Saddam’s government gave some form of support to Osama. The loss of that support would be a potential downside…but it could easily be more than compensated for by their using our invasion of Iraq as “proof” that we’re trying to destroying Islam, steal their resources, etc., etc., etc.
Since we have documents that say bin Laden specifically rejected accepting aide from Saddam, those rumors do not have much to stand on.
Since we have documents that say bin Laden specifically rejected accepting aide from Saddam, those rumors do not have much to stand on.
Yeah, because, you know, all our other intelligence information was just so dead on.
“Yeah, because, you know, all our other intelligence information was just so dead on.”
I mean … yeah, because, after all, it’s not like this administration has ever manipulated intelligence or scientific evidence to serve its own political agendas.
TWL
Bush’s ouster of Saddam Hussein is really a great thing for al Qaeda.
Yes, I’m sure they will love having another democracy, besides Isreal, for a neighbor.
I haven’t read/seen any of the evidence one way or the other on what the relationship (or lack thereof) was between Saddam and Osama.
But, either way, it’s simply a case of “The enemy of my enemy…” as to why Al Qaeda would get themselves involved in Iraq once Saddam was ousted.
Of course they’ll love it, Mr. Tichy. Either they win the elections and turn it into a defacto theocracy, or they lose the elections, blame it on U.S. interference, and have more P.R. ammo.
forget it all lets get down to it! reelect Hussain and bin laden in 2004
see that was an ironic statment about how the entire bush presidency has been more focused on those too than on the pres and vp
Can we elect the kid president? She’s smarter than our current one…
Peter David: The startling turnabout began when nine year old Terri Schwindenhamer of Tulsa, OK, wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Tuesday New York Times.
Luigi Novi: Terri Schwindenhammer? Isn’t that a reporter for 1010WINS news? Hmm…..
And speaking of 1010WINS, I just heard now that a huge car bomb LEVELLED a 5-story hotel in Baghdad, and rescue workers are currently sifting through the rubble.
Dee:
I SERIOUSLY WANT THE DEMS TO GET HIT BY OBL
I think this pretty much qualifies as a viewpoint so out there that it’s got a substantial light-time delay.
I don’t want Bush in office, but I certainly wasn’t rooting for dead soldiers in Iraq. You apparently are hoping for lots of casualties in the hope of scoring political points.
As Buffy might have said but never did, “Survey says … eww.”
TWL
But hasn’t it been said by Paul O’Neill, George Bush’s Treasury Secretary, that Bush was planning the Iraq invasion from day one? He’d been planning it all along and still couldn’t get it right!
Dee,
Are you serious? Are you just trying to provoke a reaction to get attention? What about your post was part of any serious discussion? You are simply complaining about dems and hoping for a catastrophe so your candidate will win. I am here to tell you that I am hoping for a landslide for Kerry simply to show the current administration that this is not the direction most Americans wanted their country to go. Please tone down your rhetoric somewhat. To advocate violence simply to “show us whiny democrats” is completely over the top. I sure hope I’ve read you wrong and this was your atttempt to be humorous, but having seen some of your posts before, I sadly think you are stating your true beliefs.
This just in — what, 2 weeks early?
The race is on between terrorists and egregious PADblog posters to acquire sense. Motion is so slow that we’re not sure they’re even headed in the right direction.
There’s a bit of rabbinical wisdom that terrorists would be wise to adapt. That’s if you embarass or shock someone so badly their face goes pale, it’s a form of bloodshed. Think about it, al-Quaeda — you can only blow an inifidel up once, but you can stink-bomb, paint-bomb, etc. him indefinitely.
Uh,Dee, do you think about your posts first? Does that stuff make sense in your head? You realize you just admited to wanting to see a lot of people die just so you could *maybe* see the poor reactions of people who disagree with you. Wow. I’m not sure what else to say, but I think that’s the most out there post I’ve read from you yet, and that’s saying a lot.
Monkeys.
Dee: “what will you piss and moan about once Bush is out of office???”
I’ll be pìššìņg and moaning about other stuff that there’s no excuse for it being as bad as it is. When I run out of stuff like that, I’ll go play some video games.
You know, I can remember a time… or perhaps I hallucinated it… when both liberals and conservatives, and even moderates, could recognize that love for one’s country and a desire to do the right thing for the greatest majority of one’s fellow citizens (and even the world) didn’t belong solely to any one political party or social worldview.
Back before “liberal” meant “dirty no good commie peacenik” (as for when peace became a dirty word, I couldn’t tell you) and “conservative” meant “pig headed powermad fascist” (and how it is that so many conservatives have moved towards the liberal notion of using the government to tell us what to believe, I couldn’t tell you) and so on.
I’m really kind of tired of it. To the point where I honestly don’t even see the point in trying to discuss my point of view with people who disagree, because there’s so rarely any effort to understand divergent opinions anymore.
No one who has not lived for years in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime’s calculated and incessant propaganda. Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a caf
Oh, and the original post was funny and pointed. It does seem that there needs to be someone with a big cluestick to come along and beat these people into some semblance of humanity and rationality.
I mean … yeah, because, after all, it’s not like this administration has ever manipulated intelligence or scientific evidence to serve its own political agendas.
Yeah, and it’s not like the previous administration didn’t do stuff like that to manipulate things as well. Hey anyone could mistake an aspirin factory for with a plant that makes VX nerve gas, or have the EPA use discredited junk science to validate policies on air polution regulations or controlling wildfires.
Right?
ezrael, I agree with you 100%
So let’s try to talk about practical solutions? What works for you? As for me, I try to stay informed by reading The San Jose Mercury Nesw, http://news.bbc.co.uk, newsfromme.com (Mark Evanier usually posts good links for staying informed), npr.org’s news page, and listening to npr every now and then.
I try to vote in every election and encourage everyone I come across – even die hard conservatives (I am a fervent liberal) – to vote each time. I think that one of the biggest dangers to our democracy is the large number of diaffected who have given up on democrats and republicans. I try to support Greens and Libertarians whever possible to eventually build strong third party support (I think that “lack of significant difference” is one reason many dont vote.) I’m trying to join more organizations (such as the CBLDF, protect.org, and the ACLU) even when I don’t agree with every single tack these groups take, because I realize voting isn’t enough. I haven’t attended too many proteset marches (One so far) but I’m trying to get more informed and more involved (one reason I’m taking a sociology class this semester.)
So, does any other poster have a sincere, cool-headed suggestion to add to what all of us can do to reduce the vituperation and increase the reasonable solutions?
“So, does any other poster have a sincere, cool-headed suggestion to add to what all of us can do to reduce the vituperation and increase the reasonable solutions?”
Sure. Break up the media monopolies. If there were 50 companies owning TV, newspapers, magazines and radio, instead of 5 right-wing-run monopolies, there might be some diversity of opinion. People might see there’s more than two sides to a problem (your side and the correct side). Rush Limbaugh would have to compete against dozens, maybe hundreds, of other people with different opinions – and ol’ Pillboy couldn’t do it.
Besides news programming, there might be more diversity in entertainment programming, too. It might mean more interesting shows. And maybe Peter David could get the job he truly deserves; taking over late-night television variety from that lame-o David Letterman. (At least Mr. D can SING if his jokes bomb!)
>
Y’know four years ago the same thing was wondered about what the Conservatives would have to whine about once Clinton was gone and one of their own was in the White House.
Who knew that Conservative were so good at dishing it out but when they get attacked they become crybabies.
Okay, maybe I’m on the wrong side of the looking glass here, but… am I right in thinking some folk have read PAD’s blog entry and taken away the idea that it’s bashing Bush?
Maybe Peter should place the moral at the end: Children, it appears that, perhaps, terrorists aren’t terribly good at long-term planning, or predicting the larger effects of their actions.
Remember that bit of Life of Brian where the plan is to kidnap Pilate’s wife, and only return her once the Roman Empire is dismantled? That’s pretty much the psychology we’re looking at with Al Qaeda.
PAD,
I didn’t know you were trying out to write for the ONION.
-Eric
I mean … yeah, because, after all, it’s not like this administration has ever manipulated intelligence or scientific evidence to serve its own political agendas.
Yeah, and it’s not like the previous administration didn’t do stuff like that to manipulate things as well.
1) Exactly why does “the other guy did it too” make it any less wrong?
2) Yes, the Clinton administration did some things I’m not thrilled with either — but they in no way engaged in the same scale of manipulation, so far as I can see. This administration elides entire paragraphs from studies carried out by its own hand-picked people. That’s not altering the data to fit an intended result?
Hey anyone could mistake an aspirin factory for with a plant that makes VX nerve gas, or have the EPA use discredited junk science to validate policies on air polution regulations or controlling wildfires.
The first — granted, a problem. As I recall, however, they admitted after the fact that it was a mistake — something I’ve yet to see happen here.
The second — I’d like some more information here, as I’m not familiar with it. Can you point me to a source we’ll both agree is worth the read? Thanks.
(Again, however, I really think that “but the last guy did it too!” is something less than a valid defense in general.)
TWL
Exactly why does “the other guy did it too” make it any less wrong?
Didn’t say it does, but here’s the thing: people who criticize the current administration for doing something that previous administrations have also done are obviously showing bias, and to me that just lessens your credibility when I’m debating someone.
Also, I’ve found that the next argument is usually a “Yes, but…” like you did:
Yes, the Clinton administration did some things I’m not thrilled with either — but they in no way engaged in the same scale of manipulation, so far as I can see.
The problem, of course, is that though ‘pre-emptive strikes’ are just spiffy in bowling alleys, if you’re going to do it on a geo-political scale, you better have all your PR pins lined up nicely… or we journalists will notice.
And that’s true of whatever party is wagging the dog.
John
Okay I pressed post before I was fisnished so let me recap…
Exactly why does “the other guy did it too” make it any less wrong?
Didn’t say it does, but here’s the thing: people who criticize the current administration for doing something that previous administrations have also done are obviously showing bias, and to me that just lessens your credibility when I’m debating someone.
Also, I’ve found that the next argument is usually a “Yes, but…” like you did:
Yes, the Clinton administration did some things I’m not thrilled with either — but they in no way engaged in the same scale of manipulation, so far as I can see.
See I have a problem with this type of justification attempt because it’s an attempt at allowing a double standard. It doesn’t wash because one could argue that the stakes weren’t as high when Clinton was in office. Now they are, and under the circumstances and at the time when the Bush administration made it’s case for invading Iraq, it made it with the best information it had at the time. It’s the SAME information that thePREVIOUS ADMINISTRAION had, the SAME information that the UN had, the SAME information that Great Britain had, the SAME information that EVERYONE had, and yet somehow, ONLY George W. Bush knew it was false info and had to manipulate the evidence. For someone who everyone portrays as being so stupid, that Bush fella sure is pretty shrewd.
The second — I’d like some more information here, as I’m not familiar with it. Can you point me to a source we’ll both agree is worth the read? Thanks.
No. I’ve fallen for this “trick” before. It really depends on your view of what’s causing global warming as to what “source” you’ll accept. I’ve yet to read ANY source that doesn’t do more than give just a nod to the fact that there is another side to the debate.
BTWm I called it a “trick”, but not to infer that you were trying to deceive me. I always suggest people look it up through Google which is how I found it. Most people are pretty lazy though and don’t want to do that so they just dismiss my argument. On the other hand, when I have listed my sources, they usually don’t read the articles or they just claim that the source is biased and dismiss the argument anyway. So unless someone calls me a liar that such an article even exists, I don’t bother listing sources or links anymore. What would be the point?
“The second — I’d like some more information here, as I’m not familiar with it. Can you point me to a source we’ll both agree is worth the read? Thanks.
No. I’ve fallen for this “trick” before. “
You know…this really isn’t a helpful comment. [Mostly because I’ve seen it used most often by people like creationists and the like. Most people who aren’t driven by ideology can muster wortier arguments than this]
You know, more and more I don’t necesarilly blame the government for manipulating the media (that’s hardly a new issue, we/they are just more savvy at recognising it when it happens).
What worries and concerns me is the way that we (the media) often lets it happen and we as the public let it too. Whether you are a fan of CNN or Fox News, it seems nowadays that the presentation is skewed to fit the desired demographic rather than to any pragmatic impartiality (of course, every news station has to make certain daily bulletin decisions as a matter of course and that creates different patterns).
But we need news services that don’t fill their schedules with opinion shows all the time. Like ‘Dragnet’, we need ones that present ‘just the facts, ma’am’ that they’ve collected and then don’t tell us what we should think about them. Have the round-tables, have the experts comparing notes, have the incisive special investigations… but don’t make them the cornerstone of your network, don’t make the news personailities bigger than the stories. Make opinions just part of certain defined progammes that are also there.
It just seems to me that many of the news networks are pandering and reinforcing, not informing and investigating. I don’t want networks to air government-made films and present them in the guise of impartial bulletins. Equally I don’t want government-bashing just because you don’t like the other guys’ colours.
When I switch on the TV to a ‘NEWS’ channel, I want the NEWS, not the opinions. I want to know what happened, when it happened, to who it happened. Background as to ‘why’ is important, but if its hugely debateable, debate it on a clearly-defined show.
Debate is good. Smug talking heads shouting to have the last words are not.
John
No. I’ve fallen for this “trick” before. “
You know…this really isn’t a helpful comment. [Mostly because I’ve seen it used most often by people like creationists and the like. Most people who aren’t driven by ideology can muster wortier arguments than this]
I made my comment and explained why I said it. So I don’t understand your pointing out the quote. And who’s to decide whether the argument is “worthier”? You? And by what standard will you be judging? See that’s the “trick”. It’s all subjective and open to someone’s else’s interpretation. It’s like trying to describe the color red to a person who’s been blind from birth. They just can’t see it and except for that one reference point you can’t explain it.
Me:
Exactly why does “the other guy did it too” make it any less wrong?
EClark:
Didn’t say it does,
Not explicitly, no, but the only reason to bring it up in response to “action X is wrong” is to rebut the statement. It’s thus implied.
but here’s the thing: people who criticize the current administration for doing something that previous administrations have also done are obviously showing bias,
Not necessarily. It could mean someone was younger and less aware when previous administrations did so. It could mean someone only started caring about the issue recently.
Now, if there’s a clear pattern of “group A gets criticized and group B doesn’t” regardless of timing, then I’d agree with you. But it’s not evidence of automatic bias.
For example: If evidence came out that Bush kept slaves, saying “Yeah, well, so did Thomas Jefferson” is hardly a worthwhile response.
Also, I’ve found that the next argument is usually a “Yes, but…” like you did:
Heaven forbid I answer a question on multiple levels.
Yes, the Clinton administration did some things I’m not thrilled with either — but they in no way engaged in the same scale of manipulation, so far as I can see.
See I have a problem with this type of justification attempt because it’s an attempt at allowing a double standard.
That is your interpretation of my motives. You are welcome to that interpretation, but I disagree with it. I did object to many of Clinton’s actions while he was in office, the factory bombing among them, and for you to assume automatically I didn’t does not speak well to your own arguments.
It’s the SAME information that thePREVIOUS ADMINISTRAION had, the SAME information that the UN had, the SAME information that Great Britain had, the SAME information that EVERYONE had, and yet somehow, ONLY George W. Bush knew it was false info and had to manipulate the evidence.
Let’s see: how many times do I have to point out that this is incorrect?
I have already agreed it is the same information.
It did, however, clearly produce two different responses on the part of the two administrations in question.
Claiming intelligence supports vigilance is a far, far easier case to make than claiming it supports an invasion. The same information can justify A but not B.
To justify B, yes, I think the information did have to be overhyped and misused. That doesn’t mean it didn’t initially justify A.
The second — I’d like some more information here, as I’m not familiar with it. Can you point me to a source we’ll both agree is worth the read? Thanks.
No. I’ve fallen for this “trick” before.
It was an honest question.
I’m with Roger here. This is a cowardly move, and carries with it the assumption that no one you’re arguing with is trustworthy or worthy of any sort of serious consideration.
Thank you for making that opinion clear. It’ll make my future conversations with you that much shorter.
TWL
Didn’t say it does, but here’s the thing: people who criticize the current administration for doing something that previous administrations have also done are obviously showing bias, and to me that just lessens your credibility when I’m debating someone.
See, that doesn’t work with me. I think both administrations were scumbags. I have no bias whatsoever. 🙂
Sorry, but just because Clinton did something doesn’t make it right for Bush to do something similar.
[b]I’m with Roger here. This is a cowardly move, and carries with it the assumption that no one you’re arguing with is trustworthy or worthy of any sort of serious consideration.[/b]
Not at all, because if you were [i]serious[/i] about asking for links to what articles I used to support my argument, you would have presented the articles you used to support [i]your[/i] side first. I don’t think a little reciprosity is uncalled for. Why should I have to back up what I’m saying and you don’t?
Besides, I DID tell you where I found my info. I looked through Google, and read the articles I found when I checked the links. Now if you [i]REALLY[/i] want me to post ten pages of Googled links that I’ve read, hey… but I’m not sure Glen will like that though.
[b]Thank you for making that opinion clear. It’ll make my future conversations with you that much shorter.[/b]
That’s your call. I won’t lose any sleep over it because I don’t really CARE what you think. PAD’s POV is the only one I actually come here for. But talk about a cowardly move…
And think about this Tim…. I’m not asking you or anyone else here to do something that I’m not willing to do myself. If I ask you to post links supporting your argument, you can be dámņ sure I’ll post mine first.
And if I post an opinion you can be dámņ sure I’ll explain my reasoning behind that opinion. I would also caustion you against reading “implications” into my post because youknow,, just like with assumptions, you could just be wrong.
Wow, that must be good information! Nobody ever lies on the Internet, right?
Right???
Who said I was “whining” about Bush being in office just because he’s conservative? My, that was quite the assumption there. I simply think he’s a horrible administrator on many levels that I could spend hours yammering about, but frankly…I’m too tired. I’m going to go be my lazyass liberal self, smoke some weed, and fûçk a few goats while I’m at it.
Honestly. -_-;;
I’ve posted links in support of my claims in the past. I didn’t this time because … well, because no one asked. I’m fine with reciprocity, actually — but you kinda jumped right from my question to the assumption that I was uninterested in responding in kind and only out to trick you with my lazy and scheming ways.
If you’ve been burned in the past by that, I’m certainly sorry to hear it — but it’s not exactly constructive conversation to assume everyone’s got ulterior motives.
Even here, you say “I’m not going to ask others to do something I’m not willing to do myself”, a statement which carries the implicit claim that I’m NOT willing to do that.
I don’t know how you conduct yourself in day-to-day affairs and it’s not really my business — all I know is that when people ask me questions I tend to give them answers and not assume they’re out to get me. It’s kinda my job, being a teacher and all.
I think this discussion has worn out its usefulness. If our paths cross in another thread … try once in a while acknowledging questions are valid?
TWL
Where have I heard this whine before? Hmmm. Sorry but we can’t always have a Dem in office now can we? Or, we’d be no different than any of those dictator countries. I cant wait for or election and to have ONL hit us again, harder than the last time cause I SERIOUSLY WANT THE DEMS TO GET HIT BY OBL. I hope we get a big hit that’ll send you cowards into hiding. Thats the only time you seem to shutup. Maybe then, you all would shutup about Bush. Nah, you’d still find something to whine about wouldn’t you? Cant help but wonder what you’d whine about if you’re anti war hero Kerry became Prez. Maybe we’ll pull out and cower like Spain is gonna do.
Yup, I can see this coming a mile away come election day.
Whining about other people whining, good one.
I can’t believe you’re actually advocating acts of terrorism just because you hate Democrats. Better watch what you say about stuff like that. If the Department of Homeland Security gets wind, you might disappear.
See I have a problem with this type of justification attempt because it’s an attempt at allowing a double standard. It doesn’t wash because one could argue that the stakes weren’t as high when Clinton was in office. Now they are, and under the circumstances and at the time when the Bush administration made it’s case for invading Iraq, it made it with the best information it had at the time. It’s the SAME information that thePREVIOUS ADMINISTRAION had, the SAME information that the UN had, the SAME information that Great Britain had, the SAME information that EVERYONE had, and yet somehow, ONLY George W. Bush knew it was false info and had to manipulate the evidence. For someone who everyone portrays as being so stupid, that Bush fella sure is pretty shrewd.
I don’t recall the UN claiming there was definitive proof of WOMD in Iraq. I seem to remember them saying there was no proof and that they needed time to investigate further. The definitive proof of WOMD was a fiction created by the Bush Administration to garner support for the invasion.
The funny thing about politics is if the situation was reversed and the same exact actions that were taken by the Bush Adminstration were taken by say a Gore Administration, many Democrats would be making excuses for him just like many Republicans are for Bush and the Republicans would be calling for Gore to resign or be impeached for lying about the WOMD. Hypocrisy abounds in the world of politics like no other. This country really needs a strong third party or better yet four strong parties to give the American people more choices and to put some freakin perspective out there about things.
Not at all, because if you were [i]serious[/i] about asking for links to what articles I used to support my argument, you would have presented the articles you used to support [i]your[/i] side first.
Why can’t you just ask kindly for the others to support their arguments with links instead of making this such a big deal? Who cares who supplies links first? You were asked very kindly to provide your sources. So supply your links and ask them to supply theirs. How hard is that. And wouldn’t you want to make sure the person you’re having this discussion with ends up at the right URLs? Google can be funny sometimes and provide links to things like… oh.. pørņ.
besides, I DID tell you where I found my info. I looked through Google, and read the articles I found when I checked the links. Now if you [i]REALLY[/i] want me to post ten pages of Googled links that I’ve read, hey… but I’m not sure Glen will like that though.
Yeah, and if I hand in an essay and my bibliography said “I looked it up on Google, go check yourself” I’d get a zero.
Dee, you know what’d really be fun? It’d help you get rid of whiny dems and everything.
Go into a bad part of town dressed like a høøkër and get your throat slit, you cold-hearted bìŧçh. If you’re so ready and willing to see people die, you should be the first among that number.
As for “whining” about Bush, I think it’s perfectly legitimate. I used to support the man, but the fact that he’s screwing this country over like the drunken frat boy his is terrifies me. I want his ášš out of office so that our country can get back on its feet and have a little respect in the world, rather than be a laughing stock.
The funny thing about politics is if the situation was reversed and the same exact actions that were taken by the Bush Adminstration were taken by say a Gore Administration, many Democrats would be making excuses for him just like many Republicans are for Bush and the Republicans would be calling for Gore to resign or be impeached for lying about the WOMD.
That’s an unsupportable assertion and amounts to nothing more than a strawman on your part. Believe it or not, some of us have enough integrity to condemn immoral behavior even when it’s done by someone on “my side”.
There were many reasons to oust Saddam Hussein, and many ways to wage war with Iraq. Nonexistent WMDs and an imminent threat that wasn’t, however, aren’t it. If a hypothetical President Gore had lied about WMDs and started a hypothetical war over it, I’d be condemning his pasty white ášš, too.
But Gore didn’t, and Bush did, and now it’s the Republicans who are marked as the Political Party of Lying Warmongers(tm).
Andrew, that was completely uncalled for.
Certainly, it was, at best, unkind, improper, and uncivilized for Dee to wish that an unspecified, but large, number of innocent bystanders should die so that she could gloat like some sort of vicious, unprinicipled ghoul over it; however, I fail to see how the discourse is improved by returning the favor (save, of course, for the fact that you were wishing specific, retail death, rather than the wholesale sort Dee requested).
Personally, I hope that terrorists around the world take the lesson that was taught before we attacked Iraq without real provocation – namely, that if you hit a US target, as al-Qaeda did, we will smash your infrastructure, destroy your backers, and hunt you down across the face of the planet, no matter where you hide. Today, al-Qaeda’s support from the Taliban is as non-existent as the Taliban’s government. If bin Laden is still alive (a debatable question, given the state of his health the last I heard), he is huddled in a cave somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan, shivering in the dark, wondering which of his lieutenants will eventually decide the $25 million reward is of more import to Allah than this old fart and his portable kidney machine. His chief deputy appears to be surrounded by the Pakistani military, whose leaders are desperate to rehabilitate themselves in US eyes after the revelation of their nuclear-weapon garage sale. And just three short years ago, these wild-eyed, dim-minded fanatics owned a nation, buoyed by their defeat of the Soviet Union, fooling themselves into believing it was Allah’s will, not a reflection of the weakening might of a dying empire, that enabled the Mujahedeen to keep the Red Star off their soil.
(Yes, that was a run-on sentence. So?) 🙂
Yeah, and if I hand in an essay and my bibliography said “I looked it up on Google, go check yourself” I’d get a zero.
Yeah, and if I only listed one or two articles contingent on whether or not the teacher agreed that they were “respectable” enough as sources, I’d still get a zero, so what’s your point?
Hey, if Tim had merely asked to see an article or two where I got my info, no prob. I’d be happy to post a link or two. No big. But he made it contiingent on whether or not he agreed that the source was one he would accept.
I’d like some more information here, as I’m not familiar with it. Can you point me to a source we’ll both agree is worth the read?
Well, screw that. I have a life to lead. I’m not about to sit here and make post after post of articles until he and I finally find one we can agree isn’t biased in some way.
1. Like pretty much everyone who has focused on the fact that I called it a “trick”, (even though, I explained why) and not much else that I wrote, it’s a distraction away from the main argument. Anyone even remember what that was now?
2. If Tim was really serious about wanting to read any articles, he could have just asked me to post a link to the source, regardless of whether he agreed with them or not. It’s not like he didn’t KNOW that was my main objection, as I fully explained in in the post:
No. I’ve fallen for this “trick” before. It really depends on your view of what’s causing global warming as to what “source” you’ll accept.
Anyways, I understand your objections, don’t agree with them. Sorry ’bout that.
Hey, if Tim had merely asked to see an article or two where I got my info, no prob. I’d be happy to post a link or two. No big. But he made it contiingent on whether or not he agreed that the source was one he would accept.
Oh, for Christ’s sake. THAT’s what this was about?
That extra clause was an afterthought, not a trick. Whether you believe me or not (and at this point I’m betting on “not”), I was trying to save you time by letting us avoid a he-said/she-said scenario.
If that was really your only problem with the alleged “trick”, you sure as hëll could have said something before now. The sentence you quote here doesn’t read as “fully explained” from where I sit.
I was quite serious about wanting to see more about that story. Apparently you’re quite serious about being paranoid.
It’s also a bit disingenuous to claim that people only focused on the “trick” sentence, given that I answered most of that post point-for-point and you utterly ignored it all EXCEPT for the “trick” part. But hey, that’s your prerogative — and since this all began as a conversation about double standards, somehow it seems an appropriately full-circle close.
TWL