Perfect analogy.

Just like Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-AK) $200MM+ bridge to ….what?… in Alaska, thanks to Augustus Stupidus we’ve got 100% of our discretionary military sunk up to its eyeballs in Baghdad providing “space” for Iraq to do….what?

Since 2003! If McCain has his way, it’ll be there until 2103… as long as American body armor holds out and does its job.

And nobody, not one American, can say what exactly we’re going to accomplish there. The most likely scenario is that Iraq will end up becoming Western Persia.

And US taxpayers will foot the bill.

Reminds me of a scene from one of my favorite movies, maybe the best Western ever made, “True Grit.” Mattie Ross, brandishing lawyer J. Noble Daggett before the crooked Ft. Smith auctioneer Col. Stonehill. states, “I will take it up with mine - Lawyer Daggett. And he will make money and I will make money and your lawyer will make money… and you, Mr. Licensed Auctioneer, you will foot the bill.”

To paraphrase, and to insert words in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mouth: “I will take it up with mine - Muqtada al-Sadr. And he will become powerful and I will become powerful and Blackwater will make money… and you, Mr. US Taxpayer, you will foot the bill.”

Iraq = A Bridge to Nowhere = An American Clusterf*ck.

Where are you JIMMEH!!!

JIMMEH CARTUH!!!

SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS! JIMMEH!!!

Fair enough, okay. Scroll over Clark’s posts. Easy. Good night…

The road sign is there. It says “Wrong road”.

The question should be, where would the road end if we stopped paving it.

Wrong metaphor.

It’s how do we get out of the tar pit?

It sounds really gay.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .

But you clearly missed the point of my post which as very simple - why did Bush have to be isolated from the discussions of (fill in your word of choice?)

The problem is one of logic here.

Did you ever study logic circles? Torture would be a very large circle. Many things besides waterboarding are in it.

You and I could argue about waterboarding being torture or not, but that is a seperate issue. Anything can be torture if done with calous disregard for the life and well being of the person you are doing it to.

Anyhow, when you substitute into a sentence torture for waterboarding, you have just inserted a word which could easily be mistaken for many different things besides what the issue is about… i.e. waterboarding.

Whoever changed the wording knew exactly what they were doing and how dishonest it was.

In any conversation, if you can’t even maintain the integrity of the comments you are using as a source or quoting from then the integrity of the discussion might as well go out the window as well.

That is why this is a sticking point for me. I can’t just gloss over it like it doesn’t mean anything when it clearly does.

“I can’t believe you of all people think changing words in what someone says and then quoting it as if they said it is ok.”

Thank you for the vote of confidence, I think.

I think that waterboarding is torture. People can die from it. Conflating torture and waterboarding is not a problem for me and thus I failed to see the fine semantic distiction you did. I understand our differences of opinion here and suspect you do as well and I don’t know what can be added the discussion. Thanks.

In 2002, we thought there could be another attack at anytime. So given that belief, I think approving enhanced interrogations made sense. Not that I’m condoning it - it was just more understandable.

War attrocities and war crimes will happen even if we say such actions are contrary to U.S. law. It is just how things go in war time. My objection to the Bush administration is their efforts to say that war crimes are not war crimes - if we do them. That sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion.

Cheney is an evil genius.

Yep. Talk about “Tricky Dick”!

Bush is stupid.

Cheney is an evil genius.

Bush is stupid… EXCEPT for when he is smart enough to be an evil genius.

No, I was DIShonestly wondering.

Why is it that when I try to discuss something with you, Price, I get the feeling that you are a couple of patties short of a double cheeseburger?

I don’t know. I could speculate on the reason, just as you could.

Okay, then: I’ll ask it: Why did Bush have to be insulated from the discussion?

About 1/8th of your post was on topic. The other 7/8ths was just an ad hominem against me.

And you probably sit there honestly wondering why I wouldn’t simply answer your question?

Chickenshit way out, Price.

You want to argue semantics when it comes to torture. You want to belabor a point, after I already explained. You want to ignore legitimate issues. You defend all that is Bush and condemn anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.

And you seem damned proud of it.

What is the point of answering your questions when you refuse to post the truth anyway?

Can I get a right winger to answer the question - why did Bush have to be insulated from the discussion?

Changing the words of what is said is NOT an abbreviation.