John McCain said in 2004 that if the sovereign Iraqi government made it clear it wanted us to leave, we would leave. And now Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that he would like U.S. troops to leave by the end of 2010, similar to what Barack Obama advocates. That leaves McCain with basically three choices, columnist Dick Polman wrote:
“He can flip-flop on what he said in 2004, and position himself even to the right of Bush, whose administration now speaks of ‘joint aspirational time horizons’ for withdrawal.
“He can ease his way toward Obama’s position on Iraq, just as he has lately on Afghanistan, thereby demonstrating that the wisdom gap on national security is a lot smaller than he’d like it to be.
“Or he can try to ride out this whole embarrassment, and hope that relatively few swing voters take notice.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
109 Comments
If McCain doesn’t have the war to stand on, what will he have? Without Iraq, he is just another liberal.
SolDevVB,
Um, no. He’s just another politician hanging out in the perceived center, whoring himself out for votes.
Nonetheless, you’re of course right: without Iraq, McCain is nothing. Even with it, he’s still nothing.
I mean, seriously, what kind of sense does his position make? If things “really are going so well because the Surge ‘worked,” then he should propose that it’s time to leave. The fact that he isn’t shows that logic isn’t among his primary concerns. Indeed, his whole ‘argument’ now seems to be that we’ve made Iraq safe for a long-term occupation–which, after all, is the real imperial goal here.
McCain can’t think his way out of a wet paper bag. His contradictory statements and constant retractions only serve to underline his intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
John McCain makes me feel uneasy with that stupid grin he has on his face when he thinks he is making a political point. Couple that with his wife’s arrogance and both of them do not appear to make people feel easy around them. Surely the GOP could have made a better choice than these two or was the die already cast in 2000 when the GOP promised McCain the next presidential candidacy after GWB’s term?
Wow! I see mom has the same mindset I have on McCain and his presidential candidacy.
^5 mom!!!
Conspiracy theory? Could be, but there’s always a reason them.
Sorry…
*there’s always a valid reason behind them.*
The “Surge” worked largely because al Sadr declared a cease fire and the Americans walled off large portions of Baghdad to keep warring factions apart.
On the political front, however, there has been little reconciliation between Sunni and Shi’ite.
(Notice that I did not say NO reconciliation.)
But, from my perspective, let’s declare victory and bring the troops home.
We can have a parade, honor our veterans and welcome them home with open arms.
Sounds good to me.
The facts have changed, several times, since McCain made any statements about Iraq.
Without McCain’s push for the “surge” things would be in NO condition to discuss anything Obama has said.
Furthermore, Maliki has said the SAME THING, several times, about American troops, in Iraq, every year since Maliki took office.
The Eagle’s definition of “leadership” = “figuring out which way the parade is marching, and running fast enough to get in front of the parade”!!
“But, from my perspective, let’s declare victory and bring the troops home.”
Of course. You people hate Bush so bad, all you have wanted all along is defeat. If we do what you say it will all turn to sh1t quick. It’s too soon to leave.
I predicted long ago, the activity would slow down, you only need to ethnically cleanse an area once.
Victory in Iraq helps McCain.
Victory in Iraq hurts Obama.
End of story.
Fleetwood…and you would consider victory in what terms?
Maliki has made his loyalty known to us by personally going to Iran to reassure them of their safety if and when the US has bases in Iraq. Under what possible terms of ‘victory’ would that be?
Bush has stated several times that Iran is a part of the axis of evil. So why are we in cohoots with Iraq’s prime minister who is personally assuring our sworn enemy, Iran, of their safety from the US? Just what has our already billions of dollars spent gone for and you want us to spend even more billions down that blackhole?
Mom
We have troops in South Korea.
We have troops in Japan.
We have troops in Germany.
We were victorious, in the Korean war and in WW2, yet our troops are still there.
In fact, the very presence of our military has helped to keep the peace.
Also, the United States has not been attacked, on our own soil, since 9-11.
George W. Bush deserves great credit for that fact.
We have killed many terrorists, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
“We were victorious, in the Korean war and in WW2, yet our troops are still there.”
Really? I wasn’t aware victory had been declared in the Korean War. When was the end to the armistice eventually declared over?
Thank goodness we still have occupying troops patrolling the streets of Berlin and Tokyo. War could break out any time and Germany and Japan can declare war on us again. Sigh, the paranoid imaginations of conservatives.
Phantom,
“I predicted long ago, the activity would slow down, you only need to ethnically cleanse an area once.”
BINGO. And the political stalemate that was the ostensible pretext for the surge continues, unabated. “The surge has worked”–to turn Baghdad into a Shiite city.
Franklin,
In South Korea, Germany, or Japan, did a SINGLE U.S. soldier lose his life due to domestic insurgencies? No. Not one. So the analogy fails–completely.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133c/133cTexts/USOccGerm%2BIraqHNet03v.htm
What actually IS the case is that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is a grave source of conflict and a pretext for a domestic insurgency. Given the disanalogy between the cases, removal of such troops would in all likelihood sharply reduce the violence and political stalemate in the country.
I can never tell, Franklin, whether you actually believe such disingenuous arguments, or whether you merely enjoy wasting my time debunking them. If the first, it’s a failure of intelligence on your part; if the second, a failure of character.
Franklin – but yet you never referenced the fact that Iraqi’s prime minister Maliki is already personally reassuring Iran of their safety from the US. I don’t seem to recall we have any sworn enemies in Japan, South Korea or Germany that these countries are personally reassuring their safety from the US bases there – do you?
Did you miss my point entirely?
As for no more attacks on our soil since 9-11, perhaps that is because GWB took the fight to Iraq where there was NO fight to start with instead of going to Afghanistan where the mastermind Bin Laden was. And then to put salt in the wounds of each 9-11 victim’s family, George W. Bush had the audacity to state that he does not even think about Bin Laden anymore. If this is true leadership, then you must use a different dictionary than I do.
mom,
Nice.
Franklin,
Along the lines of mom’s argument, the absence of further attacks on American soil is no justification of Bush’s actions. “Proving a negative” is a logical fallacy. To give Bush credit for having prevented terror attacks, we’d need acces to precisely the evidence the Administration refuses to divulge.
There is no reason for him to align with a traitor!
CF we have been threatened and they were never completed. That is a positive. You prove to me that it wasn’t because of Bush’s leadership. Look how many attacks happened under Clinton.
jokie,
“CF we have been threatened and they were never completed. That is a positive.”
No it isn’t: it’s a post hoc propter hoc fallacy.
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation…Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.”
Got that, jokie? “Magical thinking.” The fact that there were “threats” in no way means that they were serious or intended to be followed up by any sort of terrorist act.
Unless you can prove these threats were genuine and not merely Osama bin Laden or whoever seeing how high we’d jump, and were in fact thwarted, then I don’t have to prove ANYTHING. And in the absence of evidence from “Administration,” you have a pretty high evidentiary burden of proof.
Logic isn’t your strong suit, jokie. Stick to the bluster.
mom
Posted July 25, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
Franklin – but yet you never referenced the fact that Iraqi’s prime minister Maliki is already personally reassuring Iran of their safety from the US
=================================
Where did you hear this from: as in formal negotiations or a treaty? Sound like weasel words to me.
Besides, how is Maliki going to protect itself from the U.S., an ally? Hells bells, Iraq probably can’t protect itself from Iran without assistance.
I see that the Muppet Poster, CF2K has had some dictionary vomit once again. Throwing out some Latin words, a misunderstanding how logic is used and assigning opinion as “magical thinking” makes for one confused progressive liberal.
I think the postal worker on the TV series Cheers made more sense.
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f54/cpt-jeffrey-s-porter-obama-blew-off-troops-820256/
“Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along
that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his
visit to ‘The War Zone’. I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area
to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and
didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he
finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top
tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights)
so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the
opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home
that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to
make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are
providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas
Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the
President of the United States . I just don’t understand how anyone would
want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around
those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know
what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is
all fake.”
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
“Unless you can prove these threats were genuine and not merely Osama bin Laden or whoever seeing how high we’d jump, and were in fact thwarted, then I don’t have to prove ANYTHING. And in the absence of evidence from “Administration,” you have a pretty high evidentiary burden of proof.”
————-
Now CF insists proof. Hell, he’ll blame Bush for everything under the frickin’ sun without a shred of evidence. But if you want to give Bush credit for something CF gets out his “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” which he conveniently forgot when blaming Bush for everything.
CF, you try to wrap facts in so much BS.
Facts:
911 happened. That proves they: 1) had the will to attack America, 2) They had the ability to attack America.
Virtually all experts said around that time, that; “we are going to get hit again. It’s just a matter of time”.
Bush took positive action to prevent a re-occurrence.
We have not gotten hit.
Bush gets credit.
Horsecrap, Box Head……….
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
You are just spreading manure.
It’s all over folks:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/21/aol-straw-poll-july-21-28/295
#
WSClark
Posted July 25, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
Horsecrap, Box Head……….
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
You are just spreading manure.
—————————-
The motorcade did blow by the soldiers as indicated, but gave some excuses.
The Capt. acknowledge writing the email and wished he could have the email back (probably to save his own neck.)
So, it’s not manure Clark, it’s factual and presented a point of view at the time from a single soldier.
#
beber
Posted July 25, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
It’s all over folks:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/21/aol-straw-poll-july-21-28/295
——————————-
One doesn’t have to register to vote in a straw poll, now do they?
Wrong, Irregular one…………
From the Snopes article.
“CPT Porter wasn’t even there. He claims Obama went to play basketball with troops, which isn’t true. Obama went to the Headquarters buildings to have meetings with the Generals and then he flew to meet soldiers at Jalalabad. CPT Porter lied and said that he played basketball with troops at Bagram, when fact of the matter is – is that he got this info from reading the newsheadlines that say he played bball in Kuwait. I met Sen Obama and I’ve also submitted photos of him in Afghanistan for you to view. He thanked me for my service and was forever grateful for the sacrifices me and my family are making while I am out here.
I am disgusted to be serving alongside a liar like Captain Porter, I hope he gets court martialed for lying.”
Which are you?
A dupe or a liar?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp
Just to be clear –
My most recent comment was to be directed toward “Boxlock.” And then “Regular.” And, probably, soon to be every CON who participates in this forum.
CF, it sure is good to have you back again. Your travels must have served you well, as you are in even finer form than usual.
Everyone take Snopes as ‘gospel’, but they aren’t much of the time. Yes, even they have been wrong.
They are as politically influenced as most are and though they try and maintain an appearance of neutrality they are not always successful.
WS,
I did not comment on what I read….I simply passed it on to the blog for your ‘consideration’.
Face it, you’re not interested in what I think anyway, why should I comment at least for your benefit.
Oh, and neither am I interested in what you think or say as well.
“but they aren’t much of the time”
Name one time.
“I simply passed it on to the blog for your ‘consideration’.”
In other words, you were just spreading lies.
“Face it, you’re not interested in what I think anyway”
If you were telling the truth, you would have some credibility for your comments. In this case, you didn’t even bother to check the story out before spreading manure.
From the Snopes article.
Now the Bagram captain is dialing back, having signed the viral e-mail with his name, rank and unit – a possible violation of military regulations barring political statements. This morning, he sent [us] a new statement (punctuation corrected):
“I am writing this to ask that you delete my email and not forward it. After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong. This email was meant only for my family. Please respect my wishes and delete the email and if there are any blogs you have my email portrayed on I would ask if you would take it down too. Thanks for your understanding.”
Additionally, Video of his trip provided by the Department of Defense shows Obama greeting, shaking hands, and talking and eating with military personnel in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and we’ve also received numerous other messages such as the following from military personnel who said they encountered Senator Obama during his Middle East trip and had quite different experiences with the Democratic presidential candidate”
Regardless, the troops aren’t that stupid.
They know Obama will let them hang out to dry at the first opportunity.
The troops know that Obama is a do-nothing appeaser whose only record is voting “not present” and his policy of the day relies on Polls.
Troops know an empty suit when they see one.
Well,
I am FAR from convinced that Obama will end the occupation of Iraq.
But this?
“They know Obama will let them hang out to dry at the first opportunity.”
Does this mean to suggest that the troops WANT to be in Iraq?
Well, I’m sure some of them do.
For those? Hey let ‘em stay. Let’s get the balance of them home and stop wasting money getting the oil companies rich. We have more important problems. We can’t afford Iraq anymore.
“Regardless, the troops aren’t that stupid.”
So, you support lying to make a political point, eh McCluer?
Facts [with an important qualifier, "according to outlander"]:
911 happened. That proves they: 1) had the will to attack America, 2) They had the ability to attack America.
Virtually all experts said around that time, that; “we are going to get hit again. It’s just a matter of time”.
Bush took positive action to prevent a re-occurrence.
We have not gotten hit.
Bush gets credit.
******
The mere partial list of logical fallacies contained in the ranting above:
Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics):
Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck):
Burden Of Proof:
Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology):
False Cause:
Confusing Correlation And Causation:
Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice):
Non Sequitur:
There are probably more, but the above gives the reader an idea of the disingenous nature of the copied post.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
Has anyone else seen the DVD Stop, Loss? It was made by the film division of M-TV, which I did not know existed. It is an incredible movie.
Aren’t you supposed to be in Florida Clark? You know, sponging off your old man and escaping Sedgwick County property taxes.
“Aren’t you supposed to be in Florida Clark? You know, sponging off your old man and escaping Sedgwick County property taxes.”
Read my post, McCluer, in a few days………..
I noticed that you refused to answer my question – do you support lying to make a political point?
I would guess that the answer is yes.
Dumbass.
By the way, McCluer, it cost ME about $2,500 a month to “visit” my “old man” in Florida.
Asshole.
Point out the lie I posted. I read the snopes article and found nothing other than a backpeddle. The email was true and the observation was incorrect (i.e. the Captain flip flopped most likely due to threats from superiors)
So, you’re heading down to Florida to avoid paying local property taxes then.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 25, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“They know Obama will let them hang out to dry at the first opportunity.”
————–
Uh-huh. . . just like multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ knows(sic) that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
Have you found the Congressional and Justice Dept links that you said proved that, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’? Or do you need more time to find those links, to prove that you’re not a LIAR?
Good Lord, McCluer, can’t you read?
“CPT Porter wasn’t even there”
“So, you’re heading down to Florida to avoid paying local property taxes then.”
Stupid, just really stupid.
You are suggesting that I spend $2,500 a month to avoid paying $2,500 a year in taxes?
Where did you learn economics – from Rosseel?
Idiot.
cosmos is a reincarnation of Theodore Kaczynski , the una bomber. He is anti-man-made anything, anti-social and uses stalking techniques just like the unabomber.
The incoherent writings of Al Gore and Theodore Kaczynski are almost identical in nature and scope.
cosmos is not a scientist.
cosmos is a political hack.
So then Clark, you’re not going to pay your property taxes for Sedgwick County then?
Flitting down to Florida for a few months preserves that partial year resident thing doesn’t it?
What you going to spend $2500/month on, Florida horse racing and cases of hootch? You do buy your booze by the case don’t you?
“cosmos is not a scientist.”
Neither is the “wannabe” McCluer.
Of course, McCluer is a wannabe scientist, astrologer, economist, investigator, politician, historian, sociologist, theologian, chef, anthropologist, scholar and human being.
He fails at all occupations.
“So then Clark, you’re not going to pay your property taxes for Sedgwick County then?”
Paid.
The rest of your “points” are just horsecrap.
“You do buy your booze by the case don’t you?”
I don’t drink booze.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 25, 2008 at 11:07 pm
“cosmos is a reincarnation of Theodore Kaczynski , the una bomber. He is anti-man-made anything,…”
—————
Thank you multi-nic’d, for yet again proving that you are a liar.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/conservation-still-easiest-energy-fix/#comment-389821
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/conservation-still-easiest-energy-fix/#comment-390164
The incoherent writings of Al Gore and Theodore Kaczynski are almost identical in nature and scope.
cosmos is not a scientist.
cosmos is a political hack.
McCluer makes the news………..
Check out the photo.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25854715/
WICHITA – A Wichita man was accused of shooting his lawn mower because it wouldn’t start.
Jim Bob McCluer, 66, was charged with felony possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle and misdemeanor disorderly conduct while armed.
According to the criminal complaint, McCluer said he was angry because his Lawn Boy wouldn’t start Wednesday morning.
He told police quote, “I can do that, it’s my lawn mower and my yard so I can shoot it if I want.”
A woman who lives at McCluer’s house reported the incident. She said he was intoxicated.
McCluer could face up to an $11,000 fine and six years and three months in prison if convicted.
Remember, McCluer supports LYING to make a political point.
(Of course, this is an altered article, but it makes the point that McCluer cares little for TRUTH.)
By the way, McCluer, is that meeting with the WEBlog Editors scheduled SOON? Remember, I am leaving town.
A nice try, but you destroyed the myth by providing a link.
Whenever you learn to think on your own Clark, let us know.
Until then, you are typical progressive Liberal Mynah bird, just parroting your way to invisibility.
“A nice try, but you destroyed the myth by providing a link.”
Jesus H. Christ, McCluer, you truly are an idiot.
(Of course, this is an altered article, but it makes the point that McCluer cares little for TRUTH.)
Grow a brain, oh Dim One.
Christ……………………..
No Clark, you are too mentally weak to notice that your attempt to make that type of post is beyond your ability.
You have no imagination and only parrot speak the party line of progressive liberal die-hard hippyisms that are going on 50 years old now.
You’re that yellow newspaper under the couch.
Irrelevant, unread and slowly deteriorating.
By the way, McCluer, is that meeting with the WEBlog Editors scheduled SOON? Remember, I am leaving town.
How is anyone to know that “WS” is not just James McCluer talking to himself?
I don’t rule it out.
“I don’t rule it out.”
Get over yourself, J R, you just are not as important as you think.
Dumbass.
I expected a few shots from the “Nathans” and “McCluers” of the world before I departed for Florida, but I thought that the Left would be respectable.
I for got about J R.
My bad.
Enemies on the Right. Enemies on the Left.
I must be doing something right.
Ha!
By the way, it seems that when Boxlock is blogging, J R is never around – and the inverse is also true.
Are Boxlock and J R one and the same?
Inquiring minds want to know………..
Ha!
“Enemies on the Right. Enemies on the Left.
I must be doing something right.
Ha!”
Yup you are navigating the pander channel there WS.
JUST like Obama.
Except? Obama seems to be looking for pals on the right. I don’t see you doing that.
Just attacking the left.
AGAIN, like Obama.
Hey I’m out of it. And maybe thus above it.
Obama or McCain, I lose either way.
Come on back and tell us about Florida. I’ve never been there. I don’t imagine I’ll ever be able to afford to go.
How stupid do you want to look WS?
I’ll be happy to accomodate you.
Inquiring minds would also like to know, “WS” just why it is you are afraid to meet anyone.
What’s up with that?
“Obama or McCain, I lose either way.”
You got that right, Rimel, you are a loser – big time. You are no more than a self-proclaimed, delusional IMPORTANT person – but in actuality, it’s only in your dreams.
“I don’t imagine I’ll ever be able to afford to go.”
What a childish “man” you are J R. Take a LARGE dose of “grow up” and you might be able to make it in this world.
If not, STFU.
Cry baby.
Christ………………..
With that, I am out of here for the night.
“just why it is you are afraid to meet anyone”
Who said that I was “afraid” to meet ANYONE, Rimel?
I said that I do not like large groups, idiot.
Good night, ya’ll……………….
For real.
I think you have something to prove there “WS”
I mean, your role here has been to feed James McCluer.
Almost no one has met him. NO ONE has met you.
It’s a natural suspicion. Maybe you and he are the same.
You can of course, prove otherwise.
Or not.
Do you get your intel from Paul Rosell or Hank Price there “WS”?
Clearly you don’t have an original thought of your own.
I find it strange you do not like “large groups”.
How large a group is me and you?
I have one nic. How many do you have?
For those that place all faith in Snopes they might want to re-evaluate that.
In the discussion above about the solder in Afghanistan who was critical of Obama and the Snopes report; at least the solder signed his name, and sure he retracted it after being called on it for breaking the military’s rule of political neutrality. The ’sources’ Snopes comes up with are anonymous and even Snopes admits the truth is hard to find.
Online rumor mill spins its own myth;
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396670
I am going to try and post these individually as WordPress will not let them post together:
‘Snopes gets it wrong on hate crimes
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56600
Snopes Gets It Wrong
http://www.thetenoclockscholar.blogspot.com/2005/04/snopes-gets-it-wrong.html
Snopes speaks, but so what?
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2004/07/snopes_speaks_b.php
Snopes: Wrong Again on Flight 327
http://www.patterico.com/2007/05/29/snopes-wrong-again-on-flight-327/
Snopes.com has a liberal political
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/097/ripoff0097773.htm
Is Snopes racist too?
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/5944
I really want to read other things you have!!
Cristofer,
That took but a few minutes to find, there is more but I didn’t take the time.
Some folks seem to base their lives around this blog and are so critical of others if something gets posted that either isn’t 100% factual or might even have minor inaccuracies associated with the post. They don’t just point out the correction they attack rudely.
For me this blog is a glancing occupation, wedged between work or other activities. I honestly don’t care to, nor will I, research every little thing for I don’t place that much confidence or importance in either point of view.
I got slammed above for posting a blog post of a solder’s opinion of Obama in Afghanistan based on a Snopes almost immediate response, yet Snopes is biased as well. I just wanted to set it straight.
I believe the solder’s post and his opinion, yes he ask it be retracted but only after being called on it by according to the military rule of not showing political favoritism. He meant what he said. I’m glad I found it.
If nitwits like WSClark don’t like it then they are going to have a rough time for the next few months because when I find something of interest I am posting it and without spending my work day researching it all out. I won’t intentionally post something false, or even a little inaccurate, unless out of humor, but considering the importance of this blog in the scheme of things I’m not wasting my time on it either. If someone disagrees they can look themselves.
Thanks.
Boxlock,
You do realize that Cristofer Spence is a spam advertising post…
No I didn’t Regular, but ya know there are not that many that will actually talk to me on this blog without attacking so I’ll respond to ANYBODY that seems nice.
I do know enough that I didn’t and won’t click on the link name though…don’t trust them.
Thanks
Geeze Boxlock, you run a bunch of right wing websites that “Prove” that Snopes is wrong on claims. Except for the LA Blogspot (which really just quibbled with a snopes article) every link you posted came from an admitted right winger.
See, you don’t even seem to realize what you are doing here. You fall into the same trap that other coalition conservatives fall into (disagreement with conservatives does NOT equal liberal). One of your sources quotes Ann Coulter’s odious comment: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
And by the way, I read his commentary. He doesn’t really demonstrate that the Snopes article was wrong, just that he disagreed with it.
You still uncritically link to anything that reinforces your point of view without doing research. And you still refuse to man up to your mistakes.
Regular
Posted July 25, 2008 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
mom
Posted July 25, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
Franklin – but yet you never referenced the fact that Iraqi’s prime minister Maliki is already personally reassuring Iran of their safety from the US
=================================
Where did you hear this from: as in formal negotiations or a treaty? Sound like weasel words to me.
Besides, how is Maliki going to protect itself from the U.S., an ally? Hells bells, Iraq probably can’t protect itself from Iran without assistance.
_____
This was on the news (all sources) and the newspapers. Where were you? My point was (if you could possibly hold off on all that hate for a moment) is ‘why are we still supporting the Iraqi prime minister when he PERSONALLY went to Iran to assure their safety from us?
Why don’t you answer my real question and stop with all the political point scoring you seem to love to do? Just answer my question as to why should we spend more billions of dollars on a country that would sell us out to our sworn enemy right in front of our own eyes?
Why don’t you answer my real question and stop with all the political point scoring you seem to love to do? Just answer my question as to why should we spend more billions of dollars on a country that would sell us out to our sworn enemy right in front of our own eyes?
===============================================
When ever you provide proof of that statement.
You can’t prove it, so you just bloviate.
Agnatha,
Because there was no mistake in my post.
I posted a blog Snopes calls ‘False’, written by a solder and signed. They can’t prove it false at all.
And they have a bias as well, and don’t produce anything but anonymous counter statements.
Agnatha posts; “bunch of right wing websites” in referring to my sources.
Well yes, respective to where you are, left wing dummy.
“Agnatha posts; ‘bunch of right wing websites’ in referring to my sources.”
Man you are dense. I call them right wing websites based on what they say about themselves. Hint: Look to “about us” and they will tell you what their purposes are. Example, this is the self description of one of your sources (the same one with the asinine Coulter quote):
“Warmongering neo-conservative; NRA life member; and (former) professional laser-weapon designer… Supporter of nuclear power, the militarization of Space, and Microsoft’s Freedom to Innovate(tm)…. In other words, I’m a Classical Liberal!”
BTW, because I suspect you are something of a political illiterate, this guy is calling himself a military libertarian, not a “lib”.
“Well yes, respective to where you are, left wing dummy.”
It is always amusing when you presume to insult my intelligence. But then, when you get your rhetorical ass kicked (again), you always resort to ad hominem.
That should be “militaristic libertarian” (yes, I made a mistake).
“(yes, I made a mistake)”
You appear to possess several genetic mistakes as well there Agnatha.
“when you presume to insult my intelligence”
I don’t really need to do that…you do quite well on your own.
Agnatha, I got’a give you credit for one thing, you sure know how to pick an accurate nic. I looked yours up and this is what I found:
Agnatha (Greek, “no jaws”) – the most primitive of the true vertebrates, their skeletons being cartilaginous without any true bone, technically do not have vertebrae (no spine…that makes sense).
There is no parental care in the Agnatha class (very poor parents I guess).
They are related to the slimefish. They have the peculiar habit of tying themselves into knots in order to shed their slime coat and make a new one.
Oh my, no wonder I have little interest in anything you have to say.
And one more thing I think especially significant that I found, but really already knew.
They are suckers and attach themselves to others in order to parasitize off them.
“‘(yes, I made a mistake)’
“You appear to possess several genetic mistakes as well there Agnatha.”
Notice how Boxlock jumps on a mistake I made that I identified. This is twice you’ve done this. But, you have been caught making several (including on this very thread). Do you simply admit it and move on? Nope.
“‘when you presume to insult my intelligence’
I don’t really need to do that…you do quite well on your own.”
Oh snap! Ad hominems. It’s all this loser ever has.
And yes, I stand by my particular ad hominem.
By the way Boxlock. If you think you are clever in looking up Agnatha and insulting me with it, you are even dumber than you’ve represented yourself to be so far.
To anyone who has followed this blog, my tongue in cheek reasons for picking this name should be obvious.
“Oh my, no wonder I have little interest in anything you have to say.”
This, of course, is embedded in Boxlock’s fourth response to me in this thread. And now we have completely exhausted the Boxlock strategy in responding to me:
1) Use ad hominems and call me names.
2) The universal playground argument loser retort: “Well, I don’t care what you say anyway!”
“my tongue in cheek”
Remember Agnatha….you have no jaws.
“‘my tongue in cheek’
“Remember Agnatha….you have no jaws.”
heh heh That was almost clever.
That’s five.
Agnatha,
One clarification, I seriously don’t have much interest in what you have to say, other than to argue with you because you are so easy. You are sport.
And as I look back you are respond posting as much as I, so what can we make of that.
Six.
And I haven’t resorted to the playground taunt of “I don’t care what you say!” with regards to your post. I fully admit that I am responding to you. Why? Hell, I don’t know.
And if you think getting your rhetorical ass kicked is sport, you might consider contacting Mistress Pain. I suspect she’s got all the sport you can handle.
Agnatha,
Why don’t we call a truce?
I want to go eat soon and I don’t want to have the vision, or description, of a ‘Agnatha fish’ in my mind. I’m not sure even a glass of wine would make dinner palatable thinking of that.
And for what it’s worth, I wasn’t jumping on you for making an insignificant mistake, though noticed, I read right over and knew what you meant. That was not important and yes I make many mistakes, I’m sure more than you in my haste. Your “mistake”, was nothing, it wasn’t one to even mention.
I was just jousting I guess and your use of the word “mistake” gave opportunity.
Believe it or not I can be nice, but I have been hit with the figurative stick so many times around here I have become somewhat mean and aggressive, and I don’t give up easily.
Have a good weekend.
Let’s take a break from juvenile snark exchanges and go back to the original topic of my response to Boxlock, where I pointed out that most of the websites were “right wing”. As I pointed out, I took this from the sources themselves.
For example:
“In addition to prosecuting criminals, Patterico maintains a blog called Patterico’s Pontifications. Topics include media bias, legal issues, and political discussion from a libertarian/conservative perspective. A frequent target of criticism is the Los Angeles Dog Trainer (aka the Los Angeles Times).”
Source for http://www.patterico.com/2007/05/29/snopes-wrong-again-on-flight-327/
Another source on snopes used by Boxlock was World Net Daily (Aka Worldnut daily). Nuff said.
John Berlau is a known right wing writer.
The other was a complaint/rant by some guy named Rob on a website, whose political agenda was obvious.
Now, none of this automatically invalidates what is said on those websites, but the point is this: Read what people say about themselves first before you take what they say at face value. Why? Because if someone identifies themselves as a conservative (or for that matter liberal) partisan, it is predictive of what someone has to say on a topic. If their declared ox is being gored, they are going to react. And if their political viewpoint is more important to them then reality, then it stands to reason that one can expect that such people are going to try to find a way to argue against reality.
Snopes, contrary to some commentators here, has also punctured negative urban legends about conservatives.
One last thing. I really do try to admit to errors, and I did make one upthread. I indicated that all but one of Boxlock’s linkages regarding Snopes had a clear political bias. Actually, I missed one that was not (the one from Knoxville, as well as the one from LA, have no obvious political bias). So, it was actually all but two (which means the other FIVE are all arguably right wing sources).
“Believe it or not I can be nice, but I have been hit with the figurative stick so many times around here I have become somewhat mean and aggressive, and I don’t give up easily.
“Have a good weekend.”
Good enough. And for what it’s worth, I was identifying myself as well as you in the juvenile snark exchange comment on my last post (where, if you will note, I cop to a more significant, argumentatively speaking, mistake).
Have a good weekend.
If anything, the link from Knoxville, it should be noted, is left leaning.
Thank you Agnatha, and sometime, if it pleases you, you must tell me the reason you picked the nic.
But for now, I got’a run, important things go’in on.
Important things going on: The Blue Collar Comedy Tour is on CMT . . .
And I have a date with my wife.
As for my nic.
Under my old nic, I was engaged in a discussion on evolution. Someone (I don’t remember who) made the incorrect claim that all modern forms of animals were represented in an era known as the Cambrian. I pointed out that the only vertebrates represented in Cambrian deposits were jawless fishes.
Another poster, known for his general (although not always universal) preference for smartass trolling over content, called me the jawless fish (it was actually kind of funny the first time he did it), and that’s what he’s called me ever since when trying to provoke a response from me. For reasons I won’t go into here, I decided I wanted to “switch my nic”, and the nic Agnatha (i.e., jawless fishes, which in an irrelevant aside were much more diverse in prehistory than today) amused me. In other words, I embraced the jawless fish and made it my own (not that I would ever actually want to embrace either a lamprey or a hagfish-particularly the latter-yuck!)
Heh, amusing, that, Ksag.
And while it really doesn’t have a hell of a lot to do with McCluer, I found this highly amusing (and, yeah, I got the point Clark was trying to make):
He told police quote, “I can do that, it’s my lawn mower and my yard so I can shoot it if I want.”
From the classic Dead Kennedys song “A Child and his Lawnmower”:
Some clown in Sacramento was dragged into court
He shot his lawnmower
It disobeyed, it wouldn’t start
Might makes right, it’s the American way
They fined him $60 and sent him on his way
You know, some people don’t take no sh*t
Maybe if they did they’d have half a brain left
http://www.lyrics007.com/Dead%20Kennedys%20Lyrics/A%20Child%20&%20His%20Lawnmower%20Lyrics.html
Agnatha,
Thanks for the explanation. I knew the choice had to be the result of a very sick mind (just kidding now), or one that can poke fun at himself, and you have shown it’s the latter situation. I respect that.
My nic ‘Boxlock’ refers to the seemingly timeless, amazingly efficient, reliable, simple and yet to be improved on design of a shotgun action of about 1875 called the Anson and Deeley Boxlock Action. I had just bought a side-by-side double for upland game and appreciated the brilliance of the design.
The reason I keep the nic, not the shotgun, after being called Boxlicker, Boxhead, etc. among other such distasteful adulterations is because every time it happens I know I have won…they are frustrated enough to lower themselves to the use of those terms. I admit, I do it in return but usually only in return as they have show a weakness for it.
It is my hope we can go forward, even in disagreement, without hostility.
Have a great rest of the weekend.
#
Agnatha
Posted July 26, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
And I have a date with my wife.
As for my nic.
Under my old nic, I was engaged in a discussion on evolution. Someone (I don’t remember who) made the incorrect claim that all modern forms of animals were represented in an era known as the Cambrian. I pointed out that the only vertebrates represented in Cambrian deposits were jawless fishes.
Another poster, known for his general (although not always universal) preference for smartass trolling over content, called me the jawless fish (it was actually kind of funny the first time he did it), and that’s what he’s called me ever since when trying to provoke a response from me. For reasons I won’t go into here, I decided I wanted to “switch my nic”, and the nic Agnatha (i.e., jawless fishes, which in an irrelevant aside were much more diverse in prehistory than today) amused me. In other words, I embraced the jawless fish and made it my own (not that I would ever actually want to embrace either a lamprey or a hagfish-particularly the latter-yuck!)
———————————-
How pre-Devonian!
First, Factcheck weighs in on the Obama in Afghanistan e-mail.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_snub_us_troops_in_afghanistan.html
“How pre-Devonian!”
Now see, that was kind of funny.
“An Army officer familiar with the incident told The Mouth today that the writer is “devastated that the letter was made public. It was never his intention that it go beyond members of his family.””
And now we are to believe the solder was lying to his family…..not likely.
More likely he was telling the truth and when confronted with breaking military code for staying neutral he was forced to retract it.
Boxlock, the information was factually incorrect.
From the e-mail:
“As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.”
As Fact Check points out:
“The message also mentions that Obama shunned the troops ’so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball.’ However, the video to which the author refers, of Obama sinking a now-famous three-pointer, was taken a day earlier in Kuwait, not in Afghanistan.”
The information contained in the e-mail was factually wrong, period.
Facts, How inconvenient.
And I really don’t suggest trying the tack of saying that Fact Check is “liberally slanted” as was done with Snopes (which, btw, no one has yet), because that claim is pathetically easy to refute.
Just today, I posted Factcheck debunkings of bullsh*t directed towards McCain as well as Obama.