The Long Blairwell
Our pals across the pond view Tony Blair ambiguously at best but like Brown less. From this side of the Atlantic, Tony Blair was a towering figure who recognized the threat and at a critical moment in history acted, standing unapologetically with us, unwavering in the face of domestic and international opposition. Well, except when he was apologizing for not apologizing and … when he started wavering:
NPR: Last appearance in Parliament. An unapologetic apology about the GWOT and slain soldiers:
“I am truly sorry about the dangers that they face today in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
“I know some may think that they face these dangers in vain; I don’t and I never will,” said the prime minister, whose popularity has been badly damaged by his alliance with President Bush in the war on terror. “I believe they are fighting for the security of this country and the wider world against people who would destroy our way of life.”
“Whatever view people take of my decisions, I think there is only way view to take of them: they are the bravest and the best,” he said.
The wheels started coming off toward the end. There were some missteps like the caving to the mullahs. The decision to begin the premature pull out from Iraq. But there were moments like this. Blair to UK Muslims: Get with the program.
UPDATE: Bush re Blair, “I’ve heard he’s been called Bush’s poodle … He’s bigger than that.” More of a golden retriever, perhaps.
Guardian’s Blair-a-palooza here. Times here. Telegraph here.
BBC: Why’s he stepping down? It has more to do with Gordon Brown than Iraq.
What’s next: Mideast envoy. He has the good fortune of stepping in with Hamas on the ropes. He is however one of those who has the mistaken opinion that the problems of the region hinge on an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Good luck with that. Short of the destruction of Hamas, the elimination of Iranian influence in the region and the buying off the rest of the Palestinians, I wouldn’t count on it, and even then …
Topics: Britain, middle east, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:08 am on Wednesday, June 27, 2007
43 Responses to “The Long Blairwell”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Apart from the War on Terror which I support, his domestic policies have all but failed. He is closer to Clinton than Bush domestically. There again Brown is responsible for massive tax rises wasted on failing public services.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hamas “on the ropes?”
They won their war.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Being cornered in a 20 mile sliver of land with irate Egyptians on one side and the IDF on the other sounds like a real win to me.
Using opponents for glide testing off roofs is certainly the hallmark of “winners”.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Not to worry. alphie bats 1000 on being wrong. If he doesn’t think Hamas is on the ropes, I give them a couple of months, tops.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
You guys have been calling a loss in Iraq a win for so long you’ve forgotten what a real win looks like.
Contrary to the lame neocon propaganda being spread to hide yet another one of their Middle East failure, Hamas is strong in the West Bank, too.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
PA, OMT, you must have touched a nerve with THE ALPHTARD™, as It broke It’s pattern, and attempted a rational response in lieu of It’s typical non-sequiturs.
Please note the emphasis on “attempted”, ‘cuz I fail to see just how having adherents in other locations (like the West Bank) makes Hamas “strong” there. If that were so, Hamas could claim soveriegnity over Jule’s blog, through the pitiful efforts of THE ALPHTARD™
June 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Using opponents for glide testing off roofs is certainly the hallmark of “winners”.
Also, don’t forget that they periodically have to shoot some of their own. And really, can you be impressed with a “win” over what is essentially a garbage dump?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
alphie,
if America lost in Iraq, then who won, in your opinion? I’d be interested to know. I’m talking about a nation, or at least an identifiable interest group.
(the nebulous word “insurgents” doesn’t count, because it’s not clear at all to me who they are or who they are loyal to, or even what their goals are)
Also, if America lost, why are the insurgents, in fact, “insurging” (scuze the coin), rather than running the country?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Hamas is strong in the West Bank, too
Hitler was strong in his bunker too…until he blew his brains out.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Who won Iraq?
al-Sadr.
Why are the insurgents still fighting?
Cause they don’t like foreign troops occupying their country.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Moron
Imbecile
Idiot
Invertebrate
Amoeba
alphie
June 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
alphie: Why are the insurgents still fighting?
Cause they don’t like foreign troops occupying their country.
Thanks for answering so directly. We’re really getting down to the core of it now, so here’s a follow-up question. If that’s why the insurgents are fighting (”foreign troops occupying their country”), then some things just don’t make sense.
1) why are they mercilessly killing Iraqi civilians day after day, including machine-gunning schoolchildren in their classrooms, and bombing markets?
2) Why are so many of them Syrian/Saudi, and so few of them locals?
3) why are they destroying Mosques?
I’m most interested in you answer to Question 1, (if I had to choose): Why the hell are these guys just murdering Iraqi people relentlessly, day after day? Women, children, babies, grandfathers, it makes no difference to them.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Daddy,
80% of the attacks in Iraq are against our troops. Another 10% are against Iraqi “security” forces. Some of the remaining 10% that are considered attacks on Iraqi civilians are only called that because our troops build their bases near things like Iraqi schools.
Even the U.S. military estitmates that only 4% or so of fighters in Iraq are foreigners.
Why attack Mosques? Cause that’s where the money is?
June 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I’m assuming you made those numbers up, because they’re way off, and paint completely the wrong picture. That description is wrong even using CNN or CBS as your benchmark. Just for interest (and to prove to yourself what morons we are), pay attention over a two-week period to who is attacking who in Iraq.
Mostly, it’s Iraqis being murdered by insurgents. That’s what’s going on, that’s the story.
We have this neat template about what we think is going on, about the story we want it to be, that has nothing to do with the truth.
The fact is that the insurgents, yes, are attacking american troops, but mostly they are waging a war of terror and intimidation on the general Iraqi population.
How else do you explain suicide bombers walking into a crowded marketplace and blowing themselves up? No americans killed, but 30 Iraqis.
How else do you explain destroying Mosques (btw your “money” answer didn’t make any sense to me, but I’m letting it slide).
How else do you explain killing a classroom of schoolgirls?
Day after day. Watch the news! This stuff is right in front of you.
The greatest propaganda victory of our time has been convincing the American people that what’s going on in Iraq is somehow “the Iraqis vs the Americans.”
It’s just no so.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
The “classroom of schoolgirls” happened to be right next door to an Iraqi base that U.S. troops were visiting at the time it was blown up, Daddy:
http://tinyurl.com/ywcxm7
As for my numbers being “way off,” no they are not.
They come from the U.S. military.
Perhaps Jules could ask one his military buddies to supply their estimates of:
1. Percentage of enemy attacks that are against U.S. troops.
2. Percentage of insurgents in Iraq who are foreigners.
I’d dig up the links myself, but I feel it would be wasted time because you’d just ignore them coming from me.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Iranians Riot in Tehran Over Sudden Fuel Rationing
Oh my.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286856,00.html
I’d dig up the links myself, but I feel it would be wasted time because you’d just ignore them coming from me.
Buwhaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
June 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Haha, El Cid,
Maybe you could provide us with your estimates of:
1. Percentage of enemy attacks that are against U.S. troops.
2. Percentage of insurgents in Iraq who are foreigners.
Let’s collpase that bubble, shall we?
Let’s see them numbers!
June 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Sure, here they are…
Moron
Imbecile
Idiot
Invertebrate
Amoeba
alphie
June 27th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I knew it was all squid ink, el cid.
Here’s one recent report (in .pdf format), check out page 34 for the number of attacks that are against our troops/Iraqi troops/ civilians, month-by-month since we invaded Iraq:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07677.pdf
These numbers came from the Multi-National Force-Iraq.
Prepare the smoke and mirrors machine!
June 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Insurgents have destroyed key oil and electricity infrastructure (see fig. 9), threatened workers, compromised the transport of materials, and hindered project completion and repairs by preventing access to work sites.
This came from Page 34, alphie. The previous page lists average numbers of attacks, but not percentages of targets. Do you honestly think we won’t look at the links (which, incidentally, prove what Daddy Dave said and what an idiot you are. But then, everything you say comes straight out of the jihadi playbook. They’re right when they call you jihadi boy.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
um, page 34 is about electricity demand in Iraq. Think you’ve either got the wrong page or the wrong document…
But anyway, even if the figures are exactly as you say they are (yes, that’s a grudging admission you might be right on those numbers, although I still await the actual document);
do you admit that insurgents have executed Iraqi civilians on a regular basis? e.g.. the notorious incident of killing schoolteachers in front of their classes. Or does this just rate as being important enough for your considered opinion about the noble motives of insurgents?
June 27th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
good one RebeccaH, I think that’s known as being “hoist by your own petard.”
June 27th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
You guys need to look at the document page numbers, not the page numbers that show up in your .pdf viewers.
If you need help converting numbers to percentages, Reb, ask any elementary kid to do it for you…they learn that skill in 3rd grade these days.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hey Jihad Boy…be respectful to Rebecca…you dumb little c-o-c-k-s-u-c-k-e-r.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
take off your gown and funny hat and jerk off into it.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Think eveyone despises you now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. So keep it up jihad boy…we can find you.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:17 am
“The “classroom of schoolgirls” happened to be right next door to an Iraqi base that U.S. troops were visiting at the time it was blown up, Daddy:
http://tinyurl.com/ywcxm7”
Fraid not. Your link says it was an Iraqi police compound, specifically the Federal Criminal Investigations office. I invite you to did around a bit online. You will discover that the ‘US Troops” were military intelligence liaison personnel. Nor was it ‘next door’ to a classroom of schoolgirls. It was near by, which in a city does not mean next door but simply close enough that a truck bomb shattered windows in the school rooms and cut the kids with flying glass. The impression you are attempting to give in defense of Daddy Dave calling you out your earlier comment falls flat.
And this does not even address the fact that all you did was google for recent attack that mentioned school kids. The attack on an Iraqi school that was so widely condemned was carried out months ago in a direct attack against a secondary school using conventional military weapons - not collateral damage from an attack against a police or military base.
“You guys need to look at the document page numbers, not the page numbers that show up in your .pdf viewers.”
You are cherrypicking statistics without supplying context .
The numbers concerning the Iraqi forces do not support your percentages except in the first 12 months or so after Saddam’s fall. Which makes sense, as rebuilding the Iraqi security forces took time. From say the last two years when those forces became effective, your dream percentage of 10% is WAY off. As any elementary school kid would immediately recognize just by inspection without running numbers.
It would also make sense that attacks against civilians would be smaller percentage in the first couple of years before the terrorists shifted tactics from the guaranteed suicide tactics of directly attacking coalition force to terrorizing the soft civilian sector. At that point - say the last two years - your dream percentage of 10% is again WAY off. As any elementary school kid would again immediately recognize just by inspection without running numbers.
And by the way, coalition forces does not translate to US Military.
And once again you display your utter cluelessness about the nature of terrorist tactics. Or perhaps are intentionally obfuscating. The percentages merely show the target of the attack, not the signature method. The attacks against coalition forces are made with absolutely no regard for collateral damage to nearby civilians at best, but more often than not sited from within concentrations of civilian activity because that’s as close as they can get. In those cases, the signature method is military causalities as the hoped for collateral damage in a broad based attack in or from a civilian area.
This my moronic friend, is why the death tolls from terrorist attacks are skewed so wildly to the disfavor of the civilian polpulation, and why your graph is meaningless as a response to Daddy Dave’s observation that you are painting the wrong picture. Reinforces it actually.
“Even the U.S. military estitmates that only 4% or so of fighters in Iraq are foreigners.”
And this means…what? What does this figure reveal about the organization and funding of the other 96%? Cherrypicking statistics without supplying context again.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Oldman,
The Iraqi police are trained, armed and controlled by the U.S. military.
We’re the ones who decided to build the new police post in Kirkuk next door to an Iraqi girl’s school.
As for “context,” I see:
1. A large (both in numbers and area of operation), loosely run domestic insurgency fighting our troops.
2. A moderate sectarian battle for control of specific areas of Iraq and Iraq’s oil revenue.
3. A small group of foreign terrorists committing the most outrageous attacks they can.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:32 am
“Tony Blair was a towering figure who recognized the threat and at a critical moment in history acted, standing unapologetically with us in the face of domestic and international opposition.”
Tony Blair has been a staunch ally and a true friend to the United States, and some of us won’t ever forget it.
Good luck in your future endeavors, Mr. Blair.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:52 am
“alphie Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 3:51 am
The Iraqi police are trained…”
So then, the asinine statements your tinyurl were meant to support is reduced to a sweeping generalization that the Iraqi police are trained, armed (both true) and controlled (no more true than saying the same of the Brits who also run joint operations with the US forces) by the U.S. military.
“We’re the ones who decided to build the new police post in Kirkuk next door to an Iraqi girl’s school.”
Well, we’ve gotten away from the lie that it was an Iraqi base, but intorduced another lie and reinforced one, so not much progress.. We didn’t build it. It was there long before we arrived. The truck bomb went off at a street corner nearer the school than the police station, which is NOT next door to the school. Again, I invite you to dig around the net for the facts here, and be very careful of vague language from the Washington Post type crowd. The event you’re trying to spin is well documented in good detail.
“As for “context,” I see:…”
So your ‘context’, the framework on which you based your once again asinine assignment of meaning to your statistics, is no more than:
“1. A large (both in numbers and area of operation), loosely run domestic insurgency fighting our troops.”
Despite all the evidence to the contrary that is is not loosely run nor is it controlled domestically. Nor is it an ‘insurgency fighting our troops’. It is a systematic terror operation designed to seize control of Iraq. We’re just in the way.
“2. A moderate sectarian battle for control of specific areas of Iraq and Iraq’s oil revenue.”
There is an ongoing sectarian battle between different religious groups. It has nothing to do with oil revenues. You just made that part up.
“3. A small group of foreign terrorists committing the most outrageous attacks they can.”
Ah, that 4% you mentioned earlier. Morphing that 4% into a distinct group does not agree with the US military take on it that you referenced to support your outtake before. I understand now. You totally missed the fact the US military does not say they are a distinct group, but that they are embedded in the structure and command of your ‘loosely run domestic insurgency’.
Sorta like saying that only 4% (or whatever percentage in actually is) of the US military that is in command positions above a certain level are gathering together as a group, jumping in Hummers, and conducting operations. Not a precise analogy, but one that illustrates the fact that you really own NO realistic and informed framework that allows you to place any of the information on Iraq that you latch onto in context.
As I pointed out earlier, all you did to support the moronic assertions that Daddy Dave said were designed to paint an incorrect picture of what is going on was:
You chose a GAO report whose focus is the progress addressing the Iraqi electrical and petroleum infrastructure and lifted a graph out of context to support the position Daddy Dave took issue with, cherry picked statistics from that graph that can easily be shown do not support your percentages anyway, and ignored the fact that the report used attack targets as criteria and did not address signature methods, which is at the core of Daddy Dave’s issue with your fantasies.
Used the most readily available reference to an terror bombing attack to dispute Daddy Dave when that attack did not fit the description that Daddy Dave offered, and occurred months later than the one that does. An attack that had nothing at all to do with either the Iraqi or US forces. The attack you do quote does not support your claims either in any particular. Taking two minutes online and one finds that it was not an Iraqi base but the Iraqi version of an FBI building compound, the US troop presence that you lifted from your article were intelligence liaison personnel, the the aerial view shows that it is not next to the school that was damaged in the truck bomb blast, and the aerial view also shows that the truck bomb was set off between but closer to the school than the compound.
When challenged about context for your supporting facts, ignore the fact that they don’t support your position at all. Instead you respond full circle by in essence restating your original moronic version of the dynamics in Iraq and claiming that that is the context that obviously lends credence to your position.
Have I got this right at this point? That we are back to the unsupported assertions you made in the first place and your intervening posts between then and now can be taken as your usual thrashing in a net woven of your own ignorance?
June 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
alphie: As for “context,” I see: (1.. 2…3)
Here’s the problem with 1. It’s the the situation viewed with Western eyes. We live in a coherent society with a sense of identity, and core enlightenment values of openness, justice and democracy.
Well, Iraqis have never had such a thing. There is no Iraqi identiy as such, and there’s nothing in living memory worth fighting to bring back. Furthermore, the notion of a popular resistance has the implicit assumption of fighting for self-rule. But they’ve never had self-rule! Democracy is a strange newcomer to the region. You’re viewing the Iraq war with a kind of “what if Kansas got invaded?” mentality. Try again.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The Alphtard thinks that he can leap from the kiddie pool into the deep end and survive by floating on the surface. He is out of his depth and completely incapable of dealing with the mountainous waves of logic pounding him. I gave up arguing the facts of reality (whose reality?), and all attempts to reason with him (reason is just a wingnut, neo-con bias). Unless he learns to see to these fundamental problems in what passes for thought in his little world, arguing the particulars of anything is hopeless. Talking to the cat is more productive (and satisfying).
June 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Daddy Dave,
There’s a lot more to alphie’s density than that.
I refer to him in common speech terms like moronic, asinine, etc like many people do here, and all are true. They’re the public face shared by a lot of people right now who have no excuse for it given the easy access to information. What they don’t share with most informed people is the desire to integrate this information without filtering it through their bias instead of an even casual application of common sense.
If I had to list the core faults in alphie’s (and other’s like him) grasp of the world and what drives him in drawing room propriety and succinctly (somewhat):
Geopolitical.
He has no understanding of the dynamics of the mideast or the GWOT. This dovetails with observation that he sees things through the rose colored glasses of a successful democracy whose historical success he doesn’t understand either.
Military
He has no grasp of the distinction and synergy between strategy and tactics or their cause and effect. To him, tactics are not an expression of strategy, but the definition of strategy. Nor does he see the distinction between brutish terrorism and the professional military reaction to it. So the assumption for him is that they must be morally indistinguishable.
He has no grasp of the signature methods of terrorism which is expressed in it’s disregard for collateral damage. He instead embraces terrorisms leverage of collateral damage as justification for it’s existence as his own.
He has no appreciation of terrorism as distinct from insurgency nor any grasp of the fact that terrorism cannot exist without financial, logistical and ideological support from third parties where insurgencies can (though not win).
Personal
He’s led and leads an indulged life without personal consequences where the maintenance of his feel good lifestyle is someone else’s problem. The fact that the privilege of leading that lifestyle exists only because other people are willing to accept the consequences of defending it strips him of pride. That drives him to belittle those efforts as inconsequential at best, and, in the classical application of double think common to the left, hold that the effort to defend his interests is the biggest threat to his interests. alphie disdains those efforts from the comfort of a hammock. That mindset has elements of transnational progressivism, but in his case the nonsensical embrace of it is purely selfish and self centered rather than the detached ivory tower elitism usually associated with it.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Well. Oldman,
At least you don’t try to deny the iraqi people their right to exist outside of an American occupation as salty did.
Fred Kagan today:
“It is now beyond question that the Bush Administration pursued a flawed approach to the war in Iraq from 2003 to 2007. ”
Yet you and your pro-war pals defended that flawed approach, didn’t you?
You have been proven incapable of execising critiical thought when it come to Iraq.
You are nothing but mindless cheerleaders who will wave your pom-poms and squeal with delite at anything the Pentagon does.
What makes you think the people who have been right for the last four years will listen to you now?
June 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Give it up, alphie, you’ve been well and truly slapped down. The proof is your last screechy, flappy attempt at self-justification.
Oh, and btw, I did look at the document page numbers rather than the pdf page numbers. The page 34 I cited is the page 34 you “cited” (supposedly). But I tell you what. If you need help reading and deciphering all those links you blithely toss out here, I’m more than willing.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
What wingnut war thread would be complete withuot someone resorting to hoisting the tattered and stained “Mission Accomplished” banner, eh, Reb?
Salute!
June 28th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Señor El Cid, tu hombre! Thank you for defending my honor! I am indebted.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
It is now beyond question that the Bush Administration pursued a flawed approach to the war in Iraq from 2003 to 2007.”
Are you unaware that according to Fred Kagan, the flaw in the US approach is that our footprint has not been big enough? If so, how does advocating a more aggressive military presence buttress your many times stated position that we should get out of Iraq?
How does this make your position right for the last four years when you are in lockstep without any distinction with the people who have advocated exactly the opposite of what Fred Kagan advocated be done during that entire period? Are you so obtuse that assigning the flaw in the Iraqi operation to a US footprint that is too small is diametrically opposed to the substance and spirit of the positions you have posted ad nauseum and is in no way inconsistent with mine?
Or is this no different from your usual practice of superficially cherry picking headlines without any grasp of the implications. context, or even the plain english content of what you quote?
Your have no convictions to speak of, jihad boy. Convictions are associated with a grasp of the underlying facts. The interpretation my not be agreeable to an opponent, but the argument made is coherent. What you have is a preconceived position that you are incapable by intelligence or inclination to do more than try to justify rather than defend. You have once again, and despite the many times it’s pointed out to you, frenetically pointed the reader to factual evidence that gainsays that position.
Honest to god, I hope someone has power of attorney over your affairs. You are not suited to conduct them given the incoherency of your thought processes.
.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Really, the more I think about your last attempt given everything thrown at you in this thread…inconceivable.
You’re Wallace Shawn, aren’t you? You know, of ‘ I do not think that word means what you think it means’ fame?
June 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Being rigidly pro-war no matter what the facts are doesn’t make you more right or more righteous than the 76% of Americans who now oppose you war, Oldman.
Quite the opposite.
Despite your previous record, you guys want us to squander yet another $100 billion and thousands more lives on what is basically a lottery ticket.
You’re no better than con men.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Moron
Imbecile
Idiot
Invertebrate
Amoeba
alphie
June 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
“Despite your previous record, you guys want us to squander yet another $100 billion and thousands more lives on what is basically a lottery ticket.”
So say you in your inimical way of of reducing the question to a conclusion based on the bias and unfounded opinion of a trivial fool. Me, I’m going with the informed view represented by people who have considered the matter based of facts. Like the fellow you quoted, Kagan.
Sorta dodged that, didn’t you?
“You’re no better than con men.”
No, jihad boy. Con men deal in chimeras sleight of hand, convincing the mark that up is down and blue is red. That is your forte. Evidence of this? That you represent evidence that gainsays your position over and over again as supportive of it and expect the readers here to accept your sayso without examining your premise in light of the very evidence YOU lay out.
Does this not indicate a con man? Or, at the least, a credulous fool wannabe con man?
“Being rigidly pro-war no matter what the facts are doesn’t make you more right or more righteous than the 76% of Americans who now oppose you war, Oldman.”
They don’t oppose the war by anything close to 76% alphie. They oppose the way it’s been handled.
Trot out your polls alphie. But be warned that I will examine the demographics, the precise wording of the questions, the questions in isolation, the questions in sequence. I’ll consider whwther the poll is a useless snapshot or whether the poll and it’s questions without modification are offered to the same demographic over a period of time to establish a solid sample and/or a trend in thinking. I’ll consider whether it is an online poll or a random sampling by phone.
In other words, I’ll look at it the same way professional politicians and political operatives do. Be further warned that I will ignore the headline instructing fools and dolts how to interpret said poll and come to my own conclusion based on the data. And recent events already make you one of those fools and dolts for quoting your percentage without grasping that if it were truly and indicator that 76% of Americans oppose the war itself, there would have been something close to 76% votes in the House and Senate by the representatives of and in agreement with your 76% of Americans rather than a bare majority attained through pork barrel bribes.
Lastly, you do not know my position on the war or how it has been run. I’ve never offered my opinion on it here. I’ve only pointed out that your position is whimsical nonsense based on sublime ignorance of the dynamics and established fact. My position is based on understanding the dynamics of all the factors involved as well as I can and coming to an informed opinion as free of personal bias as I can manage. The same way I look at polls.I don’t feel any need to share with you in this forum either, because you are a blank cipher and a waste of time.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:13 am
“At least you don’t try to deny the iraqi [sic] people their right to exist outside of an American occupation as salty did.”
This is not to answer jihad boy. This is to make sure that the record is straight: I never said that, nor even intimated that I thought such a stupid thing.
And well said, OMT.