« No Time in Non-CrimeTruth Hurts »

Quick Nonsense Review

Iran had Hezbollah arrange murders of Americans.  NYT leaps to undercut claim with some anti-war speculation in graph five:      

But some critics said the evidence was circumstantial and charged that the Americans appeared to be offering a new rationale for maintaining or increasing the military commitment in Iraq.

Curiously, this important angle is not supported by any actual quotes in this story, which otherwise is largely focused on Iranian plot details. 

In graph nine, NYT helpfully makes Gen. Bergner contrite about that:

General Bergner, seemingly keen to avoid a renewal of the criticism that the American command has used the allegations of Iranian interference here to lend momentum to the Bush administration’s war policy, declined to draw any broader political implications, although he did say that American intelligence indicated that “the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity.”

Red carpet having been rolled out, the Iranians finally make their grand entrance in graph 10, with fanfare. I guess they might qualify as “some critics.”

A statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry rejected the American claims, describing them as “fabricated and ridiculous.”

I’d be curious about how much of the creative interpretation is Burns and Gordon’s, as opposed to New York’s. NYT seems eager to assure us this is all nonsense.

OK, a quick nonsense review.  We have Iranian Revolutionary Guards agents seized in Iraq in the course of financing terrorists.  We have specialized weapons of Iranian origin used to kill Americans. We have Iranians repeatedly seizing British military personnel and holding them without cause, and attempting same on Americans and Australians.  We have Iran training hardcore Mahdi Army splinter groups in Iran.  We have Iranian arms flooding into Afghanistan. Have I missed anything?  I’m not going to get into that nuclear business, the fomentation of violence in Lebanon and Gaza, etc.  Those of course are also part of Iran’s grand strategy for regional domination, but I’m trying to stay focused on Iran’s efforts to hamstring and humiliate the United States and its allies, murder Americans, etc.  As part of the Bush administration’s strategy for maintaining or increasing the military commitment in Iraq.

Topics: Iraq, media, military

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:03 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2007

55 Responses to “Quick Nonsense Review”

1. El Cid Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 am

   ‘The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we’re not actually fighting it properly. We’re not actually standing up to these people and saying, “It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified.”’

   Tony Blair

   via

   http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/women_and_children_first/

2. jay k. Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 am

   what you are missing is that irans efforts to hamstring and humiliate the united states was made possible and is being made possible by an extremely flawed foreign policy. iran is winning a proxy war and doing it with virtually no effort. and no one in the current civilian leadership has the intelligence or the vision to do anything about it. the white house has played into the hands of most if nbot all of our enemies in the region and left us with only bad options. and harrangueing about the nytimes coverage won’t change anything. pathetic.

3. RebeccaH Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 am

   How many of the New York Times management are of Iranian descent? How many Lebanese, or Syrian? How many Jordanian or “Palestinian”? How many profess pro-Muslim sentiment? Does anyone know?

4. Robert Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm

   “iran is winning a proxy war and doing it with virtually no effort. ”

   Of course, they have Pinky Reid, Loopy Pelosi, PMSNBC, Newsweak, and the NYTimesLies on their side.

5. Robert Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm

   Rebecca: the NYTimes is whiter than you are. They wouldn’t know a Muslim from a bolt of muslin. As far as they are concerned the greaseballs who live east of the Hamptons are not real human beings. The only thing they want is that the White House be returned to their control, and that you peasants learn your place and defer to your betters, like them.

6. blogagog Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 pm

   “But some critics said the evidence was circumstantial and charged that the Americans appeared to be offering a new rationale for maintaining or increasing the military commitment in Iraq.”

   I like how the journalist refers to himself as ’some critics’.

7. jay k. Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm

   robert…
   the iranians don’t need the folks you listed…they have the white house doing their bidding. typically i don’t like to get personal on blogs like this…but i must say that calling muslims greaseballs tells me you are a bigot…pure and simple.

8. paulpsd7 Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm

   “Have I missed anything?”

   You sure have. For example, you clearly are missing the fact that these claims of Iranian duplicity are coming from the same folks who brought us Iraqi WMDs and the mushroom cloud smoking gun. You’re missing the fact that we were led down this exact same garden path with Iraq, and the results have been disastrous. In short, you’ve missed a very crucial lesson of the last 4 years.

9. Dave Surls Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm

   “…and the results have been disastrous.”

   Disastorous for the Baathists and for their terrorist proxies like (the late) Abu Abbas.

10. Dave Surls Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Make that “disastrous”

11. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    “Disastorous for the Baathists and for their terrorist proxies like (the late) Abu Abbas.”

    Not just for them, Dave. The Iraq War has destabilized the region badly, hamstrung our efforts on the war on terror (our traditional allies think we’ve gone crazy), mired our military in a never-ending war which will prevent them from responding to real threats, taken up an estimated $2 trillion in tax dollars, and emboldened our enemies.

    Disastrous. First learn to spell it, then learn what it means.

12. Dave Surls Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Not just for them, Dave.

    Yes, paul. Just for them. Not for us.

    Ask Saddam Hussein about it.

13. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    “Yes, paul. Just for them. Not for us.”

    You understand that, because you were completely unable to address any of the points I’ve made about how the Iraq war has been disastrous to us, offering instead the weakest of denials, you have essentially confirmed what I’ve said?

    Can your brain comprehend what else could have been done with $2 trillion?

    Are you able to see how the invasion of Iraq has marginalized the large pro-democracy movement in Iran, and given legitimacy to the reactionary mullahs?

    Can you not see how this invasion has leveled the moral highground that we’ve mostly enjoyed since WW2, which has directly limited our ability to defend ourselves against terrorism?

    Didn’t think so. But try and understand, your demonstrated inability to understand these more complex points, renders your opinion on such matters as childlike and inconsequential.

14. jrv Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Paul,

    Let me get this straight. We abandoned the moral high ground by eliminating a murderous dictator who was responsible for the death of millions and attempting to set up a democracy in an area of the world where democracy has never existed. The presence of U.S. troops on the ground in a country bordering Iran has somehow marginalized the the pro-democracy forces there.

    Interesting concepts.

    Of course, the U.S. presence in Iraq is forcing Iran to spend billions on destabilizing it’s neighbors and developing nuclear weapons. It is now to the point where it is nearly bankrupt. The riots in Tehran because of gas rationing do not point to a marginalized pro-democracy movement. When the people take to the streets a regime is usually on it’s last legs.

    As usual, the left always relies on ad hominem attacks to marginalize those who disagree with them. They use this tactic because their arguments are sophomoric and illogical.

15. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    “We abandoned the moral high ground by eliminating a murderous dictator who was responsible for the death of millions and attempting to set up a democracy in an area of the world where democracy has never existed.”

    No. We abandoned the moral highground when, using your scenario above as cover, we invaded a country that was no threat to us, based on trumped up evidence, so we could funnel no-bid contracts to Bush’s benefactors and put most of our troops next to the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves.

    “The presence of U.S. troops on the ground in a country bordering Iran has somehow marginalized the the pro-democracy forces there.”

    Exactly. Just as we saw in America, after 9/11 everybody rallied around the president, even those who knew he was not worthy of such treatment, we’ve seen the same thing happen in Iran. When put up against the threat of invasion or attack, as they’ve seen occur in Iraq, most of the Iraqi population have rallied around the mullahs. This has enabled the mullah’s to pass some pretty nasty legislation to crack down on the remainder who are not rallying around them.

    “When the people take to the streets a regime is usually on it’s last legs.”

    Right. I think “last throes” was the phrase you were looking for. Because, as we all saw, the largest demonstrations ever to occur worldwide, leading up the the Iraq War disaster, were a clear indication that the Bush regime was on its last legs. Right?

    “They use this tactic because their arguments are sophomoric and illogical.”

    Right. You can tell yourself that, as your minority dwindles from 28% down to 5%.

16. jrv Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Paul,

    You have just proven my point. Very doubtful that anyone understands a word you have written.

    “Most of the Iraqi population is rallying around the mullahs.” What on earth does that mean?

    Largest demonstrations ever to occur worldwide? Really? I seem to recall that demonstrations here and abroad were poorly attended. Although an 87% turnout in the Iraqi elections was certainly an impressive demonstration of Democracy, particularly in view of the personal risks it entailed.

    Kindly do not put words in my mouth. “Last legs” is part of the vernacular. But then an intellectual such as yourself is above the common usage.

    “Your minority dwindles from 28% down to 5%.” Are you referring to the last elections? You are just a bit off on your numbers.

    Or are you referring to the 14% approval rating of the U.S. Congress that Rasmussen just put out? The lowest approval rating in the history of Congress. A Democratic Congress at that. There is some excellent work being done on the Hill.

    Please make sure your facts are correct. I dislike picking low hanging fruit.

17. tanstaafl Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    Esoteric discussion of who owns the “moral highground” ?

    I thought the topic was the Iranian agenda to dominate the region, QUDS/IRGC messing about in Lebanon (Hezbollah), in Gaza (Hamas) and providing training and succor to shi’ites and that idiot Moqtada al Sadr to foment violence in Iraq and render anything resembling stability impossible.

    A story and some CNN video worth watching.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/01/you-dont-say-us-captures-top-hezbollah-bombmaker-in-iraq/

18. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    “Most of the Iraqi population is rallying around the mullahs.” What on earth does that mean?

    It means that the pro-democracy movement has lost all of its momentum, in the face of renewed support enjoyed by the mullahs. Sure, people are protesting against the gas tax, but they’re not protesting in favor of major democratic reforms as they were prior to Bush’s Axis of Evil speech and the Iraq disaster.

    What on earth did you imagine that meant?

    “Largest demonstrations ever to occur worldwide? Really? I seem to recall that demonstrations here and abroad were poorly attended.”

    That’s what you were told by Fox News, sure. But here in reality, it was much different. The Guiness Book records the February 2003 demonstrations as the largest anti-war demonstration in history.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

    So, again, please explain why a government being demonstrated against by its people are indicative of a government on its last legs, when clearly the largest anti-war demonstration in history did not mean this for Bush? (You can cowardly ignore this point now, since you must realize it was idiotic to begin with.)

    “Kindly do not put words in my mouth. “Last legs” is part of the vernacular. But then an intellectual such as yourself is above the common usage.”

    I’m sorry, I realize you’re too slow to grasp humor. Let me explain. “Last throes” was the term Cheney used to describe the Iraqi insurgency, oh, about 3 years ago. It has become short-hand for something you wish would go away, but shows no signs of doing so.

    “Or are you referring to the 14% approval rating of the U.S. Congress that Rasmussen just put out? The lowest approval rating in the history of Congress. A Democratic Congress at that. There is some excellent work being done on the Hill.”

    There is a lot of dissatisfaction with government right now, and I’m dissatisfied too. Unlike you, I can’t look at the big picture today and think “well, that guy I wanted to have a beer with is in charge, and his enemies are pissed off, so I’m happy.”

    The reason I pointed out Bush’s sad approval rating is in response to your claim that liberal arguments didn’t hold water. I’ve already dismantled a few of your arguments, and have shown that more and more people are siding against you each day. Nevertheless, just like your ancestors no doubt were the last to discover fire, you will be among the last to realize the damage you have enabled with your support of the worst president in living memory. Enjoy.

19. jrv11 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    Paul,

    You have looked at what you wrote twice and still do not see the error. “The IRAQI people are rallying around the mullahs”. I don’t know what sources you get your news from, but Iranian demonstrations are so numerous that the mullahs are using draconian methods to suppress them. Jamming foreign radio and TV broadcasts, mass arrests, water cannon, rubber and real bullets.

    Using Wikipedia to prove a point is like teaching physics using the Roadrunner cartoons. Just vividly illustrates the weakness of your argument. And please spare us from using sources such as the Daily Kos or Huffington Post where you and your fellow moonbats feed off your delusional ravings.

    I apologize for not recognizing the hilarity of your three year old Cheney quote. Only someone suffering deeply from Bush Derangement Syndrome would even think of associating a two word quote with something Cheney said three years ago.

    Dismantling! Using unsubstantiated statements and sophistry. To quote Clint Eastwood “You are a legend in your own mind”

20. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm

    Oops. My mistake. Of course, I meant Iranian.

    Yes. But the demonstrations are toothless. The Iranians replaced moderate Khatami with off-the-hook Ahmedinijad, as a reflection of their desire for a strong government to protect them from invasion. The pro-democracy movement was set back at least 10 years. They don’t want nukes, the average Iranians, but they will fight for their right not to be told by the USA that they can’t have them.

    Could you be any more predictable? My point with that single link was to provide a jumping-off point to learn more about the demonstrations, since you clearly only learned about them from Fox News. So what exactly are you contesting that you saw on Wikipedia? That the demonstrations were not in the Guinness Book?

    Let’s count the arguments of yours that I’ve leveled, shall we?

    When the people take to the streets a regime is usually on it’s last legs.
    SURVEY SAYS: There have been massive demonstrations in this country, and the government was not on its last legs.

    Largest demonstrations ever to occur worldwide? Really? I seem to recall that demonstrations here and abroad were poorly attended.
    SURVEY SAYS: The demonstrations in Feb 2003 were the largest anti-war rally in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records in Rome. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/16/iraq/main540782.shtml

21. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm

    I think I’ve finally been banned from this site.

22. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    No, my mistake. Okay, this blog ate my last comment, so I’ll quickly restate it.

    When I said “Iraqi” in that quote above, I obviously meant Iranian.

    The Iranian demonstrations are toothless these days, since the Iranians replaced moderate Khatami with unhinged Ahmedinijad. Those people being sprayed with water cannons didn’t get the memo.

    About your objection to Wikipedia, can you be any more predictable? How’s this for verification of the size of the anti-war demonstrations?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-15-protests_x.htm
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/16/iraq/main540782.shtml
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/18/sproject.irq.us.protests/

23. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm

    No, my mistake. Okay, this blog ate my last comment, so I’ll quickly restate it.

    Unfortunately, this blogging software will only take short comments from me. So I’ll provide it in pieces.

24. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    The Iranian demonstrations are toothless these days, since the Iranians replaced moderate Khatami with unhinged Ahmedinijad. Those people being sprayed with water cannons didn’t get the memo.

25. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    About your objection to Wikipedia, can you be any more predictable? How’s this for verification of the size of the anti-war demonstrations?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-15-protests_x.htm
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/16/iraq/main540782.shtml
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/18/sproject.irq.us.protests/

    Dismantled!

26. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    As for your objection to Wikipedia, can you be any more predictable? How’s this for verification of the size of the anti-war demonstrations?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-15-protests_x.htm
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/16/iraq/main540782.shtml
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/18/sproject.irq.us.protests/

    Dismantled!

27. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    About Wikipedia, go to the footnotes and follow the links. Then come back and tell me that all those links were false. Thanks.

28. jrv11 Says:
    July 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    Paul,

    I am pleased to have contributed to your ignominious demise on this site.

    Happy trails to you, until we meet again….

29. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 5:39 am

    “You understand that, because you were completely unable to address any of the points I’ve made ”

    What’s to address? The Baathists are destroyed (and their terrorist proxies, like Abu Abbas, dead or imprisoned), we’re not even scratched.

    A crushing defeat for them, a huge victory for us.

    Ask Saddam Hussein about it.

30. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 5:43 am

    “We abandoned the moral highground when, using your scenario above as cover, we invaded a country that was no threat to us”

    What utter drivel.

    Iraqi backed terrorists, like Abbas, aren’t a threat now.

    That’s because we invaded Iraq and killed him.

31. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 5:47 am

    “…after 9/11 everybody rallied around the president…”

    Crap. Lots of Lefto-skanks, like Noam Chomsky just to name one, rallied around the terrorists.

    Planning on saying anything true, or is it going to all bullshit, all the time?

32. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    “A crushing defeat for them, a huge victory for us.”

    You and I define “huge victory” very differently. Here’s what “huge victory” looks like to me:
    http://www.fototime.com/AAA9BD1B7EE6D6D/orig.jpg
    http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflaga2.gif

    And here’s what it apparently looks like to you:
    http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/1_1958.jpg
    http://www.countercurrents.org/up1.jpg

    “Iraqi backed terrorists, like Abbas, aren’t a threat now.”
    Abu Abbas hasn’t been a threat (if he ever was) for a long, long time. He’d been working for Palestine/Israeli peace for the past how many years.

    “Crap. Lots of Lefto-skanks, like Noam Chomsky just to name one, rallied around the terrorists.”

    First off, please support your claim that Noam Chomsky rallied around the terrorists. By that, I mean please provide a quote where Chomsky says something positive about the 9/11 terrorists. Thanks.

    As for who rallied around the president after 9/11, as you know, the vast majority of the American population did. Bush’s approval ratings after 9/11 hit about 90%.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm

    “Planning on saying anything true, or is it going to all bullshit, all the time?”

    You have no sense of irony, I see. Re-read this post above, and then think about your question again.

33. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    “Iran had Hezbollah arrange murders of Americans.”

    Yeah, what else is new?

    The obvious answer is to destroy the government of Iran, and destroy Hezbollah.

    So, what are we waiting for?

34. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 8:42 pm

    “Abu Abbas hasn’t been a threat…”

    …since we invaded Iraq and killed him.

35. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    “By that, I mean please provide a quote where Chomsky says something positive about the 9/11 terrorists.”

    That isn’t how Chomsky operates. What he does is is make a pro forma complaint about the terrorists to show what a right guy he is (first line of his polemic), then goes on to “prove” (with a lot of lying hogwash) that America is worse than the terrorists. That’s how Chomsky operates. And there were plenty of people who didn’t rally around the president, Noam (skank) Chomsky being one of them.

    http://eatthestate.org/06-02/Chomskyon911.htm

36. Dave Surls Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    “we invaded a country that was no threat to us”

    We invaded a country that was shooting at American aircraft for a dozen years (that’s mainly why we were bombing them), and that hadbeen supporting terrorist groups that had carried out attacks against American citizens for many years. At least three of the terrorist groups, MEK, FRC (aka ANO) and the PLF had murdered American citizens.

    Saying Iraq was no threat is like saying the Japanese were no threat AFTER they’d attacked us on 12/7/41.

    The claim is total nonsense.

37. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    “Saying Iraq was no threat is like saying the Japanese were no threat AFTER they’d attacked us on 12/7/41.”

    Okay. Then show me the Pearl Harbor attack that the Iraqis were responsible for. Otherwise, your comparison is profoundly absurd.

38. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 4th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    “…since we invaded Iraq and killed him.”

    Would you support the US military killing your mom, so that we can make sure she’s not a threat? I mean, you would agree, she wouldn’t be a threat in that case, would she?

39. Dave Surls Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 12:16 am

    “Then show me the Pearl Harbor attack that the Iraqis were responsible for.”

    Just told you what they were doing. Not going to do it again.

40. jrv Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Gentlemen,

    Don’t bother to use reason with this imbecile. He drank the Kool-Aid. By doing so, he has enhanced his intelligence to the point where we mere mortals are not able to comprehend his genius, his wonderful sense of humor and his irony.

    What a complete tool!

41. Dave Surls Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    ‘WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a blistering election-year attack on the Bush administration’s candor and honesty Monday, saying President Bush has created “the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon.”‘

    ‘The Massachusetts Democrat said that Iraq was never a threat to the United States and that Bush took the country to war under false pretenses…’

    When left wing scum like Ted Kennedy spew their crap, you have to translate it in order to get their statements to make sense.

    When Ted says that Iraq was never a threat to the United States what he means to say is that he couldn’t care less that Iraqi AA batteries fired on American aircraft thousands of times from 1991-2003, that he couldn’t care less that Iraqi backed terrorists murdered American citizens (like Leon Klinghoffer), that he couldn’t care less that the Iraqis tried to blow up one of our former presidents, that he couldn’t care less that the Iraqis attacked an American embassy in 1990/91 and kidnapped the embassy staff. None of that stuff personally affects him (if Leon Klinghoffer is shot by Iraqi backed terrorists, it won’t cut off Ted’s liquor supply), so no threat.

    If you translate it, then what he’s saying makes sense.

42. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    Okay, so you’ve said that pre-war Iraq was just like post-Pearl Harbor Japan, apart from the small fact that Iraq hadn’t attacked us. (That’s probably worth mentioning, don’t you think?) The only comparison you can make is that they fired on our fighter jets when we flew bombing raids over their country. And for this, you have stated that Iraq was as much of a threat as Imperial Japan. And you can’t see how ridiculous an argument this is.

    The only support you can provide for your argument is the childish notion that, because Ted Kennedy said exactly the opposite of what you believe, then you must be right.

    I imagine you’re probably among the sadly high percentage of Americans who believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

    This is why you still support Bush.

43. Dave Surls Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    I don’t waste time debating with liars. End of discussion.

44. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Outstanding argument, Dave! I dismantle every point you’ve made, and your flailing response is — wait for it — that I’m a liar liar pants on fire! Of course, you haven’t pointed out a single place where I have lied, but no matter! It sure sounded good on the playground in 3rd grade, and I’m sure it will work fine here. Off you go!

    As an aside, it’s interesting how Bush supporters in particular always fail at defending their worldview, inevitably having to resort to lies (Noam Chomsky rallied around the terrorists), awesome logical fallacies (pre-war Iraq was just as much a threat as Imperial Japan), and ultimately hollow namecalling (debating with liars). Now, I wonder rhetorically, why this is? I reckon it’s either 1) the pro-Bush worldview can’t be defended by anyone, including smart people like William Kristol, let alone imbeciles like Dave Surls; 2) Bush supporters are overwhelmingly insipid and immagure; or 3) a combination of both factors.

45. OldManTyme Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 10:28 am

    As someone who has been following this without comment, I’d have to say that this:

    ‘Dave! I dismantle every point you’ve made…”

    is not supported by what I’ve read. One dismantles someone else’s argument by presenting factual evidence. Tossing out more opinion to support opinion is all well and good in a discussion, but it never serves to dismantle the other person’s opinion, only reinforce your own. If anything, given the record, most of what you’ve said is ignorant talking point or outright lies.

    Taking just a couple of sentences from one comment for eample:

    ‘The only comparison you can make is that they fired on our fighter jets when we flew bombing raids over their country.’

    Dave didn’t say this. Nor is it true in it’s particulars - you are ignorant or lying. Saddam agreed to the no-fly zone as a condition of the peace agreement after he lost an offensive war of aggression that included invading a neighboring country. The jets were fired on while patrolling the no-fly zone. Firing on the patrols abrogated the peace agreement and was an act of war. The bombing runs against the AA sites were a RESPONSE to firing on the jets.

    And so, the historical record says you don’t know what you’re talking about on what is really your main point. The rest of your points are similarly as nonsensical given the record.

46. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    “Tossing out more opinion to support opinion is all well and good in a discussion, but it never serves to dismantle the other person’s opinion, only reinforce your own.”

    You’re right, OldManTyme. Unfortunately, since the topic of this conversation is Libby’s lies and the effects of those lies, we’re necessarily without a treasure trove of facts to refer to. So, in a cohesive argument, lacking firm facts, one relies on sound logic. That was necessary to dismantle Dave’s arguments.

    For example, the bit about Iraqi AA firing on our jets. Dave insists that this made prewar Iraq as much a dangerous threat as Imperial Japan was after they’d attacked Pearl Harbor. Before I go on, just savor the absurdity of that point for a minute. I pointed out that the only time the Iraqis had attacked us, it was when we were flying our jets over their airspace. Sure, there was the no fly zone and all that, and your points are well taken. However, perhaps even you can admit (unless you’re as reason-challenged as poor Dave is), it’s quite a different thing to belligerently defy UN agreements in firing AA at your enemy’s jets flying over your country (without taking any of them down), versus making a sneak attack on an American military base, killing thousands, and starting a world war. No?

47. OldManTyme Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    “since the topic of this conversation is Libby’s lies…”

    No. It’s the NYT’s dumb article on Iran. No one mentioned Libby once. No wonder your arguments were making no sense to me and certainly weren’t showing any sound logic.

    “For example, the bit about Iraqi AA firing on our jets. Dave insists that this made prewar Iraq as much a dangerous threat as Imperial Japan was after they’d attacked Pearl Harbor.”

    No, he didn’t. He never made the equivalence. He only pointed out that both are belligerent acts of war. Which means that the rest of the paragraph is a lame justification based on a a distortion. Where I could readily admit that the Japanese attack is very different from the attacks on our jets, I see no difference in the belligerence of the attacks except in scope.

    All of which begs the real issue that escapes both the NYT and yourself. Iraq was and Iran is a nation that supports terrorism and advocates their clients attack Americans.

    So…NO.

48. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    “No. It’s the NYT’s dumb article on Iran. No one mentioned Libby once. No wonder your arguments were making no sense to me and certainly weren’t showing any sound logic.”

    Sorry. I was thinking of another thread. You’re correct. This is about Iran.

    “No, he didn’t. He never made the equivalence. He only pointed out that both are belligerent acts of war.”

    Um, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Here’s what he actually said, where he perfectly equivocates Pearl Harbor with Iraq’s shooting at our jets flying overhead:

    “Saying Iraq was no threat is like saying the Japanese were no threat AFTER they’d attacked us on 12/7/41.”
    -Dave Surls
    July 4th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    “Where I could readily admit that the Japanese attack is very different from the attacks on our jets, I see no difference in the belligerence of the attacks except in scope.”

    It’s not just a difference in scope, but a radical difference in intent. One was an invasion of US soil. The other one was shooting at planes flying over foreign soil. That’s an important distinction, especially when weighing between war and peace. However, the difference in scope is truly radical, to the point that any such equivocation such as poor Dave made is truly absurd.

    “Iraq was and Iran is a nation that supports terrorism and advocates their clients attack Americans.”

    This is true. However, going to war against every country that in some way supports terrorists would not be practical, as we would also have to invade ourselves for providing shelter to Luis Posada Carriles, and for supporting the 1928 Brigade in Iraq, among others. We would have to invade Israel for destroying the USS Liberty. And, assuming we did all this warmongering, it would not provide the results we want, as Iraq is a vivid example.

    Going to war against Iran would vie for the biggest mistake ever made by the federal government in US history, next to invading Iraq and allowing the Dred Scott decision.

49. OldManTyme Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    “Here’s what he actually said, where he perfectly equivocates Pearl Harbor with Iraq’s shooting at our jets flying overhead:…”

    Sorry, no, it doesn’t come close to perfectly equivocating the two nor does it come close to supporting your statement, ‘Dave insists that this made prewar Iraq as much a dangerous threat as Imperial Japan was after they’d attacked Pearl Harbor. ‘

    Dave carefully used this as a analogy, not as an equivalence. That was your take and to get there you had to willfully misrepresent his statement.

    ‘That’s an important distinction, especially when weighing between war and peace.’

    You were not making any such distinctions in your earlier comments in this thread. You said, ‘we invaded a country that was no threat to us’.

    ‘However, going to war against every country that in some way supports terrorists…’

    The issue, indeed the US policy since October 2001 has been no more tolerance for regimes that aid, abet, or provide sanctuary for international terrorists. I invite you to look that up. You examples do not meet that test. The past national policy of Iraq and past and present policies of Iran do.

    ‘Going to war against Iran would vie for the…’

    Then why buy into it? Inevitable war with Iran seems to be the outcome a lot of people expect who haven’t the faintest about where Iraq fits into the global strategy of the war. If you’ve demonstrated one thing, it’s that you do not understand the what, why, and wherefore of why we toppled Saddam. The evidence is that you talked about destabilzing the region as if this were a downside. You don’t quite grasp the fact that the problem is that the region produces terrorism because it was not stable to begin with. Changing the status quo IS the strategy.

    I’m done.

50. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    “Dave carefully used this as a analogy, not as an equivalence.”

    An analogy is a type of comparison. To make an analogy, you need to compare two things that have some degree of similarity. I’ve pointed out that pre-war Iraq had virtually no similarity to post-Pearl Harbor Imperial Japan. Therefore, whatever you want to call it — an analogy, simile, or whatever — it was an absurd comment. Your defending it makes you look silly.

    “The issue, indeed the US policy since October 2001 has been no more tolerance for regimes that aid, abet, or provide sanctuary for international terrorists.”

    Yes, I know. And as I’ve pointed out, our own regime qualifies, as we are currently providing sanctuary for at least one international terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles.

    “If you’ve demonstrated one thing, it’s that you do not understand the what, why, and wherefore of why we toppled Saddam.”

    Oh, I’ve got a pretty good idea, based on the results, and it had nothing to do with bringing democracy or toppling tyrants. Bush has been looking actively for a new tyrant to take Saddam’s place. That is so he can meet his objective, to park 14 permanent military bases next to the world’s 2nd largest oil supplies. Anyone who cannot connect those dots shouldn’t try discussing politics.

    “The evidence is that you talked about destabilzing the region as if this were a downside. You don’t quite grasp the fact that the problem is that the region produces terrorism because it was not stable to begin with. Changing the status quo IS the strategy.”

    The amount of hubris in this comment is fairly stunning. To think that the US, in benign god-like fashion, could just create democracies out of thin air, is absurd in this day and age. Sure, we did it in the Marshall Plan, but that was very different to this, for many reasons that I can list off if you’re interested. Really, Bush has taken his Katrina act to the Middle East, and a similar disaster has ensued. Nothing good will come of it. Absolutely nothing. Unless you’re a Halliburton stockholder.

51. OldManTyme Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    ‘An analogy is a type of …’

    One more time - this does not support your contention that Dave was making two matters equivalent. A analogy does not mean equivalence. The more insistent you are that it does, the more foolish you look.

    There’s a resident Islamo-troll here who calls himself Alphie. Alphie spins and twists everything he can into anti-american nonsense, no matter how tortured the logic.

    You on the other hand torture logic just as enthusiastically but your arguments reduce to just anti-Bush. Halliburton yada yada, big corporate yada yada, Bush lied us into yada yada. You fall back on this claptrap over and over again. You’ve been dismissed as a liar and fool because reasonable and informed people don’t see it as a Bush vs the left matter. They see it in clear and correct terms - there’s a group or people out there in the world who make no secret of the fact that they would have us lay down democracy in favor of their brand of theocracy or see us dead. They’ve attacked us repeatedly and killed our fellow citizens and threaten to continue until we oblige them one way or the other. No amount of progressive nonsense can wish that away.

    I started into this conversation saying that as someone who has been following the thread without prior comment, your statement that, ‘Dave! I dismantle every point you’ve made…’ was not supported by what I read before. It is not supported by what you’ve written since.

    I’ll stand by it and waste no more time on you.

52. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    “One more time - this does not support your contention that Dave was making two matters equivalent. A analogy does not mean equivalence.”

    An analogy relies on some basis for comparison. Please explain the basis of comparing prewar Iraq with post Pearl Harbor Japan. I need to understand how ignoring prewar Iraq would have been the same as ignoring Japan after they’d attacked Pearl Harbor, given that Iraq never had an attack in any way resembling or approaching the magnitude or intent of Pearl Harbor.

    “You’ve been dismissed as a liar and fool because reasonable and informed people don’t see it as a Bush vs the left matter.”

    No. Keep in mind that no one has ever pointed out a single instance where I’ve lied. Therefore, I’ve been dismissed as a liar and a fool simply because you cannot dismiss my points. Ask any 3rd grader. It works every time. On other 3rd graders.

    “They see it in clear and correct terms - there’s a group or people out there in the world who make no secret of the fact that they would have us lay down democracy in favor of their brand of theocracy or see us dead.”

    I agree with this. However, you and I disagree on which group constitutes the greatest threat. You see a bunch of poorly funded, poorly coordinated Islamists whose best tactic currently is to light themselves on fire and drive a car into the front of an airport. I see an administration who has radically altered the character of American foreign policy, and who has, through practice (not legislation) eliminated many of our constitutional protections, oversaw the destruction of a US city, and bankrupted our treasury. And, trashed the US reputation which was our strongest foreign policy tool. And bogged down our military in a civil war, so that it is unable to address real threats or protect the country in any meaningful way. And eliminated habeus corpus for the first real time since the 12th century. And converted our style of government from the republic which the framers had imagined, to a monarchy which the framers worked so hard to avoid. I can go on. The point is, the destruction caused directly by Bush’s policies have far overshadowed anything any of our foreign enemies could ever have feasibly done. That is why I hate the Bush Administration. For the same identical reason you hate the Islamists, except with the crucial addition of reality.

    “‘I’ll stand by it and waste no more time on you.”

    Or as Cartman would say, “Screw you guys. I”m going home.”

53. OldManTyme Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    ‘The point is, the destruction caused directly by Bush’s policies have far overshadowed anything any of our foreign enemies could ever have feasibly done.’

    This one abysmally stupid statement explains why none of your nonsense in whole or in part deserves seriously consideration.

54. paulpsd7 Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    “This one abysmally stupid statement explains why none of your nonsense in whole or in part deserves seriously consideration.”

    So you believe there is a foreign enemy that could FEASIBLY eliminated habeus corpus, and amendments 1, 4 and 10? One that could have FEASIBLY caused so much unnecessary death in New Orleans? One that could have FEASIBLY taken our country’s budget surplus, and driven it right into the ground, creating the largest deficit in history and making us a debtor nation to China? And bestowed on the vice presidency a monarch’s powers? Really? Who?

    Or, rather, is it not that you actually CONSIDERED my point and found it wanting, but were utterly unable to consider it, since it violates some of your sacred covenants with the GOP? You and I both know it’s the latter, and that you have no way to refute what I’ve said. Think about that this weekend. One day when your grandkids ask, “What did you do to defend our country during the Bush years?” you probably won’t want to give much consideration to that question either.

55. OldManTyme Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    ‘So you believe there is a foreign enemy that could FEASIBLY eliminated habeus corpus, and amendments 1, 4 and 10? One that could have FEASIBLY caused so much unnecessary death in New Orleans? One that could have FEASIBLY taken our country’s budget surplus, and driven it right into the ground, creating the largest deficit in history and making us a debtor nation to China? And bestowed on the vice presidency a monarch’s powers? Really? Who?’

    The title of this thread, and the point Me Crittendon was making, is that the stakes are too high for the US to afford to lend an ear to ignorant nonsense. The above is just that. You may THINK that you’ve made some points in the thread, and further delude yourself that no one can match your unassailable logic, but I’ve already pointed out to you that the consensus is that you’re a liar and fool. This sort of nonsense only plays to audiences that are no more inclined to educate themselves and think it through. The BS in the above paragraph is either ignorant, a boldfaced lie, or manufactured out of whole cloth. Not one observation doesn’t fall two or more of those headings.

    You know, Bush is not hiding in your closet. He’s not responsible for your bedwetting nightmares. This isn’t the right site for you. You need one where all the morons marching in step to the same drummer do believe that.

    ‘Or, rather, is it not that you actually CONSIDERED my point and found it wanting…’

    Yes. Every one of them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.