Mark Jaquith on October 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM

And you are a phony American.

Wrong. Or, have you become so good at mind-reading that you need not stick to the facts?

I can’t mind-read what “wrong” is in reference to. All of it? The fact that Rush edited the clip he played to make it sound like the Jesse MacBeth remark was tied to the “phony soldiers” remark? The fact that Rush said that “[real soldiers] joined to be in Iraq”? The fact that Rush said that speaking out against torture of terrorism suspects means you are “hamper[ing] our military effort”?

Rush doesn’t give a damn about our troops if they don’t fit his stereotype. The previous caller on his show mentioned that he used to be in the military, and Rush replied “And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.”

Rush Limbaugh is a phony supporter of American soldiers.

Bush has a policy that the Iraqi army shouldn’t be disbanded, then Bremer disbands it, then Bremer gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:10 PM

I’m not disagreeing with you on the mistakes that were made…
they also could’ve been made by any team..

It’s the denigration bandwagon/propaganda that is harmful here.

But don’t expect MB4 and et al, to admit that.

Seriously though. I agree with you that we need to maintain a commitment in Iraq, given that the current mess there is both a moral and geo-political problem. I also agree with you that it is good to kill people who are preparing to commit terrorist acts against Americans.

I’m not on the same page that mistakes happen at the same rate regardless of who the head coach is. I think conservatives who believe the fight against radical Islam is important should be very critical of the Bush team’s poor execution. It is more than just unexpected problems when Bush has a policy that the Iraqi army shouldn’t be disbanded, then Bremer disbands it, then Bremer gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

…was military experience with wars of occupation,
…A quick victory in Iraq that established an orderly society could have had a positive regional impact
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I’m not arguing the fact that mistakes – un/avoidable – were made..either way, that does not make it helpful for a Bush denigration syndrome. The same mistakes would/could’ve been made with any party in office.

The focus should be that the battle is an information war and quit making it a political battle!

Since AQ is now in Iraq, in force, we absolutely have to win there!
These radicals believe that the only way they can experience sexual freedom is to make it safely to Allah, where, upon arrival, they will be rewarded with 72 virgins and can have sex 100 times a day…. and the reason they deserve to be rewarded with all this, is because, they died in the process of killing those who don’t believe the same way they do.

That’s why, we have absolute moral authority to kill them, before, they kill more innocent people.

I think what you’re missing here is the fact that this War-on-Terror/Islamic Extremism (or whatever convoluted PC term MB4 would like to name it) has never been confronted, therefore experienced with this intensity before.

The experience I was referring to was military experience with wars of occupation, which have been experienced. We can debate the big picture conflict with Islamofascism, but if you believe that Iraq was a key element of the bigger war then it is all-the-more infuriating that the strategic thinkers (say Wolfowitz & Cheney) didn’t synch up with the operations people (say Rumsfeld and Franks). A quick victory in Iraq that established an orderly society could have had a positive regional impact. I’m really surprised by Cheney who is on record in the 90’s with his thoughts on the difficulties a post-Saddam Iraq would present.

but rather seeing a complex problem with the granularity that someone gains through field experience.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM

I think what you’re missing here is the fact that this War-on-Terror/Islamic Extremism (or whatever convoluted PC term MB4 would like to name it) has never been confronted, therefore experienced with this intensity before.

And therefore, nobody could have the field experience.

So of course a lot of mistakes would/will be made…Next question, please.
.
.
The following is a good example of what the battle really is – which is an information war – scroll down to my highlights, if this is too voluminous for you (MB4):

Newsflash: diplomatic convoys in Iraq are huge targets for the enemy, and Iraqi civilians are notoriously bad eyewitnesses of anything. During my last tour, local shopkeepers were being openly gunned down on the street by the Mahdi Army, aka JAM (guys dressed just like ordinary Iraqi “civilians”) while we were literally a block away drinking chai with the local police captains trying to establish good rapport.

Within minutes we would haul to the scene on foot and ask who shot the man and people would point at us and say “you did.” (Meaning U.S. soldiers.) We were the only ones in the area, so we knew this to be untrue, but the rumors (actually well-timed enemy propaganda) had already spread so fast that even this man’s relatives were already convinced that we had shot him down. He had only been killed for this very reason: to blame on us and thus discredit all the hard work we had already put in around that section of Baghdad.

This type of scenario is what occurs on a daily basis all around Iraq. This is why the war has made such hard and slow progress. All-out combat is relatively rare in Iraq and has been for years. 90% of patrols go by without incident. ****But we are fighting an information war constantly, and it certainly does not help that our own media is so often complicit.“

.
.
**** This information war includes debating non-factual points made my MB4, et al.

even for those who NEVER served at all and yet beat the war drums the VERY LOUDEST and dis those who did serve. Unreal. Absolutely astounding.

MB4. I reread your posts above the one quoted here and didn’t see you hitting the “___hawk” point hard if at all.

I agree with BuyDanish’s post that you don’t have to be a ballerina to comment on or run a ballet. However, I’m at a loss to explain how President Bush’s team missed the mark on the Iraq planning by the margin they did. Would they have been aided in their strategic planning if one of the architects had more military experience? Would we be where we are today if Eisenhower were president? It isn’t about being brave or not, but rather seeing a complex problem with the granularity that someone gains through field experience.

pre·var·i·ca·tor……. [pri-var-i-key-ter]
1. a person who speaks falsely; liar.
2. a person who speaks so as to avoid the precise truth; quibbler; equivocator.

.
.
po·seur…….[poh-zur]
a person who attempts to impress others by assuming or affecting a manner, degree of elegance, sentiment, etc., other than his or her true one.

That does not look familiar. Although I could maybe see myself going on a left wing site and playing “agent provocateur” sometime. Blah Blah Blah.

MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM

You know what I think? I think that you are a poseur and a prevaricator, not an agent-provocateur, and whatever you consumed last night must have been in very large quantities indeed. Or are unhinged rants just part of your natural state of being?

For the record, the difference between an epithet and an epitaph has nothing to do with spelling and everything to do with mangling the English language.

MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 12:22 AM

You make my point.

You don’t care about the facts, when you have an opinion.

You don’t even care about having a debate.

Because when you are invited to a debate, as I have, you refuse to review the only “debate” you and I ever had.

You don’t care about the truth…you cannot deny that was your comment over at http://www.firedoglake.com wait… you didn’t deny and you didn’t confirm….typical of your ilk that doesn’t care about the truth.

Instead of reviewing the facts laid out by me regarding your theory… your response, simply is, it’s too much for you to comprehend.

Instead you try to divert the attention to a word that I should study.

I, thank you for your service to our country and you either don’t respond or you say “have a nice day”.

The truth hurts for you because you believe the country betrayed you. That’s understandable. The war was rough.
You did what you thought was the right thing and then the bottom fell out of that support.
It was very, very rough.

But that doesn’t exclude you from being held to a standard of factual debating.

But of course you don’t care. Because your inner emotions have been hijacked by betrayal.
That’s understandable and even permissible.

Actually I’m a beer man but thank you anyway.

Speaking of Leieberman, I’m curious. Is there another MB4 tripping around the blogsphere, or was comment number 377 made by you?

If they do not have the courage to act, we don’t need them.

That does not look familiar. Although I could maybe see myself going on a left wing site and playing “agent provocateur” sometime. Thanks for the idea. Might be just a little bit fun if I get really bored sometime. Speaking of getting bored – YAWN. But no that does not look like me.

By the way, if you ever come back down to Earth, you need to look up the word “epithet” which you are confusing with “epitaph”.

You did get me on my spelling. Congratulations. Maybe AP will give you an iPod.

Buy Danish on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM

*

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Mcguyver, you really need to get some interests in life other than just me! You don’t actually expect me or anyone else to read that voluminous whatever do you?

While on the spelling and meaning of words you need to think really hard about this word because if you don’t watch out your picture is going to be appearing in the dictionary right next to it:

ob·ses·sion

1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or person or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.

Is there another MB4 tripping around the blogsphere, or was comment number 377 made by you?
Buy Danish on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Yup that’s him….amazing!

you need to look up the word “epithet” which you are confusing with “epitaph”.

Maybe he was not confused….

Enjoying your cocktails much?

Speaking of Leieberman, I’m curious. Is there another MB4 tripping around the blogsphere, or was comment number 377 made by you?

MB4 says:
August 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Any of these major Democratic leaders who do not act to expel Lieberman should be expelled themselves.

If they do not have the courage to act, we don’t need them.

By the way, if you ever come back down to Earth, you need to look up the word “epithet” which you are confusing with “epitaph”.

You know it is absolutely astounding to me that those who do not support Bush’s Islamic “nation building” policies in Iraq, which is a clear majority minority of the American people,can be called all manner of vile epitaphs,
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 8:16 PM

I’m glad… that you mentioned that.

Let’s start from scratch….

Why did Joe Lieberman – a war hawk – win in a land slide in the liberal kook State of Connecticut, running as an Independent…if a “majority” are against it?

You and I went round and round here and you lost the debate, because you cannot prove your outlier theory (MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM)

Here is how that debate transpired verbatim:

Liebermann was an outlier. Do the math.

“In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data. Statistics derived from data sets that include outliers [and certainly depend on them] will often be [very] misleading.”

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM

.

My response:

Are you trying to debate with reasoned logic or just trying to appear superior?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM

.

My further response:

MB4,
When you come back with with reasonable debate logic instead of stats not related to why people voted for Liebermann – I’m in – otherwise start writing the invitation-to-honesty script for the liberals.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

.
Your response insult:

Have you stopped beating your wife?
MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM

.
Your response:

So why do you think that Democrats made such huge gains in both houses of congress in 2006 then?

Do you think that it was on account of their good looks?

There were some things other than stuck in Iraq going on that could account for lesser gains, but the huge gains that they made?

Come on.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM

.
My response:

MB4,
Were the liberals in the kook state of Connecticut voting for their fringe left – were they being honest to themselves?
Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM

.
My further response:

MB4,
Acording to your outlier stats – if any of the current republican candidates were to run as an outlier – they would win by a landslide….pick one… they are all pro-war as is Liebermann.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM

.
My further response: (editing your quote from 12:46 AM)

So why do you think that Democrats made such huge puny gains in both houses of congress in 2006 then?
.
All elections have been very “tight” since Bush took office….

Come on… I know you can be intellectually honest…… or…. wait….you’re just trying to make sense?

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:51 AM

.
My further response: (includes your quote from 12:46 AM)

Do you think that it was on account of their good looks?
.

Most Zell Miller Dems are still voting for statues….and yours is not included.
Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM

.
My response to your insult: at 12:40 AM

Go to Eharmony.com to find a wife that you can beat up debate with.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 12:55 AM

.
Your response to me at: 12:48 AM

What we got here is… failure to communicate.
- Captain, Road Prison 36

You appear to have missed my whole point. Outliers are the exception, not the rule.

MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM

.
My response: (including your quote)

Outliers are the exception, not the rule.
.

In this very intense debate of war or not war, Liebermann’s case was not an exception – it mattered too much to the voters……

I know your are trying to make sense….I’m still waiting.

Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM

And there ends the only substantive debate you and I have ever had.

Every other attempt of mine to debate you, has resulted in anything but a debate, because you don’t have any supporting legs to stand on.
.

Here is a great comment from the same debate.

MB4,
I’m not convinced that Leiberman’s victory was simply an “outlier” either. 2006 may have been more of a statement of “we want change” (ie. not the Republicans) rather than an Iraq-related thing. On a separate note, it would be nice if you were a bit more polite to people on this board. We conservatives need to stick together.
.

Mcguyver,
I’m not sure why the liberals changed their tune from right after 9-11 to now. Gelernter mentions that liberals have been pushing this (rather unpopular) “appeasement, pacifism and globalism” agenda for quite some time now, dating to before the Vietnam war. I suspect that the liberal powers that be laid off the gas a bit just after 9/11, realizing that this already unpopular philosophy would be even more unpopular just after 9/11. As 9/11 receded in people’s minds over the years, perhaps Soros and other lefty powers that be calculated that they could slowly crank up the volume again.

dave_lantos on September 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM

.
And another one:

I think that the Republicans lost in some close races because of the Mark Foley “October surprise” combined with the constant drumbeat of “corruption” from the Dumocrats, who were lying as they always do. Also some Republicans stayed at home because they didn’t like the way the war in Iraq was being run. They wanted a much harsher war or to install a “glass parking lot” there.
TruthToBeTold on September 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM

.
And yet another one:

In my view America’s purpose in the world (the purpose for which it was founded) is to guarantee and protect the innate human rights of it’s citizens, against all enemies, where ever they are (”foreign or dommestic”). By doing so it serves as an inspiration and beacon of liberty to other nations less blessed.
-
So anything that works against that purpose is destructive to the nation. If Harry and friends want to define some other purpose that contradicts the Founding Principles, they are essentially converting America into something that it was never intended to be.
-
As far as federal elected officials go, they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, so this puts certain contstraints on what they can say or do while in office.

Herikutsu on September 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM

….
…
..
.
Now here is your assignment (and invitation to debate):

Read everything above here and come back with any factual point you want to make, without starting any insults or name calling…….
..I know this kind of concentration will take a while for you….

But that’s O.K…..I’ve got my cricket tape playing end-to-end, so…..no hurry, seriously.

If I never hear from you again, that’s O.K. too.

Either way, thanks for your service in the Vietnam war, even though, you don’t believe your service was the right thing to do.
That’s O.K. You can believe however you want, thanks to the many of have served.
.
.
……………….[crickets chirping]………………

michellemalkin.com

So, word is that the Democrats will introduce a House resolution Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks about phony soldiers. […] Read the rest »URL: michellemalkin.com…

You know it is absolutely astounding to me that those who do not support Bush’s Islamic “nation building” policies in Iraq, which is a clear majority of the American people, can be called all manner of vile epitaphs (diminutive beings, shriveled little old men, ludicrous, nonsense, traitors, BULL CRAP, numb skulled, Quadriplegic, drivel, troll, tramp, reincarnated as Kim Jong-Il’s only remaining tadpole, troll. And that is just on this thread! Need I go on?)), but NO ONE is suppose to even say anything that could be taken by anyone as the slightest, tiniest, itsy-bitsiest, teeny-weeniest possible hint at the “Huhnerfalke” word, das ist Verboten!, even for those who NEVER served at all and yet beat the war drums the VERY LOUDEST and dis those who did serve. Unreal. Absolutely astounding.

Gall darn one sided freedom of speech for Americans to put it very mildly.

The founding fathers are not amused.

MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM

You can knock off the chickenhawk nonsense right now.

Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Here’s an organization: http://www.usarmy.com
……that I highly, highly recommend that you join.

In the majority.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM

To MB4,
Here’s an organization: www.gnomedex.com
……that I highly, highly recommend that you join.

Mark Jaquith on September 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM