Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 17, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

REWRITING HISTORY....What planet do these people come from? Writing about George Bush's renewed commitment to preemptive war, Cliff May says:

It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden?

Well, it's different because absolutely no one ever said that about Osama bin Laden. It's true that we never took him out, but it wasn't because no one thought he was dangerous. It was because prior to 9/11 no one not Cliff May, not George Bush, not the PNAC hawks thought that an invasion of Afghanistan was a justifiable way of doing it.

This comes courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, who nods approvingly and then opines that the "more damaging critique" of Bush isn't his obvious incompetence in Iraq, it's the fact that we haven't also "pressed the war" with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. That would go well, wouldn't it?

Kevin Drum 12:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (115)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Unless we use nukes, just how are we supposed to go after Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia at the same time? How many insurgencies can the Army handle at any one time?

Posted by: tomeck on March 17, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

They come from Mars, the planet of War.

Posted by: craigie on March 17, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.

Posted by: Lucy on March 17, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

what the hell, why not invade everybody? didn't we discuss our plans for war with canada on this site not long ago???

Posted by: mudwall jackson on March 17, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.

Huh? Okay, I must have missed that particular update from the Ministry of Truth, since most of what I know leads to the opposite conclusion. Can you elaborate?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 17, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

This comes courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, who nods approvingly and then opines that the "more damaging critique" of Bush isn't his obvious incompetence in Iraq, it's the fact that we haven't also "pressed the war" with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

We're at war with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia? Since when?

Oh, I forgot -- Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

A couple of points:

First: why should the idea that Bush Adminstration apologists are "rewriting history" come as a surprise to anybody. The Admin (and its amen chorus) have been vigorously attempting to make "their" version of events the accepted wisdom since Election Day, 2000: and have, disgracefully succeeded all to often. Why on earth should they stop now?

Second: Your cite of Glenn Reynolds is a joke, right? the InstaHack himself?

Posted by: Jay C on March 17, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Im with Einstein when it comes to people who continually do the same thing over and over and expect different results. (Much like the college student on the bathroom floor after a night of drinking) Its insanity.

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 17, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

For once, I have to agree with you - I know that Clinton was offered bin Ladin and declined - he was still dealing with it from pre-9/11 law enforcement perspective.

Posted by: Don P. on March 17, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Heyzeus! Reynolds must have tenure. That's the only explanation for such an idiot keeping his job.

I wonder if he's as ignorant of the law as he is foreign affairs?

Posted by: Jeff II on March 17, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

People do make mistakes, the Bush people made gigantic mistakes, we can be generous and say mistakes happen, but they don't learn from their mistakes. That is unvorgivable, they don't learn.

Posted by: Renate on March 17, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Clifford May is an idiot. A couple of years ago in reference to the 9/11 he made the comment that FDR did not initiate a commission to investigate the attack on Pearl Harbor until after WWII.

Aside from the fact that FDR did not live long enough to see VE Day let alone the end of the war, May's claim is categorically wrong. The commission to nvestigate the Pearl Harbor attacks was formed eleven days after the attack and completed their report six weeks after the attack.

Democracy is in serious trouble if someone as thoroughly witless, disingenuous and deceitful as Cliiford May is in charge of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Posted by: Randy Paul on March 17, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

most of what I know leads to the opposite conclusion

Yes, tbrosz, your mindset leads you to certain conclusions, but given how false your conclusions usually are, that's just an indictment of your delusional mindset, isn't it?

President Bush in 2001:

"When I take action, Im not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. Its going to be decisive."

Yea, Bush has really, decisively taken out bin Laden. Not.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton was sooo 9/10

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 17, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

How many insurgencies can the Army handle at any one time?

there won't be any. the people in those countries will greet us as liberators. and their respective reconstructions will be largely paid for with oil revenues.

anyone who thinks otherwise is objectively anti-American.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

The beaches in Iran are much nicer, and if I was a tank driver, I might just grab my thong, my Iraqi squeeze and head on over.

Posted by: Matt on March 17, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz,

You seem to have forgotten "statesman" Bush saying "I'm not going to send a missile to go hit a camel in the butt."

Posted by: Robert on March 17, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Well, it's different because absolutely no one ever said that about Osama bin Laden.

False Kevin. By attacking Saddam, we were also attacking Al-Qaeda and Osama because Osama and Saddam were working together.

Link

"An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran."

Posted by: Al on March 17, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

there won't be any. the people in those countries will greet us as liberators. and their respective reconstructions will be largely paid for with oil revenues.

anyone who thinks otherwise is objectively anti-American. Posted by: cleek

Yes. Explain to me again why Wolfie isn't in jail instead of head of the World Bank.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 17, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

What Gregory said - Clinton sent a missile or two into the desert, and bin Laden had left 30 minutes before, and so he hit - nothing.

I seem to recall this story being used as justification for using the Predator drones, as a way of shortening the feedback loop between target acquisition and launch (hey, I have been watching the Bruce Willis movies!).

So yes, tbrosz, Clinton took a shot, and he got criticized for it. If he hadn't taken a shot, he would have been criticized for that too. Welcome to our world.

Posted by: craigie on March 17, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

The ultimate irony in all this is that UBL is a creation of the United States! Of course, when we were giving him weapons and teaching him tactical and strategic combat theory, along with asymetrical warfare, he was fighting against the Russian's efforts to take over Afghanistan. We loaded him up with plenty of money and other support. So remember:

Usama bin Laden was figuratively MADE IN AMERICA. Just fills your hearts with pride, don't it?

Posted by: Biil Arnett on March 17, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

The ultimate irony in all this is that UBL is a creation of the United States! Of course, when we were giving him weapons and teaching him tactical and strategic combat theory, along with asymetrical warfare, he was fighting against the Russian's efforts to take over Afghanistan. We loaded him up with plenty of money and other support. So remember:

Usama bin Laden was figuratively MADE IN AMERICA. Just fills your hearts with pride, don't it?

Posted by: Biil Arnett on March 17, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.

Huh? Okay, I must have missed that particular update from the Ministry of Truth, since most of what I know leads to the opposite conclusion. Can you elaborate?"

Remember Wag the Dog, you lying cocksucker?

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

gregory beats me to the punch, so i'll just add that it was the next day that obl stopped using his cell phone.

Don P. is simply deranged, repeating a long-debunked right-wing piece of shit. Clinton was never "offered" OBL and "declined." Never.

As for the insane people like Cliff May, he can't even get the basics accurate. There is no claim that nothing bad would ever have happened from iraq if we hadn't invaded when we did.

The claim was that the risks of something bad happening from iraq were so low as to not be worth the costs in blood and treasure of this little piece of adventurism, especially one that kept us from finishing the task at Tora Bora (just to bring the discussion full circle).

As for prof instanitwit, just when you think he can't possibly top his own track record for stupidity, he goes ahead and impresses you in new ways!

Posted by: howard on March 17, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's true, Lucy, but that was back when the idea that innocent people might have died in a US missile strike aimed at Osama bin Laden actually worried a few people. I think I can remember when we actually cared about not killing people...I think...right?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 17, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think Instapundit really really likes war and seems to be afraid alot. Can someone explain to me why Conservatives are so afraid? So afraid that they are willing spend a few more 100 billion dollars and a few thousand more troops to possibly go to war against more countries that are unlikely to attack us and even if they did would cause a small proportion of the damage we would sustain from attacking them. You have to be pretty frightened to want to constantly go this route.

I'll say it now like I said it in 2003. Saddam was a punk bully with only enough power to barely keep his country from falling apart. Why were we ever frightened of him?

Posted by: kj on March 17, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

it's so hard to tell the fake als from the real al, but i know that the 12:57 is the real Al, so i say, in all honesty: stick with basketball and soccer. that is the stupidest, lamest, most abysmal attempt yet to tie together Saddam and AQ. is there no level of ridiculousness the war enablers are unwilling to plumb?

Posted by: howard on March 17, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.

Huh? Okay, I must have missed that particular update from the Ministry of Truth, since most of what I know leads to the opposite conclusion. Can you elaborate?

I agree that the opposite is true.

Bill Clinton Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was applauded for it.


Posted by: lib on March 17, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Don't make me cry brooksfoe.

Posted by: Lucy on March 17, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

There's a lot more non-sense in the remainder of the article that's worth criticizing, such as the fact that UBL is a non-state entity (as is his organization), while Saddam is/was a head of state.

Posted by: z1shy on March 17, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

If memory serves, Clinton twice went after bin Laden with weapons, and both times Republicans accused him of wagging the dog to distract from impeachment.

It was Madeline Albright, as Secretary of State, who raised an international law issue about going after bin Laden. Since assassination was (is?) against U.S. law, exactly what we were doing in shooting missiles at him was not an insignificant point.

Personally, I wouldn't have missed him if we'd got him: but to act like this is much of a partisan jab at Clinton sorta misses what Republicans were doing at the time.

Posted by: theAmericanist on March 17, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 17, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

is there no level of ridiculousness the war enablers are unwilling to plumb?

don't mistake simple trolling for honest argument.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Help me out here. Did we start a General War on Terror, or did we start the War on bin Laden.

I never can remember...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'll say it now like I said it in 2003. Saddam was a punk bully with only enough power to barely keep his country from falling apart. Why were we ever frightened of him?
This is the key point, which can not be stressed enought. While the wing-nuts are desperately combing through Saddam's files trying to grasp at any straw that will connect Saddam to Al Qaeda or WMD, the most interesting fact to emerge so far is this - two weeks before the US invasion Sadam was more worried about an internal coup than a US invasion. Does this sound like a man who would spend time plotting terrorist activities? He was too busy trying to keep his own house in order. Saddam was evil, but presented absolutely no threat to the security of the US when we attacked.

Posted by: Vanya on March 17, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Usama bin Laden was figuratively MADE IN AMERICA. Just fills your hearts with pride, don't it?
Posted by: Biil Arnett

Don't forget, Biil, so was Saddam. The CIA helped put him in power, and we supplied Iraq with many of the precusors and equipment needed for developing both chemical and biological weapons.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 17, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK


Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.

Huh? Okay, I must have missed that particular update from the Ministry of Truth, since most of what I know leads to the opposite conclusion. Can you elaborate?

So which of the opposite conclusions do you reach?

A. Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was applauded for it.

B. Bill Clinton did not try to take out Osama and was applauded for it.

C. Bill Clinton did not try to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.


If C, please provide the evidence for your assertion.


Posted by: nut on March 17, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

[repost with correct use of italics]
I'll say it now like I said it in 2003. Saddam was a punk bully with only enough power to barely keep his country from falling apart. Why were we ever frightened of him?


This is the key point, which can not be stressed enough. While the wing-nuts are desperately combing through Saddam's files trying to grasp at any straw that will connect Saddam to Al Qaeda or WMD, the most interesting fact to emerge so far is this - two weeks before the US invasion Sadam was more worried about an internal coup than a US invasion. Does this sound like a man who would spend time plotting terrorist activities? He was too busy trying to keep his own house in order. Saddam was evil, but presented absolutely no threat to the security of the US when we attacked.

Posted by: Vanya on March 17, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Well, it's different because absolutely no one ever said that about Osama bin Laden."

So who were all those lefties protesting the Afghanistan war?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

If memory serves, Clinton twice went after bin Laden with weapons, and both times Republicans accused him of wagging the dog to distract from impeachment.

you are correct. still, some Republicans thought he did the right thing (Newt, for one).

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter:

There were no protests to speak of before the war in Afghanistan. You, and your co-trolls, are lying fascist scum. You wouldn't know freedom if it hit you in the face, you obnoxious pig.

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

When Iraq under Saddam Hussein ordered a military invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Bin Laden called for jihad against Saddam and asked the Saudi government for permission to send jihadists to protect the country and help liberate Kuwait. Instead the government invited a coalition made up of forces from the United States and other non-Muslim nations to establish a base in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, who had hated the United States even before the Gulf War, was outraged; he considered the presence of non-Muslim forces on Saudi soil as an affront to himself and to Muslims in general. Disagreements and squabbling between Bin Laden and the Saudi royal family soon exploded into full-blown hostility, especially after US forces remained in Saudi Arabia upon liberating Kuwait.

Posted by: Satan on March 17, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure that the person posting recently as "Don P" is the same person who posted for many months as "Don P" and then stopped posting for a while. The recent comments from "Don P" with the email address "I'm baaaack@guesswho.com" read more like stuff from Charlie, who recently was posting as "Cheney" until he exploded in a huff. Seems to me that the comments from "Cheney" stopped appearing right about the time that comments from "Don P" began appearing. So perhaps the new "Don P" is really Charlie.

Thinking about such things makes me realize I've been spending way too much time reading these comment pages, for way too long for my own good.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 17, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, we didn't start anything. we attacked afghanistan as a base camp and training grounds for AQ and Osama and got bored, and we attacked Saddam for dozens of reasons, seemingly, none of them persuasive.

what is this general war on terror of which you speak? what does it mean? what are its goals? why do you think that terror is any more susceptible to being warred upon than cancer or drugs?

Freedom fighter, what does the fact that a limited number of americans opposed making war on afghanistan have to do with nobody ever saying that osama was dangerous before 9/11? we can hardly wait to have you elucidate the connection.

Posted by: howard on March 17, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

secularanimist, funny, i had thought that this don p. didn't have the zest of the regular don p., but then i stopped thinking about it. which is my backhanded way of saying that your second paragraph is spot on!

Posted by: howard on March 17, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

who were all those lefties protesting the Afghanistan war?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 1:15 PM

Moe, Larry and Curly

Posted by: Neo on March 17, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Help me out here. Did we start a General War on Terror, or did we start the War on bin Laden.

Your talking points are slipping, c.n. so I'll help you out: The talking point is that the terrorists started it.

And pointing out that Bush has failed in his promise to get bin Laden is claiming nothing other than that Bush has failed in his promise to get bin Laden lo these five years later, so you can just skip your dishonest distractions (if we ger bin Laden, the deserts would bloom, blah blah) that only prove you really have no rebuttal to the fact. We already know.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

First off, IIRC the 9/11 commission concluded that Clinton was never offered Bin Ladin by Sudan. That's a myth.

Second, Clinton did indeed launch a cruise missle strike at a Al Queda camp in Afghanistan with the intent of killing Bin Laden. It failed - he was gone by the time the missles arrived.

Clinton was roundly condemned by leading Republicans for "wagging the dog" attacking Bin Laden in order to change the subject from the impeachment trials.

Posted by: VOR on March 17, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Help me out here. Did we start a General War on Terror, or did we start the War on bin Laden.
I never can remember... Posted by: conspiracy nut

Actually, we aren't actively engaged in either one, as evidenced by the Republican vote yesterday to block increased port security. Your people, all bluster aside, couldn't give a shit.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 17, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK
This comes courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, who nods approvingly and then opines that the "more damaging critique" of Bush isn't his obvious incompetence in Iraq, it's the fact that we haven't also "pressed the war" with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. That would go well, wouldn't it?

I'm trying to figure out if its worse when the wingnuts are arguing the "stab-in-the-back" theory of why things aren't goign well or when they are arguing this new "we aren't fighting enough wars" argument.

Neither argument, of course, has much contact with reality.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 17, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist,

Thanks for picking up Don P's identity problems. You made me feel like I'm not wasting as much time as you on these boards. I appreciate it. :)

kj

Posted by: kj on March 17, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

It's really quite simple, Kevin.

It is Bush who is rewriting history by turning America's away from Old Europe, where decadence rules and Muslims are becoming the dominant ethnic group, and towards Asia, where non-communist China will be our most strategic alliance for the next century.

Bush's low poll numbers can only be attributed to the constant attacks from the MSM who hate him with a passion.

Now, I know I've said that the MSM is dead and has been for 2-3 years now and that it has no influence whatsoever with the public, but nevertheless it is this ineffectual and unheard MSM that is harming our greatest president ever, George W. Bush.

tbrosz agrees with me on the MSM issue, and I'm sure you will too, and that's enough proof that my take on Bush's polling is correct.

Posted by: 'rdw' on March 17, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

This time howard beat me to the punch. Bravo!

Sheesh, this is a seriously lame performance by the trolls, even by their own lamer-than-usual standards of late.

As I keep saying, the fact that Bush's defenders have nothing but to repeat hoary, long-debunked claptrap as their talking points isimmensely comforting as an admission that there's no honest way of defending the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Bush Administration (c.n. is an exception; he/she/it just enjoys the dishonesty). That they sometimes seem to realize the futility of defending the sinking SS Bush is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Polls don't matter Kevin and May and Reynolds are most correct in their analysis.

Every Democrat believed that Saddam had WMDs.

I know they based their opinion on false and incomplete data and fraudulent national security analysis supplied by Bush, but that is simply a reflection on their stupidity for trusting Bush.

They must be held accountable for their views, even if those views were based on false information and analysis deliberately foisted on them.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Every Democrat believed that Saddam had WMDs.

?

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Howard
what is this general war on terror of which you speak? what does it mean? what are its goals?
If you'd read Bush's speeches you would have learned the answers to these questions. But, personally, I think the 2 best questions are:
- Is is feasible
- What is the best way to pursue it

But all this snarking over who should have killed bin Laden, and when, isn't making any headway. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were launched under the umbrella of the GWoT, and separating from their reason is nonproductive.

And for whoever wanted to know about protests against the Afghanistan war

SILENT VIGIL protesting the Afghanistan war as a proper response to the Sept. 11 attacks, 4-6 p.m., 'ewa side of the Prince Kuhio Federal Building, 1300 Ala Moana Blvd. 988-6266. [source]
April 20 - War protests - Washington, D.C. - A coordinated anti-Afghanistan war protest involving all major coalitions attempt to "Stop the War at Home and Abroad." Some 75,000 to 120,000 protesters gather. [source]
I've also been attending the weekly anti-Afghanistan War protest,... [link busted, quote from Google search]
These [Iraq] anti-war demonstrations were mainly organised by anti-war groups, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan [source]
ANSWER's first major action was a September 29, 2001 "Anti-War, Anti-Racist" political rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. [source]
Want me to keep searching?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were launched under the umbrella of the GWoT, and separating from their reason is nonproductive.

That they were so-launched doesn't mean that they served that purpose, even assuming there is such a thing as the "gwot" which is a myth promulgated by the White House and conservative lemmings with fear to sell and willing buyers.

Want me to keep searching?

Obviously, cn doesn't understand the phrase "to speak of" and how it is commonly used, thinking as he does that showing any protest at all occurred disproves the claim that no protests "to speak of" occurred.

Well, no one has ever accused cn of being other than dimwitted when it comes to logic and the English language.

Yes, keep searching cn, if the above wasn't clear enough and smaller words are needed.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden?

I love this kind of argument. You can replace "Saddam" with anything you want:

It's easy to say that if we had left Kevin Drum alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden?

It was arguments like this- where "Saddam" and "Iraq" were substituted for X in talking point templates- that were used as arguments in favor of invasion. The accusations that were being made against SH could have been made against my grandmother. I knew because I was specifically disregarding any anti-SH arguments that could be turned into anti-my-grandmother arguments, and aside from the meeting-in-Prague argument and the Kurd gassing from the 80s, there weren't any being made. This was a BIG CLUE before the commencement of hostilities, for anyone paying attention.

Posted by: MillionthMonkey on March 17, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein has written that the recently vented anger [by GOP members of Congress], after being suppressed for years out of loyalty or fear, might be seen in psychological terms. He called the condition "battered-Congress syndrome."

I love it!

The GOP members of Congress are now going to proclaim themselves victims and insist on public empathy for their victimhood, despite opposing "victimhood" on every level of society, including with regard to real and actual victims, despite casting "victimhood" aspersions against every group they disagree with, and despite unequivocal evidence that their troubles are self-imposed.

I tell you, I LOVE IT!

-afg

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, it's apparently been established that protests of over 100,000 people are not considered protests "to speak of." Keep that in mind for future use.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 17, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

c-nut, you've lost any shred of credibility you may have ever had -- and I say this as someone who has to a certain extent defended you.

I posted a few days ago about anti-war protests in cities around the world numbering in the millions each -- and you dismissed them out of hand because "those numbers were inflated."

Then you've got the temerity to cite a protest in Honolulu where forty people showed up to support your argument?!?

Your commentary and argumentation have been noticably deteriorating over the past few weeks and this clinches. Congratulations, you're now fallen to the level of a Jay or a Freedom Fighter or a Cheney, thinking that petulance and weak semantic arguments makes you look clever.

It doesn't, and it doesn't get any lower than that.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 17, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Obviously, cn doesn't understand the phrase "to speak of" and how it is commonly used, thinking as he does that showing any protest at all occurred disproves the claim that no protests "to speak of" occurred."

Actually it ties back to Kevin Drum's assertion that "absolutely no one ever said that about Osama bin Laden" should be left alone is an bold faced lie. Since plenty of leftists were precisely against ousting the Taliban. And the same leftists now argue we should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan because that is the only place on Earth were Al Qaida can be found.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton tried to take out Osama and was excoriated for it.

tbrosz (the real one): Huh? Okay, I must have missed that particular update from the Ministry of Truth, since most of what I know leads to the opposite conclusion. Can you elaborate?

Looks like tbrosz is rewriting history in lock-step with the rest of the trash that Kevin cites.

DonP ...know that Clinton was offered bin Ladin and declined

And DonP follows along behind repeating thoroughly debunked lies.

Nice.


Posted by: ckelly on March 17, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

What planet do they come from? I believe Clifford May comes from the planet AIPAC in the galaxy of JINSA. Very war-like planet.

Posted by: Chrissy on March 17, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Okay, it's apparently been established that protests of over 100,000 people are not considered protests "to speak of." Keep that in mind for future use.

Protest. Singular. In the cn comment.

Protests. Plural. In the original comment cn was commenting on.

Well, intellectual honesty isn't your strong suit, is it tbrosz?

And quite frankly, "us.history.com", without any citation by that website to its source?

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

Too, too funny.

About as funny as cn's citation to an Austrailian newspaper article, which itself cited to military personnel and a global security organization, and which did not contain the word "quagmire" as proof, proof mind you, that American liberals were calling Afghanistan a quagmire from day one.

Yes, too, too funny.

And kinda pathetic.

But, hey, only pathetic "to speak of", right?

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

You are still a lying cocksucker.

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

And the same leftists now argue we should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan because that is the only place on Earth were Al Qaida can be found.

wingnuts argue that because Al-Q is in Iraq now that they always were.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

I was for the Afghan war, but it's not like there isn't a good argument to be made that that war was useless and feckless as well. The point for me was to get Osama and close down Al Qaeda. Instead we just drove him into a country we have no prayer of attacking being as though it contains 160 million people, a few nukes, and a gunshot away from instability and wackiness. In the meanwhile thousands of innocent afghanis died. The pathetic number of people who protested at least had a point and it was worth debate. But everyone was peeing their pants after 9/11 that real moral debate was basically impossible.

In my mind protesting war is never a bad thing just like going to war is never a good thing. War may be necessary but you better damn well make sure it is before you engage. A lesson I fear we'll never learn and I know that the Fraidy cat Conservatives are incapable of learning.

Don't be afraid of your freedom!!

Posted by: kj on March 17, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Since plenty of leftists were precisely against ousting the Taliban.

You're welcome to link to proof of such.

On the other hand, I would remind you the people you are likely to claim are "leftists" almost certainly are not.

Indeed, I doubt seriously you even know what that term means, that is, it's real meaning rather than the meaning provided by the New Dictionary of Conservative-Convenient Misdefinitions.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

OK, first more Afghanistan war protests, then Windhorse.

San Francisco: 12-1pm. Federal Bldg.,Golden Gate Av & Larkin, near BART Civic Center. Protest Afghanistan war. Info: AFSC 415-565-0201, SSchwartz@afsc.org
[source]
29 Oct 01: Protest the Israeli Assault on Palestinians & the American War on Afghanistan!
[source]
The residents will send their tax money to the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, which advocates withholding tax money from the government to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source] [this one's kinda creative]
The Maine Global Action Network said they organized the rally to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
The demonstration was in solidarity with the protests in Washington, D.C., this weekend, where over 60,000 people gathered to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
Want me to keep searching?

Windhorse
Yes, the numbers of war protesters were overinflated. But the claim here is that there were few protests against the Afghanistan war, which is bunk. The Afghanistan war was protested just as vigorously as the Iraq war. International ANSWER was formed to protest the Afghanistan war. And I can keep looking up protests, I'm nowhere near reading all the hits I've gotten.

I fail to see your problem, what does overinflating numbers at war protests have to do with the existence of war protests?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like the one trying to rewrite history is Kevin Drum, now that it's been shown plenty of leftists were against taking out OBL.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

"The Afghanistan war was protested just as vigorously as the Iraq war."

Another bald-faced lie from the right-wing trolletariat.

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

"You're welcome to link to proof of such."

See conspiracy nut's links.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, the numbers of war protesters were overinflated. But the claim here is that there were few protests against the Afghanistan war, which is bunk."

Kevin Drum didn't even say "few", he said "absolutely no one ever".

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

And plenty of right-wingers think it's OK to protest soldier's funerals because of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't tell" policy. What's your point, asshole?

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Another bald-faced lie from the right-wing trolletariat.
The third list

The University of California-Berkeley held a conference earlier this month titled California Students Against the War, which was attended by more than 600 people.
UNC also recently gained national attention for a series of anti-war teach-ins [above 2 from same article, dated pre-Iraq war]
The author delivered this speech at a rally to Stop the War, in Houston, Texas on November 18. More than 200 people attended to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
Organized by the Peace Response and coordinated with similar mobilizations in other cities, march to protest the war in Afghanistan [source] [more on that page, too]
Members of the Cornell Forum for Justice & Peace and the Students for Peaceful Justice (SPJ) assembled yesterday on Ho Plaza to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
Three freshmen planned to make October 23 into a day of hunger striking to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
Most recently, some citizens have held demonstrations to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
Protest the War in Afghanistan - The Youth Anti-War League (YAWL) -- a coalition of youth workers and university and high school students -- meets at 7 p.m. Mondays in Room 619 of Dyer Hall at the University of Cincinnati. [source]
Want me to keep searching?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Want me to keep searching?"

No, I want you to go fuck yourself.

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like the one trying to rewrite history is Kevin Drum, now that it's been shown plenty of leftists were against taking out OBL.

i think it's time for you to go read what Kevin actually said.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

No, I want you to go fuck yourself.
Aw, come on, I got a few thousand more links to go through.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

The third list

conferences, teach-ins and discussions aren't protests. sloppy.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I like how this has evolved from:

"absolutely no one ever" to "no protests to speak of" to "those numbers were inflated" to "I want you to go fuck yourself".

LOL!

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Afghanistan war was protested just as vigorously as the Iraq war

Not even close.

If you really want take a stab at intellectual honesty, rather than citing links and broken links with no numbers why don't you sit down and add up the numbers of attendees at the Afghan war protests before and after the invasion and then add up the number of attendees at the Iraq war protests before and after the invasion and tell us what you've found.

Until then you're just wasting our time with hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion.

Here's a link to help you get started on your homework. It links to just one day's worth of protests against the Iraq war and even has a handy map.

The problem you fail to see is that you dismiss overwhelming evidence when it suits you and overinflate weak evidence when it suits you. Arguments have to be both valid and sound; you've reduced yourself to relying on mere validity (I found four guys who protested, so technically I'm right!) at the utter expense of soundness.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 17, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Fourth list (since all protests are apparently not created equal)

CHICAGO Organized by the Peace Response and coordinated with similar mobilizations in other cities, march to protest the war in Afghanistan attracted more than 200 people here Dec. 7. [source]
TUCSON, Ariz. International Human Rights Day was observed here Dec. 10 with a spirited march and a rally demanding peace in Afghanistan [source]
They had walked from Washington to New York City to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
In the spring of their sophomore year, when many Pomona students were starting to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
by encouraging them to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
an anti-war coalition was formed to plan common actions to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
There's still more...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

"conferences, teach-ins and discussions aren't protests. sloppy."

It is evidence of Kevin Drum's out right lie that "absolutely no one ever" wanted to leave OBL alone, in the ironically titled blog entry "rewriting history".

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

you've reduced yourself to relying on mere validity
That's true, but when I can get responses like

go fuck yourself
I just can't give it up. Things like that is why I come out here to play.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

"In the spring of their sophomore year, when many Pomona students were starting to protest the war in Afghanistan"

And I'm pretty sure a couple of guys sitting in a bar expressed reservations about the war in Afghanistan. What weak-assed shit.

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn: You are still a lying cocksucker.

Tell us how you really feel, brewmn!

;-)

And the same leftists now argue we should have focused exclusively on Afghanistan because that is the only place on Earth were Al Qaida can be found.

No, liberals argued that Al Queda might be coming through our ports which have been left largely unguarded and underprotected because funds to do so were diverted to Iraq, which btw is not Afganistan where Bush himself said the planners of 9/11 were hiding, rather than being used to shore up port security and pursue the Al Queda leadership in the known hideout of the Al Queda leadership (as Bush himself proclaimed, not just liberals).

I know that for you lies are better than truth, but this is a pretty pathetic form of defamation even for you.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I'm thinking I'm in need of a ruling here. I've been limiting my links to US protests to the Afghanistan war, and passing over the overseas ones. Since I'm supposed to be showing the extent of protests, should I go back and pick up the foreign protests?

Demonstrators gathered to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
Colleges, universities and high schools around the nation joined the Wesleyan-led "National Day of Action," which was designed to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
Haverfords venerable Left-Out organization led a march on Washington to protest the war in Afghanistan last Friday [source]
a field organizer for the Student Peace Action Network, who will protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

It is evidence of Kevin Drum's out right lie that "absolutely no one ever" wanted to leave OBL alone,

can you find a link to someone who said "if we had left OBL alone, nothing bad would have happened" ?

not someone protesting the probable loss of civillian life, or the fact that we were likely to leave Afghanistan in shambles instead of trying to make sure it wouldn't remain a terrorist haven, etc.. show me someone who said "if we had left OBL alone, nothing bad would have happened".

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . since all protests are apparently not created equal . . .

That's been the conservative theory for years.

Now you're p*ssed that you are being held to it.

Too bad.

freedom f*cker: It is evidence of Kevin Drum's out right lie that "absolutely no one ever" wanted to leave OBL alone, in the ironically titled blog entry "rewriting history".

It is evidence of freedom f*cker's out right lie that he claims the only way to get OBL is through invasion and war, despite the fact that even that hasn't worked.

And what about that don't you understand, freedom f*cker?

Going to war in Afghanistan didn't result in the capture of the Al Queda leadership or its destruction.

So, it appears that your argument is that the protestors of the war didn't want to capture OBL, when in fact it seems more likely that those who favored the war didn't want to captuer OBL, since their plan for doing so has failed so miserably.

In fact, it could be argued that the methods preferred by the so-called ubiquitous protests (which at the time conservatives insisted were virtually non-existent, in attempting to prove broad support for the war - funny how the conservative view of so-called "massive protests" has changed over time - sorta like their definiton of "massive stockpiles" changed over time) were in fact more likely to result in OBL's capture or destruction than that of Bush and the war pussies (i.e., clamored for war, but didn't volunteer for it).

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut:

Do you call out your own name when you masturbate?

Posted by: brewmn on March 17, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

"You know, I'm thinking I'm in need of a ruling here. I've been limiting my links to US protests to the Afghanistan war, and passing over the overseas ones. Since I'm supposed to be showing the extent of protests, should I go back and pick up the foreign protests?"

Cleek's got an interesting line of argument. The protests against the war aren't really against the war, because like Kevin said, "absolutely no one ever" said we should leave OBL alone. Rather the protests are for the millions of Afghani deaths resulting from the invasion. So all those protests don't counts as anti-war protests.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Do you call out your own name when you masturbate?
Naw, I call out yours.

This month marks the three-year anniversary of the Boulder group Women in Black. Originally founded to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
The 56-hour fast is quite substantial in this respect because it is such a long fast, and furthermore, it demonstrates in a clear way the commitment of people opposed to the war against Afghanistan. [source]
The group formed immediately after 9/11 to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
over 60,000 people gathered to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
Organized by the Peace Response and coordinated with similar mobilizations in other cities, march to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
Nearly 50 people, mostly Northland College students, marched from campus to the U.S. Post Office on Main Street in Ashland Saturday to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
On Friday, a group of local patriotic citizens are gathering to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

the protests are for the millions of Afghani deaths resulting from the invasion
Oh, so they aren't against war, they're against people dying in wars.

Only from a moonbat.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bravo! howard, Gregory and all likeminded libs.

SecularAnimist,
Good observation on the Chuckles/Charlie/DonP/Cheney's and its many other blog whore incarnations. But, boy, you can really read through a thread fast by skipping over the dross that the trolls seem to think matters. LOL!

Regarding KD's post... I think Cliff May and Glenn Reynolds vy over who is the alpha cockroach on Planet Cockroach's "internets."

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"On Friday, a group of local patriotic citizens are gathering to protest the war in Afghanistan"

But, I always thought liberals called patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel. Are they now admitting they are scoundrels?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 17, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, what happened to all the friendly banter? I'm not nearly out of links yet.

Every Friday night for months, members from the Refuse and Resist Youth Network have come out to protest the war in Afghanistan [another busted link]
Columbias peace activists were out in force yesterday, four months after the United States started bombing Afghanistan, to protest the ongoing war against terrorism [source]
At least 75,000 protesters, most probably more than 100,000, were in DC to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
The Austin rally, sponsored by Austin Against War -- a coalition formed in September 2001 to protest the war in Afghanistan [source]
In an upstairs study room at the Drake Library a group of students plan how they can protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
Americans in every state have stepped forward to protest the war in Afghanistan. [source]
As we call attention to past US foreign policy that led to death and suffering worldwide, we also protest the war in Afghanistan [source]


Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 17, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

had to step out for a while, and i see, during the interim, conspiracy nut and freedom fighter demonstrated their sad inability to read the original argument. let's help them out, shall we?

Cliff May's moronic argument is that, for "years" people said that if we left Osama alone, nothing bad would have happened. It is clear that he means prior to 9/11, since after 9/11, something bad had happened.

so summoning up every link that google has to the limited numbers of anti-afghani war protests (given that the war had 90% support) is completely and totally irrelevant to cliff may's argument.

sadly, this is how so many right-wing arguments go: they're irrelevancies.

apollo 13, good to see you!

Posted by: howard on March 17, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

theAmericanist: If memory serves, Clinton twice went after bin Laden with weapons, and both times Republicans accused him of wagging the dog to distract from impeachment.

Why, yes, you're right! In fact, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent Nov. 12, 2005, post in rebuttal to InstaIdiot's it's unpatriotic to criticize Bush" trollspeak on this very subject.

You can hop on over to Glenn's Reminder of GOP Attacks on Clinton's Motives & Honesty re: Iraq & Kosovo to read through the Repub quotes attacking Clinton's military actions. A few worth noting [click Glenn's link for the linked sources to the below]:

This question asks itself in light of these patriotism attacks, because it wasn't too long ago that GOP politicians and pundits were making exactly these same allegations against President Clinton with respect to his decision to bomb Iraq, to shoot cruise missles at Osama bin Laden, and to intervene in Kosovo.
[...]
Rep. Dick Armey, GOP Majority Leader
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
Rep. Gerald Solomon (R - NY)
"It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."
Sen. Dan Coats
Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on Osama bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."
Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
The foregoing review of the Clinton Administration's prevarications on Kosovo would not be complete without a brief look at one other possible factor in the deepening morass. Consider the following fictional situation: A president embroiled in a sex scandal that threatens to bring down his administration. He sees the only way out in distracting the nation and the world with a foreign military adventure. So, he orders his spin-doctors and media wizards to get to work. They survey the options, push a few buttons, and decide upon a suitable locale: Albania.

Lots more goodies...from GOPer Paul Weyrich, the WSJ op/ed board, Trent Lott, Solomon, Folwer, Schlaffly, and more Repubs who the trolls on these threads would brand as unpatriotic traitors if they didn't live by the hypocritical double standard of IOKIYAR.

I love it!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 17, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

howard,
Ditto. Luck of the blarney to you, howard, since I'm half Irish on this here St. Paddy's day. Wishing you a pot of gold this fine Friday.

And the same to all you constitutional-loving liberals!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 17, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

apollo 13, in that case, top of the morning to you, and great cites! i'm sure conspiracy nut, freedom fighter, and tbrosz will find them edifying....

Posted by: hyoward on March 17, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Since I'm supposed to be showing the extent of protests, should I go back and pick up the foreign protests?

Why not, since you've previously tried to foist foreign activities or the statements of people from other countries off as indicative of what American liberals have done or said.

Go for it!

We won't think any less of you.

How could we, since you currently dwell at the bottom of intellectual thought already.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Well, take comfort that the 101st Keyboarders are balanced by a nice NYT piece today showing the realist fault lines in the Administration.

There's been a strong assertion that the meta-strategy of democracy building in the Mideast is going against American interests.

No link handy, but you can access the piece easily enough.

I'll take Fukuyama over Reynolds any day of the week :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 17, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I'm not nearly out of links yet.

But clearly out of brain cells.

Hint: links are not a substitute for brain cells.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

freedom f*cker: The protests against the war aren't really against the war, because like Kevin said, "absolutely no one ever" said we should leave OBL alone. Rather the protests are for the millions of Afghani deaths resulting from the invasion. So all those protests don't counts as anti-war protests.

Once again, even assuming any of your other facts are true or observations sound . . .

"leave OBL alone"

and

"anti-war in Afghanistan"

are not synonymous or mutually inclusive or even necessarily-related positions.

No matter how much you want to fantasize that they are.

No matter how much you lie about it.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

freedom f*cker: But, I always thought liberals called patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Actually it was Samuel Johnson, who was an Englishman in the early 1700s and, therefore, not an American liberal.

Your ignorance is truly on disply today, FF.

Or are you just a liar?

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The Austin rally, sponsored by Austin Against War -- a coalition formed in September 2001 to protest the war in Afghanistan

As usual, you provide a link to something which doesn't prove your point at all.

This is why I see no reason to follow any such links in the future.

It is a waste of time to follow a lie.

So, goodbye

To conspiracy nut linking.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: At least 75,000 protesters, most probably more than 100,000, were in DC to protest the war in Afghanistan

Another typical cn tactic . . .

. . . repeat an item offered in evidence as if it were a new bit of alleged evidence, thus double-dipping.

Posted by: A Muse Zing on March 17, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK
How could we, since you currently dwell at the bottom of intellectual thought already.

Conspiracy nut doesn't dwell anywhere in the neighorhood of "intellectual thought".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 17, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'll take Fukuyama over Reynolds any day of the week :) Posted by: rmck1

Seconded.

I've got a new book for you, Bob.

CIVILISATION: A New History of the Western World
by Roger Osborne
Jonathan Cape 20, 532 pages.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 17, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Can't America just go murder the whole world? Then, we won't have to worry about terrorism, communists, or brown savages!

Kill Everyone! White Power! White Power! White Power! U..S..A...U..S..A...U..S..A...U..S..A...U..S..A...
We like to suck cock and we'll make everyone suck cock!

Posted by: I luv usa on March 17, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

What planet do these people come from?

Planet Pompo-city

Posted by: JEDDI on March 17, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

What planet do these people come from?

Planet Pompo-city

Posted by: JEDDI on March 17, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Your falsely assert "absolutely no one ever said that about Osama bin Laden"

check your archives.

"October 13, 2004

GAFFE WATCH....I have to believe the biggest gaffe of the night was Bush's when he said:

Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those ex-a-gger-ations.

Of course, two years ago he said exactly that:

I dont know where he is. Nor you know, I just dont spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.

Bush's statement was obviously a lie, and it lends itself so well to a video comparison that it's probably going to get played over and over and over. It was a big mistake to give news and talk shows such a good excuse to play that old video again."

I am prepared to grant you that, in the past 10 years, probably only one person has been idiotic to say Osama Bin Laden is not a serious threat, and one is close to zero.

I'd call your assertion a gaffe which gave me a bad excuse to quote your Oct 13 2004 post. Not even in my dreams can I write as well as you do, so it gives me great pleasure to have an excuse to quote you.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on March 17, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

The doctrine of first strike.

Back in the fifties I was taught that only cowards strike first. Japs. Nazis. And every bad guy in every Western ever filmed. (And don't forget Bluto! :_) Striking first defines you.

So today I learn that the world's only remaining superpower, the most powerful military force on the planet, has just defined itself. It's not enough that we can beat up every kid on the playground. Apparently, we now think we have to throw the first punch, too. Any time, any where, against any one. (Unfortunately, I think we're gonna have to re-write the last line of the Star Spangled Banner. "Home of the brave," just doesn't have the same ring to it any more.)

I don't know about y'all, but I can't think of anything finer than to watch America officially adopt the Tinhorn Cowboy Doctrine. Makes me DAMN PROUD.

(I'm gettin' misty-eyed just thinking about it :-)

Posted by: curious on March 18, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly