Michael Barone discusses this a little today:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone112205.php3

From the Chicago Tribune editorial Mitch links to...

"Congress did not authorize this war in order to topple a dictator and then let his shell-shocked populace fend for itself. The point was--and is--to create a free, peaceful and democratic Iraq that will play a leading, positive role in the changing landscape of the Middle East."

At least there is one statement of truth in the editorial... Congress did not authorize this war in order to topple a dictator.

Doug, did you learn argumentation from Maureen Dowd?

The dependent clause contains the actual meaning of the sentence - which was part of what is for the ChiTrib an excellent editorial.

Paragraph 15 of the Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res 114) http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"

It would be nice if those who oppose the War would actually read the congressional joint resolution that authorized it.

Ummmm hmmmm...

Hey Mitch, what I posted was a snarky comment, not "argumentation".

God only knows how you were capable of acknowledging that the Chicago Trib piece was an editorial and not a news story.

Anywho... I'm off to help mom get ready for t-day and won't be back to piss in your Wheaties for a couple days. Hope you and yours all all safe, comfy and warm.

I hate to drop a plug, but Doug just said something relevant to a new post on my blog:

Turkey-Day. (At least Doug only called it T-Day.)

It strikes me as odd,as haveing to retake the same ground again and again is exactlly the knock most Vietnam vets have about the way we conducted that war. Of course it is also typical of a true insurgent style of war. Which maybe why the good Senator is suddenly all a twitter.
Arguably the bad guys have two soverign nations that will shelter them much the same as in Vietnam. And a percentage of the population in the cities in support.
But it's about here the comparison breaks down. There is no Soviet state that will pour billions of material aid into helping them as in Vietnam. Nor do they the years of building secret ways in and out of the country that are invible to observation. Tech has destroyed much of the advantage the VC & NVA had in Vietnam.
Plus the government that was corrupt is now gone not still in charge, and more of the population is investing in the new government.
Finally it should be noted that the government of South Vietnam only fell after the Democratic controled Congress refused to approve aid to them to fight off the SECOND invasion of thier country by the North, using more tanks them Hitler used to take Europe.
Now isn't it odd that someone who experenced that would want to repeat the same mistakes? Makes me wonder about the Senator.

"Remember in the run-up to and the early days of the Iraq war? John Dean, then running for President, insisted the proper path was for the US to deploy and for 130,000-odd troops from "Moderate Moslem" nations to handle the heavy lifting with Iraqi security."

You know, I don't remember that. The Watergate baggage must have knocked him out in the Iowa caucuses.

Pretty funny watching Cheney being all nice-nice about Murtha, after being reminded of his quintuple draft bypass.

Re: John Dean: I KNEW I'd do that, too.

Re deferments: So you favor military dictatorship?

Mitch..

My God, that last question is perhaps the most stupid baiting question you've ever uttered, and THAT is saying something.

Do you still beat your wife?

PB

Peeb,

You're developing (?) a really bad habit of leading with insults and burying whatever reason you might have.

Murtha's tirade against Cheney was so stupid, even HE apologized for it yesterday.

You're still backing it?

For those of you who want the Cliff Notes..

Asking a question that cannot be answered is the tactic of a jerk (at best).. like, so do you still beat your wife?

What if you never beat your wife.

Asking a dumbassed question like .. so, the only alternative to questioning people who pissed on the military and service earlier in thier lives is military dictatorship is not only absolutist bullcrap, it's insulting and demeaning.

Of course it's not the only alternative, but Mitch would insult you, his readers with this drivel and think you'll accept it as the thing folks who disagree with chicken-cheney are in favor of, but don't know it.

No, Mitch, we're in favor of a VP who doesn't lie his a$$ off to the American people about the risk of a "mushroom cloud" when the CIA told him Houssien WASN'T cooperating with Al Qaeda (go read the intell report they gave him and Congress), and wasn't any closer than 5 years (most likely 15-25 years) from an atomic device. We're also in favor of not having a President send troops to a situation that he was TOLD (as was Congress) would not successfully resolve itself given the vastly disparate factions unless other parties were involved.

Not that I'm shocked Mitch, as an absolutist and demeaning person would engage in conduct, but this naked is surprising.

So Mitch, to you then pointing out that many of the "leaders" have so clearly misplanned for the aftermath in Iraq that it raises the question of whether they actually give a crap about the military, our national reputation or our safety is advocating for totalitarianism but blindly following those "leaders" without dissent is the sure fired way to freedom and making sure the troops are safe. So Mitch do you still follow people blindly to prove you're free?

More than that, giving aid and comfort, really?? REALLY?? Hmmm... you mean attacking a SECULAR muslim nation uninvolved in 9/11, torturing captives, suspending Habeus Corpus (btw, they filed charges against Jose Padilla rather than lose again at SCOTUS), no THAT certainly didn't give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda...

Good God you are lame.

PB

Now he's CLOSING with insults, too.
lol

"[T]he only alternative to questioning people who pissed on the military and service earlier in thier lives is military dictatorship . . ."
This isn't the worst case of injecting polemic into a paraphrase that I've ever seen, but it's close.
Here's a Cheney timeline from a Slate written by Timothy Noah:

Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.

May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

Here's the first paragraph from a letter Bill Clinton sent to his commander in the Arkansas ROTC:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC. Let me try to explain.

An unfriendly timeline of Clintons history with the draft is here http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

Clinton famously deployed US troops to more hotspots than any previous president.

Peeb,

"For those of you who want the Cliff Notes.."

the day you write a "Cliff's Note", I'll turn a cartwheel down the hall.

"Asking a question that cannot be answered is the tactic of a jerk (at best).. like, so do you still beat your wife? "

It was a question that is quite easily answered: Murtha took a very low blow at Cheney, and admitted it himself. The only people who play the "chickenhawk" game - as Murtha himself realizes - are intellectually lazy or cowardly, or both.

"What if you never beat your wife."

Logical fallacy; the two are not remotely related. For someone like Murtha to attack a civilian - one who's done a great job as a leader, by the way - for something that he along with about 75% of the American male draft-age public did in one form or another is low-rent - low enough for Murtha himself to recognize it. To follow the "logic", it is inescapable to conclude that the only people who should comment on defense are veterans.

"Asking a dumbassed question like .. so, the only alternative to questioning people who pissed on the military and service earlier in thier lives is military dictatorship is not only absolutist bullcrap, it's insulting and demeaning."

Then you need a thicker skin, Peebs. You toss the intellecually-lazy "Chickenhawk" meme around with *more* gusto, not less, than most; you should expect to be hoist on it with equal gusto.

"No, Mitch, we're in favor of a VP who doesn't lie his a$$ off to the American people about the risk of a "mushroom cloud" when the CIA told him Houssien WASN'T cooperating with Al Qaeda (go read the intell report they gave him and Congress), and wasn't any closer than 5 years (most likely 15-25 years) from an atomic device."

A very curious reading of the facts, by the way - selective as always.

WMD were not, ever, never the only justification for deposing Iraq.

And since when is the CIA the ultimate arbiter of reality, especially since the Brits, the Frogs and the Russians...

...well, if you cared about facts in the least you wouldn't still be pursuing the "Administration Lied" meme, which is as full of holes as Uday.

" We're also in favor of not having a President send troops to a situation that he was TOLD (as was Congress) would not successfully resolve itself given the vastly disparate factions unless other parties were involved.

TOLD...by whom? C'mon, Peeb, don't be dowdifying, here!

"Not that I'm shocked Mitch, as an absolutist and demeaning person would engage in conduct, but this naked is surprising."

Just as an aside; the notion that you are yipping about *me* being an absolutist is a level of irony that, I'm sure, escapes most of this blog's readers. Let me assure the reader; yow, this is ironic.

"So Mitch, to you then pointing out that many of the "leaders" have so clearly misplanned..."

Change of subject ignored.

"More than that, giving aid and comfort, really?? REALLY??"

Yes, really, REALLY. You don't think having a date to shoot for isn't of direct benefit to the Jihad? Go ahead, run with that point. This should be good.

" Hmmm... you mean attacking a SECULAR muslim nation..."

Irrelevant.

"... uninvolved in 9/11,..."

Irrelevant; terrorism is bigger than one plot.

" torturing captives,..."

Irrelevant, and done on a tiny scale by people acting on their own, except in cases that are only "torture" in settings best described as "social services"; if Sleep Deprivation is "torture", then every lockup in the US is guilty of much worse.

" suspending Habeus Corpus (btw, they filed charges against Jose Padilla rather than lose again at SCOTUS)...."

As it should be, and which proves that the system works; Padilla was a US citizen. Non-citizens captured in action against US forces in a war zone have no right under US or International Law to Habeas Corpus.

" no THAT certainly didn't give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda..."

By your logic, Peeb, every bomb we drop and every raid we launch "aids" and "comforts" them, and inaction is the only sensible option.

So vote for Howard Dean! But don't call it logic, and don't say you're not peddling re-heated twaddle circa 2003.

"Good God you are lame."

Peeb, I've been keeping this at a wink and a nudge level so far. To me, the blog and my comment section are nothing personal; just business. I've even let quite a few things that any reasonable person would consider personal attacks slide right on by; it's only business.

Do try to reciprocate in that spirit, if you don't mind terribly.

Your response is so disconnected as to be..

Irrelevant.

PB

As for your ridiculous argument "ideas like the Murtha plan are worse than wrong" all ideas therefore which seek to require the President to identify trigger events (and/or dates) for US withdrawal are wrong.. well, that's just absolutist crap and Irrelevant.

The better question is whether this administration has ANY intent to leave, ever. They give passing lip-service to the idea, while constructing 14 permanent bases. Clearly, they not only don't want a time table, they don't want to withdraw, so the objection is not in truth about setting a point past which the insurgency simply must survive, it's really about being forced to leave control of a nation they desperately want to control, to a government that, once our forces leave, may not be inclined to be controlled.

But let's go with your dumb question. First Mitch, by your arguement, you assume that ANY plan which sets a date or target, implies that whatever is in place will never be able to control it, as if this target is "when the Iraqi governement is stable" or "when the Iraqi Army has 100 active battalions" with a target date for that (see targets don't mean much if they don't have teeth), by your absurd argument AFTER that target the insurgency STILL will be able, in fact will simply have been waiting, for that day. Why wouldn't they wait for that day now? The President has already said that's HIS target, he just won't set a target date, thereby rendering his target both moot and purely rhetorical. Your point implies that the Iraqis will NEVER be capable of maintaining their own stability, as any target based on the assumption of that stability would simply be a date the insurgency would wait for.

But let's go further into your idiotic point, it also suggests that our leaving is the BEST POSSIBLE outcome for the insurgents. It may be, in one regard, in that it will prove Bin Laden right again, who has already been proven right by Bush several times, as Bin Laden said we didn't have the stomach to fight. But our presence in Iraq is also one big recruiting poster, so perhaps our leaving wouldn't be in fact such a great thing for the INSURGENTS (it might help Al Qaeda, but that's not entirely the same thing, some insurgents are Al Qaeda (a very small number), but most aren't. Our leaving might very well help stabilize Iraq (our supposed goal). In reality, you claim omniscience here by saying that setting a date is going to result in a disasterous collapse immediately following our withdrawal no matter the state of Iraq, and further, that it will bolster the insurgents despite the reports that MUCH of what fuels the insurgents is our presence. It is with wisdom like this, ingoring the best advice of intelligence, that we invaded in the first place. Remind me not to put you in charge of anything important, you won't listen to experts.

Regardless, I happen to agree setting a date is a poor idea, but saying ANY and EVERY plan for a targetted withdrawal is giving aid to the enemy is moronic and crass. Frankly, not having some sort of target leaves the issue so open ended that it challenges credibility (and our credibility ain't exactly smellin rosey). Targets may be missed if the Iraqi's fail, or we fail, in our challenges, but it gives an honest goal, and puts pressure on an administration to live up to its word - something it seems sorely lacking in the ability to do.

As for "just business" you went WAY beyond Just buisness when you accused me of trumpetting my service around undeservedly, when you questioned my patriotism.. no Mitch, YOU crossed that line first. Prior to that I qaulified my comments (or tried very hard to) to exclude you from generalizations, I tried hard to exclude you from personal insult, but you bridged that one very nicely thank you very much.. and so, once again, you are the hypocrite... try to achieve your own spirit, and maybe you'll get that treatment... kinda like the cartwheel thingie..

I've tried to forgive you those comments, but you just KEEP making more of em'.

I haven't used Chicken-Hawk to any great degree (for example), yet you accuse me of such. I've restated the comments from others.. and yes I called Dick Cheney chicken-cheney, but you might want to review back a ways, that was one of the few times the I'VE said it. Not that it hasn't happened, but it's not a common utterance.

Whatever, you ignore the facts and points you don't like.. such as the misleadership into Iraq, and OH BTW, yes actually WMD WAS the justification for war in Iraq. It was the concept behind pre-emption (you remember that don't you?) it was the reason Bush gave in December 2002, as, and this is paraphrased, ultimately even if all other reasons for removing Houssien (all other UN discussions) are set aside, it is his non-compliance with accounting for his WMD that they will act upon. So Mitch, actually, yes WMD was the reason, your revisionism notwithstanding.

On Padilla, "Padilla proves the system works"??!! OMG, this is laughable. Padilla served 3 years in prison without charge, with an administration that REFUSED to bring charges, saying it was perfectly legal and constitutional to do so, and now your defense is that "well the system worked." Would you excuse Bush murdering 10 billion people if later the system charged him with murder by saying the system worked? The question was NEVER whether the system would work - that comment was utterly irrelevant - in fact it was PRECISELY because it would work that the administration charged him. The issue is the conduct of the administration, that it was FORCED to adhere the constitution, rather than wilfully subscribe to it. Your words indicate someone who'd find a lame-brained excuse for anything and then trumpet it ad infinitum.

Regarding beating your wife.. stop using such infantile argument, and I'll stop treating your arguments like they are infantile.

and Badda (and Mitch), if you don't want to be insulted, please stop calling me a traitor for being offended at how sorely used, ill-used, and contemptuously used, our military is being used, by this President. I doubt anything I've said to you Mitch quite goes to that level... but then again.. I guess it's just Irony that you'd complain about being insulted after calling people traitors. Get thicker skin.

PB

PB,
Where and when have I called you a traitor? You've got some work ahead of you.

PB,
By the way, it would help if you would respond to my request by limited the number of paragraphs you use down to thirteen.

Again, where and when have I called you a traitor? I'm asking because I have no idea.

Badda, you are right, you didn't, you just got offended(entertained?) on Mitch's behalf, my apology.

PB

No problem.
I was entertained, to be sure... just read my comments more carefully in future. ;)

By way of expanding on Padilla for a moment..

Your readers should ask themselves if you are being genuine and honest with them with your response, and from it, whether you in fact, respect them.

You see, Padilla was jailed for three years by this Administration. It claimed it's actions were both Constitutional and correct. Yet, when the question was about to be settled by SCOTUS, this "strong leader" this "person not driven by polls" blinked. Rather than argue their case they said they knew was right for three years, they filed charges precisely because they KNEW what they were doing was not constitutional and would lose, and yet THEY DID IT ANYWAY. They ignored the Constituiton, knowingly. This moral man, this man of strong principals, pissed on one of the MOST important freedoms we have, so important it is one of the pre-eminant mandates of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps his morality is not quite so lilly-white (actually it's not even lotus white or black-matter white) he argues points he does not believe in, and breaks laws he knows he's breaking..

It's too bad the SCOTUS can't reprimand the Administration for it's conduct, but it won't because the question before it is now moot. But the question of the conduct of the administration, knowingly, willfully demagauging basic civil rights, is not moot, and it does, unfortunately, make us look both at home and abroad like we don't actually believe in those words, and will only live up to them when forced to.

Badda, if you're scoring at home, that's 3 paragraphs..

And Mitch, arguing specious points and pretending you believe in them seems to be a pattern with the right, care to explain that conduct?

PB

PB-
Using caps inappropriately is 'lame'.

Oh, and PB, if you've ever taken a poli-sci 101 course you would know that the executive branch is co-equal with the judicial branch, that the executive branch holds extraordinary powers in wartime, and that the limits of these 'extraordinary' powers are not well defined. Only a PARANOID LUNATIC would read the normal give-and-take between the judicial branch and the Justice Department as proof of the administration's incompetence and/or wickedness.
And I'm not mocking you with the caps in 'PARANOID LUNATIC', It's an homage.

PB: "Good God you are lame."

Then why in the hell do you keep reading Mitch's blog and posting here?

Why waste the calories by moving your fingers to type out (wordy) responses?

Terry,

The SCOTUS took up your argument and flatly refuted your claim.. The powers of the executive in wartime are not limitless... in fact they are bound by the Constitution, and almost without exception, so bound.

Bill C... because the OTHER readers of this page deserve to understand there are valid arguments against the tripe Mitch trowels out. That it bothers you, is not really a reason to stop. That it is lame, is definetely not one. In fact, it is the reason to continue.

If Mitch decided, FOR ONCE, to actually admit the flaws, and engage in real discourse, versus the lame wife-beating kinds of arguments he uses, people like me would probably stop calling him an imbecile.

Oh, and BTW - Mitch..

The security adviser to Iraq's president says he was called by a man claiming to be an insurgent and wanting to talk with the government. Meanwhile, a diverse group of Iraqi leaders called for a solid U.S. troop withdrawal timetable to be drawn up.

I guess those diverse group of Iraqi leaders are also traitors giving aid and comfort to the enemy.. go tell them so yourself.

PB

PB-
I never said that the president's powers were limitless, only that its limits in wartime were poorly defined. Do you disagree with this? Do you agree? You probably don't know enough to make any statement on the matter. Don't make strawman arguments with me or you'll only end up looking more foolish.
SCOTUS, by the way, has agreed in the past that suspending habeus corpus in wartime was okay, that interning American citizens was constitutional, and that the forced return of escaped slaves from free states to slave states was A-Okay. SCOTUS has legal, not moral, authority over the interpretation of the constitution.

"If Mitch decided, FOR ONCE, to actually admit the flaws and engage in real discourse,"

Sorry, Peeb. This is not a debate. This is my blog. It's not about "discourse", although plenty of it happens.

And there's an entire mainstream media out there working to "admit" the "flaws"; they don't need my help.

" versus the lame wife-beating kinds of arguments he uses, people like me would probably stop calling him an imbecile."

First, peeb, there was nothing "wife beating" about my original point.

And I'm going to reiterate my original request, nicely, just one more time.

"The security adviser to Iraq's president says he was called by a man claiming to be an insurgent and wanting to talk with the government. Meanwhile, a diverse group of Iraqi leaders called for a solid U.S. troop withdrawal timetable to be drawn up."

Right. IT'S POLITICS. Even Iraq has a left wing. That's how politics work in a free society.

You know - the kind your side is passively if not actively working to destroy.

"I guess those diverse group of Iraqi leaders are also traitors giving aid and comfort to the enemy.. go tell them so yourself."

When did you stop beating your wife?

Let me be perfectly clear here:

PB: Since you started commenting, you have continually pushed stories that were debunked years ago. No problem, that's what keeps DU and Daily Kos in business.

Then you carried out most "discussions" via continuous, grinding assaults of strawmen, recycled long-debunked buncombe and talking points. Which, again, is fine; it's all Atrios does, either.

Then you trafficked in the "Chicken Hawk" meme. Dumb and intensely insulting, but whatever.

Then, you opted to take personally a statement that was aimed at the likes of International ANSWER: the "people who don't care for the military at any other time" would be pretty absurd to aim at most veterans, right? But you've chosen to spend the last few days, and a lot of bandwidth, sputtering over an perceieved insult that (I wanna make sure you get this) NEVER EXISTED, which added a lot of heat to the discussion but ZERO light. None. Zip.

You've called me a chicken hawk (ignoring the actual facts, which I've presented here over and over), you've hijacked thread after thread...

...and now you're getting into personal insults.

Can you see why your calling *me* an "imbecile" isn't really especially cutting to the quick?

No Mitch.. what you said was that those who use chicken hawk care in inverse proportion to the military, which, just as you've said, includes me.

Further, you've said those who support a target date for withdrawal are giving aid and comfort to the enemy - again that's me -and that's calling me a traitor.

Regardless of that, you've repeatedly insulted me as well Mitch, perhaps you recall insulting my military service, knowledge, and usage of it?

and yes, I agree, it's not exactly cutting to the quick, because you are not an opinion which I hold in high regard any longer. I take it you feel similarly based on your comment.

Regardless, get thicker skin.. as for long-debunked.. I challenged you on that a couple of threads ago.. which one precisely was long-debunked, by whom?

As for the term imbecilic.. is that better or worse than "irrelevant and stupid"

You made this personal over and over again LONG before I did... sorry, but them's the facts. You did it directly, and you did it apparently unintentionally indirectly and thus collossally foolishly (the infering I'm a traitor thing). So tell me, do you think I'm a traitor for believing that having the President actually be held to a goal is a good thing?

Once again, you live in a glass house, and don't like the view.

PB

The one thing I'm waiting to find out is this: PB, when did YOU stop beating your wife (husband, dog kid, whatever)?
Life as an angry moonbat must really suck.

I don't know about PB, but I wish whoever's doing it would stop beating MY wife!

"No Mitch.. what you said was that those who use chicken hawk care in inverse proportion to the military, which, just as you've said, includes me."

Um, no. I mean, if you want to be all hypersensitive and dramatic, sure - take all the offense you want. None was intended, in general and in specific to you, but again, feel free to blow things waaaaay out of proportion.

"Further, you've said those who support a target date for withdrawal are giving aid and comfort to the enemy - again that's me -and that's calling me a traitor."

No, it's saying that it makes Zarqawi and the head-hackers feel warm and fuzzy inside. You want to blow it out of proportion? I mean, it IS a nice convenient strawman argument to obscure the actual point (a premature pullout date WOULD be a nice Christmas present to the head-hackers and suicide bombers), right?

If you want to make it into a personal attack, I can't control that - but at least have the argument by yourself, k?

"Regardless of that, you've repeatedly insulted me as well Mitch, perhaps you recall insulting my military service, knowledge, and usage of it?"

No, I don't. It has never knowingly happened. Period. Please enlighten me...

...er, no. Don't. I have never "insulted" you on any of those levels, beyond perhaps the odd jocularity or, in some cases, your overheated reaction. I apologize for any *unintentional* slights delivered by a misunderstood quip, but no, there has absolutely never been an insult intended.

Yet.

"and yes, I agree, it's not exactly cutting to the quick, because you are not an opinion which I hold in high regard any longer. I take it you feel similarly based on your comment."

Again, Peeb, I don't care. It's a *comment section in a blog*. I TRY to keep it all business, not personal. I have bigger things in which to be invested, frankly. I've been on the wrong end of much worse abuse; I keep it all pretty much in perspective. I urge you to try it.

"as for long-debunked.. I challenged you on that a couple of threads ago.."

I gotta confess that in the midst of some loooong workdays, I probably skipped a couple of your more Tolstoiian efforts.

" which one precisely was long-debunked, by whom?"

The Bush Lied meme, for one; by the 9/11 commission, by Tony Blair, and by the public record of the actions of the UN, UK, USSR, the US House and Senate, the Clinton Administraiton, and by enough commentators to fill a small town.

Wretchard summed it up fairly well yesterday:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/11/pre-war-intelligence.html

"As for the term imbecilic.. is that better or worse than "irrelevant and stupid"

I prefer "poopyhead". It brings me back to my childhood.

Call me any name you want. I have 3,000 readers a day, of which a solid 1,200 would probably disagree with you.

"You made this personal over and over again LONG before I did... sorry, but them's the facts."

No, them's the personal impressions. Sorry, but if you take any commentary on a blog personally, you need a radical perspective transplant. I have NEVER insulted you in any way, shape or form.

"You did it directly, and you did it apparently unintentionally indirectly and thus collossally foolishly (the infering I'm a traitor thing)..."

Which, again, never happened.

"So tell me, do you think I'm a traitor for believing that having the President actually be held to a goal is a good thing?"

I'll answer when you stop beating your wife.

"Once again, you live in a glass house, and don't like the view."

Ah, so you're clairvoyant, too?

Take a deep breath.

"I gotta confess that in the midst of some loooong workdays, I probably skipped a couple of your more Tolstoiian efforts."

I may have to steal this. Thanks in advance.

chicken hawks. CHICKEN HAWKS! cHiCkEn hAwKs!!!!!

(Just a science experiment to see if Mitch's head explodes.)

Mmmm. Chicken. AND Hawk!

Almost lunchtime!

There's something the Clown can agree with. Each in its own unique way - all of God's creatures is delicious.

Bill C... because the OTHER readers of this page deserve to understand there are valid arguments against the tripe Mitch trowels out. That it bothers you, is not really a reason to stop. That it is lame, is definetely (sic) not one. In fact, it is the reason to continue.
---PB, 11/22/05
---------------------------------------------
PB, for someone so much in earnest for making valid arguments to balance "the tripe Mitch trowels out," you might try making one. Your rantings here mostly demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about, that you just make stuff up. With great regularity which suggests some disorder, all you impart here is an infantile rage revealing the embarrassing inadequacy of your education, both in form and content, and your inability to follow or present a logical sequence. When facts in the public record are presented that contradict your delusional assertions, you then resort to self-absorbed victimhood and return insult and ridicule to your detractors while pretending to appeal for civility. Your method does nothing to advance your position or that of your fellow travelers, but instead undermines the debate and destroys the validity of any point (is there a point?) you might be legitimately trying to make. You have become here, whether you realize it or not, a self-parody of every liberal cliche and stereotype from Jane Fonda to Cindy Sheehan. That you frequently invoke your military service but continue to miss the irony only more proves the point.

Being as it is that you have held yourself out to be some kind of expert in military affairs, world history, and national security policy, would it not be better, for instance, that you enlighten the rest of us as to the merits of the Democrat strategy of announcing troop withdrawals in the middle of a war? Or explain how it is a good thing to have the intelligence services and State Department in conflict with the White House? Or why elected representatives and government officials should be subjected to prosecution on the basis of gossip, laws not in existence at the time of the "crime," and for abiding by the rules of the Senate Ethics Committee?

The answer is you can't because logic and reason prevent it. Your frame of reference is so flawed that your only available response is just more insult and ridicule amidst the delusional notion that your readers' observations of what you have written directly, or indirectly implied, somehow are intended as insult. They are not, particularly in Mitch's case, who has established a new standard of patience, tolerance, and good humor by allowing you to continue to demonstrate the vacuous and spurious arguments that today characterize the American Left and that, unfortunately for our country, provide the foundation for what remains of the Democratic Party and its allies currently being defeated in Europe and the Middle East.

There is indeed a role for dissent and valid opposition to current U.S. policies, as it affirms the virtues of our democracy. The point is you haven't found it and your continued fallacious arguments and vitriolic polemics in the comments section of this blog do nothing but violence to the people who have.

Mmmmmm...delicious tripe.

Good ol' Eracus...a breath of fresh air!

Ok Eracus.. I'll give it a go..

As for not knowing what I'm talking about.. ok..sure..whatever. I know at least as much as Mitch who openly admits to only presenting information supporting his biased position, and refusing to analyze anything else... hmm...yep.. that's some factual stuff there.

Oh one quick thing - Mitch -
When the subject comes up, who is the FIRST person to refer to his 12 years of military service? And yet were you combat?

Gee Mitch - think maybe suggesting that I'm wearing my service on my sleeve might be insulting? More than that, in that same post you said I called everyone in Basic, ROTC, or any other training, a coward, I didn't and frankly, it was low and vulgar of you. So actually Mitch, yes you did question the value of my service - and my usage or reference to it. Further.. you also implied that compared to your Old pal fingers, I was ill-informed about something I think you know full well I'm one helluva lot more informed than the even the average enlisted person... but again.. whatever.. you don't seem to care if you offend, you just keep writing offensive things and hide behind the "But, but, I didn't mean to offend when I called your wife a whore" argument. Some things are out of bounds Mitch, suggesting I'm aggrandizing my service (and ignorant of it) is punk crap, had you been in the room, I'd have hit ya.

Ok Eracus.. where were we..

Being as it is that you have held yourself out to be some kind of expert in military affairs (yes, in certain areas)

world history, (nope, never said that, where would you like to invent that from?)

and national security policy - Nope, never said that.

would it not be better, for instance, that you enlighten the rest of us as to the merits of the Democrat(IC) strategy of announcing troop withdrawals in the middle of a war?

Ok, first, you've mistated my position. I SAID I DON'T FAVOR that first, and second, that I favor announcing target dates as we are not supposedly there forever... and Gosh, look what happened, the Pentagon announced just such a thing today... I guess they are a bunch of traitors too.

Or explain how it is a good thing to have the intelligence services and State Department in conflict with the White House?

Umm.. when did I say it was Good.. No, it was YOU who said it was the disloyal CIA that caused all this mess, misleading the President and Vice (actually you implied the later). I DONT think it's good, I do think it happened (as do you), but unlike you.. and this is the actual issue I don't think the CIA was sand-bagging Cheney.. see you need to explain why they were..I think instead Cheney (et.al.) selected intelligence they wanted to view, and hid facts until the last possible moment or from as many as they could get away with.. and the CIA knew it and resented taking the blame for it. So yes, conflict started between the CIA and the White House.. on whose head does the fault for that lie is the only issue.

Or why elected representatives and government officials should be subjected to prosecution on the basis of gossip

Hmm...let's see... because they carelessly handled secrets, because they wilfully engaged in retaliation against a whistle-blower.

, laws not in existence at the time of the "crime,"

That's a valid point, Delay should not have been so charged.. no argument.. but the reason that I can't argue that point is because I agree with it, not because.. let's see..my "frame of reference is so flawed that your only available response is just more insult and ridicule". Wow... I guess that's reason and logic for you, but you're right, Mitch is the ONLY one who has shown patience and forebearance.

"and for abiding by the rules of the Senate Ethics Committee? "

I don't believe anyone has yet been prosecuted for the charge of "abiding by the rules of the Senate Ethics Committee" would you refresh my memory here? Honestly, I'm not familiar with your case.. oh, you mean Bill Frist, yep I'm sure that they just invented the law that made him state he was unaware of the assets of his "blind" trust when in fact he received updates on exactly what the assets were.. see that's not exactly complying.. it's not complying at all.

"They are not, particularly in Mitch's case, who has established a new standard of patience, tolerance, and good humor by allowing you to continue to demonstrate the vacuous and spurious arguments that today characterize the American Left "

First, if Mitch's patience is so extreme, I only started being personal about two weeks ago..yet, I've been subject to this kind of response from people like you for oh since I started posting in what May? He of course says nothing in my defense..so it seems like pretty partial patience. Beyond that, to have a military sychophant like Mitch lecture me about devaluing service is oh.. I don't know.. PROFOUNDLY insulting.. but yep.. he's patient all right.. and a fine example of the logical, well thought through, on-topic, consistent and civil Right you have shown yourself to be by this post. You certainly didn't engage in insults in the past.. your arguements here (and elsewhere) certainly didn't misrepresent the reality.. hmm..vacuous and spurious .. that's nice..

PB

"First, if Mitch's patience is so extreme, I only started being personal about two weeks ago.."

Wow. I'd only noticed this last couple of days (except for your little "chickenhawk" defamation - but I figure anyone who's that hard up for a point needs a gimme once in a while).

"yet, I've been subject to this kind of response from people like you for oh since I started posting in what May? He of course says nothing in my defense.."

Er, I very rarely "defend" anyone in this forum. Partly because it's their job, partly because I really don't have time. I'm not Kathy at Romper Room.

"so it seems like pretty partial patience."

Erhm, no. I'm as patient with people attacking each other as I am with those attacking me.

" Beyond that, to have a military sychophant like Mitch lecture me about devaluing service is oh.. I don't know.. PROFOUNDLY insulting.."

Oh, good Lord. Now, I've had enough. Really.

Sycophant? I've had a long-standing interest in military history, by your leave. Is that OK, my liege?

Tell you what, Peeb; online communication sucks. When people get online, their inhibitions drop through the floor (I know! I've already deleted three or four obscene, but fitting, responses to the defamation above!). Do yourself a favor, PB; take a deep breath and read your crap over once before you hit "post". It might make you look a whole lot less...fevered?

I didn't lecture you or devalue anything; if anything, I've been *excessively deferential* to your military service, especially inasfar as your views conflict with those of friends of mine who served and are serving in combat now. (And as long as respect for military authority is such an issue, please read the month-old thread where you just left the comment about an hour ago anyway).

" but yep.. he's patient all right.. and a fine example of the logical, well thought through, on-topic, consistent and civil Right you have shown yourself to be by this post."

Puh-leeze. You dish it out in heaps and piles, by your own admission (two weeks? Ho-lee cow) to say nothing of the frankly bogus information that makes up so many of your screeds (screeds which I, by the way, welcome without reservation, and whose bandwidth I pay for). You expect...what?

" You certainly didn't engage in insults in the past.. your arguements here (and elsewhere) certainly didn't misrepresent the reality.. hmm..vacuous and spurious .. that's nice.."

PB, I have two kids who take up a lot of time. I have a pretty high-speed job (very much unlike the one I had for most of the past year, if you know what I mean). Could I have refuted 80% of what you've written in screed after screed after screed? Sure. I have the time or personal bandwidth? No. Do you make the odd good point? Of course. Do I believe that you are one of those people who grow fangs online that you'd have the class never display in public, and perhaps haven't developed the self-discipline to control yet? I'd hope so.

I continue to welcome your input.

First Mitch..

As for deference and patience online. You are nearly completely lacking, so getting advice from you is hardly something I'll take as an immediate action point.

If you don't like being called a sychophant, tough, get thicker skin... I think that was your comment to me.. you blow things WAYYYY out of proportion.

What you don't get is that you really, really insulted me, really really, and you did so carelessly, but worse, you offered a back-handed apology.

Now here's a real apology.. I DID in fact infer that you were asking others to do what you wouldn't.. it was cheap..and I don't excuse my tone by blaming you. I apologize for it.

Now as for the rest...

Of course your response is.. relax.. after all, it was you who accused me of devaluing service.. I'm sure that's nice and comfy for you.. Mitch, "Hey jackass.. your mama's a whore.. now wait.. relax.. you're much too uptight."

But sure Mitch, duck the fact that you said you didn't insult my use of my service, deny that you didn't insult me regarding the military and my understanding of it.. no wait.. you chose to focus on "sychophant" because you can't in fact defend the fact that you DID in fact insult me and yet said you didn't..whatever.

BTW - my facts are flawed... hmmm.. oh yeah, the Bush lied line.. well see, there's just this little thing.. it's called building a rhetorical trick... disprove a negative or I'll invade, and I was always intending too, after all the UN is irrelevant, but hey, war IS my last option, except that Downing showed pretty clearly it wasn't at all his last option. And then there's this, the fact that the CIA didn't say Houssien was about to attack us or give WMD to Al Qaeda unless the regime were in imminent danger of falling.. but Bush SAID they were giving weapons to Al Qaeda, that they were on the virge of being able to attack us, that they were cooperating with Al Qaeda, a fact the CIA disputed then and now. NO, he cherry-picked facts to his suiting..kinda like you do.. and you know, I just happen to think lies of ommission are just as important as lies of commission. If I leave out the fact that the vast preponderence of our best intelligence says that Houssien is HIGHLY unlikely to attack us, keep it out of the hands of Democrats until the very last day, and then go before the country and say he in fact IS going to attack us based on a very unsubstantiated intell source.. THAT'S A LIE. I have purposefully misled..so yes, I guess my rants.. screeds if you like... have no facts other than the facts themselves.

As for screed, Mitch, your entire blog is a self-admitted screed. You propose completely biased media, presenting ONLY favorable information, and attacking anyone who disagrees, including insulting them.. but yep.. I'm the ONLY one issueing screed.. at least Mitch, my posts.. my "need to take a deep breath" posts, present criticisms of BOTH sides.. at least I admit the flaws of the left as well as the right.. so in terms of evenhandedness, rationality.. I think I might have you beat.

What frankly bogus other information then?? as the Bush lied thing... well, it ain't bogus.. he omitted important, critical facts, and said he looked at invasion as a last resort, when it is now abundantly clear, he did no such thing. In your opinion it's bogus..but then again, that's just opinion.

As two weeks, actually, it was more like 3 plus, but yep, see I'm more civil than the other folks who normally post here.. it was only in the past couple of days that I crossed the line sufficiently for you to even notice.. but sure I'm the one who lets fangs loose..

I have one reply, Mr. Tepes.. your coffin awaits..

And oh btw, I have 2 kids, and I think I can reasonably say every bit as high-pressure job as you.. you post intra-day, no differently than I. You don't duck 80% of the issues because you don't have time.. you duck them, and you admitted it, because you don't care to discuss issues which reflect poorly on your side. That is the real reason.. and none other.

PB

So here's the thing:

http://usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-23-iraq-reality_x.htm

In November 2002, I said to a conservative friend of mine, the issue in Iraq will not be the fight itself, it will be the before and after. It seems clear this administration has no plan for the after.

I said to a different friend.. I believe Houssien probably has WMD, but he's almost certain to NOT give them to Al Qaeda, but.. what if he doesn't, the President's position, that we'd go to war UNLESS Houssien provided proof of their destruction, means that Houssien CAN'T avoid war. It turns out, this is EXACTLY what the situation was. There is no evidence whatsoever that Houssien in a rush destroyed massive amounts of WMD just before, or as, we invaded. The reason Houssien was unlikely to give WMD to Al Qaeda was that he was a secular leader, despised by Bin Laden, and knew it. He feared those weapons would wind up in the hands of people who would use them against him (or could). This opinion was echoed by the CIA in Jan 2003...but yes, I'm long debunked..

Further, regarding lies, the 3000 litres of Anthrax and 30,000 gallans of VX referred to by Bush, and cited in the UN Resolution from 1991, were made PRIOR to the 1991 War.. and were inert within 6 months of it's conclusion. We have no substantive evidence he produced more weapons. Our essential basis for war was that he did not provide proof of the destruction of these weapons...these inert "weapons." (this is the opinion of the investigation into the intell presented before the war). Again, this was validated by an independent report presented on HBO and Showtime earlier this year which used among others, David Kay, as it's source, along with several intelligence analysts and international arms inspectors.

Now, this story points out that what was once referred to as the "best" outcome; a divided Iraq of isolated factions, is perhaps possible. I'm glad, in truth, ecstatic..though of course, this outcome is not certain.

The other part this leaves out is that to achieve this, likely we'll have to leave... I wonder if we will..

Anyway.. this is FAR better than Civil War..it's a shame we keep propping up Chalabi - that's an aside and a mistake - but it sounds like the U.S. Ambassador actually has real interest in succeeding, and I'm ecstatic. I won't lie, I take some small pleasure in watching Bush twist, but I take no pleasure in the deaths of servicemen, and I certainly take no pleasure in the thought of an autocratic Shiia or Sunni government. We may get that in the Shiia area, but hopefully not the whole country.

The point though is, this IS the best outcome and even semi-literate, semi-educated people on the Middle-East, of which I'd like to think of myself, understood it BEFORE we went in. The rosey picture painted by the President prior to and shortly after the fighting with Saddam ended, was a farce, and quite frankly, if I could figure it out, a deception of the first order. Call that debunked if you like, by what is my question.

The long and short is, this was MUCH different than Bush sold us, but probably not much different than we should have expected. If Bush wilfully lied, he's criminal, if he fooled himself, he's incompetent..and that's no one's fault but his own. The evidence was available, it was even easily seen, most of the rest of the world was screaming it from the mountain tops, we got very nearly precisely what was expected.. Sunnii resentment, Baathist insurgency..Shiaa fundamentalism, Kurdish requests for an independent state.

The issue is that this administration expected something different, and made one bungle after another (firing the Iraqi Army, declaring all former baathists could not serve in government, having too few troops to secure even vital ammunition depots), and we got 3 years of hell that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE because there are in fact some good and decent Iraqis, will work out to a weak government and uneasy truce between Sunni and Shiaa. The thing is though, other than toppling Houssien himself, the outcome is not because of us, but in spite of us, or more correctly, as I feel the efforts of the troops were very important, in spite of our Administration and it's politico sychophants messing the dang thing up at nearly every turn, and having no plan for how to make this outcome happen. It took Iraqis to decide to get this done, not us, and this President (and his staff) are accountable for the failure Iraq has been, for the needless loss of life, the poor planning, not Rep. Murtha, not me, not Mitch, the President, everything else written here, EVERYTHING, is just a dodge.

PB

P.S. If you don't believe I said those things or held those opinions, I frankly don't care. I know full well what I said, and what was in my heart. and no, it doesn't make me a "supposed" expert, it merely means I actually read more than the Washington Times and the National Review.. try it sometime.

Yes, by all means, PB, do please continue. Your most recent post so thoroughly illustrates my point that I could not have expressed it better myself. Your uninterrupted stream of disjointed verbiage amounts to nothing more than the parsing of words and some wounded bird peeping on about injuries mostly imagined. Since you can't follow my argument (or Mitch's), you just make up your own.

So in response to your question, "Ok, Eracus, where were we?" the only correct answer is "Lost," as the rest of your post makes abundantly clear, and goes even further to demonstrate your willingness to degrade your own fellow military servicemen in a chest-pounding reference suggesting you're "a helluva lot more informed than the even the (sic) average enlisted person." Really? Have you met every one? Are you indeed suggesting the average American soldier is more ignorant than you are? That if he was, as you say, as "more informed" as you believe yourself to be, would he then be similarly engaged in slander and insult to denounce his Commander-in-Chief, as you have repeatedly, based on no fact or reason other than the propaganda solicited and disbursed by our enemies? That "Bush lied??"

Or is the alternative more true, that by logic and the evidence presented in the substance and content of your posts, that you are not credible, that you are misinformed, unawares, poorly educated, and incapable of critical thought and rational discourse having long ago gone over the edge of reason into outrage and hatred of that which you can neither comprehend nor understand? Is it not at least possible that the average enlisted person volunteering today is much better informed and more capable of rational argument than you ever were? Afterall, most of these guys have signed up and re-enlisted for war. Are they somehow less informed than you? Do they not know what they are doing or why?

The reason, PB, you have been subjected to this kind of response from people like me since you started posting here, and why, of course, Mitch says nothing in your defense, is because your distortions of language and delusional tirades are invalid by definition, unsupported by reason or fact, and therefore cannot be defended or responded to in any other way. The rebuttals, no matter how thoroughly researched and reasonably presented, only produce more of your ranting and raving and personal attacks more suitable to The Jerry Springer Show than to debate on Shot In The Dark or anywhere else -- your most recent post being the best case in point.

Any attempt at civil discourse with you has become a pointless exercise, which is the greatest disservice you have done to yourself and your cause, if indeed you ever had one, which for all your vitriol and bloviations, still as yet cannot be clearly discerned. Hence, the irony that your pedantics offer far more support to your detractors than to ever conveying whatever point you are trying to make.

The tragedy is not only that you can do better, but that your passion and enthusiasm is wasted on a tissue of deceit and misinformation in a world where the opportunity and technology exists where you do not have to rely on the 50-year-old tripe of a defeated, foreign ideology that means us no good as the basis for your arguments, and which has apparently become your only outlet for what appears to be your bitter disappointment, frustration, and outrage at a world you can neither understand nor change. You've apparently created an alternative reality that obviously works for you, but sadly, is also one in which no rational being exists.

Eracus, I based my opinion on several factors..

1. My military specialty scores consistently FAR exceeded the average.
2. I worked as an instructor in my MOS, and more broadly, instructed general soldiers in other areas regarding military regulation, Geneva Convention, non-descrimination, EEOC.
3. ah.. whatever.. you just want to throw insults about.. you're not worth the time to respond to.. I tried to engage you in an actual discussion.. you completely avoided it.

By the by, I'm sure you consider yourself ONLY as well informed as average.. beyond that, you of course equate criticizing Bush with "slandering your commander in chief." Wow, so now criticizism is slander.. again..whatever.

Oh.. and as for brevity.. take a dose of your own meds..

As for civility...read your post...

As for rebuttals.. oh, you mean like .. the indictment for adhering to Senate Ethics..yeah, that was really clever..

I don't mind "wasting myself" on trying to educate you.. what I don't get is why you "waste" space repeating the fact you think I'm out of touch in new sentences, but not really clever ways.

I did you the credit of dissecting your specious arguments.. you did not respond WHY those were specious, precisely because you can't. Frist DID in fact claim he didn't know, when he IN FACT did get information on the assets of his trust.. but you don't want to talk about that, it's not convenient to your story.

Your long-winded insults aside, do you actually have a fact you'd like to present..if not, we're done here.

PB

Oh.. one little thing Erac..

My comments to Mitch regarding my general knowledge were made because of a slight he threw my way about my being ill-informed when he knew full well better.. it was not in any way meant as self-aggrandizement... if it seemed that way my apology to one and all.

However, the fact is, it was directed to Mitch, a friend whom I've known for close to 20 years.. because my friend personally slighted me when he knew full well what he was suggesting was crap... and you know what Eracus... that's between him and me.. and you really should keep out because it's frankly not your business, you neither know the history, nor me.

You want to comment on other stuff, and actually say something factual, fine, but what's between Mitch and I over his impugning my respect for service, mention of it, and knowledge.. is between him and I. I don't know you from adam, as far as I know, you don't know crap about the military, to date, you've NEVER proven otherwise. You want to pit your knowledge of the military against mine, again, that's fine too, but my dispute with Mitch has not a thing to do with you.

To start that off, if you're brave enough..Your comments regarding Ricin were stuff easily culled from the web..and reinforced my claims.. frankly you did a poor job of research at that as you missed easily found articles that would have refuted one of my oh 10 or so points. You provided information that Ricin was more weaponizable than I understood it to be.. bully for you, you also spun my words regarding whether it was a bio-weapon into carping about it being a bio-agent and a controlled substance. By that measure, I guess Cocaine is a bioweapon..anyway, the point is, I said what I said from MEMORY, did you?

Claiming that I am factless, just like Mitch's claims of irrelevance, neither makes it true or proves your point. E.G. the Ricin discussion, it is not an agent knowingly in use as a bioweapon, the President distorted that claim badly.. You attempted to take me to task on the fact that it was discovered in London and used to kill a Bulgarian ambassador, both facts I alluded to in my original post... and yet it is I who, according to you, are factless...yet you repeat my own facts as somehow refuting my point.. but I'm the illogical one.. yeah ok.

Anyway, the topic between Mitch and I, really is. I may call him to resolve it, but he started it here, I'm not sure why I'm compelled to remove it from here.. but you know, that's for Mitch to decide, not you, nor for you to lecture me on.

Candidly, I don't think your posts are very clever.. and if I recall correctly, outside of one attempt by you to be civil on the Ricin discussion (which btw you ended by being entirely uncivil) you've been a consistent stream of insults, and nothing more.

PB

"First Mitch..

As for deference and patience online. You are nearly completely lacking..."

Oh, puhleeze. That's absurd on its face, and factually - as in, empirically - ludicrous.

"If you don't like being called a sychophant,"

It's not a matter of "liking" it, it's just such a patently absurd, oozingly-cheap shot I'm just agog that you'd try it. Which is why I wrote it off to insufficient perspective and peoples' tendency to act very different online than in real life. I'm trying to be charitable here.

" tough, get thicker skin... I think that was your comment to me.. you blow things WAYYYY out of proportion."

Ah. I get it now.

Here's the proportion, Peeb; I am not accusing you of inferring some dastardly motive to me - merely of blowing things out of proportion. You divined motives to earlier posts that, as you say, "in my heart" I know never existed. There's s difference.

"What you don't get is that you really, really insulted me, really really, and you did so carelessly, but worse, you offered a back-handed apology."

What do you want, Peeb? You found something that wasn't there. Period. I never said PB's noise about supporting the troops was inverse to PB's concern for them in normal times! NEVER! IT DID NOT HAPPEN! It would never have occurred to me to imply, impute or infer any such thing! I never ripped on your knowledge of the military! If I did, please show me more or less precisely where, because *I* *am* *at* *a* *complete loss* on this one.

"Of course your response is.. relax.. after all, it was you who accused me of devaluing service.."

No.

"But sure Mitch, duck the fact that you said you didn't insult my use of my service, deny that you didn't insult me regarding the military and my understanding of it.. no wait.. you chose to focus on "sychophant" because you can't in fact defend the fact that you DID in fact insult me and yet said you didn't..whatever."

Oh, christ. Show me the fucking insult. Find the damn post. This is insane.

"BTW - my facts are flawed... hmmm.. oh yeah, the Bush lied line.. well see, there's just this little thing.. it's called building a rhetorical trick... disprove a negative or I'll invade, and I was always intending too, after all the UN is irrelevant, but hey, war IS my last option, except that Downing showed pretty clearly it wasn't at all his last option."

Question, PB: What did Secretary of Defense Cohen have to say on December 19, 1998?

Question: Did Bill Clinton sign any declarations regarding the future of the Hussein regime while in office?

"And then there's this, the fact that the CIA didn't say Houssien was about to attack us or give WMD to Al Qaeda unless the regime were in imminent danger of falling.. but Bush SAID they were giving weapons to Al Qaeda, that they were on the virge of being able to attack us, that they were cooperating with Al Qaeda, a fact the CIA disputed then and now."

And surely this dispute was available to the Democrat congresspeople who voted OVERWHELMINGLY for the Iraq resolution, right?

"NO, he cherry-picked facts to his suiting..kinda like you do.. and you know, I just happen to think lies of ommission are just as important as lies of commission."

Ironic, given the omissions you're leaving in the story here, and the cherry-picking you're doing!

So let me phrase this in the form of a fourth question: How did the President manage to "sneak" all of these omissions and "lies" past the overwhelming majority of Dem congresscritters *who saw the same intel he did*?

Wow - the "Dumb" president must be a hypnotist, huh? Seriously - how could that have happened? What WAS it about that "CIA report" that so underwhelmed everyone when the time came?

"If I leave out the fact that the vast preponderence of our best intelligence says that Houssien is HIGHLY unlikely to attack us,"

Irrelevant - terror is terror.

" keep it out of the hands of Democrats until the very last day,"

Wrong! Senate Dems had access to the full intel report the whole time. Only a few actually read more than the executive summary (John Kerry may not have even done that!); take that up with your Democrat leadership.

"and then go before the country and say he in fact IS going to attack us based on a very unsubstantiated intell source.. THAT'S A LIE."

Only if it was intentional. Otherwise AT MOST it's an error; an error that EVERY other significant government in the world, as well as virtually the entire Senate, agreed with.

"As for screed, Mitch, your entire blog is a self-admitted screed. You propose completely biased media, presenting ONLY favorable information, and attacking anyone who disagrees, including insulting them.."

Wow - where to start? Yes, my blog is a screed; my opinion. I propose HONEST media - there's a difference. I attack assholes, and have not attacked or insulted you, again, in any intentional way. For you to dig as hard as you do to find insult, and to hang onto it so doggedly, is a trait most usually associated with "everyone's first wife".

"but yep.. I'm the ONLY one issueing screed.."

Defensive much? Of course not. Although you need perhaps a little practice with self-editing. That IS constructive criticism.

" at least Mitch, my posts.. my "need to take a deep breath" posts, present criticisms of BOTH sides.. at least I admit the flaws of the left as well as the right.. so in terms of evenhandedness, rationality.. I think I might have you beat."

Nope. I criticize the right plenty; look back at my posts on capital punishment, abortion and some conservatives' abhorrence of culture, among many others, not to mention my attacks on Bush's spending and Pawlenty's caving in to the center. I don't wave it around like a dirty bedsheet; the right has plenty of critics, they don't especially need my help.

"As two weeks, actually, it was more like 3 plus, but yep, see I'm more civil than the other folks who normally post here.. it was only in the past couple of days that I crossed the line sufficiently for you to even notice.. but sure I'm the one who lets fangs loose.."

Well, you're "a" one who does. Hardly alone.

"I have one reply, Mr. Tepes.. your coffin awaits.. "

Er, I know this one: "There are no bones in ice cream".

"And oh btw, I have 2 kids,"

No. You and your wife do.

"you post intra-day, no differently than I."

Very differently; I get up at 5AM and write for 90 minutes, then bank a few posts for later in the day; it gives people a reason to come back during the day, which buffs up my ad numbers.

" You don't duck 80% of the issues because you don't have time.. you duck them, and you admitted it, because you don't care to discuss issues which reflect poorly on your side. That is the real reason.. and none other."

Oh, give it a rest. I "duck" them because in nearly four years of doing this blog, I've seen them all before. All of them. And have written or re-posted some form or another of address to pretty much all of them. I am tired of it all; the war has happened, it's going to be done (for our purposes) inside a year or so, Syria will collapse, the Middle East will (slowly, tortuously) improve, and fifteen years from now Democrats will be lining up to say "I backed Bush!" just like they try to say they backed Reagan today.

Which might be the time to continue the discussion.

I suggest a career in probate law.

I think PB is actually a woman...

I have a simple answer to at least one question.. beyond that, since you've seen the entire Iraqi debate 4 years ago..

How did the President manage to sneak all this past Democrats.. because he didn't show them all the same information or waited until the day before the vote to present it. He showed MOST of it to a FEW democrats, you see, he lifted the security clearances of all but 6 Senators in Nov 2001 (of course leaving Libby and Rove their's).

He presented a significant amount of the sifted evidence to the congress the day before the vote for war.

As for intentional.. when you say someone trumpets around their service, when you say someone is ignorant of their service, when you are so bombastic as to suggest that someone thinks service in combat is the only valued service.. Mitch, whether you think so or not.. it's an insult but that could be argued over.. But when you say someone is a traitor, it's not a point that can be argued..regardless.. you've been forgiven.. move on..you see, UNLIKE you, I don't actually hold on to insults very long. It was done to prove the point that you are every bit as bad as anyone posting here if you get your back up, your fangs are just as long, just as likely to show up. Regardless..it is still between you and I... that you chose to show your crassness here.. well you got crassness in respoonse.. as was due you. Do you really want to continue this?

As for being over in a year.. maybe.. but I'll not buy any tickets.. as for liking Reagan, I like that he actually believed in some things, and fixed things when they were broken, but Ronald Reagan was in many ways an unmitigated disaster who was far too hands off in his first Presidency, and probably had failing faculties in his second (based on his point of Death and the progression of Alzheimers). I don't consider him a great president, I don't consider him even a pretty good president, he was perhaps average. I base that on his explosion of the debt, unecessary expansion of the military after 1985 (and don't give me the "end of cold war" carp - that's long debunked garbage - the Soviets were done by 1983 - see I can use garbage arguments too. So I won't be lining up to support a president who invaded Iraq because it was in imminent threat - your "terror is terror" argument falls flat because Bush said Iraq was going to provide weaopns to terrorist to attack us - which was knowingly untrue prior to the war...no, I won't line up for that.

PB

Here Mitch, I'll throw you a bone..

The few Dems from the House and Senate who DID see all the relevant information, were COWARDS. They should have stood up, but didn't. They probably knew the case was far less strong, we were far less prepared, than Bush was implying, but they were afraid of the backlash. They SAY it was the fact that it dealt with National Security... but they could have gotten around that by simply not disclosing the facts.. rather by simply saying "you're not hearing everything, and I think there are important facts you should hear before we go to war" but they were afraid of being labeled soft on terror.

PB

One other quick ? for you Mitch..

Given that we knew Houssien was not a position or mind to "imminently" attack us, or provide weapons to those who would..what was the hurry?

Why did we remove the inspectors who were nearing completion on NOT FINDING WEAPONS?

My answer, because not finding THE SUPPOSED CAUSE FOR WAR was going to be damned inconvenient for someone who wanted war. Oh but that's right, we actually invaded to topple a dictator.. why then even have inspectors?

PB

Please continue, PB. We are in awe of your vast knowledge, brilliant intelligence, and definitive grasp of history. But enough about our world, tell us more about yours. Like, what's the name of your planet? Does it have plants and animals too? Is there any water? What color is the sky? Are there other people living there? Or is it just you, walking around, making stuff up like you do here?

Eracus,

You waste a lot of space to say nothing..I bow to your superior ability to accomplish little while wasting too much time..

PB

Uh-huh. As opposed to your myriad posts recycling vintage leftist 1960s pablum asserting claims with no basis in reason or fact. You live in your own world, PB, you just make stuff up and attack personally whoever exposes your fantasy, which is why each comment thread in which you participate seems inevitably to dissolve under the weight and shear idiocy of your posts. Like this one.

Hey Mitch, thought I'd help you out, though undoubtedly you've read this all before..

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511230012

The jist is:

a. Cheney outsourced intel to NIE - they gave him, SHOCK!, pro-war intel.

b. Internal assets (not the CIA the INR and the IAEA) told Powell AND Cheney and presumably through Cheney, Bush, that the claims regarding the alluminum were highly dubious.. as were claims regarding reconstitution of a Nuclear Program.

c. Regardless, and presumably even with CIA objection, Bush goes before the country and asserts Houssien is going to give WMD (including Nuclear capability presumably as he referenced the false & forged Niger story) to terrorists, despite having just provided documentation saying EXACTLY the opposite.

But no, he didn't lie... he just didn't say things that were true.

But then again, his lies are long-debunked, and you knew all of it before, but refused to comment because it might make your guy look bad. But hey, I'm the bad writer who simply throws about invective.. no.. wait.. that's you.

PB