Not that anyone sane would root for the insurgents (and yes that means Moore is insane for making this statement), is it not your side that says "everything's fair?", "times have changed?"

There is an unconfirmed report the President (probably jokingly, but it's not clear) talked with Tony Blair about bombing Al Jazeera. (Mitch, stop reading here, you heard about this already)

Now frankly, it seem's unlikely, but my question is, how many of you would have simply said "damned right" and "about time"? Many of you have said VERY similar things in the past, "pave them over" comments come from the Right all too often. So what then, are you complaining about here regarding the conduct of the Insurgents? It's not as if our hands are clean regarding the death of children, and while some would look to prevent future recurrance, your attitude all too often is "thems the breaks." You don't embrace restraint, you push for even harsher acts, laughing about unquestionably stupid conduct like burning corpses and taunting folks with them.

Recently Mitch said "Terror is Terror" in an effort to brush off the criticism that Bush knew before the invasion that Houssien was neither going to attack us nor was he going to give WMD to terrorists. It was a weak and foolish response considering Mitch has already heard everything before, first because the American people clearly see this as much more than a McCarthy-esque blind pursuit against terrorism, they expect us to use logic and ethics to guide our hand, but second and most importantly because the United States HARDLY has it's hands clean when talking about terrorism, and the funny thing is, YOU would defend those tactics, and then complain out of the other side of your mouth about "terrorism," thus making us look the hypocrite to the world when complaining about things like these insurgents. You're disgusting conduct has stripped us of well-earned respect and right to comment on social and civil rights, because it appears, in the end, you don't much give a damned about social or civil rights, which is the reason you laugh off things that the rest of us say "Goddamn it, how can they be so stupid?!" You would describe Guantanamo as a "Club Med" not because you think it's nice, but because you feel it's "Not as bad as the other guy." Well, that's not the yardstick, the yardstick is ETHICAL conduct, not one that seeks to define torture, so that it can push the envelope. That Mitch would complain about killing babies when he turns a blind eye to an invasion based on carefully culled facts and an argument setup to ensure we'd invade, makes the rest of the world shake it's head and say "They aren't serious, they're just imperialists" and it's REALLY hard to prove them wrong. Your arguments are so weak, so ill worded, they gain no traction except amongst the balance of the Kool-Aid crowd. What pisses the rest of us off is that you are so royally screwing it up but WE will have to sort it out because you are clearly incapable of grasping the impact. I would suggest it's because you don't grasp the underlying moral question.

Mitch, based on your "terror is terror" meme, should we then agree that the US is eligible to be attacked, pre-emptively, to get rid of any leader that would advocate the use of terror tactics?

Before you write some ridiculous post about "america haters", understand that it is precisely my revulsion at our conduct that stirs me to speak out. I have no idea really if Bush was serious, I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt, but his past conduct doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy. (past conduct: the use of rhetorical traps to push the country into an unecessary war, revisionist history regarding it, incipid pattern of using the taxpayers to line the pockets of his friends). He doesn't exactly come across as a really moral guy, but then again, considering you'd wave off deception of the American people by him, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that you'd defend him, defend "whatever it takes" while at the same time complaining about the tactics of insurgents.

Let's be clear though, I fully recognize our soldiers, our average citizen, in no way desires or intends to kill or bomb kids. I'm also not suggesting our tactics are designed to kill children. What is being said is that some leaders appear ambivilant, and the lap-dogs on the right (of which Mitch is a proud member) defend this cavallier attitude in one breath, whilst thumping their chests about "tyrannical types who back terrorism" with the next. The solution is to NOT embrace the tactics of terrorists (oh like secret torture prisons, extra-ordinary rendition) To even KID around about bombing the press that disagrees with you, is disgusting, but far more importantly to assualt the Press and anyone who disagrees with you (Joe Wilson), implies you simply don't embrace the fundamental freedoms upon which our society stands. You give them lip service when it suits you (like Mitch and his terror is terror argument) and toss them out when it doesn't.

So pardon me, but you seem just slightly insincere.

PB

An example:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq

Yet.. things are going swimmingly, increasingly well, as Mitch puts it.

Yeah.. and like Shiia death squads in retaliation for 30 years of Saddam were not at all predictable.. but hey, let's bring 150,000 troops to pacify a country of 25 Million, THAT will work.. perhaps Mitch, in your well read travels, you should read Alfred Mahan.. but then again, you've already heard about these death squads and Mahan..

PB

Here's another one that Mitch already read.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/23/opinion/main1071849_page2.shtml

but STILL persisted in saying that Bush was fully honest..

So Mitch.. do you feel using discredited intell, and discounted intell is "fully honest", "partially dishonest", or "dishonest"?

Just a question.. you know, academically speaking... and if you say it's untrue (that the intell had been discredited prior to Cheney's and Bush's comments), ok, so then let's conclude Phase II of the investigation.. why stonewall it, I mean you spent 40 Million on Whitewater to prove the President had sex with an intern, clearly this is more important, correct?

PB

Michael Moore is an idiot. Unfortunately, Bush's dishonest sales job on the war and incompetent prosecution of the occupation empowers all the idiots on the left. I have little doubt you on the right will claim that we're actually winning in Iraq, but that the liberal media/Hollywood lefties/pansyass Democrats are obscuring the truth from the American public. Boohoo. Tired of listening to Michael Moore? Take a page from the sermon you Republicans are so fond of delivering to everyone else: Stop whining. Win. Michael Moore is not your problem. Iraq is your problem.

Here here!

and while your at it, stop ruining the reputation and pissing on the history of our armed forces. Michael Moore is a DIRECTOR, nominally an ACTOR, your PRESIDENT is screwing up, focus on that which matters.. Should we have said that David Koresh was justification for never listening to anything from the right?

Also, I have no idea the context of Moore's comments.. none, it may be that they were made from the perspective of the IRAQI's, in which case, his comments would be, in fact, accurate. I have no idea of course, I suppose I'll go find out, but rather than spending useless words on Moore, Mitch, find some for your President.. oh, that's right, you don't admit any flaws.. but yep, the left are the extremists...

Where I come from, people who are willing to engage in real discussion and admit the flaws of both sides are called the peacemakers, where I come from those who won't (and you said WON'T) admit they have issues as well, and work from a realistic stance, are called zealots, looney.. even moonbats (to use your phrase).

Tell me, theorhetically speaking of course, who is the moonbat, the man who talks about the perception of Iraqi's (mistaken though it may be), or the one who refuses to acknowledge ANY flaw?

Focus on the real problems, like the Shiia extremists, and you might even get some respect from folks outside your cult.

PB

Wow, just got done reading Moore's comments..

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

Those comments were from 18 months ago, you all do anything timely?

Moore's point is that this administration likes to choose words that are meaningless and confusing. The "insurgents" are in fact, rebels. Some are criminal and sick, some simply want the US to leave, others want a Shiia/Kurd Hegemony to run the country, still others want a return of a Baathist, Sunni-dominated state, but in nearly all cases they are rebeling against a forieng occupier (in thier eyes).

I think Moore's an idiot, but the point is pretty accurate, from extraordinary rendition to regime change meaning any of three or four things, these guys do like to play with words so that it all seems more clean, clinical.

Whatever, you keep working on your 18 month old complaint about a word Mitch.. that certainly makes a LOT of difference, while you're at it, perhaps you can clear up the two-and-a-half year old oops of inserting assertions about yellow-cake into a speech that had been struck previously.. oh yeah, that was an oversight, WOOOPS! sorry, we just went to war, but don't blame me, I'm ONLY the President... it's that guy Moore's fault. The bastage.

PB

"I was leaving the hospital with my one-and-a-half-year-old son in my arms when the explosion happened," said Hoda Ali, 30, wounded on her face and arms.

"I was knocked down by the force of the blast and when I came to, my son was no longer in my arms. I found him among the dead."

PB logical fallacy #312: On one hand you say Michael Moore and his comments that 'insurgents' are not terrorists but rather minutemen is not the problem. Then on the other hand you say the problem is Shi'ia extremists, not Michael Moore. If Shi-ia extremists (and Sunni extremists, and imported Wahhabi extremists) and their fight to imprison Iraq in the middle ages are indeed the problem, doesn't that make Michael Moore... a liar?? Hint: Freedom fighters fight to FREE their people.
PB logical fallacy #484: You say you want what's best for the people of Iraq. You know -- or should know if you have a shred of common sense -- that the insurgency fighting to imprison the Iraqi people's only chance of success is to divide the American people and cast the administration and not the terrorists as the villain. Do you hate Bush so much that you would rather play directly into the hands of our enemy and the people who are killing innocent Iraqis in the hope that we will cut and run?
Angry Clown (whose comments I appreciate for their pithiness and brevity, in ironic juxtaposition to my PB-like long windedness), we agree that the answer is to win. Yet the more we waste time on the false 'Bush lied our way to war' meme the more we play directly into the hands of the enemy whose only hope is to maintain a low-level terror campaign until America, as in Vietnam, gets angrier at its own leaders than at the true enemy -- to its long-term detriment and with the end results that tens of thousands -- in American and abroad -- more will die.

Um Chrisss, my saying Moore isn't the problem but that Shiia extremists are, is hardly a falacy. I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

Also, I did not EVER, not in one post say that I wanted anything but success for the current effort. That would be YOUR falacy, sorry Chrisss.

And oh by the way, I hardly hate Bush, he's too pathetic to hate. Beyond that, your accusation is a bit "juvenile". Thinking the President has collossally screwed up, and wanting him to either listen to his Generals and/or seek outside assistance is hardly hoping for failure. The constraint to the latter is that Bush will not relinquish econimic control of Iraq in any way, and the consequential response of other nations is "you messed it up, you fix it" if we won't give them any opportunity for repayment.

I'm sorry, but you statements imply no falacy on my part, and belie your own. I did not say any of the things you attribute to me, and candidly, asserting there is only black or white in response to the President is a tad simplistic, even falacious.

PB

Dang, sure would be nice if Mitch would allow for EDITING, for example, like he can do.. I meant to add this..

In the eyes of the insurgents (or certainly at least the majority), they perceive themselves as fighting to FREE Iraq of the US. Their methods are immoral, but it has been said by men wiser than any who EVER wrote here (Angry excepted mabye), that it is not by some mythical will to do evil that separates good from evil, for nearly every member of every army in some way sees themselves on the "right" side, but rather the degrees to which we will go to accomplish our ends that separates us. The evil know no limits, the good see only limits. The insurgents perceive themselves good for trying to:
a. Remove the US
b. Prevent Shiia dominance of their peopele
c. Prevent Baathist return
d. Provide a theocratic Shiaa rule
e. Provide a theocratic Sunni rule
etc..
But they use reprehensible, revolting means. So actually Chriss, in thier eyes, they think they ARE freeing people - to a freedom THEY prefer.

That however is a problem none of us can affect (thier desire to do so), at least not directly. What we can affect is the line which we agree should not be crossed. It is the fundamental argument behind NOT torturing, NOT laughing at the treatment of prisoners, either in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo, NOT thinking using WP on civilians is "justified" somehow. When we cross that line, we become NOT good, but evil, and the world watches.

So Chrisss, I'm afraid I'll have to just disagree with you. There is no falacy in thinking Moore is not the issue here, but that Iraq and how we go about extracting victory from this collossal mess, is.

PB

The week is also a transitional one for the fourth-quarter earnings reporting period in that it brings the last big group of earnings pre-announcements credit-center ws which are typically more negative than positive -- and the first big group of actual earnings reports egctraders http://www.egctraders.com/links.htm

csMy URLs is mature hairy pussy
http://hairyass.getgirlfriends.com/
shaved
http://hairyass.getgirlfriends.com/shaved.html
shaved beavers
http://hairyass.getgirlfriends.com/shaved-beavers.html
hairy girls
http://hairyass.getgirlfriends.com/hairy-girls.html
atk hairy
http://hairyass.getgirlfriends.com/atk-hairy.html