Letters to the Editor
-
Illuminati
And, I really enjoy illuminating the foibles of pompous jerks. scooter
Crikey, now he's shining flashlights all over hisself! (Comforting hint: foibles are not necessarily as small as they look by flashlight.)
-
Lupercus
And, since I'm blathering so much today, and avoiding work tremenjusly....WHO is the visiting Wolfboy? And welcome! You made me laugh out loud all three times you've posted.
-
Pointing out the cowardice and hypocrisy of the Weekly Standard crowd is as easy as 1,2
Again, a simple response to Weekly Standard types:
You "support" the war? Prove it by sharing the sacrifice already being made by military familes.
1. If you support the war and are between the ages of 18 and 40, you need to enlist. If you don't you're a hypocrite and coward.
2. If you have children of military age, you must strongly encourage them to enlist. If not you are, again, a hypocrite and coward.
-
@Phil
You mistake failure to agree for failure to notice. You cited only my final paragraph; did you read the preceding ones?
I understand the premise of the video, and the argument that Blumenthal is not cheerleading the war. Neither of those points, however, answers the essential objections I raised. The video is tendentious, careless, and sophomoric. It will do nothing to persuade the uncommitted or to find common ground with the opposition.
We will not resolve our problems with others, whether they are Republicans or Islamists or anyone else, with peep-show presentations which wouldn't qualify as Michael Moore Lite. Or even as Monty Python.
-- PhilSheehan
No, I didn't mistake or overlook what you left our of your post. Of course I read the preceding paragraphs. Dumb question, in my opinion. Possibly just disingenuous. It's not like you had written 10,000 word essay for me to wade through.
Yes, I get it. You thought Blumenthal's video was sophomoric. To each his own opinion. I don't agree but that is not relevant.
As for trying to win over chicken shit College Republicans...who cares? Blumenthal wasn't trying to win them over. He was exposing them for the frauds that they are. That is what he set out to do. If I happened to be one of "the uncommitted" I would take notice of what Blumenthal exposed. The College Republicans cooperated with Blumenthal in the video by making fools of themselves with laughable excuses for their refusal to physically support the "war" that they are beating their chests about every day.
Mission accomplished!
If you want to waste your time and energy trying to appeal to College Republicans, have at it. Blumenthal knew what a bunch of hapless phonies he was dealing with. And now, so do a lot of the "uncommitted".
-
Trying to shift the conversation...
[hoisting virtual lever...]
Someone earlier asked if Kristol wrote for the Weekly Standard. Actually, he is its editor, and by virtue of that office, is frequently invited on TeeVee as a talking head. However, he also gets to write editorials, e.g. a recent one in the Washington Post, which has been roundly (and justifiably) criticized in the blogosphere, including in one of Glenn's recent posts. I just finished reading a criticism by David Corn that I had missed, but came across via ThinkProgress... in which Corn exposes, once more for those still in doubt, Kristol's questionable expertise as a prognosticator. (Ironic, considering his name.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701456.html
Kristol had written about why Bush's legacy will be one of a winner. Corn found much to disagree with in it, and wrote his answer on "Why Bush is a Loser."
An excerpt near the end:
The Bush-Cheney years have been marked by ineptitude, miscalculation, and scandal. A successful presidency? Bush will be lucky if he gets a public elementary school in his adopted hometown of Crawford, Tex., named after him. He has placed this country in a hole. Yet Kristol, with shovel in hand, points to that hole and says, Trust me -- we're about to strike oil!
That sums it up about as well as an editorial cartoon.
-
shooter's Clinton-boner
Clinton actually declared war on Iraq in 1998 and he fits your description of hypocrite to a "T". It would seem you need to reformulate your criteria. Heh.
I personally believe that this was an extremely cynical and amoral action to take. The Clinton evil was only the warm-up.
However, even if it wasn't, aren't you supposed to HATE Clinton? Why do you incessantly justify Bush's actions by comparing them to Clinton's?
Or rather, the less rhetorical questions are: why do you pretend anyone buys this logic, or why would you think you personally wouldn't be thought a complete moron by everyone who reads your stupid argument?
-
@shooter
I didn't say Bush "wasn't qualified" to declare war. He's the President; it's his right. I'm saying that people who dodged military service during Vietnam aren't qualified to take a stand on the moral issues of military service in the present-day war.
But I suspect that you understand what's being said here and you're contriving legalistic arguments against it because you're conservative and you support the war and you dislike liberal positions.
Don't you understand what's going on here? The original post concerns an argument being made elsewhere (by Dean Barnett), in which Vietnam-era protesters and draft dodgers are being maligned for lacking the fortitude of their present-day counterparts, who volunteered for service. This argument fails because it completely ignores the fact that the author himself as well as all the present-day advocates of the current war avoided military service.
You can't have a war unless you send people off to be killed. Some people want to go; some people don't. The people who don't are on faulty moral ground when they support the war. The Iraq war is masterminded by people who fit this description (as evidenced by their behavior in the 1960s) and is being applauded by people who fit this description today.
Are you going to continue to pretend you can't see the logic of the argument?
-
Like clockwork
3... 2... 1... "but Clinton! Clinton did it!!! CLINTON'S PENIS!!!!! <*WAUUUUGGGHHH--OOOOMMPPHHGG!!!*>"
Hilarious. Even if in the 37th rerun.
FWIW, I did get a chuckle out of that tubby twit in the Blumenthal video: "Definitely Not Gay!"....
Cheers,