Reynolds accuses liberals of “spinning” the Zarqawi kill, but the story he links to simply quotes people talking about the story (the way Reynolds depicts it, liberals are upset Zarqawi is dead – but we’re not the ones who allowed him to live so justification for the Iraq war could live). Somehow this is spinning, at least when Reynolds is smearing.
Desperation has sent you off the deep end ollie.
“but we re not the ones who allowed him to live so justification for the Iraq war”
Loony
Tunes
Time to start the neuroleptics compadre, you have officially lost the bubble…
Do you really want to play the “numerous chances” game? Because we can…
Nice change of subject, Farris. Such emotionality is typical of a good little ‘Con. NEVER QUESTION THE LEADER!
It was the ‘Cons who said Clinton was playing Wag the Dog when he tried to kill bin Laden, right?
Looney tunes? Read the damn news story. We had numerous chances to get him but they would have killed the talking point of there being “Al Qaeda in Iraq”.
So who is the guy Reynolds links to? Sounds like a conservablogger plant hoping to catch as many run-of-the-mill YearlyKos attendees making off the cuff remarks in the hotel bar that can sound bad when taken out of context as possible, for purposes of a stream of “Look at the crazy liberals!” articles.
Now this is not to be construed as arguing that YearlyKos ought to screen for ideological purity or anything, but I wonder how sane the right blogosphere would come off if you posted snippets of their bar chatter from things like the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) featuring guests like Ann Coulter, She-Wolf of the SS.
I would have a lot more respect for Reynolds if he didn’t maintain a pretense of civility. Frankly, that’s what’s most disgusting about him: he operates by insinuation, never direct argumentation, so as to avoid pissing off his audience and simultaneously weasel out of any criticisms of his extremist view of liberals.
Quick! Take a poll and see if bush has made a big bounce because Zarqawi is dead. He should try to make the most of it and get himself passengered onto another aircraft carrier soon before the shine wears off.
Then again,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658957.htm
so far, the only people suggesting this was an end to terrorism is liberals.
Straw
Man
Jebus, the liberal menace has even gotten to Rumsfeld!
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday that while the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a significant victory in the war on terror, it won’t end terrorism.
“Given the nature of the terrorist networks, really a network of networks, the death of Zarqawi, while enormously important, will not mean the end of all violence in that country,” Rumsfeld told reporters.
Imagine! Rumsfeld is also spinning this issue. Someone alert Professor Smear!
Well except for Fox, the con blogs, etc…
drpedro Says:
June 8th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
so far, the only people suggesting this was an end to terrorism is liberals.
pedro, are you saying that the Zarqawi killing is just good news that doesn’t mean diddly-squat?
Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat Kos Kid?
This is just to cover Bush s [rear] so he doesn t have to answer for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. Iraq is still a mess get out.
“Read the damn news story.”
But Oliver, pedro doesn’t read news stories. His gut tells him all he needs to know.
I call shenangians Oliver. Give us at least some of the surely innumerable links where the “end to terrorism” has been declared by FOX & the con blogs.
I’ll bet you’re just making #$% up again.
I don’t watch Fox, so I don’t know what they’re saying. However, here are two major “con blogs”…let’s see if they are saying Zarqawi’s death will end terrorism…
Powerline:
Hugh Hewitt:
There’s no middle ground between an end to terrorism and diddly-squat?
great Ollie and frame. Put up or shut up.
How about some links to all those conservatives claiming this is the final victory
On CNN’s Crossfire, the satirist Mark Russell led Pat Buchanan and Bill Press in singing:
If a woman gives you trouble or maybe two or three, and your explanations put the public in a fog, no problem, pick that red phone up, it’s an emergency, and go to war. It’s been done before. It’s “Wag the Dog.”
“Wag the Dog.” “Wag the Dog.” Go to war, it’s been done before, it’s “Wag the Dog.”
Well, no one will complain with a Hitler like Hussein, and everyone will understand your war. An Afghanistan distraction from your problems and your pain, namely, Monica and Paula and God knows how many more.
“Wag the Dog.”
From:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_dneiwert_archive.html
Well, drpedo, I know he’s not a “real” conservative, but George W. Bush did say that the death of al Zarqawi offers Iraq a chance to “turn the tide” in the war.
oh but we always come back to pedro, the doofus: “It IS like weeding a garden. That is why there is no endpoint .
I love this little gambit. Now all of a sudden pedro declares that there will never be a clear cut victory in Iraq. But whoa be unto you, oh America hater, if you ever doubt that we will indeed win! We just need to stay there forever waiting for an endpoint that will never come.
Oh here’s my favorite from the last thread, from none other than SaveFarris:
“This is huge, guys. And to downplay it is nothing short of abominable.”
THIS IS HUGE GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCKING HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh wait sorry I gues you meant big name conservatives, right pedro? Not ignorant anonymous dipshits like Save.
“How about some links to all those conservatives claiming this is the final victory”
You guys are so full of shit. This is the kind of idiotic response that the right has been spewing all day:
“This is all living proof that the leftist, america laster liberals will NEVER be satisfied with any action we take as long as bush is in command. They would cut off America s nose to spite her face.”
And what was the comment that triggered this accusation of self-loathing, treason?
“I m glad he s dead, but he s taken so many from us and the Iraqis and it s not like he was working on his own& ”
So Oliver suggests that killing Zarqawi, while a good thing, is no great triumph in the larger context of the conflict and you, my friend, accused him of betraying America for selfish political ends.
pedro, you’re a fucking idiot.
Frame, the problem is people like you and Oliver and other left wingers can’t just say, “It’s good that he was killed.”
You can’t just leave it at that because you think by doing so it might possibly be construed as some kind of compliment towards President Bush and that of course CAN NEVER HAPPEN. So there always has to be a “But….” in there. Or we’re told that it “doesn’t really mean anything” even though the guy was the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq.
In short, there always seems to have to be some kind of caveat. NOBODY has said that all is well with the world now that this guy is dead. Nobody. Yet, the left is responding as though people are saying so.
The left wing local rag I get stuck reading, The Daytona-Beach News Journal’s (which many refer to as the News Urinal) front page headline says today:
‘Zarqawi Killed, Yet Insurgency Continues’
A bogus headline because it is written from a POV that suggests somebody claimed the insurgency would cease the moment he was taken out. Nobody has.
It gets worse when you have idiots like Pete Stark and Jack Murtha doing their Adrian “You can’t win!!!” impersonations from Rocky IV. Thanks for the big boost of confidence there fellas.
Did I say it would “end terrorism”? Hmmm… don’t see it. You might want to take that reading comprehension course down at the community college.
Farris, when paul gets his tighty whiteys all in a bunch like that (multiple posts, more than fifteen exclaimation poins), best just to let him finish.
He can’t respond to my point and it drives him batty….
Hey Paulie, hows the blood pressure?
I’m actually surprised at how sane that Powerline quote was. I think he was correct on all his sub-points. Killing Zarqawi in 2004 would have made a more substantial difference because at that point it was uncertain if full-blown sectarian war would break out. It was 2004 when Sadrist forces briefly expressed solidarity with their Sunni insurgent cousins in Fallujah after all. But Zarqawi was able to continue his dirty work of fomenting civil war, culminating most likely in the February 22 Shi’ite shrine bombing. With that, and the staffing of the Interior Ministry with Badr thugs, the sectarian civil war has been joined. Iraq, sadly, has chosen Zarqawi’s path, and his death will do very little to stop this process at this point. Talk of turning points, an obvious jab at President Bush, is beyond premature. It’s a distraction. Surely Zarqawi’s death and the formation of the full Iraqi cabinet provides an opportunity and some momentum. But that’s not exactly turning the corner.
and Paul….
Not suprisingly….
Doesn’t.
Respond to what? Oliver said almsot the exact same thing that Hewitt and Powerline say in the quotes cited by JWG and you responded with this:
This is all living proof that the leftist, america laster liberals will NEVER be satisfied with any action we take as long as bush is in command. They would cut off America s nose to spite her face.
And yet you agree with Hewitt and Powerline. Do you also disagree with Save who thinks that it is “abominable” to downplay Zarqaqi’s death because you know, “It’s Huge!”? Are Hewitt and Powerline abominable? Of course your ultimate dodge from all your hypocrisy is to now claim that there will NEVER be an end to the violence in Iraq, which kind of makes the whole idea of progress moot. Doesn’t it? So killing Zarqawi isn’t huge at all. Which mean Save thinks your abominable, pedro. Of course your both idiots so who cares?
The Bobbsey Twins respond.
Uh, Paul?
Get back to me when you have untangled yourself from that rhetorical Gordian Knot you have twisted yourself into…..
I never commented on hewitt or powerline. I never agreed or disagreed with Saves statement. I did claim there will never be an end to violence in Iraq, just like there will never be an end to violence in new york city.
Wonderful soliloquy on things that I never commented on though. You DO have an ACTIVE imagination!
“I did claim there will never be an end to violence in Iraq, just like there will never be an end to violence in new york city.”
Too classic. Now you’ve conflated terrorist attacks and muggings. That’s about as idiotic a statement as you’ve ever made.
Paul, words have meaning.
I never conflated terrorist attacks with muggings. I said “violence”, as did Fact, I believe.
It is becoming more and more clear to me why your PhD is in film studies…..
“Paul, words have meaning.”
A post got eaten. Maybe it will reappear. In the meantime, indeed they do pedro. If you will kindly identify the comprable kinds of violence between Iraq and New York maybe your words might rise to a little more than nonsense.
For instance, how many mortar attacks were there in New York yesterday or, better yet, how many heads were found along the highway?
“… The news came on a day when bombs, mortars and gunmen killed at least 11 people and wounded 26 in the Iraqi capital — and nine heads were found along a highway in Hadid.”
Can you also tell me how many New Yorkers died from shootings and other violent crimes in May? Because in Baghdad alone 1,398 civilians were killed in shootings and other violent crimes last month:
“The main Baghdad morgue reported receiving 6,025 bodies in the first five months of the year, including those of 1,398 civilians killed in shooting attacks and other violent crimes in May, according to a high-ranking Iraqi Health Ministry official.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/06/iraq.main/index.html
Certainly no one ever expects to rid Iraq of violence in the general sense. But how about mortar attacks, beheadings and sectarian executions? If there were daily or weekly mortar attacks in Brooklyn you would be cool with that? You would shrug your shoulders: “Oh well, there will always be violence in the world.”
What an idiot.
And what kind of violence is occurring in New York that is comprable to what’s happening in Baghdad? Lot’s of sectarian bombings, kidnappings and executions going down in Brooklyn these days? Idiot.
All, frame
Here’s a little nugget from the NY Times:
“Between 2003 and 2005, 1,662 murders were committed in New York. Men and boys were responsible for 93 percent of the murders; their victims tended to be other men and boys; and in more than half the cases, the killer and victim knew each other.
In addition, an interesting, though uncommon, group of murders involved a handful of victims who died of injuries one or more years after being stabbed, shot, beaten or burned and were counted as murder victims in the year in which they died. Click on the map to view all of the homicides by borough.
Dugger (notice compassionate conservative restraint as evidenced by no “idiot” remark at the end))
Dugger,
So you want to compare 1,662 killings over two years and 1,398 in one month? Go for it. Idiot.
Of course we know why Dugger never provides actual links. From the related article:
“If the average New Yorker is concerned about being murdered in a random crime, the odds of that happening are really remote,” Mr. Farrell said. “If you are living apart from a life of crime, your risk is negligible.”
Criminologists confirm that assessment. “People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City,” said Andrew Karmen, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert on victimology. “Victims and offenders are pretty much pulled from the same background. Very often, young victims have young killers. Very often, the victim and killer knew each other.”
Whoa. I did the math there too fast, which make me mistaken and Dugger even more of an idiot. In the THREE years between 2003 and 2005 there were 554 killings a year in New York a city of 8.1 million. In the first FIVE MONTHS of this year there were 6,000 killings in Baghdad a city of 7.4 million.
Again, we’ll never end violence in the general sense in Baghdad but you have to make a distinction between the attrition rate of civil war and street crime otherwise your just spewing nonsese. Like pedro’s little factoid about liberating more landmass with fewer casualties blah, blah. It’s a totally deceptive statement because the vast majority of Iraq is unpopulated desert. It’s just another example of how much you guys choose to live in a fantasy land in which mortar attacks and over a 1,000 killings a MONTH are a-o-kay because, hey, look, someone got stabbed in Central Park. Idiots.
nevertheless, framie-kins, more American deaths in NY City than Iraq.
Somebody here made this flat brilliant remark: “And what kind of violence is occurring in New York that is comprable to what s happening in Baghdad?”
So I guess your real point was that the violence in NYC with more American homicides was actually worse than Iraq and you now apologize to us all?
Or do you have a more effective ultimate measure of violence than homicide.
Read it and weep.
Dugger (Cue series of frothing, nonsensical posts all followed by idiot)
“nevertheless, framie-kins, more American deaths in NY City than Iraq.”
Just hang it up dugger, just hang it up. Idiot.
Oh and by the way, when you wrote, “nevertheless, framie-kins, more American deaths in NY City than Iraq” were you smoking crack?
Total murders in NYC between 2003 and 2005: 1,662
Total US deaths in Iraq betweem 2003 and 2005: 2,180
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
Seriously Dugger, give up the pipe.
frame,
Wasn’t smoking crack (don’t even smoke ciggies) but nevertheless, you are correct on 1662 vs. 2180.
Dugger, When I miss one, I admit it – even to frame
“So I guess your real point was that … you now apologize to us all?”