Glenn Reynolds, 11/13/06.
I’d certainly like to see a less polarized politics in 2008.
Glenn Reynolds, 12/10/02
I think that this “pressure of public opinion” language is a recognition by Saddam that the “anti-war” movement is objectively on his side, and not neutral.
Related
Glenn Reynolds vs. Glenn Reynolds
Glenn Reynolds Eats Babies… Fresh
I Saw This Movie Already
Sort of like Hitler complaining about how hard it is to find a good bagel in Berlin.
You really had to dig for that. That was a 2002 post compared to a 2006 post. And let us not forget that the actions of the anti-war ‘human shields’ in Iraq could certainly be construed as pro-Saddam.
That is all.
Dugger | Nov 13, 2006 4:50:31 PM
“You really had to dig for that. That was a 2002 post compared to a 2006 post.”
Compared to your pearl of wisdom, Dugger?
“And if we count the Crusaders of Europe as ‘rightists’, do we count Genghis Khan, the Muslim invasions of Europe, the Byzantine war in the 600s-700s as leftists?”
I had amoeba-sized respect for you months ago. The lead up to, during and following the mid-term elections has demonstrated to me what a clueless, hypocritical idiot you are.
S,
In all of your posts here, you have given no reason why your opinion about anything, which would likely be whatever OW told you it should be anyway, should matter to anyone.
Assuming you have had one, try giving voice to an actual thought. If you haven’t had one, see if an adult will tell you one.
pedugger
I don’t care what you think of my opinion because the mid-term election demonstrated how hilariously little you know or understand about America.
Very good, S. The equivalent of: nananananana.
But remember: Find an adult. Let that person impart a thought to you and pretend its your own. Deal with it. Let your brain approach it. It will hurt really bad at first, but after a while, it won’t be as bad and you may be able to handle other thoughts (I know, the word itself is scary) without those blinding headaches. And then one day, viola!, you will have your very own precious little thought. At that point, though, you will want to start voting Republican or independent and not like OW as much.
I hardly take the time to post here, but this is too rich. Dugger, whose only claim to original thought lies in the re-wording of Republican talking points and who never, repeat never directly answers any question posed to him, (still trying to figure out what a death rate is Dug?) is chastising someone for allegedly not having an original thought.
Priceless.
Whatever, pedugger. Encouraged that you’ve stopped drinking before posting.
pedugger emailed this post-election advise to The Decider:
“Find an adult. Let that person impart a thought to you and pretend its your own. Deal with it. Let your brain approach it. It will hurt really bad at first, but after a while, it won’t be as bad and you may be able to handle other thoughts (I know, the word itself is scary) without those blinding headaches. And then one day, viola!, you will have your very own precious little thought.”
“… you have given no reason why your opinion about anything, which would likely be whatever OW told you it should be anyway, should matter to anyone.”
Dugger, you slay me.
I for one enjoy s contributions to this blog. Duggers? Not so much.
Dugger writes:
S’s reply:
Dugger’s retort:
So to recap Dugger’s world view: “nananananana,” is not a valid intellectual response but “You’re a dumb old stupid head” is.
Dug’s, your command of playground ettitiquette is simply awesome.
Why do you waste time on Duggers blathering. His world view is grounded in the shores of delusion, Kool-Aid beach by the cliffs of desolation, and the fireswamps.
I’m luxuriating in Dugger’s stunned reaction to the election and idiotic random posts. He can’t believe the Democrats took the House and Senate, AND really can’t understand that his hero, Donald Rumsfeld, is gone!
So Ollie, wouldn’t Saddam think the anti-war folks were on his side?
Cause I mean, they actually were right? They didn’t want the US to go in there and take him out, they wanted him to go on just running Iraq, right? They wanted him to keep a handle on the internecine violence there, you know, keep the trains running on time and all that.
Its funny the way Ollie takes two unrelated thoughts and somehow believes they demonstrate irony. The only thing demonstrated is Olivers shaky grasp of hard cold fact.
Awwww, Marpedrugger’s in post election denial.
pedro,
I doubt Saddam was stupid enough to think that they were “on his side”, but even supposing he did that’s not the point.
The point is that Reynolds said that Saddam “recognized” that they were “objectively” on his side. It’s not what Saddam thinks, it’s what Reynolds is asserting to be true. You can’t “recognize” something that isn’t true
Reynolds was pretending that the only legitimate way to oppose Saddam was to support Bush’s idiot rush to invasion, and that those who didn’t were “objectively” traitors. You don’t call that “polarizing”?
“So Ollie, wouldn’t Saddam think the anti-war folks were on his side?”
It’s like we should start a charity or something for mushbrained conservatives …
If you oppose an illegal war, you are for the enemy? What a pathetic argumant.
If you actively aid and abet (protect) enemy forces in comabt against our forces, you are, factually, an enemy and a traitor. And the war was approved in a bi-partisan vote by Congress. Don’t try and rewrite history.
Damn I hate when I’m late to a thread. Well here it is though, yeah, Duggers right, aiding and abetting the enemy during a time of combat is basically treason. Now I’m not sure whether or not those Human Shield idiots were supposed to be protecting the Iraqi military or the civilians, ior whether they were planning on sticking around once actual factual war were declared, but until it was they are not, I think, technically traitors, just stupid and misguided. Alternatively though by that same definition of treason, you remember Geraldo describing the movements and location of the troop he was stationed with? Just putting it out there.
And yes the majority of congress approved the war, notably the minority party, when the majority of the american people were behind the effort for what turns out to be a series of factually inaccurate reasons. If youre going to write history dugg, please dont forget the chapter on context.
So anyway, that Instapundit. What a douche, eh? He was for severely polarized politics before he was against it. Flip-flopper. Indecisive. Pandering. Instapundit: Wrong on polarization, wrong for America.
Dugger | Nov 14, 2006 7:37:59 AM
“If you actively aid and abet (protect) enemy forces in comabt against our forces”
Does this apply when we arbitrarily invade a foreign country?
Good try S. True, there was no thought there and it was nonsensical, but at least it was YOUR own personal nonsense.
Both parties spefically voted for war with Iraq. There was absolutley zilch arbitrary about that.
Perhaps somebody has told you we went to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons. Were that true, it would still not be arbitrary, which roughly means determined by chance, whim or impulse.
Alright, replace “arbitrarily” in S’s post with “amorally, essentially pointlessly, and with reckless disregard for the consequences of our actions or the lives of or fellow human beings”. Then answer the question.
How much longer before Dugger literally turns into a weasel? When his typing begins to suffer, it’ll be because his hands are turning into clawed paws.
“Both parties spefically voted for war with Iraq.”
Bzzzzt. Wrong again dipshit. The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq includes this:
In other words, some people thought the President would turn to war only as a last resort expecting that the threatof war would be ample leverage to get inspectors back in to Iraq and to confirm whether or not Iraq was a threat.
The Iraq War Resolution passed in October 2002 and in November this happened:
Then, as we all know, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney did everything in their power to undermine the inspection process and finally decided to invade Iraq anyway before the inspections had run their course. The Bush administration, in other words, acted in bad faith towards Congress and the American people. Then, on top of that, they failed to do any actual post-invasion planning.
And for some reason you still support these people. You’re a hack dugger, a total ack.
Uh Paul? BZZZZZT! Wrong, pencils down….
Iraq was, under the UN resolutions required to PROVE the destruction of their known WMD’s. Not allow people to go looking for them.
That quote simply proves (B)
“(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
the Iraqi’s were clearly not following the relevent resolutions…go look them up…
Pedro,
Enforcement is enforcement and inspections were the mechanism for ensuring enforcement.
I will remind you that Iraq did produce a lengthy report on the destruction of its WMD program but the inspectors had more questions and more demands. The enforcement process was moving forward and if it had been allowed to continue it’s patently obvious now that the WMD case for war would have been thoroughly rejected.
You guys claim some kind of uber realism for handling dictators but your response only reveals how childish your worldview really is.
It’s clear that the international community should not have expected Hussein to cooperate willingly for a variety of reasons. So compliance required an enforcement and verification method, that is, the threat of force and inspections.
That’s how you do diplomacy, that’s how you avoid costly and tragic mistakes like our current occupation.
If a leadership lies or dissembles to it’s electorate in order to wage war, are they traitors?
The other point is that Dugger’s claim that both parties “spefically voted for war with Iraq”is utter bullshit. A total distortion of the truth.
What both parties voted for in that resolution was for the beginning of a process that would only result in war if all else failed. The Bush administration did not actin good faith as it did not honestly follow trhough on the enforcement mechanisms in place.
Once again it’s the right wing trying to spread the blame for their own incompetence and arrogance.
“I was wrong,” Edwards wrote in a guest column published Sunday in The Washington Post. “It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.”
Man, I’m good. First they are claiming Stalin was a rightist, now its that the war vote (see John Edwards above calling it a war vote) was not a war vote.
And this quote from “usliberals”: ‘In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were: etc’
But wait, maybe Edwards is a Bush or Rove trick.
Hey, Nimmer. What was the question? I was supposed to ignore S’s confusion and guess what he really ‘meant’ to say?
H*ll, you folks want me to make both sides of the argument for you??
Tell you what, from now on, when any of you make a post that you don’t really mean or think is incorrect, just put an asterisk next to it and I will try to creatively pretend it makes sense. How ’bout that?
I think youre taking it ouf of context Dugger. Edwards is calling the 2002 vote a “vote for war” only now after the fact of the war being waged. In 2002 the vote was not put in such language while being voted on and was, as Frame is pointing out, put in terms of “we authorize the preznit to go to war if its necessary as a last resort and he does all the other stuff to prevent it from becoming a necessity, which they promptly did the exact opposite of. Whether or not the vote was a “war vote” is, I’ll grant you, painfully obvious now, but not so much at the time.
Also, quit being an ass.
rex,
I honestly think you are wrong. See what CNN said right after. CNN headline Oct 10, 2002:
“House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq”
It was a war vote. There are a gazillion references to it as a war vote. Furthermore, some Democrats and a single R (senator, more reps) must have seen it exactly that way at the time, because they voted against it. Check Robert Byrd’s analogy to Tonkin. Check Kucinichs words then.
What Rex says. Only to add that Dugger, you are so intellectually bankrupt at this point you need to cut your losses and file Chapter 11 on your brain.
OMG. Dugger, no one is saying that the vote didn’t give the President authority to go to war. But you said the vote was SPECIFICALLY for war with Iraq. It wasn’t. It required the President to verify that war was the last resort. It actually initiated a process to AVOID WAR that the president nevertheless, deliberately sabotaged.
Oh and here’s another little fact from the CNN story for you to choke on:
To Recap: Gephardt felt that it was important to believe the President would act in good faith because if he did the resolution “could avert war.” A majority of Dems disagreed and voted against the bill. So when you write: “Both parties spefically voted for war with Iraq.” You really have to qualify it twice over but you didn’t. Why? because you’re a hack.
IN another thread someone said you were all surface dugger. Clearly you only stop at the headlines and fail to read or actually comprehend anything beyond it. Idiot.
Also from the same article:
Clearly Bush did move in ways that made the situation worse by setting out to undermine the UN inspectors.
Dugger, for using semantics as an excuse for ignoring the points S made altogether, you’re a weasel. And if you actually believe the shit you’re putting out to avoid it, you’re a dumbass.
Dugger | Nov 14, 2006 12:26:45 PM
“Both parties spefically voted for war with Iraq. There was absolutley zilch arbitrary about that.”
Shur, Dukker, wha’ever u shay!
But, baby, the cocked up, mismanaged INVASION by The Decider is one of the main reasons the Republicans got their asses kicked out of office! WE WON!!!
Haaaaahahahahahahahaha!!!
Once again, the oppositon has ‘cut and run’ from the OW battlefield. Only ‘frame’, chased by the contentless yapping jackal ‘S’, is left blabbing incoherently to the four winds. The Great Dugger, ‘look upon me ye mighty and despair’, reigns supreme.
Are you sarcastinly taking the piss out of yourself now or what?
Nimmer, Ol’ bean or beanette,
Are you satirising me? Eh. What.
Dugger | Nov 15, 2006 8:03:46 AM
“The Great Dugger, ‘look upon me ye mighty and despair’, reigns supreme.
“… while I masturbate and post non sensical comments on OW’s blog. HEY, where’s my Scotch?”
“The Great Dugger, ‘look upon me ye mighty and despair’, reigns supreme.”
Wow. Simply wow. Dugs, can’t you wait at least until noon before hitting the Scotch?
Is it time for an intervention yet?
Only ‘frame’, … is left blabbing incoherently to the four winds
And by blabbing incoherently, you actually mean refuting your arguments and pwning you, don’t you?
Glenn Reynolds has been so wrong about Iraq for so long that it’s amazing that anyone really takes him seriously anymore. Although he insists he is a libertarian with an open mind, he’s been part of a WH and right-wing media campaign that has consistently misled people about the war. He’s managed to put a happy face on conditions in Iraq and ceaselessly scapgoated the media for their coverage - all without ever setting foot outside the safety of Tennessee. Never is heard a negative word about the people who planned and executed this war.
Indeed.
His peformance is an example of how self-serving and questionable his theories are about blogging and the new media. Somehow, being a media watchdog means linking to sites you already agree with and patting yourself on the back for it. Pretty lazy.
edvqxlr izwvynl hlcoqzfjt fqyboce zsqoywtj tacqofur oulhqdj