Comments on: Can The Washington Post Get More Ridiculous?

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Sun, 13 May 2007 10:11:38 +0000

“That you couldn’t possibly be deluded enough to believe that the people in our government have no knowledge of the geopolitics of Iraq, and that your knowledge of the area is superior to theirs.”

Bush didn’t know there were Shiites and Sunnis. So yes, my knowledge was greater than theirs.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 12 May 2007 17:26:50 +0000

assuming for a moment that you are referring to 9/11 casualties
I was, and am not.
What did you say a while back about the company you keep?
As best as I can recall? Nothing.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 12 May 2007 17:12:33 +0000

He fought a, what, 8 or 9 year war with Iran to be the “big dog” in the Middle East.

#4 is probably the real reason we “took him out”. It’s also the reason I have always been glad we went in there, and why we have to stay and win.

Yes, Iran and bin Laden are glad of that as well. What did you say a while back about the company you keep?

I think 4,000 dead addresses that issue, but you don’t see it that way, I suppose…

Well, you’re sure right about that, pal. Assuming for a moment that you are referring to 9/11 casualties, let me just point out one more time that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 12 May 2007 15:55:43 +0000

OK, fine: That you couldn’t possibly be deluded enough to believe that the people in our government have no understanding of the geopolitics of Iraq, and that your understanding of the area is superior to theirs.

There, all tidy now. I’m sure CSS will appreciate your diligence.

As to whether or not the United States “cares” about Iraq, I think 4,000 dead addresses that issue, but you don’t see it that way, I suppose…

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Sat, 12 May 2007 15:08:58 +0000

But keep hollering, “Where’s the WMD’s!”

That’s a point, where are they?

He didn’t say knowledge, he said undestanding. Different things.

Besides, maybe they do have more understanding of Iraqi geopolitics than CSS is giving them credit for (although I doubt it), but they just don’t care. That’s a possibility.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 12 May 2007 14:30:53 +0000

I am assuming that
1) You meant for “not” to follow “should”; and
2) You really didn’t mean for that preposition to be hanging out there by its lonesome at the end of the sentence; and
3)That you couldn’t possibly be deluded enough to believe that the people in our government have no knowledge of the geopolitics of Iraq, and that your knowledge of the area is superior to theirs.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Sat, 12 May 2007 08:49:01 +0000

“The point is that he had Imperial Designs, and he had plans to make a Middle Eastern Empire not unlike ancient Babylonia.”

And after the first gulf war he no ability to follow through with those plans and taking him out destabilized an already volatile region.

Further proof people should mess around in places they have no understanding of.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 12 May 2007 05:18:26 +0000

Well, CSS. I’m not going to argue the point, because it couldn’t be more academic,if not completely moot. The point is that he had Imperial Designs, and he had plans to make a Middle Eastern Empire not unlike ancient Babylonia.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Sat, 12 May 2007 04:36:24 +0000

“3) He didn’t just invade Kuwait, he claimed it “belonged” to Iraq.”

It did. The borders in the Middle East were drawn up by the British and the French without regard to political or cultural differences in the region. This is why you have three faction in Iraq that have more in common with groups within foreign countries than they have with each other.

By: Wellstone

Wellstone — Sat, 12 May 2007 04:26:45 +0000

Uh. gee, Frank, if you “wrote a 19-page paper” on Iraq under Saddam being part of a broader Islamicist movement, I’m glad I never read it. I would have worn out a red Sharpie on you.

Did ANYONE ever read it, or just you? HAHAHHAHA!!

Even cursory GOOGLE research will show you that Saddam was a master at paying lip service to the mullahs, so’s he could keep the lid on his 60% Sh’ia dictatorship for 30 long years.

Especially in light of the near-100% fervently Sh’ia country he shared a 600-mile border with, his enemy Iran.

The war with Iran was extremely problematic for Saddam, since he had to whip his Sh’ía back with extreme force to keep them from rising up in religious fervor in support of Iraq’s enemies.

For you to try to make the argument that Saddam was PART of the mullah movement is beyond ludicrous, it’s dazzlingly stupid.

As usual, you first arrive at a result (usually a position in support of some wingnut dogma) and then try to round up and line up some “facts” to support it.

And if the “facts” don’t cooperate, you yell and bully and wave your arms around a lot and PRETEND they do “for all intents and purposes”.

That’s what I understand they teach you at the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced COnservative Studies.

See, the way REAL historians do it, is first you line up the FACTS you know are true, and THEN you draw a conclusion and a model to support them.

And if you find NEW facts, your whole model changes.

This last part is, I know, completely beyond the ability of most wingnut heads to comprehend without exploding.

By: slugger

slugger — Sat, 12 May 2007 01:39:29 +0000

The Perle/Tent tiff is a small part of what we will be seeing in the future as people try to distance themselves from the failures of the Bush administration. There will be lots of books coming out in the next few years. You can certainly expect Colin Powell, Condi Rice and others to tell us that they foresaw the problems, but George would not listen. I can hardly wait for Cheney’s revelations of all the things he warned George about.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 12 May 2007 01:38:47 +0000

1) In his early days as leader of Iraq, Hussein saw himself as the ideological descendant of Nasser, a pan – Arabist.

2) He added a crescent to the Iraqi flag to ride piggy pack on Islamic appeal

3) He didn’t just invade Kuwait, he claimed it “belonged” to Iraq.

4) He fought a, what, 8 or 9 year war with Iran to be the “big dog” in the Middle East.

#4 is probably the real reason we “took him out”. It’s also the reason I have always been glad we went in there, and why we have to stay and win.

But keep hollering, “Where’s the WMD’s!”

By: Enoch Root

Enoch Root — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:52:51 +0000

Do you think anyone will buy his story?

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:50:24 +0000

Also I’m not sure Saddam was really part of any great Islamist movement. His motives mostly began and ended with Iraq, the making greater of (like invading Kuwait and killing Kurds and that sort of thing). Him and Bin Laden were practically ideologically opposite, except for the not liking America thing.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:47:37 +0000

“But your reaction to Oliver criticising a major newspaper for being stupid was to defend the freedom of the press”

Was that, or was that not, basically the gist of Frank’s reaction?

“That durn Freedomn of the Press! Don’t you just hate it when newspapers print what you don’t like?”

One which would have been more appropriate had Oliver been calling for active censorship rather than offering criticism?

The deliberately flippant hyperbole aside, nothing I said is inaccurate, Frank.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:28:29 +0000

as if Oliver was suggesting the paper be shut down and erased from history for printing something he didn’t like.
You don’t deserve a reasonable response after that comment.
I meant no such thing.
As you (interestingly) have said to me dozens of times: Shut up, Nimrod Gently.

I find it totally disgusting that two men … are given attention at all.
And there it is again. Because we have a First Amendment, they can say whatever they want, you can be disgusted, and I can laugh at you.

“…Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement…??”
In what universe?
Wellstone, I guess you fell asleep in the same history class as Jimmmmmmmmmmmm.

I wrote a 19 page paper on the Iran – Iraq War, and Gulf War I. How much research have you done?

By: Wellstone

Wellstone — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:49:01 +0000

“…Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement…??”

In what universe?

Wait, I know, in Wingnut Isolandia.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:04:49 +0000

No, you didn’t, not directly. But your reaction to Oliver criticising a major newspaper for being stupid was to defend the freedom of the press, as if Oliver was suggesting the paper be shut down and erased from history for printing something he didn’t like.

One can draw many inferences about you from that.

By: fd10801

fd10801 — Fri, 11 May 2007 19:13:14 +0000

Perle intimates that Iraq under Saddam was part of a broader Islamicist movement. Nice try, but false.
Do tell, Jimmmmmmmmmmmmmm… You have done the requisite research to back up that criticism?
It so happens that that assessment goes back to his war with Iran, and his invasion of Kuwait. Those two events did occur, did they not?

And by the way, Jimmmmmmmmmmm… I didn’t say anything about censorship.
Not conflated, deflated or inflated.

By: Ann

Ann — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:13:06 +0000

I find it totally disgusting that two men, who promoted and cheerled this evil war, are given attention at all. They should be relegated to the dust bin of evildom and shunned by every human being…instead, they appear on MTP, write op eds….blaming each other, and suggesting that the other one “is more evil than I am, nah, nah, nah, nah.” Instead of being vanished into irrelevancy, they score book deals and sit on boards of corporations. Is there something wrong with our society or what?