Comments on: Never Again

By: JWG

JWG — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:07:48 +0000

In the runup to the war, JWB was one of the greatest masturbators of all.

Wrong as usual. Got any evidence?

Did the term sting you so deeply?

I served. Did you?

By: TomY

TomY — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:07:33 +0000

1) I don’t know, the shit about the birthday party, perhaps?
2) Fair enough, but in the meantime, would the people who led us into the worst foreign policy disaster of the past 30 years, and who the entire time were calling the opposition traitors and cowards mind showing a little fucking humilty?
3) Barber or Clown?

By: DCPanic

DCPanic — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:07:04 +0000

#1 Sarcasm- You people seem to think that terrorists will simply turn themselves in. They are a reliable group.
#2 So President Bush caused this?
Do you remember a few planes that killed a few people on September 11, 2001
#3 Clown would have been a lot more fun, but I actually received an actual degree…

By: DCPanic

DCPanic — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:07:41 +0000

Tom-
#1 What is the fake argument?
Oliver states that the solution to the problem of terrorism is to simply “kill al Queda”

#2 It would help if Ollie explained how we do that.

#3 I have a degree from a real college.

By: TomY

TomY — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:07:58 +0000

Panic, you’re really great at fighting fake arguments. When you get your GED, will you then have the confidence to take on real ones made by actual people?

By: DCPanic

DCPanic — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:07:31 +0000

Hey Leroy, I’m surprised you actually called them terrorists and not “Freedom Fighters”

By: DCPanic

DCPanic — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:07:19 +0000

“I d kill Al Qaeda - wherever they are. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. What I wouldn t do is invade and occupy countries where AQ has not been.”

Rejoice in all his wisdom, Ollie has single handedly solved the terrorist crisis. All we have to do is go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and ask them to turn over members of al Queda. Then we kill them (but it’s not torture if libs do it). We should probably ask Iran and Syria to voluntarily hand over their al Queda residents while we are there, you know, for the convenience. Yemen will probably follow suit followed by the Palestinians. If they don’t turn them over to U.S. forces, we should send them invitations to a big birthday party for Osama Bin Laden, then when they arrive for the big party we arrest them! Oliver, you are a true genius…

By: JWG

JWG — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:07:03 +0000

Let’s see…Oliver repeatedly claims that he supports killing terrorists. TomY and others support fighting the Taliban and al Qaida. So Rex comes up with his own definition of “chickenhawk” with a dozen qualifiers. However, he never bothered to say anything when these chickenhawk comments appeared from some regular commenters (among many, many others):

Frameone has claimed, “Here s the most official definition of chickenhawk I can find:”

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person s youth.

and

Have you volunteered to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? If not, why not?

AlexCorrigan has referred to “the chickenhawks neocons in the Bush administration who found ways to hide from fighting when they had the opportunity to serve.”

Mr.Curmudgeon claimed:

Sign up or shut up. It s not the only defense, but I think that s a pretty good argument, in leui of your support for such a debacle. If you are of military age, and you think it such a noble cause& why aren t you over there fighting for it? What s your answer?

Jadegold pontificates:

The issue here is that chickenhawks learn the concept of sacrifice the same sacrifice they demand of others…Chickenhawks have no concept of sacrifice. As I ve noted, joining the military doesn t guarantee you ll see combat; in fact, the odds are you won t. But the sacrifice remains you ll likely be separated from family, your career (if unlike Frankie, you have one) will be on hold or delayed, you may incur financial setbacks. All of these are reasons the chickenhawks bang their keyboards instead of heading to the recruiters office

By: TomY

TomY — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:07:01 +0000

In the runup to the war, JWB was one of the greatest masturbators of all. Is this how you lick your wounds, JWG? Did the term sting you so deeply?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:07:40 +0000

Of course theres no webster s definition for this application of the term since its such a new phenomenon, B-Greenwald dissects Jacoby s incorrect interpretation of the term,

How could Jacoby “incorrectly interpret” it if the phenomenon is so new, there’s not a widely-accepted definition? I know Greenwald/Ellers/Wilson would love to claim he speaks for the entire nation, but he doesn’t.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:07:38 +0000

Oh for chrissake… Its incorrect because the definition Jacoby uses does not really mesh with the typical usage of the word. In fact, the widely-accepted definition is basically as Greenwald/Ellers/Wilson/Ryan/Oh/Look/How/Clever/I/Am defines it. I said Webster’s, not “Widely-Accepted” because you said Webster’s, not “Widely-Accepted.” If you meant “Widely-Accepted” when you said Webster’s, then you were, in fact, even more wrong in that instance, given that there is, in fact, a widely accepted definition. So to review, it wont appear in Webster’s in anything like this usage because its too new a term, but there is in fact a widely accepted usage.
Honestly, what, are you under the impression youre winning this debate at this point? Do you think youve actually argued that the term is not defined as I (as well as Greenwald/Wilson/Ellers/Ryan/So/ Clever/I/Dont/Have/To/Address/The/Substance/Of/The/Argument) have argued? I think JWG was looking for examples to prove my definition is incorrect, has he found anything yet, do you think? You even mis-applied Greenwald’s definition to apply to situations where, as he describes in his article, it clearly wouldnt, making you complicit in the same error that Jacoby Himself commits. Are you simply ignorant, or intentionally trying to misl I’m asking at this point because, seriously, its getting to the point where it looks like you cant actually address the point, which means I’ll be forced, FORCED I tell you, to assume that you concede the point to me.
Of course your free to try attacking Greenwald/Ellers/Larry/Moe/Curly/ Joe/They’re/The/Funniest/Guys/I/Know for being an egomaniac or something yet again in the hope that that makes his criticism entirely invalid, who knows, maybe you’ll get bonus points or something, I dunno… have I fscking won yet?

By: Zython

Zython — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:07:32 +0000

How could Jacoby incorrectly interpret it if the phenomenon is so new, there s not a widely-accepted definition?

Well, it’s kinda like the term “moonbat” in this regard. “Moonbat” doesn’t have a Webster definition (or any for that matter), but it would be incorrect to interpret its definition to mean ‘a slice of moldy old American cheese’. This example is a bit exaggerated, but the principal behind it is pretty much the same.

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:07:21 +0000

I’m sorry, who traded arms with a member of the axis of evil for years? A secret deal that actually kept the Iranian hostages from being released while under Carter’s watch to swing the election? A deal that was brokered with the man who supposedly wanted to drive Israel into the sea but apparently had no trouble accepting a secret arms deal with that very nation and carried out by the Mossad? Wait, what about Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen?

Here’s one for the yearbook

By: gb2628

gb2628 — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:07:15 +0000

Mr. Willis, I really enjoy your blog and make sure that i read it every day.From reading your blog i know that you are a big Superman fan.You are probably aware that the U.S. Post Office has issued a pane of stamps with the images of DCsuperheros including two for Superman.What could be neater thatn that.A card or a letter with the Superman stamps with a Metropolis post mark!
The Metropolis Post Office will put a Metropolis post mark on any cards or letter sent,inside a separate envelope and noted to the attention of the Post Master. Their address is as follows:
Metropolis Post Office
101 W 5th Street
Metropolis,Illinois 62960-9998
618 524-4921

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:07:57 +0000

Mr Mundane asked:

Dear god in heaven, what is it like to be so wrong?

That would be like being a liberal Democrat!

By: Zython

Zython — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:07:50 +0000

Uhh, this is lunancy. Al Qaeda has been in Iraq.

Sure, Saddam would have glady harbored Al Qaeda, even though the radical Muslims hated Saddam due to him being secular. Whateeeeeeeeeever you say…

But we now assume you are going to invade every country where there is an Al Qaeda person (unbless you have a mgic way of killing without violating sovreignty)

It’s called the CIA. They did stuff like hunting terrorists back before it was turned into a partisan body whose sole duty was to churn out faulty intellegence.

By: TomY

TomY — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:07:48 +0000

Dana, you don’t have the resolve to do what it takes to get Osama. Not much else anyone else needs to know about you, is there?

By: Dana

Dana — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:07:48 +0000

Our esteemed host wrote:

How would I fight it? I d kill Al Qaeda - wherever they are. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. What I wouldn t do is invade and occupy countries where AQ has not been.

Well, Mr Willis, I’d point out that the biggest concentration of al Qaeda we can pinpoint, with certain accuracy, are the prisoners at Guantanamo. From what you wrote, I assume that you mean we ought to simply line them all up against the wall and shoot them.

That must be true — or your statement wasn’t true.

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:07:29 +0000

Terrorism, it’s all Carter’s fault…or not.

By: TomY

TomY — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:07:25 +0000

Dugger twists himself into a knot arguing against a disastrous, pointless, irrelevant, incompetent invasion of Germany. Great job, Dugger! That would indeed be a bad idea. Now, where the fuck were you in 2003 when your party frightened you into backing a pointless, irrelevant, disastrously incompetent invasion of Iraq? Oh that’s right, you were in a WMD tizzy, masturbating about what a Manful Defender of Western Civilization you were for your tour of duty in the warblogosphere. Not to mention calling liberals cowards and traitors — you get a couple stripes for that? Since you and your war party buddies have consistenly been so fantastically wrong about every security issue in the past 5 years, your credibility on these matters is worth about as much value as your warblogger pension. I suggest you cash it in somewhere where it has value. Maybe Freerepublic.com?