Glenn Reynolds approvingly quotes the right-wingers at Investor’s Business Daily on Iran: “It won’t take much to topple the regime.”
Where have I heard that before? Do morons like Reynolds and the IBD editorial board never learn? They have no clue.
Tag Cloud
Politics 2008 Election Republicans Conservatives Iraq Media Democrats George W. Bush Barack Obama John McCain Humor Hillary Clinton 2006 Election Uncategorized Links NFL Oliver's World Right Wing Media Redskins Race Newsweek Maryland Terrorism Sports Movies Religious Right Fox News Mitt Romney Economy Women Racism Liberal Media Michael Steele Liberals Rudy Giuliani Fred Thompson Superman News Black Conservatives Television Comics Democratic Congress John Edwards Immigration History Ben Cardin Economics Technology U.S. Attorney Scandal Global Warming Crime 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Gore Bill Clinton Dick Cheney Iran TV Religion Site Stuff Joe Lieberman Education Democratic House Republican Culture Of Corruption Democratic Senate Stem Cell Research The Politico Useful "Liberals" Intelligent Design Supreme Court Science Weird Media For McCain Kirsten Powers Health Care Fox News Channel Guns Free Speech
They’re right, you know. It won’t take much to topple the regime.
It’s what comes after that will take some doing.
Exactly what Quaker said. Toppling is the easy part. Occupying is the hard/impossible part.
The candy and flowers are hidden in Iran.
Your “approvingly’ was gratuitous. Reynolds is a nice man and you consistently behave badly towards him. Do you really feel that way or is it part of a campaign by Soros or Brock.
How is “approvingly” gratuitous here? Removing the word turns the sentence into “Glenn Reynolds quotes the right-wingers at Investor’s Business Daily on Iran,” which fails to impart that he was quoting them with a mind to agree.
On the same note, you should be free to write “Oliver Willis disapprovingly references Glenn Reynolds,” because just writing “Oliver Willis references Glenn Reynolds” is not a fully informative phrase.
Now that we’ve discussed the rhetoric, Dugger, how about you get to the issue? What opinion do you hold in regards to the contention that we should invade, destabilize, and occupy Iran?
Actually Spider, I have always had doubts about the Iraq war (I don’t buy the ‘Bush lied’ ‘warmonger” childish BS of OW, but there are reasonable doubts in my mind that we can change things in Iraq). So I don’t see the wisdom of aground war in Iran eitehr. , much less one in Iran. We may have to do something there, but I hope it can be accomplished with surgical strikes - if it becomes necesary.
And Reynolds merely quoted the IBD artcle without editorial comment and then included a dissent. OW read ‘approvingly’ into it because he and Brock and Soros hate Reynolds.
Dugger, you’re a liar.
Reynolds wrote the following:
THOUGHTS ON CRACKING IRAN, from Investor’s Business Daily. “It won’t take much to topple the regime. That should be our goal. Taking action today will save us a lot of heartache tomorrow.” I certainly hope that’s true.
What part of Reynolds’ “I certainly hope that’s true” do you think disapproves of the IBD Op-Ed?
Secondly, the
UPDATE: Not much optimism here.
is a link to another wingnut website which says in part
“…Democrats continue squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance for an immediate and unconditional surrender and generally dancing to the Islamist tune, shrilly advocating for “fighting” terrorists in any place other than where we know for sure they now are. And now some Republicans are joining them.
But who can blame them, really? From the opening moments of the Iraq campaign, when “shock and awe” were abandoned for something a whole lot more quotidian and supposedly “humane,” Bush has allowed the slow, sure Democratization of this war through his own ineptness and lack of vision, and it’s almost complete…”
Thanks a lot, Instaputz, for esposing the “lack of optimism” that Iran can be “cracked”.
Ollie, keep at him. Reynolds needs to be exposed daily for the puerile scumbag he is.
Dugger, what a mature, serious thinker you are! Now, have you thought through the impact of this limited action? For example, this will be perceived as an act of war, which will enable Iran to legitimately and openly provide support to Shi’a resistance in Southern Iraq, where we will be taking over for Britain when they leave in the coming months. It will enable Iran to go after oil tankers in the straits of Hormuz without fear of retribution. It will enable Iran to send weapons to Afghanistan to resist NATO involvement there, particularly in the farsi-speaking regions. It will marginalize the democratic resistance in the Iran under a wave of nationalism, which is very, very deep.
This is why you and your kind must have the levers of foreign policy taken from you. You are simply not equipped to deal with international adversity.
Once again we’re back to the nonsense about linking to = approving and agreeing unless specifically saying otherwise.
Don’t you people get tired of such crap?
Jay -
I repeat Wellstone here:
What part of Reynolds’ “I certainly hope that’s true” do you think disapproves of the IBD Op-Ed?
Read before typing, please.
Spider: I expect it depends what your definition of “is” is. Or what your definition of “shut the fuck up Jay” is.
Dear Glenn Reynolds, IBD, and ideological affiliates?
ARE YOU ALL HIGH?
Sincerly,
N. Gently
CEO,
What The Fuck Is Wrong With You Incorporated
Hey Nimrod, I’m sure you know what the definition of ‘blow me’ is and you can do so.
Spider, the last time I checked, “I hope so” wasn’t an endorsement of something and that’s why I call bullshit on crap like this.
Know what it is? A pissing contest and Oliver has already won. There’s a flood of his pee all over Glenn. Oliver loves lifting his leg just like his Wonder Weenier dog. I would be more interested in Oliver writing up some rebuttal to what IBD wrote. But he took the easy way out and drag out the “HE LINKED APPROVINGLY TO _______ BECAUSE HE DIDN’T SPECIFICALLY DISAPPROVE OF IT!” trope in order to get in some easy name calling.
“Reynolds is a nice man and you consistently behave badly towards him.”
Reynolds is a moron and he deserves to be called one every time he acts like one.
“OW read ‘approvingly’ into it because he and Brock and Soros hate Reynolds.”
And you are also a moron who deserves to be called one.
“Once again we’re back to the nonsense about linking to = approving and agreeing unless specifically saying otherwise.”
“Spider, the last time I checked, “I hope so” wasn’t an endorsement of something ”
Uhhh…. Yes it is you fucking moron.
Iran is the worst kind of enemy -one that can defend itself.
Wellstone, son, I would have thought your experience with that misbegotten post wherein you discused those Stalinist Republican leaders who weren’t leaders would have tempered your childish temper-tantrum rhetoric.
Now listen, Renolds said he hopes that is true (that the Iranian regime is easily “topplable”). See, he used the word ‘hope’ indicating he doesn’t know if its true. To me and other adults that does not constitute “approvingly”. If he had wanted to be ‘approving’ he would have said something like “they nailed it!” or “they are exactly right.” But he didn’t say that. He said he hoped they were right - now didn’t he? And OW butchered it because he has this thing against Reynolds (or Soros does).
And zadura, you screwed up amigo. What action did I specify (beyond surgical which could be a thousand different things)and under what conditions (how about Iran about to nuke Isarel - did you lose reading comprehension where I said “if necessary’. May we assume you would take the Democratic positon and let ‘em nuke Israel?). Your post was worse than Wellstone’s and his sucked big time.
Wellstone and Zadura - 0 for 2. Anybody else?
Hey Nimrod, I’m sure you know what the definition of ‘blow me’ is and you can do so.
Now that’s what I call reasoned debate! Isn’t he great, folks? Let’s give Jay a big round of applause!
[golf clap]
Thoughts on the Senate Republicans from Oliver–”They’re all going to lose!” I certainly hope that’s true.
Approving? Or not approving?
I’ve found out why there are so many batshit crazy people in Tennessee. It’s because many of them drink raw sewage.
=========================
E. coli found in 500 Tennessee streams
Hinesberg Journal, Canada - 18 hours ago
More than 500 Tennessee streams are polluted with E. coli bacteria, according to information from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.
http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=24627
Quaker, I suppose “shut the fuck up Jay” fits within your guidelines of reasoned debate.
As for your example, according to others here, you are approving. Therefore, if all the Senate Republicans do not lose, I can say to you, “You were wrong. All of them didn’t lose”
To which you would probably respond, “Well, I didn’t say they’d all lose. I just said I hoped it would happen.”
See?
“Now listen, Renolds said he hopes that is true (that the Iranian regime is easily “topplable”).”
Really? Because the actually quote he cites has three ideas in it:
1. It won’t take much to topple the regime.
2. That should be our goal.
3. Taking action today will save us a lot of heartache tomorrow.
Reynolds followed this with: “I certainly hope that’s true.”
Hope what’s true? The first, second, third or all points?
Reynold’s pithy style sort of jams up his message here, a bit don’t you think?
If he hopes it’s true that an attack now will save us trouble later, is that not an endorsement of striking sooner rather than later? Sounds like it to me.
Dugger, if Israel is “nuked,” our response should be considerably more profound than surgical strikes. The issue that is on the table is what the appropriate response should be in a world short of Iran declaring war on our allies.
This is where people like the Kristols and Kagans would have us “surgically strike” Iran. Are you saying that you disagree with the IBD article and should only attack Iran if we or our allies are attacked?
Quaker, I suppose “shut the fuck up Jay” fits within your guidelines of reasoned debate.
Oh, very well.
Nimrod? Bad commenter! Bad! No doughnut for you!
Please, Jay, tell me you think that Reynolds has not yet made up his mind on the need and efficacy of attacking Iran.
Please tell me you think he’s on the fence about it.
Quaker, Nimrod doesn’t eat donuts. He eats crumpets.
Frame, I don’t know what his position is. Why don’t you email him and ask him?
zadura,
Spider asked me if we should invade Iran. I said no (to a ground war) and that surgical strikes should be used ‘if necesary’. You then took my remarks out of context and evidently assumed without fully reading that I am advocating strikes now against Iran. You are wrong. No sane Democrat or Republican Pres would preclude the possibility of taking surgical strikes against Iran or any other dangerous rogue state. And the surgical strikes would be to preclude Iran from doing something dire - not after the fact. Something similar to Osirak.
And frame, I would agree that it ’sounds like it to you.”
Who cares about InstaCracker? He’s been wrong and dishonest about everything else–why should this most recent example be any different?
To which you would probably respond, “Well, I didn’t say they’d all lose. I just said I hoped it would happen.”
See?
Yes, you just explained Reynolds need for an out and his intellectual dishonesty. Thanks for that.
I like young boys, maybe if we bomb iran i can find me some hot 14 year old refugees!!!
“It won’t take much to topple the regime.”
Well, let us know how you make out, Glenn.
Actually Duros it has nothing to do with Reynolds but rather those who are choosing to read what they want into something simply for the sake of easy Instapundit-bashing.
The intellectual dishonesty and laziness resides with those who draw conclusions based on biases and not anything concrete.
Isn’t it fair to say that somebody could be opposed to attacking Iran but still hope that if it did happen, it would go as somebody said? Or if you knew something was going to go down regardless, would hoping that it would go well make you in favor of it? Cmon.
I just find it ironic that liberals who are always chastising conservatives for looking at issues sometimes in black and white and bitching about the lack of nuance with regard to policy decisions are suddenly so rigid about something as inconsequential as links on a freaking blog.
Dugger: You wouldn’t know a nice man if you blew him.
//Isn’t it fair to say that somebody could be opposed to attacking Iran but still hope that if it did happen//
Jay, that’s stupid, even for you.
“Frame, I don’t know what his position is. Why don’t you email him and ask him?”
So essentially when you attacked Oliver you hadn’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
Reynolds has explicitly advocated the assassination of Iranian scientists and politicians. He has argued that Iran has been legally at war with the United States since 1979 and he has repeatedly suggested that we should be at war with Iran.
To argue that there are no grounds for reading his latest as approving some sort of an attack on Iran, sooner rather than later, is to ignore Reynolds clear record on the issue.
“And the surgical strikes would be to preclude Iran from doing something dire - not after the fact.”
And certainly surgical strikes would be the end of it and we would never have to worry about Iran again.
Jesus you guys are idiots.
Jimmm, so let me see. You were opposed to the Iraq war. I guess that means you hoped it would go badly, correct? I mean, you couldn’t have hoped it would go well because that would make you in favor of it right? That’s stupid.
So essentially when you attacked Oliver you hadn’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
I wasn’t the one drawing a conclusion. Oliver was. The stupid and idiotic conclusion that linking to something means automatic approval and agreement with whatever is linked to unless specifically stated otherwise.
So please. Have at it. If it makes you geeks feel better about yourselves to announce how horribly Glenn Reynolds is at every turn. Enjoy.
Enjoy being idiots and intellectually lazy pissing contest winners.
Wow, Jay. Just wow.
You admit you have no clue what you’re talking about but we’re being intellectually lazy?
And Jay, you did indeed draw a conclusion about Reynolds’ post: You concluded it was a neutral link to someone who supports invading Iran with a simple hope that if war becomes necessary it goes well.
Given Reynolds clear record on Iran — advocating assassinations, arguing that a state of war exists between iran and the US, suggesting that accordingly we need to do something about Iran — that’s a completely naive interpretation.
It’s the kind of passive idiocy that eased the Bush administrations efforts to get us into Iraq. And look how wonderfully that turned out.
You admit you have no clue what you’re talking about but we’re being intellectually lazy?
Here we go again. Frameone’s timeless tactic of saying somebody ‘admitted’ something they never came close to saying. Don’t you ever get tired of being such a hack?
And Jay, you did indeed draw a conclusion about Reynolds’ post: You concluded it was a neutral link to someone who supports invading Iran with a simple hope that if war becomes necessary it goes well.
I concluded nothing. That’s the point (aside from the one you think you have on your head) that you’re missing.
My issue is with the whole “linking approvingly” or “quoting approvingly” nonsense which I said is nothing more than a way to gear up to move ahead in the latest round pissing which leads to chest thumping with the equivalent of WWE fans cheering it all on.
If Oliver has issues with what IBD wrote, why doesn’t he write about that? Because that might actually require more brain power, so he chooses to take the easy way out. “Oh, I’ll just say Glenn approved of what they say and call them stupid and other names. Yay me.”
It’s the simplest form of mental masturbation and you guys are pros.
“Spider, the last time I checked, “I hope so” wasn’t an endorsement of something”
What did you check? The Big Book Of Assertions To Use On The Internet? Because IT IS STILL WRONG. On what planet is “I hope what they are talking about happens” is not an endorsement?
Hence “Shut the fuck up Jay”. This is your way of avoiding the actual issue by quibbling about semantics and other shit. Congratulations, it worked. Do we have your permission to get back on topic now god damn it?
Frameone, nice going. You nailed Jay’s stupid arguments to the outhouse wall.
He just hasn’t realized it yet. See, he’s a Republican elephant.
It takes about twenty minutes for them to realize they’ve been pwn3d.
Do we have your permission to get back on topic now god damn it?
What topic? That Glenn Reynolds is a poopyhead? By all means, go ahead.
Wellstone, please. The day I get pwn3d by an intellectual lightweight like Frame is the day I nail myself to an outhouse wall.
And Nimrod, the day you can comment beyond your usually snotty comments and say something with some substance, then you can talk to me about getting on topic. You’re the equivalent of a chat room flamer.
“Frameone’s timeless tactic of saying somebody ‘admitted’ something they never came close
to saying.”
Can I quote you Jay: “Frame, I don’t know what his position is.”
You clearly stated that you have no idea what Reynolds position is with regards to Iran so how can you blithely assume that Reynolds has nothing at stake in linking to an article that advocates a policy he has repeatedly supported in the past?
You only think Reynold’s link is a total neutral, transparent act because you have no idea what Reynold’s actually position on Iran is.
I’m taking my ball and going home.
On Oliver Willis’ blog, Nimrod said to Jay “shut the fuck up”. Heh.
Also on Oliver Willis’ blog, frameone makes a case that Jay doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I hope so.
Finally on OW’s blog, Jay is handed his ass again. Disturbing, if true.
You clearly stated that you have no idea what Reynolds position is with regards to Iran so how can you blithely assume that Reynolds has nothing at stake in linking to an article that advocates a policy he has repeatedly supported in the past?
Probably because Glenn has also linked to articles or other blogs taking a position he doesn’t support on a variety of issues. I don’t go the route of cherry picking for the same of easy Glenn bashing.
He has an entry where he links to somebody who writes that Pakistan is a greater danger to the United States than Iran with regard to nukes. Glenn didn’t refute it, so that means he agrees with that position, correct? Using your logic, that’s the case.
What’s truly funny in all of this is that Oliver completely misreads what the IBD article says. He compares it to Iraq when the article in question does not call for an all out military invasion of Iran, but rather missile strikes at strategic targets.
You know, the kind Oliver slobbers over when he fondly recalls a former president bombing the shit out of Yugoslavia and Iraq.
“Probably because Glenn has also linked to articles or other blogs taking a position he doesn’t support on a variety of issues.”
Um, Jay. You are not following because again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Reynolds record is not on your side.
Reynolds has explicitly, in his own words, advocated that we should assassinate Iranian scientists and political leaders. He has explicitly, in his own words, argued that Iran has been at war with us since 1979 and that we are within our rights to act belligerently towards it. He has suggested, in his own words, that this is exactly what we should do whether through strategic strikes or assassinations or fomenting political unrest.
The bottom line is that Reynolds linked to an article advocating a position he endorses completely while suggesting he hopes that the policy there advocated would lead to a positive outcome.
Of course he hopes the policy would lead to a positive outcome. It’s a policy he endorses and has endorsed explicitly.
Step back a bit, Jay, and you’ll see that it you’re the one taking the mindless, knee jerk response here. Reynolds is clearly attacking less than honestly here with his readers given his own past statements on Iran.
Correction:
Reynolds is clearly acting less than honestly here with his readers given his own past statements on Iran.
“Now listen, Renolds said he hopes that is true (that the Iranian regime is easily ‘topplable’). See, he used the word ‘hope’ indicating he doesn’t know if its true. To me and other adults that does not constitute ‘approvingly’.”
Good god, are you really this fucking stupid?
Yes you are.
Frame, first of all, let’s get the facts straight:
1. Reynolds has not advocated killing Iranian political leaders. He spoke of radical mullahs which is completely different. He also did not say ‘Iranian scientists’, but atomic scientists working on nukes in direct violation of UN security council resolutions. These are covert acts which this country has carried out for the last 60 years and don’t pretend for a fucking minute that we haven’t.
3. Reynolds has advocated fomenting political unrest. Nothing wrong with that.
2. Reynolds doesn’t even advocate missile strikes much less an invasion of Iran.
Amazing. I found this all out by a doing a simple freaking search. Took me all of 2 mins.
Oh for the love of God give it up. Either engage with the issue or stop typing words.
“Amazing. I found this all out by a doing a simple freaking search. Took me all of 2 mins.”
And you say this as if it doesn’t make a bit difference to your original assertion in this thread that it’s simply beyond the pale to suggest that Reynolds supports intervening in iran.
What an idiot.
Read the link Ringo or STFU.
Cripes. Guy doesn’t write anything beyond snappy one liners and he tells me to engage with the issue.
And you say this as if it doesn’t make a bit difference to your original assertion in this thread that it’s simply beyond the pale to suggest that Reynolds supports intervening in iran.
Another Frameone BS tactic. I notice now that it has changed to “intervening in iran.”
Don’t get cute jackass. The accusation is that Reynolds is “linking approvingly” to an piece that advocates missile strikes and Oliver stretched it to a full military invasion. That’s obviously not the case.
You were wrong. Oliver was wrong. Deal with it.
“Don’t get cute jackass. The accusation is that Reynolds is “linking approvingly” to an piece that advocates missile strikes and Oliver stretched it to a full military invasion. That’s obviously not the case.”
Oh please. Reynolds supports intervening in Iran to topple the regime there so he links to an article that advocates this same policy and says, “Gee I hope it would work out this way.”
Oliver calls bullshit and you start criping that Reynolds link doesn’t imply endorsement of intervention or toppling the regime.
Or did you not write: “Once again we’re back to the nonsense about linking to = approving and agreeing unless specifically saying otherwise.”
Again, you’re a total idiot. But please, keep digging.
Oh please Frame. You know, you’re such a whiny sniveling little coward. You can’t bring yourself to admit that you’re wrong.
The article is clearly centered around military strikes against Iran’s oil refineries and nuclear facilities. That is the “action” they’re talking about.
So stop now with the “intervention” as if I was saying Reynolds advocated a complete hands off approach, because I know he hasn’t. Your entire position from the beginning is that Reynolds endorses military action.
But the fact of the matter is, he does not support missile strikes nor an invasion.
Give it a rest already.
Since you still insist on resorting to stereotyping and nationality-baiting, I fail to see why I should treat you any better.
“Your entire position from the beginning is that Reynolds endorses military action.”
Um, really? Let’s recap.
Reynolds clearly endorses intervening in Iran. He clearly endorses toppling the current regime. He clearly endorses using assassinations to accomplish this. (I guess we no longer consider covert operations to kill people military interventions, right?) He also endorses fomenting internal political unrest to do this.
Now he links to an article quoting a passage which suggests that toppling the Iranian regime would be easy in order to add that he hopes this would be.
Oliver called bullshit on the idea that toppling the iranian regime would be easy at all as well as the idea that toppling the iranian regime would somehow lead to a wonderful outcome. Anyone looking at Iraq in 2007 should know that even if the first is correct, the second is simply a fantasy.
You charged into this arguing first that we should not conclude that Reynolds agreed with or supported anything in the article simply because he linked to it. Why did you argue this? Because you didn’t know shit about Reynolds previous position on Iran.
After you finally got around to looking it up well after making an ass of yourself, you now want us all to ignore your previous points.
Again, brilliant, Jay. Just brilliant.
But the fact of the matter is, he does not support missile strikes nor an invasion.
So, now you know his position, then? Neat.
But if he did, he hopes it goes well…
Indeed.
Maybe InstaCracker will give Jay a treat and a walk in the park.
You guys are still arguing over whether “I hope that’s true” indicates approval?
Wowee.
Jay’s very good at keeping people off-message.
Spider, the last time I checked, “I hope so” wasn’t an endorsement of something and that’s why I call bullshit on crap like this.
So…saying “I hope you die” doesn’t mean that I endorse you’re death? Ok then.
Reynolds is a nice man and you consistently behave badly towards him.
“Weave the nice man awone. All he did was push for a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people! I’m telling mommy!”
I love how it moved from military action to “intervening” like they suddenly became heroin addicts.
Oliver called bullshit on the idea that toppling the iranian regime would be easy
He compared it to Iraq you MORON! What did we do in Iraq? We bombed and then we invaded. Are you going to sit here and tell me that Oliver is calling people idiots and morons because IBD suggested we “ratched up political pressure”? Is that his complaint?
You know it isn’t and you know you had your butt handed to you the moment I posted that link to Reynolds blog showing that he doesn’t support an invasion and he doesn’t support air strikes (despite your claim he did).
All of a sudden you shifted gears and started backtracking with this bullshit about Reynolds support for “intervening.”
Like I said, give it up.
Maybe InstaCracker will give Jay a treat and a walk in the park.
Yeah and maybe somebody will buy you another drink. Go back to the tank.
“He compared it to Iraq you MORON!”
What Oliver wrote was this (and I can’t believe I have to actually quote it since it’s at the top of the thread but you seem incapable of retaining information between reading it and scrolling to the bottom of the page):
Now I’m sorry jay, but Oliver is clearly saying that Reynolds and the idiot who wrote the article have not learned the lesson of Iraq: That toppling a regime really only the beginning of the problem, not a solution in itself, no matter how easy it is.
It doesn’t matter how the toppling is done: military intervention, political upheaval, assassinations of national leaders etc. etc.
Reynolds clearly favors regime change in Iran and he had advocated for military intervention in that country — unless you want to argue that targeted assassinations is not military intervention now.
He linked to an article that advocated even larger scale military intervention and added that he hoped it would work.
You’ve got to be an idiot to keep arguing that Reynolds is somekind of moderate on the Iran issue. To paint guys like Reynolds as a moderate is to so skew the poles of political discourse in this country so far in favor of a radical agenda it boggles the mind.
You admitted that you had no idea what Reynolds policies re: Iran were when you entered this discussion. You insisted that Reynolds post did not suggest an endorsement of regime change in Iran. And now you want to suggest that Reynolds, while supporting regime change in Iran through assassinations and internal political intervention, is still a moderate because he only hopes airstrikes would work, instead of outright supporting them.
It truly boggles the mind.
You know, glenn reynolds has been on such an absolute roll in his unwavering support of our prewar-posturing/invasion/liberating/mission-accomplishing/policing/abu-graibing/surging in Iraq — it’s easy to see why other cassandras like jay and dugger are rushing to his defense.
But jay, your defense of glenn essentially leaves us only the conclusion that glenn was insincere in writing “I certainly hope that’s true” in his link to a fellow wingnut.
Frame, the rest of the people who take your side in this may be stupid enough to buy your asinine reasoning here, but I’m not.
You got hosed dude. You claimed Reynolds supported military action in Iraq (missile strikes and an invasion). When that kicked you in the ass, you widened it to “intervening” which is total bullshit. I know that Reynolds supported intervention on a scale that included covert action (which you laughably claim is ‘military action’) and political pressure.
The IBD article specifically talks about using military strikes to achieve a goal. While Reynolds supports the overall goal, he does NOT support military action on that scale which is what Oliver implied. For you to pretend that Oliver’s comments were not made in the context of an all out war is just another example of you being a lying sniveling little coward.
The argument is over. You lost.
Bye.
“Bye”? Does that mean you’re done with all this “I’m right befcause I say so” bollocks?
jay only comes here b/c no one stops by his crappy blog to play with him. poor jay is lonely.
Jay, nailed to the outhouse wall, again and again.
It would be damn funny if it were not so pathetic.
And then, of course, he resorts to the last refuge of the wingnut: Making direct personal attacks, yelling, and waving the arms as if that made his points any more credible. In Jay’s mind, hey, if it works for Bill O’Reilly and Mark Levin, why not everywhere?
Because you stupid wingnuts have not yet caught on the fact that Billo, Limbaugh, Levin, and all your revered media figures live in wingnut fantasylands: Carefully screened and secured places where they can spew their hate-filled insults and vitriol without interruption or consequence or accountability.
Welcome to the REAL world, Jay, where Liberals CAN and WILL kick your ass, and send you crying home to your mommy when you have a fit of “teh stoopid”. Like daily, lol.
I really hate to enter this but it’s just too funny:
Jay you posted:
1. Reynolds has not advocated killing Iranian political leaders. He spoke of radical mullahs which is completely different. He also did not say ‘Iranian scientists’, but atomic scientists working on nukes in direct violation of UN security council resolutions. These are covert acts which this country has carried out for the last 60 years and don’t pretend for a fucking minute that we haven’t.
3. Reynolds has advocated fomenting political unrest. Nothing wrong with that.
2. Reynolds doesn’t even advocate missile strikes much less an invasion of Iran.
A few points.
1. Radical Mullahs are political leaders in Iran. How do you say Reynolds never advocated the assassination of Iranian scientists by say instead he advocated for the assassinatation of nuclear scientists working in Iran. WTF.
3. 2. usually follows 1. and is then followed in turn by 3. but hey, maybe you are fomenting numeric unrest.
2. He never advocated these things but he hopes they are true.
Ugggghhhh…
I just read that second article that Instaputz linked to. What a screed of complete and utter bullshit, with no factual basis. I now see where people like Dugger and Jay are coming from though. Sad.
“Oliver’s comments were not made in the context of an all out war is just another example of you being a lying sniveling little coward.”
But Jay, that isn’t the context of Oliver’s comment which was focussed on the rhetoric of regime change.
Second, Reynolds had argued that a state of war has existed between Iran and the US since 1979 but the US has not acted like it. He then links to an article suggesting wider attacks on Iran and says, I hope that works.
To you this is simply a neutral, “well I hope it all works out”. It isn’t. This is how bad ideas gain traction on the right and then slowly get mainstreamed. It’s exactly what Oliver was complaining about: The idea that regime change is easy and their’s nothing else we have to worry about. It’s unbelievable.
From the article:
…A well-targeted strike on Iran’s main gasoline refinery would ruin its economy. So would a strike, now rather than later, on its nuclear facilities at Natanz and Bushehr…..It won’t take much to topple the regime. That should be our goal. Taking action today will save us a lot of heartache tomorrow….
Another link:
June 10, 2007
“LIEBERMAN: Bomb Iran. “I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.”…
Comment from Insta-hack:
“But we probably won’t, because our political culture makes a firm response to threats almost impossible. Which is why we get so many.”
Like other Bushistas, Reynolds would happily support total war on Iran like they support the illegal war on Iraq.
These guys are devoid of ethical and moral values. They regard lies for the cause to be noble instead of propaganda.