kevin drum wrote a decent post arguing that bush doesn't take the war in iraq seriously. our old friend joe schmoe chimed in with one of his typically myopic, incoherent comments. i know. i know.
i. should. not. feed. trolls.
i just can't help it. if you saw a whale in a barrel, wouldn't you shoot it and put it out of its misery? lightly edited for spelling and grammar (both my comments and joe's):
[...] This is why people don't trust the Dems on national security. Seriously. You actually don't think that the President takes Iraq "seriously?" My God, man, people are dying over there! Of course he takes it seriously!
this is not an argument. the fact that the war in iraq should be taken seriously because people are dying over there does not prove that bush actually takes it seriously. i'm sure bush takes it seriously in sense that he knows it will ultimately make or break him. the iraq debacle overshadows everything else in his administration.
And the other aspect of your remark is even more damning. "Why should he expect the rest of us to take [Iraq] seriously?"
President Bush should not have to persuade you to take national security seriously. It is your duty as an American and does not depend on what a particular president does or does not do.
clever, joe. ignore everything else in kevin's post, but lecture endlessly about a tiny little bit of snark at the end. how lawyerly of you to conveniently take it literally so that you can fill up all that space talking about it. it gives the appearance of a response to kevin's post, when in fact, you are ignoring the vast majority of it.
it's also rather telling that you edit the quoted portion of kevin's post and rewrite his statement before proceeding to argue with that statement. the substitution of 'national security' for the war in iraq is likewise noted.
yes, the war and bush's handling of it has profound consequences for 'national security'. our military is spread thin, and people are declining their opportunity to serve in droves. i do believe that those whom you call 'you libs' have been harping on this for months.
Honestly, you libs sound like ]petulant teenagers. "Why should I take Iraq seriously?"
stop wagging your finger like a prissy schoolmarm. it's unbecoming. i do believe that kevin made that statement, not 'you libs'. so, basically, if you can ascribe your own fantasized idea of a 'liberal' attitude to one liberal then it is one that most or all liberals have?
You should take it seriously because American soldiers are there. You should assume that Bush is taking it seriously for the same reason.
we're not talking about bush and his handling of the war in iraq anymore? now it's all about 'you' and 'you should'. why did you even bother to write this comment? are you actually taking as your starting assumption that kevin does not take the war in iraq seriously? then, could you please explain why he has written hundreds of posts about it over the last three years?
are you addressing a general 'you' as in the other people who comment here? or does 'you' mean liberals as a faceless mass of people to whom you can ascribe 'liberal' attitudes, opinions, and beliefs that make it easier for you to cope with your own attitudes, opinions, and beliefs?
Everyone here is a responsible adult.
so, you weren't talking to the other people who comment here when you said, "You libs sound like petulant teenagers."
If the White House is pursuing a particular strategy, they have agonized over it and believe that it is the best course of action. They don't just make decisions at random. You may not agree with those decisions but I assure you that there are reasons for each one of them.
so, you've personally spoken to the major players in the white house, including george bush himself?
How can I take the ideas of a petulant teenager on national defense seriously?
and now, the petulant teenagers have become a petulant teenager. who is the petulant teenager, joe? kevin? liberals? the people who comment here?
From a political POV, I was worried that support for the war was slipping until the libs finally went too far with the Cindy Sheehan thing.
how did 'the libs' go too far with cindy sheehan? and why, after babbling on about petulant teenagers and how unthinkable it is for anyone to even suggest that bush doesn't take war in iraq seriously, are you admitting that you yourself do not actually take it seriously? if you are concerned about the political fallout, and if that is what has you worried, then you most certainly do not take the war in iraq seriously.
You antiwar libs finally got smart. After three years of "Bush lied! No blood for oil! Chickenhawk! Abu Ghraib!" etc., etc. you finally hit upon a them -- fallen American soldiers and grieving moms -- that appeals to ALL Americans, not just the left.
of course! because all liberals everywhere are politically motivated by a team sport mentality regarding the war in iraq. every bad thing that happens, every soldier that gets gets killed, every innocent iraqi civilian that gets killed by american gunfire is a point for their team, a score against your team. naturally, antiwar liberals just completely forgot about abu ghraib and totally abandoned their anti-torture activism as soon as cindy sheehan came along. every liberal in america is now shamelessly exploiting her as a political strategy to score against your team.
I knew that your motivations hadn't change, but you finally packaged your idea in a way that appeals to mainstream Americans. Michael Moore was sent to the back of the room, and a grief-stricken mom was put on the podium in his place.
so basically, here we are: you don't take the war in iraq seriously because you only care about its political consequences for your team. then you ascribe exactly this same attitude to 'liberals' and attack it mercilessly as that of a petulant teenager. suddenly, your own politically motivated interest in the iraq war is 'proof' that anti-war activists are, just like you, politically motivated for mere politics' sake.
can i ask again -- who are you addressing with 'you'?
But then you blew it. You went too far with this. And here's the thing -- this was your best argument. You'll never find a more appealing strategy. But it wasn't enough. And you squandered it.
how did anti-war liberals go too far with cindy sheehan? so basically, we're not talking about how bush squandered his opportunities in the handling of the war in iraq anymore. now the discussion is all about how anti-war liberals squandered their opportunity with cindy sheehan.
We will stay the course in Iraq. We won't pull out until we win.
who is 'we'?
No comments:
Post a Comment