Lear:
Close pent-up guilts,
Rive your concealing continents, and cry
These dreadful summoners grace. I am a man
More sinn’d against than sinning.

King Lear Act 3, scene 2, 57–60

These are not “talking points” from any Republican site.

You moonbats could provide facts, for example, that Saddam didn’t kill anyone, that he didn’t torture tens of thousands to death, and that he didn’t need to be removed; you could prove that Iraq isn’t free and that it didn’t have democratic elections, and so on. No republican site has ever tried this argument.

The media will not run a story on Obama’s changes in view on Iraq, for example, and run video of him saying “pull out now.” It won’t happen. The love is just too great. Everybody knows no Republican websites have ever made these arguments.

The far left controls the Democratic party platform and nomination process, and must be appeased by any candidate who hopes to obtain the Democratic nomination. Obama, the self-elected man of destiny, out-liberaled Mrs. Clinton, as the press handled him with kid gloves and he was butt-kissed by adoring media and annointed as savior by Ted Kennedy and the rest of JFK’s family before the primaries even got going. Not only has no Republican website ever made these arguments, but this statement does not show any deep hatred for people who disagree with us.

“Yammering lefties” is not a talking point, neither is “lefty comrades”, furthermore these terms show a fair and balanced analysis.

These looney leftists may disagree with Bush, but they do not so respecfully. Those of us on the right know how to treat people we disagree with respectfully, by calling them names like “looney left”.

Obama’s approach of touring the world as a “world citizen” and telling everyone “everything America does is wrong” will work with the salt-of-the-earth Democrats the way it works with the Loony Left. This is not some theory that is being repeated as a talking point we Republicans are supposed to say, this shows independent analysis and just good journalism.

There are some who might say your posts are the absolute definition of a long partisan opinion piece spattered with hatred and talking points. They are just moonbats who hate America and want us to surrender to terrorists.

Some may point out you comments are littered with the very same tone of disrespect you criticize the left for. That’s just these looney leftist moonbats acting all crazy.

Great Job, Highly Intelligent Commenter and Non-Douchebag Amazed

These are not “talking points” from any Republican site. They are my opinions, so feel free to present counterexamples and discuss alternative views. But please try to do so by resorting to facts. For example, you could actually respond to a statement rather than including it in a blanket condemnation of the entire argument. You could provide facts, for example, that Saddam didn’t kill anyone, that he didn’t torture tens of thousands to death, and that he didn’t need to be removed; you could prove that Iraq isn’t free and that it didn’t have democratic elections, and so on. You could prove the surge didn’t work. Just because I don’t think you can make a coherent argument about any of that doesn’t mean you can’t. Give it a try. But when you fail to do so, then go ahead and fall back on name-calling, or say it was all about oil. I would point out that we didn’t need to go to war for oil; if we needed oil to flow out of Iraq, we just needed to visit our friends the French, Russians, and Chinese (who had ALL the oilfield contracts with Saddam’s government locked up, not to mention the military supply contracts) and just lift those sanctions. Much easier and cheaper.

“Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy” seems like another moonbat to me. But after a careful watch of the news, I do not hear anyone repeating any talking points other than liberal ones. The media will not run a story on Obama’s changes in view on Iraq, for example, and run video of him saying “pull out now.” It won’t happen. The love is just too great. So why don’t you lefties out there find some counterexamples of where the media have actually presented a story like that? You won’t, because they don’t.

In terms of spending billions, there is no guarantee that the billions, spent domestically, would have done what “amuseinc” claims. Since the Democrats out there already believe Iraq is a failure and there is no useful definition of “winning” in Iraq, there is little point in arguing that taking the war on terror to the terrorists MIGHT have kept the focus on other locations. You have already made up your minds using your crystal balls. Like your views on all issues, from the inherent wrongness of war, rightness of abortion, and your opinions of those who have other opinions, you are always right. You do not need to rebut any arguments or even think about them, because you already know you are right. You are as didactic and opinionated and bullheaded as those on the far right.

I actually do not believe that most Democrats believe the far-left drivel that I’ve seen here. I believe the far left controls the Democratic party platform and nomination process, and must be appeased by any candidate who hopes to obtain the Democratic nomination. Obama, the self-elected man of destiny, out-liberaled Mrs. Clinton, as the press handled him with kid gloves and he was butt-kissed by adoring media and annointed as savior by Ted Kennedy and the rest of JFK’s family before the primaries even got going. I don’t like Mrs. Clinton, but she has a lot more ability and experience than Obama has. The fact that she was a serious contender for first woman nominated for President by a major party was overlooked; in the liberal pantheon of gods, “minority” apparently trumps “female.”

Now that Obama has the nomination, he can begin his long walk to the middle, where most people are, and leave the left alone there in outer space. If Obama wins, he will win because he has managed to appeal to the 80% of Americans who are not the fruits and nuts of the left or the arch-conservatives of the right. Why do I think it’s 80%, you may ask? I think that because Bush the Younger at one time had an approval rating of over 90%. Moderates and right-wing extremists agreed with him and supported him. The other 10% would rather have died than support the President. Simple subtraction of 90 from 100 gives 10%, which I figure is about the percentage of yammering lefties. It just seems like there are more than that because they scream so loudly. My own family is staunchly Democratic and has been for generations, and NONE of them are willing to stoop so low as to call people names and sling mud the way TwoPutt and his lefty comrades are. They may disagree with Bush, but they do so respecfully. This is the problem with the left wing of the Democratic party, which is all we seem to hear from (the moderates are either at work or out looking for work and have less time to whine). The far left are generally mean-spirited and nasty. But they are few in number. If they weren’t few in number, then Obama could win without appealing to moderates. Obama knows he cannot do that, as Mr. Clinton knew back in his day. So, while you get the nomination by appealing to the Michael Moore types, you still have to move to the center where 80% of America wants to be governed. Remember when Clinton reformed welfare, instituted “don’t ask don’t tell,” and acted like the moderate he wasn’t? Remember how upset the left was? They felt betrayed because Clinton actually responded to the views of his constituents — the American people. As to whether Obama’s approach of touring the world as a “world citizen” and telling everyone “everything America does is wrong” will work with the salt-of-the-earth Democrats the way it works with the Loony Left, that remains to be seen. It has already turned some of my family against Obama. They were turned off by what they saw and heard while he was on tour, and by his conducting himself as President and not as candidate for President, and for his presumptuousness. Before that they supported him or were undecided. Now they are either going to vote for McCain or not vote.

I think T. Boone Pickens is right. Wind power IS the future. And Obama’s speeches should provide enough wind power to solve the energy crisis. Too bad he emits Carbon Dioxide, and lots of it.

Do these idiots even have an idea of what those billions of tax dollars spent within our own borders would have done for the safety and security of American citizens, never mind the economic health of the country?

They are just useless buffoons like their leader George W. Bush.

Thank you for repeating the talking points we Repuyblicans are supposed to repeat. My favorite is referring to people you disagree with as the “far left”, as is so popular amongst every single Republican.

This talking point ignores the fact that a large majority of Americans agree with these moonbats who hate America and want us to lose in Iraq. Referring to them as the “far left” makes it seem like their opinions not only do not matter, but do not deserve recognition or respect. That strategy works great, and none of these moonbats will see through that.

Great Job!

I saw Pelosi on TV the other night trying to explain why the Democrats have done nothing since taking power to end the war; they have only continued to fund it. She was not very convincing. In addition, the Democratically-controlled Congress has accomplished nearly nothing; anything they have passed has been more-or-less bipartisan. Pelosi and Senator Reid have done everything they can to block progress in the House and Senate on every issue. Bush is not to be allowed a success; the election of Obama depends on the failure of the war and the economy. I would go so far as to say that the Democrats actually want the war in Iraq to be lost in order to ensure Republicans do not win the election, and that they are perfectly happy for the cyclical economy to fall into recession so that they can blame Bush for all of it. The Democrats are the party of the negative: everything is lousy. There is nothing good in America and nothing good about the Administration. America is racist, sexist, homophobic, and divided. Now we have the “Wonder Boy” to tell us what to do, and go on a worldwide speaking tour to ensure that he lets everyone know how wrong America is and how he’s such a world citizen and thinks like a European. Gag. I have heard that the Islamists prefer Obama to McCain, and it is clear that Europe does. Given that Obama spends all his time bashing the President and agreeing with Europe on how wrong we are, I would prefer to vote against the candidate preferred ten-to-one by Islamists and Frenchmen. McCain is nothing like Bush, and most people know it; that tag is not really sticking. McCain is practically a Democrat himself. But Islamists and Frenchmen alike know who will take a more no-nonsense approach to the Islamofascist issue, and they want Obama elected. They want “someone they can work with” and “someone who they can talk to.”

The Democrats insist we are in a quagmire in Iraq. In fact they have to convince Americans that the war is lost. However, with America having changed its approach to Iraq, seeking agreements with Sunnis and others, who are turning on al-Quaeda in many cases, with violence way down, and with the surge having had a positive effect, Iraqi security forces are taking charge of security operations in most provinces now, with the rest to follow soon. The Iraqi government and Parliament are now able to see clearly the time when America can leave, because Iraq is moving toward self-government after years of a murderous dictatorship. That is NOT “Obama’s Plan” — it is a timeline, or horizon if you’re Bush, that provides an exit path to the war when the time is right. We have seen how Obama completely opposed the war (but was unable to vote against it since he was a state senator at the time), how he called for immediate withdrawal (a really bad idea), and how he has taken advantage of all that has been accomplished to align himself with a sixteen-month withdrawal that, if Obama’s advice had been followed, would not today be possible. Under Obama’s policy, the UN would still be wrestling with Saddam and the number of Security Council resolutions Iraq would be in violation of would no doubt be over 20. Saddam would have continued his policy of torture, murder, and oppression to this day. By the way, is Iraq a “quagmire” or is it not? Will we see people clinging to the wheels of the “last plane out” of Baghdad like they did with the last plane out of Saigon? I don’t think so. If the Security forces in Iraq are taking responsibility, and terrorists continue to be hunted down and killed, and America is able to think about pulling out, it doesn’t seem like a “quagmire.” The “quagmire” is the hope and desire of the American left, and may or may not be reality. If we and the Iraqis think we can pull out in 16 months, it doesn’t seem like a quagmire to me. Bush has always said we would leave when Iraq could take responsibility for its own security and when Iraq asked us to leave. What Bush has strenuously avoided is saying exactly when that will be. If you give a date, the terrorists will know when the fight will be over. My belief is that insisting on a firm date is, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The time may come when Bush’s actions are viewed as the best that could have been done in the circumstances. No one was against invading Afghanistan, and it is clear now what a critical spot it is for the fight against terror and Islamist murderers. That is why the news is reporting that foreign fighters are leaving Iraq and heading for Afghanistan. The Iraqis are seeing clearly that the Islamists have no qualms about killing other Muslims and many of them are sick of it. They want al-Queda out, and want America to leave soon also — is that a big surprise? I would not have wanted to be President when 9/11 happened, when the Asian economy collapsed, when the outflow of American jobs that had been going on for years worsened (news flash to the left: jobs were leaving under Clinton and Gore; it didn’t just start the day Bush took office), when the demand for petroleum by China and India’s growing industries and when the banking and mortgage systems neared collapse due to greed and stupidity (news flash to the left: greed and stupidity are not unique to Republicans). One thing we have learned about history is that making snap judgments about what history will say is not a wise policy. History may yet come to view the post 9/11 era in a different way than that espoused by the far left.

The reason that Nouri al-Maliki is able to endorse “Obama’s plan” at all, and is not dead at the hands of Saddam, Qusay, or Uday in Abu Ghraib or elsewhere, is because of what Mr. Bush did. Iraq, if they don’t screw it up (and if they do, it’ll be their own fault) has the chance to re-invent itself as a free nation, free of the murderous dictator under whom a million people died, and of his sadistic sons who would rule for decades after Saddam. The Iraqi people under Saddam had a great life. Under Saddam, people could look forward to more of the usual under Saddam: tens of thousands of innocent people tortured to death year after year, another year of UN sanctions, the next gas attack from “Chemical Ali,” the yearly looting of the Iraqi treasury by billionaire Saddam, and knowing their sons would be sent off to die in Saddam’s next war, just like the Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait. Before Saddam was removed, anyone who spoke a word against the regime would be dragged off to prison, never to emerge. And the reaction of the American left? Total silence. Crickets chirping. Abu Ghraib wasn’t the place where Saddam tortured and killed ten thousands of Iraqis each year, it was the place where Americans engaged in waterboarding and other means of torture. The left could have been outraged at both, but no. Outraged at America, but not at Saddam.

I don’t much care about the denials. If Obama’s timeline is right, it is from sheer luck. If the Iraqis are ready to take full control in sixteen months, then sixteen months it is, and it is due to the surge and to our training of the Iraqi military that sixteen months is even possible, not to the vision of Barack Obama, however much crowing he has done. I saw the press release as a show of independence from Bush on the part of the Iraqi government, but in any case it doesn’t seem to matter much. I agree we will leave when the Iraqis want us to, and when they are ready to fully govern and take responsibility for security in all the provinces. In the end, as a direct result of Bush’s removal of Saddam, the Iraqis hammered out a constitution, held the first elections ever, and have a relatively stable government that is democratically elected. Many homegrown and foreign terrorists have been successfully hunted down, even if all of them haven’t, and many of the Iraqi people see no hope in al-Quaeda or their ilk now that they have had a chance to observe the kindness of bin Laden’s troops first-hand. “Join us or die.” Some choice. The Iraqis have been given a chance for self-determination and self-governance that they would never have had without Bush’s war.

And since everyone on this blog wants to whine, I shall whine about the priggish and self-righteous French, whose vote was the deciding factor in the UN, and how they have helped not at all. They were in bed with Saddam’s regime, holding many oil contracts and making billions arming Iraq. Military hardware, courtesy of peace-loving France. The French were helping Saddam build a nuclear reactor when the Israelis decided they had to bomb it, as some may recall. Some allies they have been. They haven’t had a foreign policy success since Lafayette came to America for the revolution. Since them they’ve required America to rescue them from Hitler, colonized Africa and been ejected in multiple bloody revolutions, caused the Vietnam war, blocked us from removing Saddam in the first Gulf War when we actually had a coalition, and tried their best to block the removal of Saddam this time around as well.

You want a case for war? I didn’t tell Bush to make a case for war on the basis of a single factor. Anyone with a brain can give you a case for removal of Saddam, even if Bush couldn’t: starting a needless war with Iran that killed over a million people; torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Iraqi political opponents (real or not); violating 17 unanimous UN Security Council resolutions for many years; establishing a WMD program with the goal of building nuclear weapons; building chemical weapons and using them on their own people to kill entire villages; mass oppression of Kurds and Shiites; harboring terrorists; threatening the state of Israel with being wiped off the face of the earth and firing SCUD missiles at Israel; theft of billions of dollars from the Iraqi people; allowing the Iraqi people to bear the brunt of UN sanctions while living like a king; raping and pillaging the state of Kuwait and murdering many Kuwaiti citizens; burning the Kuwaiti oil fields. Will that do for a start?

The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to “authorize” the interviews before they go to press. It wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama’s plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious. Spiegel couldn’t say so, though, without revealing its embarrassing authorization policy.

Der Spiegel has gotten flak in the past for this policy. According to Ingrid Kolb, director of the Henri Nannen School for Journalism in Hamburg:

The long interviews that Der Spiegel publishes with famous public figures, their so-called talks, are known for this … They can go back and forth a dozen times, with each side bringing their argument a bit more to the point, refining it, improving it. In a best-case scenario, it serves the interests of both sides.

So much for Maliki’s message being lost in translation.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx