[...] of course, Hillary would like to take credit, on behalf of Democrats, for all of this “no success” happening. I suppose “if it’s not covered in [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] of course, Hillary would like to take credit, on behalf of Democrats, for all of this “no success” happening. I suppose “if it’s not covered in [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yep, must be a plant…

Except, like the article from the very far leftist who was ashamed of being liberal who wrote an article for Rolling Stone a few months ago. The comments from the VERY intolerant leftists were, not surprisingly, full of hate, venom, and “we are doing all we can to forcefully silence conservatives, give us a break”.

They just did not get the author’s point…. Instead they vindicate it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doesn’t “LIBERAL” mean, open-minded, tolerant, forward-thinking, imaginative, etc? Must be a neocon that wrote the piece, right Chris?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott,

Now you expect them to not only actually read and comprehend it, but to know it was a leftist who wrote it? Man, you are a mean one….

The “interesting” part of reading the Rolling Stone articles are the comments left by the leftists. Such “happy”, “tolerant” people…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] goes along quite nicely with Scott’s recent post on the ChickenDove party. Here is Nancy Pelosi on CNN today: Anchor Wolf Blitzer asked: “Are [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Flopping Aces: the Dem party is a bunch of chicken doves. Heh! [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Not really an argument to have-just clarification:

“Not trying to start an argument, but what you saying is that anyone who opposed or opposes the war is a leftist?”

-Nope, I’m saying the same thing the Rolling Stone piece is saying…that the anti-war movement is at it’s core an anti-Republican movement. Yes, there are some Republicans who have been successfully misled by the left, but statistically not many.

“Also, are you saying the war was never going poorly?”

-Historically speaking, all wars have tougher times than others, and this one is no exception. See, in a war the enemy can do things, and not every contingency can be prepared for since some are counter to each other. For example, flooding Iraq with millions of troops in 2003 would have been like stomping on a puddle of burning gasoline and just spread it. However, I do think that counter insurgency ops should have been started in more earnest earlier, but to do so would have weakened other areas and given the enemy opportunity to strike in those areas. Part of war is that bad things happen, you do your best, and you aim for the least suffering-historically speaking.

” It was never strategized wrong?”

-Well, I didn’t say that at all in this piece, but I do think that it’s wrong to say we shoulda done this or that. The enemy gets a vote. Look at any battle in history, and say, “Man, if only X would have done such and such.” Well, if one re-writes the actions of X then the reactions of Y equally get to be re-written. If the US had detected the Japanese and sent out its fleet then what? Answer, the Japanese fleet which was bigger, more experienced, and better technologically would have had a huge advantage, and given the history of the day where battleships were sunk by aircraft (see also Prince of Wales and Repulse), as well as the subsequent history of US carriers engaging Japanese carriers (Coral Sea), then it can logically be said that the US would’ve suffered a defeat still. Point here is that if we say, “Bush shoulda done this or that” then we also have to ask, “Would AQ still have been able to set off the pile of kindling that was sectarian violence waiting to happen? Nah, I think things have gone incredibly well by historical comparison.

“If you would like to say the war is going better now I will agree, but I think it is ridiculous to say anyone who opposes the war is a liberal.”

-I didn’t. I said that the anti-war movement has been taken over by Democrats using it as a catalyst and cover for their real agenda which is any and all things anti-Republican; well, actually Rolling Stone said that. Recall the title of my piece is DEMOCRATS-not everyone who opposes the war is a leftist

“Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, [emphasis added-sm]packing the nation’s leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. “Our focus is on the Republicans,” one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. “How can we juice up attacks on them?”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

but I think it is ridiculous to say anyone who opposes the war is a liberal.

It’s a good thing that’s not what Scott was saying then, isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well John, then with that logic, the Dems should be defeated in Presidential and congressional elections until a new crop of Dems comes up around 2016.

Or does Intrade have bets that far out already?

Like or Dislike: 0  0