Administration pushes insane Iran policy
By Libby
Who says this White House doesn't have a plan? Bush said himself he was going to force the next administration to continue his hare-brained policies and the plan appears to be to start as many wars as he possibly can. It looks like, against all common sense, and again without any actual evidence of wrong-doing, Iran is next in our trigger-happy executive suite's crosshairs.
Does it sound like a repeat of the runup to Iraq to you doubters yet? These madmen are going to start WWIII, come hell or high water and you can be sure it will be mostly hellish. Cernig has this covered but I'll quote this much on the sourcing for the Times article.
Read his whole post, including the links, to see the proof we're being lied to -- again -- by the same people who profit from the conflicts. Meanwhile, Marjorie Cohn also has a post on this worth reading for her excellent analysis and offers this astute observation.
She's right. Complacency is no longer an option. I know most of you have all been working hard already to stop this adminstration's rush to disaster but we have to raise the volume to the max right now. Enjoy your holiday but on Tuesday, contact your Congressmen, complain to your Senators and demand they take immediate and meaningful steps to stop this madness. And try to get your non-political friends and family to do the same.
Who says this White House doesn't have a plan? Bush said himself he was going to force the next administration to continue his hare-brained policies and the plan appears to be to start as many wars as he possibly can. It looks like, against all common sense, and again without any actual evidence of wrong-doing, Iran is next in our trigger-happy executive suite's crosshairs.
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Does it sound like a repeat of the runup to Iraq to you doubters yet? These madmen are going to start WWIII, come hell or high water and you can be sure it will be mostly hellish. Cernig has this covered but I'll quote this much on the sourcing for the Times article.
Every single source cited there is either a neocon think-tanker or in the neocon's pockets - including Jafarzadeh who is mouthpiece for a Marxist/Islamist messianic terror group called the MeK, who are currently facing atrocity charges for aiding Saddam in oppressing Iraqis and who have been accused of being a U.S. proxy force for attacks in Iran.
Read his whole post, including the links, to see the proof we're being lied to -- again -- by the same people who profit from the conflicts. Meanwhile, Marjorie Cohn also has a post on this worth reading for her excellent analysis and offers this astute observation.
Our military spending has reached $1 billion every 2-1/2 days and we are borrowing $2-1/2 billion per day. Bush is mortgaging our children's future security and wealth. We have lost more than 3700 soldiers in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.
We have already seen how easily Congress caves in to AIPAC. It's up to the people. As Noam Chomsky said, "The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war [on Iran] is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam."
She's right. Complacency is no longer an option. I know most of you have all been working hard already to stop this adminstration's rush to disaster but we have to raise the volume to the max right now. Enjoy your holiday but on Tuesday, contact your Congressmen, complain to your Senators and demand they take immediate and meaningful steps to stop this madness. And try to get your non-political friends and family to do the same.
Labels: Bush Administration, Iran, neo-conservatives
posted by Libby Spencer at 11:01 AM
26 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Donald, I've about had it with you and your blogwhoring. I'm no longer amused by your ill-informed prattle. I'm bored with being bombarded with insults and false information. For instance you should know very well that the inspector's report found Iran is completely complying with international oversight of its nuclear program.
You're still free to comment but I will delete any self-serving posts that rely on insults and disinformation to make their point, which generally seems to be no more than whoring your own blog.
Libby: Delete away.
Call it blogwhoring, or what have you. I'm not so eager for a bunch of left-wing loons to swamp my comments section, but hey, if the blogwhoring smokescreen helps you get off the hook from really rebutting my points, so be it!
As I've said before, you've met your match with me, and you don't like it. The anti-Bush insults fly off this page like radiation from a nuclear meltdown. But you wither when called out! Where's old Foggy to defend you?!
Do what you will: This wouldn't be the first liberal blog that refused to listen to a voice of reason. I've been banned before.
If you're sincere, I've got posts up galore, acacemic and non-partisan, making the case against Iran and its obstruction. I also denounced FireDogLake in a post this week.
I know you won't visit my page, because your talking points will be easily deflected, and real expertise will be discounted as "neoconazi" prattle.
You can dish it out, but you can't take it, right Libby?
I see your co-blogger Jim hit the highway after no longer tolerating your muli-culti ideology. Now that's some sense, I'll tell you. What does this disagreement tell me? Well, basically, you're one old intolerant coot, and it's clear you ought not to be blogging. Jim knew the score there, and he packed his bags.
Of course, you have the right to publish your views, and this is your house, but the vile stuff you spew would choke most people, even those unhappy with the administration. Your audience is just your hardline partisans, and frankly I'm going to resist your project. So go ahead and delete. I'll respond with a barrage of posts on my page that will knock you silly!
Burkean Reflections
(Extra paragraph spaces are provided for you, of course, for ease of comprehension - and that's at your request, so you can't say it's a put down; I don't normally hit tab after every sentence or so, but I'm trying to abide by your rules. Ban away, in any case, it's no sweat off my back. I've noted above your real issues. Besides, your canned radicalism's a dime-a-dozen on lefty pages across the web; and it's a losing the battle of ideas in the larger scheme of things).
Donald, let me put this as kindly as possible, which I'm afraid will still not be nice.
I'm going to let your comment stand this time to illustrate my point, but I'm going to delete any future comments of yours that link back to your blog, unread. If you're truly here to debate an issue and not just to blogwhore, then that shouldn't be a problem.
You can diss me on your blog until the cows come home, I'm not going to read it and I don't care what you say about me. I've heard it all before and that's the problem.
No offense intended, but everyone has different taste in blogs and you can only read so many in a day. I find your voice unoriginal and your posts uninteresting. I went over there today, just to double check and you still bore me. Sorry, but that's honestly where I'm at with you.
I'm not going to promote your work, nor am I going to allow you to use this blog simply to promote yourself.
And I might suggest, if you hate my work so much, you could simply stop reading me.
Nice try, Libby. No one - and I mean no one - has visited my page from The Impolitic. Your traffic's piddly, as far as I can tell.
It wouldn't matter, in any case, whether I post my link or not. Any reader who winds up here (most likely by accident), and is amused by your helpless attempts at evasion, can just click my profile for a quick link to the Burkean page. Besides, if I was slumming for traffic, I'd visit pro-war pages, don't you think? Duh!
No, I come here just to see this classic Bush-bashing stuff - it keeps me stimulated and fresh with new ideas. I must say, I get plenty of compliments on my exposes on the irrational left, and your page falls into the mix quite often. (Perhaps you caught some of that in the comments today, if you had the nerve to stay around a bit.)
Face it, Libby: You want you own little corner of the world to spout your anti-Americanism. Even your own liberal co-bloggers can't stand your Stalinism.
What bothers you most - indeed, it's your biggest fear - is that by actually engaging those who differ with your ideas you'll be exposed for the radical fraud that you are. You've not once put up an evidentiary riposte to my challenges. Instead, you content yourself by pleading, but "my content, my content - I have pretensions to maintain"! That's weak. You long ago lost any high ground you might have assumed. So, I'll keep hammering away at you and all your ilk, weakening what tender little hold on relevance you still have.
I do hate what you post, so you've got that right. That's all the more reason to oppose the fifth column filth that spews around these parts.
Donald, okay you followed all my rules so I'll answer this. As I said, I did go over to your place yesterday, just to be sure I was being fair and I see you got at least one reader from this blog. Lester is a long time reader here and I see he's enlivened your comment section tremendously. You also got Jim, who gave you a big boost with that Thinking Blogger award. I don't believe Michael vdg had a clue who you were before that and I see you got a couple of great links from him. As I told Jim, no accounting for taste. So don't pretend you're not here to build on that.
It's true this is low traffic blog, but then again I don't subscribe to three robohit services to artifically drive up my hits. I'm more interested in quality readers than stats. If you managed to take time from your chest thumping, you may have noticed my subtitle. This blog is reaching for the highest common denominator, not the lowest. And I might note that the only traffic I get from your blog is you.
Feel free to come over here, spew your nonsense and proclaim yourself a mighty hero because I won't respond to your ad hominem attacks. If you ever have anything to say of substance on an actual political issue and can back up your spurious remarks with some kind of link, I'll debate you. Otherwise, I don't find it worth my time.
Characterize me as you will. I've been called worse, and much more creatively. I've got somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000 posts floating around the intertubes. I don't need your validation and I let my record define and defend me.
I'm glad my posts inspire you. I wish I could say the same for yours, but they don't. I would think you would rather hang out somewhere where you're more appreciated.
Oh, Libby: Your response is all the more funny, in that this exchange began with substantive criticisms, of which you've deleted!
You attack my put downs with your own attempted drollery. But the truth is you're too busy to defend your own posts.
What is it about an attack on Iran that is so "insane"? The Bush administration is not the only international actor concerned about Iran's nuclear development program.
No ad hominems here, okay, though I might add that I don't do genuine ad hominems, unless you think my snarky play of words on your own draconian blogging rules constitutes personal attacks? And you said you get it all the time?
So, instead of one more of your slippery, evasive dismissal, why don't you actually respond to my original criticism with something sound.
I won't hold my breath - I'm sure you wan't to add more "content" to the weighty "thousands" of screeds you've already got polluting the net.
Donald, I have numerous posts on record as to why an attack on Iran is insane. If you're too lazy to read them, I don't feel compelled to restate my position for you in comments.
Why don't you list the reasons it's not insane instead. And if you're going to make ridiculously false assertions like Iran is not complying with the inspections, I expect you have a link to a source that proves it. Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sigh. I told you Donald. I'm not going to let you pimp your blog here anymore and I don't have time to knock down your straw men. I suggest you get a job as a carny if you like that game so much.
Goodbye and good luck.
Libby: I thought you'd leave up my comments, because you asked me to leave evidence. Here's what you say:
"If you ever have anything to say of substance on an actual political issue and can back up your spurious remarks with some kind of link, I'll debate you."
Are you saying now you don't have time for something of substance, after requesting it? The truth is you have no time to defend your own positions!
I might add - with no apologies aforementioned - that you are a complete and utterly remorseless hypocrite!
Your deletions just show how desperate you are at avoiding any substantive discussion. It's easy, of course, as I've said, for you to denounce me as a "blogwhore." But your attacks just masque your fundamental inability to confront countervailing views, especially those that are nonpartisan.
Here's the link to the Dueck and Takeyh piece, and again these guys are moderate, and call for more sanctions, but realize that airstrikes on Iran in the end might be all that's left to stop Ahmedinejad's campaign to obliterate Israel, and half of Western Europe if he can get the delivery vehicles:
http://www.psqonline.org/index.php3
No offense, Libby, but it's seems there's some self-loathing in your attacks on others as "insane"!
I can't force you to see reason, but I can show your tremendous level of cognitive dissonance. It's really kind of sick, and I'm trying to be helpful.
Note to you: I've backed up all my comment to Microsoft Word. You'll see a record of this exchange sometime soon, with links spread around to all of your lefty blogging friends: How's that for blogwhoring!
But do keep up your masquerade - I'm sure it improves your libelous productivity, and that's apt, considering it's Labor Day!
God you are desperate to argue with me aren't you? But you followed the rules, so I'll reply to to the one substantive remark you made.
So let me see. According to your link, Iran has been trying to build a nuke since the 70s, has been proclaiming they're months away from doing so since then and still don't have one. The authors admit that no one knows for sure when they might really be able to produce one and also pretty much say Iran's current escalated interest is due in large part to Bush's dunderheaded, swaggering, imperialistic foreign policy which has inadvertently, (or deliberately) strengthened Iran's political position.
They at least note, unlike most of the handwringers, that Pakistan is a big factor and actually possesses nukes and I might note is not part of NPT. They also note that Iran has some pretty compelling reasons to want nukes for their own protection and is unlikely to do something as stupid as use them against us. In fact these guys don't advocate a strike, or they call it rollback at all and pretty agree with me that it would be insane.
But even stretching to give you that point for the sake of argument, they certainly don't counsel it as anything but the most extreme of last resorts if all other attempts at reasonable containment fail and they certainly don't counsel a pre-emptive strike.
Now it's your turn to read my link, which if you follow the linked material within, puts forward a good case to believe that at best Iran is 20 years away from developing a useable nuclear weapon and explain to me why I should be more afraid of Tehran than Bush. Bush is the only one threatening to drop nukes that I see.
Oh and by the way. I deleted your comments but they're retreivable should you decide to do some creative editing of your own in this threatened smear campaign.
Libby: As I said, these guys are non-partisan scholars. But I think you spin their research as much as you can to minimized Iranian intentions and threats, and demonize the Bush administration for its bellicosity.
The threat is real, as the authors note, and it's only a matter of time until Iran can deploy nuclear weapons. Here's a key passage:
"Once Iran completes the necessary infrastructure, from mining to enriching uranium at the suitable weapons-grade level, and masters the engineering skill required to assemble a bomb, it could cross the threshold in a short period of time. All this would depend on the scope and scale of the program and the level of national resources committed to this task. Iran today does have an accelerated program, but not a crash program similar to Pakistan’s in the early 1970s, when the entirety of national energies was mobilized behind the task of constructing a nuclear device. In this context, Iran’s persistent determination to complete the fuel cycle—which it has a right to do under the NPT—is ominous, because doing so would bring the country close to a weapons capability."
Note the mention that these are "ominous" developments, and this is not "false information," of which you originally denounced, from my now deleted original comments.
Now, my interpretation of this focuses on the combination of capabilities plus intentions. Your comments here make Iran sound like a model international citizen, while the United States is the evil imperial hegemon, intent to crush Tehran's mullahs with its devilish designs.
Fine, you're entitled to your views. But no matter how you spin the IAEA's recent report, the most recent findings show a slow pattern of weapons development, together with continued defiance of Security Council resolutions. Iran continues to spin its enrichment program, against the demands of the international community.
Dueck and Takeyh lean toward tougher sanctions, and no more. They reject appeasement, and they don't criticize the administration in anything near the apocalyptic language you mount.
The fact remains: Iran's program of nuclear development proceeds; the multilateral sanctions regime has not worked to deter Tehran; and outside analysts note the IAEA extensions just give the regime more time, while raising more questions.
See here for more on these points:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0831/p06s02-wome.html
Ahmedinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and Iran has sponsored an international Holocaust denial conference. It is not in the interest of the West to allow Iran to proceed to nuclear weapons capability.
I personally think that preventive airstrikes might open up a hornet's nest of problems (points discussed by Dueck and Takeyh). Yet, I'm not opposed to a military solution if diplomatic approaches fail to bring back Iran from destabilizing nuclear readiness - and the diplomatic route has been tried for years, as Tehran moves closer to nuclear readiness.
I'll read your other link later. I must say, though, that all of your stonewalling was a waste, as now you can see that I'll engage reasonably.
Whether you'll find contrary analysis is another story. No matter how persuasive an argument I can present, nor no matter how much hard evidence I offer of Iran's non-compliance with international demands, you'll oppose any military resolution to the crisis.
Military action should be the last resort, but it should not be taken off the table, an not only the Bush administration has said so.
I've posted a hundred times at donalds blog and he has never responded to me this much or with this amount of ferocity. In fact, he rarely responds at all. He's a good little puppy over there.
and ray takeyh is not a moderate. he is an israel partisan as are virtually all the "experts" (on propaganda" you cite. Do you thnk you can get in on their Rupert murdoch funded gravy train mr douglas? It's a long line. and how will you sleep at night? with the cries of dead arab children lulling you to sleep?
lester,
the reason mr. Douglas may not be responding to you is because you are a complete and utter moron. You are completely ignorant of the history of the middle east and the journalists who report it.
"and ray takeyh is not a moderate. he is an israel partisan as are virtually all the "experts" (on propaganda" you cite"
If you had read the body of Ray Takeyh's work from the council of foreign relation you'd know he is a propenent of negotiations with Iran without preconditions. Never once has Israel come up in the way you claim.
Your idiotic comments from Douglas' site about "who cares if another region is unstable" show you are the owner of an immature mind that should stick to discussing fictional TV plots, not reality.
You claim Syria helped us with al Qeada until neocons "bloviated" at them. What was this assistance they gave us? Syria have been on the wrong side of every conflict in the mideast going back nearly 50 years and I'm not talking about Arab-Israeli conflicts. Syria has harbored terror groups from day one. They harbored Fatah from its inception and then backed them in their attempts to overthrow fellow Arab nation Jordan. They backed Fatah/PLO/Hezbollah in destabilizing Lebanon.
When Civil war broke out in Lebanon Syria used that as a pretext to move in and occupy Lebanon for 26 years. During this time they brutalized the Lebanese people and stole hundreds of millions of dollars through corruption. Now Syria syphons of hundreds of millions from the telecommunications, tourism, and casino industies each year.
They finally got kicked out after assassinating former prime minister Hariri with a car bomb. This was one of a long line of politically motivated killings that contine to this day. And Syria never would have left if not for our "neocon" presence in Iraq. Think about that.
The "al Qaeda inspired" Terrorists in the Palestinian refugee camps at Nahr el-Bared were in fact created in the Syria jail system, as are many of the Terrorists entering Iraq. Syria is an overflowing toilet. The Arab community in agreement on this.
You've got to be one of the most moronic commentors I've seen.
Oh good, a refugee cretin from the donald's lair.
Lester, pay no attention to the wingnuts. They're really not worth your time. You'll never convince them and they're boring and boorish.
Kwabi-wabi, if anyone's comments are moronic around here, they are surely yours. Lester is right, these "experts" are not non-partisan and yet they still have enough common sense to know cowardly chest thumping rhetoric like yours is stupid and dangerous.
And donald, we're right back where we started from. This is precisely why you have no credibilty with me, although I appreciate the attempt at politeness, you fail again.
You don't do me the courtesy of reading my link, but you expect me to read yours -- which I did. You pull one graf out of context, out of an 18 page paper, that appeared rather early on as a hypothetical and a remote one at that and desperately pin your specious arguments on it. I don't think you're stupid, so since you choose to so blantantly mischaracterize the thesis of the paper, I can only conclude you're either dishonest or delusional.
I'm not going to debate you again because I think you're a fraud and a bore. You don't want to debate. You just want to argue.
Truth is, I don't really care what you think. I have many other conservative bloggers whose opinion I respect and that I find more interesting to enter into discussion with. To the extent that I have time, I'm going to spend it with them, not you.
I will delete any comments that whore your blog because I don't want to promote your work even obliquely, but comment away if you must. I'm all about free speech but I'm not going to reply to you again.
Ah, another recrudescence of the Burkeans.
Remember when Nixon Bashing was the sole provence of a demented, pinko, radical, hippie, anti-American, traitorous lunatic fringe on the payroll of Mao Zedong? Perhaps some of his defenders have since defected now that the records are published - perhaps not. Some things never change.
I have no dog in this fight and largely because I don't fight with dogs, or with people who act like them, but people who represent what I would politely call a minority opinion (if I were disposed toward politeness) don't look all that superior, their drool and snarl and exposed canines notwithstanding -- and that's what it's all about, this martial spirit, isn't it? It's what it's always been about since we were supposed to remember the Maine.
Y'all may be right or you may be wrong, but it would be well to remember that you are not only no one to be shocked at name calling, but you are just plain nobody and there is no reason for anybody to respect your opinions or credit your foreign policy pretentions whether presented rationally, honestly, or in the sophomoric and invidious way you actually do present them.
Are you the last people in the world who still think you can dismiss an argument by calling it a "talking point" or counter criticism by saying I hate Bush and not be laughed at? I hated Saddam - does that make him a good guy or is that just a fallacy in your pocket?
As to the claimed wild popularity of your little political masturbatorium being some sort of bragging point, please remember that the KKK website and Jew Watch and and Aryan Nation sites get much higher traffic than you do. More importantly -- if you're arguing that popularity is proof of righteousness, then you've just dismissed your argument ipso facto as most people think Bush is a liar and an incompetent and by your logic they must be right.
If you really do want some sort of respect, perhaps you still have time to wash your sticky, jingoistic little fingers and get down to the recruiting office. It should be open a few more hours.
Libby--
I'm not a douglas regular. I just stumbled across it yesterday. It led me to your site in out the weeds. I think I stepped in something. You might want to mow your "yard" if you could call it that.
You like mocking names? Lester likes being rude too. Even when people are being patient with his ignorance trying to share pertinant infomation or experience. He's an ass.
Your "there, there Lester" is pathetic. Why not say "stay stupid, we like you that way".
And I visited your links--Cernig and his trashing of the MEK who revealed Iran's secret nuclear progam in the first place. Hardly what I'd call credible or"non-partisan" as you love to say. You are a tool, Libby.
I'm not "chest thumping" when I point out the tyranny of Syria and Iran over other states in the Middle East. I happen to support the Lebanese March 14th Coalition. Lester and yourself are tools of tyranny. Clueless tools. And you call my "chest thumping" dangerous. You are really quite unbelievable.
Visit some lebanese blogs, see Hezbollah supporters and supporters of freedom spar in cyberspace. See which side makes the better argument, you wretched hack. Or do you think Hezbollah is a charity organization?
You people have no idea what oppression you are cheering on when talk of "Iranian Sovereignty". There is no detente with Iranian nukes. The sooner we bomb Iranian nuke facilities and military installations, the better.
Do you have any other basis for your beliefs other than some blogs? Is there some other reason you'd rather bomb Iran than go after Osama, who still seems to be hatching plots to kill Americans?
There wouldn't be some undisclosed personal motivation here, would there?
It really doesn't seem fair to call people hacks and clueless when we have to remain clueless regarding your adamant certainty
The basis for my "adamant certainty", as you put it, is extensive reading, passion for the subject matter, and a respect for human life and liberty.
Have I spent time in Evan Prison? No.
I’ve read thousands of articles and as many books as I can on this very broad subject. Sure, it may all be the wrong material from your perspective. And how can anyone "know" anything for certain in this age of equivocation? You can't. You read everything you can and weigh the evidence, the arguments, and the quality of the sources.
Blogs are valuable finding new material that you wouldn't find otherwise, for personal interaction or for gauging the mood of a country from afar. Sometimes the news from blogs is more intimate and up to date than any other media sources. Blog exchanges do factor in but only tantengially.
Iran has been in the business of killing Americans a lot longer than Osama. Iran's chosen path of murder, sedition, and destruction hidden behind the legitimacy of statehood make it the region's cancer.
To answer your question: we should get both Osama and Iran. It can't be an "either or" proposition.
Osama and Zawahiri have little of no control over AQ. The ideology they created and the internet run the show now. There are AQ start ups kits available at click of a mouse.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is suffering brutal defeat on the world's stage right now. I get no jingoistic pride from our military beating up "those bastards". I want Iraq to succeed for the Iraqis. And I can see that this will repeat itself if we leave.
As David Kilcullen writes:
…There is no alternative but to keep going, he says. "Any smart enemy has watched what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and they have worked out how to beat the West, so this thing isn't going away. We could leave Iraq tomorrow, but until we demonstrate an ability to win this kind of campaign, any smart enemy is going to adopt these tactics.
"We have got to come up with a solution to this, otherwise its Groundhog Day. We're going to live this day over and over again until we get it right."
>
Strategist behind war gains
The noose is closing on al Qaeda in Pakistan. After the siege at the Red Mosque everything changed. The tribal regions have been shut off by 50,000 Paki troops with the US on the other side. Speaking of which, 4200 insurgents have being killed in Afghanistan this year. Pakistan is moving in the right direction, toward democracy with Bhutto returning for elections.
Yes, the plot in Germany did have more than a Pakistan connection; they received training there, so undeniably Pakistan is an epicenter for a certain type of terror. Iran is an epicenter for a different type of terror.
Note: Germany and France are both putting their own "Patriot Acts" in place to combat these type incursions and cross border movements by terrorists. That is how they were most likely caught—electronic surveillance. See “the counterterrorism club”.
The counterterrorism club
Yes, calling people "hacks" and "tools" is not fair.
I think "epicenter" is a misleading term for something that is more international every day. German born and English born and American born people are blowing things up in the name of anti-Americanism and I am quite sure blowing up Iran will make it worse and will lead to the need to blow up more places.
I don't think that this opinion makes me any more or less than just someone with a different opinion than yours. Part of that opinion is that becoming just like those who hate you doesn't dissuade people from hating you much less attacking you and If you think Germany would tolerate the degree of fascism that's being sold in the US, Wißen sie wenig über Deutschland, mein Freund.
Donald Douglas, you've hit a new low. On your Neocon echo chamber, you accuse The Impolitic blog of cowardice:
"In its comment policy, The Moderate Voice claims to encourage 'thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.'
Unfortunately, though, such vigorous discussions such as those I mount appear to be the last thing the publishers want, and to the extent that those of "different viewpoints" express uncomfortable facts relating to its blog posts, The Moderate Voice will engage of censorship of such opinions."
Priceless. Then you have the nerve to say, "You can dish it out, but you can't take it, right Libby?"
Wow. What a hypocrite! On your blog you invite debate, too:
"I welcome comments, but in debating I'll defend my positions vigorously."
No, you don't, and I'm living proof. In challenging your pro-Bush views, I always link to outside sources, not other opinions, but news stories and analysis, and you can do nothing but hit the delete key.
Heck, you even let your readers give you credit for discovering a fake quote you removed that I'd told you about. And not so much as a simple thank-you. That's low.
You can't handle real debate with real facts from a little ol' reactionary like me, so you pick on liberals. Shame.
Thanks Mike.
Oh but he's winning the battle of ideas - and here I didn't know that name calling was an idea.
It's funny when a minority opinion tries to argue from popularity, isn't it?
For what it's worth: I don't like to read personal attacks like that from anyone. Whether I agree or disagree with the basic principle.
Lord knows I disagree with Libby on just about everything - including her post of yesterday about Chavez - but that's no reason to harass someone. If you can't disagree without attacking, don't disagree at all.
Especially not on someone else's blog. Libby works hard on this blog, respect that. Even when you disagree with her.
Post a Comment
<< Home