Reppy: The "one post" then "one response" rule is still in effect. If you can't be concise, let it go. No double posting. Wait 'till I respond.
Now, here's what I said at the post:
"...one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."
This is true, for example:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wm...0701- pipa01.htm
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/
Thus, it makes no sense for Farley to argue that an absence of terrorist threat explains declining public support. Dan and D don't dispute that. They pick nits by narrowing the case down to "operational." My argument still stands, and Farley's a hack.
The whole "Bush Lied, People Died" is based on the claim of no WMD in Iraq, and no Qaeda ties to Saddam. Just ask the radical Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline/
You're a fraud to deny it.
Other than that, you're dodging the other issues. I'm not changing the subject. I've made my point, and have made a second one: You are psychologically and ideological closed-minded to anything I write.
And you're a hypocrite: "Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..."
You concede these people are Democrats, then you deny that they don't want to destroy the U.S. (which doesn't have to be by force, but by undermining the conservative cultural model of the nation since the founding). As I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.
This debate's done. I'll continue the exchange elsewhere, but I stand by my point: You're a denialist. I mean, what does this even mean:
"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."
My posts are routinely picked up by right-wing activists AND folks in the MSM (especially RCP). The fact that I have so many detractors is evidence to me that I'm hitting close to home, and the American Power fan mail is a nice example of that.
To conclude: The Dems are the party of defeat, as Horowitz lays out. I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.
I'm moving on...
Americaneocon | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 8:47 am | #
-----------
My reply:
In fact, Donnie, nowhere in either link is the argument made by anyone that "...Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."
GlobalSecurity.org talks about a poll regarding the beliefs of Americans on the subject of "when the US government presented evidence of links between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda to justify going to war with Iraq," it was either "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" or was "presenting evidence they knew was false" (46% and 10% respectively). Just 39% said they thought the government was "being fully truthful."
Similarly, the Alternet story discusses the words of Bush vs the words of military & foreign policy agencies & think tanks, but never once mentions Saddam Hussain, let alone whether or not he had ties to AQ of any kind.
The ThinkProgress link has one mention, at least:
APRIL 6, 2007: Pentagon report criticizes Feith’s office, finds no Iraq-al Qaeda link.
Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides “all confirmed” that Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday. [Washington Post, 4/6/07]
Seems like the nihilists in that story are in the Pentagon, though... And again, they are not claiming NO ties whatsoever... Just nothing operational.
As for Farley, I've never even mentioned him...
Count me among those "pickin' the nits" (If by nits, you mean debunking your outlandish claim that many on the left believe Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda.) While you may (eventually) find one or two on the left saying that, it clearly isn't the widespread belief you say it is... ...and thus, the fruit of that tree is similarly debunked.
Other than that, you're dodging the other issues.
Speak up... If you specify the issue(s) you believe I'm dodging, in this post, I'll gladly reply... And, I invite you to do the same...
I'm not changing the subject.
Don, when you bring up a different post and the fact that I didn't reply to it--which is what you did--you're changing the subject. But believe as you will...
To be clear: Are you really saying that by opposing McCain Palin, those Democrats (& I assume ALL Democrats) ARE IN FACT trying to destroy America by opposing the cultural conservative model on which you believe this country was founded?
Classic. Absolutely classic.
As I'm not sure whether your declaration about being done & moving on means you will remove this comment, I'll stop here. If you really want to know what I meant about the Mel Morgan thing & your detractors, I'll post the explanation on my blog, so as not to take up any more of your precious space here...
repsac3 | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 10:15 am | #
----------
Now, to continue from where I left off...
First off, can anyone tell me why my saying ""Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..." makes me a hypocrite? Is there a video somewhere of me flipping anyone off, or of defending that gesture when used against those with whom one disagrees, politically? I think not... Just more NeoCon NeroCon bluster, devoid of substance...
I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.
Sadly, no. Here's what Brownstein actually says:
National Journal Magazine - Born Fighting, MoveOn Isn't Letting Up: "The purposes to which MoveOn applies these vast resources are more debatable. The group has become a favored target for Republicans and a source of anxiety for some Democratic centrists, who worry that it points the party too far left. On domestic issues, it fits within the Democratic mainstream. But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."
It looks to me like Brownstein is not saying what Nero claims he is... Why am I not surprised?
I mean, what does this even mean:
"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."
It means that you should be intellectually honest. If you believe having others of your ilk agree with you is some kinda proof that you are correct (which is a belief I don't happen to subscribe to, but I can easily find five examples of your suggesting that you're correct, because "X" or "Y" posted the same thing), you ought to also at minimum entertain the possibility that when several of your detractors all say the same things about your style of argumentation, they may also be correct. If numbers don't lie on the right, numbers don't lie on the left.
I'm surprised you didn't understand that, the first time...
I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.
You haven't even made your case, Donnie.
Define nihilist.
Show how the definition fits some/any/all Democrats.
When you do that (if ever you do--I've been asking for over a year), we'll talk about your case. Until then, it's just you waving your arms in the air & claiming to be flying...
.gif)
4 comments:
I've asked you before to leave a comment and I'll respond, one comment. It's a reasonable request, I think.
Here's what Brownstein wrote:
"But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."
Can you actually read?
DEFINES-THE-PARTY'S-LEFT-FLANK!
Uh, I'd say that's pretty much been my argument all along.
I've said it before, but you're in denial on this one. So, spin it however you want.
As for nihilist, I've given you the definition before, at Biobrain's. But my main usage with reference to the radical left is as follows (from dictionary.com):
"The doctrine that nothing can be known; scepticism as to all knowledge and all reality."
If you continue to deny that Brownstein and I are on the same page on the MoveOn wing of the Democratic Party, then by this definition, you are nihilist.
Anyway, I didn't delete your comment and have responded there with additional evidence that substantiates my case.
I've asked you before to leave a comment and I'll respond, one comment. It's a reasonable request, I think.
If you treat everyone the same, it's a reasonable request. If not, it isn't. When you place the same warning on every poster at your blog (including mamapajamas | 09.27.08 - 12:59 pm when she posted two in a row just yesterday to avoid truncating), then I'll see it as a reasonable request.
(Reasonable or not, I'll still think it silly. Some answers take more than X number of characters, and I'd rather read (& write) full discussions, whatever the word count, rather than placing artificial limits on anyone. But, it's your blog, and you can do whatever you wish, reasonable or not, silly or not... Here at mine, folks can use as many words as they need...)
Here's what Brownstein wrote:
"But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."
Can you actually read?
DEFINES-THE-PARTY'S-LEFT-FLANK!
Uh, I'd say that's pretty much been my argument all along.
First off, (& as I posted the first time) HERE'S what Brownstein wrote:
"The group has become a favored target for Republicans and a source of anxiety for some Democratic centrists, who worry that it points the party too far left. On domestic issues, it fits within the Democratic mainstream. But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."
Now, let's explore that. Brownstein talks about centrists. Brownstein talks about the Democratic mainstream. And yes, Brownstein talks about the party's left flank, who (in context) are separate & apart from the centrists and the mainstream of the party. And yet, it is your contention that Brownstein is saying that the left flank, and not the mainstream, are the base of the Democratic party.
Sorry, Donnie, but I think you're off your rocker.
You said: "I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party."
So, the left flank (No, wait... LEFT FLANK) of the Democratic party is also the base of the Democratic party. Forget the moderates, ignore the mainstream Democrats... In your mind (& in Brownstein's, according to you) there is nothing but a left flank & Joe Lieberman... I think you're wrong, Professor... I think you're wrong.
As for nihilist, I've given you the definition before, at Biobrain's. But my main usage with reference to the radical left is as follows (from dictionary.com):
"The doctrine that nothing can be known; scepticism as to all knowledge and all reality."
Good start, but you still neglected to show how some/any/all Democrats fit that definition. Use real world examples, if possible.
If you continue to deny that Brownstein and I are on the same page on the MoveOn wing of the Democratic Party, then by this definition, you are nihilist.
First off, I do think you're wrong. (In fact, I think that you've already shown how wrong you are by changing your terms. Above, you say that MoveOn is the BASE of the Democratic Party (the major factor, the center), but now you say the MoveOn folks are but a PART, a WING, if you will... Get back to me when you've made up your mind what it is you're actually claiming...)
Second, we seem to be back to the "one is a nihilist if one disagrees with me" definition of the word...
I am not saying nothing can be known, or that reality is subjective; in fact, I'm quite certain that anyone reading the whole Briownstein quote knows exactly what he is and isn't saying. I'm certain I do, & I even think you do as well, even if you continue to feign the ignorance &/or stupidity you are currently on the subject.
No, Donnie, my disagreeing with your wacky interpretation of Brownstein does not evidence nihilism as you defined it. Good try, though...
You truly do live in another world, Reppy.
The key word in that passage is "some." Some centrists in the Democratic Party, like say, Bill Clinton?
That party's long gone, and Brownstein uses left flank as does anyone who discusses contemporary politics does. That is the base of the party, an activist vocal base to which Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, even Hillary Clinton, pandered to throughout the primaries, so as not to alienate the key source of support.
Define things away however you want, but the Democratic Party base and rank-and-file voters around the country, are antiwar, AND MoveOn speaks to them, if not for them (few people would call Petreaus a traitor, although Democrats in Congress didn't seem to mind, despite what protests they did make ... Hillary even called him a liar).
Anyway, I replied one more time at my blog, noting again how your postmodernism will deny anything.
The way you talk, there might not even be an antiwar movement. No one actually opposes the war, right? Brownstein's crazy to even discuss MoveOn as defining the left-flank of the party on national security, a point I've made all along.
Through the looking glass, Reppy...
The key word in that passage is "some." Some centrists in the Democratic Party, like say, Bill Clinton?
Yeah, I don't buy that parsing of the sentence... He said some because only some centrists were concerned about MoveOn. But even if I did buy into your misunderstanding about his using the word "some" before "centrists", there is no "some" before mainstream democrats". If he believed that the left flank Democrats were the mainstream of the party as you claim, there would be no reason for Brownstein to call them different things.
That party's long gone, and Brownstein uses left flank as does anyone who discusses contemporary politics does.
What does that even mean? within a party, the left flank cannot be the mainstream middle of the party, by definition.
That is the base of the party, an activist vocal base to which Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, even Hillary Clinton, pandered to throughout the primaries, so as not to alienate the key source of support.
I know you want to redefine left flank to mean middle, but to do so makes no sense. The base of the Democratic party is no more the left flank than the base of the Republican party is the right flank. Within parties, the mainstream is, by definition, the middle of the party. Between parties, the mainstream is the middle, as well.
Define things away however you want, but the Democratic Party base and rank-and-file voters around the country, are antiwar, AND MoveOn speaks to them, if not for them (few people would call Petreaus a traitor, although Democrats in Congress didn't seem to mind, despite what protests they did make ... Hillary even called him a liar).
You're a pip, Donnie... Democrats protest the MoveOn ad, but you're nevertheless convinced they secretly support it, anyway... (No wonder you believe it is common for antiwar folks to claim there are absolutely no ties between Saddam & AQ. You imagine things you wish to be true, and then convince yourself they are true, no matter the lack of evidence...)
The way you talk, there might not even be an antiwar movement. No one actually opposes the war, right?
No, that'd be wrong, Donnie. There are plenty of folks against war, and even more against this war... Some of 'em are even Democrats... (Whether they're all nihilists, or radicals, or any of the other things you regularly spout about 'em, remains to be seen...)
Brownstein's crazy to even discuss MoveOn as defining the left-flank of the party on national security, a point I've made all along.
If you believe the flank of a party means the same thing as the mainstream of that party, and you're able to convince yourself of phantom antiwar lefties regularly claiming absolutely no ties between Saddam & AQ--though you're seemingly unable to produce more than one quote of any antiwar leftie saying any such thing--you're capeable of believing that that was your point, all along...
Still nothing on how Democrats fit the definition of nihilists, I see... Perhaps one day... (Keep flappin' Donnie... Maybe one day you'll actually take off...)
Post a Comment