I recall, a few months ago, being totally intimidated when I took a look at Dave Barry’s blog and saw how many comments he got on his posts. Some of them had 50 comments and more! No way I’d ever match that.
I now laugh at 50 comments. Ha-ha!
Take a look now and see how we — thanks to you hard-working respondents — are now regularly exceeding ol’ Dave’s level of participation, at least on a per-post basis.
Sure, he posts more often than I do. But he puts less work into most of those posts. He relies on talent to get him through, the pitiful slacker. If he had as much actual work to do as I, he wouldn’t post as often. I know, because I sometimes do post as many in a day as he does, and I know how little of my regular job I get done on those days.
By the way, about that last sentence — it’s OK for you and me to know how little I get done on those days, just as long as neither my boss nor my expert time-management coach hear about it. Capiche?
Related Posts
Brad, is this what we would call a vanity post? Let’s move on to immigration and get back to work. Tu comprende?
Some people will do ANYTHING to get comments on their blogs.
Check out this guy, for example . . . 624 comments and counting on his last post:
http://futureworldruler.blogspot.com/
Hey Dave, can’t you take a complement? Brad’s thanking us, right?
Herb, si, senor, I meant it’s a vanity post for all of us, and Brad too. I guess that does sound kind of unfriendly on second look, but it was the “nuance” of it. Unlike Sen. Kerry, I am not good at nuance most of the time. I enjoy Brad’s posts of issues and ideas, as proven by my presence. So I take my hat off to Brad for providing mud for us turtle bloggers.
In further defense of this blog—though the posts sometimes get a bit heated here, usually it’s all about attacking or defending a strongly held political viewpoint, with passion. At least the comments here are mostly ABOUT something…in contrast to the catfight over nothing that seems to have erupted over here.
I guess what I’m trying to say is thanks for running a blog, mostly on political issues, that’s intended for grownups.
Brad, thanks to this blog I’m laughing more often, also… at your editorials.
I just never took the time to read them seriously before.
BTW, “defeatism” is really sweeping the military. What’s the latest count of generals calling for Rummy’s resignation? Surely they must be “defeatist” in your eyes. What a blow for the “war effort” and troop morale! Imagine having fifth columnists criticizing the man who sent too few troops into battle ill-equipped just in time for the 2004 elections.
Wow, six retired generals finally had the “courage” to denigrate the boss for what happened 3 years ago. Not one of them has stated that they disagree with current policy. Meanwhile, in real life, 800 current and active generals remain dedicated and loyal to their leadership. The last time I checked civilians manage the military, so the six losers can speak up all they want, but our constitution is such that they don’t make military policy. Zinni testified back in 2000 how much he believed Saddam was the world’s worst threat and military action was the best solution. That was under oath by the way. Now he is refuting his statements. Is that called perjury?
You’re welcome, Phillip, Dave, Herb and everybody.
As for Ready to Hurl — you know, this blog is sort of an adjunct to the newspaper itself. To understand what I’m saying, it helps to have that broader context.
If you had that context, you would know we’ve been saying Rummy should go for years. We’ve said it repeatedly. We said it again last week. And there’s nothing defeatist about it. It’s what you say if you believe in the war, and want to win the peace. If you want Rumsfeld to stay, you’re not serious about succeeding in Iraq.
Since you apparently don’t read the editorial page, I’ll help you out by giving you this link
to a piece that elaborates on what I just said. It ran a few days after our first editorial saying Rummy should go. Here’s an excerpt:
Rumsfeld was given the gargantuan task of downsizing the military which was designed for a confrontation with Soviet Russia. Look at what Sanford is going through with some relatively simple state restructuring. Anyway, anyone introducing change into a bureaucratic environment will be attacked at all levels. In Rummy’s case, he has a pack of 2 star generals who realized they just kissed their 4 stars goodbye on downsizing. So this reaction is very typical.
Well, I don’t have one star, much less two. I don’t even have a PFC stripe. I’m just somebody who would like to see us win this thing, and still be able to mount a serious threat to Iran. Those things are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with Rumsfeld in place.
Brad, even some of the worst skeptics are now seeing that the tide has turned in Iraq. Many problems yes, but the insurgency is losing. The US military continues to move further into the background and the Iraqi military is strengthening. If that is the case, why the obsession with removing Rumsfeld? He is over 70 years old and will leave with honor.
Dave – With regard to your post (4/18 7:31) in effect accusing General Zinni of perjury, what is your take on President Bush’s unacknowledged refutation of his own statements that no one on his staff was involved in outing Valerie Plame? Perjury? Or a change in point of view?
News flash, Mr. W: Bush has again endorsed the job Rumsfeld is doing. Obviously this administration thinks Rumsfeld is doing an excellent job of administering its strategy in Iraq.
Dave: What color is the sky in your world?
And the administration is wrong about that.
And Dave, this is about more than Iraq. To get anywhere with Iran, our military threat has to be credible, and it just isn’t with Rummy in charge.
Meanwhile, we need to be preparing for much greater contingencies, with an increasingly aggressive China out there undergoing an alarming military buildup. The Navy is terribly strained trying to present a credible deterrent to protect Taiwan.
With so many hazards in the world, the nation needs a competent SecDef whom the nation — and our allies, present and future — can trust and rely upon. Rumsfeld doesn’t fit the job description.
Exactly what is the “job description”?
Exactly what is Donald Rumsfeld doing wrong?
Exactly what is the description of the ideal Secretary of Defense?
Six retired generals out of 6,000 say they don’t like Rumsfeld, but even they cannot articulate the answers to the above questions.
One thing I see right is flexibility. This administration allows innovation to come from the ranks. New weapons designed by sergeants are deployed by volunteers to test them out, not in years, but in months. Off-the-shelf equipment suggested by troops is evaluated quickly and assigned NSN numbers, so that superior civilian items can be used. Small firms are allowed to bid replacement parts electronically against GE, Textron, and Lockheed. That surely ruffles the feathers of entrenched vendors with retired generals and admirals as their “business development liasons” (salesmen).
And the administration is wrong about that.
How can you say that? Is the administration not the best judge of whether ITS OWN strategy is being carried out?
This administration has shown time and time again that it is irresponsible in the extreme in matters of domestic policy. For the life of me I don’t know why you continue to think these people are any more responsible with respect to foreign policy. I know Bush frequently says the lofty words you like to hear, but they are meaningless in the absence of a serious commitment to doing what it takes (and by “what it takes” I sure don’t mean more bombing and killing).
What is Rumsfeld doing wrong? For starters, he refuses to face reality because it contradicts his vision of what the military should be.
Why don’t you give this a read: http://tinyurl.com/nhdrc
Wartime is right concerning the strain on our navy. Even Somalian pirates recently grew bigger cajones and took potshots at our boats. Something is wrong with that naval picture.
If we’re going to play World Superman, I say we start with wiping every pirate off the Seven Seas. I mean, it’s 2006! Pirates?!
And if we need a battle plan, I suggest we revisit the one laid down by one Thomas Jefferson and sirs when they dealt with brigands of the Barbary Coast variety. Davy Jones had a tough time fitting his books into his locker after that little fracas.
The link supplied by “kc”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060410fa_fact2
says more about the incompetence of LBJ and his Vietnam brain trust, and nothing specific about any shortcomings of Donald Rumsfeld.
As I said, baseless general accusations are a worthless. Give us some informed specific examples.
Sorry, kc. I think we’re talking at cross-purposes. The overall "strategy" is to drain the swamps in the Mideast, to use Tom Friedman’s term. I was saying that where this administration has gone wrong is in tactics.
But perhaps I was using "strategy" too broadly. In a sense, you’re right. Indeed, not sending in enough troops to start with is probably a mistake of strategic proportions. It worked in Afghanistan, but was never going to work in Iraq. Fighting the last war, and all that.
Re the pirates: That’s another problem we might not have had if we hadn’t pulled out of Mogadishu. When I say "another," I mean, in addition to 9/11.
By the way, Capital A, I think you mean "cojones," with an "O." As near as I can tell, "cajones" refers to "drawers," as in "chest of…" The kind of drawers you keep your drawers in.
And I don’t know about the size of their drawers, but I suspect the buccaneers had been chewing a lot of khat that day.
Lee, did you even READ the article? Granted, it’s long, but you could always just do a word search for “Rumsfeld,” if you require that level of specificity. It’s not rocket science.
In a nutshell, Rumsfeld failed to anticipate the insurgency, ignored warnings as it was gaining strength, and even after it had become a full-fledged insurgency, he continued to stick his fingers in his ears and say “NANANANANA I CAN’T HEEEAR YOU” when reporters (and his underlings) attempted to address the issue.
Moreover, he apparently ignored all evidence, and there was plenty of it, that this war was NOT vindicating his “vision” of the new military.
Here’s an excerpt for you – but this is the last time I’m doing your homework for you:
In the spring of 2003, McMaster joined the staff of General John Abizaid at Central Command. Abizaid soon took over from Franks, who got out of Iraq and the military just as his three-week triumph over the Baathist regime showed signs of turning into a long ordeal. Although the violence in Iraq was rapidly intensifying, no one at the top levels of the government or the military would admit that an insurgency was forming.
“They didn’t even want to say the ‘i’ word,” one officer in Iraq told me. “It was the spectre of Vietnam. They did not want to say the ‘insurgency’ word, because the next word you say is ‘quagmire.’ The next thing you say is ‘the only war America has lost.’ And the next thing you conclude is that certain people’s vision of war is wrong.”
The most stubborn resistance to the idea of an insurgency came from Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, who was determined to bring about a “revolution in military affairs” at the Pentagon—the transformation of war fighting into a combination of information technology and precision firepower that would eliminate the need for large numbers of ground troops and prolonged involvement in distant countries. “It’s a vision of war that totally neglects the psychological and cultural dimensions of war,” the officer said. Rumsfeld’s denial of the existence of the insurgency turned on technicalities: insurgencies were fought against sovereign governments, he argued, and in 2003 Iraq did not yet have one.
In October of that year, a classified National Intelligence Estimate warned that the insurgency was becoming broad-based among Sunni Arabs who were unhappy with the American presence in Iraq, and that it would expand and intensify, with a serious risk of civil war. But Rumsfeld, President Bush, and other Administration officials continued to call the escalating violence in Iraq the work of a small number of Baathist “dead-enders” and foreign jihadis. For Rumsfeld, this aversion became a permanent condition. Over Thanksgiving weekend last year, he had a self-described “epiphany” in which he realized that the fighters in Iraq didn’t deserve the word “insurgents.” The following week, at a Pentagon press conference, when the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, said, rather sheepishly, “I have to use the word ‘insurgent,’ because I can’t think of a better word right now,” Rumsfeld cut in, “ ‘Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government’—how’s that?”
Lee, did you even READ the article? Granted, it’s long, but you could always just do a word search for “Rumsfeld,” if you require that level of specificity. It’s not rocket science.
In a nutshell, Rumsfeld failed to anticipate the insurgency, ignored warnings as it was gaining strength, and even after it had become a full-fledged insurgency, he continued to stick his fingers in his ears and say “NANANANANA I CAN’T HEEEAR YOU” when reporters (and his underlings) attempted to address the issue.
Moreover, he apparently ignored all evidence, and there was plenty of it, that this war was NOT vindicating his “vision” of the new military.
Here’s an excerpt for you – but this is the last time I’m doing your homework for you:
In the spring of 2003, McMaster joined the staff of General John Abizaid at Central Command. Abizaid soon took over from Franks, who got out of Iraq and the military just as his three-week triumph over the Baathist regime showed signs of turning into a long ordeal. Although the violence in Iraq was rapidly intensifying, no one at the top levels of the government or the military would admit that an insurgency was forming.
“They didn’t even want to say the ‘i’ word,” one officer in Iraq told me. “It was the spectre of Vietnam. They did not want to say the ‘insurgency’ word, because the next word you say is ‘quagmire.’ The next thing you say is ‘the only war America has lost.’ And the next thing you conclude is that certain people’s vision of war is wrong.”
The most stubborn resistance to the idea of an insurgency came from Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, who was determined to bring about a “revolution in military affairs” at the Pentagon—the transformation of war fighting into a combination of information technology and precision firepower that would eliminate the need for large numbers of ground troops and prolonged involvement in distant countries. “It’s a vision of war that totally neglects the psychological and cultural dimensions of war,” the officer said. Rumsfeld’s denial of the existence of the insurgency turned on technicalities: insurgencies were fought against sovereign governments, he argued, and in 2003 Iraq did not yet have one.
In October of that year, a classified National Intelligence Estimate warned that the insurgency was becoming broad-based among Sunni Arabs who were unhappy with the American presence in Iraq, and that it would expand and intensify, with a serious risk of civil war. But Rumsfeld, President Bush, and other Administration officials continued to call the escalating violence in Iraq the work of a small number of Baathist “dead-enders” and foreign jihadis. For Rumsfeld, this aversion became a permanent condition. Over Thanksgiving weekend last year, he had a self-described “epiphany” in which he realized that the fighters in Iraq didn’t deserve the word “insurgents.” The following week, at a Pentagon press conference, when the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, said, rather sheepishly, “I have to use the word ‘insurgent,’ because I can’t think of a better word right now,” Rumsfeld cut in, “ ‘Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government’—how’s that?”
It worked in Afghanistan,
Really? That’s debatable. I take you are satisfied with the current state of affairs there.
I’ll be back later to address the rest.
What no one could have anticipated was that Al Qaeda would jump at the opportunity to fight the big American infidel in Iraq. But that dark cloud has had a silver lining. While the struggle in Iraq has been prolonged, thousands of fanatical AQ have gone to meet their 72 virgins. That means thousands of potential suicide bombers and other murderous scum that cannot harm again. So Iraq became a terrorist magnet, and in the Western world, since mentally sane people dont routinely volunteer for suicide, no one could have foreseen that process.
Another past event we are paying for dearly is the decimation of the CIA by Frank Church and Jimmah Carter. They defanged the CIA from the people intelligence side and now those sins have come home to roost. No ground intelligence to speak of. Let’s give Carter his credit where it’s due. He thoroughly weakenend the national security with the help of a liberal Congress. Reagan built up our military strength and then Bill Clinton feminized the military to the extent he could, including advancement of officers who were more concerned about uniform design than effective fighting.
Sorry, kc. I think we’re talking at cross-purposes. The overall “strategy” is to drain the swamps in the Mideast, to use Tom Friedman’s term.
I don’t recall this strategy, or goal, being communicated to the American people by any Bush administration official(but speaking of Tom Friedman, wasn’t one of HIS rationalizations that the U.S. needed to hit some Arab country, just to show how tough we are?). What I do recall was an awful lot of talk about “disarming” Saddam.
If “draining the swamp” was the administration’s unspoken goal (perhaps Bush communicated this to the true-believers by a series of coded winks?), even you have to admit the admin vastly underrated the size of the swamp – despite being repeatedly warned by people who knew what they were talking about. And the location. Because – you may recall – the majority of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Not one of them came from Iraq.
I suggest that you sit down some day and read of some the Knight-Ridder news service’s really excellent reporting on the administration’s failure to plan. You could start with this one: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm
It worked in Afghanistan,
Did it? Things are heating up over there. And women are still being oppressed, villagers terrorized, and men are subject to execution for having converted to Christianity. I wouldn’t say that particular “swamp” has been drained.
Dave, do you really believe no one anticipated Al Qaeda in Iraq? Honestly? I seem to remember my local dogcatcher predicting that Iraq would turn into a terrorist training ground, or maybe it was our village idiot, or perhaps even Gary Trudeau…it seems like so many people called this one I can’t remember who got it first. Regardless of the rationale for going in, we went in led by a group of people who thought “nation building” were dirty words at the time they were trying to do the same. Clearing out that deadwood isn’t defeatism, it’s our best shot at getting out intact.
And anybody who has watched the Middle East for the last, oh I don’t know.., maybe thirty years has seen enough suicide bombers that there should be no surprises there, hmmm? Sane or not, we sure have seen enough of them that we should have learned. Again, if we have military leaders who can’t seem to remember the Beirut truck bomb they should be fired. Make way for people who aren’t senile.
As far as Carter goes, I would have hoped that Bush I, with his own Iraqi war and experience as a former CIA chief, would have had the sense to repair whatever damage Carter did that Reagan hadn’t already fixed. Maybe he was too busy looking for post-it notes to read at rallies (“Message: I care!”).
On the bright side though, at least we tackled that WMD and oil security problem! Hang those trophies on the wall right next to Osama’s head!
Re: cajones
Wartime, cajones may be defined as a military caisson. The definitions given for a military caisson are as follows:
cais·son (ksn, -sn) KEY
NOUN:
A watertight structure within which construction work is carried on under water.
A large box open at the top and one side, designed to fit against the side of a ship and used to repair damaged hulls under water.
A floating structure used to close off the entrance to a dock or canal lock.
A horse-drawn vehicle, usually two-wheeled, used to carry artillery ammunition and coffins at military funerals.
A large box used to hold ammunition.
Considering the context of my post, are we seeing the pun yet? Sorry to not be as straightforward and artless in my postings as you would like.
Don’t you think Capital A, of all people, would know where to place an A? O, yes, I do.
You certainly think like an editor does. Let the writer have a little fun. Sheesh:)
Uncle Elmer – The Bush Admin. believed Saddam had connections with AQ, but the anti-war side has continually claimed that AQ was NOT in Iraq. Papers and govt. documents that were seized in Iraq now prove that not only was AQ in Iraq with Hussein’s blessing, but work was still underway on bio and nuclear weaponry. What no one could have guessed is that AQ from all other countries would come to join the jihad as they did. We may find Saudi and Iranian money is paying the suicide fools to cross into Iraq. As time is passing, we see the Iraqi people now know it is their own families being blown to bits in the markets and mosques. So the strategy is now backfiring.
As for nation building, ultimately the Iraqis must nation build. We are giving them the jumpstart they need but its their show to succeed or not. The decent people realize the alternative is to go back into oppression and a 10th century style of life. Simply put, the USA is on the side of the decent people in Iraq. Anyone who is against the USA is aiding and abetting the terrorists. That is why Brad writes that we have to see this through and have the persistence to finish. We cannot lose in Iraq unless the leftist democrats force a surrender to terrorism. If that happens, it won’t be safe anywhere in the world for an American.
I don’t think you understand oil geopolitics at all. If you think oil is high now, imagine if Hussein controlled Kuwait, Saudi, Iraq, and Iran oil fields. Then throw in a Chavez in Venezuela. That group could strangle the world with oil starvation. WE stopped that with Gulf War I and now Iraq. Liberals have no ideas other than to appease and surrender. History shows that gets us nowhere.
Thomas Friedman’s most recent article states that he thinks we can live peacefully with a nuclear armed Iran. The man lives in dreamworld. The President of Iran and the fanatical mullahs who have him propped up in that position are not gesting about using the Muslim bomb. They cannot be allowed to have the bomb in any way shape or form.
Thomas Friedman is a poster boy for the ignorant self-delusion of the back row pundits whose entire lives consist of cat-calls to those actually in the arena.
The modern liberal is, among other things, a coward, a shirker who wants to believe that all men can be made to like him, if only he had a few minutes to charm them with his wit.
The Muslim extremists of Iran are products of the same arrogant British liberalism which drew lines on a map and declared tribes to be nations, and cat and dog to be the same animal. Today’s Islamists see Friedman as subhuman, a Jew to be killed without any effort at converting him.
Lee, I often wonder how the other Jews in the synagogue cannot help but spit in the face of Schumer, Friedman, and other sellouts who would sit idly by while Israel was annihilated. But who can figure a Jew? I can’t.
Finally and unequivocally, the screw turns. Considering his post above, are our charges that Dave is a bigot so baselesss now?
Or shall we strain the quality of mercy until his racist rantings become even more pronounced? Speak out for civility fellow Sandlappers.
Why don’t you just post under your real name, instead of “Capital A” and “Mary Rosh”?
Sure thing. If you’ll post under your “Christian” names of Lee or Dave, alone.
You really are simple if you think that s/he and I are one and the same. No wonder a Clark Kent like Wartime is even poking fun at you as the impetus of entire blog entries.
Capital A – Because I say even a Jew can’t figure out a Jew that is now racist. You really are goofy in your logic or illogic as the case may be. I have many Jewish friends and they tell me that. Haven’t you heard the one where if you have 2 Jews in a room and you ask their opinion, you will get 3 answers. Get a life. You are obsessed with everyone being a racist, except yourself of course. There may be no race that claims you for that matter.
Can you just once post some sort of organized and thought out idea instead of simply bashing. Even you must get tired of the blog bashing, maybe not.
Capital A – if you fess up and tell us you are a frustrated public school English teacher, I will understand a little better where your head is at.
Speaking of names — I know who Herb is, because he let his surname slip once. And I know who Phillip is, because his name links to his site.
I’d be curious if others — Lee, Capital A, kc, etc. — would explain to me the motivation behind expressing oneself anonymously. I wouldn’t get any satisfaction out of it. Surely not that many people have fatwahs out against them so that they can’t file under their real names for fear of their lives.
For that matter, even Salman Rushdie signs his work.
I don’t get it.
Dave, you’re a simpleton, plainly and simply. You can’t even see what you are; you just project onto others. Kindly explaining this to you didn’t work in the beginning and neither is publicly embarassing you on these boards. So, I will try to take a respite from highlighting your extreme ignorance.
However, I will not let you get away with wildly posting bigoted and racist remarks and assaulting fellow posters without some verbal reprisal. Even if it seems the silent majority and blog beginner here would rather be genteel towards the offender rather than defend the offended…
Not very South Carolinian or American, in my opinion…
Duhave, the most insight you have given us is how to order ice cream over the internet, so I guess that is a start in the right direction for you.
Dave, we all know where your head is.
Mr. Warthen, my name is Allen, for whatever good knowing that will do you. So, you see, my name is with a capital A. It has nothing to do with “anonymously posting” out of some perceived threat or fear I feel from fellow bloggers.
Afraid of this lot? Puh-lease… I’d wager I’m the most physically fit and imposing regular blogger here, by far. Everything I’ve posted, I’d say to the intended target’s face. I certainly wouldn’t waste too much time on words if a Yosemite Sam like Dave or a Deputy Dawg like Lee if they were popping off their lil six shooters in my real-life, personal space.
Mr. Warthen, you DON’T get it. I think your age and chosen profession have conspired to conceal that truth from you. Quite simply, posting with an alias is fun and a little more creative than the oh-so-imaginative “Lee,” “Dave,” or…drum roll…”Brad Warthen.”
At least I’ve always posted with a my real email. Which is more than I can say for some of my simplistic foils who have regularly gifted us with their ignorance…
Got cojones?
I’d be curious if others — Lee, Capital A, kc, etc. — would explain to me the motivation behind expressing oneself anonymously.
Well, we’re pseudonymous, not anonymous.
My motivation is pretty simple: I don’t want every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internets to know who I am. You get paid to express political opinions. I don’t.
I don’t get it.
Of course you don’t. But there is a long tradition of pseudonymous political writing in America. Not that I liken myself to “Publius.” But there’s nothing shameful about pseudonymity per se.
Now maybe you can explain why it is that you think your opinions should carry more weight simply because the name “Brad Warthen” is appended to them. Because I don’t get that . . .
Capital A, Dave can’t possibly be a racist – why, some of his best friends are Jewish. He’s obviously just upset because Thomas Friedman is not Jewish enough to suit him.
Allen, Allen, Allen – here you are on a web blog where we don’t even know the gender of some of the bloggers, yet you have yourself convinced that you are the finest physical specimen and most imposing blogger on the blog. How laughable is that. If that doesn’t show all how full of yourself you are, nothing will. Anyway, a few blog posts back you were boasting of how you have the power to get to me and rule my world, even to the point of claiming you own me. Hahaaaaaaaaaa… REad your own post above, you are losing your cool. It shows big time. Lighten up a little. This is only a conversation in virtual land, not a gunfight at the OK corral. As I said before, I enjoy your posts, always something interesting to say, but let’s stay away from the anger management stuff please.
Brad, I don’t have anything in principle against giving out my last name, except that once in awhile I’ve posted something that I later wished I hadn’t. If its certain that someone can’t do a Google search and come up with my name, then its no problem. I do travel sometimes and end up in different countries, not all of them safe.
As far as I can tell, Google searches can only come up with keywords in your posts, and not in the comments.
Knave, you’re even contradicting yourself now. In one post, you say I do nothing but attack you in a repetitious manner. Now, you say I always have something interesting to express. Signs of mental imbalance? Possibly.
I wasn’t angry at all in the above post. Wartime suggested that the pseudonymns might be afraid for their physical well being, and I was addressing that charge. If you EVER see me afraid, then you better start running alongside because there must something akin to a balrog headed in our general direction.
The emotion I HAVE felt is frustration and now ennui. We’re not getting anyhting accomplished on the political portions of this blog. I think from here on out I am going to restrict myself to only those topics that are more esoteric in nature. The political wrangling has become so weary and repetive.
I now have it confirmed that you and Lee are little more than attention-seekers. What else will explain your staunchly outrageous viewpoints and your bipolar opinions concerning my posts? Unless Mary is correct about your tenuous grasp on this reality… I prefer, instead, to hold you accountable for your posts and not give you “insanity” as an easy out.
So, unless, for instance, you’re tying to argue that Crash was a better film than A History of Violence, then you’ll be safe from my sword strokes. I do have to thank those I’ve dueled against for reawakening me to the inanity of the religious and political right that still plagues our state and country. I had become a little insular concerning their actions and what I’ve read here (posted by actual Sandlappers, not denizens of some far flung land) has made me redouble my efforts to be more politically active in my own life.
It’s sad that it’s 2006 and so many people still hold the fairytales penned by a savage people from thousands of years ago to be literal truth. It’s even sadder that supposedly more advanced people then use those crude ideas to bash their brothers and sisters for their differences. The saddest is that no one else has spoken up on behalf of those attacked by these flag-attired, Bible-thumpers. Where are you? Hiding in a tower of Babel, I guess…
If anyone posts a political attack on Daveid Lee Rot using my moniker, it ain’t me. I’m a lot of things, and one of those is that I’m a man of my word.
Now, I might as well JUMP…to a blogging concerning music or movies or art…or something. What do we have to do get one of those, Mr. Warthen? Wait until Andre Bauer opens up a wrecked car museum?
OK, C.A., is this for me? If it is, I need to know what is “crude” and where I’ve used it to “bash” somebody else.
I’m also not sure what you’re trying to accomplish politically on a blog, but maybe I’m totally in the dark. Seems like the purpose is more to discuss varying viewpoints — with some degree of civility, I would hope.
Oh, and C.A., aren’t you doing a bit of bashing yourself? I mean, those of us who have trust in the Scriptures don’t have such just because we are stupid. There is a reason, to quote the first pope, for “the hope that is in us.” Even if you don’t buy it. Is that bad, or what?
Brad, whether the security of pseudonyms is real or imagined, it’s valued. Given the number of people in the Columbia area who work in government jobs, and the constant drumbeat of state/local officials who abuse their authority (as reported in your own paper), it’s a wonder that anybody signs on with their real name at all.
And you’re right, nobody is expecting a fatwah…but maybe getting passed over for a raise or good assignment? That’s pretty easy to imagine. Maybe you’re lucky enough that you never had to work for an adminidrone that holds grudges, but not all of us can say that.
Capital A – You were multi-tasking as it were when you bash and say something interesting at the same time. You have a good gift of the tongue for creative bashing so sometimes that in itself can be interesting. However, Brad’s virtual world here is one of volunteers only so stay if you want or leave if you want. Bush whacked Kerry with 5 million more votes in 04 than he got in 00. This country is turning to the right incrementally so you should get used to it. You might even like it if you would embrace conservative values and concepts like self reliance, individual initiative, personal responsibility, balanced among ideals of helping others and working together to improve society. I might throw in smaller government to that too. CA, we hardly knew ye.
The reason to post anonymously is found in the personal attacks from the owner of this blog, much less the trolls. Any little bit of factual information would be distorted into another excuse for them to demonize those who challenge their backward notions of civics and economics.
Hey, Brad…
Thanks for the “context.” I’m still chuckling at the inanity.
So you think that Rummy is some kind of aberration of stubborn incompetence in this ship of fools?
Have you been paying attention for the past six years at all?
The fish rots from the head. If you were able to connect the dots then you’d recognize that the only way to replace Rummy is to replace Bush/Cheney.
None of your bleatings about Rummy’s incompetence have more effect than farts in a hurricane.
Let me put this simply. You seem to have a limited ability to observe and draw conclusions about the Bush Administration. Rummy’s incompetence is irrelevant to Bush and Cheney. He’s a ruthless crony who is on the same ideological page as Cheney and the neo-cons. Rummy’s personal calling to reshape the military despite the years of failure in Iraq is of no import to Cheney or Bush. He agrees with their ultimate goals and has the bureaucratic chops to make them happen while keeping institutional opposition to an “acceptable level.”
Do you really think that an administration which protects the person who outed a CIA agent charged with investigating WMD would fire a stalwart like Rummy?
Your belief that we can “win” with any of this crew at the helm is sadly delusional.
The faster that we withdraw our troops the better off we and the world will be.
You deride simple realism as “defeatism” because you refuse to recognize that the first step in getting out of hole is to stop digging.
Valerie Plame was a low-level CIA analyst who was not working under cover, who was feeding information to her husband, who was feeding disinformation to the New York Times.
She was already exposed by her husband’s illegal campaign contributions to Democrats, which he had attempted to remedy by splitting the donation as one from his wife, her occupation, and her CIA front company, on the FEC forms.
The latest CIA leaker is another friend of Joseph Wilson, who served with him in Africa when Clinton was doing nothing about Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium, nothing about Bin Laden bombing our embassies, and nothing about the genocide in Somalia and Rwanda.
When Bush took office one of his biggest mistakes was to think that maintaining an aura of bipartisanship would lessen some of the polarization in our society between liberals and conservatives. So he kept Norman Mineta as head of Transportation and George Tenet in CIA, among others. Porter Goss, 5 years too late, is now fumigating the anti-American rot in the department. There are many other traitors like Mary McCarthy in the CIA and state department. Heads should roll, at least symbolically.
The CIA and State Department are full of loafers who failed us for years. 9/11 just showed us how much they had been goofing off and playing politics. A cabal of them has worked together to undermine Bush, instead of admitting failure and straightening up or resigning on Sept 12, 2001.