Yes, and like I asked originally, where is the evidence that these meetings were negotiations rather than ultimatums?
Desire in one hand and shit in the other… There is no indication that actual discussion between him and the insurgents about their grievances took place. A disgruntled and unidentified self-proclaimed representative of the Pentagon beating his chest over his own angst does not constitute a history of negotiations.
Then you’re not reading particularly carefully.
I suppose miracles happen—
Absolutely. The liberals were not good stewards of what they owned.
Given your interpretation of the alleged Pentagon hand-wringer, it is no wonder you failed to construct a reasonable analogy. You should have compared it to putting a full-page add in the New York Times that I do not believe my TV belongs to me, but to the struggling masses. You should then have painted me as gazing at my navel while pickup trucks and moving vans jostled for position to back up to my door.
I haven’t made any excuses for them. I’ve called them thieves. But you are lazy.
It does indeed. You are keen to pin responsibility upon the chests of other men, but when you must prick your own flesh, you chose not to bear the pain.
Liberals should have been vigilant. They knew that the price of freedom is vigilance. Even now, they should be taking back what belongs to them. Instead, as voiced by you, they are crying, “He started it! It just isn’t fair! Mommy, do something!”
And you are either being pedantic or intellectual dishonest. Do you even believe the shit you’re spinning here? These are secret talks only recently acknowledged. Now, you want a transcript? What, do you think the talks went like this:
–after negotiations with a third party to arrange a meeting site with guarantees for mutual safety, etc, Pentagon Official (PO) and Insurgent 1 (I1) finally meet face-to-face–
PO: Hey, slick, we’re gettin a little tired of all this crap. Knock it off, or we’ll blow you and your buddies to hell.
I1: No.
PO: Okay, just wanted to make sure you knew we were serious about this.
I1: Okay.
PO: Oh, hey, we’re trying to arrange a meet with I2, mind putting in a good word for us?
I1: No prob.
You attributed the fragment of my post that you quoted to the wrong section of Kim’s. Speaking of pedantic dishonesty, would you like to try again or leave your error on the record as intentional?
If a self-identified Pentagon representative at such a meeting is quoted as saying that he wants to “find ways of stopping the bloodshed on both sides and to listen to demands and grievances”, that is not a “You wanna live? Stop the attacks”-type ultimatum.
It’s true that we don’t know any details of what concessions on either or both sides, if any, were actually negotiated. But it seems pretty clear that our guys at least tried to sound as though they wanted to listen to what the other side wants. That’s not how ultimata work.
Oh, you figure US representatives officially meeting in secret with commanders of enemy insurgent forces are talking about their own personal feelings instead of stating what their leaders have instructed them to say as representatives of our nation and military? Yeesh, I hope not.
Nonsense. American liberals in general have never stated that it’s okay with us if conservatives misuse the term “freedom” to mean military adventurism and puppet governments, and we’ve consistently criticized such misuses.
Well, now you lost me entirely. You seemed at first to be unhappy that liberals weren’t criticizing conservative misdeeds enough, and now you complain that we are criticizing them. Could you explain more clearly exactly what it is you advocate liberals should be doing instead?
(If you’re just trying to say, as you often have before, that you think liberals need to adopt the positions of so-called libertarianism or classical liberalism, just say “The usual”, and I’ll know where we are. But right now I’m pretty puzzled as to what you’re driving at.)
I think I’ll interpret the general babbling amidst the coding errors as a concession of sorts, since you seem unable to show that (1) the anonymous fellow in question is indeed a representative of the Pentagon, or that (2) he had any input into the meeting at all, or that (3) there was any direct negotiation with the insurgents rather than Sunnie leaders. An inference that someone unknown is trying at least to sound as though he’s something or other is hardly the foundation of a good case.
As for the rest of it…
Criticize? What?
I take that to mean that you’re throwing in the towel. A thief does not need criticism. He needs to be stripped forceably of the property he has stolen.
Even assuming we could get Bush AND Cheney impeached with the current composition of Congress (damn near impossible), the next in line is…are you ready for this?
President Hastert.
President Stevens. Stevens is probably the closest in line with any kind of reality-based viewpoint on Iraq, as he’s one of the few senior Republicans in Congress who’s actually called for an exit timeline.
You think we could actually winnow through three separate impeachments with the current Congress? I definitely don’t. Hell, I’d shit a cinder block out of sheer surprise if we could get Bush impeached at the moment.
Mea culpa! You calling Kimstu lazy had nothing to do with the nature of the meetings. I admit my error and plead for mercy.
Now, your turn. Your contention, as I understand it, is that it is necessary to prove that the US Government, which went to the time and trouble to set up secret meetings with members of the Iraqi insurgency, did so for the purpose of substantive talks rather than for the sole purpose of repeating information (stop or we’ll kill you) that is:
Rather obvious since we’ve been killing them for months
Repeated in just about every speech or press conference about Iraq.
Don’t. (What coding errors, btw? Looked okay to me.) I’m still saying that according to the cited quotation from an American present at an acknowledged official meeting between US representatives and Iraqi insurgent leaders, it seems reasonable to conclude that the meeting was about negotiations, not just for delivering an American ultimatum to the insurgents. Which is what you asked about.
Don’t.
Be more specific, please. You are suggesting that liberals should somehow “forcibly strip” neoconservative war hawks of the term “freedom”, because it’s the “property” of liberals and the neocons have “stolen” it? How?
Should I take that to mean that you’re throwing in the towel?
I certainly came to my senses about impeachment when I realized that Bush would be replaced by Cheney. Of course, that had nothing to do with anything you have said. And stop being coy about how to take back your ideas from the conservatives. If you valued them, you’d know how.
You’ve said plenty of nonsensical gibberish on this board and always backed said gibberish up with a variation of “You don’t understand because I’m so much smarter than you” defense, but this has got to be the most nonsensical gibberish to date.
So I guess I don’t value the meaning of the word “liberal” because I don’t know how to reclaim it from a word-twisting wack job like you.