Wow.
December, I patiently await your retraction. This is phenomenally nasty, and while it’s of course constitutionally protected speech, we don’t need to be in denial about its adverse consequences.
And that we can’t use the T-word, either.
Let’s see which statements need retracting:
[ul][li] Is Nasrallah a terrorist leader? Check.[]Did he call for a jihad against Americans? Check[]Was his stated purpose to get the Bush Administration voted out of office? Check.[]Did he call for terrorist attacks against Americans in order to contribute to Bush not being re-elected? Check.[]Does this mean replacing Bush with a Democrat? Check. (Although Nasrallah didn’t mention the Democrats, Bush has no Republican opposition, so the only way to vote him out of office would be to elect a Democratic President.) []Would it be wrong to call Democratic anti-war comments “treason”? Check.[]Are Democratic comments protected free speech? Check.Have campaign comments by Dean and others left people in doubt as to their degree of resolve for staying in Iraq? Check.[/ul]Give me a hint, DanielWithrow. Which part do you think needs retracting? (Same question to other critics.)[/li]
My statements are unfortunately true. If my statements are nasty, it’s because reality is nasty.
december is contributing to my cow-nature.
I think the Democrats should nominate Graham. Especially now for the sake of irony.
A lie.
Yes, but a huge economic recovery could also hurt Bush’s re-election chances. What strange universe do you live in, in which Presidents become less likely to be re-elected when the nation is attacked?
2. Are anti-war comments by these leading Democrats encouraging the murder of Americans in the middle east? Evidently the answer is Yes, whether one likes it or not.
[/quote]
Not only a lie, but a despicable lie.
A repulsive lie.
Glad to clarify what could use retraction.
Daniel
It should also be noted that not all of the Democrats running opposed the war in Iraq (I think the margin among the 9 candidates was 5-to-4 in favor of it), and again, none would remove the troops as far as I can know. I’m pretty sure none of them have said they would, and I doubt any of them will say anything of the sort.
I’d also like to call for a cite on the full speech. Especially this little bit of editorializing:
Where exactly did old ZB get his impression? Since he is talking about resistance in Iraq I would assume he’s actually talking about the geurrilla resistance there.
If you don’t mind a “hint” from me december you should retract #2 &5. They are offensive. I believe you are completely misguided on the other points.
Indeed so, Mr Ives. And you would do well to note it is also wholly inappropriate to refer to this OP as;
Another [sub]leaking[/sub] Sack [sub]of[/sub] Shit (ASS)
In truth, the OP is again and very kindly reminding us of the emotional, military and freedom-loving bond that exists between the peoples of the US and Israel, and how their destiny’s are inextricably entwined in the pursuit of peace.
I, for one, am also grateful to the OP for reminding me again that the work of those committed to freedom in all parts of the world is far from complete.
Wow did I rreally take that long to compose that? Oh well, what Daniel said.
As I said, Nasrallah said getting someone elected instead of Bush could lead to the removal of American forces from Iraq. Who but a Democratic candidate could Nasrallah imagine could defeat Bush for President?
It’s not a question of what universe I live in, but what universe Sheik Nasrallah lives in. His statement says that he believes that terrorist attacks on Americans could lead to Bush’s electoral defeat.
However, I would add that media coverage of the deaths of Americans in Iraq shows that the country takes these attacks very seriously. IIRC threads on this board have addressed the question of how badly these attacks will hurt the President’s electoral chances. (Maybe Nasrallah got the idea that attacks would hurt Bush’s electability from reading the Straight Dope. ;))
It’s a deduction, based on what Nasrallah actually said. I think a publicly unified Iraq policy would remove this particular motivation for terrorism. Of course, Hezbollah might pursue anti-Ameican terrorism for other reasons.
Incidentally, I thought Blalron made a good point:
I agree with her/him. However, I wish the Democratic candidates would make this position more explicit in their public statements.
Wrong again, december - you made assertions yourself that you are being called up to retract. Nobody cares what the guy you quoted says.
You yourself supported that by observing that “reality is nasty” - meaning your subsequent claim that it isn’t what you think but what this other guy thinks that matters is yet another lie.
Now take responsibility for your own words.
It’s true. If I don’t give a shit about how lunatic conservatives in the United States misjudge foreign policy, why should I care what some lunatic theocrat in Palestine thinks on the subject? When we start trying to second-guess lunatic terrorists, we compromise our own society, our own ethic.
We gotta do what’s right or wrong, regardless of the lunatic element: our only response to them should be to the extent that we keep ourselves and others safr from their venom. That applies equally to foreign crazies and the homegrown variety.
Daniel
Being one of your critics, I’ll answer as to which points deserve a retraction or apology.
Seeing that you were an admittedly
I’d posit these points to debate (along with what really isn’t my opinion, but hey):
1. Was the National Liberation Front’s strategy reasonable? Yes, it got the US to leave Vietnam.
2. Were anti-war comments by december encouraging the murder of Americans in South East Asia? Evidently the answer is Yes, whether one likes it or not.
3. In view of this impact, should december have been be more careful of what he said? I think december would have been well-advised to have taken a line saying that whatever his differences were with the war, he was fully committed to the US remaining in Vietnam.
4. If comments by december served to encourage America’s enemies, do these comments constitute treason? Not at all IMHO. It’s an unfortunate side-effect of free speech.
5. Should december and others apologize to the families of slain servicemen, since their comments encouraged the attacks against them? Yes.
6. Is it appropriate to note and debate whether anti-war statements during Vietnam served to encourage some terrorists? Absolutely. These statements are protected free speech, but we needn’t be in denial about their adverse consequences.
Lebanon actually. Or as it might otherwise be called, Syria Jr.
We really need a new forum for comedy.
Not only does Mr Nasrallah not say that a democratic victory would lead to US forces leaving Iraq, he explicitly points out that this should not be an expected result.
december, your postings in this thread are shameful.
To further Fang’s nitpick, Hizballa is a Lebanese-based, Iranian-backed Shi’ite organization that has little or nothing to do with the Palestinians (or, for that matter, with the Iraqis).
Here is the problem with this whole line of thought: One might just as well argue that the Republicans were to blame for September 11th because their partisan attacks over fellatiogate distracted Clinton when he should have been paying attention top Osama Bin Laden.
How about this for a thought: Bush is responsible for the recent deaths in Iraq (and by the way, it is not just Americans dying) because he is the one that signed the order to get these festivities under way. You may agree with that choice, or not, but to try to lay the blame elsewhere is dishonest.