home

Debating the War ... At Last

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:38:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Debate in the House of Representatives is underway concerning the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Predictably, most Republicans are relying on the canard that any criticism of President Bush will "embolden" terrorists, when in truth it was the invasion and occupation of Iraq that has increased the threat of terrorism. Some are trying to change the subject by pretending that disapproval of escalation equates to cutting off funding for troops who are in harm's way -- as if Congress intends to leave soldiers in Baghdad without food or ammunition.

The nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup.

A few Republicans, understandably concerned about voter frustration with congressional inaction to stop the escalation, will break from the ranks.

Republicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen party members were likely to break ranks and vote for it.

< Libby Trial: Live-Blogging at HuffPo Today | Libby to Rest Without Calling Cheney or Libby >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Debating the War ... At Last | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Democracy Inaction (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    A few Republicans, understandably concerned about voter frustration with congressional inaction to stop the escalation,

    Voting on a non-binding resolution is hardly "action". Starting impeachment hearings...that's action.

    Darn.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    And I was so enjoying the pre-debate debate.

    More thumb-twiddling while our soldiers dodge explosions thousands of miles from home.  If the House cared, they'd be debating impeachment, but it's clear they do not care.

    No end in sight (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    NYT:
    "There is no end in sight," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    She's right. It's a non binding resolution. "There is no end in sight"? What an unbelieveably stupid thing to say. What happened? Did she slip and smack her head on a koolaid bottle or what?

    Politics (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    It is what it is. At this point it seems that Pelosi's strategy is to build the ranks of anti-war Republicans. Right now there are 24 according to the NYT article.

    There has been no debate on the war as of yet, because the Republicans have used fearmongering and questioned the patriotism of anyone who was out of lockstep in ordee to stifle any real discussion about the war.

    No we do not have a binding resolution in sight yet, but this may be a good strategy to air out dissent and let the sun shine on some tough questions.

    Parent

    Yeah, I know (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    And thanks for putting in the context it really is, Squeaky. She's trying to move the ball a yard at a time down the field instead of trying a long bomb, I know. I'm just frustrated that they still seem afraid to try to square off and confront the rethugs, because I think they'd would mop the floor with them if they did, and concerned that Bush is doing his god-da*ndest to create a reason to attack Iran while she's at it. There are 71 members in the CPC whose votes she should be able to count on too....

    Parent
    I'm just frustrated.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    Yeah, me too.

    Parent
    RIP Charles Norwood (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    Vietnam Vet. American. I didn't agree with his politics, but he went to Nam. Rare for a republican.

    And thanks (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    to our brave soldiers. Gen. Pace in in big trouble.

    I know WASF when I find myself backing the generals.

    One person is definately dissapointed in the Dems (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    If Zawahiri is dissapointed in the Democratic congress you guys are too right?

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-13-zawahri-tape_x.htm

    RePack (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    You write:

    Osama thanks Allah five times a day for George W. Bush as an opponent.  Bush takes out Osama's worst Middle Eastern enemy

    Actually, no. From Fitzgerakd:

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Link to 911 Transcript.

    Thanks for the confirmation (none / 0) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:35:15 PM EST
    "my recollection is that he would have described this most likely"  "...I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago..." "...we believed..." "...sort of..."

    I couldn't have illustrated my point that these people are guessing about everything they say any better than you did.  Thank you.

    Parent

    RePack denies reality (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:02:29 PM EST
    Sometimes in the real world that is what people have to do.

    It is called experience and leadership, and based on the Kay report it defines what Saddam wanted to do.

    Get back into the WMD business.

    But please, go back to your ivory tower and criticize what the DOJ did, especially when they were doing the crminal justice trick..

    The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

    Looks like Clinrons DOJ were no smarter than Bush's...

    Parent

    Repack denies reality? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:42:56 PM EST
    Good one, coming from you!

    No one lives in a world more real than mine.  Moving pianos for your money is the farthest possible distance one can get from an ivory tower.  If you are looking for a resident of an ivory tower who is far removed from reality, look no farther than the White House.

    Parent

    Where ivory towers are. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 06:57:57 AM EST
    Ivory towers are like unicorns. They exist only in the mind.


    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:05:03 AM EST


    Parent
    The topic at hand (none / 0) (#29)
    by Al on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    is the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The 1998 indictment is from 1998, I think. Also, it is related to justifying the dubious bombing of that pharmaceutical company in Sudan.

    There was never anything to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, and you know it.

    Parent

    Al (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    Well, the DOJ thought so and so did Fitzgerald in his testimony to the 911 Commission.

    I think you suffer from selective belief.

    And the issue at hand is House's desire to issue a surrender resolution, albeit a non-binding one.

    And saying that we shouldn't be talking about something that happened in '98 in regards to the ME and what who did what and thought is just a blatant attempt at censorship.

    But hey, we know that the Left is always willing to protect my right to agree with them. ;-)

    Parent

    Trying to reach an understanding (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    is not the same as aiding AQ. Ballpark maybe? It's not even in the same sport. Bush lied. How easily we forget the national mindset in January of 2003.

    Che (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 09:05:16 PM EST
    Really? Sounds like they agreed to quit fighting each other... Of course you deliberately fail to understand the last setence.

    Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


    Parent
    In the mean time (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:44:29 AM EST
    From ABC we find that one of the rats have fled the ship.

    Of course more troops and a plan to get tough isn't working.

    Feb. 13, 2007 -- While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

    According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

    Of course more troops and a plan to get tough isn't working. Right?

    From the Demo Left and some dumb Repubs..

    No, no! Don't bother Sadr!

    Congress reminds me more of Vietnam everyday.

    Walter (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    You missed the last paragraph.

    U.S. officials say they are going to watch those members of the Mahdi army left behind in Baghdad. Sources say two scenarios are possible: Either al Sadr will be driven further into extremist mode or he will continue going forward with the political process.

    Your side is the one demanding we withdraw. The surge is one of the results of trying to force things by the Demos. So accept responsibility for what happens.

    So for better or worse, Sadir must choose. If he chooses war he is dead. If he chooses political he may have a chance at living, unless, of course, hia friends kill him..

    There once was a lady from Niger,
    Who went for a ride on a tiger.
    They came back from the ride
    With the lady inside,
    And a smile on the face of the tiger


    Parent
    and ppj fell for the lies again (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    Lawmakers and officials linked to al-Sadr have denied that he had left the country, with one saying the cleric had met with government officials late Tuesday in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

    An Iraqi government official said al-Sadr was in Najaf as recently as Tuesday night, when he received delegates from several government departments. The official, who is familiar with one of those meetings, spoke on condition of anonymity because he has no authority to disclose information on his department's activities.

    Lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, the head of Sadrist bloc in parliament, also insisted al-Sadr had not left the country.

    "The news is not accurate because Muqtada al-Sadr is still in Iraq and he did not visit any country," al-Rubaie told The Associated Press.

    So who to believe, the military that has been caught lying about iraq and iran from the start ... or several iraq gov't officials. I admit it's a close call, but I'm leaning towards believing the iraqis because they don't want a war with iran.

    Parent
    speaking of bush ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    ... here is what the deciderer had to say about iranian gov't involvement today:
    "Here's my point, either they knew or didn't know. What matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew, or that the government didn't know?"

    See, even bush says there's NO PROOF! but he want's a war whether they were involved or not.

    Parent

    Walter. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    Nope.

    You are the one complaing, so you are the one who needs to accept what your demand to rush things up cause...

    "I WANT MY STEAK NOW!"

    "But sir, it hasn't had time to cook and may make you sick!"

    "I WANT MY STEAK NOW!" (Sounds of foot stomping.)

    "AND IT'S YOUR FAULT IF I GET SICK!!!!!!"

    Parent

    Walter - Nope! (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    Don't try and be obtuse. We both know he was forced into that position...


    Parent
    Walter (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    Really? Could you show me some eividence that you are comptent in military strategy?


    Parent
    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:28:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:07:42 AM EST
    Sailor - The whole string is about the war. Try reading it starting at comment #18. Nested comments lead to short responses in many cases because they are, well, nested and you don't need the verbage to restate the "conversation."

    BTW - I think I will start pointing out how wrong you are in your attempt to silence me.

    Nah, it'd just be a waste of time.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    and yet another personal attack.

    Parent
    Walter (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    Nope, their resumes are quite impressive, so I see no need to guild the lily, so to speak.

    My comment to you was just to remind you that you have (I believe) no experience in the military and certainly none in strategy.

    That doesn't make you a bad person. But it does go to the point that in debating the war it has been the Demos and anti-war Left who have been demanding that the troops come home. This political pressure has only encouraged the terrorists and is most counter-productive. Plainer. It makes the terrorists happy and more determined to hang on.

    More directly, these political attacks cost Bush the support of a Repub Congress to fight the war with a united country. He has a choice now to try and do it quicker, or to face being forced to withdraw by a Demo party that is, basically, willing to do anything to placate their anti-war base, who they must have to win elections. Which is what this debate is about.

    So yes, the Left will be responsible for what Bush is doing. Just as they will be held responsible for what happens if we withdarw.  

    You are creating a more conservative base. Since I am a social liberal who wants to see NHC, etc., I find this ironic.

    Parent

    Walter. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    To fail to know history is to repeat it.

    And there's no buck passing in history. The scope is too large, the timeline too long.

    The last time the politicans and the anti-war leftists gave away a war they also elected a President who reflected their views. He proved a disaster and ran millions out of the Democratic Party. I know. I was one. But I didn't become a conservative or a Repub. I beome a social liberal.

    So like it or not, if the war is lost, the Left will be remembered as the complainers and demonstrators and ultimately, the cause of the loss.

    Parent

    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

    ROTFLOL on this one.

    Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist. His ties to Iran are nil. The last thing he wants is Iran meddling in Iraq.

    On the other hand al Hakim (the Badr Brigades) is Bush's point man in Iraq. He is an Iranian nationalist and very much for having Iran meddle in Iraq's politics.

    Go figure.

    One thing we can count on here though, it for ppj to get it wrong.  

    Parent

    Juan Cole (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:54:50 AM EST
    Here is what one of our best experts on the Mid-east has to say:


    The press record I assembled, below, does not support Muqtada's disappearance to Iran. It is possible but not likely that Muqtada would go to Iran. He and his family have endlessly made fun of the al-Hakim clerical leaders for fleeing to Iran to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein, when the al-Sadrs insisted on staying in Iraq. Muqtada's father was killed in 1999 by Saddam's agents because he stayed and gave defiant sermons. So it would be a lot of crow to eat for Muqtada to go to Iran to escape the Americans. Plus, there is nothing in the Iranian press about him showing up in Qom, and an Iranian diplomat denied the story. Without more and better evidence, this account strikes me as suspect, and I would guess that if Muqtada disappeared, it is inside Iraq.

    Juan Cole

    Sounds right to me. If you are interested Cole provides a recent timeline of al-Sadr's activities.  

    Parent

    Swquaeky (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    squeaky and sailor...

    The quote comes from ABC News. It may be right, it may not. If he has went to Iran it will hamper him. If he has gone into hiding it will hamper him.

    Either way that seems to b a positive thing for our side. Do you disagree that hampering Sadir is a positive thing??

    BTW... Al-Hakim...was born in 1950 in Najaf, Iraq, the son of Grand Ayatollah Muhsin Al-Hakim, the spiritual leader of the world's Shi'a from 1955-1970. Raised in Najaf and....

    So he is an Iranian nationalist???

    Proof??

    Parent

    Complex Subjects (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    Your ignorance is astounding, and predictable. Cowboys and Indians is about as complex as you can handle.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    Ah yes, the old,"Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid."

    You should remember what Forest Gump said.

    Stupid as stupid does.

    BTW - Didn't see any proof that this guy is an Iranian nationalist... Did the squeaky mis-speak??

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    Gump couldn't type, eiher..

    IS IS IS IS

    Parent

    You Misread, Jim, Squeaky said (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist. His ties to Iran are nil. The last thing he wants is Iran meddling in Iraq.


    Parent
    Peaches... thanks (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    So I did...

    Parent
    Do your homework ppj (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    To call Hakim an Iranian nationalist may be a slight exaggeration, but I intented the hyperbole to make the point that in comparison to al-Sadr he may as well be an Iranian nationalist. To put it mildly the two have a strained relationship.

    What is true though, Hakim and his Badr Brigade have deep ties to Iran. The strange thing is that Hakim is Bush's man. I have never been able to square that fact.

    Parent

    Peaches and Squeaky (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    Peaches... so I did not??

    Squeaky - So he is a bad guy because he and Sadr don't get along??

    And he might as well be??

    Rationality is not your strong point.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:31:24 PM EST
    once again containing personal insults.

    TL has banned many folks for this persistent behavior, why does ppj continually get a pass?

    Parent

    Sailor oh really?? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    Oh, really??

    Have you read the whole thread? Go back to squeaky's  comment #25 and try reading it. You will again note that the nest is about the war...

    You decry my comment that "rationally is not your (squeaky's) strong point."

    See squeaky's comment #49 for context.

    Perhaps I should have said, "I find your (squeaky's) point and explanation irrational."

    BTW - What do you think of this comment (#37) by saqueaky? I note that you said nothing.

    Your ignorance is astounding, and predictable. Cowboys and Indians is about as complex as you can handle.

    Your buds provoke and you compalin.

    Your as transparent as a window pane.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#68)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    and yet another personal attack.

    Parent
    Surprise, surprise (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_explosion;_ylt=AtUVN.8jBHUzVVhV5H_FrI1vaA8F
    Speaking of the Demos and their promises... (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    Do you want to take this back?? RePack wrote:

    When George W. Bush's policies are exactly what Osama and Zawahiri would have had him do?

    We now have this.

    Zawahri criticised the Democrats for not forcing Republican Bush's hand on Iraq.

    "The people chose you (Democrats) due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss, and it appears that you will take part with him in the defeat," Zawahri said.

    Link

    The Demos better get to humping.

    Now. I want someone to argue with me that the enemy doesn't understand politics, and that the protests and demonstrations have not emboldened them. Heck. Here we have the terrorists complaining that the Demos aren't moving fast enough to do what they promised.

    And, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peaches on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:12:47 PM EST
    I want someone to argue with that there are no such things as ghosts and goblins. What is the point, Jim.

    Take your argument to its conclusion. What if demonstrations and protests do embolden an enemy. Unless, you want to give up all pretense of having a democracy (or a constituional republic) then you have to rely upon a complacent media along with a gullible public to get to the end of a war based upon lies. If you don't have a strategy that can lead to a quick victory, then a strategist and decision maker (decider) should anticipate that protests and demonstrations will start to get some attention in the media - since members of your own elite will start being dissatisfied with the results of your war campaign. This puts you in a rough spot and might even mean that your enemy is emboldened, through prolonging your war to victory and the increased coverage of demonstrations, but the spot you are in can only be blamed on your own ineptness.

    Your argument is irrelevant and meaningless. We have protest and demonstrations because there are laws protecting these rights in our society. We have had large protests and demonstrations against this war since it was first proposed back in 2002. Nothing has changed since then accept the war has continued and our objectives have not been achieved at great financial and human costs. Until you can convince, and there is a chance that you can do this - because the decider would like nothing better - the neocons to take over congress and make laws against peaceful protests and demonstrations against the government and its policies establishing a fascist state, then you need to accept that the problems of this war are not the problems of protests and demonstrations.

    To no avail do I make an argument to you other than to satisfy my own need to vent in the knowledge that we will begin another bombing campaign too, and that I will have to head to the streets once more to protest, while waiting for congress and the media to tire of another doomed policy before they make statements of their own protesting a failed policy costing thousands upon thousand of lives and billions and billions of dollars while our society continues to unravel under the weight of the war machine.

    Parent

    Thank you, peaches (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    If you don't have a strategy that can lead to a quick victory, then a strategist and decision maker (decider) should anticipate that protests and demonstrations will start to get some attention in the media - since members of your own elite will start being dissatisfied with the results of your war campaign. This puts you in a rough spot and might even mean that your enemy is emboldened, through prolonging your war to victory and the increased coverage of demonstrations, but the spot you are in can only be blamed on your own ineptness.

    Well, thank you for admitting that the political actions in the US are noted by the terrorists and that they are emboldened by the demonstrations and calls for troop withdrawals, etc. This was, is, has been and will be, my point.

    Which, I suspect, is understood by many others on the Left and within the Democratic Party.

    I have never questioned the "rights" of those who demonstrate. I do question their motives and judgment. Too many of them, for whatever reason, can find nothing right about the country and decided they have no responsibility towards those who fight for the country, and the freedom the demonstrators enjoy.


    Parent

    Your Welcome, (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    But to those others whom might be reading, I was venting to myself. I wasn't attempting to convince Jim of anything.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    Ah, the old, "I wasn't really playing, so the loss doesn't count...."

    Parent
    Is there really a winner and loser, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peaches on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    Jim, I long ago realized I could convince you of very little.

    I would have thought that by now you would have realized the same about me.

    I disagree vehemently with you, but I am one of the few here who still respects you. I can't explain to them why I do, but it has somehting to do with what Utah Phillips once said

    "You got to mess with people, man. You got to."

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:34:28 PM EST
    I am deeply touched.


    Parent
    To return to topic, I have a Resolution... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    ...I think should be debating, and it should be iron-clad:

    Congress recognizes that president bush has called for an eternal War Against Terror.

    Congress further recognizes that there can be no eternal wars or wars of any kind declared by the president as a Declaration of War against any definable entity or nation lies within the exclusive purview of Congress in accordance with the Constitution of these United States of America.

    Be It Therefore Resolved that Congress by these presents does hereby reject the premise of an Eternal War and specifically hereby declares that no such War on Terror, an undefined and undefinable War and Enemy, is now or will at any future date be Prosecuted by the Military Forces of the United States of America, and that the use of the term War Against Terror is for Descriptive or Informational use only and carries no Force of Law or Requirement for a Military Response. [end]

    Now wouldn't THAT chap some @$$e$! Although it it obviously way too honest to ever get by Congress!

    You may now return to the ever continuing story of Peyton Place or "How I Ruined Jim's Winter Vacation." Thank you.

    Thanks Bill! BUT (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:39:12 PM EST
    ...I am a  ROF on eternal vacation, living in my Palatial Retirement Compound, Catfish Pond and BBQ Stand (Fresh Vegetables Every Wednesday!!)

    BTW - You should run for Congress as a Demo... or else go to work for CNN as a foregin correspondent..

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:01:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Sailor (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:36:06 PM EST
    Please quit talking about Bill.

    He has as much right to make a snarky comment about me as you, and also the right to enjoy my snarky come back.

    You're just jealous.

    Parent

    HEY JERALYN!` (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:34:46 PM EST
    Why does ppj get to continue to violate your rules!?

    Personal attacks, chattering, off topic posts, trolling; ppj does them all. Yet TL supports him.

    Why?

    Parent

    sailor (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:12:08 AM EST
    Well, let me see...

    You don't think Bill's a comment at:

    You may now return to the ever continuing story of Peyton Place or "How I Ruined Jim's Winter Vacation." Thank you.

    deserved an answer?

    Dude, you are as transparent as a window pane.

    Your bud provokes and you complain.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:48:41 AM EST
    and continued personal attacks.

    Parent
    Placing bets (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:00:45 AM EST
    How about Jim continues to do what he does.

    Sailor can continue to post his OFF TOPIC TROLL POST and accuse Jim of making personal insults while pleading to Jeralyn.

    Then, I'll respond to Sailor's redundancy by personally insulting him with say---SAILOR IS A MORON.

    We will see who gets banned first.

    Bets anyone?

    Parent

    I have a better idea (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    How about everybody try to have an intelligent discussionof the topic of the thread instead of furthering the hijacking of it.

    Now I realize that might be a rather radical idea, but you know, it might be worth trying sometime.

    Parent

    There's an ocupation going on in Iraq (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    in which people are dying. I doubt they much care who "wins" childish  ego games here.

    Parent
    There will always be tragedies (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    Life is not put on hold for any. ppj has opinions and many feel free to insult him for his views, including you. You feel justified because of your self-righteuosness on all views. I'm all right with that, because, just like all self-righteuos people, you have many blindspots. But, you should not expect Jim to not fire back, nor to discontinue commenting here on a wide range of issues. When Sailor is not linking to relevant information, his posts and replies to Jim are as old and boring as your rush to defend anyone who shares views simlar to your own. In my opinion, these posts detract from the content of TL much greater than ppj's comments.

    Parent
    I was referring to your posts. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:02:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, You sshould stay on topic (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    Bill began this particular thread in this category of debating the War by ending with an unsolicited insult of Jim. Jim responded by insulting back. Then Sailors moronic statement. Then ppj responded back. Then Sailor cries like a baby to Jeralyn. Then I call Sailor a tattle-tale and Jim explains the timeline I am giving to you. Sailor once again responds with a testament to his own stupidity. I call attention to it with a little game. You respond in all seriousness by attempting to justify Sailors comments and reminding us that there are serious issues which we all are not aware of. I respond with a reminder that you often take ctegories and threads in your own personal direction and then you respond  that you were refering to me (?)

    Its confusing, but sometimes when you just jump in to defend your friends and attack your enemies you lose yourself in your own emotional reactions.

    Sailor is the idiot here.

    Parent

    You might read what I said again (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    You are describing yourself.

    Parent
    oh, (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:39:20 AM EST
    I see. How perceptive of you. You are a truly remarkable man Edger.

    Wow, looking at it from this perspective I see myself in a completely new light. Jim is my friend and Sailor my enemy. I jumped in. Amazing. Thank you, Sigmund.

    Please disregard what I wrote above, I am so sorry to bother you. You can get back to the war in Iraq, now and Jeralyn, Sailor, Jim and I will work out who is insulting who and who is off-topic.

    Parent

    TChris was pretty clear in his post... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    ...what the topic here is:
    Debate in the House of Representatives is underway concerning the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
    ...
    Some are trying to change the subject by pretending that disapproval of escalation equates to cutting off funding for troops who are in harm's way...
    ...and apparently there are other reasons people use to change the subject and divert discussions away from it. Sad.

    Parent
    But, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    you keep going on with this particular thread - Back and forth with me a thread started innocently enough with a little jibe from Bill to Jim and a snappy come-back from Jim-that Sailor chose to point out as he does most every post by Jim these days.

    And why are you so sad? From what others have mentioned, you have your own blog. I notice you are posting less. Chin up, build a stadium and eventually they will come.

    Parent

    You've turned into a troll, IMO. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    I'm not sad, but I think that is.

    Parent
    when the fish are biting (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    Why wouldn't one troll.

    You are as easy to catch as Hammerheads on Daredevils in August. Even when I practice catch and release, still you bite every time.

    I'm trolling, You're biting, whose the fool?

    Parent

    Not biting. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    Just noting for the record how far you've stooped.

    Parent
    Anyone, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    got a hookout?

    Hand me a beer while your at it.

    Parent

    Tattle-tale (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:04:39 AM EST


    Parent
    DA writes (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    PPJ so we should react to what Mr. Z says by putting more targets for his folks and allies to shoot at?

    Makes sense to me.

    It all depends on whether or not you want to win the war in Iraq, counter the Iranians and establish a democracy in the ME. If you do, then do.

    On the other hand, if you want to play politics with the safety of the country... If you don't, then don't.

    Debating the War ... At Last | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment