What’s In a Name?

Turns out we are still at war:

President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, “Make no mistake about it, we are at war.”

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase “war on terror” no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the “global struggle against violent extremism,” the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.

In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word “war,” and some of Mr. Bush’s top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, “the global war on terror.”

In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, said that the conflict was “more than just a military war on terror” and that the United States needed to counter “the gloomy vision” of the extremists and “offer a positive alternative.”

But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush’s approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

Have I mentioned how much I hate the news in August? I am not renaming my category again.

73 replies
  1. 1
    ppGaz says:

    Make no mistake about it, we are at war.

    “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
    George Bush — Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

  2. 2

    Yeah, I had this.

    Wake me when the war is over, mom and dad, and let me know which war it was, after all.

  3. 3
    BoZ the Rider says:

    You’re missing the main part of the story, the one that really counts! This isn’t about the changing of who said what!

    He must be talking about the 14 Marines killed on August first… Of course that headline is a bit misleading considering that 6 more soldiers from the same group were killed in a sepereate incident on the same day. That means a single unit lost 20 men in one day. Another Marine was killed in another attack, also on Monday.

    In the past 10 days, 43 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. That brings the number of U.S. troops killed in the war to 1,820, according to U.S. military reports.

    Yes, and 21 of them were on Monday. Glad to know that August, a month already pretty bad by my accounts, is the same month we push over 1,800. And the month is just getting started folks!

    Let’s not forget a journalist and his translator were also killed.

    Apparently this isn’t too uncommon for Iraq these days. I know a guy who is luckily done his service (unless they need him in the next 5 years). He’s one of those “lone survivor” stories where an entire unit gets slaughtered in a single attack.

  4. 4
    Stormy70 says:

    Yes, and 21 of them were on Monday. Glad to know that August, a month already pretty bad by my accounts, is the same month we push over 1,800. And the month is just getting started folks!

    You sound gleeful that 20 marines died, so it can bolster your hatred for Bush. I find that sick and twisted. The reason some in the left have a PR problem because they seem to relish in bad news for the War, and then they can spout off the newest casuality count to the man, all to bash the war. But you don’t seem to care, personally, that these men died. They are just fodder that keeps your Bush hatred going. I find it despicable.

  5. 5
    Sojourner says:

    You sound gleeful that 20 marines died, so it can bolster your hatred for Bush. I find that sick and twisted.

    Spare us the moral outrage. You’ve already sold your soul for Bush. And that is truly despicable.

  6. 6
    Defense Guy says:

    Have I mentioned how much I hate the news in August?

    I guess I am slow this morning, why August?

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    This is the silly season…

  8. 8
    ppGaz says:

    Okay, what’s the deal? Stormy can say something as disgusting as “you sound gleeful” and I can’t call her on it?

    Where are my posts?

  9. 9
    Stormy70 says:

    Gotta go, taking cat to vet.

    One last thing, I believe in the War on Terror, we were attacked by terrorists, and I support the troops who are over there killing them. I love how it is Ok for you guys to question my patriotism at every turn because I believe in the War, get called chickenhawk by chickenshits, and told to STFU by emotional twits like Sojourner. It’s tiresome, and typical of the batcrazy lefties. Just another day, no wonder noone takes lefties seriously, you are not serious about terrorism. I’ve yet to here what you would do, just the same Bush bashing every post. Hey, I don’t care about being a unitr, not divider. That is not realistic when your oppenents are full of hate and vitriol.

  10. 10
    John Cole says:

    I thought Sojourner said it first, so I was letting it slip. Just quit the damned tag team browbeating of people. Have you checked some of the comment threads? Someone says something, and you and Sojourner go all thread police and have the next 8 comments explaining why this person is an asshole.

    Do you want a debate, or do you want to just shut up and drive away everyone you disagree with?

  11. 11
    John Cole says:

    And one more thing, the constant drumbeat of the number of casualties in no way ‘honors’ the dead or the living soldiers. If you think every time you or someone else utters the phrase ‘x number dead,’ an angel smiles, you are nuttier than a fruitcake.

  12. 12
    Geek, Esq. says:

    Frank Lutz must have done a focus group for them.

  13. 13
    ppGaz says:

    I thought Sojourner said it first, so I was letting it slip. Just quit the damned tag team browbeating of people. Have you checked some of the comment threads? Someone says something, and you and Sojourner go all thread police and have the next 8 comments explaining why this person is an asshole.

    Do you want a debate, or do you want to just shut up and drive away everyone you disagree with?

    Excuse me? I called no names. I said that her comments were shameful, which IMO, they were.

    Excuse me? If two people say essentially the same thing, the second one is going to get deleted?

    Stormy – and she is not the first, or the only person to do this — can hide behind some kind of moral outrage because somebody mentions the fact that the war is killing people (you know, something that might be considered more important that what we “call” the war) and suggest that the poster is only doing so to “hate Bush?”

    That’s just wrong, John. Wrong.

    The war is a contentious issue. It deserves debate, and with all due respect, unless you are going to frame the debate yourself — which you are free to do — then I think you need to let your posters duke it out as they see fit.

    I respectfully request that you do so.

  14. 14
    ppGaz says:

    constant drumbeat of the number of casualties

    I’ve made no such “constant drumbeat.”

    Additionally, I disagree with your premise. Refraining from talking about casualties somehow “honors” the soldiers? I believe that you sincerely believe that, and you are entitled to your opinion. But IMO that’s wrong. Plain wrong.

    If a poster did, in fact, “gleefully” talk about casualties, that would be one thing. Then the “glee” is certainly a valid target for disdain. But I don’t know anybody who is gleeful about casualties, no matter which side they’re on.

  15. 15
    Sojourner says:

    Sorry but I will challenge anyone who believes it is acceptable for America to be associated with torture. It is shameful and despicable. For that matter, I can’t believe we’re even having this debate.

    If that’s out of bounds for this blog, John, just say so. You’re the official “thread police.” A blog that allows torture supporters to go unchallenged is not the place I care to be.

  16. 16
    capelza says:

    I suppose that “burning, incandescent anger” could be misconstrued as “gleeful” by some…

    So GSAVE is out? I hear that brown is the new pink…

  17. 17
    Otto Man says:

    I guess Andy Card was right. You really shouldn’t roll out a new product in August.

  18. 18
    Doug says:

    One last thing, I believe in the War on Terror, we were attacked by terrorists, and I support the troops who are over there killing them.

    Your thinking is awfully fuzzy, deliberately or not, I don’t know:

    1. We were attacked by terrorists.
    2. We invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack mentioned in #1.
    3. Iraqis are fighting the occupation of their country.
    4. Some Iraqis use terrorist tactics. Some terrorists who may have had something to do with the attack mentioned in #1 are exploiting the opportunity presented by our invasion of Iraq.
    5. Our soldiers are killing some of the folks mentioned in #3 and #4 (and are being killed by those folks.)
    6. None of #2 through #5 does a thing about #1.

  19. 19
    DougJ says:

    First, the libruls complained about the War on Terror phrase, then they complained about GSAVE, now they’re complaining about WOT again. I guess they were for WOT before they were against it.

    Ppgaz and Sojourner: you guys do gang up on people a lot. I don’t mind, personally, but I would imagine a lot of other conservative posters do.

  20. 20
    ppGaz says:

    I suppose that “burning, incandescent anger” could be misconstrued as “gleeful” by some…

    That’s a fair, and IMO, accurate observation.

    But it’s easy to solve the “glee” puzzle. Stormy could just as easily have asked a question:

    “Hey, Mister Poster, are glad that we had casualties so that you could bash Bush?”

    And Mister Poster could respond, and make his case.

    Instead, Stormy plays the “glee” card, presuming something not in evidence, and tries to shame Mister Poster.

    The budding firestorm is snuffed out …. but Stormy’s post remains.

    Take down her awful post, that’s my recommendation. If it were put to me as “Will you take down your bash of Stormy if she takes down her bash of Mister Poster?” my answer is, “sure.” Not a problem.

    Nobody deserves to be browbeaten because they dare to mention casualties …. If casualties are off limits, then let’s state the rule and go forward. Of course, then you have the decide whether there is to be contentious debate about the rule …. well, I’m not a blog owner, I don’t have to solve that problem. If it were up to me, no subjects would be off limits. Langauge off limits? Fine, as long as the rules cut both ways.

    LBNL, to my knowledge I have never initiated any casualty conversation. It’s not a subject I particularly like to talk about, for personal reasons.

  21. 21
    Defense Guy says:

    Iraqis are fighting the occupation of their country.

    A very small minority, and in this case they are wrong to do so. The reason should be obvious, as we are attempting to help them have something much better than what they were going to have and once done will have removed another nest of hate from the world.

    In addition, Saddam was a terrorist, and this is a war on terror, so this war fits into the mold.

  22. 22
    ppGaz says:

    A very small minority, and in this case they are wrong to do so. The reason should be obvious, as we are attempting to help them have something much better than what they were going to have and once done will have removed another nest of hate from the world.

    Well intentioned, I’ll stipulate to that. But misguided, DG, I think,

    First of all the “nest of hate” concept is an assertion that rests mostly on proof by assertion. I don’t see terrorism as having geographical boundaries of any kind. Like cockroaches, terrorists just go where the food — the opportunity — is. You can rout them from a nest, and they’ll just go somewhere else. But that’s where the exterminator metaphor collapses … we don’t have enough bug spray and enough sprayers to chase them around the world in wars like Iraq. That’s a fool’s game IMO.

    Second, we need to finish the job in Iraq, but not for Iraq. For our own interests, and the world’s interests. I have great sympathy with the plight of the Iraqis, but I do not believe that the United States can, or should, be in the business of saving countries from themselves. We don’t have the resources, or the ability, to do it. You don’t have to take my word for it … George Bush himself said so while running for president in 2000.

    Well, some would say, 9-11 “changed all that.” No, it didn’t. The reality of the futility of saving the world did not change. What changed is our perception, not the reality. Bush was right in 2000. He’s wrong now.

  23. 23
    John Cole says:

    PPGAZ- I was trying to defuse the situation but leave the controversy intact. There was no need for your ten posts cheerleading sojourner, so I deleted them. I also deleted Sojourner telling people to STFU. I was trying to avoid another thread with you yelling in 25 successive posts. I see I have failed.

    I don’t mind you commenting at all, but you and Sojourner have a tendency to gang post and it starts to look like spam after a while. And your posts have the same theme- you say something you know will be offensive, someone reacts, and then you post ten more posts explaining why your initial post was not only not offensive, but accurate, and then you say something else you know will be offensive in those ten posts.

    For example, see this thread. There are, as I write this, 193 comments. You have written the following comments:

    6, 8 , 15, 25, 27, 35, 39, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53, 58, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 75, 76, 81, 84, 85, 94, 103, 106, 109, 112, 115, 116, 120, 122,134, 136, 139, 160, 161, 172, 174.

    41 of the 193 comments are yours, and the cumulative effect is, in my opinion, not a fostering of debate, but a shouting down of everyone who disagrees with you. Add to that the tone of each comment (go back and read yourself and see when you simply engaged rather than attacking).

    Again, comment away, and I recognize that sometimes you are provoked, but excuse me for trying to take control of ONE (1) comment thread before it becomes little more than another ppGaz/Sojourner pile-on.

    Another thread I and many others will ignore, I might add.

  24. 24
    ppGaz says:

    There was no need for your ten posts cheerleading sjourner

    I made two.

    another ppGaz/Sojourner pile-on.

    I was not aware of any such conspiracy. No offense to Soj, but didn’t notice any such pile-on.

    As for the post count, I think you will find that there are subthreads in which two or three people are batting around a topic and having at each other. The posts are responses. The posts “against” mine are also responses. What’s your point? If it takes 20 DG posts and 20 PPG posts to bash out a point, so what? Also, if you follow the trail, you’ll find that DG and I came to something of a resolution. At least AFAIC we did. Again, so what?

    Last but not least, your assessment of style. I tend to respond in kind. Somebody calls me a name, or impugns my patriotism or motives, I am going to answer back.

  25. 25
    ppGaz says:

    41 of the 193 comments are yours

    You know what, that’s a bullshit thing to say. Instead of cherry picking a particular thread where a minor flame war was going on — and if it’s the DG-PG thread, as I said, I think you will see that it ended peaceably — do a post count over a period of time, all threads. I think you’ll find that the numbers are quite different. Your comment is extremely misleading. I think you might find that I post — at all — to a minority of threads. If you take out the threads where I post maybe once or twice, I’ll bet the number is even smaller.

    Last, unless you are saying that it’s okay for the Stormies and the other Bushites to call opponents traitors and suggest that we are “aiding the enemy” by opposing Bush, but not okay to fight back, then I have to say, this tack you are on sounds …. I’ll be kind and say, odd. I was not aware that you were running a popularity contest here.

  26. 26
    demimondian says:

    ppGaz…John’s the boss here. I don’t like being shut up, either — and I would be surprised if there weren’t a couple of cases where he came close — but it’s his bandwidth, dude.

    And, frnakly, I’m not sure that he’s completely wrong here. If you and Sojournor are going back and forth responding to one another, that’s great from the lefties standpoint…but we’re the guests here. It’s probably our responsibility to let the hosts speak, too.

  27. 27
    DougJ says:

    Reminder: Putting someone in a sleeping bag and beating them to death is a harmless Frat Boy prank. Anyone who disagrees with my Trollish postings obviously hate America and love terra-ism!

  28. 28
    DougJ says:

    “Reminder: Putting someone in a sleeping bag and beating them to death is a harmless Frat Boy prank. Anyone who disagrees with my Trollish postings obviously hate America and love terra-ism!”

    I didn’t say this. I’m being spoofed again.

  29. 29
    DougJ says:

    “I didn’t say this. I’m being spoofed again”.

    Which is quite easy given the fact you are basically a howling monkey flinging your verbal feces all over this BB.

  30. 30
    DougJ says:

    I like arguing with Ppgaz and Sojourner. They do pile-on a bit and they’re not quite as thoughtful opponents as say “Rome Again”, but I for one don’t feel persecuted by them.

    I really don’t like the spoofing though (which I’m guessing isn’t coming from one of them). I wish there were a way to stop that.

  31. 31
    John Cole says:

    I am not trying to silence you, and I am not saying it is a coordinated effort between you and Sojourner. I am just saying that the cumulative effect is to push away others.

    And, I might add, you have a tendency to go nuclear early. Just calm down. This is a comments thread. Let people have more than a minute to think and respond before you have 8 comments up explaining why they are an idiot, shameful, wrong, and hate America.

  32. 32
    Stormy70 says:

    Last, unless you are saying that it’s okay for the Stormies and the other Bushites to call opponents traitors and suggest that we are “aiding the enemy” by opposing Bush, b

    Find the post where I stated this. I don’t call people traitors or malign their patriotism or claim they are aiding the enemy. I like free speech and healthy (sometimes heated) debate, and I do not ever tell people that their disagreements aid terrorism. Others may, I do not.

  33. 33
    BoZ the Rider says:

    You sound gleeful that 20 marines died…

    No, farthest from it. I don’t need casualty reports to bolster my hatred of this administration, I can do that by pointing a people I know and how they’ve suffered in the last 5 years because of it. I’m merely pointing out that this is the more important story behind the headline of this topic.

    However, the changing words is a bad thing to continue. They could just be screwing with our heads, or doing surveys to see which one sparks the most sympathy for them. Very Orwellian…

    If casualties are off limits, then let’s state the rule and go forward.

    Thats dangerous teritory here. Other than getting the bill each year during the annual budget, casualities are the only way the common man in America can see the cost of this war. Why do you think they made it off limits to show photos of the coffins? They need public support to keep this war going, or at least public disinterest. If ‘We the People’ vote out those that support the war, guess what, no more war. Of course the problem with that is no candidate is willing to go against the war for fear of this administration and their opponents making it look like lack of patriotism. Bush used it early during the 2004 Presidential run against Kerry.

    War on Terror

    I don’t know how many of you actually buy into this phrase, but it really isn’t a war on terror. Terror is more of an emotional and physical response to great fear which can dehibilitate a person. It’s just a catch phrase that can easily be repeated or turned into headlines on FOX News.

    What about the War on Terrorism? Terrorism itself is a tactic, an idea, and you cannot destroy ideas. Terrorism is suppose to invoke fear in a people to change the political policy. It is a desperation tactic used in guerilla combat, and as such going to war it makes it more common. We see terrorism in Iraq because these fighters cannot beat US soldiers in conventional urban combat. But what many call a terrorist attack is really nothing more than guerilla warfare.

    9/11, no matter who did it, be it Arab terrorists or Israeli right-wing fanatics or the CIA, was a terrorist attack. Why? Because it was designed to changed the policy of America. The question you all have to ask yourselves is, who benefitted from it the most?

  34. 34
    demimondian says:

    DougJ — there is at least one explanation of the fact that it’s your IP doing the postings. Are you behind a NAT or a proxy server? If so, then someone else behind that same NAT or proxy server would show up on John’s logs as coming from the same IP address.

    Alternatively, your computer could be a zombie for someone with a particularly vile sense of humor. There are a couple of Linux worms that provide such access. (And a lot of Windows worms that do so, too — but this is a political discussion, so I’m allowed to omit inconvenient facts, right?)

  35. 35
    DougJ says:

    demimondian, thanks.

    My buddy who works in IT says it’s pretty easy to fake IPs, so I’m guessing that’s what it is. I just ran an virus scan on my computer, so I don’t think there’s any worms.

  36. 36
    Defense Guy says:

    9/11, no matter who did it, be it Arab terrorists or Israeli right-wing fanatics or the CIA, was a terrorist attack. Why? Because it was designed to changed the policy of America. The question you all have to ask yourselves is, who benefitted from it the most?

    This one takes you way of the reservation, but does help to explain your positions.

  37. 37
    Mr Furious says:

    You are in a tough spot, John.

    I think ppGaz is right to be annoyed that you pulled the comments out, but I understand why you did it.

    Lately, things have gotten out of hand around here, and less enjoyable as a result. Threads that are 100+ comments are tough to get through even when they are solid. When the thread devolves into a pissing match between two commenters like Darrell or Doug J versus Soj and pp, I, and many others, i suspect, stay out.

    You work hard on this blog, and I know you want feedback and debate, without a food fight breaking out every time. Finding a balance is tough. You need to find a way to encourage it. Perhaps a time limit between posts? It would slow down the spiral, and perhaps force a more measured and thought out comment? Or, when one of these battles breaks out you (or other commenters) should direct combatants to the many Flame Threads you’ve provided.

    Note to ppGaz in particular — I don’t want you shut down. I almost always agree with you, and I enjoy your comments. I also understand your reaction to posts like DougJ’s “glee” bullshit. But it’s gotten crazy around here and I don’t blame John for trying to crack down. I hope he does it even-handedly.

  38. 38
    demimondian says:

    9/11, no matter who did it, be it Arab terrorists or Israeli right-wing fanatics or the CIA, was a terrorist attack. Why? Because it was designed to changed the policy of America. The question you all have to ask yourselves is, who benefitted from it the most?

    Wow. Just…wow.

    BoZ, rainbow trout will generally hit best at early morning. Remember that they prefer deep, fast-running parts of the stream, but they will be more attracted to flies which are moving down the stream, so you typically need to wade downstream of a rich spot in order to make your best cast.

  39. 39
    Stormy70 says:

    9/11, no matter who did it, be it Arab terrorists or Israeli right-wing fanatics or the CIA, was a terrorist attack. Why? Because it was designed to changed the policy of America. The question you all have to ask yourselves is, who benefitted from it the most?

    Cue Black Helicopters, we have a live one here!

    Wow. Just…wow.

    You said it all, man.

  40. 40
    DougJ says:

    “I also understand your reaction to posts like DougJ’s “glee” bullshit.”

    That was Stormy, not me. I don’t think ppgaz is gleeful about casualties in Iraq.

    I don’t regard my exchanges with ppgaz to be “pissing contests”. There may have been one exchange where we took some potshots at each other, but it was all in good fun (at least I thought so).

  41. 41
    Mr Furious says:

    Sorry, birds of a feather and all that.

    Also, ome of your doppleganger’s comments have been pretty funny (especially today), but I’d imagine that’s got to be pretty frustrating for you.

  42. 42
    DougJ says:

    It definitely is frustarting, Furious, though I do see the humor in it myself.

    The one thing is that I don’t think it is fair to accuse me of being nasty just because I have strong opinions.

  43. 43
    SeesThroughIt says:

    1. We were attacked by terrorists.
    2. We invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with the attack mentioned in #1.
    3. Iraqis are fighting the occupation of their country.
    4. Some Iraqis use terrorist tactics. Some terrorists who may have had something to do with the attack mentioned in #1 are exploiting the opportunity presented by our invasion of Iraq.
    5. Our soldiers are killing some of the folks mentioned in #3 and #4 (and are being killed by those folks.)
    6. None of #2 through #5 does a thing about #1.

    That’s the long and short of it, yeah.

    Also, I thought this administration prided itself on its amazing “message discipline.” And here goes Bush fucking it all up. I imagine Frank Luntz and Karl Rove must’ve tied Bush up in a sleeping bag and beaten him with extension cords for this trangsression.

  44. 44
    jg says:

    The question you all have to ask yourselves is, who benefitted from it the most?

    Osama Bin Laden.

    What do I win?

    This new global struggle against violent extremism is hilarious. Can anyone guess what the arabic word for ‘struggle’ is?

  45. 45
    Defense Guy says:

    Jihad.

    Can I share your prize?

  46. 46
    BoZ the Rider says:

    Except for the part where I asked who benefited from 9/11, I think I made a valid point dealing with the so-called “War on Words.”

    But seriously, this administration and the thinkers of PNAC have benefited more than any American should have from that attack. It was exactly what they (PNAC) needed to meet the goals laid out.

    I’m not saying they did it, I’m saying they are taking advantage of the nation’s patriotism and support in order to wage their wars. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was a threat to no one considering the airpower we had stationed in the Middle East. Nor would the UN have allowed Iraq to do anything without the entire globe grabbing their guns and running down there for a fight.

    Afghanistan is a different war. I consider it to be the most just war the US has fought since WWII. It was putting Hamid Kharzi in that stained it’s reputation for me. And pulling out most of our troops to attack Iraq, which has left the country vulnerable to attacks from Taliban swine, was a stupid idea too given what we know about the time leading up to Iraq.

    If you all prefer, I’ll refrain from anymore 9/11 talk from now on. It’s still a very emotionally charged topic that leads us away from the casual, reasonable, logical conversations usually held here.

    “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” -Thomas Jefferson

  47. 47
    jg says:

    Lets wait to see what the prize is first. LOL If its a bottle of tequila then pull up a shot glass its drinking time.

  48. 48
    jg says:

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.” Jonathan Swift

    Quote war!!!!!!

  49. 49
    Defense Guy says:

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was a threat to no one considering the airpower we had stationed in the Middle East. Nor would the UN have allowed Iraq to do anything without the entire globe grabbing their guns and running down there for a fight.

    On general grounds I am willing to take 9/11 off the table in any discussion about Iraq, but the rest of your assertations just are not true. The UN is the ultimate corrupt institution and isn’t solving anything. The corruption of the oil-for-food scandel actually helped to elevate the situation to one where war was more likely.

  50. 50
    Defense Guy says:

    jg

    If you have figured out how to pour teguilla shots through cable lines, then you are my new hero.

  51. 51
    Defense Guy says:

    Also, if you can help me spell tequilla…

  52. 52
    Stormy70 says:

    Let us all unite in our love of the Devil’s sauce, aka Te-killya. Sweet sweet margarita time.

  53. 53
    DougJ says:

    “Let us all unite in our love of the Devil’s sauce, aka Te-killya. Sweet sweet margarita time.”

    Amen to that. I apologize in advance for sounding gleeful here.

  54. 54
    ppGaz says:

    And, I might add, you have a tendency to go nuclear early. Just calm down. This is a comments thread. Let people have more than a minute to think and respond before you have 8 comments up explaining why they are an idiot, shameful, wrong, and hate America.

    You mean, like Stormy did? While your instruction is well intentioned, I’d have a little better attitude toward this if you gave the same to her. That “gleeful” thing was uncalled for. Which is why we’re talking about all this in the first place.

    To wrap up the “gleeful” thing … if somebody came in here and said, yippee, we lost another n Marines yesterday, that proves that Bush is a turd …… I’d be right there in line to tell him to shove it up his ass. Nobody is going to express “glee” that American soldiers died around me and get away with it.

    But neither is anybody going to slap a “glee” label on something that had no overt glee on it and act like the mention of casualties is somehow off limits. It’s your blog, if you want to make casualties off limits, fine. But if they’re not, then both glee and accusations of glee deserve, as you put it, “going nuclear.” IMHO.

  55. 55
    ppGaz says:

    I don’t think ppgaz is gleeful about casualties in Iraq.

    Thank you Doug, you are quite right, and your remark is appreciated.

  56. 56
    ppGaz says:

    But it’s gotten crazy around here

    Well, I don’t know that I agree with that, but that’s just my opinion. YMMV.

    However, we live in a crazy time, Mr F. When opposition to a war is constantly shot down with cries of “unpatriotic” and “glee about casualties just so you can hate Bush” …. that’s just not acceptable. Like I said, real “glee” is also completely and absolutely unacceptable. If an American soldier takes so much as a flesh wound, I’m upset. I don’t oppose the war because I hate Bush, it is quite the other way around. I hate war, and in particular this war, and it’s his war. I’m not calling for throwing in the towel and going home, either. I’ve repeatedly stated that the job has to be finished now that we’ve made ourselves the job. But that doesn’t mean we should not hold those responsible, accountable. If this were a war where we could say, okay, once we’ve pushed the enemy’s divisions past that river, we’ve won, and it’s over, that would be one thing. But this is some sort of weird perma-war. It deserves continuous debate, and there won’t be any useful debate as long as the Empire continues to try to paint every jot and tittle of opposition as disloyal, unpatriotic, or treasonous. I ain’t standin for that. Period.

  57. 57
    Stormy70 says:

    ppGaz – I have never considered you gleeful about casualities in Iraq. I referred to the poster I quoted. Never called you a traitor or questioned your patriotism, either. However, at least once a day I’ve been accused of being unAmerican or something of that nature. Someone even accused me of coming to kill her on a freaking crusade yesterday, because I disagreed with her on government social programs. I’ve been accused of hating all the brown-skinned people (which is ironic since I go on about Kayser, the hot Iraqi on BB6 {sigh}) and not being a serious person because I post about a TV program. Not to mention every time I post Sojourner comes out to tell me to STFU or some other nonsense like I sold my soul. That gets old to have a poster attacking someone personally all damn day, so I ignore her as best I can. I like you, but you take things a little too personally sometimes, and you start lumping everyone in together, and insulting them. I like you so I bother addressing your posts, but not when your in high dudgeon, then I just skip over.

  58. 58
    ppGaz says:

    I like you, but you take things a little too personally

    Well, your point is taken, but it’s a misread, Storm. I don’t take any of it personally. There’s nothing personal about refusing to be called “unpatriotic” for opposing George Bush. The subject, and the opposition, are not a personal matter. They’re core American matters, and I am sure that the “other side” would say the same thing about themselves, and they’d also say that their blasts at “the Left” are not personal …. and I’d take them at their word.

    Let’s face it, we’re just “handles” in here, we don’t really know each other, how could any of this be personal?

    Personally — if you’ll pardon the expression — I enjoy talking to you. However, you can piss me off, as I’m sure I can do to you. Nothing personal about it, in either direction , AFAIC.

    On issues and disagreement, give me your best shot. I won’t take it personally. But if you start to slam my parentage, citizenhip or patriotism for bashing Bush, then we are going to have words. And after we have them, I’m sure we’ll be fine.

  59. 59
    albedo says:

    Little late getting here, but my 2 cents, FWIW:

    I haven’t been here long, but I really enjoy this site, and one of the things I like about it is the diversity of opinion. It’s run by a (very) moderate republican, and all viewpoints, from loony left to wingnut right and everything in between seem to get represented. Which, if you look around the net, is a total rarity.

    Discussions, however, do seem to have a way of devolving into shouting matches. I think it’s helpful to be mindful that no matter how different someone’s viewpoint may be from your own, the fact that they’re consistently taking the time to formulate political opinions in a non-dKos/Freep echo chamber, probably means that they care about what’s going on, don’t want the terrorists to win, don’t hate America, etc. Being politically self-educated/interested to any extent puts everyone on this site, regardless of party affiliation, above about 90 percent of the population, who can’t even name the vice-president and think the Sudan is a type of car.

  60. 60
    ppGaz says:

    they care about what’s going on, don’t want the terrorists to win, don’t hate America

    I will go on record here as saying, if the pro-Bush crowd talks to me as if I qualify under those criteria, I will do the same for them. But I should say, not just me, but any of the antis. And of course, we are obligated to observe the same rules.

    But I am not up for unilaterally observing the rule. I can’t enforce a rule by deleting your post, so the only weapon I have is to flame in return.

  61. 61
    ppGaz says:

    The one thing is that I don’t think it is fair to accuse me of being nasty just because I have strong opinions.

    One of the identifiers of RealDoug as opposed to FalseDoug is that RealDoug is not nasty, even under attack.

    Now before you start thinking that I am being too nice to you …. didn’t you mean “wrong opinions?”

    :-)

  62. 62
    ppGaz says:

    If you and Sojournor are going back and forth responding to one another, that’s great from the lefties standpoint

    I hope Soj won’t take offense, but I don’t really follow his trail of posts that carefully. Holding up one side of an argument is hard enough without having to keep track of what someone else is doing. Sometimes there are multiple conversations going on the same thread of traffic.

    Once in a while Soj and I will exchange pleasantries, but really, I’m not here to hook up with anyone, or make friends (hold your laughter), or any of that. I’m here to represent a certain point of view, and that’s pretty much all I pay attention to. I don’t really keep much track of who’s a lefty or who’s a righty, either. Posting wise, I pay attention mostly to individual posts, not to people. Content, not Who’s Who in Balloon Juice.

  63. 63
    jg says:

    People also need to realize its really really hot where PPG lives. Remember what Col Jessep said about what heat can do to a person?

  64. 64
    Stormy70 says:

    It’s hot in Texas, too, plus August sucks, generally.

    I will go on record here as saying, if the pro-Bush crowd talks to me as if I qualify under those criteria, I will do the same for them.

    I don’t call political opponents unAmerican or traitors, but when I am bombarded with that rhetoric by some here, I will not take it, and I will call them out for bogus canards, like using the casualty count to score political points. I don’t think you do that ppGaz, so I don’t know why you got upset with me. What boards are you frequenting where people are calling you traitor.

  65. 65
    jg says:

    I don’t call political opponents unAmerican or traitors

    But the leaders of the republican party does and you represent them here. Plus to say you follow this administration because you are a patriot is a way of saying those who don’t support the administration aren’t patriots. I’m not sure if you’ve ever said it but it has been said by many right wing posters, the Dougs come to mind, that you MUST follow the leaders in a time of war. The implication is obvious IMO.

  66. 66
    ppGaz says:

    I will call them out for bogus canards, like using the casualty count to score political points.

    That’s a pretty subtle line there, and that’s fine, but you jumped the gun. I saw no evidence that the poster was “gleeful.” I took him to be plenty frustrated. Like I said, I don’t particularly care to talk about casualties at all, one way or the other, but I do understand that disgust over the casualty count is a valid concern. And the war is a political thing, whether we like it or not. I didn’t make it that way, and I think you know who I think did make it that way. But anyway, if you have a concern about the subject as you stated it, you have to leave room for discussion of the topic, unless John is just going to take it off the table. Which is his prerogataive, and fine with me. Take it off.

    What gets me riled up is using those same casualties, or the troops in general, as a shield against opposition to the war. The government does not get to use those shields, AFAIC. The people will ultimately decide, and they should be free to discuss every aspect, not just the ones that the government approves of.

  67. 67
    BoZ the Rider says:

    Ok, we won’t talk about the casualty numbers… not when they break 2,000… or 5,000… or 10,000. Nope, those are just statistics anyway. They only tell us how much freedom we’ve brought to the Iraqis and how much better off they are now that dozens of people die each day in what one official called a “low-grade civil war.” All that while a foreign army occupies the country!

    Pathetic…

    The dead are used politically on both ends, and don’t deny it. The people who want us out point to the casualties and say this war is being mismanaged. The people who want to continue say we can’t make their sacrifice have been in vain. Both are completely right, and neither has done anything to fix it. Why? Because no one is willing to bet their next elections on a draft. The most they’ve done so far is say they’re going to increase the size of the army, and they say this while they can’t meet recruitment goals for the army size they have now.

    “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” -Plato
    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” -James Madison

  68. 68
    Stormy70 says:

    But the leaders of the republican party does and you represent them here. Plus to say you follow this administration because you are a patriot is a way of saying those who don’t support the administration aren’t patriots. I’m not sure if you’ve ever said it but it has been said by many right wing posters, the Dougs come to mind, that you MUST follow the leaders in a time of war. The implication is obvious IMO.

    I represent myself, not a political party, sorry can’t lump me in with that kind of talk. Plus, please cite sources for the Republican leaders saying the things you list up there.

    The people who want to continue say we can’t make their sacrifice have been in vain.

    Again, which people? I don’t say that, I say this war has historically low casualties for the invasion and toppling of an enemy regime. I never thought this would be a cakewalk, but I’m not bailing when things get hard. It’s the Scottish blood, I guess. I read milblogs for war information because I don’t trust a media that doesn’t know the first thing about the military. I get my information from people inside Iraq, and I get an overall view, good and bad. This is a war that will last decades and I am not focused on the day to day drip, drip of news snippets. It will take years for events to play out comepletely in the Middle East. I will wait.

  69. 69
    ppGaz says:

    This is a war that will last decades

    The Iraq war, or the imaginary WOT?

    The Iraq war will not last another two years, trust me. The people are not going to support that.

    WOT? Well, as I said, imaginary. It’s a war on cockroaches, and we are putting all our fire on one nest. We don’t have enough firepower for all the nests.

    Plenty will play out, alright. But it will not play out the way you expect it to.

    A few hundred IRA sociopaths kept up attacks on Britain for 30 years. Thirty-plus bombs in one year. Do you really think you are going to exterminate all the Arab nutjobs? We can’t even get them out of Baghdad.

    One guy with some powder and a few postage stamps paralyzed this country in 2001.

    I urge you to rethink, Storm.

  70. 70
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Let us all unite in our love of the Devil’s sauce, aka Te-killya. Sweet sweet margarita time.

    I’d love to join you, but I had the Bad Tequila Experience (you know…*that* one) back in college and swore of tequila as a result. Seriously, even the smell of it can make my stomach start to churn.

  71. 71
    Sojourner says:

    I love how it is Ok for you guys to question my patriotism at every turn because I believe in the War, get called chickenhawk by chickenshits, and told to STFU by emotional twits like Sojourner.

    I came to this blog because I had been told that it represented the moderate and sane side of the Republican party. For the most part, I found that to be the case until the issue of torture and rape came up.

    The endless philosophizing over what torture is, the semantic arguments over what constitutes harsh treatment versus torture, the absurd lowering of the bar to include comparisons to Hussein – frankly, the end result is I’m even more depressed about the future of this country than when I came here.

    When I first read about the rape (including gang rape) of Iraqi women and children being detained by the U.S., I was sick to my stomach. I could not believe that my country would allow this to happen.

    But after hearing the endless justifications and the unquestioning support for whatever the Bush administration does, I understand it better. Because it’s attitudes like the ones expressed here that allow the Bush administration to get away with not putting a halt to this cruel and immoral behavior. I guess the saying is true – all’s fair in war.

    But that’s a demeaning standard for my country and the military that fights valiantly to preserve our freedoms.

    John censored me because I was angry at Stormy. Absolutely, I was angry at her – especially because, as a woman, I expected her to demonstrate a greater sensitivity to the life-changing implications of rape. But I was wrong about her. And nothing I said could make her sensitive to just what a disaster rape is, especially for women in Islamic countries who face rejection by their families. And the damage to the children? Well, we’ve seen the pain on the faces of those who were raped decades ago by Catholic priests. So we can’t plead ignorance on how horrific and long-lasting the psychological damage is.

    John wants a polite blog. He has the right to run it anyway he chooses. But I cannot speak politely of rape. I cannot stand by quietly while people claim there is no evidence for torture, when the evidence is overwhelming.

    Everyone has a point beyond which they cannot be polite.

    Mine has been reached.

    So I bid adieu.

  72. 72
    ppGaz says:

    adieu.

    Take a few days off, and come back. The blog needs your voice.

    Cheers,
    PG

  73. 73
    Stormy70 says:

    I don’t condone rape ever, and I ask you to produce proof, and you cite me an article that has no evidence in it. I know most of our military would never participate in the rape of Iraqi women and children.

    But I was wrong about her. And nothing I said could make her sensitive to just what a disaster rape is, especially for women in Islamic countries who face rejection by their families. And the damage to the children? Well, we’ve seen the pain on the faces of those who were raped decades ago by Catholic priests. So we can’t plead ignorance on how horrific and long-lasting the psychological damage is.

    We overthrew the government that had rape rooms as a matter of policy. You again accuse me of being insensitive of rape when you do not know me or my background. I know what rape does to a woman, and I know the psychological effects. It’s time to acknowledge the freeing of millions of women from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Iraq just sent a woman ambassador to Egypt, not to the West, but to another Arab country. There is progress being made, and I’m sorry you are unable to see past your accusations.

Comments are closed.