Monday, November 21, 2005
Letters, I get letters
Here's one from Mr. Robert Hayes:
Mr. Hayes is correct to note that the Marine Representative Schmidt quotes is not a Marine commander in the field, as I erroneously stated in a previous post. I understand now he is actually a state legislator in Ohio.
Mr. Hayes goes further than that, though, and calls me a "bigot" and a "liar."
I hold that neither has been established. It is true I published an erroneous fact, which I acknowledge and hereby correct. However, it does not follow that I am therefore a liar. To establish that requires the establishment of intent - a rather obvious test that seems to be increasingly lost on the idiot wing of the Democratic party.
I have no idea where the "bigot" accusation comes from. The author doesn't bother to provide any support for that charge either against me or Moore.
I'm mostly interested in the "bigot" charge, though. So let the evidence be brought forth! It will either be an opportunity for self-examination and growth, or it will be an opportunity for much laughter, mirth and merriment at the expense of some frothy-mouthed morons. Maybe some combination of the two.
Sounds like a good thing all around, no?
Splash, out
Jason
UPDATE: Some will no doubt argue that I am indeed bigoted against the French. This is not true, except insofar as the corelation coefficient between French nationals and arrogance, nihilism, opportunism, disloyalty to Western ideals concerning liberty and brotherhood and human rights, bribe-taking, and the willingness to castrate oneself on the battlefield or in order to avoid the battlefield altogether remains positive.
It is true, on the whole, that I have an innate and reflexive bias against surrender-monkeys of all stripes, be they cheese-eating wine stompers or former Marines in congress. A surrender-monkey is a surrender-monkey is a surrender-monkey.
Surrender is, and should be, unthinkable.
Splash, out
Jason
Good writing. Somebody needed to put Murtha in his place. Who cares how many wars he's been in or how many medals, awards and degrees he's got? (Certainly not me! -- ed.) He's a Democrat.
Nobody will notice that Representative Col. Danny R. Bubp (R-Ohio) is not a "committed Marine commander in the field". (He's a lawyer.)
Or that Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) has never served in the military, though she did beat out Democrat Major Paul Hackett (who is an Iraq veteran) for her seat.
It's good to find somebody (besides the White House) who realizes that "facts" and "record" sometimes need to be... corrected ...so that the ignorant masses will support the Grand Old Party - err, I mean the troops. Well, same thing, right? No.
I'm not ignorant. I don't like bigots or liars. Moore included. You included.
Don't bother to respond.
Mr. Hayes is correct to note that the Marine Representative Schmidt quotes is not a Marine commander in the field, as I erroneously stated in a previous post. I understand now he is actually a state legislator in Ohio.
Mr. Hayes goes further than that, though, and calls me a "bigot" and a "liar."
I hold that neither has been established. It is true I published an erroneous fact, which I acknowledge and hereby correct. However, it does not follow that I am therefore a liar. To establish that requires the establishment of intent - a rather obvious test that seems to be increasingly lost on the idiot wing of the Democratic party.
I have no idea where the "bigot" accusation comes from. The author doesn't bother to provide any support for that charge either against me or Moore.
I'm mostly interested in the "bigot" charge, though. So let the evidence be brought forth! It will either be an opportunity for self-examination and growth, or it will be an opportunity for much laughter, mirth and merriment at the expense of some frothy-mouthed morons. Maybe some combination of the two.
Sounds like a good thing all around, no?
Splash, out
Jason
UPDATE: Some will no doubt argue that I am indeed bigoted against the French. This is not true, except insofar as the corelation coefficient between French nationals and arrogance, nihilism, opportunism, disloyalty to Western ideals concerning liberty and brotherhood and human rights, bribe-taking, and the willingness to castrate oneself on the battlefield or in order to avoid the battlefield altogether remains positive.
It is true, on the whole, that I have an innate and reflexive bias against surrender-monkeys of all stripes, be they cheese-eating wine stompers or former Marines in congress. A surrender-monkey is a surrender-monkey is a surrender-monkey.
Surrender is, and should be, unthinkable.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
"If you don't start behaving, we're going to leave you here."
Here's a thought about REP Murtha's proposal . . . what if it works?
I don't mean immediate withdrawal. What if Murtha's proposal works to scare the Iraqi government into becoming a lot more focused on their side of the nation-building?
It'd be a delicate gamble because it assumes the Iraqis as of now aren't working to their full potential and that a fear-based push like Murtha's immediate withdrawal proposal will encourage the Iraqis to achieve their full potential. On the other hand, if the Iraqis are already doing the best they can, Murtha's push can be counter-productive if the Iraqis make panicky decisions.
What if Murtha isn't a surrender-monkey, after all, but more of an angry parent giving a kick in the ass to a lollygagging child that the other forgiving indulgent parent (Bush) refuses to give?
Just a thought.
Here's a thought about REP Murtha's proposal . . . what if it works?
I don't mean immediate withdrawal. What if Murtha's proposal works to scare the Iraqi government into becoming a lot more focused on their side of the nation-building?
It'd be a delicate gamble because it assumes the Iraqis as of now aren't working to their full potential and that a fear-based push like Murtha's immediate withdrawal proposal will encourage the Iraqis to achieve their full potential. On the other hand, if the Iraqis are already doing the best they can, Murtha's push can be counter-productive if the Iraqis make panicky decisions.
What if Murtha isn't a surrender-monkey, after all, but more of an angry parent giving a kick in the ass to a lollygagging child that the other forgiving indulgent parent (Bush) refuses to give?
Just a thought.
Eric,
Good thing Murtha's "bluff" was in front of the entire world. In any case, the resounding defeat of the Hunter resolution pretty much means your thesis backfired nearly completely, eroding any potential benefits of Murtha's freelancing diplomacy. Of course, Al Qaeda doesn't care, because they've already got their next recruiting video shot, with Congressman Murtha's comments guest starring in the video.
Sorry, your "just a thought" doesn't hold up.
Good thing Murtha's "bluff" was in front of the entire world. In any case, the resounding defeat of the Hunter resolution pretty much means your thesis backfired nearly completely, eroding any potential benefits of Murtha's freelancing diplomacy. Of course, Al Qaeda doesn't care, because they've already got their next recruiting video shot, with Congressman Murtha's comments guest starring in the video.
Sorry, your "just a thought" doesn't hold up.
# posted by 
: 7:37 AM
: 7:37 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to address the effect of Iraqi cooperation with coalition forces based on Congressman Murtha's comments. Do you think individual Iraqis are now more or less likely to cooperate with American forces, providing them with intelligence about AQ and other insurgents? Will it be easier or harder for Marines along the Euphrates River valley near Syria to eliminate AQ sanctuaries? Many of the communities have been under the threat of the sword from AQ there, and now they have a choice of informing on their old oppressors, knowing that there are proposals for the Americans to abandon them after freeing their towns and telling them "we're here to stay!" That doesn't establish much credibility for our Marines, now does it?
Do you think that Congressman Murtha thought about the above?
Just a thought.
Do you think that Congressman Murtha thought about the above?
Just a thought.
# posted by : 7:43 AM
: 7:43 AM
Murtha's military experience is in the past. His recent activities and statements, while labelled as coming from an experienced military man, are simply politics as usual, with no genuine military insight.
I think the hypothesis that Murtha had some 'greater plan' behind his statements is giving him too much credit. Instead he is doing, as already stated, a great dis-service to our nation and its servicemen, not to mention the fledgeling Iraqi democracy.
On the one hand, the Left says we should question the military. But when a retired servicemen says something the Left agrees with, suddenly it's BAD BAD BAD to question their views. What a farce.
I think the hypothesis that Murtha had some 'greater plan' behind his statements is giving him too much credit. Instead he is doing, as already stated, a great dis-service to our nation and its servicemen, not to mention the fledgeling Iraqi democracy.
On the one hand, the Left says we should question the military. But when a retired servicemen says something the Left agrees with, suddenly it's BAD BAD BAD to question their views. What a farce.
I see two motivations for REP Murtha.
1. REP Murtha may be physically in Washington DC, but his heart is still in Vietnam.
2. Murtha is not a liberal. He is a close-minded dogmatic Cold War realist (poli-sci sense), anti-nation-builder and anti-interventionist. He would probably be comfortable on Ronald Reagan's foreign policy team. Murtha can understand imminent threat but he has no concept, or he rejects, the concept of the War on Terror, including Iraq, as a liberal (again, poli-sci sense) endeavor.
I would wager that if you talked China with REP Murtha, he'd be very hawkish about aggressive posturing and plusing up the military to compete with a 'near peer' state-actor competitor.
1. REP Murtha may be physically in Washington DC, but his heart is still in Vietnam.
2. Murtha is not a liberal. He is a close-minded dogmatic Cold War realist (poli-sci sense), anti-nation-builder and anti-interventionist. He would probably be comfortable on Ronald Reagan's foreign policy team. Murtha can understand imminent threat but he has no concept, or he rejects, the concept of the War on Terror, including Iraq, as a liberal (again, poli-sci sense) endeavor.
I would wager that if you talked China with REP Murtha, he'd be very hawkish about aggressive posturing and plusing up the military to compete with a 'near peer' state-actor competitor.
Jason,
You should well know that the first thing libs do when they hit a wall of counter-facts is to fall back on the ugly name calling. It's classic and pervasive in the Dem environment.
Post a Comment
You should well know that the first thing libs do when they hit a wall of counter-facts is to fall back on the ugly name calling. It's classic and pervasive in the Dem environment.
