[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

--snip--

Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork from neighboring countries, using Iraq (instead of the US) as their holy battleground for Allah. If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level. There, they know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose. They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.

American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.

Hey, mrn, do you even read your own posts? Or are you more of a perfomance artist, just firing them off blindly, like some beat poet of the blog generation? Should I be listening for content and consistency or is it more the flow, the rhythm?

There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork...

Usually the phrase "coming out of the woodwork" means a surprising increase from an unknown source. So what is it: Not more or yes more?

...they [the terrorists] know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose.

This falls squarely in "artistic speech" land. You don't seriously contend that there are allies of terrorists in the American media, do you? If you do, I would like to see some evidence, an example. Cite, please. Wouldn't that make them terrorists too, or close to it? "Nullify a presidency"? What? Who are you suggesting is trying to nullify a presidency? It sounds like the terrorists, from your statement. Do you really mean opposition to policies? Opposition to positions of one side or the other or the other is what this country's all about, indeed, what the latest spin is on our "mission" in Iraq, to give them choice too.

They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.

A pullout. Ok, this is a substantive issue. I sense you're opposed to a pullout from your remarks. What is the alternative to a pullout? A stay-in? Do we agree that we're not staying in Iraq indefinitely? If we do agree, and I hope and believe we do, then let's start talking about the "not-indefinite" part. When? How? And importantly, START!

Surely you don't think that merely talking about that inevitable phase of the operations there gives aid and comfort to the enemy? Bah. What would you do? Stay, stay, stay, stay, then up and leave in the middle of the night? WooHoo! Surprise! Hell no. We're leaving or we're staying. What is it? If we're leaving, then let's talk about it. If we're staying, then we damn sure need to talk about that, too. But this talking about leaving and actually doing about staying is bogus.

As to the return of power, damn skippy somebody's gonna get the power back. Isn't that why we undertook this adventure??!! Check this, we do not want the power in Iraq. Do you disagree? Then hand it over, dammit. I reckon you're p'ticular about just who you hand power over to, am I right? "We" want to hand the power over to the people "we" want to have the power, people, what, inclined toward gratitude, eh? Maybe I'm off base here, but there's a phrase for that, and it's not flattering.

American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.

If this were true, there'd be a helluva lot more listening to liberals today, since there's plenty not going right. But do you hear a lot of liberal voices in Iraq? I don't either.

I just don't see you as an authoritative voice regarding "American liberalism". You regularly attack and deride Liberal points of view, and worse, you assign the label "liberal" when you intend "libel". You clearly consider "liberal" a defamatory remark. Charitably, you miss the point, sir.