You can’t make this stuff up, people: From “Crazed Lefty vs. Rumsfeld”
Many of you have pointed out that Ray McGovern, the man who challenged Rumsfeld in public, holds some wacko views, and has made some anti-Semitic statements. It seems my description of him as not being a “crazed lefty” was wrong on at least one count. But then this administration has turned many previously sane, moderate people into those who want to scream at the dishonesty and incompetence of their own government. What interests me is that no one has denied that McGovern was indeed the man who used to brief the president’s own father on intelligence, and that, in the exchange in question, it is now clear that he was right and Rumsfeld wrong. Here is a transcript of the exchange between Rumsfeld and McGovern. The precise point at issue is whether Rumsfeld had categorically stated that there were WMDs in Iraq. Money quote […]
…blah, blah, blah blah blah.
Sullivan posts as his “money quote” the same Rumsfeld / Snuffleupagus transcript excerpt that both I and Rick Moran posted yesterday (as I’m sure did others on the right)—which suggests to me that when Andy claims that “what interests” him is that ”no one has denied that McGovern was indeed the man who used to brief the president’s own father on intelligence, and that, in the exchange in question, it is now clear that he was right and Rumsfeld wrong,” he either didn’t do a whole lot of looking around, or else he is so egotistical that he honestly believes that, among the “conservatives,” only he is perspicacious and honest enough to identify and acknowledge Rumsfeld’s gaffe.
Which, let me be the first to say, is an arrogance on par with Ray McGovern’s own, which has him believing, as I noted yesterday (and as Allah covered thoroughly), that he is among the select few Illuminati who has awakened from the Jew matrix and can now see the Jew-run US puppet government for what it is—an extension of Israel and Zionist designs on world domination.
What Sullivan doesn’t note, however, is that McGovern’s briefings of Bush the elder on intelligence under President-elect Reagan (Beirut, anyone?)—a fact Andrew brings up to mitigate McGovern’s anti-semitism and wild conspiracy mongering— was the result of his being a Carter holdover.
This would be the same Carter, incidentally, who had a spiritual love affair with Yasser Arafat—and who now routinely runs around the world acting like he still has a mandate from the American people to run US foreign policy. So forgive me if I’m not as swayed as Andrew is by McGovern’s “previously sane” pedigree.
But leaving all that aside.
What interests me is that Sullivan actually tries to deflect this nutball’s now widely-reported views with the “blowback” suggestion that “this administration has turned many previously sane, moderate people into those who want to scream at the dishonesty and incompetence of their own government.”
Or, to put it more bluntly: THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT.
What doesn’t occur to Sullivan (what never, in fact, occurs to Sullivan, who is too busy projecting to gather his bearings), is that his proposition begs the question. Because believe it or not, some of us dispute the “fact” that there has been widespread dishonesty and incompetence in this administration, which would mean that those who now “want to scream” at their government may not have been so “previously sane” to begin with.
In fact, it could be that they were simply excitable folk with their own specific agendas looking for an excuse to find dishonesty and incompetence where there exists only the natural vicissitudes of politics and war.
I blame Bush, naturally.
Well gee Jeff, Sullivan is merely pointing out that exterminating the evil Zionist Jews is a sane and moderate viewpoint. Wonder how SUllivan would respond if it were a GAY Zionist who was being exterminated?
What fucking Sullivan doesn’t want to grasp is that Others may have had life experiences outside America’s santuary bubble, occurring long before Rummy or Bushco came along, substantiating Saddam’s involvement with wmds; most of fucking which he had acquired through his dealings with the russian mafia for a good decade funded primarily by the mother-fucking oil-for-food rip-off.
Sullivan is a child.
McGovern: “Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?”
‘Not necessary’? Anything to protect dictatorships from America. And from Sully, anything to cover them.
Jeff–
You have to copyright Jew Matrix right now. Gaytrix is already taken, of course.
We always come back to COCK, don’t we, Jeff?
And Bush. Hmmmmm.
If you scroll down, Sullivan has a post wherein he very sniffily and self-righteously assumes Porter Goss was involved with “Hookergate” somehow—O sin of sins, requiring Bush’s and only Bush’s monumentally special brand of E-ville to partake in!—then directly below it, he offers blessed forgiveness to Patrick Kennedy for his DWI accident, and all but calls him a hero for bravely trotting off to rehab one step ahead of both the law and the reporters.
Sullivan has now officially become nothing more than just another BDS-crippled moonbat. It’s a damned shame, really.
Aldrich Ames once had a pretty important job. I’m not sure how that goes to credibility.
It sounds like Sullivan believes in mind control rays or something.
That’s not how copyright works.
Not just another BDS-crippled moonbat, but a *gobsmackingly vile* BDS-crippled moonbat.
I am filled with heartache.
“Heart-ache.”
Hmmm.
Jesus H. Christ!
Didn’t Sullivan retire about a dozen times already? He’s like a blogging vampire that just won’t stay in the damn coffin.
Someone refresh my memory: who is this “Sullivan” person, again?
I just check Sullivan’s comrade in insane Rummy hatred—Rummy Derangement Syndrome?—Greg at Belgravia Dispatch to see if he was apologizing for Mr. “The Jews Did it”. Not yet. Apparently gone quiet. Too bad. Belgravia Dispatch is usually just as loopy as Sully when it comes to Rummy.
So nobody on this blog believes that bush is beholden to the Zionist/Armageddonist/neo-con cabal? Or is it that you don’t want to believe your lying eyes? Peace
Hmmm.
I just think the Zionist/Armageddonist/neo-con cabal could’ve gotten someone better than Bush and Rumsfeld. After they’re jews dammit! Aren’t they supposed to be real bastards at dealing and haggling?
Now if you’re serious about a definite Zionist/Armageddonist/neo-con cabal then you need to check out the furniture stores here in New Jersey. Shopping for furniture is a real adventure here. Make one mistake with these Zionists and you’re stumbling away with a sofa, couch, loveseat, bedroom set, a chandelier and assorted bookcases all for a very good price with excellent credit terms.
It’s enough to make you shudder.
sw: It’s a test of your character man.
Oh, the christian right, Imhotep??
Well, they wouldn’t be Zionist, then. They may support Israel’s right to exist, and apparently that’s Zionist enough for loony lefties, such as yourself.
And he’s not acting quite as they would like, let me tell you. For some of the Christian Right leadership is holding its nose, because Bush has not made a big FCC decency push, or pushed the congress to put satellite radio and TV under the FCC decency standards, nor is there a move to clean up the entertainment industry as a whole. There’s not even a Constitutional Amemdment against gay marriage, or reestablishing prayer in schools, nor one protecting the “under God” in the pledge either.
So how “beholden” is he? He’s not walking the walk, even if he is talking the talk (and most of the time, he’s not even doing THAT).
Many of the firebrands still want those. And they aren’t getting them and they probably won’t get them.
So, no, Imhotep, I’m just not believing your delusional eyes.
Hmmm.
He’s a guy who was supposedly a gay conservative Republican blogger who turned out to be not so conservative and definitely not Republican, but amazingly enough very very gay. Since that time he’s retired several times, come back several times and in many instances both retired and returned within a span of minutes. On many issues Sullivan has been for it, against it, indifferent to it and outraged by it on a cyclical basis. In comparison the Wheel of Fortune is the penultimate bastion of stability.
Obviously this guy has problems with committing to a decision and sticking with it.
Additionally Sullivan is famous for boasting of the wealth generated by begging for donations … ahem … appealing to his readers for contributions to purchase gold-plated bandwidth. Evidently he was able to amass enough such “bandwidth” funds to go on a three month vacation once and to boast of having suckered people for $100,000 USD. Of course this was when he was a gay conservative Republican which meas it was either 5+ years, sometime in 2004 prior to the Presidential election ago or yesterday.
Currently Sullivan spends his time writing books that nobody really gives a damn about, writing blog posts that are largely irrelevant and generally just being an absolute asshat.
sw: he talks a lot of crap, but nothing ever happens.
Warning:
Imhotep is a actus-level troll, only even more clueless. Engage at your own risk.
That is all.
“What doesn’t occur to Sullivan (what never, in fact, occurs to Sullivan, who is too busy projecting to gather his bearings), is that his proposition begs the question. Because believe it or not, some of us dispute the “fact†that there has been widespread dishonesty and incompetence in this administration, which would mean that those who now “want to scream†at their government may not have been so “previously sane†to begin with.
In fact, it could be that they were simply excitable folk with their own specific agendas looking for an excuse to find dishonesty and incompetence where there exists only the natural vicissitudes of politics and war.”
Beautifully put.
Why should I believe my lying eyes?
I think that tbogg character—the one who boasts of faithfulness to his wife (which, to a guy who claims his favorite prez is Clinton, is a fairly big deal)—is starting to stray a bit.
Because from what I understand, he’s been linking me quite a lot lately (including “commentary” on this post) to call me all manner of names—dishonest, incompetent, COCK-fetishist, General Chickenhawk, etc.—all while denigrating my academic work. Which suggests to me that he desperately craves my attention—like the little boy who pulls Sally’s pigtails in lieu of just coming right out and admitting his crush.
Sorry. Not interested, T.
Beyond that, I have a hard time taking seriously someone who claims I’m out of my depth when it comes to the philosophy of language when his own expertise seems to extend no further than the mass purchasing of ladies undies and setting up cash register systems (or, “POS” sales for a retail chain, if you want to use some of that “grad school” speak).
Maybe he should just send me a camisole, instead? Nothing says “I care” quite like a camisole…
****
(thanks to B via email, who reads this shit so that I don’t have to)
Battle of the resumes!
Yeah. Except I didn’t bring it up. And I’ve never claimed to be an expert on bra clasps.
tbogg… a lingerie salesman?
Perhaps the word ”Eulalie” should be whispered in his ear once in a while….
That’s the way. Talkin’ ain’t doin’.
Know what creeps me out? When you simply can’t tell if they’re joking or not any more.
Ha! There’s a Wodehouse reference for every occasion (but especially for this one).
It wouldn’t matter it Tbogg had flunked out of the seventh grade. He still writes better than you, reasons better than you, and is about five hundred times funnier than you. And he’s not the current laughingstock of the Internets.
Now go and threaten to slap me with your cock. Or do one of those Robert Byrd conceptual pieces again. Those bits are hi-LAR-ious!
Wow. A real live fanboy!
Tell me, did you hang the tbogg poster above the bed? Or did you just leave it folded inside the Tiger Beat—y’know, on the nightstand, next to the box of Kleenex and the bottle of hand lotion?
Zionists: Wolfowitz,Kristol,Pearl,Limbaugh,Lieberman Armageddonists: Falwell,Dobson,Robertson neo-cons: Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice,Fred Barnes Some people belong to all three groups like Tom Delay, but then he’s as dumb as a stump and as crooked as a snake. Peace
Goldstein, you owe me 1//4 a glass of port, and the 5 paper towels it took to clean the mess up when I choked at seeing “Tiger Beat”… Heh.
Mummy,
So for “Zionists” the Administration is under the spell of, you have someone from the World Bank, a punidt, a dead journlaist, a radio talker and a Democrat Senator?
“Armageddonists” are a has been preacher, the “family” guy, some dude with a bad cable preacher network and another pundit? Dude, Bush is a Methodist – we Methodists aren’t too terribly hung up on THE END TIMES. We’re too worried about the present (usually fussing about personal guilt – ie. when the Prez gave up the booze, very Methodist).
Neo-Cons – the VP, two Cabinet Sec and another pundit. You really don’t like anyone in the media to the right of Jeanine Garafalo, yes?
Delay – you may have missed the fact that he is a former Rep. Not a whole lot of influence, and never had much outside the majority caucus in the House anyway.
Whoo – Zoloft must be running in short supply out there…
My spellung is teh sUxor.
Capitulationists: Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Boxer, Kennedy Traitors: Kerry, Moore, Risen, Lichtblau Morons: Kos, Atrios, Gore, Streisand, Sheehan, Huffington, Willis, Sullivan. Some people belong to all three groups like Imhotep, but then…
Ah, right. Made a big fuss about gay marriage, as I recall. Also, IIRC, lives in Massachusetts.
One must assume he’s gotten married since, yes?
TW: “small”. Make up your own joke.
You can’t help but love how he sticks Limbaugh into the middle of his list of ‘Zionists’. . .it’s a total non-sequitur (hey, who’s some obviously white gentile conservative who *probably* supports Israel’s right to exist?), but hey–at least it means all the names on the list aren’t so, er, solidly Jooish. ‘Cause Lord knows, *that* might give the wrong impression.
And, while we’re on the subject. ‘Pearl’ is the Jew who had his head hacked off in Karachi. . .’Perle’ is the Jew who *was* chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. I know, I know–it’s *so* hard to tell them apart. . .but if you’re playing enlightened progressive, you really must mind your p’s and q’s or people might think you’re a flaming bigot. Even though, you know, self-described progressives *cannot* *be* bigots, by definition.
I was astounded at my keenness of perception. The moment I had set eyes on Tbogg, if you remember, I had said to myself ‘What ho! A Dick,’ and a Dick he had proved to be.
People like Imhotep certainly make life entertaining.
The moment someone slams Zionism, my anti-Semitic sensors perk up. As anyone who has studied anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism would know, there’s a very, very thin line between the two. Many people, because of anti-Semitism’s public unacceptability, express their anti-Semitic thoughts in anti-Zionist terms. For them “Zionist” practically means “Jew,” and “Zionism” means “Israel and Judaism.” Of course, they don’t oppose Jews because they oppose Zionism (the theory that Israel should exist as a homeland for Jews) but rather the other way around. Besides, it sounds far more academic to discuss Zionism than one’s anti-Semitism, which (thankfully) is seen as boorish if not very unsophistocated.
In this issue I think Jeff’s intentionalism is quite important indeed. One must set aside what an author may be interpreted as saying and delve into his/her intent.
Regarding Imhotep, here is some more entertainment:
Now, granted this is from an organization that attempts to recreate the pre-Islam Egyptian religion, so take it for what it’s worth.
Plus, I totally liked the Major’s “Mummy” reference.
Right. because when one person is out of their depth, its based on the other person’s resume.
Imhotep, YOU SIR ARE NO ARNOLD VOSLOO.
GET OFF MY INTERNETS
Jeff,
As I noted in the prior thread, I don’t think Rumsfeld’s comment should even be clssified as a gaffe. Even from the limited quote Moran used:
Is this an answer that really says “We know where they are?” Or is “the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” an enormous qualifier? I would say the latter. Even your resident troll was mocking it, not realizing that he was disproving the point his side wants to make out of this.
Moreover, reading the enire answer in context, Rumsfeld is addressing Steffy’s question about not finding ricin at the camp by saying they didn’t expect a big find there because the WMD sites were located in other parts of Iraq and publicity about the camp led to activity suggesting anything at the camp was moved. Taking a single sentence out of that context to suggest that Rumsfeld was asserting that the US knew exactly where the WMDs were is silly—if he actually knew the exact locations, they would have been in the first tier of target for the invading troops. So the exercise says more about McGovern than Rumsfeld.
For that matter, for McGovern to use a post-inavsion quote to suggest Rumsfeld lied to get us into Iraq also says a lot about McGovern.
Well, he clearly won’t be reelected without them.
Wait. This Sullivan fellow found something that makes a gay dude want to scream?
He couldn’t cobble together 4 paragraphs about white belts after Labor Day?
Or straw hats.
People still read Andrew Sullivan? My gracious, that’s a surprise, and a sad one at that. Andy went off the deep end years ago and anything he has to say that makes sense these days would be of the 1,000 monkeys typing variety, methinks. I’ve been Sullivan free for over two years now, and I’m feeling great.
TW=written. I haven’t read anything Andy has written in years, and I’m the better for it.
Let me guess—he “went off the deep end” just abut the time he climbed out of Bush’s back pocket and noticed what was really happening with the war rhetoric vs. the reality of the war.
Since he was so gung ho for the war previously, it might be worth a bit of wondering what made him change his mind.
So people may disagree with him, but these automatic dismissals by die-hards to critics, especially inside the system and conservative critics, don’t have the ring of confidence.
JMO, though.
Not at all. He thinks Limbaugh is Jewish. That “-baugh” suffix is so obviously a sneaky attempt to hide his true “-berg” roots, y’see.
No, it was gay marriage that sent Sully off the rails, and he didn’t climb out of anyone’s pocket. If you think that’s the case, why don’t you pose the question to him?
I know I’m enterting a thread late but I might point there are Christian Zionists.
And Pablo, couldn’t you think of a less predictable answer? Gay marriage and the war are two completely different subjects. Sullivan was fiercely pro-war. He happily damned war critics as most conservatives did. Now he’s one of them.
What would an objective person think?
Anyone who’s been watching need not “think” about it. Simple observation is enough to tell you that he broke over gay marriage and hasn’t been back.
Why do you need to imagine a reason when one played out so obviously? Did it occur to you that it’s an predictable answer because it’s correct? Occam’s razor, duck.
Hmmmm.
You know the primary difference between a mint julep and a mohito is that a mint julep is made with bourbon while a mohito is made with rum.
*shrug* sure it’s off-topic but it’s as relevant as some of the goofier comments here.
sw: Hell hath no fury like a premium single-malt scotch drowned in ice you damned dirty apes!
Hmmmm.
Sullivan was “fiercely” just about everything under the sun.
His problem is that he never stayed “fiercely” about anything other than the whole “I’m gay” thing. Which frankly bored the hell out of me.
Priceless. I couldn’t ask for a better line from Stephen Colbert, and he’s a satirist.
No, it’s occured to me someone would say it because it’s simpistic and trite. So – is that also why Sullivan lost faith with this administration’s fiscal policies? That wouldn’t explain Bruce Bartlett’s disenchantment, though – would it?
And what about William Buckley’s opinions that the war was been lost? And Brooks and Kristol’s criticism of Rumsfeld and the opinions that he should resign?
Is there anyone here seeing the problem yet?
LD,
What I see is that conservatives of many stripes have varied opinions and perspectives about war, fiscal policy, etc. This creates some conflict, but also allows for the free exchange of ideas and the assimilation of new solutions.
As oppossed to liberals, who are in googe-stepping, lock-step with their dogma. Has any Pro-life Democrat ever been allowed the podium at their convention? Clearly no. Has Joe Liberman been embraced for having a different notion about the Middle East than the rest of his party? No, in fact he’s had a more liberal candidate funded by his own party to run against him in the primary. Hell, even Queen Hillary has caught hell from the left for not taking the hard line on every issue from the war to abortion.
In fact, the only allowable dispute among Democrats today is whether we should tuck tail and run in wholesale retreat from Iraq today or at year’s end.
Let’s see. I had an egg in my hand. I let go of it. I watched it fall and break when it landed. Now there is a broken egg on the floor.
Let me think about this….
IT’S GEORGE BUSH’S FAULT!!! INCOMPTENCE BROKE THE EGG!!! HE COULD HAVE STOPPED THE BREAKAGE, BUT THERE WAS NO OOOOIIIL FOR CHENEY’S HALLIBURTON CRONIES!!! GEORGE BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT UNBORN CHICKEN PEOPLE!!!
Thanks, Ducky. Now I know how to think like a liberal. Now where’s my new egg?
Personally, I think stepping around the googe is a good idea. But you missed the point. I’m talking about the people like Rush who insist all the criticism is coming from the left – OR – like some in here, they have some excuse to ignore the criticism if it’s from a Republican or conservative.
According to this, clearly, you’re wrong. (Kristen Day, A Democratic Pro-Life advoate.)
I’d include a link but I can’t seem to make that work.
I’m not saying Democrats are perfect – far from it. Day has plenty of criticism. But folks might remember Henry Reid is pro-life. Rick Santorum faced a pro-life Democrat in 2000 and this year. So it’s not quite as “goose-stepping” as you’re saying. And you didn’t answer, anyway. I think the criticism of Lieberman is justified, myself. Talk about a guy with no convictions. I’d go on but that “Democrats just want to turn tail!” line is so tired, I’ll skip it.
Anyone, anyone?
(Putting Pablo down for a screaming “NOOOOOOOOO!”. No points for ranting non sequiturs. Sorry.)
Okay, Lucky Ducky. So your postulate is that Gay Marriage has absolutely no connection to Andy Sullivan’s tirades against Bush.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush peeing in Sully’s bowl of Gay Charms? So he has empirical reasons to support an anti-Semetic hack which are of course Bush’s fault?
How cute. How’s the weather in La La Land, today, anyways? Michigan is beautiful today.
Duck, quit guessing and go read Sully’s archives. You can watch it happen instead of imagining what might have happened given whatever else you can throw into your conceptual stew. Also, it will keep you busy so that you won’t be making an ass of yourself here.
TTFN!
Pablo – I have read Sullivan. He’s ticked me off at least as often as I’ve agreed with him. And he continues to tick off many people on the liberal side.
Maybe you need take your own advice and go read him again instead of shooting the messenger over his opinion about the war. (I’m talking in general here.) He lost faith with the Republican party over gay marriage, at least to a point – he felt the party was getting too much influence from the “hard-core religious right”. But the war issue was a separate one from what I’ve seen. Ditto the criticisms about fiscal policy, torture, and some other issues.
For people who supposedly are so open-minded, I’m getting nothing but crankiness (being very polite about it) with nothing to back up your view. You made the accusation. Shouting at me doesn’t make for a case.
You all think gay people are that different from you that they make judgments based on just one factor?
Odd. And unconvincing.
Absolutely not. But I watched Sully go off the rails on a single issue. As you said:
..and he’s found little to agree with them about since. You can mold that into whatever shape makes you happy, but do not expect “Sully disagrees!” to be the basis of a successful argument against the prosecution of the war.
The only person present who might be talking about all gay people is you. I was talking about Sully, which I assume I can still do, his sexuality notwithstanding. I also talk about straight people from time to time, if that helps you process this.
Well, you little bitch!
Pablo –
Since you haven’t a word of proof for your assertion, just how am I supposed to know what you’re talking about? And just where did I make an ass of myself? By asking a reasonable question?
You’re dead wrong if you’re saying he just has one issue with Bush. As I said, he shares a big concern about Bush’s fiscal policies with many conservatives, for one thing. The same on torture – he’s in the camp with McCain and plenty of other people. He was passionately pro-war – that’s quite clear. He was joyous in calling those who disagreed names, just like the GOP icon Limbaugh and his sort. He changed his mind. He gave detailed reasons with anyone with eyes might at least see as reasonable, considering how many mistakes have been made, and how many stories have gone by the wayside. And he doesn’t disagree with Bush on everything. Many others have changed their minds about the success of the war and about Rumsfeld. And what are you guys doing?
Finding excuses why you don’t have to listen, from the sound of it. Name-calling. As if that will change a thing.
Great look, fellas. Go on – whine about “liberals” as if many Republicans and conservatives don’t share the very same concerns.
I would say you started with choosing Lucky Ducky for a handle and kind of went downhill from there, but I really haven’t a word of proof for my assertion.
Sullivan long ago jumped not only the shark, but the shark-skin suit, the shark-fin soup, Soupy Sales, Red Sails in the Sunset, Red Buttons, button-fly jeans, Jean Harlowe and a partridge in a pear tree. Also a personable but slightly shady Shetland pony lately escaped from the circus. And several sperm whales.
But he is a man of principle. A principle.
…
You mean like this one?
You waddle along now, ducky.
tw: nothing
Precisely!
What the heck, lads – I thought I’d look back in.
I so hope that was intended humor. But “Lucky Ducky” is a tongue-in-cheek, mild mocking of a WSJ editorial from 2-3 years ago, and I’ve stuck with it.
And Pablo – since neither you nor anyone could back up the assertion that all of Sullivan’s difficulties with Bush came from his disagreement over the gay marriage issue, and since so many of you are so fascinated with his love life, I figured it was very possibly your problem – not his.
For the life of me, I don’t see how you guys can ignore the brickbats coming from very conservative people. I don’t think Sullivan made a good argument about McGovern’s strange views but he can make bad arguments against leftists, also. On the other hand, McGovern’s strange views aren’t the whole story by a long shot.
Did anyone happen to read the linked site
(Rick Moran) that noticed that Rumsfeld embarrassed himself by lying?
No?
Maybe you fellas should consider reading it. It might be better for you than joining the chorus and hitting the cliches so heavily. That happens on both sides, quite often in this partisan world – but it’s worth pointing out.
You know, maybe it’s just me – but the possibility of incompetence with a man in Rumsfeld’s position and his pattern of denying his own words, mean a hell of a lot more than anything Andy Sullivan said. (And the predictable whining about the media, really doesn’t change that one iota.)
Try seeing the forest, maybe. As I said, concern over Rumsfeld is something liberals and conservatives share. Your own side is doing it and you’re not even noticing.
Let’s count the moronic assumptions.
1…2…3…4…
OK, that’s not much fun. So instead, let’s looks at where the duck makes my point for me.
I think the comprehension problem is yours. Thanks for playing, Ducky. Next time, bring money. In the meantime, jut sit and argue amongst yourself, k?
Did you even read the post atop the thread, dumbass? Who is that you think reads this stuff while struck blind?
You got a pretty severe broadbrushing problem, Ducky. Speak for yourself and then STFU.
tw: for the record the forest looks like victory, regardless of who’s carping about it.
Geez, Pablo.
For a guy who loves to make so many assumptions about everyone else in the world (well, everyone not giggling about gays, or mythical strawman liberals), you don’t have anything to back up your statements.
No – I ddn’t come close to making your point. You have no point. You have spiteful childish guesses. Sullivan was disappointed about the gay marriage issue but you made no attempt to prove that influenced his opinions about other issues.
And where was the discussion about the failures of Rumsfeld made by the conservative who’s post was linked? Eh?
Goldstein didn’t do it. He was too busy being snarky about Sullivan (but it’s NOT because he’s GAY!) and making dick jokes.
Which is appropriate for 10 year olds. Lots of griping, whining about the grown ups and even more wishful thinking.
“STFU”…lol.. Dear God – the comedy of it all. Farewell. You make a person delighted to know honest-to-God adult conservatives who can make a decent argument. And I’m delighted you’re not on my side.
Name one assumption I’ve made, please.
I’ll wait.
I thought this was done – and also I thought the assumption part would be obvious. Anyway –you assumed Sullivan’s problems with Iraq stemmed from his disagreement over gay marriage. But you didn’t offer any quotes – any evidence – nothing but opinion.
You may not agree with him about that war but it doesn’t seem fair to assume he went from a passionate loyalist on Iraq to unhappy and disappointed out of the clear blue. He had plenty of reason for that and he stated his rationale.
I think this one is done. (For some reason I liked that funny face, though.) I may use a different name if I come back for another topic- not that may make any difference. Have a good night – week – all that.
What the heck, we are all Americans, ya know.
No, I said I watched him go off the rails over gay marriage, and you agreed with that. I also said that since that time he’s found very little to agree with them about.
These are observations, not assumption. You may disagree with them, even while you’re agreeing with them (nice trick, btw) but that does not make them assumptions. I’ve drawn conclusions from the evidence.
But you didn’t offer any quotes – any evidence – nothing but opinion.
Ok, are they supposed to be assumptions or opinions? That aside, I referred you to his archives. There is no one post that says “I’m done with those gay hating neocons!” There doesn’t need to be one. It’s a thing, which you clearly observed, that happened over a period of time.
I can assure you that I will be cold and dead in my grave before I will spend hours at Sully’s place mining quotes to convince the likes of you of that which you already know.
You’re trying to sell “SULLY DISAGREES AND HE’S A CONSERVATIVE!!!” as meaningful.
I’m telling you that Sully’s conservative credentials have been less than bonafide for quite some time, so your argument has little force. I am not the first person to have noticed this.
And you want to argue about it…
Okay, one more, since you can’t or won’t accept a friendly gesture.
You said, above :
No – simple observation showed me he gave quite solid reasons for seeing that the rationale Bush gave for war had serious problems. He had issues Abu Ghraib, too- as did many people, including John McCain. He’s not a Bush hater. He still has good things to say about him at times .
Of course, I observed his concern over the far-right Christian element having a greater influence over Republican policy. But it wasn’t as if he mistook Bush for Alan Alda, in the first place. Conservatives were talking about an amendment in 2001. And he devoted one sentence in one paragraph to the gay marriage issue when he somewhat reluctantly endorsed Kerry in 2004 in The New Republic. Most of the fairly lengthy piece was about everything else, including what he saw as Bush’s good points. The war, the conduct of the war, Abu Ghraib, Bush’s shaky fiscal policies including the hugely expensive Medicare perscription bill – not good points.
And there also, he also reiterated the things he liked about Bush.
So – yes. You’re still assuming and you’re peeved that I won’t join your chorus. I don’t care what you claim “others” have observed. I haven’t seen one person try to make a real argument. For some damn reason, I tried. And don’t put words in my mouth just because you have nothing to support your claims.
A disagreement doesn’t mean he “went off the rails”. Unless, you’re counting John Fund, Buckley, Will, Brooks, Kristol, Bruce Bartlett and many other conservatives who have many of the very same concerns on many issues with Bush.
And you know what ? Still mary a word about Rumsfeld’s problems – which would amount to a much bigger deal than Sully’s opinions – any day.
That’s showing a lot of concern about the troops, eh?
Sure it is.
This from the guy who opened with:
If you wanted to talk about Rumsfeld, why are you so stuck on the defense of Sully? Is that you Hiltzik?
No, I couldn’t care less what you think. I thought I’d made that pretty clear upthread. It’s when you mischaracterize what I’ve said that we find ourselves having a problem.
I expressed my opinion and you’re assuming an emotional reaction as a way to close the factual portion of the discussion that you’re failing in. If I were to be peeeved every time a leftist acts like a some psychic moron god, I’d be peeved every fucking minute of my life.
Thankfully, it just ain’t like that.
Simple – I didn’t read the link until after I’d seen the chorus of voices that didn’t address Sullivan’s argument (which I agreed was a bad one) so much as his gayness.
BTW – I’m not a guy. Otherwise, I’d return some the childish remarks here with something like “Go STFU yourself, ****wit!”
I asked for for some reasonable soul to say why they thought Sullivan’s opinions about Bush, the war, whatever were colored totally by his gayness or the disagreement about gay marriage.
And I got a lot of hot air, and cranky replies along the lines of “Because!”.
Since you had nothing to back up your statements, what am I supposed to think? You’re got a great argument but you’re too shy to share it? And maybe the “shouting” about Haliburton of some such rot made it quite clear you were emotional.
Yeah, yeah. When in doubt, go to the tired out, RW radio jock lines about bad liberals and leftists. If you’re so great, give a basis for your statements next time and spend less time with the same old trite whines. I gave you a lot of reasons why your statements didn’t hold up. You gave me…nothing.
So thanks for nothing.
Uh, no. You did not. Try this. Don’t you remember this, ducky?
But no, you were just trying to suss out the source of dimissivenes toward Sully. All quite rationally of course:
You’re an intellectual giant, I tell ya!
Like that other people agree with Sully! Deeply moving that. Just like this:
Hey, that’s an original, bitch! (Better now?)
If it walks like a dipshit, and talks like a dipshit…
You’re welcome.