Replies

“I notice you evade on the substance instantly, and don’t answer a word of it. “

I’m still waiting on you to support your original claims, which you haven’t. I’m not sure what ‘substance’ you’re accusing me of evading. As far as what you call my ‘truth-free’ approach, I sourced my claims to statements by both the U.S. Military and the Maliki government. Your source was an outdated AP article that had already been rebuffed, and it didn’t even support your claim anyhow.

Substance - "Do you deny that Petraeus' current policy is to arm the Sunnis and get the men running the insurgency against us for the last four years to pretend to be our friends and help vs. AQI? Do you deny that Maliki opposed arming the Sunnis and said he would arm Iraqi militias if Petraeus went ahead with it? Do you deny that Maliki is courting Syrians? Do you deny he said we can leave whenever we like and he does not need us?"

Substance - Is the US going to leave Iraq after the end of Bush's term? Will there by a civil war in Iraq after the US leaves? Will Iran back an internal Shia faction in that civil war? Will the US jump back in to stop Iran, or stay out of it? Left to face only internal forces, will Iran lose?

Just little things, you know, like that. I am sure you think "substance" is about who can be got to say what spin and how many army press releases there are in each 48 hour period or something, but for those of us actually living in the real world, the actual political factions and their alignments and the actual outcome of the conflict, matter ever so slightly more.

Being "rebuff" by an army press release is approximately equal to "exists", and means approximately nothing. It was also an evasive non-denial denial, not from the principle, and the current headlines give it the lie. Pretending Maliki just loves Petraeus and loves our arming the Sunnis is so ridiculous I can hardly believe you are attempting to maintain it.