Replies

I’ll discuss anything about Iraq, but you need to not get your feelings hurt so easily.

Petraeus: Even he has his doubts. The problem is not with his strategy, it’s after we inevitably leave and it’s no longer his call. At that point, I believe Iraq will descend into an Islamic theocracy. If you want to discuss that rationally, great. I hardly think he’s “lying” as you churlishly suggest.

Apple Pie: You bringing up Petraeus was the apple-pie issue. You could have equally said “defeatist”, “liberal-surrender monkey”, or “traitor” which Iraq-can-do-no-wrong believers usually mete out when they are out-debated. Just like you did when you were out-debated with reasoned, factual points by me.

Red Herrings: You said that I must believe Petraeus was “either lying or stupid” thereby attempting to draw me away from the argument that was flaying your uninformed ramblings so effectively. Fortunately, with laser-like focus I stayed on target.

State Dept.: You said “I’ll trust the well documented citings of the state department over your word” Then you need to make an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie ( http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ) to ward off the mind-rays that are emanating from the Dept. of State. They have a profound effect on the weak-minded - not that you are weak-minded, I’m just guessing that you are.

“This nonsense is unworthy of my time.”

That’s because you’ve got no game. You can’t hang, you’ve shot your wad, you are the last wheezing loser limping across the finish line.

Now if you want to address my points in previous posts with arguments that contain words other than “Legislation” or “State Department”, then I’ll be here.