Your mama's an astronaut, and your wife dresses you funny.
Besides, you seem to be one of my most devoted fans today, and I'd hardly want to disappoint kids like you forever {grin}
No comment.
And I did so even though, as with Congressional "fact-finding" ad infinitum going back to the Vietnam War days, I really don't give two hoots in hell about what, exactly, these posturing non-entities do when they go abroad.
Sure you do. You're responding, aren't you?
You asked, repeating it with a verbal pout, thus evidently forgetting that some of us don't sit around here all day waiting to add to FReeper threads -- since we have to find new clients or otherwise work for a living:
You should really speak on what you know to be a fact, but I digress.
And I replied that I cannot answer any such question without first knowing his remarks more fully quoted and in context. Something you clearly disdain. Nonetheless, I decided to compensate for not yet having seen a news outlet that quoted him in reasonable context. Besides, the search interested me.
Yes, we must make sure we quote Democrats in context.
I suspected that the New York Times was a likely prospect. I had missed seeing the FR posting of the relevant story. FR does not have full-text search yet, and -- from long, sad experience -- I can trust neither the titles used, nor the story text, nor the keywords to be either accurate or helpful. Thus I had to find the story via Google News.
Why, you should now go to the head of the class!
Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period.
We're about to find out.
Do I agree with him on this? Yes, if he means what I suspect. As I've heard with others, I suspect he is glossing the difference between "misinformation," for unintentionally misleading, and "disinformation," for deliberate deception. I sense McDermott's meaning is closer to the former, especially from what follows.
I figured as much. But let's see...
Do I agree with him on this? Yes, if he means what I suspect. As I've heard with others, I suspect he is glossing the difference between "misinformation," for unintentionally misleading, and "disinformation," for deliberate deception. I sense McDermott's meaning is closer to the former, especially from what follows.
Of course, you know the difference at all times. You genious, you.
Do I agree with him on this? Yes. It wouldn't surprise me, either -- since Bush's people already have done so. Iraq, like any despotism (even under a nominal republic), is certainly not transparent. And as to the side-shift, that has happened with Administration spokesmen on the same day, and is undeniable.
Extra-large tinfoil is needed here. There was no "shift." Al Qaeda is definitely linked with Hussein, which places them in the same camp. Not that that fact would deter you.
Do I agree with him on this? I can't say, because he's using a Clintonian weasel-word here. (Which is what I thought even after the few sound-bites of this I'd read in print, until this evening.) "Would" can suggest that Bush is capable of misleading. With that I would entirely agree, and that can be either deliberate or not.
Such a sly fox you are! You know to avoid quicksand, don't you?
"Would" can, however, also suggest a likelihood that Bush is misleading. With that I would disagree. I don't see any Machiavellian plan to do so. I don't think Bush is either venal or intelligent enough, frankly, to be capable of doing so consciously. I think some of his advisors are capable of it, though, from past behavior -- especially Rumsfeld, who's letting Wolfowitz and Perle run amuck.
I see. The President has no gravitas. And you're different from a Democrat how?
Do I agree with him on this? Yes. They certainly can come up with an arrangement. I wouldn't count on its being kept in force for long, though. It's giving another go-round for the U.N., but that's what Bush did in his speech, as well, so this government can hardly object. (Rationally, that is. Even Colin Powell got nearly rabid in his objections yesterday.)
So now you're a Saddam apologist. Would that everyone here in the United States could get the same benefit of the doubt from you. I won't hold my breath, however.
Do I agree with him on this? No. An inspection regime that is not backed up with some minimal firepower is likely to be no improvement, from what I've read about how the rounds in 1996-98 failed. (That is, with how Clinton let them fail.)
Inspections will fail, period. Thought you thought. But you'll still lend Saddam the benefit of the doubt.
So to sum up my agreement with five distinct statements, as I can reasonably see them in some context, from McDermott: Yes. Yes. He's too f%&!ing obscure to decide. Yes. No. ... About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
"Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period."
About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
"Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period."
About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
"Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period."
Huh?
That's not as simple as you wanted, and it doesn't satisfy your tantrum, but if you're still put out by my reply (which is the last you either deserve or will get), I have four words for you: JOIN THE REAL WORLD!
Actually, it was as "simple" as I thought it would be. Walking between the raindrops. You gave me those four words?
Okay, let me let you in on something. Go throughout this thread from the very beginning. I asked you a question. I didn't attack your person. I asked a question. But what do we have here in this reply? But I can take that. No biggie. Just know that when you swing at me, you'd better duck. And no more words from you? That's a pleasure. I hate conversing with traitors anyway.
So, I call your "four words" and raise you three more: GO TO HELL.
No difference. He gets his talking points from the NY Times.
So now you're a Saddam apologist.
Yup. A Saddamite!
Would that everyone here in the United States could get the same benefit of the doubt from you.
That's what burns me about these blame-America-first folks. Here they live in the greatest country in the world, living abundantly off the fruits of capitalism, liberty, and the rule of law, with the freedom to speak whatever they choose, and they choose to speak lies about great Americans and defend terrorist tyrants who would as soon kill them just for being a citizen of these United States.
Very much unlike Greybird the apologist, Saddam the terroist, Clinton the rapist, Hillary the health care specialist, Gore the ever-changing, Bob the Torch, Ed Kennedy the swimmer, KKK Bird, Reno the child snatcher, et al ad infinitum,
Now, now...you two should get married.
I admit though, I haven't seen stepping this graceful since the Fred Astair/Ginger Rogers movies.
Y'all have a nice day.