imported post
Spank That Donkey wrote:
Donkey:
All I had to read was faulty intelligence and scooter Libby... A scandal that has been totally debunked!
. . .
the french said that Saddaam had WMD... come on, that is an old tired horse. The fact of the matter is Webb is wrong on Iraq, and "W" was right... I give you
. . .
Webb was against the first Gulf War, and against this war. He was against deployment of Pershing MRBM in Europe (opposed Reagan). This guy lacks all strategic thinking skills.
The War in Iraq is "forward defense", which is why we have troops permanently stationed in Europe and Asia today . . . We are executing a forward defense in Iraq, whereby the bad guys concentrate and fight our best troops over there!!
If we hadn't gone into Iraq, which happens to put 140K soldiers on the border of Iran and Syria, the even bigger culprits of terroism, they would be using their resources infliltrating our borders!! . . . .
Ya know Cousin, there are differences between a rationalization and "strategic thinking" and between thinking not thinking at all.
So all you needed to see was "Scooter Libby" and "faulty intelligence" and you didn't have to read further because the "scandal" was "totally debunked?"
Well, though the program does touch on the Valarie Plame affair, it does so only tangentally: what it is mainly about is WMD and the way Cheney forced the intelligence to support the war. The evidence comes primarily from top administration and former CIA officials.
Spanky, you are now experiencing an "intelligence failure" because of your continuing refusal to look at the data.
Now I would be happy to continue the debate you are trying to start here as to whether or not Bush's strategy of "forward defense" -- which you say involves permanently stationing troups in Iraq -- is truly brilliant strategic thinking, or the abject stupidity which appears, if 1. you had actually done me the courtesy of reviewing the Frontline program I referenced and 2. it involved firearms or 3. this debate was on your web site: but as I suggested before, "Open Carry" has certain rules:
And I do not think that you are arguing that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms covers intermediate range nuclear weapons -- or the right to carry a Pershing II in your holster (kind of an uncomfortable carry, ain't it?) . . . or is it that 2A trumps the INF treaty?
And Spanks, I am a bit distressed by the Machiavellian attitude you seem to be getting into yesterday with: "this can be such a close election.. and with all the dirty tricks . . . the NRA is going to do what is best for them and 2A."
(Strictly speaking, this is not going to be a close election on "the 2A" because whomever wins -- as the NRA now acknowledges -- the Second Amendment is going to have a strong supporter in the Senate. I argue above that the Bill of Rights in general and civil enforcement of 2A would be better off if Webb wins)
So you are now trying to justify dirty tricks in the name of winning an election?
Oh whatever happened to that Virginia gentlemen I once thought I knew?!
I am delighted that you found us at Open Carry, but I expect scruples, Spanky: you will find yourself without a donkey to spank on this issue unless I am satisfied that you have actually watched the Frontline episode I am now giving you for the third time:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
and if -- in discussing it -- we are not tresspassing on somebody else's site.
So watch the program folks, and join us for a lively debate at spankthatdonkey.com
The Donkey