Several commenters at her place assert …

WRONG. It is ONE commentor, using 3 different names. I checked the IP address, they are all the same.

Also, according to Sadly, No, it is a still from a movie, not as my commentor suggested, a photograph used in a movie. I haven’t actually SEEN the movie, of course, but maybe I’ll see if it’s on Netflix just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Look, I highly doubt the credibility of this person’s claims:

1-They provided zero verification for their claim, no links, nothing;

2-They were dishonest enough to post on the same thread using three different names, giving the impression that they were three different people;

3- They implied that they are in the Middle East (”our part of the world”) when their IP address shows they are in Alexandria, VA.

Kat, I’m surprised this is an issue over here at MCB. I don’t as a rule delete the comments of people who post at my blog, I frankly don’t have enough of them to worry about it, but this person was obviously a troll and I’m surprised you’d give them the time of day, let alone repeat what could easily be fabrications in an MCB post.

What is pathetic to me is that people are arguing over one picture when there are plenty of others available that do indeed show women being stoned to death in Iran and other Islamic nations. A quick google search I just did turned up a video, which, needless to say, is not for the faint of heart.

Whether the photo is a movie or a real event, stoning is still going on in many Islamic cultures, and it is a barbaric and completely abhorrent practice.

WRONG. It is ONE commentor, using 3 different names. I checked the IP address, they are all the same.

For those who play IP detective you need to remember that many people may share the same IP. Be it that they work at the same company or use the same Proxy Server.

All you really know is they came from the same IP. You cannot prove they are sock puppets. Why would you assert that?

People do get stoned to death. One of your commenters wrote, “THAT is why you have people baragging you…because I told them to give them a piece of their mind. Just to show that you American leftists will do and say anything to support the Islamo-Imperialists.”

I can understand why they would be pissed. You are calling them liars. I think you need a refresher on the fiction vs. reality meme.

I do not understand American Islamo-Imperialists apologizers.

What next, the Daniel Pearl beheading was fake? Get a grip. My guess is you are not a supporter of Israel. Better not let Sharon know, you will have one less on your lunch card.

Whether the photo is a movie or a real event, stoning is still going on in many Islamic cultures, and it is a barbaric and completely abhorrent practice.

Indeed, and my original post made that clear. Women are abused all around the world, including right here at home. It is not unique to Muslim nations or the Islamic faith, and to try to peddle this farce wingnuts call “Islamo-Fascism” under some kind of banner of women’s rights is abhorrent.

I said I could not prove their allegations, but found them believable. I don’t understand where the harm is in that.

There are many films, paintings and novels which are based on real situations that inspire their creators. Trolls or not–and I had no way to check the IP addresses–I found their counterassertion to be believable.

[…] Southern Beale is doing what Southern Beale does. Beale believes the radical Islamic fanatics don’t stone people to death. Because. Just because. Kat, I’m surprised this is an issue over here at MCB. I don’t as a rule delete the comments of people who post at my blog, I frankly don’t have enough of them to worry about it, but this person was obviously a troll and I’m surprised you’d give them the time of day, let alone repeat what could easily be fabrications in an MCB post. […]

It is not unique to Muslim nations or the Islamic faith

Stoning is absolutely unique to the muslim faith. In fact, the Quran is used as justification for it.

to try to peddle this farce wingnuts call “Islamo-Fascism” under some kind of banner of women’s rights is abhorrent.

You are seriously equivocating womens rights in Islamic nations to those in Western nations?

You have got to be kidding me.

You are seriously equivocating womens rights in Islamic nations to those in Western nations?

No I’m saying wingnuts are trying to make hatred of Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples a women’s rights issue.

I’m saying wingnuts are trying to make hatred of Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples a women’s rights issue.

That’s an awful long walk from where you started. The leftists who claimed that the photo was a fake were making the argument, much as you did, that this shows that we as westerners are overblowing the threat from “Islamofascism”. What they, and you, both seem to ignore is the fact that the threat is not overblown at all. I don’t hate “Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples”, but you’re damn right that I support actions that support womens rights in Islamic nations. Women in Afghanistan are much better off now thanks to the military efforts from coalition forces. Stoning is now illegal.

Please spare me this cartoon characterization of “wingnuts” hating all the “evul brown people”. You sound ridiculous.

Trolls or not–and I had no way to check the IP addresses–I found their counterassertion to be believable…

You did? The assertion that the photo was given to the film maker, and was not a film STILL, was believable to you? Considering the language this person used, calling me a “fuckwit” and a “fascist” and the other volatile things they said, you felt they had enough credibility to re-post their comment onto MCB’s front page?

So, can I just write any old thing I like in the comments? How about:

“No it’s NOT a photo! I used to live in the Netherlands back in 1992 and I worked on “De Steen”! It was a grueling film shoot. I was Mahnaz Tamizi’s first assistant. I spent hours digging that hole to put that actress in it.

“That conservatives are reprinting that photo to advertise their “Islamo Fascism Awareness Week” is a violation of copyright. And I want my money now.”

There. Will that make it onto the front page as a counter-view?

Look, Tman is right. There are plenty of REAL cases that someone can point to, why make one up? Could it be that the idea of an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” is as repulsive to the people they are purporting to help as it is to the rest of us?

No I’m saying wingnuts are trying to make hatred of Muslims and Middle Eastern peoples a women’s rights issue.

You are one of the most partisanly prejudice people I have ever read.

But I do like your “fiction vs. reality” memes. I needed a laugh today.

Women in Afghanistan are much better off now thanks to the military efforts from coalition forces. Stoning is now illegal.

Well, it would be if our troops weren’t busy in Iraq — a country, incidentally, where women DID have rights, until the country dissolved into civil war.

The assertion that the photo was given to the film maker, and was not a film STILL, was believable to you?

That’s not what I said. I believe it could be a film still of a re-enactment of the original photograph.

you felt they had enough credibility to re-post their comment onto MCB’s front page?

It was a spur to my own discussion, so yes. I posted it and said it couldn’t be verified.

Oh, and by the way, I’m as offended by the term “wingnut” as you are by “democrat” so you may want to dial it back a little.

I really think you showed poor judgment in posting a non-verifiable comment from a thread on my blog .

And I’m not offended by the term “Democrat” in fact I’m a proud Democrat. It’s when people say “Democrat Party” that I get offended.

I used “wingnut” to refer to the fringe far-right, because I don’t believe all conservatives buy into the “Islamo-Fascist” stuff, and I’m quite certain not all Republicans do. I was actually trying to keep from offending all conservatives. You can’t win for losing.

I suppose I could say the “far right fringe of the conservative movement” but frankly that was too many words to type.

Well, it would be if our troops weren’t busy in Iraq — a country, incidentally, where women DID have rights, until the country dissolved into civil war.

Are you arguing that women in Afghanistan were better off under the Taliban?

And then you make the argument that women were better off UNDER A FARKING DICTATOR WHOSE SONS RAPED WOMEN FOR FUN????!!?!!!

Sobeale, I suggest that when you find yourslef in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

I used “wingnut” to refer to the fringe far-right, because I don’t believe all conservatives buy into the “Islamo-Fascist” stuff, and I’m quite certain not all Republicans do. I was actually trying to keep from offending all conservatives. You can’t win for losing.

Bull. Don’t even. I don’t know if you understand how shrill you come off as.

I suppose I could say the “far right fringe of the conservative movement” but frankly that was too many words to type.

Make it a macro. You do need to type it out.

People do not view you as an open minded person.

I really think you showed poor judgment in posting a non-verifiable comment from a thread on my blog .

Well, we’ll just have to accept your criticism no matter how much we disagree.

Are you arguing that women in Afghanistan were better off under the Taliban?

No of course not, but the marvelous freedoms women in Afghanistan have supposedly gained have not materialized. The Taliban has made quite a comeback, and the women are as terrorized as ever. It’s certainly not the shining example people wish it were.

And the sad thing is, it could have been. If we’d been allowed to stay in Afghanistan and finish the job, instead of following George’s folly in Iraq. But we don’t have near the troops we need, there’s been little attention paid to any of the diplomatic and political things that need to be done, and the women there are as oppressed as ever.

I suppose I could say the “far right fringe of the conservative movement” but frankly that was too many words to type.

I think it would rock if everybody (myself included) would use that phrase instead of other negative stereotypical labels.

The Taliban has made quite a comeback, and the women are as terrorized as ever.

Where are you learning this? The all bad news channel? Here are a few highlights that put to rest any notion that women are “just as as oppressed as ever”.

On March 3, 2005, President Hamid Karzai appointed Afghanistan’s first ever-female provincial governor. Governor Habiba Sorabi assumed her post as governor of central Bamiyan Province on March 23, 2005. Habiba Sarobi previously served as Minister for Women’s Affairs. Her appointment is part of a national initiative to promote women to positions of power.

You’re digging that hole so deep I can barely even see you.
RAWA Celebrates the International Women’s Day
March 9, 2007 - Kabul

and on and on….

Where are you learning this?

Well, they don’t cover it on Fox News, but here’s one place to start: Sept. 13, 2006:

Afghanistan: After 5 years, a forgotten war?

But five years on, the war is far from over. The Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Al Qaeda continues to metastasize into lethal cells from London to Lahore. And bin Laden has remained out of reach.

Oh yeah, where’s Osama? Sept. 26, 2007: Bin Laden may have just escaped U.S. forces

“Still, some in the special operations and intelligence community are telling NBC News that there was a lack of coordination particularly in the choice of support troops. But with intelligence limited on who was there, no one is willing to say that the lack of key units permitted Bin Laden or Zawahiri to escape.”

“But the bigger part of the picture is the question of allocation of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. All Delta Force and “dark side” Rangers were moved to Iraq, said a special operations officer involved in the Afghanistan operation. Left behind in Afghanistan were SEAL Team Six and some Rangers. But apparently in this case, not enough “dark side” were available. The 82nd, said a second special operations officer, “is a poor substitute … [it is] a blunder to use them on an op with dark side operators.”

And then for the women’s issue: March, 2007: AFGHANISTAN: Women’s hopes for equality fade

Women’s rights have fallen down the agenda behind countering a growing insurgency, tackling opium production and confronting endemic corruption.
“Day by day the government’s support for women’s development fades,” said Hangama Anwari, a member of Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

In 2006, more than 1,650 cases of violence against women were registered with AIHRC.

And more than 550 women reported severe beatings and about 120 are documented as having committed suicide either by burning themselves to death or overdosing on painkillers.

While the Taliban are condemned for their treatment of women, the AIHRC recorded more cases of violence against women in the capital, Kabul, and in the western province of Herat than in Kandahar – once a Taliban stronghold.

——–

OK I’ve more than taken up my allotted time and space at MCB today. Gotta run. But just some thoughts to chew on …

Ya know, I really dislike tu quoque arguments. I’m kind of amused at who is calling whom closed-minded and all, but, eh, there’s enough pots and kettles jumping into this thread to stock a whole kitchen, so everyone is even.

But the condition of Afghan women is a topic dear to my heart. I tried to be an activist on this issue considerably before 2001, when the world was shocked, shocked to find out how badly they were being treated. And, unlike Tman, who probably wouldn’t quote RAWA if he knew what they stand for (they take a mainly Marxist approach to things), I read their website. Y’all might want to take a look at their actual Statement on International Women’s Day , which begins: The world came into motion in the name of “liberating Afghan woman” and our country was invaded, but the sorrows and deprivations of Afghan women has not just failed to reduce, but actually increased the level of oppression and brutality day by day on this most ruined population of our society and goes on to condemn the gov’t’s tokenism in appointing women to visible political positions but not actually doing anything to improve women’s lives. You might also want to take a look at the collection of links on their home page under the heading Reality of life in so-called “liberated” Afghanistan. Some of them are pretty chilling.

Sorry, I can never get links to work on my comments at MCB. The home page is at http://www.rawa.org/index.php and the Statement on Int’l Women’s Day is at http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm

Sobeale,

Nothing you posted is proof that women are “just as oppressed as ever”. In fact, one of the things you posted shows that at least now they actually keep records of women being abused as opposed to it being so systemic that is was pointless to do so.

Your arguments that women in Afghanistan are “just as oppressed as ever thanks to Bush/Cheney/Iraq/Haliburton/Blackwater/Rethuglicans/Rush/NOBLOODFOROIL!!!”…ahem, excuse me got a little carried away.

Seriously, I’m not saying things are perfect in Afghnistan, but to say that they are just as oppressed as they were when the Taliban were in power is ridiculous.

nm,

Do you think that women are better or worse off in terms of individual rights without the Taliban in power?

Wingnuts, kind conservative people, or a threat to mankind?

Story at five on the Southern Beale show.

There is a cure for partisan poisoning, it is called objectivity. Try some.

Tman, your question, as phrased, is odd, since the Taliban are in power in most of Afghanistan, and contro the lives of most of the women in the country. In practical terms, most of the women in most areas of the country are worse off than they were before we invaded. The incidence of rape seems to be much higher than it was before 2001, and (since, um, the Taliban is back in power) women who stepped forward to heal, educate, and assist other women are highly vulnerable to really atrocious physical attacks, as are the girls and women who stepped forward to try to get educated or start businesses during the short period the Taliban were gone. Worse, everything they did in that short time has been completely discredited as a failed set of ideas.

Is this what we meant to happen? Emphatically not. But driving the Taliban out of its strongholds and then removing our troops to go fight in another country wasn’t exactly what those of us who supported an invasion of Afghanistan had in mind when we supported it. We had in mind a full military victory, commitment of economic and diplomatic resources to help the country rebuild (there has been a war on there more or less constantly for more than 20 years), and the other things that you don’t start a war without meaning to carry through.

The Taliban is an awful gang of people. And if our country was really doing something to combat them and their message, I’d be cheering like crazy. But please, use a little consistency in your arguments. Taliban Afghanistan isn’t Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, or Turkey, or even Iraq before we invaded there, where women could expect pretty much the same treatment and mistreatment as in any western state. You want to yell about the Taliban? I’m right there with you. But they don’t represent Islam, opposition to the invasion of Iraq isn’t support for them, and if you really wanted to help Afghani women you’d be calling for getting our troops out of Iraq and back into Afghanistant stat.

the Taliban are in power in most of Afghanistan, and contro the lives of most of the women in the country.

Not true. At All. Do you have anything to back this assertion up at all?

Here are some news stories that refute the assertion that Afghanistan is backsliding-

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-karzai27sep27,1,2852831.story?coll=la-headlines-world

“Karzai said the liberation of Afghanistan is often overlooked these days.

“I don’t know if you feel it in the United States but we feel it immensely in Afghanistan,” Karzai said. “Afghanistan has indeed made progress,” he said, citing improvements in basic services such as roads and education. ”

The taliban is not back in power whatsoever, and everytime they fight coalition forces they get spanked.

The other argument that moving US Troops to Iraq somehow undercut our commitment to Afghanistan is also jollow considering the fact that there are several other nations troops in Afghanistan right now. The problems in Afghanistan would not be solved anytime sooner by sending more US troops there.

And where are you getting these rape statistics? The taliban certainly didn’t keep records like this when they were in power, how can you compare it to now?

To tell you guys the truth…. I consider SoBeale and Number9 both to be wing nuts. No offense intended, but it is what it is.

The taliban is not back in power whatsoever…

Then why must the Red Cross negotiate with them to get back their three kidnapped workers?

“Spokesmen for the hardline Islamic Taliban movement, which has kidnapped several Afghans and foreigners in Afghanistan, initially flatly denied their network was involved.

But one, Zabihullah Mujahid, said Friday that the movement was still getting in touch with all its allies in Wardak province to see if any were involved.

“We have contacted almost all mujahedin (holy fighters) active in Wardak area and they reported that they don’t know yet who abducted the Red Cross employees,” he told AFP.

“But we still cannot totally rule out the possibility they might have been kidnapped by some Taliban group.”

Mujahid said that if Taliban had captured the International Committee of the Red Cross men, they would be immediately released with no conditions.
“The Red Cross has a good background in Afghanistan and we must cooperate with them. They must not be harmed by any side of the conflict,” he said.

Mangal said the Red Cross had asked authorities to refrain from military action to free the four for their own safety.”

Sobeale,

If the crips kidnapped three inner city volunteer health workers, would you say that they are the ones in power?

Your reasoning seems a little strange.

Kidnapping isn’t something a group that is holding power “throughout most of the country” would need to do.

For those who play IP detective you need to remember that many people may share the same IP.

The likelihood that they were all using the exact same proxy is slim to none. How many Virginia-based companies have you heard of that have branches in Iran? Heck of alot of cable to run to set up a single network that reaches from Iran to VA. Either that or one powerful wireless router.

Sounds to me like you’re going WAY out of your way to defend an internet troll.

Kidnapping isn’t something a group that is holding power “throughout most of the country” would need to do.

Really? How do you know? When was the last time you were in a civil war? Karzai is an American puppet with little control beyond the capital. Warlords are still in control of the rest of the country. It’s still a WAR. The opium crop is booming, drug trade has fueled massive corruption in the government.

It’s not just America’s fault, NATO and the UN screwed up too, but the bottom line is, it ain’t chocolate and roses there.

Voice of America news, 2 hours ago:

NATO: Gains in Afghanistan Could be Lost to Taleban

The top NATO commander in Afghanistan says hardfought gains by alliance troops this year could be lost, if Afghan security forces fail to hold ground seized from the Taleban.

In a British radio interview (BBC), U.S. General Dan McNeill said NATO forces have had success this year in driving Taleban fighters from the valleys of Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province.

But McNeill says the Afghan national security forces have not been as successful in holding the captured territory. He says there is a chance the Taleban could return to the area in coming months, forcing NATO troops to do the clearing work again.

The NATO forces in the opium-producing southern province are mostly British troops. They say they have recaptured much of the Helmand River valley from the Taleban over the last six months.

Here’s another news story, today’s Boston Globe:

Attacks by Taliban increase, approach Afghanistan capital

Seen capitalizing on public concern, weak government

KABUL, Afghanistan - Preying on a weak government and rising public concerns about security, the Taliban are enjoying a military resurgence in Afghanistan and are now staging attacks just outside the capital, according to Western diplomats, private security analysts, and aid workers.

Of particular concern, private security and intelligence analysts said, is the new reach of the Taliban to the provinces ringing Kabul, headquarters for thousands of international security troops. Those troops are seeking to shore up the government of President Hamid Karzai, help stabilize the country, find Osama bin Laden, and rebuild a nation deeply scarred by almost three decades of warfare. So far, they have had only mixed success.
“The Taliban ability to sustain fighting cells north and south of Kabul is an ominous development and a significant lapse in security,” said a recent analysis by NightWatch, an intelligence review written by John McCreary, a former top analyst at the US Defense Intelligence Agency.
While the number of attacks around the capital has been small compared with the number of attacks in other areas of the country, McCreary wrote, the data showed that the Taliban this summer “held the psychological initiative. They still lack the ability to threaten the government, but moved closer to achieving it than they have in six years.”

Analyses by the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, a project funded by the European Commission to advise private aid groups about security conditions across the country, found “a significant monthly escalation in conflict” in the first half of the year. Attacks by armed opposition groups increased from 139 in January to 405 in July, according to the project’s director, Nic Lee.
“Every month there’s a 20 to 25 percent increase in offensive activity,” he said, adding that attacks in June and July were 80 percent to 90 percent higher than in the same period last year, showing a general escalation in the conflict, rather than seasonal fluctuations.
“Attacks have spread across the entire southeast border area, with a rapid escalation in the east, and in the last four months in the center” around Kabul as well, Lee said. “These guys have the strategic intent to take back the country.”

the bottom line is, it ain’t chocolate and roses there.

I never said it was Sobeale. I am simply refuting your argument that women “as oppressed as ever” since the Taliban got routed.

And by the way, “warlords” does not necessarily mean “Taliban”. The Taliban are not in control in most of the country, and women are better off than they were when they were in power throughout most on the country.

I may not be an expert in military analysis, but I don’t see how capturing three unarmed red cross workers equates in to “control of most of the country”.

Sobeale,

The links you give only further prove my point.

While the number of attacks around the capital has been small compared with the number of attacks in other areas of the country, McCreary wrote, the data showed that the Taliban this summer “held the psychological initiative. They still lack the ability to threaten the government, but moved closer to achieving it than they have in six years.”

How many Virginia-based companies have you heard of that have branches in Iran? Heck of alot of cable to run to set up a single network that reaches from Iran to VA. Either that or one powerful wireless router.

Stop, you’re hurting me. My ribs hurt. Whew, I haven’t laughed that hard since the last Chris Rock HPO special.

You really believe there is a cable between Iran and Virgina?

You mean like tubes? Do you know anything about the Internet?

You really believe there is a cable between Iran and Virgina?

Oh the irony.

Tman, let me ask you this: if the government isn’t in control of these portions of Afghanistan, and the Taliban isn’t in control, then just who is?

And by the way, “warlords” does not necessarily mean “Taliban”.

Except when it does.

The Taliban are not in control in most of the country, and women are better off than they were when they were in power throughout most on the country.

And rainbows and candy-coated ponies gallop through the opium fields.

Okie dokie.

if the government isn’t in control of these portions of Afghanistan, and the Taliban isn’t in control, then just who is?

Afghanistan has many different tribal leaders which control each of their respective regions. I was educated about this by two friends of mine who have done four tours there. They stated that Afghanistan, outside of Kabul, is like Texas in the sense that there is no centralized governing body. The “northern alliance” for instance controls parts of the country. There are other trobal leaders that control other parts. And yes, the taliban has control of certain parts as well (mostly along the border with Pakistan). But by no means do the Taliban control “most of the country”.

You have presented zero evidence that women in Afghanistan are “just as oppressed as ever” while I have given you several examples that show that women are better off than they were under tha Taliban. I even showed you where they elected a woman to higher office, something that wouldn’t even be considered in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

Your points are weak and without merit.

Afghanistan, outside of Kabul, is like Texas in the sense that there is no centralized governing body.

That explains so much.

ou have presented zero evidence that women in Afghanistan are “just as oppressed as ever”

No, NM and I both provided you with several links that you are free to follow. NM also wrote a very pointed post about women in post-invasion and pre-invasion Afghanistan.

Can you dig your way out of this Beale? If this was a chess game I would call this the “Dig to China” gambit.

I suggest the Chewbacca defense.

SB, (digging sound) SB! (digging sound) SB!!!

You’ve made two bold assertions, neither of which are supported by data. Congrats that nm stood by you to some degree. Your post may have exposed some overzealous, gullible or manipulative “wingnuts” and their efforts to use an image to advance their cause, but it is ironic for you to hate the message because you hate the messenger. I am incredulous that you think that there is some plot to smear Jihadists. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq is one thing, but do you think Mussad pulled off the 9/11 attacks and is behind the “insurgency” in Iraq?

OddInteger proves the wingnut truism: Declare victory, but never leave the battlefield!
.

NM and I both provided you with several links that you are free to follow.

Id did, and those links did nothing to prove that women are “just as oppressed as ever”. In fact, they prove quite the opposite.

NM also wrote a very pointed post about women in post-invasion and pre-invasion Afghanistan.

That post also contained ZERO evidence that women are “just as oppressed as ever”. It also stated that the Taliban are in control of most of the country, and that is complete and total rubbish. I appreciate nm’s passion for the plight of the women in Afghanistan, but question her knowledge of the situation if she truly believes that the Taliban is in control of most of the country.

And I still don’t know where she is getting rape statistics to compare to from the Taliban considering they did not keep these records.

Sorry, I’ve been busy a bit–didn’t expect that on a Friday afternoon, but there you go. I get my stats from humanitarian aid organizations, mostly. And from RAWA. I’m afraid I don’t have time to provide links right now. Do some googling on Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, UN. I have to run now.

I have been given my walking papers by Beale.

Plus, I have been instructed to read her mind:

“Of course not, and I still do. I had no idea that’s what the definition of a sock puppet is. Next time you put words in my mouth, at least make sure I know what they mean, OK?”

Does telepathy even work?

Second day on the job and I have already lost a reader. What would Brittney do?

[Name Calling Deleted–I’m not even sure to whom this nickname was referring. Probably either me or Ned, I guess.]

Wow! Where do you find the time to be so wrong, so often?

TMan:

Lovely, non-sequitir, Peewee Hermanesque, “I know you are, so what am I” comments masquerading as logic. The Taliban are no more of control in Afghanistan than the Viet Cong were in Vietnam. However, they do a great job of making it impossible for anyone to be in control in any meaningful way. Hamid Karzai is finding out that regardless of who backs a puppet government in Afghanistan that the puppets power will only extend so far as the reach of his handlers firepower.

but it is ironic for you to hate the message because you hate the messenger.

Again, if you read the actual post you would see that I said: “Yes, there’s still plenty of abuse of women going on the Middle East as, indeed, it occurss all around the world — including, believe it or not, right here in the USA.”

Now, how exactly is this hating the message? It’s verbatim what I wrote in my post, down to the typo. If you’re going to spend all day arguing with my about one of my posts, at least read the dang thing, not Kat’s 2 sentence excerpt.

I think calling for an “Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week” is not exactly solving the problem faced by women in Afghanistan or anywhere else. I think it’s hate-mongering, baiting people based on their religion, and then trying to disguise it as a women’s rights campaign. Reprehensible.

Tman seems hung up on the words “JUST AS BAD.” Try to remove yourself from the semantics argument for a moment and tell me, based on what you’ve read, how you think the women in Afghanistan are doing. You say they are better than before? How much better? Everywhere? Or just in Kabul? I say things haven’t improved. I say it’s “just as bad.” Do we know for sure? Can we?

Since, as you say, the Taliban didn’t keep records of rape (but did the UN? Did Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? The Red Cross?), we can’t really debate that point on your terms.

I do know that the information we do have about Afghanistan is sad. You write: Women in Afghanistan are much better off now thanks to the military efforts from coalition forces. Stoning is now illegal.” and I say they’re still oppressed.

Last year the Taliban assassinated women’s rights activist Safia Amajan.

The Afghanistan International Human Rights Commission has more.

http://www.aihrc.org.af/

Don’t argue with me about “JUST AS MUCH” and “JUST AS BAD.” Quit wasting time with that. If you care so much about the women of Afghanistan (and I wonder, do you? Or are you just enjoying the argument?) then why don’t you get on the phone and tell your Senators you want our troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan where they are needed.

Just a thought.

Tman seems hung up on the words “JUST AS BAD.”

Yep, hung up I am.

I say things haven’t improved. I say it’s “just as bad.” Do we know for sure? Can we?

I have given you several examples that show things that women are able to do now, without the Taliban in power, that they coudln’t have DREAMED of doing when the Tliban were in power- running for office and going to school for instance. By definition, this is not “just as bad”.

Last year the Taliban assassinated women’s rights activist Safia Amajan.

When they were in power they killed women daily for doing things like not wearing a sack over their heads, or getting raped. Now the Taliban is not in power, and they are trying to influence things by assassinating people. Are things perfect? Of course not. But to say that womens rights haven’t improved flies in the face of the evidence I’ve presented.

Don’t argue with me about “JUST AS MUCH” and “JUST AS BAD.” Quit wasting time with that.

If you don’t want me to argue with those points, then don’t make them.

If you care so much about the women of Afghanistan (and I wonder, do you? Or are you just enjoying the argument?) then why don’t you get on the phone and tell your Senators you want our troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan where they are needed.

More troops would not fix the problems on the ground in Afghanistan as my friends who have toured there would tell you. The problem isn’t that we can’t defeat the Taliban militarily, the problem is that Afghanistan is not a centrally controlled nation. There is literally A SINGLE ROAD that connnects most of the country. Most parts of Afghanistan are there own entities, and have little contact with the outside world.

But I know the ultimate reason you are making this argument, to discredit Bush and the war in Iraq. You’ve pretty much stated the reason that you think things are “just as bad” is because of Bush taking troops to Iraq.

And this is simply wrong. Whatever problems Afghanistan has are a result of the people causing the problems(ie. the Taliban), not the lack of US troops.

In all candor, I think you feel compelled to hate the message because you cannot bear to concede a single point on the issue. You could still make a persuasive argument against the war in Iraq without taking such absurd positions.

Why not redeploy? Perhaps it’s a good idea, but right now it may not be possible. But it certainly isn’t a good idea just because it is “something that Dubya is disinclined or unable to do.” It’s hard for me to look past over-the-top statements like “oppressed in the ME just like they are everywhere else in the world” and “the Afghani gov’t is a puppet gov’t” and “the taliban is in control of Afghanistan” and “using the term Islamo-fascism is hate-mongering” and “people only care about women’s rights as a cover for their war-for-oil” (these are paraphrases, mind you).

It’s hard for me to look past over-the-top statements ..

And yet, so many of them are facts. But you assign words and ideas to me (one example being, “I am incredulous that you think that there is some plot to smear Jihadists,” I do? Where did I say that?) and expect me to take no offense.

Seriously, are in in favor of an Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week? Do you think the term “Islamo-Fascist” is helpful in bringing peace to the Middle East?

Tman seems hung up on the words “JUST AS BAD.”

Yep, hung up I am

Well, grow up. Have a conversation like an adult.

I can’t believe I wasted almost an entire freaking day on MCB debating your circular logic on this. If I didn’t have an appointment at 3:00 I’d probably still be beating my head against that brick wall.

Remind me never to do this again.

You know, I have a confession to make, I didn’t go to your site . . . I’m just denuding your comments at MCB. So now you’re not attacking “wingnuts” for foisting the illusion of Islamo-fascism on the populace but rather not doing their part to advance peace in the Middle East (and using condemnation of condemnable acts as evidence of their pugnacity)? I meant no offense, but do you really think there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism? If so, is it because you think even Taliban-ers aren’t deserving of being lumped together with the world’s chief fascist, Dubya?

And regarding “facts” (or “so many of them” being facts), which ones? They’re over-the-top, SB. Things aren’t perfect in the U.S., but women aren’t being “oppressed” anywhere near the way that they are in most parts of the Middle East. Period.

Things aren’t perfect in the Afghanistan, but the taliban is NOT in control of the country.

The gov’t in Afghanistan has it’s problems, but does it merit the pejorative label “puppet gov’t”?

You need to just admit that your rhetoric was over-the-top today and you can avoid wasting any more time attempting to defend it.

Sobeale,

So you play the “I’m taking my ball and going home” game, and then call me immature?

Whatever.

I can’t believe I wasted almost an entire freaking day on MCB debating your circular logic on this. If I didn’t have an appointment at 3:00 I’d probably still be beating my head against that brick wall.

Remind me never to do this again.

Attack of the Birkenstock Passive Aggressive. Beale is sensitive. Most professional victims are.

And yet, so many of them are facts. But you assign words and ideas to me (one example being, “I am incredulous that you think that there is some plot to smear Jihadists,” I do? Where did I say that?) and expect me to take no offense.

Ut oh, the accusation of “putting words” in her mouth. That’s nothing. Not only did she accuse me over on the other side of town of “putting words’ in her mouth Beale also accused me of not being able to read her mind.

Which of course, I cannot do. It is difficult to satisfy some readers.

I think you are close to being delisted on Southern California Beale’s blog.

This was a fascinating exercise. Over at SayUncle we don’t get many passive aggressive types. It has been a circular experience I won’t soon forget.

Meanwhile, in todays news from Iran…

Iran: Mother sentenced to death by stoning

Tehran, 28 Sept.(AKI) - A court in the Iran’s second largest city, Mashad, has sentenced to death by stoning a mother-of-three for having an extra-marital affair, an Iranian newspaper reported Friday.

There are currently eight women in Iranian prisons waiting to be executed by stoning, a practice usually reserved for those found guilty of adultery according to the Islamic republic’s laws.

do you really think there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism?

Yes. It’s a made-up word. It’s a neologism, a propaganda term. Are there authoritarian, extremist Islamic organizations? Yes. Are they fascist? No. “Fascist” and “authoritarian” or “extremist” are not the same thing.

Not to mention the term “Islamo-Fascist” is intolerant to Muslims who are neither fascist nor extremist. I’ve heard liberals use the word “Christo-fascist” and I find that intolerant too.

Now, I’ve told my husband if I ever waste half a day on one blog post to call for an intervention. So I’m signing off from the conversation, hopefully someone else will step in.

do you really think there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism?

Yes. It’s a made-up word. It’s a neologism, a propaganda term.

Did fantasy people fly jetliners into the Twin Towers? Were they ghosts? Gremlins, Goblins, or fairies?

This is the most delusional circular nonsensical blabber I have read in a very long time. You have said some things today that are very offensive.

Now, I’ve told my husband if I ever waste half a day on one blog post to call for an intervention. So I’m signing off from the conversation, hopefully someone else will step in.

No one with any sense will step into the ring with your argument. You wrote it, you own it. While this has been interesting, I have to wonder what you think of this country.

Did fantasy people fly jetliners into the Twin Towers? Were they ghosts? Gremlins, Goblins, or fairies?

No. They also weren’t Islamofascists, zombies, werewolves or Iraqis. They were crazy fuckers whose devotion to one man’s interpretation of their shared religion, filtered though the lens of world events, made them think this was something worth doing.

Words mean things. When you make shit up to make your boogeymen sound even worse than they actually are, you just sound like an idiot who doesn’t think the truth is bad enough, and obvious to all.
.

OK, Number 9, I’m not being flippant, although I’m sure you will take it this way. But are you on medication and if so, do you think it might need to be adjusted a bit? I’m 100% serious here. You coming off as *this* close to an anuerism.

I really don’t want to spend all night deciding whether or not various pointed barbs are personal attacks or not. Can you all maybe just scale back the slapfight a bit?

I figured you’d come after me for that, Kat, but for the record I WAS serious. The guy needs help, he’s off the rails. Saying I demanded he read my mind and calling me a “Birkenstock Passive Aggressive” because I’m mad at myself for wasting so much time on this … I can’t imagine where that’s coming from.

Anyway, I’m going to be avoiding hostile blogs for a while, and in addition to NiT I guess that means posts where Number 9 decides to make his presence known. Simply because I clearly lack the self-discipline DNA required to keep from taking the bait.

“Kill the cig, Iggy! The hall monitor’s here!”
.

Just to be perfectly clear, I wasn’t “coming after” just you.

I’ve been away for awhile and I open this up to increasingly hostile barbs which I started to comb through but then was like, ah, crap I can’t even begin to rein this in and delete parts of this that or the other. I pretty much tuned out of this thread several hours ago anyway.

No. They also weren’t Islamofascists, zombies, werewolves or Iraqis. They were crazy fuckers whose devotion to one man’s interpretation of their shared religion, filtered though the lens of world events, made them think this was something worth doing.

Words mean things. When you make shit up to make your boogeymen sound even worse than they actually are, you just sound like an idiot who doesn’t think the truth is bad enough, and obvious to all.

I believe the technical term for this is transference.

Crazy fuckers? Crazy fuckers did this? Mentally ill people, 19 of them, flew jetliners into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a cornfield? This is what you want us to believe.

Crazy fuckers with a “devotion to one man’s interpretation of their shared religion” did this?

19 mentally ill people who were not Islamofascists did this?

You were right about one and only one thing. Words have meaning. So why do you use words to change the meaning of what every person in this country knows to be true? You don’t understand how offensive what you are doing is do you?

I pretty much tuned out of this thread several hours ago anyway.

Well, there are two choices, here. Whine about how dead the thread is, or ignore it, and thus prove that it is dead.
.

I’d love to continue ignoring it but then I’ll get complaints about how I deleted A’s personal attack but not B’s.

And I really really hate turning off comments on posts. Especially posts where the comments were once pretty relevent.

19 mentally ill people who were not Islamofascists did this?

Yes, that’s exactly right. Nineteen stark, raving insane fuckers did this. Absolutely. Anyone who gets wrapped up enough, “revealed to” enough, to do what they did? Hell yes, they were fuckin’ nutballs. Useful nutballs to a few other nutballs, to be sure. But that’s all.
.

I’d love to continue ignoring it but then I’ll get complaints about how I deleted A’s personal attack but not B’s.

LALALALALA…! I don’t hear you! You didn’t say, “Ivy says!”

But “ignoring,” by definition, would mean not deleting A or B.
.

Ivy’s busy watching her husband get cut open. Which is why I’m spending my Friday night dragged into a thread where people are arguing over what to call a bunch of homicidal crazy people.

I’d be happy if OddInteger would run down the points of what fascism is, and how it applies to this made-up term he uses.
.

(well, the people to whom he would apply this made-up adjective, I mean)
.

I’d be happy if OddInteger would run down the points of what fascism is, and how it applies to this made-up term he uses.

It wasn’t my term. I usually use “radical Islamic terrorists” which I feel is very clear to all people.

Ned had originally asked, “I meant no offense, but do you really think there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism?”

All day a conservation with people who throw out “wingnut” at every instance have a problem with the word “Islamo-fascism”. The people who love the word wingnut say very clearly that there is NO Islamo-fascism. I think this is more than an argument about dictionary words.

I have no idea what JP and Beale are trying to say. Which considering how much bandwidth has been used, is a bit of a shame.

So whats the point, we wouldn’t have been attacked if America had left the Middle East?

Is there a point?

So whats the point, we wouldn’t have been attacked if America had left the Middle East?

Is there a point?

You first statement: strawman. You set fire to it and thrash as you see fit.

Certainly, there is a point. If you could pin 9/11 (to which you — and Rudy NineEleven so reliably, like clockwork, refer) on one guy, who would that be, and is that crazy fucker a crazy fucker, and is he still a FREE crazy fucker?
.

“[Name Calling Deleted–I’m not even sure to whom this nickname was referring. Probably either me or Ned, I guess.]

Boy, that WOULD be a guess. I’m bettin’ ol Number9999999.9999 would know, though. Of course I don’t know who plays “Hall Monitor” (you didn’t sign your work) so that’s just a guess on MY part.

Name calling? after reading the chaste and civil comments of folks like the newest “Hyperlocal” blogger at NiT (although he is from Knoxville, apparently) I can easily see that my “name calling” was a despicable and desperate act. I’ll just have to find some way to live with myself.

Tman; you said:

“Stoning is absolutely unique to the muslim faith. In fact, the Quran is used as justification for it.”

Ummm, I don’t think so.

From Wikipedia:

“Stoning, or lapidation, refers to a form of capital punishment whereby an organized group throws stones at the convicted individual until the person dies.

Stoning has been used throughout history in a number of places, both in the form of community justice and also as a judicial form of capital punishment. The practice is referred to in Greek history, as well as Christian, Jewish, and Islamic texts.”

There are also references, at Wikipedia, to “Pressing” which is another form of execution which was sanctioned by christians and jews as well as muslims as a method of execution.

Stoning is justified by the Quran under Sharia. Sharia is a LEGAL SYSTEM, which is used in a number of countries. I think stoning is a reprehenisble practice, but then again I think electrocution, lethal injection, hanging and numerous other methods for legally ending someone’s life are reprehensible as well. If someone just needs to die they can simply be put to sleep with a massive dose of any number of major tranquilizers or pain killers, in such a way as to cause no suffering–but what the heck would be the point of that? It would never satisfy the blood lust, the OT injunction of, “an eye for an eye”.

do you really think there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism?

The most surprising thing to me is the defense of radical Islamic terrorists by local feminists. The President of Iran is written about more than any World leader. Who is he compared to?

This went downhill when the point was made that wingnuts are distorting news for political gain. The word propaganda was used. Is it possible that extremist liberals wish to deny certain words for political gain?

Ned and Tman made a solid case. I guess its just down to name calling now. The idea that these terrorists are not fascists is very interesting. Maybe they are just misguided. If so, those of you who support this idea, how should we try to resolve our differences with them?

Ned and Tman made a solid case.

No, you did not even try. You just said the word is appropriate. You never tried to define the characteristics of fascism, nor did you try to show how the people to whom you would apply this conjured word behave as fascists.
.

I mean, just last night, OddInteger, you agreed with me that words have meaning. Yet you keep coming back to the argument that this word means what you want it to mean, without in any way trying to show its applicability.
.

JP, SB (I know you’re out there :)), I don’t deny that “Islamo-fascist” is (a) “made up” or (b) pejorative. First, all words got their start somewhere and we didn’t really have a word that fit the situation, in my estimation (other than Fundamentalist Radical Muslims or somesuch, a sister of which America’s Left has used to refer to people that think “aborting” a viable human is bad).

It’s duly pejorative because we ought to view these “crazy f***ers” disfavorably. You know, sort of like (but certainly not to the degree) that you think we ought to foster resentment against Religious Conservatives by calling them “wingnuts.”

Maybe you’re seeing a pattern here, you guys are hypersensitive (argumentative, belligerent, etc.) over someone using the term “Islamo-fascist” but notsomuch over hurling (in more ways than one) pejorative labels at peers in the local political scene. To paraphrase SB, “you’re not being helpful to bringing peace to the Middle Tennessee.”

“Fascist.” I will acknowledge that this term is overused–particularly by your side of the Worldview. That barb aside, I think that the term has all but lost its meaning (in large part to you know who) but it’s unfortunate regardless of who’s to blame.

“Fascism,” to me (I’m intentionally not wikipedia-ing it just to test how irresponsibly I might have been in ever using it) is a form of statist (akin to a communist) who uses a perverted variety of nationalism or some other cultural identity to initiate and maintain an autocratic state. In a vicious cycle, the autocraticness is often turned on those who don’t fit perfectly in the nationalist or cultural mold. I’ll look at the “real” definition later (actually, I suspect JP can rattle a modern-day translation of the term off without hesitation), but that’s how I mean it when I use it.

Now even if I’m way off in that definition, I really don’t feel bad, because those to whom I’m applying it are abhorrent and are not entitled to pick the name I use for them and I don’t care that much if it hurts their feelings or offends them or makes others think less of them (kind of like you feel about Religious Conservatives, candidly).

Jihadists (actually my preferred term, even though it’s religious in origin and has a purportedly non-violent alternative definition; oh well) want to establish governments; the form of said gov’t is–at best, a perversion of Islam (though I’ve long felt that Muslims love democracy until they’re in the majority) and the gov’t systems they support are totalitarian with brutality for those who don’t toe the line.

I’m open to questions or comments.

But, as the philosopher R. King said, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Whoa, I just used that very proverb in my own personal blog post this morning.

It’s in the air, isn’t it?

Yes, I can smell the fragrance of brotherly love and harmony.

But I much prefer the metaphor of “great trains run on the same track.”

do you really think there is no such thing as Islamo-fascism?

Yes. It’s a made-up word. It’s a neologism, a propaganda term. Are there authoritarian, extremist Islamic organizations? Yes. Are they fascist? No. “Fascist” and “authoritarian” or “extremist” are not the same thing.

Several of the radical Islamic terrorists have stated they see a world under the flag of Islam.

Well? Doesn’t that mean that there is Islamo-fascism? I appreciate the point that the radical Islamic terrorists are a small segment of the total population of Islam. But the problem is that some people, are perfectly content to slam all Christians while defending the “peaceful” religion of Islam. Can anyone explain why?

The same people want us to believe that the abuse of women under Sharia Law is cultural and none of our business. It should not be considered. Especially by wingnuts who may use it as a justification to fight radical Islamic terrorists.

How many Muslims are there? A few billion? So even if 2 percent were radical Islamic terrorists that would be an army of 40 million soldiers. We have seen what 19 of these soldiers can do.

JP, Beale, anyone, what do you want America to do? I know you want to stop the War in Iraq and Pakistan. Other than that what is it you desire? Do you want America to pull out of the Middle East? Do you wish for America to purchase its oil from other nations?

What is it that you want this country to do?

What is it that you want this country to do?

Right now, I’d settle for a return for obeying the U.S. Constitution, and our treaty obligations, first. Then, the larger problem will be getting people in charge of government and institutions that do not automatically assume that they have the right to control other countries’ resources.

Once those two thangs come about, we can reverse the mountain of ill-will the world feels towards us, now, and start building back some good will.
.

I mean, we need to get back to the Golden Rule (and not the GOP Golden Rule, which is “He who has the gold makes the rules”).

Try to imagine that instead of oil, the world’s economies depended on tobacco to keep churning out energy and cheap plastic crap to fill Wal-Mart’s shelves.

Now, imagine how you’d feel if Saudi Arabia set up military bases in TN and KY, and kept a couple of aircraft carriers and an attack fleet off the coast of NC.
.

JP, Beale, anyone, what do you want America to do?

Get off the oil tit. Instead of investing $600 billion in bloodshed to grab the last drops of a vanishing resource, invest that money (and I don’t believe it will take that much) in energy independence. Transition to a non-fossil based economy. We can do it, heck, our country transitioned factories from peacetime applications to making bombs and aircraft and cargo transporters for the war effort back in the 40s, and virtually over night.

People might have to sacrifice a bit during the transition to a new energy economy, but that’s nothing the people of this country haven’t been asked to do and done before, when our national interests were at stake. My mother told me stories of how they had ration coupons for sugar and coffee and gasoline, and people were happy to do it because it was the patriotic thing to do. People sacrificed for America but they felt she was worth it.

The bottom line is, if we didn’t want their oil, we wouldn’t be messing around in the Middle East to begin with. They could be blowing themselves up right and left like they do everywhere there is conflict in the world, and we wouldn’t give a crap.

It might strike some as an isolationist position, but the reality is, we need to be the innovators in this. Do we want, for example, China or India or France to come up with the solution to the global energy crisis? Then we’ll just be parking our military bases in those countries.

Whatever happened to American ingenuity, know-how, can-do? This is a resource war. Energy independence is the key.

Our government had a chance to pull the country together and invest in energy independence after 9/11. Instead, they told us to go shopping and ran up the bill on our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay for this ridiculous, wasteful Iraq debacle.

JP, I guess you’re conceding the argument on “islamo-fascism”?

In any event, I couldn’t help but smile when you predictably wrote in essence, “elect a Democrat messiah Democrat president” when asked, “what is it you want this country to do?” You mean like the good will that motivated numerous attacks on U.S. interests by al qaeda up to and including Clinton’s administration?

Maybe I need to spend more time on Left-wing blogs and websites, but this emphasis on “other countries’ resources” is fresh. Fresh, but foolish. And a little bit ironic for someone who often advocates for socialist values–we pay great money for the oil we receive from these countries, and American/western countries and companies have largely underwritten development of these industries in these countries.

But it is STUPID to assert that this war was for oil. If not, it’s news to all us Americans paying through the nose every time we fill up our gas tanks. But perhaps you’ll say that Dubya simply changed his mind (when you smart rascals figured out his evuhl scheme)?

You cite the golden rule? How about our tolerating a “cartel” for the petroleum business? That’s turning the other cheek, wouldn’t you say?

Yeah SB, we’ll make cars run on “Americanism” and we’ll have the corner on the market!!!

And maybe I ought to look into it, but I suppose you opposed all of Clinton’s use of the military (ostensibly for humanitarian purposes); couldn’t care less about Darfur; and have changed your tune (since last night) about oppression in countries like Afghanistan?

JP, I guess you’re conceding the argument on “islamo-fascism”?

No; it’s still a completely innacurate term, and you’ve yet to show otherwise.

this emphasis on “other countries’ resources” is fresh

Not exactly a student of history, then, hm?

But perhaps you’ll say that Dubya simply changed his mind

Sure. Record profits for the oil companies must really hurt GOP feelings!
.

Energy independence is vital to our security and our future.

Would you approve more refineries and more domestic oil production?

Or is your desire to transition to a non-oil energy source for ground transportation?

Oh, okay.

Talk about fascism–Bush sets the prices for gas in America . . . talk about unilateralness–Bush tells OPEC how much they can charge us for oil.

Talk about fascism–Bush sets the prices for gas in America . . . talk about unilateralness–Bush tells OPEC how much they can charge us for oil.

Yes, I daresay it would take a deeper thinker than Ned to predict that causing chaos in the oil-producing parts of the worls would lead to a rise in… oil prices! No one could have predicted this!
.

Or is your desire to transition to a non-oil energy source for ground transportation?

I believe I used the term “non-fossil” somewhere in my “get off the oil tit” rant. Oil is a dying resource. It’s over. The age of oil is history. More refineries and opening ANWR won’t solve the problem, there isn’t enough there to make a lasting difference. We can’t drill ourselves out of this mess.

Oil is over. God ain’t making anymore dinosaurs. Find something else.

I expect the solution won’t be “one” thing, no magic bullet. It will be several things. It will be nuclear some places, solar some places, geothermal some places. I love the vision of a hydrogen fuel cell-powered future that Paul Roberts outlines in “The End Of Oil.” I don’t know how realistic it is. I will let smarter people than me figure it out.

We put a freaking man on the moon. We can figure this out, if we put our minds, hearts, talents and resources into it.

Instead, the oil industry lobby had us invade Iraq. Go figure.

Instead, the oil industry lobby had us invade Iraq. Go figure.

I don’t remember it that way. I remember all America wanted was to inspect the military installations and make sure Saddam wasn’t building nukes. The UN voted and approved it, so did the United States Congress.

Is my memory correct on this?

Yes, I daresay it would take a deeper thinker than Ned to predict that causing chaos in the oil-producing parts of the worls would lead to a rise in… oil prices! No one could have predicted this!

We put a freaking man on the moon. We can figure this out, if we put our minds, hearts, talents and resources into it.

Instead, the oil industry lobby had us invade Iraq.

Maybe the effete reputation of the Left in America is legitimate . . . given your moral relativism, there’s no excuse for you not assassinating Bush’s cabinet and launching an insurgency if you believe that Bush et al invaded Iraq because of pressure from the “oil industry lobby.”

<i>if you believe that Bush et al invaded Iraq because of pressure from the “oil industry lobby”</i>

[personal attack deleted] Even you wouldn’t argue that one of the side-effects of this Iraq clusterfuck has been record profit-taking by the oil companies. That was a fringe benefit, not casus belli.

As for the real reason Iraq was invaded, I don’t think anyone knows, yet. But one could reasonably assume that it had to do with raiding the U.S. Treasury to steal Billions of dollars of taxpayer money (diverted through no-bid contracts and simple “vanishing pallets of cash” sent to Iraq by the planeload), and sticking everyone’s kids and grandkids with the bill. That, and turning the presidency into a monarchy, which is as Dick Cheney had always seen it, especially after what they did to poor Tricky Dick. One Dick avenges another. Go figure.
.

As for the real reason Iraq was invaded, I don’t think anyone knows, yet.
Gee, what reason other than the non-nefarious one have you not alleged and not been certain of?

How absurd. Again, if you think that this war was started–with certain military casualties, so that George Bush or Dick Cheney could add to their wealth, then you ought to be plotting a takeover.

I’m wondering if the overheated rhetoric (and conspiracy theories) will lessen if y’all manage to win next year?

Again, if you think that this war was started–with certain military casualties, so that George Bush or Dick Cheney could add to their wealth, then you ought to be plotting a takeover.

*sigh*

Yes, Ned — I’m certain Bush and Cheney, personally, have every dime of the stolen billions.

[rolls eyes]
.

I’m wondering if the overheated rhetoric (and conspiracy theories) will lessen if y’all manage to win next year?

No, but with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and no further obstruction from executive branch organs such as the DoJ, the investigtions will lead to criminal prosecutions. And on we go with this thing of ours.
.

Or their “cronies” . . . it is absurd.

Or their “cronies” . . . it is absurd.

What’s absurd, Taxpayer Ned, is that you don’t seem to give a flying fuck where these billions went. No one can account for the money. The State Dept. IG is obstructing attempts to investigate the fraud involved in their reconstruction contracts as we speak, but you don’t seem to care one whit. I guess ’cause it isn’t feeding poor kids in America, or paying for their health care.

You mean obstruction like when Bill Clinton was president? Or all the positions that the Supreme Court has affirmed?

And I’m curious what crimes you’re expecting to find. You mean like the Joseph Plame faux scandal? The USAtty. firings? It’s all in your mind. Disagreeing with a Liberal isn’t a criminal offense, “pardner.”

I guess ’cause it isn’t feeding poor kids in America, or paying for their health care.

Well, I don’t have a kneejerk reaction to assume that it was a Diebold shareholder getting his payback for stealing the election for Bush in Democrat-controlled Cleveland polling places.

And I’m curious what crimes you’re expecting to find.

It would be irresponsible to speculate until the ongoing investigations play out. Right now, the executive is in contempt of Congress on several counts, and while a court may not find it so my Janualy, 2009, I wouldn’t think the investigations will stop, then… not if they keep turning up curious things that keep making witnesses defy subpoenas. Anyone will tell you, if you have nothing to hide, you’re not gonna thumb your nose at a lawful demand to appear.
.

Well, I don’t have a kneejerk reaction to assume that it was a Diebold shareholder getting his payback for stealing the election for Bush in Democrat-controlled Cleveland polling places.

That makes two of us.
.

Dear Ms. Hall Monitor:

If you’re going to delete someone being called “silly,” please to fix the HTML to preserve the original formatting.

Thanks!
.

Instead, the oil industry lobby had us invade Iraq. Go figure.

Is my memory correct on this?

Anyone? Isn’t that what went down?

Instead, the oil industry lobby had us invade Iraq. Go figure.

I don’t remember it that way.

Well, I do, but maybe I was watching a different TV channel from you.

The Bush Administration is dominated by people in the oil industry, from the president to the vice president to Condoleezza Rice to cabinet members. In January 2001 when they took power the price of oil was what, $22? And now it’s around $80? Who cold have predicted that! Just a coincidence, I’m sure!

Now we’re at war in the Middle East, we’ve topped the regime of a country beneath which supposedly sits the third-largest untapped oil supply in the world (just a coincidence! I’m sure of it!) AND Ray Hunt, one of the President’s good friends and biggest fundraisers, *just* signed a deal to drill for oil in Northern Iraq, where much of that untapped oil is said to be. Just a coincidence, though!

But don’t listen to me, listen to Allen Greenspan:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

It would be irresponsible to speculate until the ongoing investigations play out.

Cough, cough. Yeah, right, JP.

Regarding ignoring subpoenae, there are very legitimate, legal bases for the positions the White House has taken. Separation of Powers. Something you might appreciate the next time your guy/gal is president. Congress doesn’t execute wars, or conduct foreign policy, or dictate the prosecutors a president employs or . . . or . . .

Well, I do, but maybe I was watching a different TV channel from you.

I was talking about history.

TV, radio, newspapers, the Internet. I may not have a photographic memory, but it is above average. I don’t care if it was poorly sold on bad info, the UN and the United States Congress voted to invade Iraq.

Is there anyone who disagrees this is what happened?

I do not recall at any point in time that this was a “War for Oil”.

Anyone?

Regarding ignoring subpoenae, there are very legitimate, legal bases for the positions the White House has taken. Separation of Powers. Something you might appreciate the next time your guy/gal is president.

So, you disagree with Tony Snow on that one, hm?
.

TV, radio, newspapers, the Internet. I may not have a photographic memory, but it is above average. I don’t care if it was poorly sold on bad info, the UN and the United States Congress voted to invade Iraq.

Quote the resolution, please. The exact language. Thanks.
.

Al Gore didn’t get that deal? Neither did any BigOil Democrats?

And I guess 9/11 had nothing to do with oil prices? And I guess 9/11 has nothing to do with the Middle East?

As far as Alan Greenspan is concerned, he’s not God and he doesn’t speak for me (a member of “everyone”). Oil, like any precious commodity, is a factor in world affairs. Iraq has oil and we’re not stealing it from them. Saddam Hussein had rattled his sabre for too many years, and he was the next step in the GWOT. You may have preferred to hunker down in a defensive posture, but not everyone agrees.

Man, a lot of deflection from the fake photo and the fake term, eh?

Lovin’ it.
.

I didn’t check with Tony Snow before taking my position.

Number9,
I DO recall the “No blood for oil” claptrap from some quarters–particularly French ones (ironically). It (as oil-for-fraud France’s allegations reflect) a diversion.

All we need now is Clinton’s penis and Berger’s socks! Talk about tinfoil…!

I didn’t check with Tony Snow before taking my position.

Well, I suspect that like your position, it depends on who’s president what Tony Snow thinks of executive privilege. He thought it was bullshit when Clinton was in office, of course, but love it, nowadays.

Want the quotes?
.

And, as usual, JP is eager to move the conversation away from the subject toward what he perceives is more comfortable terrain.

Sure, I want the quotes. And I have to say that “Executive Privilege” is ripe for abuse considering the things that Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office.

Oh, and we’re still waiting for the reasonable explanation for stealing and destroying documents from the archives.

And regarding the “fake term”–you’re blithe non-response to my definition of Islamo-fascist is lame.

And, as usual, JP is eager to move the conversation away from the subject

Host: Quick, Ned! 10 seconds on the clock, please. Here’s the question. Name one thing that is the subject of this thread?

Ned: Whatever rightwing BS I want to peddle?

Host: Survey says…

FX: *bzzzzt!*

Host: Oh, sorry. The number one answer, Ned, was “Use of a fictional photo to sell rightwing BS!”
.

Oh, and we’re still waiting for the reasonable explanation for stealing and destroying documents from the archives.

That has nothing to do with using fictional photos to sell BS. But , if you think Berger got originals, you simply don’t know how that repository works.

And regarding the “fake term”–you’re blithe non-response to my definition of Islamo-fascist is lame.

The moment you tell me five conditions that signal fascism, and then tell me how any Islamic sect is applying them, I’ll respond with something more to your liking. Else, go back to dismissing me.
.

HE WANTS QUOTES!

Tony Snow and other winger pundits:

Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :

(HEADLINE: “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”)

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

Tony Snow, Fox News, March 18, 1998:

In our latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll, we asked a series of questions about executive privilege. Most believe it’s an attempt to stonewall Ken Starr’s investigation. There’s an even split on whether the White House has something to hide. And a majority thinks conversations with the first lady should not be covered.

Did the president invoke executive privilege to preserve the presidency or hold Ken Starr at bay?

Paul Gigot, Fox News, March 8, 1998:

GIGOT: Senator Torricelli, the president has from the very beginning pledged to cooperate with the investigation, said he wants to get the truth out sooner rather than later.

Would you define claims of executive privilege as cooperation? . . . But aren’t claims of executive privilege usually reserved for national security matters — in particular, matters of state secrets and foreign affairs?

Kate O’Beirne - Capital Gang - May 2, 1998:

O’BEIRNE: Let me say, Mark, I think Newt Gingrich delivered a really good speech. He gave voice to that which millions of people know to be true. I don’t think it’s good news for the Democrats. The Republicans have had trouble finding their voice on this and they’re scared off by being told it just has to do with the president’s personal, private behavior. And Newt Gingrich, I think, has given voice to them in a way that’s not helpful to Democrats.

He says there are two principles involved, the public’s right to know, because secrecy has so benefited Bill Clinton, and second, no one is above the law. Now, if the public increasingly sees this scandal about their right to know, so much for executive privilege and Secret Service privilege, and no one is above the law, Bill Clinton’s in a lot of trouble.

Tony Snow’s Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998

SNOW: Mr. Burton, back to your committee — if you cannot immunize those witnesses, that’s the kiss of death. You’re not going to have any more hearings. . . . .

BRIT HUME: And have you been assured, sir, that you will remain as chairman of that committee through the coming months.

GOP COMMITTE CHAIR REP. DAN BURTON: Yes. I have no problem with that, and I don’t think the speaker does either.

We’re going to continue on it until we get the truth for the American people, or at least do our dead-level best to get the truth for them.

You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn’t hide behind executive privilege, if he’d just come out and tell the American people the truth.

In 1998, when Bill Clinton invoked it, “executive privilege” was a cynical and corrupt tool to prevent Americans from learning the truth about scandal and keep the President above the law. In 2007, now that George Bush has invoked it (and it’s hardly the first time, but this time it will likely be tested), it will be a doctrine of the gravest importance and steeped in our most cherished democratic traditions and it must be defended at all costs in order to preserve the Power and Honor of the Presidency.

Compare that with modern times.

Happy to oblige.
.

“Use of a fictional photo to sell r