Comments on: Which Is Worse?

By: bob in fl

bob in fl — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:58:37 +0000

Bush’s either or proposition sounds a lot like, “You are with us or with the terrorists.” Frankly, there is a huge difference whether those weapons, which may or may not be of Iranian origin, are shipped to Iraq by the govt or by black marketeers. Using Bush’s own yardstick, if US weapons are sold to a third party who then sells them to a militia, then the US itself should also be attacked because the end result is no different. Somehow, I am sure us folks at home would not like the outcome if a foreign leader used that reasoning to attack us.

He is still using the logic of the big lie. If you tell the same lie often, then people believe it is true. He did it in Iraq & it worked. Those of us who still know how to use our brains will not fall for the same old crap again.

I still wonder when he will go after the Saudis for shipping arms to the Sunnis, who have given us far more casualties than the Shiites. Oh, I forgot. The Saudis are our ALLIES, so it isn’t the same. It doesn’t count – except to the dead & wounded & their families. I’d bet it counts to them, more so than it does to me.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:30:36 +0000

It’s in the mail my love.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:02:02 +0000

First off, I’m still waiting for my Valentine’s Day card DP…I trust you’ve already mailed it?

Now then, Bush is putting up two options and asking us a rhetorical question about which one is worse to make a point that he views them as being equally bad. Is it intellectually dishonest to think that? (And Dos, that question was rhetorical too.)

So yes, pardon me, but we better be damn curious about who is behind this and why. We got Iraq wrong, and now it’s a disaster. The fact that Bush suggests that he doesn’t care about the differences and the details regarding the Iran situation means he’s once again walking down the war path again with specious arguments. If it’s intellectually dishonest to question that political philosophy and practice, then I’m absolutely guilty.

Concerning Bolton, yeah, I’m done with trying to divine the intentions of people who have a repuation for being difficult and unflinching. You apparently are still up for it, and bravo for the patience. However, during his tenure as our top diplomat, he showed us plenty. Now he’s showing us even more, and I’m glad he doesn’t represent us anymore. Again, if that’s intellectually dishonest then Reason.com is right there with me, and I’m in good company.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:34:27 +0000

You want to talk about INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. Last take your last two idiotic posts.

Did he say he didn’t care? Or did he express the perfectly valid view that that if the leaders of Iran aren’t it in control it is a bad thing also, maybe more so.

Now lets take the Bolton hack job. Granted it didn’t come out very articulately, but I think he was pretty obviously saying that he hoped NK would express their obstance directly, rather than simply proceeding to do whatever the hell they wanted and lying to the international community.

Intellectual dishonesty, blah, blah, blah…I guess that term doesn’t apply to your own political hackness.