Tuesday, November 14, 2006

It's Just A Flesh Wound

It's like watching a patient who has lost limbs and organs due to a surgeon's gross malpractice continue to return to that same surgeon for the next operation, while scoffing at the doctors who warned of the dangers.

Wow. What a way with words. Sigh. Daily reading, for sure.

Just to add my two cents worth, with respect to the question and answer Greenwald brings up of why, when "we had ample opportunity to adjust, change course, alter our objectives, or leave" we didn't. He states the "reason we didn't is because the country was continuously lied to by the most morally depraved people one can fathom, who were so afraid of admitting error regarding the wisdom of the invasion that they kept insisting to Americans that things were going great and that everything would be fixed very soon."

Let's not forget that finding WMD and removing a brutal dictator were merely the candles on the cake for the American public to blow out. The main reason we invaded Iraq was to set up those permanent bases and to take control of the oil. There was no plan after the invasion because the buttheads that ran the program believed everyone, including the Iraqis, would just wet their pants at the opportunity to privatize Iraqi resources, and sell them off to the highest bidder! And that is why there still is no plan to leave. As Bush has indicated, no one's leaving during his term in office.


IsOught said...


lemme see.....

Your patient/surgeon analogy seems to more closely reflect another ideology and the former leadership regimes. The Islamist propaganda machine has to be working overtime to deny some realities. The US led coalition now occupies two Muslim countries and their influence continues to grow in the neighbouring Islamic areas.

Afghanistan - check
Iraq - check
Libya - check
Lebanon - check
Iran - next
Syria - tba
Saudi Arabia - if necessary

On the other hand:

USA - military operating openly in several Islamist countries in an attempt to reform those societies.

Conclusion: Your analogy regarding the US mission does seem to contain a grain of truth. Certainly, not all has gone swimmingly post invasion. However, the delicious irony is that the analogy posted here seems to more accurately reflect the situation that the Islamists must finding themselves in.


Carrie said...

Hey trollman, didn't you leave this same post, word for word, over at Cathie's? You're not even on topic with respect to what I posted. Sheesh.

IsOught said...

Why yes, I did! Almost word for word. And it seems that I got banned for it as a result. That's the way goes for most of the defeatists, they don't seem able to withstand very much dissenting opinion. Cathie appeared to be very pleased with the analogy as per the Bush administration but likely didn't consider the same analogy as it applies to the terrorists. btw, Since you read the thread, did you happen to notice that the regulars at Cathie's were totally unable to oppose my comments on the analogy?

I noticed that your blog carries some statement motto implying that you are able to engage with dissenting opinion.

A place where I sit, drink and grill right wing extreme viewpoints. (not that my views are extreme, I'm a liberal populist)

and If you can't take the "heat," stay out of my Bar & Grill.

Tell me how my comment is "not even on topic"? I pointed out the irony that the analogy seems to more aptly describe the Islamist propagandists.


IsOught said...


Does that mean that I'm a part of the VRWC "trolletariat"? (been called that once. I thought it was very creative)

Carrie said...

Trollman, (my own made up name for you, not anyone else's input): My post was about one sentence in Greenwald's post (the one that inspired the Montey Python analogy). While Cathie, and the rest of you, discussed the intent and content of Greenwalds post, MY post on MY blog was about the underlying reason this administration will not leave Iraq, vis-a-vis the permanent military bases. If you wish to comment and/or discuss that, I'm more than happy to accomodate. However, if you simply want to cut and paste stuff off topic cuz no one wants to play with you at Cathie's blog, while I appreciate the traffic, I'm not about to fight the fight of another blog.

IsOught said...

I wasn't asking you to fight the fight of another blog. You posted the very same analogy here (which I happened to see a link to on Cathie's blog. I posted comment here before seeing that I was banned at Cathie's blog)

Cathie posted the analogy in the very same context (as you did) re the Bush admin. I agreed that the analogy had a grain of truth to it where the US was concerned. I just thought that it was a more apt description of the situation the Islamists must be finding themselves in. The facts seem to bear out the irony that I highlighted. Do you agree? Does your bias against the Bush admin override seeing another side to a coin?
Or have you seen an overt Islamist occupying force in the US recently?

btw, why do you need a name for me? Don't you think it's rather infantile? IMO, ad hominem attacks only discredit what otherwise might be a strong argument.

Carrie said...

Cathie posted an analogy re the Bush administration, based on Greenwald's post. The only thing in common between my post and Cathie's was the Monty Python reference. It appears that Mr. Greenwald's descriptive language made both Cathie and I think of the Monty Python skit. However, my post was not an "analogy" of anything. My post was a straight up comment concerning the permanent bases in Iraq. What you put up on my blog is irrelevant to what I posted.

And, your other assumption, that creating a "name" for you is infantile, my apologies. I make up names for everyone. Trollman, Coffeeman, Newspaperman, Barman. It's nothing personal. Just an identification tool.

IsOught said...


Perhaps your Bush derangement has progressed so far that it's blocking any reasonable sense of honesty. If it wasn't an analogy, then what was it? Surely you're not claiming that there was/is an actual Black Knight (an American one) in the administration that you're directly referring to?


Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

Given the meaning of the word analogy, my comments appear to have been "on topic" as analogous to the Islamists (in addition to the Bush admin).....

Carrie said...

"If it wasn't an analogy, then what was it?"

Trollboy, I post videos on a regular basis to my blog, and they rarely represent analogous inferences to anything; they simply are videos I find interesting.

I posted this particular video on my blog because the language used by Greenwald conjured up the image of the silly fight with the Black Night. I made no reference to the video in my comment.

Like I've said before, if you have something to say concerning MY post on MY blog, have at it. If all you wish to do is make the point on MY blog in response to Cathie's post on HER blog, it is out of place here on MY blog. I've made no such analogy between Bush and the Black Night, and MY post references MY belief as to the reason there are no plans to leave Iraq.

IsOught said...


So what you're essentially saying is that commentary is only welcomed on the basis of strict parameters, ei only those that pertain to the US aspects. It's ridiculously comical that an analogy can't possibly be applied to another side of a coin, no matter how ironic or insightful the commentary might be. ei the Islamists.

It's rather obvious your viewpoint is that this particular analogy can only be viewed in most narrowest of terms. It leaves me wondering how close-minded you are on other topics.

Have my comments hit a sore point with you? Is it getting too hot in Carrie's Bar and Grill? I seem to have dropped from being called trollman to trollboy. To your credit, you did manage one comment sans the name calling.


Carrie said...

The bar is always open. That doesn't mean that every patron has an actual point that I'm required to address, nay, argue. I've already explained my penchant for names; if you choose to conclude it's "name calling" so be it.

You're welcome to stay, but should you wish further discourse, I'd suggest you abandon this thread and perhaps try one of my other delicious entrees.

Is Ought said...


Another comment without name calling.

I'll abandon this thread topic as I can clearly see that it struck a sore spot with you..
I went back and read some of your posts in your archives, which was interesting to say the least. IMO, your blog is indeed a one stop shopping spot for Bush derangement, anti-Americanism, middle America is stupid, GOP eats kittens and anti-Christian bigotry. It's all shadowed by a giant imposing elephant in the room. That elephant being that there's a glaring lack of critcism re Islamist fueled terrorism on your site. (that highly inconvenient other side to the coin)

Have you gone back into your archives to reflect on how many things you were right about and wrong about? Remember Plamegate, the Newsweek Koran flushing fiasco, the false 100,000 Iraqi deaths accounting?

Your very first post is especially revealing. You dumped a longtime friend because of differing opinion. While a viewer can't possibly know all the circumstances regarding the falling out, your ex-friends' emails (you posted) do seem fairly inoccuous.(and largely fact based, I should add)

thanks for the invite. I'll check in and post comment, trying to stay on topic as much as possible. It's a complex subject (the WOT) that is very emotional for most. We do indeed live in interesting times. There's no need to ban me if you wish to cease discourse, I'll leave of my own accord if you say so.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.