Support NeoGAF

[videogamer]

Overt or not, calling people "frothing liberal Cal students" and calling California political activism braindead (i didnt call the state braindead) is a fair distance away from calling college republicans nazis by analogy. Frothing liberals and braindead activists didnt wipe out 6,000,000 plus.

You said that I cleared it up, and now you say this. I've already posted in this thread that the analogy begins and ends when the Nazis put the yellow stars on the Jews.

It seems to me that your personal search for justice (in which you are right, because I for one agree with the equal protection clause and have said so in every dealing with you) seems to have merged with left/progressive ideas on other policies. To me, your "dogma and political hate" is equivalent to treating issues as "a friend of my enemy is also my enemy".

No, it's about supporting the kind of people who stand by me. Of course, not every pro-choice individual is going to support gay marriage, but I've met my fair share of passionate pro-choicers who support my search for equality. I want to return the favor.

You proved my point about the arab world example, by saying that "there has always been a push" when in reality it has never been as overt or prevelant as it is right now.

It happened through illegitamate means. The buildup to the war was based on supposed WMDs that have yet to be found.

The Iraq war was obviously a turning point for the region in regards to democracy, and I think it would do democrats a great deal of good to say "we voted for the war, ended up not agreeing with it, but we are fully behind this new push for democracy", instead all you get is silence.

Again, "this new push for democracy" was built on flawed arguments. Furthermore, there is more in this area, such as whether or not torture is acceptable or the issue of multipolar decision making.

Finally, I firmly believe that you are what you eat when it comes to news consumption. Unfortunately, I think that you consume stuff that is spun so far left, that even if you personally put your own more moderate spin on it while reading, you are end up to the left of true, raw, news.

What is "true, raw, news"? The issue of Gannon/Guckert put another nail in my trust of the MSM. They ran all over the blue dress, but a reporter using a fake name gets barely a fraction of the controversy.

 

[tetsuoxb]

You said that I cleared it up, and now you say this. I've already posted in this thread that the analogy begins and ends when the Nazis put the yellow stars on the Jews.

Yeah, but you cleared up that you completely ignore the emotional resonance that your analogy had. Just because it is clear, or because your original intent was ignorant/dismissive to the connotations, doesnt make you right.

No, it's about supporting the kind of people who stand by me. Of course, not every pro-choice individual is going to support gay marriage, but I've met my fair share of passionate pro-choicers who support my search for equality. I want to return the favor.

Returning the favor is exactly the kind of dogmatic approach to politics that I hate. There should be no returning the favor. Either have a principled stand on an issue, or dont have a principled stand on an issue and let it be. If someone says to me, I agree with issue A, do you agree with issue B, I am not automatically going to say yes just because they agree with issue A. This is what bothers me about activism on both sides, this intermixing of ideals and issues, instead of treating each one with the care and thought they deserve... which leads into....

It happened through illegitamate means. The buildup to the war was based on supposed WMDs that have yet to be found.


Again, "this new push for democracy" was built on flawed arguments. Furthermore, there is more in this area, such as whether or not torture is acceptable or the issue of multipolar decision making.

You have a marked inability to seperate your opposition to the war from the good that hasw come from it. The Lebanese, Saudi, Palestinians, and Egyptian people have been emboldened by the democratic presence in Iraq. This is beyond debate. However, you are stuck in a place where you are incapable of anything but an all or nothing position. You know, you are able to not like how the war was sold, not like the fact it was a unilateral action, not like what happened in Abu Ghraib and other places, but still be able to praise and accept the good that has come with the bad. You just dont get this, your positions have "progressed" so far that they have lost the ability to have subtle, multifaceted opinions on a single topic, and you are stuck with a one-dimensional worldview, from "returning the favor" to denying a potentially world changing political shift because it was built on "illegitamate means". This is why I can't take you seriously, because you can't think outside the sociopolitical box you have built for yourself. Most conservatives would disagree with my support of gay marriage, media controls, copyright, etc. However, I don't care because I don't let the political discourse decide my political positions. You, on the other hand, let the discourse not only decide your current positions, but you let it decide the course of your future positions, before you even consider them yourself. I don't take you seriously because, for all your individualism and the perceived support for it you receive from your progressive position, you are really just a sheep in a pen waiting for your next meal....

What is "true, raw, news"? The issue of Gannon/Guckert put another nail in my trust of the MSM. They ran all over the blue dress, but a reporter using a fake name gets barely a fraction of the controversy.

which will be fed to you by the various outlets outside of the mainstream news. I am not one to extol fox news, or the other outlets, but like I said. Your meal is so far out there that you couldnt even moderate it towards the truth even if you tried. What is true, raw, news? It is news where the opinion of the writer is kept to a minimum. It is close enough to what actually happened that you can excise the writers crap and get an idea of the truth. You arent going to get that from the blogs you read because they are precisely about injecting opinion. They are no better than fox news, except for the fact they agree with your previously held beliefs. You want to know why the MSM didn't pick up on Gannon/Guckert but did care about the blue dress? It isnt about the sex? It is about who was doing the lying. A President lying under oath, or a gay prostitute lying on an credientially application, which bothers you more? A president who doesnt exercise due diligence in picking his planted political mouthpiece, or a president who perjured himself, and the physical evidence that led to the second impeachment in US history? Without evaluating you thoughts on either presidency, it is clear that comparing the two issues is apples to oranges, as they are different in flavor and order of magnitude. You don't see this, you can't see this, and you won't see this.

This is why your rhetoric does little more than make me chuckle, because it isnt really your rhetoric at all.

 

[Mandark]

The Lebanese, Saudi, Palestinians, and Egyptian people have been emboldened by the democratic presence in Iraq. This is beyond debate.

Please explain to me how the causality is even close to being so obvious as to be beyond debate.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Hosni Mubark opens up the presidential election to multiple candidates for the first time.
Saudi Arabia holds elections for local councils for the first time.
Palestinans hold the one of the most open, fair elections in recent memory in the Arab world after a lengthy period of rule by de facto referrendum.
Lebanese rally in their streets forcing the resignation of they Syrian backed Prime Minister, ala the Orange Revolution, and demand the pullout of their Syrian "masters" ahead of parlimentary elections that the Syrian army was widely believed to have desired to affect in various ways.

All of this happens after the installation of a democracy in Iraq, when there were not even the slightest rumblings of this kind of widespread outspoken political expression happening in the past.

You do not have to like the war, but you have to open your eyes and realize what is going on is a good thing. This is the position of most opposed to the war European governments, but the left/progressive movement in the states cant come to it yet. I just dont get it.

 

[Mandark]

These also happened after I started working at the bowling alley and put on some weight because of all those free cheeseburgers.

You have to open your eyes to the correlation between the size of my ass and freedom in the middle east.

 

[tetsuoxb]

These also happened after I started working at the bowling alley and put on some weight because of all those free cheeseburgers.

You have to open your eyes to the correlation between the size of my ass and freedom in the middle east.

You ass being so big does explain how you can be so full of shit.

If it wasnt the "beacon of democracy" theory, then what does my enlightened friend Mandark attribute this sudden fervor for democracy to?

 

[Hitokage]

Then there are countries whose prospect for reforms backslid because of Iraq.

Oh wait, let's not let reality get in the way of your undebatable claims.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

My English 1010 class is a young republican utopia. It makes me sick.

 

[videogamer]

Returning the favor is exactly the kind of dogmatic approach to politics that I hate. There should be no returning the favor.

No, it's pragmatic. I'm not going to let wedge politics cut me from my allies. Anyways, how do you know that I haven't developed a stand on these issues on my own before?

Either have a principled stand on an issue, or dont have a principled stand on an issue and let it be. If someone says to me, I agree with issue A, do you agree with issue B, I am not automatically going to say yes just because they agree with issue A. This is what bothers me about activism on both sides, this intermixing of ideals and issues, instead of treating each one with the care and thought they deserve... which leads into....

Who says that I haven't thought about these issues. The fact is, I supported abortion rights since high school. However, recent events have given me greater reason. Yet again, you have resorted to making assumptions about me, like in the other thread.

You have a marked inability to seperate your opposition to the war from the good that hasw come from it. The Lebanese, Saudi, Palestinians, and Egyptian people have been emboldened by the democratic presence in Iraq. This is beyond debate. However, you are stuck in a place where you are incapable of anything but an all or nothing position. You know, you are able to not like how the war was sold, not like the fact it was a unilateral action, not like what happened in Abu Ghraib and other places, but still be able to praise and accept the good that has come with the bad.

Why should I praise it? You don't dictate how I speak.

You just dont get this, your positions have "progressed" so far that they have lost the ability to have subtle, multifaceted opinions on a single topic, and you are stuck with a one-dimensional worldview, from "returning the favor" to denying a potentially world changing political shift because it was built on "illegitamate means".

My professors and TA's might disagree. And no, I haven't taken a Polysci class in college yet. Just because I don't tell YOU it doesn't mean that I don't hold nuanced views, even on my pet cause, marriage.

This is why I can't take you seriously, because you can't think outside the sociopolitical box you have built for yourself. Most conservatives would disagree with my support of gay marriage, media controls, copyright, etc. However, I don't care because I don't let the political discourse decide my political positions. You, on the other hand, let the discourse not only decide your current positions, but you let it decide the course of your future positions, before you even consider them yourself.

Name me an example where the discourse controlled my future position instead of me thinking it over first.

I don't take you seriously because, for all your individualism and the perceived support for it you receive from your progressive position, you are really just a sheep in a pen waiting for your next meal....

What meal? From the conservatives who have been attacking my lifestyle?

which will be fed to you by the various outlets outside of the mainstream news. I am not one to extol fox news, or the other outlets, but like I said. Your meal is so far out there that you couldnt even moderate it towards the truth even if you tried.

The sources I read oftentimes cite their sources in the MSM. If I post anything here at GAF, it has probably been mentioned in the MSM already.

You arent going to get that from the blogs you read because they are precisely about injecting opinion. They are no better than fox news, except for the fact they agree with your previously held beliefs.

They also find stuff that the MSM does not pick up very well. There is stuff there I would not have normally find watching TV. BTW, I grew up reading conservative editorial pages with opinions straight out of the Cato and Heritage Institutes.

You want to know why the MSM didn't pick up on Gannon/Guckert but did care about the blue dress? It isnt about the sex? It is about who was doing the lying. A President lying under oath, or a gay prostitute lying on an credientially application, which bothers you more? A president who doesnt exercise due diligence in picking his planted political mouthpiece, or a president who perjured himself, and the physical evidence that led to the second impeachment in US history? Without evaluating you thoughts on either presidency, it is clear that comparing the two issues is apples to oranges, as they are different in flavor and order of magnitude. You don't see this, you can't see this, and you won't see this.

However, the administration is indeed involved. They gave this guy his pass for like two years. I'm not looking for the same level of publicity as the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but some kind of drama. Instead, I get a bunch of insipid remarks. As of yet, I don't know if my local newspaper has said much or anything at all.

This is why your rhetoric does little more than make me chuckle, because it isnt really your rhetoric at all.

If it really belongs to someone else, I try to put it into quotation marks.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Then there are countries whose prospect for reforms backslid because of Iraq.

Oh wait, let's not let reality get in the way of your undebatable claims.

I will have to listen to the reports later, but at first glance at the descriptions...

Kuwait has Islamic fundamentalism... so does Turkey, but they arent featured in the report, nor is it blamed on the war. Not to mentional Islamic fundamentalism in Europe, but wait, that could not have existed before the war, because the war caused Islamic radicalism.

Jordan cant trade with Iraq anymore because of security concerns, and they feel caught up in the Palestinian conflict. Well, this was done before Arafats death, so strike down one point. The security concerns of drivers are valid though. However, I cant feel too bad for the economic destabilization of a monarchy, despite their ally status with the US.

Saudi Arabia - They have always cracked down on political opponents. They have always had fundamentalism, especially due to the fact they are primarly an Islamic state under absolute monarcy, which disenfranchises young, poor muslim men. However, since this article, they held first ever elections for local councils, an unprecedented move where people were actually allowed to speak their political mind. The US has also always pushed for reform in SA, dating back decades, but could never be too forceful because the alliance is too important economically to the US.

Syria - cry me a river. The country is run by a dictator, who is alone responsible for the lack of economic and political reforms. However, since the report, he has been forced by political pressure from the Lebanese population, Europe, the US, and the League of Arab states (notably powerbrokers SA and Egypt) to pull out of Lebanon, and even handed over Saddams halfbrother, who they denied having captured for a decent period of time, in an effort to stem the international pressure on them.

Id say that is a pretty decent track record.

 

[Hitokage]

Sorry, were you just debating there?

 

[tetsuoxb]

No, it's pragmatic. I'm not going to let wedge politics cut me from my allies. Anyways, how do you know that I haven't developed a stand on these issues on my own before?

Who says that I haven't thought about these issues. The fact is, I supported abortion rights since high school. However, recent events have given me greater reason. Yet again, you have resorted to making assumptions about me, like in the other thread.

This is your grand rhetorical strategy. To say that I am making assumptions about you. Look at what I wrote originally, I never said that YOU yourself do not have a stand. I said that I hate returning the favor, because it is equivalent to a free pass on things.

You go further to quote me explaining my position as to why I hate "returning the favor" and take it to mean that I am again assuming things about you. Dude, I dont want to assume things about you. I was explaining my position. Your egocentrism on these things is amusing to me. I wasnt talking about abortion rights, hence why I used hypothetical issue A and B. You assumed that I was talking about you. I was actually talking about my own politheoritical construct.

Why should I praise it? You don't dictate how I speak.

I said YOU CAN hold that kind of position. I know I dont dictate how you speak, because if I did, you would not seem so out of step to me. Again, you didnt look at the nuance of my statement, applied your egocentrism, and proceeded forward.

My professors and TA's might disagree. And no, I haven't taken a Polysci class in college yet. Just because I don't tell YOU it doesn't mean that I don't hold nuanced views, even on my pet cause, marriage.

That is good to hear your professors and TA might disagree. Getting beyond the point that a TA is probably the most revolting stage of ones academic life, this point is completely irrelevant. As is your educational background. However, what is important is that you complain that people assume things about you they arent, and then go on to justify another point by saying that I should assume that you have nuanced views. I remember the last discussion we had, I said that I cant take about something fully without assuming if you arent going to tell me. Now you are saying (for the second time in this thread) that you havent/arent going to tell me your views, but that I shouldnt assume. Kinda a mexican standoff isnt it?

Name me an example where the discourse controlled my future position instead of me thinking it over first.

Your reaction to the regional political shift in the middle east for one. Your previous opposition to the war has prevented you from even a cursory acknowledgement that US interventionalism in Iraq might have something to do with this shift. You can argue this isnt the case, but I think a bit of self reflection might prove otherwise.

The sources I read oftentimes cite their sources in the MSM. If I post anything here at GAF, it has probably been mentioned in the MSM already.

They also find stuff that the MSM does not pick up very well. There is stuff there I would not have normally find watching TV. BTW, I grew up reading conservative editorial pages with opinions straight out of the Cato and Heritage Institutes.

Do you want a cookie for reading conservative editorials? We can share the box that the DNC sent me for reading moveon.org. What is your point here? You are still reading the basic equivalent of a democratic fox news, and you arent being called to account because the board primarily agrees with you. Your news is just as tainted...I will take the mainstream media/wire reports plus my own ability to cut the crap out over news from reporters with an agenda any day of the week, and twice on sundays.

However, the administration is indeed involved. They gave this guy his pass for like two years. I'm not looking for the same level of publicity as the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but some kind of drama. Instead, I get a bunch of insipid remarks. As of yet, I don't know if my local newspaper has said much or anything at all.

The administration is involved in their failure to exercise due diligence. You are diluted if you honestly think they knew he was a gay prostitute before. No one is that stupid. They just gave him a pass and didnt check him out because he served their purposes. Ok. Lots of similar partisan hacks have been credentialled before, in previous adminstations, and they are easy to find. Just look for the people who get to ask questions first. This one just happened to have an unsavory past. It really is a non-story. You just want to see Republicans embarassed for dealing with a homosexual because you probably feel (and yes, this is me assuming) that this embarassment exposes some kind of republican hypocrisy on your "pet cause".

If it really belongs to someone else, I try to put it into quotation marks.

The point is that your political influences have seemingly overridden your political decision making ability. Meaning that they belong to some one else, but you have been indoctrinated into thinking they are your own. I honestly think you are a fair bit more moderate than you portray online, but that is neither he nor there.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Sorry, were you just debating there?

No, I was just warming you up for that remark. Im the straight man and you are the comedian right?

 

[Kobun Heat]

Im the straight man

Good thing, else you'd be outed right out of the White House! badum chhh.

 

[Mandark]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

There are plenty of other things you could consider: Steady international pressure, grassroots democratic/opposition movements, the death of Yasser Arafat, the assassination of Rafik al Hariri, etc.

Please, explain to me the correlation, in terms other than "this happened, then some other thing happened, and they're both related to democracy, and they're both in this geographical region."

 

[FightyF]

All of this happens after the installation of a democracy in Iraq, when there were not even the slightest rumblings of this kind of widespread outspoken political expression happening in the past.

There's more evidence that Osama bin Laden has had a more positive effect on Democracy in the Middle East rather than Bush. It was Osama who asked the people of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc to revolt. It's a really WEAK connection, but stronger than the one you assert, which is based on coincidence rather than actions. He was the outspoken political expression (even if he's wrong, it's still expression) that existed before the invasion of Iraq. There are many like him who may or may not agree with his tactics, but agree with the message of reform in the Middle East.

The trigger for the situation in Lebanon has nothing to do with the US, unless you are claiming that CIA operatives were behind it :lol

The situation in Saudi Arabia has more do to with the fact that there is a slow Islamic revolution occuring there, and monarchies are frowned upon. The elections are representative of the ideological struggle between having a monarchy and claiming to be an Islamic state.

The triggers for these events are in no way tied to the invasion of Iraq. What IS tied to the invasion of Iraq are the elections within Iraq itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MetatronM]

Hosni Mubark opens up the presidential election to multiple candidates for the first time.
Saudi Arabia holds elections for local councils for the first time.
Palestinans hold the one of the most open, fair elections in recent memory in the Arab world after a lengthy period of rule by de facto referrendum.
Lebanese rally in their streets forcing the resignation of they Syrian backed Prime Minister, ala the Orange Revolution, and demand the pullout of their Syrian "masters" ahead of parlimentary elections that the Syrian army was widely believed to have desired to affect in various ways.

All of this happens after the installation of a democracy in Iraq, when there were not even the slightest rumblings of this kind of widespread outspoken political expression happening in the past.

You do not have to like the war, but you have to open your eyes and realize what is going on is a good thing. This is the position of most opposed to the war European governments, but the left/progressive movement in the states cant come to it yet. I just dont get it.

One thing occurring after another is not, in and of itself, causality.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

GAF is like nazi germany - a suspicously abundant supply of homosexual agitators.

Fuck nazi admins. This analogy will be truly fulfilled once this jew is exiled.

 

[Hitokage]

GAF is like nazi germany - a suspicously abundant supply of homosexual agitators.

Fuck nazi admins. This analogy will be truly fulfilled once this jew is exiled.

The National Socialist Moderators Party only seeks to relocate you to a safer place.

 

[videogamer]

This is your grand rhetorical strategy. To say that I am making assumptions about you. Look at what I wrote originally, I never said that YOU yourself do not have a stand. I said that I hate returning the favor, because it is equivalent to a free pass on things.

Alright, it seemed as though you were implying that I was not taking a stand because of my own beliefs. And yes, you have made assumptions about me. Just check out the old thread.

You go further to quote me explaining my position as to why I hate "returning the favor" and take it to mean that I am again assuming things about you. Dude, I dont want to assume things about you. I was explaining my position. Your egocentrism on these things is amusing to me. I wasnt talking about abortion rights, hence why I used hypothetical issue A and B. You assumed that I was talking about you. I was actually talking about my own politheoritical construct.

I mentioned abortion rights as a tangible example, not as anything else. You imply that I do not think things through because I "return favors".

I said YOU CAN hold that kind of position. I know I dont dictate how you speak, because if I did, you would not seem so out of step to me. Again, you didnt look at the nuance of my statement, applied your egocentrism, and proceeded forward.

You compared me to the "Democrats on the hill" who are not willing to praise Bush's plans. You want them to say a certain thing, and it's not too far off to say that you would want me to say something postive too.

That is good to hear your professors and TA might disagree. Getting beyond the point that a TA is probably the most revolting stage of ones academic life, this point is completely irrelevant. As is your educational background.

Oh well. The TA's that I am the closest with LIKE teaching. Sure they are dedicated to their research, but that doesn't mean that they can't enjoy it. I would say it is relevant because I have to write papers in school comparing subjects. Writing papers that take nuances into mind does matter.

However, what is important is that you complain that people assume things about you they arent, and then go on to justify another point by saying that I should assume that you have nuanced views. I remember the last discussion we had, I said that I cant take about something fully without assuming if you arent going to tell me. Now you are saying (for the second time in this thread) that you havent/arent going to tell me your views, but that I shouldnt assume. Kinda a mexican standoff isnt it?

The problem is, you assume things without even asking me first if it is true or not.

Your reaction to the regional political shift in the middle east for one. Your previous opposition to the war has prevented you from even a cursory acknowledgement that US interventionalism in Iraq might have something to do with this shift. You can argue this isnt the case, but I think a bit of self reflection might prove otherwise.

The Iraq conflict is no longer a "discourse". They aren't talking about it. It has already occursed. The WMDs have yet to be found.

Do you want a cookie for reading conservative editorials?...What is your point here?

I mentioned it because you said how the articles I read are biased. Well, I grew up reading biased materials, and look at me, I don't care about them.

We can share the box that the DNC sent me for reading moveon.org.

Oh really? I know you not telling the truth, but moveon.org is NOT closely alight with the establishment of the Democatic party.

You are still reading the basic equivalent of a democratic fox news, and you arent being called to account because the board primarily agrees with you. Your news is just as tainted...I will take the mainstream media/wire reports plus my own ability to cut the crap out over news from reporters with an agenda any day of the week, and twice on sundays.

Find some instances where I posted an article that was from a blog that did not cite the MSM as a source. What I often post are articles in the MSM that the blogs caught themselve (or with whatever help). Show me the articles that I post that are straight out of the blogs and are blatently biased. Then look up the posts that are pretty much available anywhere or are on the MSM.

The administration is involved in their failure to exercise due diligence. You are diluted if you honestly think they knew he was a gay prostitute before. No one is that stupid.

I didn't mention the gay prostitute part in this thread. The part I mentioned was the use of the fake name.

They just gave him a pass and didnt check him out because he served their purposes. Ok. Lots of similar partisan hacks have been credentialled before, in previous adminstations, and they are easy to find. Just look for the people who get to ask questions first. This one just happened to have an unsavory past. It really is a non-story.

But how many of them rip right off of Republican PR?

You just want to see Republicans embarassed for dealing with a homosexual because you probably feel (and yes, this is me assuming) that this embarassment exposes some kind of republican hypocrisy on your "pet cause".

And yes, you assume. And wrong. I posted about Gannon before his websites were found.

The point is that your political influences have seemingly overridden your political decision making ability. Meaning that they belong to some one else, but you have been indoctrinated into thinking they are your own. I honestly think you are a fair bit more moderate than you portray online, but that is neither he nor there.

Alright then, tell me where and how these "political influences have overridden my polical decision making ability".

 

[Dilbert]

One thing occurring after another is not, in and of itself, causality.

Exactly. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the basic logical fallacies.

By the way, I've just been informed that the weight I've gained recently has actually affected Mandark's ass size. Sorry, man...it wasn't the cheeseburgers after all.

 

[Celicar]

My English 1010 class is a young republican utopia. It makes me sick.

Sounds like a pretty cool class. I LOVED those classes. Didn't come across too many of them though. Usually the other way around.

 

[border]

Hammy is really not backing down on this one. Just like the Nazis didn't back down! Take this somewhere else, Hitler...

 

[Boogie]

:lol

 

[tetsuoxb]

The Washington Post has an interesting story backing up my opinion that Bush's Mideast policy (which is dominated by the war) was right.

While the article presents both sides, it goes about it with the general assumption that Bush was right.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7121415/

Choice quotes:

The debate in Washington has shifted as well. Jon Stewart, a liberal talk show host on Comedy Central, raised the idea last week that maybe Bush was right. "This is the most difficult thing for me, because I don't care for the tactics," he said, "but I've got to say I've never seen results like this ever in that region."

His guest, former Clinton national security aide Nancy Soderberg, author of a new book critical of Bush policy, generally agreed: "There is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it in the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them."

 

[FightyF]

"This is the most difficult thing for me, because I don't care for the tactics," he said, "but I've got to say I've never seen results like this ever in that region."

Results? What results?