http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==

Herb

Anyone other than a plutocratic theocrat like the shrub is OK.

http://www.populist.com/06.9.bybee.html

On winding threads
of Nixon and Dole
Remember this
Herb's a troll

Jonah Goldberg (author of this editorial) makes several basic assumptions I don't agree with at all:

- that Bush's "war on terror" has been successful because there has been no domestic terrorist attack since 9/11 (well, let's not count the Antrax attacks). That's like saying that he was successful against terrorism up until September 10th, 2001 because there were no terrorist attacks on American soil during Bush's first few months in office. Hell, I'd like to see Republicans stand up and acknowledge that after the first WTC attack in 1993, Bill Clinton had perfect record on international terrorist attacks, since there were no attacks on American soil by international terrorists for the rest of his presidency.

- that all the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush's use of force against Iraq in October 2002 were voting for the war he actually launched in March 2003. In fact, Hillary for example said she voted for it in part to give the US the teeth needed to force Saddam to submit to full inspections, which he indeed agreed to. Unfortunately, Bush didn't wait for the inspectors to finish their job.

- that "the enemy" is one big group of united Islamic terrorists headed by al Qaeda and that if we redeployed from the civil war we helped ignite in Iraq we'd be "handing Iraq over to the enemy." Actually we'd be most likely handing Iraq over to whoever wins the civil war, which might well be the Shiites (not exactly friends of al Qaeda).

Because I completely disagree with his fundamental assumptions, it's hard even to discuss his basic points.

Actually, some Democrats made the same kind of case about letting Bush win in 2004: because they thought Bush should be charged with cleaning up the mess he started in Iraq, not dump it on the Democrats. Unfortunately, we can see now that Bush doesn't really care about cleaning anything up or changing much besides the language to describe what's going on in Iraq, and he's just going to leave the Iraq mess to the next American president, whether that person be a Democrat or a Republican.

Andrew

Calling names
Shows your stature
Please get back to me
When you mature

Herb

I notice you completely ignored my response and simply responded to a simpler post, as usual. I guess you can't really argue with my point of view?

Andrew

Andrew, my friend, when will you tire of sparring with a ghost? You are too intelligent to waste time with him.

I read the article too Andy. I will acknowledge that you made some great points, but since I really can't argue with you, I guess I'm no help either.

Stature rhymes with Thatcher,
Each Briton rightly knows,
Mature rhymes not with stature,
Or with pumpkin,
In the prose.

Actually Herb has done me a great service. He has helped me sharpen my arguments and helped me learn how to argue with conservatives who have their blinders on. And I honestly don't consider him a troll. There are lots of people who think and believe as he does.

Andrew

I accept your back-handed [but definitely not-ham-fisted] compliment, Andrew.

Although we often disagree, you're not a name-caller. Unlike others who cannot put a cogent argument together, you rely on reason. I respect that.

Herb

I agree he's not a troll. He's many things, but not really that. I continue to boycott direct exchanges with him, I'm happy to let you handle it, as you are better at it and more patient than I would be.

I agree Andrew. It is good to spar when it keeps you sharp. My issue came to light when a misogynist was defended unconditionally and without reserve by someone who ought to be wise enough to shy from that particular battle. Even my dearest friend would not have the leverage to convince me that was right. Until an apology is forthcoming, I am not enabling any further pathetic vitriol from the peanut gallery.

You don't necessarily have to be a Troll to lead them into battle, but once you have led, it is too late to distance yourself from your troops. Herb may be an Elf, a Hobbit, or a Dwarf, but as long as he takes guidance from Sauron, he will be forever associated with the land of Mordor and the evil Trolls. Herb is not the problem, it is the undead he has animated to fortify his positions.

Gamgee/Baggins '08

Frankly, I'm not gonna bite on this, outside of this post. I will add the following to Andrews excellent counter-points:

The GOP is in no position to allow anything, but they will always offer their usual points in creative new ways. Let's look them over!

There is one thing that you can always count on from hardcore Bush supporters and that is they are all about teaching somebody a lesson. This whole piece is framed about that basic idea.

As if the GOP actually has the high ground from which to teach right now! Given their record of control, that's a very heavy burden to meet, so I reject that notion right out of the gate.

Any acceptance of that, implies the GOP really isn't at fault, but world events are. Seems to me this is a very nicely done rework of the, "It's hard work!" bit, but that's all it is.

Then we have the, "if you believe the war on terror is true" line. This is simply, "With us or against us" re-framed and dolled up to impress!

This follows with him gently floating the idea that somehow our lack of success comes down to poor support for the GOP and Bush in particular. Sorry, but he had his chance and blew it solid with Iraq.

"Irresponsible back seat drivers" Do I hear obstructionists being evoked again? I'm sure I do.

"America's war" Like Iraq has anything to do with our war on terror. That's been debunked over and over, yet we see it here once again.

"Won't take responsibility for their convictions" Let's just start with a non-binding resolution being extremely foolish, if the Democratic position is so wrong. Why not then set things right huh? Demonstrate to us how we are seeing success and that all is good.

We had an attack on American buildings in Bagdad today! It's not looking good and heading downhill.

And this! Oh man, you gotta appreciate this bit of word smithing:

"Of course, many Democrats sincerely believe that the war on terror is real and that Iraq is a dangerous distraction from it. But that’s not the issue. Terror hawks think you can’t both believe the war on terror is real and argue for handing Iraq over to the enemy — even if we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place."

Are you kidding me?

Damn right we should not have invaded and that it is the issue! Christ, we are weak, broke and without a solid reputation among our peers for this bit of stupidity. It's the gift that keeps on giving until we stop the bleeding, or seriously commit to engaging it properly.

Seeing as we blew our wad, jerking off the defense contractors, leaving is about all we can afford without having to draft or just sell what's left of our soverginty to pay for the effort.

let's just say we could easily get some help in Iraq, for everyones greater good. All we need is for our Resident President to admit he completely hosed this up and we can get plenty of help cleaning up the mess.

Ahh, but that puts control of the Oil at risk doesn't it. Gotta keep those multi-nationals happy don't we.

Lots unsaid here.

"Democrats need to be slapped out of their anti-Bush hysteria by real life." Yep, it's really hard work! So hard that we just can't fathom you weak on defense Democrats could possibly handle it.

"prospect of an Iraq run by terrorists?" Fear mongering, while being far less than honest here.

The whole damn piece is one big manupulation (and a fine one at that, leaving those loyalists something to cling to as they lose this coming cycle).

Let us remember just who opened the door wide for Iraq to become a nation run by terrorists.

That's right folks. Our very own Resident President. You know, the one the Supreme Court selected for us? Yeah, that guy.

As for the threat, it's not the Resident I'm worried about. He's on his way out --nothing to be done but decide the level of pain his exit will have.

The big threat is the GOP and it's remaining Bush supporters who blindly went along with this crap.

No votes to strengthen this mess period. That's the right message. Not allowing Democrats to win anything! Allowing is not even on the table right now, unless the loyal want to yield, "to teach somebody a lesson".

Go ahead guys. Do it and be educated.

BTW: I never once "name called" Herb. I don't do that. So I still don't know why he ignored everything I ever said. But it doesn't really matter.

Herb is definitely a troll, by the definition:

2 informal Computing an e-mail message or posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader.

indignant |in?dign?nt| adjective feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment

Herb just posts his political links with no comment to bait Andrew2 and a few others so they will waste time showing how inane and baseless his posting or posted link really is because Herb thrives on critiquing what others say, rather than having to take some position himself initially. Go back and look at the threads he starts. There is definitely a pattern there that is indicative of a troll. In addition, he ignores a lot of response information. He doesn't focus on replies with content, rather he loves it if you also add a social comment to which he can centralize his reply. And the large body of folks around here just feed his furnace. As a representative of conservative right dogma, he is lackluster.

Folks like that can't lead nor follow and don't get out of the way.
They are, however, easy to dismiss.

Andy you are 100% correct!

Missing and Trixter are even more hyper-partisan than I, so I automatically discount any posts they make.

Herb

Troll. karma will get Herb for shafting wayne. it was one thing to be the victim of a uneducated and misguided man's verbal vomit, its another thing to cheer on a man without the capacity to understand he was being used.

Yeah. " Let " us win in 2008. Then you can claim that it was all part of your plan.

Good strategery. Whatever it takes.

I don't care who get's credit. But you care who receives blame. So yes, if I were you, I'd start laying this groundwork of " We MEANT to lose " too.

This is a dream article for you Herb. All that rubbing of our faces in our success. As if that would shame us somehow. Yet, we never feel that shame. I wonder why that is.

"Missing and Trixter are even more hyper-partisan than I, so I automatically discount any posts they make."

Okie-triple-dokie, let's crunch some numbers. The only posts that fully addressed Herb's topic came from Andrew, Chickenjuggler and Missing KSKD. Out of 18 posts, only 1 in 6 even wanted to bother engaging. Then, Herb says that of those three, one must be tossed out -- ironically, the best response to the article -- because that person is partisan. So, that leaves Herb with a one in nine possibility for dialogue, not agreement, merely a response worthy of his attention that he may or may not acknowledge at all.

All the time I am crunching the numbers I am left with this puzzle: What if we are simply helping to develop a new form of interactive artificial intelligence created by some freaky pie extremist group with alien technology that is refining this program to eventually take over our thoughts and let the visitors gain complete domination over our planet? Then, I realize, for my own good, that is utter hokum. The men let go of my shoulders, drop me back in my chair and disappear in a black helicopter into the night. :o)

'...because that person is partisan...'

That's hyper-partisan.

Don't misquote me and I won't misquote you.

Herb

Actually he didn't!

Your words are reproduced exactly as you wrote them. From there, he then made his point taking some liberty with the partisan bit.

Given the word hyper is highly subjective, there is some latitude in this that is easily justified. Maybe he sees some people as being partisan when you see them as hyper-partisan. That difference is reflected in the effort taken to reproduce your words correctly before engaging.

Somebody piss in your Fruit Loops this morning?

I'll take hyper-partisan. That would explain why Herb ignored everything I posted, even direct questions addressed to him.

Really, he's just emulating his heroes. Totally ignore anyone that you don't agree with. Yeah, that's a good, open minded, American approach.

HYPER-partisan???

hyper-CON???

YES!!!!!!