How Candy Dropped From the Sky Changed World History

[Bloggingheads]

[bjkeefe]

Just started watching, and I don't know how much longer I'll last. Thoughts on the opening segment:

The idea of a speechwriter who worked for George W. Bush saying Barack Obama can't give a speech kills irony dead, digs it up, and kills it again.

And now he's here to tell us that he didn't like the Philadelphia race speech? Again? Wow. Compared to this, Mickey on immigration is fresh.

Frum has become such a blatant hack that he's not worth listening to anymore. He used to present some ideas that were worth listening to but now he's just preaching to a very small choir. I'm sure there will be a few here who will be delighted by his words and will pile on, but really, he has no hope of getting anyone but the hardcore rightwingers to listen to him.

[bjkeefe]

PS: For your information, Mr. Frum, current count for views on the Philadelphia speech: not "tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands." Latest count: 4,508,293. On that one page alone.

As I understand it, YouTube only counts a view if the video is watched end to end.

[Thus Spoke Elvis]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Just started watching, and I don't know how much longer I'll last. Thoughts on the opening segment:

The idea of a speechwriter who worked for George W. Bush saying Barack Obama can't give a speech kills irony dead, digs it up, and kills it again.

I disagree.

This conflates the speech writer with the speech deliverer. They are usually two different people. If you just read the text of their most significant speeches, you could make the case that W. Bush's speeches were better than those of Bill Clinton. But Clinton's delivery of mediocre text was usually superior to Bush's delivery of a well-written speech.

Even if you want to make the case that the delivery of a speech is an important consideration when determining whether it's well-written, I'd still make the case that many of Bush's speeches have been quite good -- at least so long as your assessment is based on their effectiveness. Think about Bush's address to Congress after 9/11, or his 2004 address at the Republican National Convention -- those speeches had an enormous impact upon their audience. Bush's speech to Congress (which Frum had a hand in writing, btw) instilled confidence in both Republicans and Democrats that Bush was capable of responding to the attack on America -- a view that was much less widely held on 9/11 and 9/12. I would make the case that Bush's 2004 RNC speech won him the presidential election, as it raised his poll standings over Kerry to the point where he could afford to do poorly in their subsequent debates.

And now he's here to tell us that he didn't like the Philadelphia race speech? Again? Wow. Compared to this, Mickey on immigration is fresh.

Frum's position was a bit more nuanced than that. He thinks Obama gives great speeches in the 19th century sense; that is, they are effective in open-air, political rally settings. But in the modern age of mass communication, speeches are going to be presented by media outlets in snippets and soundbites, and Obama's speeches aren't very effective when truncated.

While I personally liked Obama's speech on race (though strangely, I found it better when I read the text than when I heard Obama deliver it), I agree with Frum that it wasn't very effective. Based on the voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, it seemed to do little to assuage concerns that white working class voters have about him. It was the concerns of those voters that Obama was attempting to mollify when he delivered the Philadelphia speech. If a speech fails to convince its target audience, how can it be deemed effective?

[Incompetence Dodger]

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis

While I personally liked Obama's speech on race (though strangely, I found it better when I read the text than when I heard Obama deliver it), I agree with Frum that it wasn't very effective. Based on the voting patterns in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, it seemed to do little to assuage concerns that white working class voters have about him. It was the concerns of those voters that Obama was attempting to mollify when he delivered the Philadelphia speech. If a speech fails to convince its target audience, how can it be deemed effective?

Well, for one, the Gettysburg Address was famously a flop initially (disclaimer: as much as I liked Obama's speech on race, and as much as I think it genuinely marks a turning point, I am NOT making a 1:1 equivalence between it and the Gettysburg Address; let's not get stuck on stupid, people).

I was fascinated by Cherny's point that Obama went through that speech and de-soundbited it. Very astute, both in terms of political self-defense, frustrating those who would use turn those soundbites against him (Exhibit A here), and as part of what seems to be his campaign to tone down the national pie-fight and get liberals and conservatives that are willing to engage each other in good faith to do so on a more productive level.

In that vein, Elvis, I'd like to echo what Brendan said the other day about wishing there were more conservatives like you.

[Thus Spoke Elvis]

Originally Posted by Incompetence Dodger

Well, for one, the Gettysburg Address was famously a flop initially (disclaimer: as much as I liked Obama's speech on race, and as much as I think it genuinely marks a turning point, I am NOT making a 1:1 equivalence between it and the Gettysburg Address; let's not get stuck on stupid, people).

True enough, and I don't mean to suggest that immediate effectiveness is the only measure by which to judge a speech. In time, speeches that didn't seem so impressive may come to be seen as transcendent. But unlike the Gettysburg Address, I don't think Obama's speech will stand the test of time -- the context and (yes) much of its content were too temporal in nature. And because of that, I'm comfortable judging the speech first and foremost on its effectiveness upon the intended audience.

In that vein, Elvis, I'd like to echo what Brendan said the other day about wishing there were more conservatives like you.

Thanks...I think.

[bjkeefe]

Elvis:

This conflates the speech writer with the speech deliverer.

A fair point. Of course, I cannot completely agree on the effectiveness of Bush's speeches, since they certainly failed to win me over. I do grant that he (and his words, via Frum, et al) seemed to get a good reaction from a lot of people at the time, but I wonder how much of a challenge it would be for anyone to have rallied the American public by talking tough after we were attacked.

While I personally liked Obama's speech on race (though strangely, I found it better when I read the text than when I heard Obama deliver it), I agree with Frum that it wasn't very effective.

I think you and Frum make a mistake in evaluating the speech's effectiveness -- it sounds to me that you're both saying that it failed to be a magic bullet. There was no way he was going to alleviate everyone's concerns, no matter what he said. The speech did work for a lot of people -- if you look back at the commentary in the days following, you'll find all sorts of glowing reactions. I'd also say that it's better to consider the speech as a step in the right direction to addressing an enormously complex issue, rather than as a question of did it work or did it not.

Another thought: Purely politically, one measure of its effectiveness might be this: The Wright controversy did not cost Obama the nomination, when many people felt it likely that it would.

[Thus Spoke Elvis]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Elvis:
I do grant that he (and his words, via Frum, et al) seemed to get a good reaction from a lot of people at the time, but I wonder how much of a challenge it would be for anyone to have rallied the American public by talking tough after we were attacked.

There's naturally going to be some rallying around the flag/President at a time like 9/11, but Bush's address to Congress was a great speech. He talked tough beginning on the day of the attack, but before that address, he didn't inspire nearly the degree of confidence.

I think you and Frum make a mistake in evaluating the speech's effectiveness -- it sounds to me that you're both saying that it failed to be a magic bullet. There was no way he was going to alleviate everyone's concerns, no matter what he said. The speech did work for a lot of people -- if you look back at the commentary in the days following, you'll find all sorts of glowing reactions.

It's true that the speech worked for a lot of media types, but they were not the target audience, and their opinion was much less meaningful in this instance than that of white working class voters. While I don't think it was possible for Obama to deliver a speech that would completely win over this group, I do think that a shorter, more direct speech that more forcefully denounced Wright would have been more effective.

Another thought: Purely politically, one measure of its effectiveness might be this: The Wright controversy did not cost Obama the nomination, when many people felt it likely that it would.

I can't say whether the damage done by Wright was overblown or not. Some have argued that it already crested by the time of Obama's speech. But there is still a chance that the Wright controversy and its lingering aftermath will cost Obama the general election in a year when Democrats should be guaranteed the presidency.

[bkjazfan]

Maybe Frum was in a bad mood today. He seemed to be reaching on some of his criticisms of obama and the Democratic Party.

He said Obama has little international experience which to the best of my knowledge is true (no, living in Indonesnia as a child does not count). In the modern era what president has? Reagan, Clinton, or GW Bush - I don't think so. In my voting years most have not.

John

[arg11]

The thing that Frum is conveniently eliding in his discussion of the race speech is that Obama did answer this question numerous times in interviews and debates, but nobody accepted his answer. So he gave the race speech in order to contextualize the entire debate. Moreover, Frum's referring to Wright as "an evil man saying evil things" is typical right-wing bullshit. Let's quote Falwell a couple of times: "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us what we probably deserve." "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this [i.e. 9/11] happen.'" "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" Compared to Falwell, Wright is a moderate, but would Frum call Falwell an "evil man saying evil things"? I doubt it. Instead, he would tell me: "That's not the issue here. The issue is that Barack Obama has this demagogue pastor. Does McCain have a demagogue pastor?" Answer: Yes, Rod Parsley, who believes that America has a God-given mission to destroy Islam.

[bkjazfan]

arg 11,

Barak Obama went to Jeremiah's Wright's church for 20 years. The reverend and this Father Phlegar engaged in "hate speech" pure and simple. If that's moderate what is radical?

John

[bjkeefe]

John:

Barak Obama went to Jeremiah's Wright's church for 20 years. The reverend and this Father Phlegar engaged in "hate speech" pure and simple. If that's moderate what is radical?

Are you of the opinion that that's all Wright spoke of?

Probably also worth noting that Pfleger wasn't a member of Obama's church, just an occasional guest speaker.

[piscivorous]

I should probably go and link to some obscure publication now that shows the links between Senator Obama and the Pastor Pfleger, and various grants to the good Pastorr's organizations and affiliates, but they would be ancient history and of little interest to you so I wont bother. Of sorry I already did that here

[bjkeefe]

pisc:

Isn't the air in your cocoon getting a little stale? From what's wafting out of it, I'd sure say so.

[piscivorous]

Once again your answer is innuendo instead of reasoned counter argument.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Once again your answer is innuendo instead of reasoned counter argument.

There is no reasoning with you, Pisc, not on the subject of Obama.

And you still have yet to answer my question: Is your obsession with reading, and linking to, anti-Obama screeds an example of being in a cocoon or not?

[jh in sd]

bj, Even though Wright spoke of positive things, it does not mitigate the hateful comments. That would be like saying if a man beats his wife but is a great philanthropist, then he is mostly a pretty good guy.

As for the Catholic priest, even creepier than his ridiculous tirade was the reaction of the good Christians in the congregation.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by jh in sd

bj, Even though Wright spoke of positive things, it does not mitigate the hateful comments. That would be like saying if a man beats his wife but is a great philanthropist, then he is mostly a pretty good guy.

As for the Catholic priest, even creepier than his ridiculous tirade was the reaction of the good Christians in the congregation.

As for Wright, I didn't find most of the things he said (before he melted down at the National Press Club) all that bad, when I heard or read them in fuller context; e.g., "God damn America." I did find some things kind of loony (the AIDS conspiracy theory). We can disagree about that, of course, but I will remind you of the hateful things that all sorts of people say about America, or parts of America, or groups of Americans, every day.

I don't at all agree with your analogy, though. Wife-beating is heinous. It's an entirely different thing from inflammatory speech. And it's not fair just to consider that "Wright spoke of positive things." He also had a long career of doing positive things.

Pfleger I have no opinion on. He sounded like a wannabe shock jock to me in the one clip I heard, but I just can't be be bothered to find out anything about him. I've got no reason to believe that Obama shares any of those attitudes towards Clinton; in fact, he strikes me as doing his level best to be courteous to and about her while she and her supporters grow progressively more unreasonable.

I don't know what the congregation did during Pfleger's sermon that upset you -- was it anything besides laughing and cheering? If that was the extent of it, well, all I can say is, welcome to life with a like-minded crowd of human beings. You ever go to a football game?

[jh in sd]

bj, Maybe the wife-beating analogy was over the top, but here are the similarities: abuse and betrayal. Wright abused his power by perverting the Christian messase from and pulpit and betrayed his congregation by doing so. As an athiest, you would not find that objectionable, by as a Christian I find it disgusting.

As the putrid priest mocked and derided Hillary Clinton, (a child of God from the believer's perspective), the congregation cheered him on, and some even gave him a standing ovation. So much for Christian fellowship.

As for the football analogy-who is the contest between at the Trinity Church? Black vs. white seems to be the answer-what a wonderful message to preach in a Christian church!

FYI-I am a Rams fan and immensly enjoy my annual visit to St. Louis!

[bjkeefe]

jh:

bj, Maybe the wife-beating analogy was over the top, but here are the similarities: abuse and betrayal. Wright abused his power by perverting the Christian messase from and pulpit and betrayed his congregation by doing so. As an athiest, you would not find that objectionable, by as a Christian I find it disgusting.

As the putrid priest mocked and derided Hillary Clinton, (a child of God from the believer's perspective), the congregation cheered him on, and some even gave him a standing ovation. So much for Christian fellowship.

As an atheist, I am all too often made aware of discrepancies between the way self-proclaimed Christians act and the way they should, if they were truly following the teachings of Jesus. (This was one of the things that first pushed me away from Christianity, as a matter of fact.) However, different people interpret those teachings in different ways. I don't find Wright's views as nearly at odds with those teachings as I do many other preachers.

I have already noted that I don't find anything admirable in what Pfleger said.

In any case, I think you're making way too much out of these events, and using trying to cast them into a frame of it offending your notion of what it means to be a Christian seems way over the top. People do bad things all the time, and if you're as committed a Christian as you say you are, you ought to be able to find some understanding and forgiveness within your heart. Or so it seems to me, from my understanding of what Jesus taught.

As for the football analogy-who is the contest between at the Trinity Church? Black vs. white seems to be the answer-what a wonderful message to preach in a Christian church!

That is not at all the analogy I was making, and you know it. I was merely pointing out that when a crowd is rooting for the home team, they're liable to get a little silly. If you want to see an example of how it works in the other direction, have a look at the comments section for any post on No Quarter. A good example is this one, where I posted a few comments -- search for "Brendan" and note the responses that I got.

[jh in sd]

bj, I don't recall Rev. Wright asking for forgiveness. He is unrepentant.

You are being inconsistant. You stated in a previous post that you wish more Christians would hold others of the faith accountable for un-Christian behaviour, but when I did that you criticize me for it. If you think that mean-spiritedness in the pulpit is acceptable, that you are out of touch.

The football analogy-you handed that one to me gift-wrapped.

Senator Obama was forced to leave his church because of Rev. Wright's arrogance. It must have been a horrible and painful experience for him and for his family. I feel compassion for him, but not for the church that painted him into a corner.

[graz]

Originally Posted by jh in sd

As for the Catholic priest, even creepier than his ridiculous tirade was the reaction of the good Christians in the congregation.

How can anyone defend his tirade? Or the seeming delight that some of the witnesses took from it. Well I'll try.
He is a man of the cloth and they were worshipers. Those facts as a given make it difficult if not impossible to excuse or justify the behavior.
If you defrock him and consider him a performer who was playing to his audience, you might concede that he was a hit.
Aren't Christians people too? As subject to prejudice and venial behavior as any other group?
If you were to condense his overwrought performance (truth-telling?) down to its essential points - it wouldn't be unique or a precedent.
I won't bother with the link to the same sentiments being expressed on the page (electrons on the screen), or comedians expressing exactly the same caricature of Hillary.
I realize that some are truly offended by the powerful video capture of the event. And I guess that the repulsion mostly stems from the perceived affront to religiosity. Secondly, it ruffles the feathers of Clinton supporters. It certainly reinforces the meme of Hillary as victim of unfair criticism.
I don't have enough fingers to count how many times I have read exactly the same assessment of Hillary's reaction to Obama. When you read on the flat page a characterization of Clinton's sense of entitlement and resentment of Obama - it hardly shocks. I can't prove either of those points definitively, and yet my intuition allows me to speculate that it seems to fit.

[fedorovingtonboop]

dave - why are you such a con robot? read the evidence then make up your mind.

[Sgt Schultz]

Obama's race speech is now "inoperative" -- haha!

[pod2]

Sorry, what, exactly are we to conclude from the European countries' refusal to provide troops to an occupation of Iraq?

What would it mean to spend more money on education and infrastructure than military expenditures? Has Frum visited France lately? Has he driven around the country, taken trains, seen the state of the infrastructure? Spending half of the discretionary budget on maintaining what Washington warned were standing armies and what Eisenhower warned was the Military industrial complex does not make us stronger in the 21st century. The refusal to provide troops in Iraq is a fairly ridiculous and contraindicative measure for Frum to use. Sending troops overseas as the sole measure of national strength and/or health seems so first century.

Sure liked to hear someone from the left say this!!!

And OF COURSE its because of the media age...or should I say the NEGATIVE LEFT WING media age. We get months and months of coverage followed by months more of left wing talking points about a handfull of soldiers at ABU GRAIB. We get months and months of coverage including Murtha slandering a handful of Marines about Haditha based on a BS Time Magazine speculation...and when they are pretty much all cleared of all charges, we get almost nothing!!!

But yet on a daily basis thousands of our soldiers ARE winning the hearts and minds of thousands of Iraqi's and unless you dig really hard you hear nothing of it because the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.

[pod2]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

Sure liked to hear someone from the left say this!!!

And OF COURSE its because of the media age...or should I say the NEGATIVE LEFT WING media age. We get months and months of coverage followed by months more of left wing talking points about a handfull of soldiers at ABU GRAIB. We get months and months of coverage including Murtha slandering a handful of Marines about Haditha based on a BS Time Magazine speculation...and when they are pretty much all cleared of all charges, we get almost nothing!!!

But yet on a daily basis thousands of our soldiers ARE winning the hearts and minds of thousands of Iraqi's and unless you dig really hard you hear nothing of it because the MSM and the International media is too consumed with BDS, blame America first or anti-americanism that they cannot bear the thought of anything good going on in Iraq...so they dwell on anything gutteral as they try to head off any positive notions and positive progress.

I hate to break it to you, but when you are an occupying force, the local populations seem to inconveniently focus on the cases of indiscriminate rape, murder, and torture. I'm sure that there were plenty of Soviet soldiers that were trying to win over the populations of Afghanistan in 1975 or in Prague 1965 or Chechnya 1999. It's just that torture, massive civilian casualties tend towards inconvenient sentiment on the part of local populations. Ask a Tibetan if you doubt this.

Originally Posted by pod2

I hate to break it to you, but when you are an occupying force, the local populations seem to inconveniently focus on the cases of indiscriminate rape, murder, and torture. I'm sure that there were plenty of Soviet soldiers that were trying to win over the populations of Afghanistan in 1975 or in Prague 1965 or Chechnya 1999. It's just that torture, massive civilian casualties tend towards inconvenient sentiment on the part of local populations. Ask a Tibetan if you doubt this.

Talking about Iraq here Pod. Deflection does not work here.
I suggest you read Yon's book. This force in Iraq is operating under a microscope. YOUR microscope. You actually have nothing to teach me.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

You actually have nothing to teach me.

In other words, you are unwilling to learn.

I'd save your breath (carpal tendons), pod2. There's no getting someone like Whatfur ever to admit anything bad about the military, just as there's no getting him to admit that the entire left does not, in fact, hate the troops. Not even this guy, if you read carefully enough. (This guy may, slightly.)

Whatfur is permanently stuck in a "with us or against us" mindset. He has no gray areas. Just watch how he responds to this.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

In other words, you are unwilling to learn.

I'd save your breath (carpal tendons), pod2. There's no getting someone like Whatfur ever to admit anything bad about the military, just as there's no getting him to admit that the entire left does not, in fact, hate the troops. Not even this guy, if you read carefully enough. (This guy may, slightly.)

Whatfur is permanently stuck in a "with us or against us" mindset. He has no gray areas. Just watch how he responds to this.

Not about not willing to learn...pod2s examples seemed to dwell on occupations by communist regimes (there's a shock), and their similarities to what we are trying to do in Iraq are miniscule.

Not about hating the troops either...that's pretty silly Brendan as are your links. Nice try though...you are a pretty good example of the problem yourself.

Listen to my link again and then go read Yon's book...and take something for that BDS.

[pod2]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

Talking about Iraq here Pod. Deflection does not work here.
I suggest you read Yon's book. This force in Iraq is operating under a microscope. YOUR microscope. You actually have nothing to teach me.

You're right, I should have been clearer. I AM talking about Iraq. When Iraqis see the hundreds of photos taken at Abu Ghraib, learn about the atrocities at Haditha, see the massive violence unleashed in their communities, they react just as other people do under occupation. Why is it so easy for us to understand the resistance of the Afghans in the 1970s, the Tibetans in the last 50 years, or the the Chechnyans in the last decade, but it does not compute when it comes to the Iraqis.

I'm not saying that I have anything to teach you. I don't know anything about you. I was just trying to post a comment on the boards.

Looking at things from the perspective of the people subject to an occupation that my tax money and implicit consent make possible is my responsibility. Even OUR responsibility.

Originally Posted by pod2

You're right, I should have been clearer.
...

Pod2 and AEMJeff,

I do not discount Abu Graib nor Haditha, although as the Haditha story has come to fruition it is not the same story the Murtha described nor the original one Time did. And I believe the only reason Murtha did not have to face charges was because of congressional immunity (you left that part out). I believe the final court martial is going on right now and its for not properly investigating the incidient...you know ...down from "cold blooded murder" being spashed across the world highlighted by a Democrat Congressman. Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? I guess that goes out the window when charges are dropped or not-guilty verdicts do not go the way of negative news for our troops and positive news for the LEFT.

However, the whole point of my post which you both continue to try to ignore is the overwhelming attention the left and its media gave and continues to give a handful of negative stories about a couple handfuls of soldiers...while hundreds of positive stories go left untold. I started the thread linking to the Cherny's admission of this. I guess you really don't want to confront the facts nor my questions, but just continue to want to work the negatives. That's fine as it goes to proving my point.

[bjkeefe]

Whatfur:

... while hundreds of positive stories go left untold.

What are these stories? If they're being untold, how do you know them?

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Whatfur:

What are these stories? If they're being untold, how do you know them?

I have been reading Michael Yon for years. And the stories do not go untold on conservative sites, Iraqi blogs written by Iraqi's, and Military blogs. Some creep into the WSJ, and even the Washington Post....like the other day...

Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war!


And of course FOX news lets a little seep in.

Start with Yon's book and once you are through with that I have a number of really cool stories I can share.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

I have been reading Michael Yon for years. And the stories do not go untold on conservative sites, Iraqi blogs written by Iraqi's, and Military blogs. Some creep into the WSJ, and even the Washington Post....like the other day...

Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war!


And of course FOX news lets a little seep in.

Start with Yon's book and once you are through with that I have a number of really cool stories I can share.

I'm sure the Yon and the rest of the milbloggers have all sorts of stories of individual kindnesses, acts of charity, caring, friends made by soldiers with certain Iraqis, what have you. But, as someone once said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

And the one link that you offer that purports to say anything about the larger picture is to ... an editorial. From the hawks at WaPo.

Uh, okay. You've convinced me.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I'm sure the Yon and the rest of the milbloggers have all sorts of stories of individual kindnesses, acts of charity, caring, friends made by soldiers with certain Iraqis, what have you. But, as someone once said, the plural of anecdote is not data.

And the one link that you offer that purports to say anything about the larger picture is to ... an editorial. From the hawks at WaPo.

Uh, okay. You've convinced me.

First, your "anecdote" quote seems to much more describe YOUR situation with Abu Graib etc.

Secondly, the WaPo story was hardly suppose to represent the hundreds that are out there as it seems you try to spin...it just happened to be ONE I had JUST read. Finishing with the little "Uh, okay" as if I meant the Wapo post to convince you ... would be as silly an assumption as your reaction to it.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Whatfur

First, your "anecdote" quote seems to much more describe YOUR situation with Abu Graib etc.

Secondly, the WaPo story was hardly suppose to represent the hundreds that are out there as it seems you try to spin...it just happened to be ONE I had JUST read. Finishing with the little "Uh, okay" as if I meant the Wapo post to convince you ... would be as silly an assumption as your reaction to it.

I don't think I brought up Abu Ghraib, and I certainly wouldn't offer it as proof, in and of itself, that the overall situation is a disaster. I think it does serve as a partial explanation of why many Iraqis are distrustful of the US presence, and I also think it serves as a symbol of the poor planning and mishandling of the situation by the Bush Administration.

As measures of how bad the big picture is, there are plenty of data -- number of Americans killed or wonded, number of Iraqis killed or wounded, amount of money spent by the US, lack of progress on restoring basic services like electricity, etc., the consensus view among almost everyone in the know that there is little prospect of the occupation ending soon -- if you're interested in looking for them.

You're right that I could have ended my last comment more politely. Sorry about that. However, you did originally suggest that you had lots to offer in the way of success stories that were being underreported, and then you didn't follow through.

[handle]

Here's who you are arguing with:

Originally Posted by handle
What about the (I think) obvious national security and economic advantages of moving away from fossil fuels? Or is your "logic" job in the petroleum industry?

Whatfur:
Nope. I work for Haliburton.

Whatfur is putting his mouth where his money is, Provided he is telling the truth. Even if he DOES work for the no-bid war profiteers, according to Wikipedia, they provide support for the petroleum industry. Maybe he's kidding, maybe he's lying or maybe he doesn't know what he is talking about, but given his politics, my guess is he's been making one hell of a lot of money off us by way of Bush Cheney, for Iraq related, no-bid, cost-plus services rendered.
We will never know, so I no longer care what his spin is 'cause I'm pretty sure if Cheney had a blog, it would read like pure whatfur.

Originally Posted by handle

Here's who you are arguing with:

Originally Posted by handle
What about the (I think) obvious national security and economic advantages of moving away from fossil fuels? Or is your "logic" job in the petroleum industry?

Whatfur:
Nope. I work for Haliburton.

To which I think you responded that you weren't going to bite. Looks like you bit. Maybe when you stop chewing you can come back and actually add something to the conversation.

[handle]

arentcha gonna refute the wikipedia reference? Jeez, I left that one right out in the open for 'ya!
Halliburton's major business segment is the Energy Services Group (ESG). ESG provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production.
Conversation? no problem! Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, support the troops, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, proud to be an American, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, winning the war, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, fair and balanced, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, liberals! Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, progress, Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah, IRAN!
I wasn't talking to you anyway. But now you got me 'cause I AM! whoa! you ARE good!
Good bye!