Ed writes:

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.

Already reduced to name calling, Ed?

Read more slowly, apply in context and try not to move your lips. I
called no names

"dedicated liberal" is a name and a pejorative term you used to describe a
poster whom you couldn't gainsay.


but pointed out the emotionalism of Juvat's
statements.

And you called him a name.

I know you're a vet. You were in Viet Nam, right?

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

I mean, irrespective of what General Zinni says, do you think that things are
going well in Iraq? We have @ 5,000 casualties now. I distinctly remember
Vice President Cheney saying on Meet The Press before the war that we would be
greeted as liberators. I don't need General Zinni to tell me that the Bush
administration has --totally-- mismanaged the war. They disbanded the army;
that's now seen as a mistake. They got rid of the Ba'athists, but now they are
bringing some of them back. I can see for myself that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith and those other neo-con bums are practically criminals.

Do you recall from @ two weeks ago, when Wolfowitz misrepresented the number of
KIA? He had no idea what it was. He missed the actual figure by 50%.
As a veteran, now. How does that make you feel?


(Might I note, that a response that implies an ad hominem
attack when none was made is also a familiar gambit.)

You mean like calling someone a "dedicated liberal"?

General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq,
Al
Quaida or no.

Read more slowly. Note the response is to Juvat, not a mention of
Zinni in the entire post.


Read more slowly. General Zinni is not a liberal, whatever else this other
person may be.

I generally enjoy your posts a lot. But you need to step back from what you
believe and compare it to what is happening.

Walt