September 22, 2007

Nutpicking Penalizes Free Commenting

It's not often I agree with Steve Benen, but he makes a good point about trawling through comments sections of blogs of any stripe in order to cast aspersions on the blogger. It gets worse when political candidates do it to discredit opponents, the context in which Benen discusses it here:

For quite a while, conservatives have embraced an annoying strategy -- trawl through liberal comments sections in the hopes of finding intemperate remarks. The right then takes these comments to "prove" that the left is made up of unhinged radicals.

The practice has always been rather self-defeating. In fact, about a year ago, Kevin Drum came up with a sensible maxim: "If you're forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you've pretty much made exactly the opposite point." Eventually, the practice was even given a name: "Nutpicking."

It's not easy to build a community with a free and open comment section. If it's worth anything, the blogger has to allow a wide range of views from opponents and allies alike. The blogger has to trust that more extreme views will get challenged by other commenters or address them him/herself. Deleted comments and blocking commenters to achieve a homogeneous community eventually adds nothing but an echo chamber to the blog, and the comments become boring -- just an extension of the blogger.

Under those circumstances, it might be reasonable to judge the blogger by the comments. However, for those of us who have run comments sections for a few years and allow (sometimes through gritted teeth) all sorts of criticism and scolding on the blog, making assessments of the blogger by individual comments -- nutpicking -- is both unfair and undermining to the free exchange of ideas on blogs such as Captain's Quarters and TPM. It pressures bloggers to excise comments rather than just respond to them, as the nutpicking never includes those responses.

Danny Glover at Beltway Blogroll says that bloggers have the power to stop nutpicking -- and he's right. Rather than scan through comments on blogs to find the nutcases every time some significant event occurs, we should focus on the blogposts themselves. We should all allow commenters to represent themselves and not the blogs on which they comment. Otherwise, comments sections will either get so policed as to become boring and inconsequential, or bloggers will simply close them down in order to exercise total control over their message.

I prefer a debate, and I welcome anyone willing to honestly engage in my comments section. Only trolls need not apply.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/13592

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nutpicking Penalizes Free Commenting:

» Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup from Pirate's Cove
And a Happy Sunday to all! It is another fantastic day in America, and the first day of Fall! Ladies, be careful in the winds that tend to accompany the change in seasons. Of course, from a male point of view, don’t be carefull.   This... [Read More]

Comments (65)

Posted by Jeff | September 22, 2007 8:02 PM

But he's just making a point that isn't specific to comments, the point being that anecdotal evidence doesn't establish a general trait, or trend.

Nevertheless, a smart blogger could draw a truly random sample of comments from groups of left and right blogs of equal prestige, to find out whether popular leftist blogs or conservative blog comments are better written. Text can be scored with classical indices of readability such as the Flesch-Kincaid index, which can be automated by a clever Perl programmer.

Furthermore, a word list could be used to objectively count the presence of extreme, obscene, or threatening language.

I don't like the idea of saying we should just stop calling attention to the tenor of comments on political blogs, because I simply don't believe both sides are "equally guilty." I think the distribution is quite lopsided, with the violence and profanity tipping decidedly to the left.

Posted by Eric | September 22, 2007 8:18 PM

Nutpicking became an art by progressives smearing Little Green Footballs long before the right employed it right back at the left.

But in fact there is worse than nutpicking by counterbloggers going on, the comments in LGF are precisely the reason it gets flagged as a hate site by new aggregators like Google News.

Posted by kingronjo | September 22, 2007 8:23 PM

I know from personal experience that our good friend "Screw 'em" doesnt agree with this position. All because I signed off with Sheehan/Moore '08 he banned me from making comments. I would have thought he would have agreed with that ticket. Turns out he's just a sellout to the Dem Party and not a principled progressive at all (otherwise how could he have supported Jim Webb?).

You're right by the way. No one has all the answers and banning or deleting comments (unless they are pornographic or obscene) would limit debate that could lead to very important tangents that weren't foreseen originally from being brought up.

Off thread Cap, I think a poll of who would make the perfect running mate for Ron Paul is in order. I've been racking my brains and come up empty. I see all these online polls and he is always the clear winner.

Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 8:34 PM

I'd never heard of nutpicking before this. What a strange way to spend one's time, crawling through comments looking for the most unhinged or vile ones. Nobody even comments under his/her own name, we have no idea who anyone is, how can comments be used to prove anything.

I have to agree with the idea that banning would seem to be counterproductive. It leads to a lot of group think. Sometimes I think that's why lefties post here because I have to assume that their voices get lost at DailyKos or HuffPost, everybody saying the same thing, there can't be much in the way of engaging dialogue.

Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | September 22, 2007 8:37 PM

How anecdotal of you all. Without any sort of deciphering element to the anonymous poster how can any valid conclusion be made with absolute certantity of being accurate?

Posted by docjim505 | September 22, 2007 8:50 PM

For quite some time, Michelle Malkin did not allow comments on her blog, mostly (if not entirely) because of some of the lefty hate mail she routinely got. While I understood her reasons, I thought that banning comments was an ill-considered response. For one thing, it seems to me that it allows for intellectual laziness on the part of ANY blogger; with no comments, there is little criticism. Second, banning comments is something that I expect from the left, and we should never sink to their level. Finally, why not allow EVERYBODY to see the hateful comments? Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

As for the practice of "nutpicking", I've never heard the term before (it sounds vaguely disgusting, come to think of it!). I've gotta throw in with Bennett: it seems a strange way to spend one's time, though I confess that I've seen a few people post some of the more idiotic comments from Kos and DU here and at other blogs; this is usually good for a laugh.

O' course, nutpicking (maybe we should call it something else?) is a game at which two can play. Next time somebody accuses you of being a rightwing Christian conservative bigot homophobe Republican flack, Cap'n, just give 'em some sample posts from some of our resident lefties to demonstrate how "progressive" Captain's Quarters truly is.

Wait... Be VERY careful which lefty posts you use, because your critics might conclude from reading the wrong ones that you and the CQ community are simply morons.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 22, 2007 9:17 PM

I've often thought that if I wanted to discredit a candidate's blog, I could just act like a supporter and post a fairly extreme view which parodies the candidate's -- and then quote that view as an example of the type of supporter the candidate attracts. Obviously, I would be creating an evil sock puppet. IP addresses can be used to track back, but routing yourself through an anonymizer fixes that.

Sometimes I wonder about extreme right posters on this site -- are they really leftists aping an extreme rightist to prepare a quote for some other site? Are they actually using my nefarious idea? I notice CQ posts and comments are referenced frequently referenced on leftist blogs.

Of course, leftists can reverse the directions above and perhaps there is truth there too.

The only verified truth on a blog is the poster's. All commenters are suspect until the community knows them.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 22, 2007 9:25 PM

Eric says:

"Nutpicking became an art by progressives smearing Little Green Footballs long before the right employed it right back at the left.

But in fact there is worse than nutpicking by counterbloggers going on, the comments in LGF are precisely the reason it gets flagged as a hate site by new aggregators like Google News."

Actually, as a LGF member who rarely posts there (because the threads each get 700 replies and I can't get thru them all) I think that they get flagged as a "hate site" because they primarily, but not exclusively, focus on issues that show how dangerous Islamic extremism really is.

And don't forget, the Google search engine, not to mention their "news" are both biased in favor of the bad guys, and biased against Israel.

Hitler and Goebbels would be proud of them.

(And yes, I am trying to be flagged by DailyKos, Captain! LOL)

Posted by RBMN | September 22, 2007 9:32 PM

Re: docjim505 - September 22, 2007 8:50 PM

If Michelle Malkin allowed comments, she'd spend half her day just deleting the x-rated ones. Probably because she's a minority herself--an attractive highly-visible highly-effective conservative Asian-woman. She somehow provokes (in the lefty-kook mind) a extra special level of outrage and anger, that they save for "traitors." Non-redneck-whites in favor of “Bush’s War?” They can't understand it. Same for someone like Ward Connerly. If Ward Connerly was white, he wouldn't get half of the abuse he gets. Coming from a minority, it's seen as some kind of “betrayal” as well as just basic profound disagreement. I think Malkin suffers from that same kook-left reaction. Malkin and Connorly escaped from the plantation, and it just frosts the Left.

Posted by Joshua | September 22, 2007 9:33 PM

I never heard the term "nutpicking" before, but it is a real practice which should be avoided by everyone, regardless of political philosophy. As Eric points out, I've certainly seen it done by left-wingers trying to discredit Little Green Footballs.

Posted by docjim505 | September 22, 2007 9:39 PM

RBMN,

I agree that Michelle and Ward get lots of hate because of the color of their skins, and Michelle gets an extra dose because she's attractive (it speaks volumes about the left that they can't believe that an attractive woman is good for anything other than prostitution).

I still think that Michelle should allow unfettered comments to let the world see just what passes for argument and debate on the part of some "progressives".

Posted by Carol Herman | September 22, 2007 9:46 PM

Kevin Drum is such a lightweight.

He once had a blog called Cal Pundit. And, he did Friday Cat Blogging. (I love cat blogs!)

He couldn't take criticism. SO if you were doing a "business model," you'd learn that he couldn't take it when he tried to push Howie Dean off his "favorites list." But it was at Cal Pundit that I saw Wesley Clark entering the democratic scene. And, what followed?

It seems Kevin Drum's audience turned on him. I think his site was out shortly after Wesley Clark didn't make a dent on the 2004 Bonkey condendahs. Though he had on really nice suits.

And, one picture I do remember, introducing his wife, Gertrude. They were riding a ferris wheel at some park. Way to ga Clark. Up and in a circle. Like on a huge hamster wheel.

Anyway, at about the same time ... going back to 2004, Captain; you had this site as a "secondary" to your main line of work. At a Call Center.

Now? You've been able to give this blog, and your radio show, lots more time. And, you risked it. You gave up your position at the Call Center.

WHile, just as a "business model" ... Kevin Drum was forced to give up his blog.

I'm glad you allow debate.

I think, too, it's one of the strengths of the early successes to Talk Radio. (Back in the days when I listened, Rush Limbaugh loved the calls he got from the left.) And, he was using his daytime radio show as an educational tool. He picked up a following. (Then? The Army ... remember ... we're discussing back to when Clinton was in his first term. I can date when I listened. And, then when I stopped.) And, I can remember people taping the radio show to send to buddies, or sons, who were in the army. Because the army forbid the telecasts.

Which proves? You can't keep the good stuff from making contact with enough people, to be successful.

While Kevin Drum, wasn't.

By the way, Arianna Huffington, STARTED by stealing Breitbart from Drudge. Breitbart's turn around time, I think, was under six months.

And HuffPoo as I've seen it called, is just a regular pit stop for the insane. WHich is about what's left of the left.

Did George Soros really believe he was going to sell Code Pinko's?

There are business lessons in here, someplace.

Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 9:46 PM

"I notice CQ posts and comments are referenced frequently referenced on leftist blogs."

Really? This seems to be one of the saner blogs on the right-of-center side. I'm not even sure I would call the blog owner a conservative, at least not a fire breathing one.

But I don't read any far left blogs or any far right ones either. Other than the typical big names, Instapundit, Powerline, a few others I mostly read law related ones and as you might imagine, the comments there aren't really all that exciting. Not much you can do with an exegesis on Carey v Musladin (defendant challenged his conviction on grounds that victim's family were allowed to sit in the front row wearing buttons with a picture of the victim on them. Court didn't find that prejudicial. But then defendant had confessed to the killing so maybe the ruling wasn't that big of a stretch).


Posted by Country Squire | September 22, 2007 10:04 PM

Captain,

I agree with you that comments should be open and that a mature community of commenters can and will handle most anything that comes up. CQ commenters, as a rule, do not belittle or resort to name calling which is so prevalent at sites on the left side of the blogosphere. This crowd uses persuasive arguments to make their points, not vulgarity which is a reflection of and a credit to our host.

Posted by gaffo | September 22, 2007 10:18 PM

"Off thread Cap, I think a poll of who would make the perfect running mate for Ron Paul is in order. I've been racking my brains and come up empty. I see all these online polls and he is always the clear winner."

thats a no-brainer Chuck Hagel.

oh ya, someone said the "left" is more rude in posts than the "right"


utter horeshit.

rudness has no political position.

Posted by gaffo | September 22, 2007 10:23 PM

bennett wisely stateth:

"Sometimes I think that's why lefties post here because I have to assume that their voices get lost at DailyKos or HuffPost, everybody saying the same thing, there can't be much in the way of engaging dialogue."


You got it! Thats the reason I'm here and not there.

FYI I wasn't here for a couple of weeks - but i promised our host that I'd be on better behavior if granted re-instatement.

Let me tell you - it ain't easy! ;-/.

Posted by skeptical | September 22, 2007 11:04 PM

I certainly haven't taken a poll, but I'd say Ed's comment sections are a step up from a cesspool because Ed doesn't stoop to the kind of insulting, hate-spewing name calling attacks as much as a lot of political blogs, and he actually entertains points of view (witness this topic) that he doesn't expect only conservatives to agree with.

I can see having no comments at all, but that ends up being a completely different kind of blog from one in which anyone can contribute.

However, regularly being referred to as Dim, a Bonkey, a defeatist, an idiot, a traitor, treasonous, seditious, being told I belong in Iran, that I hate America, that the positions that I hold put me in league with bin Laden, that I supported Saddam, etc., etc., as I regularly am called and told here hardly makes me think the liberal blogs are worse or more violent, assuming that traitors deserve death as most of us believe.

No, no, I think Michele Malkin attracts horrible comments because she spews hatred and the Captain at least tries to take the high road. I don't think her ethnic ancestry or being a woman have anything to do with the anger she engenders with her vicious speech anymore than the anger O'Reilly engenders because he's a white man or Ann Coulter because she's blonde, or Limbaugh because he's overweight, or Savage because he's a Jew.

I regularly see my positions made into cartoon caricatures of what they are here, and I post to try to challenge Ed and his readers to consider other points of view, or at least one other point of view, but as insulting as it gets, I regularly wonder the value of expending my energy this way. I believe in open debate as does the Captain, so I am pleased that he has kept the comments open, and I think many of the subjects he posts on worth discussing, but the distortions, personal attacks, viciousness, bigotry, inaccuracy, unreasoning hatred, and dishonesty even here, where I have occasionally also seen some thoughtful debate and discussion, makes me wonder about our country and humanity in general. I have no doubt that conservatives feel the kind of unreasoning hostility on liberal sites, but I certainly would be loathe to say which side is worse, as so many of you will, or which side is more obnoxious or dangerous or whatever you wish to accuse the other side of.

I congratulate Ed on his keeping the comments open, and I also encourage his readers to review his guidelines periodically, but I also find myself doubting the value of trying to engaging the dogmatic in considering other points of view. As so many of these issues are literally life and death issues for us, I despair of seeing reason overtake the appalling level political and social discussion has taken in this country we love.

Posted by Bennett | September 22, 2007 11:22 PM

"However, regularly being referred to as Dim, a Bonkey, a defeatist, an idiot, a traitor, treasonous, seditious, being told I belong in Iran, that I hate America, that the positions that I hold put me in league with bin Laden, that I supported Saddam, etc., etc., as I regularly am called and told here hardly makes me think the liberal blogs are worse or more violent, assuming that traitors deserve death as most of us believe."

Isn't this the definition of nutpicking?

It seems as if there are only a few commenters who resort to name calling and the like. As to characterizing your position as "being like bin Laden" for example, don't you open yourself up to that when you advocate the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq since he wants that, too? That doesn't make you like bin Laden, of course, but it does mean you are in agreement with him on at least that point, probably for different reasons but then again maybe not.

Ok, I'm not trying to pick on you, and this is off topic anyway, but you can't deny you want the same thing as Public Enemy No. 1. And that's an interesting topic in itself. How do you distinguish that in your own mind? If you want the same thing as he does, which is something different from other Americans, where does that leave you? I mean, on whose side on that particular issue?

No need to answer, I just thought of the things you listed (and most of them are unacceptable I agree), I don't think that this criticism of your point of view is unjustified.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 22, 2007 11:48 PM

Well, gaffo, you might see rudeness all over the map; but I see a deminution for the left, once the Code Pinkos took over.

And, I gotta tella ya, Affirmative Action is the FAILURE of our time!

Bennett gave me the "expression" where a figher is classed by weight. And, those who are under-weight can't fight those who weigh more.

He used his analogy to describe why Israel wins. It pays to be in a class where your successes are demonstrably better.

While, yes, Lenny Bruce died so we can now say the "F" word without fears of being arrested. Many times, euphamisms just don't work as well.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 22, 2007 11:57 PM

Bennett, Bonkeys is bad? I thought calling the old democratic party Bonkeys, was way better than Donks.

It was Donks that I didn't like.

And, if that's name calling; I guess calling the Code Pinko's what they are is equally offensive?

Gee, I'm glad Lenny Bruce made me laugh. He set the record straight! People shouldn't be afraid of words.

As to the left? You mean it's showing up here? To do what? Make us change our minds about politics?

Doomed to failure.

People are always free to make up their minds; and then to share what they know.

Like Ronald Reagan, who was once a democrat, said, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

It wouldn't be politics if people didn't keep checking out the brands.

Not like it was in the old days! If your dad drove a Chevy. You did, too. Took a lot of work for those old war horses of brands to lose stature.

And, then I remember a woman in a dysfunctional marriage saying she purposely voted for the "other" choice, just to cancel out her husband's vote. Do people see the flaw in her logic?

On the other hand, seeing a wide range of opinions lets you know you're in a free country; where there's no curtailment on opinions.

I also maintain that Bonkey is a cute name. Not an insult. To a party that lost a lot of adherents. Nothing else seems to spell "disaster" for the affirmative action folk.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 22, 2007 11:59 PM

Meanwhile, "nutpicking" doesn't work for me.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 23, 2007 12:00 AM

Skeptical,

I note that all your "spewing hatred" sites are on the right. No mention of Michael Moore.

Therefore, I'm skeptical of your definition of "spewing hatred".

Personally, I rather violently disagree with quite a bit of what Malkin puts out, but I violently agree with the rest of it. There is never an "almost agree" or "almost disagree". So I would call her positions polarizing rather than "spewing hatred".

Polarization is good. It serves to heighten the contrast between opposing points of view. Ditto for "wedge issues".

And the point about dogmatics is that the phrase is always used to describe someone who doesn't believe what you believe, and is therefore (in a black/white frame of reference) closed to your beliefs. You are not going to change the dogmatic in a comment or two, but if your message has truth, it has an effect.

You say,

As so many of these issues are literally life and death issues for us, I despair of seeing reason overtake the appalling level political and social discussion has taken in this country we love.

My response is that the level of political discussion is commensurate with the gravity of the issues.

Posted by Steffan | September 23, 2007 12:30 AM

I've seen a lot of "nutpicking" on various sites, but that's the first time I've seen that particular term for it. I kinda like it.

Probably the best approach is what I've seen Charles at LGF do: put up a disclaimer, then actively ban the trolls. AFAICT he tracks them by their IP address... considering what he does for a living, it's probably quite a bit easier than a snap for him to do that. Kos, OTOH, tends to ban anyone that doesn't toe the party line.

I like debate. Having a rational discussion with others who don't share your point of view is far more valuable than hearing your own words reflected back to you in a stereo echo. That's what tripped up the Kerry campaign in '04, and it might sandbag the Dems in '08 as well.

I've got the popcorn.... :)

Posted by mw | September 23, 2007 12:48 AM

"it speaks volumes about the left that they can't believe that an attractive woman is good for anything other than prostitution" RBMN

Oh please. This comment was so absurd it had me laughing out loud.

"I think the distribution is quite lopsided, with the violence and profanity tipping decidedly to the left." - Jeff

Anyone on either side of the political spectrum who makes a statement like this, is speaking 100% about their own political bias and filters, and saying nothing about what is actually happening in the blogosphere.

I comment at CQ because I do find it to be a higher level of discourse than many other blogs, both in the post content and the comments. That said I have been called a traitor, troll and worse here many times.

I was banned at RedState for I thought was a truly innocuous fact based comment,directly responding to a comment of a regular on the site (I am DWSUWF in this thread). As a result I find RedState to be the penultimate "echo chamber", and rarely visit it anymore. But, like Jeff above - that is probably more a reflection of my own views. Still, the RedState perspective is understandable. Discourse is simply not an objective of that site, promoting a specific partisan agenda is, as it is at DailyKos. Rational fact based debate detracts from that agenda. Interestingly, irrational ad hominem attacks (from right or left) do not. Still, although I have been threatened with castration on dKos, they still let me post there.

On my own (much less trafficked) blog I suspect I do moderate comments proportionately more than Ed does here. Not for difference of opinion or to stifle debate, but to maintain a high level of discourse and focus on the topic of my blog and I don't permit some of the name-calling I have seen here. I guess its a question of how much teeth gnashing one is willing to suffer.

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 23, 2007 1:17 AM

"(sometimes through gritted teeth)"

HEhehehehee...

Us fans should do better in writing some quick reactions.

Of course a comment of any kind, is a compliment in a way, as it suggests the poster is relevant.

I have experienced a number of Democrat Liberal comments on the Left Wing Blogs, that have a universal theme, with nearly exactly the same content which can reflect some of the most nasty sentiments of the partisan mindset.

It is fair to include a selected comment as a tool to address an issue of some sort.

It is how the blogger handles the expression.

But the Captain says it quite well.

It is hard to imagine anyone attributing the Blog or commenter with the responsibility of the comment.

Of course, we have seen some Blogs celebrate the ugly comments, reposting, promoting, the very regretful expression.

Anyway, free expression is essential, and freedom, open competition is a sign of security.

Some hostile discourse simply cannot be ignored, just like the diatribe of the fool from Iran.

I wish to offer a compliment, as a I would read CQ just as much without comment availability.

Posted by Country Squire | September 23, 2007 6:24 AM

MW,

Just a few questions:

1. Can you point me toward any left of center blogs which, in your opinion, promote the same level of discourse you experience at CQ?

2. Your point about agenda driven sites may be valid though it doesn’t excuse the pathetically low level of discourse on either side of the political spectrum. But since you have, by your own admission, been banned from RedState, threatened with castration at DailyKos and “have been called a traitor, troll and worse here many times” might that be an indication that your comments create more heat than light?

I get angry about politics because I’m passionate about politics but I try not to let that passion manifest itself in name calling and personal attacks which then creates a downward spiral of comments and only manages to succeed in lowering the level of discourse. We all need to take responsibility and “dial it back” from time to time.

I am interested in well articulated posts on politics and current affairs which is why I read Mr. Morrissey every day. And as I mentioned above, the comments section at CQ generally takes the high road in comparison to the rest of the blogosphere.

Posted by docjim505 | September 23, 2007 6:30 AM

mw: It was I who wrote the comment, "[I]t speaks volumes about the left that they can't believe that an attractive woman is good for anything other than prostitution", not RBMN.

Please keep better track of who is insulting your side.

I would also suggest that you go through her archives and look at some of her lefty hate mail. I think that you'll find it supports my point.

skeptical: However, regularly being referred to as Dim, a Bonkey, a defeatist, an idiot, a traitor, treasonous, seditious, being told I belong in Iran, that I hate America, that the positions that I hold put me in league with bin Laden, that I supported Saddam, etc., etc., as I regularly am called and told here hardly makes me think the liberal blogs are worse or more violent, assuming that traitors deserve death as most of us believe.

You forgot "Benedict Arnold", "Judas", and "quisling."

Our country is at war, and you want us to lose. What else should we call you and your kind?

unclesmrgol: My response is that the level of political discussion is commensurate with the gravity of the issues.

Exactly. If we were discussing, oh, school vouchers or tax rates or tort reform, the rhetoric would probably be much milder; "idiot" would be about as bad as I'd expect to see, and then only in response to a really stupid opinion.

But I say again: our country is at war. I have no tolerance or respect for those who want us to lose. If Benedict Arnolds don't like being called traitors, etc. by us nasty ol' chickenhawks, then perhaps they should either (a) shut up or (b) seriously reconsider their position and think about just how revolting it is.

Posted by patrick neid | September 23, 2007 6:38 AM

It takes two---the blogger and the commentators to make a successful site. Both come and go, so enjoy it while it lasts. If we knew what the magic formula was we would bottle it and sell it.

Posted by weboy | September 23, 2007 7:52 AM

Kevin Drum continues to blog at Washington Monthly (www.washingtonmonthly.com), including his Friday Cat Blogging - still cute. He is very successful. "Nutpicking" was chosen after a long debate on the post that Kevin did that brought up just this topic. It wasn't my first choice, but in all its rudeness, it does make an effective point as a term. The people who like to say "yeah, but they started it" and "they're way more violent/negative/hateful than we are" exist on both sides, as does extreme, hateful rhetric. Trawling the comments sections of popular blogs to find crazies is not hard, and not - which seems the most significant point here - reflective of the blog writer's own views. I've had harsh dialogues with people on the right and on the left, and e-mails as ugly as the type of things Michelle Malkin talks about (an issue, I'd also point out, that women across the political spectrum on the web face far more risks over than men do). athe than using Nutpicking to tar a blogger, perhaps we should be Nutpicking for another purpose - to find out who really presents an offline threat, and to come up with sensible ways to make it clear that some things are, perhaps, too much (threats, personal info posting, and the like).

Finally, as a liberal, I've been a silent observer here at Captain's Quareters for a number of years. Over time, I've become comfortable with the seriousness of Ed's work, and his respect for all points of view. That happens, I think, when we do let comments run free.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 23, 2007 8:34 AM

docjim505, name-calling is what children do. I just ignore it when it comes my way, and if that's the only thing they're saying there's no need to bother responding to them.

As for wars and Iraq, we beat Saddam Hussein but found ourselves in the middle of a civil war as a result. (Bush had been warned about that by Powell among others, and Cheney himself once knew better.) We can try and pick a side to support or pick no side and try to wait it out, but it really is Iraq's war, not ours to fight. The problem is that as occupiers, our welcome has now worn out while the cost of the war in lives, money and lost respect in the world mounts. Whatever you care to call me or others who share my opinion (a majority of Americans by now, BTW) isn't changing that.

Posted by docjim505 | September 23, 2007 8:51 AM

No, starfleet_dude, calling a spade a spade is what adults do.

Ducking the issue ("It's not that I want us to LOSE, you see, it's just that I don't think we can win and shouldn't try") and hiding behind other people ("a majority of Americans share my opinion, so that must mean that I'm right and you're wrong") is what insecure little trolls do.

Posted by William Teach | September 23, 2007 8:54 AM

I'm going to have to partially disagree with you here, Ed. Nutpicking has its uses, particularly since the worst comment threads tend to occur on liberal sites. Yes, we should focus on what the blog posts are, however, some of the worst comments to to occur at the Daily Kos, HuffPost, and the DU, the latter two not really having posts, but snapshots of news stories. Just like you argued about a week ago that the Truthers should not be ignored, we should not ignore some of what is written in the comments.

For instance, when Rev. Falwall passed on, most liberals who covered it did so in a very respectful way, simply saying he died. There were a few exceptions, of course. It was in the comments that the liberal insanity came out.

Comments do not always represent the blogs or sites, but, sometimes they do, when the same craziness continues to occur.

We should not judge the blogger by the comments, but, the blog owner does have some responsibility for what is left on the site they own. Yes, we do want debate, but, can we really get that from people who are thrilled when someone tries to kill the VP of the USA, who celebrate Laura Ingraham getting breast cancer, and danced in the streets when Reagan died? People who think 9/11 was an inside job?

One of my rules when I dumpster dive, which I learned from John Hawkins, is to make sure that a. the point of the post or thread is highlighted, as they might have different tone then the comments, and b. mention when there are commenters who take a different point of view then the rest.

Posted by Keemo | September 23, 2007 9:01 AM

It takes two---the blogger and the commentators to make a successful site. Both come and go, so enjoy it while it lasts. If we knew what the magic formula was we would bottle it and sell it.
Posted by patrick neid | September 23, 2007 6:38 AM

Dead right Patrick...

But I say again: our country is at war. I have no tolerance or respect for those who want us to lose. If Benedict Arnolds don't like being called traitors, etc. by us nasty ol' chickenhawks, then perhaps they should either (a) shut up or (b) seriously reconsider their position and think about just how revolting it is.
Posted by docjim505 | September 23, 2007 6:30 AM

Simple and direct; to the heart of the matter... That's what I like about you doc; honest, direct, and to the point.

I have been engaged and involved with CQ from the beginning. CE got my attention with his writing skills and his strong moral value's. The comment section has grown into one of the best available, with a wide variety of personalities and a high level of qualified professionals engaged in the debate. This forum gives us an opportunity to share our thoughts and ideas; gives us a voice. I'll appreciate the opportunity for as long as it lasts.


Posted by starfleet_dude | September 23, 2007 9:40 AM

docjim505, I have no problem with people being forthright. Name-calling just detracts from that.

As for winning someone else's civil war, that's something a foreign power can't do by definition. In the end it's going to be decided by the Iraqis, not us. Unless you think it's a good idea to occupy Iraq for decades as a sort of neo-colony. Given the botch President Bush has made of it so far, it sure doesn't seem to be a good idea to me.

As for a majority of Americans turning against Bush's war in Iraq, if you don't want to recognize that as being important that's your call. I doubt the GOP is as dismissive though, hence their trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by calling the "surge" a partial, kinda, sorta success. But it did buy President Bush six more months towards January 20th, 2009 so I guess it has to be considered a success in that respect.

Posted by mw | September 23, 2007 9:41 AM

"Please keep better track of who is insulting your side." - Doc

Doc, Yep - I see now you were responding to RBMN. My bad. No excuses. Well, two excuses. It was late and I was well into my second scotch. My observation stands.

"Can you point me toward any left of center blogs which, in your opinion, promote the same level of discourse you experience at CQ?" - squre

These do not have anywhere near the same volume of participation as CQ, but Freedom Democrats is left of center, brings a left libertarian perrspective to the floor, and maintains a high level of discourse in both posts and comments. Gandelman's Moderate Voice is more left than the name implies, and moderates aggressively to keep the comments on the arguments and not the commenters.

since you have, by your own admission, been banned from RedState, threatened with castration at DailyKos and “have been called a traitor, troll and worse here many times” might that be an indication that your comments create more heat than light? - squire

Oh, I duuno, I am not inflammatory. I think I am just shining light on topics the local denizens don't want to look at. At dKos I was explaining that Democrats should consider not excessively weakening the institution of the Presidency. You know, leave something there for Hillary. At RedState I was explaining that the PolPot massacres had nothing to do with a vote in Congress and everything to do with Nixon/Kissingers prosecution of the war and peace. Flip flop those two comments, and everybody is happy.

I linked to the offending post at RedState, so you can judge for yourself. (I'd link to my offending Kos diary, but it would be the third link in this comment and throw me into the spam que.) BTW, It takes nothing to be called a traitor here, except to hold the majority American opinion that we have no business in Iraq.

Posted by Keemo | September 23, 2007 9:56 AM

As the "word gets out" that American warriors are having successes in Iraq and the greater GWOT, the polling data shows a considerable "rise" in American support for the war.

Americans want to win; pure and simple... Any so called American that wants to "lose" is now being exposed with the proper definition and given the proper treatment.

Posted by D Keith | September 23, 2007 9:56 AM

It is all too easy for a political campaign or advocacy group to anonymously post extremist comments that are far to the right of their conservative opponent, or far to the left of their liberal opponent, or just plain ridiculous. Then they can attempt to link their opponent to those extremist comment.

It is reasonable to criticize candidates for what they say, for what their campaign officials say, for the words they authorize in their literature or on their website. But demanding that candidates defend or reject often-anonymous comments is a time-wasting diversion.

Posted by starfleet_dude | September 23, 2007 10:06 AM

As the "word gets out" that American warriors are having successes in Iraq and the greater GWOT, the polling data shows a considerable "rise" in American support for the war.

You can be sure that Gen. Petraeus got the word out for President Bush and his "surge", but the American people remain pretty skeptical about such happy talk if this from Gallup is any indication:

According to a Sept. 14-16, 2007, USA Today/Gallup poll, only one-third of Americans are optimistic the United States will win the war in Iraq; nearly two-thirds generally think the U.S. will not win. These figures are virtually unchanged from the previous poll, conducted Sept. 7-8.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 23, 2007 10:17 AM

From what I've read, you don't have to look too deeply into most lefty bloggers' own posts to find intemperate, intolerant or unhinged remarks. The rest is just gravy.

Posted by Rovin | September 23, 2007 10:18 AM

Carol said: On the other hand, seeing a wide range of opinions lets you know you're in a free country; where there's no curtailment on opinions.

Trying to post a dissenting opinion in other parts of this world will net most either a visit from authorities and/or imprisionment. Imagine for a moment if CSU's F-Bush were published in Iran,China,NK,or Syria with regards to their respective leaders---there is no hole you could hide in deep enough.

Along with Ed and the principals this nation tolerates, we certainly have a lot to be thankful for.

Perhaps it is this very visual threat to our liberties that creates the passionate response's to those who refuse to see it.

Posted by Teresa | September 23, 2007 10:33 AM

Slightly off topic, but since so many of you defend calling the vast majority of Americans who want out of Iraq traiters, etc... Can you tell me what "winning" means to you? Do you really envision a "treaty at Yalta" scenario? Who would be the signees?

(And I say that as someone who thinks we need to leave some troops in Iraq to contain violence.)

And I have to agree about Redstate. It is amazing how they banish anyone for the mildest disagreement with the editors over there. Scary really. They allow zero disent.

Posted by William Teach | September 23, 2007 10:35 AM

One thing I would recommend everyone remember (as a blogger who has done lots of nutpicking,) is that not every blog has those kinds of commenters. It tends to be restricted to a few certain sites.

You might find some unhinged comments at ones such as MyDD and Jesus' General, but, usually, they are good comments, just from a liberal point of view. I was actually surprised by the level of discourse at Shakesville, despite some of the posts being unhinged.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | September 23, 2007 10:53 AM

Teresa,

Considering the fact that a good share of Redstate's editors have "Semper fi" medallions hanging around their necks and that at least one of them is on the ground over there right now covering the War, I can understand completely why they don't relish your defeatist and surrender point of view.

I'm sure even the Captain here has some lines in the sand that he will not allow crossed.

I haven't been to a blog yet that allows you to say whatever you want, whenver you want to.

And I could make the argument about Redstate, that their blog is known for holding commenters to the specifics of a thread's topic - they simply do not allow "thread jacking" or "off topic" rants that take away from focused debate.

Posted by Eric Forhan | September 23, 2007 11:08 AM

I was thinking the same as [b]unclesmrgol[/b]. In an age where one can be (for the most part) anonymous, it's easy to pretend he is an extreme supporter of the other side -- with the sole purpose as to discredit them.

It's sad, but all-too-true.

Posted by MattHelm | September 23, 2007 11:15 AM

Slightly off topic, but since so many of you defend calling the vast majority of Americans who want out of Iraq traiters, etc... Can you tell me what "winning" means to you? Do you really envision a "treaty at Yalta" scenario? Who would be the signees?

That's a fair question. As someone who has never publiclyused the term traitor--although I have thought it privately enough times, to be honest, I would say that for me, "winning" is when we reach the point that the Iraqi military and police are handling their own security and policing with minimal support from US forces and when the Iraqi infrastructure has reached the point where it is meeting the basic needs of its citizens. If our successes with the surge continue and if we can keep the Sunni leadership engaged, at first on the local level, and then at the national level, and if we can replicate the successes of the surge in Anbar and Diyala elsewhere in Iraq--most notably in the south, then we can and should engage in a gradual withdrawal. Granted, that's a lot of "ifs", but that's something that's incumbent in any sort of action such as this. It is a time consuming process because our goal here is to work our way out of Iraq--but to do so will take time, resources, and, unfortunately, lives. Still, I think the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs. We've become an "instant gratification" society--we have to see an immediate return on our investment--regardless of what it is. The problem is, in situations such as this, it takes time for meaningful results to be seen.

You're not going to see a Yalta or Potsdam type conference to mark the end of the war on terror, although I do envisage that we will probably see a mutual cooperation treaty with the Iraqi government once we reach the point where we are able to withdraw a substantial body of troops.

Iraq is important in another way: It speaks to our will as to whether we have the determination that will be needed to make it through the coming years. To be brutally honest, our casualties in Iraq have not been very high. Compare the approximately 3500 we've lost in over three years in Iraq to the 19,240 dead that the British suffered in one day's fighting at the Battle of the Somme. Yes, the loss of even one life is painful, but, speaking as someone who wore the uniform, and who served in a combat arms branch, you go into it knowing that you might be called on to pay that price--it comes with the uniform. What we in the US have to decide is very simple: are we willing to continue being a World Power or not? As far as I'm concerned, we have no choice, we have to because no one else either can--or will. The cost of failure is just too high.

Posted by Bennett | September 23, 2007 11:25 AM

Ah, Teresa, one would hope there would be no replay of the Yalta Conference as it was this rather sad event that lead to the Western Powers (GB and the US) essentially ceding eastern Europe to Russian control.

As to winning? Winning is leaving Iraq when it is able to defend itself from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Not that there would be no violence, no attacks, but that the government and the security forces would be able to handle it. Think something along the lines of Jordan or Israel, in terms of the security situation if not the actual form of governance.

We have chosen to pursue that goal in the context of a popularly elected form of government in Iraq, with the establishment of democratic institutions and a professional, politically neutral security infrastructure. This latter has worked better with the Iraqi military than with the police.

Hard work admittedly. Worth doing? Well, that's the debate.

Posted by Teresa | September 23, 2007 11:31 AM

MattHelm -- Thanks for a thoughtful answer to a serious question. Let me ask another one: if you feel we need a long term engagement, are there any circumstances under which you would decide that "enough is enough." We are pouring vast amounts of money into Iraq as well as stretching our armed forces. How do we honestly assess when, for instance, we should hold some rebuilding funds hostage to political progress on the part of Iraqis? What is a reasonable plan for increasing the size of our armed forces so that we can respond to threats in other parts of the world?

These are the sort of questions that I think some common ground could be found. I truly don't find people out here in the real world want America to "lose," they feel like we won when we knocked out Saddam and that we are now stuck between warring factions in a peacekeeping mission. In some ways, the fact that there haven't been more US casulities points to the fact that we are in an odd way incidental to the sectarian violence going on there. The Iraqi casulty rates are much, much higher and I don't think that can solely be attributed to better armor, etc.. We just aren't the main targets.

Posted by Teresa | September 23, 2007 11:36 AM

Fight4TheRight -- My Dad was a marine and has his own "Semper Fi" medal, so please spare me that BS. I thought you were all about knocking down the meme that serving in the military gives you some special right to comment on the war.

I haven't been banned from Redstate, because I've never bothered to comment there. But people get banned regularly for daring to think that maybe we need health care reform, not just the war. Or for thinking that global warming is more than just a liberal myth. There is nothing left of Rush Limbaugh allowed in the comment section over there.

Posted by docjim505 | September 23, 2007 12:01 PM

MattHelm and Bennett,

Excellent answer to the question about what we're trying to do in Iraq. I don't know whether it speaks to President Bush's poor communication skills, liberal stupidity, or both that we keep having to explain this over... and over... and over... and over.

This point by MattHelm is especially important, in my view:

Iraq is important in another way: It speaks to our will as to whether we have the determination that will be needed to make it through the coming years.

People on both sides often use the term "will". If we quit in Iraq, we will signal to the terrorists and wannabe terrorists that we have no "will" and they will be emboldened to try to push us around. "We don't like the American's policy toward X. Well! We know just what to do about that! We'll kill off a few of them and the rest of them will submit to us!"

Why are we conservatives the only ones who learned anything from Munich?

Posted by MattHelm | September 23, 2007 12:04 PM

If we're still in Iraq in 2020, then I'd say we've been there too long. :) Seriously, while we are expending resources in Iraq, when you compare that to what our government typically expends on other programs, it's not that much of an expenditure. As regards our armed forces, as I said in another post, we do need to begin the process of expanding our military; but again, to do so takes time. I think we need at least three more Army and Marine quick response infantry divisions and we need to increase our regular military police and logistics specialists so that we can stand down our reservists and National Guard units. Doing so will take time and money, but it can be done without a draft. First, you increase recruitment caps in primarily the Army and Marines and make sure you have the training facilities and other necessities in place. Second, regarding funding--do we need to raise taxes? I would say no, not at this time. The Federal government will have to do some prioritizing and belt tightening, to be sure, but there's plenty of fat to cut--a good place, for example is the Department of Education--get rid of it and its bureaucracy. It's time to return most of its functions back to the state and local level where it belongs. Returning to basic principles of federalism will help out tremendously in making for a more effective military as well.

You don't hold infrastructural funds hostage to political process at the central governmental level--you go back to the maxim of politics being local--which is apparently where we're going now. By encouraging the development of local governmental institutions through engaging the real powerbrokers--the tribal sheiks and local mukhtars, you'll eventually strengthen the central institutions, gradually achieving an organic form of federalization--very similar to the process our country underwent from 1781-1800.

Regarding the high civilian casualties--again, what has to be remembered is that they are declining. The sad truth though is that one random lucky bombing in a crowded facility can skew those numbers. What has to be realized is that regardless of whether we are there or not, that could and will happen. I would also take slight issue with the violence being all sectarian. In many ways, the cry of 'sectarian violence' has become a shibboleth used by those calling for immediate withdrawal, playing, in many ways, on subconscious Western revulsion towards holy warfare as well as the not so subconscious desire to avoid being caught in civil war. However, I would contend that we have passed the danger point--for now, at least--as far as a full blown civil war breaking out. Could one happen eventually? Sure. But again, once we and the Iraqis have reached the point where they are truly able to stand on their own, then they will have to deal with that on their own--just as we have to deal with our internal divisions in this country.

There will come a time when we leave Iraq--as I said, we should always keep at the forefront of our minds that we are working ourselves out of a job there. But there should not be a precipitous or panicky withdrawal.

Posted by gaffo | September 23, 2007 12:06 PM

Bennett sayeth:

"It seems as if there are only a few commenters who resort to name calling and the like. As to characterizing your position as "being like bin Laden" for example, don't you open yourself up to that when you advocate the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq since he wants that, too? That doesn't make you like bin Laden, of course, but it does mean you are in agreement with him on at least that point, probably for different reasons but then again maybe not.

Ok, I'm not trying to pick on you, and this is off topic anyway, but you can't deny you want the same thing as Public Enemy No. 1. And that's an interesting topic in itself. How do you distinguish that in your own mind? If you want the same thing as he does, which is something different from other Americans, where does that leave you? I mean, on whose side on that particular issue?"


What OBL says and what he wants are probably not the same. Ask yourself that. Maybe OBL SAYS he wants the US troops out of Iraq - but really WANTS them to stay so as to serve as recruitment for his cause. KNOWING that folks like you will want to do the OPPOSITE of what he SAYS, thus playing into OLB hands and serving his cause!

just read our own intelligence reports!!!! they basically say the same thing!

Posted by Fight4TheRight | September 23, 2007 12:13 PM

Well Teresa, I guess all I can say is that perhaps Redstate just isn't the blog for you! I, personally, had to stop visiting The Huffington Post because of their adherence to the belief that Bill Maher doesn't have a tattoo of Mao on his left calf.

/smile

Posted by Teresa | September 23, 2007 12:30 PM

MattHelm -- Thanks for your thoughtful answer.

Bennett -- Could you not argue that Christian fundamentalists have many of the same ideas that Bin Laden does? At the recent "Values Voter" debate attended by some GOP candidates, they opened with a church choir singing this to the tune of "God Bless America":

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sin and heal our land

The courts ruled prayer out of our schools
In June of ‘62
Told the children “you are your own God now
So you can make the rules”
O say can you see what that choice
Has cost us to this day
America, one nation under God, has gone astray

Why should God bless America?
Shes’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

In ‘73 the Courts said we
Could take the unborn lives
The choice is yours don’t worry now
It’s not a wrong, it’s your right

But just because they made it law
Does not change God’s command
The most that we can hope for is
God’s mercy on our land

Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is

Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

I think Bin Laden would agree with a lot of those sentiments about a "godless" culture and the need to have mothers back in the home, and even low taxes according to the latest tape. ;)

The guy is a whack job and you can find points of agreement with him all over the political spectrum. It seems like just a cheap shot to equate anyone with that guy.

Posted by gaffo | September 23, 2007 12:30 PM

doc sayeth:

"Our country is at war, and you want us to lose. What else should we call you and your kind?"


What else you can do is understand that "our side"

1. Does to beleive "we are at war" - instead we are in Iraqnam which we see as not connected to the WOT in anyway whatsoever.

2. We see Iraqnam as only serving OBL as a requitment playground - thus opposing Iraqnam and getting us out is helping america win WOT by conserving our power instead of quandering it.

- so yes we want to lose Iraqnam, the sooner the better, since we cannot win, it is better to lose now than 5 or 10 years from now and 3-trillion dollars later and 1-million more recruited to Al Quada's cause.

the longer we sit in Iraqnman the weaker we get and the stonger they get. Yes cutting our loses now is the best we can do - then we can re-group and save afghanistan and move foreward from there.

..................you understand nothing about us if you cannot understand the perspective of how we see Iraqnam as NOT the WOT and only hurts that effort.

Posted by gaffo | September 23, 2007 12:41 PM

doc sayeth:


"No, starfleet_dude, calling a spade a spade is what adults do.

Ducking the issue ("It's not that I want us to LOSE, you see, it's just that I don't think we can win and shouldn't try") and hiding behind other people ("a majority of Americans share my opinion, so that must mean that I'm right and you're wrong") is what insecure little trolls do."


ok I'll make it clear for you (agian).

I want us to lose now instead of years from now in Iraqnam. As to why? money,lives and standing lost over a lost cause will be less today than it will be tomorrow.

you still suffer from the delusion that Nam is winable. the rest us us no longer suffer from that desease.

Posted by docjim505 | September 23, 2007 12:42 PM

Wow, gaffo... Incredible explanation. Your side chooses to believe that, despite the presence of AQ in Iraq, despite the pronouncements of OBL, despite the men we've lost to AQI terrorists, Iraq has NOTHING to do with the WoT (or do you think that's just a bumper sticker slogan)?

And running away from terrorists in Iraq is going to make us STRONGER????

Posted by Steffan | September 23, 2007 1:12 PM

Gaffo: "Iraqnam"?

The Democratic leadership is running into a problem: 2008 is beginning to look a lot like 1864. An unpopular president fighting an unpopular war, and a war-weary populace seriously considering a "peace at any price" campaign run by the party who fervently opposed that unpopular president. The only difference is that this time, the unpopular president isn't running for reelection, and his even less-popular VP isn't interested in the job. Should be a cake-walk for the opposition, don't you think?

You might want to Google "Copperhead Democrats" and see what you find.

George Santayana said:
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience.

It's unfortunate that the study of history has been relegated to the back burner in favor of multiculturalist claptrap. Santayana has been proven right so many times lately that it's scary.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | September 23, 2007 2:10 PM

docjim,

People like gaffo simply do not see any need for military action , anytime, anywhere or any reason. When he's kneeling on his prayer mat at work, while his wife accompanies him to the movies with her burka on, and while a crescent laden flag flies above his head, he'll still be sending letters to Senator Reid and blogging about solutions coming from the U.N.

Luckily for some of us, gaffo won't see any real decision-making status in the near future.

Posted by gaffo | September 23, 2007 5:47 PM

whats up doc? doc sayeth:

"Wow, gaffo... Incredible explanation. Your side chooses to believe that, despite the presence of AQ in Iraq, despite the pronouncements of OBL, despite the men we've lost to AQI terrorists, Iraq has NOTHING to do with the WoT"

Yep.

1. I couldn't care less about the "pronouncments of OBL" - question is why do you give them any weight whatsoever? The guy is full of shit.

2. Yes we've lost our soldiers to AQI - but we lost as many or more to the Sunni "dead enders". and even a few from Saydr's Shia Mahdi Army.
Fact remains AQI is made up of foreigners and the Iraqis themselves will remove AQI by themselves before they will ever allow them to take over. Iraq will partition itself (by blood probably) into Kurd/Shia and Sunni....this is inevitable - and in that process they will deal with the AQI element without any help from us. Why? ----simple: though the Sunni hate the Shia and the Shia hate the Sunni and the Kurds are just "staying out if it - though Sunni technically).......EVERY IRAQI HATE AQI....all Iraqi parts (Sunni/Kurd/Shia) will deal with any AQI elements in their territory all by themselves.

3. Correct - since Iraqis can and will remove AQI without any help for us all the while they self-partition and civil war.............there is no reason for the US to remain there. AQI has no chance in actually taking over Iraq - with us there or without us there. Iraqis will make sure of that.

So correct Iraqnam has nothing to do with WoT globally.

.............

steffen sayeth:


"The Democratic leadership is running into a problem: 2008 is beginning to look a lot like 1864."

In your delusional dreams bubba. 1968 more like it. this time the Parties are reversed however.

1864 my arse. you have to be off your rocker to equate a pissant occupation like Iraqnam to american's costliest war with millions dead IN OUR FRONT YARD!!

Such hubris is shocking and insulting to those who died in our Civil War.

"Should be a cake-walk for the opposition, don't you think? "


Yes I think - in fact know. If you think that turd of an idea that: Iraqnam = United States Civli War in Joe Averages mind, you are DELUSIONAL!!!

I know it will be a landslide - you are simply steeped in insane delusions of fantasy.

"You might want to Google "Copperhead Democrats" and see what you find. "

why - I'm not insane like you obviously are: everyone with a mind knows that Iraqnam = Somalia/Vietnam.....and has NOTHING to do with US Civil War.

But you are obviously insane so reason not need apply.

"It's unfortunate that the study of history has been relegated to the back burner in favor of multiculturalist claptrap."


indeed - some here learn nothing from the 1973 experience.

Credit where due: Starfleet and Teresa have minds and wisdom and learned the lessons of Nam - the rest of you yahoos are beyond wisdom.

OH WAIT Doc has another gem!! he sayeth!:

"People like gaffo simply do not see any need for military action , anytime, anywhere or any reason."

fucking utter BULLSHIT.....see unlike YOU - I have a MIND. SOMETIMES WAR IS NECESSARY.

I fully SUPPORTED GULF WAR ONE..a clear violation of International Law.............FULL SUPPOT BY ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I FULLY SUPPORTED AFGHANISTAN INVASION - valid self defense and paybakc for 911.

BUT..........UNLIKE YOU JARHEADS (never questioned the legality of any illegal wars - country right or wrong jerks...robot brainstem types with no mind to think for yourself).....it was clear to me that Iraqnam was a clear violation of Article 6 Paragraph 2. not to mention no declairation of war by congress (which though not an absolute requirement by me (since Gulf War/Afghanistan lacked this) - FROM NOW ON SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT ILLEGAL IRAQNAM WAR IN THE FUTURE).


FACT - no clear violation of internationa law and no clear and present danger = no lawful war waged by United States

Iraq was neither in 2003 - so start using your mind Doc and stop being a "Bot" - God gave you a mind to use ..........try it sometime.

Posted by Bithead | September 23, 2007 6:33 PM

Actually, no, Steve Benen… It’s called Nut KICKING…

And it’s made infinitely easier by virtue of how frequently the left lets its true nature slip through. That Republican candidates are adopting the practice (A little late, in my view) makes you nervous seems obvious. The reasons why are, as well.

Posted by docjim505 | September 23, 2007 7:09 PM

gaffo,

A "bot", eh? Oh, well...

This "ignore bin Laden" meme has become fairly popular on the left lately. I mean, when they're not wailing that we invaded Iraq before we got him... or that we should invade Pakistan to get him... or that he's trying to trick us into staying in Iraq... or that he never actually existed in the first place (a Bush Cabal creation, you see).

Personally, I'm willing to take OBL's pronouncements at face value. He wants his followers to kill Americans, and I take that seriously. I may mock him as a camel-fucking degenerate throwback to the 7th century, but he proved to me on 9-11 that he's a threat to the United States. So, I guess I'll go on being a "bot" and hoping that we kill him and all his murderous followers.

Incidentally, I'm not a JARHEAD; I was a Red Leg (and proud of it).

Posted by Jim | September 23, 2007 7:38 PM

You don't generally "tar" newspapers for the Comments To The Editor they decide to print. So why should you "tar" a blog for the comments that appear?

Blogs have less control over the comments than newspapers do.

Posted by patrick neid | September 23, 2007 8:22 PM

to gaffo, thresea et al---"I feel your pain".


My prediction still stands. If Hillary becomes president there will be no significant changes in troop levels in Iraq. She has Nixon written all over her in regards to the war.

She started making all the excuses on the Sunday talkies.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said this morning that she will not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We don't know what we're going to inherit," she said on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "None of us do. We don't know what's going to be done in the last 15 months of the Bush-Cheney administration."

Going to inherit is the operative phrase. With this benchmark she can claim she was forced to maintain the troop levels etc.

But cheer up. She will throw you all kinds of socialist bones to get you to lie down, and lie down you will.

Posted by Charles | September 23, 2007 10:47 PM

Benen is either being deceived by, or acting for, the virginia liberal bloggers.

The Tim Hugo ad did NOT pick a "random comment" from a "nutcase" in a blog.

The quote was from a diary, written by Nate de la Piedra, who is the executive director of a Democratic group "Next Generation Democrats".

He was also ON THE CAMPAIGN of Rex Simmon's primary opponent. And his entries in his diaries which were hosted at the www.raisingkaine.com web site DID attack Rex for his negative and false campaign tactics.

You can ask why anybody cares what someone else is "saying" about a candidate, but the left-wing virginia blogs are now trying to undo some pretty harsh damage by getting their media buddies to misrepresent this story.

A prominent Democrat, active in the party, said one of their candidates was false and negative. But he didn't say it to the newspaper, he wrote it in a blog entry. That shouldn't make it off-limits for a campaign.

Posted by amr | September 23, 2007 11:55 PM

Bill O'Reilly has used the tactic of looking at comments to determine if the blog is offensive. My comment to him was that he does not differentiate between comments and posts but he still believes, from his reaction to my comment, that a blog should keep out the offensive character of the comments because if allowed they make the blog offensive; just as a letter to the editor of a news paper, if offensive and printed would, offend. He and others seem oblivious to the freedom of expression issue a good blog practices, although a filter might be useful to keep out the most flagrant violators. There is enough garbage and personnel attacks on the blogs I read that manage to avoid obscenities but still have comments that convey a message of hate. Anyway, newspaper editors read and select letters to print; blogs to my knowledge don’t, nor should they. That is a big difference between the mediums that Mr. O'Reilly missed. It's very hard to be pithy on such an issue.

Post a comment