Once again, we have an example of how conservatives are unable to read nuance and understand complexity in viewpoints. Dean never said that he wants us to lose - he just said he thinks that we are going to. There is no contradiction in what I said and what he said.
"To me, this is absolute proof that not only to the Dems believe we can't win in Iraq, but that they also believe we shouldn't."
umm, why is it proof of that? Part of the problem is that Bush has had trouble defining exactly what it means to "win" in Iraq in the first place. The notion has morphed over the time the war has taken place. People have been critical of Rumsfeld for lowering his expectations. It is difficult to be optimistic of victory when we’re still trying to pin down what it is, especially as violence continues without pause.
Now, that doesn't mean that I wholly agree with Dean - I'd much rather have Biden speak for the Dems on foreign policy matters (recalling that he himself said "Howard Dean does not speak for me"). Besides being much more qualified experience wise, he also has less of a tendency to open his mouth without thinking about what he is saying.
The plan that Dean mentions, however, that Republicans want to attack as "radical" is probably fairly close to what we will see, and even Senator Carper today said that over the next year, we'll probably be phasing out many of our National Guard units, with a significant troop reduction by the end of 2006.
Your post only proves the point I was making; again, the Republicans/Conservatives would rather attack the patriotism of war critics than to engage in a serious debate about what victory really means, a definition we must figure out quickly so we can begin bringing our troops home.
Again, who said anything about anyone's patriotism? That is such a cop out. Anytime anyone questions anything a liberal says, you all cry, "They're questioning my patriotism!" It's like a kid on a playground crying, "He made a face at me!" Ryan said NOTHING about anyone's patriotism. Neither did the commenter (if that's a word) on the post that started all this.
Also, thank you for hurling insults at conservatives, i.e., implying we are too stupid to understand anything because we disagree with Howard Dean. You are really a class act.
Oh, and does your definition of "attack the patriotism of war critics" include 20-minutes of accolades for John Murtha before uttering one statement of disagreement with him? Because, wow, that man's patriotism has REALLY been attacked!
I don't see how I missed any nuance in Dean's words.
Part of my problem with it is when Joe Taliban, insurgent in Iraq hears that, he thinks, "great, we just keep this up and we win," just like Kerry and his buddy Jane Fonda did in Vietnam.
Carper does see nuance. He did not call for 'immediate' withdrawl.' I believe there will be reductions in troops next year, but I don't see all of our troops leaving for a while.
I really don't see what good comes from Dean's remarks.
Dave said "they want us to lose in iraq...." - to me, anyone who WANTS us to lose is not patriotic - thus Dave is attacking the patriotism of Democrats by distorting their positions. I also find it highly ironic that you said you do not attack patriotism, then turn around and do exactly that by essential saying that criticism and suggestions for a change of course (including withdrawal) encourages and comforts the enemy ("Joe Taliban" as you call him). It is in no way a cop out - we're just SICK AND TIRED of conservatives/Republicans wrapping their causes in the flag and attacking anyone who questions their motives. Sure, the Rights may do it more subliminally, but the attacks are very real. The Christian Right has already hijacked religion, but I'll be damned if I'll allow you all to hijack the definition of patriotism.
Also, Jess, I was not implying that you were “stupid,” only pointing out the nuance that you may have missed. There was an implication in the post, based on words I wrote, where the meaning was glossed over. I expanded it to a generalizations because it is a trend I see among many, perhaps even most, on the Right. Perhaps you are both the exception; that's fine, and I respect that. But it is well known that Bush and Co. tend to see everything in black and white, good and evil. That is just not how the world (or at the very least people’s words) work sometimes.
"I also find it highly ironic that you said you do not attack patriotism, then turn around and do exactly that by essential saying that criticism and suggestions for a change of course (including withdrawal) encourages and comforts the enemy ("Joe Taliban" as you call him)."
Well, I was referring to Dean saying we are going to lose, not to his troop withdrawal "plan." I think that when you say you are going to lose, it empowers the enemy.
"Once again, we have an example of how conservatives are unable to read nuance and understand complexity in viewpoints."
From the definition of "stupid," as I understand it, yes, you did call conservatives/Republicans "stupid." Perhaps not outright, but that is in no way means you didn't do so.
I happen to think in terms of "good" and "evil," and people who think in those terms are not "unable to read nuance." You're a moral relativist, so how about just accepting that they have an "alternative" way of looking at things rather than insulting them?
I still don't see an insult anywhere in there. At any rate, I have no problem listening and accepting other points of view as long as they are backed up by some logical argument, though blanket statements of opininion as fact without any evidence doesn't really fly for me. What started this whole argument was the comment by Dave "they are using our troops to push their own political agendas (which absolutely sickens me), and the worst is that they want us to lose in iraq...." - an offensive statement he backs up with absolutly nothing.
Besides, if I wasn't open to your "alternate" viewpoints, I would just stop reading this blog 
.
In other news, I have posted a more full reaction to Dean's comments over on the Dems blog, http://www.smartbluehens.blogspot.com
The definition of the word stupid is "slow or unable to learn or comprehend." You wrote that conservatives are "unable to understand nuance and understand complexity in views." I still cannot see anything that ISN'T an insult in that statement. So, exactly who can't read nuance again?
What exactly did Dave say that is offensive? If you can say a whole group of people are "unable to read nuance and understand complexity in views" without any "logical argument," then why do you have a double standard for him? He simply stated that he dislikes Dems' behavior. And as for "distorting positions," (which shockingly means "to attack one's patriotism") don't act as though Democrats- you included- are so saintly.
Dave said "they want us to lose in Iraq..." - its a lie - its not true, it makes Dems out to look like jackasses, and thus, it is offensive to me as a Democrat who does NOT want us to lose.
Perhaps I should not have used the word "unable" - "unwilling" might have been better. I base this on the present leadership, and said in a prior comment that you and Ryan may be the exceptions, meaning that I meant nothing peronal but found that to be the trend among others who share your ideology.
Also, I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to defend Dave, who after making one comment without any real facts or examples has not returned to defend himself. It only works to reinforce the stereotype (which I do not believe or accept because I know better) that folks on the Right think with one brain.
My concern was not so much Dave as it was your blanket generalization of conservatives, and now, your refusal to apologize. You did not say, "The present leadership is unable to read nuanace and understand complexity of views." Rather, you said "conservatives" do so. It was not a poor word choice. You let your true elitism show through, and now you're offering a half-hearted attempt at just making it go away without having to admit that you were offensive and wrong.
And, what?! He made Dems "out to look like jackasses?!" I am so not going to respond to that because to act as though being made to look bad is wrong is childish. Dems do it to Republicans all the time. They distort our views and policies (such as you with your "nuance" crap) all the time. Stop acting like you're a saint because you're just as bad as anyone.
I am sorry that what Dave wrote at the end offended you, but judging by constituent emails in our office, the calls by some for troops to turn and start fighting with the enemy (and to kill their superiors), and the opinions of two people I work for, there are many Dems- or at least liberals- who do want us to lose and say it all the time.
To clarify, I'm not saying all Dems want us to lose (example: Joe Lieberman), but I am saying that there are some on your side who do wish that.
And now, I will not respond anymore on this until you actually apologize, rather than making up nonsense about poor word choice.
Ooops, I lied. You wrote the statement about nuance in response to what Ryan wrote, not something from the administration. Forgot that part earlier.
OK, now, I'm awaiting your apology.
Well, I don't really consider extremist to "be on my side" - at our political discussion group here on campus, I think even Ryan would attest that I usually end up in a position more conservative than many others, with the exception of the diehard Republicans. I consider myself among the "New Democrats" who think compromise can accomplish more than partisan fighting (see my piece on the C-Dems blog about Dean’s statement, referred to above). However, I don't consider my "nuance" position to be crap - indeed, many Conservatives, Bush included, fail to recognize (at least publicly) complexities that accompany their positions. I link the two together because Bush, as President, is the inherent leader of the Republican Party, which takes pride in being "Conservative". I realize that these are loaded terms and that there are exceptions to every rule; therefore, if I offended you personally by "overgeneralizing," I apologize. That said, if the shoe fits (and I'm not saying that it does)....well, you know the rest.
"I am so not going to respond to that because to act as though being made to look bad is wrong is childish."
--I don't mind being PROVEN wrong - he just made baseless claims, without any supporting facts, that resulted in what is more or less libel because he accused Democrats of what I consider to be almost treasonous. So yes, I (and the courts, historically) have a problem with it...
Well, I don't think my claims were baseless, and I did not intend to attack the patriotism of anyone. I think you can dissent and be patriotic, but there is a way to do that. Perhaps being nuanced?
It wasn't "overgeneralizing." It was flat out overgeneralizing, no quotations necessary. But thanks for finally apologizing.
The "if the shoe fits" comment, you did a nice job of covering your ass, although you imply that you do mean to apply it to me. I'll let it slide although it was a very cheap shot.
Ryan - I was talking about Dave, not you. I might not always agree with you - hell, I usually don't, but I respect the fact that you can always back up what you say.
Jess - quite frankly, I don't know you well enough to judge one way or the other. I think there is a tendency for all of us to overgeneralize, especially in the heat of an argument, even if we sometimes do not mean to. I include myself in that, and again apologize if I did so improperly.
I simply meant to convey that there is a tendency in the conservative movement to do so, and I think it is dangerous and disturbing.
Just like seeing everything in "nuance" is dangerous and disturbing.
Commenting by HaloScan
