Keith Devens .com

Ah, come on: Limbaugh's twisting things. There's a big difference between terrorizing somebody and being a terrorist. In fact, not once in the pieces quoted did Kerry even use the word 'terrorist'. He didn't even say 'acting like terrorists'. The closest he came was "there is no reason [..] that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children". Heck, if soldiers came into my house in the middle of the night, I'd be frightened.

Sure, Kerry definitely didn't say that our troops are being suicide bombers. But the point remains that Kerry seems to see our troops as the enemy there. As if its our goal to terrorize women and children in the dead of night. Of all the things to bring up as to why we should leave Iraq! But as Limbaugh points out, it's par for the course for Kerry to make up charges against our troops and paint them as the enemy.

Yeah, far be it from Rush Limbaugh to distort someones words or twist them into some evil "liberal" plot. He is a paragon of journalistic integrity and balance. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Keith. You can't quote anything from Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Gordon Liddy and expect to be taken seriously by anyone other than your core audience of delusional Kool-Aid drinkers.

Kerry isn't making our troops out to be the enemy, he is pointing out how horribly wrong things have gone and that our troops are getting involved in some things far beyond the reach of the original mission. Face it, this war is a complete and utter disaster and has been so from day 1. Why is it when anyone tries to point out the obvious facts and how badly things have gone over there, the neocons and their tools immediatly try to paint them as un-patriotic or anti-American, as if it is somehow all of a sudden wrong to question the actions of our government. Hell, that is what our country was founded no in the first place.

I can't freaking believe over 50% of the country voted for Bush - AGAIN.

This would be headline news in the Washington Post if it were true. It isn't true or even a remote facsimile of the truth. I think there's enough real news around without having to concoct stories that serve very narrow purposes.

It's so interesting for me to see other people's perspectives. I can't understand them, but it is interesting.

To elaborate with an example: saying that "this war [has been] a complete and utter disaster... from day 1" is such a strange statement that I'd want to attribute it to brainwashing of some kind. Who's really drinking the Kool-aid?

Of course, what you really mean is that this war has been a disaster from before day one (i.e. you disagreed with it from the start, so of course you're biased against it). The way I see it, people desperately want us to fail in Iraq just so that they will have been "right", without caring about the consequences. I know that even if I hadn't supported the war from the beginning, I'd damn sure be supporting it now, hoping we succeed, and willing to stay until the job is done because it's that important.

...to be taken seriously by anyone other than your core audience of delusional Kool-Aid drinkers.

Actually, from what I can tell most people who read my site disagree with me. And that's fine; who needs an echo chamber? Of course, my logs show that this is basically the first time you've been to my site, so, you don't know me and are speaking from ignorance.

... the neocons and their tools immediatly try to paint them as un-patriotic or anti-American, as if it is somehow all of a sudden wrong to question the actions of our government.

And that's just a lie. Democrats complain about how everyone questions their patriotism, but I've literally never seen anyone do that (until Limbaugh just now). Democrats have tried to create a false impression, while everyone I've ever heard discuss these issues takes great pains to "respectfully disagree" without "questioning [anyone's] patriotism". Hence Limbaugh's "How much longer do we have to pretend" line.

...the obvious facts and how badly things have gone over there...

Obviously they're not obvious because I don't see things that way. When I look at things like the overthrow of Saddam within a few weeks, the establishment of a democratic government, the ratification of a constitution, multiple successful elections with another one coming up within a few days, increasing stability and a growing economy in the country, and many polls that say that the Iraqis are optimistic about the future, I read all that as saying that things are going fairly well.

For some reason you choose to ignore all those things. I think the honest thing to do is acknowledge the good even if you still think things are going badly. To claim that it's a "complete and utter disaster" is simply dishonest (or maybe "delusional").

We're not dealing in absolutes here-- there are some good things that have developed in the Iraq war, but (in the eyes of many intelligent people) these successes do not come anywhere close to outweighing the failures and tragedies.

US and coalition forces have been performing counter-insurgency actions/maneuvers that have the unintended effect of growing the insurgency. This is not a revelation. Nor is this the equivalent of calling soldiers terrorists (despite the fact that, as did Saddam, we've tortured and supported torture, and we've used white phospherous as chem weapons).

Limbaugh's statement is a ridiculous distortion. You blogged it because it played right into your bias. That's Rush's gift- channeling right-wing rage.

The Straw Men of Iraq: Ten Pro-War Fallacies

these successes do not come anywhere close to outweighing the failures and tragedies.

See, now that's a judgement call that I can respectfully disagree with. All war is tragedy. But the benefits of success in Iraq will be immense. What gets me is that the costs have been so low, historically, and the progress so great, that I wonder how people can see us as having failed already, or can expect us to fail.

US and coalition forces have been performing counter-insurgency actions/maneuvers that have the unintended effect of growing the insurgency.

That's a claim that doesn't seem to be based on fact. Attacks are the lowest they've been in months, there have been successful votes held with limited violence, and, while more and more factions in Iraq have joined the political process, there will be another this coming Thursday. Your claim is the typical "you can't fight them, it'll only make them stronger" argument that I always hear from people on the left end of the political spectrum, which I am unable to understand.

Finally, comparing anything we've done to Saddam Hussein's regime is outrageous.