See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. North Korea launches rocket! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
2. ScoopThis.Org » North Korea has launched a rocket!
3. Norks launch missile, Obama issues statement | BitsBlog
4. Bloodthirsty Liberal » Power Launch
5. Ted Turner On N. Korea: “They Were Thin & Riding Bikes” | Democrat = Socialist
6. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate’s Cove
7. Russ. Just Russ.
8. North Korea Fail | Vancouver Secrets
9. The TIW Blog » Blog Archive » Obama endorses N. Korean missile program
10. Bored with Obama! « Riggword Weblog
11. UN Security Council Ignores Obama | Hennessy's View
12. Tel-Chai Nation
13. Vice Pres. Joe ‘Gaffe Machine’ Biden: Steven Crowder’s Comedic ‘Rain Man’ « Frugal Café Blog Zone
14. Sarah Palin Wins POTUS Game Show; Obama’s Lack of Foresight about US Missile Defense Cuts Seems Naive & Dangerous « Frugal Café Blog Zone

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #201
   On April 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm, JHSII said:

   In less than 24 hours your desire to defend Ronald “Messiah” Reagan has caused you to look rather desperate. First, you were saying Congress prevented Reagan from going after the terrorists responsible for the attack in Beirut.

   I’m not the one looking desperate. I will note particularly your attempt to denigrate President Reagan by calling him “Ronald “Messiah” Reagan“. Whatever credibility you might have had took a major hit with that comment.
   It might also help if you actually read what I posted.

   Now re-read post 185 where you actually give reasons for Reagan’s lack of response and give an example of Churchill during WW2. BTW, the example has nothing to do with a failure to seek out those responsible for the Beirut bombings and bring them to justice. You’re comparing apples and lettuce. You can’t figure out what excuse you want to make, so you make and all excuses.

   It was a mistake not to boldly respond and seek justice through military force.
   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists, period, end of discussion.

   I just love your ability to ignore the larger picture. I guess the Cold War never occurred in your world.
   For the record, I was comparing apples to apples – but if you ignore the larger context just so that you can get in a few cheap shots then I can see why you would see it that way.

   The jihadists have been emboldened because people like you have never wanted any action taken against them of any kind. Well, aside from the UN’s standard-issue Strongly Worded Letter.

2. #202
   On April 8th, 2009 at 10:30 pm, undresiege said:

   You can keep bringing up the Cold War, but that didn’t in any way inhibit Reagan’s ability to use military force to avenge the Beirut attacks. Saying Cold War over and over does not make a point. If anything Reagan’s actions made us look weaker in the Cold War.

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

   Are you really gonna dispute that with a straight face?

   Let me make this simple for you. Please answer these questions since we’re talking about credibility.

   In YOUR MIND did Congress prevent Reagan from avenging the Beirut attack?

   Your words:

   As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond.

   The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

   or

   Did Reagan follow the example of men like Churchill, and personally choose to not avenge the Beirut attacks so that it wouldn’t hurt his efforts in the Cold War.

   Simple question. I have read what you typed, and I see you’re offering multiple excuses.

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

   If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

3. #203
   On April 8th, 2009 at 11:12 pm, JHSII said:

   You can keep bringing up the Cold War, but that didn’t in any way inhibit Reagan’s ability to use military force to avenge the Beirut attacks. Saying Cold War over and over does not make a point. If anything Reagan’s actions made us look weaker in the Cold War.

   I keep bringing up the Cold War because it’s the larger context of what President Reagan was doing. Any Commander has to choose which battles to fight and where to deploy his resources. He also has to deal with the political situation of a congress that was diametrically opposed to nearly everything he was trying to do.
   Reagan was choosing to fight the Cold War first, and win it before our attention would be turned to Islam’s war against the West. That didn’t make President Reagan look weak at all.

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

   Are you really gonna dispute that with a straight face?

   I see you couldn’t dispute what I actually posted:

   “The jihadists have been emboldened because people like you have never wanted any action taken against them of any kind. Well, aside from the UN’s standard-issue Strongly Worded Letter.”

   Let me make this simple for you. Please answer these questions since we’re talking about credibility.

   In YOUR MIND did Congress prevent Reagan from avenging the Beirut attack?

   Your words:

   As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond.

   The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

   or

   Did Reagan follow the example of men like Churchill, and personally choose to not avenge the Beirut attacks so that it wouldn’t hurt his efforts in the Cold War.

   Simple question. I have read what you typed, and I see you’re offering multiple excuses.

   Wow. There can never be more than one reason for doing or not doing something. I’m impressed by that logic. /sarc
   Note that I used the word “reason” rather than your disingenuous term “excuse”.)
   It would also be nice if you responded to what I posted in context. I think I can see your problem though – to respond to what I post in context you would have to start thinking for yourself rather than reading from the liberal handbook.

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

   If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

   The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists. As for how I view President Ronald Reagan – you can’t even see the larger context of fighting the Cold War, so you have utterly no credibility with how I view the former President.

   Now that we’ve established you don’t know what you are talking about, why don’t you go back to the kos, huffpo, or du and spread your tales of how you smacked me down so that you can get a few pats on the back.

4. #204
   On April 8th, 2009 at 11:45 pm, undresiege said:

   Now that we’ve established you don’t know what you are talking about.

   I hate to use one of the standard boring conservative calling cards on this blog but that the following demonstrates your PROJECTION on the subject of “knowing what you’re talking about”.

   As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond.
   The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

   It’s laughable that you’re not man enough to admit that your initial post was either an error, or you simply changed your mind. First you’re saying Reagan never refused.(I guess you realized what little sense that made).

   Then you post #185 and followup with:

   There can never be more than one reason for doing or not doing something. I’m impressed by that logic. /sarc

   Huh?

   The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

   If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

   I guess you answered the question. You’d rather bash liberals in a general sense than admit something has simple as:

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists.

   Whatever. You are what your are. Have a safe holiday weekend.

5. #205
   On April 9th, 2009 at 12:17 am, JHSII said:

   Now that we’ve established you don’t know what you are talking about.

   I hate to use one of the standard boring conservative calling cards on this blog but that the following demonstrates your PROJECTION on the subject of “knowing what you’re talking about”.

   Conservatives use the term “projection” with people like you because it accurately describes what you do on a routine basis. If it has become boring then perhaps your side should stop doing it.
   In this case however, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that I do know what I’m talking about. The fact that you choose not to see things in the larger context in no way reflects back on me.
   I also note that you cut the rest of the statement so that you could remove the context there as well.

   As far as a lack of response, it was the democrat-controlled congress that demanded that Reagan didn’t respond. In the much larger context of the Cold War President Reagan decided to use his resources in another area so that he could get the support of congress there. In hindsight Reagan saw later that he could have responded more forcefully.
   If you don’t know the difference between responding according to what you know now as opposed to thinking what you could have done with information from many years later then you have bigger issues than just your animosity to President Ronald Reagan.

   The democrat congress refused – Reagan didn’t. Don’t project things from the democrat congress onto President Reagan.

   It’s laughable that you’re not man enough to admit that your initial post was either an error, or you simply changed your mind. First you’re saying Reagan never refused.(I guess you realized what little sense that made).

   It’s interesting that you again choose to change the context of something so you can criticize me. It’s a pattern I see often from your side.

   Then you post #185 and followup with:

   There can never be more than one reason for doing or not doing something. I’m impressed by that logic. /sarc

   Huh?

   Yes, deliberately taking something I posted out of context can bring about the “Huh?” reaction.

   BTW, I didn’t followup post #185 with that comment. That comment – which you deliberately took out of context – was a followup to your post #188. You could at least try to get it right.

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists

   If you dispute that, you do look upon Reagan as a Messiah, and lack any credibility.

   I guess you answered the question.

   Yes I did answer the question – of course you snipped my answer because you couldn’t honestly respond to it.

   You’d rather bash liberals in a general sense than admit something has simple as:

   The lack of response emboldened islamic jihadists.

   Whatever. You are what your are. Have a safe holiday weekend.

   More proof that you read what you want to read rather than what is actually posted. No surprise here – liberals do that all the time.

   For the record, here’s my response again: The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
   I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

6. #206
   On April 9th, 2009 at 12:57 am, undresiege said:

   Context? You said Reagan didn’t refuse. Either you typed that in error, or you’re confused by your own B.S. Reagan DID refuse. It took you a couple of posts to come around to admitting that. You typed about how the Cold War needed fightin and Reagan needed Congress for that more. (Which is a B.S. excuse) But Reagan DID refuse. He too made the call to not engage. Maybe someone talked some sense into you. Any objective person can see this thread and notice the spin. I officially don’t care any more. It’s LOL silly.

   For the record, here’s my response again: The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
   I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

   And your response doesn’t mention Ronald Reagan who for whatever reason you want to give, chose not to attack the Beirut terrorists with military force. You’d rather bash liberals than admit that Reagan did anything wrong like emboldening jihadists. I’m going to bed with a smile on my face. The Reagan Messiah complex shows its head again. Amazing. For the record, any democrat that chose to not respond by trying to hunt down and kill those terrorists who killed our soldiers WAS WRONG. See, how easy that is? It’s called holding people accountable. Try it sometime. Oh yeah, you can’t

   See?

   Undresiege:
   Did Reagan’s inaction embolden Islamic Jihadists to further attack Americans and our Allies.

   JHSII(Gee, I can’t admit Reagan made a mistake, Hmmmmmmm? I know, I’ll deflect):

   The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
   I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

   LOL. Sweet dreams. May God Reagan bless you and yours this Easter weekend.

7. #207
   On April 9th, 2009 at 1:17 am, JHSII said:

   Context? You said Reagan didn’t refuse. Either you typed that in error, or you’re confused by your own B.S. Reagan DID refuse. It took you a couple of posts to come around to admitting that. You typed about how the Cold War needed fightin and Reagan needed Congress for that more. (Which is a B.S. excuse) But Reagan DID refuse. He too made the call to not engage. Maybe someone talked some sense into you. Any objective person can see this thread and notice the spin. I officially don’t care any more. It’s LOL silly.

   Any objective person would see that you deliberately take things out of context to try to get me to answer your own twisted version of the subject at hand. Any objective person would see that you simply don’t like Reagan and will use any excuse to bash him.

   For the record, here’s my response again: The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
   I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

   And your response doesn’t mention Ronald Reagan who for whatever reason you want to give, chose not to attack the Beirut terrorists with military force. You’d rather bash liberals than admit that Reagan did anything wrong like emboldening jihadists. I’m going to bed with a smile on my face. The Reagan Messiah complex shows its head again. Amazing. For the record, any democrat that chose to not respond by trying to hunt down and kill those terrorists who killed our soldiers WAS WRONG. See, how easy that is? It’s called holding people accountable. Try it sometime. Oh yeah, you can’t

   I hold people accountable all the time. The difference between us is that I hold people accountable for things they actually do while you blame people for not doing whatever it is that you think they should have done at the time.
   The reason I don’t hold Reagan accountable for emboldening jihadists is because he didn’t embolden jihadists. Don’t let the facts get in your way of yet another anti-Reagan diatribe though.

   See?

   Undresiege:
   Did Reagan’s inaction embolden Islamic Jihadists to further attack Americans and our Allies.

   JHSII(Gee, I can’t admit Reagan made a mistake, Hmmmmmmm? I know, I’ll deflect):

   Your snide comment after my name isn’t what I posted. It’s not what I did. Why don’t you respond to what I actually did post?

   The lack of response desired by your side has always emboldened the islamic jihadists.
   I will add that that same lack of response desired by your side emboldens all other authoritarian groups, figures, and regimes around the world.

   Ahhh…there you posted my response. As expected, you couldn’t refute it. It’s notable that you didn’t even try.

   LOL. Sweet dreams. May God Reagan bless you and yours this Easter weekend.

   I see you’re still into the Reagan / Messiah thing that discredited you a while back. You could do better – but you won’t.