Subscribe via RSS Feed

Iraq Did Not Have F-14s

[ 17 ] February 5, 2011 |

It’s kind of a minor point, but if a Democratic Senator made a similar error (especially in the context of arguing for military disengagement) I suspect that we’d hear no end of rage and mockery from the right wing milblogger crew. I’d also add that the United States did actually get paid for most of the weapons that it shipped to Iran, both before and after the fall of the Shah.

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joseph Force Crater and Robert Farley, LG&M. LG&M said: Iraq did not have F-14s in the Iran-Iraq War http://bit.ly/iem87U [...]

  2. Minivet says:

    I feel compelled to say that reading new examples of rightist hypocrisy has felt more and more tedious, repetitive, and ineffective over the past five to ten years, whatever satisfaction it may also provoke. I’m sure it’s tapered off somewhat at this blog as elsewhere during the current administration, and I hope that trend continues.

    • DocAmazing says:

      I disagree. It’s very important to have easy-to-link examples to fall back on whenever wingnuts go on about Da Librul Media. It can actually be helpful: I managed to get one guy off his “the media crucified Bush” kick by pointing out that Bush engaged in insider trading at Harken Energy, deserted in time of war, and married a woman who killed a man with her car and that he’d heard none of this from Da Librul Media (I gave links, of course). he no longer posts, at least not under his previous screen name; maybe someone out there in Intertoob Land is having a change of mind.

      Truth and evidence: there’s never a surplus of those two things.

      • latinist says:

        It’s true, it’s useful to have them around to link to, and to always have fresh ones. But the posts themselves, when I come across them scrolling through the blog, are pretty uninteresting, and never seem to say anything new. Perhaps they could just be collected, and there could be a weekly “This week in winger idiocy” list of idiocies and brief explanations of what’s wrong with them, or something like that?

        • Malaclypse says:

          Perhaps they could just be collected, and there could be a weekly “This week in winger idiocy” list of idiocies and brief explanations of what’s wrong with them, or something like that?

          Try Roy Edroso.

  3. jon says:

    Iraq. Iran, who the hell can be bothered to tell them apart? It’s not like they’ll ever make any difference to us. Africans.

  4. RAM says:

    I disagree; I think it’s a major point when someone is trying to make a big deal out of his foreign policy and military knowledge and policy views unintentionally reveals he really doesn’t know much about either. Especially when that someone is a member of the right wing that is supposed to be so knowledgeable and ‘serious’ about the military. Since Paul is a member of the right, however, I fearlessly predict this gaffe will disappear down the media memory hole without a trace

  5. jon says:

    So confusing. We keep bombing our butts off, but where is the Stone Age?

  6. James E Powell says:

    While I don’t think we ought to abandon the fight for truth over pleasing narrative, I do feel like Minivet, above. The many blog posts that point out the false statements and bizarre beliefs of right-wingers are not only tired, they have no apparent effect on our political discourse or on who is regarded as an authority.

    This is one of the critical issues of our time. How can we ever hope to get good policies when the government is based on fiction?

  7. Manju says:

    This post is off. It would make sense if a typical RWinger, ie hawkish, said this but in this case R.Paul appears genuinely libertarian, which is to say liberal.

    He says he would’ve voted against the iraq war, opposes the patriot act, is generally suspicious of US middle eastern policy, questions whether pre-iraq war intelligence was manipulated, and believes congress must declare war first.

    So he’s to the left of the avg dem. For a dem to mock him on foreign policy would be like a repub mocking Lieberman. Whats the point? You’re only mocking ideas and attitudes more prevalent in your own party.

    • DocAmazing says:

      Yet he is a member of the Republican Party and has not attempted to stop the ongoing wars, nor has he done anything material to stop any part of the Patriot Act. He talks a good libertarian game, but like most Libertarians, when push comes to shove he’s most interested in the protection of property and the interests of the owners of capital.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site