Answer: Since every instance of a left-of-center blogger expressing frustration, anger, pique, or emotion of any kind became "getting the vapors," or whatever is the parlance-du-jour here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260301/002-6632858-6806428?v=glance&n=283155

Both sides spin the opposition's passionate expressions as grounds for the booby hatch.

Who's ascribing meltdown to Mitch?

I don't recall folks ascribing it to Mitch, but he of course does not refrain from ascribing it to others.. once again, tis the same old, do as I say, not as I do Hypocrisy that afflicts both the right and the left... just as you justly point out Ernst.

PB

I have a different, but very related question:

Since when did trolling posted nominally as blogging become critical and thoughtful commentary.

Witness: Saying that "chicken-hawk" comments were directly related to the level of disregard of the commenter for the military.

This comment implies (none to subtly) that disent equates to derision and disregard for the military.

It's a wickedly inflamatory comment that is both unAmerican and utterly disingenuious, as those who raise this object often are both a. Veterans and b. VERY concerned about the military.

Specifically, I chose, and many others did as well, specifically BECAUSE I believed in things like Duty, Honor, Country, the Constitution. That the country's reputation is being vilely abused by folks who draft memmoranda defining what is acceptable "non-torture", that we have entered into a war based upon pre-emption in order to pre-empt NOTHING because in reality the aggressor did not have the capability, that we have jailed people without charge indefinetely and tried to argue it's legality, these are all OFFENSES of the first order, and I, and other veterans are RIGHTLY offended.

The question is not whether the dissenters care about the military, clearly they care far more than those who would besmirch the name of our country and dishonor our service with these selfish, base and crass acts of political machiavellianisms. The poeople who need to defend their actions are those who had the power and misused it, not those who wondered rightly just what the hell you think you're doing. With great power comes great responsibility... the responsibility to set the moral standard, to consider the impacts on future generations, including future generations of soldiers, to consider the impact on the moral compass of the current soldiers... in this, this President has failed, the neo-cons have failed.

That you would make such inflamatory comments and then seek to try to look the innocent by complaining about the hyperbole of the left is absurd... if you don't like the tone, stop setting it. Stand up for the actions of your leadership and admit your own faults...and please, please stop cheapening the Army and Constitution I served to uphold and honor.

PB

PB's brilliant invoking of Spiderman has once again left Mitch and his neo-con cabal speechless, trapped in a tangled web of deceit and lies of their own making.

PB speaks of honor and principles, and yet he routinely, in his many, many, (many, many) diatribes against Mitch, uses all the tired cliches, memes, and Koscentric talking points that have been handily (and correctly) proven wrong for the benefit of those who read more than the Strib Op pages (which start at A1), yet remain in common liberal usage simply because most people seem not to read followup at all (which, of course, is the root of most of the Democratic strategy we've seen in these past few years. Keep repeating the lies . . . ) PB seems intelligent enough to understand this - that, no, there were no "lies", that Wilson truly was just a partisan lying sneak with an equally shifty and - yes - traitorous wife, and the like - yet he still makes these arguments.

I think that proves him a dishonorable liar.

PB worries loudly about the soldiers, and how they were shipped like cattle to a horrid, losing war, and ignores what he must know - that they volunteered, that they remain in overwhelming support of their mission, that they do not wish to cut and run, and that they are winning.

If he fails to understand these things, he is very poorly read, and too loud for his ignorance. If he knows them, then he is, again, a dishonorable liar.

Torture seems a central point to him. Where does most of the torture reside? In his mind, and in the minds of his fellow travelers. Abu Graib? We discovered it, we investigated it, and people are being punished, but to PB, it's mostly a chance to dishonestly claim that it's our official policy, that it's widespread, and that BUSH MUST GO BECAUSE OF IT!. To the extent that our worldwide reputation suffers over the torture issue, I think we primarily thank PB and Co. If you repeat BS long enough, it takes hold.

He knows better. He's simply chanting the partylie. He's a dishonorable liar.

I'm betting that PB would really just like to stand outside and scream "Damn that Bush, he can't be President - we're smarter and more compassionate than him!" He's infuriated that Bush could garner votes, because Bush's philosophies pretty much rub PB raw.

PB, anyone who can come here and express such support for military people, and for honor (or your version of it, anyway), and then rail against the political philosophies that save us from the wastelands of the Kerrys and the Kennedys and the Wellstones, is being two-faced. You use pretty words, but no one who is so basically untruthful, and so obviously unconcerned about that untruthfulness, is going to fool people for more than fifteen minutes. I'd say you're about six hours over.

PB speaks of honor and principles, and yet he routinely, in his many, many, (many, many) diatribes against Mitch, uses all the tired cliches, memes, and Koscentric talking points that have been handily (and correctly) proven wrong for the benefit of those who read more than the Strib Op pages (which start at A1), yet remain in common liberal usage simply because most people seem not to read followup at all (which, of course, is the root of most of the Democratic strategy we've seen in these past few years. Keep repeating the lies . . . ) PB seems intelligent enough to understand this - that, no, there were no "lies", that Wilson truly was just a partisan lying sneak with an equally shifty and - yes - traitorous wife, and the like - yet he still makes these arguments.

I think that proves him a dishonorable liar.

PB worries loudly about the soldiers, and how they were shipped like cattle to a horrid, losing war, and ignores what he must know - that they volunteered, that they remain in overwhelming support of their mission, that they do not wish to cut and run, and that they are winning.

If he fails to understand these things, he is very poorly read, and too loud for his ignorance. If he knows them, then he is, again, a dishonorable liar.

Torture seems a central point to him. Where does most of the torture reside? In his mind, and in the minds of his fellow travelers. Abu Graib? We discovered it, we investigated it, and people are being punished, but to PB, it's mostly a chance to dishonestly claim that it's our official policy, that it's widespread, and that BUSH MUST GO BECAUSE OF IT!. To the extent that our worldwide reputation suffers over the torture issue, I think we primarily thank PB and Co. If you repeat BS long enough, it takes hold.

He knows better. He's simply chanting the partylie. He's a dishonorable liar.

I'm betting that PB would really just like to stand outside and scream "Damn that Bush, he can't be President - we're smarter and more compassionate than him!" He's infuriated that Bush could garner votes, because Bush's philosophies pretty much rub PB raw.

PB, anyone who can come here and express such support for military people, and for honor (or your version of it, anyway), and then rail against the political philosophies that save us from the wastelands of the Kerrys and the Kennedys and the Wellstones, is being two-faced. You use pretty words, but no one who is so basically untruthful, and so obviously unconcerned about that untruthfulness, is going to fool people for more than fifteen minutes. I'd say you're about six hours over.

PB speaks of honor and principles, and yet he routinely, in his many, many, (many, many) diatribes against Mitch, uses all the tired cliches, memes, and Koscentric talking points that have been handily (and correctly) proven wrong for the benefit of those who read more than the Strib Op pages (which start at A1), yet remain in common liberal usage simply because most people seem not to read followup at all (which, of course, is the root of most of the Democratic strategy we've seen in these past few years. Keep repeating the lies . . . ) PB seems intelligent enough to understand this - that, no, there were no "lies", that Wilson truly was just a partisan lying sneak with an equally shifty and - yes - traitorous wife, and the like - yet he still makes these arguments.

I think that proves him a dishonorable liar.

PB worries loudly about the soldiers, and how they were shipped like cattle to a horrid, losing war, and ignores what he must know - that they volunteered, that they remain in overwhelming support of their mission, that they do not wish to cut and run, and that they are winning.

If he fails to understand these things, he is very poorly read, and too loud for his ignorance. If he knows them, then he is, again, a dishonorable liar.

Torture seems a central point to him. Where does most of the torture reside? In his mind, and in the minds of his fellow travelers. Abu Graib? We discovered it, we investigated it, and people are being punished, but to PB, it's mostly a chance to dishonestly claim that it's our official policy, that it's widespread, and that BUSH MUST GO BECAUSE OF IT!. To the extent that our worldwide reputation suffers over the torture issue, I think we primarily thank PB and Co. If you repeat BS long enough, it takes hold.

He knows better. He's simply chanting the partylie. He's a dishonorable liar.

I'm betting that PB would really just like to stand outside and scream "Damn that Bush, he can't be President - we're smarter and more compassionate than him!" He's infuriated that Bush could garner votes, because Bush's philosophies pretty much rub PB raw.

PB, anyone who can come here and express such support for military people, and for honor (or your version of it, anyway), and then rail against the political philosophies that save us from the wastelands of the Kerrys and the Kennedys and the Wellstones, is being two-faced. You use pretty words, but no one who is so basically untruthful, and so obviously unconcerned about that untruthfulness, is going to fool people for more than fifteen minutes. I'd say you're about six hours over.

"That the country's reputation is being vilely abused by folks who draft memmoranda defining what is acceptable "non-torture"..."

Oh yes, let's let Joe Blow in the field, who's just had his buddies' various parts blown off decide what's acceptable interrogation technique. Get serious here, man! You may quibble about what torture consists of, but when you're dealing with these terrorists they have no official rights other than those we chose to give them. Quite frankly, the US could arbitrarily convict them and shoot them on the spot if it chose since there are no Geneva Convention protocols that control US behavior towards unlawful combatants (note that the US never ratified the protocols on terrorists or insurgents). That we choose nonviolent coersive techniques on folks who are quite willing to blow themselves up and saw off the heads of their enemies is quite humane and generous. The writers of those memos you cite are folks who know that if they manage to get information out of these creeps they'll save the lives of their countrymen. Giving interrogators boundaries is a necessary thing, and while you may not like the boundaries your arguments haven't persuaded the majority of the polity.

"...those who raise this [chickenhawk accusation] often are both a. Veterans and b. VERY concerned about the military."

Demonstrably false. The vast, vast majority of those making the "chickenhawk" accusation are neither veterans nor students of the military nor supporters thereof. While you may have served, PB, you are the exception in making this argument.

Furthermore, the entire "chickenhawk" theme is a specious, vile accusation that denies the basic foundation of civilian control of the military, and that someone would make it shows an absolute ignorance of the basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the society they attempted to form, and the typical short-sightedness of those attempting to score political points rather than consider where such an argument would lead. To politically marginalize those making a chickenhawk assertion is too mild: they should be satirized, ridiculed, and rhetorically tarred and feathered.

"The poeople who need to defend their actions are those who had the power and misused it..."

Such as the Clinton administration, which allowed the malignancy to metastisize in the Middle East? Who is more culpable, those who turn their backs on a situation that is breeding increasingly dangerous attackers, or those who risk military action to correct the situation after a horrific attack? The left has abandoned all sense of what works in the defense of this country and has embraced appeasement as its strategy of deterence. The appeasement by the US of the Islamist terrorists and their state sponsors in the Middle East didn't work since Carter made it the official policy, so for the left to demand a return to the status quo ante isn't serious. For those of us who are more concerned about removing the threat, we base our disapproval of the present strategy in that it hasn't done enough to remove the incentives for state sponsorship of terrorism.

As to "political machiavellianisms," I'm certain you disapproved of the GOP's timing of votes on the issues to immediately before elections, where the Dems would be forced to defend their record. Or where the House put the Dem's Murtha-like spin into the starkest terms and forced nearly all its members to deny what they had been pushing for months. But both moves were to force the political opposition to account for their actions when they have shown no ability to constructively disagree much less support the present administration in any serious discussion of the prosecution of the war.

Further, nearly all the spin about "lies" has been pretty thoroughly debunked by all the available evidence, in particular by the Senate report on intelligence. And if you want to complain about how badly the intelligence services performed, I suggest you look at what happened to the intelligence services under your hero Mr. Clinton and observe just how well they fared. Remember, to lie is "[t]o present false information with the intention of deceiving." Note that both conditions must be met. You need to show that known, false information was presented with *intent* to deceive. As such, all the whining about WMDs and whatnot fall into the catagory of cheap second guessing and sniping, not serious discussion of policy and strategy. To give you a more concrete example on subjects you like to talk about, Bush didn't lie about Iraq attempting to get WMDs when he made that claim in his address since all the intelligence services in the world honestly believed that at the time, but Clinton lied about his relationship with Lewinsky in his deposition since he knew what had happened in intimate detail and he conspired with others to deceive the court.

Sorry, but I had to vent. I'm getting very tired of lies about lies, and this your post is full of some pretty big whoppers.

I know, Mitch, I know.... Your meltdowns aren't nearly as entertaining as Hindrocket - who well deserved the City Pages Best Meltdown Award.

It's like "arguing" with a ten-year old.

"HAHAHAHAHA, I said meltdown, no takebacks! Hinderocket is a poopyhead! Whiner whiner whiner!"

You're nothing if not predictable, Eva.

QUICK, copy the entire comment section into your blog!