May 11, 2004

Battle Rumsfeld

The Iron Blog Battle has begun. Here is Ara's piece and here is mine.

Feel free to comment on our opening statements, we are not allowed to respond in the comments -- so don't address us. If you want to address me, you can do so here. I will respond only if my response can be done without tipping my hand to Ara.

Posted by rosemary at May 11, 2004 08:40 AM | TrackBack
Comments

As if!

Posted by: Ara Rubyan at May 11, 2004 02:21 PM

You will destroy him.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at May 11, 2004 04:17 PM

Darnit, can't access blogspot from work.

Posted by: Dave at May 11, 2004 04:36 PM

His is longer I think he wins.

Kind of strange though that his argument is based on the opinions of otehr people throught the context of his piece. Frum, various senators, etc...
Just happy he didnt paste a jpeg of the Abu Garaihb prisoners in there.

Posted by: James Doney at May 11, 2004 05:40 PM

Heh.

JPEG. Rumsfeld. Chalabi. Dog Collar. Riding Crop.

I'm just saying.

Posted by: Ara Rubyan at May 11, 2004 06:36 PM

Hmm, reasoned analysis supported by relevant and persuasive quotations, versus her majesty spouting off with largely unsupported personal opinions and attacking Leona and Nancy as if this were the Joan Rivers program? Show me your exquisite Rack again and I might rethink this ... I'm just saying...

Posted by: Mark Adams at May 11, 2004 07:12 PM

Mark,

Nothing about me is unsupported.

I'm just saying.

Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 11, 2004 07:43 PM

There is not enough seaweed in the world to wrap around Mr. Rumsfeld. Secondly, Rummy will never fit in a wok. And Ara is not worthy of carrying Rumsfeld's chopsticks.

Question: Is Joseph Biden running for vice-president ?

Posted by: Catch 22 at May 11, 2004 07:44 PM

Ara:

Give me the QOAE's head!

Posted by: marko at May 11, 2004 08:08 PM

Mark,

attacking Leona and Nancy as if this were the Joan Rivers program?

Sheesh, you think that was an attack? I barely tweaked her.

Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 11, 2004 08:26 PM

It's hard to call it a cover up when there was a public announcement in January about the investigation, and disciplinary actions had already taken place.

Rosemary argued the facts. The one fact really, ongoing investigation, punishment meted and being meted. Which is what you should do when the facts support you. Ara should have argued the law.

Instead he argued Biden, some anecdotes, and a Pentagon command structure that is at odds with Rumsfeld over how the military should work.

I would have stuck with one of those Ara. Not all three. Too wide in scope.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 11, 2004 09:18 PM

Oh, that's par for the course for Ara.

Step 1 is nearly always "list opinions of people who agree with you," no matter whether that has any bearing on one's argument. I suppose it's "argument by democracy" or something. :)

Step 2 is a tougher call; he tends to go either/or on "construct narrow and torturous definition that favors my side only," or "change the subject via tu quoque."

Step 3 depends, natually, on what was selected in Step 2.

When all else fails, he enjoys argument by conclusion.

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 11, 2004 11:48 PM

Rose, I always admired your infastructure and your support, uh, ... er, beams.

Posted by: Mark Adams at May 12, 2004 12:04 AM

reading aras arguments are sad. its like we have to agree already that rummie sucks. rummie sucks so because rummie sucks rummie should go. no info on what rummie did wrong or what rummie could do better, just, "bad things happened and rummie was there, so rummie must go."

its embarassing to watch democrats act like this.

Posted by: anonymouse at May 12, 2004 03:33 AM

"Ara:

Give me the QOAE's head!"

If he fails, come see me for a little head Marko.

Posted by: Nunya at May 12, 2004 10:28 PM