Gay Patriot Header Image

Suddenly Confident About Iraq

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:27 am - January 12, 2007.
Filed under: Blogging,Bush-hatred,Leftist Nutjobs,Liberals

Over the past few days, I’ve become suddenly confident about America’s ability to defeat the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.

Why you may ask?

Because although it has taken a while and it has been a quiet yet constant campaign, we have defeated the insurgents and terrorists here at GayPatriot.

I think long-time readers will understand what (and who) I mean.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 11:48 am - January 12, 2007

  2. Ditto.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 12, 2007 @ 11:53 am - January 12, 2007

  3. I don’t get it.

    Comment by Vera Darling — January 12, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - January 12, 2007

  4. :-[

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2007 @ 1:11 pm - January 12, 2007

  5. Patrick, your comments in this thread, coupled with those in another recent thread, seem to be good testaments to what truly motivates you to post here at GayPatriot. I venture to say the motivation is to bait, goad, irritate and inflame rather than to actively and constructively put forward fair, alternative views on public policy issues.

    While being bitter and snide might be understandable given your view of the world and the deflated role of civil discourse in our great Republic, but it still is truly self-destructive and it also poisons the well in the public square. It’s a broader concept that those on the Left –often blinded by passions—fail to appreciate as they engage in a kind of “debate” which fails to advance ideas, fails to enlighten and becomes a game of petty partisan one-ups-manship.

    I think the folks at GayPatriot have tolerated personal attacks, smears and baseless accusations for a very long time from you. I and others have counseled you to cease, but you have not. I, like many others here, have been called a liar, a coward, a tool, a hack and a moron by you for daring to question your assertions. Maybe it’s fair for you to withdraw for a while and reflect on the value of community, civil discourse and the role that public debate has played in our Great Republic’s history.

    I hope Bruce leaves your two comments here as valuable insight into what pettiness sometimes motivates people like you, Gryph. And I hope that the embargo on further comments by you (that go beyond being civil) is finally heeded by you voluntarily and won’t require endless deletions by Bruce –which, in turn, requires him to take valuable time away from creating interesting posts for the rest of us to comment upon, reflect upon and enjoy.

    Be selfless in this instance, Gryph. Stay away until you can comment in a civil, proper fashion without the pettiness of heart and inflammation of mouth.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - January 12, 2007

  6. Huh? So pointing out lies told by others is punishable by banning and censorship but calling someone else a terrorist is all right? I think I’m beginning to see how things work around here…

    Comment by EekAMouse — January 12, 2007 @ 2:14 pm - January 12, 2007

  7. #0 – Bruce, also consider that:

    – al Qaeda in Somalia was just defeated
    – NATO won a battle against the Taliban in Pakistan this morning
    – Most important point about President Bush’s plan for Iraq: He isn’t going to sell out to James Baker, Iran, Syria, the so-called “realists” (self-deceived appeasers is more like it) of the Iraq Study Group.

    So the news is looking up!

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - January 12, 2007

  8. Clarification: Patrick(Gryph) made two comments in this thread after being banned in another. The first comment was to call us cowards.

    The second comment was to sneer that he was able to avoid his ban by using alternate IPs. Of course, it’s a tough task to prevent someone from posting comments here –one would hope that when someone is banned, the message is clear enough that until redemption is secured by the web hosts, the individual should refrain from posting.

    In a real way, the childish behavior impacts all of us by taking Bruce’s time away from creating lucid, interesting posts in order to manage the website to keep 1-2-3 irresponsible folks at bay.

    I’d rather Bruce write and post and think of other posts than play housekeeper, no matter how important.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - January 12, 2007

  9. #3 – VD – You’d probably have to be a long-time commentor here to get it. Are you a long-time commentor?

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 3:35 pm - January 12, 2007

  10. Re MichiganMatt to Patrick…I read Gryphmon’s comments on another site he and I both frequent, not directly political one as here…and Gryph can be self-righteous and preachy, but sometimes makes good sense…I do note, however, that on his own site, Gryphmon’s Grumbles, which he has not posted to in a long time, this site here is listed as Gay “Patriot”, under Tinfoil Hat Wearing Crowd…so I don’t think there’s much basic respect from the get-go.

    Comment by EssEm — January 12, 2007 @ 4:14 pm - January 12, 2007

  11. Speaking as a longtime observer (and occasional recipient) of Gryph’s style / behavior on GP: It has been clear for some time that he comes to GP to name-call and trash others. Bruce claims to have only ever deleted comments of Gryph’s where Gryph name-called or made other forms of highly personal attack on individuals here. From what I’ve seen, Bruce’s claim is 100% true. For example, I briefly saw Gryph’s post in the Thomas Paine thread last night (deleted, and resulting in Gryph’s ban). It prominently featured such attacks.

    Personally, if I were Bruce, I would have banned Gryph and a couple others sooner. Strongly diverse opinions – even acrid disagreements – are one thing. Being unable to write a post without trashing others in a very name-calling, direct and personal way is something else again.

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 4:50 pm - January 12, 2007

  12. #11 P.S. But it goes without saying that it’s Bruce’s blog and Dan’s, and they get to apply the rules as they think best.

    Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - January 12, 2007

  13. Let’s just say that in this case the “new strategy” and the “surge” worked!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 12, 2007 @ 7:20 pm - January 12, 2007

  14. Bruce, unlike some of your supporters here, I think banning those who come simply to incite, inflame, sneer and goad is a fair consequence.

    Frankly, I wouldn’t cross the road to hear a sneering or inflaming commentor rag on –he might have a right to be able to do that in America in a different forum– but I for one do NOT confuse the right to speak out with the privilege to do it wherever I want.

    Civil discourse is in short supply during these troubled times and our feckless leaders in politics and the MSM do little to restore civility… even when it was an announced goal of the incoming House Dem Speaker.

    Eeeck gets it solidly wrong. In fact, he couldn’t be more wrong… it isn’t a question of Bruce banning vocal opposition and stifling debate… it’s a question of banning a skreetching voice here or there who seem intent on spoiling tempered debate.

    It is not the same as has happened to some conservatives commenting on radically liberal or GayLeftBorgType blogs… some of those ARE instances of webhosts banning valid opposition which never, to my mind, turned viciously personal in their attacks. Those instances of banning were motivated out of fear and intolerance.

    Big differences, Eeck. Patrick has a website. He acted in a manner which separated himself from a sense of community or honest dialogue here. He’s free to voice his opinions on other sites and his own… it’s just that he won’t distract or deter others here from discussion any longer.

    EssEm, in an earlier email to me today, Patrick was unrepentant –he still doesn’t appreciate why being banned was a direct and appropriate consequence of his actions. I encouraged him to take this time and pause, reflect on his need to slam, incite, inflame, sneer and goad. I hope he does. It might help him grow in self-enlightenment… something ThosJefferson urged on all his followers.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2007 @ 9:02 pm - January 12, 2007

  15. uh….you consider banning someone from a website with a couple of clicks of a mouse the same as people who have fought, been injured, permanently maimed and killed in service to the country (whether you believe the war right or wrong)?

    [GP Ed. Note – No I do not, and Kevin you have quite a high opinion of yourself to make that comparison.]

    Comment by Kevin — January 12, 2007 @ 10:55 pm - January 12, 2007

  16. Hmm.
    I missed it all because I always flew over Gryph’s posts. You can pick his out in the first sentence or so.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2007 @ 2:00 am - January 13, 2007

  17. #7:

    al Qaeda in Somalia was just defeated

    uhh, not exactly: the attack apparently missed its targets.

    As to the topic of the post, it strikes me as chutzpah to call someone a terrorist in the same breath you ban that person for name-calling.

    Comment by Ian — January 13, 2007 @ 11:00 am - January 13, 2007

  18. #17 – Always searching for that killjoy angle, eh Ian? But for your information, the attack’s targets were the UIC who were acting as hosts for al Qaeda. Since they got the UIC, the attack got its targets. Here is what the BBC has to say as of this morning:

    Somali government troops backed by Ethiopian soldiers have captured the last stronghold of the Union of Islamic Courts, the defence minister says.

    Col Barre Aden Shire said the town of Ras Kamboni, in south-eastern Somalia, fell after several days of fighting. Remnants of the militia are now reported to be hiding in dense forest along Somalia’s border with Kenya.

    Ethiopia has led a military campaign against the Islamists, who controlled much of Somalia for six months.

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - January 13, 2007

  19. Oh, and hat tip to Captain Ed – Here is what the New York Times / Democrats had to say about the situation December 9th:

    A growing number of Democrats in Congress are urging the Bush administration to change course and deal with the Islamists for what they are: the power on the ground.
    “The Islamists aren’t going away, so the sooner we talk to them, the better,” said Representative Donald M. Payne, the New Jersey Democrat who is expected to become the chairman of the House subcommittee on Africa when his party takes control of Congress in January.

    Thank goodness a Democrat wasn’t / isn’t President!!!

    Comment by Calarato — January 13, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - January 13, 2007

  20. 15: Regarding your reply: Well, a lot of you seem to think so as are armchair hawks who attack democrats for not going while you won’t do so yourselves. And don’t give me that BS about blaming Clinton because gays can’t serve in the military. That’s an affront to the gay men and women who have served before, during or after Clinton and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in that service.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - January 14, 2007

  21. “we have defeated the insurgents and terrorists here at GayPatriot.”

    LOL. Go, Jack, go!!!

    Comment by sean — January 17, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - January 17, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.