Tim Blair

No one has ever accused the left of being connected with reality.

It’s like there were a distributed-computer Goebbels program. Yes, we’ve pretty much resisted the gobbles/Goebbels pun, too obvious, right?—let’s face it, it’s warranted.

You wd think that a columnist, a well paid one, wd know what a "free fire zone" is. You'd also think that someone edits her drunken idiocy and wd explain to her why she should drink less, think more. But alas the NYT is the NYT.

Ok, as far as I can tell, the Babes Against Bush doesn;t really feature any babes. There's one on the first page, after that I guess you have to cough up fifteen bucks for the calendar.
Fuck that.

Tim, while the 22% drop in attacks is good news, it does not disprove Dowd's claim that Iraq is a free-fire zone.

Just sent this email to the babes:

Hi, babes
Just found your website. Awesome!! I love women who shave their pubes, so you have my full support in your effort to rid American women of unsightly pubic hair!
SHAVE ON, Babes

G'day Robert,

You seem to have missed the point. The term "free-fire zone" has a specific meaning. It does NOT/NOT mean there is a lot of shooting going on. It means that the rules of engagement for a specific area state that there is no need to call for specific authorisation to engage the enemy or return fire (hence you are free to fire if a target presents itself). Dowd's usage is wrong because there are no "free-fire zones" anywhere in Iraq.

Making fun of Dowd's misuse of "free-fire zone" is similar to making fun of Dean's misuse of the term "right of first refusal". Sometimes cool sounding terms don't mean what the ignoranti think they do.

Russell, I am aware that "free-fire zones" is a specific military term. I don't know whether there are any such zones in Iraq or not. I was merely pointing out that a fall in the number of attacks on US troops does not prove that there are no free-fire zones in Iraq.

Those intellectuals at BabesAgainstBush

My guess is that they are neither intellectuals, nor babes.

Making fun of Dowd's inability to write a coherent argument is like making fun of dead people's inability to break dance.

So much for the babe part of BABESAGAINSTBUSH.COM. It is registered to Livingstone, David david@orwellmedia.com

Does he also do Liza Minelli impressions at the local gay bar?

Registrant:
OrwellMedia

P.O. Box 851
Royal Oak, Michigan 48068-0851
United States

Registered through: Cheap-DomainRegistration.com
Domain Name: BABESAGAINSTBUSH.COM
Created on: 17-Aug-03
Expires on: 17-Aug-04
Last Updated on: 17-Aug-03

Administrative Contact:
Livingstone, David david@orwellmedia.com
OrwellMedia
P.O. Box 851
Royal Oak, Michigan 48068-0851
United States
(313) 320-2820
Technical Contact:
Livingstone, David david@orwellmedia.com
OrwellMedia
P.O. Box 851
Royal Oak, Michigan 48068-0851
United States
(313) 320-2820

Domain servers in listed order:
NS10.WEBSITESOURCE.COM
NS11.WEBSITESOURCE.COM

Robert - your argument could not be any more convoluted. "Reduction is attacks doesn't mean that there aren't free fire zones in Iraq". Uh huh. I prefer this tho: "Reduction in attacks doesn't mean that Justin Timberlake isn't my favorite super hunk".

D'ya get my point? The reason why you don't know if there are any free fire zones in Iraq is because if you knew what a free fire zone was the answer wd be self evident: There are no free fire zones, neither just prior to or just after Saddam's capture. A free fire zone is quite simply that: Any one on the streets in a free fire zone can be shot no questions asked. Have you heard of this happening? What? NO? How strange.

Sheesh - Babes Against Bush- what losers.

Looks like political pandering because they can't get dates! It's the college campus of the 1970's all over again.

And like those ardent idiots back then, it might take 20 years for them to understand their own hatefulness, and finally figure out why they can't be loved.

I know - you think that's harsh - but look at a timeline chart of fatherlessness and divorce rates!

Hen, you're missing the point. A reasonable argument against something by a lefty is anydamnthing the lefty wants it to be. I.e., "The fact that I have never seen a unicorn is not proof that Bush doesn't drink crude oil from the skulls of dead Iraqi babies." See. It's easy.

As my beautiful wife would say, "When non sequiters are outlawed, only shepherds will boil earmuffs."

Thanks Jorg. But let me see if i have this right: As a leftie i can say such bon mots as "The fact that Iraq is a free fire zone is due to Bush chopping up little babies in order to make matzoh for his Jewish masters", and that argument is then codified and correct? Cool. This is fun.

"How does a blonde turn the lights on after sex?'

"She opens the car door..."

Hen, I'm happy to concede that there are no free-fire zones in Iraq. I'm glad that you have decided that I don't know what they are, even though you have never met me or discussed the concept with me. Can you please point out anywhere in my post that I said a free-fire zone was anything other than an area in which everyone present is a legitimate target?

Now that we've got that cleared up, perhaps you can tell me how a 22% fall in attacks on US troops proves that there is no free-fire zone in Iraq. The two are undoubtedly true, but they are not related. That is a non sequitur.

Dowd is wrong, but Blair's contrast between her view and reality are unrelated. Perhaps if he'd linked to the rules of engagement, it would make sense.

Actually, can anyone link to the rules of engagement? Or, for that matter, a civilian body count?

That'd be a swell argument, Robert, had Dowd said something to the effect that x% of Iraq is a free-fire zone. However, she said Iraq itself is a free-fire zone. Is it? I'd think not. I mean, an entire country...

You guys are missing a point. Or maybe you aren't, it's just not noteworthy any longer.

What Dowd is typically doing here is invoking the "worst ever" terminology that's being widely applied to the Bush administration.

Specifically, she says that Iraq - not parts if Iraq but THE WHOLE COUNTRY - "is still a free-fire zone". Never mind the fact that the nation was never a free-fire zone in the first place (otherwise, it would be a glass parking lot right now).

I think that's Russell's point about someone picking out a term that sounds cool and scary and grossly applying it inappropriately. And incorrectly too. Only I made it much longer.

This is getting tedious. No Robert i don't know you. Now that we have established that, let's just do a quick review. MoDo claims that "Iraq is a free fire zone". You stated that while a 22% reduction is good it does not disprove what MoDo says. Quite simply if you, or MoDo, knew what the defintion of a free fire zone is you wd not argue that she is not incorrect.

My understanding is that once the end of major actions was declared NONE of Iraq was given the FFZ designation, and prior to that, the allied forces had very strict conditions for firing on enemy soldiers and combatants.

Are we done?

Dowd, as I understand her, is claiming that all of Iraq is a free-fire zone. Were she correct, attacks would have been reduced by 100% not 22%. Thus the reduction of only 22% is evidence against Dowd's idiotic statement.

Or, for that matter, a civilian body count?

Here we go again...

This is getting tedious...

Indeed.

Quite simply if you ... knew what the defintion of a free fire zone is you wd not argue that she is not incorrect.

I didn't.