Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMayhem in Iraq. Global warming on the warpath. National debt to the moon. There's much to moan about. But it's the little things that sometimes can tick one off the most. For instance, in the news today of Ned Lamont's win over Joe Lieberman, there was the remark from Dick Cheney that suggested al Qaeda was buoyed by Lieberman's defeat. The veep said that anti-American terrorists are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when they see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today."
Two points. First, it was Cheney's boss, George W. Bush, who ran for the presidency in 2000 vowing to change the tone of partisan political discourse in Washington. I know that's a promise that was never kept. But what a nasty shot from Cheney. Neither he nor Bush seem to realize that even though they are GOP partisans they are still president and the vice president of the entire nation and actually have a higher standard to meet than the usual political hacks (including those in their own employ). Yet they show no interest in doing so. Again, nothing new about that.
Second, the disruption of the latest suspected terrorist plot--the one to blow up airliners heading to the United States from London--illustrates that the evildoers are probably not developing their plans based on the outcome of primary elections in the Nutmeg State. Moreover, American policy should not be held hostage to what America's enemies want or don't want. The debate is over what's best for the United States (and the rest of the world). To suggest one path or another would hearten the "terrorists" is to avoid a serious discussion. But what else would you expect from a fellow who still believes he was right to say a year ago that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes"?
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Cheney lives in Rummy world. Light is dark. The sun is blue. Nothing new to see here folks, move along.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2006 @ 10:58pm
Wow!
25 minutes.
Mask must be emptying his bag.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/10/2006 @ 11:20pm
Funny to see all the GOP'ers falling all over themselves talking about the state of the Democratic party, and how it's suddenly full of left wing lunatics, and has lost its sense of direction. Please, the democratic party is just fine, and may be in the process of beginning to understand how important it is to represent their constituents. The rejection of Lieberman has begun a dialogue about the failed foreign policy agenda of the Bush administration.......and Americans are showing that they are willing to throw anyone under the bus that isnt willing to listen.
Posted by jpolston at 08/10/2006 @ 11:27pm
my god, how embarrassing this administration is. aren't these guys supposed to represent ALL of us? and not just some of us? what business do they have commenting on the results of the connecticut primary? and then extrapolating egregiously on the long term effects?
these guys are just totally f***ing outrageous.
Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 11:37pm
does anyone else here feel that cheney is just about the most despicable human being you can think of? if not, can you name someone worse?
Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 11:42pm
or how about this: can you think of anyone who you'd want to sleep with the least?
can you imagine how much of a turn-off cheney would be?
Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 11:43pm
Ok everybody, if the Disaster in Iraq gets worse, its because of the Democrats. The Commander in Chief has no role during the last 5 years. The Republican Congress has no role. Only the left wing of the minority party has any power. Same old white male christian victimhood syndrome.
George Bush could have won his war in Iraq if the Democrats had let him. It's just like Vietnam - Conservatives tell me the only reason America didnt achieve anything in Vietnam is because Liberals wouldnt let them. The Vietnam war would have been wonderful and positive if the Liberals let them.
Posted by conshame at 08/11/2006 @ 12:07am
Cheney is so fucking irrelevant. Dan Quayle's brain with a bad heart and a creepy smile.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/11/2006 @ 12:11am
the last two posts are the most pathetic and, frankly, stupid things i've read in maybe 20 years.
that's it. i'm done with this fucking site.
Posted by darladoon at 08/11/2006 @ 12:22am
Posted by DARLADOON 08/11/2006 @ 12:22am
Alrighty then....Am I mistaken in taking conshames post as satirical? Does it not say "Same old white male christian victimhood syndrome."
"that's it. i'm done with this fucking site."
????
Posted by Malcontent at 08/11/2006 @ 01:59am
After enabling Israeli / Mossad wiretaps and blackmail of top US Officials including Dick Cheney...
COMVERSE CEO FLEES TO ISRAEL:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/10/business/options.php
The former chief executive, Jacob Alexander, who had built Comverse into a $1 billion leader in the communications software market, did not appear in court and is believed to have fled to Germany or Israel, according to a person briefed on the investigation. A warrant was issued for his arrest.
Alexander is highly regarded in Israel, where he once owned a stake in a Tel Aviv professional basketball team and where Comverse has extensive business operations.
In late July, he wired $57 million to an account in Israel, according to court filings from the Justice Department. Millions more are believed to remain in his accounts in the United States, which prosecutors have asked to be frozen.
THE TRUTH ABOUT COMVERSE AND 9/11:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Posted by plunger at 08/11/2006 @ 04:54am
Every time Sheriff Dick Cheney emerges from his bunker crypt to sneer into his armpit and snarl some insane invective at Democrats -- like "Go Fuck Yourself" -- he demeans America even more than his putative boss Deputy Dubya Bush does when unsuccessfully trying to read English-like noises off a teleprompter.
The time has long since passed for Democrats to restore honesty, honor, and competence to the White House -- especially the attic where Dorian Gray Bush keeps his picture and basement where Count Dick Cheney sleeps in his coffin during the day.
Posted by Michael Murry at 08/11/2006 @ 05:43am
Every time Sheriff Dick Cheney emerges from his bunker crypt to sneer into his armpit and snarl some insane invective at Democrats -- like "Go Fuck Yourself" -- he demeans America even more than his putative boss Deputy Dubya Bush does when trying to read English-like noises off a teleprompter.
The time has long since passed for Democrats to restore honesty, honor, and competence to the White House -- especially the attic where Dorian Gray Bush keeps his picture and basement where Count Dick Cheney sleeps in his coffin during the day.
Posted by Michael Murry at 08/11/2006 @ 05:44am
I haven't listened to the blowhard Cheney ever since he stated on a sunday morning television show a couple of years ago, that the insurgents in Iraq were in their last array...Tells you alot about this administration doesn't it ???
Posted by djmarch at 08/11/2006 @ 08:04am
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/11/2006 @ 12:11am
Cheney is so fucking irrelevant. Dan Quayle's brain with a bad heart and a creepy smile.
Careful there, TJ. I loath the man too, but irrelevant? No, all too relevant I'm afraid, though not as a political pundit, of course. He's still the one behind this cabal, and a damned smart guy.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/11/2006 @ 08:08am
Stwriley,
Perhap's, but doesn't true leadership require a following? He has an 18% approval rating, making President Botch seem more popular than free whore at a Republican National Convention in comparison!
Posted by freedomplease at 08/11/2006 @ 08:40am
I suppose we should not be surprised that the GOP would start yelling "Terrorist" as the November elections approach. After all, it worked in 04, right?
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/11/2006 @ 08:55am
**********************************
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
*********************************
look away from israel and it anal whore the uSSa and their crimes agaisnt humanity...
only concern yourself with the loss of convenience and the impossibility of taking your i-pod on board...
unreal!!!
God damn how I wish there truly were a bin bogeyman to finaly vaporize all this vermin.
People the shit is gonna hit the fan very soon, the script written long ago is gonna smack you in the face like you can't believe.... forget about elections, protests and any other such quaint lofty ideas...
take cover! there is no time.
get the fuck out of uSSa!
Now!
You WILL NOT COMPREHEND THE WORLD we'll live in in a couple of weeks!
By: PaulRevere on August 11, 2006 at 03:01am
Posted by plunger at 08/11/2006 @ 08:56am
Mary, you left out the part where it is all the democrats/liberals/leftists/anti-bushites fault.
Remember, at one point there were 3,000 Al-Qaida. We have captured or killed at least that many. So, the GWOT should have sustained several fatal blows by this point. WWII took less time than chimpies war onAl-Qaida. According to Dickie (DUCK HARRY!) there should be at least 3 thriving democracies in the middle east, with terrorists on the run.
I wonder if when Lamont rings up Usama they discuss how gay marriage is undermining the country. Hey, that's it, "they" should tap Lamonts phone if they want to find Bin-Laden!
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:04am
But I didn't see anyone suggesting he's wrong.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:03am | ignore this person
You think Hezzbolah/Usama sit around wondering about a dem primary in CT? Delusional.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:06am
Not really sure I understand Mr Corn's point....
Isn't it a "given" that Cheney is "evil, manipulative, and Machiavellian"?
So...why (like Ari Berman about Lieberman) is David Corn somehow "surprised" that Cheney would make the remarks he did?
or is the real point...that it might work, politically?
But just complaining about your opponent using every available weapon to go after you, even "low blows", doesn't make any sense?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2006 @ 09:13am
rese: blocked from responding
Posted by plunger at 08/11/2006 @ 09:22am
My cut and paste:
Half the Population Still Believes in WMDs by Amitabh Pal
I nearly fell off my chair while reading the local newspaper two days ago.
There it was. Newsflash headline: Half of U.S. Still Believes Iraq had WMD
The AP story by Charles Hanley [1] tried hard to maintain an unruffled tone, but betrayed its surprise a number of times.
"Do you believe in Iraqi ‘WMD'? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?" the story began. "Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq."
This is beyond baffling. And, wait, it gets worse.
The 50 percent figure is actually a substantial increase from the 36 percent who believed in this myth last year, and the 38 percent who believed it in 2004.
At first glance, all this is very disheartening for those of us who have faith in the power of information to drive away falsehoods.
"I'm flabbergasted," AP quotes Michael Massing, a media critic who has spent considerable effort analyzing media coverage of the Iraq War.
"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence."
On the other hand, maybe this isn't so surprising. After all, in a poll last December [2], a full sixty-one percent of Americans said that they believed in the devil, forty percent of Americans admitted that they think that ghosts surround us, while one-third even accepted the existence of UFOs. Maybe there's some overlap between these people and those who still believe in those spectral WMDs.
Seriously, let's start apportioning blame for this state of affairs.
At the top of the list is the Bush Administration. It has mouthed this nonsense of "mushroom clouds" and "nuclear weapons" so insistently that it is hard for its supporters to admit to themselves that the White House took them for a ride. The closest Condoleezza Rice has come to admitting, for instance, that she and her colleagues were wrong is to say that WMDs were "perhaps" not present in Iraq. One hell of an admission.
Next on the list are the Bush Administration's foot soldiers in Congress. Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Peter Hoekstra triumphantly released a report recently that supposedly proved that 500 chemical munitions had been gathered in Iraq since the invasion. The only problem was that these were long degraded and unusable [3].
Who pays attention to the likes of Santorum and Hoekstra? Who takes them seriously?
Of course, the Republican echo chamber in the right-wing media is also to blame for the mass delusion among half the American public. FOX News is the leading weapon of mass deception. As a poll famously revealed [4] three years ago, forty-five percent of FOX viewers believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and that global opinion supported Bush's Iraq invasion. An incredible 80 percent believed at least one of these fibs.
To top itself, as the AP story reveals, FOX had a recent headline: "ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?"
------------
1/2 of the 1/2 believe it it the lefts fault chimpy is a failure, My statistic, backed up by very little research other than reading CPT, Luvvy, Rio and Mary.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:26am
I can think of no one here that does not view terrorists as a real threat. Most of just think Chimpy has made it WORSE, not better. His stumbling around the world with guns a'blazin has made the enemy more sustainable, more able to recruit followers. If it were working the troops would be on their way home, not BACK to Iraq. False analogies appear to be the bread and butter of the repubes, and Mask.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:35am
I could be wrong here, I often am, but I remember Usama wanting chimpy to win, not Kerry!
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:38am
Given the declassified report that stated the US has recovered over 500 WMD (chemical and nerve agents) in Iraq, shouldn't the headline read, "Half of U.S. still unaware Iraq had WMD"?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:36am | ignore this person
Delusional.
Did the guys captured in the UK use old wmd's or off the shelf chemicals available to the common man? Try this for me today. Close up a room in your trailer and poor 1 gallon of bleach into 1 gallon of ammonia.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:40am
mary, did you know that Cheney/Rice/Chimpy think that the dictators of Khazikstan, Uzbekistan and Equatorial New Guinea are "friends of the United States"? Do you know why? What do they have that we need that allows us to turn a blind eye to the crap these guys do to their people? Like Saddam did. Sign up Bret and Brad now for Operation Uzbekistan Freedom before you miss the boat.
but Lamont helps Usama, somehow.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:47am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:45am
i would wish to help people, you would wish for dead people.
'Nuff said.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:49am
Crabsagain,
"Maasch
we know you don't support the law"
But your wish would end with more dead people over a longer period of time..
Posted by john maasch at 08/11/2006 @ 09:54am
Sorry, control C didn't take,
should read..
Crabsagain,
i would wish to help people, you would wish for dead people.
'Nuff said.
But your wish would end with more dead people over a longer period of time..
'Nuff said
Posted by john maasch at 08/11/2006 @ 09:56am
But "They are in their last throes", Mary. Right.The Mission IS accomplished! The Iraqis voted, they got a functioning guvt.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 09:58am
Mornin' Maasch. How does the world find you today? It is cool and sunny here. Lovin' the day, and you and Mary.
there no way to tell whose wish would be better. I do know we have been trying your way for about 50 years and it ain't worked yet.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:02am
How was the travelling yesterday, John?
FYI, I am in favor of the new security protocols
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:04am
(To anybody still reading "the only sane one left"....Posted by PLUNGER 08/11/2006 @ 08:56am | ignore this person)
Do you think PLUNGE and RESE have packed for their move to ...what?...Canada? (naw, too close to "USSA fascist dictatorship")...Mexico? (again, too close to "impending declaration of martial law and Bush Presidency-for-Life")...
Aruba's nice....or Jamaica, if you like a little smoke...or maybe Cuba, if Raul bumps off his older brother?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2006 @ 10:05am
Mary,
How would pulling the US troops out of Iraq help Osama?
How would keeping them there hurt Osama?
I am genuinely curious to see your response (or anyone else that maintains a policy of "stay the course").
Posted by freedomplease at 08/11/2006 @ 10:05am
Cheney is betting on the proposition that rank-and-file patriots are too stupid to know that Osama & Saddam are different people, Hezbollah & al Qaida are different groups, Sunni & Shia are different sects, and Iraq & Saudi Arabia different countries.
Posted by samcrossett at 08/11/2006 @ 10:10am
You may get your "wish" Mary, Rapture Index stands at 158, 13 over critical mass. Untie your shoes.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:13am
Aruba's nice....or Jamaica, if you like a little smoke...or maybe Cuba, if Raul bumps off his older brother?
Posted by MASK 08/11/2006 @ 10:05am | ignore this person
Hangin' with Rusty Shackelford in Jamaica, Mon. Almost as good as hangin' with Mask at MBC. He has an awful lot of files to go through customs, though. He may have to leave behind the Andy Kaufman box.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:16am
Crab,
Good morning...traveling was long with delays, but condidering the changes I was impressed that all went really smooth.. I also agree with the new regulationsand feel good about our fast reactions, my only worrys are the same as before, I am always nervous about all the guys wandering around near the cargo bins...The media, as ausual, got more in the way than the passengers....and over reported the scenario.
I departed LAX at 3.20 pm, arrived at the airport at around 12 noon and got through security in a hour. Everyone complyed and no one complained as far as I could see.
Posted by john maasch at 08/11/2006 @ 10:27am
My paranoid/conspiratorial side wonders: if this investigation has been going on for months,why did they wait to put these new regs in place? If they had been wrong, planes could have been downed. Not saying that's what they want, just why not put new protocols in place when you know the plan is afoot?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:37am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/11/2006 @ 10:27am
But wouldn't the libertarian position be that this is overcontrol by guvt? Each person should be in control of their own security? And not use a public airport built with tax dollars?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:39am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/11/2006 @ 10:16am | ignore this person
HAHA...I can imagine RESE and PLUNGER on a Caribbean island resort somewhere (having "narrowly escaped the impending declaration of martial law just before the 2008 election").
Very pale (since they stay under umbrellas, so that the "CIA/Mossad 'Keyhole' satellites don't spot them"), drinking Capt. Morgan's, and discussing how "they're return when the Uprising starts" and various strategies for "wresting power back from the Jewish Bankers and Donald Rumsfeld's Clone Army".
Then some poor Caribbean kid comes up to them offering to sell them a flower and they seize it, tear it apart looking for "the microscopic listening device", and then nearly throttle the kid, screaming "WHO SENT YOU? WHO SENT YOU?"
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2006 @ 10:40am
Posted by MASK 08/11/2006 @ 10:40am |
giggle.
"I don't want a pickle, just wanna ride my motor-cycle."
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:45am
Crab,
"But wouldn't the libertarian position be that this is overcontrol by guvt? Each person should be in control of their own security? And not use a public airport built with tax dollars?
Posted by CRABWALK 08/11/2006 @ 10:39am | ignore this person "
I am not sure...I think we need many government oversights, national security, interstate commerce, military, maintaine court system, absolute safety need for needy, among the others, but not constannt interference in our daily lives to the extent they are now.
As a frequent traveler, air safety is a constant with me, and I am begining to want the terrorists in this case to receieve a QUICK, BUT FAIR TRIAL AND SEND THEM TO PARADISE WITH OUT THE PASSENGERS. ALL WITHIN THE NEXT 60 DAYS, NOT MONTHS. THEY WILL UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THIS QUICKNESS TO GET TO HEAVEN...WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO GET THERE AS FAST AS YOU CAN WITH ALLL THE VIRGINS AND WHAT NOT? FUCK EM.
Posted by john maasch at 08/11/2006 @ 11:12am
Posted by STWRILEY 08/11/2006 @ 08:08am: and a damned smart guy.
Given that Cheney is wrong about most everything he says, why do you think he is a damned smart guy?
I understand that is his rep. But, empirically, he would seem to be a damned dumb guy.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:18am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 08:50am: It is repetitive but necessary to point out that we didn't start this war when we invaded Iraq.
It might be repetitive and necessary, but it is also certainly wrong. Of course we started this war in Iraq when we illegally invaded Iraq.
And Mary, dear. If we wanted to read NRO, we would go to the NRO site. But we did not. So, please don't repost reams of NRO bullshit on this site. If you want to point out an interesting NRO story, a link is a more polite way of doing it.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:22am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:03am: But I didn't see anyone suggesting he's wrong.
You don't. Why is that? Are you blind?
OK. Try this: He's wrong. The terrorists don't win when people choose not to vote for Dick's friends.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 08:50am
First, I'd like to say that Baker's article actually has little relevance to what we were discussing, that is Cheney's partisan nonsense in relation to US politics. That is about the propriety of a vice-President chiming in on an opposition party primary result as though it was his business. While I will not say that some people we don't like aren't watching US politics closely (it's been known before, as when the Philippean insurgents pinned their hopes on anti-imperialist candidates back in the 1900 elections) I also don't think that this is something that should change our political outlook. We need to follow the political course that's best for us, regardless of what an enemy elsewhere might think or hope he sees in that.
That said, I'd like to comment directly on what Mary has posted as well. I've read Baker's article, and it's the same old justifications based on poor strategy and a simplified view of the world as we've heard time and again from BushCo and their neocon "strategists". When he talks about delusion, he's projecting his own viewpoint onto opponents of the BushCo/Blair (he's writing for a British paper so he has to include Tony) neocon strategy. The problem is, it's still bad strategy and attacking its critics as "delusional" only shows how bankrupt their thinking is. They have no good arguments and can only repeat the same tired slogans and hope that somehow things will work out as they wanted. Let's take a look at some of the assumptions buried in Baker's article to see how this works.
First, Baker is pre-assuming that BushCo/Blair critics will dismiss the new London plot as "a few young men larking about" on no evidence whatsoever. In this he is likely to be wrong. The plot will be taken seriously for what it was (dangerous and nasty) but the critics will no doubt be questioning what will be done with it in a propaganda sense. Why do I say that? Because we already have DHS Chertoff sowing the seeds that this was "very like an al-Qaeda operation" based only on speculation. It may or may not have any connection to the actual al-Qaeda organization, or may be simply be inspired by their previous actions and ideas but operating on its own (Chertoff noted the similarity to the very well known Khalid Sheik Mohammad plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, but the London subway bombings and Madrid bombings were of the latter type.) But already we have the linkage being forged because the entire neocon strategy depends on maintaining the perception that there is one "global terror network" that is our enemy, despite every piece of evidence to the contrary. It's an incorrect view of the world and of a fairly diverse set of Islamic fundamentalist radicals, themselves divided in goals and outlooks by generations of mutually exculsive ideology (and that doesn't even take into account other forms of terrorist organization that aren't fundamentalist muslims but still hate us for their own reasons.) It takes a monlithic view of a problem (based on the Cold War ideology that is at the heart of the neocon's own thinking) that is simply not in line with the facts on the ground.
Second, Baker assumes that when critics cite our own actions as causative factors, we are simply "blaming the victim" without cause, fact, or rational analysis (and without assigning degrees of culpability.) This too is indicative of the neocon worldview, so ably expressed by Georgie himself just after 9/11; "you're either with us or against us." The problem is that this is a view so simplistic it beggars the imagination as to why otherwise apparently intelligent people espouse it. It ignores the idea that our actions have consequences and that correct strategy must take these into account. Baker likens the invasion of Afghanistan to that of Iraq, as though both have caused that same reaction in the Arab world, for instance. This is demonstrably incorrect, since there was no great outcry when we initiated action against Afghanistan, nor any sign of an increase in recruiting for fundamentalist organizations. Why? Because it was an action that was perfectly understandable from most people's worldviews, including on the "arab street". We had been attacked from that country and we're widely seen as defending ourselves and avenging a wrong. That perception did not attach to our invasion of Iraq elsewhere in the world (even with our friends, much less those more skeptical of US policies from our past actions.) That was seen as aggression, a pursuit of our interests to the detriment of an arab state (and not as the "liberation" that BushCo always talks about.) It is indicative of the neocon view that they simply do not understand that people don't like the idea of "liberators" who are basically uninvited and who are not like (in religious or cultural terms) the "liberated".
Baker also, as with the neocons, ignores US actions previous to 9/11 as though somehow the muslim parts of the world forgot that we had been hunkered down in Saudi Arabia for better than a decade with a large contingent of US troops, or that BushCo basically wrote off the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. These are things that must be considered for thier impact on any strategic idea. The problem is not whether they were correct at the time they were implimented or not, but how the working out of those previous decisions affects current policy. This has always been one of the major blindnesses of neocon policy, especially post-9/11. They take the tack that "9/11 changed everything" simply because their perception changed radically post-9/11. The problem is that's not how the rest of the world sees it, nor should they (nor, I would argue, should we, since our actual strategic situation hasn't changed at all.) Baker speaks of an "internally pure worldview", but this is his worst example of projection, since it is the neocon worldview that exemplifies this problem of "internal purity" and not that of their critics.
Finally, there is this perception that we now live in a "radical and dangerous new world" that somehow did not exist prior to 9/11 and that the only answer to this "new" threat is a military response. Both ideas (tied together in Baker's and the neocon's views) are patently incorrect. Extremist groups willing to use terroristic methods have a long history, and while 9/11 may have been a spectacular success for one of them there have been many previous spectacular successes as well (the 1972 Olympic attack, the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the Lockerby bombing in 1988, etc., and these are only listing attacks by muslim groups.) The world did not change, except for those who had previously ignored the way the world already had been for decades. The response? To try to apply the neocon's favored solution to problems, military force. Thier whole ideology is based on an interpretation of the Cold War that insists the US won by applying military force to wear down the Soviets (which is a misnomer, we simply outspent them in a situation where the military activities themselves were irrelevent to the outcome and only the levels of spending mattered.) Now they want to apply the same idea, we'll somehow wear down and chase down the "terrorists" (that monolithic idea of the "enemy" again, borrowed from the Cold War) and defeat them by attrition just like we did the Soviets. But it won't work.
Terrorism is a tactic, a phenomena of the very kind of uneven force landscape that neocons rely on. It is the natural response to asymetrical capabilities, and highly effective at preserving the organisations that use it (though I would also say usually not at achieving their goals, but that is a different discussion.) The methods that invariably work to counter terroristic tactics are police methods, not military ones, so the whole "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" idea that expresses the neocon strategy is false. The point of terroristic tactics is to only strike where you can concetrate force away from your enemy's concentrations of force. Their military forces become targets, not direct enemies. The case in hand in London shows how real action against extremist groups must be conducted, not the war in Iraq, as Baker implies. Solid police methods (and legal ones at that, not the ridiculous unconstitutional methods of BushCo) can produce the results needed. But this does not fit the "global war" ideology of the neocons, so they prattle on about the "global war on terror" as though that actually is more than a slogan. But it can't be, no more than the idea that terrorism can be "defeated", since you can't eliminate a tactic without eliminating its utility to those who would employ it. The neocon strategy that Baker is so busy defending does exactly the opposite. It makes this tactic more attractive to those who would employ it and draws recruits to them who otherwise would not be radicalized. The very thing he criticises, changing our policy in order to sap the propaganda strength and recruiting base of our extremist enemies, is the only strategy that will succeed. The way to eliminate terrorism is to eliminate the desire for terrorism by promoting policies that remove us as targets for extremists and undermine the basis of their extremism. Until we do that, we'll never win anything worth having by following the neocon's warped worldview.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:05am: Are you a big enough conspiracy theorist to suggest that it was really the Republicans who closed it?
Mary, dear. Your own NRO bullshit admits to politicization of terrorist investigations. It looks as though yesterday's plot to blow up US-bound aircraft from the UK was closer to the 9/11 tragedy than the Miami-Chicago farce.
As I recall, it took a few days to determine that the major terrorist plot that was thwarted by our glorious protectors was a farce. Perhaps you should wait a few days before jumping to conclusions about this one.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:29am
Posted by MASK 08/11/2006 @ 09:13am: But just complaining about your opponent using every available weapon to go after you, even "low blows", doesn't make any sense?
Right Z. A better strategy is to simply let their inane comments go unrebutted. That's a winner.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:31am
The biggest terror threat the GOP sees is the terror of the loss of their majority. "We are the only people who can protect you." Even though they don't. I wonder why the terrorists are thinking of new ways to bring bombs on planes when the cargo below goes unchecked. TSA can't afford the latest technology for detecting explosives because their funds are limited, diverted to payroll. Somehow, when the Pentagon wants more money, it doesn't even have to ask for it. Imaginary weapons and the Missile Defense Placebo system get plenty of funding. So far, half a trillion dollars is down the drain in Iraq with no end in sight and we're less safe from terrorism. Thanks to the disastrous policies of Bush puppeteer Dick Cheney, (who the Secret Service calls "Edgar" after Edgar Bergen the ventriloquist) we have more enemies than we had in 2000. Someday, an airliner will be shot down with a Stinger or other surface-to-air missile. For the cost of a week or two of the Iraq occupation, we could equip every airliner with counter-SAM defense technology. If Air Force One can have it, why can't we?
Posted by proudlib at 08/11/2006 @ 11:32am
The chickenhawks in the White House and Congress have turned Iraq into a failed state; now they're trying to look like they're accomplishing something by arming the 'Iraqi Army', which is already subdividing into Sunni and Shia death squads every night. The only thing that will change when the 'coalition' finally bugs out of Iraq is that the Saudi sponsors of Sunni terrorism and the Iranian sponsors of Shia terrorism will get to square off against each other, instead of attacking American soldiers. So will Osama benefit? Only as long as Bush and the Republicans continue to cover up for the Saudi sponsors of 9/11, who are currently paying and equipping the Sunni insurgents.
Posted by samcrossett at 08/11/2006 @ 11:35am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:28am: He said Lamont's win will buoy AQ spirits. It may be impolite to say it out loud, but it is factually correct.
Really? Should we just take your word on that? My recollection is that AQ was supporting your boy Chimpy in the '04 elections. They apparently think that Republican idiots are good for their cause.
It just shows that Democrats have priorities that supercede winning the war on terror. I think that's a pretty uncontroversial statement.
I can't see how that could be. Because that would mean that you think. And you clearly don't.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:36am
Posted by ORWELL2005 08/11/2006 @ 11:18am
Given that Cheney is wrong about most everything he says, why do you think he is a damned smart guy?
I understand that is his rep. But, empirically, he would seem to be a damned dumb guy.
I wasn't referring to the international situation on that one, but to his handling of domestic politics. There, he's done pretty well up until 2005. He long ago took on the role of "hate object" on purpose. It's his public function in BushCo. But don't let that public persona fool you, he's also been one of the ones pulling Georgie's strings (along with Rove) and making the real policy plans. Just because he's deluded about the nature of power and has bought into the neocon worldview doesn't mean he's stupid, just unscrupulous and ruthless. His friends have made out like bandits and he thought he was on his way to setting up one-party rule for a generation (the avowed purpose of BushCo) so that nothing could upset their apple-cart. He's being proved wrong, but that still doesn't make him stupid, which of course just means he's more dangerous than ever. That was my main concern in the "don't sell him short" comment to TJ.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/11/2006 @ 11:37am
the last two posts are the most pathetic and, frankly, stupid things i've read in maybe 20 years.
that's it. i'm done with this fucking site.
Posted by DARLADOON 08/11/2006 @ 12:22am
Darla writes that after she just wrote this:
or how about this: can you think of anyone who you'd want to sleep with the least?
can you imagine how much of a turn-off cheney would be?
Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 11:43pm
Talk about frankly stupid.
And now she's insulting Conshame and TJBehrens, too, I see.
Darla - you have completely lost your mind in the last few days, and are now running around biting your own friends just like a rabid animal.
You're done with this site?
Okay. Bye.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 11:37am
Mary,
Are you sure?
It looks to me like the demographics and history of Iraq are going to lead a "democratic" Iraq into a highly religious, shiite dominated theocracy. That, would be a best case scenario as the more likely sceanrio seems like a civil war.
A shiite theocracy legitimized via psuedo democracy is the model of Iran.
If you have absolute faith in the nation building capability of Bush / Chenney / Condi / Rummy then we will create Iran's mini-me.
Ironically, it is in the USA's best interests to avoid legitimizing this type of government (given that that is our policy in Iran).
Staying in Iraq HELPS Osama as our presence is a useful display of our imperialism in terms of recruiting. Furthermore, the fact that we are there is a very nice little training ground for the enemy. Terrorists were not in Iraq (in any significant numbers) until we showed up, now they are there in the tens of thousands. It is their choice to "fight us over there". They have nothing invested in Iraq, they could give a crap about Iraq. They are there learning about IED's and AK 47's and American battle techniques, and illegal arms procurement methods because THEY WANT TO LEARN. When they are ready, they'll leave Iraq and start the battle wherever THEY choose.
In the meantime, the USA is spending diplomacy, thousands of American lives, probably trillions of dollars to try to create a carbon copy of Iran. We need to spend a small portion of that on meaningful alternative energy research (like coal gasification) so that we can divest our need for imported oil and thenceforth develop a consistent Middle East foreign policy.
Mary, I'm not a pacifist. I don't even care about Iraqi civillians. I care about American interests and they are best served in EVERY way, by not being in Iraq.
Posted by freedomplease at 08/11/2006 @ 11:40am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:51am: If America pulls every last troop out of Iraq by 12/31/06, would that help Osama?
Nope. It would help America.
Because then Americans would not be dying in an Iraqi civil war.
And Americans would not be wasting 10 Billion dollars a month that we do not have on a country that is devolving into civil war.
And the image of America would not be devolving into that of an immoral miltant 3 year old brat whose only resource to resolving political differences is to bomb the fuck out of people.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:41am
That's not what I meant. I meant that you guys believe terrorism is a lower threat than other things. If a genie appeared and gave you a choice, you can wish to kill all terrorists or you can wish that every poor person be given enough money (one time) to temporarily eliminate poverty, which would you choose?
You'd choose money, because you think poverty causes terrorism. But there would still be terrorism every year for the next ten years and within ten years, the poor would be poor again. I'd wish to kill the terrorists, because ten years from now, they'd still be dead and wouldn't have killed anyone in that time. Eventually, there'll be more terrorists, but it'd take a hell of a lot longer than ten years.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:45am
This is fine proof of how completely clueless you are.
If I killed every "terrorist" (by whose definition, by the way?) on the planet right this second and they knew I did it, I guaran-fucking-tee you that it will not take their hundreds of thousands of brothers, uncles, cousins, fathers, and sons "a lot longer than ten years" to take back up the mantle of terrorism and come for me, just the same as every civilian death causes new terrorists.
You are a fool and an embarassment for your side.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 11:48am
Stwriley,
Your post of 11:24AM is a stunning good piece of logic and writing. Thank you for taking the time.
I like you, am getting increasingly disturbed by the simplistic logic that is being used to justify our very ill thought out tactics in a struggle against something as complex as international terrorism.
Posted by freedomplease at 08/11/2006 @ 12:01pm
Posted by STWRILEY 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am
Absolutely stellar post.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 12:18pm
ND - Lets not forget that Osama Bin Laden is a rich man, as are most of the people in Al Qaida, Saudi money, opium money. Folks - here we have this character ND is talking to here, who is one of the very very top intellectuals the RNC has - that is a fact folks - and this character, this top RNC intellectual, throws this garbage out here. "if you could choose... blah, blah, blah". This kind of junk doesnt work anymore, Americans are tired of the Disaster in Iraq and these silly detestably stupid arguments for it.
Posted by conshame at 08/11/2006 @ 12:39pm
Posted by ORWELL2005 08/11/2006 @ 11:31am | ignore this person
Rebuttal, sure....but whining because a political opponent is using every means at his disposal to attack you, means one of two things--
1. You're thin-skinned and shouldn't be in politics.
or 2. You're worried it'll work!
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2006 @ 12:47pm
Conshame is funny... At least I hope he's being funny. Sarcasm can sometimes be lost in the written word if not done properly. If conshame is not trying to be funny then he must be writing from Cheney's World using Rumsfeld's computer.
Posted by garageinc74 at 08/11/2006 @ 12:49pm
STWRILEY 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am
Read. Copied. Saved. Damn.
Who says public blogs have to be stupid? You made more sense there than the entire government and press makes in a month. I particularly like your picking apart the "post 9/11 world view" myth.
Posted by MyParadigm at 08/11/2006 @ 12:58pm
Posted by CONSHAME 08/11/2006 @ 12:39am
Amen.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 1:06pm
Conshame is funny... At least I hope he's being funny. Sarcasm can sometimes be lost in the written word if not done properly. If conshame is not trying to be funny then he must be writing from Cheney's World using Rumsfeld's computer.
Posted by GARAGEINC74 08/11/2006 @ 12:49am
Huh?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 1:07pm
The White House/Cheney response to Lamont's victory in CT reminds me of the White House/Cheney response to Hamas's victory at the polls last January. Guess these dudes don't much like the voices of the People, eh?
Posted by prairdog at 08/11/2006 @ 1:14pm
We must cut the funding for terrorism by reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil - http://cutoilimports.blogspot.com/2006/08/evil-middle-eastern-oil.html
Will http://cutoilimports.blogspot.com/
Posted by Cutoilimports at 08/11/2006 @ 1:19pm
Taking this logic to it's illogical conclusion: Al-Qaida is giddy with delight at the victory of Tim Walberg in the MI 7th. Osama writes that his views and those of Tim have much in common. Religious law as the basis for common law, burning of gay and lesbians ( we'll miss ya Mary Cheney), Hollywood is the base of Satan, 1st amendment is quaint and civilians are fair game. Keeping US troops in Iraq fits in nicely with AQ's plans of recruitment and training. Thank you for voting out a responsible, moderate republican.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 1:21pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:28am: He said Lamont's win will buoy AQ spirits. It may be impolite to say it out loud, but it is factually correct.
Oh boy. So included in Mary's seemingly infinite wisdom is the ability to peer into the minds of AQ to know what will affect its morale. But, Mary, since 9/11 all of AQ's attacks, plots uncovered, and attempts are happening on Bush's and the GOP's watch, not on Ned Lamont's or the Democrats'. What has been happening to "AQ's spirits" since 9/11? If Bush's path in Iraq is the correct one, why haven't their "spirits" been sufficiently crushed yet?
I'd say its because Iraq has been the most effective recruitment tool AQ has had since 9/11.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/11/2006 @ 1:36pm
Maybe the terrorists are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people, when all of our friends allies have completely deserted us because of our disasrerous foreign policy. Maybe, when they see Bush and Cheney's Republican friends and allies cutting and running from the toxic 'approval' ratings of their Dear Leaders (so that they don't get dragged down this November), they take aid and comfort. Maybe, when they see Dick Cheney hastening the desertion of his friends and allies by SHOOTING A FRIEND IN THE FACE, they are emboldened to engage in more of their dispicable actions.
As inane as that statement is, it makes every bit as much sense as blaming Ned Lamont or the Democratic Party for the Cheney/Bush/Rummy mess in Iraq.
But I didn't see anyone suggesting he's wrong.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 09:03am | ignore this person
Uh MBB...he was wrong.
Posted by Lillian at 08/11/2006 @ 1:39pm
No, neither Corn nor any of the posts prior to mine said that Cheney was wrong and Lamont's win didn't life AQ spirits, they only said Cheney was an asshole for saying it out loud.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 12:35am
Cheney is wrong. Lamont's win did nothing to raise AQ's spirits. That was accomplished by Bush invading and occupying Iraq. He gave it a cause to rally behind.
If the neo-cons get their wish and expand the war into Syria or Iran - that will do much more to lift the spirits of AQ and other terrorist organizations (both current and future) than Democtratic victories in statewide elections.
There, Mary; someone has said it.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/11/2006 @ 1:41pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14301521/from/RS.3/
Enough said....
Posted by djmarch at 08/11/2006 @ 2:00pm
Well, Mary, God is clearly on your side. Ask Him to grant your wish. Many have tried, he seems to be away on business.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 2:02pm
THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE CHIEF SAID ;
When asked about the propaganda blitz of the latest "planned attack" in Britain, he said "Significant things are always whispered".
What he was saying is that if this was a significant event, then it would have been taken care of in secrecy. So what he was suggesting is that it is all bogus hoopla, a propaganda to scare and distract people.
And it all make sense... After the defeat of Lieberman we had to stage another "shock and awe" to bring the people in line. And what a great "hoo haha" was made by Bush&Blair team. Their real victim were the poor passengers who were harassed all over the world witout presenting any shread of evidance.
It is a shame, mostly on the so called "free press/media" in US and UK.
Posted by djmarch at 08/11/2006 @ 2:12pm
ARE THE BUSH TWINS TO ENLIST? 11-Aug-06 12:37 pm
To support this "noble" war Bush started to make his pals at hals rich?
Posted by djmarch at 08/11/2006 @ 2:14pm
This is fine proof of how completely clueless you are….
You are a fool and an embarrassment for your side.
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/11/2006 @ 11:48am
Why do you pretend to be such a bully? It seems the other side is always clueless, stupid, an embarrassment, and completely beneath you. For your information, you are physically and intellectually incapable of intimidating me. Why do you continue to try? This isn't some high school cafeteria.
If I killed every "terrorist" (by whose definition, by the way?) on the planet right this second …
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/11/2006 @ 11:48am
Well, no it wouldn't be you, it would be a genie. The fathers and uncles and brothers wouldn't have any idea why these people died, they'd magically keel over in there chairs without the US firing a shot. And there would be a large vacuum where the militant Islamist invective used to be. If anything, I'd suspect some would argue Allah had punished them for perverting his message into, "murder women and children."
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 1:51pm
MBB -
You have no idea what I could do physically to intimidate you (nor has that been my intent - never said anything to that effect to you, ever). If you find my words intimidating, you are also a serious coward. They're words.
You are nowhere near as intellectually impressive as you think you are, proven by your talking about genies doing imaginary things instead of staying grounded in realistic discussions like the rest of us. If you're going to pose hypotheticals, at least try to avoid imaginary creatures, won't you?
And by the way, if you paid attention, you'd know that I actually get along okay with a few of the rightward posters here - even when we sling a little mud each others' way some of the time.
You are, however, exactly what I said you are - a clueless fool, and most here agree with me. You've proven it by your inane reiteration of your genie comments.
Learn to live with it, toots.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 2:48pm
And isn't your calling Cheney an "asshole" a little schoolyard?
Fool.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 2:49pm
Posted by STWRILEY 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am
One of the finest posts I have read here in recent memory. Well said.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/11/2006 @ 3:02pm
Posted by MASK 08/11/2006 @ 12:47am: Rebuttal, sure....but whining because a political opponent is using every means at his disposal to attack you, means one of two things--
Gee Z, why is it whining? How do we tell the difference between whinning and rebutting?
And having the Vice President of the United States lie to the American people is using means that are not legitimately at his disposal.
Would you have a problem if Cheney said "Hrmphh... We believe that Ned Lamont is, in fact, a member of Al Queda"? Or is that also just using every means at his disposal?
Despite the whackjob preference for either/or analyses, there are typically far more than two potential explanations for someone's behavior.
or 2. You're worried it'll work!
It might work if people allow him to spout this nonsense unrebutted. That must be why you don't want people to rebut the crap that Deputy Dear Leader spews out on a daily basis.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 3:16pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 1:51pm: It seems the other side is always clueless, stupid, an embarrassment, and completely beneath you.
Mary dear. Your "side" is clueless, stupid, and an embarassment. That's why it seems that way.
Posted by orwell2005 at 08/11/2006 @ 3:20pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 3:36pm
This is a pretty creative retelling of what happened. I did not make any blanket statement that "people on your side" are stupid, but you can continue lying your ass off and mischarcterizing what I said all you like. Those who were there know better.
And I called you a fool because you are a fool, and for no other purpose. I couldn't possibly care any less if you agree or accept my positions on anything.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 3:46pm
And by the way, fool, you are now dodging and obfuscating and out-and-out lying in fine form, but have failed to address what I said:
If I killed every "terrorist" (by whose definition, by the way?) on the planet right this second and they knew I did it, I guaran-fucking-tee you that it will not take their hundreds of thousands of brothers, uncles, cousins, fathers, and sons "a lot longer than ten years" to take back up the mantle of terrorism and come for me, just the same as every civilian death causes new terrorists.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 3:54pm
Would you also care to call me an ugly, fat fag?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:02pm
What a superfluous excuse for an argument.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:32pm
The point of the "genie" hypothetical was to help illustrate a fundamental difference in worldview between Crabwalk and me. And it was a fucking brilliant one, too. After I explained the difference, Crabwalk said that it showed he wanted to help people and I wanted to kill people, which presented me with the opportunity to point out that killing terrorists helped their innocent victims. Crabwalk hadn't considered that before. Furthermore, giving money to the poor will also cause the deaths of some of the poor. Crabwalk hadn't considered that, either.
So whether or not Arabs would vent their genie frustrations out on the US isn't really relevant.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:13pm
Sounds like you have issue with Crabwalk, not me.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:33pm
Posted by ORWELL2005 08/11/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person
ORWELL, Why did Mr Corn use the term "low blow"?
Because he expects Cheney to deliver "Marquis of Queensbury Rules" body and face blows?
Is that naivete?
Or is it that he knows such a ploy may work and the Dems have little to "counter-punch" with?
And what's the point?
Dick Cheney going to listen to David Corn?....nope.
Dems going to go out and say "Stop talking mean about us, Cheney!"....think they can figure that out for themselves...maybe.
David Corn going to convince people who read "The Nation" that Dick Cheney may be a "bad guy"....think that's covered, too!
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2006 @ 4:33pm
But hey, by all means, continue to expose your own foolishness with such vapid posts.
Saves me the work.
Fool.
Main Entry: fool Pronunciation: 'fül Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French fol, from Late Latin follis, from Latin, bellows, bag; akin to Old High German bolla blister, balg bag -- more at BELLY 1 : a person lacking in judgment or prudence 2 a : a retainer formerly kept in great households to provide casual entertainment and commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble b : one who is victimized or made to appear foolish : DUPE 3 a : a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding b : one with a marked propensity or fondness for something 4 : a cold dessert of pureed fruit mixed with whipped cream or custard
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:35pm
That wasn't an arguement. I'm trying to shame you into dropping the name calling and belittling taunts.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:34pm
Well, at least we agree it wasn't an argument so much as an exercise in schoolyard "politics".
Shame me? Beyond your capabilities. Get over yourself. Calling you a fool is just calling a spade a spade. These truths we hold to be self-evident.
Fool.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:37pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:13pm
I'll give fifty bucks to anyone who has ever seen a post of mine so supremely arrogant as to call myself "fucking brilliant".
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:40pm
No, I had an issue with you. You missed the point of the hypothetical and then insulted me for not responding.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:39pm
To miss the point, there would have to be a point. The one the top of your head doesn't count, fella.
Why don't you try restating your point from scratch, so we can all understand what it's supposed to be, and debate it like adults...?
And again, try to refrain from references to mythical creatures - it will boost your credibility immensely.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:42pm
So whether or not Arabs would vent their genie frustrations out on the US isn't really relevant.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:13pm
Then why are you arguing it, and more, why did you post it in the first place?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:44pm
New Dawn wrote: If I killed every "terrorist" (by whose definition, by the way?) on the planet right this second …
I can't agree more.
A lot of people still don't understand the nature of terrorism and especially terrorism perpetrated by some Muslims. One has to see the movie "Paradise Now" to have a little glimpse of the complexity of its nature. Of course if you want to understand it even more, you have to read articles and books written by intellectuals like Chomsky (An American with a Jewish background) or Edward Said (Christian American from Palestinian background). As regarding my modest point of view, if you kill all the terrorists on this earth at this very second, all what you did is giving birth to a new generation of terrorists more powerful, more skillful and more determined. Terrorists are not aliens from another planet; they are human beings from the same planet that we live in. Terrorism is "an idea", it's a feeling, it's a scream in the night. It's not even an ideology which in this case can be fought and eventually can be defeated. The most powerful weapons including nuclear power can kill people but is completely ineffective against an "idea" and a "feeling", against human spirit that fights for its dignity. The only and ONLY way to deal with terrorism is by looking in its roots. And it's roots are deeply ingrained in the land of injustice and humiliation. If, not we'll continue to see just to tip of the iceberg. Yes I wish there was no terrorism on this planet, nobody wishes to live in terror. But it seems that there are people and politicians that don't want to share this planet, they want all of it for them. Well, it's not going to work that way even if you are the most powerful country on earth. Take for example, Hamas and Hezbollah: They are considered terrorist organizations that we should eradicate. Well, in the same time we have to acknowledge that these so called terrorist organizations are also the sons and heirs of the lands of Palestine and Lebanon and they are there to stay. They are even democratically elected by their people. Yes, the face and expression of terrorism is ugly, very ugly, extremely ugly, but so are the conditions that gave it birth! I'm fed up with the trivial and hypocritical explanations about terrorism. How many times did we hear that the Palestinians don't respect and value human life, that they even send their children to die? That the crazy terrorists of Allah detonate their belts loaded with explosives to meet their 72 virgins in the paradise of Allah? Well guess what, one will not need some metaphysical explanation if he or she goes to visit the occupied territories in the West Bank or Gaza where people are reduced to a subhuman status. Go to Iraq to see a country that ceased to be a country and now go to Lebanon to see its infrastructures reduced to rubbles. Now, does this mean that we should hug terrorists and invite them to our dinner table? Of course No. Instead what we can do is to have enough courage and bravery to face the conditions that create terrorism. If not, for how long US or British authorities would foil terrorist plots? How many plots can they prevent? 10? 1000? One and only one plot would be sufficient to create a disaster with incalculable consequences. For me the main issue is the Israeli-Palestinien conflict that has to be solved with fairness and without bias or double standard attitud. Of course, we can add some other reasons like poverty or the consequences and repercussions of the 20th century colonialism. We can even add the effects of globalization (Remember by the way that the majority of the arab and muslim world is Capitalist!. But again make no mistake: the real and most important issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the US policy towards it! Now the real question as I said: Do we have enough courage and bravery to face all these problems? The answer is unfortunately NO. If we had enough courage as a nation we would have hit the streets during the 2000 presidential election to take back our rights. Instead Bush and his Mafia went away with murder. That was the "coup de grace" of what remains of the American democracy. I heard that some politicians (including Jessie Jackson) asked at that time Gore to do something about it. Some kind of resistence or popular movement that would take the street to bring back the presidential to its real winner, but Gore disagreed. What a shame! Another indication that we don't have enough courage is the democratic campaign to elect their candidate to face Bush the impostor again in the 2004 election. I remember among the 9 democratic candidates, the most democratic was Kucinich! I remember that during the televised debates, Kucinich was heartily applauded by the public, but at the time of the truth he had the lowest score to represent the democrats. I guess the majority of democrats disagreed with him because he was proposing to pull out the troops from Iraq. And Kerry who at that time was strongly opposed to it, now is a fervent defender of the idea of pulling out the troops of Iraq! How ironic? Why people dont do the right thing since the beginning? I guess it takes them time to realize that the little political manoeuvres used to win some extra-votes don't work for long term. What a shame. Meanwhile, we are heading towards a more dangerous world that could lead to a world war. Remember how world war I started. You don't need much. It saddens me that after the disaster of 9/11, the whole planet was behind us and stating in one voice: we are all Americans! And now, this same planet is against us. Is it because they hate us? I don't think so. The reason is to be found in Washington. Indeed, what happened between 9/11 and now, is very interesting and very dreadful in the same time. Indeed, the buffoon of the white house of the pre9/11 era mutated to the war criminal of the white house. Some people call him a hero and the defender of the nation, but I call him a war criminal. Yes terrorists killed people, but what Bush did is a zillion times worse. He has so much blood in his hands that I would be surprised if the house is still white. I can understand that in difficult moments one has to take some difficult and tough decisions, BUT never forget that: With great power comes great responsibility.
Posted by folano at 08/11/2006 @ 4:47pm
Corn is out of his mind. It is the Democrats that have been spewing fear (starve Children, take away medicare, etc...) forever. Funny, the Democrats wanted to gut every program that was used to stop the latest plot. Basically the very tools that Democrats have harped to shut down (Patriot Act, Financial and Phone tracking) are what catch the terrorists.
Posted by shoedog22 at 08/11/2006 @ 4:49pm
Folano -
Thank you.
A most salient post with many good points, and not because I agree with it, but because it makes logical, measured sense.
(Next time, paragraphs, please!)
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:52pm
Posted by SHOEDOG22 08/11/2006 @ 4:49pm
LOL
The latest plot was stopped how??? Yes, those Brits - thank God they're employing all of our programs...
Are you serious?
MBB - Is there room in the fool's corner for a friend of yours?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 4:53pm
I'll give fifty bucks to anyone who has ever seen a post of mine so supremely arrogant as to call anything I said myself "fucking brilliant".
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 5:12pm
MBB thinks that hypotheticals based on genies are brilliant.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 5:15pm
Sorry, "fucking" brilliant.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 5:15pm
What
Posted by bushlover at 08/11/2006 @ 5:18pm
I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone who was serious; not someone who's insights into world affairs is derived from a Spiderman comic book.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 5:29pm
Yes, as opposed to hypotheticals containing mythical creatures, like genies...
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 5:33pm
Posted by bushlover at 08/11/2006 @ 5:43pm
Another meaningless post from David Corn. Can anyone help me out and tell me what David is trying to say here? That Cheney is a meanie, because he says out loud what 60 percent of the US population knows is patently true, thus offending the insulated denizens of leafy campuses and rich white enclaves in New England and Berkely? David says we're avoiding a serious discussion, okay then, let's talk about the left's plan for the War on Terror. If I get it right, it's:
a) hate George Bush b) retreat (I mean 'redeploy to Okinawa') c) cut and run (I mean 'redeploy to Okinawa') d) bury our heads in the sand (I mean 'redeploy to Okinawa') e) run like rabbits (I mean 'redeploy to Okinawa') f) have the UN talk about it g) hate George Bush h) offer therapy to those who hate the United States i) hate George Bush j) hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' k) hate George Bush l) blame America for everyone who hates us m) let the French and Germans handle it
Did I leave anything out?
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2006 @ 5:43pm
You talk about partisan political discourse and nasty shots from Cheney, are you kidding? Durbin-Kennedy-Pelosi-Dean-Schumer-Reid-Murtha, just to name a few have been taking shots at Bush and our military from day1. I don't like Bush but the Democratic party and people like you are a joke. I've never heard so much hatred and nasty shots. and 90% of the time it's coming from the Democratic party and writers like Corn.
Posted by lupner at 08/11/2006 @ 7:22pm
Posted by LUPNER 08/11/2006 @ 7:22pm
I almost laughed out loud when I heard Corn complaining that because Bush has not stopped the left from hating him and calling him every name in the book, Bush 'lied' about being a 'uniter, not a divider'. Now Bush is even responsible for the blind unreasoning hatred of the left, as well.
The left is the spoiled children of capitalism.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2006 @ 7:33pm
the democrats have nothing to offer, no solutions, no ideas. just hatred. no matter what the republicans do, the democrats attack, just listen to tv, the radio, there blogs. nothing but hate, no ideas.
Posted by lupner at 08/11/2006 @ 8:07pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/11/2006 @ 7:33pm
Posted by LUPNER 08/11/2006 @ 8:07pm
you hamsters must really be clinging to the ropes if red state hate is all you have to throw at us
this is good
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2006 @ 9:05pm
"The point of the "genie" hypothetical was to help illustrate a fundamental difference in worldview between Crabwalk and me. And it was a fucking brilliant one, too. After I explained the difference, Crabwalk said that it showed he wanted to help people and I wanted to kill people, which presented me with the opportunity to point out that killing terrorists helped their innocent victims. Crabwalk hadn't considered that before. Furthermore, giving money to the poor will also cause the deaths of some of the poor. Crabwalk hadn't considered that, either.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:13pm"
Fucking brilliant?!? It came off as an extremely lame obsfucation to me.
I can hardly speak for crabwalk but I saw no indication of what you claim, in his posts.
This is brilliant too: " Furthermore, giving money to the poor will also cause the deaths of some of the poor."
NOW I get it. Compassionate conservatism? By depriving the poor of any monetary benifit, they might not have earned, you are saving their very lives.
Wow!
You are just further proof of my previous contention, that when you say 'poor' to a conservative, all he sees are winos and crack whores.
The only thing you've ever said, that made any sense, was the remark about unnesessary remarks being distracting and rude. This is very true.
Ironically, though, you are a fool.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 08/11/2006 @ 9:38pm
Hamsters, you just proved my point.YOUR FIRST RESPONSE, YOU HAMSTERS. YOUR RESPONSE IS AS WEEK AS YOUR PARTY IS ON THE ISSUES.NOW YOU'VE HURT MY FEELINGS.YOU RATS HAVE NOTHING ON THE ISSUES,IMMIGRATION, NATIONAL SECURITY, ANYTHING. I'M JUST SAYING THE OBVIOUS, DO WHAT YOU DEMOCRATS DO SO WELL, START WITH THE NAME CALLING AND CRY HOW UNFAIR LIFE IS. POOR BABIES.
Posted by lupner at 08/11/2006 @ 9:39pm
I almost laughed out loud when I heard Corn complaining that because Bush has not stopped the left from hating him and calling him every name in the book, Bush 'lied' about being a 'uniter, not a divider'. Now Bush is even responsible for the blind unreasoning hatred of the left, as well.
The left is the spoiled children of capitalism.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/11/2006 @ 7:33pm
Welcome back, Pontifitard!
Whassamatter, bored with the hate on your own websites, so you came over here to sling some our way?
Remember, now, Retardicus, that no one here invited you to come and share your hate, you just busted in and shit on the floor, like you usually do. My cat has better manners than you. You dind't even say "hi, guys," before you verbally vomited. How rude.
And why are you here again?
Let me tell you something, small fry. If you are trying to say that the multiple arguments and reasons many who post here have offered don't contain a single idea but "hate" to you, then you are either skimming, illiterate, or can't be bothered to do anything but find one post you don't like, then spew your own hate.
Pot or kettle?
And really now, if you can't find one substantial argument in the last 3 pages on this topic (and every other blog posted here), then why are you here again?
There have been a dozen (and more) arguments made about a dozen topics here, some from very clear and rational people (from both sides and no matter what "side" you're on), and you come in here throwing out your blanket bullshit, as usual.
Lupner followed you, with even less class or substance (a point in your favor - savor it).
I really don't get why you come back here - did I mention that?
Considering that Bush's margin of victory was so close (both times), and that the country is divided more red or blue and conservative or liberal and Democrat or Republican and terrorist or patriot than at any other time in my liftime, I would say that Bush calling himself a "Uniter" in any way, shape, or form, as he promised, is laughable.
And so are you.
Why are you here again?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 9:54pm
Welcome back, Eric.
Damn, I've missed you.
(though I'm not likely to be very good at the "not distracting" thing - sowwy)
;)
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 9:56pm
Hey, Will -
That guy called us "week" and "hamsters".
Should we stand for that?
BWAHAHAhahahahahaahaHAHAHAHahaHAhahahaaa
Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 9:57pm
The same fucking "lonely schoolboy" winger sissies are hanging around. What don't you morons understand? Your president is nuts. The clowns surrounding him are cynical opportunists, and also, nuts. You fools, are certainly nuts.(but maybe forgiveable because you are so much lower down in the food chain)
It will not end well for you guys. I'll take that to the bank.
Fall is coming! And days of reckoning.
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 08/11/2006 @ 10:31pm
The point of the "genie" hypothetical was to help illustrate a fundamental difference in worldview between Crabwalk and me. And it was a fucking brilliant one, too. After I explained the difference, Crabwalk said that it showed he wanted to help people and I wanted to kill people, which presented me with the opportunity to point out that killing terrorists helped their innocent victims. Crabwalk hadn't considered that before. Furthermore, giving money to the poor will also cause the deaths of some of the poor. Crabwalk hadn't considered that, either.
So whether or not Arabs would vent their genie frustrations out on the US isn't really relevant.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person
Hard to know where to start here, don't have much time so it won't be great. You said you would give money to the poor, I said I would wish to help them. Help is not limited to handing out cash. Help entails whatever a poor, addicted, diseased, psychotic, uneducated person needs to get by better in life. or closing a refugee camp and giving people homes, schools and lives. help them overthrow a dictator. Remove the NEED for terrorism. You were talking all emncompassing omnipotent power.Your choice was to give out cash or kill people.You chose to kill people, people you assign a label/motive to, probably with a small understanding of their worldview. I chose to go to some of the causes of much terror, you, grrr, kill,, kill. grrr. Leaving the root causes to fester and build, to be faced by Mary, Bret and Bradley.
(Hey, what happend to Johannesrolf? He was fun)
Was my choice perfect, no. But you have a simplistic view of the world.
Brilliant my ass. This is a quick refutation of your argument. Not all there is to say, or said well, but all the time there is. Your grasp of the logical process leaves something to be desired. Namely, logic. Gotta go.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:52pm
and MBB, check this out,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR200608 1001629.html?nav=rss_print/asection
then get back to us on how the 12 year old artillery shells are a bigger threat to cause mass casualties.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/11/2006 @ 10:56pm
For those of you just tuning in, hamster conservatism was fathered by Tom "The Hamster" Delay whose Nom de Sleaze was lovingly given to forever remind us of delays own unique brand of political corruption that is best summed up by the classic conservative mantra...
If you want to ride the wheel, you gotta pay the hamster
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2006 @ 11:00pm
YOUR FIRST RESPONSE, YOU HAMSTERS. YOUR RESPONSE IS AS WEEK AS YOUR PARTY IS ON THE ISSUES.NOW YOU'VE HURT MY FEELINGS.YOU RATS HAVE NOTHING ON THE ISSUES,IMMIGRATION, NATIONAL SECURITY, ANYTHING. I'M JUST SAYING THE OBVIOUS, DO WHAT YOU DEMOCRATS DO SO WELL, START WITH THE NAME CALLING AND CRY HOW UNFAIR LIFE IS. POOR BABIES.
Posted by LUPNER 08/11/2006 @ 9:39pm
We have it on good authority that posting in all caps after your head explodes is a clinical symptom of crazy
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2006 @ 11:03pm
Which would make you a crazy hamster
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2006 @ 11:03pm
Should we stand for that?
BWAHAHAhahahahahaahaHAHAHAHahaHAhahahaaa
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/11/2006 @ 9:57pm
we should place our hands on our bellies and go
Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
whenever the crazy hamster comes by to vomit some red state hate
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2006 @ 11:06pm
Why are you here again?
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/11/2006 @ 9:54pm | ignore this person
New Dawn, I really enjoy when you just 'tell it like it is'...WHOP...like a dead fish upside the head! You know, sometimes they just don't get it unless they 'feel the sting and smell the smell'!
I like that about you!
Posted by Lillian at 08/11/2006 @ 11:35pm
He's being proved wrong, but that still doesn't make him stupid, which of course just means he's more dangerous than ever. That was my main concern in the "don't sell him short" comment to TJ.
Posted by STWRILEY 08/11/2006 @ 11:37am
Gee, could I be any later in responding to this?
All I meant by little, aggravated post is that Cheney is not only disliked by 80% of Americans, he doesn't even exist for them. With the exception of the fringe who glue themselves to Fox News, Cheney might as well be the 5th Lord of Pompidou as be the Vice-Prez of the USA. And it is this reminder of how awful a person he is, how ineffective a Veep he has been, that serves as a slap in the face to anyone who might wish for better for this country. That the Dems lost to a ticket on which Cheney was the SMART one is truly enough to bring tears to my eyes.
It's a weird, weird, scary time. I have no fear of what lies outside the borders of our country. But the race to the bottom in this country has reached such speed that everything is a blur.
Or perhaps I need to put the cork back in the bottle.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/11/2006 @ 11:51pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 3:59pm
STWRILEY, one of the points in your post was saying that Baker's article wasn't all that relevant here. Also, I think you were saying he was incorrectly predicting how the war critics would respond. I think the point of the article was to criticize the war critics for denying that the existing threat exists at all. I think DJ is an example of this.
In most respects I don't think it was, given that this was a thread about domestic politics and the idea of partisanship vs. the position of the President and vice-President in our system (that they represent all of us and should stay out of partisan politics that doesn't directly concern them, as in a primary of the opposition party.) I understand that you posted this since Baker is using the neocon argument that any discussion of other options is harmful to the "cause", but its an idea that Baker should know better than to put forward. Discussion of policy is the essence of democracy, essential to our system, and the remarks of Cheney in the context mentioned by Mr. Corn were against the very nature of the office he holds. Criticism of others policy is fine, but the "they're helping the enemy by talking that way" line is beyond the pale for an official in his position.
The problem with the second point is that even DJ was not saying a threat doesn't exist, just that this incident might not be what its being made out to be. The quote from our Russian friend implies that this is trumped up, not imaginary, and that it was a situation that was actually in hand some time ago (as indeed it probably was, given what's now leaking out of Britain.) That is the point many (including DJ, I think) are trying to make. They don't deny that there are those who would use terrorism or that threats exist, but they have come to be skeptical of our "boys who cried wolf" in the Whitehouse for perfectly natural reasons.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/12/2006 @ 12:11am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/11/2006 @ 5:29pm
With great power, comes great responsibility.- Stan Lee
Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than to polish._ British poet Anne Bradstreet
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/12/2006 @ 01:27am
Someone mentioned that the Liberals kept us from finishing the job in Vietnam. It had nothing to do with Liberals and everything to do with the draft. Which lead to serious activism. It wasn't the Liberals. It was the American people. Had there been a draft this time around, you would have had the same turnout in the streets, if not even more so. Conservatives blame Liberals. Liberals blame Conservatives. What a coincidence that any one party can be blamed for every damn thing that goes wrong. Just subjective bastards on both sides.
Posted by gigmonger at 08/12/2006 @ 04:58am
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/11/2006 @ 9:54pm
Why are you here again?
Entertainment, primarily. You leftist retards are funny.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 06:57am
Posted by BLOPPY 08/11/2006 @ 10:31pm
It will not end well for you guys. I'll take that to the bank.
Fall is coming! And days of reckoning.
Bloppy
I see Bloppy is still doing his Black Knight impression from Monty Python:
"Well fought, sir, but I've had both your arms and legs off."
Bloppy/Black Knight: "Come back you coward! I'll bite you to death!"
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 07:03am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/12/2006 @ 12:10am
One thing I've learned is that STWRILEY is a more educated version of Bloppy. More educated, but as is the wont of the overeducated, no wiser.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 07:08am
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/11/2006 @ 9:54pm
And really now, if you can't find one substantial argument in the last 3 pages on this topic (and every other blog posted here), then why are you here again?
There have been a dozen (and more) arguments made about a dozen topics here, some from very clear and rational people (from both sides and no matter what "side" you're on), and you come in here throwing out your blanket bullshit, as usual.
I was talking about David Corn, not the usual brew of moonbattery that the leftists on this site regurgitate with such dreary regularity. This is the 'Comment' section and as such is supposed to be devoted to discussion of David Corn's latest rantings, not yours.
Lupner followed you, with even less class or substance (a point in your favor - savor it).
Unlike you, Lupner has the virtue of having wisdom and common sense, so I hold Lupner in much higher regard than I do you.
I really don't get why you come back here - did I mention that?
As I have said many times, it's for entertainment. You can't buy the kind of yuks that leftist insanity provides. Come on, tell me you want to 'redeploy to Okinawa'. How about a round of 'Kumbaya'? Please? For me? I'll give you a banana.
Considering that Bush's margin of victory was so close (both times), and that the country is divided more red or blue and conservative or liberal and Democrat or Republican and terrorist or patriot than at any other time in my liftime, I would say that Bush calling himself a "Uniter" in any way, shape, or form, as he promised, is laughable.
And considering the blind hate of the left towards anyone who dares to disagree with the Party Line (e.g., Lieberman), I would say the proposition that anyone such as yourself could be united with even rationality itself is laughable.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 07:30am
Kumbaya, that is like throwing flowers and dancing in the streets welcoming us? Or bringing civility back to the White House? Or spreading democracy through the middle east with military might? Or birth pains of a new middle east?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2006 @ 07:33am
Sorry, Ponti, I don't find a lot of "blind hate" here, some, not a lot. Most of it is based on solid disagreement of failed policies and the politics of personal destruction. Comments like Cheneys do no good, are beneath the VP's office and should be kept to sites like this or bar rooms. Cheney is disconnected from reality, living in Rummy world with you, where the sun is blue, Iraq is utopia and Al-Qaida cares about the dem primary in CT. Where pulling the troops out of harms way is troop hating.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2006 @ 07:39am
Considering that Bush's margin of victory was so close (both times), and that the country is divided more red or blue and conservative or liberal and Democrat or Republican and terrorist or patriot than at any other time in my liftime, I would say that Bush calling himself a "Uniter" in any way, shape, or form, as he promised, is laughable.
---------------
Can't find any untruths here. Chimpy did promise to unite the country, Dickie (Birdshtot, Go Fck yourself) Cheney did promise to bring civility back to the white house, as well as responsibility and accountability. We got nuthin'!
Oh, wait, I got a $300 bribe right off the bat. Which I turned around and gave to Exxon.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2006 @ 07:42am
Here's the facts;
Congrats to the Brits who uncovered this latest plot..Wish we all could say the same for our own country who had all the clues leading up to 9/11, but failed to follow up on any of it..Who was in control then ?..This is your government....What a disgrace and "we the people" with the power of vote are fed up plain and simple with this lack of leadership...
Posted by djmarch at 08/12/2006 @ 07:50am
Just think, if the airlines had followed the advice of security experts and consumer advocates and installed secure cockpit doors like they had been asked to do instead of putting profit 1st, maybe it would never have happened.
Or if The Vacationer had read the "Bin Laden desires to attack the US with planes" memo...
Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2006 @ 07:54am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2006 @ 07:54am
Just think, if the airlines had followed the advice of security experts and consumer advocates and installed secure cockpit doors like they had been asked to do instead of putting profit 1st, maybe it would never have happened.
Hmmm...so let's see. Capitalism is at fault? Is that the thesis? Or do you have a separate explanation why no other airline in the world provided 'cockpit' security doors, and why such doors would not have been opened when the terrorists started cutting throats of passengers?
n desires to attack the US with planes" memo...
Funny how you only seem to hold Republicans responsible. How about the many times Clinton could have taken out Bin Laden, but didn't? Not a word on that?
Insert sermon on bipartisanship and civility here.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 08:33am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2006 @ 07:39am
Sorry, Ponti, I don't find a lot of "blind hate" here, some, not a lot. Most of it is based on solid disagreement of failed policies and the politics of personal destruction.
Blind hate, like racism, is easily disguised. On the one hand, you have the MALCONTENT and BLOPPY and their ilk, who don't bother to disguise it. On the other, you have 'educated' leftists like STWRILEY who couch their blind hate in elaborate manifestos of rationalizations which boil down to the same thing: Bush bad; America bad; capitalism....bad.
Comments like Cheneys do no good, are beneath the VP's office and should be kept to sites like this or bar rooms.
I disagree. Cheney speaks the flat out truth. He's the VP, he can say what he wants. No mealy-mouth politician he. Great guy.
Cheney is disconnected from reality, living in Rummy world with you, where the sun is blue, Iraq is utopia and Al-Qaida cares about the dem primary in CT. Where pulling the troops out of harms way is troop hating.
Well, one thing is for sure, your straw men notwitstanding. Either the left is disconnected from reality, or Cheney, myself, and the Republicans are. Given the piss-poor track record of leftism, I would say the evidence suggests it is you who are disconnected from reality.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 08:39am
It is sad indeed to see how low the Party of "morality" has sunk. I would be ashamed and humiliated to show my face if I were a true Republican. For those who continue with their rabid support and buy into the kind of ridiculous propaganda Mr. Cheney spouts on a daily basis, it is by far one of the most disgusting displays ignorance and stupidity that I have ever seen.
Posted by Nez at 08/12/2006 @ 08:58am
Or if The Vacationer had read the "Bin Laden desires to attack the US with planes" memo...
Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2006 @ 07:54am
Ahhh, he has vacated in so many ways. But we must remember, that his dedication to his vacation still requires the firm assertiveness of The Decider. Never have we witnessed such a bold commitment to a vacation.
But really, if he never returned to DC, would the country decline? This decision to vacate in the face of adversity ensures that additional mistakes will not be made. Best decision he's ever made.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 11:16am
Posted by NEZ 08/12/2006 @ 08:58am
It is sad indeed to see how low the Party of "morality" has sunk. I would be ashamed and humiliated to show my face if I were a true Republican. For those who continue with their rabid support and buy into the kind of ridiculous propaganda Mr. Cheney spouts on a daily basis, it is by far one of the most disgusting displays ignorance and stupidity that I have ever seen.
What a curious comment! It's a documented fact that the terrorists are depending on the American left to undermine a firm response to the War on Terror, much as the Communists used this tactic to undermine support for the War on Communism. What's the big mystery? Why are Cheney's statements, so patently true, such an affront?
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 11:46am
Double bananas today for anyone who makes the case that Bush ordered the demolition of the World Trade Center in order to boost the profits of the oil companies. Mentions of Halliburton, the Trilateral Commission, and teh Carlisle Group are mandatory. Space aliens are optional.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 11:48am
bush didn't order the destruction of the world trade center to boost the profits of oil companies you silly banana boy.
he sat our army on top of the world second largest reserve of oil and the never pumped it...
to boost the profits of the oil companies
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 12:45pm
What a curious comment! It's a documented fact that the terrorists are depending on the American left to undermine a firm response to the War on Terror, much as the Communists used this tactic to undermine support for the War on Communism. What's the big mystery? Why are Cheney's statements, so patently true, such an affront?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 11:46am
I agree. The ever expanding commie conservative fringe
(with just a dash of evangelic thrown in for good measure)
has done a wonderful job of undermining the resolve of the american people toward the global war on evangelic terror.
failed occupations, bankrupting expendatures, high oil prices, lies...
oh and did I mention that ossama is still running free?
Tisk Tisk Tisk
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 12:52pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/12/2006 @ 11:16am
Ahhh, he has vacated in so many ways. But we must remember, that his dedication to his vacation still requires the firm assertiveness of The Decider. Never have we witnessed such a bold commitment to a vacation.
It is my understanding, TJ, that Bush used the term 'Decider' to describe his role in determining what is and what is not 'classified'. He felt this necessary in order to educate those in the media, vastly over-represented by leftists of course, who had trouble understanding the concept that a President cannot, by definition, 'leak' classifed information. Admittedly, the President used somewhat infantile language, but considering the intellectual caliber of his audience, it is understandable that such language was felt necessary. This was the same audience, after all, which required Donald Rumsfeld to explain to them why lethal munitions were being used in Afghanistan ('To kill as many terrorists as possible', Sec. Rumsfeld helpfully explained, no doubt to the edification of many in the room.)
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 12:52pm
Posted by WILL C. 08/12/2006 @ 12:52am
Half a banana for you, Will. One whole banana if you can demonstrate that you have read (and understood) terrorist communications outlining the need to kill as many civilians as possible in order to buttress the anti-war left in the West.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 12:56pm
He felt this necessary in order to educate those in the media, vastly over-represented by leftists of course, who had trouble understanding the concept that a President cannot, by definition, 'leak' classifed information. Admittedly, the President used somewhat infantile language, but considering the intellectual caliber of his audience, it is understandable that such language was felt necessary
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 12:52am
the chimp does always speak to his base
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 12:56pm
Half a banana for you, Will. One whole banana if you can demonstrate that you have read (and understood) terrorist communications outlining the need to kill as many civilians as possible in order to buttress the anti-war left in the West.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 12:56am
hey your catching on. the terrorists need to kill as many civilians as posssible to butress the ever expamding commie conservative fringe
(with just a dash of evangelic thrown )
so all a scared so they will maintain the failed occupations, bankrupting expendatures, high oil prices, lies...
but I think calling them anti war is muddled unless you are commenting on their abliity to end america involvment in the global war on evangelic terror...
by ending america
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 1:01pm
I am sorry, I couldn't hear your point about how it was the Republicans specifically Gearge Bush who weren't advancing the abatement of partisan politics, the roar of "Bush Lied" and or "Bush is a miserable failure" was too loud
Can you tell us again how it was Bush who was responsible for the uptick in partisan politics?
Posted by Repoman at 08/12/2006 @ 1:04pm
Can you tell us again how it was Bush who was responsible for the uptick in partisan politics?
Posted by REPOMAN 08/12/2006 @ 1:04pm
He lied
and he is a miserable failure
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 1:06pm
A couple of thoughts from yesterday...
Early in the day, I read (on another board) several posts from wingnuts trying to point to the foiled terrorist plot in London as evidence of how Mad King George's illegal surveilance program was working....and was reminded how some folks will work hard at remaining ignorant.
Then I read a couple of MSM news stories about how the key to breaking the latest terrorist plot was actually privided by a tip supplied by someone in the Muslim community...and was reminded how truly vital it is, in this day and age, to HAVE friends in the Muslim community.
Then I read how our President used the term "Islamo-facist" in his latest speach, painting with a very broad brush an insult to Muslims everywhere and drawing an angry rebuke from the American Muslim community...and was reminded of just how CLUELESS Mr. 'I-didn't-know-there-were-two-branches-of-Muslims-in-Iraq' really is.
And finally, I read an interesting analysis about how our own security 'experts' have been so focused on studying the tactics of the LAST terrorist attack, they were completely surprised to discover that the terrorists have moved on to totaly new tactics for their NEXT terrorist attack...and was reminded of the mass exodus of security staff when the Decider shoved them under the bus and replaced them with his usual brand of 'incompetents'.
Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 1:07pm
79% of Democrats GLAD that Joe lost:
http://tinyurl.com/meknk
Posted by fromredbird at 08/12/2006 @ 1:09pm
Can you tell us again how it was Bush who was responsible for the uptick in partisan politics?
Posted by REPOMAN 08/12/2006 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person
Not Bush Repo...Republicans.
Ever hear the term 'swift boating'?
Remember when the R's showed up, en masse, with the band-aides with the purple hearts on them?
Remember the commercial where they morphed Silver Star winner Max Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's face as they accused him of "not having the courage to lead"?
Remember when the whole 'serial liar' charge ORIGINATED with the Bush campaign when they directed that charge at Al Gore?
Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 1:19pm
Hey banana boy! Where'd you go?!
I was just warming up
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 1:21pm
I remember...and much more.
I particularly remember Lee Atwater, the Emperor Palpatine who created his Darth Vader, Carl Rove. How Lee taught Newt to speak of D's only in the most derogatory language, spitting the word 'liberal' with the proper venom and derision. How he came up with the Wille Horton slime that so embarrased him on his death bed.
Yes, I remember...but apparently Repo does not.
OK.
Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 1:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/12/2006 @ 12:49am | ignore this person
Leave Liberty, off your meds again? Don't worry, the guys in the white coats should be there any time to dress you in the 'funny shirt with the long sleeves' until the Thorazine kicks in.
Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 1:31pm
Will, did you scare off another one?
Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 1:31pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/12/2006 @ 12:09am
This took a while to pick through, since the quotes are mixed up with much of your own material and cut-and-paste material from elsewhere. Still, I'll wade in since you've at least tried to offer evidence this time.
It seems Al Qaeda disagrees with you and certainly last year claimed credit that they had directed the London attack.
The most dramatic claim in the new Zawahiri tape is his assertion that Al Qaeda was behind the July 7 London suicide bombings, which killed more than 50 people.
Al-Qaeda did claim responsibility (though only well after the fact, and after issuing a statement that supported but did not claim credit for the bombers) but that is largely irrelevant to the point. If you look at past terrorist acts, you'll see that claims of responsibility are often misleading, issued by groups that want to claim things they did not do for the propaganda value. That al-Zawahiri and bin Laden are past masters of propaganda is something I'll gladly grant, but that doesn't make them the actual authors of these attacks. The best assessment of the possibly connection to al-Qaeda can be found in the official British Government report [news.bbc.co.uk] published by the BBC in May 2006. The conclusion of the Home Office? The link to al-Qaeda is unsubstantiated and tenuous (pgs. 21, 26-27) and the cell that carried out the bombing is deemed to have been self-organized but inspired by al-Qaeda and indoctrinated largely at home and partly during visits to Pakistan (pgs. 13-21). This points up my contention that we are not dealing with anything so monolithic as a single organization. The nature of this kind of extremism is that it is best described as a meme, that is a self-replicating idea that is passes and re-passed from individuals as they interact in complex ways, not as the kind of hierarchy that neocon strategy assumes.
A truly long-winded effort at promoting the utterly ridiculous liberal mantra that if we just stay out of their part of the world we would not see the level of terrorism we are facing today. This attitude completely disregards what the terrorists themselves have been saying for decades. If we left the middle East tomorrow, it would change nothing. If we could turn back the clock 20 years, it would change only the timing of events.
This global jihad which I have documented on several occasions is the fruit of 30 years plus of indoctrination and planning by a small minority of Muslims intent on recreating the Caliphate and more. Any land that Muslims have ever controlled is defiled if it comes under control of the "infidels", Jew or Christian. It must be reclaimed in order to return it to Allah's plans. That is why they cannot allow Israel to exist, why all of the Middle East, North Africa and across to Spain are in their plans.
Yet as some of the Clerics have declared in places both Muslim nations and in England, their plan is to ultimately subject all mankind to their theocratic rule under Sharia law and as determined by the Caliphate.
But this entire rant about what you admit were a few extremists thirty years ago misses the very point I've been making. First of all, I have not and do not say that we should "stay out of that part of the world". I am not an isolationist. What I do say is that we must be aware anywhere in the world that our actions have consequences that we must understand from the viewpoint of others if we wish to formulate successful strategy. Our ignorance of these radicals and policies like keeping large military forces in Saudi Arabia gave the very people we did not want to strengthen the propaganda material necessary to recruit a far larger body of people to sympathy with their cause. Our actions in Iraq have seriously advanced this same cause by making us appear (whatever internal motives you credit to our actions) as imperialists in the eyes of many who otherwise would not be sympathetic with these same radicals but now see them as the best viable alternative to what they see as our aggression. Our actions have consequences, in this case by the extension and strengthening of the very radicalism we oppose.
Could we have converted these radicals? Of course not, and I never advanced such an idea. But we could have kept them isolated and weak, kept them divided from the much larger body ofm people who now are in sympathy with at least part of their program and are opposed to us. That is proper strategy, Lvliberty, and that is what the neocons have consistently ignored.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/12/2006 @ 1:34pm
I think he's skipped off to buttress his supply of namers
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 1:34pm
Just think, if the airlines had followed the advice of security experts and consumer advocates and installed secure cockpit doors like they had been asked to do instead of putting profit 1st, maybe it would never have happened.
Hmmm...so let's see. Capitalism is at fault? Is that the thesis? Or do you have a separate explanation why no other airline in the world provided 'cockpit' security doors, and why such doors would not have been opened when the terrorists started cutting throats of passengers?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 08:33am
Wow, you can spin with the best. No, capitalism is not to blame, greed is. The two do not necessarily go together. I am a capitalist. I create. I sell. I make a profit. But I don't scrifice my clients safety to eek out another 5%.
Airlaines were warned for years that cockpit security was lax. Guess what they did right after 9/11? Can you guess?
i'll give you a minute.
they put in secure cockpit doors, like the Israeli airlines had for years.
---- Comments like Cheneys do no good, are beneath the VP's office and should be kept to sites like this or bar rooms.
I disagree. Cheney speaks the flat out truth. He's the VP, he can say what he wants. No mealy-mouth politician he. Great guy.
Yeah, geat guy. but what were his own words?
"Governor Bush and I are also absolutely determined that [we] will restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington." - Dick Cheney, 8/4/00
"I look forward to working with you, Governor, to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation." - Dick Cheney, 7/25/00
Ahh, but these are pre 9/11 aspirations.
Either the left is disconnected from reality, or Cheney, myself, and the Republicans are.-Pontificus
If you think iraq is a success story, then you are disconnected from reality. Period.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2006 @ 1:48pm
Posted by CRABWALK 08/12/2006 @ 1:48pm
they put in secure cockpit doors, like the Israeli airlines had for years.
I still think your argument is specious and silly. You have absolutely no reason to believe that secure cockpit doors would have averted 9/11. Do you seriously believe the flight crews would have kept those doors shut when the terrorists started systematically slitting the throats of men, women, and children in the passenger cabin? I don't, and I think your blaming 9/11 on the airline's greed is, quite simply, stupid.
Cheney may have strived to restore a tone of civility to the office, but whatever he did, it was in vain. The left in this country, as so amply personified by most of those who write for and comment at this site, amply demonstrates that those who dare to disagree with leftist cant will be personally smeared, vilified, etc. If Cheney felt unable to carry out his pledge, it is entirely understandable. Further, his pointing out that leftist pacifism and Bush-hating as playing into the hands of the terrorists is not incivility, it is simply pointing out a truth.
If you think iraq is a success story, then you are disconnected from reality. Period.
You do have a penchant for straw men, Crabbie. No, Iraq is not a success story - yet. It is a very hard slog, and no end is in sight. It could be going better. But this in no way invalidates the policy, no more than Antietam invalidated Lincoln's war with the South.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 2:00pm
that is is time to forget the niceties of international diplomacy and be more concerned about labeling them for what they truly are.
What are they? Haven't we witnessed at last this summer that even the harshest anti-internationalists can suck it up and work with either the UN or smaller groups of world leaders?
The intent of the leftist bloggers and their like is the total destruction of our Constitutional Republic so that they can recreate it into a socialist democracy like they so adore in Europe and Scandinavia.
Oh dear, oh dear. String us up now, LL, for we is truly treasonous. Such a laugh! Having to resort to such tripe to find a defense for your thoughtless thoughts is best left off the web. Embarrass yourself in front of family and friends, if you like. But embarrassing yourself for anyone in the world to read is a cry for help.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 2:10pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 2:00pm
Cheney may have strived to restore a tone of civility to the office, but whatever he did, it was in vain.
Whatever he did? Banana boy, you don't even know what you're talking about
The left in this country, as so amply personified by most of those who write for and comment at this site, amply demonstrates that those who dare to disagree with leftist cant will be personally smeared, vilified, etc.
So true, remember how the ever expanding commie hamster fringe
(with dash of evangelic thrown in for good measure)
Personally smeared and vilified former president Clinton during his two terms, and how they have done the same toward the great liberal center of America since ninety four. And even to this day the commie conservative fringe-oids still lash out at the great liberal center when they accuse the great liberal center of being with the terrorists if they are not with the commie conservative fringe.
(forgetting of course that the commie conservatives... are the terrorists)
still If Cheney felt unable to carry out his pledge, it is entirely understandable.
Can't catch Osama
Can't carry out pledges
Can mistake a 76 year old man for a small, witless cage raided quail and shot him...
in the face
Further, his pointing out that leftist pacifism and Bush-hating as playing into the hands of the terrorists is not incivility, it is simply pointing out a truth.
True but it is a bit self loathing for himself and the commie conservative fringe (take you for example), Cheney (and you) of course always having better things to do besides defend his country
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 2:35pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/12/2006 @ 12:10am
Again, a rather short memory
Quite a long one, actually. What you're doing here is, of course, trying to take my statement of comparison between the very minor protests over Afghanistan (your own quote refers to the "several small protests", excepting only Pakistan, but I'll get to that in a minute) versus the very large and widespread outcry the world over about our Iraq invasion and make it into my denying that people protested the Afghanistan invasion, which I did not in fact contend. There are always going to be protestors against any war, no matter the justification or wide-spread perception of it. Some are those who oppose war on principle (and should be respected for a highly moral, though I would say misguided, position) while others have specific objections to certain wars or to the conduct of certain wars, as some of the Afghanistan protestors did (feeling that the bombing initially conducted by the US would be too costly in innocent civilian life, for instance.) The real point is that in the arab world there were no wide-spread or large-scale outcries, which is what I said in the first place. As for the protests in Pakistan, that was hardly surprising. Your own Wikipedia citation points out the Pakistan had been up until that point a Taliban ally and had helped put them in power. Many Pakistanis are ethnically similar to Afghans (especially Pashtuns from the border areas) and had (and have) a natural affinity for them. None of them, by the way, are arabs (which is where my original point was directed, if you'll remember).
You conveniently ignore that Bush from his September 20, 2001 speech described that our tactics would involve police work, going after finances, and military. It is a rather simplistic response on your part to ignore the reality of those facts and attempt to paint a distorted and incorrect analysis of the truth. You actually by your words seem to ignore the constant complaints and protests by leftists about all of the non-military actions by Bush such as the NSA phone intercepts, and the banking transactions. Or perhaps you have just forgotten about those things. Just to refresh your memory. Likewise as I stated above with references, you ignore the true goals of the jihadists which would not change if we never had been in the middle east.
Neither distorted nor incorrect. I am basing my analysis on what BushCo has actually done as opposed to what Georgie said he was going to do on 9/20/2001. The whole point of this was to show that the war in Iraq is bad strategy in any attempt to combat extremist groups (the avowed purpose of the "War on Terror") because the original Baker article was contending that leaving Iraq would somehow undermine this goal. The center of Neocon strategy has always been military activity, not police work. Look at the BushCo record in this regard and they have a lot of military action and no real police success to show. That speaks far stronger than Georgie's words. My point that the British employed legitimate police methods successfully should be contrasted with the illegitimate police methods of BushCo (the very NSA survelliance and bank record screening that you refer to.) Of course most of us fight against the sapping of our Constitutional rights for no good purpose, since the methods BushCo is advancing for police action against extremists don't work. It's part and parcel of their poor strategy otherwise. They are pursueing extremeists by all the wrong methods because they want those methods to be right, since they fit their own warped view of the world and American power. The problem boils down to the fact that that view is a fantasy, and has failed in every regard (on the military, police, and every other front) to achieve the goal of eliminating or undermining the extremists.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/12/2006 @ 2:37pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 2:00pm
You do have a penchant for straw men, Crabbie. No, Iraq is not a success story - yet. It is a very hard slog, and no end is in sight.
Life's tough
It's even tougher when the chimps running the country are um ... stupid
(smack... that's why you carry around bananas)
It could be going better.
If it could be... it would be
But this in no way invalidates the policy,
When everything you have posited and executed has been proven wrong or has failed, your policy is invalidated
no more than Antietam invalidated Lincoln's war with the South.
Lincoln didn't know about Antietam until the two armies squared off there. The chimps have been planning Iraq for years
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 2:43pm
MARYBRETBRAD wrote on 08/11/2006
if you kill all the terrorists on this earth at this very second, all what you did is giving birth to a new generation of terrorists more powerful, more skillful and more determined.
Beautiful phrase, but what, exactly makes them more powerful? Is that a fundamental law of the universe? Did wiping out polio instantly create a new disease more powerful, skillful and determined than polio?
Terrorism is "an idea", it's a feeling, it's a scream in the night... I'm fed up with the trivial and hypocritical explanations about terrorism."
No, it's a tactic. Read Posted by STWRILEY 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am
I heard that some politicians (including Jessie Jackson) asked at that time Gore to do something about it. Some kind of resistence or popular movement that would take the street to bring back the presidential to its real winner, but Gore disagreed. What a shame!... Yes terrorists killed people, but what Bush did is a zillion times worse… With great power comes great responsibility.
I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone who was serious; not someone who's insights into world affairs is derived from a Spiderman comic book.
Hey Mary (I guess it's your name): Thanks for the cheerful welcoming to the forum. At least the phrase was beautiful as you said. I will try to answer all your 3 points at once. First, you've got serious problems madam by comparing the fight against polio with the problem of terrorism. You just didn't get it! I bet you don't even know what causes polio? A bacteria? A virus? A parasite? Well, I'll help you through it: It's a virus (PV: for poliovirus) that has a particularly very small and simple genome. If you compare the threat of polio with the threat of terrorists, then I'm sorry madam you must have a brain no larger than polio's brain (did I mention that polio had a brain?). We're talking about human being madam. The most powerful and creative living being on the surface of the earth. So powerful that he's able to destroy the same planet that gave him birth! We're not talking here madam of a war between human being and a microbe! We're talking of a war between human being and human being! That's another story indeed. And although one human being could be stronger than the other because he has nuclear power, well the other human being has an unbelievable power as well: It's the power of rage against humiliation and injustice. It's the spiritual power of the soul. I'll go even further than my previous e-mail by saying that the war against terrorism can NEVER BE WON! Indeed how can you win against people who already did the ultimate sacrifice: by sacrificing their own lives!? By killing them? Well, they've already killed themselves! And when you respond with a big and categorical "NO" to my statement that terrorism is NOT an "idea and a feeling of injustice", by telling me that it is rather a tactic, you just confirmed your membership to the group of people that see only the tip of the iceberg. Effectively, we can consider terrorism as a tactic or a technique REGARDING its EXPRESSION. But what I was talking about is its ESSENCE, its ROOTS, its MOTIVATIONS that are built on hatred, revenge and an overwhelming sense of injustice. Think about it: when US invaded Afghanistan, how should we have called it? A tactic? A war? An invasion? Never mind. But I'll tell you this: the reason why US invaded Afghanistan was because US was attacked and hurt. They attacked Afghanistan for revenge! Period! And that's what we see with terrorism. And by the way, precisely because terrorism ("the face of it", meaning its expression) is a technique, it cannot be defeated unlike an enemy state. And that's why the expression itself of "the war on terrorism" is an empty statement like "the war on drugs". At the best, these expressions could be used metaphorically.
To continue on the subject de you remember Bushing stating: "We'll smoke them out?" 5 years later, I still didn't see any smoke madam, I still didn't see any smoke. Or actually, I saw one: The one of Bin Laden's BBQ somewhere in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And anyway, even if they got Bin Laden, it will not change anything. Remember when US invaded Iraq, they faced a fierce resistance instead of being welcomed with flowers and candies (indeed who wants his own country to be invaded). Bush said the resistance is caused by Saddam's sons. They killed the sons, the resistance continued. Then, he said it's all the ex members of the Iraqi government and made a card game of it with their pictures. They killed or imprisoned almost all of them. The resistance continued. Then, he said it's Saddam himself who's conducting the resistance. They cached Saddam, the resistance continued. Then it was the fault of the foreign terrorists. They killed recently Zarquawi, the resistance continued. What all this means? It means that Iraqi people are resisting to the injustice, the humiliation and the destruction of their country. Do you see what I'm talking about madam? The same logic applies to Islamic terrorism. To help you understand how the terrorists will get more strong, determined and powerful I will tell you this: Any killed Muslim (terrorist or innocent)has siblings and friends who will embrace terrorism to revenge him. And If we add the fact that we live in a globalized world with 1 billion Muslims living in their countries but also in western Europe and North America, we find ourselves in a complex situation. Indeed, the majority of terrorists that perpetrated the London subway carnage were BRITISH Citizens from a Muslim confession. Finally the spectacular and fast progress in the field of technology and weaponry makes it easier and easier to make powerful little devices that the terrorists can use with devastating effect (look, they are using cell phones and internet for communication, they can use I. Pods to detonate bombs, they can use explosives made from liquid, from powder, from anything! And they will go more and more creative, and therefore more dangerous. You cannot fight terrorism with the only means of force and repression. We need to have the courage to face the motivations of terrorism that make people turn themselves into bombs and deal with the headache of its complex problem (that we share the responsibility by the way) starting with a new look to the middle east policy! Does this mean that terrorism will completely disappear? The answer is no. But it will reduce it CONSIDERABLY, and above all it is the most effective, successful and fair approach to think about. Again recently, what was the answer of Mr. Bush to the last purportedly terror plot in England: Instead to a have a responsible and reflective comment, he used an incendiary expression and called them Islamic fascists. Did he forget that it took him years to realize and regret words like: bring them on! We're on a Crusade! We'll smoke them out! Well I guess the morons have their own scale of time to realize the gravity of things. And above all if you're a criminal, you just don't care. That's why the so called war on terrorism that Bush described as the war of the "good against the evil" is in reality The war of Evil against the Evil! And finally thank you a second time for your cynical compliment regarding my Spiderman Comic book inspiration. And The truth is that I did enjoy reading comics when I was a kid and indeed it helped me to develop my imagination, inspiration and understanding of the world that you miss madam. But I stopped when I turned a teenager, that's why I proposed in my previous e-mail to read Chomsky, E. Said and other Baudrillard to name only few. But coming back to the point, I did indeed a mistake by trusting your good intention. First I said "I HEARD that some politicians including Jessie Jackson …" which means it's a hypothesis that should be confirmed. It was more a suggestion then a statement. And above all let's focus on my point and not get lost in futilities. In my own opinion what happened in the 2000 was a national tragedy: In a REAL DEMOCRACY, people will go to the street to take back their stolen election. I was saddened that we didn't do it. Instead, Bush got away with murder and the whole world is paying the heavy price!
Posted by folano at 08/12/2006 @ 2:47pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/12/2006 @ 1:09pm
79% of Democrats GLAD that Joe lost:
Considering that Lieberman won 48 percent of the primary vote, that means that at least 31 percent of those who voted for Lieberman were glad he lost. Seems kind of odd, but I guess they were just voting for him before they voted against him. It's a Democratic thing, and no, I don't understand.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 3:04pm
Folano, Mary is a guy, those are the names of his unfortunate children. Who may one day grow up to be Pontificie.
Nice posts, but I agree, a little paragraphng please.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/12/2006 @ 3:05pm
Posted by WILL C. 08/12/2006 @ 1:34pm
I think he's skipped off to buttress his supply of namers
Will - I only respond to your posts when a) I have time/interest and b) your posts exhibit some brief window of lucidity. Thus the paucity of my responses to you.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 3:14pm
so then I was correct about the namers
Cha Ching
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 3:23pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 08:39am
Blind hate, like racism, is easily disguised. On the one hand, you have the MALCONTENT and BLOPPY and their ilk, who don't bother to disguise it. On the other, you have 'educated' leftists like STWRILEY who couch their blind hate in elaborate manifestos of rationalizations which boil down to the same thing: Bush bad; America bad; capitalism....bad.
Ah, Pontificus, back out of the woodwork, I see. I was going to ignore these typical rantings and insults, since they're devoid of any actual content, but then you had to go so far out on the limb I couldn't let it go. This is classic projection, my friend, where you attribute to your opponents your own feelings and motivations. You are obviously an angry man, filled with hate of your own and only able to justify it by say "but they hated us first (waa, waa waa.)" Really now, I and many others here on both sides offer analysis and reasoned opinion and all you can come up with is this "bline hate" line? Truely devoid of any substantial argument for what you believe in, aren't you? The fool he is who cries loudest that others are so.
I disagree with Mary and Lvliberty and quite a few others here, but I respect the fact that they (even Lvliberty, these days) argue their points with logic and evidence. But not you. You're stuck in a place so simplistic that you can't even see the projected nature of your final statement. I don't hate Bush (though I consider him wrong on most things and no better than a misguided fool most of the time), I love my country dearly (so dearly that I'm unwilling to see its interests dragged down without trying to do something about it), and I find capitalism a mixed blessing that both advances and holds back this country (properly regulated, it's fantastic; left unregulated, it's a disaster.) But no doubt even such a boiled down version of nuance is beyond you. Unfortunately for you, the world demands nuance and does not forgive those who charge in regardless. It won't forgive BushCo for that fault and it won't forgive those who blindly follow as you do.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/12/2006 @ 3:25pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/12/2006 @ 2:35pm
For how long could we keep them isolated and weak? How much damage could they do in there weakened condition? I doubt your answer is, "until the problem resolved itself." Bush (and I) felt that the continuing deaths of hundered or thousands a year was unacceptable and required a solution. Maybe the solution would work; maybe it would make it worse. If if worked great! If not, it would provide insight into a better solution. Either way Bush found "tolerating" terrorism unacceptable and did something about it. Maybe that's "simplistic" but I don't find "simplistic" to be an indictment because many times "simplistic" works best.
But you miss several points here, Mary. I was discussing the situation ten or twenty years ago with Lvliberty in that quote, at which time such a strategy would have been most effective. Had we, for instance, not abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal there would have been no haven for al-Qaeda there and their activities would have been greatly hampered (though I am not saying that this would have prevented 9/11, nor that it would not have.) Nor was I advocating letting the "situation resolve itself" but rather seeking other solutions that did not damage our own position. What BushCo has done in the wake of 9/11 is largely do just that, as I've pointed out before. The one thing they did initially that was correct was invade Afghanistan (another part of my point when I criticised Baker for equating Afghanistan and Iraq) but then they failed to do it properly. That was a question not only of an extremist group, but of an actual opponent state and called for their favored military methods. Except they didn't apply them to get the job done or round up the actual extremists that were present. No simple (not simplistic, that implies too simple for what's needed) solution was applied when it could have been. They were distracted by their own ideas of the world (that neocon worldview) and turned their attention where it would do no good, to Iraq. They complicated unnecessarily a simple task, and thus failed to perform it. The result? We may yet have another al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda inspired attack having just been thwarted because al-Qaeda still exists, due to BushCo negligence. Now we are in a situation where they claim to be waging a "War on Terror" but are in fact engaged in military adventurism in Iraq while not doing the actual police work or diplomatic work that might do some good. No, BushCo failed when the chips were down and they're still failing, not from seeking the simple solution, but from seeking the simplistic one that has proved far too complicated in the execution.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/12/2006 @ 3:41pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/12/2006 @ 12:49am
I think we are seeing in the president's appropriate calling of the terrorists as islamic fascists, the VP's remarks, that is is time to forget the niceties of international diplomacy and be more concerned about labeling them for what they truly are.
Was there ever a time when they acted differently? I honestly don't remember. I know Cheney's been pretty much a straight shooter from the beginning. What a pity his health is so fragile, he would make a truly outstanding President, second only to Reagan in the last 100 years. I truly wish he would run anyway, and pick an heir apparent as VP. It actually makes so much sense I'm starting to believe it might just happen.
Furthermore, conservatives like you and I who have decided that it is time to call the the treacherous and defeatist rhetoric of the left for what it really is, no more nice guy diplomacy.
Isn't it a sad and pathetic commentary on the state of our beloved country when those with common sense and education are relegated to a defined slice of the electorate? When madness and stupidity are the foundations of indoctrination in our public education system? You and I should be arguing the true shortcomings of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, not trying to educate the deluded and the insane.
The intent of the Democratic party is to retreat into a liberal form of Buchannon isolationism.
I believe the true intent of the Democratic Party is national suicide.
The intent of the leftist bloggers and their like is the total destruction of our Constitutional Republic so that they can recreate it into a socialist democracy like they so adore in Europe and Scandinavia.
Well, I don't think destruction of our Constitution is the starting point for that. Destruction of our Constitution necessarily follows form deconstructivism, a blind devotion to socialist ideology, and a total repudiation of empiricism. All of these things are being pushed through quite aggressively by our educational system. No frontal assaults on the Constitution necessary, it can become a worthless piece of paper just as well as the Soviet Constitution was if the observance of its principles is completely undermined by the destruction of societal values.
What they cannot comprehend (both the Dems and the leftists) is that America is the last great hope to stop the intent of the Islamic fascists to transform first the Middle East and then the entire globe into one big theocratic government under the control of the Caliphate.
I don't think they care. Look at Western Europe. Cultural and demographic suicide is in the offing. The ultimate aim of leftism is not utopia, it's death, which is the only true utopia.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 3:44pm
Maybe that's "simplistic" but I don't find "simplistic" to be an indictment because many times "simplistic" works best.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/12/2006 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person
Just wondering MBB...are you under the illusion (delusion?) that "simplistic" is working...in Iraq?
Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 3:47pm
Posted by STWRILEY 08/12/2006 @ 3:25pm
Now, I'm quite intrigued by your dime-store psychological analyses, so let's discuss them.
This is classic projection, my friend, where you attribute to your opponents your own feelings and motivations.
Hmmm....I'll bite. What feelings and motivations am I projecting when I observe that there is a rabid hatred of George Bush on the part of the left? Keeping in mind, of course, the numerous admissions by various leftist pontificators their actual gut-felt hatred of the man. Also, let's bear in mind your previously admitted personal animus towards David Horowitz because you disgree with his political writings.
You are obviously an angry man, filled with hate of your own and only able to justify it by say "but they hated us first (waa, waa waa.)"
Now this, I really don't get. Hatred of my own...what? Class? Sex? Race? Please be more specific.
Really now, I and many others here on both sides offer analysis and reasoned opinion and all you can come up with is this "bline hate" line?
Well, that's not all I offer, but it's a starting point. My actual statement was, that all your elaborate pontificating ever amounts to can be expressed in some combination of the following conclusions: Bush bad...America bad...capitalism...bad. And at least Bloppy has the virtue of brevity, though he is no less predictable.
If you wish, I can expound at length on the things that Clinton did right, even though I never voted for the man. Can you do the same for Bush, because I've never heard you say a single good thing about him.
Truely devoid of any substantial argument for what you believe in, aren't you?
No, I have posted many positive things about what I believe in. But people here don't want to discuss actual ideas, they want to discuss the billion ways that George Bush is wrong. Deviate from that, and you'll be ignored.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
No, I have posted many positive things about what I believe in. But people here don't want to discuss actual ideas, they want to discuss the billion ways that George Bush is wrong. Deviate from that, and you'll be ignored.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
OK
post or repost an actual idea
we will discuss it
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 4:13pm
of course if you ignore me
you're a hypocrit
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 4:16pm
Not ignoring you Will, just being pulled away by other demands.
Bush has offered many times his vision for both the future of this country and his strategy for the prosecution of the War on Terror. Yet many times, people here refuse to believe that there actually is such a strategy. How many times have I quoted Bush's speeches outlining quite clearly his strategy, only to have these ignored? Argue with the strategy - fine - but attack the man personally? What's the point? Yes - we know you hate him - so what? Why should that mean you oppose anything and everything he does, whether it makes sense or not? The idea is that many on the left are letting their knee-jerk opposition of everything that Bush does get in the way of the national interest.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 4:52pm
I mean, really, Will, in my first post here, I asked someone, anyone, to tell me: what the leftist strategy for fighting these barbaric Islamic fanatics? You don't like Bush - fine - what is your strategy? No answer. Other times, I have gotten lame, vague suggestions that maybe the UN can do something. Maybe we can cooperate with the French or Germans. Nothing concrete. The only the left seemingly has to offer is a knee-jerk opposition to whatever Bush proposes. This is not a strategy - it is a formula for defeat.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2006 @ 5:04pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 4:52pm
Sorry bubba
I don't hate anybody. Not even you. And this post doesn't contain an actual idea. A reference to a strategy that our president may or may not have is not an idea. Post or reposting his strategy would give us an actual idea to discuss.
Unsubstantiated accusations are also not an actual idea.
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 5:44pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 5:04pm
Questions are also not actual ideas.
But instead of continuing to go around in circles like this, let me post an actual idea.
This is my strategy for reducing if not eliminating the threat of Islamic terrorism. It works on a very simple premise. Eliminate the fuel and the fire goes out.
1. Pull our troops out of the populated areas of Iraq and redeploy them into the western desert and the southern oil fields. Provide the Kurds the assistance they need to secure the northern oil fields. This action both gets us out of the firing line and allows us to begin getting Iraqi oil back on line so that the new government can develop a legitimate cash flow, invest in its infrastructure and put it's people to work. It also leaves us in the position to influence the actions of the government, hopefully in a benevolent way until they no longer need us.
2. Implement the outstanding UN resolutions pertaining to Israel, especially those produced after the 67 war. This once again puts us back into the honest broker role and helps to eliminate the biggest sore spot this planet has: the occupied territories. Without that continuing conflict, we really have no conflict
3. Pull our troops out of all Middle Eastern countries as soon as practicable. This means we're leaving and not going to be a thorn in the side of Islam for the rest of time. Of course we would need achievable goals that must be met and I'm not going to be the one to decide what they are. But when they are met, we leave. No more bullshit.
4. And we be nice for a change. Even if the rest of the world is a bunch of assholes...
we be nice
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2006 @ 6:03pm
""Blind hate, like racism, is easily disguised. On the one hand, you have the MALCONTENT and BLOPPY and their ilk, who don't bother to disguise it. On the other, you have 'educated' leftists like STWRILEY who couch their blind hate in elaborate manifestos of rationalizations which boil down to the same thing: Bush bad; America bad; capitalism....bad."
Blind hate? I don't ever recall spewing any kind of hatred, for any individual. Although a long while back I expressed my extreme dislike of religious fundamentalists. Kinda like you, but in a rational way, wherein I include funda'mental'ist christians too.
I also have never trashed capitalism. Corporations with over 60yr. lifespans, sure. But as a small businessman, I happen to awfully fond of capitalism. Just not blind capitalism, with no regard for the system that assists me to succeed. But, then I didn't really think you read posts before commenting on them, so I am not surprised.
"Cheney speaks the flat out truth."...hmm
"[Iraq is] the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
..."I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
..."We’ve never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one."
"Great guy."
"Either the left is disconnected from reality, or Cheney, myself, and the Republicans are."
Agreed.
"Given the piss-poor track record of leftism,...."
The left has a piss-poor track record? At what?
Damn, and I've been leaning left for years. Do tell me all about it.
"Half a banana for you, Will. One whole banana if you can demonstrate that you have read (and understood) terrorist communications outlining the need to kill as many civilians as possible in order to buttress the anti-war left in the West.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 12:56am"
OK. You can have the rest of the bunch, if you can show us (do you understand?) the communications. Preferably something beyond one individual ranting.
"I still think your argument is specious and silly. You have absolutely no reason to believe that secure cockpit doors would have averted 9/11. Do you seriously believe the flight crews would have kept those doors shut when the terrorists started systematically slitting the throats of men, women, and children in the passenger cabin?"
I see. And armed marshall's guns could jam...What is your point? That a known, at least partially effective preventative measure, should be shunned, because it MIGHT not work?!?! (What are ya, MASK or sumthin'?)
"I don't,.."
Duh. And that is why you are not a pilot or in charge of anything. Do you really think a pilot, knowing access to the cockpit allows the easy death of all, would open the door. Also,they would probably have a specific procedure, under which they wouldn't be allowed. That is pure speculation, but is what real planning is all about. (And yes, even "pre-911" pilots would be think of victims at a crash site. Although, probably not as imaginatively as now.)
"No, I have posted many positive things about what I believe in."
Positive eh? I musta missed that. Please repost. (Good luck.)
"they want to discuss the billion ways that George Bush is wrong."
Well, that is the topic of most political discussion these days. All these guys do is lie and fuck up. What else is there to talk about?
"Deviate from that, and you'll be ignored."
I'm sorry, did you say something?
" I asked someone, anyone, to tell me: what the leftist strategy for fighting these barbaric Islamic fanatics?"
And MANY people responded over a long time with many different answers. I don't recall the "UN solution" discussion. Unless you meant 5 years ago when nobody really tried it.
Allow me to recap:
1. Remove US troops. This will slow recruitment for anti-US nutjobs.
2. Remove US troops. This will eliminate the just hatred that all people have for imperialistic invaders. (Opps!. I forgot..."liberators") (I'm sure you'll disagree with the last one. But try (actually) thinking about how you'd feel if Kerry won and the Iraqis came to 'liberate' you poor neo-cons.)
3. Remove funda'mental'ist christian, end times whacko leaders.
Oh yea, you are fool too. Not because I say so, but because you want a government who believe the end is near, god will fix everything, friends (i.e. jews) are sacrificial bait for your sick god, government should only help the large corporations that own it, the enviroment won't change if you can just get a grip on the symantics, the Constitution is quaint, the president is king, war is justified if you can make up enough excuses...ad nauseum.
OK...bored with your drivel.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 08/12/2006 @ 7:01pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
Now, I'm quite intrigued by your dime-store psychological analyses, so let's discuss them.
Hey, no need for the dime. I'll let you have it for free, since you seem to need to so badly.
Hmmm....I'll bite. What feelings and motivations am I projecting when I observe that there is a rabid hatred of George Bush on the part of the left? Keeping in mind, of course, the numerous admissions by various leftist pontificators their actual gut-felt hatred of the man. Also, let's bear in mind your previously admitted personal animus towards David Horowitz because you disgree with his political writings.
Now this, I really don't get. Hatred of my own...what? Class? Sex? Race? Please be more specific.
Hmmm... denial too. Very interesting. The projection comes from your own hatred of "the left", a concept you've objectified into almost a fetish. It's quite sad, really. Because of this unreasoned hate, you feel compelled to justify it by the process of transferrence, give the object of your hate the characteristics that you loath in yourself. Naturally, you can't simply make this transferrence by making yourself the hate object, since you don't feel adequate enough to be the important, so you make the transferrence onto the object that you believe is the antithesis of your hate object, in this case George Bush and all you feel he represents.
Now that we're done with the snark portion of this post, I'll get to something real. Seriously, Pontificus, you really do have some issues. I have never been anything but rational, yet you slide in and throw around accusations of "blind hate" without evidence or reason, then wonder why I would turn the "dime-store" psychoanalysis you employ back on you. It really does smack of projection, you know.
As for my loathing of Horowitz, it is based quite rationally on his direct attacks on my profession and academic integrity and his own hypocritical use of his former academic status for personal advancement at the expense of the institution that once harbored him. It is not "blind hate" to feel animosity for someone who directly attacks you with false and self-serving propaganda, it is the height of common sense.
Well, that's not all I offer, but it's a starting point. My actual statement was, that all your elaborate pontificating ever amounts to can be expressed in some combination of the following conclusions: Bush bad...America bad...capitalism...bad. And at least Bloppy has the virtue of brevity, though he is no less predictable.
If you wish, I can expound at length on the things that Clinton did right, even though I never voted for the man. Can you do the same for Bush, because I've never heard you say a single good thing about him.
And yet you don't offer anything but abuse at all. I looked back through your posts on this thread and there is not a single point that could be called positive or indeed rises above the level of the exchange we've just had. You came after me because I offered an analysis of an actual idea (the Baker article posted and discussed by Mary) but you didn't even try to offer your own analysis or refute my points, just prattled on about my "pontificating" (particualrly rich from someone who calls himself Pontificus) and made an attribution of motive that I refuted but that you still haven't even addressed. You've only repeated your assertion without even trying to back it up. This leaves the rest of us with only one conclusion to draw from your actions, that you don't actually have an argument to make.
If you'd care to expound on Clinton's successes, I'll not stand in the way, though it has little relevance for this thread. And as far as my not giving BushCo credit, you can only say that because you haven't been paying attention. Just above I clearly said that he did do something right when I credited him with invading Afghanistan (absolutely the right move at the time.) I tend to be critical of BushCo here because I disagree with so many of their major policies, and that tends to be what we're discussing. I am critical of them for reasons I lay out quite clearly, reasons of policy rather than simply of partisanship.
No, I have posted many positive things about what I believe in. But people here don't want to discuss actual ideas, they want to discuss the billion ways that George Bush is wrong. Deviate from that, and you'll be ignored.
But I have discussed your ideas in the past Pontificus, on the rare occasion that you've actually offered any. I don't ignore discussion, though I may go on at length (much to your chagrin, no doubt) and in depth about ideas that I feel important. Nor do I spend all my posts on BushCo policies. If you'd been paying attention to threads that don't deal with these policies, you'd have seen that. Nor have I, despite your rudeness and lack of actual argument, ignored you (I've only done that to Plunger and Rese, because as even you'll admit, there's only so much fringe conspiracy theory nuttery anyone can take even if it is "left wing".) Come on, Pontificus, step up and enter the discussion for real, unless you really don't have anything to add.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/12/2006 @ 10:51pm
STWRILEY
Well done, as usual. Have you read Jason Burke's "Al Qaeda yet? It makes many of the points you make regarding the error of thinking of Islamist militancy as a monolithic organization. He aruges that there are three circles of involvement. Those operations like 9-11, USS Cole and the embassy bombings which are their handiwork. Operations that are conceived by free-lance terrorists but that were al-Qaida provides financing, technical advice and possibly training and those that are simply inspired by al-Qaida. Of course, this is more of a continuum, As I recall (of course, my copy of the book is lost among my stacks at the moment), the embassy bombings were actually somewhere between the first two levels of involvement.
He also points out that different Islamist groups have different agendas. The alliance between the Taliban and bin-Laden was a very uncomfortable one, with the Taliban being Deobani traditionalists with a purely local agenda.
Posted by brunowe at 08/12/2006 @ 11:00pm
Earth to Dick Cheney! Earth to Dick Cheney! Come in, Dick!!! Allow me to remind you that you said the war in Iraq was about ridding Iraq of WMD and getting rid of Saddam Hussein???
You tell us that, and then after those goals are accomplished, you........ keep the troops in Iraq!
And now we are supposed to listen to your BS????
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/12/2006 @ 11:29pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/12/2006 @ 11:00pm
I've only had a chance to scan Burke so far, but he looks to be using the kind of subtle analysis we need in the field of terrorism research. Not that others haven't pointed out this idea before, but Burke seems to have made it al-Qaeda specific without losing an understanding of the complexity involved.
Now we just have to hope for policymakers with enough subtlety themselves to take advantage of this kind of insight. Divide and conquer may be a strategy as old as the hills, but it still works. Dividing up these groups by fragmenting their perceived goal-paths would go a long way toward making us more secure.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/13/2006 @ 07:34am
Since I have been coming to this blog I have been called a traitor to my country ( a crime punishable by death), an Al-Qaida sympathizer, a hezzbolah sympathizer, an idiot, a fool, a military hater, a racist. Many others that have similar position to mine, a disdain for the policies of the Bush admin, have been called the above plus anti-Semites, cowards etc. It is nothing new, I experience the same thing in e-mails with neo-con friends and at township meetings. Regardless of how nicely I word an opinion there is always the attack. Not that I am immune to such behavior, I just prefer to use humor when possible.
But it is the lefties that are hate filled and offer no solutions. No admitting that maybe there is justification for our disdain, such as the quagmire in Iraq, or the squandering of the treasury while cutting taxes for the richest 8000 people in the country. If we offer an idea it is debased as Kumbaya diplomacy or cut and run politics.Then there is this dripping rhetoric of "the failed left", rarely backed up with ANY examples.
There are a LOT of Tough Guys on this site that seem to have pretty thin skin. If you can't take the heat...
Cheneys comment was off base, incorrect and beneath the office of the Vice President of The United States. Especially considering the platform he and chimpy ran on.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2006 @ 11:19am
Yes, there is an 'ultimate' stay-the-course solution, MBB; that is the point-- is it worth killing practically every Muslim to resolve the conflict or is there a way to grease this squeaky wheel that doesn't require destroying the entire car, garage, house, etc. and having to build a totally new one by hand from scratch in the stone age? Genocide on this scale was already tried, failed and condemned globally. And comparing city crime in the USA to what's happening in Iraq is rather naive to say the least and at best disingenuous, like apples and planets. We have almost an unlimited amount of control over the variables in a US city-- where in Iraq, under the hsuB neocon control, we have virtually none, except of course killkillkillkill or be killedkilledkilled, a rather greatly flawed strategy recognized by most retired generals.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/13/2006 @ 5:41pm
MBB
...they desire installing the Caliphate as supreme world ruler.
Not so. First, there are a variety of organizations with varied goals, some local, others regional. The most expansive, Hizb-al-Tahrir, aims at reuniting Muslim lands under a Caliphate but is non-violent. Others, such as the Algerian groups and the Taliban, are purely national in approach (although non necessarily in targets, as the terror attacks in France in the 90s indicates). Hezbollah and Hamas aim at both power within their home areas (Lebanon and Palestine) and, ostensibly, the destruction of Israel. Lashkar-e-Toiba aims to set up an Islamist Kashmir. al-Qaida aims at the explusion of American power from the Middle East. None of these are goals of world conquest. Certain organizations have to be hunted down in the mountains of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Others have to have their Pakistani patrons pressured to turn off the spigot. The point is that tactics and goals will differ with each organization just as their tactics, goals and capabilities differ. Painting it as a global conspiracy with global aims is an oversimplification.
Posted by brunowe at 08/13/2006 @ 7:09pm
Here's the facts;
Congrats to the Brits who uncovered this latest plot..Wish we all could say the same for our own government who had all the clues leading up to 9/11, but failed to follow up on any of it..Who was in control then ?..This is your government....Our government who failed the American people..Look at Katrina..Look at Iraq...This administration is nothing but a failure..What part do you conservatives don't understand or don't want to and bury your heads in a hole. What a disgrace to this country and "we the people" are fed up plain and simple with this lack of leadership...
Posted by djmarch at 08/13/2006 @ 8:50pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/13/2006 @ 7:09pm
Don't be a spoilsport, such a wet blanket with your knowledge and stuff. Keep your well-informed opinions to yourself or some people who visit this site will either have to reconsider their viewpoints or have to deal with brainaches.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 10:34pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 08/12/2006 @ 07:30am
I was going to respond, but read the rest of the thread and saw that you wewre already eviscerated and marginalized as you should be.
Tell me, oh wise one - what exactly do I hate and why? Please provide backup of ANY kind for your assertions - any post, any example - rather than just throwing out hollow blanket accusations (good luck).
I know that request might require you to use your brain, and I'm deeply chagrined at causing you such discomfort, but give it a shot, since you seem to accuse me of "blind hate" no matter what I write.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 02:15am
Boy is that a releif. For a minute there I thought you were going to tell me that Dastardly Bush and Cheney were going to take away my Social Security!
Posted by KeepinItReal at 08/14/2006 @ 09:22am
MBB
I'm talking about the ones that murder innocent women and children.
Of course, but none of those are aiming at "installing the Caliphate as supreme world ruler."
Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 10:24am
osted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/14/2006 @ 08:46am
You're thinking one dimensionally in a four dimensional world. The creation of new terrorists is expediential to the number you kill per the distraunt, angry, revenge driven friends, relatives and the already indoctrinated borderline disenfranchised last straw fanatics both Islamic and not. Thus the more you kill-- the larger the pushback: witness Israel's success at wiping out Hezbollah, not going to happen, it just gets worse. The question then is what makes it better-- a question apparently ‘too' complicated for the hsuB admin.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 10:51am
Ok, it's like saying if we kill off enough poor people, poverty will be solved. As you may already know poverty is caused by a lot of circumstances other than just not having money. I'd speculate that it's the same process for breeding terrorists. Find the cause(s), the why behind the result. The active causes are very different from the active result(s). The hsuB admin would have everyone believe the result is the cause-- not. (That's like saying the money I use to buy a car-- is the car! The activity to acquiring the funds to purchase the car is totally different from the activity utilizing the vehicle.) There are models for reducing the occurrence of violent crime stemming from poverty, lack of education and especially the lack of empowerment that do not require the elimination of police, but rather their participation ‘when needed'. Not necessarily the solution, but rather another approach that one could consider perhaps wiser.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 11:47am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/13/2006 @ 11:25am
Darin,
First, sorry about assuming the "Mary", it was unwarrented and I should have asked. I do try not to make assumptions, but since my own handle is based on my name I assume that others of similar nature are as well. Second, I'm sorry it took me a while to get back to this, I've been tied up with real-world necessities. Now, back to business.
I've tried to make the point several times that the basic difference between "my side" and "your side" is our beliefs. You're seeking a solution that does not damage our position. Why do you believe one exists? (That is, you accept the proposition on faith without proof.)
But that is exactly what I've been trying to show you that I and many other critics of BushCo and neocon strategy don't do, accept things on faith. In the context you refer to, I was talking about the invasions of Afghanistan vs. Iraq, where we clearly did have a choice that would not have damaged our position in the world. We could have poured the bulk of our forces into Afghanistan (which we did not do) and kept up the sanctions and inspection regime on Iraq (which we know was effective at keeping Saddam contained.) The results would have been to put forces on the ground that could have actually run down the principle al-Qaeda figures and killed them or (better yet) hauled them off to New York or the Hague for trial on crimes against humanity charges (which include not only murder but a host of other legal shadings as well.) Our status as the wronged party would have been preserved in world opinion and we would have actually done something useful in combating jihadists (I'm adopting this term for Islamic extremists) who actually mean us harm.
Are there positions we could be taking now that might also reduce the damage to our own position already produced by BushCo policies and help further our real goals of combating jihadists? Yes, and that doesn't need to be "taken on faith" either. We must commit the forces to Afghanistan necessary to really stabilize that area (I hesitate to call it a nation at this point) and to track down the remaining al-Qaeda leadership wherever they are. That necessitates putting pressure on Pakistan to aid and allow this (since the border area is critical to this purpose), which has implications that are risky to be sure, but can still be achieved since the Musharref government needs our support. The only way to make this committment is to withdraw from Iraq (it's where the troops we need are tied down), where we are not doing any good but are in fact destabilizing what's left of that country and causing increasing damage to our own position by looking like more of an imperialist master every day. That is one example of how we can limit and decrease tha damage to our position (strategically) while increasing our effectiveness in achieving actual strategic goals (decreasing muslim anger over the Iraq occupation, tracking down a jihadist organization we've allowed to continue existing for too long, providing the basis for at least limited security and redevelopment in Afghanistan, and relieving some of the strain on our own military.)
For the rest of your post and your beliefs about jihadists (and other terrorist organizations too), I think Brunowe has ably answered the point about why I and he and many other critics of BushCo/neocon policy don't work with the kind of monolithic concept you are still clinging to. The real-world analysis of these groups (which is what we base our ideas on, not on "faith" in a concept from our own heads) shows quite clearly that no one solution will be effective in combating them all.
My belief is that in this situation, the opponent has demonstrated that diplomacy is a fool's errand. It would be irrational for us to accept their demands and irrational for them to accept our demands. (It would require them to reject the beliefs they had been taught by their families, communities, and clergy and replace them with our belief system.) So, logically, when you have an intractable problem, you either accept the (human life) cost of the problem, or you try to eliminate the source of the problem.
"But you can't eliminate the terrorists." That is another one of your beliefs that your side accepts on faith. You believe it self-evident and therefore feel no need to prove it. And even if you're right, that still doesn't prove you shouldn't try. Maybe by allocating more resources toward the elimination of terrorists, you'll cut their numbers by two or three orders of magnitude (and the human life cost proportionally.) If the cost of saving one innocent life is paying for the deaths of 10 terrorists, that's a cost I'm willing to bear, because it is my belief that the strong have a moral obligation to protect the innocent from murders.
But this is a misunderstanding of the whole nature of the problem, and what I and others have been trying to get you to rethink. We have not been suggesting negotiating with jihadist organizations, but employing police methods to track them down. Diplomacy is for those whom they might use for sympathy and support, the much larger body of the muslim public who are not themselves radicals and can be pursuaded if we pursue a course of actions that leads them to view the jihadists as a greater problem than us. It has nothing to do with accepting jihadist demands and everything to do with pursuing our own best position regarding the majority of the muslim world. It is not an "intractable problem" at all, but a very fluid and tractable one that we have been mishandling for too long. The idea of "intractablility" is wound up in that dichotomous "us vs. them" attitude that I and Brunowe have been trying to show you doesn't fit the situation at all. If you leave that idea behind, it becomes much easier to find real-world solutions.
On the second part (and your follow-up post) you are operating on a misunderstanding of what I said back in my 08/11/2006 @ 11:24am post. I never said we couldn't "eliminate the terrorists", I said we couldn't eliminate terrorism as a tactic without eliminating it's utility as a tactic. We can, as I went on to point out in that same post, eliminate individual jihadist organizations if we employ the proper methods, both in the policing and diplomatic realms. It is never a matter of "not trying", that is BushCo propaganda that seeks to distract from their own failures to do what they claim they are doing. It is a matter of seeking to do so while minimizing to the greatest extent possible our own casualties; civilian, police and military. This is not and cannot be a war of attrition, nor can we win it by such methods. Your whole idea that somehow this is just a matter of how many terrorists we can kill is just wishful thinking. We could kill many thousands and still lose in the strategic sense because we would not have undermined what the terrorists hope to achieve; our isolation and weakening and their own strengthening and increased support. Remember, terroristic tactics are never simply about killing people, they are a method of political violence aimed at decreasing the support for the enemy and increasing it for the terrorists. Killing terrorists for the sake of killing them is a strategy that will never succeed in actually combating what they are trying to achieve and increases the likelyhood that our own people will be victims by making the tactic work and thus encouraging its further use.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/14/2006 @ 12:11pm
MBB -
Tell me, oh wise one - what exactly do I hate and why?
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/14/2006 @ 02:15am
Sorry, I thought you were talking to PONTIFICUS at first.
I was talking to Pontificus, moron. So much for your "fucking" brilliance and reading comprehension, hm?
You hate intelligent people who disagree with you because you are a very insecure person.
Well, aren't you the armchair psychiatrist. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing with the board whatever degrees you may have that qualify you to assess my "insecurity"?
And I don't hate intelligent people at all - I love them. Maybe one day, you'll become one and be worthy of more than just my contempt - so far, no luck.
This is especially true of the ones who challenge you to re-evaluate your opinions and conclusions.
Another baseless charge. Like who? Point out where I hated someone because they challenged my opinions and conclusions. Point out some intelligent folks out here that I hate, Darin. Good luck, since I only hate only three people in the entire world, and only one on these boards. As to some of the intelligent people that I dislike, I'm sure I can give you reasons beyond their "challenging my opinions and conclusions".
You operate under the mistaken belief that life can be conducted on a purely rational basis. All "correct" opinons are a simple matter of logic. If an intellegent person disagrees with you, you question whether you have made a flaw in logic, which fans your insecurities.
You know jackshit about me, yet you continually make a fool of yourself by vomiting out your armchair psychology - what a pompous ass you are. So much tripe in your post about my "insecurities", about which you know nothing.
To compensate you call that person, "stupid".
I don't just run around calling people "stupid" for no reason, and certainly not for the reasons you think you're providing. I don't recall whether I've ever even called you "stupid", but you are. You're also insipid, vapid, shallow, shameless, and sad.
In order to convince yourself that you are smart,
I am smart - my education, experience, employers, and Stanford University all say so. I need no further convincing, thanks, and certainly not from the likes of you. You could no further embolden me than you've been successful at belittling me - you ain't got what it takes.
...you strike a bullying posture to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.
Again with the "bullying" thing - what are you, ten? Gonna go cry to Mommy that I'm picking on you next? "He called me a name - wahhhaaahh!" You're pathetic. Get an argument.
You do this in an attempt to reinforce your own feeling of intellectual superiority.
See all of the above.
Don't get me wrong, I consider you an intelligent person, but not because other people are stupid.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think you're unintelligent, but I do think you're petty and ridiculous and monstrously self-inflated with nothing to back it up. That's the difference between you and I, Darin - I back up what I say and do - you just spew.
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 12:21pm
Oh, and MBB -
I read back over the posts and saw that you did indeed respond to my post to Pontificus -
But you so desparately needed to "stick it to me" and put me in my place to get attention for yourself, that didn't even slow you down.
Now, who's insecure?
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 12:24pm
New Dawn, I really enjoy when you just 'tell it like it is'...WHOP...like a dead fish upside the head! You know, sometimes they just don't get it unless they 'feel the sting and smell the smell'!
I like that about you!
Posted by LILLIAN 08/11/2006 @ 11:35pm
Thank you, Lillian.
Have a great day, milady!
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 12:28pm
The one thing I'd add to STWRILEY's comment is that diplomacy may be a useful tool where the organization has a good claim to represent a national constituency. Hamas and Hezbollah have both demonstrated through elections that they command the support of much of their Palestianian and Lebanese Shi'a constituencies respectively. Although neither rocket attacks nor suicide bombings are acceptable, and both deserve a stern response, the fact that they are quasi-state actors and not just underground gangs like al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Toiba and the like means that there is a potential for integration into a normal political process. Prior to the recent explosion in Gaza, Hamas had been making some noises regarding a two-state solution while Hezbollah has a political presence in the Lebanese government as well as a militia. Bear in mind too that Hezbollah and Hamas depend to some extent on state allies (Syria and Iran) and diplomatic measures with those two states could be a useful tool in the right circumstances.
Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 12:33pm
Quote of the Day:
"When you encounter difficulties and contradictions, do not try to break them, but bend them with gentleness and time." – St. Francis De Sales, Patron Saint of the Deaf
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 1:03pm
Hsub -
Very similar to something that I've often told students in the studio and friends when they come to obsturctions in life and can't figure out how to get around them:
"Be the river, not the rock. Flow, rather than obstruct."
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 1:38pm
obstructions, even
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 1:38pm
Lieberman's soon to be ouster is the ultimate demonstration of democracy at the voter level. The same Democratic process the current administration is "spreading to the world as a beacon of light and hope", has been exercised and somehow tied to terror. Are we now in danger of becoming part of the axis of evil as sympathizers? We the People have spoken, and instead of listening, our government rejects. Hmmmmmmmm...........
Posted by jha321 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:45pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 12:33am
An excellent clarification. Too often groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are dealt with only as "terrorists" because they have used terroristic tactics without looking at the underlying support of these organizations and their position in the nation-state system. You've pointed out the basic realism of trying to deal with state and quasi-state entities by the most realistic possible means, that of careful and measured diplomacy, with both real compromise and responsible confrontation being essential to achieving a successful outcome for all. Thanks for a solid post.
Posted by Stwriley at 08/14/2006 @ 2:07pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 12:33am
An excellent clarification. Too often groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are dealt with only as "terrorists" because they have used terroristic tactics without looking at the underlying support of these organizations and their position in the nation-state system. You've pointed out the basic realism of trying to deal with state and quasi-state entities by the most realistic possible means, that of careful and measured diplomacy, with both real compromise and responsible confrontation being essential to achieving a successful outcome for all. Thanks for a solid post.
Posted by STWRILEY 08/14/2006 @ 2:07pm
Between the two of you, I've learned quite a lot in the last couple of days. Thanks, guys.
(Don't tell MBB, but I'm supposed to hate you because you're intelligent and you challenged some previously held opinions of mine...)
;)
Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 2:13pm
Posted by JHA321 08/14/2006 @ 1:45pm
What if we refuse to be gouged at the pump or refuse future debt on our kids, refuse to have our civil liberties removed, reject lying us to war, want improved social services or at least help during a disaster, have a real homeland security-- will that also be tied somehow to helping terrorist? I think 'we the people' have figured this 'new con' job out. It's a 'you're either with us or you're against us' form of totalitarianism that's ending this November.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 2:13pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 08/14/2006 @ 2:13pm
Agreed, it is refreshing to read substantially layered information focused toward nuanced solutions. The hsuB admin's ideas of nuance, like Rummy's ruminations, seem to meander through a field of arbitrary chaos without a destination. The rhetoric coming out of the hsuB admin seems as though they don't know there are such things as x-ray machines, they'd rather hack a person to death looking for the ailment than investigate in depth and get all the facts. No wonder it's hard to believe a word they say. They start with a conclusion to a fabrication and then makeup the facts. Ha.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 2:46pm
Some more facts as to why Cheney attacks democracy:
Wed Aug 9, 2006 3:41pm ET By Alister Bull
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Almost 2,000 bodies were taken to Baghdad's morgue in July, the highest tally in five months of rising sectarian bloodshed which has forced the United States to boost troop levels in the capital to head off a civil war.
Morgue assistant manager Doctor Abdul Razzaq al-Obaidi said on Wednesday that about 90 percent had died violently.
"Most of the cases have gunshot wounds to the head. Some of them were strangled and others were beaten to death with clubs," he told Reuters.
The grim statistics came as a new poll showed the Iraq war had become more unpopular with Americans and four Iraqis suspected of involvement in the abduction of American journalist Jill Carroll were arrested by coalition forces.
The CNN poll showed that 60 percent of Americans were against the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest level of opposition since the 2003 invasion, and a majority would back a partial withdrawal of U.S. forces by year's end.
Carroll was freed unharmed in March after 82 days in captivity. More than 200 foreigners and thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped since the 2003 invasion.
The daily drumbeat of violence continues, claiming at least 16 lives and injuring 37 others in attacks around the country.
In Baghdad, five people were killed when gunmen opened fire on a street vendor grilling fish in the western district of Jamiaa, an Interior Ministry source said. Police also found nine bodies of civilians in various parts of the capital.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 4:21pm
Then there are the Pro Repug, Anti-Lamont Network 'Newsmen'
Most are aware of CNN's 'newsman' Chuck Roberts in inimitable repug fashion, referring to Ned Lamont as the 'Al Queda candidate' on air the other day- as Ms Huffington lamented on CNN's Reliable Sources yesterday and on her blog today. This was followed (as if staged. . .hmm?) soon in the 'MSM' by the pro repug party questions/comment of replacement host of Face the Nation on CBS Sunday, Scott Kelly (big hair, fake suntan). Not only did his interview of Ned Lamont sound like it came straight from a repug press release, he even used the term 'democrat party' in at least one of his questions/comments!
As everyone knows, use of the phrase 'democrat party' instead of the proper 'Democratic Party' is an always used phrase of repug party operatives and pundits- exclusively till now (or is it that Kelly is just that. . .hmm?). This is done to purposefully to diminish and slur the legitimate name of the Democratic Party, called such for about 170 years now.
Of course, no one in the 'MSM' that I have noticed called CBS or Kelly on it. One could expect such terminology thrown around by the 'reporters' at Fox News, but CBS? So much for the 'liberal' media. . .
BLOG ON
Posted by tfnewkirk at 08/14/2006 @ 4:21pm
Don't forget about the far right AM radio talking nut-jobs-- the ones I heard are in way over the top attack mode on ‘liberals'. I listen in on occasion and recently they sound severely desperate. Everyone should start listening to the shrilliness going on and take note of the BS that's being tossed at the public as fact. The neocons are in full battle gear and taking no lefty (and/or fact/truth) prisoners. I smell fear, big time.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/14/2006 @ 5:21pm
I don't know why Cheney wasted his time "accusing " the left of helping ( supporting / defending / strengthening) al quaeda, when it's already common knowledge and fact! Furthermore, the conservatives on AM radio are at least smart enough to know that their party is in trouble, because they are! The republicans have betrayed their base on the border and this will cause considerable damage in Nov. The Dem's will pick up seat in congress, not by ideas or platform, but by default! i for one, am not voting for any republicans in Nov. ( I'm voting strictly Ind. )in order to send them a message! Hopefully they'll get that message by 08'!
Posted by barry25 at 08/14/2006 @ 5:59pm
Dick (America) Cheney gave classified war plans marked "No Foreign" to Saudi Nationalists...he should be facing a U.S. Military Tribunal, not classifying the United States Treasury Report.
Posted by worldpatriot at 08/14/2006 @ 7:06pm
How do you propose doing that? Is it abide by the election if we win and flaut the law if we lose? This isn't really the common agreement necessary for a country to exist.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/14/2006 @ 6:34pm
MBB,
Er, it was the beginning of a question directed at Cheney's tying Lamont's election to terrorist that you edited into a statement. (Or are you asking me how I'm to ask the question itself?) The rest of of my question and then paragraph you editted out:
--will that also be tied somehow to helping terrorist? I think 'we the people' have figured this 'new con' job out. It's a 'you're either with us or you're against us' form of totalitarianism that's ending this November.
Yet, you may be acknowledging that Cheney isn't abiding by the law necessary for a country to exist, if you're actually attempting to answer the question I posed. Or are you stating we indeed already live in a totalitarian state and public discourse, protest, picketing, is somehow illegal?
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2006 @ 03:20am
newdawn, i can't believe genies don't exist! damn. i was hoping to catch one some day....
hey darin, u r an ugly fat fag.
darla, i'm sorry but you've lost it. it's understandable. the state of the world and all....
eric, glad you are back.
whoever was asking about johannesrolf, was it crab? i don't remember. but he quit. maybe he'll come back. maybe he just needed a break.
tj, they don't get the brainaches because rush has them hypnotized to shut down and glaze over and mindlessly repeat the memorized talking points anytime a reasonable and rational thought even begins to approach their brain.
will, interesting ideas about iraq. and the all caps hamster must be ann, our idiot blogger of a thousand names.
lots of great info in this thread. i haven't finished reading it yet.
kinda sad about rese getting banned from posting.
Posted by loveloki at 08/16/2006 @ 02:49am
cheney is a jerk. he doesn't smile he sneers. leaders of our country- smirk and sneer. jerk and jerkoff.lot more to say but i can't type
Posted by bigbaddog at 08/16/2006 @ 6:33pm
when reason fails violence follows.cant reason with the unreasonable. cheney and bush should be dragged out and beaten.
Posted by bigbaddog at 08/16/2006 @ 6:43pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 08/16/2006 @ 02:49am
Glad you noticed.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 08/16/2006 @ 7:48pm
.
Remember Clinton was impeached because a foreign power knew his "secrets", and how many others in positions of authority are being intimidated by Israel??
Posted by RESE 08/17/2006 @ 07:31am |
Remember when Hillary described a "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?"
She was right.
Falwell Confirms Lewinsky Affair Linked to Israeli Lobby Intrigue
By Michael Collins Piper
Television evangelist Jerry Falwell couldn't resist bragging and finally admitting the truth: he and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu did conspire--at a critical time--to trip up President Bill Clinton and specifically use the pressure of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied West Bank.
Falwell's confession didn't make national news--as it should have. Instead, the preacher's confession came buried in a lengthy story in the December 2005 issue of Vanity Fair. Entitled "American Rapture" the article (by Craig Unger) described the long-standing and still-flourishing love affair between American dispensationalist evangelicals such as Falwell and the hardline Jewish extremist forces in Israel then under the leadership of Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.
The admission by Falwell confirms precisely what this author first revealed in a story published in The Spotlight on February 9, 1998 and later recounted in a lecture before the Arab League's official think tank, the Zayed Centre in Abu Dhabi, in March of 2003.
Although, following the lecture at the Zayed Centre, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, a lobby for Israel, denounced as a "bizarre conspiracy theory" the assertion by Falwell that the public unveiling of the Lewinsky affair forced Clinton to pull back on pressuring Israel confirmed exactly what was reported in documented detail in The Spotlight in an international exclusive.
Regarding Falwell's recounting of how he worked with Netanyahu in undermining Clinton's pressure on Israel, Vanity Fair reported:
On a visit to Washington, D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu hooked up with Jerry Falwell at the Mayflower Hotel the night before [Netanyahu's] scheduled meeting with Clinton. "I put together 1,000 people or so to meet with Bibi [Netanyahu] and he spoke to us that night," recalls Falwell. "It was all planned by Netanyahu as an affront to Mr. Clinton." . . . The next day, Netanyahu met with Clinton at the White House. "Bibi told me later," Falwell recalls, "that the next morning Bill Clinton said, ‘I know where you were last night." The pressure was really on Netanyahu to give away the farm in Israel. It was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal . . . . Clinton had to save himself, so he terminated the demands [to relinquish West Bank territory] that would have been forthcoming during that meeting, and would have been very bad for Israel." (END OF VANITY FAIR EXCERPT)
What Falwell did not mention--at least as reported by Vanity Fair--is that his meeting with the Israeli leader took place on the very evening before the mass media in America broke open the Monica Lewinsky scandal with much fanfare. Nor did Falwell mention--as this author pointed out at the time-- was that one of Netanyahu's leading American media publicists, neo-conservative power broker, William Kristol, the first American media figure to publicly hint (in the days before the scandal was officially unveiled) that there were forthcoming revelations regarding a White House sex scandal that was about to be unleashed.
In addition, this author pointed out that at least six days before the first news of the Lewinsky scandal began breaking in the media at midnight on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, an advertisement appeared in the January 15 edition of the distinguished Washington Jewish Week newspaper accusing President Clinton of having "turned his back on Israel."
What made the advertisement so striking was that it used a rear view of President Clinton (first captured on video in 1996) that had never been published but which, in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal, became very familiar. It was a view of the president, his back to the camera, clearly taken from the video in which he was seen hugging the soon-to-be infamous Miss Lewinsky when she was in a receiving line at the White House some two years before. This was an image that Miss Lewinsky had bragged about among her associates prior to the time that the scandal broke. So clearly, Clinton's critics among the hard-line pro-Netanyahu forces in the United States--who sponsored the advertisement in question--were already tuned in to the fact of the Lewinsky-Clinton liaison and of the fact that it was soon to be unleashed against the president to undermine him.
This author can now reveal, for the first time, that two figures at the very highest level of the Clinton White House were personally given copies of The Spotlight's articles regarding these matters and that, at the time, they quietly acknowledged that the articles were "probably right."
The fact that Jerry Falwell's acknowledgment of how the Lewinsky affair was used as a club against Clinton--in tandem with "Bibi" Netanyahu's appearance at the White House, following the meeting with Falwell--was published in Vanity Fair is interesting in and of itself. That magazine is owned by the far-flung publishing empire of the billionaire Newhouse brothers ("Si" and Donald) whom Forbes dubbed the 25th richest family in America and who are known to be generous contributors to the Anti-Defamation League and other elements of the pro-Israel lobby.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_MichaelCollinsPiper3.htm
Posted by plunger at 08/17/2006 @ 09:18am
Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky – "Swallows" for Israel.
Isn't it interesting that Lieberman's name pops up in the case of two similar-looking tarts, who were "Honey Pots" (or "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?
Note that his article dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.
Police to return to parks in Levy case Experts: Condit damaged own reputation
July 22, 2001 Posted: 6:07 PM EDT (2207 GMT)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said it wouldn't be productive to focus on Condit's conduct. In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to criticize Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Lieberman said the two matters are different and he declined to say whether Condit should resign, as two Republican lawmakers have said.
"The Chandra Levy case is a missing persons case. And I think we all ought to let the law-enforcement authorities focus on finding Chandra Levy and relieving the terrible trauma and nightmare that her family and friends have gone through," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday. "And when that is over, politicians can begin to speak out."
Saturday, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney, said Cheney met with Condit around the same time Levy was logging off her computer in her apartment May 1.
Juleanna Glover Weiss said the meeting happened between 12:30 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. in Cheney's office in the House of Representatives. The meeting was "at Condit's request," she said, and included Cheney and some of Cheney's staff discussing the California energy crisis.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html
CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT TO PROTECT THE 9/11 OPERATION?
Posted by plunger at 08/17/2006 @ 09:20am
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2005/10/butcher-of-new-orleans.html
"The FBI-Justice move [to take over the investigation], pushed by DOJ Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff and Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, has enraged Homeland Security officials, however. They accuse the bureau [Chertoff] of sabotaging Greenquest investigations--by failing to turn over critical information to their agents--and trying to obscure a decadelong record of lethargy [actually criminal obstruction] in which FBI offices failed to aggressively pursue terror-finance cases.
"They (the FBI) won't share anything with us," said a Homeland Security official. "Then they go to the White House and they accuse us of not sharing … If they can't take it over, they want to kill it."
This is a clear indication that the enemy is inside the gates. The "incompetence theory" that somehow the top levels of the intelligence bureaus keep repeatedly "failing" is a sad farce.
The nonsense that they sell to the ignorant public is that this is a "turf war" between agencies, a childish rivalry that seems to enable spectacular acts of terrorism here, which are conveniently the pretexts for serial wars in the oil-rich middle east, long a neo-con wet dream.
The people who get caught time and again in "failures" which directly help the alleged "terrorists" get promoted inside this regime, up to the highest positions that the federal government has to offer. Look up "David Frasca" on Google for more about that phenomenon.
Chertoff's "investigation" (sic) covered up the terrorist financing so well that the Kean 9-11 Commission could write in its report:
"Similarly we have seen no evidence that any foreign government--or foreign government official--supplied any funding."
Well that's odd, seeing how the head of Pakistani Intelligence was forced to step down when FBI agents confirmed to Indian intelligence that the Pakistani ISI chief had ordered a $100,000 wire transfer to alleged lead hijacker Mohammad Atta. This was ftont page news in India, and was reported in several venues here. Not a word about ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad appears in any of the 9-11 reports. This news story makes the 9-11 Commission Report a bald faced lie.
Chertoff also had a hand in drafting the PATRIOT ACT.
Washington Post: "In meetings with the White House, Chertoff pushed for expanded powers to conduct secret searches, steps that civil libertarians have challenged with some success in federal court. ("Democracy," a federal judge wrote recently in striking down such a provision, "abhors undue secrecy.") Chertoff labored to dismantle barriers that kept intelligence agencies from sharing information with local law enforcement agencies."
So Who Is This Chertoff Guy?
If you're a 9-11 researcher, then you already know that: "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece." The cousin goes by the name of Benjamin Chertoff, whom the Hearst (yellow journalism inc.) publication Popular Mechanics made the "senior researcher" for the piece. This Popular Mechanics article was so ridiculously bad, that it claimed:
Popular Mechanics: "In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."
If you're not laughing out loud, it's probably because you're crying out loud.
.
Posted by plunger at 08/17/2006 @ 09:35am
Posted by LOVELOKI 08/16/2006 @ 02:49am
Missed ya, ma'am.
And I've seen Johanne just very recently, if I recall right...
Posted by New Dawn at 08/17/2006 @ 12:03pm
REESE - Plunger;
This much mental masterbation is dangerous to your health! You may chafe some brain cells! You guys need to get a life! No one is reading all your crap but you!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/17/2006 @ 1:58pm