Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTo bomb or not to bomb Iran, that's the question the Bush Administration appears to be debating these days, once again revealing the extraordinary disconnect between the White House and the American people. With a catastrophic occupation of Iraq and polls showing the American public so skeptical about the use of military force that only eight percent support military action against Iran, there is nevertheless a clear and present danger that Cheney and the neocons will again prevail and lead this Administration into another disastrous military misadventure.
The parallels between now and the run-up to the Iraq War are troubling. Nobel Peace Prize-winner Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who warned the Bush administration in 2003 about the lack of a nuclear program in Iraq and was subsequently attacked for his position by the Bush machine, the neocons and by many in the mainstream media, has now struck a deal with Iran to answer questions about its nuclear program within a defined timeline and improve access for inspectors. ElBaradei has called for a "double time-out" of all enrichment activities and new sanctions.
The result of ElBaradei's attempt to shed light on Iran's nuclear program? More attacks by the Bush administration. More outright hit jobs like this one from the Washington Post, or even the more subtle shading by the New York Times that ultimately portrays ElBaradei as a dictatorial loon. The result is, once again, an amplifying of the Administration's drumbeat calling for war.
What is really needed right now – as was the case in 2003 – is for ElBaradei and the IAEA to be given a fair hearing and support. As Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of Bomb Scare, says, "ElBaradei is doing what any diplomatic leader should do: talking directly to a nation to find a way to resolve difficult issues short of the use of force… He's painfully aware of the lessons of the pre-Iraq War period. Then, he was convinced that there was no evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. He told the UN Security Council that in his reports of January and March 2003. But could he have done more to prevent a disastrous and unnecessary war? Weren't others too quiet, too complacent to stay in their assigned roles? He does not want to see this happen again, with even more catastrophic consequences."
Had ElBaradei's work been heeded before, imagine the treasure, the lives – not to mention our international reputation an security – that would have been saved. But instead of learning from the current tragedy in Iraq, and taking responsibility, this administration continues to build on its legacy of arrogance and the media once again accepts the Administration line or fails to ask tough questions – making it more difficult for the IAEA to play the vital role that it could.
"Administration officials, including Secretary Rice, attacked the credibility of the director-general [in 2003] too," Cirincione says. "The Washington Post also blasted ElBaradei on his Iraq assessment. They were dead wrong. But this hasn't stopped them from attacking with guns blazing again. ElBaradei's record is far better on these issues than either the secretary of state's or the Washington Post's. You would think they would have some humility given the magnitude of their past mistakes. But some people have no shame."
In an excellent piece for Salon.com , Steven Clemons, Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, lays out the efforts by Cheney and the neocons to promote a strike against Iran by either Israel or the US – perhaps through "some kind of ‘accidental'… contrived confrontation." A former administration official suggested to Clemons that Bush has now received a memo on "a bleak binary choice" – either take military action against Iran or accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. According to the official, Rice was to develop a "third option," but the official predicted that option would be "a corpse." "I don't see how we come out of this without military action," the official said.
Cirincione takes issue with the binary, either/or option. "US hardliners are presenting a false, binary choice: either Iran buckles under the pressure of sanctions, or the US will be forced to attack," he says. "Since they don't believe Iran will shut down its enrichment plant, then we must attack. This logic is the result of another false choice: either we attack Iran or Iran will get a nuclear bomb. Missing from the equation is direct US-Iran negotiations. The sanctions are having an impact, but it's a mistake to believe that sanctions alone can compel a nation to comply or collapse. They never have. Sanctions can be a prod towards a negotiated compromise. What is missing now is the direct US-Iranian talks that could forge such a compromise. ElBaradei is opening up that option. His lead should be followed by the United States, not scorned…. At the very least, we should try talking to a nation before we attack it."
The fulminations of Ahmadinejad against Israel aren't to be ignored. As Richard Falk reported in The Nation last year, "Such hostility [as Ahmadinejad's] would agitate the security concerns of any state, especially one that has faced threats throughout its history, as has Israel." But, as Falk and others have pointed out, the reality regarding Iran as a nuclear threat needs to be looked at squarely. Representative Dennis Kucinich has been at the forefront of that effort, as was evident in a hearing he conducted in October 2006 which I wrote about here. Distinguished witnesses at that hearing – including Cirincione, former IAEA/UNSCOM Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector, Dr. David Kay, and Colonel Sam Gardiner (Ret.) – agreed that Iran is at least 5 years, but more likely 10 or more years, away from producing weapons-grade nuclear materials.
And then there are the consequences of a strike against Iran. As Cirincione testified at the Kucinich hearing, "If you like the war in Iraq, wait until you see the war in Iran. It will be a massive, global war." Among the possible outcomes Falk listed in his Nation piece: "a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy"; a deep, worldwide recession as Iran – the world's 4th largest oil producer – embargoes its oil; the strengthening of "Islamist tendencies throughout the region" and the hand of hardliners in Iran. And Clemons writes of the probable military response by Iran in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both; "the reaction of the other world major powers [that] would be at best reserved"; and the destabilizing impact and popular unrest that would occur in Muslim countries with significant Shia minorities. Finally, there is the question of how effective any attack would be given that the Iranians have dispersed nuclear sites that are underground.
So what should be done exactly? Not what the Bush Administration --along with its compliant European allies like France and Germany --is trying to do. On the eve of the UN General Assembly meetings in New York, the Washington Post reports that a new "coalition of the willing" will work to impose broader military and economic sanctions against Iran-- in what a Western diplomat dubbed a kind of "sanctions of the willing."
Instead, Cirincione argues, "We should learn from the North Korean and Libyan experience. Both were determined foes of the United States, both had weapons programs the US wanted to stop, both were subjected to sanctions and US pressure. But it was only when the United States began direct talks with these nations that we were able to develop a diplomatic path to end these programs. The Libya model is the polar opposite of the Iraq model: instead of invading a nation to change a regime, you negotiate with a nation to change the regime's behavior. North Korea is a more difficult case than Libya, but the same approach shows signs of working there as well. Iran is the most difficult case of all, but direct dialogue with the pragmatists could very well produce a compromise that satisfies the security concerns of both Iran and the United States."
Additionally, as the IAEA marks its 50th Anniversary this year, and ElBaradei once again attempts to instill a measure of sanity into a dangerous game of brinksmanship, we should focus on ways to support the IAEA mission and make it as effective as possible. John Holum, who served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said recently, "We rely on the IAEA to safeguard nuclearmaterial in facilities all over the world. Yet the IAEA has never spent in excess of 120 million US dollars in any year to administer its worldwide nuclear materials inspection regime. At less than what the US spends per day in Iraq, the safety of the world is dramatically compromised."
Ultimately, the international community needs to work in conjunction with the IAEA to secure real nonproliferation of weapons – and as Falk pointed out in his Nation article, that means multilateral nuclear disarmament: "… It is disastrous folly to suppose that some will agree to live forever beneath the nuclear Sword of Damocles without trying to obtain such weapons themselves." In the meantime, while the Bush administration plays cowboy at the expense of global security – and influential newspapers like the Washington Post hurl hit jobs at el-Baradei, Congress should follow the wise advice of The Nation's defense correspondent, Michael Klare, who wrote in the magazine that legislation should be passed banning the use of federal funds for any attacks on Iran or Syria without prior authorization.
Most importantly, we need to confront the insanity of a military confrontation with Iran.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Here's the key part-
"So what should be done exactly? Not what the Bush Administration --along with its compliant European allies like France and Germany --is trying to do."
Bush knows he doesn't have the 'street cred' back home to pull off an Iran attack scenario...UNLESS he gets some CYA, in this case, Europeans saying "Go for it. We'll back your play!"
Unlike Iraq, where they smartly didn't support the invasion...France and Germany are so scared of a nuclear blackmail (or just power brokerage) from Iran, they'll support strikes and lots of them.
With that kind of "international support", Bush will be able to say "Hey, it's not me...or Cheney. Sarkozy and good ol' Angie Merkel (and Gordon Brown of course) want it. You peaceniks want to complain to somebody, complain to your pals the Europeans!"
And Congressional Dems (and a few Presidential candidates) will have THEIR CYA to support it (or atleast not oppose it)...
and the shit will hit the fan, folks (sorry for the French...literally) just like Ms. vanden Heuvel outlined. The Carter economy will seem like the Good Ol' Days compared to what we'll get with a full-blown war with Iran....and the chaos and casualty count in Iraq, will seem like Grenada or Haiti.
Posted by Mask at 09/23/2007 @ 10:15pm
Wow Grisham's afraid of no pc. Bad people with evil intents? No, actions. Read this.
--------
Grisham slams war, tells book's Iowa ties BRYCE MILLER September 21, 2007
Best-selling author John Grisham, taking his first major public step in presidential politics by planning to host an event Sunday near his home in Charlottesville, Va., for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the current administration is built around "bad people with evil intent" and contends President Bush played politics as thousands died in Iraq.
Posted by HelenDAO at 09/23/2007 @ 10:23pm
I think we need to pull out our bush to English, English to bush dictionary on this one. Does bush really intend to bomb Iran or is his goal to bomb in Iran.
much like he bombed in Iraq...
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 10:36pm
and bombed in Afghanistan...
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 10:36pm
I think he even bombed at clearing brush. It's practically taking over the ranch.
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 10:37pm
Mask is probably right about the Brits supporting Bush bombing Iran, but what happens if they don't?
Will we starting drinking Freedom Breakfast Tea and eating Freedom Muffins in the morning?
Will we change the name of our language to "Freedom"? There's something really Orwellian and creepy about that.
Posted by green2006 at 09/23/2007 @ 10:41pm
Posted by MASK 09/23/2007 @ 10:15pm
if thats the deal with france and germany...maybe its time they start allocating more gigantic chunks of their gnp to buuild the militaries...that can bomb iran on their own...
i dont think we're going to do anything. i thing bush is playing a game of bluff..."you know i'm crazy, wicked, and stoopid! you know what i' capable of...uh...uh..."
STOOPID LIKE A FOX!
oh man, he IS captain lameduck...lamebrain...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 10:53pm
he's a wartime pres...a decider...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 10:54pm
and he owns the largest collection of GI Joe dolls east of the pecos
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 10:58pm
(dick cheney actually owns the largest collection of GI Joe dolls west of the pecos)
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 10:58pm
Hey, the guy from Iran is here...
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:04pm
I seriously doubt that there will be any attack on Iran.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/23/2007 @ 11:00pm
Remember at the end of shaun of the dead when george I mean ed puts the money in the jukebox. Now imagine george I mean ed sitting in the oval office.
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:05pm
yah...chimpy really is something of a figgerhed...did you see that last national speech? did you catch how (badly) edited it was? jeez...
if it werent for the magic of editting theyed have to eventually pull ole iron dick out of his daytime resting place below the white house and shove him in our faces...
but i'll take a mushmouth in my face anyday over a...richard...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 11:07pm
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:04pm
yup...lets send him out on a hunting trip with dick...that could start a war...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 11:10pm
but I'll take a mushmouth in my face anyday over a...richard...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/23/2007 @ 11:07pm
what really funny is that in his last press conference the chimp started looking more and more like his characature. He barely opened his mouth when he talked and that action totally made that sharp point in the middle of his upper lip jump right out at you while he pucker mumbled.
it was like I was looking at a political cartoon.
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:15pm
Oh my god it was funny
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:16pm
actually it makes bush look like a pussy
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:17pm
"yup...lets send him out on a hunting trip with dick...that could start a war..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/23/2007 @ 11:10pm
IBB, where you been?
I got one better, let's serve him a slab of Texas ribs...(hehe)
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:22pm
conservatives hate being laughed at. Laughter (at them) dangerously bruises their gargantuan yet delicate egos
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:22pm
I got one better, let's serve him a slab of Texas ribs...(hehe)
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:22pm
yikes, are they really that bad?
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:23pm
"yikes, are they really that bad?"
Posted by WILL C. 09/23/2007 @ 11:23pm
They're absolutely great!! Ya know porky pig ain't popular over there.
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:26pm
KVH: Most importantly, we need to confront the insanity of a military confrontation with Iran.
An Islamist nation that disperses and hides its nuclear facilities underground, at considerable expense and subterfuge, can be assumed to be prepared to go eyeball-to-eyeball with anybody and quite possibly to actually go to war! The so-called European powers have already been humiliated after years of absolutely USELESS `negotiations'....one possible reason for such futility could well be that Iran (and everybody else) knew Old Europe won't risk war......one wild guess for Iranian `smarts': that Old Europe didn't even join in the Iraq War, a rather `easy war' to be a minor player/supporter!
The US needs to engage the Iranians but it must be made clear (to the world) that the use of multilateral force remains an option....withOUT that option, I just don't see Iran backing down...it has too much to WIN by having nuclear weapons and it does NOT believe the West (& Israel) will go to war w/it AT THIS TIME! Had the Iraq War gone well, Iran may well have adopted the Libayan approach and actually limit its nuclear activities to above-ground energy productions!
I still don't believe BushCo will go to war w/Iran but the critical "binary" point could well be around the time when the next POTUS assumes power! Subject could also heat up during the General Election campaign! Can't wait to see what Queenie's take will be!
Posted by Happy at 09/23/2007 @ 11:27pm
they grow steers in texas dummy
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:28pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/23/2007 @ 11:16pm | ignore this person Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/23/2007 @ 11:20pm | ignore this person
ahmadinejad is a very intelligent man...wish he werent so "kill israel", but maybe, possibly if we would negotiate with him and ratchet down the insulting cowboy rhetoric a bit...act and treat with a little reasonable dignity...who knows? but if that wouldn't do any good at least we could say we honestly tried...
i hope your girl is what you say/think she is. i ranted on her pretty hard earlier today.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 11:29pm
An Islamist nation that disperses and hides its nuclear facilities underground, at considerable expense and subterfuge, can be assumed to be prepared to go eyeball-to-eyeball with anybody and quite possibly to actually go to war!
Posted by HAPPY 09/23/2007 @ 11:27pm
we disperse and hide out nuclear facilties underground(and underwater) at considerable expense and subterfuge. Is that why we are prepared to go eyeball-to-eyeball with anybody and quite possibly to actually go to war!
(gasp)
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:31pm
"Anybody catch Hillary on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. She laughed in his face on almost every other question. It was priceless. She did a better number on Wallace than Bill did a few months ago. You can check out part of the show on huffpost."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/23/2007 @ 11:20pm
No, Frank, we have lives to live. Nobody I know likes her including my looney lefty associates. Even they won't vote for her.
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:32pm
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:22pm
oh i've been right here...way too much, acook. hows your son? prayors for him, by the way.
it would be nice if we tried to talk with him...who knows?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 11:33pm
hey get this, conservatives don't watch fox news because they have lives to live.
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:34pm
"they grow steers in texas dummy"
Posted by WILL C. 09/23/2007 @ 11:28pm
I wasn't talkin about beef...
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:36pm
I wasn't talkin about beef...
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:36pm
you were talking about texas ribs
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:38pm
it was interesting during the 60 minutes interview tonight with ahmadinijad when yankee doodle dandy the reporter guy started grilling him and whatshisname reminded the reporter guy that they were not in guantanamo...
dude aint dumb...nor weak...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/23/2007 @ 11:39pm
"oh i've been right here...way too much, acook. hows your son? prayors for him, by the way."
"it would be nice if we tried to talk with him...who knows?"
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/23/2007 @ 11:33pm
In the words of my son "Ma, bc is kickin my a**!!!"
Thank you IBB for asking and for your prayers.
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:50pm
"you were talking about texas ribs"
Posted by WILL C. 09/23/2007 @ 11:38pm
Should I have said Texas "pork" ribs?
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:51pm
Should I have said Texas "pork" ribs?
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:51pm
Texas "pork" ribs. Hmmm, never heard of them.
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:53pm
"Texas "pork" ribs. Hmmm, never heard of them."
Posted by WILL C. 09/23/2007 @ 11:53pm
Have you ever been to a rib cook-off! Those Texans usually take home first prize. And, those ribs will melt in your mouth.
Posted by ACook at 09/23/2007 @ 11:56pm
Have you ever been to a rib cook-off! Those Texans usually take home first prize.
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:56pm
and that's not entirely surprising when the cook off is in Texas
Posted by Will C. at 09/23/2007 @ 11:59pm
Posted by ACOOK 09/23/2007 @ 11:56pm
i've always liked the vinager based sauce...its mustard around here for the most part, which i like too, but the vinager based is so yummy.
bc is no fun indeed. keep reminding him its not as long as it seems...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 12:00am
"and that's not entirely surprising when the cook off is in Texas
Posted by WILL C. 09/23/2007 @ 11:59pm
For the most part, but they do have rib cook-offs in other states. Perhaps you may want to check your state or local city websites to find out when the next cook-off is.
Posted by ACook at 09/24/2007 @ 12:06am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 12:00am
Ummm, you're making me hungry...
Posted by ACook at 09/24/2007 @ 12:08am
Ahmed the Iranian dwarf. One thinks at best he is a Bush's clone and at worst a test site for Uncle Sam's new WMD. How many divisions you say he has? Led him in and show him our lifestyle. Maybe he will change for good and no bombs needed.
-----------
Ahmadinejad Arrives for New York Visit Sunday, September 23, 2007 8:41 PM
NEW YORK -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York to protests Sunday and said in a television interview that Iran was neither building a nuclear bomb nor headed to war with the United States.
Posted by HelenDAO at 09/24/2007 @ 12:08am
For the most part, but they do have rib cook-offs in other states. Perhaps you may want to check your state or local city websites to find out when the next cook-off is.
Posted by ACOOK 09/24/2007 @ 12:06am
or.... I can just cook me up some ribs
Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2007 @ 12:11am
Posted by ACOOK 09/24/2007 @ 12:08am
making myself hungry...too late for that...
ok...gotta stop blabbing here before i get so revved up i cant go to sleep and end up eating soething that cant possibly be as good as the spicey vinigar saucey ribs i'm thinking about now...
who started this dammit? lol...nity nite acook, all...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 12:18am
I think he even bombed at clearing brush. It's practically taking over the ranch.
Posted by WILL C. 09/23/2007 @ 10:37pm
MAYBE BUSH JUST ISN'T TAKING ENOUGH VACAY...
To clear that brush.... (But did you really want to use the word "bombed" in this context?....)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 12:34am
What is always and completely missing from an article about bombing Iran is the Iranian view. Put yourself in the country for moment if you will. You neighboring country has just been invaded based on a pack of lies by a bunch of infidels and now is being occupied with no end in site. Over a 100,000 people are dead with 2 million refugees stressing the economies of neighboring countries. Iranians would be crazy not to want to have a nuclear weapon at their disposal. Israel has nuclear weapons so why wouldn't Iran want them. The IAEA says that they have no program to produce weapons and so what if they did. If they ever used a nuclear weapon they would be utterly destroyed by the west in a heartbeat. Iran is a young country demographically. Negotiation is the only way to move forward. Bombing the country only turns the youth who will someday run the country against the United States and will only fuel more hate, outrage and the inevitable recruitment of more terrorists. Just as has happened in Iraq. Bush has already set the country back perhaps a decade or more with his failed Policy in Iraq. Are Americans stupid enough to allow another failure in Iran. I believe they are!!!!
Posted by buzolibre at 09/24/2007 @ 02:13am
http://youmob.com/mob.aspx?cookietest=true&mob=http%3a%2f%2ffoxattacks.c om%2fblog%2f11968-the-best-compilation-of-bush-administration-lies-about -iraq-i-ve-ever-seen%3fplay%3d1
I forget who it was who said the other day (MARYBRETBRAD, perhaps) that we went into Iraq for "freedom" or some such nonsense, and that we didn't really go into Iraq because of WMDs or links to Al Qaeda.
I would challenge anyone who thinks we didn't get sold a false bill of sale on this boondoggle to watch the above video. Pretty self-explanatory, how much the Bush administration lies.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/24/2007 @ 03:44am
It's pretty pathetic that our own government won't even attempt diplomacy with Iran but a major University like Columbia will have a sitdown with Ahmadinejad tomorrow. Makes Bush look pretty weak.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/23/2007 @ 11:16pm
Yeah, sure. Tolerant, open-minded, thought-provoking, nuanced...until you consider the fact that Columbia has an outright ban on the ROTC on campus. (That's the US ROTC). Then they just look like fascist enablers who have taken a stand on which side they support. Seems like we've become a little loose in our qualifications for Federal funding in our institutions. And Ahmadinejad is playing them like a fiddle. Much like liberalism/socialism is advanced today, the fascists and their ideas gain traction through incrementalism.
Such is life in our un-accountable University system.
Posted by Sliver at 09/24/2007 @ 08:04am
Such is life in our un-accountable University system.----Posted by SLIVER 09/24/2007 @ 08:04am
SLIVER, a university is accountable. If people don't like its policies, they don't send their kids to it.
It's called the "free market".
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 08:55am
Iran is surrounded by hostile nuclear states: Israel and Pakistan. If I were leader of Iran, I would do what is best for the security of my country. Israel began the nuclear arms race in the mideast. Israel is again manipulating the U.S. into a stupid war. The Democrats in Congress are scared shitless of AIPAC, and won't oppose an attack on Iran. Israel fears a nuclear Iran not because of the threat of a nuclear attack(Iran is not suicidal),but because a strong Iran limits Israeli military aggression.
Posted by philbq at 09/24/2007 @ 09:10am
I think a good bombing of Iran will lift everyone's spirits.
Posted by abell12ct at 09/24/2007 @ 09:15am
Nationalism is an euphorically intoxicating brew here in the "wild west show" we call America. I don't blame some few reactionary Columbia students for protesting Ahmadindjad's speaking. What's far worse, and what adds to the anxiety about what this traitorous executive has and is doing, is the "framing" of Iran's populist president as "scheming(!?) to VISIT ground zero" by the MSM's CBS interviewer on 60 Minutes last night. Talk about your loaded questions amidst a prejudicially attacking style of inquisition!
There's a term for this in debate. Something like agenda-setting. When did you begin hating we freedom loving Americans? When did you begin planning to build nuclear weapons?
It would be laughable if it weren't so scarey, especially given the propaganda we progressive peace promoters were pummelled with in late '02 and early '03.
Of course, "holocaust denial" is execrable as well. But, I'd bet the Iranian's opinions are far from the "Hitler didn't exist" nonsense the adversarial inquisitor implied is his position. At least one scholar opined that History with a capital "H" ceased to exist with the enactment of the "final solution" by the governmentally legitimized fascists in Deutschland. The point is that history is a narrative whose power derives from the spouting, not from the unheard rebuttal.
Thanks, KVH, for continuing to inform.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/24/2007 @ 09:16am
Let's remember that Ahmedinejad is NOT the supreme leader of Iran. For example, he has no power over Iran's military. The supreme military commander is (and has been since 1989) the Supreme Revolutionary Leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei. The Council of Guardians, all of them Shiite clerics whom Khamenei has the right to appoint, also limits Ahmedinejad's power.
I will never say that theocracy is a great form of government, but in the case of Iran I believe we can take advantage of the fact that Ahmedinejad, who is arguably a little mentally unhinged, does not govern alone. Good grief, the man may even lose in the next Iranian election -- unless US-American hawks are stupid enough to make Ahmedinejad into a Churchill-like figure by sending in the bombers.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/24/2007 @ 09:23am
You are right JAKOBFABIAN. We need to bomb Khameni!
Posted by abell12ct at 09/24/2007 @ 09:27am
Dear "Lewwelge,"
Not to quibble with Columbia University or with your claim that our sensationally stupid media are once again beating the drums of war, but I believe that even a HINT of Holocaust denial is enough to indicate that Ahmedinejad is either a very nasty man or a little mentally unhinged, as I suggested in my last posting. Surely this man ought to understand that he will win no friends in Europe with this kind of anti-Semitic posturing.
Indeed, I believe the tough talk from France's Nicholas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel -- to which "Mask" alluded in his post -- is largely a response to Ahmedinejad's flirtation with Holocaust denial.
I do not of course believe that the Europeans themselves seriously want to wage war with Iran. Unlike US-Americans, Europeans generally assume an attitude of "been there, done that" with regard to wars that even LOOK imperialistic.
At the same time, though, I am sure that many Europeans, like many of us, would agree with "Abell12CT" that bombing Iran would "lift [their] spirits." Sure, it would, but not for long!
The Europeans would of course let the USA do the bombing, just as they would let the USA deal with the very violent, very costly, and very long-lasting consequences of this bombing. If Iraq is a quagmire, then Iran is the gaping maw of Charybdis. Please, let's not go there.
Let's talk to the mullahs instead. Does anyone remember that they are all Shiites who HATE Al-Qaeda?
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/24/2007 @ 09:50am
Interesting facts Jakobfabian. Thank you.
And, again, war is NOT the answer! Impeach Cheney first, please.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/24/2007 @ 09:50am
Dear "Abell12CT,"
If only bombs were bullets, indeed unerring magical bullets, then we COULD bomb Ahmedinejad and spare Khamenei -- which would make more sense than the converse, which you suggested. Indeed, we could perhaps even bomb all military combatants and spare all the civilians. Heck, we could just bomb Osama bin Laden and leave the rest of Pakistan intact.
Wouldn't that be nice! But maybe you've noticed that reality doesn't work that way...?
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/24/2007 @ 09:56am
Well, one HOPEFUL thing, the polls show that even the "29% Club" that still support Bush and the war in Iraq...don't all support hitting Iran....
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which comes closer to your opinion? Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran is a threat that can be contained with diplomacy now. OR, Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time."
MilitaryAction Now --- 9%
Diplomacy Now --- 59%
Not a Threat --- 24%
Unsure --- 8%
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 09:58am
Sure, Jakob, not to isolate/identify Hitler as History's incarnation of Evil is to descend into the rabbit hole and enter the "looking glass" where Rese argues Satan reigns from the Vatican stronghold of the Jesuits, Rome.
The former bestselling book "The Rule of Four" stated the powers of intolerance have been impeded only when they've gone to extremes of "correction" and censorship/oppression. "Self ownership" or libertarianism or "bill of rights" freedoms or the historically liberal/progressive and "natural rights law" philosophy of "live and let live," or, more radically, living according to the precept contained in the "Golden Rule," is routinely challenged/curtailed by autocratic oligarchs who worship the Mammon of "order."
That last from my two-thirds reading of the #1 NY Times bestselling "A Thousand Splendid Suns," albeit the positives of the male sex are, to that point, only represented by one one-legged character, Tarik, who...well; suffice it to say we males are not portrayed very positively as a group/population.
A necessary "correction" perhaps.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/24/2007 @ 10:12am
Look at the "outrage" they're stirring up about Achmedinejad speaking at Columbia. They're just dying to make him into another Hitler -- and you know what that will justify.
Posted by daloway at 09/24/2007 @ 10:32am
The Deans at Columbia's Law AND Business Schools both posted comments AGAINST their university's hosting AhmaDineInYourJeans! Good to know some sanity exists at Leftist U.!
Posted by Happy at 09/24/2007 @ 10:48am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 10:47am
Actually, FRANK, I'd be more interested in your take on this....
By MARY BRUCE Sept. 23, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said this morning that she will not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. (my bolds)
www.abcnews.go.com
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 10:50am
"I hope that after the nomination is locked up, the dems will stop shooting themselves in the foot and get behind Hillary. If they do, Hillary will win the Presidential election in a landslide and she will turn some red states blue. She's the real deal."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 11:12am
Remember to call your physician if this lasts longer than four hours...
Posted by drhammer at 09/24/2007 @ 12:00pm
Let's see, let Iran, with the support of China, Develope nuclear weapons. (Do just a tiny bit of research and you find that China openly supports Irans Nuclear Weapons program. China has warheads in the 1-5 megaton range and are sharing the manufacturing techniques with Iran.) So, does the rest of the world sit back and let Iran develop these weapons for themselves, and share these weapons with other nations? Or, do we destroy their ability to produce these weapons, by ourselves in necessary.
If they can be persuaded to dismantle their weapons program diplomaticly, then diplomacy should be all that's necessary. But looking at Iran's recent history, the chance of them giving up the program is about as likely as Jamaica invading France. So we can sit back and watch a country like Iran develope the bomb, and then use it on thier neighbors, and give it to terrorists. Or we do what is necessary to protect the rest of the world.
Posted by stedler at 09/24/2007 @ 12:02pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 09/24/2007 @ 12:00pm
ROFLMAO!!!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 12:04pm
Posted by STEDLER 09/24/2007 @ 12:02pm
So, STEDLER, would you consider yourself part of the "9% Club"?
Ref: Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 09:58am
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 12:05pm
I think Bush and Cheney have completely lost it - if they ever had it. There have been mad men throughout history who have led their people to the point of extinction, and B/C may be doing the same.
It's almost like they're on the path to self-destruction and quite willing to take the rest of us, or the world, with them.
Even Napolean who began as a brilliant military strategist and ended defeated by a Russian winter - which he knew ahead of time would defeat him. Hitler knew he couldn't conquer and hold all of Europe. The brilliant Japanese admirals and generals knew Japan could not conquer and hold the entire Far East.
The folly is that assured defeat has never stopped or perhaps never will stop those marching to rule the world.
Posted by felicity at 09/24/2007 @ 12:19pm
BTW, since this has degenerated into a RESE and ZERO spam-fest...something to keep in mind about both these guys (or gal, since RESE says "I am not a man")---
1. ZERO thinks Daniel Pearl got what was coming to him and his killers only "quote" "terrorists"--
BLOG | Posted 06/25/2007 @ 2:23pm Comments for "Dying For Press Freedom" by Lakshmi Chaudhry
But, that would require more than cheerleading for a rich white man from the WSJ, who was killed by "terrorists". Such a film, covering the Palestine Hotel, would have to cause us to ask about how it is that we are no different than Pearl's killers.----Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 4:04pm
Why, with all of this to work with, did Hollywood choose to cover unrepentant right-wing Daniel Pearl?---Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 4:14pm
2. RESE promised to "shut up" by April---
BLOG | Posted 01/25/2007 @ 12:52am Comments for "Edging Impeachment Back Onto the Table" by John Nichols
When, say, March-ish, maybe April 2008 rolls around and it becomes legislatively, much less politically, IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Bush and Cheney and they are inevitably going to finish out their 2nd terms and leave on Inauguration Day January 2009..... what are you going to say about them and why will it matter? ----Posted by MASK 01/26/2007 @ 08:44am
"By then then will have Nuked and invaded Iran. The Draft will be in operation, probably Martial law too and no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" ----Posted by RESE 01/26/2007 @ 1:18pm
I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!---Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 12:19pm
ahmedinijad seems to be craving diplomacy with the USA, and not just to buy time for all his nefarious plots (its iran...everything they even contemplate MUST be nefarious since they are part of the axis of evil! ah, self serving circlejerk logic of the rightwingnut!)
yeah, as yankee doodle dandy the reporter was playing for the rightwing and the camera in his best mike wallace imitation, i could not help but think (oops...dont want to do too uch of that...could lead to non pack herd conclusions, which is dangerous!)
"sir...your actions are killing americans..." and what have our actions in iraq done to hundreds of thousands of iraqis, yankee doodle dandy? and how many americans would be dying from iranian supplied ordinance had we not a)invaded their nextdoor neighbor while b) constantly threatening to bomb/invade them too?
for that matter we are supporting a sunni terrorist group currently attacking iran...maybe one with ties to al qaeda...
"sir, do you realize that the 9/11 site is sacred to americans..."
yankee doodle dandy...do you realize iran had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT?
oh man...HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE POINTED OUT TO IGNORANT IDIOTS AND WALKING CONSERVITIVE TALKING POINT REPOSITORIES THE REAL HISTORICAL/GEO-POLITICAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES? gee, they could research this themselves...not so hard...
LISTEN AGAIN, MORONS. 1. NOT EVEN JUST NO CONNECTION TO IRAN'S SHIITE ASSHOLE REGIME, NO CONNECTION TO HUSSEIN. THE HUSSEIN THING WAS A BIG LIE TO GET YOU MORONS TO SUPPORT A STUPID, EVIL POLICY WITH YOUR VOTES AND LOVED ONES. HUSSEIN WAS A BA'THIST...NOT A ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST. TRY TO CONCENTRATE HERE AND NOT START THINKING ABOUT AMERICAN IDOL, OK? The Arab Socialist Ba'th Party (also spelled Baath or Ba'ath; Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي) was founded in 1945 as a left-wing, secular Arab nationalist political party. It functioned as a pan-Arab party with branches in different Arab countries, but was strongest in Syria and Iraq, coming to power in both countries in 1963. In 1966 the Syrian and Iraqi parties split into two rival organisations. Both Ba'th parties retained the same name and maintain parallel structures in the Arab world.
The Ba'th Party came to power in Syria on 8 March 1963 and has held a monopoly on political power since. Later that same year, the Ba'thists gained control of Iraq and ran the country on two separate occasions, briefly in 1963 and then for a longer period lasting from July 1968 until 2003. After the de facto deposition of President Saddam Hussein's Ba'thist regime in the course of the 2003 Iraq war, the occupying US army banned the Iraqi Ba'th Party in June 2003.
The Arabic word Ba'th means "resurrection" as in the party's founder Michel Aflaq's published works "On The Way Of Resurrection". Ba'thist beliefs combine Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan-Arabism. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the Middle East, which sometimes tend to have leanings towards Islamism and theocracy.
The motto of the Party is "Unity, Freedom, Socialism" (in Arabic wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya). "Unity" refers to Arab unity, "freedom" emphasizes freedom from foreign control and interference in particular, and "socialism" refers to what has been termed Arab Socialism rather than to Marxism.
ok? still there? (no - lol) pay attention...look this way...
bin laden and al qaeda = sunni fanatic violent terrorist extremist group who DID 9/11 - and still runs free...
hussein, hussein's iraq - a SECULAR ARAB NATIONALIST WHO HATED/WAS HATED BY BIN LADEN...NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
iran - shiite muslim state whose current hell is largely a result of our perfidy in 1953 when we destroyed their democracy...oh crap, here - this is from wiki...its accurate.
In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers. The Allies occupied Iran, securing a supply line to Russia, Iran's petroleum infrastructure, and forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.[53]
The CIA faced many setbacks, but the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. Iranians were hired to protest Mossadegh and fight pro-Mossadegh demonstrators. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power greatly strengthened and his rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in religious circles, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.
there wingnut conservatives and idol lobotomized no nothings. you could have researched it yourself, but since you are too intelectually lazy i did it for you.
THE NEOCON ENABLED AND INDEED GLORIFIED CULT OF STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE MOST DANGEROUS THING IN THE WORLD. THOSE WHO CHOOSE ARROGANT IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 12:31pm
TO SUM UP...
3 SEPERATE, INTERELATED, MUTUALLY HOSTILE FORCES/MOVEMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE...
1. BA'THIST, SECULAR IRAQ OF HUSSEIN *HATED/WAS HATED BY AL QUEDA AND IRAN 2. SUNNI MUSLIM EXTREMIST TERRORIST GROUP, AL QAEDA, THE GUYS WHO ATTACKED US - ENEMY OF BA'THIST IRAQ AND SHIA IRAN 3. SHIITE EXTREMIST IRAN - ENEMY OF BOTH BA'THIST IRAQ AND SUNNI AL-QAEDA
OF THE THREE MUTUALLY ANTAGONISTIC FORCES ABOVEMENTIONED - AL QAEDA WAS THE ONE THAT DID 9/11 - OF THE THREE WE HAVE ATTACKED OR THREATENED TO ATTACK...
THE TWO THAT DID NOT ATTACK US
uh...thats too complicated...when does american idol come on?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 12:42pm
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 12:19pm
where are the sleestak? bring out...the sleestak...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 12:53pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 12:53pm
I found another one actually! [en.wikipedia.org]
Heading over to Lee County, SC with some bamboo, saltpeter, coal, and some raw diamonds as we speak!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 1:23pm
Good point, Frankgrits. Anyone so hated by the frothing dogs of neo-conservatism has to be doing something right. I just wish she wasn't so neo-liberal, like her spouse, which is to say ethically challenged, IMHO, not leastwise through her submission to AIPAC's dictates as in the extreme case of Joe Liebermann.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/24/2007 @ 1:24pm
Again, if you are a democrat or you lean left and you want your country back, support Hillary. She can't be stopped.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 1:07pm
Doesn't that sound familiar?!?!?!
"Listen and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop. Until you are dead."----"Kyle Reese" "The Terminator"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 1:25pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 1:07pm | ignore this pers
first of all remember that i have a very high opinion of you and your opinions, frank, but here is where i have probs with mrs. clinton...
1. vote to authorize everything bush wanted in iraq, in "war on turrur", in usapatriot act...UNTIL it was undeniably unpopular and discredited and THEN inability to own up to her voting like, say, edwards did...it was all because she trusted the bush government...
good judgement? good analysis of the situation? calm, level head when all around her were losing their's? courage if she did know? courage to say "i was wrong"?
actually thats sort of 1, 2, 3 all rolled up into one. not to happy with her flirtations with detestable figures like murdoch, dumbed down safe sloganeering, going along with the crowd for the sake of safety and appealing to folks who probably wont vote for her anyway...either...
she continues to appear to buy into at least half the bullshit about the middle east situation and...
i dont know...guess you have to just "say stupid stuff" that resonates with no-nothings to get elected. do you have to enable the same by voting thusly? guess so.
i used to vehemently defend her vs. rightwing moron attacks, but have come to see things about her intellect, character, policy, and support that set off my spidey sense in the worst way...
but if the country's not ready for an honest, courageous, and brilliantly eloquent mulatto for pres...
guess its HRC...
but frank...not sure she's a shoo-in if she gets the nomination anyway. lots of folks, and not just controll know nuthins, have very low opinions of her.
i think fred can beat her.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 1:37pm
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 1:23pm
haha! oh gawd yeah! as an assistant for the sc arhealogical and anthropology dept, after a dig, we went to a wooded trailor once and saw real plastercast footprints of him!
the archaeologist in charge made me promise not to tell the dept head...it was halloween and we had some fun...
i think it was just one of my distant cousins...or our sleestak masters...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 1:42pm
bamboo, saltpeter, coal, and some raw diamonds as we speak!
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 1:23pm
You've been watching too much Star Trek, mask old boy.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/24/2007 @ 1:58pm
She can't be stopped.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 1:07pm
careful, frank...
hubris precedeth...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 2:05pm
"Ok doc. Who beats Hillary in your opinion?"
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 12:55pm
If you're asking who will beat Hillary, I'm not one for prognostication, but she looks like she's gonna be tough to beat.
If you're asking who I think is a better candidate, I am much more impressed with John Edwards. He is more forthcoming and has the right answers on most of the subjects I care about. Clinton's triangulation, while likely necessary for a candidate in her position, has put me off from day one. I worry that she's too beholden to corporate interests and AIPAC influence. No matter what comes out of her mouth at this point, all I hear is "Bend over.". Plus, I've had it with the dynasty thing.
But the point of my drive-by was that I remain tickled by your near Pollyanna-ish schoolboy crush on Hillary. So tell me,
Is there anything about the woman or her platform that doesn't trigger your tumescence?
Posted by drhammer at 09/24/2007 @ 2:08pm
You should ask yourselves what you will DO if the Bush gang in fact start this next war, perhaps after some 'incident', and then impose martial law, suspend 'democracy' etc, exactly as it appears to have been set up.
Will the 'Democrats' again play along? The front-runner's military pretensions are almost indistinguishable from Bush's, except for the kind of noises she makes.
So the left had better have some contingency plans. How could they position themselves to take advantage of the social/political and military chaos that would certainly result? One thing for sure: the surge in oil prices would be very good for Chavez.
Posted by mikecope at 09/24/2007 @ 2:23pm
Ok, who beats Hillary and why?----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 1:33pm
FRANK, I've said consistantly, if she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her...and it's highly likley (given present #s) she will.
Of course, if you want something to worry about...worry that DUBYA has now said she will win it, and NEWT has said there's an 80-20% the Dems will take the White House in '08!
So...other than Sarah Connor crushing the HRC-800 in a steam press, or dropping her into a vat of molten steel....I agree, she's unstoppable!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 2:41pm
IBBLE....ever see "The Legend of Boggy Creek"? The "Lizard-Man of Lee County" brought that back to mind!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 2:42pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 09/24/2007 @ 1:58pm
Wait a minute, Doc....how did YOU know that was a "ST" reference???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 2:47pm
Let's re-read this--
"I can accept her position now because I can understand how a presidential aspirant would not want to hamstring another president when he was facing trouble. Remember, when she cast that vote, Bush wasn't being honest and the intelligence wasn't very intelligent. Hillary voted on the side of caution with conditions, as reflected in her speech. She has nothing to apologize for. Bush does." ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 2:47pm
So...Bush was "in trouble" on getting enough votes for the Iraq war resolution? I don't seem to remember that, does anybody else?
and second, "Bush wasn't being honest"....so essentially, "President Hillary" can be fooled by "moron silver-spoon faux cowboys"?
You think Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il are buying 10 gallon hats right now and practicing saying "nuke-u-ler"?
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 2:51pm
"She also will force the rich to give back the money they stole under Bush."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 2:58pm
I respect you and your opinion, Frank, but I can't even read that with a straight face, let alone say it.
Posted by drhammer at 09/24/2007 @ 3:11pm
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 2:42pm |
i've always been partial to "swamp thang" with adrian boobeau...and escape from new york with her, kurt russell, donald pleasance, lee van cleef, ernest borgnine, harry dean stanton, and isaac hayes. "your the duke of new york! your A number one!"
hey, think i just found a good slur for rudy...
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 2:47pm
i dont know how to say this without sounding bullshitty myself. for years i had followed middle eastern and international politics, reading a wide variety of sources, like specialty mags on the topic, the christian science moniter, etc...
when chimpy said they might have wmd...i said to myself (at first), "hmm...maybe there's something to this..." but when mushmouth started flapping his gums about saddam being linked to al qaeda...i immediately knew it was bullshit, which thereby called into question the credibility of anything else he/they said.
the fact that hussein and al qaeda were hated enemies of each other, was a conventional wisdom (a true one at that) shared by anyone involved who possessed a shred of competance, credibility and understanding of the situation...
if HRC, who even then aspired to the highest office in the land, was ignorant of this basic truism, then its HER FAULT, and an indication that she is also ignorant and incompetant.
if she knew this, then her mindless support of everthing bushco did until it became unpopular is an indication of serious character flaws...
either incompetant/ignorant or willing to go along with what she knew was wrong...
if she had pulled an edwards and shown a shred of humility...i'd be pretty cool about it.
but as it is, not only does she share in the bloodguilt, she does so unrepentantly...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 3:34pm
and in that the black hole of baghdad suck up buzillions od dollars of taxpaeyer money a day that could be used for any number of things like non-insurance-company-enriching universal healthcare, infrastructure, ejumugoshdarncayshun, whatebver, then HRC's complicity in ennabling bushco to involve us in this life and money wasting wickedness, and her prickly hubris when confronted about it, is something to consider.
sticks in my craw and i cant pull it out...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 3:45pm
Posted by ZERO 09/24/2007 @ 3:35pm
i could not agree more...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 3:45pm
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
well stated, but untrue and, especially the bold stuff, conventional wisdom defying. another example of lack of undertanding of the understandable, or an attempt to appear republicanesquely acceptable for presidency...
parroting of saddam boogymanism, no duh. this speach does nothing to improve my opinion of her.
if anything it reinforces my current impressions...
if this is the result of experience, perhaps a lack of groupthink inducing experience is preferable.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 4:05pm
It is a shame that even Ms. Vanden Heuvel seems to buy into the propaganda put out by the MEMRI.
"The fulminations of Ahmadinejad against Israel aren't to be ignored."
Read the following about what Amadinejad did or didn't say.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Also, you should look into who is the head of MEMRI. This might give you reason to question anything they put out.
Posted by muddmike at 09/24/2007 @ 4:07pm
Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech"
this sounds a lot better to me.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 4:09pm
in july before 9/11, condy, when questioned in a press conference, said much the same about mr. hussein. the "link to al qaeda" didnt appear til after the decision to invade iraq.
obama...bereft of experience? good. i'll take intelligence, wisdom, and integrity over experience EVERY TIME.
unlearning the bullshit - more important than learning a pack of lies.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 4:13pm
Posted by MUDDMIKE 09/24/2007 @ 4:07pm
well, ms. kvh is indeed of semitic ethnicity, and ahmedinijad's naziesque babblings are abominable. ARE something to be concerned about indeed.
but not negotiating with him is insane. people with objectionable views can sometimes be persuaded to change, policy, if nothing else.
also lets understand that ahmed plays to the nefarious ignorant idiots of his country to get elected every bit as much as does bush to our own ignorant morons.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 4:21pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 4:09pm |
lord...look at what the man said...
its like he looked into a crystal ball and saw everything that has since happened.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 4:24pm
let not cynicism nor racism nor pride blind you when a true example of virtue appears amongst you. even if all the world is festering in corruption and wickedness there exist specimens of high character and integrity nonetheless.
even if the cult of stupidity seems unstoppable there exist virtuous individuals of great intelligence and foresight.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 4:28pm
Haaretz reported today in their Defense section, that Cheney was considering an air strike by Israel against Iran in order to provoke a general war in which the U.S. would jump in to support Israel. In another article by an ex-Natanyahu aide, hyping the Israeli air strike against Syria, quoted information sources from Washington were as part of the evidence for the raid. Netanyahu is the Neoconservative's man in Israel. The raid against Syria was probably a similar provocation for a war.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/24/2007 @ 4:58pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 5:34pm
agreed...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 5:40pm
in the interest of full transparency i'm on the verge of commiting to the o-train campaign myself...fortunately/unfortunately should hrc get the nomination my vote in the general election will be pointless as a result of the political nature of my state regardless.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 5:48pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 3:14pm
What's funny, FRANK, is....you have on several occasions, ADMITTED that Hillary did this or that for political expediency...and excused it saying "She HAD to do that. All Presidential candidates/politicians do that!"
Yet you have this abiding faith that she WON'T do anything for political expediency once elected President.
Honest to Gosh, man. That sounds like a man in love...not a political supporter!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 7:24pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 3:34pm
Can't be Kurt as "Snake"...the sequel was too campy and "clean" for my tastes.
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 7:26pm
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 7:26pm
oh the sequel, despite the presence of bruce campbell (bubba ho-tep lol), was not that good at all.
they are making a remake...got gerard butler from 300 playing pliskin. might be good, but how can you "re-make" a quirky cool film like that? actually i think henry rollins would make a great snake pliskin...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 7:37pm
ok...why did the pres of columbia u. invite ahmed in the first place? to ambush him? what was the point?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 8:10pm
FRANK...which is it???
"I never said she would never do anything for political expediency once elected. Of course she will. SHE'S A POLITICIAN." ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 7:44pm
or
"I doubt that Hillary will be anything but strong on defense. I wouldn't mess with her. But she won't take our troops lives lightly nor will she start any wars."---Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 3:14pm
What if it's politically expedient to take our troops' lives lightly?
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 8:33pm
I think Hillary's attraction is in her intellect and in her energy, although she is also somewhat attractive for her age. But I have no personal feeling for any other woman except for my own. So stop the nonsense and try getting serious.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 7:44pm
FRANK and HILLY sitting in a tree...K-I-S-S-I-N-G...first comes Iowa, then Convention...then there's FRANK at In-aug-ur-ation!
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 8:35pm
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 8:35pm
frank could volunteer to be her nibs foot massager on those long campaign flights...and shoulder masseuse...
you know she's gotta be lookin' for a little revenge action for ol bill's indiscretions...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 8:53pm
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 8:35pm
frank could volunteer to be her nibs foot massager on those long campaign flights...and shoulder masseuse...
you know she's gotta be lookin' for a little revenge action for ol bill's indiscretions...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 8:56pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 9:07pm
lol - sorry, frank...couldn't help it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 9:12pm
oh...that WAS a double post...hate it when it does that...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 9:19pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 9:20pm |
yup. after 0 it was too much. we can afford this war, but not social security.
we can afford this war, but not national health care...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 9:25pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 9:07pm
by the way, between our earlier exchanges and now i officially hopped on the o-train...canvassing with some kids on saturday...
if its hopeless i'm ok with that...i AM a southerner...lol
but now that I'M on board its all over for your girl, frank...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 9:33pm
Silver Bells
I balk at the thought of walking a mile in red high heel shoes. As a kid I stumbled around in tall black heavy gumboots 3 sizes too big stuffed with thick wool sox & I ran to stand in it when the cows shit in the yard just to warm up my freezing twinkle toes. But I balk at the thought of walking a mile in those red high heels My cousin in Fiordland for years carried a backpack spraying noxious weeds for a living He walked through swift rivers in rubber boots without laces & never wore sox When he got to the other bank he stepped out poured the water out stepped in & kept spraying I could never see Selwyn named after my dad walking through rivers & out the other side in bright red high heels with silver bells hanging on there for the look of it & not having anything whatsoever to say for themselves Anyone want walk in the crocodile skin boots of the world's biggest terrorist or the polished shoes of his busy body guards with earplugs or in the sandals & slippers of those 650,000 plus dead or the shoes of 4 million refugees victims of the fabricated oil war The world saw depleted uranium bombs landing in Iraq on CNN in the first gulf war We all know the propaganda is a bloody lie
I would want to be in George's boots when he meets an avenging angel in the street or sees Jesus floating down on a fluffy cream pie out of the deep blue sky
Posted by crowsfly at 09/24/2007 @ 9:38pm
THE AMERICA EAGLE
‘Radio on the wall play us the number one the hit song' ‘the American Eagle has no brains it flies into walls' Francesca the most mysterious person he never really knew despite her outrageously wacky hat she did know all about sex said, ‘this head automatically turns off any thing in bad taste' Then when she had nailed everyone's rapt attention ‘you can tell people about witchcraft but you can't lead them to it' That set everyone with presents back on their high heels Radio on the wall play us a great tune or go to hell 'Yes it is Francesca here' The Radio kept blaring rap crap while she sang ‘If you don't possess a purple tiffany box You can't expect to grow like a yellow daisy' ‘Oh Radio Radio on the wall tell me why Why do American Eagles fly into walls and knock their brains out' Francesca got off the phone jiggling like a teabag & shouted out to all within range ‘I need to have a pee desperately' & she left right left right left right left with Staggers and her kittens following in single file tails between their legs ‘Radio on the wall why do American Eagles hit the wall' With his last gasp in extreme agony he wheezed 'The American Eagle has no brains it flies into walls' Unwanted alone uncared for now stone dead his crocodile skin boots still sit in the repair shop Remember his last wish was to expire with perfect plastic teeth Those shining eyes could only be described as terminal fireballs He fried with extreme prejudice in the updraft Radio on the wall play us all a bugle call The monster python swallowed a whole sheep and never spat out any shredded wool Radio on the wall a song to aid digestion, if you please After my farewell remarks Francesca pressed the END continuously but it did not END Heaven does not kick in until you're dead Radio on the wall I am tired of poets Give me history.
Posted by crowsfly at 09/24/2007 @ 9:53pm
yup. after 0 it was too much. we can afford this war, but not social security.
we can afford this war, but not national health care...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 9:25pm
you have to look at this from an investment standpoint. In the mind of your average hamster conservatives, dead people cost less.
(and the hamsters have so much fun watching them die)
Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2007 @ 10:02pm
Conservative Republicans want to bomb Iran, that's the only way they can seal America's fate as a 2nd or 3rd rate power before the end of Bush's term. That's the only way to make sure America stays horribly bogged down and in danger of drowning in quagmires forever.
Bush hates Americans because we are free. Republicans - THEY hate the US because we are free. Invading Iran is the only way to ensure Democracy in America gets in a perpetual war, so they can loot the treasury and break the back of troublesome consitutional rights once and for all, and finally fulfill their dreams by using their Blackwater death squads against Americans!
Bush is a Hitler - he just hasn't gotten to 6 million YET. And, if Bush doesn't attack Iran, he won't ever get there. That is why Bush is hell bent to crank up another war based on lies.
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:04pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/24/2007 @ 9:05pm
FRANK....good news---
Washington, D.C. (Map, News) - President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.
In an interview for the new book "The Evangelical President," White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has "been urging candidates: ‘Don't get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.' "
www.examiner.com
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 10:04pm
Posted by CONSHAME 09/24/2007 @ 10:04pm
CS, do you live in a house...or is it more of a "home"?
Posted by Mask at 09/24/2007 @ 10:05pm
Ahmadinejad isn't one tenth the killer of Bush. Bush has messed up more people's human rights than Ahmadinejad, Bush has gotten rid of women's rights throughout Iraq, Bush has messed up more women's freedom than Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is better at rounding up and destroying Al Qaida within territory that he supposedly controls, than Bush - so was Saddam Hussein. Bush has gotten rid of basic services in more area affecting more innocent people than Ahmadinejad. Bush has looted and burned more crates of $100 "bricks" of freshly printed US notes, than Ahmadinejad. Bush has caused more innocent people to be run out of their homes than Ahmadinejad.
Bush has slaughtered more Americans based on his lies than Ahmadinejad.
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:12pm
Mask - once again you can't argue with facts. Ahmadinejad has been less of a curse on women's rights in the middle east than Bush. Ahmadinejad could get the Nobel Peace prize - compared to Bush.
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:13pm
Ahmadinejad is like a Gandhi compared to Bush.
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:16pm
Bush has slaughtered more Americans based on his lies than Ahmadinejad.
Posted by CONSHAME 09/24/2007 @ 10:12pm
ahmadinejad scares the shit out of the hamsters. I think it's because they can't figure out how to say his name
Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2007 @ 10:19pm
When Ahmadinejad goes before God to be judged, God is going to just throw all Ahmadinejad's evil deeds in the trashcan, and say, "Son, you hated George Bush, that's good enough for Me!"
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:19pm
When Ahmadinejad goes before God to be judged, God is going to just throw all Ahmadinejad's evil deeds in the trashcan, and say, "Son, you hated George Bush, that's good enough for Me!"
Posted by CONSHAME 09/24/2007 @ 10:19pm
OR ELSE...
"Guess who your cellmate in Hell is going to be...."
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 10:29pm
Ahmadinejad is like a Thomas Jefferson, compared to Bush.
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:30pm
ahmadinejad scares the shit out of the hamsters. I think it's because they can't figure out how to say his name
Posted by WILL C. 09/24/2007 @ 10:19pm
WE NEED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN...
Just so the Iranians will have a leader whose name we CAN pronounce! ;-)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 10:31pm
Who would you let borrow your car: Ahmadinejad, or Bush?
Posted by conshame at 09/24/2007 @ 10:32pm
Ahmadinejad is like a Thomas Jefferson, compared to Bush.
Posted by CONSHAME 09/24/2007 @ 10:30pm
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," sounds basically like what you're saying. I really don't buy that idea. (Nor that Ahmadinejad = T.J., even relatively speaking....)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 10:33pm
Who would you let borrow your car: Ahmadinejad, or Bush?
Posted by CONSHAME 09/24/2007 @ 10:32pm
Actually, the question is more like: Which of the two would you BUY a used car from? That would be toughie. (I'm not arguing that Ahmadinejad is not "the lesser of two evils," if that's what you mean. But one does not have to be a fan of a lesser evil.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 10:36pm
Ahmadinejad
i can spell it when i cut n paste...
i dont think he's mr. wonderful, but i do think he can be reasoned with.
i may be wrong, but we will never know if we dont try.
look at what he's doing! did he want to go to ground zero to insult us? did he submit himself to humiliation at columbia U. to enable perfidy? absurd.
he's trying to open up dialogue without losing face...
he can't just say "ok, i've been such a monster. i'm all wrong and you are all right." he has a political base at home too...
but from what i heard from the cola U pres, with the exception of antisemitic claptrap, nothing the cola u prez said about him could not be said about bush, with a little jiggering around...
i thought the whole thing was shameful and embarassing.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 10:41pm
Posted by CROWSFLY 09/24/2007 @ 9:53pm
I'LL SMOKE WHAT YOU'RE SMOKING!...
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 10:43pm
if i invite you to my house, do i immediately start insulting you? i think the cola u prez thought this would be a good idea, then got bombarded by rabid aipaccers and neocon enablers and then decided to ambush the man to save his job...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 10:45pm
ok...why did the pres of columbia u. invite ahmed in the first place? to ambush him? what was the point?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 8:10pm
I WONDERED THE SAME THING...
I was worried that Ahmadinejad (my god, I've actually learned to spell it without pasting it in!) would trash his hosts -- us -- big time. But he turned out to be more the trashee than the trashER.
Frankly, I though Lee Bollinger (Columbia Pres.) behaved like a total asshole with his "You Exhibit All The Signs Of A Petty And Cruel Dictator" remark (I did paste that one). A number of people have pointed out that his remarks could equally (indeed more so) apply to Bush, anyway. Why invite Ahmadinejad to speak at your university if you're just going to diss him when you introduce him? At least be civil. Thanks for your huge contribution to world peace, Bollinger.
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 10:54pm
it was ridiculous all those irritating, obnoxious yahoos...
i wonder how many could tell you what happened in iran in 1953. i wonder how many thought iran and/or iraq was involved in 9/11. how many know the US is currently funding sunni terrorists to attack iran?
if we werent where we should not be, iran would not be aiding shiite iranian terrorists to kill our troops.
if someone invaded mexico and funded terrorists to attack us would we sit idly by?
how many groups who could be classified as some form of terrorist have we funded in the last 50 years around the world? but we are not sponsors of terror? are the iraqi people not terrified of us right now?
have we never threatened to use our nukes over the past fifty years to strog arm enemies and potential enemies? this is what we fear from a nuclear armed iran.
i bet that if we knew the iranians had even one nuke...nobody would consider bombing them ever again.
if i were big A, i'd be trying to get a nuke as hard as i could, at least until there is a regime change here in the land of freedom. iran is scared poopless we might just try to...liberate them.
at least when he does get da bomb...we'll be forced to negotiate and wont be attempted to attack, so...
here's to the iranian bomb.
too bad we dont negotiate now...from a position of strength...before its too late.
we sure aint considering bombing north korea anymore, are we?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 10:58pm
I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!---Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am
Posted by MASK 09/24/2007 @ 12:19pm
MASK -- THANKS FOR KEEPING TABS ON RESE...
I stopped a while back. Fascinating rants but interfers with the real dialog here....
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/24/2007 @ 11:07pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/24/2007 @ 11:07pm |
its like the world-gonna-enders...always another doomsday to look forward to...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 11:21pm
I never understand why anybody would wish the world to end in their life time...
and still have all those kids
Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2007 @ 11:24pm
it's very creepy
Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2007 @ 11:24pm
Posted by RESE 09/24/2007 @ 9:54pm
rese...write a book. publish online if you cant otherwise, and then come here, post reasonable length postings with links to your website...
you could make some $ if you do it right. there's apparantly a big market for this stuff.
you, because of the length of your posts, are the only person i keep on my ignore list. more people would read them if your posts were shorter.
at their current length, content aside, they discredit you. it makes you look mentally ill. people credit nuts all the time, but few listen to people who seem severely mentally ill.
i'm not making fun of you. i'm going into the mental health field and am actually concerned about you. there is help available, even for those without insurance.
its easy as hell to just ignore, and thats what i and everyone else but the occasional newbie do, but sometimes i cant help but check it out and worry about you.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 11:48pm
Posted by WILL C. 09/24/2007 @ 11:24pm
breeding with the desperation of the insane.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/24/2007 @ 11:49pm
breeding with the desperation of the insane.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/24/2007 @ 11:49pm
you got that right bro
Posted by Will C. at 09/24/2007 @ 11:51pm
Posted by WILL C. 09/24/2007 @ 11:51pm
some folks have a hard time dealing with the uncertainties and complexities of the world as it is, and need comforting affirmation, to feel elect and special. i suspect they also resent those who are more comfortable with discomforting reality, and flock to belief systems that give them what they need.
plus i suppose its all quite exciting and makes them feel important.
in the middle ages, as the turn of the first millenium approached, many world-gonna-enders were preaching the end of the world. remember the 2000 crap? how much worse it must have been then.
well, a bunch of folks apparantly prepared for the end and partied a lot and didnt bother to plant crops.
when the world did not end...well...it kinda did for many of them when they starved...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/24/2007 @ 11:07pm |
read umberto eco's focault's pendulum or the illuminatus trilogy by robert shea and robert anton wilson. david icke, a british conspiracy theorist who believes reptiles from outer space have mixed with/control world leaders seems to believe crazy stuff, yet has turned it into a profitable enterprise.
he should pull an l. ron hubbard and make a cultish religion out of it. actually he's at least halfway there already.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 12:10am
"Ahmadinejad
i can spell it when i cut n paste...
i dont think he's mr. wonderful, but ...."
It is pronounced.."Armed Jihad"...or "Armyjihad", either way, it means the death of Israel..
Someday, in his(Armyjihad) quest to bring about the 12th or 13th Iman, CONFUSED AND ASHAMED AGAIN, may get his wish...a free ride in Armedjihads car, the one he inherited from Khomheni, who was given it free by Carter.....on his way to Paradise...(Do the all 72 Babes in Paradise have to wear the burkas?) Kinda defeats Paradise....
And to answer MASKs question...CONSAHMED is on leave from a home..to post here...
Posted by john maasch at 09/25/2007 @ 12:42am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/25/2007 @ 12:42am |
at least there's no homosexuals in iran...
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 12:52am
homosexuality was rampant in medieval islamic world. the turks, egyptians and persians were all over the boys...
like the greeks, the separation of the sexes and denigration of women probably had something to do with its widespread practice and acceptance...
but that was technically "pederasty", which is what the nambla folks are into...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 12:59am
Don't worry, American foreign policy is in good hands because Condoleezza Rice is a Russian spy. She understands what a disaster war with Iran would be for the US and Israel, it is part of a bigger plan which will see an end to NATO and Europe united and free from foreign troops. Have no fear Comrade Rice is here.
Posted by Looter at 09/25/2007 @ 07:27am
Such is life in our un-accountable University system.
Posted by SLIVER 09/24/2007 @ 08:04am | ignore this person
Fascist stooge.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 11:46am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/25/2007 @ 12:42am | ignore this person
you are absolutely clueless about Iranians. ever met one? perhaps if you were to sell your baubels there, as you do in China, some sympathy would creep into your world view.
incidentally your attitude toward Mexico and Mexicans here has been equally shameful.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 11:49am
Does anyone remember the 2004 UPI story that listed the nationalities of Guantanamo prisoners?
* Saudi Arabia..............160 * Yemen........................85 * Pakistan......................82 * Afghanistan.................80 * Jordan........................30 * Egypt..........................30 * Algeria........................19 * Morocco......................18 * Kuwait........................12 * China.........................12 * Tajikistan....................11 * Turkey........................11 * Britain..........................9 * Tunisia.........................8 * Russia..........................8 * France..........................7 * Bahrain.........................7 * Australia.......................2 * Canada.........................2 * Checnya.......................2 * Uzbekistan....................2 * Syria............................2 * Georgia........................2 * Sudan...........................2 * Bangladesh...................1 * Belgium........................1 * Denmark.......................1 * Germany.......................1 * Iraq..............................1 * Kenya...........................1 * Libya.............................1 * Mauritania......................1 * Qatar............................1 * Spain............................1 * Sweden.........................1
One nation that is missing from this list: IRAN
Are we to continue to believe that IRAN sponsors terrorism and must be attacked?
Posted by hudicourt at 09/25/2007 @ 12:11pm
Posted by RESE 09/25/2007 @ 05:01am
hey rese...
"madmen write 15 page letters"
i cant remember who said that...but...uh...
write an online book. ok?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 12:17pm
The Radio kept blaring rap crap while she sang ‘If you don't possess a purple tiffany box You can't expect to grow like a yellow daisy'
what nonsense. Tiffany boxes are blue.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 12:18pm
IBBLE...unlike goofs like HSUBFOOLS, I'm firmly convinced now that RESE is honestly mentally ill. More than just Stephen Root in "Office Space"...approaching Crowe as Nash in "Beautiful Mind" (less the math genius).
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
there were two people posting on this thread about how bombing iran would lift people's spirits.
these sentiments are the diseased underbelly of humanity.
Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 1:10pm
bombing peope does not lift spirits. it lowers all, including our own.
Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 1:11pm
people, that is. bombing people hurts everyone.
Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 1:14pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 09/25/2007 @ 1:10pm
Come on, LOVE...don't get coy...name names!
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person
yeah...like i said, going into the mental health field myself, and though not yet qualified to diagnose...obsessive compulsive posting, paranoid delusions...
you know, i got a friend who believes 80 - 90% of what rese says, but then throws up his arms and says "what can i do about it?" and lives a productive life, just accepts it and doesnt talk about it much...
manages it, you know? but if rese could channel this amazing obsessional output, he/she could make some money off of it. look at david icke...
the response to my shout out to rese?
more of what elicited the shoutout to begin with!
therapy, psychotropic meds...amazing how much better life can be...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 2:03pm
Rese is the only one on my ignore list, and that's due to the volume of his posts. They make me dizzy.
Today I show 6 pages of posts, and the last two are blank.
(Wow.)
Posted by drhammer at 09/25/2007 @ 2:38pm
If The Nation is not going to expose the 9/11 fraud, then why do you give a damn about bombing Iran? THIS IS WHAT THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB IS ALL ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Is it that profitable to play ball with the "establishment"????
Posted by Greekphilos at 09/25/2007 @ 3:41pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 2:03pm Posted by DRHAMMER 09/25/2007 @ 2:38pm
What's curious is....RESE says she's a woman-
BLOG | Posted 09/06/2007 @ 5:16pm The Patriot Act -- and the Senate's -- Constitution Problem
I'm not a man----Posted by RESE 09/06/2007 @ 11:45pm
And you usually don't see this kind of thing in women, I'd venture. Seems conspiracy theorism is a predominently male endeavour. No stats, maybe IBBLE can help, but isn't paranoia too "mostly men"?
Ultimately, I can abide RESE being nutty, but truly I don't have much compassion for her (or his) dishonesty which I see on the horizon.
I'm referring to her claim that she will "shut up" if "nuking Iran, a draft, and 'openents' sent to Halliburton concentration camps" doesn't occur by next April (less than 6 months away).
Will she? I doubt it. And I think into Fall 2008, we'll start seeing the SAME Cut&Pastes from RESE we've seen for the last 7 years....with the "Find & Replace" feature on her Microsoft Word swapping "George Bush" and "Dick Cheney"...with "Hillary Clinton".
And she'll pretend that NONE of the previous stuff matters...that it's all about Her Nibs....and hell, RESE will probably start re-posting all that "Arkansas Project" "Alma, Ark airport cocaine trafficking" stuff from Richard Mellon-Scaife!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 3:43pm
Posted by GREEKPHILOS 09/25/2007 @ 3:41pm
Ever notice how THESE types pop in for a post or two on the "9/11 inside...then disappear, never to return again. (or maybe it's the SAME guy with a new nick?...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 09/25/2007 @ 3:45pm
After seeing the Democracy Now coverage of the Iranian presidents visit to Columbia University, I am impressed again by how much more intelligent the leaders of Arab countries are than our own --despite their religious/ideological shortcomings. They are so much more principled than our leaders despite all of the problems inherent in holding them. We must be frank about the Iranian's President's misconceptions about those who belong to the human family and, thus, privy to the laws which protects them. Those worthy of the protection of the law is different than ours at this time in history. Ours laws presently protect gays, women, racial, and religious minorities. And, yet, many of our citizens, including our President, are profoundly bigoted and indifferent to the plight of minorities, in general. Not to discount the disenfranchisement of the black population, the ballot irregularities in Florida and elsewhere, the United States President and the Republican Party played upon our citizens' deeply held racial, gender and moral bigotry in order to win. We must be frank. Intolerance to racial, religious, and gender minorities is what the United States and Iranian President have in common. What's amazing is how much more humane the Iranian President is despite this gaping whole in his perspective. Despite their similarities! It was the same feeling I had when I heard the late Iraq President Hussein speak in his defense at the United Nations. Both of these 'dictators' actually cared about people. The problem was that their religion limited the scope of their compassion. But, at least they had compassion. At least social justice was part of their vocabulary. Social Justice is nowhere part of the vocabulary of our President. Money is all Bush cares about: the ability of monopolies to pillage the world at the expense of social justice. Indeed, what the corporate sponsors of our presidential campaign are most afraid of is social justice insinuating itself into the public arena of the current Presidential hopefuls. This is why Edwards and Kucinich are pariahs. Whenever a woman and a black presidential hopeful are not speaking to social justice you know that a corporate, money first, mentality is mediating the debate. Maybe, the Iranian's compassion for the Palestinian cause is no less a rhetorical ploy than ours for Israel. Maybe money and power rules there as it does here. But, I don't get that feeling from hearing him speak. He has a heart, half closed. He has eyes that need to be opened. But, not withstanding the butchery resulting from his gap in knowledge (and I know this makes all the difference), I do get a sense that he actually thinks. Unlike our own President and many of our Democratic presidential candidates.
Posted by omar white at 09/25/2007 @ 3:45pm
After seeing the Democracy Now coverage of the Iranian presidents visit to Columbia University, I am impressed again by how much more intelligent the leaders of Arab countries are than our own --despite their religious/ideological shortcomings.
They are so much more principled than our leaders despite all of the problems inherent in holding them. We must be frank about the Iranian's President's misconceptions about those who belong to the human family and, thus, privy to the laws which protects them.
Those worthy of the protection of the law is different than ours at this time in history. Ours laws presently protect gays, women, racial, and religious minorities. And, yet, many of our citizens, including our President, are profoundly bigoted and indifferent to the plight of minorities, in general. Not to discount the disenfranchisement of the black population, the ballot irregularities in Florida and elsewhere, the United States President and the Republican Party played upon our citizens' deeply held racial, gender and moral bigotry in order to win.
We must be frank. Intolerance to racial, religious, and gender minorities is what the United States and Iranian President have in common. What's amazing is how much more humane the Iranian President is despite this gaping whole in his perspective. Despite their similarities! It was the same feeling I had when I heard the late Iraq President Hussein speak in his defense at the United Nations.
Both of these 'dictators' actually cared about people. The problem was that their religion limited the scope of their compassion. But, at least they had compassion. At least social justice was part of their vocabulary. Social Justice is nowhere part of the vocabulary of our President.
Money is all Bush cares about: the ability of monopolies to pillage the world at the expense of social justice. Indeed, what the corporate sponsors of our presidential campaign are most afraid of is social justice insinuating itself into the public arena of the current Presidential hopefuls. This is why Edwards and Kucinich are pariahs.
Whenever a woman and a black presidential hopeful are not speaking to social justice you know that a corporate, money first, mentality is mediating the debate. Maybe, the Iranian's compassion for the Palestinian cause is no less a rhetorical ploy than ours for Israel. Maybe money and power rules there as it does here.
But, I don't get that feeling from hearing him speak. He has a heart, half closed. He has eyes that need to be opened. But, not withstanding the butchery resulting from his gap in knowledge (and I know this makes all the difference), I do get a sense that he actually thinks. Unlike our own President and many of our Democratic presidential candidates.
Posted by OMAR WHITE 09/25/2007 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person
reposted for legibility. these are not my views.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 3:55pm
Posted by HUDICOURT 09/25/2007 @ 12:11pm
Yeah I posted an article that listed Iran as one of the few (only?) ME states that actually had nightly vigils honoring the victims of 9/11... Supposedly not even Israel did it. Yep, Iran's population used to be mostly pro USA. Wonder what happened?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 4:12pm
...unlike goofs like HSUBFOOLS,
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
And this coming from FRITA!?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 4:15pm
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 3:43pm
its like an addiction, for him/her....vows to not post are like an alcoholic vowing to never touch a drop of the stuff again...and considering what he/she/it (sleestak?) believes, honesty? squishy definition there...
i dont discount the possibility its a she, but "i'm not a man" might not mean "i'm a woman" (sleestak? wookie?)
men and women do indeed tend to suffer from different issues...hardly ever hear of a male anorexic/bulemic or a female with certain "sociopathic" violent disorders (females can indeed be "sociopaths", but of different varieties).
i might very tentatively guess that rese suffers from some form of untreated mood disorder, though shows signs of personality disorder too. often the personality disorder is what i call a "coping disorder" - ie symptom of a root problem that actually helps the suffering individual "get through the day", is mistaken for his/her root problem, and ultimately causes more problems than it alleviates.
i would guess that some anti-depressants and therapy might get a handle on the root problem and a combination of the rational thought resulting and more therapy could undo the coping disorder...
on the other hand its suprising how well a metacognizant nut can function and even thrive...look at me! lol...
but rese does not seem terribly metacognizant...though who knows? aybe he/she lives a fairly normal life and just spews insanity here...
but there's no way on god's green earth, heaven or hell i'm going to try to wade through that crap, which often exceeds the original editorial blog entry by five, ten twenty times, and scroll interminably through it to see what you or someone else said...
and regardless of sanity rese should understand i'm by no means alone on this.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 4:24pm
Isn't the bottomline the usual bottomline-- profit. hsuB/cHeney corporate buds make big money profiting off the death, distruction and rebuilding via war. Plus they get to weaken a whole area for an easier power grab.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/5793/
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/25/2007 @ 3:55pm
ah, paragraphs....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 4:26pm
er, destruction
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 4:32pm
musta been distracted
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 4:32pm
RESE
here's a dippy buddhist story for you. it deals with anger, but is applicable to all sorts of problems...
angwa mala was an ancient version of a serial killer/old west gun fighter. he believed in a doctrine of anger and violence and it was said he killed a thousand men in his career, cutting off their fingers and stringing the trophies onto a grisly necklace for all to see and fear.
one day, when the buddha was an old man, it was told to him and his disciples that ole angwa mala was coming to town. everyboy but the old man ran and hid, and his disciples begged him to do the same.
but, of course, he did not. most people who fear nothing are fools. a very very few, however, are just the opposite.
so everybody ran and hid but for the old man. angwa mala showed up in town, like a gunslinger in an old western and found it empty, but for a frail looking old an dressed as a monk, who at the tie was crossing the street.
"hey old man! stop!" he shouted to the buddha. but the buddha ignored him and continued walking. angwa mala began to get pissed off. "HEY OLD MAN! STOP!" he yelled again, but again it was as if the old man were deaf.
his face contorting in rage, angwa mala drew his sword ran to the old man, catching him by the shoulder and spinning him around...
"before i kill you old man, i want to know one thing! why, when i told you to stop, did you not stop!?"
the buddha was non-plussed, and calmly answered, "i stopped long ago. you have yet to stop..."
according to the story, angwa malla sputtered, raised his sword menacingly a couple of times...then fell to his knees sobbing like a child.
the buddha took him in, protected him from the many who sought revenge (like in clockwork orange) to the now broken angwa mala, and helped the guy erase a large part of his truly crappy karma...
this ole world beats us all down, eventually, and everyone "loses it" at some point. some are more prone to a breaking than others, and some are better at covering it up than others, but take it fro one who has been there...
i stopped long ago...you have yet to stop.
stop. there are those who will/can help, and there is no shame in seeking them out.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 4:48pm
Yep, Iran's population used to be mostly pro USA. Wonder what happened?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/25/2007 @ 4:12pm | ignore this person
many people used to be pro US. Bush happened.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/25/2007 @ 5:30pm
I hear a lot of audio clips on the Columbia speeches.
while Ahmadinejad answered *from within his own belief system* those well-televised questions justifying his own country & culture... what makes that 'lying'? many people don't believe, including many gay groups or researchers that being gay is a "choice" (why we can't just say, hey, everybody ACTS the way they do for a lot of different reasons... some borne gay, some choosing gay... whatever! everybody wants to definitive black/white answer. )
& while Ahmadinejad was introduced by the Columbia president who framed an interesting 'win-win' for Republicans (Everybody gets what they want: Republicans can bash because Iran arrived & spoke, Dems got to say 'free speech not tasers!' the debate was framed by calling Ahmadinejad... a 'terrorist' & implying the USA is superior becaue they allow evil to come & talk huh? nice. Sure, Iran's got issues, because the USA helped create them. Sure there are lots of backward talking folk out there... but to call a government representative who comes to SPEAK with students & academics... EVIL?! nice. who made Iran EVIL?: the U.S.A.
1. Ahmadinejad started his own blog because *he was being deliberately mistranslated*. He never said 'blow Israel off the map'. Okay that whole 'no holocaust thing' is really weird... but it IS within the culture of Iran's previously closed culture. TO SAY HE WANTS academic discussion is HUGELY PROGRESSIVE FOR their Right Wing... hell, any Right Wing.
He got elected, because the USA set themselves onto Iraq... & scared the bayjazuz out of everybody.
He says he wants Israel *gone* because Europe force-fed Israel to Asia because of what Europeans did to Jews & Catholics & Gypsies & dissidents. & TO PROTECT Europe's interests in West Asia.... think about that. Israelis live scared. Palestinians live scared... EVERYBODY is scared to death & trigger happy.
I guess the West got what we wanted... domination through fear. But we have a long tradition of getting what we want, don't we?
2. Ahmadinejad asked a VALID QUESTION that plagues all nations: by what authority does the USA make demands on the way other nations function... or tell the World how to Live?
right of armoury? crazy President?
its a valid conversation he tried to start... but even the PROGRESSIVES won't address that portion of his attempted dialogue. He was asked to defend his country & culture... but nobody listens to why he showed up... he asked valid questions that the MSM won't address..
sure, the "we have no gays" is pretty weird, but within the right wing *belief system*... & he IS on a religious Right Wing leash... perhaps, that's the level of scientific understanding in Iran... I wouldn't know...
also... to say Iran talks about nuking... that was *America is scaring the bejezus out of us!* talk.
actually, Iran merely wants nuclear energy for when their economy is *out of oil*. They have a longterm plan that looks shockingly similar to GERMANY & the US... a peak oil solution that includes nuclear energy... the difference?
Iran is being called a terrorist nation... but the US Iran hostage taking? was being *choreographed by the CIA to get RAYGUN INTO OFFICE* meanwhile... Iran & Canada took it all very seriously... that's why Canadians risked their LIVES to hide Americans... because the Iranians would have killed both... all while the CIA & Khomeini were laughing their asses off...
CIA had screwed up ... but they made lemonade!! & we all got Raygun.
~~~ BlueBerry Pick'n can be found @ ThisCanadian [ThisCanadian.com] ~~~ "We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid ~~~ "Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
Posted by ThisCanadian at 09/25/2007 @ 5:31pm
Posted by THISCANADIAN 09/25/2007 @ 5:31pm
ahmadinejad should post responses here....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 5:42pm
Rese is the only one on my ignore list, and that's due to the volume of his posts. They make me dizzy.
Today I show 6 pages of posts, and the last two are blank.
(Wow.)
Posted by DRHAMMER 09/25/2007 @ 2:38pm
Same here, for same reason. They just make these threads about 10 times harder to follow. Interesting that Rese is evidently a "she" not a "he." I would not have guessed, frankly. Usually drowning Internet threads with your posts is a guy thing....
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/25/2007 @ 5:51pm
IBBLE...unlike goofs like HSUBFOOLS, I'm firmly convinced now that RESE is honestly mentally ill. More than just Stephen Root in "Office Space"...approaching Crowe as Nash in "Beautiful Mind" (less the math genius).
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
THAT POSSIBILITY OCCURRED TO ME AS WELL...
So I will not really diss Rese, but still...
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/25/2007 @ 5:54pm
IBBLE...unlike goofs like HSUBFOOLS, I'm firmly convinced now that RESE is honestly mentally ill. More than just Stephen Root in "Office Space"...approaching Crowe as Nash in "Beautiful Mind" (less the math genius).
Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 12:31pm
AND WHAT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT GEORGE W. BUSH IS ACTUALLY MENTALLY ILL...
I think that's occurred to any number of people. Maybe that would be the tack for the House to take to impeach him....
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/25/2007 @ 5:55pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/25/2007 @ 12:10am
ACTUALLY, I ***HAVE*** READ SOME OF THIS STUFF...
(Maybe that's my problem!)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/25/2007 @ 5:58pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 09/25/2007 @ 5:58pm
i used to...but its always the same, and way too much. if it was presented as fiction and brought together properly, could be good stuff. its a fun genre.
i never have discounted possibilities of conspiracies, but...
the sleestak, new york jewmasters, etc. sort of blow it for me...
its the sheer volume that bothers me. post any crazy crap you want...but show restraint or...IGNORE it is...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/25/2007 @ 6:07pm
many people used to be pro US. Bush happened
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/25/2007 @ 5:30pm
So is 70% of the US also 'evil' and in need of bombing by hsuB?
Or as Will kinda pointed out, to 70%-- hsuB is already bombed...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 6:36pm
er, already dry-drunked?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/25/2007 @ 6:36pm
Regardless of your personal views about the Iranian president - the introduction and treatment he received by the president at Columbia was juvenile and out of line. You don't invite a world leader to an event and treat them like that. The primary reason for this is the Iranian people. In middle eastern customs, they take hospitality very seriously - as you will know if you've ever been invited to an Iranian's home. The Iranian people are going to see this clown's behavior (yes, the president of Columbia) and think we are uncivilized pricks. At this point, we need to be concerned about the impression we give to peoples of the middle east.
Posted by Pookey at 09/25/2007 @ 7:01pm
you see rese, i've been trying to tell you for years now:
use your own words. include links if you'd like. but use your own words. everyone would not have you on ignore if you didn't rely on massive cut n paste. your message would reach people if you wrote your own thoughts. reaching people with your message is what you want, isn't it?
Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 8:11pm
i agree with your assessment of what happened at columbia, pookey.
Posted by loveloki at 09/25/2007 @ 8:12pm
Posted by POOKEY 09/25/2007 @ 7:01pm
Regardless of your personal views about the Iranian president - the introduction and treatment he received by the president at Columbia was juvenile and out of line. You don't invite a world leader to an event and treat them like that. The primary reason for this is the Iranian people. In middle eastern customs, they take hospitality very seriously - as you will know if you've ever been invited to an Iranian's home. The Iranian people are going to see this clown's behavior (yes, the president of Columbia) and think we are uncivilized pricks. At this point, we need to be concerned about the impression we give to peoples of the middle east.
I believe the live feed was censored in Iran. The Iranian people were only shown what they were intended to see: a man who most must know is insane being given credence by one of America's purportedly highest institutions of learning. The purpose being, of course, propoaganda: see, the rest of the world takes him seriously, what's your problem? The left wing in America has always been a sucker for this kind of manipulation of their intellectual and moral vanity, coupled with the loathing of their own country (and by extension, always, themselves). The whole filthy charade is just a microcosm of the ideological dry rot pervading many of our educational institutions. The liberals fawned all over themselves and their supposed courage to 'confront' someone who has no power over them. This whole thing was staged by the Iranians for home consumption, to solidify Ahmadinejad's rule. I'm guessing at this point that it worked.
How the mullahs must have chuckled when Ahmadinejad talked about how there are no homosexuals in Iran. Hilarious! Iranian religious fanaticism is largely fueled by pederasty and pedophilia. Perfectly legal to marry 7 year old girls in Iran. By many accounts, pederasty is rampant and has been for hundreds of years, most especially among the most fanatical religious believers. How does Ahmadinejad say there is no homosexuality with a straight face? Simple. They have redefined homosexuality to NOT include pederasty. It's a cognitive dissonance technique similar to many that the left uses to justify their equally ludicrous faith-based beliefs.
Posted by pontificus at 09/25/2007 @ 9:29pm
I understand that Ahmadinejad got quite an ovation at several points during the evening. Imagine, a man who stands for everything antithetical to the values of Western Civilization getting a roar of approbation from a collection of our most privileged members. Sounds like self-loathing to me!
Posted by pontificus at 09/25/2007 @ 9:47pm
Woa, how stupid and small Bolliger is and how smart and polite the Iranian guy is. And that guy has no pr and image makers and all those $billions to make him look better than he does. Profile in courage? The guy must have nuks.
----------
Outrage turns to laughter at Ahmadinejad NY speech Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:40am EDT NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vilified as a Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorism and a backer of Iraqi insurgents, the president of Iran was actually able to make New Yorkers burst into laughter -- but not at a joke.
Posted by HelenDAO at 09/25/2007 @ 10:13pm
Sounds like self-loathing to me!
Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/25/2007 @ 9:47pm
scootificus, I don't think self loathing involves clapping. Unless this is just your way of explaining why you forcefully palm slap your nuts at odd times during the day
Posted by Will C. at 09/25/2007 @ 10:46pm
I understand that Bush got quite an ovation at several points during the evening. Imagine, a man who stands for everything antithetical to the values of Western Civilization getting a roar of approbation from a collection of our most privileged members. Sounds like self-loathing to me!
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/26/2007 @ 07:41am
I don't believe Bush and Cheney will be able to pull this one off. Americans have had enough of war and certainly don't want to rule the world.We need to bring our soldiers home and start rebuilding our country without their leadership. I don't plan on being one of their sheep being taken to the slaughter house.
Posted by Sinatra at 09/26/2007 @ 1:58pm
Looks like the very liberal Jon Friedman agrees with me:
The Wall Street Journal's Neil King Jr. nailed the purpose of the Iranian president's visit in the final paragraph of his story this week: "Mr. Ahmadinejad's soaring notoriety abroad comes as he appears to be slipping in popularity at home. Despite high oil prices, Iran's domestic economy is hurting, squeezed in part by international sanctions and sluggish domestic investment." It's a decades-old maneuver that heads of state use when they want to prop up their approval ratings at home: They go to a foreign land -- and the more potentially hostile the reception, the better. American presidents have done it, too. George W. Bush has visited Iraq. Richard Nixon went to China. By doing their job of covering a major newsmaker, the media might have inflated Ahmadinejad's importance.
Posted by pontificus at 09/26/2007 @ 2:22pm
Posted by SINATRA 09/26/2007 @ 1:58pm
I don't plan on being one of their sheep being taken to the slaughter house.
Well, fortunately for you, and others like you on the left, there is no draft. So, don't worry about it, just continue to do what you're doing: sit back and suck off the system while other, better people feed you, provide you health care, and protect you from terrorists.
Posted by pontificus at 09/26/2007 @ 2:25pm
Unless this is just your way of explaining why you forcefully palm slap your nuts at odd times during the day
Posted by WILL C. 09/25/2007 @ 10:46pm
It's a dirty job, but SOMEBODY needs to slap his nuts once a day.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/26/2007 @ 5:11pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/26/2007 @ 2:25pm
Fuck you.
Draft Young College Repugs First.
War Mongers to the front of the line.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/26/2007 @ 5:12pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/26/2007 @ 2:22p
friedman's analysis impresses me as sort of lame.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/26/2007 @ 5:46pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/26/2007 @ 5:46pm
friedman's analysis impresses me as sort of lame.
Actually I think it's quite insightful. I'm sure Ahminejad knows he is held in nothing but contempt in the West, and his visit does nothing but emphasize that, and I'm sure he heartily reciprocates that contempt. Given this, I think the conclusion is inescapable that his visit here was for no other purpose than to help him at home in Iran. The only thing lame about Friedman's analysis is lumping Bush's visit to Iraq in with this sort of strategy; Bush didn't receive any hostile or negative reaction during his visit to Iraq, quite the opposite really; and thus nothing about his visit parallels that of Ahminejad's. But Friedman is a liberal, after all, and a chronic BDS sufferer, so a cheap shot, no matter how inapt, should be expected in pretty much any of his analyses.
Posted by pontificus at 09/26/2007 @ 7:07pm
Here's another piece in the WaPo that is in agreement with my post above about how the Iranians have redefined homosexuality such that it does not include the rampant pederasty in Iran:
Some Iranian American scholars, puzzling over the president's comments on homosexuality, said Persian culture has historically included the practice of powerful men who keep young boys for sex but are not considered gay. But younger Iranian Americans said there is a gay culture in today's Iran, although it is suppressed by Shiite authorities.
"He probably meant to say that there are pedophiles in Iran but that the country does not recognize homosexuality as an orientation," Karimi-Hakkak surmised. He said Ahmadinejad is unable to relate to such contemporary issues. "He is a genuinely premodern man in postmodern circumstances," Karimi-Hakkak said.
Posted by pontificus at 09/26/2007 @ 7:10pm
Radio on the wall play us the number one the hit song, ‘the American Eagle has no brains it flies into walls.' Francesca the most mysterious person he never really knew despite her outrageously wacky hat she did know all about sex said, ‘this head automatically turns off any thing in bad taste.' Then when she had nailed everyone's rapt attention ‘you can tell people about witchcraft but you can't lead them to it.' That set everyone with presents back on their high heels. Radio on the wall play us a great tune or go to hell, 'Yes it is Francesca here.' The Radio kept blaring rap crap while she sang, ‘If you don't possess a purple tiffany box you can't expect to grow like a yellow daisy.' ‘Oh Radio Radio on the wall tell me why why do American Eagles fly into walls and knock their brains out.' Francesca got off the phone jiggling like a teabag & shouted out to all within range, ‘I need to have a pee desperately,' & she left right left right left right left with Staggers and her kittens following in single file tails between their legs. ‘Radio on the wall why do American Eagles hit the wall.' With his last gasp in extreme agony he wheezed, 'The American Eagle has no brains it flies into walls.' Unwanted alone uncared for now stone dead, his crocodile skin boots still sit in the repair shop. Remember his last wish was to expire with perfect plastic teeth. Those shining eyes could only be described as terminal fireballs. He fried with extreme prejudice in the updraft. Radio on the wall play us all a bugle call. The monster python swallowed a whole sheep and never spat out any shredded wool. Radio on the wall a song to aid digestion, if you please. After my farewell remarks Francesca pressed the END continuously but it did not END. Heaven does not kick in until you're dead. Radio on the wall I am tired of poets. Give me history.
Posted by crowsfly at 09/27/2007 @ 07:34am
Hey, about RESE -- that "ignore person" thing works GREAT!
Our immediate task is to identify and rout out all the so-called "Democrats" that voted for this saber-rattling resolution in the Senate which Bush will readily twist into a full-on air strike on Iran, starting with the self-anointed presumptive presidential nominee Hillary "Stick In The Eye Of The Base" Clinton. We have got to send the DLC/AIPAC alliance to the Republican party where they belong, right along with John Hagee and the End Timers.
Hey, that'd be a good name for a band: "John Hagee and the End Timers." Post-apocalyptic tribal rock.
Posted by trippin at 09/27/2007 @ 10:02am
http://tinyurl.com/yo2jh2
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 7:06pm
Great idea about passing legislation requiring the executive to get congressional authorization before he turns Tehran into Cheronbyl.
Too bad AIPAC put the kibosh on that very notion last March.
Meanwhile, I dont get everyone raving about how good Clemons article is. The thing's idiotic. Clemons tells this BS story about inner sanctum intrigues and sparring factions over Iran. This charade is identical to Iraq. Just substitute Rice for Powell--same story, same neocons, same gutless congress. Propaganda for Nation readers. "Dont worry, theres a real debate, reason will win out." Meanwhile, the skanks rev up the nukes.
Posted by J.P. Zinger at 09/27/2007 @ 10:44pm
Ahminejad is the Cheney of Iran.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 07:56am
It is swinish to equate homosexuality with pederasty. also not all homosexuals are male.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/28/2007 @ 08:45am
The basic problem is that Israel and the Israeli Lobby are pushing this attack because they really believe that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel. Since the Israeli Lobby has political influence in both parties, there is pressure for either Israel or the U.S. to launch an air war on Iran. Both countries lack the troops for a ground war. In dealing with the Arab World and Iran, Israels entire foreign policy has an element of force involved. It can be described as an hysterical reaction that grips both the left an right in the country. I find it highly unlikely that any Islamic country would launch a nuclear attack on Israel because Jerusalem is also an Islamic holy city. Further, such an attack would take out the Palestinians and parts, if not all, of the Islamic countries that border it. The regional and world implications of a "successful" attack on Iran's Nuclear facilities, would produce a number of Chernobyls that would be spewing nuclear waste all over the world. They still do not have Chernobyls under control. Any attack on Iran will produce Shia, join the Sunni groups, in terrorist attacks all over the world.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/29/2007 @ 10:59am