Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGeorge W. Bush is upping the ante towards a war with Iran. And a number of prominent Democrats seem to be telling the President to go all in. Take one recent example: John Edwards.
During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. "Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world," Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table," Edwards said. "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
Such a provocative speech seems out of character for the ‘08 contender, at least in political terms. As he's moving left on Iraq---by calling on Congress to deny funding for an escalation of troops and advocating the immediate withdrawal of 50,000 US soldiers---why is Edwards veering right on Iran?
There's a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he's pandering to win the support and money of hawkish "pro-Israel" voters and donors. Three, he's trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.
No matter the rationale, speeches like these won't help Edwards with Democratic primary voters and could potentially injure his presidential prospects. Preventing a war with Iran is as important as getting out of Iraq to many in the peace movement. Indeed, those goals are now intertwined. Edwards can't have it both ways.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
1
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 3:21pm
the number of nuclear exchanges this planet will ever have
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 3:22pm
WILL, of course, can't offer a REAL opinion of Edwards....since he knows it would (A) piss off any pro-Edwards "friends" here he has...or (B) come off as apologia for Edwards basically trying to sound "hawkish" in Israel, and "doveish" at home.
I saw this story last week and posted on it. Of course the "reflexively anti-Israel" crowd (as Ari Berman has called them)(FROMRED, RESE, etc) were "not surprised". The "We love the 'Two Americas' Speech" guys were a bit flummoxed.
They had hoped that John-Boy would be the perfect "anti-Hillary"...he has all the "qualifiers"....Southern, good-looking, sounds like Robert F. Kennedy did, will appeal to the "racist South unlike Barack", etc.
Now that he's been "outed" as a hawk on Iran though....It's probably going back to "Obamamania" and "Bully for Barack"!
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2007 @ 3:28pm
1
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 3:21pm
Exactly right, Will.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/29/2007 @ 3:47pm
The Bush Admin WANTS Iran to get nukes. Name Iran as a member of a trimverate of axis of evil members....then invade the one WITHOUT nukes while entirely FORGETTING about the one who develops nukes....is a blatant demand to Iran to get nukes before we need a political punching bag for domestic reasons.
The question is....why does the Bush admin want Iran to get nukes?
Personally I don't think it's a bad idea (besides it being inevitable), but let's hear the Bush Admin explain to the country why they think it's a good idea!
Posted by freedomplease at 01/29/2007 @ 3:56pm
Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 3:28pm
WILL, of course, can't offer a REAL opinion of Edwards....since he knows it would (A) piss off any pro-Edwards "friends" here he has...or (B) come off as apologia for Edwards basically trying to sound "hawkish" in Israel, and "doveish" at home.
I support edwards. His calling for a strong isreal while standing in isreal and pointing out the stupidity of bushes fiasco policy in Iraq while standing in the US are two positions that I agree with. His physical location while expousing them is irrelevent
And you must be off your meds
I saw this story last week and posted on it. Of course the "reflexively anti-Israel" crowd (as Ari Berman has called them)(FROMRED, RESE, etc) were "not surprised". The "We love the 'Two Americas' Speech" guys were a bit flummoxed.
flommoxed. You learned a new word over the weekend
They had hoped that John-Boy would be the perfect "anti-Hillary"...he has all the "qualifiers"....Southern, good-looking, sounds like Robert F. Kennedy did, will appeal to the "racist South unlike Barack", etc.
Do you really make this shit up yourself mask or do the hamsters send it over to you by speedy delivery?
Now that he's been "outed" as a hawk on Iran though....It's probably going back to "Obamamania" and "Bully for Barack"!
ah the simple mind... off its meds
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 3:58pm
Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 3:28pm
WILL, of course, can't offer a REAL opinion of Edwards....since he knows it would (A) piss off any pro-Edwards "friends" here he has...or (B) come off as apologia for Edwards basically trying to sound "hawkish" in Israel, and "doveish" at home.
I support edwards. His calling for a strong isreal while standing in isreal and pointing out the stupidity of bushes fiasco policy in Iraq while standing in the US are two positions that I agree with. His physical location while expousing them is irrelevent
And you must be off your meds
I saw this story last week and posted on it. Of course the "reflexively anti-Israel" crowd (as Ari Berman has called them)(FROMRED, RESE, etc) were "not surprised". The "We love the 'Two Americas' Speech" guys were a bit flummoxed.
flommoxed. You learned a new word over the weekend
They had hoped that John-Boy would be the perfect "anti-Hillary"...he has all the "qualifiers"....Southern, good-looking, sounds like Robert F. Kennedy did, will appeal to the "racist South unlike Barack", etc.
Do you really make this shit up yourself mask or do the hamsters send it over to you by speedy delivery?
Now that he's been "outed" as a hawk on Iran though....It's probably going back to "Obamamania" and "Bully for Barack"!
ah the simple mind... off its meds
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 4:00pm
ah the simple mind... off its meds
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 4:00pm
Yep, get off the meds and your mouse finger gets twitchy....hehe
HEY, an actual, possibly argumentative opinion from WILL that's not just "Repubs and conservatives are hamsters, I support liberalism...whatever that means!"
"I support edwards."---Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 4:00pm
Great...so you got no problem when he says...
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table," Edwards said. "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."????
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2007 @ 4:13pm
Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 4:13pm
Yep, get off the meds and your mouse finger gets twitchy....hehe
I noticed
HEY, an actual, possibly argumentative opinion from WILL that's not just "Repubs and conservatives are hamsters, I support liberalism...whatever that means!"
you really don't read very well do you? med or no meds
"I support edwards."---Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 4:00pm
Great...so you got no problem when he says...
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table," Edwards said. "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."????
Not only do you not read well, you stutter. Mask I'm a former soldier. No I don't have a problem with that statement.
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 4:19pm
Not only do you not read well, you stutter. Mask I'm a former soldier. No I don't have a problem with that statement.
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 4:19pm
Sorry, Cub Scouts doesn't count. What "reading problem", WILL?
I simply asked, if you "support edwards", then do you support him saying "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table"?
So, if Edwards is saying that military action, bombing...maybe ...invasion? (that would be ALL options) is "on the table" (unlike impeachment according to Nancy)....then you support that?
Okay...fine with me (I think some of the options should NOT be on the table, but that's just me...after Iraq). Just interested how some of the OTHERS here might react to that support?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2007 @ 4:50pm
Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 4:50pm
Mask I'm a little disappointed in your bloodhound skills.
Willie is a double agent!
In other words a hamster. (and a bloody war mongering one at that) The problem is he is a stereotypical hamster. You know, stupid, irrational and so on and thus is very good at outing himself.
Of course as you have rightly noticed there is little difference between the position of either party when it comes to ME policy, including Iraq. As a true hamster I say who cares, as long as the too easily beguiled American public wake up to this little lurk and George still gets to reshape the ME in his image.
Zero, who is unlikely to be a hamster in disguise, was on to this long ago.
Willie I told you to be careful with those new fangled battery chargers. Looks like its blown a few of your circuits. Double agents should be more cautious when experimenting with new technologies.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/29/2007 @ 5:11pm
I was actually shocked when I heard the following bald assertions from Zero:
Its not just "pro-Israel" donors and voters at cause, though these are hugely important. The American Jewish Congress and AIPAC and lots of individuals have a big impact.
Let's not forget the "neoconservatives", though, who remain hugely influential for no rational reason. These figures are quite frequently "pro-Israel", hawkish Jewish people themselves, and some of them even have dual citizenship between Israel and the US. Almost all - the Perles, Feiths, Wolfowitzes - almost all of them - have spent their entire careers working as lobbyists pushing a very extreme agenda of Israeli dominance in the Middle East, using the US military as an instrument.
And, again, this is a bipartisan problem. Pelosi, Emmanuel, Hoyer, Lieberman, Bush and all his henchmen, Hillary, Harry, Howard, and Barack - all of them are assets of the Israel Lobby.
That's why a war with Iran is so likely, against all reason.
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2007 @ 3:46pm
Now, I don't really buy the argument that "AIPAC has some influence" is anti-Semetic (though most conspiracy theories about it are absurd and unwarranted). When you slowly morph into "the American Jews are conspiring to destroy our country!", however, I think you've crossed into a domain of argument that is both untenable and offensive. I think it's particularly telling that this strain of argument has never once been warranted.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/29/2007 @ 5:33pm
Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 4:50pm
Sorry, Cub Scouts doesn't count.
It does to cub scouts.. and their parents
What "reading problem", WILL?
The one that causes you to respond to my rebuttal this way ...
I simply asked, if you "support edwards", then do you support him saying "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table"?
When my rebuttal concerning reading was for this statement
HEY, an actual, possibly argumentative opinion from WILL that's not just "Repubs and conservatives are hamsters, I support liberalism...whatever that means!"
Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 4:13pm
---
So, if Edwards is saying that military action, bombing...maybe ...invasion? (that would be ALL options) is "on the table" (unlike impeachment according to Nancy)....then you support that?
Again you can't read. Before we go any further maybe you should list all the possible combinations that you aren't sure comply with Edwards all options are on the table position and my support of it.
Okay...fine with me (I think some of the options should NOT be on the table, but that's just me...after Iraq). Just interested how some of the OTHERS here might react to that support?
How they react is their business. How you react is hilarious. For some reason in the hamster mind all options on the table means we don't actually think them through and weight their practicality and feasibility.
Which is why you people should never be trusted with the commander in chief role
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 5:53pm
In other words a hamster. (and a bloody war mongering one at that) The problem is he is a stereotypical hamster. You know, stupid, irrational and so on and thus is very good at outing himself.
Posted by QuagmireJONES4 01/29/2007 @ 5:11pm
oh Quagmire, so far away... so clueless
It is a core component of the liberal agenda to not only provide for the common defense, but to actualy defend the nation against real threats to my(not your) nation.
Which is why I'm not a hamster. You fellers attack anything that causes that first wave of paralysing, heart stopping, pants shitting fear to sweep over you. It deosns't have to be real for you to attack it.
it just has to scare'ya
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 6:00pm
Q: Why did the neocon want to attack Iran?
A: To make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was supposed to have been
Posted by skeletonman at 01/29/2007 @ 6:13pm
Mask: "Okay...fine with me (I think some of the options should NOT be on the table, but that's just me...after Iraq). Just interested how some of the OTHERS here might react to that support?"
How they react is their business. How you react is hilarious. For some reason in the hamster mind all options on the table means we don't actually think them through and weight their practicality and feasibility.
Which is why you people should never be trusted with the commander in chief role
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 5:53pm
Outstanding work, Will.
Mask and LRJones - quit while you're ahead.
Mask, Will just helped you out your own series of posts as nothing but a vain, tired attempt to turn those you perceive as Will's allies (pick a liberal, any liberal, especially if you can cast them in a bad light) into Will's enemies. You were doing nothing but trying to start a fight, and then, like an insecure, taunting, troublemaking child, watch it from the sidelines.
Just stop it and show some dignity, would you?
And Jonesie -
Your ceaseless attempts to act like you know America better than Americans are tiresome, too, boofhead.
I aussie salute you.
Shoo.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/29/2007 @ 6:20pm
Q: Why did the neocon want to attack Iran?
A: To make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was supposed to have been
Posted by SKELETONMAN 01/29/2007 @ 6:13pm
Ouch, Skel. Ouch.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/29/2007 @ 6:23pm
Q: Why did the neocon want to attack Iran?
A: To make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was supposed to have been
Posted by skeletonman at 01/29/2007 @ 6:24pm
sorry about the double post - satellite internet kinda spotty
Posted by skeletonman at 01/29/2007 @ 6:25pm
Now, I don't really buy the argument that "AIPAC has some influence" is anti-Semetic (though most conspiracy theories about it are absurd and unwarranted). When you slowly morph into "the American Jews are conspiring to destroy our country!", however, I think you've crossed into a domain of argument that is both untenable and offensive. I think it's particularly telling that this strain of argument has never once been warranted.
Posted by THRAWN 01/29/2007 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person
"the American Jews are conspiring to destroy our country!"
Thrawn,
That's a nice format: Distort and re-phrase an opposing idea to your framing, present it as Zero's quote and then lecture us about how offensive and outrageous this fictional argument is.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/29/2007 @ 6:31pm
Wouldn't the proper possessive of Edwards be Edwards' ? Or am I being a nit picking ass hat ?
Posted by skeletonman at 01/29/2007 @ 6:41pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 01/29/2007 @ 6:20pm
ND,
"Quit while we are ahead"? Thought you fellas only want to quit when you perceive you are behind as in Vietnam and Iraq. What's this a new doctrine?
As far as not understanding the American mind you are spot on there but I wonder who does? Perhaps a foreigner not so intellectually compromised can point out some of the conflicting ways in which some of you wallow through your rationalisations and intellectual somersaults.
It is the liberals who have the most trouble with this muddled thinking because they really haven't got anywhere else to go yet. (except to the Dems)
On the other hand I find myself pretty much in tune with the American pro-Bushies. So it is not all Americans, but a subset, that I find have those unique and fascinating mental processes to which you allude. As far as butting out of your America it ain't exclusively yours, we are now all part of George's empire. Whether we like it or not.
I'm being very kind to Willie and I still think he is either a hamster plant (he makes the libs look even more illogical than they perhaps are) or he is indeed an electronic robot.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/29/2007 @ 7:21pm
oh quagmire
are electronic robots the next thing that will cause you hamsters to shit your pants and launch an attack
they sound really scary
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 7:31pm
and our policy is to quit when we are stuck in a quagmire
quagmire
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 7:33pm
they sound really scary
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 7:31pm
Yeah could be Willie but in your case I think the programmer was probably a confused peacenik, who on average, has given us hamsters a non threatening product. Wonder what the libs think?
Maybe, in the interest of producing a more contemplative and less knee-jerk Willie,you should have the following little gem of wisdom engraved on your chip; "I will not put my trust in (Dem) princes".
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/29/2007 @ 8:15pm
"I will not put my trust in (Dem) princes".
Posted by QuagmireJONES4 01/29/2007 @ 8:15pm
oh quagmire, you really have to catch up with the times. We gave up all of our princes 217 years ago.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
For your sake I hope that there really aren't any scary electronic robots in your future.
You fellers don't stand a chance.
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 8:36pm
Now, I don't really buy the argument that "AIPAC has some influence" is anti-Semetic (though most conspiracy theories about it are absurd and unwarranted). When you slowly morph into "the American Jews are conspiring to destroy our country!", however, I think you've crossed into a domain of argument that is both untenable and offensive. I think it's particularly telling that this strain of argument has never once been warranted.
Posted by THRAWN 01/29/2007 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person
"the American Jews are conspiring to destroy our country!"
Thrawn,
That's a nice format: Distort and re-phrase an opposing idea to your framing, present it as Zero's quote and then lecture us about how offensive and outrageous this fictional argument is.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/29/2007 @ 6:31pm
I don't think it's really a huge distortion. His argument is nearly identical to the kinds of argument that have been made for hundreds of years, namely that "there is this huge conspiracy involving some cabal of Jews to pull the wool over everyone's eyes." And just like this strain of argument always is, this massive assertion about a shadowy pro-Israel cabal has never once been warranted.
And before someone says "but wait, there's clearly some group lobbying for Israel's interests; we give them lots of stuff!", a couple of things need to be kept in mind. It's not good enough for these conspiracy theories that there are some people lobbying for Israel's interests; lobbying groups exist for virtually any cause imaginable. Similarly, it's not enough to cite US policy that might benefit Israel, because this naturally assumes that the US has no non-lobbying-related reason for doing so. The burden that any conspiracy theorist must meet is to show that there is a shadowy cabal with actual power to systematically dictate the policy that America pursues in the international arena. No one has made even the slightest attempt to meet this burden, making their claims nothing more than baseless and perhaps offensive assertions.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/29/2007 @ 8:45pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 01/29/2007 @ 6:20pm
No, ND....just poking a stick through the cage at my young friend WILL.
He can't DEFEND anything, can barely SUPPORT anything, all he has is "Repubs and cons are hamsters...haha...isn't that funny for the 21,000th time???"
Ari Berman is writing a CRITICAL piece on Edwards and his SEEMING support for even military action against Iran. WILL says he supports Edwards and by extension supports "all options (including military ones) on the table" for Iran.
Fine...does WILL support, at SOME point, military strikes on Iran?
If not, then he's lying about supporting Edwards...for some reason.
If so, let's hear him defend it.
Notice, he doesn't do either, but attacks ME for asking the question. Because he CAN'T. And not because of what his "liberal friends" think (obviously YOU have no problem with him supporting Edwards who is leaving military options on the table)....that was just to get his goad.
No, it's because it would mean STANDING UP for something, good or bad....and he can't. All he supports is "GOP sucks", and he can defend are lame jokes about MAASCH.
He stands....for nothing.
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2007 @ 9:23pm
Oh, and if you want to throw THAT back in MY face....
pick a specific issue and I'll clearly support or oppose it....
young WILL won't.
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2007 @ 9:24pm
why are you asking dawn questions about me mask.
don't you have the balls to ask me yourself?
What your doing is really cowardly mask. It certainly doesn't make up for the fact that you make extremely simple minded arguements. It just makes you look like a pussy
Posted by Will C. at 01/29/2007 @ 10:46pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 01/29/2007 @ 6:20pm
ND,
"Quit while we are ahead"? Thought you fellas only want to quit when you perceive you are behind as in Vietnam and Iraq. What's this a new doctrine?
What "you guys" are you referring to, Jones? What fictional, narrow-minded pigeonhole did you decide to place me in? Do you even read my posts before you label me? I read yours. What "you guys" are you lumping me with?
"As far as not understanding the American mind you are spot on there but I wonder who does? Perhaps a foreigner not so intellectually compromised can point out some of the conflicting ways in which some of you wallow through your rationalisations and intellectual somersaults."
Point out where I have ever "wallowed through a rationalization" or "done an intellectual somersault". Again, do you even read my posts?
"It is the liberals who have the most trouble with this muddled thinking because they really haven't got anywhere else to go yet. (except to the Dems)"
What muddled thinking, exactly? You keep expressing concepts without specifics. You're typing, but you don't seem to have specified a single thing about a single thing.
"On the other hand I find myself pretty much in tune with the American pro-Bushies."
This is neither news or anything to crow about. 70% in a recent world poll don't like Bush. That many in our own country agree. So, you agree with 30% of our country, the same folks who continue to support our ridiculous excuse for a President. I wouldn't crow about that.
And by the by, thinking the president is wrong for the country doesn't mean you don't love the country - exactly the opposite in fact. Hell, even if you love your senile, half-blind, doddering, grossly incompetent, danger-to-himself-and-others old Grandpa, you don't hand him the keys to your shiny new car.
"So it is not all Americans, but a subset, that I find have those unique and fascinating mental processes to which you allude."
What "unique and fascinating mental processes" are you talking about? You haven't mentioned a one, just the concept of them. As Will put it earlier, you type all of these words and say nothing.
"As far as butting out of your America it ain't exclusively yours, we are now all part of George's empire. Whether we like it or not."
Now, you're talking like you almost have a clue - but not really, since George does not have an "empire". Do you think you're baiting me into acknowledging such a thing? I don't define George's presidency in that manner - some might, but I don't. I find that language inflammatory and incorrect. All apologies if I'm failing to fit any preconcieved, ill-concieved notions of liberal America, Jonesie.
"I'm being very kind to Willie and I still think he is either a hamster plant (he makes the libs look even more illogical than they perhaps are) or he is indeed an electronic robot."
Really? Again, how exactly does Will "make the libs look even more illogical than they are"? I'm missing something, apparently. Explain it to me.
You talk a lot, Jonesie, but you just seem to be a bit of a bludger on the actual thinking part.
And Mask -
I have seen Will espouse what he stands for dozens and dozens of times. Far more stands than I have ever seen you take, incidentally, given your preference for peppering folks with hypotheticals hoping to 'gotcha' them, rathen that actually taking principled stands yourself (which I actually enjoy whenever you do it).
It's just like I described it earlier, Mask - it's something a petulant child would do - I believe you called it "poking our young friend Will with a stick".
It's juvenile, yes, but worse, it's cowardly to attack others for not taking a stand when you don't even know where the dais is.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 02:37am
Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 02:37am
See, ND, I'd consider you a "fair and honest broker" on this thing....if you ONCE went after WILL for being childish with his constant "Nuh-huh, you're a hamster" retorts....but you don't.
And I've yet to see it, WILL's supposed in-depth, rational arguments FOR any particular issue. Mostly it's "Ha, you stupid hamsters oppose *****, which Sen. Liberal supports. I suppose you want people to die to feed your little hamster love of death!!!!!"
Right HERE is a perfect example. Ari Berman writes an article on John "Let's Keep Flattening Teheran On the Table" Edwards....WILL claims to support Edwards....and what is his first post AND his second?
"1
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 3:21pm
the number of nuclear exchanges this planet will ever have
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 3:22pm"
Two NON-SEQUITERS about how "bad" nuclear war is. Huh?!?!?!? What does that have to do with Edwards and "ALL options are on the table for Iran"? Unless WILL is offering opposition to NUKING Iran and some counter-response from the Russians and Chinese?!?!?
The reason is obvious. He's scared. Scared that if he says something "pro-Edwards", i.e. defending Edwards' position that ALL options (including military ones) are on the table...he's be in opposition to Ari Berman, plus a WHOLE LOT of people here (including me). But, if he criticizes Edwards, as Ari Berman did, then later on he can't talk about how great John "Two Americas Shed" is, without this Edwards The Hawk discussion being brought back up.
So, he posts a non-sequiter or two...and then spends his time going after the "hamsters", so that he can't be "boxed in" by offering any honest opinions.
And since you enable this...not really concerned about YOUR take on my "childishness".
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 09:07am
Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 02:37am
ND,
Very unusual post. I read only those threads that are of interest to me and have not read enough of your posts to really give an opinion about what you believe or what your intellectual equipment is like.
I think I came across one of your posts, some time ago, in which you were cheerleading for a lib (cheerleading is a much more acceptable word than sycophancy, isn't it?) and I noticed you're doing the same thing for Willie who enthusiastically flaunts his liberal credentials. Given that context you must be able to see why I made the assumption that you and Willie shared the same brain.
You do seem to be oversensitive and want to take personally what was directed at liberals who are trying to accommodate their anti-war stance with those Dems who, post election, aren't playing the game.
You may not have noticed but Ari Berman was surprised that an aspiring presidential candidate should be using what appears to be neo-con tactics in laying the groundwork for a war with Iran. That is the context of my post.
(I discovered, a while back, that Willie's thinking apparatus has been set up so that it is immune to the overtures of logic. The consequence of that, until Willie gives me a rundown on the rules for his idiosyncratic "logic", is that we have fun trading irrelevant insults. I think most of those familiar with what a valid argument is would realise Mask showed that Willie was basically plucking dogmatic statements out of the air and when he did attempt to show a relationship between some facts resorted to a "logic" all his own. Willie could well be a genius but I have no way of telling).
What you were applauding in Willie's post was what he and other libs were condemning in the Bush Administration. It seems obvious that Willie could not see the inconsistency in this, nor apparently could you.
I'm sure more intelligent libs see the logical bind in trying to be a Bush-war critic while at the same time supporting Dems like Edwards, Hillary and quite a batch of anti Bush War Dems, who paradoxically give the appearance of being closet supporters of the Iraq war at the same time. That is not unique to your politicians for I notice some of the libs here are tarred with the same brush. It demonstrates itself in their dichotomy between the military, which is good on the grounds of ones patriotism and the Iraq war, which is bad. Hence my reference to the inscrutability of the American mind.
We who live at the fringes of the empire have a professional army that gains recruits by pointing up good wages, excellent tertiary educational opportunities, exciting travel etc without a resort to patriotism. In other words just another job.
It should be obvious to those, who have not invented their own "logic", that those on the right, for want of a better expression, are logically consistent in their stance. And hence have no need to rationalise and perform intellectual somersaults.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/30/2007 @ 09:10am
As a former supporter of Edwards, I have switched my support to Chuck Hagel. My advice to John Edwards: "Go sell shoes."
Posted by erichwwk at 01/30/2007 @ 10:24am
Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 09:07am
"See, ND, I'd consider you a "fair and honest broker" on this thing....if you ONCE went after WILL for being childish with his constant "Nuh-huh, you're a hamster" retorts....but you don't."
Let me get this straight - because I don't call someone else childish, that makes you less childish, even though you directly admitted that you were just "poking someone with a stick"?
Come on, Mask - that's one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen from you. Step it up.
"And I've yet to see it, WILL's supposed in-depth, rational arguments FOR any particular issue. Mostly it's "Ha, you stupid hamsters oppose *****, which Sen. Liberal supports. I suppose you want people to die to feed your little hamster love of death!!!!!"
You don't see Will's arguments when he makes them? Then you don't pay attention. I just recently heard him say he supports both Edwards and all options being left on the table (he even repeatedly stressed that yes, that means "all"). Golly, when did I hear him say that? It seems so long ago...
"Right HERE is a perfect example. Ari Berman writes an article on John "Let's Keep Flattening Teheran On the Table" Edwards....WILL claims to support Edwards....and what is his first post AND his second?
"1
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 3:21pm
the number of nuclear exchanges this planet will ever have
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 3:22pm"
Are you arguing that this planet will endure several nuclear exchanges, Mask, or was Will probably right?
"Two NON-SEQUITERS about how "bad" nuclear war is. Huh?!?!?!?
Are you arguing that nuclear war is good, or is Will right?
"What does that have to do with Edwards and "ALL options are on the table for Iran"?"
When people say "all options" are on the table, that includes nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are an option. "All options" includes nuclear weapons. Therefore, discussing nuclear exchanges is perfectly relevant. Don't know how to make this any clearer for you.
"Unless WILL is offering opposition to NUKING Iran and some counter-response from the Russians and Chinese?!?!?"
Are you arguing that there would be no counter-response from other world powers if we use nuclear weapons in Iran? Or is Will right again?
"The reason is obvious."
No, it isn't, and it certainly isn't just because you said so (or made one up). Not to mention that I truly believe that Will says what he means.
"He's scared. Scared that if he says something "pro-Edwards", i.e. defending Edwards' position that ALL options (including military ones) are on the table...he's be in opposition to Ari Berman, plus a WHOLE LOT of people here (including me)."
I don't think Will worries too much about who opposes what he believes in. And for a "scared" guy, he seemed to do a fine job of reiterating his "pro-Edwards" notions while also clarifying that "all options" doesn't mean that mean we don't actually think them through and weigh their practicality and feasibility. He wrote all of this just a few posts ago - you read them, right?
"But, if he criticizes Edwards, as Ari Berman did, then later on he can't talk about how great John "Two Americas Shed" is, without this Edwards The Hawk discussion being brought back up."
If this, if this, the standard Mask mantra... If you say this, I'll back you into a corner, and if you say the other thing, I'll back you into a corner - Mask wins again, yea! Whatever, dude. How do you know what Will will talk about (and how) in the future, Mask? Spiffo-boffo magic 8-ball you got there, Mask. Better hurry and give it back to the president - he has war planning to do with Iran.
"So, he posts a non-sequiter or two...and then spends his time going after the "hamsters", so that he can't be "boxed in" by offering any honest opinions."
Oh, Mask - even if you don't like his smart-assed delivery, everything Will has offered here has been his honest opinion - even the hamster remarks.
"And since you enable this...not really concerned about YOUR take on my "childishness".
You sure cared enough to respond and try to rebut me, even though you already admitted yourself that you were being childish and poking people with sticks.
Are you going back on admitting that now, or are you arguing that "poking Will with a stick" is any more mature than his hamster remarks?
And Mask, the only thing enabling Will is free speech.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 12:46pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 12:46am
LRJONES made a much simpler case than I did.
If you are HONESTLY going to sit there and say that WILL and his endless "hamster" jokes and "off your meds" jokes is somehow engaging in serious debate....you're just trying to keep a friend from being exposed.
NOTHING in the last posts from WILL "explain" his support of Edwards and the criticism of Edwards' "all options" speech in Israel.
PLEASE, point to a line or two, where WILL explains why he AGREES with Edwards, defends him, or even offers SOME nuanced "Well, I think he's wrong on this one, but I agree with him on other issues, so willing to let it slide".
No...it's all "You're a dummy" "You're full of shit, you hamster" "Can't read too well?" (a classic WILL manuever, by which he accuses the accuser of "not seeing what he clearly wrote"....when he "clearly wrote"...nothing).
Hey, again, PLEASE....love to see SOME clear definitive statement of opinion on Edwards from WILL.....care to cut & paste it?
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 1:03pm
Up to this point, I have been very interested in John Edwards, particularly his willingness to speak out about the "two Americas". I am disappointed in his dancing with hawks, but figure I still have some time left to weigh his positives against his negatives, (as well as those of the rest of the field). Who says this process has to be black and white, all or none?
Oh, that's right...
Posted by drhammer at 01/30/2007 @ 1:29pm
Posted by LRJONES4 01/30/2007 @ 09:10am
ND,
Very unusual post. I read only those threads that are of interest to me and have not read enough of your posts to really give an opinion about what you believe or what your intellectual equipment is like.
Yet you started your response to me with:
"Quit while we are ahead"? Thought you fellas only want to quit when you perceive you are behind as in Vietnam and Iraq. What's this a new doctrine?"
Isn't that curious? Where on earth did I get the idea you meant me in any way?
I think I came across one of your posts, some time ago, in which you were cheerleading for a lib (cheerleading is a much more acceptable word than sycophancy, isn't it?)
No, you did not, because I "cheerlead" for no one. You got proof of something different, then put up or shut up.
"I noticed you're doing the same thing for Willie who enthusiastically flaunts his liberal credentials. Given that context you must be able to see why I made the assumption that you and Willie shared the same brain."
No, what I can see is that you jumped into the thread in your very first post at 5:11 with the clear purpose of bashing Will, who is a former American serviceman and, coincidentally, better informed than you about most things America. (And yes, I've read almost all of your posts, Jonesie). I am not "cheerleading" for Will when I acknowledge these things.
"You do seem to be oversensitive and want to take personally what was directed at liberals who are trying to accommodate their anti-war stance with those Dems who, post election, aren't playing the game."
I think two-faced politicians of any party are assholes, and sensitivity has nothing to do with it. I am, however, also tired of all liberals getting whitewashed with the same brush by the 30% minority - before you deny that, refer back to your "Thought you fellas only want to quit when you perceive you are behind as in Vietnam and Iraq" remark that lumped me in with others even though you readily admitted in the next breath that you know zip about me.
"You may not have noticed but Ari Berman was surprised that an aspiring presidential candidate should be using what appears to be neo-con tactics in laying the groundwork for a war with Iran. That is the context of my post."
That was the context of your 5:11? Sure didn't look like it.
(I discovered, a while back, that Willie's thinking apparatus has been set up so that it is immune to the overtures of logic. The consequence of that, until Willie gives me a rundown on the rules for his idiosyncratic "logic", is that we have fun trading irrelevant insults. I think most of those familiar with what a valid argument is would realise Mask showed that Willie was basically plucking dogmatic statements out of the air and when he did attempt to show a relationship between some facts resorted to a "logic" all his own. Willie could well be a genius but I have no way of telling).
I disagree, but then I have been here longer than you and have read many more posts from both men. I will leave this arguiment to you and Mask and Will, who is more than capable of defending himself.
"What you were applauding in Willie's post was what he and other libs were condemning in the Bush Administration."
You are simply wrong. I told Will "outstanding work" for clarifying to Mask that just because "all options" are on the table doesn't mean we don't consider the implications of using those options.
"It seems obvious that Willie could not see the inconsistency in this, nor apparently could you."
What inconsistency is there in my stated positions above, or at any time before today, for that matter? Please provide specific examples.
I'm sure more intelligent libs see the logical bind in trying to be a Bush-war critic while at the same time supporting Dems like Edwards, Hillary and quite a batch of anti Bush War Dems, who paradoxically give the appearance of being closet supporters of the Iraq war at the same time."
Any intelligent individual can see that almost ALL of our politicians are just testing (and swaying with) the wind, in the hopes of maintaining political power. Nice try at taking a not-so-subtle shot at liberal intelligence, though. You missed.
"That is not unique to your politicians for I notice some of the libs here are tarred with the same brush. It demonstrates itself in their dichotomy between the military, which is good on the grounds of ones patriotism and the Iraq war, which is bad. Hence my reference to the inscrutability of the American mind."
This is the first paragraph in all of your posts that I cannot disagree with in any way.
"We who live at the fringes of the empire have a professional army that gains recruits by pointing up good wages, excellent tertiary educational opportunities, exciting travel etc without a resort to patriotism. In other words just another job."
Okay - I'll readily admit that I don't know much about Australia, and cannot knowledgably dispute your opinion on this.
"It should be obvious to those, who have not invented their own "logic", that those on the right, for want of a better expression, are logically consistent in their stance."
"Logically consistent" in this discussion sounds a lot like "stay the course" to me, Jonesie. And demonstrably destructive (and self-destructive) behavior is hardly "logical", now, is it?
And hence have no need to rationalise and perform intellectual somersaults.
You defend the right as though it all-logical, all-knowing, and all-right. But you're wrong.
Even I don't defend all of the left (or all of anything, for that matter) as having an all-encompassing monopoly on logic or what's right.
Because I would be wrong about that, too, wouldn't I?
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 1:03pm
"LRJONES made a much simpler case than I did. "
That begs a sarcastic remark, but I'll pass that one up - too easy.
"If you are HONESTLY going to sit there and say that WILL and his endless "hamster" jokes and "off your meds" jokes is somehow engaging in serious debate....you're just trying to keep a friend from being exposed."
I never said that the jokes are the serious debate. I said Will has made his position known dozens of times. And I don't even know Will (though I'd sooner break bread with him than say... you).
"NOTHING in the last posts from WILL "explain" his support of Edwards and the criticism of Edwards' "all options" speech in Israel."
Will will explain himself further if he chooses to. I don't speak for him.
"PLEASE, point to a line or two, where WILL explains why he AGREES with Edwards, defends him, or even offers SOME nuanced "Well, I think he's wrong on this one, but I agree with him on other issues, so willing to let it slide"."
God, you're lazy, Mask. "I support edwards. His calling for a strong isreal while standing in isreal and pointing out the stupidity of bushes fiasco policy in Iraq while standing in the US are two positions that I agree with." That's from 4:00 p.m. on this very board. Guess you missed it.
"No...it's all "You're a dummy" "You're full of shit, you hamster" "Can't read too well?" (a classic WILL manuever, by which he accuses the accuser of "not seeing what he clearly wrote"....when he "clearly wrote"...nothing)."
No, it isn't.
"Hey, again, PLEASE....love to see SOME clear definitive statement of opinion on Edwards from WILL.....care to cut & paste it?"
Just did.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 1:39pm
Up to this point, I have been very interested in John Edwards, particularly his willingness to speak out about the "two Americas". I am disappointed in his dancing with hawks, but figure I still have some time left to weigh his positives against his negatives, (as well as those of the rest of the field). Who says this process has to be black and white, all or none?
Oh, that's right...
Posted by DRHAMMER 01/30/2007 @ 1:29pm
Astute, as always, Doc. Who, indeed, says there are only two options, besides Mask?
"With us or with the terrorists"...
Where did I hear that?
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 1:41pm
ND, THIS is the sum total of WILL's "opinion" on Edwards saying "ALL options are on the table" concerning Iran.
"I support edwards. His calling for a strong isreal while standing in isreal and pointing out the stupidity of bushes fiasco policy in Iraq while standing in the US are two positions that I agree with."
Which has NOTHING to do with "all options" and Ari Berman's criticism of Edwards. All WILL is doing is spinning for Edwards and making him "pro-Israel" and "anti-Bush's failed policies".
"Will will explain himself further if he chooses to. I don't speak for him. ---Posted by NEW DAWN 01/30/2007 @ 1:39pm
Hope so. Like a "further explanation" of his taken on what Edwards said about "ALL options" and Mr Berman, like some of the rest of us who aren't WILL's buddy, asking WHY is Edwards sounding like...Joe Lieberman?!?!?!?!
As for "black or white" viewpoints....your friends get to have 90% crass jokes, ad hominem attacks, and plain ol' non sequiters in their posts and still be called "thoughtful debators", while those who point out those personality flaws are the ones who must be taken to the woodshed.
BTW, Doc Hammer's post on Edwards...ATLEAST addressed what Edwards said and offered some "nuanced" support of him, despite his "hawkishness", due to his "War on Poverty" domestic statements.
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 2:02pm
"As for "black or white" viewpoints....your friends get to have 90% crass jokes, ad hominem attacks, and plain ol' non sequiters in their posts and still be called "thoughtful debators", while those who point out those personality flaws are the ones who must be taken to the woodshed."
I guess thoughtful debate is in the eye of the beholder.
(Personally, I don't see any in either of those two examples.)
Posted by drhammer at 01/30/2007 @ 2:21pm
Mask, are you willfully stupid or just playing stupid?
----------------------------
"I support edwards..."---Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 4:00pm
"Great...so you got no problem when he says...
"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table," Edwards said. "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."????---Posted by MASK 01/29/2007 @ 4:13pm
Not only do you not read well, you stutter. Mask I'm a former soldier. No I don't have a problem with that statement.
Posted by WILL C. 01/29/2007 @ 4:19pm
How much clearer can he be? Geez, Mask.
And why is anyone required (but you) to take the author (the messenger) of a Nation article to task instead of tkaing on the message? You're bugged because he didn't bag on Berman?
And this:
"As for "black or white" viewpoints....your friends get to have 90% crass jokes, ad hominem attacks, and plain ol' non sequiters in their posts and still be called "thoughtful debators", while those who point out those personality flaws are the ones who must be taken to the woodshed."
I don't have any friends here, Mask, and didn't come here to make any. I came here to out Liberty years ago and stayed to watch the rest of the show.
Please name someone you consider my "friend" here whose posts are "90% crass jokes, ad hominem attacks, and plain ol' non sequiters in their posts". My favorite posters here are Edwriter, STWriley, and Crabwalk, right off the top of my head.
And Mask, you regularly get "taken to the woodshed" for being a shit-stirrer (and rightly so).
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 2:22pm
NEW DAWN,
WILL's "clarification" of "And yes I support that statement" came AFTER his "Edwards is pro-Israel and anti-Bush and I support that" non sequiter. It was only after I PRESSED him, and he spent 3/4 of the post attacking me, that he finally got around to a blanket statement of "Yes, I support that statement".
Okay...what does THAT mean? Edward's statement sounds pretty "neo-con" (a favorite target of young WILL's) (as Ari Berman noted)...so is WILL now agreeing that military options can and even should be used against Iran. Or is he taking issue with Ari Berman's analysis and saying that Berman is wrong in his description of Edwards "echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives"?
You know he's not LIMITED to a post an hour...he could EASILY attack me...AND explain his view on Edwards' statements in Israel, if on a separate post...but he doesn't?
Again, I ask...why? Laziness? Enjoys "knock the hamsters down a peg or two" more than actually discussing his political opinions? Or something more telling, like the fact that he knows that eventually he MIGHT get into a disagreement with his "allies" here at "The Nation" blog, given there is NOT (despite WILL's world-view...not mine, BTW) a "good liberal" stand that is identical on every issue.
He might piss somebody off, if he explained in detail his support of "ALL options are on the table". So he's either got to be disengenuous...or vague...or absent....or spend more time with his little "hamster insults" at people he STRONGLY disagrees with, than actually telling us what he thinks and risking alienating those he MOSTLY agrees with.
Again....he's scared.
BTW, congrats on the hard editorial work there....gleaning through his posts to find two nuggets of SOMEWHAT declarative thought must have taken a while!
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 4:07pm
BTW, NEW DAWN....curious...heard a blogger post that "by extension I've just said that those on the left calling bush a dictator are commies."
Would that require further explanation...or take it as it stands?
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2007 @ 4:24pm
BTW, congrats on the hard editorial work there....gleaning through his posts to find two nuggets of SOMEWHAT declarative thought must have taken a while!
Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 4:07pm
No problem - I don't mind doing your work for you.
You are the one who repeatedly insinuated that no such nuggets were available. Wrong again, hm?
Would you care to openly, definitively admit that you were wrong?
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 4:47pm
BTW, NEW DAWN....curious...heard a blogger post that "by extension I've just said that those on the left calling bush a dictator are commies."
Would that require further explanation...or take it as it stands?
Posted by MASK 01/30/2007 @ 4:24pm
I suppose that would depend on who said it, in what context, and whether there was any historical basis in fact for making such wild assumptions.
I usually leave those to you and yours.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 4:49pm
Mask: Again, I ask...why?
Ask Will.
Mask: Enjoys "knock the hamsters down a peg or two" more than actually discussing his political opinions?
That's you, bud - rather knock ANYONE down than actually discussing your political opinions. There's a name for that - accusing others of what you're doing to deflect attention rom yourself...
"Or something more telling, like the fact that he knows that eventually he MIGHT get into a disagreement with his "allies" here at "The Nation" blog, given there is NOT (despite WILL's world-view...not mine, BTW) a "good liberal" stand that is identical on every issue."
As I've said before, I doubt that Will worries too much about how he is perceived here, Mask.
You sure seem to miss a lot of the things that people answer you with.
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 4:52pm
Which is likely why Will constantly badgers you about your lack of reading skills, of course...
Posted by New Dawn at 01/30/2007 @ 4:53pm
This is very disappointing. I'd been considering working for the Edwards campaign.
Posted by antiPartisa at 01/30/2007 @ 9:39pm
Dawn
I think is really bugs mask that he's a hamster, has no balls, and is limited to making simple minded arguements and then only when he not trying to run away or change the subject.
Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 01:04am
and mask
if I act childishly with you hamsters, it's only becuse I know my audience.
remember that everytime you end a post "hehe"
:)
now if you have any direct question to ask me then ask them. Otherwise quit your bitching.
It's embarassing to the rest if us
Posted by Will C. at 01/31/2007 @ 01:07am
Edwards is no longer even in the running in the Dem primaries. Just kissed his chances goodbye for good.
Posted by MCE337 at 01/31/2007 @ 02:39am
now if you have any direct question to ask me then ask them. Otherwise quit your bitching.
It's embarassing to the rest if us
Posted by WILL C. 01/31/2007 @ 01:07am
Okay, as (what appears) the ONLY liberal supporter of Edwards on this thread, could you please explain IN DETAIL what Senator Edwards meant by "ALL options"...did he mean "all" as in ...military strikes, even invasion....or something "less than ALL"?
Posted by Mask at 01/31/2007 @ 09:37am
The endless pilgrimage of American politicians to Israel to kiss the ring of that foreign power and to beg for money is a ritual performed no where else and is truly shameful.
Posted by sulphurdunn at 02/02/2007 @ 07:33am