Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFormer Rhode Island Senator Clairborne Pell, who gave his name to the federal college-grant program and did more than almost anyone else in the latter years of the 20th-century to foster rational foreign policies, was a mentor to Vice President-elect Joe Biden and an inspiration to President-elect Barack Obama.
So how should Obama, Biden and their congressional allies honor the six-term senator who has died at age 90?
Supercharge funding of Pell Grants? Absolutely.
Expand support for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, both of which were created by legislation Pell sponsored as a freshman senator from Rhode Island in the mid-1960s? Certainly.
Improve relations with Cuba, as Pell sought to do during his many decades as a member and finally chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Yes.
But the best way to honor Pell would be by respecting, and embracing, his responsible interpretation of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and Article 43 of the UN Charter.
The Participation Act and the Charter -- the development of which Pell followed as an observer of the San Francisco conference at which the UN was established and as one of the century's great internationalists -- were of immense interest to the senator because they defined the parameters for U.S. involvement with UN-supported military and peacekeeping missions.
Successive presidents, going back to Harry Truman, had interpreted the Participation Act and UN Charter as granting them the authority to unilaterally involve U.S. armed forces in UN-led "enforcement" missions.
Pell objected to that interpretation, arguing that Article 43 clearly granted to Congress the authority to exercise its Constitutionally-defined war powers -- most importantly, the power to declare wars and to define the extent that the U.S. might entangle itself in military adventures abroad.
In the 1990s, Pell clashed with President Bill Clinton over this issue when the then-commander-in-chief unilaterally committed US forces to the UN mission in Somalia. It was a lonely fight, but one that the Foreign Relations Committee chair, who worried that the Senate had made a dire error in ceding too much of its authority to check and balance Republican and Democratic presidents on issues of war making, felt was essential.
Pell believed, along with one of New England's great contributors to the definition of our system of separated powers, Roger Sherman, that: "The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war."
In the tradition of the founders, it was Claiborne Pell's view that Congress alone held the latter power.
One of Pell's few genuine allies on the Foreign Relations Committee was a freshman senator from Wisconsin named Russ Feingold -- now a senior member of the committee and one of the few members who keeps alive the values the Rhode Islander espoused.
Like Feingold, the Africa subcommittee chair who spent much of the recent holiday season in the most dangerous regions of east Africa, Pell was no isolationist. Indeed, Pell served in the Senate as a key legislative supporter of the UN and was frequently honored by its supporters.
But Pell knew that, when it came to foreign relations, the founders of the United States and the United Nations were right to allow for checks and balances on the rush to war.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden and members of the Senate will speak many kind words with regard to Claiborne Pell in the days and weeks to come, and rightly so. But the best way to honor the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would by listening to Feingold and others who seek to assure that American troops are never committed to conflicts on the sole authority of the president.
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
Interesting, Mr Nichols, as that was the discussion I was having with our resident Presidential authoritarian, LVLIBERTY, on another thread.
Apparently simply being Commander-in-Chief means that the President has the right to start a war, use "cutting aid to our troops in the field" as a political bludgeon to keep it going, and Congress either goes along and declares war or just shuts up and keeps paying for it, lest they be called "treasonous".
What I think will be interesting is, if talk of HUMANITARIAN missions for the troops comes up, or being under the aegis of the United Nations...
how many of the Right will "suddenly" discover their love of Congressional oversight of the Presidency!
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 10:55am
I hope PE Obama will really look into the foreign policy issues...some of those need revamping for sure especially the one with Israel!!!! So many things need to be addressed, PE Obama won't know where to start I'm sure, I hope he will get the health care system more people friendly and not for the insurance companies. Students need help badly also, everything has been so expensive for them and they need a break as they are the future. Diplomacy, diplomacy,diplomacy that must be the order of the day with this new administration, we can't have this "bomb first ask questions later" approach that we had with Bush. I just have pride and faith in our new President to be and I know I will be hearing some really negative comments about that statement in particular, but all I can say to them is..."Oh ye of little faith"...wait and see!!
Posted by Caj at 01/02/2009 @ 11:31am
Yes,students need help in college.....they need some solid advising as to which direction they should pursue n order to be able to take care if themselves as well as a family wthout constant demands that govt I'd others pay their bills for them.
The first step would be to go into a scientific field of study...engineering,chemical studies electronic fields...computer sciences....these areas tend to be the areas that industry has demands and is willing to pay better salaries from the start.
Once a student gets hired in this arena he begins to become a tax payer and it wont take long for him/her to notice that only 1/2 of his pay check comes home with him/her.... A conservative in the early stages of development.
The other option us to enter the field of English,history, ethnic studies of whatever group, and art....fine areas all, but none will give an income enough for real survival. This is because there us no demand for these talents in the real world other than acedamia or the public school system.. Resulting in a union job that focus on keepng the job and not the job itself. And this leads to an entitlement mentality and constant frustration and finaly to socialist demands fir others to provide for them what they can't for themselves all the while blaming those whose choices have lead to complete self sufficiency.
Simple advice early will indeed help. And save all tax payers a fortune.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 12:17pm
If left to their own devices the poorly advise end up in govt for 20 years or more with self proclaiming "I have "served the people"....for 20 years or whatever....
And upon simple examination, they have never had a job and we, the tax pagers get " serviced" alright.
The other problem us the entitlement govt seat.. Think Kennedy....Rockefeller, and other millionares or AA candidates who have not worked for their money or election for real... They,too,are here to "help".
Spare us the horror of all of them, no matter which party they claim.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 12:25pm
Once a student gets hired in this arena he begins to become a tax payer and it wont take long for him/her to notice that only 1/2 of his pay check comes home with him/her.... A conservative in the early stages of development.
YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 12:17pm
JM, Half of my paycheck doesn't go to taxes, and I'm one of those people with a science degree in engineering. I've been an engineer for some time now, and don't mind paying my share of taxes to try help someone else out a little.
Also, if you wish to live in a world where there aren't any artists, musicians, writers and the like, by all means, cut funding for the arts.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:02pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 12:17pm
you're right, jm.
all those english-studyin brats are gonna end up as overpaid union DMV demons draining the taxpayer of his will to live!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
No US president who believes in our constitution will ever put UN troops under the control of the UN.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
What kind of troops would you suggest the UN to have control over?! LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:10pm
Mask and Nichols and I'm sure all the leftwing Nation bloggers, represent this love affair with surrendering our sovereignty to the UN.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
THEY'LL BAN HOTDOGS!
WWE WILL BE REPLACED WITH ĦĦĦĦĦĦSOCCER!!!!!!
THEY'LL HOIST THE RAINBOW F(L)AG!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:11pm
I'm still waiting for a courageous President who will lead the way in seperating ourselves from the UN permantly.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
president cheney still has 17 days and LOTS of cluster bombs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:12pm
Led by socialist Eleanor Roosevelt, it was part of a global socialist plot to destroy our constitutional republic.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
earth to larry, earth to larry.
ZZZZZZRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:13pm
Led by socialist Eleanor Roosevelt, it was part of a global socialist plot to destroy our constitutional republic.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
little did she know that CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS would do the trick!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:15pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:02pm
Good, I am glad you are helping out others...I don't mind helping others too...
My only point is when 1/2 of your check is taken B4 you get to even see it, that ain't you helping, that govt helping themselves to you...and convincing you that your are helping....
and my earlier point is Pell grants are great...but going into your field is what America needs and will pay more for the talent and knowlege...the other fields have a small demand and those jobs tend to create more of those people who need "help"...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 1:15pm
and we are drowning in those types of "degreed"...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 1:16pm
No US president who believes in our constitution will ever put UN troops under the control of the UN.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
only a coalition of the coerced will do...
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:16pm
No US president who believes in our constitution will ever put UN troops under the control of the UN.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
only a coalition of the coerced will do...
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:16pm
No US president who believes in our constitution will ever put UN troops under the control of the UN.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
only a coalition of the coerced will do...
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:16pm
after having realized his double click, frosty proceeded to click again just for sport.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:17pm
Also, if you wish to live in a world where there aren't any artists, musicians, writers and the like, by all means, cut funding for the arts.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:02pm
No, I do not want to live in that world with out those items...but they should thrive on their own as everything else..
Look, my son is an artist and will never be an engineer...I support him and will pay for his art school instead of college...I also advised him that he may have some lean years..like probably 30 years of lean and to not expect a 6 figure income in his field unless he MAKES IT HAPPEN...
I do not believe he should be subsidised by...you.... or anyone else...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 1:19pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
Larry, isn't "He violated 17 UNITED NATIONS' resolutions" one of the reasons given for why we had to invade Iraq?!?!???
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 1:26pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
Oh, I suppose you'd oppose the United Nations passing some resolution terminating control over some land run by one of our allies and allowing it to become a separate nation-state?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 1:28pm
I would like to see the UN run its budget without the massive US subsidy...and move its location to a workers paradise where it can continue to take care of the demands of the places it admires..say...locate in Cuba. After 50 years of the Revolution..they could use the money from travel...maybe even get electricity everyday...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 1:33pm
You tell 'em, MAASCH. I'd like that durn UN move to some country run by them lib'ruls where they've "created a boom" by having a 50% top marginal rate on those making over $175,000 and raising higher corporate taxes....like.....oh......
America in 1984 or something!
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 1:47pm
Led by socialist Eleanor Roosevelt, it was part of a global socialist plot to destroy our constitutional republic.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 1:06pm
earth to larry, earth to larry.
ZZZZZZRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 1:13pm
Holy shit!
That's even more loony tunes than usual!
Hot damn Larry, you're awesome.
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/02/2009 @ 1:54pm
do not believe he should be subsidised by...you.... or anyone else...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 1:19pm
Can't argue with you too much there. I played the piano all the way up into high school and was given the choice by my piano teacher to quit playing football, baseball, basketball and girls and focus completely on piano, or quit piano. I didn't see myself as the next Mozart, so I figured at best I'd end up playing at a mall or in bars for tips, or in second rate weekend band....not a very good way to make a living plus, I didn't want to quit playing baseball nor miss out on the girls.
What you say has a lot of merit. People choose to roll the dice by picking professions that are kind of like winning the lottery. Maybe you've got the talent, luck and good forturne to make it like the few, but most end up not making it and have to deal with reality which isn't too kind in this world.
Most kids see themselves as the next Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning, or rockstar with all the money and glamour. They don't stop and think, geez, what if I'm only mediocre and don't make it past the high school, or college level (or minor league level).
I think of some of the people I went to school with, and even the ones that did make it to the top level in professional football and baseball had fleeting careers. Luckily, most of them used their money to get degrees after the fact. One is a businessman, two are attorneys, and the other one's claim to fame was becoming an American gladiator after his football career ended. I don't know if he's still doing that or what he's doing these days.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:06pm
That's even more loony tunes than usual!
Hot damn Larry, you're awesome.
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/02/2009 @ 1:54pm
Didn't you know Eleanor Roosevelt and FDR were actually communists and were trying to turn the U.S. into the Imperial Peoples Republic of America. They almost succeeded in doing so except the Hoover Damn project was successful and didn't undermine the entire U.S. economy as planned (those damn (pun intended) engineers knew what they were doing!!!).
Now, here we are decades later having to deal with libruls, tree huggers and gay rights activists trying to ruin this holy, clean country that survived Roosevelts global attack on everything good, Godly and wholesome.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:14pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:25pm
No, you cite the League of Nations.
So, you'd have no problem if the US belonged to THAT international organization and followed by its mandates?....
supposing of course we could reconstitute the League of Nations???
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 2:27pm
So, you'd have no problem if the US belonged to THAT international organization and followed by its mandates?....
supposing of course we could reconstitute the League of Nations???
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 2:27pm
You both have it wrong.
The reason the UN is protecting Israel is because the Lombard family guaranteed it's safety because the Corleone family bankrolled the Lombard's and Liver's Casino!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:35pm
supposing of course we could reconstitute the League of Nations???
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 2:27pm
It would have to be The League of Nations that do exactly what we tell them to do....kind of like....
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:39pm
Like his interpretation of the Constitution (whereby the President can start wars, despite the Constitution actually saying Congress has the power to declare war....apparently "declaring a war" means "rubber-stamping what the President wants")...
LVLIB's INTERESTING choices on "which international organization and which mandates it declares are 'authoritative'" are rather...selective.
The 1922 League of Nations?....good (because it supports him on the borders of Israel).
The United Nations?....bad (because it doesn't and of its later criticisms of Israel).
"Authority" difference?...none. Except for supporting what LVLIB wants supported.
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 2:59pm
I have a couple of times on this website advocated something that given the individual involved, unfortunately has no chance of happening.
Many at the UN applauded during the recent speech there by the President of Iran. The speech was full of vitriol towards Israel.
I have said that Mayor Michael Bloomberg should have immediately kicked the UN's ass out of New York City.
He should have, by executive order, condemned the UN property as being in violation of some city fire code or another. He should have then given UN personnel 24 hours to vacate the property, and that all that property beyond that time would by eminent domain become the property of the city of New York.
Any UN personnel who did not have any authority to be in the United States beyond their membership in the UN would have then been taken to one of the three area airports(if they had not already gone there), so that they could leave the U.S. ASAP.
Unfortunately, it appears that Mayor Bloomberg has gone into some full time mode of trying to cozy up to Democrats, for what purpose I do not know, but as a result the probablity of him doing what I suggest is close to 0%.
I think it is a good idea.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 3:15pm
Since the U.S. and South Korea were attacked by North Korea, we would have been at war regardless of the UN Authorization. But, it was helpful in bringing in additional allies. The Soviet Representative on the Security Council had a habit of walking out of meetings as a protest. Otherwise, there would not have been an authorization. But, I would like to see a formal Declaration of War in any conflict even involving terrorist organizations. I want the rules of war that go with the declaration such as the treatment of prisoners.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/02/2009 @ 3:30pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 3:15pm
Really? This guy seems to place great store in UN resolutions, SJCHR?
October 21, 2002 Chicago Tribune.
By Bob Kemper
WASHINGTON - President Bush, who for months urged world leaders to help the United States topple Saddam Hussein, said Monday that the Iraqi leader could remain in power if he complies with United Nations resolutions, a prospect Bush considers unlikely.
"The stated policy of the United States is regime change," Bush told reporters at the White House. "However, if (Saddam) were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has...."
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 3:35pm
No US president who believes in our constitution will ever put UN troops under the control of the UN.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009
The last time I looked it up United Nation's stands for just that and it would make sense to have U.N troops...so why would any President not let the U.N. take control of the U.N troops am I missing something here??? Is it because we do such a sterling job of controlling everybody around the world that nobody else could come close to our superiority!!!
Posted by Caj at 01/02/2009 @ 3:39pm
Mask,
You have only been told about a zillion times why the UN resolutions about Saddam get brought up by those who defend why we had to go to war.
Rather than arguing for the sake of arguing, you need to concentrate on getting me the answers to the question you have not answered yet from the other thread:
1. Who is Winston Smith?
2. Where is Room 101?
3. Why did Winston apparently leave Room 101 and what was the attraction in there to begin with?
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 3:48pm
But we did not need any UN approval to defend ourselves.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:20pm
How was Saddam supposed to launch these weapons he never had and just how far do you think they would have gone???? It's one hell of a long way from Iraq to over here and I guess that wouldn't have left Iraqi shores long before it dropped into the sea. Oh yes, he was imminent threat alright as regards to those missiles being launched in our direction....we were sold a bunch of goods and so many fell for it and still believe it to this day..how sad!!
Posted by Caj at 01/02/2009 @ 3:51pm
I say it's ten to one odds that Israel will be done with it's Gaza attack before Obama takes ofice.
W gave them the green light and Israel knew it was running out of time to take full military action in Gaza and presto, here we are.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 3:48pm
Do you want TWO threads concerning your lack of literary depth?!?!???
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 3:56pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 3:54pm
Exactly. It will arrange a "temporary cease fire" in time to not embarass the incoming Administration into taking a hard line with Jerusalem.
As much as many say American policy is dictated by Israel, it's actually the reverse. The Israelis know that continueing scenes of Palestinian monthers carrying wounded kids, crushes their support with all but the Hard Right in America.
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 3:58pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 3:54pm |
Yeah..probably...also, the Muslims think once a Muslim always a Muslim, therfore Obama might be considered a friendly....
and that Obama might have been even more agressive with Israel to not respond daily rocket barrages in the interests of "peace"...so...
Israel figures not better than later since I have a known friend in the WH... plus...it might be a real punch at Iran...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 4:01pm
"..figures now..."
sorry typo
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 4:02pm
W gave them the green light and Israel knew it was running out of time to take full military action in Gaza and presto, here we are.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/02/2009 @ 3:54pm
I think sadly you have got that exactly right...PE Obama will need to re-examine this policy with Israel I believe, it's been too biased for years and I think a lot of the American people and of course people around the world are sick of it.
Posted by Caj at 01/02/2009 @ 4:26pm
Mask,
You asked "Do you want TWO threads concerning your lack of literary depth?!?!???"
Mask, what do you mean by two? Are you talking about numbers?
If you are, please go easy on me. I never learned me any ciphering when I went to school. I gradeated kindergarten with Jethro Bodine but they sure didn't learn us any ciphering! That is not until the first grade, which I am looking forward to going to if Jed and Granny let me.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 4:51pm
Mask,
In case you don't like my sarcasm, above, I am not sure which is worse. Sarcasm which messes up discussion on these threads, or conversation that takes forms like words below:
"a classic Orwellian "1984" thinker of the post-Room 101 Winston Smith mode"
This was enlighted thought from you.
Just in case you are wondering, real people do not communicate that way.
The only people who communicate that way are lib intellectuals, sometimes referred to as the "beautiful people".
This is done, I guess, to impress those outside the bounds of lib elitism how brilliant and well read and enlightened you are, and within lib circles, I guess it is done in order to try to outdo other lib intellectuals doing the same things.
But, although it probably either impresses those in lib circles or perhaps is required in lib circles lest you be thought stupid or dumb, when you get outside of this lib envrionment that kind of discourse is not received well at all.
People will think of you as a stuck up snob and horses ass, trying to put on airs.
Maybe you do not operate outside of the lib environment, either online or in real life, but if you do you may want to think about what I am saying.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 5:01pm
I love seeing people trash the UN, then use the UN to justify war. Obvious contradictions like that show the absurdity of people's beliefs.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/02/2009 @ 5:45pm
Since this thread is about war, with the purpose to promote leftist belief about how war should be initiated and occur, along with the resulting discussion from bloggers, it might be a good idea at this point, since there is a war going on right now in the Middle East, to look at what some people are saying about the subject.
Thus, below are links to some articles. As always with my links, if after uploading to the server, there are blank space, take the blanks out after pasting into your browser.
Also, these articles plainly show why leftist beliefs about war SHOULD NOT be paid attention to, because they are usually always wrong, regarding who is to blame for war, how war gets started, how to stop it, and how leftist efforts to prevent or stop war usually create worse war.
=======================
Jewish World Review January 2, 2009 / 6 Teves 5769 Moral clarity in Gaza By Charles Krauthammer http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ cols/krauthammer010209.php3
Jewish World Review Jan. 1, 2009 / 5 Teves 5769 The Gaza Rules By Victor Davis Hanson http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ 0109/hanson010109.php3
Jewish World Review January 2, 2009 / 6 Teves 5769 Has Israel learned its lesson? By Jeff Jacoby http://jewishworldreview.com/ jeff/jacoby010209.php3
Jewish World Review January 2, 2009 / 6 Teves 5769 Responding to incoming missiles By Bob Tyrrell http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ cols/tyrrell010209.php3
Jewish World Review January 2, 2009 / 6 Teves 5769 Hamas' march to victory By Caroline B. Glick http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ 0109/glick010209.php3
====================
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 6:31pm
Wolf,
The other possibility is that the Obama people went along with the Israeli plan. Along with the Bush admin so he wouldn't be tatooed by the likes of those on this site. And they would blame Bush.. Who like the bulk of America, ignores the far left here.
Remember the Obama campaign and the out of Iraq in 16 months? Under the bus along with the Nation readers.... Same for holding the Israelis back.
Bush will take the "hit" for this, thus saving Obama the trouble from the loons on his first day at work.
And Israel comes out the winner despite the constant reruns of the Pslestinians runnng to hospitals with children. One should show the 20 rockets a day and the lanchers in neighborhoods.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/02/2009 @ 7:23pm
1st of all, the US refused to be bound by the League.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 4:38pm
So since you use the League as your authority for Israel...
and the US refused to be bound by the League....
LEGALLY (given the citations you give), the US shouldn't be bound to support the 1922 San Remo definition of "Israel"...should it?
Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 7:26pm
and who represented a threat to our national security.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:20pm
nothing like the threat of $3,000,000,000,000 in extra debt will...
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 7:32pm
The UN act was a capitulation to the Arabs who wanted to further restrict any Jewish presence.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:25pm
now, why would they have wanted that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 7:34pm
I think it is a good idea.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 3:15pm
MOO!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 7:36pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 3:48pm
i can give you one thousand, nine hundred and eighty-four reasons why you should read more.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 7:38pm
Hey Frosty Zoom,
You assume too much, say I should read more.
You conclude that because I haven't read 1984 since probably high school that I don't read much.
But you have no idea how much I do or do not read.
I did have some recollection of what 1984 was about, but before posting I called it up on the Internet to double-check, in order to be on the safe side.
In a summary about 1984, I am seeing reference to words and phrases (describing the contents of the book) like "Big Brother", "the party", "thought police", "rehabilitation center" (or, in Windsor that would be "centre" for you, Frosty), "censoring behavior (behaviour) and thoughts", "forced labor camps".
I'm thinking to myself, LIBS are referencing and touting this book?
Do LIBS even know what the book is about?
This synopsis, as well as my general recollection of the purpose of this book, as well as Animal Farm, was to warn about totalitarian societies.
In other words, societies Libs promote. Socialist Utopia and Communism.
LIBS are referencing and touting this book?
Do LIBS even know what the book is about?
I think it is Libs who don't read. I read the Scott McClellan book, feted by libs as an expose of the Bush Administration.
Early on in that book, McClellan is talking about being in Florida in 2000 while ballots are being reviewed, after election day.
He mentions how there were Republican and Democrat election officials present.
He also mentions how the Republican officials noticed chads on the floor, and wondered why.
Chads would normally come out during voting.
But maybe some additional after election voting was going on. No doubt, votes for Gore!
Libs must not have read that book, either!!
Maybe I should read more lib-recommended books. They wind up disproving libs!
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 8:23pm
Maybe I should read more lib-recommended books.
They wind up disproving libs!
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 8:23pm
here's a good place to start:
"It is said he (Unkulunkulu) sent a chameleon; he said to it, "Go, chameleon (lunwaba), go and say, 'Let not men die!'" The chameleon set out; it went slowly, it loitered in the way; and as it went it ate of the fruit of a bush which is called Ubukwebezane. At length Uhkulunkulu sent a lizard [intulo, the blue-headed gecko] after the chameleon, when it had already set out for some time. The lizard went; it ran and made great haste, for Unkulunkulu had said, "Lizard, when you have arrived say, 'Let men die!'" So the lizard went, and said, "I tell you, it is said, 'Let men die!'" The lizard came back again to Unkulunkulu before the chameleon had reached his destination, the chameleon, which was sent first-which was sent and told to go and say, "Let not men die!" At length it arrived and shouted, saying, "It is said, 'Let not men die!'" But men answered, "Oh, we have accepted the word of the lizard; it has told us the word, 'It is said "Let men die!'" We cannot hear your word. Through the word of the lizard men will die."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/mlb/mlb04.htm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 11:21pm
Posted by comanchenation at 01/02/2009 @ 9:55pm
but the key is to not get into fights.
the credit card's run out.......
plus, life's better when you're alive.
<i>keep the canadian clean!</i>:
http://reshade.com/picture/medium/50157907.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/02/2009 @ 11:30pm
This synopsis, as well as my general recollection of the purpose of this book, as well as Animal Farm, was to warn about totalitarian societies.
In other words, societies Libs promote. Socialist Utopia and Communism.
Posted by sjchermak
Or...In other words, societies Right Wing Kool-aid junkies promote. Corporate dominate Oligarchy and / or Fascism.
The idea of "Big Brother", and how W. Smith was compelled to profess love for him, reminds me of some conservatives who like to lable people "Anti-American."
Or, how the thought police controlled people's thoughts reminds me of how some conservatives call themselves "values voters" but are only concerned with other people's values.
And, I find particular similarities between the practice of revising history in Oceana and how some conservatives revise history by drumming home talking points about how 9/11 was Clinton's fault, when clearly it was the Bush Administration...Or, how they lied about so many things regarding Hurricane Katrina just to cover up Bush's miserable ineptitude...Or, even now, some conservatives are trying to blame the financial collapse on CRA and Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac. The facts prove that this is not the case.
Posted by koroviev at 01/03/2009 @ 05:09am
"Led by socialist Eleanor Roosevelt, it was part of a global socialist plot to destroy our constitutional republic."
BOO!
----
Posted by sjchermak at 01/02/2009 @ 8:23pm
Dept of "homeland "security.
"free speech zones"
"With us or against us"
"mushroom clouds"
trickle down economics
Atta in Prague, threatens YOU!
hmmm, all of these are con-talk, not lib chum-talk. sip that -Aid, SJ, sip away.
I sure wish one of these wise cons would tell us about their utopian village, this place with no unions, no taxes, no public education, no regulation of business, no "intellectual elite's" a firm military not constrained by soft liberals.
oh, wait, I found such a place, places...
Sudan
Iraq
Congo
GOOD DEAL! When are you guys moving to your Utopia? No taxes!!! You can keep all you earn!!
See ya!
oh wait, no you say you don't want to live in those places? Because you like the FDIC, the fire dept and unionized police dept that you call when your house alarm goes off, you like the oversight of NYSE and NASDAQ, you like to fly on planes that have been safety inspected, you like that potholes get filled before they break your BMW and that the bridge over the highway that leads to the mall is safe to navigate, you like the jails that house people that frighten you, you like the socialized military that can only survive on taxes; giving free healthcare, housing and full retirements to battle tested and desk bound alike.
But god forbid we try to educate and care for others. That would be un-xtian.
What I have noticed recently here is that the cons are THE MOST SELFISH PEOPLE HERE. They are only interested in themselves, fuck everybody else. Like HAPPY says, "as long as the dividends roll in, who cares who dies?"
Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2009 @ 10:38am
People that rely on guvt funding to live after achieving a liberal arts degree:
Maya Angelou
Richard Gere
Madonna (drop out)
Michael Moore
Al Gore
(Did you know that Phred Thompson never "worked"?)
Tony hillerman
A famous welfare queen still getting her check from John Maasch- JK Rowling
Damn those liberal parasites!
Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2009 @ 10:45am
crabwalk,
You (probably inadvertently) show your leftist view of the world with the following, said by you above:
"you like the jails that house people that frighten you"
But you, of course, overlook that the people who are in jail are people who have committed crimes.
To a leftist, however, the people who are in jail are there because they "frighten" or "threaten" conservatives who are busy oppressing people. To a leftist, the people who are in jail are there because they are being oppressed or persecuted.
To a leftist, it is society's fault that the people in jail are there, because the society is not "compassionate" enough to adopt enough leftist philosophy.
So, sometimes the way one refers to or phrases things can say a lot about their view of the world.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 11:15am
Feverish and sweating, AL HURRA writes:
"I've repeatedly said that Bush did not need to get UN sanction for the Iraq War...But we did not need any UN approval to defend ourselves.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/02/2009 @ 2:20pm"
AL HURRA may be narcissitically attached to what he has "repeatedly said" -- he is, afterall, a paranoid and untrusting clown in the style of Milosevic who, like the dictatator, insists on defending himself in court (AL HURRA himself has told us about this when "boasting" about having been sued over and again). But, AL HURRA, what did Tony Blair's Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith have to say about the invasion of Iraq and the UN?
???????
And how about "defend(ing) ourselves" ... against what again? Having Saddam's "people shredder" (that did not seem to much bother Dumsfeld when he was palling up the swarthy dictator) tele-ported to California? The goo, as Scott Ritter has characterized it, in Iraq's obselete and entirely accounted for weapons? The non-existent delivery systems in a country whose airspace was fully controlled by the US and UK for a decade running?
The paranoia, suspicion, and the need to get attention with alarming rightwing talltales simply never stops when AL HURRA carries out his keyboard jihad with demands for *other people's* ideological purity.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/03/2009 @ 1:58pm
SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK EXITS THE NEO-STALINIST CLOSET WITH UNBRIDLED WORSHIP FOR THE STATE.
Hold something over your mouth when you glance over this doozy, a feat of stupidity remarkable even for SJ, the stench of which cannot be abided:
"the people who are in jail are people who have committed crimes."
Obviously, something like 99% are guilty.
But that is not what SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK said. And that is *no accident*.
Now that SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK has demonstrated that he believes the state 100% infallible and there is no need for popular or legal mechanism for oversight with regard to the state, let's smoke him further out of his neo-Stalinist crabhole/cave. Questions, SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK...
1. Illinois released 13 people from death row during the 1990s when their convictions were found to be in error and the real culprits apprehended.
As a truncheon loving Stalinist, do you demand that Illinois locate and execute the 13 releasees with extreme prejudice since it will uphold the sacrosanct principole that the state is never wrong?
2. The Soviet state operated gulags since its opponents were obviously mentally ill. In light of your Sov-like love for the state and its infallability, SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK, are you going to begin the construction of a gulag for your nieghborhood in order to send a message to foes and doubters about the state's omniscience and onmicompetence?
3. George W Loser, the affirmative- action-for-the-rich-enabled metrosexual, pardoned the felony-convicted Louis Libby. Will you be performing a citizen's arrest on them and supervising their transfer to the local gulag for doubting the state?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/03/2009 @ 2:12pm
What goes for the dismal SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK and his state-worship, goes doubly for that titan of heinousness JOMAMMA.
JOMAMMA has spent years on this webpage yacking stupidly about libertarianism and mindlessly babbling 1980s-Reagan drivel about government is the problem not the solution blah blah. Like an eyeless slug bathed in shimmering mucous, JOMAMMA is blind to the implications of what he repeats. Thus, when the question of state-sponsored torture arises, JOMAMMA exhibits his true colors as an uninhibitated statist, too stupid even for the enlightened self-interest that is presented by lawful treatment of detainees.
And elective wars, the most destructive action that a state can undertake? Once again, JOMAMMA's instincts are revealing about the real nature of the right. In practice, JOMAMMA morphs into John Kerry on Vietnam. Kerry famously said, c. 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?". In this spirit, JOMAMMA did not go to Vietnam. Says his draft number was low, anyway -- because, you see, **rightwing patriotism has to take a number and then stand in line and wait to be called**.
But when his ass is no longer near to being on the line, the rightwing hypocrisy surges out. JOMAMMA the "small government libertarian" foams grotesquely at the mouth like a rapid animal in support of metrosexual pansy George W Loser's Vanity Invasion.
Restrained state. The state that governs least governs best. State off our backs. Assclowns like SJ and JO mindlessly babble all the talking points that have been drilled into their soft skulls, regardless of how blatantly they contradict their base meathead authoratarianism in matters of life & death.
Is there a worse ad for conservatism than...conservatives?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/03/2009 @ 2:34pm
We need new staff at that sanitorium.
The current nurses there keep forgetting to get PhilMcCrevice his meds in a timely manner, then they get the schedule goofed up and let him go on the internet when he should be in basket-weaving class.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 3:01pm
Phil,
You said above "Assclowns like SJ and JO mindlessly babble all the talking points that have been drilled into their soft skulls"
You obviously did not properly coordinate your post with Mask, as you should do.
If you had, your posting would have read "Assclowns like SJ and JO mindlessly babble all the talking points that have been drilled into their soft skulls by Rush Limbaugh"
You are supposed to check with Mask first before posting, although I do realize they may only allow you so much time on the sanitorium computer and thus you have to make your submittals in a hurry.
Also, in your last paragraph, you referred to "base meathead authoratarianism"
If you remember, the "meathead" is Rob Reiner (All in The Family), and he is a big time liberal. Thus, why are you concerned about "meathead authoratarianism". I would have thought you would like that!
Remind the nurses they forgot to give you your meds.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 3:13pm
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 9:55pm
Posted by comanchenation at 01/02/2009 @ 9:55pm .
That may all be true, but you better make damn sure you are retaliating against the "right" side before you launch any attacks!!! In this case it was not the right side and Bush and Cheney knew that and it made not one bit of difference to them as they were going to Iraq come hell or high water. They both need to held accountable for that trumped up war which was based on lies and one day hopefully they will have their feet held to the fire for it.
Posted by Caj at 01/03/2009 @ 3:17pm
Looks like Phil is one of those frustrated English majors who never really accepted what Many have quickly duscovered after 2 of his droning posts...... He can't get paid for his writings. He isn't very good at it....so we get them.
In fact, I believe I have found a way for Phil to earn an honest livng.........
Make those victims of US violence read Phils driveling ramblings all day. ......
I know, I know, it is torture, after an hour they will confess to anything , eat a pork sandwhich and dance the Hora to the tune of Stars Spangled Banner.
And we can tell Phil it is not torture but education realignment in order to help the people.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/03/2009 @ 3:21pm
It's gotta be Phils heavy flow day in the cycle... ... Nothing else can explain his musings.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/03/2009 @ 3:26pm
Caj,
For about the umpteen zillionth time, George W. Bush and Tony Blair (they were the ones in charge, not Dick Cheney) were attacking Iraq to stop the future terror Saddam would have caused.
Sept. 11 woke some people up (not libs, apparently) to the reality that we needed to stop threats before they became real and caused grave damage.
Once again, and you know this full well because you are a regular blogger on this site, Lvliberty1 made posting after posting about 3 weeks ago showing how Saddam was a threat.
Did you?
1. Not read them at all? 2. Read them, but then ignore them? 3. Read them, but not understand them?
You are fixated that some "wrong" occurred, but I can't say it is a figment of your imagination only, because it is not only your imagination but that of many other leftists on this site that are totally consumed with Bush hatred.
Now, a leftist has been elected President, and some libs here have switched off from their Bush hatred and have begun to carp and whine that the new President is doing things that, in their view, (in THEIR view, Mask, I am not commenting on it myself) are not leftist enough. Other libs are going spastic over the situation in Gaza, fixating on Israel rather than the Hamas murders and killers as the blame.
So some libs have moved on to some of the other stnadard complaints and gripes, but for some reason you remain fixated on your Bush hatred.
But what you don't see is that your angst will not be interrupted by an attack carried out by terrorists using newly made WMD from Saddam, because not only is Saddam not in the business of making WMD now, but Saddam is not, period. So you are safe.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 3:35pm
An intense light.
With fine manners the mask of a child invites me to cry, when the moonlight appears; I hear a blackbird near the sound of a small lamp, and everything shines like a terse sensibility.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by Sinibaldi at 01/03/2009 @ 4:23pm
Ultra-orthodox dittohead SJ "BLACKS DO NOT WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK indignantly footstamps, as he has been instructed to by his master:
"Sept. 11 woke some people up (not libs, apparently) to the reality that we needed to stop threats before they became real and caused grave damage."
Operative word: Before.
SJ, please furnish the following:
Priorities named by AG John Ashcroft for counter-terrorism in Summer 2001 while he was being regualrly breifed on terror threats:
1. _____________________ 2. _____________________ 3. _____________________ 4. _____________________ 5. _____________________
Dates of National Security principles meetings on AlQ by Bush admin prior to Sept '01:
1. _____________________ 2. _____________________ 3. _____________________ 4. _____________________ 5. _____________________
Days by which pampered metrosexual pansy cut short month-long vacation to deal with August 6 2001 National SEcurity memo: ___ .
Of course, the answers are: 0, 0, and 0.
Asleep at the wheel while the enemy fires of rightwing religous crazies were visible beyond the perimeter. A heckuva job by the "foriegn policy adults" and their pansy figurehead.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/03/2009 @ 5:49pm
Phil,
You are just invoking one of the standard lib canards, that the Aug 6 2001 memo was some kind of smoking gun that spelled out Sept 11 was going to happen. That is not true.
Read the article in the link below:
http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html
And this commentary might help also:
Bush is not to blame December 20, 2008 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ news/opinion/sfl-brmail6 17sbdec20,0,6201962.story
The Bush administration was treating al-Qaeda as a threat, and was developing strategy on how to deal with it. The lib canard that the Aug 6 memo was a warning of an immediate attack has been proven wrong.
Because of inattention by the Clinton administration, the wall put in place by Clinton justice department official Jamie Gorelick (prohibiting law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information), and because of political correctness pressures that prevented law enforcement and intelligence from going into mosques where they may have been able to pick up on some relevant anti-American vitriol, some warning signals that may have led to knowledge of the attack did not surface.
President Bush fixed this with things like the Patriot Act. Had some of that been in place prior to 9/11, the attacks may have been prevented.
The left has crucified President Bush for things like the Patriot Act.
You and other leftists try to have it both ways - you blame George W. Bush for 9/11 but also crucify him for actions afterward that probably have prevented another one, and may have prevented 9/11 also.
It shows the main goal of much of the left is not the national security of the U.S. , but the promotion of the leftist agenda and the crucification of George W. Bush.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 6:12pm
I will try again,
Since this thread is about war, here is another article where the commentator articulates very clearly why Hamas and NOT Israel is to blame for what is happening over in the Middle East, and who the real war criminals are, instead of who the staff at The Nation (including the UN "Rapporteur") view as war criminals.
Saturday, January 03, 2009 Mona Charen Townhall.com Columnist The So-called International Community by Mona Charen http://townhall.com/columnists /MonaCharen/2009/01/03/ the_so-called_international_community
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 6:48pm
"The other option us to enter the field of English,history, ethnic studies of whatever group, and art....fine areas all, but none will give an income enough for real survival. This is because there us no demand for these talents in the real world other than acedamia or the public school system"
key words here are: "because there us (sic) no demand for these talents in the real world"
that has to be (so far) the finest quote of 2009
Posted by darladoon at 01/03/2009 @ 9:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/03/2009 @ 6:12pm
bonk!
you just don't get it, żdo you?
nobody's attacking new zealand or iceland, now are they?
why would that be?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2009 @ 9:14pm
yikes jomamma got owned by somebody
Posted by darladoon at 01/03/2009 @ 9:16pm
Darlaloon,
Figures it would be you....
us should read is.....I knew there would be one fool who had to have it explained..
You know, it all depends on what the meaning of "is",is........
See?
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/03/2009 @ 10:35pm
jomamma, nobody wants their feelings hurt, but i have to give credit to phil for brilliantly putting you in your unenviable place.
Posted by darladoon at 01/03/2009 @ 11:02pm
I am sure you find Phil a genius..... Thanks for the concern about feelings, but no one here has the ability to hurt my feelings.
None of the drivel here do I take as anything other than entertainment.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/03/2009 @ 11:41pm
Ah, for once an rational intelligent reply from the left! The rarity is appreciated! But, you must consider this; if Bush and Cheney are culpable so is every member of the U.S. Congress and the U.S.A. Supreme Court!
Posted by comanchenation
No, just Bush and Cheney. They lied to get us into a war and the Downing Street Memo proves it.
Posted by koroviev at 01/04/2009 @ 12:00am
Frosty Zoom,
1. The leaders of neither New Zealand or Iceland developed WMD, developed ties to terror organizations, or ran some of their population through shredding machines.
2. Neither the leaders nor the populations of New Zealand or Iceland hate and want to kill Jewish people.
3. Neither the leaders nor the populations of New Zealand or Iceland promote jihad and desire that an Islamic caliphate someday rule the world.
4. I don't remember hearing about any of the population of Auckland, New Zealand having fits and killing people because of cartoons in Danish newspapers not to their liking.
Gee, I think that could be some of the reason nobody is attacking New Zealand or Iceland.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/04/2009 @ 12:22am
koroview,
You are just promoting another canard. The Downing Street Memo proves nothing.
'Downing Street' Memo Has Left Wingers Drooling By Bobby Eberle June 13, 2005 http://www.gopusa.com/ commentary/bobby/2005 /bobby_06131.shtml
Posted by sjchermak at 01/04/2009 @ 12:42am
Posted by sjchermak at 01/04/2009 @ 12:22am
no, you've misunderstood.
i was comparing iceland and new zealand to the u.s., not your muslamic demons.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/04/2009 @ 02:00am
What I find strange about SJCHER is of course the contradictions...
for instance, he thinks Bush is a great President...
he also thinks Iran poses a grave threat to us and Israel.
Okay...so why hasn't his great President attacked Iran?!??!??
Regardless of OUR opinions on Bush and Iran, by SJ's....should Bush have launched the planes and missiles by now???
Posted by Mask at 01/04/2009 @ 07:56am
Iran poses a threat ...
could it be because Israel has undeclared wmd's, undeclared wmd programs, occupies lands not belonging to it, has invaded other countries, kills thousands of innocent children...
good for the goose
good for the gander.
you "assclowns" make up reasons to go to war, then when another country comes up with the same reasons to attack your theocratic ally you get all frightened and indignant.
But, we expect that from selfish myopic cowards that live in fear.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 10:54am
More questions are necessary for SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT OR NEED TO VOTE" CHERMAK.
For the rightwinger whose mind has been totally given over to the debris of Rush-Townhall.com-NR online-Newsmax (the only things he points to for evidence), the world is a strange place indeed.
SJ's pro-George W Loser pieites are as absurd as claiming that ... gee whiz, say, claiming that Rod Marinelli is THE archetype of the brilliant leader of gridiron men for his roaring success with the Detriot "0-16" Lions in 2008 (and Bill "Clinton" Belechik is an unaccomplisghe loser in SJ-world) ... or that Mary Cheney is one hot sexy babe ... or Vanilla Ice is the definition of authentic. One could go on and on. But it will suffice to say that SJ is so brainwashed he has even described W Loser as (get this) "the man form Crawford". Not the man from New Haven, CT (birthplace), or the man from the Andover Academy (US' most elitist prep schhol) cheerleading squad, from the Kennebunkport compound, from Yale's affirmative-action-for-the-rich program, or from Harvard Business School, or the man from the ultra-elite line of multi-millionaire bankers & Senators. Loser is the "man from Crawford", a campaign prop that was purchased for not being Kennebunkport in 1999 and dispatched with this year when the charade was up. But don't tell SJ.
But questions, SJ, questions.
Across his admin's 8 years of glowing Marinelli-like triumph, name Loser's biggest accomplishment's with regard to:
1. National security
2. The economy
3. Scientific endeavor
4. America's global stature
5. A strategic plan in place for the future
Now: Watch how many times SJ cites 9-11 as an "achievement" for the Bush admin. And how many times he cites non-existent threats from defeated asshole dictators.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/04/2009 @ 11:06am
The success of the GWOT, centered in ... Iraq?
December 28, 2008: Buner, Pakistan Car bomb by Taliban
December 28, 2008: Khost, Afghanistan Suicide vehicle
December 22, 2008: Ghazni, Afghanistan Suicide bomber
December 21, 2008: Orakzai Agency, Pakistan Kidnapping by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
December 18, 2008: Iligan, Philippines Package bomb by Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
December 6, 2008: Indian Ocean Failed attack by Somali pirates
December 6, 2008: Dagestan, Russia Handgun
December 5, 2008: Yemeni coastal waters Failed attack by Somali pirates
December 4, 2008: Khost, Afghanistan Suicide bomber by Taliban
December 4, 2008: Akwa Ibom, Nigeria Kidnapping
December 4, 2008: Fallujah, Iraq Unknown by Insurgents, terrorists, militants in Iraq
December 3, 2008: Akwa Ibom, Nigeria Ambush
December 3, 2008: Dagestan, Russia Handgun
December 2, 2008: Landi Kotal, Pakistan Improvised Explosive Device (IED) by Taliban
December 1, 2008: Assam, India Improvised Explosive Device (IED) by an unknown group
December 1, 2008: Peshawar, Pakistan Assault General by Taliban
December 1, 2008: Swat Valley, Pakistan Suicide vehicle by Taliban
December 1, 2008: Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq Car bomb by Insurgents, terrorists, militants in Iraq
December 1, 2008: North Ossetia, Russia Handgun
December 1, 2008: Ingushetia, Russia Handgun
December 1, 2008: Mingora, Pakistan Suicide vehicle by Taliban
December 1, 2008: Helmand Province, Afghanistan Suicide bomber by Taliban
December 1, 2008: Harare, Zimbabwe Unknown
November 30, 2008: Kabul, Afghanistan Suicide bomber by Taliban
November 30, 2008: Moscow, Russia Package bomb
November 30, 2008: Gulf of Aden Unknown by Somali pirates
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:08am
Back to 9-11 and SJ "BLACKS DON'T WANT TO VOTE ANYWAY" CHERMAK.
"The Bush administration was treating al-Qaeda as a threat, and was developing strategy on how to deal with it."
Questions, SJ...
1. Wow, they saw a *threat*. Man, that's being in command of events. And what did they do? What specifically was that strategy to shake the intel trees for something actionable? Was it: Hidie-peekie-poo? And why in fuck were they "developing" (your word) not working an implemented strategy?
2. Loser's religious freak AG Ashcroft introduced 68 new priorities while the acting FBI director was giving "hair on fire" warnings about terror chatter. How many of the 68 priorities addressed pornography? And how many focused on terror?
3. What did the Hans Blix & UNMOVIC discover on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003? And how does an evil asshole dictator without weapons, without delivery systems, without control over the national airspace over his own country, and without a functional economy (UN escrow funds) aside from de facto independent Kuridstan ... how does that evil asshole dictator, a former Reagan-Bush favorite, menace the Miami Valley of Ohio on which you are so fixated?
Questions, SJ, questions. Perhaps a leading disarmament expert professional like, oh, say, Thomas Sowell, or Kathleen Parker, or Rush Limabugh can provide you with some cut-and-paste "answers" from the world of half-assed rightwing bumper sticker sentiments, unburdened with even the faintist hint of correspondecne with observable reality ...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/04/2009 @ 11:23am
1992-2003
# of terrorist attacks emanating from Baghdad-this I do not know. very few. Saddam did pay the families of Palestinians after attacks, but I am not aware of any planning overseen by Iraqi intelligence services. Willing to read about these connections.
# of Americans killed by Iraqis or those operating under Iraqi control- 0
# of countries attacked by Iraq while UN sanctions were in effect-0
# of wmd's created while under UN sanctions-0
# of attacks on US soil while Iraq under UN sanctions- 0
membership of AQ in Iraq while under UN sanctions- 0, AQ in Iraq did not exist until 2003.
Connections between Ba-athists and AQ while under UN sanctions- negligible ; "the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.
"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."
-----
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:31am
crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:08am
CRABBY, you don't understand the script that was faxed from the WhiteHouse/DoD to Rush-Townhall-NR-NewsMax.
You're supposed to look to the "flypaper" to which all terror campaigns against civilians will *magically* gravitate once the Unfailingly Wise Statist Maximum Neo-Clown Leaders have rolled it out...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/04/2009 @ 11:31am
Phil,
If one really tries to figure out what your point is, it is apparent that what you say is the standard leftist stuff, themes that are repeated over and over again by other bloggers on this site as well as The Nation staff, and other leftists in many places in the public domain.
It is just that you deliver it in a disjointed and schizophrenic manner.
But that is what makes it amusing and entertaining, and it provides a break from the standard stuff from other leftists, stuff that gets boring and dull after a while.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/04/2009 @ 11:33am
As a paleocon I disagree completely with The Nation and Katrina Vanden Heuvel on most domestic policy. So you can imagine my disgust when she is one of the few voices with a megaphone these days whose position on the wars and the war criminals of the white house and in Israel passes any kind of a sanity check. Thankfully jerks like Pelosi and Reed only pretend to listen to clear thinking democrats like her or I would not know which way to turn.
Posted by bob_d at 01/04/2009 @ 11:41am
provide you with some cut-and-paste "answers" from the world of half-assed rightwing bumper sticker sentiments, unburdened with even the faintist hint of correspondecne with observable reality ... Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/04/2009 @ 11:23am |
That is funny!
"Support our troops"
unless their real world experience disagrees with the slogans and propaganda of the government.
"I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives." - a troop
-------
Iraq 2003-2008
# of Americans killed- 4100
# of Iraqis killed -700,000- 1,000,000,
# of wmd's found- 0
# of attacks on US interests- uncountable, too many. Last week the Green Zone was shelled again.
Connections between Ba-athists and AQ-extensive.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:44am
SJ,
2,300,000 million Americans lost jobs in 2008.
Do you or do you not regard this as a monumental triumph of conservaLoser management of the economy? Elaborate, there is lots of space here.
Or, let us guess, someone else is to blame for the past 8 years. It's got to be someone else, some other faction Barney Frank. Hollywood libs. Or Andrew Cuomo. Or it all goes back to the Clintons, all 3 of them, rubbing out Vincent Foster in that park! Or Jimmy Carter's malaise speech in 1979, that must be the fulcrum of the crisis.
Again, please explain the full dimensions of these 2,3000,000 triumphs of W Loserism in streamlining the national payroll -- even as you try to pawn the blame off on someone, anyone else -- thus simultaneously expulsing rightist gas out both sides of your ass, in the time-honored rightwing relativist way.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/04/2009 @ 11:46am
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported Monday.
The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25 percent from the previous year, according to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism.
Incidents in Iraq accounted for nearly half of the 14,000 attacks and about two-thirds of the more than 20,000 fatalities worldwide. The number of deaths blamed on attacks increased by about 40 percent.
-----
Well SJ, it looks like your little war has done AQ quite a bit of good. Heckuva job.
Gotta cut and run, gotta pay those evil taxes so that your war can continue to kill Americans and increase the membership of AQ and Hamas.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards men. Some day your policies may actually accomplish your Messiahs desires, but not any time soon.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:49am
more from the troops...
"I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:52am
some stas, make of them what you will
As of June 30, 2007, the incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,406 per 100,000 residents, for women 136 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 773 per 100,000, for black men 4,618 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,747 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 95 per 100,000, for black women 348 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 146 per 100,000.
Of the 253,300 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses at yearend 2005, 113,500 (44.8%) were black, 51,100 (20.2%) were Hispanic, and 72,300 (28.5%) were white.
According to the US Census Bureau, the US population in 2000 was 281,421,906. Of that, 194,552,774 (69.1%) were white; 33,947,837 (12.1%) were black; and 35,305,818 (12.5%) were of Hispanic origin. Additionally, 2,068,883 (0.7%) were Native American, and 10,123,169 (3.8%) were Asian.
"Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Yet blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment."
Regarding State prison population growth from 1990 through 2000, the US Dept. of Justice reports, "Overall, the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 11:58am
In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks.
Regardless of similar or equal levels of illicit drug use during pregnancy, black women are 10 times more likely than white women to be reported to child welfare agencies for prenatal drug use.
Due to harsh new sentencing guidelines, such as 'three-strikes, you're out,' "a disproportionate number of young Black and Hispanic men are likely to be imprisoned for life under scenarios in which they are guilty of little more than a history of untreated addiction and several prior drug-related offenses... States will absorb the staggering cost of not only constructing additional prisons to accommodate increasing numbers of prisoners who will never be released but also warehousing them into old age."
------
That is where your taxes are going, boys.
Fear
bigotry
racism
deny, deny, deny if you will, the stats speak volumes.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 12:02pm
shermack AND jomamma = PWNED + OWNED!
oh, i love a good pwning!
Posted by darladoon at 01/04/2009 @ 12:43pm
Since Crab us our resident AA consultant with all his ethnic break downs, I wonder if he could recite the recent poll of Amwerican troops and how they...
1. Voted in last election
2. Feel about the mssion in Iraq
3. How confident they feel about Obamas election as CiC
4. How theyfeel and regard all the "support" they recieve from the likes of Reid, Murtha,KVH, the "Progressives", and even genius like Phil
I would suggest you get our resident poll watcher, Bushfools to help......or is him name now" sloofamabO", for it looks like he was fooled yet again. I think he,too, in now under the bus. TheChicago machine is a wonder to watch. It took out Clinton machine by using the Cintons themselves. Amazing.
Hint: the poll was published lastweek and posted on Drudge with a link to the source... It might still be there.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 1:22pm
Much as I disagree with Crabwalk on a lot of things, his two posts on torture were spot-on. We should not be practicing it. Period.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/04/2009 @ 5:10pm
'Downing Street' Memo Has Left Wingers Drooling By Bobby Eberle June 13, 2005 http://www.gopusa.com/ commentary/bobby/2005 /bobby_06131.shtml
Posted by sjchermak
I've read the articles by the right wing Kool-aid crowd and all they do is offer an alternative explanation of what the Downing Street Memo could have meant.
The Memo stated that Bush et al...were going to fix the intelligence to fit the policy of an Iraq invasion. Considering that this is exactly what happened, it's pretty damning.
It's just a fact that the intelligence was wrong, no WMDs. It's also a fact that there was contrary intelligence that was discounted or ignored and we also know that Cheyney was over at the CIA pressuring for this.
It's not so much, what the Downing St. Memo says, it's also the fact that actual events support it.
Posted by koroviev at 01/06/2009 @ 01:54am