I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Obviously, the memes start with one's background. Dean being a governor of a small state and Clark being a NATO commander.
Never tell people where you're from, they'll just jump to conclusions.
Regardless, if Clark gave one wit about dethroning Bush he would be begging to be Dean's VP. Oh well, I wonder if Clark's ego will have him running third party when he loses the nomination.
The lazy press lapdogs repeat what they are fed - we used to hear that current events jokes originated on the floor of the stock exchange and spread quickly around the country.
RNC/RoveCo tells one guy who tells it to someone else, and before you know it, we're reading reports in the SCLM about angry, liberal Dean.
It's that tired old Vietnam-era crap again. Dean's the old hippie, and Clark is the respectable military man who actually fought in Vietnam. But you're right, there's not much different issue-wise between them. The more reserved "rational" types think Clark will appeal to middle-of-the-roaders because of the old cultural split. I think we're splitting hairs beating up on each other about this. Let's beat Bush, we can do it with either one.
The problem with the lapdog big media press is that none of them had a decent journalism education. Now had they apprenticed at the Chicago Press Bureau, they would have learned to check everything out. "If your mother says she loves you, check it out," was the Bureau's motto. But the lapdog media elites never go further than blather the Republican Party's talking points, they go out for drinks. If we could tax their incompetence, we could reduce that federal income tax rate for ordinary citizens to zero. Of course, guys like Bill O'Reilly will have to work second jobs to make ends meet and keep out of tax prison.
I thought it is called The City News Bureau of Chicago? At least it was when I attended Northwestern J-school in the 1970's...
The media has confused Dean's anti-war stance with that of a pacifist. Dean is no pacifist. A certain amount blame for this perception can be laid at the feet of his more vocal supporters.
But I would chalk most of the disparity in treatment up to the fact that Dean is now the front runner and it is easier (and fashionable) to take pot shots at him, rather than at his opponents.
I think the label has been as much a product of what both the Dem and Repub establishments have been saying. Most of the other Dem candidates have been labeling Dean as a radical, the Repubs have been happy to follow, and the media has been happy to report what the Dem and Repub beltway crowd says rather than actually looking at policy stances.
It's really same old same old with the media: they tend report what the insiders think rather than doing any real investigation or analysis of their own.
Why should Clark "beg to be Dean's VP" if he feels he still has a chance (which he does) for the nomination?
But I do agree with def, if Clark were the frontrunner he would be getting hit just as hard.
I propose a name change. The SCLM is now renamed: The LBMP: the lapdog big media press
FIRST? If so, cool. If not, oh well.
I know it's seem more than obvious here but could it be that Mainstream Media hammers Dean & Clark differently....uh, I don't know BECAUSE THEY'RE A BUNCH OF HACKS!
To be fair, they have to be hacks to please their pseudo-conservative Repub masters. BUT the problem with playing dumb is sooner or later the dumbness wears VERY thin and it quickly becomes a loss more than a gain (one could easily say "evolve or die" here but I figure you could get my point without it.) I think the Internet closet is only so big and we definitely need a openly proud, intelligent, funny, compassionate, Lib/Dem cable co. by now.
The 2004 electoral race will be a tough one but it's a more than a safe bet that our very own US Press corp will turn into an awfully lame joke no matter who rises to the top. SERIOUSLY, We need something to counter that Mainstream Media joke as much as we need people like Atrios to counter the pseudo-conservative/Repub troll followin' bloggers out there (they know who they are (or do they?)
It's a shame Al Gore couldn't get his cable co. started (but how true is this? I haven't seen any Mainstream Media places report it so please pardon my curiousity. I just heard about it from an e-mail from Eric Alterman.) But maybe if we all send a George Soros a nice letter asking him to start a cable co. than MAYBE we can FINALLY get Atrios a show (he more than deserves it and he knows this.) Either that or we ask the BBC or Moveon.org or somebody to start that US Lib/Dem cable co. because we all will CERTAINLY need it come late 2004.
I'm not intimidated by ANY Pseudo-Repub trolls or bloggers either (and their perpetual childishness and unwillingness to ACTUALLY debate people with opposing views will be the GOP's and its followers' FINAL nail in its coffin and the FINAL bullet in its foot.) But again if we deserve an Atrios why can't we get a US Cable Co. off the ground to counter all this Mainstream Media hackery?
Dean, early on, as much as called the congressional democrats patsies and pansies in their "fights" with the GOP. Wise in their own conceit, the congressional candidates chose to ignore him. It never crossed their calculating little minds that great masses of the rank and file might agree with ex-governor of Vermont. When that rude truth finally did dawn on them, their reaction was very human. They were pissed off, not at themselves, but at him- and so, they attack him, like the piss ants they are.
Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman: ALL voted to trust the momentous issue of WAR to G.W. Bush. And the Iraqui war came.
If Dean gave one wit about dethroning Bush, he would be endorsing Clark!
And if Dean's not a pacifist, that's gonna come as a surprise to the majority of his supporters. I don't think they are into killing people for any reason.
Whoa Johnny Fairplay! Might you be the "Virgin Ben"? Check Dean on Afghanistan!
Whoever the lead Democrat is, whoever the nominee turns out to be, will get GORED, unfairly, without a hint of balance, a new issue every day, whatever they can make up.
Right now its Dean. If Clark was leading it would be Clark.
We've already been there, already watched it happen to Gore. Makes me sick that weasels like Lieberman are helping....
At one of those online POV voting sites, Clark scored 68% agreement with my philosphy and Dean scored 66%.
Bush was down at 20%, of course.
I think Clark's getting slammed/smeared, too. But this is just preposterous. Wonder if this will be Clark's "invented the Internet" meme throughout the cycle...? Arrrgh.
.
If Democrats were smart gamblers, they would band together now and demand Dean/Clark.
I won't clarify further.
To a betting man (or woman), Dean/Clark is a landslide winner.
I'll take big odds.
I'm not sure if it can be reversed, go the other way around, but I'll think about it.
There's a lot more dissonance and trepidation when considering that.
I don't know why. It's all instincts and intuition.
When I say reversed, I mean Clark/Dean.
I think Dean's grassroots only hear anti-war ... as in pacifist!
Unless you're a strict pacifist, how could you not support the overthrow of Saddam? The problem wasn't the war, it was that Chimpy lied about everything!
Anti-War Resolution = Pro-Saddam. True or not, that's the way it will play with the Silent Majority.
That is why a grassroots campaign for '04 is critical. We have to go door to door, church to church, community to community. that is why Dean is ahead because he does this. This is why the slime does not stick because people know him up close and personal. When you "know" someone, they don't believe everything they hear or read.
We do this one flyer at a time. Like Dean is doing, like clark is starting to do. but we do it with the blogs, blog readers telling their friends at work, and so on. when attacked, you respond, but keep moving straight ahead. You can tell me that Dean is a left leaning anti-war pacifist and I would laugh out loud because I know his policy positions up close and personal.
Word.
as for the reason they are being treated differently on issues where their views are similar, I think it might have something to do with the fact that, as of now, Dean is the supposed front-runner and, for some pundits, Clark is relegated as a "minor candidate" like Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosley-Braun.
as for who should get the nomination and who has the best chance to beat Bush, in my opinion, it's Clark by far. Given that Dean and Clark have similar postions on many of the issues many of us find important, a consideration would then be who has the best balance between plusses and minuses in the general election, especially to the 20% of the electorate who will sway the election one way or another. I urge Atrios and all of the readers of this site to learn more about Clark, and consider supporting him as the nominee and in the general election.
Fairplay hits this out to the fairway: I think Dean's grassroots only hear anti-war ... as in pacifist!
Is this a Faux News talking point tonight? It doesn't sound like any Dean supporter I know.
Unless you're a strict pacifist, how could you not support the overthrow of Saddam? The problem wasn't the war, it was that Chimpy lied about everything!
Exactly. Misleading the American public about the need to invade Iraq, and then playing this cute shell game of "programs," "ambitions" and "So what's the difference" is catching up to Chimpy. You'll see, as will we all.
Anti-War Resolution = Pro-Saddam. True or not, that's the way it will play with the Silent Majority.
I suspect far fewer voters (as opposed to chickenhawk Faux Parrots) are third-grade reductionists as you seem to believe.
.
J Fairplay: How will Bush's lost year in the Texas Guard play? Or how was it that he was welcomed to that club in the first place, when hundreds before him were better qualified, per the Guard's own criteria? Like it or not, the silent majority has a right to know that, too. Or do you disagree?
There's any number of like questions the silent majority would like answered by Mr. Bush, this time around. Or do you disagree?
Sammy, you're absolutely right. I'm beginning to see more displeasure with Bush amongst the folks I come in contact with at work. All it takes is the truth in small doses.
Honestly, I don't see the gripe here. The press is doing what it always does, which is condense a particular candidate down to an easily digested image. It does it with every one of them, on both sides. I guess it just depends which side of the debate you are one whether or not you approve of how a particular candidate gets labeled.
Uh, okay. The problem isn't the war, it's that all the reasons for the war were lies?
My head is going to explode.
It's easy to not support a war that is waged for all the wrong reasons. Pathetically easy.
Especially when anyone with even a speck of understanding of the situation in Iraq, the Middle East, and the entire history that led up to this mess knew what the outcome would be. Even Bush's father knew what a mess post-war Iraq would be.
We are not safer. Saddam was not a threat to us. In fact, we are less safe than if we had targeted the actual terrorists that pose a threat to us. We have also swelled the ranks of the anti-American terrorist forces. The Middle East is not safer. Saddam, since Gulf War I, was not a threat to them. The surrounding nations have repeatedly admitted that. In fact, the region is now less stabilized because of the power vacuum, not to mention the fact that the terrorists have managed to recruit quite a few new members.
I am happy for the Iraqi people that Saddam is gone. I am also certain that this war was completely and utterly wrong. Those two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive.
And I am a Dean supporter who knows full well Dean is not a pacifist. Strangely enough, every other Dean supporter I know is aware of the same fact.
The media spin I hear about each is as you stated about Dean- McGovernite, angry liberal, ect.
As for Clark, he 'waffles on issues', is 'connected to the Clintons', are we even 'sure he is a Democrat?'.
So, combined on one ticket, Clark and Dean will add endless hours of talking points for the various talking heads out there.
It would be an awesome ticket.
Dean is not by any stretch of the imagination a pacifist. Yes, he was against a pre-emptive strike Iraq because there was no real provocation or imminent threat. But, I can remember when people like him where simply called "Americans." I think it was back in August of 2001.
Saddam was not a threat to us, but he was an evil evil man. I'm very glad he's gone. I thought Bush 41 should have taken him out in Desert Storm. Maybe the ends justified the means this time.
All in all, I think pro-Saddam, pro-across-the-board-tax-increase won't sell. Clark is better positioned on both issues. And those are the two issues that will decide the election.
The War in Iraq has not increased the safety of America and her allies...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afric...ica/
3335965.stm
Saddam was not a threat to us, but he was an evil evil man. I'm very glad he's gone. I thought Bush 41 should have taken him out in Desert Storm. Maybe the ends justified the means this time.
All in all, I think pro-Saddam, pro-across-the-board-tax-increase won't sell. Clark is better positioned on both issues. And those are the two issues that will decide the election.
Primary-free zone!
Dean ought to make the point that opposing a war for good reason shores up your credibility in a later instance when you do endorse a war.
Please check the news about Libya argreeing to give up its WMD's.
Your views?
I still wonder if Trippi's doing the Rove lower-the-expectations-until-you-can-declare-
victory strategy: let the media portray Dean as the Ho Chi Minh of New England, then when he gets the nomination and lets his true colors show, he'll look downright DLC-ish compared to the hype. Kind of a gamble, but it would be fun to see Karl get beat at his own game.
Rowan: You're rowin' upstream in your reminder that this used to be a primary free zone. Go with the flow.
And J. Fairplay: You didn't answer my questions, you bloody troll.
Please check the news about Libya argreeing to give up its WMD's.
Your views?
It appears "secret negotiations" achieve positive results in removing actual WMD threats. Invasions are really good at removing fake WMD threats. What did we give Gadhafi in return?
Nice political touch, by the way: "The White House suggested that Libya's dramatic decision was influenced by the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein..."
The report I heard said that Ghadafi (sp?) had suspended WMD programs and announced his intention to get out of the WMD game years before 9/11.
They will be hit differently because focus groups (not to be confused with mass marches of millions of concerned people) will discover what can give people an evisceral reaction against them in 20 seconds or less. Obviously, they are hoping the "angry liberal" portrayal will scare people away from Dean. They are probably still researching a one or two word theme for attacking the General.
Clark just isn't getting the same amount of press, pro or con. The oxygen is very thin right now and Dean is in the position of having to defend his frontrunner status. It's the way the stupid horse race is always covered. Yawn.
Your point about the similarity on issues is very astute. But, this election isn't going to be about issues. It's going to be about war and taxes because that's what the Republicans, with the power of incumbency and a slavish media, say it's going to be.
It will be all about our steely-eyed, but caring Dear Leader who led us through the trauma of 9/11, took the war on terror to the terrorists, kept America safe and got the economy rolling after the disaster of the Clinton recession. Happy days are here again.
The question is who is best positioned to combat that in the few swing states that are up for grabs in 2004.
Here's the way to defuse the "angry liberal" label:
Dean should make it a part of his stump speech, say "yes, I'm angry that this president has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of American lives, and the good will of our allies around the world on the basis of lies. I'm angry that Enron workers and investors lost their life savings, and that the men who stole it, friends of this administration, are not only walking around free but are still spending the money they stole. I'm angry that this administration outed an undercover CIA operative working to keep us safe from WMD for petty political payback. If you aren't angry about any of these things or countless others, you haven't been paying attention."
Simple, really. Dean is winning.
If/when Clark regains the lead, we'll hammer Clark.
The report I heard said that Ghadafi (sp?) had suspended WMD programs and announced his intention to get out of the WMD game years before 9/11.
Jennifer | Email | Homepage | 12.20.03 - 12:27 am | #
Yes and he was one of the first leaders to phone up the White House and offer his condolences on 911.
Bush and Blair are desperate to paint Iraq is the model of the war on terrorism and will use anything they can to further this perception. My guess is that even Bush understands what an albatrose Iraq will ultimately be for him. But Tony probably helped him with that.
Unless I somehow missed it, you've gone the whole day and not one mention of Qudaffi's (sp?) disarmament of WMD's. Wtf? No wonder you guys hate Bush so much. You don't even bother to mention the good things.
Btw Atrios, saw your comments on Matt Y's site the other day. Believe it or not, I agree you're actually pretty moderate and *gasp* interesting when you're out of character.
Unfortunately, while you're in character, most of the right-wing blogosphere hates you. But hey, I guess you gotta pander to your specific audience, right?
Darth - Too bad you didn't bother to read comments before posting; otherwise you'd know that Ghadafi had no active WMD programs and had suspended them years prior to 9/11.
As for being hated by most of the right-wing blogosphere, I'm not sure why Atrios should care if a bunch of knuckle-walking, mouth-breathing trogladytes don't agree with him. I consider it a good thing when dishonest and uninformed people don't agree with me.
Dean has the media attacking him, republicans attacking him and even other democrats attacking him. On the cover of National Review, they have him red-faced with an angry scowl. You know he must be doing something right.
Because Soldiers have credibility when they are against wars, draft dodgers don't.
"Darth - Too bad you didn't bother to read comments before posting; otherwise you'd know that Ghadafi had no active WMD programs and had suspended them years prior to 9/11."
Maybe I'm being a little too macabre Jennifer, but I think there's more to Ghadafi "coming clean" about his WMD weapons programs. Maybe he expects there will be another attack on the US mainland this time using either biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. And he knows if that happens, America will go ballistic and attack and obliterate any country that has those programs. But then again, he may be afraid of Bush and four more years. Listening to AM talk radio, you would believe that. I've heard one right-wing pundit after another claim, "Bush has balls." They also say, "They have balls, he has balls and even 'she' has balls" whenever it's someone else in the right-wing. Balls have their place but how about "brains"?
Digby, you are so right. This election is going to be 99% atmospherics -- appeals to inflammatory, gut-wrenching subjects, all dictated by the GOoPers, because they have the gummit and the media in their collective pocket. We all remember the agony of the Florida debacle, but just gird your loins, boys and girls. 2004 will be a repeat. The archaic, anti-democratic electoral system will cause theis election to be another exercise in the theater of the absurd. Unfortuantely, it will probably come down to Florida once again. And Bush can steal it there. That's why Dean and/or Clark, whoever, MUST carry more electoral votes than Gore did without regard to Florida.
Otherwise, it's cryin' time again.
By the same token, we'd have to assume that actual combat veterans have credibility when they favor wars, while chickenhawks who hid out in cushy safe Guard units and went AWOL anyway don't.
gee, remember when ghadafi was acruel dictator that RR had to punish? the 80's sadaam?
Ghadaffi is now the Diet Coke of evil.
Not. Evil. Enough.
Nemo - I don't know about your speculations - perhaps they are grounded and perhaps they're not. But Ghadafi has been out of the "international bad boy" business for quite some time now, 10 years or more. So it's no big coup for Bush, just the status quo as existed prior to 9/11 + Rovian spin.
DAMN those Underpants Gnomes!
You know, I may be a young 21 years, but there is one thing I understand crystal clear as exemplified through history:
Dictators do not listen to "international law", resolutions, harsh langugage and the like.
They listen to force.
It is funny that many of you much older than me still don't "get this".
And yes, Bush certainly has balls.
And you refuse to give Bush credit for anything. Qadaffi was just some guy apparently. No worries.
I like Clark's new film that is on his web site.
It's custom made for the flag wavers,
in a good way.
put the salon piece up, please.
though i was an original subscriber, i won't go there. no site that harbors the wingers david horrowiz and andrew upmyassman gets any support from me.
salon is just another panderer to the fascists. and should not be patronized.
i don't like the idea of giving "air" to these acolytes of repression. and i refuse to support salon as long as they air these fascist bastids.
jsaro, what you say is true, but will probably make no difference at all. Have you noticed how the few states that are talking about a paper trail for the ballot boxes are all saying that they will fix it by 2006, long after shrub steals it in 04. Why else would the gop push thru the ballot iniative, financed, I believe, to the tune of either 1.3, or 13 billion dollars, again, everything won't have to be in place until 06. I've always thought one of the best explanations for this administration's arrogance, beside the obvious stupidity, is that they have already figured how to steal it again, and they think the people are going to roll over again. God, help us, I hope they are wrong, but, we are a pretty complacent people, it takes a lot to get us going.
We're going to be friends with (former? brutal dictator) Colonel Gaddafi! (qadaffi, khadaffi, ghadaffi, whatever)
Great! So, I guess that negotiation is ok? It's not just appeasement? We can negotiate with North Korea so crazy brutal dictator Kim won't nuke the earth?
So, if Saddam had just said, "OK, I will allow weapons inspectors into the country, then we can avert a war, OK?" - that would have stopped the war right?
Arrrgh! Cognitive dissonance kicking in! Must - not - let - truth - get - in - way. Iraq - war - was - justified!
"put the salon piece up, please.
though i was an original subscriber, i won't go there. no site that harbors the wingers david horrowiz and andrew upmyassman gets any support from me.
salon is just another panderer to the fascists. and should not be patronized.
i don't like the idea of giving "air" to these acolytes of repression. and i refuse to support salon as long as they air these fascist bastids."
Remember when the left used to be virulently anti-fascist and would celebrate the fall of fascist dictators?
Yeah, me neither...
Darth, you state the obvious when you state your age, when you get a little older , hopefully, you will have a little more clarity of thought. In spite of your arguement, it is true , THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE, someone can be contained with sanctions, international law, etc., force is not the be all and end all, as you will learn with age, hopefully. Btw, I don't believe balls do any good what so ever, if they are not coupled with a strong intellect and a little moral clarity, I believe the term is a "bully".
"We're going to be friends with (former? brutal dictator) Colonel Gaddafi! (qadaffi, khadaffi, ghadaffi, whatever)"
Wow, some of you guy are ridiculously predictable. I actually saw this talking point coming.
Because you see, Bush applying diplomatic pressure of Libya to disarm means he really just wants to be best buds with Qadaffi now. Real chum chums.
Smarter monkeys please.
"I believe the term is a "bully"."
Trust me, if growing up means thinking along the likes of way, I'm gonna search out the Fountain of Youth.
Poor Saddam and Qadaffi are being "bullied" now?
OMFG.
Don't worry. If Clark were the frontrunner they'd be going after him with the same attacks they are using against Dean. Clark isn't suffering because they media doesn't really care about him.
I compiled all of the polls for the general election against Bush and the Democratic primary, and graphed them against time.
General Election:
http://www.pkarchive.org/
PollsGe...alNational.html
Primary Election:
http://www.pkarchive.org/
PollsDe...eeNational.html
Regarding Dean's electability, my results don't show that he is more "unelectable" against Bush than any of the other candidates, or if he is, not by much.
So I also have graphs of all candidates' showings against Bush vs. Dean's, which is effectively shows Dean's vs. the others' electability:
http://www.pkarchive.org/
PollsGe...National15.html
insert "your" before "way"
Full disclosure: this is for the unofficial Clark weblog, but I think it's fairly handy for all democrats. I'm a Clark supporter, Dean is my second choice, and I really am not very fond of the other candidates.
Btw, will Howard Dean be kind enough to tell me I'm still absolutely not the slightest, eensiest, teeniest bit safer now that Qadaffi has disarmed?
I can only hope for his supreme guidance.
Darth - Wow, you've failed to grasp the point twice now.
Ghadafi can't "disarm" as a result of "negotiations" with the bold & brilliant statesman Bush, BECAUSE HE HAS NO WMD ANYWAY. As I said before, this is just status quo + Rovian spin. Nothing has changed in Ghadafi's status as a "threat".
Your age certainly does explain a lot; you were under 10 years old the last time Ghadafi was a threat to anyone outside Libya.
Boy, I saw the evasion of the real point coming.
Diplomacy is fine for Qaddaffi. But it was not for Saddam? Weapons inspectors were already in Iraq - gosh golly gee Baby Darth, that sure sounds like diplomacy was going on to me. It's a shame that Bush put a stop to it.
At least try to be consistent. Or, is that not on your talking points sheet?
Okay, whoever (one or more?) said that Dean's supporters will be "surprised" to learn that he isn't anti-war, just anti-this-war. . .you are totally wrong. Read Dean's blog. We know EXACTLY where he is coming from. We know EXACTLY what would happen to a totally pacifist candidate (i.e. "lose") and we don't support or want that. Dean always said that if you were totally anti-war, not to fall in love with him. So, please don't think that Dean supporters are kool-aid-drinking, kum-by-ya-singing-ex-hippies who will be shocked, shocked-I-tell-you, to discover that he supports the use of military force in some instances. Most Dean supporters are pragmatists who don't agree with all his policies, but do agree that he has the balls to beat Bush. THAT'S why we support him.
eileen from OH
Eileen, I'm well aware of Dean's support for other military interventions. However, to claim that the capture of Saddam did not make the US one bit safer (when he has attempted to assasinate a US President, has pursued WMD's programs in the past, has a well stated intention of destroying the US, produced the only state sponsored publication that actually celebrated the 9/11 attacks, etc) is just STUPID.
"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."
Mohammed Qadaffi, speaking with Silvio Berlusconi, after the war.
Well, here I am after a week in custody!
Thanks to all you folks at Eschaton for the cards and letters of support!
Thanks to you, and thanks to Howard Dean, I am comforted that you know that I was NEVER any threat to you Americans!
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!
Heaven Forbid!
dave, thank you for the Papillon DVD!
badJim, a shout-out to you and your peeps!
"Darth - Wow, you've failed to grasp the point twice now.
Ghadafi can't "disarm" as a result of "negotiations" with the bold & brilliant statesman Bush, BECAUSE HE HAS NO WMD ANYWAY. As I said before, this is just status quo + Rovian spin. Nothing has changed in Ghadafi's status as a "threat".
Your age certainly does explain a lot; you were under 10 years old the last time Ghadafi was a threat to anyone outside Libya."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/
news...ibya_nuclear_dc
Lemme guess, Tony Blair = Hitler right?
An Arab leader in power admits he was "afraid"? Would you give us a link? Or is this just more winger wanna-believe what happened?
Darth - Quick, give us a link to the evidence about the "state-sponsored publication that actually celebrated the 9/11 attacks."
Didn't think so.
I think the real difference between Dean and Clark is their campaign. On substance, they are not far apart on most issues.
Clark has waffled a bit, or, at least appeared to do so, I think because he was late into the game and because he had not finalized his public positions. He stumbled out of the gate. He's a smart man, but he lacked real campaign experience.
Given a chance in a real debate, either of these men will take serious chunks out of George W. Bush.
No, Bush does not have balls. He was too scared to spend more than 2.5 hours in Iraq, he won't go to soldier's funerals, he won't give straight answers to questions.
He's a coward. He sends others to die for him, and won't look their parents in the eyes.
One can only imagine the heat that Clinton would have received from the right wing had he entered into such a deal with Gadhafi. He would have been scoffed at as "naive," and would have been accused of "making deals with terrorists." It seems that only Repukelicans are capable of making deals with terrorists. This is probably because they're cut from the same cloth.
Darth Philly, why don't you ask some of our troops in Baghdad if THEY feel safer now that Saddam's gone? I'll bet they're strolling around Basra in their flip-flops and Tommy Bahama shirts, yes sir.
You, like the Administration, don't seem to get that nationalist movements don't boil down to one evildoer; that's comic book thinking. We're not talking about Doctor Doom here, we're talking about a country, a region, that has a history that it cannot be divorced from, no matter how many neato ideas Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz may have about remaking the Middle East.
You think "force" -- a la Operation Iron Hammer -- is going to scare the Muslim world into submission and they'll forget all about their long histories of colonialism and betrayal by the West? You think killing the witch doctor will make the natives scream and flee in terror? I think you underestimate the desire of people to have power on their own terms -- much like you yourself would like to have. But maybe I'm wrong. After all, the Israelis are into this sort of thing and they've been at it for...how many years?
Safer? It's great that Saddam's gone, it'd be nice to see him actually burning in Hell. And I'm glad he won't be able to launch his diabolical killer drones at us.
I dunno, maybe it makes more sense if your a 21 year old conservative.
Iraq was NEVER a threat to the USA!
So say Atrios, Alterman, Buzzflash, Calpundit, MWO, Pandagon.
I swear by Allah that Iraq was never an enemy of the USA.
Jennifer, I was referring to his newspaper. Go look it up. I'm tired of doing the work for you.
"It seems that only Repukelicans are capable of making deals with terrorists. This is probably because they're cut from the same cloth."
Bush eliminates dictator by force...Bush = Hitler.
Bush diplomatically convinces dictator to disarm peacefully...Bush = terrorist.
Ok, you guys are starting to get boring.
Good grief. I responded to a 21 year old? Don't they know that children should be seen but not heard?
Clark is a unilateralist for one thing and Dean wants to go back to the UN.
This is from the last Presidential Debate
KOPPEL: General Clark, some of the speakers we've heard up until now make it seem, first of all, relatively easy that we can get the kind of international help that would permit us to take U.S. troops out of Iraq. But secondly, there is a certain innocence in the references to oil from that region as though we can simply say we don't need it.
Now, if Saudi Arabia is no longer a reliable ally; Iran clearly is not a reliable ally; if Iraq is allowed to descend into some kind of chaos, just whom do we have out there in the Persian Gulf who is going to supply the oil to the United States, to Japan and to Western Europe?
CLARK: Well, Ted, I think the real issue up here is, put the emotion aside, we disagree -- I disagree with some of the people on this stage about going into Iraq.
CLARK: I think it was a strategic blunder for the United States to do it. But we are there. An early exit means either retreat or defeat. Neither one is acceptable.
The United Nations is not able and willing to pick up this mission politically and nobody can provide security for the Iraqi people as they develop their own internal defenses, except a force under U.S. leadership.
Now, those are just the facts.
So we need to create an international organization. Take Paul Bremer, let him come back and consult for Henry Kissinger again. We need to get rid of the American occupation, put an international organization in place, put the United States forces reporting through NATO, take our force structure, make it lighter, lethal, more mobile, intelligence driven, and work to turn this problem back to the Iraqis.
Now, we have to have an end state that we're working for. This administration has not yet defined what our real purpose is in Iraq. There's no end state. What is it? Is it to create a model of American democracy? Is it to create anything other than a theocracy? We don't know.
I think we need an Iraq that stays together. I think we need something like some kind of a representative government.
CLARK: We need an Iraq that's strong enough to protect itself from Al Qaida, but not so strong that it threatens its neighbors.
Hillary Clinton is pretty much is in line with Clark too from her last foreign policy speech.
More proof that Libya had wmd's NOW.
"As proof of their seriousness, the Libyans invited their counterparts to travel to Libya and inspect sites -- and even the weapons. Experts from the United States, Britain and the United Nations spent a total of three weeks in the country during trips in October and December.
As described by the administration, intelligence officials were given what amounted to a tour of Libya's covert weapons sites and laboratories. Experts met with scientists at research centers that could support biological weapons research, and also examined missile-research facilities.
"The Libyans were quite open. They provided access to facilities. They provided substantial documentation about their programs, and we were able to take samples and to take photographs and other evidence," a senior U.S. official said. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...003Dec19_2.html
But Bush = Hitler.
People don't understand the difference between antiwar and pacifist. Pacifists don't even believe in self-defence. Anti-war means you're generally against war unless someone can give you a truly compelling reason to fight one.
I'll never forget in the run-up to the Iraq war, news organizations asking guests or people on the street protesting "Why are you against war?" I was always floored by that -- as though it was normal to be for war and you had to explain why you would be against it.
"Good grief. I responded to a 21 year old? Don't they know that children should be seen but not heard?"
I appreciate your fine eliticism. Lemme guess, you're more informed than me because you read Atrios, Counterpunch, and OOOOOOH!!!!!!! Eric Alterman!
Me thinks that Saddam Hussein poster is really that Darth Philly.
Bush did squat a la Qaddafi. Libya has been moving in this direction for years. The EU & UN get the credit for this one. Grownups know this, not snotnosed kiddies who only started paying attention to this little bit of North African history this morning. Hey look! A better solution than a war based on bullshit! Who'd of thunk.
"Me thinks that Saddam Hussein poster is really that Darth Philly."
No actually I'm not, but I'd be happy to take credit, those are damn funny posts. Ask Atrios to check the origins of the posts if you don't believe me.
Btw, did you hear that Saddam was "elected"? The BBC told me so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...8&
targetRule=#7
Oh man, it just keeps getting better.
More proof that Libya had wmd's NOW.
More proof that containment worked, dumbass.
No punk. One shouldn't be popping zits and giving opinions to ADULTS.
"Bush did squat a la Qaddafi. Libya has been moving in this direction for years. The EU & UN get the credit for this one. Grownups know this, not snotnosed kiddies who only started paying attention to this little bit of North African history this morning. Hey look! A better solution than a war based on bullshit! Who'd of thunk."
So NONE of the credit goes to Bush at all for this huh? It was all due ENTIRELY to our heroic German and French friends?, (who are not even mentioned in the article btw)
Ok, you are not worth debating with. Thersites = ignored.
The corporate media sluts don't attack Clark on the particular subject of his Dean-like issue positions because
1) it would undermine the RNC lie that "Clark is an untrustworthy novice on the issues and never discusses them."
2) it would remind people that even an old-soldier super-patriot like Wes Clark can have liberal-leaning values, thus undermining the RNC lie that "Liberals hate America."
Bush = Hitler
That’s obviously an bit much Philly G but the Bush family certainly made money dealing with Hitler. I know that was a long time ago but what do you have to say about the business dealings the current Bush family has with China?
Jennifer, I was referring to his newspaper. Go look it up. I'm tired of doing the work for you.
This is proof that: Darth = Jackass
Let's all follow Baby Darth's logic trail (or lack thereof):
Qaddaffi had weapons NOW. So, therefore, we should use diplomacy, and when he says "Let's be friends." we announce it to the world without waiting for proof or until weapons inspectors arrive in country. Just trust him and feel safer.
-OR-
Saddam did not have weapons NOW, accept for Bush told everybody he did. So, therefore, we tell the weapons inpspectors already on the ground in Iraq to leave, so that we can start a war by choice.
As Bush would say, "What's the difference?"
"One can only imagine the heat that Clinton would have received from the right wing had he entered into such a deal with Gadhafi. He would have been scoffed at as "naive," and would have been accused of "making deals with terrorists." It seems that only Repukelicans are capable of making deals with terrorists."
This is clearly a statement about media bias, but all Darth sees is "Bush = terrorist".
Maybe you should just leave. Since we're all boring you anyway.
I guess Kadaffi begged not to be hurt after licking Bush's "big balls" shiny. Huh?
Wow. Goddamn! Saddam likes me! He really likes me!
Over on Calpundit, one hears that the president may not be mocked, because he is the embodiment of the nation. The source of that opinion once confessed to thinking that unbiased war reporting was anti-American.
Strange stuff. Is Franco still dead?
Ohmifuckinggod! I'm being ignored!
By an idiot who read one freaking article and all of a sudden he's an expert.
Ochone! Ochone!
Thank You, badJim, for your comment a couple of weeks ago: "Let's hurry up and lose this war, and move on!"
Thanks, badJim!
badJim wants to deny it, but only two weeks ago he was wishing for the defeat of The Coalition!
anyways
F: Nun gut wer bist du denn?
M: Ein Teil von jener Kraft,
Die stets das Boese will und stets das Gute schafft.
F: Was ist mit diesem Raetselwort gemeint?
M: Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!
Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was ensteht,
Ist wert, dass es zugrunde geht!
I wonder what they'll say when OBL is captured?
For months, the lefties hammered on how "They haven't caught Saddam yet!"
Then, when he got caught, the lefties said "Oh, it's a big sideshow, it doesn't matter, it's a big distraction from THE REAL TRUTH!"
What a bunch of pathetic losers!
Oh my, badJim knows another language!
And when he can't respond, he goes obscure!
Dean's policies are consistent with his history. Clark wasn't even a voter, let alone a Democrat, until recently.
And most crucially, Clark was anointed by Clinton (bad) and Dean wasn't (good). Dean also does not support a Consitutional ban on flag burning.
Saddam, he said something in German about, something like, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your bunghole tonight or some such.
Ha ha ha...Saddam thinks there's actually a "Coalition"! Ha ha ha...does he consider himself and his pet tortoise a "family"?
Saddam is an idiot if he actually believes anyone on the "left" ever supported him. Saddam clearly has no rhetorical legs to stand on if he has to resort to this tired wingnut bullshit.
Well, enough of this mirth and merriment. Gotta get some sleep.
Laterz.
Most sentient humans, outside the US, understood that there was little evidence that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, much less the US. The US insisted otherwise, and Hans Blix pleaded for and demanded evidence. He thought that what he got was of poor quality.
Whaddaya know? No weapons! No threat!
My fellow Americans, know now what the rest of the world knew a year ago: Saddam Hussein is a joke.
When Clark says, we need to get rid of the American occupation, put an international organization in place, put the United States forces reporting through NATO I wonder why that would be anymore politically possible than the U.N. given the state of relations with NATO members.
Also when Koppel says Saudi Arabia is no longer a reliable ally and implies that this means they would refuse to sell their oil it really is a stretch. They need to sell oil as much as we need to buy it. Without the money coming in the monarchy would crumble.
Rumnutz pointed out only a few days ago that tons of chemical weapons could be concealed in a space the size of Saddam's spider hole. Are there such hidden spaces in Libya? W is asking the public to depend on his assessment of the veracity of various Mideast leaders. They say it takes a liar to know one, but that's a rather shaky proposition to base foreign policy on.
Ho-hum. "Darth Philly G" shows up and another thread goes to Hell. Whatever.
How 'bout dem Clark and Dean memes/soundbites?
badJim is right! Saddam was never a threat to the USA! Take _that_, you nasty wingers!
Of course, badJim was calling for us TO LOSE a couple of weeks ago! Will he admit it?
New facts do not change my mind unless they appear on my approved Bush Water Carrier Talking Points Cribsheet(c). Let's start a war! Us 21 year olds who are too scared to enlist ourselves won't be the ones dying anyway!
Here's a sample of how Howard Dean is more efficient, more effective, in the War on Terror:
Baltimore Sun:
"Dean told a Los Angeles audience that capturing Hussein was something that 'could have taken place six months ago' and that it wouldn't end the security threat inside Iraq."
http://www.sunspot.net/news/nati...bal-news-
nation
What a hero that dickhead is! He knows how to catch the bad guys! He should tell the rest of us how!
NATO might be easier to work with than the UN, and it might even be credible if Clark was part of the next administration. Unfortunately, it's probably just a pipe dream for now. We're stuck in the middle of a population which was mostly better off before our invasion (or so they say).
Contrast Afghanistan, which we invaded two years ago, and for which we've forgotten to allocate even millions, and Iraq, our new prize, on which we've already spent hundreds of billions.
One of these countries welcomed the author of a devastating attack on US. The other was as hostile to that sort of fanaticism as our old enemy.
Face it: the problem with Saddam Hussein is that he was a godless Communist.
Gadhafi (?) won't even reveal the true spelling of his last name. How can we trust him to cut loose from his vast arsenal of WMDs?
badJim, notice how I've NEVER called you a traitor, or a turncoat, or a fellow-traveler, etc.
I'm convinced that you are merely a shithead, not an evil infiltrator.
Darth Philly G:
Silvio Berlusconi is on record as saying, "Mussolini never killed anyone." He's a wingnut. Go figure.
Anyway, Qaddafi has been irrelevant for years and, besides that, is completely fucking nuts. Do you honestly believe that if Qaddafi up and decides to attack America, he will be unable to because of this agreement? Or that a few months of negotiations made Qaddafi realize that America ain't so bad? Or that us getting bogged down in geurrilla warfare and taking mounting losses really scared Qaddafi?
Last, I'd rather be on the side wrongly accused of not cheering loud enough for the fall of dictators, than on the side that installs, funds, and arms those dictators to begin with.
But when Kaffir calls someone else a shithead, he fails to mention that he himself is both a traitor and a piece of shit.
Hortense -
Wesley Clark voted for Al Gore and he voted for Bill Clinton twice. He's a proud Democrat and it's just bad manners insulting his choice to register as independent.
A tacit Bill Clinton endorsement = votes, which is good, not bad. You Can Keep Your Al Gore.
Dean told a Los Angeles audience that capturing Hussein was something that "could have taken place six months ago" and that it wouldn't end the security threat inside Iraq.
Love To Lose!, that looks like something taken out of context. Without the rest of the sentence it’s hard to know what was being said. The capture could have taken place six months ago, couldn’t it?
"Last, I'd rather be on the side wrongly accused of not cheering loud enough for the fall of dictators, than on the side that installs, funds, and arms those dictators to begin with."
What a dickhead! Heaven forbid dak should be on the side of the good guys! dak is so perceptive and deeply intelligent, he won't support the "dictators." All dak knows is that he's on the side of the contrarians, damn the logic, damn the morals. Nothing is as it seems! Up is down, black is white, and twisted perceptions are golden.
Hortense -
As for flag burning, Damfacrats detest such an amendment but don't see it as a material issue when it comes to picking the right candidate. Anyway, he's a general, what do you expect?
antiphone, absolutely! It is _possible_ that we could have captured Saddam six months ago!
It is also _possible_ that Howard Dean could have boiled twelve puppies in molten lead six months ago.
It's _possible_, isn't it?
Hortense -
As for flag burning, Damfacrats detest such an amendment but don't see it as a material issue when it comes to picking the right candidate. Anyway, he's a general, what do you expect?
Is it just me, or do the righty-tighties always get jerkier around the Clark threads?
Never mind.
Criminy! Having lived through this nightmare that is the Bush lack of administration, I'll even vote for Al Sharpton - anybody but Bush and his sycophantic disciples.
Anybody else get the feeling that the Moonies never went away - they just joined the Republican party? God knows what it must be like to be not only both ignorant and obsequious, but actually be proud of it.
Just evict the conscienceless killers out of the White House. The people still own that property, not the Bush family.
The reason Dean is controversial is because he talks the line. He's got a higher profile. Clark is compaitivly mild mannered. It has more to do with personality then substance, but isn't that the way with our media?
Clark is brought to you by the same people who brought you Carter, Clinton and Gore, all of whom were electable.
Anyway, will somebody tell me? I missed the joke. What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?
badJim, I'm convinced that you are merely a shithead.
bad Jim - What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?
Exactly! Republicans feel strong by sending others to fight and die for them. And they do it on a whim.
"Peace, Love and Understanding."
Our enemies are so misunderstood!
All they need is a little peace, love and understanding!
Kucinich plans a Department of Peace!
I feel so strong sending others to fight and die for me, on a whim!
How could I be so foolish, to misunderstand our enemies so seriously!
Denver Green Party says no to Nader! Take that Ralph!
When Kaffir asks other Americans to go to war, he fails to mention that he is too scared to join the military himself.
Deine Zauber bindet wieder
was die Mode streng geteilt,
Alle Menschen werden Brueder
wo dein sanfter Fluegel weilt.
Okay, where do I put the sound track?
What a dickhead! Heaven forbid dak should be on the side of the good guys! dak is so perceptive and deeply intelligent, he won't support the "dictators."
Silly me! Where do I get off not supporting Pinochet, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and (though he's not a dictator) bin Laden? Where do I get off wanting to hold the assholes (I mean, "good guys") that ascribe to the mandala theory to the repeated detriment of Americans accountable for their disastrous policies? Where do I get off not forgiving the administration for their catastrophic failure to protect Americans, for their deception and ignorance, for their stated intent to make American troops bait for terrorists, for the ruination of America's job market, and for all those other little things?
Thank you for showing me the error in my ways! Thank you for reminding that the world really is strictly binary! But, most of all, thank you for calling me deeply intelligent--I'm feeling it, but it may just be present company.
Iraq agrees to weapons inspections
September 17, 2002
In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."
The White House was dismissive of Iraq's pledge: "We do not take what Saddam says at face value," said a Bush administration official, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Now, almost 500 dead Americans later -
Libya Vows to Give Up Banned Weapons
Saturday, December 20, 2003
Libya will "immediately and unconditionally" allow international inspectors to enter the country to track unconventional weapons and oversee their destruction, said Bush, describing nine months of secret negotiations among U.S., British and Libyan officials.
I too am amazed by how the press labels Dean as the angry candidate when Clark rails against bush much more vehemently and rightly so I might add. I think part of the reason is because when Clark rants about bush putting troops in harms way needlessly its such a righteous and personal anger that I thinks its unassailable. When Clark talks about it he's talking about his friends and coworkers lives being put on the line and its obvious that he's pissed. He's not just making political hay. How can you criticize a military man for being angry at troops being killed needlessly?
Clark also has what Gene Lyons said the military calls "command presence" and I think that gives him a little teflon coating which is nice to see on a democrat for a change. Its charisma but its a different charisma than Clinton's. Clinton had charm. Clark has a little of that but mostly its a command presence.
And lastly I think some of the talking heads are afraid of him. They're afraid he'll make mincemeat out of them and make them look like assholes if they get into it with him. Have you noticed how unsuccessful they are at interrupting him when they try to prevent him from answering a question they've just asked. He talks over them without shouting. Its very effective and they're too afraid of him to shout him down.
Right on, esther.
Clark still sounds pretty good.
Dean's still not looking too bad.
Things could be worse.
You know, I don't pick this up from the interviews/debates I've seen Clark in -- I'd always expected more of that elusive "gravitas" about the General.
I have to say that his dig, "The present can fly to Baghdad for a photo op, but can't make it halfway across town for a funeral" is pretty righteous. Lets hope that whoever wins it (let's say it'll be either Dean or Clark), the other can still stay in public view as a super-vocal attack dog.
Dems have some very good candidates. Reality check tells me that the nominee will be Dean or Clark.
I think the non-Internet media has gotten so lazy that they no longer do what used to be considered reporting. They do not go out and ask probing questions and then formulate a story. They make up their story ahead of time, then go fish for quotes to back up their presupposition.
They also crassly repeat press releases and "conventional wisdom" the intellectual equivalent of gossip. Thus, the pointless but persistent "unelectable" label that was slapped on Dean. It has very little meaning in any real sense, but journalistic hacks keep repeating it because they no longer have the skills to come up with a story on their own.
What's more, is that insider Dems in DC are pushing some of this anti-Dean garbage to keep it in the news. It seems that Clark would be acceptable to the insider clique, but Dean is too much of an outsider.
Witness, this last week alone:
1) Joe Lieberman goes ballistic and begins to talk just like George W. Bush, while trashing Dean as the second coming of McGovern.
2)The DLC issues a statement that echoes Lieberman's sentiments (while specifically praising Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards - all the insiders.
3) The New Republic starts a new column, disguised as a blog (no comments allowed) that is for one thing - to trash Howard Dean.
I'm sure there are other examples that I missed.
This is the garbage that the lazy media is picking up on. They just repeat it, instead of going out and reporting.
To paraphrase a great leader:
Clark is the last, best hope we have.
http://www.clark04.com
But...it's never been about positions, other than, perhaps grabbing your ankles.
Why do you, atrios, consistently look for substance within a market driven media?
And then, exacerbating the distraction, ponder as to why it doesn't exist. Integrity never sold a newspaper, as someone must have once said.
This doesn't change the importance of the goal, but there's slim chance fox news, cnn, abc, nbc, cnbc, cbs, or the nytimes for that matter, are going through any spiritual evolutions before November of next year. Most likely are they ramping up for whatever blood bath our system of corporate public information can produce. For that's it's point, and it's always been good at what it does well.
I just see no reason, given the gravity of our situation, to spend precious time drawing attention to the obvious. Granted it's burlesque, but the respective coverage of the only two men who can possibly win, given a market driven media, is sadly predictable.
All politics is local. Help our undecided friends and compatriots off the fence. We need everyone. This is, very humbly my opinion, more important.
We cannot have four more years of this crap.
Good points ozzie.
Old Hat - why only Clark?
ozzie:
Please study these 3 words:
Cliche
Trope
x (your choice)
eliza:
My choice would be sophist.
Please study.
(hint: it predates technology, and has been spun like dean and clark)
For years I was lefty-uncaring, didn't know that anything I advocated made any real difference, other than boosting my own self-superior sense of moral belligerence.
I trespassed the nuclear-weapons test site in Nevada, to be jailed in Goldfield; I marched in DC and Chicago with Jesse Jackson for jobs, peace, and justice; I lobbied my Senators against the Contras; I found social comfort among like-minded friends.
Then, on 9-11-2001, the motherfuckers blasted the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, and right then I knew that so much of what I believed was horseshit. I was suddenly struck by the fact that everything I'd lobbied for had made America WEAKER, not stronger.
That's when I understood that I was projecting my best intentions into the minds of our adversaries.
That's when I realized that America needs to be the strongest miltary power on earth.
That's when I woke up to the fact that America has vicious, evil enemies, who hate, and will attack, our modernity and egalitarianism.
That's when I finally accepted that "people all over the world" are NOT the same.
Soon after, I learned how I and so many of my lefty friends always backed the weak, because they believed that the weak were always the moral superiors of the strong. We made the mistake of validating every underdog, regardless of moral standing.
That's when I realized that the pacifist teachings of Christ, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Merton, which I formerly revered, were a recipe for suicide.
I swear to God that many of you haven't yet thought through the trajectory of your beliefs. You flatter yourselves that you are morally and intellectually superior to those you pigeonhole as base, coarse mouth-breathing Neanderthals. You imagine yourselves living on some kind of transcendant plane that floats above the mundane, that exists in some kind of consequence-free morally shielded Erewhon.
Well, that's it.
Survive, knock yourself out, piss on my grave, eat rations in your bunker, eat iodide with your eggs.
Be satisfied as you exhale last.
ozzie:
I still don't like your writing style, but that was an excellent choice.
eliza:
the fact that I can cook takes a little sting out of it.
oh, and while you're studying, please separate the cloud from the sky
ozzie:
I don't intend to monopolize this thread any longer, but, as a final insult, please, let me say that "sophistry" would have been a better x.
Eliza - I'm with ozzie. You are a repetive bore.
Please learn some new ideas.
eliza:
i am not an ry
ozzie:
that was cute. no ill will from this side either.
eliza:
a kiss and a good cup of coffee to you
we'll laugh when he's gone
Kaffir - Nice speech.
Not really. Just a load of generalizations, and a lot of talk about yourself. If you are really here to have a serious dialogue, and not just call people names, try reading what people are actually saying.
Being against ONE PARTICULAR WAR is not a blanket condemnation of war. Most of us supported the war in Afghanistan. The premise for the immediate need to go to war against Iraq was false - and Bush proved that today by announcing a deal with Libya that gains us what in Iraq WE ALREADY HAD!
Weapons inspectors were already in Iraq. Bush kicked them out to start a new war. He CHOSE to have this war. It was not necessary. We are less secure today because Bush did not go after terrorists, he went after Saddam. Meanwhile, the terrorists have re-grouped in Afghanistan.
If you are so damned upset about 9/11, then why don't you try to explain why we pulled most of our forces out of the fight with the Taliban and Al Quaeda! WHY! Those are the culprits, and troops are running aroung Iraq instead. Boy do I feel safe!
As you said, Kaffir:
I swear to God that many of you haven't yet thought through the trajectory of your beliefs.
Quit using pointless generalities, and start looking at specific facts. If you meant what you said, then become angry at George W. Bush for not fighting the terrorists because they were not in the country that he WANTED to have a war in.
PGMBC, I think I was quite specific, and I think I didn't do much name-calling.
I spilled my guts, explaining how I, a former lefty, became a con/neocon. I was trying to be honest, transparent, even helpful.
Do you think that Qaddafi would have caved if we hadn't captured Saddam?
There have been many instances here in the past where I've been less helpful and more nasty. Today I laid all my cards on the table, in a reasonable tone.
Let's see if we can find some kind of basis for civil intercourse.
Do you think that Qaddafi would have caved if we hadn't captured Saddam?
Thanks, that's an honest question.
Bush and Blair made it very clear in their announcement that the negotiations had been going on "for 9 months", which would place it right before the war in Iraq started, while we were still building up our forces. What's more, it says that they were approached by Qadaffi when the Lockerbie settlement went through.
Qadaffi wanted sanctions off his country. Otherwise he would never have agreed to the Lockerbie settlement. That expensive settlement had nothing to do with the Iraq war. It seems to me that Libya would like to get back into international trade and tourism - terrorism was turning out to not be so fiscally rewarding.
My honest answer: this is a good thing, but I think it had very little to do with the events in Iraq, and almost everything to do with what drove the Lockerbie settlement - the desire to get back into the international community.
Do I think it was timed to look like it had to do with Saddam or Iraq. You bet! This was well orchestrated.
But, let me clearly point this out: Libya decided to settle Lockerbie after 9/11, and after Afghanistan. 9/11 affected a lot of people and countries that had been thumbing their noses at us for years realized that a sleeping giant had not only been woke up, that giant was really pissed!
It was at that time that Libya and other countries began to sober up and understand that being known as a terrorist nation was no longer a growth industry.
We did not have to invade Iraq! Afghanistan coupled with 9/11 had already given us the gravitas to be taken seriously by Libya, Syria, North Korea.
lol, Darth Philly, lol, come back after you realize that Darth was the one that gave in to the dark side of the force...
"Let's see if we can find some kind of basis for civil intercourse"
Oh holy fucking god that is worth rewinding...
There were several reasons to invade Iraq, and eject Saddam.
1) By all accounts, Saddam was an evil, murderous dictator, who killed tens-to-hundreds of thousands of innocents.
2) All intelligence estimates indicated he had WMDs. His past use of WMD is undisputed. The Clinton Administration, many foreign intel services, and the UN, all estimated Saddam's WMD capacity.
3) Saddam had a history of expansionism, most notably the southern thrust into Kuwait.
4) Ongoing sanctions against Saddam took a toll on the innocent Iraqi civilians.
I definitely believe that Iraq, the Middle-Eastern region, and the globe, are better off now knowing that SH, his family, and political party are out of power.
The war against Saddam was brilliantly executed, resulting in minimal casualties on both the Iraqi side, and the coalition side.
This is not to dismiss or minimize the humanitarian toll of the war. It was terrible, but arguably LESS terrible than other wars of similar scale.
For those of you who are genuinely concerned about the American casualties, let me suggest some charities, seven of which I have contributed to this year:
National Military Family Association
2500 North Van Dorn Street, Suite 102
Alexandria, VA 22302
703-931-6632
http://www.nmfa.org/
Disabled American Veterans
3725 Alexandria Pike
Cold Spring, KY 41076
859-441-7300
http://www.dav.org/
Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 Eighteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-3517
800-424-8200
http://www.pva.org/
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
406 West 34th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64111
816-756-3390
http://www.vfw.org/
USO Of Metro DC
www.usometrodc.org/
Army Emergency Relief
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, VA 22332
703-428-0000
www.aerhq.org
Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society
NMCRS
4015 Wilson Boulevard
10th Floor
Arlington, VA 22203
703-696-4906
www.nmcrs.org
The Air Force Aid Society Inc
Suite 202
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202
www.afas.org
Coast Guard Mutual Assistance Inc
4200 Wilson Blvd Suite 610
Arlington, VA 22203-1804
800-881-2462
202-493-6622
www.cgmahq.org
eliza black, Oh Holy Fucking God You Are A Total ShitHead!
Because the media is pissed off that they didn't get to play king maker, pure and simple. Dean is too much of an outsider; it's the one sin the Beltway Heathers truly find unforgivable, as with Carter and Clinton.
After wll, how will they claim they helped influence policy if they don't get invited to Dean's parties? Not that I'm mentioning any names... *cough* Tim Russert *cough*
Kaffir:
I won't argue with you on that. It is true.
Darth Philly G; Not another link to the Telegraph?! How many times must it be pointed out to you and your kind that the Telegraph is not a reputable news source? Of course, a newspaper which starts a column called "BBC Watch", because it believed the BBC wasn't being as supportive as it should have been during the war, is entirely honest and fact driven according to you. Oh, and one which won't admit when it's documents from Iraq (2 sets of them now) are forgeries. And whose owner recently had to resign for massive fraud.
The sad thing is that if Philly G can't even understand evaluation of source data now, when he's young and should have been taught this so very recently in education, just imagine what he'll be like in 30 years time... it's horrible to contemplate the rightwing whackery in store.
As for Kaffir... Oh lord, will the stupidity never stop;
"That's when I realized that America needs to be the strongest miltary power on earth."
America is the strongest nation on Earth. Before the Bush spending increases it was already spending more on it's armed forces than the next 3 largest powers combined. But it wasn't able to prevent September the 11th. And you think the lesson to be learned is more military strength? *rolls eyes* Terrorism is asymetrical warfare... it depends upon the enemy being stronger than you, in order to retain public support for it, it's the sympathy for the underdog angle that you claim to understand. The goal is never victory on the battlefield, but to discredit the battlefield entirely. Grosnii almost literally is a hole in the ground now. And has it stopped Chechyan terrorism, hmmm? How shallow must have been your understanding of the Left, when you (only pretend to?) have no knowledge that Kaffir was an insult?
"You flatter yourselves that you are morally and intellectually superior to those you pigeonhole as base, coarse mouth-breathing Neanderthals. "
We are intellectually superior to you, just another "cool" lefty, someone who was "left" because he needed the emotional support of others, and that's where it was in his age group... but who now thinks he's found it somewhere else now in Post 9/11 America.
You do realise that your whole argument is based upon the emotional proximity to an event, and that if we can show any person who has a closer proximity to that event, but who draws a different conclusion to you, then your claims of a linkage are obviously rubbish? And all I have to say about that is "Not In My Name".
It's YOU who can't deal with the reality of life. You are no philosopher, no wise politician... you are an emotional prostitute, giving yourself completely over to which ever movement at that time provides you with the thickest security blanket.
You have no intellectual understanding of Left wing politics... you prove that by claiming the policies of the left encourage terrorists, whilst championing making America the very Uber-dog that claimed linkage needs.
So what... now you've been reminded of the fact that even the innocent suffer in this world, and you want to retreat into some naive "Good Vs Evil" scenario which will justify innocent death as part of some war against "Evil", some foolish dream which promises an eventual "victory"? And of course, you've found plenty of emotional support from equally naive fools for that view. Ha. Just another blanket for you.
Rather than accept that evil men might hate you for doing good, and good men hate you for doing evil, and that good and evil itself may not be so clear cut... you abandon all you once claimed was good, all those policies you once championed, and now embrace which ever historical fad offers you the soothing words which justify the eventual either way loss.
Kaffir... You are the equivalent of the Book Of Job, a rationalisation of the cruelty of God, rather than being able accept it as part of the deal. Well, there is no God. But there are people in the world who will attack you no matter what "side" you think it is you are taking.
Some of us are motivated by that to continue to do what is right overall, to try and minimise that suffering. You on the other hand need a blanket to get you to sleep at night. You need to think you 'are fighting evil people', whilst ignoring all of the people you are driving in to the camp of those who oppose you. 70% of the public in the UK was against the War in Iraq. 90% in Spain. But as long as you can tell youself at night 'Oh woe is me, I'd done all of this so politically correct left wing activism, but now I realise...'. Well, you realise nothing, you pathetically weak fool. You emote, that is all.
Conrad, I will take some time to study what you wrote.
Thanks!
Pardon me Kaffir, but I thought you were being honest earlier. Now, you cut and paste talking points. You are not having a "civil discourse", you are evading questions. I'm not surprised.
The question you asked was NOT "WAS SADDAM A BAD MAN WHO NEEDED TO BE DEPOSED?"
Hey, Kaffir - Do you still beat your wife?
We are patriotic here, and many of us are veterans, and we contribute to charity.
We all hate Saddam, and you know it, so quit the nonsense.
What is your explanation for the timing of the war?
Why did we leave Afghanistan with too few troops and not enough equipment to support our missions there?
Why did Bush attack and invade Iraq when weapons inspectors were doing their job there already?
If this situation is supposed to be so good with Libya, why was it not good enough to contain Iraq?
While the rightwingnuts are guffawing with glee about the alleged "capitulation" of Khadaffy and the capture of Saddam, it should be kept in mind that none of this obviates the fact that Bushboy lied about the need to make war on Iraq.
It is apparent that Saddam had no more WMDs then than Khadaffy has now. How come Bushboy can accept Khadaffy's compliance but not Saddam's?
The truth is that Bushboy's war on Saddam was the "national security issue" that Rover wanted to promote Gooper victories in the 2002 congressional elections.
And the Bushboy lies worked like charms. Just as Rover knew they would.
atrios,
you need to take longer breaks, this post koz-esque horsey-horsey, and the thread a lousey read.
I'm not itchy.
Reply to Conrad:
As for Kaffir... Oh lord, will the stupidity never stop;
> Well, no, I guess the stupidity will never stop.
"That's when I realized that America needs to be the strongest miltary power
on earth."
America is the strongest nation on Earth. Before the Bush spending increases
it was already spending more on it's armed forces than the next 3 largest
powers combined.
> And my point was that before 9-11, my political objective was to weaken America militarily. Now, I believe that the most important function of federal govt is national defense, and I estimate that we need a stronger national defense than we have now.
But it wasn't able to prevent September the 11th. And you
think the lesson to be learned is more military strength? *rolls eyes*
> I believe that increased military strength has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the USA post 9-11.
Terrorism is asymetrical warfare... it depends upon the enemy being stronger
than you, in order to retain public support for it, it's the sympathy for
the underdog angle that you claim to understand. The goal is never victory
on the battlefield, but to discredit the battlefield entirely. Grosnii
almost literally is a hole in the ground now.
> I'm pretty sure that Grosny is NOT a hole in the ground now.
And has it stopped Chechyan
terrorism, hmmm?
> I confess I don't know how effective Russian anti-terrorist efforts have been. I've read that the theatre-terror incident a couple of years ago, perpetrated by Chechnian terrorists, resulted in the death of all of the dozens of terrorists. Yes, the mission killed over a hundred innocents. I blame that on the terrorists, not on the Russian military.
How shallow must have been your understanding of the Left,
when you (only pretend to?) have no knowledge that Kaffir was an insult?
> I've heard that "Kaffir" is an insult. I mean it only in the sense of the "infidel," the non-believer.
"You flatter yourselves that you are morally and intellectually superior to
those you pigeonhole as base, coarse mouth-breathing Neanderthals. "
We are intellectually superior to you, just another "cool" lefty, someone
who was "left" because he needed the emotional support of others, and that's
where it was in his age group... but who now thinks he's found it somewhere
else now in Post 9/11 America.
You do realise that your whole argument is based upon the emotional
proximity to an event, and that if we can show any person who has a closer
proximity to that event, but who draws a different conclusion to you, then
your claims of a linkage are obviously rubbish? And all I have to say about
that is "Not In My Name".
> It is obviously not logical that, because someone draws a different conclusion, that a conclusion is wrong. You know that.
It's YOU who can't deal with the reality of life. You are no philosopher, no
wise politician... you are an emotional prostitute, giving yo
It's YOU who can't deal with the reality of life. You are no philosopher, no
wise politician... you are an emotional prostitute, giving yourself
completely over to which ever movement at that time provides you with the
thickest security blanket.
You have no intellectual understanding of Left wing politics... you prove
that by claiming the policies of the left encourage terrorists, whilst
championing making America the very Uber-dog that claimed linkage needs.
> I am no more a philosopher than you. Did I state otherwise?
Did I claim that "the policies of the left encourage terrorists?" I don't think so.
So what... now you've been reminded of the fact that even the innocent
suffer in this world, and you want to retreat into some naive "Good Vs Evil"
scenario which will justify innocent death as part of some war against
"Evil", some foolish dream which promises an eventual "victory"? And of
course, you've found plenty of emotional support from equally naive fools
for that view. Ha. Just another blanket for you.
Rather than accept that evil men might hate you for doing good, and good men
hate you for doing evil, and that good and evil itself may not be so clear
cut... you abandon all you once claimed was good, all those policies you
once championed, and now embrace which ever historical fad offers you the
soothing words which justify the eventual either way loss.
> I believe that Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Atta, and OBL are incontestibly evil. Yes, I used to believe that there was some good in every human being. I was wrong; I don't believe that anymore. We can argue that in the future, if you wish.
Kaffir... You are the equivalent of the Book Of Job, a rationalisation of
the cruelty of God, rather than being able accept it as part of the deal.
Well, there is no God. But there are people in the world who will attack you
no matter what "side" you think it is you are taking.
> Those who would attack me and my country, we must defend against. Is that arguable?
Some of us are motivated by that to continue to do what is right overall, to
try and minimise that suffering. You on the other hand need a blanket to get
you to sleep at night. You need to think you 'are fighting evil people',
whilst ignoring all of the people you are driving in to the camp of those
who oppose you.
> Well, again, I believe that Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Atta, and OBL are incontestibly evil.
70% of the public in the UK was against the War in Iraq. 90%
in Spain. But as long as you can tell youself at night 'Oh woe is me, I'd
done all of this so politically correct left wing activism, but now I
realise...'. Well, you realise nothing, you pathetically weak fool. You
emote, that is all.
> OK, I realise nothing. Except that polls don't determine morality. Thanks!
Kaffir:
If you want to play Go on the internet, I'm game.
Dean and Clark differ on the issues which aren't sexy enough for the press.
Clark has a strong DLC slant on corporate issues, like deregulation, Nafta, job exportation, yadda, yadda.
His office domestic policies are more than a little sketchy, which doesn't matter too much to Clarkies.
If he were the front runner, he would be a lot more vulnerable than Dean. His campaign is made up of Clinton and Gore leftovers, and is top heavy with consultants. None of them have much success in electing anybody.
Neither does Trippi, however he does have ideas, as opposed to "colletive wisdom."
I am seeing Leiberman moving into Clark's target audience...which just finds the guy not quick enough on the learning curve, and shrill when challenged.
Dean, on the other hand is a street fighter, who defends himself without getting into twisting the position of his opponents.
But I love it when guys like Fairplay show how clueless they are with regard to the Dean grassroots support, which knew back in March their guy was a radical moderate...who decided to do something incredible: reengerize the base.
PGMBC, I swear I didn't cut-and-paste those four points. I wrote those myself.
I *did* cut-and-paste those charity links, and I thought everyone would find them useful. Didn't mean to imply that anyone here is less than charitable.
Lighten up.
eliza black, I'm pretty sure you're still a shit-for-brains, and I don't want to go play on the internet with you.
Kaffir - do you even have a point?
Do you have a thought that is your own?
Kaffir:
It's a war game. Consider it a challenge.
Kaffir - this topic was about Clark and Dean.
What is your goal here?
Clark is the DLC Clintonite guy.
Dean is the real grassroots movement guy. Possibly even a brilliant manipulater of the movement. Hell he asked his supporters to vote on opting out of public financing. Then he did exactly what they, and he, wanted to do. Opt out.
The DLC/Clintonite camp is scared of Dean and the power of the people. They want to maintain a Republican lite corporate status quo. Independent thought challenges that.
Plus if Dean wins, no Hillary run in 2008. She must throw shit fits everyday at that thought.
Does Clark even have a position? When I listen to him I hear a bunch of military tinged mataphors and little of substance. He seems deliberately vague on his views, and I'm a bit weary of everything being "Well, I'm a four star general and Medicare is very much like...." Yeah, we get it. You were a general, the the military is a metaphor for life. Good one.
Dean is only slightly less ambiguous. Listen to Sean Hannity or some other Republican detractor, and they claim to know exactly what Dean stands for (anti-Americanism, Socialism, Satan). But as someone who will probably vote for him I'm still trying to get some focus on the guy. I think I like him, but I still feel he's selling me without letting me look under the hood.
Kucinich is quite explicit in what he wants - and he's unelectable. By keeping it general you can be all things to all people.... hence, electable. I suppose Clark and Dean are smart to keep it general. How brilliant are we to accept it so readily?
Since we have to back the candidate we were handed, I hope both Clark and Dean get a little more off the fence as the primaries progress. I like to know what I'm buying. I don't think Clark is going to win me over, but I'm expecting Dean to start being up front and in our faces and I'll probably commit.
I think it's leadership style, that's all. It's clear, both can and have led. That's important, and what makes both potentially presidential (contrast with Lieberman, who doesn't and hasn't led; it's also apparent). And, I think background, upbringing, and life experience have made Dean come off brasher, more self-assured, and more confrontational than Clark, who is more self-effacing, a little quieter, eve when they approach issues they both agree on substantively. And, I think the press is responding to that. Members of the press like to be treated as if they're special, and so Dean's brusque self-assurance rubs them the wrong way.
Dennis - I never considered the Hillary angle. I'm not usually a conspiracy believer, but that idea makes sense. That would explain a lot of the internecine lashing out at Dean.
Members of the press like to be treated as if they're special, and so Dean's brusque self-assurance rubs them the wrong way.
len stewart
Ah but it sits well with the voters.
I was deeply impressed whne Dean pruodly admitted he smoked pot. The others who admitted, Kerry and Edwards, hung their heads and you could barely hear their answers.
Dean plainly and looking at the audience stated yes.
His candor was refreshing. I mean after that whole Clinton " I didn't inhale" handjob what more can someone want.
Have to side with the Wingnut on the Libya thing, folks.
While we're all over here squabbling, with our own candidates charging each other with loving Saddam, Bush snuck under the radar and disarmed a quasi-hostile nation.
Sure, there is probably more to it than the simple John Wayne story the media will tell, and sure Libya was past their prime, but in the end.... Bush wins the week, while we all look like dorks arguing amongst ourselves. Thanks very much Joe Lieberman.
But Wingnut, consider... Libya had known weapons and had targeted the US and others in terrorist acts. Why were they not a target earier this year when we absolutely had to go to war with the Evil Ones?
And isn't what they've agreed to do exactly what Saddam claims he did years ago. And now (no weapons found) seems like Saddam was telling the truth.
And even if we accept that Bush did good here, which I grudgingly do, why is it we were able to back Libya down with quiet dipolmacy and Iraq, a nation with no weapons, we had to give so many lives and so much money for.
Maybe Bush wins the day this time, but the war and this whole shell game is still bullshit.
Dennis - I never considered the Hillary angle. I'm not usually a conspiracy believer, but that idea makes sense. That would explain a lot of the internecine lashing out at Dean.
Not Kaffir
The rumor was the other DLC candidates, Joe L Kerry Edwards gephardt Graham, were doing so poorly that Clark was tossed in to prop that side of the party.
Why do you think Gore threw his support behind Dean? Split in the party? wanted to see a real Democratic victory in 2004, instead of waiting until 2008.
Bush fucked up a lot of shit in four years, why give him four more?
Also recall how after Clark jumped in the grassroots supporters were booted from the campaign.
Who cares, you liberal class war biased idiots? You're goin' DOWN! I am proud of America and her President. We have never been stronger and we will bring freedom to the world. Your bias and envy will only hurt yourselves. You will be left behind as the grasshopper was. We are the ants, we work hard and we are rewarded. You are on welfare and hate America. Shut up.
While we're all over here squabbling, with our own candidates charging each other with loving Saddam, Bush snuck under the radar and disarmed a quasi-hostile nation.
Sure, there is probably more to it than the simple John Wayne story the media will tell, and sure Libya was past their prime, but in the end
Libya had been angling for trade with the UK for a few years. This was just another action toward that.
I think the trade aspect had been discussed in the British media.
I haven't heard it yet but I know it's coming. Will it be Judy Woodruff or maybe Novak, but somebody will be explaining why the Libya thing is really bad for Dean.
If its good news for America it must be 'bad for Dean'.
Expect this for the next 11 months or so.
You will be left behind as the grasshopper was. We are the ants, we work hard and we are rewarded. You are on welfare and hate America. Shut up.
MBF
Grasshopper? Quai Chang Cain?
I seem to recall an episode where the Grasshoper kicked the Pissants ass.
Shorter Darth Philly G: "I'm tired of doing the work for you" = "I pulled it out of my ass."
"...proof that Libya had WMD NOW" = "He showed off some factories where biological weapons could be made, even though he hasn't been making them."
"Thersites provides details that I can't refute, so Thersites = ignored."
That's the refreshing thing about youth - they're actually PROUD of their ignorance and rather than trying to hide it, just clap hands over ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA LA" at the top of their lungs.
Joe B - In a vacuum, Libya would be quite a coup. It's a great development, but I do not see how it is different than the situation Iraq was in one year ago.
It seems to me that it actually calls the decision to go to war with Iraq MORE into question. So, yeah, Libya = good, Iraq war = even more unsupportable.
No, the patriots will be kicking YOUR ass as soon as 9-11 Part II happens. No more tolerance, understanding, just rounding up all the haters and putting them in camps.
"And even if we accept that Bush did good here, which I grudgingly do, why is it we were able to back Libya down with quiet dipolmacy and Iraq, a nation with no weapons, we had to give so many lives and so much money for."
Because Kaddafi had a not one but two examples of what his other alternative was. The carrot works so much better when there is a stick in the other hand, and the demonstrated willingness to use it not just once but repeatedly. And there is probably the real unspoken importance of the invasion of Iraq...if we had merely taken Afghanistan it could have been shrugged off as a one time only affair by an angry superpower retaliating for a direct attack upon it's own shores. Iraq changed that equation, made that stick a much more menacing reality, and that carrot a much more appetizing alternative.
How did bombing Kosovo make America safer?
"I suspect far fewer voters (as opposed to chickenhawk Faux Parrots) are third-grade reductionists as you seem to believe."
--In the cities of America, this is probably true. However, if you go to the relatively rural areas of the "heartlaned" (which I have grown to hold in contempt) of the South and Midwest, you will probably find yourself proven wrong . . . again and again.
Democracy--the idea that the average Joe can be trusted to have a say in the affairs of the state--was born and nurtured in the ancient cities of Greece. In other words, democracy--and its corallary, an informed and active citizenry--is a product of large groups of people living in relatively close proximity to one another. There are lot of reasons for this.
Needless to say, however, the rural rubes and yokels who make up a large portion of the American population function at the level of 3rd grade reductionists.
Just look at who the "red states" are that backed Bush during the last election.
Take a look at the timing. Just because it was announced yesterday, look when the negotiations began. Remember, negotiations could not even be started until Lockerbie was finished. That all took place before the Iraq invasion.
Darth Philly G:
I've always been interested in the metaphor balls=strength, fearlessness, courage whatever. That vulnerable part of a man that if squeezed too hard will make a man double over in pain. Bush=fearless took off like a scared rabbit on 9/11 and hid for two days. Bush=courage couldn't face a drug test so went awol for a year. Bush=strength doesn't have the courage or strength of character to show up at the funerals of our soldiers who gave their lives for Haliburton and were deceived into thinking it was for their country. Sorry Darth I should have stopped reading when I saw you were only 21 but I kept going because that is the age of a lot of those dead soldiers. There are a lot more pissed off middle eastern fundies now and I'm sorry to inform you that you and we are LESS save than before 9/11. It's only a matter of time. But hey we're gonna have lots of cheap oil for our SUV's.
"Take a look at the timing. Just because it was announced yesterday, look when the negotiations began. Remember, negotiations could not even be started until Lockerbie was finished. That all took place before the Iraq invasion."
It doesn't matter when they "began". It matters when they succeeded, and what brought that success about. Trying to make some kind of issue out of when they began is both pointless and meaningless.
Jeremiah, you ought to go to the "heartland" and make you feelings known. Or do you have the testicular fortitude?
Dean's the front running Democrat. If and when someone overtakes him, the media will target that person, whoever it is. I really believe it's as simple as that.
Joe Briefcase,
"Libya had known weapons and had targeted the US and others in terrorist acts. Why were they not a target earier this year when we absolutely had to go to war with the Evil Ones?"
>>Interesting point. I would say it is open to interpretation, not being the mind of the CinC, but I think that Iraq was a natural target because of their apparent disregard of the peace accord of '91. I think in the end it boils down to just picking someone to go first. Hopefully we can deal with more and more countries like this, and maybe learn some lessons from Iraq.
"And isn't what they've agreed to do exactly what Saddam claims he did years ago. And now (no weapons found) seems like Saddam was telling the truth."
>>Remember, the UN sent in weapons inspectors, and only after Hans Blix reported that Saddam was not being helpful, and that he was relatively certain that Saddam was hiding something did we go there. Also, UN resolution 1511 and resolution 1483 allow for ground forces to occupy Iraq. (Specifically US and British).
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
"And even if we accept that Bush did good here, which I grudgingly do, why is it we were able to back Libya down with quiet dipolmacy and Iraq, a nation with no weapons, we had to give so many lives and so much money for."
>> I think I am of the same opinion as you, overall Iraq was possibly good, but time will tell (That is the inference I am drawing from you, if I am wrong be sure to correct that). Hopefully it is our pressure on Iraq that allowed things like this recent unveiling of the Libya news to occur. It started 9 months ago (according to the paper) so that would be about the time we started in with Iraq, maybe the pressure there put a sense of perspective into Ghaddafi.
god, khadafi's been begging to normalize relations for years. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a major diplomatic victory.
Gadhafi all but owned up to his responsiblity for the destruction of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie. So what does W do? He showers this admitted terrorist with rose petals, and kisses his ass on national TV.
To top it off, he intends to rely on the word of weapons inspectors to confirm that the WMDs in question will be dismantled. What am I missing here? Are these the same inspectors who, while in Iraq, were accused of not being able to find their asses with both hands? Even a wingnut will have trouble squaring this contradiction.
"god, khadafi's been begging to normalize relations for years. I can't believe anyone thinks this is a major diplomatic victory."
Ah, but now he has done it on our terms. Therein lies the victory.
On Libya, here's a good analysis in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Dec19.html
I didn't know that, you wouldn't happen to have a link to any old news articles about it would you Atrios?
Let me just remind everyone once again: Libya had not been involved in any state-sponsored terrorism or other bad acts on the international stage in over ten years.
Of course, that really doesn't mean much, now that we've adopted the practice of invading countries and toppling leaders for "gassing their own people" 15 years ago.
Wow, I just went back and looked at the text of the SOTU address at the white house website and "Libya" really was on the axis of evil. That faulty memory of mine.
That's when I realized that the pacifist teachings of Christ, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Merton, which I formerly revered, were a recipe for suicide.
Why does Kaffir hate Baby Jesus? And so close to his birthday, too.
"What forced Gaddafi to act was a combination of things -- U.N. sanctions after the Lockerbie bombing, his international isolation after the Soviet Union's collapse . . . and internal economic problems that led to domestic unrest by Islamists and forces within the military," said Ray Takeyh, a Libya expert at the National Defense University"
"It provides the model, they said, for how to move forward with Iran, North Korea, Syria and potentially others."
Oh man, reading that article and I got to this part...
"Within months after September 11th, we had the Libyans, the Syrians and the Iranians all coming to us saying, 'What can we do [to better relations]?' We didn't really engage any of them, because we decided to do Iraq. We really squandered two years of capital that will make it harder to apply this model to the hard cases like Iran and Syria," said Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution."
Can you say OOPS?
Gosh, all this talk about Quadafi reminds me of the second-best NY Post headline of all time:
"KHADAFY GOES DAFFY!"
The best NY Post headline of all time, of course, remains:
"READ MY LIPS: I LIED
with a picture of Bush pere on the cover.
Duh, Deans the frontrunner, Clark isnt, did you forget your common sense at the door to Deans campaign?
Lay off Wesley.
Dean and I are not anti-war, just anti-Iraq war.
Dreagon - "It doesn't matter when they "began". It matters when they succeeded, and what brought that success about."
It's easy to make an assertion without backing it up with any fact, and that's what you're doing.
Why would the timing of the negotiations not matter? I mean, a reason other than, "Because Dreagon says so."
Your logic seems to be: "We had two wars so that is just the right number." That's it?
I assume that the practice of dismissing someone like Philly as too young to have comments of any value for your adult consideration extends to jesse of pandagon.
I think the media wing is just waiting for Dean to explode into a murderous rage and that's why they follow his every step.
Clark is laid back with a glass of chardonnay while he waxes about the same sorta stuff Dean does.
Who do YOU think is going to get more media exposure?
@ the end of Clark's pancake breakfast, Clark was doin a meet 'n' greet...a voter said, "you got to beat bush" & Clark said "i'll beat the shit out of him!"
I'm a Dean supporter, but I will still be happy with Clark.
*It's easy to make an assertion without backing it up with any fact, and that's what you're doing.*
No, I was backing it up with simple reason derived from the what facts we have at hand.
*Why would the timing of the negotiations not matter? I mean, a reason other than, "Because Dreagon says so."*
Um, that just a matter of stating the obvious. Negotiations can begin anytime and mean nothing because there is no garauntee that they will succeed or are even being entered with any desire to succeed.
Your logic seems to be: "We had two wars so that is just the right number." That's it
Would you prefer three? Kaddafi didn't.
Again, shut up liberals, or we will shut YOU up. You give aids and comfort to our enemes.
"Your logic seems to be: "We had two wars so that is just the right number." That's it"
Dreagon - "Would you prefer three? Kaddafi didn't."
No, I would have preferred one.
The only candidates I wouldn't support would be Clueless Joe and Gephart who is using a phony public interest group to attack the front runner.
*Your logic seems to be: "We had two wars so that is just the right number." That's it"*
Dreagon - "Would you prefer three? Kaddafi didn't."
*No, I would have preferred one.*
A lot of middle east dictators would passionately agree with you 
Atrios, couldn't you make a better whine with those sour grapes of yours? Having Col. Muammar Khadafy roll over and play nice doggy is a benefit to the US and our allies. If Libya was soon keen to compromise and capitulate with their WMDs, why wasn't Madeline Albright toasting champagne with Muammar like she did with Kim Jong Il in North Korea? We all know how effective Albright was in convincing Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program.
lol
Trolls are to blogs as VD is to sex, the best thing to do is avoid the infection and try not to spread it.
Virus isn't worth your powers of thinking, it's best to move on.
The very same racists who were shouting Kill Them All are now crying crocodile tears over the crimes of Saddam Hussein. Where were you while we were attacking RRR for supporting Saddam?
In all your adulation of Swartzkopf, where is your reaction to his allowing SH to retain not just his freedom after GW1, but his attack helicopters? 1,000 Kurds a day died because of that little goof.
In all your newfound concern for the Iraqi people, why no anger at Gen'l McCaffery, who committed a grave warcrime by slaughtering 50-60,000 retreating Iraqi conscripts? Your favorite little brown people just don't value life the way we do, right?
Good Iraqis are like good slaves...their masters have their best interests at heart. That's why they are talking about 'mowing the Iraqis down,' eh? For their own good, donchaknow. Kill them all, the little rascals.
Troll logic ... so like Dictator Love, it's scary.
Lasta: I'm sorry, would you prefer it if everyone had the same opinion as you? I guess open debate is terrible, it forces you to back up your opinions and use cognative thinking...
Unlike the Republican party and the America media and like other progressives I am rather fond of diversity, I am always willing give up my old ideas to adopt better ones when I come by them. What reasonable person wouldn't do that? It is lying and dishonesty I'm not fond of. Shifting sand isn't anything to build on.
"I think Dean's grassroots only hear anti-war ... as in pacifist!"
Shut the fuck up. I think you only hear shit you want to hear. Get this crap out of your head right now. I'm as Deanie as they get and I fully supported the war in Afghanistan and would have supported a war to bring Saddam Hussein to justice through the U.N.. Pacifists know Kucinich is their man. Realists know Howard Dean is da Man.
No, the patriots will be kicking YOUR ass as soon as 9-11 Part II happens. No more tolerance, understanding, just rounding up all the haters and putting them in camps.
Madeline albright and Qaddafi?
http://tinyurl.com/yqd4k
Ladies and Gentlemen, quit blogging and help campaign/contribute money like the future of America depends on it.
How did bombing Kosovo make America safer?
Nobody told the American people that we were bombing Kosovo to make America safer. We bombed Kosovo to stop a tyrant. And gosh did the conservatives get mad and howl. Why, they even promised to stay out of nation building in the 2000 campaign!
The justification for going into Iraq was to make America safer. Which justification is now quite clearly a load of shit.
When the dust settles it's gonna be Clark. Deal with it.
MBF ejaculated: No, the patriots will be kicking YOUR ass as soon as 9-11 Part II happens. No more tolerance, understanding, just rounding up all the haters and putting them in camps.
Because he hates freedom.
.
We really squandered two years of capital that will make it harder to apply this model to the hard cases like Iran and Syria," said Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution.
That’s actually quite an understatement. The Bush family and their neo-whatever retainers use phony external threats to drum up domestic support. They use that support to enact policy that would otherwise be out of the question. It’s the same scam the Chinese are running and to them we say, do as we say, not as we do --ala Kristof in today’s NYT.
The reasons for rising Chinese nationalism are complex and include a justified anger at Japan's reluctance to apologize for war atrocities. But one factor is the way the Chinese government has been pushing nationalist buttons in an effort to create a new national glue to hold the country together as ideology dissolves. By constantly excoriating the Japanese nationalists of the 1930's, they are emulating them.
One of the lessons of 1930's Japan and Germany is that ferocious nationalism is a real global security risk, and it's a matter that the U.S. and other countries should respectfully raise with President Hu. To their credit, some farsighted Chinese intellectuals are calling for changing China's "victim mentality," recognizing that it is one of the greatest obstacles to China's maturing into the global leader that it should be.
Kaddafi has been begging to normalize relations for years. This is no big diplomatic coup.
esther is right. People keep bringing this up and it gets buried in the arguments between the trolls and those willing to feed them. The trolls know this. It's another day another hijacking. Not that I'm getting onto anyone for feeding them - feed away if you like.
But let me repeat what esther just said:
"Kaddafi has been begging for normalize relations for years. This is no big diplomatic coup."
Since when did anyone in this administration do anything diplomatically? This was Ghadaffi's doing. This was not Bush's doing. This was Mohamar Ghadaffi's offer.
Tena's absolutely right. Study our record with the Korean peninsula if you think we can negotiate to save our lives. For years NK had been saying in illegitimate asides by the water cooler, "Hey, we got nukes...wanna give us money, or else?" And Clinton's negotiators were like, "Is that a real statement? Are you willing to repeat the 'at the table'?" And the NK'ers never did. Then the Bush hacks, incompetants given jobs purely by Jacksonian spoils, heard this, failed to talk to the Clinton people so they didn't now it was a regular pick-up line NK used, failed to notice that it was said in "illegitimate asides" (in diplomacy, everything is heavily ritualized so you know when someone is really declaring war and when someone is stubbing their toe. Their are "real" and "not serious" talks in each "negotiation"), and promptly wet their pants. Now Japan is working on ballistic missile defense, possibly as part of a secret nuclear program and definitely as a result of Bush's unholy success in turning back the Korean clock.
for some time now, Lybia has not been the story, it hasn't been a footnote in any other story. Noth Korea is the problem, and that is why we haven't and won't anytime soon see Bush "fixing" NK.
philly g is a dirty hajii
"The question is who is best positioned to combat that in the few swing states that are up for grabs in 2004."
Dean leads them all!
The only candidates I wouldn't support would be Clueless Joe and Gephart who is using a phony public interest group to attack the front runner.
EPT | Email | Homepage | 12.20.03 - 10:44 am | #
I agree. If either one of these 2 win the nomination I'm not voting for president. This will be the first time in 32 years. God I never thought I'd say this.
It's time to send a message loud and clear that this party needs a change. By change I do not mean becoming the Republican party. We need representatives who are going to fight for us, who represent the people. Washington needs a shake-up. If the only way we can get that is for the Republicans to completely collapse this country's infrastructure and judicial system to wake people the f--- up, then so be it.
The Democratic party needs a sound defeat if the tactics these 2 are using actually are successful in winning the nomination. I don't vote Republican because of this crap and I'm sure not going to vote for a Democrat doing the same.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
