I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
goddamnit we just haven't been wishing hard enough!
Atrios, your post is objectively anti-soldier.
One rather sad thing is that I have to admit that it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so.
Uh, why is that Atrios? The whole 'only Nixon could go to China' thing? That is to say, an incoming Dem admin will be too afraid of being called 'chickenshit' to get the hell out?
BTW what do you mean by getting the hell out? We're not getting out! We may turn things over to the Iraqis eventually, but there will continue to be American troops in Iraq. The oil, y'know.
it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so
Why?
Krugman nails it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/3...ion/
30KRUG.html
Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?
One rather sad thing is that I have to admit that it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so.
Yes, but is getting us of Iraq quickly worth getting us IN to Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan...
Because any "failures" in Iraq which now of course don't exist will be amplified and blamed on the foreign policy of the next administration.
So, the entire thing will be the fault of the Dem who ends it rather than the Republican who started it.
What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?
Because IOKIYAR!!!!
We DON'T want to get out of there.
Then we leave a mess behind worse than what was there before ... like we did in Afghanistan outside of Kabul.
No, the Democrat is the one who will launch the Marshall Plan for Iraq that will rebuild the country and actually build some solid good for the US in the mideast, for a change.
If I can be excused, I'll repost here the contents of a diary entry I posted earlier today on Kos because I think it fits the topic:
The U.S. as a wife-beating drunk
I usually don't editorialize, preferring to draw attention to worthy newsitems, but it recently occurred to me that a good paradigm for America's political history is that of the perennial wife-beating husband.
The wife is the beautiful, admirable values of the U.S. Constitution and the ideas framed by the Founding Fathers that we stand for.
The husband is the U.S. Government.
Every 10-20 years, the husband bitch-slaps the wife silly. Then he cries, apologizes, recognizes that what he did was very very wrong, and promises to not to do it again.
And then after a while, he does it again.
The American people are the children who love their dad and are in massive denial over his behavior.
So, the entire thing will be the fault of the Dem who ends it rather than the Republican who started it.
Atrios
Not if we get a Dem in the WH who has some frickin balls to kick the Repugs in the nuts.
Which is why I have grave doubts about Kerry as our President.
OT: I think the next contest for moveon.org should be the best spot on telling the truth about CBS as re: their rejection of the moveon.org spot for the Super Bowl.
I'm glad to hear I can quit clapping. My hands were starting to hurt.
Why? Because the next Dem president...
-doesn't want to f*** over the people of Iraq by leaving it in chaos w/o a decent form of government in place.
-doesn't want to make America look bad by just cutting our losses & running away.
-knows that accomplishing these things takes time and effort and cooperation w/the international community. (That's one thing that will be easier to get if Bush isn't the prez.) This is not something that should be done on a political timetable.
These are just my humble opinions, and I would rather have any Dem do the job than for Bush to have a go at it.
Because there's no press. Because there's no sense of citizenship. There's only ad-driven consumerism, with a tenth-second attentions span.
Because thanks to corporate takeovers the press is the broadcast equivalent of those ad fillers you get in the mail and Sunday paper: existing only to benefit advertisers.
Advertisers don't like news to scare people, or make them think hard about anything more important than which car/ISP/cellphone they plan to buy next.
It isn't ideology. Ideology played a role. But cravenness on the part of the network execs and apathetic consumerism on the part of citizens played a far larger one.
Oh, just another thought. Each democratic candidate should anounce the daily death toll in Iraq. Especially Dean.
howard dean is a "firebrand"
how can we trsut him (sarcasm)
OT - we haven't evolved but biologically changed over time
according to this article about
creationist proposal in georgia
http://tinyurl.com/2ohl4
...the Republicans will turn the whole thing into a political nightmare.
Which is why inoculation now is needed. Kerry, especially, should make a major, very impassioned "we were misled by a bunch of evil pricks" speech, attend a few funerals of deceased soldiers, and hammer home the point that the chickenhawks were wrong in the rawest language possible. It should be part of his stump speech.
it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so.
Given the fact that control of Congress will most likely remain in the hands of the Republican Party, due to redistricting and the very small number of truly competitive seats, it's unlikely that an incoming Democratic administration will be able to do anything easily.
This is all the more reason why we should be looking for a Democratic candidate who will stand up to the right wingers. One of the reasons they got so out of control in the first place was because Bill Clinton spent most of his term in office trying to appease them. And look what good it did him.
We need a Democratic candidate who will make it clear from Day One that he won't be pushed around.
four legs good-
how about the Dem candidate actually go visit wounded soldiers and their funerals. To shame our pResident.
The entire logic behind saying that the amount of attacks had declined since Saddam's capture was based on a trick of statistics that people were using to make the war effort look better.
November was Ramadan. During November, there were far more attacks on Americans than during any other month, and causalties skyrocketed. When Ramadan ended, the casualty rate dropped to almost exactly what it was in October. Consequently, November/Ramadan was a statistical blip. You could even see it in the 10 days in December before Saddam was captured.
Now here's the trick; if you include a part of November in the tally of the casualty rate, you artificially inflate the casualty rate during that time period. So, if I'm talking about the amount of attacks declining from the month before Saddam was captured to the month after, I'm technically correct, but I'm also ignoring the fact that November was a statistical anomaly; it was so much higher that it distorts all the numbers.
If you actually look at the casualty numbers for September, October, December, and January, you'll find that it's almmost identical; about 40-50 Americans coming home in Body Bags each month. There was almost no post-Saddam capture change in these figures; the only change happened during Ramadan itself.
Saying that the casualty rate declined since Saddam's capture may be technically true, but it is intellectually dishonest by ignoring other variables, and consequently is pretty damn ignorant.
Visit my web page, please
OT, man, Chris Hitchens in Slate:
-The CIA was wrong about WMD and the CIA opposed regime change all along, soooo…
-The war was obviously worth it to know for sure there were no WMD there, you idiots…
-Saddam was really dumb to indicate he had WMD when he didn’t, and he was lying when he denied it.
Re: "One rather sad thing is that I have to admit that it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so."
Why?? Remember, republicans (and much of the media) do not need actual facts to demonize Democrats. I would not be surprised that if a Democrat wins next November, the calls for impeachment from the likes of Tom Delay and his fellow maggots will be making the rounds by January 21.
In the debate last night, Brokaw said, "David Kay also told me the other day that he thinks now, looking back, that the two years before we went to war was the most dangerous period in Iraq in a long, long time because it was spinning out of control. Saddam Hussein was not in charge."
If Kay/Brokaw are saying he wasn't in control in the two years before the war, why should we assume that he was in control in the months after it, and would have any relation to the attacks?
Oh well.
Not if we get a Dem in the WH who has some frickin balls to kick the Repugs in the nuts. Which is why I have grave doubts about Kerry as our President.
Democracy NOW earlier this week was running bio segments on Kerry. A reporter from the Boston Globe said that Dukakis has told Kerry not to be a spineless chump in the face of the media onslaught, like he -- Dukakis -- was.
I would not be surprised that if a Democrat wins next November, the calls for impeachment from the likes of Tom Delay and his fellow maggots will be making the rounds by January 21.
It's a given. Yet another reason why our Dem nominee has to be someone who has the balls for a fight, rather than a 'get along and go along' type.
OT, but Jesse's hot today. This was esp. amusing...
I have confidence that this war is going to slowly eat away the insides of the Bush administration for the next 10 months. The public's veeerrrry slowly catching on to the shell game here.
One rather sad thing is that I have to admit that it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so. I think a Democratic administration would be preferable, all things considered, but the Republicans will turn the whole thing into a political nightmare.
Ummm...it already is a political nightmare. It doesn't get any better by a GOP administration taking it's own sweet time getting out.
All expectations are that our military is over there for the next 2-3 years minimum. That projection doesn't depend on what party is in the White House, or what Administration.
It took 5 years for Nixon to get us out of Vietnam, and even then we really just cut our losses and ran. We can't do that now for the simple reason we need Iraq's oil, and no one, GOP or Dem, is gonna leave Iraq to the tender mercies of whoever wins the civil war just to spare a few American soldiers.
I don't think it gets easier to get out, no matter what. And I think the GOP will play the game of "political nightmare" if a Dem takes the White House, no matter what.
It's gonna be ugly. There's no way around that. It's just less ugly with BushCo out of power. I don't think there's a way around that, either.
".....it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so...
I seems too me that too much attention is being wasted on getting a Democrat in the White House at the expense of the Congressional races.
The above statement is correct because of the control of Congress by the Repubs. The Repubs. and the right wing press will counter any and all moves by a Dem. President every chance they get. Unless a Dem. Pres. has overwhelming support of the American People he will not be able to enact any agenda.
The idea that Dean is the man who American People of all political stripes will rally around is naive at best. I don't think any of the candidates will have that kind of support. So it will be critical that one of the wings of congress goes Democrat. And that’s going to be very hard.
As hard as it is to believe, polls show Bush’s support to be very high overall. I can’t understand it myself, but there it is.
A second Bush administration will bring the draft and an invasion of Syria. They are already beginning to market it.
how about the Dem candidate actually go visit wounded soldiers and their funerals. To shame our pResident.
Yes, exactly. If I were a candidate I was start every remark session off with a roll call of how many were killed and what their names were and where they were from. Put a human face on it.
I mean goddamnit, they're not toys. They're people.
If a Dem makes it a point to aggressively restore our relationship with Europe and other allies, using language to the extent of "we are all responsible for promoting both international security as well as international respect...", we might be able to convince some of those countries to add to our forces, allowing us to bring some home. A PR coup on two fronts, at the very least.
I have a feeling that our allies are using "the situation's too dangerous over there" to cover up their real sentiments: "why the hell would we ever help that prick Dubya?"
The fact is that Bushboy & the Goopers will "cut and run" from Iraq just as they did from Vietnam and declare "victory."
The operative word in the Bushboy administration is "LIE." One lie is covered by another lie, ad nauseum...
Bushboy & the Goopers know they can lie with impunity since the Gooper Congress certainly won't hold them accountable and neither will the cowardly mass media.
See Krugman's column today which illustrates the point.
Atrios has it right: The Republicans will do everything they possibly can to make a Democratic president's term a living nightmare.
If that means letting a thousand U.S. soldiers die, they'll gladly let that happen. If it means letting Iraq spiral into chaos and civil war, no problem.
Even if it means doing terrible damage to the well-being of the United States (from crippling it economically to allowing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil), they will joyfully follow that path.
In case you haven't noticed, the only thing Republicans honestly and truly believe in is POWER. Pure, raw, unalloyed power for its own sake. Getting power, maintaining power, and increasing power by any means whatsoever--even by inciting the assassination of the new Democratic president--is well within the bounds of their political ethos.
it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so
That's bullshit. The Democratic president will be able to mobilize the UN and international community, maybe even the arab countries, showing the republicans and neocons what a bunch of inept fools they are. The world will rise up in a chorus of joy when the unelected fraud is thrown out. And the republican enablers will have to slink back into their caves.
Carville said something weird the other day, along the lines of...
"The things Dean has said, about Iraq being just as dangerous and such, he is right about that and everything else, but he isn't going to get elected."
I wasn't on the Dean train before all this, but watching him be run over by the media truck this month has been very frustrating and has gotten me in his corner.
He got excited in front of his supporters, and he said Iraq was still dangerous. In other words, he did nothing wrong, and he was completely right.
And yet he is being pushed out of the race by a media that still considers his "slide" today's big story. It's just sad.
If he loses, or worse, makes an early exit and the accomplishments of his campaign fall into the memory hole, we have all lost a lot, and it's all because of nonsense.
any "failures" in Iraq which now of course don't exist will be amplified and blamed on the foreign policy of the next administration.
Doesn't have to be. Make nice with the UN and other countries, get them in, largely get out (small contingent working with UN) and let it be the UN's fault. Besides, let the Repubs crow about it; it's sad to say but (if the US leaves) as long as Iraqis are killing each other and not American soldiers in Iraq, the US public really won't give a shit.
I see iraq as our West Bank but more of a public relations nightmare--if that is possible. I think it is definitely possible because the Iraqis are better armed than the Palestinians. Don't worry America, your kids in college are safe, the press gangs are only looking for economic conscripts (dead-end job holders and those too poor to find money for college) for our "all volunteer army."
Not if we get a Dem in the WH who has some frickin balls to kick the Repugs in the nuts.
Which is why I have grave doubts about Kerry as our President.
renato.
I have to agree with you, renato. Problem in my way of thinking, that only leaves Dean. I like Dean and will vote for him. I was listening to NPR a couple days ago and some stupid woman was being interviewd about her voting in primary (NH?) and she said that first she went in and voted Republican, then she went back and got a Democrat ticket and voted on it, too. The interviewer said that according to state it was legal. The woman (I can imagine her smirk) said they were voting for less likely candidates so as to skew the numbers. Did anyone else hear it???
"That's bullshit. The Democratic president will be able to mobilize the UN and international community, maybe even the arab countries, showing the republicans and neocons what a bunch of inept fools they are. The world will rise up in a chorus of joy when the unelected fraud is thrown out. And the republican enablers will have to slink back into their caves."
With all due respect, thats nothing but wishfull thinking.
part of me hopes that aWol wins in November by another too-close-to-count result, which smacks of some political thuggery and malfeasance. Then he drives the country into the ground in such an obvious way that no one will ever vote Rethuglican again for at least two generations.
We'd have to start over with what whitleass leaves us, but at least they'd be gone for a long time.
Chica, that would make sense except that we're already in deep deep shit, and I fear for what could happen to us next. I have two kids, and I really don't want to raise them in the situation we're already in, let alone something much much worse. And I hate to be totally crazy sounding, but that man has his finger on the button, too, you know.
A skillful, able and willing Dem administration along with the cooperation of the currently scorned UN and the ridiculed Europeans, can and should be able to define and implement a policy toward Iraq and the rest irritated Arab states. How so?
By simply reminding everyone of the MISERABLE FAILURE OF THE BUSH ADMINSTRATIONS, (yes, I mean plural) THEIR LIES ABOUT WMD, THE FRAUD OF HALLIBURTON, (you get my drift) etc, etc, and that this adminstration with the cooperation of the world can end the war, honorably, and actually try to bring peace, food and electricity to the people.
Let's face it, the Repugs will never admit defeat, but the new Dems can apologize and move on in a way that the Repugs can't. In case you have noticed, the scorched earth, let them eat cake reconstruction policies of the cruel Bush administration is taking it's toll both on our soldiers and Iraq.
Who trusts the Repugs to do anything right and in the best interests of Iraq and it's people? Indeed.
To suggest that the Repugs will have an easier time is just plain dumb.
...a political nightmare?!
--too late!!
ventura county, ca
yeah, I agree TO; but I can just imagine that when a em president can't dig us out of the financial and global crises started by BushCo, the SCLM will do nothing but call attention to that president's failing.
part of me hopes that aWol wins in November by another too-close-to-count result, which smacks of some political thuggery and malfeasance. Then he drives the country into the ground in such an obvious way that no one will ever vote Rethuglican again for at least two generations.
If it hasn't happened by now, it ain't gonna happen.....
Saddam was caught. The CIA lied to poor old George. Deficits don't matter. Kerry didn't support Gulf War I. Welcome to election 2004.
"As hard as it is to believe, polls show Bush’s support to be very high overall. I can’t understand it myself, but there it is."
Bing Crosby
There's the myth of Bush's popularity again. Go here:
http://snipurl.com/46r6
"part of me hopes that aWol wins in November by another too-close-to-count result, which smacks of some political thuggery and malfeasance. Then he drives the country into the ground in such an obvious way that no one will ever vote Rethuglican again for at least two generations."
chica toxica
You are ignoring the fact that half the country approves of the job he's doing now. How much worse could things get to drive his approval rating lower? I figure for his approval to drop below the "stupid threshhold", he would have to be caught giving a donkey a blow job. And even then, I'm not so sure.
I'm already hearing people say "The CIA is to blame for no WMD". It amazing how quickly the RNC talking points hit the mainstream.
Bing, wishful thinking starts with the idea that a democrat can defeat the worst administration in history.
chica,
That hasn't stopped anything yet. Who defines 'bottoming out'. I mean, shit, if you can't hear the scraping at the bottom of the barrel yet, you never will.
In three agonizingly long-seeming (but actually short) years, he's managed to replace a vibrant, load-sharing, somewhat progressive economy with a staggering, top-heavy one, a Pax Americana with a Bello Mars, intenational respect and goodwill with hate and millions of good paying jobs with thousands of poor paying ones.
For all of those who have complained over the years that our government was being bought off, THIS is what it's like when a goverment is bought off. All brought to you by GW and the modern Republican party.
Bush's approval rating will never drop below the percentage of people who think Saddam was behind 9/11.
Yet another reason why our Dem nominee has to be someone who has the balls for a fight, rather than a 'get along and go along' type.
And just to make things clear, having the balls for a fight means telling somebody like Tom DeLay "If you want to try to smear me with some trumped-up nonsense like Whitewater, go ahead. But the minute you try it, the Feds will start taking a long, hard look at your campaign fundraising activities."
Ugly? Sure. But it's the only thing a guy like DeLay will understand. Like the man said, politics ain't beanbag.
The Peshmerga and Badr Brigade militias are chomping at the bit to take over security/counterinsurgency from the Americans (See Jon Lee Anderson in current New Yorker). Why don't we just let them have at it? All these American deaths are totally unnecessary.
spyral has it right. The real advantage of the GOP is their willingness to do a crappy job in Iraq, all the while declaring it a wonderful blah, blah, blah.
A Democrat in the White House would accept the difficulty of extraction from Iraq and would actually work for a triumph of substance over style. In today's political climate, that's a distinct disadvantage.
There's the myth of Bush's popularity again. Go here:
http://snipurl.com/46r6
44% of those polled want to see him. elected. 78% think he will be elected. And you don't think thats high? I'm sure it is going to drop. But it is no myth. And considering how things have been going those are very good numbers.
did anyone see scott ritter this morning on cspan/
he only had his patriotism attacked *once* ( a huge change from last year)....& that attacker want even saying he was WRONG, just that it was "disrespectful/unamerican" to say that US can't "win" in Iraq.
The Administration line--via Condi Rice--is that, even if it's choosing the "We're idiots, but not liars!" argument:
America is safter now that the Iraqi regime has changed.
How is that? Hundreds of Americans are dead in Iraq, thousands horribly wounded, since the Iraqi regime has changed. Refresh our memory on how many Americans the Iraqis killed in the years 1992-2003, again, Condi?
The Administration game is distraction by detail. The answer is to remember the overall and direct Administration spokesmen back to it:
Between the end of the First Gulf War and January 2001, George H.W. Bush, and then William Jefferson Clinton, within a mulinational enterprise managed by the United Nations, stripped Saddam Hussein of any chemical and biological weapons he retained after 1991. They shut down his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons research, and crippled his long-range missile research utterly. The steady-state of Iraq was rule by a brutal dictator who couldn't threaten his neighbors, much less the United States. Geoge W. Bush, by contrast, has destroyed not a single Iraqi weapon that was banned to Iraq by the United Nations. Not a single one. None, and at immense cost to the USA. How can this course be cast as anything other than gross failure? How can it not be seen as a repudiation of unilateral "preventive war," that centerpiece of Bush foreign policy?
"The things Dean has said, about Iraq being just as dangerous and such, he is right about that and everything else, but he isn't going to get elected."
JB - do you know what show, what day? I'd like to see if I can dig up a transcript...
A second Bush presidency isn't looking particularly viable right now. Kay's statements are pretty heavy shit, and will almost certainly lead to an independent investigation of the misuse of intelligence to take the country into what has turned out to be a quaqmire. It's going to be on the frontpage all year, as more and more bodybags come home every month.
Any Dem, if he runs a halfway decent campaign, should be able to beat the sad sack of incompetents in the WH.
Bing, reread your own post. I think you is confuseled.
I'm already hearing people say "The CIA is to blame for no WMD"
I'm waiting for the CIA to start exacting a little revenge and decimating those RNC talking points.
44% of those polled want to see him. elected. 78% think he will be elected. And you don't think thats high? I'm sure it is going to drop. But it is no myth. And considering how things have been going those are very good numbers.
Bing Crosby
The 78 percent has nothing to do with his popularity, only the pessimism of the people who want him out. Bottom line is that more people want to elect someone else than to reelect the chimp.
"The US military on Thursday declined to confirm or deny the figures for combat deaths in Iraq this month, which were calculated from press releases from US Central Command in Florida. A US military spokesman in Baghdad said figures were only kept for two-month periods, and a computer malfunction made it impossible to calculate an official casualty count for separate months."
Very convincing! Can we start a fund to buy them a calculator?
Under more morbid circumstances the loss of soldiers might be looked upon as worth the sacrifice if we were able to achieve a 1:1 or 1:2+ ratio of soldier to insurgent deaths. This could then imply that even though we have lost a lot of good people, the insurgent(terrorists) have also lost too many of their own agents to continue fighting in earnest.
But that is not the case. Roadside bombs, boobytraps if you prefer, are causing more deaths for our side than the other. If we were to even have a 1:1 ratio of deaths then having 500+ insurgent deaths might be looked at as having a deterimental effect on their effort.
But this might not be more than folly since there are no doubt thousands of insurgents operating in the country. Thus a larger ratio would be needed.
That's obviously not the case.
The point to this little rant of mine?
These deaths were not just useless from a moral anti-war and policy standpoint, but useless from a military advantage standpoint as well.
I wonder how many acceptable deaths they can tolerate before admitting military failure?
MYOB'
.
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that, before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." Fr. John Sheehan of the Jesuit order
"Bottom line is that more people want to elect someone else than to reelect the chimp."
Considering what a complete failure he has been, how do you explain the fact that 44% of the country wants him elected. If any Dem had been this kind of idiot President he would be in the toilet. Besides none of this will count until there is only one Dem left running. Then at least the people being polled will have a more defined criteria.
I also contend that it won't matter what Dem gets elected if he has to face a total Republican Congress.
"The 78 percent has nothing to do with his popularity"
This is very true. But it does show what those people polled think of the Dem. field.
I wonder how many acceptable deaths they can tolerate before admitting military failure?
Admit? Admit!!??
Hell, we've never "admitted" failure in Vietnam. We just turned it all over to the South Vietnamese government and got the hell out. (That whole helicopter off the embassy roof thing wasn't meant to happen that way. Can't even admit failure there, ya know!)
Admit failure? Ain't gonna happen. Cut and run? Yeah, sure, we can do that. But admit failure?
What'r'u, unamurikan ur sump'n?
But it's the only thing a guy like DeLay will understand.
I think he'd understand a swift kick to the ass, or a nice clonk on the head with Scooter's fry pan. For that matter a pitchfork would probably work. But my favorite method would be a grand jury indictment.
He's a criminal and a thug.
Senator Kerry should be proud of all the US soldiers who are dying because he helped bush get his phony Bush war.
Kerry was more concerned about his own cowardly ass in a presidential race than he was about 500+ dead American soldiers and thousands of wounded.
This guy is a disgrace to the democratic party and i will stay home before I ever vote for such a cowardly prick.
Considering what a complete failure he has been, how do you explain the fact that 44% of the country wants him elected. If any Dem had been this kind of idiot President he would be in the toilet. Besides none of this will count until there is only one Dem left running. Then at least the people being polled will have a more defined criteria.
"Complete failure" is in the eye of the beholder. Convicted felon and dishonarably discharged former Marine Ollie North is still held in high regard in some quarters, and I know people who still think Nixon was "done in" by people who failed to properly respect his position as POTUS.
"Optimism" is in the eye of the beholder, too. That "78%" number reflects the pessimism typical of the commenters here. That is, more and more people are more and more cynical, and would probably agree with Kurt Vonnegut, writing after the '72 Republican Convention:
"The winners are at war with the losers, and the fix is in. The prospects for peace are awful."
Now, if they can just be persuaded voting is more productive than surrendering without a fight.....
Bing, those numbers are going to change as more and more Americans are *introduced* to the Dem candidates and listen to their hopeful messages delivered with intelligence and sincerity. It has already happened in Iowa and NH, and it will continue as interest and exposure increase, and we get closer to Nov.
Bush was the only choice for three years. Now there are other, better ones.
...the Republicans will turn the whole thing into a political nightmare.
Couldn't be much worse than the one we're in right now. And if it is, then we'll just get the civil war over with that much quicker...
"The US military on Thursday declined to confirm or deny the figures for combat deaths in Iraq this month, which were calculated from press releases from US Central Command in Florida. A US military spokesman in Baghdad said figures were only kept for two-month periods, and a computer malfunction made it impossible to calculate an official casualty count for separate months."
Very convincing! Can we start a fund to buy them a calculator?
Foulard | Email | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 1:53 pm | #
I feel like I'm living in crazyland. They're telling us they don't keep track of who got killed and when? And they expect us to believe that shit? I've worked for the DOD, and they keep track of every fucking thing.
What happened in Iowa and New Hampshire? There was no match up between a Dem and Bush. NH was a primary in a small state. A state with a very liberal Dem base.
Of course all these numbers will change. Shit they will get it all wrong in the end anyway. Polsters always do.
But I still don't see how we can just concentrate on the Presidential election when the real power will be in congress.
I also think that perhaps you give a little too much credit to the intelligence of the American People.
"A person is smart, but People are stupid"
The very second a Democratic presidential candidate shows up at the funeral of a dead soldier, he will be Wellstoned with a fury that will make Dean's yawp coverage look like a harmless pinprick.
But I agree with four legs about starting off every day with a press conference about the death toll. Even my normally good local paper has been burying the stories lately. Nobody cares, the editors say when I call to complain, failing to see that sometimes they have to force people to care.
A.
but the Republicans will turn the whole thing into a political nightmare.
I hate to point this out, but they'll do that with everything our next elected president tries to do.
Educating children, feeding the homeless, providing health care for people that need it, etc.
Modern Republicans hate democracy and decency, and will oppose any effort by a democratically-elected president to move this country into the future.
They're going to make anything and everything into a political nightmare anyway, no matter what we do. So fuck them and their sanctimonious hypocrisy. Fuck them, and do what's right in spite of their backward little minds.
Considering what a complete failure he has been, how do you explain the fact that 44% of the country wants him elected.
As I mentioned before, 78 percent is our pessimism index; 44 percent is close to our stupidity threshold, (i.e., the number of people that will vote for Bush no matter what, short of Bush going down on an animal or tattooing a swastika on his forehead).
OT but if CBS can,t run moveon.org's ad on Feb 1st, which is the first day of sweeps month. I think we all could tune out CBS for at least a month.
The media's and Al From's "Rules of Engagement" for Democratic politicians.
This is how the media picks your president for you.
So Howard Dean can't say we're safer since the capture of Saddam and Wes Clark can't standside someone else who says that Bush was AWOL.
Just how far is Sen. John F. Kerry going to get with the rules are WIDE OPEN for George W. Bush but with Kerry's hands tied behind his back?
I wonder if Ralph Nader would let these rules stand in his way?
Maybe someone should start setting up a website up for the Ralph Nader and ask Nader the following:
1)"How sharp are your legal debating skills Ralph?"
2)"Can you stand up to major TV networks news-anchors when they pull the same shit they did with Wes Clark and Howard Dean?"
3) "Can you handle youself like a moderate-because you would have to represent all poeple, not just the Greens?"
We already KNOW what kind of a flip flop guy that John Kerry is, especially as it pretains to this thing about the war in Iraq. Flop-flop people fold when it gets to hot under collar because they end up looking dishonest.
Conservatives don't like change and Liberals like change all the time.
John F. Kerry is fool if the thinks the liberals are going to give him the same Teflon coating that conservative give their Presidential hopeful. The GOP is a toe-the-line organization but liberals are not like that at all.
I think we all could tune out CBS for at least a month.
Based on what happened in, for example, Viet Nam, under what scenario will fewer people die?
(a) completely pull out now, with possibility of civil war erupting in Iraq
or
(b) stay, incur more losses, kill more Iraqi civilians, until we inevitably pull out, followed by possibility of civil war erupting in Iraq?
I vote for option (b), and trust that the Iraqis are better suited to figure out their own problems that we are. Why do we treat whole nations like 5 year olds, unable to make the right decisions for themselves? "Father Knows Best" went off the air a long time ago.
(OT, I'm still trying to get the "Santorum-On-Donkey" image out of my mind...)
I also think that perhaps you give a little too much credit to the intelligence of the American People.
Well, since such credit is the whole basis of the democratic republic we live in, I'm not sure how this is a problem.
Or if it is the problem, how the solution comes about other than establishment of a monarchy, or a dictatorship. Neither of which, I presume, would be agreeable, either.
Could always go for raw anarchy, I guess.....
religion is at best organizied idiocy
and the best organized idiots are now
in charge...the endless cacaphony that
surrounded BILL CLINTON during the best 8 years of recent political history shows that reality has no value with the wingnut assholes that
form the modern republican cabal...the
endless bullshit and moaning about the
values of others that aren't christian
enough for the creationist morons has
captured the school textbook fight in
too many places...science is right...
religion is wrong...that's it...the
result of the Iraqi invasion is never
going to satisify everyone and is
begging the question: WHAT GIVES THE
US GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT
IS CORRECT FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ?
the bottom feeding money stealing and
short cutting services being foisted
on the troops by the cheney connected
cabal of rightwing thieves need a wakeup call...anybody but bushit...
I don't get it. I thought the reason(s) we went to Iraq were
1. WMDs
2. Al-Q connections
Now that neither has panned out we went in because Iraq wouldn't let in inspectors. So, Scott Ritter and his team never existed? Mr. Ritter stated that Iraq had no WMDs. He was in-country for 9 years. What happened?
Let me try this again. I could swear I said more than this the first time, but, well, anyway....
I think we all could tune out CBS for at least a month.
I haven't watched CBS for years.
Is it working?
The US military on Thursday declined to confirm or deny the figures for combat deaths in Iraq this month, which were calculated from press releases from US Central Command in Florida. A US military spokesman in Baghdad said figures were only kept for two-month periods, and a computer malfunction made it impossible to calculate an official casualty count for separate months."
Very convincing! Can we start a fund to buy them a calculator?
Foulard
sounds like the DoD has been Fristing the results
Why on earth would you think a Democratic administration would have a harder time getting us out of Iraq than a Bush admin? The problems remain the same regardless of who is in charge because the bushies have royally f**ked up the entire planet and are starting work on the next one.
In fact, it may be easier, since a new administration has no ass to protect by calling in *and protecting* the UN, letting in *and protecting* the NGOs. Granted, the repugs will politically ambush them whatever they try, but they'll do that anyway.
I trust the democrats to do the right thing for this country and for iraq. They are not perfect, but there's no way they can get anywhere with a domestic agenda unless the international mess is stabilized.
Taking back both houses of congress would help. I am still "cynical" but I am also more hopeful than I've been in the past.
The dem message *is* getting thru, finally, though there's evil, horrible stuff to come, as we know, dirty tricks no one's ever heard the likes of, push polls, troll attacks, psychological battering to make us feel hopeless so that on that rainy, miserable day in November we won't even want to leave the house in case we might by chance vote for the wrong person.
This is bull. Atrios, old buddy, please don't fall over into the dark side!
Four more years of Bush -- and with jeb anxiously prancing around, waiting and salivating in the wings -- god, I just can't even imagine what this country would look like. You notice no one's yelling about "term limits" any longer, are they?
A US military spokesman in Baghdad said figures were only kept for two-month periods, and a computer malfunction made it impossible to calculate an official casualty count for separate months.
Maybe you can add 'em up from the number of funerals held...
There are two dreams that people need to wake up from.
1. The Dem will win.
2. When he does, the UN will dance joyfully into Iraq and bail out the US.
or maybe extrapolate from the number of fundraisers aWol has been to?
"One rather sad thing is that I have to admit that it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so."
Good grief! All we have to do is put every Republican naysayer SOB's into Gitmo under the Patriot Act! Plus we'll seize their property and bank accounts (by rising in opposition they are aiding the terrorists... it only makes sense to take away their power). Then there's something we absolutely HAVE to do, and that is..... send black helicopters after them! (of course first we'll need to take their guns from their cold dead hands!) We need to work closely with the U.N. on manning the helicopters..... I'd give anything to see the looks on their faces when....out of the black helicopters comes... a contingent of Bermuda's Special Forces..... clad in shorts and Bermuda socks! Oh, the horror, Mon...THE HORROR!!!
Maybe you can add 'em up from the number of funerals held...
Nope. Don't keep track of those, either.
Might embarass the POTUS. Or distract him from fund-raising.
Surely can't have that.
I disagree with the claim that a pull-out from Iraq will be easier for Bush than for a Dem president.
If the Democrats win, it will be after a shock-n-awe, scorched earth, no-sleazy-smear-left-behind campaign from the Republicans, and basically a big FUCK YOU GOP from the electorate.
The Dem line will be, Bush got us into this shithole, we're trying to get out. If things screw up, whether forces are still fully inserted, partially withdrawn, or fully withdrawn, as soon as the Repubs start bitching the electorate will say, "FUCK YOU GOP, we voted you out because of this shit, so shut up and die."
so I hope anyway.
xaxx - you have left out of your analysis of things based on the RR the fact that they have lost significant social battles in this country recently. In a thread below, I named the states that have dropped the word: "evolution" from their curriculum guidelines. Texas isn't one, and that's because all the dumbasses in Texas that take such shit fought back and won. The RR tried very very hard to get evolution out of the books here, and they lost.
They also didn't get their way here on the sodomy law. Nor have they gotten what they wanted with the civil unions ruling in Massachusetts.
Things have actually turned around in our favor now. Bush is in big trouble with conservatives over his total inability to propose a budget that is in any way sane. The deficit is now looking like it will be much higher than he said it would. He is in trouble with a whole lot of other people over the war.
I swear to god, it just confounds me that now that things are going our way, liberals want to screw it up. Any of the Democrats in the front of the race can beat the little bastard - I totally believe that. I also believe that getting out of Iraq is going to be tough. But I don't want to see anymore neo-con "solutions" to Iraq and the middle east. I don't want any more foreign policy run by neo-cons, just like I have had it with domestic policy being run by the RR and people who didn't even bother with Econ 101, and have no clue about how to deal with the economy. And we have the momentum on our side with the Kay report and the economy. We have the chance to get the country back. For the love of god, can we please avoid blowing it?
"For the love of god, can we please avoid blowing it?"
As long as we don't eat are own...
I don't see how BUSH will win - and that's not a wide-eyed optimist speaking. He's been as high as he's ever going to go because of 9/11 and without the personal touch of a Clinton (and the complete lack of being able to think on his feet), I don't see how he's going to get the people back.
Another attack? Maybe that would do it - but maybe not. Anything less and no. He has literally nothing to run on that can't be easily countered. The American people see this. That's why he's getting 44%. Bush doesn't share most people's values. He has no compelling vision for America. His State of the Union was his jump the shark moment. In the end, everyone saw it to be, shallow, vapid and meaningless.
Dream on Magnum. Your flyboy is nothing but a man in a suit.
The Democratic candidates are all saying that if they are elected President of USA, they will bring the UN into Iraq. They neglect to mention that Bush has been trying to get non-US soldiers into Iraq since Mission Mission Accomplished.
IF (I repeat, IF) a Democrat wins the election, the UN will stand back for three months at least to see how he handles. The new president will need to have a radically better plan than the Bush failure, he will need to squash the heads of the neocon clusterfucksters, and keep them squashed, he will need to look cool and be a star, and besides that he will need to keep the peace in Iraq and boot out the US corporate looters.
When he's proved he can keep all of that under control, the UN will be prepared to take some pressure off the US military.
In summary, when a Dem candidate says "I will bring in the UN blah blah da da da" it is not going to be easy like that.
I also think that perhaps you give a little too much credit to the intelligence of the American People.
Bing, you're a real downer today. Look, we've had this discussion before. Many Americans were too busy with their own lives and problems in the past to actively seek out info about the Dems. Bush was the prez and their only frame of reference.
As the news about the dem primary gathers strength, more will start to pay attention to the upcoming election. I'm not talking about die-hard repubs. Who cares? The moderate and old-style repubs (to some extent), independents, and some dems are the ones that are looking for a different prez in Nov. And now they have some choices.
Who won the popular vote last time?
Bush is going to be fed to the lions by his masters before they run back into the dark places from whence they crept.
Bush is the foul-mouthed ventriloquist dummy that the idiot public has focused its dull-eyed, moon-faced attention on. They are finally becoming quite uncomfortable with the vulgarity spewing from that little wooden mouth, and pretty soon they will realize that it has been mocking them. In a fury, they will rise up as one and rush the stage, at which point, the unnoticed ventriloquist will throw the dummy at them and make his escape while splinters fly.
J,
You misunderstood me. 
Whoda thunk a nation founded on genocide would require genocide to continue?
Somebody please watch the back door to the alley and catch these bastards before they get away.
Bush admin/freepers: Lalalalalala, I can't HEAR you, lalalalalalala.
One of our local editorial cartoonists had a rather devastating cartoon in last night's paper: a woman dressed in black standing at a grave with a tombstone marked "soldier killed in Iraq war" and the woman is saying "Thank you, son, for giving your life to get rid of WMD, uh, WMD programs, uh, WMD program related activity, uh...." I thought it pretty outspoken for our little evening, usually non-controversial rag.
The Democratic candidates are all saying that if they are elected President of USA, they will bring the UN into Iraq. They neglect to mention that Bush has been trying to get non-US soldiers into Iraq since Mission Mission Accomplished.
The UN recognizes that members of the Bush regime have an extraordinary interest in having Iraq all to themselves. No-bid contracts, kickbacks, exploitation of the US taxpayers, etc.
Cancelling these contracts and opening up the rebuilding process to competitive bidding (predicated on the use of native Iraqi labor) would go a long way to convince more countries to offer substantial military assitance.
Dissolving the IGC and letting the Iraqi people choose their leaders might help too. I gather that the real citizens of Iraq don't appreciate having a cadre of exiles foisted on them.
martha - see, that's what I'm talking about. We would never have seen that kind of editorial cartoon several months ago. Man, we have it going our way - if we can just quit eating our own and drive this thing forward - we can get our country back.
J - on another attack - think about it. One of Bush's big things is how he has made the country, and the rest of the world, so much safer. If there is another attack on the US, Bush is going to be hounded out of office by a howling mob, furious because he didn't protect us. It would be suicide for Bush if there was another attack.
With a lot less trolls, this place is heaven. And there are still plenty of divergent opinions. Whether it's because you don't feed 'em, or because they're deleted, I don't care. It's an improvement.
BTW- I've noticed a ratcheting up of John Kerry-betrayed-the-troops-with-his-VVAW-hearings-
sites.
Again, I definitly think the world will be a better place with that smug, cocky, idiot, mean little son of a bitch kicked the fuck back to wherever will have him (if not put on trial), but we really need to make sure the REAL string-pullers get burnt.
"I wonder how many acceptable deaths they can tolerate before admitting military failure?"
MYOB'
At last count about 58,000 IIRC. (Vietnam)
Bush is desperate to get the UN to return, but the UN doesn't think it's safe enough, yet. Naturally, being pissed on repeatedly by the Administration last year doesn't make many key UN members (France, Russia, China) altogether anxious to stop murmuring, "Look at 'em flounder. If only someone had tried to warn them. Oops! That was us!" But they genuinely do realize that Iraq might go better with the UN and that will make the world safer.
By the way, the US Gov't is the only insurer available for companies in Iraq against the risk that the new Iraqi government won't expropriate the property of contractors and new "owners." After all, when someone sells off your property without your consent, you might decide to void the sale when you can. Unless Iraq gets a real constitution or the US extends insurance to non-US investors, foreigners will stay away in droves.
Even if the US occupation is reduced, the giant new bases in Iraq will stay.
The Bush administration will try to get away with their crimes scott free, by the usual methods of constant obfuscation and manipulation. Get caught in a pack of lies, just cover it with new lies. Delay, misdirect, form a bogus committee, etc.
Krugman is right, everything is politicized in this administration. And they're looking to their corrupt friends like Warner and Roberts et al to enable the WMD stink (oops, nobody's fault) to blow over.
Dean gets mad enough to shout about it and is slapped down, by the press' insinuation game, is he too angry? Is he electable? Or maybe the more timid voters just chickened out. I hope he makes a Hail Mary pass and everybody suddenly realizes he's the one. But if not...
Gloves off, Kerry! This is War goddammit. You better fight to the death, because BushCo is not gonna play nice or fair. Watch out for that cheap Dukakis smear shit. Show more video clips of you tossing the football. Replay the Vietnam footage.
Attack!! Down with Bush!!
Kerry didn't betray them. The bastards who kept them there for "American prestige" or "to stop Red China" long after the prospects of South Vietnam became non-operative got 'em killed. Kerry can and will say that keeping silent and letting his friends and fellow Americans be sent to Hell for Nixon's lies might have been unpatriotic.
Seraphiel,
That's kinda my point. The UN (or rather, the countries that provide the soldiers) isn't going to fall over itself going into Iraq to help out just because a Democrat president is elected.
He'll have a shitload of work to do. And once he's finished, he'll need to keep it together.
And the other, sort of unrelated point I made was that a lot of people here seem to think a Democrat will be elected. It's not going to be that easy, especially if that undead Lurch ("must eat brains ... must eat brains") is nominated, which is what everyone is punditing.
Hey,
Anyone who gets CNN International (not CNN)
Scott Ritter is on!!!
Fucking Champion!!!!
YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Each democratic candidate should anounce the daily death toll in Iraq. Especially Dean.
What is the toll? As we've seen, the DoD wants to pretend it doesn't know. In other words, the dead are still getting Army pay checks?
One obvious problem with the count is how the wounded never die and never add to the count. Never.
Witnesses to the attacks often report seeing more American body bags than reported casualties. It would be hard to cover up the deaths of military people, but how about the mercenaries?
There are perhaps as many as 30,000 contract fighters, (from Dyncorp)supposedly in extremely dangerous operations. Yet none are ever killed.
How can that be?
It would be suicide for Bush if there was another attack.
Tena | Email | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 3:50 pm | #
Good, so maybe they're doing their fucken job for once.
I think Bush is done, and I agree with cole the younger, that he's incidental. Much more dangerous people need to be taken down, starting with Cheney, Scalia, Delay, Religious Reichers, PNAC (every single one) and probably some members of the DLC just for good measure.
Scott Ritter is a fucking American hero.
18 months ago, he was barnstorming the country, copping a SHITLOAD of shit, including allegations of trying to hook up pre-teens on the internet, telling everyone he could that Bush's claims of WMD were BULLSHIT.
And now he's been proved right.
Give that man a fucking medal.
I know that. The vietnam War was of desperate importance to me at the time. I'm just noting the fact.
Americans, or a certain fraction thereof, seem to think that our soldiers are killed by people channeling the evil thoughts of dissidents. Maybe a draft, if it's equitable will wake them up. But I'm careening OT, so carry on without mt assistance.
"Many Americans were too busy with their own lives and problems in the past to actively seek out info about the Dems. Bush was the prez and their only frame of reference."
Oh Please.....You mean to tell me that these people who still support Bush only do so because they don't have the time to pay attention to politics? That when they see the pure hearted Democratic nominee they will come to see the error of their ways? I don’t buy it. We had better be prepared to fight, and fight dirty if we have to. That’s what the Republicans will do.
If you want to see a liberal in the White House, then people should take their blinders off. The only way we are going to get back into power is if we can convince the typical non-voter to come out and vote. Gore may have won as you say, but barely. That says to me that there are a lot of people out there who don’t trust the Democrats. I know very few people who will vote for Bush. But so what. I hang out with a bunch of lefties like myself. Shit Nixon was the devil incarnate. But he won re-election in a landslide. Don’t write Bush off for a minute. It will be our undoing if we do.
As long as we nominate someone who can talk and walk at the same time, we have a fighting chance. But well thought out ideas and position papers will not make a dent in the “bumper sticker”, “sound bite” environment we live in.
I have seen a lot of statements today by people who think a Democrat in the White House will cause the planets to align, and bring harmony to the universe. But as I have said in my previous posts, it won’t mean squat if he has to face a Republican Congress all by himself.
Tomato Observer - There is no doubt whatsoever that if we don't get rid of the fucking neo-cons we will never get out of the shit.
Scalia, unfortunately, is with us until he retires or dies. But if we don't get a Democrat into the WH, we can pretty much count on more Scalias being appointed to the Supreme Court. The RR has been empowered by the Bush administration. They are going to make noise for awhile after it is gone, and probably join forces with the rest of the Repugs in trying to make life impossible for the Democratic executive. But I think it is all winnable. I do. I think there are enough Americans who have been quiet up til now about things that they don't like. I think that they let themselves be led because of 9/11. I think they are waking up.
Bings right. If a Demcrat is elected there will be"long overdue efforts to dismantle the imperial Presidency" .
Bing, it will be an uphill battle to be sure. And you're correct that we can't stop fighting until we're there, the Rethugs (and by that I mean basically Neo-Cons, since there ARE sane Republicans out there still) will fight dirty and hard and we should too.
But getting a Democrat in the whitehouse is a start. Not a means to an end itself. There are a lot of things that are terribly broken about our political process, the first step towards fixing them is getting the Resident out, period.
We need to be sure not to lose focus after we get a Dem in the White House, and make sure that we FIX the problems inherent in the system which let people like Shrub and his Ilk hijack our country.
I'm not thrilled about Kerry myself (Skull N Bones), but he's better than Bush and it buys us time to fix things. I'd rather fight and die than live on my knees, and I'm prepared to do so if it eventually comes to that. I'm not going to just curl up into a fetal position and concede that it can't be done.
Cheers 
I couldn't agree more BlogReader.
I don't know where people are getting the idea that I'm talking about the Dems not being able to win. Not one of my posts has made that statement. As far as I’m concerned we have to win. I have been trying to point out that electing a Democrat is not inevitable. And that he will have three strikes against him if he does win and has to face this Congress. Some people here do not understand inertia. It is not easy to remove an incumbent president. No matter how fucked up he is.
You mean to tell me that these people who still support Bush only do so because they don't have the time to pay attention to politics?
No. What I'm saying is that fewer are supporting him and that number will continue to grow. Everyone was saying he was going to get a *bounce* after the SOTU. Did he?
There were larger turnouts in Iowa and NH, and people said they were angry. Let's hope that continues to build right up to the election. This isn't going to be like the snoozer campaigh of 2000. Nope. People who were formerly not that interested in politics have snapped to attention. That's a very good sign.
Plus, there's just nothing he can do to change the way he appears to the people. He's not all of a sudden going to become a great communicator, caring, passionate president, or respected world leader.
People truly looking for intelligence and competence are not going to be looking at him.
Anyway, I used to feel like you. Certainly for the first half of 2003. Not any more.
BlogReader - nice comment.
And how is it that you think I feel pie?
I have been trying to point out that electing a Democrat is not inevitable.
No, not inevitable. Just much more possible than before. And of course, it will be a tough, dirty fight. But we all know that and are prepared much more than we were in previous elections, although I've never seen one like 2000. We were really caught off guard in that one. Experience is the best teacher, they say.
I was getting the impression from your posts that you thought people were sticking with Bush or not really paying attention to this whole election thing. If I misconstrued what you said, I'm sorry. Your 4:38 post made your position clearer.
Thanks pie
Bing - I happen to agree that beating Bush isn't going to be easy, and I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the Bush Repugs. I don't mean in my comments to say that it's all downhill from here. I know it isn't. But it isn't quite as steep an uphill battle now as it was just a couple of months ago.
If we can pull together.
Not to mention bing, inertia was overcome with one bush
If there is another attack on the US, Bush is going to be hounded out of office by a howling mob, furious because he didn't protect us.
Tena,
This is the rational way to deal with such a situation. However, I think that Bush's approval rating would go back into the stratosphere in a time of national crisis, as people support the president as the manifestation of their knee-jerk patriotism. People would (again) say, "It's a good thing that Bush got elected instead of Gore," like Guiliani did the other night. As if Gore would have just cowered in the corner...
"What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?
Moniker"
There is little an American can do these days more important than study up on how the Nazis seized power in the early to mid 30s, and how the German people slumped into collective unconsciousness.
Next year, if Bx is reinstalled, the draft will begin. With the militarization of the populace, the next domino in that chain of human weakness and dictatorial greed for power will be in place.
Luckily for us, this is not a population deeply stunned by massive loss of life -- yet. We can still defeat Hitler Jr and his minions, by snapping our fingers in the faces of our friends. DON'T FALL ASLEEP! And protest like scalded rats.
Or pass the Zyclon, because these traitors are for real.
Wow Tena commented on my posts twice in one day! WhooHoo! LOL
Thanks Tena
Cheers and heres to the downfall of the Dynasties.
BlogReader - LOL indeed - I didn't know it would make anyone so happy. I love your comments.
However, I disagree totally with Pheo in his reply to my comment about another attack and the affect (effect - why can't I settle which is which once and for all?) it would have on people. I think you are dead wrong, Pheo. Bush has hung so much on the notion that he is the only one who can save America from more terrorist attacks that another attack would just completely pop that entire balloon. If you have paid any attention to what some of the wingers who have hung around here arguing have said over and over - "Bush has prevented further terrorist attacks." "How do you know?" "Well there haven't been any have there?" Please. Another major attack and unless Commander Bunnypants comes roaring out of the WH (provided he's even there,) and singlehandedly fights a bunch of terrorists on the WH lawn, I don't think it will. do one thing toward helping his image as President Whup Ass. Au contraire, mon ami, I think his goose would be nuked.
"..it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for a second Bush administration to get us the hell out of there than for a Democratic administration to do so..."
No.
Get the arab and muslim nations to contribute troops to patrol Iraq under the UN banner. A slow exchange of US troops with Arab/muslim troops over the course of a year should allow more than enough time.
This will be easier simply because the troops need not be in Iraq the whole time. Due to the proximity of Iraq to the countries contributing troops, troop rotation will be easier, aster, and much less difficult for those serving in Iraq. They can patrole for a week or two then rotate back home for a few days, then go back. But at least there will be no culture shock, nor change of environment.
A democratic president will bring back some of the well intentions the world had for us after 9/11, along with the overall well liked status of Bill Clinton in Europe, will ensure that the process gets the support of more nations than Bush and token Powell ever could have gotten out of the UN.
Easy.
MYOB'
.
ooh, somebody else is handlimg cabbage boy?(pardon typing-it's -5 and i have to wear gloves).now i don't have to try so hard.
once george is gone the CIVILIZED WORLD will; sigh in relief and we shall have allies to really help again and the UN will rush in too help.
fuck george.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that a US President, either a Democrat or a Republican can do for Iraq. The US occupation is temporarily creating a unifying distraction to slow the descent into civil war, but whether we leave abruptly or leave a long bloody trail behind, civil war will rage. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis to figure out.
don't settle for the Presidency. A Democratic President with crackpot Delay and Frist in charge of congress will still enable the republicans to turn everything to s**t. It will never be clearer or more blatant that republicans are not for the average American, that they are raping American values and the future for their insatiable greed. Clean sweep in 2004 should be the goal.
The whole premise that casualties have risen sharply in January is bogus. Look at this data from the leftist site lunaville:
http://lunaville.com/warcasualti.../
Timelines.aspx
There is no way one can say casulaties, using any reasonable standard of statiscal sampling.
Lunaville is using the Department-of-War-approved redefinition of "casualty," though what they're actually counting are deaths.
A casualty is any soldier removed from the field for injury, illness, or death. Unfortunately, these numbers are even harder to get out of the Pentagon than the death count.
I think this country should reinstitute the draft. It is the only way Americans are going to start paying attention to what we are doing overseas....Now they just say of the soldiers, "Well they VOLUNTEERED" so, it's just too bad for them....
If the know they know their sons or daughters can be drafted and killed they'll think twice about foriegn policy....
Note that if you watch the bovine news networks, attacks on Americans are definitely being reported less, perhaps to convey the notion that things are safer now Saddam's in the slammer.
"A US military spokesman in Baghdad said figures were only kept for two-month periods, and a computer malfunction made it impossible to calculate an official casualty count for separate months."
So now I supposed to believe someone failed to hit "Save" and the data was lost. I suppose we will get our next report sometime in 2009.
Let's get a few things very straight! Bush & Co. are not getting out of Iraq June 30th or any time very long after. Read 5 - 10 years if the Iraqis are lucky. Otherwise, there no way to steal the oil. This is simply another election ruse so that after the Bush re-selection (I am one more 'Murican grateful for each and eveey day Clarence is on the SCOTUSI am one
(Sorry, long distance phone call) so that after Bush re-selection ... the draft will be instituted for another crazy assed war crime.
With all the countries that have known nuclear WMD --and the delivery systems -- China, man in space, not to mention Pakistan, Israel,Injuh, CIS, France, N. Korea who we've thoroughly POed, the likelihood has grown exponentially that some country will decide the planet is better off if the good old US of A is cindered and glassed.
Dare we call it the Carthage Solution?
Bush and Co. is getting us into one hell of a fix ladies and gents.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
