I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
i'd write about the deluded, well meaning liberals. it pays way better.
i'd write about the deluded, well meaning liberals. it pays way better.
what?!? he didnt write about potholes this time?
with liberal writers like him, who needs bobo?
what?!? he didnt write about potholes this time?
with liberal writers like him, who needs bobo?
Why doesn't nick just jet over there and purchase some children? Y'know, to set 'em free.
Go get 'em, Nicky!
.
Why doesn't nick just jet over there and purchase some children? Y'know, to set 'em free.
Go get 'em, Nicky!
.
He didn't write about assholes, either.
He didn't write about assholes, either.
Kristof-
"These days, the biggest risk may come from the small but growing contingent on the left that wants to bring our troops home now"
And we were all feeling so powerless after the election. It is Kristof's MO to take shots at the left in his columns to prove his middle of the road straddler bonafides. I recall him taking shots at those who want to incorporate labor standards into trade agreements while decrying third world poverty.
There really is a pro globalist streak in the NYT editorial pages. Krugman himself says he differs with many on the left on this issue. Brooks is right alongside Kristof today hailing growth in the developing world. And there is Tommy boy.
Kristof-
"These days, the biggest risk may come from the small but growing contingent on the left that wants to bring our troops home now"
And we were all feeling so powerless after the election. It is Kristof's MO to take shots at the left in his columns to prove his middle of the road straddler bonafides. I recall him taking shots at those who want to incorporate labor standards into trade agreements while decrying third world poverty.
There really is a pro globalist streak in the NYT editorial pages. Krugman himself says he differs with many on the left on this issue. Brooks is right alongside Kristof today hailing growth in the developing world. And there is Tommy boy.
"Bubble Boy" That's perfect.
"Bubble Boy" That's perfect.
These unnamed liberals will be the ones getting smashed by the lap dog media when the neocons Iraqi adventure finally ends in a the bloody civil war that is inevitable. Iraq is destined to become a shining beacon for Theocracies around the world. Have "elections", declare victory and go home. I am a liberal, and my name is listed in my email address.
These unnamed liberals will be the ones getting smashed by the lap dog media when the neocons Iraqi adventure finally ends in a the bloody civil war that is inevitable. Iraq is destined to become a shining beacon for Theocracies around the world. Have "elections", declare victory and go home. I am a liberal, and my name is listed in my email address.
Drat! My evil whiny liberal plan is revealed. Time for Plan B.
Does it not occur to Kristof et al. that, if the US leaves, the UN will be much more welcome (at US expense, 'cause dammit it's our fault), and there might actually be a chance to organize an Iraqi rebuilding of their infrastructure? The reason there's all this shooting at us is... they're shooting at us.
A slightly off-topic thing, though.. Kristof is merely annoying and frustrating; Brooksie is frickin' insulting and infuriating.
Drat! My evil whiny liberal plan is revealed. Time for Plan B.
Does it not occur to Kristof et al. that, if the US leaves, the UN will be much more welcome (at US expense, 'cause dammit it's our fault), and there might actually be a chance to organize an Iraqi rebuilding of their infrastructure? The reason there's all this shooting at us is... they're shooting at us.
A slightly off-topic thing, though.. Kristof is merely annoying and frustrating; Brooksie is frickin' insulting and infuriating.
Are there any REAL liberals in the mainstream press?
Are there any REAL liberals in the mainstream press?
Kristoff was actually writing about them snake handler conservatives.
Trying to fend them off as liberals or progressives is just batshit projection.
Brooks needs to be beaten with a baseball bat then institutionalized.
That would be a decent start.
Morning Hubris Sonic. Long time there, Brother.
Kristoff was actually writing about them snake handler conservatives.
Trying to fend them off as liberals or progressives is just batshit projection.
Brooks needs to be beaten with a baseball bat then institutionalized.
That would be a decent start.
Morning Hubris Sonic. Long time there, Brother.
filkertom-
It's early. Still.
Bobo is uncalled for.
Bobo sez: Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base
Why is this in "The Newspaper of Record"?
.
filkertom-
It's early. Still.
Bobo is uncalled for.
Bobo sez: Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base
Why is this in "The Newspaper of Record"?
.
The NYT's intended audience is always pro "free trade" and doesn't care if this means destroying our industrial base because this "cleans up" America so the upper classes can have clean water and air at home while they collect the profits overseas from their factories.
The NYT's intended audience is always pro "free trade" and doesn't care if this means destroying our industrial base because this "cleans up" America so the upper classes can have clean water and air at home while they collect the profits overseas from their factories.
Mr. Kristoff's liberal slam provides a hook to draw in his readers from the upper West Side. Mr. Brooks devotes most of his column to build up his argument that liberal musicians should confess to their political mistakes. So I have to give this morning's Mao Prize (MP) to Mr. Brooks. Let the truth commissions begin!
(I learned this week that some Chinese dissidents received personal apologies from Chinese Communist leaders years later. Kinda makes me feel optimistic about the Bush administration....)
Mr. Kristoff's liberal slam provides a hook to draw in his readers from the upper West Side. Mr. Brooks devotes most of his column to build up his argument that liberal musicians should confess to their political mistakes. So I have to give this morning's Mao Prize (MP) to Mr. Brooks. Let the truth commissions begin!
(I learned this week that some Chinese dissidents received personal apologies from Chinese Communist leaders years later. Kinda makes me feel optimistic about the Bush administration....)
It's all smoke and mirrors: no one is going anywhere as long as all that oil is still there.
The Bushitters don't give a rat's for the Iraqi people, but they didn't go all that way and kill all those innocents, and tell all those lies, just to pick up and leave, but then neither would have Kerry, would he?
Sam's duo: it's about oil, and Bush is a moron.
It's all smoke and mirrors: no one is going anywhere as long as all that oil is still there.
The Bushitters don't give a rat's for the Iraqi people, but they didn't go all that way and kill all those innocents, and tell all those lies, just to pick up and leave, but then neither would have Kerry, would he?
Sam's duo: it's about oil, and Bush is a moron.
That's pretty close Elaine. In the meantime, we will be a first-time importer of agricultural goods sometime next year. Why, you say?
Well, the 'cheap labor conservatives' (lovely term of endearment) have found it better for profit margins to purchase ag goods from other nations, ship them here and sell them at greater profit to our all-consuming nation.
In layman's terms - those peppers you buy at the grocery store, are cheaper to produce, and ship here - and more profitable for the corporations than paying American farmers their value.
Nice, eh?
No wonder they won't pass the truth in country of origin labeling legislation.
That's pretty close Elaine. In the meantime, we will be a first-time importer of agricultural goods sometime next year. Why, you say?
Well, the 'cheap labor conservatives' (lovely term of endearment) have found it better for profit margins to purchase ag goods from other nations, ship them here and sell them at greater profit to our all-consuming nation.
In layman's terms - those peppers you buy at the grocery store, are cheaper to produce, and ship here - and more profitable for the corporations than paying American farmers their value.
Nice, eh?
No wonder they won't pass the truth in country of origin labeling legislation.
Mindboggling.
Reading the "world according to Brooks and Kristoff" in a span of a few minutes has my synapses misfiring. Like an LSD flashback.
Brooks incorrect view of the world is criminal. The following:
that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world
is complete and utter horseshit. The pinstriped cocksuckers do not care one whit about reducing world poverty.
"No free lunch", huh, Bobo? This asinine bastard writes columns full of shit and gets paid for it. Sounds pretty close to a free lunch to me.
As for Kristof - bring the troops home and send his ass over there to keep the peace. Fuck Iraq.
Mindboggling.
Reading the "world according to Brooks and Kristoff" in a span of a few minutes has my synapses misfiring. Like an LSD flashback.
Brooks incorrect view of the world is criminal. The following:
that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world
is complete and utter horseshit. The pinstriped cocksuckers do not care one whit about reducing world poverty.
"No free lunch", huh, Bobo? This asinine bastard writes columns full of shit and gets paid for it. Sounds pretty close to a free lunch to me.
As for Kristof - bring the troops home and send his ass over there to keep the peace. Fuck Iraq.
Bubble Boy: "Those 100,000 Iraquis
died due to a surge in home births."
In the body of his piece he then goes
on to present several good reasons
to get out now. What an idiot!
This is what you get when the NYT
tells its columnists to be balanced.
Bubble Boy: "Those 100,000 Iraquis
died due to a surge in home births."
In the body of his piece he then goes
on to present several good reasons
to get out now. What an idiot!
This is what you get when the NYT
tells its columnists to be balanced.
Notice how he harps on the children.
Always a sign of a manipulative arguement, weak on facts, going for emotion.
Soon as hear someone talking about how something affects 'the children' I stop listening.
.
Notice how he harps on the children.
Always a sign of a manipulative arguement, weak on facts, going for emotion.
Soon as hear someone talking about how something affects 'the children' I stop listening.
.
It's all smoke and mirrors: no one is going anywhere as long as all that oil is still there.
It is a rather cleaver way to come up with a third level reason for why we need to control Iraq. The first was the WMD, the second was the brutal treatment the Ba'athist government's treatment of its people.
Now that our occupation and manipulation of events around elections seems to have set up an almost inevitable sectarian civil war that, becomes the next reason why we have to remain in control in Iraq.
The rules of this game are that you never look back. You never ask who invented the bogus threat of WMD. You never ask who aided the Ba'athists when Iran was our biggest problem. And now you never look back at how our occupation and puppet government set the stage for the coming civil war. The worse things get the more important our involvement is made to seem.
And even the statistics that suggest our invasion was responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths become an argument for keeping the fighting going: these people are vulnerable to instability that only irresponsible liberals would suggest subjecting them to the uncertainty life without the stabilizing force of American troops.
It's all smoke and mirrors: no one is going anywhere as long as all that oil is still there.
It is a rather cleaver way to come up with a third level reason for why we need to control Iraq. The first was the WMD, the second was the brutal treatment the Ba'athist government's treatment of its people.
Now that our occupation and manipulation of events around elections seems to have set up an almost inevitable sectarian civil war that, becomes the next reason why we have to remain in control in Iraq.
The rules of this game are that you never look back. You never ask who invented the bogus threat of WMD. You never ask who aided the Ba'athists when Iran was our biggest problem. And now you never look back at how our occupation and puppet government set the stage for the coming civil war. The worse things get the more important our involvement is made to seem.
And even the statistics that suggest our invasion was responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths become an argument for keeping the fighting going: these people are vulnerable to instability that only irresponsible liberals would suggest subjecting them to the uncertainty life without the stabilizing force of American troops.
kristof:
"my argument for staying the course"
What course is he talking about? A looped course, like a race track? Just keep going in circles? How many laps till the checkered flag?
I like the way kristof associates Kerry with "well-meaning American liberals" that want to make things worse.
It doesn't get any dumber than that.
kristof:
"my argument for staying the course"
What course is he talking about? A looped course, like a race track? Just keep going in circles? How many laps till the checkered flag?
I like the way kristof associates Kerry with "well-meaning American liberals" that want to make things worse.
It doesn't get any dumber than that.
Kristof thinks, he will be employed even if every job here is shipped overseas.
Then one day, the Boss introduces him to the new editorial commentator, Krishna S. who will write at home and e-mail his work to the USA.
Kristof thinks, he will be employed even if every job here is shipped overseas.
Then one day, the Boss introduces him to the new editorial commentator, Krishna S. who will write at home and e-mail his work to the USA.
Lets see.
We need MORE troops in Iraq.
We need LESS troops in Iraq.
This equals- Busheviks do not know wtf to do, as it is fubar.
Lets see.
We need MORE troops in Iraq.
We need LESS troops in Iraq.
This equals- Busheviks do not know wtf to do, as it is fubar.
for about five minutes yesterday, i watched fox. bill "the evil spawn of irving and gertrude" kristol was carrying on about wrapping things up in iraq so that we can prepare for the potential beat-down of IRAN. perhaps nicky should train his eye on the actual craziness. if anyone think the lefties have had any real power in this country since henry wallace was a heart beat away, they are just plain stupid.
for about five minutes yesterday, i watched fox. bill "the evil spawn of irving and gertrude" kristol was carrying on about wrapping things up in iraq so that we can prepare for the potential beat-down of IRAN. perhaps nicky should train his eye on the actual craziness. if anyone think the lefties have had any real power in this country since henry wallace was a heart beat away, they are just plain stupid.
My, but you liberals are dumb and deluded.
My, but you liberals are dumb and deluded.
The more I think about Kerry the more pissed I am.
How the FUCK could ANYBODY manage to lose to such an obvious cowardly inept fraud fuckup like Chimpy? Or not even lose, but not even seemingly care that our elections are a farce? Now he's positioning himself as a leader to run again? When he allowed Roveco to successfully trash his honorable courageous service and be put on the defensive against Cokehead the macho military genius? Jesus fucking CHrist!
The more I think about Kerry the more pissed I am.
How the FUCK could ANYBODY manage to lose to such an obvious cowardly inept fraud fuckup like Chimpy? Or not even lose, but not even seemingly care that our elections are a farce? Now he's positioning himself as a leader to run again? When he allowed Roveco to successfully trash his honorable courageous service and be put on the defensive against Cokehead the macho military genius? Jesus fucking CHrist!
Why would the "insurgents" ever stop? They're apparently very motivated and they have no end of targets: everyone who works for or with the Americans and the puppet Iraqi government, at every level.
Why would the "insurgents" ever stop? They're apparently very motivated and they have no end of targets: everyone who works for or with the Americans and the puppet Iraqi government, at every level.
responsible?
They don't know the meaning.
responsible?
They don't know the meaning.
1) repukelicans don't give a sh*t about the Iraqi people.
2) the all-war, all-the-time repukelican election strategy requires a new crises (aka military adventure) for 2006 and 2008.
3) results of (1) and (2: the US military will pull back to its new Iraqi bases and defense of the oil producing infrastruture to prepare for its next neocon-Bushliar adventure while Iraq has its civil war with US Troops in Iraq watching from the sidelines.
.
1) repukelicans don't give a sh*t about the Iraqi people.
2) the all-war, all-the-time repukelican election strategy requires a new crises (aka military adventure) for 2006 and 2008.
3) results of (1) and (2: the US military will pull back to its new Iraqi bases and defense of the oil producing infrastruture to prepare for its next neocon-Bushliar adventure while Iraq has its civil war with US Troops in Iraq watching from the sidelines.
.
why does kristoff hate Iraqi children?
why does kristoff want American soldiers dead?
.
why does kristoff hate Iraqi children?
why does kristoff want American soldiers dead?
.
But, but, but--we're doing it for the children! We must stay together for the children....
Oh, we may fight a bit, but at least we're providing a stable invironment for the children.
And, if those whiny liberals disagree, just remember who God is talking to. And it ain't them.
~~Your Leader.
But, but, but--we're doing it for the children! We must stay together for the children....
Oh, we may fight a bit, but at least we're providing a stable invironment for the children.
And, if those whiny liberals disagree, just remember who God is talking to. And it ain't them.
~~Your Leader.
Uh oh, is it bad Nicholas today?
Uh oh, is it bad Nicholas today?
when iraq was pieced together back in the 20's wasn't it inevitable that civil war would happen just like tito held yugoslavia together and pffft...at this point who's gonna stop them from duking it out.
when iraq was pieced together back in the 20's wasn't it inevitable that civil war would happen just like tito held yugoslavia together and pffft...at this point who's gonna stop them from duking it out.
If I had a column in the Times, I'd probably only have it for one day before they fired me. So I'd use it to blame Kristol and the other Heathers.
If I had a column in the Times, I'd probably only have it for one day before they fired me. So I'd use it to blame Kristol and the other Heathers.
when iraq was pieced together back in the 20's wasn't it inevitable that civil war would happen just like tito held yugoslavia together and pffft...at this point who's gonna stop them from duking it out.
squirrel
And who was the first to gas the Iraqi's?
The British.
Our and the other 'western' powers medeling, past and present, with the ME is why 9/11 happened and why it is the mess it is today.
Didn't the elected leader of Iran, who ofcourse the US opposed, say something like 'there is no Iran', refering to the pieced together, as you say, nature of the country, defined by the arbitary dictates of the europeans.
Karma, bitches
.
when iraq was pieced together back in the 20's wasn't it inevitable that civil war would happen just like tito held yugoslavia together and pffft...at this point who's gonna stop them from duking it out.
squirrel
And who was the first to gas the Iraqi's?
The British.
Our and the other 'western' powers medeling, past and present, with the ME is why 9/11 happened and why it is the mess it is today.
Didn't the elected leader of Iran, who ofcourse the US opposed, say something like 'there is no Iran', refering to the pieced together, as you say, nature of the country, defined by the arbitary dictates of the europeans.
Karma, bitches
.
Pandering to the evangelicals solves nothing.
Consider these facts:
-- Kerry won the youth vote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A35290-2004Nov8.html?referrer=email) -- the future voters of America -- and he did so without much in the way of god-bothering to them.
-- Corporate America donated ten times as much to the Republicans as they did to the Democrats ( http://www.boston.com/news/polit...or_gop?mode=PF)
. This fact has not got the media play that the evangelicals have -- though it is by far a bigger factor in the Republican gains in the White House and Congress. (There's also Diebold and Sequoia, but for our purposes, we will pretend that nothing at all went wrong in the 2004 vote count.)
-- Bush's biggest gains in 2004 came from non-religious voters (http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/
donkeyrising/archives/000930.php), not from the religious.
-- Finally, the groups that are most heavily-touted in the media as being "moral" -- Bob Jones' outfit (http://slate.msn.com/id/1004724/), Jerry Falwell and company (http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/falwell.html), James Dobson (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/
blfaq_rr_dobson_agenda.htm), et cetera -- tend to be the same Southern churches that not so long ago were infamous for their sexism and bigotry -- especially against blacks. They may have officially toned down their anti-black bigotry, but their other bigotries have just been repackaged as "moral values".
Knowing all this, why are so many folks who should know better pushing the Suck-Up-To-The-Evangelicals line?
We know why the "mainstream" media are doing so. They're been in bed with the Republicans at least since Ronald Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, if not before. But what about the Democrats? Why are some of their leaders so eager to push the country farther towards fascism than the piddling election results warrant?
The answer: Because those people happen to be the same faux-Democrats that make up the current leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose policies have driven Democratic strategies for the past fourteen years. We're talking about a group that has been at the controls of Democratic politics for well over a decade -- and during that time, has managed to lose both Houses of Congress, lose the Democratic lead in governorships, and lose the White House twice. The only thing that they can claim on the "win" side is Clinton's 1992 victory -- and with Ross Perot in the mix, it's doubtful that they can really claim that. The bottom line: Democrats lose when they ape Republicans as the DLC prescribes.
Nobody knows this better than the DLC's leadership. But since they like their hold on the Democratic reins of power -- even if at this point the reins are more like gold-plated deck chairs on the Titanic -- they continue to pitch the bogus "morals" message.
Our ro
Pandering to the evangelicals solves nothing.
Consider these facts:
-- Kerry won the youth vote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A35290-2004Nov8.html?referrer=email) -- the future voters of America -- and he did so without much in the way of god-bothering to them.
-- Corporate America donated ten times as much to the Republicans as they did to the Democrats ( http://www.boston.com/news/polit...or_gop?mode=PF)
. This fact has not got the media play that the evangelicals have -- though it is by far a bigger factor in the Republican gains in the White House and Congress. (There's also Diebold and Sequoia, but for our purposes, we will pretend that nothing at all went wrong in the 2004 vote count.)
-- Bush's biggest gains in 2004 came from non-religious voters (http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/
donkeyrising/archives/000930.php), not from the religious.
-- Finally, the groups that are most heavily-touted in the media as being "moral" -- Bob Jones' outfit (http://slate.msn.com/id/1004724/), Jerry Falwell and company (http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/falwell.html), James Dobson (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/
blfaq_rr_dobson_agenda.htm), et cetera -- tend to be the same Southern churches that not so long ago were infamous for their sexism and bigotry -- especially against blacks. They may have officially toned down their anti-black bigotry, but their other bigotries have just been repackaged as "moral values".
Knowing all this, why are so many folks who should know better pushing the Suck-Up-To-The-Evangelicals line?
We know why the "mainstream" media are doing so. They're been in bed with the Republicans at least since Ronald Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, if not before. But what about the Democrats? Why are some of their leaders so eager to push the country farther towards fascism than the piddling election results warrant?
The answer: Because those people happen to be the same faux-Democrats that make up the current leadership of the Democratic Leadership Council, whose policies have driven Democratic strategies for the past fourteen years. We're talking about a group that has been at the controls of Democratic politics for well over a decade -- and during that time, has managed to lose both Houses of Congress, lose the Democratic lead in governorships, and lose the White House twice. The only thing that they can claim on the "win" side is Clinton's 1992 victory -- and with Ross Perot in the mix, it's doubtful that they can really claim that. The bottom line: Democrats lose when they ape Republicans as the DLC prescribes.
Nobody knows this better than the DLC's leadership. But since they like their hold on the Democratic reins of power -- even if at this point the reins are more like gold-plated deck chairs on the Titanic -- they continue to pitch the bogus "morals" message.
Our ro
Squirrel, I thought there was a similarity between Tito and Saddam. They at least held their countries together.
Squirrel, I thought there was a similarity between Tito and Saddam. They at least held their countries together.
Yep, those stupid liberals like columnist and Havard law graduate Micheal Kinsley? What does Kinsley think this war in Iraq is anyway. Vietnam II?
WHY is Poor Kristof more like all those ugly Swiftboat veterans than he is not?
And what does Kristof have to say about Bob Herbert for daring to mention that US military members was told to running over Iraqi children as they drove their military hummers for daring to get in way their own Iraqi liberation. Who does Bob Herbert think he is, Walter Cronkite?
Kristof could learn alot from a nice if not the late American ex-Cardinal football player Mr. Pat Tillman.
Where the hell is Kristof's fucking dog tags and and his signed enlistment papers?
That's what the hell I want to know.
Yep, those stupid liberals like columnist and Havard law graduate Micheal Kinsley? What does Kinsley think this war in Iraq is anyway. Vietnam II?
WHY is Poor Kristof more like all those ugly Swiftboat veterans than he is not?
And what does Kristof have to say about Bob Herbert for daring to mention that US military members was told to running over Iraqi children as they drove their military hummers for daring to get in way their own Iraqi liberation. Who does Bob Herbert think he is, Walter Cronkite?
Kristof could learn alot from a nice if not the late American ex-Cardinal football player Mr. Pat Tillman.
Where the hell is Kristof's fucking dog tags and and his signed enlistment papers?
That's what the hell I want to know.
er.... "were" told to running over Iraqi children
er.... "were" told to running over Iraqi children
"A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year. Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security."
To quote James Wolcott yet again...
"The worst thing (anyone) can do is give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt"
Which in this case translates into...
"If you want to know what is the right thing to do, find out what George W. Bush is planning then do the exact opposite."
MYOB'
.
"A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year. Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security."
To quote James Wolcott yet again...
"The worst thing (anyone) can do is give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt"
Which in this case translates into...
"If you want to know what is the right thing to do, find out what George W. Bush is planning then do the exact opposite."
MYOB'
.
anyone every source the story--mentioned here weeks ago--of Tillman being shot by his troops because he liked hunting and killing non-combatants?
anyone every source the story--mentioned here weeks ago--of Tillman being shot by his troops because he liked hunting and killing non-combatants?
At least he wrote about the starving
children in Iraq and our collective responsibility. I haven't seen to many stories on that.
On balance, kudos to Kristof
At least he wrote about the starving
children in Iraq and our collective responsibility. I haven't seen to many stories on that.
On balance, kudos to Kristof
The WaPo article is pretty rich. Check out this analysis:
"The core of [the neocon] arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance."
So, um, this is a tough argument to follow, so correct me if I’m wrong here, but are they really saying that the opposition to the US occupation is a result of the occupation? Are they implying that the Iraqis started fighting us only AFTER we showed up to fight them? That the opposition to our invasion is a product of that invasion?
Damn, I wish I had thought of that myself. But is seems so… obvious now, almost inevitable, even.
But the usual sinister voices are present, alas:
"'I think that many are now beginning to see that El Salvador and Afghanistan are better counterinsurgency and postconflict reconstruction models than the strategies we've pursued in Iraq,' said [Michael] Vickers, the Pentagon consultant. . ."
Ah, the ever-popular El Salvador model. This means we pursue the same policy goal (US control) with more indirect means (we hire “proxies,” aka locals to do the dirty work). I am sure the Iraqis will breath a huge and collective sigh of relief when they are being tortured and killed by US-supported death squads instead of by US soldiers. Makes all the difference, ya know.
The WaPo article is pretty rich. Check out this analysis:
"The core of [the neocon] arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance."
So, um, this is a tough argument to follow, so correct me if I’m wrong here, but are they really saying that the opposition to the US occupation is a result of the occupation? Are they implying that the Iraqis started fighting us only AFTER we showed up to fight them? That the opposition to our invasion is a product of that invasion?
Damn, I wish I had thought of that myself. But is seems so… obvious now, almost inevitable, even.
But the usual sinister voices are present, alas:
"'I think that many are now beginning to see that El Salvador and Afghanistan are better counterinsurgency and postconflict reconstruction models than the strategies we've pursued in Iraq,' said [Michael] Vickers, the Pentagon consultant. . ."
Ah, the ever-popular El Salvador model. This means we pursue the same policy goal (US control) with more indirect means (we hire “proxies,” aka locals to do the dirty work). I am sure the Iraqis will breath a huge and collective sigh of relief when they are being tortured and killed by US-supported death squads instead of by US soldiers. Makes all the difference, ya know.
Cheryl mentions the Swift Boat Vets.
Boy, did they ever fall off the
radar after Nov. 2!
Cheryl mentions the Swift Boat Vets.
Boy, did they ever fall off the
radar after Nov. 2!
What's happened to all the terrorist attacks on US reports since the election? We don't hear of a one now? Why is that?
What's happened to all the terrorist attacks on US reports since the election? We don't hear of a one now? Why is that?
Just had to re-post this one.
Billy B gives Rude Pundit a run for his money. (What is it called when you repeat a post in the same thread on the same blog that isn't yours? Is that still blog-whoring? It's all so confusing.)
"Mindboggling.
Reading the "world according to Brooks and Kristoff" in a span of a few minutes has my synapses misfiring. Like an LSD flashback.
Brooks incorrect view of the world is criminal. The following:
that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world
is complete and utter horseshit. The pinstriped cocksuckers do not care one whit about reducing world poverty.
"No free lunch", huh, Bobo? This asinine bastard writes columns full of shit and gets paid for it. Sounds pretty close to a free lunch to me.
As for Kristof - bring the troops home and send his ass over there to keep the peace. Fuck Iraq.
Billy B
Just had to re-post this one.
Billy B gives Rude Pundit a run for his money. (What is it called when you repeat a post in the same thread on the same blog that isn't yours? Is that still blog-whoring? It's all so confusing.)
"Mindboggling.
Reading the "world according to Brooks and Kristoff" in a span of a few minutes has my synapses misfiring. Like an LSD flashback.
Brooks incorrect view of the world is criminal. The following:
that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world
is complete and utter horseshit. The pinstriped cocksuckers do not care one whit about reducing world poverty.
"No free lunch", huh, Bobo? This asinine bastard writes columns full of shit and gets paid for it. Sounds pretty close to a free lunch to me.
As for Kristof - bring the troops home and send his ass over there to keep the peace. Fuck Iraq.
Billy B
Kristof (apparently) likes to consider himself a clear-eyed centrist, but in the end his columns reek of meekness and inoffensiveness (at least to those in power). He lacks conviction, passion, and insight. We need Krugman back (he's on break, writing a book). Kristof should be flooded with e-mails questioning his poor grasp of facts and weak rhetorical skills (nicely, of course).
Kristof (apparently) likes to consider himself a clear-eyed centrist, but in the end his columns reek of meekness and inoffensiveness (at least to those in power). He lacks conviction, passion, and insight. We need Krugman back (he's on break, writing a book). Kristof should be flooded with e-mails questioning his poor grasp of facts and weak rhetorical skills (nicely, of course).
One of the liberals K. might be referring to is James Carroll, the Boston Globe columnist. And Carroll does believe the US can't solve the Iraqi problem- the US is the Iraqi problem.
I go back and forth between the "responsible" liberal Pottery Barn rules position and the more likely to be true and thus responsible without the quotes "get the US out of Iraq now" position.
How can anyone know what position would lead to better results in the long run? And better for who?
So, go after the idiots who got us in this mess. (But still we have to get everyone out of this mess- somehow.)
One of the liberals K. might be referring to is James Carroll, the Boston Globe columnist. And Carroll does believe the US can't solve the Iraqi problem- the US is the Iraqi problem.
I go back and forth between the "responsible" liberal Pottery Barn rules position and the more likely to be true and thus responsible without the quotes "get the US out of Iraq now" position.
How can anyone know what position would lead to better results in the long run? And better for who?
So, go after the idiots who got us in this mess. (But still we have to get everyone out of this mess- somehow.)
Cheryl mentions the Swift Boat Vets.
Boy, did they ever fall off the
radar after Nov. 2!
The Onion ("America's Finest News Source")'s headline: "Swift Boat Veterans Still Hounding Kerry"
ss (sardonic snicker...way short of an lol)
Cheryl mentions the Swift Boat Vets.
Boy, did they ever fall off the
radar after Nov. 2!
The Onion ("America's Finest News Source")'s headline: "Swift Boat Veterans Still Hounding Kerry"
ss (sardonic snicker...way short of an lol)
Kristoff's setting up a "stab in the back" myth. Even though liberals are out of power, even though conservatives control all three branches of government, we'll still be responsible when Bush declares victory and pulls out of Iraq.
Kristoff's setting up a "stab in the back" myth. Even though liberals are out of power, even though conservatives control all three branches of government, we'll still be responsible when Bush declares victory and pulls out of Iraq.
Kristoff's setting up a "stab in the back" myth. Even though liberals are out of power, even though conservatives control all three branches of government, we'll still be responsible when Bush declares victory and pulls out of Iraq.
Well of course.
Don't you remember? It was our fault they invaded Iraq to begin with.
Kristoff's setting up a "stab in the back" myth. Even though liberals are out of power, even though conservatives control all three branches of government, we'll still be responsible when Bush declares victory and pulls out of Iraq.
Well of course.
Don't you remember? It was our fault they invaded Iraq to begin with.
Kristoff's setting up a "stab in the back" myth. Even though liberals are out of power, even though conservatives control all three branches of government, we'll still be responsible when Bush declares victory and pulls out of Iraq.
Bingo.
And that myth's only for those who pay attention, at all. Most of the country will blithely see the troops come home and won't stop to wonder why the civil war in Iraq isn't considered front page news.
Kristoff's setting up a "stab in the back" myth. Even though liberals are out of power, even though conservatives control all three branches of government, we'll still be responsible when Bush declares victory and pulls out of Iraq.
Bingo.
And that myth's only for those who pay attention, at all. Most of the country will blithely see the troops come home and won't stop to wonder why the civil war in Iraq isn't considered front page news.
Browse our online slots where you can play slots online and jackpot progressives for real money.
Browse our online slots where you can play slots online and jackpot progressives for real money.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
