Nice "suit", Nelson - can't you afford to go to Mens Wearhouse and get a freakin suit?
1973 you say. Hmmm, who was the President in 1973?
Could there be a better reason to support presidunt Bush and his glorious crusade to make America and the whole world a Christian Country? I'm surprised they didn't bring out the photos of Clitton with Hitler (I know they exist!) or Momo Kaddaffy. When is the liberul meedia and all the chicken liberuls going to stop this unpatriotic destroying of the country and get behind Jesus and Bush for a total victory everywhere?
Why no pictures of Arafat with those who were in power? Oh there are none, of course. I guess for the wingers it's better to be a knowing accomplice then a useful dupe
Erg. The point is that whoever was in power wasn't coddling Arafat! A pointless endeavor, to be sure, only reinforced by the intifada.
Nelson would sell out the USA in a heartbeat - he needs to be watched very closely.
Conservatives, neo-conservatives, endless war, endless corruption, endless excuses.
When there is no defense for the policies of the current administration and no defense for their failure, conservatives dig through the archives to find mud to sling at their domestic political opponents.
Next month the President will annouce that he is ESCALATING a war in Iraq, which was initiated under false pretenses (WMD) and continued on a wing and a prayer (spread democracy).
NeoConservatives cannot be trusted to recognize a structurally unsound idea when they see it. Their heads are so full of self-aggrandizing larger than life objectives that necessary practical considerations get scant attention... and failure ensues. All americans will pay for their failures.
And you will pay for your betraul of America! The so-called failurs of this greatest Republicun Congress and president can only be put on the liberuls and cut-and-runners chickens in congress and the MSM. Everybody has to listen to president Bush and follow what he says - He's the president! Now!
hey carl, i think dougie fresh actually has a pretty good explanation of that for you:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com...l-
campaign.html
check it out.
Well, be fair. It's easy enough to find instances of Republicans allying themselves with monsters. If you read the liberal blogs for long, you'll find a photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. (The US used to be allied with Saddam...not because we liked him, but because he was at war with Iran and we liked them even less.) There's also a photo floating around of Nixon shaking hands with Chairman Mao. Reagan was friendly towards various Central American dictators and terrorists, and Jesse Helms was in tight with Pinochet.
So this isn't a uniquely Democratic or Republican policy. It's an American policy. And there's a common thread...as evil as those allies were, the alternatives looked even worse. (One stark example is World War II, when we had to ally with Stalin to get rid of Hitler.) You talked about Yasir Arafat a lot. Yes, he was a pretty despicable person...but he's a saint compared to the gang that took over after he died. We did a good thing in propping Arafat up for as long as we did.
The technical term for this is "realpolitik". It's a pretty ugly business sometimes, and I can't really blame you for feeling upset. But it's absolutely necessary. The best advice I can give you is to change the channel whenever it looks like they're going to show an example of it.
Mazement, thanks for the thoughtful response. To be sure, there are instances of Republicans fraternizing with despots for purposes of convenience.
The Rumsfeld-Hussein photo is just such an example. There was a war afoot and we'd deemed the Iranians (for reasons that are even more clear today) far more of a threat than Hussein. Ergo, we must weaken the Iranians by strengthening their enemy. An ugly matter of convenience, but one that has been partially rectified (with the help of none other than Rumsfeld).
When it comes to reenacting Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time," though, the Democrats appear to be leading the pack... by a huge margin. Talking with Assad is only the latest example, when the State Department is the only authorized representative of the US Government.
The technical term for this is "realpolitik". It's a pretty ugly business sometimes, and I can't really blame you for feeling upset. But it's absolutely necessary.
Absolutely. All one has to do is look at the current mess to see what turning our backs on realpolitik gets.
An ugly matter of convenience, but one that has been partially rectified (with the help of none other than Rumsfeld).
Rectified? Yeah, we sure show the Iranians who's boss when we radicalized them and provided them the opportunity to greatly expand their influence in the region.
Take that, Iran!
No, we haven't rectified anything; we've made things far, far worse. While ugly, supporting Saddam was the right thing to do then, and it was even more the right thing to do post-9/11.
Foreign policy is about priorities. We put taking out a secular dictator above both restraining Iran and devastating al-Qaeda. That is the exact opposite of what we should have done.
Jpe - I disagree completely. Iran has been at war with us since 1979 and should have been dealt with then. They invaded sovereign American territory -- the U.S. Embassy -- and the retribution should have been quick and harsh.
The Carter principles of appeasement, cowardice, and negotiation are to blame for Iran, not Rumsfeld.
And had it not been for Israel destroying the Iraqi nuclear reactor, Hussein would have had nukes long ago.
Appeasement in the face of pure evil always fails. Peace through strength is the only proven formula for a free society to survive. There are no examples to the contrary. Ever.
"Peace through strength is the only proven formula for a free society to survive. There are no examples to the contrary. Ever."
Perhaps. But Americans seem to view "strength" as primarily derived from military might and prowess. "Strength," of course, has many dimensions. The men you vilify in your screed understood this.
And the ones you leave out -- not so much. Which is one explanation why the "strength" of the US has become less and less.
The "wag the dogger" Clinton destroyed the last of Saddam's nuclear program.
In the 20th Century, Clinton was too focussed on Al Quaeda. In the 21st century, Clinton didn't focus enough on Al Quaeda.
It's hard to keep up.
Iran has been at war with us since 1979 and should have been dealt with then.
What I'm saying is that we've given Iran exactly what they've always wanted: a chance to expand their power. Instead of giving them that present, wrapped up with a bow on it in the form of the Iraq war, we should've allied with Iraq to minimize Iran's influence and power and to go after al-Q.
Saddam was a brutal m-f; that brutality could've come in handy against Iran and al-Q.
Amf - your statement, 'And the ones you leave out -- not so much. Which is one explanation why the "strength" of the US has become less and less.'
Uhm, no. The strength of the US is greater than ever. Better weapons, better armed forces, superior technology and training in every respect.
What is lacking is the willpower to employ that strength. And the constant drumbeat of the mainstream media is one of the primary causes. Because it is dominated by an anti-war clan, a clan that cannot see the forest for the trees, no use of force ever seems just. Well, except for a few months after 9/11.
If we were required to fight World War II with our current mainstream media -- and its drumbeat of failure even though we're actually winning -- we'd all be speaking German. Or maybe Japanese.
We're at war. We need to fight. And that means obliterating enemies that mean to do us harm. And Iran, among others, definitely mean us harm.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com...war-
theres.html
Or were they just kidding when they said they had vowed to kill "four million Americans, two million of them children."
As we found out (too late), Hitler wasn't joking. Neither is Ahmadinejad.
Is this site part of the Onion? I didn't realize Clinton was president in 1973.
Note-- if you want to find out the roots of our mess in Iran, look to Ike. It started way before Clinton's 1973 presidency.
Uhm, Joe, last I checked, we weren't entertaining Arafat in the White House on a regular basis until Bill C. came into office.
Or did I miss some major news stories in the 70's?
Commenting by HaloScan
