-15, Lows Keep Getting LOWER!
I literally just saw this commercial on my TV tonight and thought I need to look that up and post on it. You of course, beat me to it 
!!
I've always been confused by how many Jews support the Dems. Great commmercial!!! Hopefully it will start waking them up.
short AND sweet, i'd say.
Cajun: Much of that old line Jewish-Democrat coalition is pretty strong. It's a case of their parents voted Democrat (liberal) and they vote that way.
Hopefully, ads like this will cause some of them to rethink that blind allegiance.
And the issue here is not just about Israel. I'll have to go look up the figures, but attacks against Synagogues and Jews far outweigh the hate crimes directed at Muslims. Yet the muzzies are demanding more and more sensitivity (compliance) with their demands.
Ah yes. The swiftboating of Speaker Pelosi.
And the greasy fingerprints of Sam Fox linger on the current loffering from the fine folks at the RJC.
Contacted by ThinkProgress, a spokeswoman for the RJC would not rule out that Fox was involved in the ad, saying only that “as far as I know,” Fox was not connected.
Oh well.
Too little too late.
The Republican smears are wearing thin on the American (not capitalized Mike) public.
Sorry.
That's AMBASSADOR FOX to you Artie! We realize you'd like to shut down his free speech rights as well as black ball him from participating in government.
Stalin would be proud.
Dont worry Arthur. One day you will shut down all criticism of your leaders and live in the uni-thought of your dreams.
MIke typed:
That's AMBASSADOR FOX to you Artie!
I prefer Slippery Sam thank you. I mean if the speaker can be referred to as Pelousy around here then certainly in the interest of bipartisanship we need to call a spade a shovel.
And if you can point out where I suggested the good Ambassador hadn't the right to 'free speech' please share that with me.
Cheers.
And I won't even venture to wonder how Stalin would be feel. Interesting you are able to channel the tyrant however.
Hmmmm.
Maybe you're more in touch with Fidel.
Same difference.
Mike dodged:
Maybe you're more in touch with Fidel.
Ah yes. Fidel. Leader of a tiny Caribbean island with a population of 11 millions. Poised to wreak havoc and invade our shores. A threat to our republic. And thanks to the Republican right in this nation a lousy leader in charge for at least a generation longer than he should have been. If we'd begun normal relations with his regime years ago he'd have been retired & publishing his memoirs back in the 1980's.
But no. Can't talk with Communists (Jihadists).
This is a result of the belligerence and saber rattling you advocate in the Middle East Mike.
A sure fire way of getting the opposite of what we need.
Art, you act like Iran is not currently killing American and British soldiers in Iraq.
That is the real thing, not saber rattling.
Why are you such a tool?
I would agree that we could have normalized our relationship with Cuba after the Sandinistas fell and Cuba stopped exporting violence throughout Latin America. However, I'm not sure how important that is to anyone who isnt biased in favor of that repressive regime.
Freedom Now: We keep feeding this moonbat and maybe he'll write his own blog?
Ooops! Forget I said that. Negative Neville surely wouldn't have the confidence to believe anyone would wish to read his commie screeds.
Freedom Now typed:
Art, you act like Iran is not currently killing American and British soldiers in Iraq.
That is the real thing, not saber rattling.
Given George's track record on who's doing what I think prudence is in order. Saddam had WMD's so we invaded.
Iran's 'killing US troops' so we:
a.) Invade on the ground
b.) Selective air strikes
c.) Nuke 'em
d.) ?
I haven't suggested anywhere that Iran is a complete innocent in any of this. I have suggested that Iran is a far tougher nut to crack and that prudence is in order.
I mean things are going so well in Iraq do we really want a second front in Iran and a third in Syria?
C'mon Now.
As for the 'tool' thing. That would be Mike and perhaps yourself. A tool for the neo-cons & their failed 'strategy'.
And Mike what's with this 'blog of ones own' thing of yours?
Let it go.
Nothing like telling it straight and hitting the nail on the head. Too bad it isn't Pelosi's head!
But Bush is a thug, responsible for more deaths than the Syrian President, that is for sure.
Theyre right, we should just bomb them and convert them to Christianity; that will solve everything. Yahoo America!
Art,
Here something for you.
Please show me one statement by the Bush Administration saying that we are considering...
a.) Invading on the ground
b.) Selective air strikes
c.) Nuking them
I've heard the same ole rationalizations for six years that we are going to invade Iran and North Korea. The invasion or military strike is always impending, but never happens.
This is called fear mongering, something that many Bush critics accuse him of because they have firsthand knowledge of how to use such tactics. The aim of such tactics is to protect fascist regimes from criticism, just out of petty spite.
I dont know if Mike wants a military strike against Iran or not, but I dont and neither does the Bush Administration.
However, I will still retain the ability to criticize Syria and Iran though. As you said they sure as hell aren’t innocent.
Freedom Now typed:
Please show me one statement by the Bush Administration saying that we are considering...
Read Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker over the past year and get back to me.
In the run up to Iraq George & Dick weren't specific as to what they would do. So the three options I presented are only three of many. None of which would ever be likely to be announced. Though when the phrase 'regime change' crops up then we'd better pay attention.
I don't trust Pelosi, but every little retreat helps. Kucinich is the man-the only Dem. with real
Palestinian advisors on his staff.
And like the Saudi Price finally said, deal with the Palestinian question or the Mideast continues to drift away from your sphere of influence.And we might help you in a trade-off vis a vis Iran. But only if you get the Jews off the West Bank and give the Pals a real state.
Then Ahmedijinad goes to Saudi with an olive branch; let's stay united against the invader. Seems to have worked. The Saudis know America can't bring peace to its own
major cities, let alone the Mideast.
The Zionists own Congress, lock stock
and bagel.
I say we come home and become energy self-sufficient after we force Israel off the Bank. Should reduce
Al Qaida's recruitment rate by 50%.
Meanwhile we halt all immigration and build the FENCE, fortify our fortress against the other 50%. No more cheap Mexican labor for Bush's country club Republicans in Myrtle Beach and Long Beach. No more Moslems coming in.
Like the man said, "A Republic Not an Empire."
Arthur,
You are not giving out any substance and your pal Ken is spewing Goebbels-like propaganda about the Jews. This is not going well for you.
Its been six years and still no attack, but Iran has made several military incursions into Iraqi territory.
Give me something that will make me stop and say that you have a good point that a military attack against Iran is really going to happen this time.
Bye the bye Mr. Now, Ken is not 'my pal'. I haven't read one of his posts. You and Mike are MY pals.
Freedom Now typed:
Give me something that will make me stop and say that you have a good point that a military attack against Iran is really going to happen this time.
Nothing I write will do the job, Now.
Hopefully George has been talked out of launching an attack by the military. So claims Mr. Hersh.
What I have written actually, if you had read my remarks, was we should lessen the bellicosity, negotiate and engage. Isolating Iran is a bad idea. Talking is better. George has once before launched a unilateral, yes unilateral attack on a Middle Eastern nation and he shouldn't be allowed to do it again.
Much as he'd like to in his more messianic moments.
Still not ONE good practical, effective or proven idea in that tiny head of yours Artie!
You might as well sign on the kill the jews express with your pal Ken. Because that's where YOUR plan heads.
Mike Miller exemplifies why America is hated by about ten out of ten Moslems in the world. He could care less that Zionist Nazis repress an indigenous people whose land they stole.
Maybe he'd like to explain why
Europeans poll the US and Israel as the two most violently dangerous nations on the earth. After all Mike, we "liberated" Europe a half century ago, why doesn't it appreciate our benevolence?
I'll take the broad consensus of Europe and Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE (which just warned Bush, don't expect our help if you attack our
Shia rival Moslems in the faith)
as well as Egypt and the Arab League which just met a week ago.
Know what even the friendliest Arabs said Mike?
You gave Iraq to Iran and your anti-Palestinian policy is committing suicide for you in the Arab world.
Know what Iran says? Want our help in pacifying Iraq? Bring Israel in line.
You mire yourself in your lonely world siding with the dual loyalists
like Feith and Perle and their favorite nation-side with them against the whole world . Just don't wonder why America is losing big.
Ken,
Have you ever heard of the Sunnis and Kurds?
And tell me who the U.S. is losing to, the insurgents or the Democratic Party?
Because the insurgents havent scored any victories, but the Democrats have.
There really are some good arguments for maintaining comment moderation.
The lunatic jew hating senseless screed by Hoopie above is about the best.
There can be no rational discussion of the issues with people as deranged as Hoopie.
He and those like him abdicate any right to have their views considered by serious people.
Art,
I have argued that negotiation with Iran and Syria as the ISG Report sees it is useless and has always been useless. Look at Europe’s attempt to appease Iran at the same time as they tried to discourage the country from enriching uranium. It was a complete failure.
You cant negotiate when you want something. You have to out-negotiate your opponent. This is so fundamental, yet it completely eludes the grasp of our pseudo-intellectual critics. When a negotiating partner practices deceit upon its other partner they are likely to look upon their partner as gullible if they are not challenged for their transgressions. So they will be encouraged to perform further transgressions.
You have to be firm with an untrustworthy partner. Iran, Syria and North Korea are all fascist regimes that have proven to be unreliable negotiators. Syria and Iran have heavily relied on proxy terrorism to achieve their goals in Lebanon and Iraq. They are not willing partners for peace and have to be forced to give concessions. They only view negotiation on a take-take basis.
Look at Bush's handling of North Korea. He was firm and the North Koreans backed down. Of course he wound up giving some concessions in the end, but YOU DON’T GO INTO NEGOTIATIONS BY GIVING CONCESSIONS FIRST.
Anyways, if you admit that there will be no attack on Iraq,… even though you clearly insinuated that was on the table with your multiple choice…
a.) Invade on the ground
b.) Selective air strikes
c.) Nuke 'em
d.) ?
…can you tell me what bellicose language the Bush Administration used that was harmful to negotiations with Iran? …Is the truth bellicose? See above…
--------------------------------------------------
You would be correct to say that Bush made a unilateral attack on a Middle Eastern country if you forgot about Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, Japan, Denmark, South Korea, Romania, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Ukraine, Spain, Honduras, Singapore, Norway, OK I'm tired... and many more...
There were actually many more nations involved in the liberation of Iraq than there was in the UN backed Korean war and in comparable proportions.
What you really mean is Totalateral.
Those are two different things.
It seems dems and libs have difficulty with the meaning of 'unilateral', same way they had difficulty with the meaning of 'is' some years back.
It is a symptom of LCDD - Liberal Cognitive Dissonance Disorder.
Sean Hannity said today that he thinks Pelosi will go down as the worst Speaker of the House in recent memory.
Of course she will, what does one expect from an individual who felt she needed to 'cut in line' in order to get the job as Speaker of the House?
It remains to be seen whether her continued overt flouting of all the norms, traditions and rules which have guided her predecessors will force her to pay a price.
You would think after the beating she took from her OWN media allies over her trip to Syria she would be more careful.
But then, YOU would think. Apparently, she's not that bright.
Art
"Read Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker over the past year and get back to me."
I almost fell of my chair with that one your actually quoting Seeless Hersh as a source...LOL
The Troll typed:
"Read Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker over the past year and get back to me."
Get up Troll.
The truth has a way of doinng that sort of thing to those unused to reading it.
Hersh's reporting on the run up to the war and it's execution is spot on. Just as his work on the debacle at the pharmaceutical plant during Clinton's years and back to My Lai.
Hersh certainly isn't Matt Drudge or your usual bunch of partisan hacks. A real reporter with impeccable sourcing.
Freedom Now:
Thanks for the list. Now go back and add the numbers of personnel alongside the names of the countries and tell us with a straight face that this comprises, in any meaningful sense, a coalition.
The US and the Brits, to a substantially lesser degree, do the heavy lifting. All of it.
All this politics stuff gets so boring. We need some action. I think it's time to attack Iran.
First wave of FA/18 Super Hornets come in under radar level and take down the anti aircraft SAM sites F-117 Nighhawks launched from airbases in southern Iraq and Oman come in and take down radar, command and control. Silkworm anti shipping missle sites taken by Navy Seal Teams and secured from firing. Ranger units of 82nd airborne drop in behind Iranian positions around Tehran and disrupt communications for home defense and send in special untis to paste lasers on Iranian nuclear facilities to be taken out by B-2 Stealth Bombers that drop bunker buster bombs. This whole scenario is real and will soon be on schedule.
Iran is surrounded on two sides by land and by sea to the south and is well aware of their precarious position. There is no one that will come to their rescue. They are the last refuge vestage of the power of radical Islamic tyranny in the middle east. Lets' get 'er done.
Hersh is a joke. He hasn't been right yet. No surprise Negative Neville is a fan.
Jennifer: a great number of people feel exactly as you do. Diplomacy, engagement and appeasement have all failed. The Europeans, through the EU3 have been trying for years and also offering goodies like trade credits. Iran takes the money and laughs in their face.
At what point does the killing of Americans going back nearly 30 years and now the building of a nuclear bomb and the open threat of a new world holocaust register with people?
Mike chirped:
Hersh is a joke. He hasn't been right yet.
Hersh has been right far more than he's been wrong (and far, far more than you) his entire career.
But your response is unsurprising.
Jennifer:
Good idea Jennifer.
Another cakewalk like Iraq I see.
Got the 'Mission Accomplished' banners ready yet?
Of course if the scenario unfolds as you predict we can say Sy Hersh told us this last year.
In the New Yorker.
Negative Neville: When I need a veracity meter for the media I won't choose you. You'll believe anything to support the mantle of prejudice and delusion which protects you from the need to be honest about any of these issues.
But since you're such a fan of the New Yorker, perhaps you've also read Jeffrey Goldberg's "The Great Terror:"
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.co...terror-
new.html
In it he describes Saddam Hussein's poison gas attacks on the kurds. This occurred during a period where the U.S. was engaging Saddam diplomatically and politically as you suggest as a solution for Iran and just about everywhere else.
Didn't stop Hussein from gassing the Kurds and in fact your fellow lovers of diplomacy and engagement even blamed the gas attack on Donald Rumsfeld and President Reagan.
We can only expect that if President Bush were to follow your advice and Iran gets a nuke anyway, you lovers of diplomacy and engagement will blame him for not doing something about it sooner.
You may have a convenient memory after years of redefining "is" but the rest of us are more grounded in reality.
Mike typed:
Negative Neville: When I need a veracity meter for the media I won't choose you.
It shows.
I'll just repeat this as I added it before your response:
Negative Neville: When I need a veracity meter for the media I won't choose you. You'll believe anything to support the mantle of prejudice and delusion which protects you from the need to be honest about any of these issues.
But since you're such a fan of the New Yorker, perhaps you've also read Jeffrey Goldberg's "The Great Terror:"
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.co...terror-
new.html
In it he describes Saddam Hussein's poison gas attacks on the kurds. This occurred during a period where the U.S. was engaging Saddam diplomatically and politically as you suggest as a solution for Iran and just about everywhere else.
Didn't stop Hussein from gassing the Kurds and in fact your fellow lovers of diplomacy and engagement even blamed the gas attack on Donald Rumsfeld and President Reagan.
We can only expect that if President Bush were to follow your advice and Iran gets a nuke anyway, you lovers of diplomacy and engagement will blame him for not doing something about it sooner.
You may have a convenient memory after years of redefining "is" but the rest of us are more grounded in reality.
Art,
First you say that the US made a unilateral decision to invade a Middle Eastern country, now you are saying that the US and Britain does “all” of the heavy lifting in the coalition. Those are two different things.
When almost 50 countries decide to support the liberation of a country and send troops to back up their support then that is a multilateral operation. The US and Britain did most of the heavy lifting in the Korean War, but had only a dozen or so allies. In the Vietnam War there were only five allies and only South Korea fielded troops in major strength. The U.S. always leads any large coalition that it is a member of and always compromises the overwhelming majority of forces.
Anyways, you could argue that the US and Britain do most of the heavy labor, but you went a little overboard and said “ALL”. That is a useless lie. You could have just said “almost all” or “most”, but you just had to over-exaggerate like you always do. Poland, Australia, Bulgaria, Italy and 13 other countries have suffered casualties from combat operations. You can’t even get this fact straight.
I lent my "Mission Accomplished" banner to Saddam Hussein, but he never had a chance to return it.
Freedom Now typed:
Anyways, you could argue that the US and Britain do most of the heavy labor, but you went a little overboard and said “ALL”. That is a useless lie.
You're right. I'm wrong. The coalition forces have done some of the heavy lifting. Including the UK coalition deaths are around 250.
I should have written the UK has provided 4.2% of the heavy lifting the remaining coalition members 3.8%.
It would be interesting as well to learn how much of the financial tab is being picked up by the US taxpayer for the coalition forces.
As for my 'over-exaggeration' 'like I always do' what can I say. I follow by example.
When I read over and again here at Mike's America about the clash of civilizations and the future of democracy in the US and the establishment of the Caliphate here in N. America and the endless claims of peril we face I guess it's hard not to join in.
So why do you suppose that, given the fate of the world, there isn't a more universal response Mr. Now?
You can dress this 'coalition' anyway you like but the fact remains Iraq is our deal and some bullying and hectoring of our allies to provide a token contribution to the war effort isn't grand coalition building.
Thats cool Art. Good on ya' mate.
You said that you follow by example. I guess Moore, Murtha and Sheehan are a bit dissappointed that you sold them out today.
But seriously, how have we bullied our allies? Can you enlighten me?
Again, it wouldn't matter how many allies we had or what they contributed relative to their ability. We'd still find someone like Negative Neville disparaging it.
Like his fellow defeatists, his goal isn't to broaden the base of US support for U.S. policy in Iraq but to undermine it altogether.
And these silly little niggling points about our allies are nothing more than an effort to sidetrack the issue away from the central themes of U.S. policy.
And if you want to continue the discussion along the lines of how diplomacy and engagement have failed repeatedly we could. But perhaps that would make a good post to share with all the readers instead of a supplemental ego feeding for Negative Neville.
Freedom now wondered:
But seriously, how have we bullied our allies? Can you enlighten me?
You're right. El Salvador, which can scarcely feed, house and educate its population sent troops because the future of Western Civilization hinges on the outcome of the Iraq war.
What was I thinking.
This, from the Voice of America 13 July 2004:
President Saca visited the White House Monday. He told VOA that he discussed several bilateral issues with President Bush. One was the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States. President Saca said, "I think the opportunity for trade and for investment and the opportunity to export to the United States without having to pay taxes is an great occasion that can generate much employment in our region."
President Saca also said he found a willingness from President Bush to address the situation of the almost 250,000 Salvadorans who are seeking shelter in the United States under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) which will expire on March 9, 2005. He said, "President Bush knows that El Salvador is in need of the TPS. The President knows that the conditions caused by the earthquakes that created the need still persist. I believe we are on the right track and, from what I managed to perceive from our meeting, that the TPS will be renewed."
OK, so America helped them in exchange for them helping us. Is there something wrong with that?
It sounds like President Saca was happy with the arrangement.
Freedom Now typed-
OK, so America helped them in exchange for them helping us. Is there something wrong with that?
It sounds like President Saca was happy with the arrangement.
Of course he was happy.
He fell in line with the coalition request and got favors for doing so.
And certainly the US picked up the tab $$ for the Salvadoran contingent.
After all, since that unfortunate country is still cleaning up from the January 2001 earthquake, they probably can't spring for the dollars necessary to maintain an armed presence in Iraq.
Good I'm glad he is happy. So how did we bully him?
Blinded by blindness artie... Another cakewalk like Iraq I see.
Got the 'Mission Accomplished' banners ready yet?
Yep we walked right in there and pulled Saddam right out his chair. This is not lost on the mullahs in Iran. They've been making bombs for roadside use in Iraq but if we waltz right into Tehran in say well, a couple of days then what do they do for their next act? Surrender like a democrat? You have pretty dim sight on military operations there artie. We can finish Iran and Iraq off in couple of days if that needs to be. We're trying to teach them to act civilized and that's where the rub is, it appears they are having a hard go at it.
You just go ahead and argue about who's doing all the work over there while our boys and girls are taking care of business. That's the American way I suppose.
Jefferson had to learn the hard way that appeasing Muslims didn't do much good and he had to take decisive military action against his own instincts anyway. Bush had to learn it in a lot less time than was afforded to Jefferson.
Americans now have to fight on two fronts. The military was designed to do just that but the problem is the one front is with people that claim to be Americans but act like something different and the other is with a suicidal enemy that use women and children to accomplish their senseless victories. This all started with the weak hand of James Earl Carter.
When dealing with people that have no idea what they are talking about in such matters such as it is in the case of arthur it is entirely appropriate have sense of pity not only for Arthur but those that write and give him the ideas he espouses.
I am so glad this commercial hit the TV. It's evident no one else but we who scream about Syriana Pelosi's actions will mention a peep about it.
At least not the MSM.
Great post Mike
Freedom Now wondered:
Good I'm glad he is happy. So how did we bully him?
This from a realist. Here's what
How about, "send troops or we'll never send another dime to help repair your country and get be prepared to remove TPS status & any other incentives we've provided in the past."
Saca replied, 'Gracias'.
Jennifer Gallagher pontificated:
When dealing with people that have no idea what they are talking about in such matters such as it is in the case of arthur it is entirely appropriate have sense of pity not only for Arthur but those that write and give him the ideas he espouses.
Speaking of people who have no idea what they are talking about leads one to wonder how any sentient being could make a statement such as this:
This all started with the weak hand of James Earl Carter.
Holy Moly.
Palestine. Shia. Sunni. Christians Jews. Kurds. Ottoman Empire. Authoritarian strongmen. Religious fundamentalism. Sexism. Tribal rivalries. Western imperialism. Oil. Rampant illiteracy & poverty. Etc. Etc. But you get the point.
None of it bearing one iota on the current situation in the Middle East.
Instead it's Jimmy Carter's fault.
Okey dokey Jennifer.
You get an "A" here in Mike's America.
Art,
Is this a quote?
"How about, "send troops or we'll never send another dime to help repair your country and get be prepared to remove TPS status & any other incentives we've provided in the past."
If that is the best you can do then you need to check into a rehab, pronto.
That has to be the weakest evidence that I have seen on the Internet. Even the 9/11 Truthers have better ammo than that.
This is comment #51. We are really cooking on this one...
Never fear Art. I took pity on you and went ahead and gathered some evidence that is much more conclusive than what you were able to dig up.
This proves that Bush bullied our allies into joining the Coalition.
http://i77.photobucket.com/
album...heCoalition.jpg
Cheers
yep, it was James Earl Carter's fault that we are involved in the situation in Iran now. He was weak on Iran and now we have militant mullahs to deal with thanks to Carter's utter stupidity.
The muslims would still be killing each other but they would be doing it on their own time on a smaller scale if Carter had not been so very stupid and very weak. That's what those radical bastards understand, they don't care one wit about making peace with weak people. They understand being stood off with strength and as long as we import oil from them that's the way it has to be.
Pelosi is desperately trying to gallop down that very same path of appeasement and surrender while her sidekick Harry Reid skips along with her. Shall she offer them tributes of gold swords, jewel encrusted snuff boxes and huge sums of cash and ask for treaties so they will not attack us and our allies again like Jefferson did with the Bashaw of Tripoli? Shall we be like Carter and beg the muslims to please let us trade in peace if we pay tribute to them because we have no moral courage to assert ourselves. It is so sorrowful to watch people act so ridiculously ignorant of their unsupportable position.
Our only choice in that region of the world is to establish a strong regime dedicated to maintaining a peaceful coexistance without threat to commerce or dedicated to the development of highly destructive weapons that can be used against our allies and us.
I know, I know Saddam Hussein had no wmd's. The Kurds lied as did all the intelligence agencies of the world. Bush lied and people died and Bushitler just wanted Haliburton to exploit the oil. We've heard all your best arguments and I've got to admit they are quite persuasive if you take really big hits on the pipe and wash it down with big gulps of kool-aide served by the handmaidens of surrender in the so-called mainstream media.
Sorry Negative Neville, but we don't allow the failing students here at Mike's America to pass out grades.
So I am afraid your rewarding of an "A" to Jennifer will have to be rescinded.
However, due to her excellent essay above regarding Carter I am awarding her an A++.
And Freedom Now gets extra credit for that brilliant photo showing how Bush strong armed the coalition:
http://i77.photobucket.com/
album...heCoalition.jpg
I would just add to the overall discussion that it was in fact Carter's weakness and stupidity that permitted Iran to be lost and the Islamic Jihad to begin.
And of course who can forget that under 8 years of Bill Clinton the threat of jihad grew exponentially and was unchecked.
Which brings me back to the original intent of this post which is to question how anyone who is fully aware of the history here could ever wish for a repeat of it in the embodiment of Neville Nancy?
The disastrous and dangerous blundering of Democrats lame, feckless, weak and appeasing efforts at diplomacy and engagement are clear to anyone whose mind isn't poisoned by their prejudice against President Bush.
Mike wrote:
The disastrous and dangerous blundering of Democrats lame, feckless, weak and appeasing efforts at diplomacy and engagement are clear to anyone whose mind isn't poisoned by their prejudice against President Bush.
Jennifer Gallagher typed:
desperately trying to gallop down that very same path of appeasement and surrender while her sidekick Harry Reid skips along with her. Shall she offer them tributes of gold swords, jewel encrusted snuff boxes and huge sums of cash and ask for treaties so they will not attack us and our allies again like Jefferson did with the Bashaw of Tripoli? Shall we be like Carter and beg the muslims to please let us trade in peace if we pay tribute to them because we have no moral courage to assert ourselves. It is so sorrowful to watch people act so ridiculously ignorant of their unsupportable position.
The annual Bylwer-Lytton Fiction Contest is a fascinating event.
http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/
For the version here at Mike's America I'd have to declare a Jennifer Gallagher by the slimmest of margins between the two examples above. "Jewel encrusted snuff boxes' tipped the scales.
Well done!
Freedom Now typed:
If that is the best you can do then you need to check into a rehab, pronto.
Come on Freedom.
I was translating the boiler plate for you.
Again Negative Neville, you have no credentials to award distinction for anything other than sheer negativism.
no substance, no viable, practical or effective alternatives.
I haven't read one of your lengthy comments this week which do anything to change my opinion.
"The disastrous and dangerous blundering of Democrats lame, feckless, weak and appeasing efforts at diplomacy and engagement are clear to anyone whose mind isn't poisoned by their prejudice against President Bush.
Mike repeated:
The disastrous and dangerous blundering of Democrats lame, feckless, weak and appeasing efforts at diplomacy and engagement are clear to anyone whose mind isn't poisoned by their prejudice against President Bush.
Sorry Mike the decision of the judges is final.
But there's always next year!
One more time:
The disastrous and dangerous blundering of Democrats lame, feckless, weak and appeasing efforts at diplomacy and engagement are clear to anyone whose mind isn't poisoned by their prejudice against President Bush.
Confirmed by Negative Neville.
I dig the Bad Sex Literature Winner:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/
...expassages.html
It left me hot and bothered. Mostly bothered though...
Art, instead of relying on wishful thinking and a lame brain argument comprised of nothing but conjecture you should submit some essays for the BL Fiction Contest.
Well that's probably a bit more than I needed to see on a Sunday, but perhaps "Arthur" will enjoy it.
Now that's funny.
Freedom Now typed:
Art, instead of relying on wishful thinking and a lame brain argument comprised of nothing but conjecture you should submit some essays for the BL Fiction Contest.
Have done so the past six or seven years.
But be careful.
Wishful thinking, lame brain arguments and conjecture comprise what Mikes America is about.
Again, Negative Neville shows a complete vacuity of ideas, practical solutions or proven strategies to address the problems we face.
Art said, "Wishful thinking, lame brain arguments and conjecture comprise what Mikes America is about."
...at least you are consistent to the politics of conjecture...
Haaaa haaaa haaaaaaaa
Mike typed:
The photo of the US aircraft carrier task force you ran here for a couple of weeks illustrated your 'practical solutions' & 'proven strategies' to our Middle Eastern situation quite well.
My suggestion to protect our borders. Increase security on soft targets here at home. Cooperate with our allies and engage ALL the nations in the region.
It was working before the invasion of Iraq but it's a little more difficult now with all those boots on the ground. Or, as our good friend the Saudi King put it, the US occupation of Iraq.
Freedom Now typed:
...at least you are consistent to the politics of conjecture...
I'm learning at the feet of masters.
Cheers.
Negative Neville: You are well aware that I have not advocated a military strike on Iran. Unlike you, I have not removed that option from the table.
And you are unable to point to ONE example of where engagement has been succesful in solving the great strategic issues.
If we want to look at Syria in particular, I would note that they were the masters of Lebanon all during the time Hezbollah was creating the bunkers and installing the weapons they used against innocent Israeli citizens.
Surely you're not a jew hater like your compatriot Ken Hoop. So I doubt you would say that engagement with Syria during the Clinton years or afterwards has been a success.
Yes Arthur your masters Michael Moore and John Murtha have taught you a lot about conjecture.
You are also quite right that Al Qaeda has launched many successful attacks inside the United States since the liberation and occupation of Germany, ummm... I mean Iraq.
Or maybe not...
Freedom Now typed:
Or maybe not...
Exactly. The occupation of Iraq has little to do with the security of the US. International cooperation with our allies and frank discussions with those with whom we disagree, however, do have big effect on our safety.
Hmmm... soo Negative Neville, what do you suppose all those terrorists in Iraq would be doing if we weren't there killing and capturing them?
Again, how many attacks in the U.S. since we invaded Iraq?
Furthermore, "frank discussions with those with whom we disagree"
I've asked before how many of those we've already had and what has been the result.
Sorry, but diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy is a fool's errand.
Mike typed:
Hmmm... soo Negative Neville, what do you suppose all those terrorists in Iraq would be doing if we weren't there killing and capturing them?
Blowing things up in Algeria?
He wondered:
Again, how many attacks in the U.S. since we invaded Iraq?
The very same number as have occurred since the Florida Marlins won the world series.
Sorry, but diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy is a fool's errand.
I bow to your superior knowledge of things foolish. I've read your blog for a long while now.
That said the fact remains that terrorist threats to the US aren't hatched in Iraq. Nor have they ever, ever been. And the fact remains that if you believe that the bad guys who would do us harm are dropping into that unfortunate country to get themselves killed then you are foolish indeed.
Clueless, more clueless, lame and lamer.
Osama himself said that the center of world terrorism would be in Bagdad as the capital of the new caliphate that would then spread across the world.
Stick your head in the sand if you want, but this is what they said.
And ignore what they've said in the past, but they have acted on those words and Americans are dead by the thousands as a result of their attacks.
Again, simply no response from you regarding the failures of the oft tried policy of diplomatic engagement.
Are you simply too shallow to understand the talking points you regurgitate from lefty loon land?
Mike,
The Democrats are at war with the Iraqi government and the Republican Party, not the Baathists or Al Qaeda. They dont see these terrorists as their enemy.
Thats why they think that we can just talk to their sponsors.
This scenario reminds me of a B Movie that Sean Connery made after his James Bond role was finished and he was finding it hard to get work. It was called Zardoz and it was set in a futuristic world where there were two societies, one of barbarians given to senseless violence and another of civilized immortals who live in a utopian society.
Eventually the bored utopians invite the barbarians into their city to kill them. They commit suicide in an orgy-like state. Its entertaining because such a great actor humbled himself to make such a trashy picture. Of course, most of his movies have been trash anyways but at least they were successful trash.
I'd disagree with you there (much to Negative Neville's delight I'm sure).
Sean Connery WAS James Bond. Roger Moore was a cartoon character by comparison.
And he's done some good stuff since then.
Though I never saw "Zardoz."
Mike typed:
Again, simply no response from you regarding the failures of the oft tried policy of diplomatic engagement.
Perhaps not Mike.
Your approving mention of Jim Hoagland's piece in the Washington Post, which contains the phrase "The diplomatic effort to assemble a united international front against Iran is paying off" would indicate that diplomatic engagement, does, in fact work.
Cheers.
Arthur,
You really cant help but be daft can you?
A united international front is not appeasement in the face of aggression. Diplomatic ISOLATION does work.
Leftwing propaganda doesnt work outside of the echo chamber...
Mike typed:
A united international front is not appeasement in the face of aggression. Diplomatic ISOLATION does work.
I have only written that we need to engage the nations in the Middle East. The tools of diplomacy are varied. There is room for the carrot and the stick.
YOU characterize my remarks as appeasement.
They are not.
Sorry.
Mike typed what? Where?
You see that little "#" sign at the end of the comment time stamp Neville?
Right click and "copy shortcut" on the comment where I said:
"A united international front is not appeasement in the face of aggression. Diplomatic ISOLATION does work."
Not that I disagree with the comment, but it would be nice to be accurate.
Or should we just chalk this up to you being WRONG AGAIN?
However, I do recall saying:
"The disastrous and dangerous blundering of Democrats lame, feckless, weak and appeasing efforts at diplomacy and engagement are clear to anyone whose mind isn't poisoned by their prejudice against President Bush."
Hard to imagine success of the immensely complicated task of engagement and diplomacy when one branch of the U.S. government sets up an anti-Constitutional separate foreign policy.
I cant speak for Mike, but I would characterize your "engagement" of Syria and Iran as appeasement.
Iran is at war with us, but we are not at war with them. Their armed troops have violated Iraq's border multiple times and illegally occupy Iraqi territory.
Syria is providing a safe haven for our enemies (and Iran's "detention" of Al Qaeda operatives is suspicious as well).
Both countries have long standing policies of creating instability in their neighboring countries and are committed to wiping out all U.S. influence from the area.
Dream on...
I'd say Negative Neville's idea of engagment IS appeasement.
That doesn't mean we should try real engagement and diplomacy and we have.
Who was it that defined insanity as trying something the same way over and over and expecting a different result?
Anywho... still waiting for Negative Neville to clarify his comment above.
Until then, I'm keeping another checkmark in his WRONG column.
Mike, I see that you are a brainwashed victim of the FNOG...
The Freedom Now Occupational Government...
Is that what that means?
Still no peep from Negative Neville?
He'll be back. Ahhhhh Ha Haaa Haaaaaaaa
He's just vallen und he cont get up.
Maybe he got picked up by one of those left wing "truth" squads for not being sufficiently pure ideologically.
Probably being held prisoner on some hippie infested commune until he gets his mind right.
Commenting by HaloScan
