 |
 |
   Henry Waxmans climate change bill wont make it into law this year. Thats why hes the right guy for the job.
 Conspiracy theories are all fun and games until you become the subject of one.
|
   |
|
|
February 28, 2006
By: HEART OF DARKNESS....The genocide in Darfur has spilled over into Chad:
I don't think that any force smaller than about 40,000 troops would be able to contain the violence in Darfur. Where are 40,000 troops going to come from? —Kevin Drum 1:56 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (159)Comments
Honestly, if you only have so many troops. Would countries with mass graves and oil rank above countries with just mass graves in terms of intervention? Posted by: McA on February 28, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINKWhere are 40,000 troops going to come from? Such troops usually end up coming from some unenlightened country that spends a lot more on its military than those enlightened nations that have higher priorities than paying for their own defense needs. If the U.S. ends up going into Darfur, how long before there's a darfurbodycount.org web site? Posted by: tbrosz on February 28, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINKHey, Kevin, did you punch that spam out manually, or have you got some software to do that? Posted by: tbrosz on February 28, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINKIndia, Turkey. Both have large, well-armed, modern forces. I see our usual right-wing nutcases don't understand the concept of legitimate reasons for intervention. Try reading the UN compact. Posted by: mcdruid on February 28, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINKSorry, I'm the right wing nutcase and my position on intervention is 'cool'. But finish the one from 10 years ago called Iraq first. But Indian or Turkish troops would be cool. But last I checked they listened to whiney American lefty opposition even less than Cheney does. Pretty glib there about human lives. It's not about "finishing" things; it's about doing what's right, right now. Where were you during the seige of Sarajevo? Posted by: Kenji on February 28, 2006 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINKI know where you can find about 138,000 troops that are needed much more in Darfur than where they are now... Posted by: jesse on February 28, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINKabout 138,000 troops that are needed much more in Darfur than where they are now... Posted by: jesse on February 28, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK And if they weren't in Iraq, the Democrats would have opposed their deployment. Iraq was ten years of starvation & mass graves due to sanctions/oil-for-food/Saddam/funding of Palestinian suicide bombers. If the American Left can't give a shit for that, why would anyone believe they would have intervened in other circumstances... I'm generally suspicious of arguments about someone's hypothetical position in a different situation.
Wimpy lefties will not risk their lives or those of their soldiers to save some poor farmer in a clay hut, if it is going to mean that their sons and daughters might get drafted. Stalwart righties will gear up, lock and load and get into action to fight for the same farmers freedom and democracy. All it takes is that the farmer has valuable ressources to give up. It sucks being a poor farmer in a clay hut. What else is new? Posted by: OmniDane on February 28, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK深圳 桂林 兰州 贵阳 南昌 打折特价机票随查,最新折扣均3-5折. 深圳香港始发国际机票,温哥华华盛顿 芝加哥 纽约 旧金山 洛杉矶 澳门 国际机票 上海国际机票,美国联合航空公司,上海到美国的淡季往返国际机票特价销售 机票预订时，如果有价格变动，请直接拨打旁边的电话，我们保证本站的价格低于所有其它地方的价格 昆明机票，昆明机票查询，昆明机票打折，昆明特价机票，昆明机票价格 Posted by: U.S.A on February 28, 2006 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINKThanks for the Asian spam. Kevin, can't you block these moron's IP address? As to the Darfur disaster, I'm sure the American Nero, George W. Bush, will do nothing while Africa burns.... Two reasons: He has written so many bad checks, the till is empty. And, as Kanye West put it, "he doesn't care about black people..." Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 28, 2006 at 5:47 AM | PERMALINKFirst, have Switzerland freeze all bank accounts from that area to pay peacekeeping costs. When the leaders see their nest eggs threatened, perhaps their hearts will soften. Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on February 28, 2006 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINKI'm actually curious why the press isn't holding Europe's feet to the fire. France? Germany, for God's sake? The UN? The troops won't come from the US. GWB would only get lukewarm support from his base and he knows Democrats and the MSM would torch him the second one thing went wrong. Absent a direct threat to the USA he cannot put more troops in harms way. This is a disaster. There is no one else capable of acting. The UN is useless and the EU has neither the will nor the means. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINKabsent a direct threat to the USA he cannot put more troops in harms way. You guys are fucking jokes. Seriously, you can't say that with straight face. Posted by: ChrisS on February 28, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINKAbsolutely amazing.What does the A in McA stand for Asshole.Do you have any moral fiber at all .Do you stand for anything. Posted by: gandalf on February 28, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK>Where are 40,000 troops going to come from? Dunno, but I know there's enough money to send Bill O'Reilly over. Posted by: bartkid on February 28, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINKWow, there are the usual strawmen again. Seems to me the last Democratic president stepped in and stopped a genocide; where were you boys? Oh yeah, whining about us sending troops overseas. Meanwhile, the current Republican president started up a war where there wasn't one going on before. Why do conservatives love death? Such troops usually end up coming from some unenlightened country that spends a lot more on its military than those enlightened nations that have higher priorities than paying for their own defense needs. Who's paying for their own defense needs, tbrosz? Bush insists on paying for defense, the so-calledwar on terror andhis excellent adventure in Iraq with a tax cut, and you wholeheartedly support him in that effort. Of course, it's easy to see why someone like tbrosz supports Bush's military ambitions: Other than the well-deserved derisionhe receives on these threads, he doesn't have to pay for it. Real impressive, tbrosz. No wonder you just can't trust Republicans with national security. Posted by: Gregory on February 28, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINKOnce again we see that Bush ignores real ongoing genocide in favor of phantom WMDs, no active genocide, no security threat to the US or the Middle East, and no foreign policy benefit whatsoever. Bush is the conservative idea of a foreign policy god. Sad. Pathetic. Morally bankrupt. That is the state of conservative foreign policy yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The conservative transformation of America to a mini-version of the Cold War Soviet Union is well on its way to fruition. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINKEveryone is fiddling while the area is taken over by a manifest evil. Hmm, it calls out for irony. What if Osama were hiding out there? Then the international neglect would get its true reward. Posted by: Bob M on February 28, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINKKevin and Stefan, weren't you just telling me how strong and effective the French military has been in Africa, specifically Algiers? I would think the French could muster up 40,000 troops and take care of this single handedly, no? Think about what message that would send to the world that the French alone took care of one of the worst human tragedies in history. I would think they would welcome the opportunity. In fact you also pointed out how the US military was training with the french and learning quite a bit, so I say we leave it to the pros. The French. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINKMcA: Iraq was ten years of starvation & mass graves due to sanctions/oil-for-food/Saddam/funding of Palestinian suicide bombers. If the American Left can't give a shit for that, why would anyone believe they would have intervened in other circumstances... First of all, we gave a shit. It was just a question of what we could do. As you can see, invasion hasn't made their lives significantly better. Now let's talk about that run-on blur of "sanctions/oil-for-food/Saddam/funding of Palestinian suicide bombers." First of all, no evidence has been presented that Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers. So much for that one. Now the other three: We needed to do something about Saddam, so we instituted sanctions and no-fly zones. Were you against them? Yeh, right. At any rate, the sanctions were effective in reducing Saddam's ability to wage war: the money and materiel for maintaining military readiness dried up, and the sanctions may have also made it considerably harder for him to resuscitate his WMD programs. These were good things, right? The problem was that they also created considerable hardship for the people of Iraq. Hence oil-for-food. There was a fair amount of corruption associated with the program, sure, but hell, there was a fair amount of corruption in the CPA, and we ran that all by ourselves. And it reduced the scope of the humanitarian problem. So which of these things should we Big Bad Libruls not have done? Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK"started up a war where there wasn't one before" S Ra. S Ra, you might want to remind the Shiites and the Kurds how peaceful Iraq was before we went in. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK"Where are the troops going to come from?" How about Germany and France? Sheesh! What about Japan? Are we the only ones who have to give a shit what happens in the world's trouble spots? Our military is over stretched, we can't do a mission in Darfur alone. Posted by: Patrick Lane on February 28, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK"The sanctions were effective........the money dried up" RT. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaha Thank you RT, good belly laugh in the morning. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINKEven if you had the 40,000 troops, how would you deploy them and keep them supplied? Libya won't let them in, and neither will Sudan. NATO has no interest: it isn't their backyard like the Balkans, and no member state has been attacked. Besides, several member states have restless Islamic populaces who would rebel if their armies took up arms against another Islamist government. Whoever you think the enemy is now in Darfur, their ranks would swell with jihadists from across the Middle East and North Africa. Meanwhile, China is energetically buying oil from Sudan and selling it weapons. You have this daydream that the difficulties in Iraq have arisen because of Bushco incompetence; you imagine that a military operation can be conducted with no mistakes whatsoever, and that the enemy can never find and exploit weaknesses. A real military mission to Darfur would have its own mistakes labelled as "incompetence", and a resourceful, determined, and ruthless enemy, just as in Iraq. If Greece and Spain are any indications, peace in the Balkans will require 20 or more years to achieve. NATO probably needs to maintain a presence there in order to facilitate the transition to peace. The US has its hands full in Iraq and Afghnistan, where NATO also needs to maintain its presence in order to achieve the desired outcome. Unless China and Russia demand action in Darfur and provide the troops, I do not see how anything can be accomplished. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKThis is not meant as sarcasm. I would honestly like to know. When you say "I don't see how less than 40,000 troops" can do the job, what military expertise are you basing that on? Posted by: Layne on February 28, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINKI don't think that any force smaller than about 40,000 troops would be able to contain the violence in Darfur. Seems awful small. Anyways, what the hell does contain mean? Face it: Khartoum == fuckheads. They should die. A lot. Where are 40,000 troops going to come from? Send guns. If we had started sending guns a year or two ago instead of whining about the UN and no-fly zones the Fur would have a decent rebel army now. With shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missles, even! ash Debating with McA or rdw or Jay is like debating with circus clowns on acid. That is all. Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINKSeriously, you can't say that with straight face. It's so obviously true. The anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. Recall Clinton and Somalia. GWB knows the people who support action in Africa will never support him. It also gives him the opportunity to further embarrass the EU and UN and push them toward reform. Western Europe has flourished under the US security umbrella for 60 years. They need to adjust to a new world. They must now defend themselves and if they wish to have any international influence show some indication they can and will project some minimum level of power when warranted. This is the perfect opportunity for them to step forward. If they find the mission worthy but are unable to act they can decide what to do about that. Either they spend more on defense or they give up pretensions of influence. They will not have an opportunity to back stab us again. This is our turn to watch an judge their performance. They are so quick to judge us. Remember, their economy is just as large as ours and they are smarter. They should be just as capable. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINKIf the U.S. ends up going into Darfur, how long before there's a darfurbodycount.org web site? Well, there *should* be such a web site when the Americans start killing people in the thousands. Posted by: zxcv on February 28, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKYou have this daydream that the difficulties in Iraq have arisen because of Bushco incompetence; It looks like a daydream to you because you don't blame Bushco for a) not planning for an occupation, b) not listening to experts who cautioned about the difficulties of occupation, including the vulnerability of the infrastructure to sabotage, c) not listening to experts about sectarian tensions in Iraq, d) putting young, inexperienced, ideologically blinkered know-nothings in charge of administering the reconstruction, e) squandering US taxpayers money on corrupt reconstruction contracts and f) ETC. Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK"anti-war libs have made war impossible" Recall Cut and Run Ronny from Beirut? Oh, he did become the Generalissimo of Granada - lots of CIBs and Gold Combat Jump awards passed out. Good ole Cut and Run Ronny - send in troops, do not protect them, have them slaughtered, and as the Confederate Officer told Scarlett, "No Maam, we're not evacuating, we're withdrawing." Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 28, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINKThe anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. You're right. The Iraq war was impossible and so did not occur. What a relief. Oooops... Debating with hallucinating circus clowns again. #*&%$# Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINKNeither the Democratic party nore the Republican party has been consitent: the Democratic party opposed Gulf War I (which had UN backing) then split on Gulf War II (which is a continuation of Gulf War I, since Iraq was in defiance of the cease-fire conditions); the Republican party opposed the war in the Balkans (which had NATO backing but did not have UN backing.) I would like to suggest that rehashing the ironies of these inconsistencies does not constitute formulating an actionable policy toward Darfur. Any active intervention in Darfur has to solve some problems: 1. China actively buys oil from Sudan and sells weaponry; 2. Darfur is hundreds of miles inland with no good roads leading there; 3. NATO and the US have military deployed elsewhere; 4. any intervention in opposition to the Islamist government of Sudan will attract the opposition of jihadists from across the Islamic world; 5. large segments of the populations of France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, and Spain would oppose a NATO intervention against an Islamist government (I know, not all those nations are members of NATO, but the jihadists would seek to punish the nations that trade with NATO nations); 6. Unlike the Balkans, Afghanistan (harboring al Qaeda) and possibly Iraq, there is no security interest for the US or NATO in Darfur. I know there is a debate about whether Iraq was a security interest for the US, but there is no such debate about Darfur. Some of the people who write here have a lot of pride in their capacity for sorrow, but there is no more likelihood of a successful military mission in Darfur than there is of a successful military mission in Congo, Tibet, or N. Korea. So gnash your teeth and weep, but support the US in Iraq where success is still possible; and support NATO in the Balkans and in Afghanistan where success is still possible. And be wary of Pakiston, which is in the grips of a civil war and ready to fall into pieces. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINKGood ole Cut and Run Ronny Lebanon was not his finest hour yet he's still a top 10 President. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very good. Unfortunately, as a political matter this smear doesn't help the 'let's send in the troops' crowd at all. Conservatives looking to block even the suggestion of intervention will use Lebanon and Somalia as their support. I happen to think it's a worthy cause but would never support it. It's time to force the UN and EU to meet their responsibilities. It's also time for the Democrats to take the lead. I believe they can make it happen. Their obvious plan is to sit back and then attack GWB either way. They'll stand for nothing. He has no choice. We sit this one out. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKAnd if they weren't in Iraq, the Democrats would have opposed their deployment. In Darfur? Perhaps some would have, but it was, as I recall, a rather popular recent Democrat that sent troops into the former Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons, to largely Republican opposition. In fact, it was that deployment which led to the widespread Republican condemnation of humanitarian intervention and nation building that were hastily abandoned when the WMD pretext for the invasion of Iraq fell apart and a new, retroactive excuse was needed. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKOne of you French lefties need to tell us why the French, who are so effective in Africa according to Stafan and Kevin, can not handle this situation. Just a few days ago it was detailed how the French military was even training our troops and was so effective in keeping the peace in Algiers, remember? I know ADD is a bitch but try and think back. The minority faction of the minority party are like little chihuahua's behind the fence barking tough and what's on the other side, yet break down the fence and they scurry home. If we ever did go into Darfur, wouldn't that then be another "illegal occupation"? Afterall, we were not asked to go in right? Hypocrites. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKYet another example of Bush's astounding capacity for foreign policy incompetence . . . Iran 'to keep enrichment program' rdw: The anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. The pro-war conservatives have made war routine even when there is no threat at all - prime example: Iraq. GWB knows the people who support action in Africa will never support him. And that is all Bush is about: himself. If it doesn't benefit him politically or personally, then it isn't worth bothering about. Bush would stand by and watch six million Jews gassed and cremated with no visible change of expression, as long as it couldn't be tied to him or affect his political standing or personal fortune. I'm glad you agree that Bush is all about himself. It appears that you are finally seeing the light. They will not have an opportunity to back stab us again. You, of course, have this backwards. It was Bush who stabbed everybody else in the back by lying to them about WMDs and the danger that Iraq presented to the world. It was Bush who defamed the UN, the UN inspectors, the French, and the Germans. It was Bush who left our soldiers out in the cold by denying them body armor, vehicle armor, training, and unambiguous standards of conduct, by trying to take away their hazard pay in order to preserve his tax cuts for the wealthy, and by inviting attacks against them with his "bring them on" cowboy message from the safety of his Secret Service bodyguard. Shame on you, rdw, for hating our soldiers and allies so much. They are so quick to judge us. But not as quick as you to falsely judge them. . . . they are smarter. They are certainly far more honest. As to smarter, they called it right on Iraq and Bush didn't. Enough said. It's so obviously true. Virtually nothing you say is true, much less obvious as anything other than partisan fawning over Bush.
The anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. Recall Clinton and Somalia. What do "anti-war libs" have to do with Clinton and Somalia? I remember an incompetent SoD (Les Aspin) and following widespread criticism, largely from the right, making maintaining that mission politically impossible. And I remember missions in Bosnia and Yugoslavia later which contradict your thesis and which were, again, opposed by the right. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK"The sanctions were effective........the money dried up" RT. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaha Thank you RT, good belly laugh in the morning. Don't have a cite handy, Jay, but this stuff has been documented and reported on. Glad it amuses you, though; we can all use a few smiles in the morning. Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKcm, I will remind you that we killed a whole lot of Serbs during that "humanitarian" mission. Nevertheless, I supported Clinton for that, it was good call. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINKrdw: . . . yet he's still a top 10 President. Why are you still lying about this? Top 10 in the NRO list is not a top 10 of any merit. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKYou're right. The Iraq war was impossible and so did not occur. They were not powerful enough to block Iraq but the political price has been so extensive there will not be another intervention. Especially if they're the only one supporting it. The anti-war crowd can't do anything by itself. They'll need someone like Hillary to support this and she knows she can't trust them any more than GWB can trust them. The irony here is incredible. The only person in D.C. who would consider intervening in Africa is GWB. The very people supporting action are the people he can least trust to support him through it. It's not going to happen and the people in Africa know it. They have nothing to fear. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKIt's also time for the Democrats to take the lead. I believe they can make it happen. The GOP which controls the executive and the legislature has used narrow majorities to block every other single Democratic initiative in the last 5 years, and thinks "bipartisanship" is some kind of cross between appeasement and sodomy. But, yeah, sure, the Democrats can make it happen! Because, you know, we in the GOP don't feel like it; we're goin' quail hunting this weekend. But you guys go get 'em! You're doin' a heckuva job. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINKThe anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. Recall Clinton and Somalia. Adding to what cmdicely said: Who got us into Somalia? George Herbert Walker Bush, that's who. Our troops had been supposed to be out of there by the time Clinton took office, and Clinton's team was pretty pissed that Bush I left them this problem. Which, by the way, had a lot to do with their decision to let Bush Jr. decide how to respond to the Cole, rather than stick him with a mini-war not of his choosing. Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINKJay: The minority faction of the minority party are like little chihuahua's behind the fence barking tough and what's on the other side, yet break down the fence and they scurry home. If we ever did go into Darfur, wouldn't that then be another "illegal occupation"? Afterall, we were not asked to go in right? Hypocrites. The majority party elected to president a chihuahua who scampered away from serving his country. As for "illegal occupation", international law allows for military action to stop genocide. There is ongoing genocide in this case, just as their was in the Balkans when Clinton was in office. There was no ongoing genocide in Iraq when Bush invaded. Thus Democrats aren't hypocrites. But you are a liar. rdw: Lebanon was not [Reagan's] finest hour yet he's still a top 10 President. Your beloved Saint Ronnie was directly and personally responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by US supported terrorists and death-squads in Central America in the 1980s. He is one of the most heinous and vicious war criminals in history. Not to mention that if the world had not been so incredibly fortunate that Gorbachev was leading the Soviet Union during the time of Reagan's horrific regime, Reagan would probably have incinerated the earth in a nuclear war. Jay: Nevertheless, I supported Clinton for that, it was good call. And we suspect you are lying about this as well. Certainly the party you support did not support Clinton. You've said nothing that suggests you offered any support, either in private or in public. Since you are an inveterate liar and defamer, your self-serving claims lack credibility. Neither the Democratic party nore the Republican party has been consitent: the Democratic party opposed Gulf War I (which had UN backing) then split on Gulf War II (which is a continuation of Gulf War I, since Iraq was in defiance of the cease-fire conditions); the Republican party opposed the war in the Balkans (which had NATO backing but did not have UN backing.) This is largely inaccurate. First, the Democratic Party split on both Gulf Wars. The more recent Iraq war is only very loosely a continuation of the first (though its worth noting that the US/UK defiance of the cease fire resolutions was early and more overt, involving, as it did, continuous direct use of force from very soon after the cease fire was imposed by the UN.) Further, the Republicans, opposed or at least split on interventions in Bosnia (a mission that was originally a UN mission that was later transferred to NATO) and against Serbia over Kosovo (under NATO auspices without UN backing, after actual cross-border attacks on Albania), so its a mistake to lump it together as "the Balkans" where there was NATO but not UN backing. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINKYes, it's disturbing and such is the result of inaction on all sides. (It's also last week's news, but that's another story) This is also relatively similar to what happened in the DRC after the Rwanda genocide, so no one should really claim ignorance OR SHOCK. Posted by: Randy Paul on February 28, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINKadvocate breaks out the L word, how hypocrtically liberal of you with your nose frimly planted in Howard Deans ass, he loves you for it, your a good little chihuahua. Mass graves found in Iraq would tend one to believe that maybe things weren't all rosy in Iraq as some would have us believe, in fact mass graves tend to indicate genocide, no? After the Gulf war, Saddam signed a condition based cease-fire agreement wherein if any of those resolutions were violated, the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards his regime. EVERY RESOLUTION WAS VIOLATED. I know there are a lot of big words there advocate and if you need help, let me know. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKno evidence has been presented that Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers. So much for that one. Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK I think the payments to suicide bombers is fact. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm I think the point you are missing is that Kevin is implying in his piece, Dems would not have gone into Iraq but would have done something on Sudan. That's pretty false (given Clinton had plenty chances and didn't do more than airstrikes). The Left has a great track record of wailing and whining at wrong then opposing any possible action. Protesting invasions (Iraq/Afghanistan), sanctions (Iraq), airstrikes (Sudan under Clinton, Bosnia under Clinton). Admittedly the Right joined them when Clinton was in charge, If you want to commit genocide, the Right is more of a threat since the Nixon era onward.
advocate, you're much like a chihuahua, very annoying! I voted for Clinton, twice. Unlike you, I don't get on my knees for any party. BTW, how is your daddy Howard Dean? Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINKOr claim that oil makes one intervention more "valuable" than another. Posted by: Kenji on February 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKWhat do "anti-war libs" have to do with Clinton and Somalia? I remember an incompetent SoD (Les Aspin) and following widespread criticism, largely from the right, making maintaining that mission politically impossible. And I remember missions in Bosnia and Yugoslavia later which contradict your thesis and which were, again, opposed by the right. I personally supported all of these operations and would always support USA intervention to prevent genocide. The problem in Somalia with Les Aspin was that he denied a request for more heavily armoured helicopters for political reasons. He did not want to be seen as raising our commitment (mission creep). He made a dumb political decision that reduced the safety of the troops. The lesson of Vietnam espoused by Powell and others is troops have a well defined mission and are fully equipped. Somalia did not meet that standard. Bosnia and kosovo were opposed on the same grounds. The right was split between not doing anything and doing more than Clinton was willing. They wanted ground troops for a quick decisive operation so we could get in and get out. It was a poorly managed operation which Milosovitch used to accelerate the genocide until our targeting got more aggressive and applied real pain. Clinton was extremely tentative. That part of the right was opposed expecting we'd be there forever and do nothing. They're not far off. The anti-war libs make all action politically very expensive. Even humanitarian programs they support. We are currently in an evnironment where no politician, right or left, will support action in Africa. The irony is Bush and these anti-war 'humantarians' are on the same side. I suspect Hillary is as well. Neihter can act. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKAfter the Gulf war, Saddam signed a condition based cease-fire agreement wherein if any of those resolutions were violated, the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards his regime. EVERY RESOLUTION WAS VIOLATED. Incorrect. After the Gulf War, the UN Security Council imposed a mandatory cease fire that only it had the legal power to lift on all parties; this consisted of one resolution, whose terms were violated by both sides almost from the get-go including, notably, the US/UK (and initially France)-imposed "no fly zones" which had no authority and violated the requirement to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Your beloved Saint Ronnie was directly and personally responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by US supported terrorists and death-squads in Central America in the 1980s. Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 28, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK Horror! Horror! Too bad at the time he was fighting a movement that had subjugated half of Europe and had been responsible for deaths in the hundreds of thousands whenever they got power. Ever remember the Soviets invaded Afghanistan among other things? I'm sure he supported nasty people but so did most socialists. A typical American lefty was critical for propaganda that justified the killing fields of Vietnam and Cambodia. Thanks for picking a candidate who testified before the Senate that North Vietnamese would not persecute South Vietnamese who supported the Yanks. There's a few million boat people who can tell you about their dead relatives. Posted by: McA on February 28, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKBut, yeah, sure, the Democrats can make it happen! The Democratic leadership has to get out in front of this issue and take a strong position in support. Nothing happens otherwise. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKThe problem in Somalia with Les Aspin was that he denied a request for more heavily armoured helicopters for political reasons.IIRC, the request for heavy armor on the ground, but you are correct. He made a dumb political decision that reduced the safety of the troops. Right, but anti-war liberals had nothing to do with it. (Aspin's entirely incorrect belief of how various political opponents might respond, however, did.) Bosnia and kosovo were opposed on the same grounds. The right was split between not doing anything and doing more than Clinton was willing. They wanted ground troops for a quick decisive operation so we could get in and get out. It was a poorly managed operation which Milosovitch used to accelerate the genocide until our targeting got more aggressive and applied real pain. Clinton was extremely tentative. That part of the right was opposed expecting we'd be there forever and do nothing. They're not far off. Well, sure, we're still there. But "doing nothing"? The missions have been largely successful in both cases, and, unlike Iraq, haven't featured streams of Americans coming home in body bags. So, I'd say, they're pretty damn far off. But, again, the opposition was from the Right, not the "anti-war libs" who made intervention impossible. The anti-war libs make all action politically very expensive. No, reality makes military intervention expensive. Some people like facing that up front, rather than down the road. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK"The anti-war libs make all action politically very expensive." Oh, and my oh my little Geprgie Bush has certainly paid a big price for this mess, politically, hasn't he? I mean, the consequences have just been enormous for him -- something he'll probably realize in ten or twenty years, when they find him drunk in a ditch somewhere. At least he'll still have Jesus to comfort him. Posted by: Kenji on February 28, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINKTop 10 in the NRO list is not a top 10 of any merit. The NRO has never done a ranking I''ve seen. The amazing thing isn't just that he's top 10 but that he's top 10 so quickly. Normally contemporary losers can't get over their own hatreds so a recent President can't get a fair deal. Harry S Truman was killed by his contempories. It's only now that he's top 10 (7th I think). We had the opposite effect with JFK. He was actually top 5 at one point. How pathetic is that? Reagan is clearly top 10. He defeated socialism without firing a shot, restored the American economy and more than both he restored American pride. Jimmy could win 15 nobel prizes. To Americans he'll always be the hapless dolt forever associated with 444. Here's a test. Talk to anyone under the age of 40 and tell them he's the guy who reduced tax rates from 70% to 28%. They'll say, "I know". The under 40 crowd is not a fan of socialism. Quite the opposite. They know what Reagan saved them from. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINKrdw: The only person in D.C. who would consider intervening in Africa is GWB. Clearly a bald-faced lie. Despite claiming, after the fact of course, that there was ongoing genocide in Iraq (a lie, of course) which justified invading, Bush refused to invade for three years during which this alleged genocide was supposed to be occurring. He refused to intervene in Chechnya where genocide was being perpetrated by the Russians. He refuses to intervene in North Korea where mass murder is allegedly rampant, if only through deliberate neglect. Indeed, Bush refuses to intervene anywhere where there is a real problem occurring, preferring to create problems out of thin are to justify intevening where there is no need. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINKI personally supported all of these operations and would always support USA intervention to prevent genocide. Except when you support US intervention to committ genocide, as in Vietnam. Nevertheless, since your thought process is as scrambled as eggs, I don't expect coherence to issue from your mighty pen... Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINKHas France sent troops? Germany? What about Kofi Anan and his peace-keepers? Can't Kofi build a coalition??? Posted by: Paddy Whack on February 28, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINKWell said Paddy Whack! Where is that coalition? Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINKJay: Mass graves found in Iraq would tend one to believe that maybe things weren't all rosy in Iraq as some would have us believe, in fact mass graves tend to indicate genocide, no? Past genocide you lying assh*le. Not ongoing. No one has denied the past genocide, much or most of which occurred when conservatives were supporting Saddam both financially and politically; some of which occurred even after Saddam gassed the Kurds. Thanks for once again proving yourself the liar and dissembler that you are. I voted for Clinton, twice. Sorry, but don't buy it. Conservatives are very, very consistent in rewriting their own history to make themselves look more credible. As far as I'm concerned, you alleged votes for Clinton are just more of your mendacious conservative propaganda. Unlike you, I don't get on my knees for any party. Just for individual politicians, like Bush, eh? rdw: Reagan is clearly top 10. Then provide the link. Your personal ranking is even less credible than NRO's would be. rdw: . . . and tell them [Reagan's] the guy who reduced tax rates from 70% to 28%. No, since I don't like to lie to the younger generation like you do. Does your daughter appreciate that her father lies to her? Delusion is necessary to elevate Reagan to the pedestal where you've place him.
The troops and equipment can come from NATO, or mostly from NATO. The money to pay for them can come from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. What can happen is not always what will happen, but if it does western Sudan and easter Chad will get the effective, heavily armed peacekeeping force they need -- and if it does not happen the way will at least be open to create a rift between Arab Islamists and the non-Arab Muslim populations of west and central Africa. Posted by: Zathras on February 28, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINKrdw: We had the opposite effect with JFK. He was actually top 5 at one point. How pathetic is that? In three recent popular opinion polls, Kennedy ranked 3rd, 5th, and 2nd. Oops! rdw caught in a lie again! Easily. How pathetic is that! Right, but anti-war liberals had nothing to do with it I never suggested the anti-war crowd went after Aspin. I do remember that as coming from the right. I take your word on the armour and stand corrected. The missions have been largely successful in both cases. The mission was successful in stopping the active genocide and it took a lot longer than it should have. There hasn't been a shred of progress since this time and the region is a mess. There is no suggestion there will ever be progess and this is nothing more than a very expensive stalemate that has the disadvantage of allowing the use of these troops and aid dollars elsewhere. BTW: I supported it. We should always act to stop genocides. No, reality makes military intervention expensive. Military interventions are always exensive. Truman got crushed in the polls and look at LBJ. It should be hard. I merely point out the irony of anti-war libs now in the position of advocating intervention in Africa. They are being hoisted on their own petard. Worse than the true-blue anti-war crowd are the opportunists who just wanted to make GWB unelectable. They really bungled it. He's President. He's on their side. He can't even thing about it. I think the USA can play an enormously productive role in Africa in a short period of time. It'll never happen. It's lucky they have people like Bill Gates. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK rdw: He defeated socialism without firing a shot . . . If that is true, why do you still claim that the USA is burdened with socialistic problems? If that is true, then why do you still claim that Clinton, who got elected after Reagan left office, was a socialist? If that is true, why do you claim that socialism has Europe by the throat? It seems that "socialism" (which I doubt you know what that term actually means any more than you understand what the term "predict" actually means) is alive and well according to your own posts. Oops! rdw caught in another lie, this one proven by his own words! It's beginning to be a pattern with your rdw! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINKIn three recent popular opinion polls, Kennedy ranked 3rd, 5th, and 2nd. What you are babbling about? I'm talking about serious polls of serious expert. These man in the street things are for entertainment only. The people voting FOR JFK are only aware of him because he was banging Marylin Monroe and he got shot. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINKhey McA, kindly limit your troop deployment fantasies to your own countrymen. Posted by: cleek on February 28, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINKrdw: I take your word on the armour and stand corrected. rdw claims to be an American, but he slips up quite a bit and uses the English/Australian spelling of certain words. Could it be that rdw is lying about being an American and serving in our armed forces, as well as lying about virtually everything else?
What a lot of ugliness. Jay and McA ought to be deeply ashamed. "Not on my watch"--written by our president in the margin of a report on Darfur. George Will recently reminded us that "words are deeds"--I choose to be foolishly optimistic that some select few will remain awake and another select portion will wake up. Posted by: Cassandro on February 28, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINKExcept when you support US intervention to committ genocide, as in Vietnam It's always good to know how liberals think. Keep the smears coming. It worked so well for Kerry. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINKrdw: I'm talking about serious polls of serious expert. I knew you'd fall for the trap, rdw. You are predictable. JFK has never been ranked in the top 5 by "experts", so he cannot have dropped out of the top 5. Thus, either way, you lied. Oops! Caught again by your own stupidity and feeble attempts to write your way out of trouble by "nuancing" your previous claims. But like all liars, you just can't keep track of what you've said. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINKDebating with McA or rdw or Jay is like debating with circus clowns on acid.That is all.Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK Some of my best debates have been with circus clowns on acid. Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on February 28, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINKrdw: The people voting FOR JFK are only aware of him because he was banging Marylin Monroe and he got shot. Looks like people won't remember Bush 43 at all! After all, he's banging Osama bin Laden and no one's ever going to bother to shoot him, since he shoots himself in the foot so often he's a great asset to the opposition. GOP polling has fallen almost entirely because of Bush's incompetence or devotion to Bush and his incompetence. Don't you just hate it when your "brilliant" theories are destroyed by ugly facts, rdw? Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINKWe will never help save life. No oil no troops Posted by: Honey P on February 28, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINKThe mission was successful in stopping the active genocide and it took a lot longer than it should have. Yeah, well, it would have been much easier without the Republican-led effort to kill the operations, including their attempt to get the Supreme Court to compel the end of the deployment to Serbia. The Republicans, not the "anti-war libs", put most of the pressure on Clinton that limited his viable options for the various missions in the Balkans. So, again, placing the blame on "anti-war libs" is wrong. It was the "anti-humanitarian cons" that made humanitarian intervention there politically expensive. And it the "anti-humanitarian cons" that control the entire US government, and are sitting on their hands over Darfur. Blaming the "anti-war libs" is detached from reality. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKDo have some experience in this sort of thing - Any 101st Fighting Keyboarders out there to join my regiment? Maj Gen Charles "Chinese" Gordon Posted by: Maj Gen Charles Gordon on February 28, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINKDebating with McA or rdw or Jay is like debating with circus clowns on acid. It's like debating with a bowl of Fruit Loops. And less nutricious. Posted by: CFShep on February 28, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINKImagine the deployment of 40,000 NATO troops. The janjaweed militias immediately resume their occupations as regular citizens. NATO starts to talk about its exit strategy, conditions or timetables for withdrawal. Every week or so there is a suicide bomber, and then every day, and some commentators allege that the only problems are actually caused by the presence of the NATO troops. So NATO redeploys its troops elsewhere, and the janjaweed militias reassemble and resume their actions as before. That's the good scenario. I suppose you could assault Khartoum instead, defeat the Sudanese army and install a friendly dictator like Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee, Shah Reza Pahlevi, Hosni Mubarak or Saddam Hussein. I don't recommend it, but I think that a democracy project in Sudan is less likely to succeed than the democracy project in Iraq. Such a military action would require that the Chinese be bought off; I would expect the Islamists living in the EU to lead large-scale violent protests. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINKobscure wrote: Debating with McA or rdw or Jay is like debating with circus clowns on acid. I would say that it is like debating with pathetically stupid, shockingly ignorant, sickeningly dishonest Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt mental slaves, who are incapable of doing anything but spewing fake, phony, scripted, programmed right-wing drivel and robotically regurgitating the turds that they slurp from Rush Limbaugh's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that they slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News. Actually, that's not what it's like, that's what it is. Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKrdw: Keep the smears coming. Smears are a conservative specialty. For your benefit, please note that "smear" generally implies a false allegation designed to embarass or defame the subject of the smear. Conservatives routinely make false allegations against liberals, to wit the claims that Kerry didn't earn his medals, was never in Cambodia, was never wounded by enemy fire, or accused the vast majority of our soldiers of atrocities, all false, all proffered by conservatives like rdw. The preceding, then, would be classified as "smears." Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: This is largely inaccurate. First, the Democratic Party split on both Gulf Wars. The more recent Iraq war is only very loosely a continuation of the first (though its worth noting that the US/UK defiance of the cease fire resolutions was early and more overt, involving, as it did, continuous direct use of force from very soon after the cease fire was imposed by the UN.) Further, the Republicans, opposed or at least split on interventions in Bosnia (a mission that was originally a UN mission that was later transferred to NATO) and against Serbia over Kosovo (under NATO auspices without UN backing, after actual cross-border attacks on Albania), so its a mistake to lump it together as "the Balkans" where there was NATO but not UN backing. And therefore the correct response to Darfur is what? Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKSpy chief calls threat from port deal low More proof that Bush and the administration lied about the port deal. Who would've thunk it! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKJay at 10:50: Just a few days ago it was detailed how the French military was even training our troops and was so effective in keeping the peace in Algiers, remember? Did anyone in that thread ("Not Just Incompetence", February 24) say the French were 'keeping the peace' in Algeria? I thought the French were there to promote their own perceived national interest. Sure, the French should send troops to Darfur, but they probably won't, since they act primarily on the basis of self-interest rather than moral imperatives. Contrary to what some people were saying in the Feb. 24 thread, the French are not a nation of liberal do-gooders who rely just on 'soft power'. They, like the US and every other country, throw their military weight around to advance their own interests. That's why, tragically, neither the US nor France (nor Russia nor Germany nor Canada, etc.) are likely to send troops into Darfur. Posted by: otherpaul on February 28, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKThe issue here isn't really "Who lost China?" The issue is what to do abut Darfur. obscure wrote this: It looks like a daydream to you because you don't blame Bushco for a) not planning for an occupation, b) not listening to experts who cautioned about the difficulties of occupation, including the vulnerability of the infrastructure to sabotage, c) not listening to experts about sectarian tensions in Iraq, d) putting young, inexperienced, ideologically blinkered know-nothings in charge of administering the reconstruction, e) squandering US taxpayers money on corrupt reconstruction contracts and f) ETC. Yes, yes, yes, and the Coninental Congress mismanaged the Revolution and Abraham Lincoln mismanaged the Civil War. In both cases, the real problems were made by a smart and determined enemy. So it has been in Iraq, and so it will be in Darfur. The enemy will alter its tactics to make every allied decision look like a mistake. The US Army command in Europe in WWII, due to its inexperience, made many mistakes that resulted in needless waste and loss of life. Furthermore, they repeated the mistakes over and over. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of Bernard Law Montgomery, and he knew more than anybody else. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKBlaming the "anti-war libs" is detached from reality. The anti-war libs are the worst problem. No President will risk a foreign entaglement unless they have a solid base of support. The anti-war folk will in fact support a war if it's something they view as humanatarian. But they can't be trusted. They'll jump ship as soon as the other side fires back. A President needs a base he can rely on. GWB would never trust these people nor would Hillary Clinton. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINKrdw: The anti-war libs are the worst problem. Not even close. The worst problem is an incompetent commander-in-chief, followed closely by an incompetent congressional GOP leadership. No President will risk a foreign entaglement unless they have a solid base of support. He does. It's called the GOP. Lemmings are the most solid of solid-base support. The anti-war folk will in fact support a war if it's something they view as humanatarian. Well, then, they really aren't anti-war then and you are lying again. But they can't be trusted. Again, you get it wrong. It is Bush who lied and can't be trusted. Bush who was proven wrong and can't be trusted. Bush who has proven incompetent and can't be trusted. Bush who has betrayed American soldiers and can't be trusted. Bush who defamed our allies and can't be trusted. Bush who let 9/11 happen and can't be trusted. President needs a base he can rely on. He has his base of lemmings, including you, so what's stopping him? By your own logic, he has plenty of support. Therefore, you must be lying again. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKThe anti-war folk will in fact support a war if it's something they view as humanatarian. But they can't be trusted. They'll jump ship as soon as the other side fires back. A President needs a base he can rely on. You stinking fascist, where the hell were you when we were rescuing Kosovo from Serbian ethnic cleansing? Probably denying that the ethnic cleansing was taking place, or whining about risking American lives in places where we had no strategic interest. You people are filth. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINKbrooksfoe: You people are filth. You are giving filth a bad name! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKwas never in Cambodia,
Big John got caught with his pants down around his ankles on that one. That's why our President is George W. Bush. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKwhere the hell were you when we were rescuing Kosovo You were there? Thank you for your service. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKSure, the French should send troops to Darfur, but they probably won't, The French have no way of getting troops there. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINKActually, that's not what it's like, that's what it is. You need some anger management counseling. You'll drive yourself into an early grave. Rush and Fox are very popular and profitable. Rush isn't alone either. Conservative talk radio is 24/7 on 3 national networks. These people make a fortune as well. Fox ratings are 6 to 1 over CNN in many timeslots and 10 to 1 over MSNBC. The group you should really be upset with are the bloggers. The exposed kerrys xmas in Cambodia nonsense and Dan Rathers scam. This is where they all get their material. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKSome of my best debates have been with circus clowns on acid. Actually, that's a good point, Henry. I would say that it is like debating with pathetically stupid, shockingly ignorant, sickeningly dishonest Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt mental slaves, who are incapable of doing anything but spewing fake, phony, scripted, programmed right-wing drivel and robotically regurgitating the turds that they slurp from Rush Limbaugh's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that they slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News. SecularAnimist, Ouch! That had to leave a mark. Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINKrdw: You need some anger management counseling. You pretty much need counseling all around. Serial prevarication is a classic sign of psychosis. So is delusion. You are two for two! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKI forgot to mention that FUBAR was invented in WWII. Authors as diverse as Joseph Heller (Catch 22) and Victor Davis Hanson (The Soul of Battle) believe that the Allied supply system was an incompetently run disaster. It is always the case that military operations are accompanied by credible accusations of mistakes and incompetence. Such would accompany any military action in Darfur. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINKPeter Galbraith: In his State of the Union address, President Bush told his Iraq critics, "Hindsight is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy." His comments are understandable. Much of the Iraq fiasco can be directly attributed to Bush's shortcomings as a leader. Having decided to invade Iraq, he failed to make sure there was adequate planning for the postwar period. He never settled bitter policy disputes among his principal aides over how postwar Iraq would be governed; and he allowed competing elements of his administration to pursue diametrically opposed policies at nearly the same time. He used jobs in the Coalition Provisional Authority to reward political loyalists who lacked professional competence, regional expertise, language skills, and, in some cases, common sense. Most serious of all, he conducted his Iraq policy with an arrogance not matched by political will or military power. Good summary. Not complete by all means. But nevertheless places conservatives' betrayal of America, and their rationalization and defense of that betrayal, in a nutshell. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKThat had to leave a mark. Rush is crying all the way to the bank. At $25M per that's a lot of tears. You think you're bothered by them? How do you suppose John Kerry and Dan Rather feel. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKThe latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high. Nearly 20% below Clinton's second term lowest approval rating. How far the mighty conservative god has fallen. Must be the fault of the MSM! Or the liberals! Or Saddam Hussein's WMDs! Or conservatives not sufficiently loyal to der leader! Or . . . [insert anything that conservatives might find convenient to blame except Bush himself] The battle cry of conservative lemmings? Heil, Bushitler! He is great! He is good! We will send others to die for his cause! In this morning's Washington Post: "I give credit to Iraqi leaders for rising to the occasion," [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay] Khalilzad said. "Going to the brink, of course, but more importantly, pulling back. I am gratified that the decisive crisis caused by the attacks did not lead to an all-out civil war. The Iraqi people, I hope, will learn from this to use this as an opportunity for a new nationalism." "Great crises such as this can fragment, polarize people or pull them together," he said. "I hope in 10 years, in 15 years, in 20 years, people will look at this crisis as a turning point in getting Iraqis to come together against a common enemy." And the libs were hoping so hard for a civil war. Ain't happening. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKFor the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall. Ouch! Boof! Wham! Body blows continue to rain on the conservative parade! Now, the majority of Americans are traitors! Now, the majority of Americans support the terrorists! Now, the majority of Americans are aiding and abetting the enemy with their negative thoughts! Now, the majority of Americans . . . [insert the usual set of pejoratives foisted by conservatives on their enemies, rather than blaming themselves for their own arrogance, stupidity, incompetence, and loyalty to party over country] Why do conservatives hate America so much? Because they love themselves more . . . rdw: Rush is crying all the way to the bank. So are Clooney and Moore. Zing! You just can't help walking into vast pits of hypocrisy and contradiction can you rdw! Nearly 20% below Clinton's second term lowest approval rating. Yet Bush gained 20 Congresional seats while Clinton lost 65. Go figure! Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINKrdw: And the libs were hoping so hard for a civil war. More mendacity! Like your lie about the Bush administration having no recent trips to Old Europe! Like your lie about Strickland being behind all GOP candidates in the Ohio gubernatorial race! You can't stop yourself. Obviously, you need help. Your psychosis is deepening and your break with reality getting more and more pronounced. Get help before your daughter gets hurt by your continued lying. You'll thank me one day for the intervention! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKrdw: Yet Bush gained 20 Congresional seats while Clinton lost 65. And there you go lying again! Bush has gained no seats since his poll numbers have dropped. So, you must be hallucinating or lying. Go figure! Still haven't apologized to everybody for those lies about Strickland and trips to Europe, now have you rdw. Typical of a Bush lemming: lie, lie about lying, pretend that the lies don't exist, ignore the truth, blame everybody but yourself, and never never admit you lied or take personal responsibility for anything. Sorta like Dickless Cheney: blame the victim, accept no personal responsibility unless absolutely forced to do so, but still send out your little factota to attack the victim and spin rationalizations. Not working. Cheney down to the teens in approval. Pathetic. Almost as pathetic as you, rdw! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKYet Bush gained 20 Congresional seats while Clinton lost 65. Go figure! Took an illegal redistricting in Texas. The numbers you keep citing just prove the point that gerrymandering has rendered our current government the least representative ever by any reasonable standard. "Being called partisan and vindictive Ronnie Earle Posted by: CFShep on February 28, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKRdw: Rush and Fox are very popular and profitable. Rush isn't alone either. Conservative talk radio is 24/7 on 3 national networks. These people make a fortune as well. Fox ratings are 6 to 1 over CNN in many timeslots and 10 to 1 over MSNBC. This in no way whatsoever makes what seculanimist said about you, and those that support the filth that comes from Rush's rich mouth, any less vile. Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on February 28, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINKRush and Fox are very popular and profitable. Rush isn't alone either. Conservative talk radio is 24/7 on 3 national networks. These people make a fortune as well. Fox ratings are 6 to 1 over CNN in many timeslots and 10 to 1 over MSNBC. The sex industry is also very profitable, rdw. As is the market for heroin, crystal methamphetamine and other mind-altering, soul-destroying compounds. So, I see what you mean. Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINKActually, it took illegal redistricting in three states. Texas was just the most egregious abuse. -- Bill O'Reilly, "Good Morning America," ABC, 3/18/03 We're still waiting.... Sudan, a cesspool of Islamic intolerance. Either that or just another corrupt third world country with resources. A country which thinks nothing of either enslaving or slaughtering its black population. Thank heavens they are on the UN Human Rights Commission. The Foreign Minister was just quoted as saying that Sudan would be a graveyard for any foreign troops. Does Gordon have any descendents. Maybe its time for a bit white Christianity to straighten them out. MCA: Sudan has mass graves and resources just like Iraq (not as expoited). Sudan still has the Saddams in place to continue the slaughter. And Sudan has the same sort of European and Asian backers who kept Saddam in control of the mass graves for so long. Posted by: davod on February 28, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINKRush and Fox are very popular and profitable. I hear Hitler and Saddam were very popular and accumulated a lot of wealth in their day too. Maybe Bush will have a similar ultimate success as those tyrants, eh rdw? It is funny how conservatives like you value the same things as the Nazi regime, the Soviet regime, and the Baathist regime. It's almost like you all belong to the same club. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKThis in no way whatsoever makes what seculanimist said about you, and those that support the filth that comes from Rush's rich mouth, any less vile. Actually it does. It's a matter of common sense. No one can be that popular, that beloved, that influential AND be vile. Rush gets as many listeners in a week as the 3 networks combined. Moreover, his numbers are still increasing why they are still losing audience. The sex industry is also very profitable, rdw. As is the market for heroin, crystal methamphetamine and other mind-altering, soul-destroying compounds. I'm not sure what your point is. Vanilla ice cream is polular too as is Bill Clinton. Neither have any political influence. Rush has a great deal of political influence. When Dick Cheney need to reach a wide audience and he doesn't want to deal with the MSM cranks he can just go on Rush for 20 minutes and in addition to his audience he'll gets quoted on most of the rest of talk radio, the bloggers and Fox. This is how I learned of Kerrys actual war record and how everyone learned what a fraud Dan Rather was. To give an example of how comical and influencial Rush is he started his 1st show after the Cheney shooting with "I'd rather be hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Teddy Kennedy. It became the biggest selling bumper sticker. I'm not a big Rush fan but you've got to give the man credit for essentially creating talk radio. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINKMaybe Bush will have a similar ultimate success as those tyrants, eh rdw? He's term limited. But he will be your President for 3 more years. Sam Alito and John Roberts will be your favorite Supreme Court justices or another 35 years so you'll have much to remember. What must it be like every morning to know GWB is the most powerful man in the world? It must kill Kerry to look in the mirror every morning and realize he lost to that idiot. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK rdw: I'm not a big Rush fan but you've got to give the man credit for essentially creating talk radio. One of many comments from you that show off what an ignorant dumbass you are. Talk radio, and specifically political talk radio, had a decades-long history before Rush Limbaugh was even born, you know-nothing dipshit. All your comments indicate that you are (1) stupid, (2) ignorant, (3) a liar, and (4) that you slavishly worship people who gain power and wealth by lying, cheating and stealing. In fact it's evident that you are the kind of person who actually prefers to win by lying, cheating and stealing. In other words, you are the apotheosis of the Bush supporter.
rdw: No one can be that popular, that beloved, that influential AND be vile. Hitler was popular, beloved and influential. He was also vile. Just like Rush. And the people with whom he was popular, beloved and influential were just like you: stupid, ignorant, know-nothing assholes. Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 28, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKrdw: This is how I learned of Kerrys actual war record . . . Clearly you "learned" nothing, but you did pick up some lies to regurgitate! What must it be like every morning to know GWB is the most powerful man in the world? Not so powerful right now and still can't catch bin Laden, still can't pacify Iraq, still can't bring democracy to the Middle East, still can't bring economic prosperity to America, and still can't exceed Bill Clinton's second term approval rating. What must it be like to wake up every morning and know that Bush is wasting his position in the most powerful office in the world through mendacity, incompetence, petulance, and stupidity and hurting America instead of helping it. It must suck that your daughter is slowing finding out what a liar you are about Bush and conservatism. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure the Sudan war will be a cakewalk. And the people in Sudan will greet their American liberators with flowers. Posted by: mg51 on February 28, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINKThe Washington Post ran a story yesterday suggesting that the IRS bowed to political pressure by investigating a Texas public interest group that crossed swords with Tom DeLay. The investigation came at the request of DeLay's crony, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), who himself was put up to making the request by a lawyer tied to DeLay's fundraising schemes. -- Josh Marshall The GOP using the IRS to target political enemies should resonate well with voters, eh rdw! Much better than noncomprehensible and bogus statistics like GDP that "prove" Bush has improved the nation's economy. They will also understand high national debt and huge trade imbalance created to favor conservative interests. Bush is twenty points behind Clinton's lowest approval ratings and dragging the GOP Congress down with him. Smile! It's all good! (For the country, but sadly not for you!) Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINKrdw wrote: What must it be like every morning to know GWB is the most powerful man in the world? George W. Bush is Dick Cheney's sock puppet. He's nothing but a smirking glad-handing phony, an empty head in an empty suit, and his "power" is limited to the "power" to read scripts from a teleprompter and recite memorized scripted soundbites, and only morons like you don't know this. What must it be like to wake up every morning and know that Bush is wasting his position It's not hard. I'm thinking John Roberts is good for another 35 - 40 years and Sam Alito another 30 -35 and Clarence Thomas another 30 - 35 years and Scalia maybe 15. That's a very rock solid conservative group and we'll have 2 more libs retiring noon. None of this of course addresses the deep bench Did you notice Big John McCain voted to EXTEND the tax cuts? Just a couple of hardships I have to live with. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W. Bush is Dick Cheney's sock puppet Ok, Ok have it your way. What must it be like to get up every morning and know Dick Cheney is the most powerful man in the world? Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINKMuch better than noncomprehensible and bogus statistics like GDP that "prove" Bush has improved the nation's economy. Yes, GDP is totally bogus. So is the unemployent rate. And of course per capita GDP has to be bogus as well. You might was well be busy selling that because each of these stats are going to sting libs. I love the call to be more like the French. Our per capital GDP is only 40% higher. Yeah, that's who to copy!! Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINKWhew! I was getting nervous. We hadn't heard from this guy in a while. I was afraid they dumped his body with OBL. Howard Dean says the Bush White House is "The Weakest Adminstration on Defense We Have Seen in Many, Many Years." Don't do that. We need this guy. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINKrdw: Bush is building on the appelate courts. You know, that's exactly what they said about Reagan's eight years in office. It just didn't work out. It's really going to suck when Roberts and Alito vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. I can just hear the screams now - they will be identical to the screams about Kennedy and O'Connor and Souter, other "sure" conservative votes. What must it be like to get up every morning and know Dick Cheney is the most powerful man in the world? With an approval rating near Hitler's, I'd say its pretty grand! Dickless Cheney and Spineless Bush will do more for the long-term interests of Democrats than a billion dollars in campaign contributions. You just can't buy help like they are providing. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINKBush Hails Blogosphere Until now, I don't think President Bush has commented publicly on the 60 Minutes/National Guard story. But the Drudge Report has excerpts from Bill Sammon's new book, Strategery, in which both Bush and Karl Rove talk about the document scandal: President Bush, for the first time, is hailing the rise of the alternative media and the decline of the mainstream media, which he now says conspired to harm him with forged documents. For example, journalist Dan Rather left the anchor chair at CBS News after Internet reporters revealed he had used forged documents to criticize Bushs military record in September 2004. The forgeries, which Bush now calls a conspiracy, ended up helping his reelection campaign, he acknowledged in the Oval Office interview. It looks like somebody conspired to float false documents, the president tells author Bill Sammon. And I was amazed about it. I just couldnt believe that would be happening [and] then it would become the basis of a fairly substantial series of news stories. He added: Then there was a backlash to it. I mean, a lot of people were angry that this could have happened. A lot of Americans are fair people and they viewed this as patently unfair. So in a funny way, I guess it inured to our benefit, when it was all said and done. Although Memogate was initially expected to harm the president, it ended up backfiring spectacularly on the press. The guy that it hurt most was Dan Rather and the executives at CBS, White House strategist Karl Rove said in an interview for STRATEGERY. It further disgraced a network which is third in ratings and, if you look at the demographics of their consumers, its like 70 percent Democrat. Rove said Rathers eagerness to broadcast obviously forged documents proves he is no serious reporter. As for Rathers insistence, to this day, that the documents are real, Rove said: Thats really bias. Memogate has helped accelerate the decline of the mainstream media, generally defined as CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times and other establishment news outlets. I think whats healthy is that theres no monopoly on the news, Bush said. Theres competition. Theres competition for the attention of, you know, 290 million people, or whatever it is. rdw: You might was well be busy selling that because each of these stats are going to sting libs. With Bush at 34% and doing badly on his approval on the economy, it looks like its selling pretty well! What we do know is that what you and Bush are offering isn't selling to anyone other than a small fraction of die-hard conservatives living in delusional worlds, like you. If Bush's approval ratings on the economy is the best sting you can offer, keep it coming! Stings like that are like a pleasurable massage. What must it be like to wake up every morning these days and know in your heart that Howard Dean's message is getting through to Americans and the GOP's message isn't! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKYou know, that's exactly what they said about Reagan's eight years in office. It just didn't work out. Reagan worked out just fine. Not as well as GWB is working out but the Gipper didn't have GWBs political skill nor as strong a bench to choose from. In any event Janice Rodgers Brown and Priscilla Owens are appelate court judges. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINKIt's really going to suck when Roberts and Alito vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. I don't want Roe overturned. I want partial birth overturned and parental notification required. Done! I want affirmative action overturned. Done! I want Campaign Finance Reform overturned. Done! For these an several other rulings cases are being filed designed to end up at the Supreme Court. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINKrdw: Gipper didn't have GWBs political skill nor as strong a bench to choose from. Yep. It takes a lot of political skill to go from 92% approval to 34%. Bush is a political god! All hail! Or is it "all heil"? Reagan worked out just fine. More historical revisionism to feed your delusions. Thankfully, the rest of us live in the real world! Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKExisting home sales fell more than expected in January, according to a report released in the morning. A separate report showed consumer confidence dropped more than expected in February. Don't you just hate it when reality conflicts with your lies about the economy, rdw? Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINKSenate panel attacks homeland security budget/ More bad news for Bush. He just keeps giving and giving. Please, please tie yourself to Bush, just like McCain is doing! While Howard Dean rises, Bush plummets, and all of Bush's allies will plummet with him. Poor rdw sees his hero getting creamed by his anti-hero. rdw: What must it be like to get up every morning and know Dick Cheney is the most powerful man in the world? You should ask George W. Bush that question. He'll go ask Dick Cheney what he should say, and then get back to you. rdw is the perfect example of a power-worshipping Bush bootlicker who is eager to be a grovelling slave to the "great man" and imagines that this makes him a "conservative". He's not a conservative, he's a member of the cult of personality that's been built up around Bush to suck in weak-minded ignorant people just like rdw. True conservatives are turning away from Bush in droves. Probably a very large part of Bush's dramatic drop in approval ratings is coming from conservatives who are finally waking up and realizing that Bush has no conservative values, in fact has no values at all other than greed, corruption and criminality, and is in fact nothing more than a sleazy, lying huckster. When talking about military interventions, it is necessary to remove the politics for just a moment and think about the logistics. And I mean everything from overflight rights to force protection of the peacekeepers. Why was the intervention in Bosnia possible, but Rwanda not? Because the USAF has bases in Italy, and did not violate any neutral airspace during the raids. Not possible in Rwanda. Currently true in Darfur. Just how do you expect a MEF to materialize? Magic? OIF was possible because we were already on the borderof Iraq as a leftover of the Gulf War overseeing the ceasefire provisions. We had to get permission from Pakistan to put troops into Afganistan via overflight. Who is going to give the US permission to fly into Darfur? Not all things are possible, as desirable as they might be. Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech on February 28, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINKWhile Howard Dean rises, Bush plummets, GWB is the two-term President. He's a key part of your history. Howard we forget about tomorrow until he sticks his foot in his mouth again. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINKTrue conservatives are turning away from Bush in droves. Not quite. Our President still has 3 more years. I'm going to enjoy watching him drive you and all of my liberal friends up a wall. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINKThe 25 Fat Years BY PETE DU PONT In 1981 Ronald Reagan became our 40th president, the hostages were released from Iran, Walter Cronkite retired after 19 years as "CBS Evening News" anchorman, and Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female Supreme Court justice. But a quarter of a century later we should remember 1981 as the year the kaleidoscope turned in America, a dividing point between the previous two decades' big-government beliefs and the individualism and market economy thinking of the next 20 years. We have seen sharply different opportunities--in jobs, incomes, economic growth and inflation--between the governmental years of the 1960s and '70s and the market decades of the '80s and '90s and the new century. In the 1980 election the American people chose a new course. For the first time in half a century we retreated from the expanding-government philosophy established by Franklin D. Roosevelt and pretty much adhered to by every subsequent president through Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan's emphasis on individual opportunity--as opposed to the liberals' on government-created opportunity--was to have a substantial and positive impact on the prosperity of the American people. As Robert Samuelson recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, in the 13 years before 1981 there were four recessions lasting a total of 48 months. In the next 23 years--nearly twice as long--there were just two recessions, lasting 16 months. Real annual growth in gross domestic product averaged just over 2.3% a year in the late 1960s and '70s. From 1982 to 2000 GDP grew an average of almost 3% a year. From the late '60s until 1982, an average of 1.6 million jobs were added to the American economy each year; from 1982 through 2000 the average added was 2.3 million. There was a recession in 2002, but since the full enactment of the Bush tax cuts in the spring of 2003, nearly five million new jobs have been created. In the '70s unemployment began to rise, growing during the Carter presidency and peaking at 10.8% in 1982 in Reagan's second year. Reagan got it down to 5.3%, Clinton to 3.8%; today it stands at 4.7%, lower than the average for the 1970s, '80s and '90s. The famous "misery index"--inflation plus unemployment--annually averaged 13% from the late 1960s to 1982; since then it has averaged just 9%. Inflation peaked at more than 13% in the last year of the Carter administration; Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker drove it down to 3.2% by 1983. Under four presidents of two political parties--Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush--inflation has averaged just 3.1% for the past 23 years. Two decades of economic growth show up in the stock market too. The Dow Jones Industrial Average declined to 875 in 1981 from 995 in 1965; in the next 18 years it rose to 11497. Finally comes the share of the annual GDP spent by the federal government. It peaked at 23% in 1983 and fell to less than 19% in 2001 before Congress and President Bush began increasing it again. So how did all this progress come to pass? It was in fact president Reagan's 1981 tax reductions that turned America's kaleidoscope and began the economic revolution that has so greatly improved things over the past quarter century. Over four decades, income tax rate reductions have helped grow the economy. President Kennedy's tax cuts, proposed before his death and enacted in 1964, lowered the top marginal rate to 70% from 91%, and real economic growth jumped by more than 40%. Reagan's rate reduction to 28% raised real economic growth by one-third, and income tax receipts went up an average of 7% a year. President Bush's 2003 tax cuts lowered the rate to 35% from Mr. Clinton's 39.6% and created the economic growth that has increased tax revenues each year--by 5.5% in 2004 and 14.5%--the largest in a quarter century--in 2005. tll, All good points but it's not going to come to that. The USA is simply not going to lead on this. It's time for the UN to prove it's relevency. It's time for the EU to prove it deserves the voice they seem to think they deserve especially in Africa where they caused so many of the problems. GWBs focus and legacy is going to be in the Middle East and Asia. He is going to see Iraq through to a functioning Democracy, the reorientation of the State Department from Europe to Asia, the transition of the military toward smaller scale but more lethal mission capabilities and a dramatic expansion of trade arrangements. He will have dramatically moved away from the EU, Kyoto, the ABM treaty and replaced UN reliance with ad-hoc mission specific coalitions. He will have significant advanced North American Inc as the economies of Mexico and Canada are even more closely integrated as the USA increases imports of Canadian oil and gas and Mexican labor as we face severe job shortages. The completion of CAFTA will eventually extend North America Inc. down to Venezuela and include Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and possibly the countries of Meracur. He needs to finish all this and let the EU and UN make progess on Arica BEFORE he bailed them out. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINKhey McA, kindly limit your troop deployment fantasies to your own countrymen. Posted by: cleek on February 28, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK Why? Limit your oil use to your own country? We do and therefore worry less about the Mid East. Posted by: Mca on February 28, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINKthe transition of the military toward smaller scale but more lethal mission capabilities "More lethal"? You like to pretend to use military-sounding words, I guess, even when they aren't actually military terminology and don't actually make sense. Smaller scale but more lethal? We'll kill fewer people, but we'll make them more dead? Or our military will intervene in smaller arenas, but will make sure more of the people in those arenas are killed? If you're referring to shifting towards special forces operations rather than main force operations, the point isn't to be "more lethal". It's to be more effective and less disruptive. That doesn't necessarily involve killing more people, or killing more of the targeted people - it may mean capturing or simply incapacitating them. "More lethal" is just gibberish. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKLimit your oil use to your own country? We do Who is "we" this time? Malaysia? I thought you were in HK? OK, so Malaysia it is. Can you do us a favor and tell your leaders to please stop bribing ours? It only compounds the problems created by the narrow majority who were stupid enough to vote for a Republican. (Or actually, in the election that preceded your leader's Abramoff payment - what was it again, $1.2 million or something - the narrow minority who voted for a Republican; but the point stands.) Also, you might ask him to stop complaining about how the Zionist Jews control the media and politics, when he's making massive payments to the Zionist Jews who are doing their damnedest to control the media and politics. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKrdw: He's a key part of your history. So are Hitler, Stalin and Saddam. Being a "key" part in history is not the equivalent of being a success, being a moral person, or being right. Obviously, you are too stupid to really defend Bush with anything but simplistic and inane platitudes that don't demonstrate what you seek to demonstrate. GWB is the two-term President. So was Clinton. With higher approval ratings. And he didn't kill over 2000 American troops. And he didn't lie to our troops. And he didn't deny body armor to our troops in favor of his campaign contributor's pocket books. BY PETE DU PONT What a hoot! A dishonest rewrite of history by Du Pont is no less a lie than if it came from you. GWBs focus and legacy is going to be in the Middle East and Asia. Bush's legacy will be lies and failures. Roadmap to Nowhere. Every Child Left Behind. America's Trade Deficit with Asia destroying Middle America, while Bush was obsessed with phantom WMDs. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINKThe trolls get shriller by the day. They aren't worried by those poll numbers are they? hahahahahaha! GWB is the two-term President. So was Richard Nixon. Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 1, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINKOK, so Malaysia it is. Can you do us a favor and tell your leaders to please stop bribing ours? Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK 1. Malaysian citizen. 2. Why should we stop bribing your leaders, they ask for the money? Just like Gore and his paid 'hate America' speeches. And Clinton being paid to speak overseas and apologise for the cartoons. We were just showing respect for Washington culture. ---------- about how the Zionist Jews control the media and politics, when he's making massive payments to the Zionist Jews who are doing their damnedest to control the media and politics. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK Mahathir genuinely believes Jews control everything. So if he needed to get something done, why not pay a Jewish person? Henry Kissinger used to be pretty popular among Muslim countries as a paid adviser. By the way, how do you know Abramoff is Zionist, just because he's Jewish? Because if the Left assume all Jews are Zionist, then the anti-Zionist hate the Left spews forward looks anti-Semetic to me. Besides, this is Bush's final term. Him taking a few knocks to make Congress and McCain looks good, helps win 2008. Plus the UAE will compensate Bush with huge speaker fees post-retirement. Every Republican wins, the Dems look racist. All is well.
As Robert Samuelson recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, in the 13 years before 1981 there were four recessions lasting a total of 48 months. In the next 23 years--nearly twice as long--there were just two recessions, lasting 16 months. The watershed wasn't the election of Reagan, or his tax cuts. The really important development was the deregulation of the economy: petroleum price deregulation, natural gas, airline, transportation, banking. These were Carter initiatives. It was a shame that he didn't tout them as achievements when he ran for re-election. I sometimes think he might have been hoping that they were a kind of punishment for America, rather than a liberation of the economy. Also important was the tight money policy of Volker, whom Carter appointed. Posted by: republicrat on March 1, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINKAlso important was the tight money policy of Volker, whom Carter appointed. Volker was an outstanding pick I've given Carter credit for. Reagan kept him, reappointed him and most importantly supported him. When Paul was raising rates to 20% Reagan never put pressure on him to reverse course despite the fact it was killing him politically. Reagan understood inflation had to be reduced and he knew his tax cuts would eventually provide the economic stimulaton needed. The deficit spending didn't hurt either. That was the most interesting economic period of the last 50 years. According to a majority of eocnomists high inflation and high unemployment were not supposed to happen at the same time. We were also running trade and budget deficits. Reagan pulled off a miracle. Carter does deserve some credit for deregulating but only some. This is NOT why we've been in a long boom since 1982. It was a contributing factor but the key is supply-side economics and the dramatic reductions in marginal interest rates andthe restoration of market incentives to work, save and invest. Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 7:19 AM | PERMALINKrdw: This is NOT why we've been in a long boom since 1982. It was a contributing factor but the key is supply-side economics and the dramatic reductions in marginal interest rates andthe restoration of market incentives to work, save and invest. I see rdw is a practitioner of voodoo economics. It goes well with his voodoo foreign policy. Since voodoo priests are known for their skills in deception, this is not surprising. Lies flow from rdw like water over Niagra Falls. Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINKdramatic reductions in marginal interest rates s/b marginal tax rates Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINKrdw: s/b marginal tax rates No, voodoo economics is a sign of mariginal intelligence . . . Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINKrdw, in case you come back: Carter does deserve some credit for deregulating but only some. This is NOT why we've been in a long boom since 1982. It was a contributing factor but the key is supply-side economics and the dramatic reductions in marginal interest rates andthe restoration of market incentives to work, save and invest. Reagan adopted the phrase "supply-side economics", but the Carter deregulations did more to stimulate the supply side than the tax cuts did. The tax cuts stimulated the "demand side". The incentive to save and invest, in particular, followed most from the banking deregulation. Economically, the best achievements of the Reagan administration were: (1) continuing to push trucking deregulation, after thinking of stopping it; (2) keeping Paul Volker and not complaining about his tight money policy; (3) the tax reform of 1986, which has since been thoroughly trashed; (4) not giving in to the PATCO strikers. Carter's deregulationw were supported by a minority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. So it is not totally unfair for the Republicans to take credit for the good results. But on balance, Carter made a more important contribution than Reagan, IMHO. Since all these changes happened fairly close together, there is no way to be certain. Posted by: republicrat on March 1, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINKsnuh: what, no jokes about hanging chads? There was a young man from Chad, Who hanged himself as a lad, Now this was quite sad, this story from Chad, And thankfully it isn't a fad. Posted by: Per Your Request on March 2, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/instant-approval-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/airline-milescards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/business-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/gas-credit-cards.html"> /> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/low-insterest-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/american-express-creditcards.html"> /> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/chase-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/citibank-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/columbus-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/discover-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/hsbc-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/USbank-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/calculator-mortgage.html">calculator Chase master card Master Card Platinum Master Prepaid Master Citibank master Master Card credit cards Citi master Shell Master Card Orchard bank Gold Master Card Bad Credit HSBC master card Master credit card You can search, compare and apply for Low Interest Credit Reports credit Dish Network Satellite, If you are looking for best online insurance quotes, you might be interested Home equity loans Home href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.net">web href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com">affiliate href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com/affiliate-resources.html">affiliate Mp4 player Mp4 player Online travel reservation, travel href="http://www.travelsuper.com">discount href="http://www.travelswanted.com/san-francisco-hotels.html">san href="http://www.travelswanted.com/new-york-hotels.html">new href="http://www.travelswanted.com/toronto-hotels.html">toronto href="http://www.travelswanted.com/venice-hotels.html">venice href="http://www.travelswanted.com/thailand-hotels.html">thailand href="http://www.travelswanted.com/palm-springs-hotels.html">palm href="http://www.travelswanted.com/manhattan-hotels.html">manhattan href="http://www.best-web-hosts.be">best web hosting web 
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
