Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 1, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SO HOW ARE THINGS GOING ON THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR?.... The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress on Tuesday that "insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001." Sounds like we could use some more troops there.

Oh wait. We don't have any. They're all busy in Iraq, where, according to the Washington Post, "Salim Rashid, 34, a Shiite laborer in an overwhelmingly Sunni Arab village 20 miles north of Baghdad, received his eviction notice Friday from a man at the door with a rocket launcher." Sectarian attacks "surged" Tuesday, the story says.

In undoubtedly unrelated news, the Post also reports that Republicans are busily abandoning George Bush on national security issues. Or maybe it's not unrelated after all: "The repetition of the news coming out of Iraq is wearing folks down," says Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 campaign. "It started with women and it's spreading. It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."

Tis the winter of their discontent. But if I were them I wouldn't count on a glorious summer to follow. This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now. Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards.

Kevin Drum 2:03 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (161)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

In undoubtedly unrelated news, the Post also reports that Republicans are busily abandoning George Bush on national security issues.

*sigh* Why do Republicans hate America?

Or maybe it's not unrelated after all: "The repetition of the news coming out of Iraq is wearing folks down," says Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 campaign. "It started with women and it's spreading. It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."

*bigger sigh* Why does Scott Reed hate America? Why, how dare he say this in public? Doesn't he know the insurgents are listening and that any expression of doubt only further pumps them up? Doesn't he know that our troops are listening and that anything less than full-throated fanaticism makes them very, very sad?

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

"It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."

Liar, there is too a light at the end of the tunnel!

Oh, wait, my mistake. That wasn't a light, that was just the fireball from an exploding suicide bomber. Sorry about that....

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like we could use some more troops there.

Quick, the brave men and women of College Republicans to the rescue!

*sound of crickets chirping*

*offstage, a door swings lazily on its hinges, back and forth, back and forth, its creaking only emphasizing the stillness*

*a tumbleweed rolls across the floor*

Hey, uh, guys?.....

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

They're all busy in Iraq, where, according to the Washington Post, "Salim Rashid, 34, a Shiite laborer in an overwhelmingly Sunni Arab village 20 miles north of Baghdad, received his eviction notice Friday from a man at the door with a rocket launcher."

And you think the struggle for New York real estate is bad....

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: Sectarian attacks "surged" Tuesday

But I dont understand how this could be true. Egbert just told us two threads back that the Sunnis and Shiites are coming together and everything is dying down. There's gotta be some mistake because that egbert sure sounds like a smart fella.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 1, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now. Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards.

NOOOOO!!! Clap harder everyone, clap harder!!! You just have to clap harder and believe, that'll do it, just clap and clap and...oh, hell, fuck Tinkerbell. That bitch is dead.

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

I believe that's Dr. Egbert to you, jayarbee.

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK


hahaha


Posted by: jayarbee on March 1, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

On the brightside Riverbend is finally quiet.
Funny how Sunni behaviour has been ignored
for quite some time but Shiite's are played up.
Perhaps the Sunni's are anti-American enough to gain media support.

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022706G

Give war a chance!

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0227/p01s03-woiq.html?s=u

Now they tell me, no war! Make up their mind.

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

Iraq has gone completely to hell. It is not as if no one could have predicted it. Many of us did. Unfortunately those who didn't had the ears of those in power.

In a different world, by this time many of the neo-con architects of the Iraq war would have sulked away, disgraced. They would no longer have any political voice, especially with those charged with cleaning up their mess.

Alas, The bringers of the Iraq debacle are still in positions of influence,apparently never to be held to account. Many of the neo-cons have been given promotions. Others are making the argument that the Administration failed because it has not been ideologically pure enough.

All very amusing. A classic example of the power of faith over reality.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 1, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

On the brightside Riverbend is finally quiet.

Maybe she's too busy cowering in the corner while the guy points the rocket launcher at her.

I imagine if there is actually a full-scale civil war, she'll go pretty darn quiet indeed.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 1, 2006 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINK

of the power of faith over reality.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 1, 2006 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

And how many people did Saddam kill to stay in power per year? I think it was already hell.

I think if you ignore domestic oppression in your moral calculus and panic over any conflict, surrender to oppression seems to be the inevitable.

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINK

I still have a hard time believing this isn't a deliberate Rove strategy to enhance Republican chances in the 2006 elections by giving them an opportunity to 1) distance themselves from slumping Bush popularity, and 2) create a domestic homeland security issue where they can look tough without mentioning Iraq.

Posted by: tinfoil on March 1, 2006 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, Riverbend put up a new post yesterday.

So, by now we've probably killed around 100,000 Iraqis (that was the Lancet's reasonable guess two years ago, it may be on the low side now). They've killed quite a few of their own, and not a few of ours. Is this the result our leaders intended?

Atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant: they make a desolation and call it peace.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 3:59 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, Riverbend put up a new post yesterday.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 3:59 AM | PERMALINK

Its Wednesday here.

You have a point though. I'm wondering if moving terrorism closer to the source was an intentional strategy for bringing the consequences of this shit home to the 'moderate' Arabs, so they actually did something.

I mean, wouldn't a wave of Sunni's and Shiite killing each other bring home the Ghandi 'eye for an eye will make the whole world blind' thing to
the Middle East.

Probably not though. Arab/Muslim culture is incredibly hypocritical and xenophobic.

Posted by: Mca on March 1, 2006 at 4:08 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.againstbombing.com/childunicef.htm

Well UNICEF (using jump in mortality methodology like Lancet) put starvation deaths from sanctions at 4,500 per month. 500,000+ for ten years.

Good to know, you guys are ahead by about 5 to 1 in terms of lives saved.

Don't you believe UNICEF?

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK

"Tis the winter of their discontent. But if I were them I wouldn't count on a glorious summer to follow. This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now. Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards."

Kevin, you are just a grump. I think it must make you happy to be unhappy.

Posted by: dario siteros on March 1, 2006 at 4:20 AM | PERMALINK

Did anybody else see this quote from Bush's ABC interview? Apparently, the bar can always be lowered:

"I think the U.S. is better prepared than woefully unprepared."

Posted by: Kenji on March 1, 2006 at 4:55 AM | PERMALINK


BUSH: I think the U.S. is better prepared than woefully unprepared.

So what is one notch better than woefully unprepared? Pitifully unprepared? Well, when he's right, he's right.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 1, 2006 at 5:07 AM | PERMALINK

Bush is in Afghanistan. While Democrats bitch & whine...he's going to get lots of airtime with the troops. How does it feel to be an impotent political force?

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 5:25 AM | PERMALINK

He does say it in the ABC interview, but he's talking about Katrina.

Nevertheless, we ought to googlebomb it, so that woefully unprepared gets the same result as miserable failure. (Yeah, I know you can just google "failure" nowadays, but I'm a traditionalist.)

Posted by: bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 5:42 AM | PERMALINK

Oooh! The Progressives has Googlebombed Bush!
How effective.

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 5:52 AM | PERMALINK

Ooh, the president is getting airkisses from the troops! How effective!

Posted by: gay Nazi on March 1, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations...

Posted by: bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 6:07 AM | PERMALINK

How effective!

Posted by: gay Nazi on March 1, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

Whose sitting in the White House?

You libs can't even turn Dick's hunting accident into a scandal.

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

"You libs can't even turn Dick's hunting accident into a scandal."

Heh.

With Cheney's approval rating in the teens, that would just be guilding the lily.

Posted by: Joel on March 1, 2006 at 6:32 AM | PERMALINK

I see a large number of the 34% who worship the worst criminal president in history are still spreading their drivel around this blog. Very sad.

Salute as the ship goes down.....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 1, 2006 at 6:38 AM | PERMALINK

The president's chickens are coming home to roost. After all, hubris can only get you so far.

Posted by: Susan on March 1, 2006 at 6:53 AM | PERMALINK

This makes me sick at my stomach. The final insult from the truly soulless people who cheered and continued to defend Bush's actions: anyone who didn't support them is glad to see Iraq descend into a full-fledged civil war. How many people needlessly dead, how many lives ruined? Have you people no fucking shame?

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Remember the Old German Soldier tending the pigeons on the rooftop in "The Producers"?

Mein Fuhrer was sweet, Mein Fuhrer
was kind, and what a dancer! Hitler...
Now there was a painter. Two coats
in one afternoon!

Twenty years from now there might be a blockbuster broadway musical comedy about the Bush era.
Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
come and join the Republican Party

Posted by: aftertheflood on March 1, 2006 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK

Remember the Old German Soldier tending the pigeons on the rooftop in "The Producers"?

Mein Fuhrer was sweet, Mein Fuhrer
was kind, and what a dancer! Hitler...
Now there was a painter. Two coats
in one afternoon!

Twenty years from now there might be a blockbuster broadway musical comedy about the Bush era.
Don't be stupid, be a smarty,
come and join the Republican Party

Posted by: aftertheflood on March 1, 2006 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the duplicate post.

Posted by: aftertheflood on March 1, 2006 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

>Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards.

You meant to type:

"Jumping ship now just exposes their basic cowardice".

McA is absolutely frantic, isn't he? Up to the O'Reilly level of "Shut up, Shut up!!" when it comes to Riverbend.

Bush sucks, sucks, sucks, dude. Iraq blows and blows. And you can post as much delusional BS as you want and it's just funny, in a sad way, at this point.

Posted by: doesn't matter on March 1, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Liar, there is too a light at the end of the tunnel!

Stefan, that should be "LIAR!"

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 1, 2006 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

McAsshole speaks again.It must have eaten a very large meal as it seems to be regurgitating an unusually large volume of buulshit.

Posted by: gandalf on March 1, 2006 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

Oooh! The Progressives has Googlebombed Bush!
How effective.

Hey, there goes a circus clown tripping on acid...

How about that!

Posted by: obscure on March 1, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK
"The repetition of the news coming out of Iraq is wearing folks down," says Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 campaign. "It started with women and it's spreading. It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."

It is encouraging to see signs of reality-based response among Republicans...

Posted by: obscure on March 1, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

And you think the struggle for New York real estate is bad....
Posted by: Stefan

You really are my hero. No, I still can't send money.

>>>smiling wanly
^^^^^^^^

"I just got back from Vegas. You'd think the people in Las Vegas would be different than us here in New Orleans, but they're not.

They're all walking around saying, 'I lost everything. I lost the car. I lost the house ' "

Comic Jodi Borrello, performing in front of shipyard workers

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

The president's chickens are coming home to roost.
Posted by: Susan

Bird flu and all?

"FEMA says beads are on their way."

:-)

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

Did anybody else see this quote from Bush's ABC interview? Apparently, the bar can always be lowered:

"I think the U.S. is better prepared than woefully unprepared."
Posted by: Kenji

He's used to being graded on a curve. After all he used to see 'woefully unprepared' written across his tests and papers all the time. Didn't stop him from being graduated from Yale or Harvard Biz.

*******

LTTE in Today's LATimes

The Bush administration has made me nostalgic for a simpler time in the United States, a time when we had three branches of government. - JOHN FUREY, Sherman Oaks

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

McA:"and how many people did Saddam kill to stay in power per year?"

No need to kill more then a few hundred a year; his reputation was well established.

"I think it was already hell."

Not for a conservative who likes state power and repression. You would have LOVED it!

Posted by: Joey Giraud on March 1, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Tis the winter of their discontent. But if I were them I wouldn't count on a glorious summer to follow. This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now.

I'm guessing the Republicans aren't too worried. To be sure, they know they can always--ALWAYS--count on the Beltway mainstream media elite to stand firmly at their side.

Posted by: Moonlight on March 1, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

The Bush administration has made me nostalgic for a simpler time in the United States, a time when we had three branches of government. - JOHN FUREY, Sherman Oaks

Heh! Usually, I hate those one-sentence LTTE...

"Chicago has shown that it can really pull up its White Sox."
"The Dubai deal is any old storm over a port."
"Fahrenheit 9-11 is Moore ado about nothing."

...ugh...

...but that one was a keeper, CF.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Twiggie is in Afghanville.

Did he take a Perrazi .28 to hunt bustards, or a M-16, or perhaps a borrowed AK-47 to hunt bastards?

Our little boy King on point.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 1, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

SS: Heh! Usually, I hate those one-sentence LTTE...

Good morning.

Me, too. But every now and again you find one that's a perfect little zinger. It's like panning for gold. Most of it is dross. I've kept this one, too.


Face it, George W. Bush has performed the miracle of making Reagan look like a good president.
Richard Starnes - Palm Springs

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

You mean there are insurgents in Afganistan????

So when do Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean demand a withdrawal????

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 1, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

During the run-up to war, the #3 question I was asking, after "Why Iraq? Exactly what makes them our #1 threat?" and "How do we know Iraq won't degenerate into civil war after we depose Saddam, install Chalabi (remember him?) as president, and leave?", was "Why can't we at least wait one more year, to get Afghanistan nailed down, and do some serious work (NK, Iran) on the nonproliferation front?"

Each question has only looked better with the passage of time.

Posted by: RT on March 1, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Why can't we at least wait one more year, to get Afghanistan nailed down, and do some serious work (NK, Iran) on the nonproliferation front?"

Posted by: RT on March 1, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Iraq was the serious work on the non-proliferation front. They got bombed for not allowing inspectors in and proving they had no WMD. Burden on proof on them according to treaty at end of first war.

Posted by: mca on March 1, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote:

the Post also reports that Republicans are busily abandoning George Bush on national security issues.

Shorter Repubs: It was the implementation of our agenda by Dubya that's wrong, not the agenda itself.

When will the rightwing intellectual elite will realize that their ideological baby, the mishmash of tortured logic and wishful thinking called 'neoconservatism', was stillborn?

Actually, that statement is incorrect. The phrase 'rightwing intellectual elite' is an oxymoron.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

"Face it, George W. Bush has performed the miracle of making Reagan look like a good president.
Richard Starnes - Palm Springs"

Well, almost. Iran-Contra remains a major 20th century assault on the Constitution. It's more like Bush makes Reagan look like a typical Republican president.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 1, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

I'm wondering if moving terrorism closer to the source was an intentional strategy

Ahhh, McA, always searching for raisins in the turd. You are the best straight man ever!

How does it feel to be an impotent political force?

And this - THIS from a guy who gets his rocks off living in malaiseia but trolling on an American newsgroup about american politics?!

It is just too rich. You're killing me. I'm telling you, you can't make this crap up.

Bwahahahahahahahaha. (wipes tear from eye)

I really do have to thank you. Even in this bad time I guess I can take solace from one thing - at least I'm not you.

But, hey, someone has to be the bad example, right?

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Well, almost. Iran-Contra remains a major 20th century assault on the Constitution. It's more like Bush makes Reagan look like a typical Republican president.
Posted by: Ace Franze

I concur. Wish I could show you the letter I got from then Rep. John Breaux's office in reponse to my letter asking why it was that instead of calling for Teflon-in-Chief's impeachment he was acting as chief apologist.

But our current Executive-in-Thief is now acting in open unilateral violation of the NPT re India, too. Abrogating international treaties to which this country is not merely a signatory but also on the high council?

Gadzooks!

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Paddy Whack,

So when do Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean demand a withdrawal????

Ummm, try to keep up, dear. The withdrawal began in 2003. It was Bush's idea.

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Bush is in Afghanistan. While Democrats bitch & whine...he's going to get lots of airtime with the troops.

Hey, it's only twenty-five years too late, but Bush finally, finally got himself to a combat zone....

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Really, Kevin, you should listen to the people posting here.

According to someone opining the other day, the Taliban are no longer in Afghanistan, so there can't be any "insurgents" there.

They are all in Pakistan and only make cross-border raids.

Hundreds of miles into Afghanistan over the mountains mind you, but nevertheless mere cross-border raids only.

And Cheney has said, repeatedly mind you, that the insurgents are desperate and on their last legs - and we know how competent Dickless is when it comes to military matters.

You are just a nattering naboob of negativity.

After all, the focus is Asia, the Far East, where Bush is laying the groundwork for a new era of peace, prosperity, and bad English.

rdw says so, so it must be true!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Paddy Whack: You mean there are insurgents in Afganistan????

So when do Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean demand a withdrawal????

A better question would be, "what properties of a wingnut's brain cause it to spew out total fabrications of their opponents' positions?"

McA: Give war a chance!

Done did. Any thoughts?

Posted by: RT on March 1, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Iraq was the serious work on the non-proliferation front. They got bombed for not allowing inspectors in and proving they had no WMD. Burden on proof on them according to treaty at end of first war.

Lies and the lying liars....Here in the reality-based world, Saddam did let the inspectors in. Remember, it was in all the papers? The inspectors withdrew under pressure from Bush, who was frantic that they were going to establish that Iraq did not, in fact, have WMD.


Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

McA: "Iraq was the serious work on the non-proliferation front. They got bombed for not allowing inspectors in and proving they had no WMD. Burden on proof on them according to treaty at end of first war."

Damn that's dumb even for you, McA. The inspectors *were* in, *were* getting access where they needed and *were* reporting no WMD. Until *Bush* kicked them out.

Posted by: chaboard on March 1, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

The inspectors *were* in, *were* getting access where they needed

Posted by: chaboard on March 1, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Really. I watched that and they didn't get full
cooperation, in particular they weren't allowed to interview people overseas.

Fact is you can't accept half cooperation.

If not you set the precedent that you'll have an invasion force ready before you even get half cooperation in WMD enforcement.

Unless you think you can deploy invasion forces in the long term without strain in several places 'round the world and keep bring 'em back- it doesn't work.

-------------

McA: Give war a chance!

Posted by: RT on March 1, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

More war first! Sanctions got ten years.

The next step is withdrawal followed by nuclear genocide the next time something big goes off e.g. the French plan.

I'll take war over that.

If the cartoon bash of Denmark teaches you one thing. Being peaceful and tolerant doesn't protect you any....


Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

it's been well documented that saddam financed 9/11. along with, um, iran, and um, syria. yeah, that's the ticket

Posted by: mcSocrates on March 1, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

and the reason saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in was because he had all those WMDs that we found. i'm the smartest one in my family!

Posted by: mcSocrates on March 1, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

the cartoon bash of Denmark teaches you one thing. Being peaceful and tolerant doesn't protect you any

Denmark has troops in Iraq, Lord Churchill.

Posted by: benjoya on March 1, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Mca on March 1, 2006 at 4:08 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 5:25 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 5:52 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: mca on March 1, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK


Ok, this is becoming ridiculous. We have a single night-time spew-bot repeating Republican talking points who ends up responsible for more than 15% of the comments on a single thread.

Posted by: Constantine on March 1, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

I don't mind him being a spew-bot, but I am taken aback by the level of psychosis. I would pay top Yankee dollah to get a look at the person/people behind McA. With armed guards next to me, of course.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: I watched that and they didn't get full cooperation, in particular they weren't allowed to interview people overseas.

Iraq is responsible for people in Iraq, not people "overseas" whatever the hell that means.

Unless you think you can deploy invasion forces in the long term without strain in several places 'round the world and keep bring 'em back- it doesn't work.

Yeah, losing over 2000 troops and spending more than $200 billion is no strain at all - much more cost effective than $5-10 million to post an invasion force as an incentive.

Myself, I always try to spend 100s of times more for something than I have to.

Looks like McAnus follows this practice too.

Sanctions got ten years.

And worked. Making you and Bush liars.

I'll take war over that.

No, you'll take war over anything because you don't have to fight it or lose anyone to it.

Being peaceful and tolerant doesn't protect you any....

Neither did invading Iraq. The violence in response to the cartoons happened anyway. Nobody feared the consequences of that violence, which is what Bush and McAnus said would exist if we just took strong action, no matter how immoral or dishonest, and talked big.

Didn't work out.

Al Queda didn't fall to its knees in the face of Bush's alleged show of strength and beg to be spared.

You are too stupid for words, McAnus.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think McA is sentient enough to be psychotic, shortstop. He's just plain stupid. Unable to learn.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 1, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Ace: He's just plain stupid. Unable to learn.

Quite like the man he worships so much, George Bush.

Birds of a feather and all that.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Concerning The CinThief's dedication to nonproliferation and the rule of law and the Constitutional division of powers and all that other useless stuff he's unilaterally jettisoned:


http://www.slate.com/id/2137105/
The President's Indian Fantasy/Fred Kaplan/Slate,com/28Feb06

....

"But a few things are worth noting. First, the United States has no authority to grant such an exemption on its own. The NPT is a treaty signed by 187 nations; it is enforced by the International Atomic Energy Agency; and it is, in effect, administered by the five nations that the treaty recognizes as nuclear powers (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France). This point is not a legal nicety. If the United States can cut a separate deal with India, what is to prevent China or Russia from doing the same with Pakistan or Iran? If India demands special treatment on the grounds that it's a stable democracy, what is to keep Japan, Brazil, or Germany from picking up on the precedent?

Second, the India deal would violate not just international agreements but also several U.S. laws regulating the export of nuclear materials.

In other words, an American president who sought to make this deal would, or should, detect a myriad of political actors that might protest or block itmainly the U.N. Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, and the U.S. Congress. Not just as a legal principle but also as a practical consideration, these actors must be notified, cajoled, mollified, or otherwise bargained with if the deal has a chance of coming to life.

The amazing thing is, President Bush just went ahead and made the pledge, without so much as the pretense of consultationas if all these actors, with their prerogatives over treaties and laws (to say nothing of their concerns for very real dilemmas), didn't exist."

....

>>>yelping in dismay

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

If the next week passes without major incident, the Taliban will be forced to surrender, and Afghanistan will become a tourist attraction.

Just like in Iraq, where in a week, the Shias and Sunnis will sign a peace accord that will end 1200 years of fighting bewteen the two Islamic factions, provided that no other major incident of violence occurs in the next seven days.

Posted by: lib on March 1, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

I'll take war over that.Posted by: McA on March 1, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Well then, get your ass over here and enlist. One needn't be a citizen to join the armed forces. Hell, if you tell the recruiters everything you have said here, they would be happy to send a Bush enthusiast such as yourself to boost the morale of the front lines.

Face it, McA. You are another chickenshit clammoring for war - as long as you personally are not at risk. As long as your ass is not on the line, war is a game.

So..rather than respond with more of your stupider-than-usual blather, just put your money where your mouth is and join the American Armed Forces (no citizenship requirement). Otherwise shut the fuck up. You got nothing.

Posted by: jcricket on March 1, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

but i saw the longest day like, 4 times!

Posted by: mcSocrates on March 1, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

What the right wing needs right now is a martyr. I nominate McA. I have forwarded his ip adress and comments to a couple of radical Malayasian mullahs. Let the games begin.

Posted by: Mc Mullah on March 1, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

In other words, an American president who sought to make this deal would, or should, detect a myriad of political actors that might protest or block itmainly the U.N. Security Council, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, and the U.S. Congress.

Well, except that the UN Security Council, as the US President controls a veto there, isn't ever going to do anything to actively block a US President.

I don't think the NSG, either, has any power to actively block anything; it is, as I understand, a discussion group that relies on the IAEA (and, therefore, ultimately the UN SC) for action.

So its Congress and the threat of foreign retaliation, here.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

What the right wing needs right now is a martyr. I nominate McA. I have forwarded his ip adress and comments to a couple of radical Malayasian mullahs. Let the games begin.

Posted by: Mc Mullah

Happy days!

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

[U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno] wrote, "those Cuban refugees who reached American soil in early January 2006 were removed to Cuba illegally."

For all their bluster about Elian and their demand that Al Gore deliberately violate US law in the matter, here we have the administration splitting hairs to send desperate Cubans back to Castro - not one boy which the law required to be sent back, but 15 bona fide political refugees which the law said must be allowed to stay.

Shameless, shameless hypocrisy that a federal judge had to order the Bush administration to comply with the law in this matter.

Why do the Bushes and their conservative lemming followers hate Cubans on every occasion except when they can use it against a political opponent?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

Americanist:

> We. did. not. invade. Iraq. because. of. Zarqawi.

You know, this isn't essential for the point I wanted to make, but it
happens to be some nice smooth, creamy gravy: You're wrong, Sparky.

Zarqawi was *a central part* of our reason to invade Iraq, because
Iraq allegedly harbored international terrorists. You remember all
the discussion before the war about how fugitive from justice Zarqawi
got medical treatement in Baghdad for his amputated leg? I also read
that we had an opportunity to take Zarqawi out with a cruise missile
or something, and *we didn't*. Why? Because it was decided that
he was *needed* to *make the case* that Iraq harbors terrorists!

> Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. He is on trial for his
> life. This is a result that tyrants have been known to fear.
> It was caused by, among others, the 82nd Airborne Division.

And if taking out Saddam was the valid metric of winning this war,
we'd be home by now. Murtha believes it's the only valid *military*
metric -- the one which does honor and justice to the 82nd -- and
he is, of course, correct. But obviously we have another problem
now with an insurgency -- and insurgencies are *all about* playing
rope-a-dope with bigfoot foreign military presences in the homeland.

> Okay, now just in case Bob isn't the chewtoy and bullshit artist
> he shows himself to be around here, observe the nature of his
> 'argument', such as it is: in pointing out that Saddam's case
> (among others) provides a very good reason for folks like Saddam
> to fear the 82nd Airborne, I wasn't exactly going out on a limb,
> being as how Saddam is on trial, not in one of his palaces.

And there are several reasons why this Fox News conventional wisdom
is flat-out wrong. First, because actual states (leaving aside
failed states like Taliban Afghanistan) do not sponsor or harbor al
Qaeda-style international jihad. In fact, the Muslim states in which
sectors of their publics are the most sympathetic to the ol' Sayyid
Qutb bullshit (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) are the ones
whose governments have the most to fear from it, and who are thus our
strongest Muslim allies in the GWoT. This is why all the handwringing
over the UAE as a "terrorist sponsor" is so misplaced. Nobody has
more to fear from Osama & Co. than Gulf oil shiekhs, including us.

Secondly, because the neocons, to obtain a foreign policy objective
that is secondary to America's, have deliberately conflated the
state-sponsored terrorism that does occur in the Mideast with al
Qaeda. The struggle for Israel against Palestine is a US national
interest, but not a vital one. But the neocons are hardcore Zionists
(both Jewish and Christian, like Feith) who have conflated our
vital national interest with Israel's. While it's not convential
wisdom, I believe this is deeply unpatriotic. Israel, with
the most sophisticated military and intelligence in the region,
is more than capable of dealing with its existential threats.

Of course, even saying this puts me in jeopardy of being called
anti-semitic, which is like calling Israel's Peace Now anti-semitic.

> Bob's response, though, is based on the idea [...]

And once again, you need to twist what I write out of recognition
into an absurd straw man (attempt to tell me what I think, indeed
-- you could try quoting it, asswipe), because you're more interested
in playing doggy dominance games ("Sparky! Bad dog! Get off Mr.
Henderson's leg!") than having a reasonable discussion.

You know, you are going to rue the day you ever called me a chewtoy,
Sparky. An ill-mannered dog is a much more stinging metaphor :)

So to sum up what I *actually* think:

Yes, we can invade Iraq and send the Fear of a Christian Gawd
into the hearts of any state in the Mideast that would like to
make mischief -- but the mischief likely to be made is against
Israel. So you have to question whether all that American blood
and treasure was worth making this point. I'd argue it wasn't.

What you can't do is use the 82nd Airborne to deter al Qaeda, when
al Qaeda's stated ideological goal is to provoke a war with the West.

Capice?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 1, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

an opinion most of you will find amusing:


http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88747

Posted by: republicrat on March 1, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

"It started with women and it's spreading..."

It started with women??? Huh?

Can someone tell me what the hell that's supposed to mean??

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK
What you can't do is use the 82nd Airborne to deter al Qaeda, when al Qaeda's stated ideological goal is to provoke a war with the West.

To nitpick a bit, that's not really a stated goal, so much as an explicit premise -- al-Qaeda claims that a war between the West and Islam ahs existed in fact for quite some time. Of course, the US invading countries with no substantial al-Qaeda connection while claiming the war is not with Islam but a continuing response to 9/11 certainly reinforces that propaganda premise.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0: Can someone tell me what the hell that's supposed to mean??

I suspect, given that Bush polls far better among American males than females, that conservative American females were among the first to abandon him and conservative American males will be the last.

Conservative American males are all about bluster - the bigger the blusterer the better.

Talk is cheap and conservative American males if anything are cheap.

That's why Reagan and Bush 43 are so appealing to them, whereas Bush 41 not so much. Bush 41 was simply not a tough talker.

Tough talk, no matter how ineffective in actually accomplishing anything, means a lot to the conservative American male.

It's more commonly referred to as "smack" and it is a ritualism as ingrained in the conservative American male as their perception of their own superiority over women.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

"*sigh* Why do Republicans hate America?"

Stefan, I love you.

Posted by: EM on March 1, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0: It started with women??? Huh?

Can someone tell me what the hell that's supposed to mean??

I wondered the same thing. I took it to mean the war dissatisfaction started largely with women and now has spread to diehard male Bushco supporters. But knowing this crowd, this could as easily be just another swipe at Eve.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

"On the brightside Riverbend is finally quiet"

As we have previously established, McAsshole, you don't (or can't) read Riverbend. You have no idea what she says, and merely make up lies about things she has never posted. What must it be like to be a complete moral failure such as you? I understand the qualification level to suck Bush's dick is low enough to let even people like you enjoy that pastime, but your idiocy doesn't survive contact with the real world.

This is what happens when the Republican party outsources its internet troll business- they end up with the dregs of other nations' mental hospitals and sex crime prison wings.

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

"It started with women and it's spreading..."

It started with women??? Huh?

Can someone tell me what the hell that's supposed to mean??

i imagine what it means is: by turning away from bush, america is turning away from its own manhood, which anatomically is even harder than cheneying itself. (we seem to be doing that, as well.)

Posted by: benjoya on March 1, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, the US invading countries with no substantial al-Qaeda connection while claiming the war is not with Islam but a continuing response to 9/11 certainly reinforces that propaganda premise.


Bush has been nothing if not consistent in promoting Al Queda's interests.

He's played into the hands of the terrorists at every opportunity.

He will continue to do so.

Despite the opinion of some Indians that he is a brilliant man in disguise, his brilliance obscured only by the liberal propaganda machine.

As if conservatives had no propaganda machine of their own - who would have thought that conservatives were so ineffectual that they are continually marginalized in affecting popular opinion by the liberal propaganda machine!

It reminds one of the conservative argument that plaintiffs' attorneys have skewed the justice system, necessarily adopting the implicit premise that defendants, usually insurance companies, have no attorneys of their own, or have less access to or influence over jurors, or have less access to or influence over judges.

It is simply astounding that all the really good attorneys become plaintiffs' attorneys and that one plaintiffs' attorney is worth two or three insurance defense attorneys with higher litigation budgets.

It is equally astounding that the MSM has all the really good journalists and that one MSM journalist is more influential than all of the conservative journalists combined with a higher conservative propaganda budget.

Astounding, I tell you!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 1, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

republicrat: an opinion most of you will find amusing: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88747

Ooh, a link to a worshipful Bush-paen by a freeper from India.

We've got plenty of foreign-based Bush cultists around here already without needing links to another one, thanks.

Posted by: S Ra on March 1, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop,

I guess that was pretty much my interpretation too, but it certainly wasn't clear to me that women were the first to turn against the Iraq war.

I guess I would have always thought that there'd be fewer women in favor of the war from the outset, but I'm not sure I'd think their rate of disaffection would be greater. It would be good to see some analysis that supports the claim.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

This is what happens when the Republican party outsources its internet troll business- they end up with the dregs of other nations' mental hospitals and sex crime prison wings.

Damn funny!

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

"It started with women and it's spreading."

damn women ruin everything.

Posted by: EM on March 1, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

frankly, baby, you know analysis is not the GOP's forte. I'm just guessing at this dude's intended meaning!

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

really, frankly, it's just a rhetorical device to make bush seem like a man's man. in a manly, general JC christian way, of course.

Posted by: benjoya on March 1, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

The Post also reports that Republicans are busily abandoning George Bush on national security issues. [...] This has been their show for the past five years, and it's their show now. Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards.

The democrats almost completely supported the war on Iraq. As did this blogger. This is their show too. The just all jumped ship earlier. Remember, it's the implementation of Bush's Iraq policy, so sayeth the liberal hawks. So maybe some Repubs are joining the choir.

Posted by: luci on March 1, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Don't know quite what came over me. It was a moment of weakness.

There's a humongous SUV belonging to one of my neighbors. This thing is clearly in contravention of the maximum magnet ribbons per gas-guzzling roadmonster.

Started innocuously enough with one or two. Soon got to where he had 30 or so of the things. Soon it became apparent that we need a Magnetic Ribbon Non-Proliferation Treaty (MRNPT) limiting this kind of thing if for no other reasn than that all these things were clearly raising the drag coefficient and lowering the already appalling mpg of this behemoth by at least .5mpg.

It was clear that an intervention was calling for. Guy just couldn't help himself.

I went out to take the recycling bins to the curb late one evening and the alley was quiet. I crept to his parking place on little cat's feet and rearranged his collection into a peace symbol on the SUV's spacious hood. You could put an above-ground pool on some of these things and still have room for patio furniture, so space wasn't an issue.

Next morning he'd cut back to two of the things.

Mission accomplished.


Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Re. the Indian Express article.

At the bottom it says: [The author] ' is CEO of MPhasis'.

Go to the website www.Mphasis.com and you will get your answer.

Hell even I will start praising GWB's brilliance if I own a company that makes a few mils a year doing outsourced work for USA from some hellhole in Bangalore.

Posted by: lib on March 1, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK
I suspect, given that Bush polls far better among American males than females, that conservative American females were among the first to abandon him and conservative American males will be the last.

Well, the recent CBS News poll shows that self-identified "conservatives" are turning away from Bush notably faster than self-identified "Republicans" (the groups, naturally, overlap considerably, but they aren't identical).

I think that the last group supporting Bush will be male "tribal Republicans" -- that is, those that support the Republican party not, like conservatives, out of an ideological preference, but simply out of group identity.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

CFShep,

a peace symbol on the SUV's spacious hood.

Awesome. I've been trying to think up a creative idea for a bumper sticker I see in our company parking lot. It says something like "Hey, it's "One nation UNDER GOD" or kiss my ass and leave."

The dude (you just know he's a dude, right) also has some University of Kentucky stickers, so that tells you something right there, doesn't it?

I've imagined something like "Go back to KY and marry your sister, redneck!" but that seems a bit harsh.

I'm open to suggestions.

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think that the last group supporting Bush will be male "tribal Republicans" -- that is, those that support the Republican party not, like conservatives, out of an ideological preference, but simply out of group identity.

That will be the second-to-last group. The final hangers-on will be the few who are actually profiting by this kleptocracy, rather than the larger group which just thought it would.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm open to suggestions.

Here's one. Stop stereotypically maligning Kentuckians for incest, when it's West Virginians who are the big problem in that department. Hee.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think that the last group supporting Bush will be male "tribal Republicans" -- that is, those that support the Republican party not, like conservatives, out of an ideological preference, but simply out of group identity.

Word. Consider our beloved trolls, and how they gloat about their perception that the GOP is "winning" and that Democrats/liberals/"The Left"/whoever are losing. (A constant refrain is "winning elections," a strange claim for a triumphalist given how historically close 2004 was, and how Gore in fact won the general election and the decisive majority of votes in Florida, if the "clear intent of the voter" standard had been applied to overvotes, as it should have been.)

Frankly, this boasting impresses me not at all. I certainly agree that the feckless Democratic Party may yet again find a way to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory, but that possibility hardly makes the GOP and its agenda popular -- after all, if it were, it'd hardly have to go to the lengths it does to distort both its agenda and its opponsents'.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK
I'm wondering if moving terrorism closer to the source was an intentional strategy for bringing the consequences of this shit home to the 'moderate' Arabs, so they actually did something.

So, what you are saying is that maybe Bush deliberately sought to create the general war between the Arab world and the West that al-Qaeda likes to pretend exists, in order to provoke the moderate Arabs to "do something".

And, apparently, you think that its rational to expect that "something" they would "do" would not be directed against the external enemy that is deliberately harming them.

Interesting theory.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, this is becoming ridiculous. We have a single night-time spew-bot repeating Republican talking points who ends up responsible for more than 15% of the comments on a single thread.

What do you expect, do you think McA has a life or anything better to do with his time? Please!

Posted by: Oen Cidi on March 1, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm open to suggestions."

Key his car in the shape of little angels and the American flag.

Posted by: EM on March 1, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Key his car in the shape of little angels and the American flag.

I hope that was a joke. Rearranging magnets are one thing, but as John Travolta observed in Pulp Fiction, keying a car is a pathetic, cowardly act. Let's leave that sort of thing to the Republicans.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

Well, out of fairness, I stereotyped U of KY grads with vulgar stickers on their trucks, and I avoided the "nice tooth" joke which speaks more about poverty than bigotry and while funny is also mean.

But I take your point. I was sorta thinking of getting a PETA magnet and putting that on the truck. It would cause no permanent harm.

I could also narc him out to the company PC patrol but that is also pretty harsh.

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of "schadenfreude," I noticed while filling up my little Focus the previous gas pumper had a bill of $77.00. Ouch.

When the weather's better and I'm driving my Zuma I love to go inside to pay my $2.00 bill.

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm open to suggestions.
Posted by: Tripp

I'll give that due consideration.

I would never offer up any suggestion which included defacing/vandalising other people's property. I go for subversive. And funny.

SUV guy regards me suspiciously anyway. It might be the "That man is still not my president" bumper sticker. Or it might be the WWOZ - music of New Orleans one. Never can tell.

"Drove My Chevy to the Levee, but the Levee Was Gone"

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, yes, it was a joke. Settle down.

Posted by: EM on March 1, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK
That will be the second-to-last group. The final hangers-on will be the few who are actually profiting by this kleptocracy, rather than the larger group which just thought it would.

My impression is that they are largely intelligent enough (despite ill motives) to read the writing on the wall, and jump ship sooner, looking for some rising brand to tie their fortunes to. The "tribals", I expect, will be like the people you still occasionally see (and often, probably, the exact same people!) talking about how Nixon was treated unfairly.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

There was no point, Tripp. I was making a joke. My mom is a UK grad and I gig her all the time about it.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

another visitor reports here:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18977/article_detail.asp

Posted by: republicrat on March 1, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

You may be right, cmdicely. Actually, it's been seeming to me that this Dubai deal and some of the other recent outrages are just the plutocracy going for its last brazen smash-and-grab before the whole thing comes tumbling down.

The really smart ones no doubt realized long ago that hitching their wagons to a "moderate Republican" star is the next step. But so many of them have demonstrated for so long that they can't look six seconds down the road...well, who knows?

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

My mom is a UK grad and I gig her all the time about it.
Posted by: shortstop

Their 'football team' alone....

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Please. I've been asked to leave family gatherings for singing the Tennessee fight song. I never even got to the cheating at basketball part.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Best keying scene ever was in the French film, "Pardon mon Affaire".

Wasn't Northern Dancer bred to several of his daughters? Of course, he was Canadian, but he stood for many years in Kentucky. Ah, those wild times around Keeneland.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 1, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

gratutious "last throes" comments anyone???

Posted by: ET on March 1, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Thay are all cowards, which is why they chose war. War is cowardly. Real men choose diplomacy.

Posted by: Hostile on March 1, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, it's "One nation UNDER GOD" or kiss my ass and leave.

Any chance you could replace it with a carefully drafted reproduction?

Hey, chewbacca UNDER-OOS are so kick ass tight weave

Hey, It's a free nation, IT's MY DOG, it's my ass, no reprieve

Posted by: tt on March 1, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

"One nation UNDER GOD"

Why do the Repugs love the missionary position so much?

Posted by: stupid git on March 1, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Who said "under" means "missionary"?

Posted by: not shortstop, that's for sure on March 1, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

One nation UNDER GOD"

Why do the Repugs love the missionary position so much?

Posted by: stupid git on March 1, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Doggy style is more like it.

Did I just say that???

Posted by: EM on March 1, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

>Wasn't Northern Dancer bred to several of his daughters? Of course, he was Canadian, but he stood for many years in Kentucky. Ah, those wild times around Keeneland.

In fairness, KY has nothing on most any royal family in the world. I recently pointed out to my fiancee that her king's father was the product of a two half-siblings marriage. I probably only avoided being smacked by virtue of being in a different country at the time. :)

Posted by: MJ Memphis on March 1, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

as John Travolta observed in Pulp Fiction, keying a car is a pathetic, cowardly act. Let's leave that sort of thing to the Republicans.

Yeah.

I once rented a car, and had it keyed. I had parked it outside my own house, where parking is allowed, but the street is narrow enough that one has to overlap the car a bit onto the walkway. My inference is that some pedestrian was offended that he had to walk on the open side of the walkway, instead of down the middle.

Expense out of my own pocket when I returned the car?

Over $1,000.

I wanted to punch that evil self righteous little shit into an insensible heap of carrion.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of doggie style -- anyone ever see the old cartoon in The Realist of a prone Uncle Sam with a pained and horrifed expressing on his face, his pants around his ankles, and a wild-eyed, crazy-bearded Jehovah over him, slamming away?

Caption (natch): "One nation under God." And this was in the mid-60s.

cmdicely:

Nitpick noted. Call it the mother of all self-fulfilling prophecies.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 1, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK


LIB: Hell even I will start praising GWB's brilliance if I own a company that makes a few mils a year

Yeah, everybody has a price. To your credit, yours is higher than most. Meanwhile, keep quiet about Bush's brilliance, okay? He's not that smart--though, I do think he is more brilliant than woefully unbrilliant.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 1, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

"The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress on Tuesday that "insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001." Sounds like we could use some more troops there.

Oh wait. We don't have any."

No, wait! I'm confused. Isn't the standard leftie line that it's our Allies who should supply the troops. What happened to that meme?

Hard to keep track some times. Although as long as we're just sniping from the sidelines, who cares about consistency?

Posted by: news on March 1, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK
No, wait! I'm confused.

Clearly.

Isn't the standard leftie line that it's our Allies who should supply the troops.

Nope. Never has been. There isn't a "standard leftie line" at all, and that's never been even a particularly common line on the left with regard to the needs of the mission in Afghanistan.

What happened to that meme?

It never existed.

Hard to keep track some times.

Only because you aren't paying attention.

Although as long as we're just sniping from the sidelines, who cares about consistency?

Well, clearly, you don't care that your sniping is inconsistent with the facts.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, yes, it was a joke. Settle down.

No worries, EM, but I'd have hoped the fact that I cited Pulp Fiction would have indicated that I suspected it was a joke. ;)

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Full disclosure for Tripp and Shortstop: my alma mater is the University of Louisville. (Go Cards!) ;)

Sorta explains why I can't throw a basketball in the ocean. :P

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

>Wasn't Northern Dancer bred to several of his daughters? Of course, he was Canadian, but he stood for many years in Kentucky. Ah, those wild times around Keeneland.

No. Absolutely not.

Thoroughbreds are pretty inbred these days but it's 4x5 or 3x6 - stuff like that. That means that the line in common is 3 and 6 generations back on the line.

You'll see notation like this which happens to be Pulpit

Sired: Sky Mesa (dam by Storm Cat, 2nd dam by Affirmed, 4x4 Secretariat)

Geez!

His legs are barely long enough to keep his tail off the ground. He probably takes a hundred more strides than anyone else in the race, but he's harder to pass up than a third martini.
--Jim Murray on Northern Dancer


"I got the horse right here, his name is Paul Revere, and there's this guy who says if the weather's clear, he can do, he can do. This guy says the horse can do."

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum wrote:

Sounds like we could use some more troops there.

Actually, not only should there be more troops, but perhaps a change of policy in how the Pentagon uses those troops in Afghanistan...Similar to Iraq, post-Taliban Afghanistan is turning into a wreck. In this instance Afghanistan has turned into a de facto narco-state. From 60 Minutes:

Last year, according to the U.S. state department, 206,000 hectares were cultivated, a half a million acres, producing 4,000 tons of opium, most of which was converted into 400 tons of illegal morphine and heroin in laboratories around the country.
How much opium and heroin is that?
“It is not only the largest heroin producer in the world, 206,000 hectares is the largest amount of heroin or of any drug that I think has ever been produced by any one country in any given year,” says Robert Charles, who until last spring was assistant secretary of state for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, overseeing anti-drug operations in Afghanistan.
Charles says Afghanistan is producing more heroin than Colombia is producing cocaine.
Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai, who is considered honest and well intentioned, outlawed the cultivation and trafficking of opium three years ago, but has neither the power nor the prosecutors to enforce it.
Last June, his elite Afghan anti-drug force, trained and assisted by the British, raided the offices of Sher Muhammed Akhundzada, the Governor of Helmand Province, another warlord widely suspected of being involved in the drug trade.
They seized nine and a half tons on opium, but the investigation went nowhere.
But illegal profits from the opium and heroin trade are not only helping warlords and corrupt officials expand their influence over the government. There is evidence that some of the money is ending up with the Taliban and al Qaeda, who elicit tolls, protection money and drugs from traffickers in areas they control.

In the effort to remove the Taliban from power, the US backed local warlords who were involved in opium production...Some of the same people who became goverment officials in Afghanistan.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

In the effort to remove the Taliban from power, the US backed local warlords who were involved in opium production...Some of the same people who became goverment officials in Afghanistan.
Posted by: grape_crush

Except it didn't start with the Taliban. Started back when the Soviets were there. Arming/funding those guys was really, really smart. Soon as the Russians left they went after each other hammer and tong.

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 2:00 PM:

Except it didn't start with the Taliban. Started back when the Soviets were there.

Agreed; the Taliban had actually cut down opium production before they were ousted, 'tho whether that was due to religious reasons or to boost the market price is still in question.

Soon as the Russians left they went after each other hammer and tong.

Oh, it's been going on for longer than that; Afghanistan has been a center for opium production for centuries...'Hammer and tong' has been around for a while...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

grape, we pretty much have the same problem here in this country with methamphetimine. Corrupt officials in many counties, money going to warring gangs who kill each over territory. Granted the Afghan corruption may go a little further up the chain because of their culture, but does this mean that the US is on the verge of collapse?

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I see the wingnut rationalization has now flipped to "at least Afghanistan isn't as bad as the US!"

It would almost be funny if it weren't so frothing insane.

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Quote from Tennessee: "You mean to tell me the law says I can't sleep with MY OWN SISTER?!"

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 1, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, that is a completely relevant argument. The argument from the left here is that because someone has cherry picked some bad news from Afghanistan and coupled it with the widely known drug harvesting and trade, that all is lost in that country in their never ending quest to make GW look bad. Well, you can definitely cherry pick bad news out of this country as you can out of every country. Also, the US is the largest producer of methampehtimine which has been the result of corruption and death throughout this country. So, we could say the same thing about Afghanistan as we can about this country.

BTW, Karzai's speech today sounded as though he has a more positive take on his country than all of you do, what a surprise.

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Jay on March 1, 2006 at 2:41:

Granted the Afghan corruption may go a little further up the chain because of their culture, but does this mean that the US is on the verge of collapse?

Invalid comparison, Jay; apples and oranges...The illicit drug trade isn't a cornerstone of the US economy, a stable government is in place, foreign invasion/occupation, et cetera...

Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Also, the US is the largest producer of methampehtimine which has been the result of corruption and death throughout this country.

Jay, why do you hate America? Why do you slander the American people by saying they have a culture of corruption and death? (I don't know about you, but I think this great country has a culture of liberty and life!) Don't you know that terrorists read these blogs and are heartened when they hear bad news about our country? Why, if a terrorist finds out from you about the "corruption and death throughout this country," as you call it, then that might be all the encouragement he needs to plant a bomb or set off an IED, thereby killing an American soldier. Don't you know that that soldier's bloods will be on your hands, Jay, because you typed those words? On your hands!

Why do you always have to focus on the bad things about America, Jay, like our corrupt officials and warrings gangs and stupendous drug use? Why can't you ever focus on the good things, like the number of schools we paint here, or the hope in a young child's eyes, or our cute little kittens? I don't know where you come from, Jay (maybe the UAE?) but where I'm from, we don't trash-talk America!

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: Jay, why do you hate America?

You are trying to use irony to get a point across to the Deltas? I don't think that's going to work very well.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, it's been going on for longer than that; Afghanistan has been a center for opium production for centuries...'Hammer and tong' has been around for a while...
Posted by: grape_crush

Oh, honey. I know that. I've read "Flashman in the Great Game".

;-)

I meant to refer to the money and arms the US was funnelling to the mujahadeen (sp?).

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, honey. I know that. I've read "Flashman in the Great Game".

Hey, a fellow Flashman fan! I knew there was a reason I liked you!

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

And....another thing:

Northern Dancer stood at J. P. Taylor's stud farm in Maryland untill his death!

Maryland. Not Kentucky.

Stefan: Same at ya'. Flashie! Gottem all. And besides I'm just generally pretty likeable.

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, how trite!

grape, are you admitting that the current administration is stable? Also, the heroin production of Afghanistan is black market economy as it is here therefore not considered a cornerstone of the economy.

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: Also, the heroin production of Afghanistan is black market economy as it is here therefore not considered a cornerstone of the economy.

From the "60 Minutes" piece:

After 25 years of war, it is the countrys main cash crop, contributing nearly three billion dollars a year in illegal revenues to the Afghan economy, which equals 50 percent of the gross national product.

....But the best way to illustrate the sheer volume of the drug trade is to tour the basement vault underneath Afghanistans Counter Narcotics police in Kabul, where one and a half tons of heroin, just seized in the provinces, was awaiting destruction.

One and a half tons of pure heroin is much larger than the biggest shipment ever seized in the United States, and once cut and repackaged it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars on the streets of a western city.

Yet the seizure is less than one percent of all the heroin produced in Afghanistan last year, production which has increased more than 2,000 percent since 2001.

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

The rats can jump ship if they want.
But, they're still rats.

(credit to Lily Tomlin for that one)

Posted by: MarkH on March 1, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory,

Full disclosure for Tripp and Shortstop:

Shoot, it's not where you start but where you end up that matters. One line of my family tree runs smack dab into Poland.

I grew up in Illinois, and if you go far enough South in Illinois you'll start to hear the banjos.

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Shit-for-brains Stefan,
you yourself actually typed the words "illegal revenues". When the GDP of any country is determined, it is determined by "legal" economic activities. I think even the third grade class in Waukegon knows that Afghanistan is the worlds largest producer of heroin and has been for sometime, even before GW was President. Wow, imagine that.

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jay,

You seem to know an awful lot about this meth problem.

Corrupt officials in many counties, money going to warring gangs who kill each over territory.

Where exactly is this happening?

Posted by: Tripp on March 1, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, at various times.

3:57pm:

The argument from the left here is that because someone has cherry picked some bad news from Afghanistan and coupled it with the widely known drug harvesting and trade,

You mean that the uber-righty Washington Times is now considered 'leftist'?:

Afghanistan has re-emerged since the U.S.-led war as the world's leading source country for opium and heroin — rapidly returning to levels of the 1990s, when it produced about 70 percent of the world's illicit opium supply, a U.N. report says.
It is not clear what the resurgence in opium production will do to relationships between Afghan warlords and the U.S. military, which has enjoyed relative peace during the past several months. Opium production has been tightly controlled in the past by the warlords, whose militias still control much of the country.
There are concerns, however, that al Qaeda operatives have become involved in the opium trade, helping smugglers deliver their goods to Western European markets in exchange for a cut of the profits.

And that was from 2003.

that all is lost in that country in their never ending quest to make GW look bad.

Actually, what I wrote was that the Pentagon needed to change its policy towards Afghanistan's drug trade. You're not even cherry-picking here; you're out-and-out lying. And Dubya doesn't need help looking bad...Does a heckuva job looking bad...

Well, you can definitely cherry pick bad news out of this country as you can out of every country.

If I wanted to cherry-pick, I wouldn't have provided the links to the full articles. Before you shoot your mouth off, accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, make sure you have some damn ammunition.

grape, are you admitting that the current administration is stable?

No, only that the US government is 200+ years worth of stable...'Tho I worry sometimes about what the current administration is doing that will ultimately destabilize our system of government.

BTW, you may want to stop with the deliberate misinterpretations of a commenter's postings...They are very easy to catch, and do nothing to enhance your credibility.

Also, the heroin production of Afghanistan is black market economy as it is here therefore not considered a cornerstone of the economy.

How do you think those shiny new buildings in Kabul are getting built? Loans from China?...Now that would be stupid for a country to do, wouldn't it?

at 4:46pm:

you yourself actually typed the words "illegal revenues".

When it is backed by portions of the government, can it necessarily be called 'illegal'?

Posted by: grape_crush on March 1, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

"So, we could say the same thing about Afghanistan as we can about this country."

My, my I love it when the retarded trolls come out to play (subspecies Trollus Moronicus or Trollus Freepus).

Sure, you could say all these same things about the United States:

"Outgoing commander and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry warned, There will be an increase in violence in the spring, and we can forecast an increase in violence in the summer, the CBC reported.

That minority that's trying to destabilize and terrorize the Afghans and the legitimate authority are going to keep attacking it, (Canadian Brig. Gen. David) Fraser said.

A spasm of violence broke a fragile truce at Kabul's main prison Tuesday as rioting inmates tried to push down a gate and police fired on them, killing one and wounding three, officials said.

American and Afghan officials say the Taliban cannot fight large battles and so resort to roadside bombings or attacking soft targets, the report said. As a result, the Taliban has succeeded in forcing the closure of about 200 schools. Similarly, commerce has fallen in places like Kandahar.

Eight weeks in the planning, Bush's visit to Afghanistan was not announced in advance to reduce chances of an assassination attempt. Heavily armed combat assault teams shadowed Bush's moves. Door-gunners on at least two helicopters fired brief bursts of bullets down at the dusty flatlands not far from Bagram Air Base as they ferried the president's entourage into town.

"Afghanistan's huge drug trade severely impacts efforts to rebuild the economy, develop a strong democratic government based on rule of law, and threatens regional stability," the report said."

Violence in Afghanistan increased 20 percent last year, the Defense Intelligence Agency said this week. About 1,600 people were killed in violence last year, including 91 U.S. troops. There have been 25 suicide bombings in the past four months.

The under-five mortality rate in 2003 in Afghanistan was 257 per 1,000 live births the fourth highest in the world.

Due to the high infant and under-five mortality rates, life expectancy in Afghanistan is only 43 years. The nutritional status of women and children is also very poor. Thirty-nine percent of children under five are underweight, and more than half of Afghan children suffer from chronic malnutrition, according to the World Bank.

We judge insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001 (when U.S. forces invaded), and will be active this spring, said Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, the DIA chief.

but you would just be wrong (and providing, further, wholly unnecessary proof that you are an idiot).

It's a shame how those nasty folks at the Pentagon, the DIA, the UN, the coalition armies, and the Afghani government just keep cherry-picking bad news to make your boyfriend look bad, isn't it? Why, as someone said, the very facts are prejudiced against you, aren't they?

Now run along and play with the other freepers in the shallow end of the gene pool. You really don't have the intellectual wattage to float here (and admit it, you ENVY people who have shit-for-brains- at least it's not a hollow space, right?).

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: you yourself actually typed the words "illegal revenues".

No, I myself actually cut-and-pasted the words "illegal revenue" from the "60 Minutes" piece.

Moreover, the discussion was not about the formal methods by which Afghanistan's GNP can be calculated, but about your claim that heroin was not a "cornerstone" of the Afghan economy. When one cash crop is responsible for fully 50% of the revenue generated, it's a cornerstone. Any method for calculating GNP which leaves out half of the economy is woefully inadequate.

I think even the third grade class in Waukegon knows that Afghanistan is the worlds largest producer of heroin and has been for sometime, even before GW was President. Wow, imagine that.

Does the third grade class in Waukegon know that poppy production has increased by 2000% since GW became President?

Well, probably not, since second graders don't understand percentages.....

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

American and Afghan officials say the Taliban cannot fight large battles and so resort to roadside bombings or attacking soft targets, the report said. As a result, the Taliban has succeeded in forcing the closure of about 200 schools....

Wait, so all that painting was for nothing?

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: "Afghanistan's huge drug trade severely impacts efforts to rebuild the economy, develop a strong democratic government based on rule of law, and threatens regional stability," the report said."

And that would be...India and Pakistan, both of which have exploding drug problems and the spread of AIDs which follow in train.

Corruption? Check.
Violent gangs vying for control? Check.
Wads of money from the drug trade funnelled to separtists? Check.

Lovely. Just lovely. But it's all okay, the Commander in Thief did a fly-in. I'm just glad there were no prop turkeys involved.

Posted by: CFShep on March 1, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jumping ship now just makes them look like cowards.
--Kevin Drum

Look like? They ARE cowards. If any of the Republican chickenhawks had actually put on a military uniform, other than to preen like a banana-eating simian on an aircraft carrier, they wouldnt be so willing to put our troops in harms way.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 1, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

SK: preen like a banana-eating simian on an aircraft carrier

You do a disservice to simians.

There's a Fabulous Thunderbirds' song called, if I not mistaken, 'The Monkey Speaks His Mind' in which the monkeys come off as our clear moral superiors.

Posted by: CFShep on March 2, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

bad jim: So, by now we've probably killed around 100,000 Iraqis (that was the Lancet's reasonable guess two years ago, it may be on the low side now).

FWIW, 100,000 was the upper end of the confidence interval, and the point estimate was 30,000. However, the UNICEF estimate was 4,500 per month dying as a direct consequence of the UN sanctions (or else the brutal response of Saddam Hussein.)

I never believed teh UNICEF estimates because they were based on Iraqi reporting, and there was no independent way to test any of the information for accuracy. It does provide an interesting benchmark: when the current civil war death rate gets to 4500 per month, we'll know for sure that things are as bas as they were. That's about 150 per day, sustained, and we are now disturbingly close to that. If, as I surmised, the UNICEF figure was inflated, then we are even closer to "as bad as before". Information about what Iraq was like under Saddam Hussein is all really bad in one way or another.

CFShep, you write lively comments. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: republicrat on March 2, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Is Bush popular in Italy?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/berlusconi-shamelessly-uses-george-w.html

Posted by: republicrat on March 2, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

to me, this is bizarre, if true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11567710/site/newsweek

Posted by: republicrat on March 2, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Jay lies.

Jay gets caught.

Jay runs.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 2, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly