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 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

REPUBLICANS AND NATIONAL SECURITY....I don't plan to comment on everything that happened while I was gone, but I do want to highlight something Dan Drezner wrote this weekend that's also been on my mind lately. The Los Angeles Times ran a package of articles on the "Conservative Crackup," and Dan's contribution provided several reasons why George Bush is having so much trouble with his own party in the area of foreign policy. Here's one of them:

Second, conservatives disagree about foreign policy just as much as Democrats. At this point, the GOP is split between realists and neoconservatives.

....What makes today's atmosphere so perilous for Bush is that both sides of the Republican divide feel betrayed. The conservative realists outside the administration, who thought the pre-9/11 Bush was one of their own, were alarmed by the decision to invade Iraq. They expressed grave doubts about the war and it looks as if their fears were realized. The absence of a stable Iraq has hamstrung the White House in other areas where force might need to be an option.

Meanwhile, the neoconservatives have become disillusioned too, as Bush's second-term foreign policy has failed to even remotely match the ambitious rhetoric of the second inaugural.

It's true that Democrats often seem hopelessly muddled when it comes to presenting a compelling foreign policy message, but the core of Dan's piece is an acknowledgment that Republicans have the same problem. It's just not quite as obvious yet.

So without minimizing the need for Democrats to get their national security house in order, can I ask just what the Republican national security strategy is these days? Seriously. The Bush Doctrine is pretty much in tatters even W himself doesn't seem to be up for any further preemptive military adventures at the moment and aside from "staying the course" in Iraq and conducting an almost comically muddled and contradictory public diplomacy campaign, what exactly is it that Republicans think we should be doing? Aside from talking tough?

As Ronald Reagan said, "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root." That's true even when the bayonets are ours, and I think most Republicans have figured that out by now. But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?

Kevin Drum 1:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (219)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Joe Republican: "That's easy - just listen in on all the THOUSANDS of Al Quaeda living here in the US without bothering about a warrant from FISA."

Posted by: chuck on March 14, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Wait, if American bad regimes don't last, then
how come Iraq (which according to the Left was propped up by Rumsfeld) during the Iran-Iraq war lasted so long?

Posted by: McA on March 14, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

So without minimizing the need for Democrats to get their national security house in order, can I ask just what the Republican national security strategy is these days?

Kevin, Bush has said what it is over and over again, but you refuse to listen. The strategy is to spread freedom and democracy and use the newly formed democratic states as a seed to end the scourge of terrorism around the world. It looks like Venezuela might be the next country America needs to attack because it's trying to spread weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons to rogue states like Iran.

Link

"A recent deal between Iran and Venezuela provides for the exploitation of Venezuela's strategic minerals, prompting opposition figures to warn that President Hugo Chavez's government could be planning to provide Tehran with uranium for its nuclear program."

Posted by: Al on March 14, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Where were all these "alarmed" realist Republicans in 2003?

Posted by: B on March 14, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Some Republicans are going to pray for divine protection from terrorists.

Others are praying for the Rapture to begin so all those liberals who are so hostile to religion will get their just punishment. Terrorists?? Bring them on!

The rest have faith in Condoleeza Rice's negotiating skills and keen fashion sense: "Here, we'll give you nuclear technology. Please don't hurt us."

Posted by: PTate in MN on March 14, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Continue hunting down and capturing or killing al-Quaeda, like we did in Pakistan, Stay the course in Afghanistan and Iraq. Continue with our successful partnerships aound the world. And continue the search for al-Quaeda here in America. :)

Posted by: Tymbrimi on March 14, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

To echo chuck, Bill Maher made pretty much the same point on Friday -- the FISA wiretap is worrisome mainly because it seems to be the cornerstone, if not entirety, of the Bush administration's GWOT.

Posted by: Martin on March 14, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

[C]an I ask just what the Republican national security strategy is these days?

Sure. It'll land you in Gitmo, but what the hell, go for it!

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 14, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK


AL: It looks like Venezuela might be the next country America needs to attack because it's trying to spread weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons to rogue states like Iran.

Your link, despite being from the loonies at the Moonie Times, doesn't begin to even suggest what you're saying. The article talks about "opposition" (as in right-wing terrorists--the same clowns who temporarily overthrew the democratically elected Chavez regime) fears that Venezuela might send uranium to Iran, not nuclear weapons. But even that notion is dismissed by the administration headed by your hero:
In Washington, a State Department official said, "We are aware of reports of possible Iranian exploitation of Venezuelan uranium, but we see no commercial uranium activities in Venezuela."

You really are quite mad, aren't you, Al?


Posted by: jayarbee on March 14, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

National Security :== Do whatever it takes to win elections, making the elections secure for Notional Republicans. Rinse, Rather, Repeat.

Posted by: jerry on March 14, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin

It's true that Democrats often seem hopelessly muddled when it comes to presenting a compelling foreign policy message, but the core of Dan's piece is an acknowledgment that Republicans have the same problem.

The Bush administration has never had a rational foreign policy. It's not anything new. They can get away with it because the Republican noise machine gives them cover and the MSM won't call them on it.

As for the Dems, there can't, and won't, be a Democratic foreign policy strategy until there is a Democratic presidential candidate. Until then every Democratic congressman, senator, and talking head is free to make up his/her own. Any attempt to present a "Democratic" foreign policy strategy is doomed to failure and worse, since it would give the administration and their toadies on the cable channels something to shoot at and take the focus off the their failed (non) foreign policy.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvark on March 14, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?

Freedom.

What, not good enough?

Posted by: George W. Bush on March 14, 2006 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK

Lies, damm lies & statistics (and bogus ones at that)

Next question !

"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

Posted by: daCascadian on March 14, 2006 at 3:49 AM | PERMALINK

Democrat plan for Iraq, and terrorism:"We got nothing.". A real vote-getter. :)

Posted by: Tymbrimi on March 14, 2006 at 3:58 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, it's quite true that the Dems don't seem to have any coherent strategy yet for dealing with Iraq or with the worldwide Megaterrorism War. However, Tymbrimi really should keep in mind that 0 is still a larger number than -1.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 14, 2006 at 4:19 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Tymbrimi has the answer. The republican foreign policy for rest of Bush's second term will be:

:)

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 5:21 AM | PERMALINK

. But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?

Clap louder?

Posted by: Alex on March 14, 2006 at 5:31 AM | PERMALINK

More seriously...that's a really good question. The answer may be that it turns out in a rather quiet fashion that fighting the war on terror isn't actually as important as it was made out to be. Foreign policy will probably come to cohere more around trade interests (hence the rapprochement with India) and less and less around fighting terror.

It probably won't be necessary to actually articulate this foreign policy; it'll be sufficient to shift actual attention and resources towards the new priorities, while continuing to mouth the same old spreading-democracy platitudes about the old ones. The hope would be that in the absence of any major terrorist attacks in the US, the whole issue of the war on terror kind of fades away, enabling a pullout from Iraq once the voting public has become tired of hearing about the country's civil war. "We tried to give them freedom, but they just went back to killing each other - you know those Arabs."

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

You should keep talking. You have surrounded yourself with a pleasant haze of certainty. I don't want to dissuade you. Stay the course.....keep assuming you should win elections because, well, all right thinking people agree with you...just ask all your friends.....

Posted by: Californio on March 14, 2006 at 5:33 AM | PERMALINK

You should keep talking. You have surrounded yourself with a pleasant haze of certainty. I don't want to dissuade you. Stay the course.....keep assuming you should win elections because, well, all right thinking people agree with you...just ask all your friends.....

Posted by: Californio on March 14, 2006 at 5:34 AM | PERMALINK

With the benefit of time, events, and reflection, it's clear now that the primary difference between neoconservatives and conservative realists is that the former actually pretend to believe the rhetoric as their actions inevitably betray it, while the realists know the rhetoric is just window dressing for their very cynical actions.

Posted by: Jimm on March 14, 2006 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

No change.

Manuver enemies into sanctions then drop the hammer with or without the UN, 10 years later.
With airstrikes to warm someone up for invasion in the meantime.

Does your Iran policy look like its changed?

Whats the Liberal alternative other than hope bad things go away?

Posted by: McA on March 14, 2006 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

From the Guardian article:

Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret.

You damnable smooth-talking Yanks, with your chocolate and your nylons and your lies. Come down here and look at your son! He's got your eyes!

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

The Bush Administration really does not have foreign or domestic policy. They only have Rovian politics to tell them which way they should go to isolate and corner their opposition and favor their vested interests.

The Bushies are the most anti American leadership that this country has had. They have systematically tried to destroy our democratic institutions, our military, our economy, our international credibility and the judiciary. These charlatans deserve to spend the rest of their lives in Guantanamo - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Rove, all of them.

Posted by: Crazy Barrone on March 14, 2006 at 5:50 AM | PERMALINK

Why are we still saying we don't have a coherent approach to foreign policy and the war on terror? Didn't that liberal-internationalist Democratic intellectual Francis Fukuyama just outline it last week?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

For 25 years GOP foreign policy has been; 1) talk tough for home consumption (Grenada-Walking Tall); 2) convert their former thug allies into boogeymen and take them out (Noriega); 3) sow chaos on the cheap and hope it doesn't blow back (Osama.) Both Bushes confounded standard GOP foreign policy. Dad did something sensible, supported, and meaningful; and dimwit junior thought he was doing 1, 2, and 3 above but fucked up.

Posted by: dennisS on March 14, 2006 at 6:54 AM | PERMALINK

GOP foreign policy: "Splendid little wars" are good politics.

Posted by: bobbyp on March 14, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

Where exactly is the evidence that "conservative realists...were alarmed by the decision to invade Iraq"? I sure don't remember any.

Posted by: sal on March 14, 2006 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Talk tough. Dems = Traitors. Gays evil. Abortion murder."
That's less than 25 words. Enough for all real Americans!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 14, 2006 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK

"But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?"

That's easy: it's still military force, or the rubric of 'force' in general. Remember, the reason for going into Iraq was not nation building, it was about a show of force. Simple answers to complex questions always have and always will be appealing. Just look at democratic calls for withdrawl - if we just go away everything will be alright. Simple.

Posted by: saintsimon on March 14, 2006 at 8:04 AM | PERMALINK

All this high-minded bullcrap coming out of Bush's piehole about "spreading democracy" is revisionist history. He invaded Iraq because of some infantile unresolved Oedipus complex, coupled with a lust to control the world's oil spigot. Don't believe a word of it.

What he has done in Iraq is a war crime and a Nuremberg-like tribunal should be set up to try him and his cronies. Republican "foreign policy", if you can call it that, has been an abject failure since WWII.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 14, 2006 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

25 words or less? OK. "Prayer."

Posted by: oldradus on March 14, 2006 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

They [so-called conservative realists] expressed grave doubts about the war and it looks as if their fears were realized.

That's fascinating. Just who were these "conservative realists"? And how come they were either completely silent or waving American flags and chanting "U.S.A! U.S.A!" along with the rest of the pro-Iraq War contingent back in late 2002-early 2003? They all certainly seemed to be in a hurry to ramrod this particular debacle down the throats of bewildered and frightened Americans.

It's hilarious and pathetic to see these conservatives as well as their apologist liberal friends pretend like there was actually some sort of coordinated expression of doubt and concern about the Iraq Invasion. Of course, now they pipe up, once it becomes completely obvious that the US is on the hook for hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops killed or maimed, with the only thing to show for it is a civil war that's likely to lead to yet another middle Eastern theocracy.

Yeah, I really feel for those "betrayed" conservatives. Thanks for helping me see the nuances in right-wing opinion, Kevin.

Posted by: Irony Man on March 14, 2006 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

oldradus -
Are you sure you didn't mean:
1. Prayer
2. ???
3. Profit!

k

Posted by: kenga on March 14, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Er, Irony Man?
There were some coordinated expressions of doubt and concern about the Iraq Invasion. Worldwide. In huge numbers, even in the US.

It's just that the "conservative realists" and their apologist liberal (hawk) friends refused to publicly get within an intellectual light-year of those expressions/demonstrations.

I believe you didn't mean to dismiss the demonstrations, but let's not let anyone forget that there were a lot of people who said not simply "No, this is a bad idea.", but "No fucking way can this be even remotely considered a good idea."
heh. Nuanciness!

Posted by: kenga on March 14, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

Bring stability to the chaos,hand the chaos over to the Iraqis, blaim Syria and Iran for the chaos, get on to the next theatre of chaos, wave the flag and honor the sacrifices with more sacrifices.

Posted by: lou on March 14, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

jerry: National Security :== Do whatever it takes to win elections, making the elections secure for Notional Republicans. Rinse, Rather, Repeat.

Yes, with the goal to loot the treasure while the getting is good.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 14, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

Kenga,

I was referring to those who actually have an ear among those in power. You seem to forget that those coordinated worldwide protests millions strong were really just "focus groups" or something.

I was utterly appalled at how little doubt was expressed by the administration, the House, the Senate, the Democratic and Republican parties, and the enabling media. Sure, there were a couple voices here and there like Dean and Kucinich, but they were largely ignored because the media thought they were kooky. (100% correct in retrospect of course, but don't expect the media to pick up on that either.) And I don't mean to suggest that considerable numbers of us out here in the hinterlands didn't recognize all this bullshit for what it was, but we certainly didn't have much of an effect. We needed people sticking up for us in Washington, and they just weren't there. And now that the shit is flying away from the fan in all directions, we get to hear about these "conservative realists expressing grave doubts about the war" before it happened.

Talk about Revisionist History.

Posted by: Irony Man on March 14, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Get real. Opinion polling shows a 33% "base" who will cheerlead anything Bush says. On a good day with a favoring wind voters will total 52% Republican. IOW, potential "sensible" Republicans are solidly outnumbered by Robo-Rs and the CNN-Faux News axis that yanks their chain.

The present Republican regime is nothing more than a huge smash-and-grab theft of our government.

Posted by: serial catowner on March 14, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK


GWBs foreign policy in his 2nd term is as bold as the 1st term. He is radically reshaping US foreign policy as we saw in India two weeks ago.

The week before this trip WH issued a press release ensuring the world understood the conversation GWB had with Chirac on Iran was initiated by Chirac and without any encouragement from the USA. The week before that call Rice announced in a speech at Georgetown Uiversity the State Dept was effectively pulling out of Western Europe and reassigning it's diplomats to the Middle East and Asia. This was all a follow-up to GWBs 1st term action to effectively withdraw from NATO.

This is the most dramatic realignment of US foreign policy since WWII. You are of course aware John Bolton wasn't sent to the UN to make Kofi happy.

GWB has pulled us away from the UN, the EU Kyoto, the AMB treaty while simultaneously embracing Asia via the Asian-Pacific Partnership and free trade deals or FT negotations with Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Malasia and Indonesia along with significant diplomatic, security and economic agreements with Japan, India, Pakistan and obviously Afghanistan.

GWB is reshaping the world while the GWOT continues. Israel will soon have very defensible borders to accompany it's booming economy while the Govts of Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Pakistan, Eqypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are at war with Al-Qaeda. Radical Islam has no where to go except Europe. Now they get to defend themselves using their vaunted soft power. We've de-linked just in time.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, with the goal to loot the treasure while the getting is good.

And don't forget about stacking the courts!!!!

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Republican foreign policy in 25 words or less: "Let's get rich!" Same as Republican domestic policy. Crony capitalism, baby! It's good for our base -- our base, you know: big donors.

Posted by: William Slattery on March 14, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Rinse, Lather, Repeat. Still the same old stuff.Dems have never been as weak as repubs have potrayed them.
Repubs are better at lies and deseption as well as spreading the word. If the
word of the day is weak you hear it repeated to
the camera 50 times that day. Amazing how repubs
have always said they are the honest party. Now
america can see plainly they were not evan honest about that.
They do not hold members of there own
party to the laws and continue to support criminals evan after they know they are guilty.
I SAY IF YOU ELECT CROOKS YOU DESERVE TO BE RIPPED
OFF. IF IT IS OK FOR THEM TO BREAK THE LAW EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO.

Posted by: Honey P on March 14, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

This is basically the theory that there are Grown-Up Republicans(tm) and Real Conservatives(tm) whom George W. Bush has "failed" or "betrayed". What neither Mr. Drezner nor any of his economist/libertarian friends will acknowledge is that it looks from the outside as if George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld ARE Republicanism and ARE Conservatism. And that they (those who believe that somewhere there are grown-ups waiting to take over) have been used as useful idiots by the Radicals for going on 6 years now.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 14, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

How did the Democracies in Japan and Germany get started, if not by the USA toppling their governmnts in war?

Posted by: MountainDan on March 14, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Foreign policy will probably come to cohere more around trade interests (hence the rapprochement with India) and less and less around fighting terror.

Bingo!

It probably won't be necessary to actually articulate this foreign policy;

Could it be any clearer? Virtually every step has been to move away from the EU and toward Asia. Even to a lessor extent the America's. He's done CAFTA and negotiated closely with Brazil on the WTO round in Hong Kong. He has pending Free Trade deals with Panama, Columbia, Peru and Ecuador. His negotiations with Brazil will not lead to free trade but much improved trade. This all matters economically.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

You'd think on This web site, there'd be some skepticism about the wisdom of Ronald Reagan. So here's some governments planted by bayonets. Our federal government seems to be doing ok in Georgia and North Carolina (see civil war). The governments of Germany and Japan seem to be doing just fine.

Maybe there are two kinds of governments planted with bayonets: Ones that are then turned over to the people who will be governed (Japan and Germany) and ones that are used primarily to enforce the will of the country whose bayonets planted the government in the first place (Communist governments of Eastern Europe).

Posted by: David Mastio on March 14, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Bloody Baghdad: 86 bodies found in 30 hours

Ahhhhh. It's about time for Dickless Cheney to arise and declare the insurgency desperate, on its last legs, and teetering on the brink of defeat.

If Bush believes this is a sign of progress, then he truly is fubar and the biggest dumbsh*t ever to hold the presidency.

36% approval rating, rdw, 17 points behind Clinton's second-term lowest.

Yeah, baby, Bush is the greatest politician EVER!

This is the most dramatic realignment of US foreign policy since WWII.

Hitler realigned Europe - didn't work out so well, nor was it done on a moral foundation.

The same applies to Bush.

You can have dramatic realignment without it being good.

This is the problem conservatives have: they insist that any action by a conservative if dramatic must inherently be morally and practically sound.

Ain't so.

We've de-linked just in time.

Yes, there is no doubt that conservatives are utterly delinked from reality.

Thanks for confirming it.

You are a boil on a chicken's ass, rdw.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

25 words or less? OK. "Prayer."
Posted by: oldradus

And they need Federal money to do it, too

>>President Bush has ordered the creation of a center for religious initiatives within the Homeland Security Department, part of his government-wide effort to open federal contracts to religious organizations.

www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-briefs8.5mar08,1,1649046.story?coll=la-news-a_section
Homeland Security to Add Religious Center

For git: "Money in your pocket never broke down."
--former Todd Pletcher assistant John Hasset, talking of a mid-level claimer whose owners had turned down a seven figure offer only a few months before

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

"Let's get rich!" Same as Republican domestic policy.

Bingo!!!

We could stay aligned with no-growth Eurabia or realign with rapidly growing Asia. Gee, I wonder what the best option is?

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: GWBs foreign policy in his 2nd term is as bold as the 1st term.

Boldly inept.

Boldly going to Nixon approval territory.

Now, that's political magic!

Hardee har har!

You are such a maroon, rdw, such a maroon.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: We could stay aligned with no-growth Eurabia or realign with rapidly growing Asia. Gee, I wonder what the best option is?

Obviously, Bush has chosen the option that will make American a second-class economic power and turn over control of American economic and political interests to a hostile regime in Asia, namely China.

Good call!

Next on Bush's agenda: kowtowing to North Korea.

Next on rdw's agenda: taking a break from kissing Bush's ass to servicing Dickless Cheney's.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I really feel for those "betrayed" conservatives. Thanks for helping me see the nuances in right-wing opinion, Kevin.
Posted by: Irony Man

Me, too. I feel their pain. That glorious Reagan Legacy thing (well not, you know, Iran-Contra and becoming a debtor nation or a deficit of 21% of GNP and stuff) - somehow cruelly betrayed by....stacking government with Reagan re-treads?

Come again?

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

So without minimizing the need for Democrats to get their national security house in order, can I ask just what the Republican national security strategy is these days? Seriously.

Thank you for asking this. Seriously, what the hell are these people about, beyond tough talk and the same damn speech on Iraq that Bush has been giving for 2 years? Seriously, what do they want to achieve, and how do they plan to achieve it?

Yelling at the Democrats for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is not, in fact, a national security strategy. I'm wondering what their strategy actually is.

Posted by: theorajones on March 14, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

I certainly don't remember the US military holding bayonnets to the 8 million Iraqi's that risked their lives at the hands of their own people to freely vote for their new government. I do remember the Islamic Jihadists threatening them if they did vote so what was that again about democracies being borne from the end of a sword?

Secondly, I love it when the liberals claim that our military is bogged down: "The absence of a stable Iraq has hamstung the WH in other areas where force may need to be an option". This is the liberals being tough, like the little chihuahua behind the fence barking ferociously. They can talk the talk but not walk the walk. But let's analyze this, say we had not deposed of Saddam and now found ourselves needing to militarily intervene in Iran. Do you suppose that Saddam may have presented a problem? Maybe orchestrating some insurgency action? With Saddam out of the way, dealing with Iran is that much easier with our troops already right next door without a murderous dictatorship to worry about.

And finally, "what to do about foreign policy?" Remember, we're still working on Iraq, let's try and stay focused, I know ADD is a bitch but 8 million Iraqi's voted and many of them still want our help. We shouldn't abandon them because the liberals think it's too hard and has taken too long, my God, how difficult do you suppose your other "military interventions" ie: Iran, would be. Supposing there would actually be any.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Republicanism in action in 25 words of less:

Blow things up or break them, hire corrupt busineses to waste taxpayer dollars and use public relations to lie about it, at a corporate retreat.

25 words.

btw, no relation to Ann.

Posted by: coltergeist on March 14, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

The moron calling someone else "maroon"

LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?

What war on terror? The planes of 9-11 were window dressing. The three buildings in New York were brought down by high explosives.

23 words.

Posted by: DRoell on March 14, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: This is the liberals being tough, like the little chihuahua behind the fence barking ferociously.

Yeah, Bush is so, so tough, that he attecked a toothless Saddam, while leaving North Korea and Iran to develop real WMDs.

You are as big a coward as Bush, Jay, and twice the dunce, which is very hard to believe given Bush's level of duncicity.

I LOVE IT!!!

(You can't even get that right, Jay! Go back to your dream world in London or Sydney and leave us the hell alone.)

Jay: Remember, we're still working on Iraq . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Hitler realigned Europe

We are not realigning Europe. We have left Europe.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Remember, we're still working on Iraq . . .

Two years or more after "mission accomplished" and Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers and love beads.

Yes, we remember, Jay.

So do the US soldiers still dying in Iraq.

And their wives and husbands.

And their children.

And their parents.

And their aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews . . .

And their friends.

We all remember.

Do you?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

You're exactly right DRoell, high explosives planted by the republicans, just like the chip that is attached to your brain stem. Bushco is an evil genious out to control the world (which is amazing considering how dumb you think he is) and it is the Islamic Jihadists that really care about you and everyone else. They're only killing people because of all of the oppression they have had to live through. I mean, teen girls can't get an abortion in Iraq, now if that's not worth killing for, I don't what is.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: We have left Europe.

Yet another lie like the one about the administration having no recent visits to old Europe.

Your lies are old and tired, rdw, but we expect no less.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

keep in mind that 0 is still a larger number than -1.
Hey, that's the plan that Kerry in used in '04! How'd that work out?

You loons must have been impressed with it, because it looks likes you're recycling it for '06. It's like the man said, the Republicans biggest advantage is they get to run against Democrats.

As for the 25 words: At least Republicans wanted do something about terrorists, and Republicans still do.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously, Bush has chosen the option that will make American a second-class economic power

Consistent 4% GDP growth since the supply-side tax cuts of 2003 as well as strong jobs growth as seen by the recent report of 243,000 new jobs added and a 4.8% unemplopment rate does not make for 2nd class.

Compare that with 1% GDP growth in Western Europe, no job growth, unemployment consistently > 10% and Per Capita GDP at 65% on it's way to 50%. What is that going to be like for the French to wake up in 2020 and learn incomes in the USA are 2x's incomes in France? Now that's 2nd class.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

> Your lies are old and tired, rdw, but we
> expect no less.

Actually, I think rdw is providing a valuable service here: I suspect this is how Rove and the Radicals are going to play foreign policy issues for the 2006 elections. The counter-blogging effort may have tipped their hand too early.

Not that the Dems can take any advantage, judging by yesterday.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 14, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Bushco is an evil genious out to control the world (which is amazing considering how dumb you think he is) . . .

You mean you must have brains to want to control the world?

I guess Hitler was the smartest dude of all time, exceeding even Einstein, eh, Jay?

You truly are a fountain of dumbass logic, Jay.

Clue, Jay: you don't need brains to be a megalomaniac, which is about intent to control not ability to control.

We know conservatives are easily confused about apples and oranges and constantly equating them, but try to stay up to speed with the real world and get some learnin' Jay.

But somewhere other than in the world of Every Child Left Behind.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

I know it's hard in Iraq advocate, but unlike the sitcoms you grew up on, some things take a little longer than 30 minutes to resolve. And decent people don't run away from difficulties which is contrary to your self absorbed, instant gratification, myopic and pathetic liberal world you occupy.

Don't even cry crocodile tears for our military in which my son and brother-in-law are proud to serve. They actually despise your mindset but fight for your freedom to have your dimentia. You're a pathetic spinelss little boy brainwashed by the likes of the equally spineless Harry Reid. Good luck on that.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Bushco is an evil genious out to control the world (which is amazing considering how dumb you think he is) . . .

You mean you must have brains to want to control the world?

I guess Hitler was the smartest dude of all time, exceeding even Einstein, eh, Jay?

You truly are a fountain of dumbass logic, Jay.

Clue, Jay: you don't need brains to be a megalomaniac, which is about intent to control not ability to control.

We know conservatives are easily confused about apples and oranges and constantly equating them, but try to stay up to speed with the real world and get some learnin' Jay.

But somewhere other than in the world of Every Child Left Behind.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

advo, two postings of the same bullshit.....
You'll need to adjust the chip in the back of your head, if you'd like I could call Cheney and have him re-program you.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Yet another lie like the one about the administration having no recent visits to old Europe.

Let's not be anal. We'll still have a couple/few State dept offices and we'll still keep a few troops and supplies in Europe but 90% troops reductions and nearly 90% state dept reductions as well as the avoidance of serious discussions on important issues means Europe is yesterday's news.

When the President of the USA puts out a press release immediately after a call from the President of France and says, "Hey, I had nothing to do with that! I didn't call him. He called me and I never asked him to call. I was polite. I talked to him for a few minutes BUT NOTHING HAPPENED!"

You know it's over. We passed over many miles ago.

They have their own problems to deal with. It is mutually benefical we move in opposite directions. Nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends. It's time to move on. It's just amazing how smooth and definitive the move has been.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

At least Republicans wanted do something about terrorists, and Republicans still do.
Posted by: conspiracy nut

Define 'something'. No, something other than war profits? Something other than making this country a dangerous rogue state in hock up to its eyeballs to pressive authoritarian dictatorships and decadent monarchies?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-hart12mar12,1,1260431.story?coll=la-news-comment

CONSERVATIVE CRACKUP
By Jeffrey Hart

>>Iraq is not going to be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East but, assuming a civil war is avoided, probably a Shiite-dominated theocracy leaning toward Iran. For this, the bill will be half a trillion dollars and tens of thousands dead and wounded.
......

$100,000 per minute - all 'paid' for with IOU's to the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis...

I see another 'supplemental funding request' is in the works...

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: I know it's hard in Iraq advocate, but unlike the sitcoms you grew up on, some things take a little longer than 30 minutes to resolve.

"Mission Accomplished"

We will be greated by flowers and parades.

The war will pay for itself.

The insurgents are desperate and on their last legs. (Every few weeks, usually just after a round of increasing violence.)

Massive stockpiles of WMDs will be found any day and liberals will be embarassed and humiliated.

Saddam was on the brink of launching missles armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons across the ocean and onto US soil.

Don't even cry crocodile tears for our military in which my son and brother-in-law are proud to serve.

I think you are lying.

They actually despise your mindset but fight for your freedom to have your dimentia.

Now, I know you are.

You're a pathetic spinelss little boy brainwashed by the likes of the equally spineless Harry Reid.

You are a lying piece of sh*t.

Wow! I feel better, don't you?

You are a spineless little girl brainwashed by the likes of the equally spineless (and Dickless) Cheney, as well as his muse, GWB.

And decent people don't run away from difficulties which is contrary to your self absorbed, instant gratification, myopic and pathetic liberal world you occupy.

I guess that's why the GOP supported Clinton during the wars in Kosovo and Bosnia.

Oops! Not.

Let's see, also, who was it that couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job (even though they said they would), for the sanctions to work, for policies to encourage rebellion from within Iraq instead of invasion to force regime change . . .

Oh, yeah, assh*le, it was conservatives who needed instant gratification from invasion of a toothless Iraq.

Who was it who didn't foresee the insurgency or the other difficulties in post-war Iraq (that would be "myopia" for someone as dense as you)?

Oh, yeah, assh*le, it was conservatives.

Who has it been who has been more focused on their own political fortunes and wealth that they put tax cuts ahead of armor for our soldiers (in other words, self-aborbed)?

Oh, yea, assh*le, it was conservatives.

Now, that's pathetic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: You'll need to adjust the chip in the back of your head, if you'd like I could call Cheney and have him re-program you.

I hear Cheney is too busy being serviced by a boy named Jay, while he writes another speech about how the insurgents are desperate and on thier last legs, on the brink of defeat any day now, to adjust anybody's chip.

Maybe when he's done with his self-absorbed and myopic speech he can drop by.

LOL.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Let's not be anal. We'll still have a couple/few State dept offices and we'll still keep a few troops and supplies in Europe but 90% troops reductions and nearly 90% state dept reductions as well as the avoidance of serious discussions on important issues means Europe is yesterday's news.

Apparently, "[l]et's not be anal" means "let's lie".

When the President of the USA puts out a press release immediately after a call from the President of France and says, "Hey, I had nothing to do with that! I didn't call him. He called me and I never asked him to call. I was polite. I talked to him for a few minutes BUT NOTHING HAPPENED!"

When a president does that, it means he's so insecure that he needs to throw a bone to his base and in trying to not appear weak he appears weak.

Which is why his approval among even the GOP faithful is plummeting.

The points are coming off conservative support now, rdw, not from misguided liberals or moderates.

Nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends.

Conservatives have permanent interests, not permanent friends, rdw.

Please get it right next time.

It's time to move on.

Yes. Bush and the GOP need to go.

It's just amazing how smooth and definitive the move has been.

2000+ American soldiers and their families would beg to differ.

As do 57% of the American people.

Your dream world is crashing down all around you, but doped up as you are on Bush pheromones, you can't see it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Define 'something'.
OK.

Main Entry: something
Function: pronoun
1 : some indeterminate or unspecified thing

That would be as opposed to the Democratic plan:

Main Entry: nothing
Function: pronoun
1 : not any thing : no thing

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, got the wrong definition for nothing, this is more accurate.

Main Entry: nothing
Function: noun
1 a : something that does not exist

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Definition of "something" from the New Conservative Dictionary of Conservative-Convenient Definitions . . .

something
Main Entry: "A fubar plan that results in unnecessary deaths, unnecessary expenditures, but which can be mendaciously used as a partisan bludgeon against domestic political foes and used to emotionally blackmail and extort support from the American public."

The nature of conspiracy nut's definition of liberal policy: "a lie in many parts".

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Bill Moyers "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts."

>ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.

Yeah, rdw, he means YOU. Bat shit nuts.

A bowl of Fruit Loops has a firmer hold on reality.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Sorry, got the wrong definition for nothing . . .

You always get definitions wrong.

That's because you rely on the New Conservative Dictionary of Conservative-Convenient Definitions, which is a book of false and self-serving definitions that have no actual correlation to reality.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

advo, you do stick to your talking points just like a good little liberal bitch should. Keep harping on those points because they will serve you well in the '08 election much like they did in '04, oh yeah nevermind.

You might want to read the recent NYT article wherein even Saddam's top generals are now admitting that they thought he had caches of biological and chemical weapons, but alas they should have checked with superior intellectuals
of the democratic party with their powerful
crystal ball that allows them to contradict
themselves without shame.

If only we had men of superior intellect and physical prowess, like Harry Reid and advo to lead us into battle. Harry Reid, now there is somebody who would put the fear into someone, not sure who, but someone I am sure.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

How touching that Twiggie is emulating his hero from those History days at Yale.

As Captain Edward John "George Bush" Smith stands courageously at the helm, watching the women and children cast off, his hard core faithful Repug men stand behind him singing "Nearer My God To Thee".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 14, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Wait until there's another terrorist attack and then... blame those damn Democrats!

Posted by: sohei on March 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

How beautiful it is to watch the liberal minions support the theocracy of Iraq as they murder their own women and children in the name of Islamic oppression and rally behind that mental powerhouse of an ambassador Cindy Sheehan as they sing "How naive are we".

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

these threads are always amusing because we ALL KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE GOP -- but nobody speaks from the hip on WHY THE DEMS CAN'T GET THEIR FOREIGN POLICY STRAIGHT>

So long as Jews finance BOTH parties, we will war on Islam, become more isolated in the international community.

International engagement will be punctuated by false flags against citizenry by jews dressed up as arabs ala 9/11]

The Dubai debacle wreaks of cognitive dissonance... that will contribute to the demise of the dollar as Arab nations loyal to the US are forced by their populations to dump the dollar [way to go jew boys and girls]....

ultimately? -- the dialogue on just who has been stirrin the pot will open up... whether its a play about Rachel Corrie -- or cries for international dialogue on the holohoax -- or just jewish ownership of American media and government....

JEWS WILL LOSE __ BIG TIME __ FOR THIS LATEST ADVENTURE

9/11 was supposed to turn the world against Islam.... just the opposite will occur.

The world is about to see just what motivated all those Germans, Austrians, French, Polish and Russians to whisper to each other.... WHAT EVER WILL WE DO ABOUT THESE TREASONOUS JEWS?

Germany tried -- and failed.

Islam will be more thorough. -- and it's about time!!

Posted by: TJ on March 14, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Only thing worse than our normal run of deranged trolls are anti-Semetic deranged trolls.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

"The conservative realists outside the administration, who thought the pre-9/11 Bush was one of their own, were alarmed by the decision to invade Iraq. They expressed grave doubts about the war "

Erm... who?

And there is no such thing as a "Conservative Realist". Its a total oxymoron, and has been for 40 years. Conservative policies don't work. They always end up making things worse.

Posted by: Mysticdog on March 14, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I vote for TJ for the next Democrat Presidential nominee. He certainly is the one to straighten out that foreign policy for the Democrats. At last someone that Harry Reid could rally behind.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Well, at least somebody's finally done what it takes to get banned around here. I assume.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

This is officially my new favorite wingnut talking point: With Saddam out of the way, dealing with Iran is that much easier with our troops already right next door without a murderous dictatorship to worry about.

Saddam and his Sunni regime were enemies of the Shiite theocrat Iranian leadership. Do you not remember the war they fought for 10 years waaaay back in the 80's? Your point is akin to saying, "It will be far easier to deal with the Republic of Ireland since we stationed our army in Northern Ireland, took the Protestants out of power, and put Sinn Fein in charge of the place." It's damn near that stupid.

Personally, I fail to see how knocking out the secular Sunni dictator and having Shiite religious leaders like the Iranian Al Sistani and the Iraqi-who-speaks-with-an-Iranian-accent Al Sadr two of the most powerful people in Iraq does anything but strengthen Iran's hand. And, you know, the fact that our army isn't so much stationed as tied down in Iraq does anything but weaken our hand.

Of course, before the Iraq war I used to say things like, "This Iraq thing sounds half-baked. Why are we wasting our time there? We should be focusing on winning in Afghanistan, capturing Osama bin Laden, and taking down Al Quaeda." So you might want to take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Posted by: theorajones on March 14, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: advo, you do stick to your talking points just like a good little liberal bitch should.

Someone has to counter the constant whine of conservative "trolls" who spout GOP talking points like the good little Bush b*tches that they are.

How is Bush's ass today, eh, Jay?

Better get out the chapstick.

Bushie doesn't like rough lips touching his tushie.

You might want to read the recent NYT article wherein even Saddam's top generals are now admitting that they thought he had caches of biological and chemical weapons . . .

Torture is a wonderful thing.

You can get people to admit virtually anything, including those things that are convenient to your political goals.

That's why conservatives embrace it so often.

Because fiction is more useful than truth.

No WMDs, Jay, no WMDs.

You can rationalize all day, but Powell said in February 2000 that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors or anyone else, unable to project any military power beyond his borders, WMD programs thwarted by sanctions.

Then Bush lied.

And you keep repeating his lies.

LOL.

36% approval.

Bush = Nixon.

Bush = Failure.

Bush = Toast.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Again, we should have demurred to the intellects on the left like theora who obvioulsy knew exactly what to do. But then again, do you suppose that Saddam may have interferred with our efforts in Afghanistan? No! I forgot Saddam's Iraq was a beautiful place with kids flying kites and people happily walking over the mass graves, er uh....landfills. Remember Michael Moore's beautiful documentary on the slice of nirvana we've come to know as Iraq.
BTW, Afghanistan has a freely elected government wherein even women voted for the new leaders, does that count as a possible victory. Hmmmm. not sure, maybe the women would be better off if they were just told what to do huh?

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Wages are finally "growing" - slower than consumer price inflation. Wages grew at a 2% annual rate in January, consumer inflation was at 4%. Both are volatile measures.

Despite passable job growth (for once), the unemployment rate went up in January. Why? Because job availability enticed many young people who'd dropped out of the work force back into hunting for a job. More, in fact, than there were jobs available for them. That's how many young people have dropped out of the hunt for jobs, after 5 years of anemic job growth.

This is why over 60% of Americans think Bush is doing a lousy job on the economy. Because it's true. He's running historically vast deficits and he still can't get wages to rise faster than inflation.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Advo, keep the ranting going and you may beat Bush next time around.......oh wait.

I think you're lying about the torture. Do liberals lie?

Isn't it ironic how anything muttered by a conservative is a lie yet any musings by dictators or theocratic islamic jihadists murderers goes unquestioned? Interesting, no?

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Once again, the discussion devolves into idiocy. Back to topic: it's hard to comment on the question of what the GOP's strategy for fighting the war on terror is, because it really is kind of up in smoke, reduced to increasingly weird and implausible defenses of why the things they believed in early 2003 were no stupider and more inaccurate than the things Iraq's generals believed.

So it's hard to find anything to say. The trolls here today, who increasingly seem to be taking over the field through sheer numbing idiocy, can't find anything to do except to repeat the same old nonsense. Iraq is getting better. The insurgency is in its last throes. We have brought the Iraqis freedom. We will continue to identify and neutralize threats to American security. More Newspeak, more horrorshow ultraviolence.

I continue to think that the actual GOP establishment is increasingly disinterested in the war on terror and feels it's played out its political benefit and can just be quietly dropped. I think rdw is bizarrely correct to emphasize the realignment of diplomatic priorities toward Asia: that is where the money is these days, so that is where Republicans are likely to be at.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

You're exactly right DRoell, high explosives planted by the republicans, just like the chip that is attached to your brain stem....

Hello Jay,

This thread has decended into a nasty little thing. Comments were a nice idea when blogging got started years ago, but now I wonder why anyone bothers.

WTC 7 came straight down around 5 pm. We all saw it live on TV. It had suffered virtually no damage. It was a 40 story building. By contrast, the Murrow building in Oklahoma City had the biggest bomb McVeigh could make parked directly outside & when it went off, half the building disappeared. But the rest remainded standing. And Murrow was a lot smaller than WTC 7. I was going to tell you how much smaller it was, but all photos of it have been striken from the web, so I can't count floors. But a lot less than 40. Maybe only 12 or so. Nearly identical in construction, smaller, suffered vastly more damage, did not collapse.

It is also easily demonstrated that the planes that hit the towers caused no serious structural damage.

So, what war on terror?

Posted by: DRoell on March 14, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Again, we should have demurred to the intellects on the left like theora who obvioulsy knew exactly what to do.

Yes, you should have.

Acknowledging your shortcomings is the first step to recovery.

Congratulations!

No! I forgot Saddam's Iraq was a beautiful place with kids flying kites and people happily walking over the mass graves, er uh....landfills.

Ahhh, the same old lies that liberals claimed that Iraq was a land of milk and honey under Saddam.

And you have the gall to criticize anybody else about the repetition of talking points?

Yuk, yuk, yuk!

Huge guffaw!

Afghanistan has a freely elected government wherein even women voted for the new leaders, does that count as a possible victory.

The vast majority of liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Yet another example of how you consistently lie about the positions liberals have taken in order to create strawmen.

Don't light any matches around this thread, because Jay has created an enormous fire hazard!

Hmmmm. not sure, maybe the women would be better off if they were just told what to do huh?

You mean like conservatives telling them when to have sex, how to have sex, and when to have a baby, how to have a baby?

I think you're lying about the torture.

Why don't we ask the torturees, eh?

Or how 'bout we just consult the vids and pics.

. . . yet any musings by dictators or theocratic islamic jihadists murderers goes unquestioned?

Yet another lie by Jay, implying that liberals never question or questioned the "musings" or any other statements of dictators.

Now, about that, who is accepting Musharraf, a dictator, at his word?

Who is accepting and in the past accepted the statemensts of Islamic murderers such as the Saudi monarchy and the Shah of Iran, not to mention non-Islamic murderers like Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, Rios Montt, etc, etc, etc?

Oh, yeah, that would be conservatives.

Notice how often, virtually always in fact, the things that Jay accuses the Left of being or doing are actually things that the Right is or has done?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Wonder how many years it will take the salvage crews to remove the wreckage and stench of the SS Bushtanic from the mud of the Potomac?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 14, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Why oh why do you people continually give losers like Jay the attention he seeks? He only comes here to disrupt and draw attention to himself and he wins every time if you let him.

Posted by: NewOrder on March 14, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

The scary thing is, when Bush said "Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and neither do we" he was fucking serious.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 14, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, rdw, he means YOU. Bat shit nuts.

Bill Moyers has had a rought ride hasn't he?

How awful to watch everything you've worked for your entire life go up in smoke and, to make matters worse, be totally ignored by those who matter. He found out his 20-yr megaphone at PBS was utterly worthless.

What was it like for this proudest of all liberals to see the Democraic candidate ban the term liberal from the campaign?

What was it like for this proudest of all liberals to see a core group of liberals abandon the term and start to describe themselves as progressive?

What was it like to watch an upstart like Fox news pass his beloved PBS in the ratings as if PBS never existed? All the while ignoring Bill Moyers?

One gets the sense Bill gets up in the morning puking blood. The world he knew is gone and nothing will bring it back.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

NewOrder: Why oh why do you people continually give losers like Jay the attention he seeks?

Because he's clearly on the edge and might go postal if he isn't given attention.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Keep guarding those Jolly Green Giant cans in the bowels of the "unsinkable" of SS Bushtanic, DWD. Stay the course, thousand points of light, onward to Baghdad and EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF.

As Twiggie would say, "Now, where did Laura put my dinghy"

Posted by: stupid git on March 14, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

I will always win NewOrder, remember that, of course competing against the liberals isn't really difficult.

The minority fringe of the minority party certainly have their feathers ruffled today, going back to the old "Iraq is a quagmire" routine. This, despite the absence of civil war which was suppressed by the Iraqi security forces and the call for peace from the government and the mullahs. Now that's failure.

And I see DRoell has brought a new level of dimentia to the party. Kudos on that one and oh please be sure to mention those points at the next convention, it will play well to middle America, I promise.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

"conservatives disagree about foreign policy just as much as Democrats."

I don't remember any disagreement or split among Democrats during the Clinton years. They all seemed to be united in liberal internationalism.

Posted by: Nan on March 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Once again, the discussion devolves into idiocy.

I don't know. I'm seeing some fairly reasonable responses from conservatives so far, and mostly mouth foam from the leftists. Most of the idiocy seems to be on one side.

Of course, the "blew up the WTC with explosives" guy is in a class by himself. Hopefully with padded walls.

As Ronald Reagan said, "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

That is utter crap. Almost every nation on this planet had its roots in bloody war, good governments and bad. And some of them are rooted pretty solidly today.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

First line in the last post should have been in italics. Sorry.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: How awful to watch everything you've worked for your entire life go up in smoke . . .

Yes, it is tough for Bush no doubt, but it is Bush's own doing that made everything he's tried to accomplish and hoped for go up in smoke.

One gets the sense that rdw wakes up each morning puking blood, wondering how Bush's "mandate" could have vanished so quickly and how the world he envisoned from Bush's success has gone the same way.

Poor rdw.

Even fantasy will no longer hide the truth of Bush's failures.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

the GOP is split between realists and neoconservatives.

Why don't they just say "smart people" and "stupid people". Or "people who weigh consequences" and "fantasists".

Much more descriptive.

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

"The vast majority of liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan."

Really? What about the arguments of going to war for a pipeline? Or the brutal Afghan winter turning Afghanistan into another Vietnam?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: I will always win . . .

That's the benefit of living in your own fantasy world.

You get to win by simply declaring it to be so.

Sorta like the Bush mentality.

Saddam's a threat because we declare him to be so, or at least everybody except Powell in February 2000 who declared Saddam to be a non-threat.

Powell's 2000 statement correct.

Bush's 2003 statements a lie.

Gee, and nobody predicted it.

Except liberals.

Must just stick in Jay's craw, or would if his lips weren't pasted to Bush's ass.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK


Don't forget "It's a Quagmire!".

Afghanistan, the grave of armies. Held off Alexander the Great, held off the British for 3 invasions, and held off the USSR. The US spends 2 weeks of active combat knocking off the Taliban and the left still manages to get in the quagmire bullshit.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Really? What about the arguments of going to war for a pipeline? Or the brutal Afghan winter turning Afghanistan into another Vietnam?

What about them?

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Ahhh, the same old lies that liberals claimed that Iraq was a land of milk and honey under Saddam."

Funny, that was the exact image I saw in Farenheit 911. Isn't Michael Moore your beloved, liberal, award winning, filmmaker anymore?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK
"The vast majority of liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan."

Really?

Really.

What about the arguments of going to war for a pipeline? Or the brutal Afghan winter turning Afghanistan into another Vietnam?

Neither of those arguments were made by the vast majority of liberals. Support for the war in Afghanistan was high across the political spectrum, as numerous polls showed, as was support for the President until attention shifted to the run up to the war in Iraq.


Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: I'm seeing some fairly reasonable responses from conservatives so far . . .

And there tbrosz goes again, using that New Conservative Dictionary of Conservative-Convenient Definitions in which "fairly reasonable responses" means "lies, more lies, and yet more lies, preceded and followed by illogic".

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Funny, that was the exact image I saw in Farenheit 911.

Were you stoned at the time?

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Few things so sweet as the smell of trolls with their hair on fire.

Cue the unborn.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, it must also be said that using your head and dwelling on possible negative or nefarious aspects of the Afghanistan war does not mean that you didn't or don't support the war.

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Isn't Michael Moore your beloved, liberal, award winning, filmmaker anymore?

Never was.

Again, FF, that's just one of the strawmen lies that conservatives use to defame liberals.

Typical GOP SOP.

Lie, lie some more, then lie about lying.

You follow the SOP very well.

And BTW, hasn't the Bush administration insisted on showing the media only those areas of Iraq that are peaceful or relatively peaceful and pushed lots of photos and vids of nice peaceful Iraqis laughing and playing in order to create the impression that nobody is dying in Iraq and nobody is suffering there?

So, even assuming Michael Moore was a spokesman for liberals, something he wasn't, isn't, and was never proclaimed to be (despite all your lies to the contrary), how is showing a picture of a happy moment for Iraqis declaring Iraq to be a land of milk and honey but what the US military and Bush administration are doing isn't?

Again, we not only see a double-standard by conservatives, but one that has to engage in tremendous exaggeration and deception to even create the facts upon which to construct that double standard.

But, its easier and more accurate to simply say, you lie, FF, since that's the gist of it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Really."

I seem to remember much resistance from the left, although not as much as Iraq.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK


"facts are stupid things." - ronald reagan

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The US spends 2 weeks of active combat knocking off the Taliban and the left still manages to get in the quagmire bullshit.

Knocked off, yet still killing US-allied Afganis and US soldiers and still no end in sight to the US occupation.

Even assuming the "quagmire" term is bullshit and even assuming the majority of liberals used it early and often, it does not hold a candle to the bullshit and lies emanating from your keyboard.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

cn: The US spends 2 weeks of active combat knocking off the Taliban and the left still manages to get in the quagmire bullshit.

more proof through assertion.....


Associated Press
By AMIR SHAH
Mon Mar 13, 7:20 AM ET (2006)

KABUL, Afghanistan -

Sunday's bombing raised to 220 the death toll of U.S. personnel in and around Afghanistan since late 2001 when U.S.-led forces ousted the hardline Taliban regime for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.


that number has nearly doubled in the last year...

yet bush still declares the taliban is..."gone"

who is killing our soldiers?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

time for the way back machine.....(harp gliss)..

1999....

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)


"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


and for afg.......


"The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained."

- Colin Powell, 15 May 2001, before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: I seem to remember much resistance from the left, although not as much as Iraq.

We are not responsible for your faulty memory.

If you are suffering from Alzheimer's, go get help before you hurt yourself.

On the other hand, I remember conservative resistance to Clinton's intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, where real genocide was ongoing and could be stopped, a memory supported by actual historical fact rather than a dementia-created fantasy of the past, and current conservative hand-wringing about how Milosovic has cheated justice by dying before conviction, the same Milosovic that conservatives wanted to leave in power so he could continue to butcher other ethnic groups.

But conservatives had no problem with taking out Saddam AFTER his genocidal actions were interdicted by the no-fly zones, AFTER they had aided and abetted him while he was still gassing the Kurds, and after three years of falsely claiming that genocide was ongoing.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

220 dead in nearly four years of conflict and a successful transition to a freely elected government, wow that is failure. Many wouldn't realize that we lost more men than that in 60 seconds of fighting in WWII. But hey, it's fun to draw "strawman" (a word they love) arguments to make Bushco look bad.

Keep telling the world what a quagmire Iraq and the middle east is, it's a great way to build confidence in the good people of Iraq and to build allies around the world. Keep pointing to the shortcomings of the Iraqi military and security forces who successfully suppressed a possible major uprising. Kepp telling the UAE that they are not welcome to do business with us because they are Arab, yikes!. All of these are great ideas to further the pathetic cause of libaralism and to demonstrate your concern and compassion for those around the world.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

On the other hand, I remember conservative resistance to Clinton's intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo . . .

A point given a firm foundation in reality by thisspaceavailable's quotations above.

Thanks for the help, thisspace!

And more Powell stuff.

Kudos again!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

DRoell:

It is also easily demonstrated that the planes that hit the towers caused no serious structural damage.

Seems you know nothing about engineering and structures.

Firstly, I'd be interested to know how you quantitatively know that WTC 7 suffered "virtually no damage". From looking at videotape on the news? That's generally not how engineers assess the condition of a building that's suffered potentially serious structural damage.

Secondly, the towers didn't collapse because of structural damage. They were engineered to withstand direct hits from commercial airliners (albeit the smaller models in use at the time the buildings were on the drawing board). And they performed exactly as you would have expected from an engineering standpoint. They withstood the hits. It was only after the steel within was subjected to continual high temperature jet fuel fires that it finally buckled after a couple of hours, give or take.

This is all Structures 101, hoss...

Posted by: worn on March 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, thank god the Republicans have saved Iraq from the horror of mass graves. Sorry, bad example.

Posted by: heavy on March 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

One only need to read all these comments to understand the relevance of this question. Is the wackiest proposal to launch a pre-emptive war against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Perhaps we should give a prize. Basically he's right American foreign policy is in tatters. Our problems range from the fiasco in the middle east to Rice trying to figure out how she can fiddle around with policies on the international criminal court that have alienated most of the militaries in south america, which we are busily loosing. Meanwhile the Chinese are sitting on the sidelines laughing along with Bin Laden. I guess this is what happens when you hand the steering wheels to a lot of know nothing idealogues.

Posted by: John on March 14, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

thisspace, are you telling me that republicans are actually concerned about things like bodybags and exit strategies? no way! They only care about oil, money and death remember?

The Iraq mission is defined and the exit strategy is victory and twleve years of diplomacy was enough. I thought we had covered this before but again ADD is a bitch. Get help.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: 220 dead in nearly four years of conflict and a successful transition to a freely elected government, wow that is failure. Many wouldn't realize that we lost more men than that in 60 seconds of fighting in WWII. But hey, it's fun to draw "strawman" (a word they love) arguments to make Bushco look bad.

Talk about a strawman.

No successful transition to a freely-elected government as yet. That's just a lie.

Hey, its just a bit more (10 times in fact) than 220 dead, even if you just count American soldiers.

Seems like Jay thinks that the deaths of coalition partner military personnel is just a small matter, much less even the deaths of thousand or even tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

And then there is the apples and oranges of WWII and Iraq, ignoring among other things that military and medical technology is saving a greater number of lies, making this comparison idiotic.

How about a better one, though?

Bosnia/Kosovo: ZERO American military deaths + genocide halted.

Iraq: 2000+ American military deaths + no genocide halted (since none was ongoing) + no WMDs secured (because there weren't any) + no WMD programs interdicted (because there weren't any active) + no benefit to American national security (because Powell himself publically said Saddam was not a threat, not once, but at least twice).

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Keep telling the world what a quagmire Iraq and the middle east is, it's a great way to build confidence in the good people of Iraq and to build allies around the world.

Gosh golly you are right. We're not going to tell the naked truth about Iraq anymore, we're instead to to only report happy positive stories about schools being painted and about how much they love our presence there. Because it's our fault if Iraq goes to hell, complete 100%. Just like Vietnam, that damn Cronkite!

If only we clapped louder for Dear Leader and His Infernal Plan to Bring Democracy to Oppressed People of the World, then everything would be just fine in Iraq just like Dear Leader told us, the oil would pay for the reconstruction, our troops would be home by Xmas, Iraqis everywhere are waving their purple fingers for theocrats, hooray!

Posted by: The Media on March 14, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: The Iraq mission is defined and the exit strategy is victory and twleve years of diplomacy was enough.

Victory is not a strategy, it is a goal.

Not surprising that you can't tell the difference, what with working with that bizarro dictionary that conservatives always use instead of a real one.

BTW, why did Bush promise, then ignore his own promise, to give diplomacy another chance?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

How nice of tbrosz to drop in to mention that Reagan was "full of crap."

Boys, I've been guilty of trying also, but remember that Jay and cn are unteachable.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 14, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Republican strategy?

Name Bush King. Fin.

Posted by: MNPundit on March 14, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

One gets the sense that rdw wakes up each morning puking blood, wondering how Bush's "mandate" could have vanished so quickly and how the world he envisoned from Bush's success has gone the same way.

Not quite. I remember the Roberts and Alito hearings. I remember Sam's wife leaving the room on que knowing the Senate judiciary committee was going to be toasted. I remember last weeks 8 - 0 TKO by John Roberts of the entire liberal/academic elite. He didn't just kick ivy leaques ass he kicked ivy league law school ass.

I remember passing the Patriot act and extending the tax cuts. I remember Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. I remember Condi going to Georgetown to rub their noses in the fact State Dept wannabe's have to wannebe somewhere other than France. I remember GWB going to India and negotiating a historic breakthrough.

There's much that I remember and much that I am thankful for. Presidents Gore and Kerry are just two.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: There's much that I remember . . .

Too bad they are false memories that aren't quite fully formed when you wake up in the morning and experience that brief moment of frightful lucidity before you turn on Faux News and get your head filled back up with implanted conservative memes.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

I remember Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

rdw remembers events that haven't happened yet? He/she/it is more delusional than even I imagined...

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

If it were not for the fact that Kevin, of all people, wrote this sentence" "If military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is?" it would be laughable.

The Republicans don't have a "strategy" to fight the "war on terror" because the "war" on terror is not a war, thus, there is no available strategy to "win" it.

For the same reason, the Democrats do not, repeat, do not need a strategy to fight the "war" on terror. What they need is a strategy to confirm what the American public already knows -- we may well live in a world where there is a THREAT to individual citizens of a terrorist attack, but as there is no creditable threat to the United States as a country, the THREAT has to be managed in the same way that crime is managed in general.

After 9/11, its easy to see how Bush and co. took the coward's way out. It would have taken real balls to say, when a certain dependable percentage of the voters were clearly ready to kick some A-Rab ass, that guess what? You know what our response is going to be? Other than finding the planners, and reviewing our security, nothing. That's right, its going to take a lot more than one attack killing some thousands of individual citizens to affect our foriegn policy. On 9/10 the people that planned this crime consisted of a couple of fanatics in a cave, and on 9/12 they were the same fanatics in the same cave. Hope you like the rocks.

But of course, Bush had no such balls. Thus we are stuck with the cowards way out, caving in to the revenge motive by invading a country or two, at great cost to us and many innocent bystanders, leaving us no safer.

Strategy! Ha!

What we need is a strategy to figure out why, in a world were there is no conceivable threat to the United States as a country, we are maintaining a military as if the rest of the world was planning to invade Washington next week. Its bad enough footing the bill for all this hardware, but of course its even worse that with the military we had Bush simply could not resist using it.

I'd like an answer to that question before we deal with strategies for non-existent wars.

Posted by: hank on March 14, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

GWBs foreign policy in his 2nd term is as bold as the 1st term.

That's the problem. :D
Approval rating at 36%. If you have to spend so much time here trying unsuccessfully to spin him as a "success", it's just proof of his weakness and failure.

The subject of Iraq was like kryptonite at that recent Repub con, further proof of failure.

Posted by: Ringo on March 14, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

There's much that I remember and much that I am thankful for.

You're confusing acid flashbacks for real memories.

Posted by: haha on March 14, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

What they need is a strategy to confirm what the American public already knows -- we may well live in a world where there is a THREAT to individual citizens of a terrorist attack, but as there is no creditable threat to the United States as a country, the THREAT has to be managed in the same way that crime is managed in general.

And this is how we addressed terrorism before 9/11, through several Repub and Dem administrations. They didn't waste our resources invading a country that posed no threat to us, due to some juvenile and moronic desire to be viewed as a heroic "wartime president".
Bush is a failure, a joke, and a completely lame duck. We just have to stick it out for two more years, but at least we'll have a Democratic Senate--maybe even the House if Repubs continue their death spiral chained to Bush's plummeting approval ratings.

Posted by: Ringo on March 14, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

thisspaceavailable
thisspaceavailable
thisspaceavailable
thisspaceavailable
they do not like
to apply there
words to there
own actions.

Posted by: Honey P on March 14, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

These threads will be asking why [insert democratic candidate]won't agree to a timetable for withdrawal....

Face it guys... there are NO ANTI WAR CANDIDATES.

There aren't GOING TO BE ANY ANTI WAR CANDIDATES.

BOTH PARTIES run on Jewish money -- and BOTH parties will pander to Islamophobic JEWS to get elected and re elected.

somebody upthread said that JEWS were the problem.

Hooray for SPEECH! -- JEWS ARE THE PROBLEM -- with both parties.

We cannot prevail in an international world, while we underwrite the genocide of Palestinians - AND - pretend that Israel is a democracy.

Israel is the worst sort of theocracy - perpetually self righteous and voraciously ethnocentric.

AND until we face these demons within... admit whose runnin the show for whom....

BOTH PARTIES ARE DESTINED TO engage in perpetual war on Islam.

And not because they hate us... but because JEWS hate and must exterminate THEM.

Posted by: mike on March 14, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

mike, you forgot to use the word JEWS in all caps in your last post.

Posted by: The Media on March 14, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Too bad they are false memories

John Roberts is not Chief Justice?

Sam Alito is not associate Justice?

Arlen Spector didn't TKO Teddy K in the hearings?

Joe Biden didn't beg to stop the hearings?

The tax cuts were not extended?

The Patriot Act was not extended?

John Bolton isn't at the UN?

GWB didn't reduce NATO troop counts by over 90%?

Condi didn't announce the same for the State Dept in Europe?

GWB didn't just sign a nuclear deal with India.

GWB didn't dump Kyoto?

GWB didn't dump the ABM treaty?

GWB isn't building StarWars in Alaska?

GWB didn't help Sharon build the wall and define the peace to come?

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

it's just proof of his weakness and failure.

Refer to the above list.

One of my favorite moments this year was Ms. Alito running out of the Judiciary Committee room. Didn't you just know that sealed the deal for Sam? And didn't you just know this immediately? I saw it live. Everyone knew it was going to dominate the news cycle. I mean knew it before she was out of the room.

The GOP will always have one big advantage. They run against Democrats.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

We just have to stick it out for two more years,

2 years, 10 months and 2 weeks.


but at least we'll have a Democratic Senate-

No chance

maybe even the House if Repubs continue their death spiral chained to Bush's plummeting approval ratings

No chance.

You twits will no doubt run against Reagan. Afterwards someone will explain Bush isn't in the race.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

why, in a world were there is no conceivable threat to the United States as a country, we are maintaining a military as if the rest of the world was planning to invade Washington next week.

Hank, it's even worse than you know. Both McCain and Hillary want to increase the size of the military. We're big and going to get bigger.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

but at least we'll have a Democratic Senate
And Kerry will win with 300 electoral college votes.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

So, Mike. You from Evergreen College or Berkeley?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

I remember Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

rdw remembers events that haven't happened yet?


Get used to the idea. She can't be stopped. She is consistently above 40% in the polls while no one else is above 15%. The next 3 are Gore, Kerry and Edwards, all losers. After that we have a school of twits trying to get to 4%. They'll never raise much more than a dime.

She owns the feminist vote and she owns the black vote. That's a majority right there. She's the candidate. The others are running for VP.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

afg...right back at you....

honey....i know...but its still fun....

cn? got anything?

jay....cn is the one with the strawman...about quagmire...i'm just pointing out facts...

some one is killing our soldiers in numbers not seen since the fall of the taliban in 2001.

of course....things might be different if they had really gone after obl....instead of outsourcing the job...


one more:


ringo reminded me of something: The Republicans don't have a "strategy" to fight the "war on terror" because the "war" on terror is not a war, thus, there is no available strategy to "win" it.


In interview, president suggests war on terror can't be won
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | August 31, 2004

NASHUA -- President Bush said yesterday the war on terror is not winnable, but pledged not to back down in his efforts to root out terrorism across the globe, in an interview broadcast yesterday on NBC's ''Today" show.

Bush said in the interview that any retreat ''would be a disaster for your children." But when asked whether it's possible to win the war, he said it was not.

''I don't think you can win it," Bush said. ''But I think you can create conditions so that . . . those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Democrats and Senator John F. Kerry's campaign seized on Bush's comment on ''Today" to blast his foreign policies. They said Bush has pinned much of his reelection campaign on his ability to fight terrorism, but now appears to be declaring defeat.

...

Kerry, who is vacationing on Nantucket, said the war on terror was ''absolutely" winnable.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

jay: thisspace, are you telling me that republicans are actually concerned about things like bodybags and exit strategies?


1999....

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)


"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


as usual jay....they "said" they were....

what's different this time around?

kinda like investigations...

gop investigated cltinon for 7-years and 50-million dollars worth...even the travel office firings...

yet....

phase-2....in light of more downing street memo's, languishes

the message?

gop cant be trusted....when it counts...


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

In this Weekly Standard essay, Peter Berkowitz addresses a question raised by the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling last week in the Solomon Amendment case: "How could so many law professors of such high rank and distinction be so wrong about such straightforward issues of constitutional law?"

Gotta love John Roberts!!

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Bush isn't in the race.

I wish someone had given Ike that kind of advice back in '52. He wasted his time running against Truman's policies. Shucks, we coulda had President Eisenhower instead of that Stevenson clown.

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

"But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?"

It was all laid out for us by TR: Walk loudly (goose-step all over the joint) and throw your big stick into the big muddy river.

Posted by: smartalek on March 14, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: even W himself doesn't seem to be up for any further preemptive military adventures at the moment.

Oh really? What was Cheney's AIPAC speech threatening Iran about, then?

Posted by: Nell on March 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

John Roberts is not Chief Justice?

Not what you stated in your original e-mail.

You lie about your own postings.

Amusing!

Sam Alito is not associate Justice?

Ditto.

Arlen Spector didn't TKO Teddy K in the hearings?

Nope.

Joe Biden didn't beg to stop the hearings?

Nope.

The tax cuts were not extended?

Not the version Bush wanted, so he gets no credit.

The Patriot Act was not extended?

Not the version Bush wanted, so he gets no credit.

John Bolton isn't at the UN?

Not an achievement so far, as Bolton has accomplished zero.

GWB didn't reduce NATO troop counts by over 90%?

Nope.

Condi didn't announce the same for the State Dept in Europe?

Nope.

GWB didn't just sign a nuclear deal with India.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

GWB didn't dump Kyoto?

Nope.

GWB didn't dump the ABM treaty?

Hey, you got one right!

GWB isn't building StarWars in Alaska?

Nope.

GWB didn't help Sharon build the wall and define the peace to come?

Nope.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: And Kerry will win with 300 electoral college votes.

Never get tired of that mendacity do your cn?

rdw: You twits will no doubt run against Reagan. Afterwards someone will explain Bush isn't in the race.

Conservatives like rdw are still running against Clinton. Bill Clinton. And Carter. Jimmy Carter.

Hey, rdw, they aren't in the race either!

I guess that makes you a twit by your own logic!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

How about: "Get while the getting is good," or maybe, "Rape, pillage, destroy."

Posted by: Jim Kirk on March 14, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry I'm late to the party.

Q: Republican strategy to fight the war on terror?

A: Weave a mendacious web of fear mongering, angry rhetoric and inane policy to win elections.

Posted by: ckelly on March 14, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

RepubliConTarian foreign policy is Put Out More Flags and show me the money.

who is killing our soldiers? Posted by: thisspaceavailable

Republicans who value talking points over victory.
Keep telling the world what a quagmire Iraq and the middle east is, ...Posted by: Jay

Unlike you, Iraqis are there and they know how Bush has destroyed their country.
Kepp telling the UAE that they are not welcome to do business with us because they are Arab,...Posted by: Jay

You are confused. It was anti-Arab Republican bigots who killed that deal.
I remember GWB going to India and negotiating a historic breakthrough....
Posted by: rdw

If by historic breakthrough you mean giving away the store and getting nothing in return, Bush's trip was an amazing one.
Remember when competent adults were in charge of America and its foreign policy? Mca, tbrosz, rsw, jay and other moonbats don't.

Posted by: Mike on March 14, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Mike: [Jay is] confused.

Jay is a liar.

He is also likely confused, but first and foremost he's a liar.

Jay: Kepp telling the UAE that they are not welcome to do business with us because they are Arab,...

Interesting, because Bush keeps telling the people of the Middle East that they are welcome to be our guests at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and be tortured simply because they are Arab . . .

. . . or have their conversations spied upon, simply because they are Arab . . .

. . . or have their countries invaded, simply because they are Arab . . .

. . . or be arrested S and deported, simply because they are Arab . . .

. . . or be shot on sight in Iraq, simply because they are Arab . . .

. . . or be killed "collaterally", simply because they are Arab . . .

Doesn't that make Bush a racist, as well as those Republicans who opposed the ports deal?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives like rdw are still running against Clinton. Bill Clinton. And Carter. Jimmy Carter.

We're not running against either Carter or Clinton. We use them for sport. In order to win elections in America one has to have a coherent, positive message. Americans vote FOR candidates not against them.

Hillary may be an exception.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

GWB didn't dump Kyoto?

Nope.


He not only dumped all over Kyoto he helped American libs screw Canada. It's an exquisite irony Canada is going to blow the doors off their Kyoto limits in order to dig massive amounts of oil out of the tar sands to supply America with oil we didn't get from ANWR.

Meanwhile the ANWR reserves just increases in value.

Canada has the absurd choice of paying Russia billions of doillars for their pollution credits which would simply be insane OR dump their beloved Kyoto.

We get to watch this coming train wreck is slow motion. It's perfect.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

If by historic breakthrough you mean giving away the store and getting nothing in return, Bush's trip was an amazing one.

America ALWAYS gets something in return. That's why we have the strongest economy in the world. The daily local printed PA's unemployment rate as well as Chester County. 4.3 for PA and 2.9% for CC. That's the lowest since early 2000 and this is January data. Feb's 243,000 adds will move both numbers lower.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

25 words or less?

"9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11 changed everything."

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 14, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

GWB didn't help Sharon build the wall and define the peace to come?

Sure he did. Sharon was Clintons worst nightmare. He immediately started killing the terrorist leadership. He didn't negotiate over Gaza knowing there wasn't anyone to negotiate with. They'll do the same with the West Bank. Abbas gets one shot to discuss the fence and if he doesn't cut the grade Israel build it's fence without them. Palestine gets it's homeland and will prove it's a failed state. Israel gets to continue its economic boom and further harden it's borders.

They've already announced the fence will be done by 2010. Take them at their word. They'll easily be able to defend themselves and deal as lethal a blow as necessary should terrorists act up. Think of our video game war in Kosovo. Israel will fill the skies with drones loaded with guided missles. The borders will of course be sealed. Israel will flourish. The Palestinain people will never have an economy.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: We're not running against either Carter or Clinton.

Liberals aren't running against Bush or Reagan.

They're just using them for sport.

Pretty stupid to fall for that one, rdw, but no one ever accused you of having any more brains than your mentor Bush.

In order to win elections in America one has to have a coherent, positive message.

Bush proved that wrong in 2004, unless you are conceding he didn't really win the election.

There was nothing coherent or positive about his message.

It was consistent, unspecified fear, but it was never coherent or positive.

He not only dumped all over Kyoto he helped American libs screw Canada.

There you go again, pretending you said one thing when you actually said something else.

"Dumped" is not the same thing as "dumped on" or "dumped all over."

You truly are a dimwit.

Kyoto was "dumped" during Clinton's administration.

Keep proving your stupidity and mendacity.

It helps the liberal cause - a lot!

We get to watch this coming train wreck is slow motion.

The train wreck is in Iraq and there is nothing slow motion about it.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kyoto was "dumped" during Clinton's administration.

Slick Willie signed Kyoto.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Keep proving your stupidity and mendacity.

It helps the liberal cause - a lot!


That explains why we have a Democrat in the WH and democratic control of the house and senate and why we just added two uber-libs to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Sure he did.

There is no wall.

It's a fence.

As you admit later in your post.

Your lack of attention to detail shows why you and conservatives cannot be trusted with national security.

It's why you got Iraq wrong and the French and UN, much to your chagrin, got it right.

Since the peace hasn't come, and may never, it is premature to say what has defined it.

Your comment is a prediction, not proof of something already accomplished.

As I've previously pointed out, you either lie or are as utterly inept at the English language as Bush is.

The Palestinain people will never have an economy.

Conservatives said the same about the Vietnamese.

So, I see that as suspected, you are doomed to repeat the failed predictions of the past.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Slick Willie signed Kyoto.

And Congress "dumped" it by failing to ratify it and this occurred during Clinton's term in office, not Bush's.

Since Congress must ratify a treaty for it to become effective and be capable of being "dumped" later, your claim Bush "dumped" it is a lie.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: That explains why we have a Democrat in the WH and democratic control of the house and senate and why we just added two uber-libs to the Supreme Court.

So, we can both agree that your posting stupidity started just in the nick of time, before conservatives could consolidate their power for the long term.

Of course, you have lots of help, since Bush contributes enormously to the perceived stupdity of conservatism.

Why don't you go back to your lies about Strickland being behind in Ohio and about Bush dumping Kyoto, eh?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like ya'll are doin' a fine job in my absense.

Stoke up those trolls a bit more and I'll go get the marshmallows.

Beer anyone...seeing that I'm up and all?

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

"that's why you got Iraq wrong and the French and the UN got it right" - advo.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaah
OMG, that's the most hysterical thing I have read.
The sad thing is is that advo actually believes the tripe he types. I will give him this though, he is consistently stupid, which unduly qualifies him for master liberal; king of the morons.

"It's not a wall, it's a fence" - advo
Nothing gets past these guys, except elections.

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Strickland being behind in Ohio" - advo

But advo, we all know that Ohio can't be trusted with elections, right?

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

And Congress "dumped" it by failing to ratify it and this occurred during Clinton's term in office, not Bush's.

Congress didn't fail to ratify. It was never submitted for a vote. They never dumped anything. Clinton singed it and then sat on his ass.


Since Congress must ratify a treaty for it to become effective and be capable of being "dumped" later, your claim Bush "dumped" it is a lie.

GWB dumped it by making it clear he would never have signed it and he WASN'T going to submit it for ratification. Since his term isn't up until 2009 he killed it.

It was very comical watching Slick Willie fly up to Montreal for the next round of Kyoto discussions. He of course flew up in a private 747 as he always does. Fuel consumption is for us 'common folk' to deal with. He wanted to rally the troops. They were demoralized after hearing Tony Blair tell them the week before to forget mandatory limits in the next round.

Tony was of course vilified but he's in as good a position as Slick Willie. Tony won't negotiate the next round or deal with the consequences. He'll be gone.

Kyoto is a blast. How many liberal elites can you squeeze into one conference?

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

since Bush contributes enormously to the perceived stupdity of conservatism.

Only perceived?

Well there's one thing about liberals we can agree is not a perception. You are in fact losers. The record is clear.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

ReallyDumbWanker: Fuel consumption is for us 'common folk' to deal with. He wanted to rally the troops.

Like your idol?

A pool report on Sept. 26, the day Bush discovered energy conservation and suggested we all forgo non-essential driving, detailed the gas-sucking trip he took that evening to dinner five blocks away from the White House, commandeering five sport- utility vehicles, four vans and two limousines that kept their motors running for the duration of the meal.

Nothing like well-toasted marshmallows.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's why you got Iraq wrong and the French and UN, much to your chagrin, got it right.

The French and the UN are toast. They are yesterday. They do not matter in any way or in any place.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

That's a great analogy CF, let's see here, private citizen Klinton flying solo in a private 747 to an ecological conservation summit or a sitting President shuffling off to dinner surrounded by the trappings of the office. Yeah, no President has ever had to put up with entourages.

CFS - consistently fucking stupid

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

A pool report on Sept. 26, the day Bush discovered energy conservation and suggested we all forgo non-essential driving, detailed the gas-sucking trip he took that evening to dinner five blocks away from the White House, commandeering five sport- utility vehicles, four vans and two limousines that kept their motors running for the duration of the meal.

Bush doesn't decide what security actions the Secret Service takes.

And I'm not knocking Slick Willie. The man gave us Congress and the WH. I am knocking the twits who believe a word he says. I think it's fabulous he's a rock star. He's why you are stuck with Hillary. He is the Democratic party. He is your Sun. Everything revolves around this charismatic genius.

It's going to be a case of two for one and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK
Bush doesn't decide what security actions the Secret Service takes.

I see the whole "unitary executive" theory is applied rather selectively.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Bush should start taking some form of energy-efficient alternative transportation, like a bike...but wait, he can't actually ride a bike without falling flat on his face, so that's out. Sedgway? No, same problem....

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

rdw is full of shit. I happen to know a lot about the Kyoto treaty, and I know that everything rdw spews about it is pure rubbish.

The only thing that rdw cares about is "Bush wins" or rather "Rah Rah Red Team Wins!" He's just one of these sociopathic Republican partisan Bush-bootlickers who literally doesn't care about anything except that "his team" wins. (And actually prefers that they win by lying, cheating and stealing since that gives him a little extra something to gloat about -- as in "Nyah, nyah, look what My Team got away with, you liberal losers, and you can't do nothing about it, cause we've paid off the refs!")

So he concocts bogus scenarios from bogus, fake, phony non-information, which have nothing to do with reality, but which let him paint himself a pretty picture of "Red Team Wins! Red Team Wins!"

Bush and his gang of corporate criminals are screwing America, and indeed (particularly with regard to global warming) screwing the entire world, and rdw just doesn't care. He sits there and worships Bush and Reagan, and the ultra-rich elites whose servants they are, as though they were characters in an Ayn Rand novel, when in fact they are nothing but white collar crooks.

Sure, rdw, the UN "does not matter" -- but it does not matter to whom? Well, it does not matter to the war profiteers, mass murderers, liars and thieves who make up the Bush administration. And the mental slaves who worship them, like you.

rdw, your comments here perform a true public service: they display just what kind of astoundingly stupid, shockingly ignorant know-nothing dumbass it takes to be a hard-core Bush bootlicker, like you.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 14, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

secular, you started out good but then of course your rants quickly flushed from there.
You started out by saying that you know a lot about Kyoto and that rdw was way off and then..............nothing. of. substance. So what do you know about Kyoto and exactly where does rdw have it wrong?

Posted by: Jay on March 14, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

I happen to know a lot about the Kyoto treaty

Then you know what a disaster it's been. You know Canada, Denmark and Spain, to name only 3 of the original signees, are more than 25% OVER their mandatory limits with absolutely no chance of dropping from here.

Then you know there's a huge building boom in Alberta to dig up more Tar Sands to supply America with the Oil it cannot drill from ANWR. You of course also know digging Tar Sands is by far the most environmentally filthy source of energy on the planet.

That's OK. It's Canada's filth.

You of course know China, India, Brazil and the entire under-developed world told the pencil-necks at Kyoto to cram their limits up there arses and now provide the bulk of the worlds manufacturing capacity transferred from the 1st world.

it's a train wreck.

Posted by: rdw on March 14, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Bush gets two judges confirmed and this is seriously presented as evidence of his "success". Then Clinton was a much bigger success, since his two were confirmed by much bigger margins. Suck on it.
Oh, and Kyoto, which was unanimously rejected by the Senate during Clinton's presidency.

Keep spinning away, you Bush fellaters amuse me.
36% approval rating, LOL!

Posted by: Ringo on March 14, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Bush didn't run against Clinton in '00, right. Nevermind, that whole "restore honor and dignity" b.s. was a complete failure too.

Carry on.

Posted by: Ringo on March 14, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Like I said, rdw, when it comes to Kyoto you are full of shit. Your last post simply confirms that -- it was nothing but blithering rubbish. I think that even Rush Limbaugh must have to dumb down his talking points for your benefit.

The only thing you care about is your pathetic groveling stooge-like hero-worship of Bush, and chanting "Bush wins! Bush wins!" over and over and over again. You are nothing but a clown.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 14, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ringo wrote: Kyoto, which was unanimously rejected by the Senate during Clinton's presidency.

That's incorrect. The Kyoto was never submitted to the Senate for ratification so it has never been rejected, unanimously or otherwise.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 14, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

My apologies, I said that Bush's approval rating is 36%. This is incorrect, it is currently 34%.

He's actually an even bigger dismal failure than I had thought.

Posted by: Ringo on March 14, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

I was thinking of this 95-0 vote re Kyoto. At any rate, I think it was pretty much doomed in the Senate, as long as Republicans care more about making a few bucks over children getting asthma and cancer. And it's a joke to point to that as some evidence of Bush's "success".

The Bush fellaters are grasping for straws.

Posted by: Ringo on March 14, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

First let me mention- Rightwing DickWad, Jerkoff Jay, Nathan's Worst Hotdog, and the rest of the trolls must be unemployed welfare cheats living with their mommies- how else to explain that they post drooling idiocy and Bush idolatry nonstop all day long?

Secondly, it is a measure of Tbores intellectual failings that even Ronald Reagan could have a deep thought that Tbores cannot crack:

""As Ronald Reagan said, "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

That is utter crap. Almost every nation on this planet had its roots in bloody war, good governments and bad. And some of them are rooted pretty solidly today."

Reagan, of course, was saying that regimes (not nations, idiots please note) imposed at the point of a bayonet do not flourish. This, for the terminally stupid, is not the same as a government won at the point of a bayonet. There are examples on both sides and his statement may be 60% fact and 40% wishful thinking but it still has a large measure of validity.

Let's use some examples- the American revolution did not impose a regime on the people- the people won the right to form their own government (by force). One can hold up the example of the former USSR, its satellite states, Ireland, India, South Africa, etc. as proof that governments imposed by force do not last.

Even post-WWII Japan, Germany, and Italy can be used to support this argument. Removal of totalitarian and anti-democratic governments allowed the people to form their own democracies (as indeed Germany, Italy and even Japan already had before succumbing to fascism or militarism). The disintegration of Yugoslavia is a fairly apt analogy to Iraq.

Of course, the trolls don't know any of this. They think occupying Iraq to infinity (or at least claiming it- we all know the Republican Party will "cut and run" from Iraq the moment that they think it will win them an election) is great, as long as none of their personal blood is shed there.

The $50,000 question though is what these non-entities do until they receive their RNC talking points for the day- oh I guess we can see that - they just repeat yesterday's. Sad.


Posted by: solar on March 14, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

Jay: But advo, we all know that Ohio can't be trusted with elections, right?

This is Rasmussen polls, Jay, not real voting.

Remember, the election is this fall, not yesterday.

Try to keep up.

OMG, that's the most hysterical thing I have read.

We know.

Conservatives are always finding the truth hysterical and fantasy enlightening.

rdw: Congress didn't fail to ratify. It was never submitted for a vote. They never dumped anything. Clinton singed it and then sat on his ass.

Clinton never singed it or signed it either. Gore did, dimwit. See below. So, one lie already.

Congress passed a resolution finding that the treaty should not be a signatory. See below.

Whether because it wasn't submitted, due to the resolution, or whether they rejected it by vote, Congress nevertheless didn't ratify the treaty; thus they "failed to ratify" the treaty. See below. But you always did have problems with the English language as pointed out many times. Clearly you are either lying or having more of those English problems. Either way, you could have looked up the definition of "failed" and didn't, so it is tantamount to lying.

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 950 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations CNN. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification

Since his term isn't up until 2009 he killed it.

Only in your dreams colored by glorification of all things Bush.

We know you by your lies, though, so that pretty much tells us all we need to know about Bush too.

If he was so great, you wouldn't have to continually lie to make him look good.

Clinton: never lower than 53% during second term.

Bush: 36% and likely going lower.

Even your lies can't make Bush look good now.

Posted by: Advo on March 14, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

That should be . . .

Congress passed a resolution finding that the US should not be a signatory [to the treaty].

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

BTW, rdw, 2009 is not a magic number.

2012 is, perhaps, but not 2009.

Nothing Bush can do will kill the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol is in effect.

It will still be in effect in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

That the US isn't a signatory doesn't make it go away.

A future president and Congress could ratify it, but that's really irrelevant at this point.

Kyoto or not, the US will have to deal with global warming or suffer the consequences.

And the GOP will have to deal with the public's anger as the effects of global warming become more and more apparent and the GOP's lies about global warming equally apparent.

Your commitment to denial is admirable, in the world of conservative lemmingness, but it doesn't impress anyone but already deluded Bushistas.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Rcw, mca, al, and the ever-growing crowd of contrarians:

isn't it a little bit pathetic to spend one's hours stalking the websites of audiences who are absolutely in disagreement with everything you stand for - especially if you aren't making any attempt to persuade, but basically show up to tick people off? Isn't that kind of immature? A little sad? Or to be more specific, not really much to say for yourself in terms of getting out there and fighting for your cause?

Just because you can piss off Advocate for God, do you think, in short, the world gives a damn?

Personally, I agree with most of what Kevin says and very little of the substantive points you're not even trying to make anyway. The net effect of all of your pathetic efforts to, I don't know, get some natural high of trying to make other people feel stupid and weak, is that I mostly skip these comment sections.

So, take a bow. You're really a testament to your movement.

Posted by: glasnost on March 14, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz,

Can't really disagree that the liberals on here match the conservative trolls for antifactual hostility and mindless insults.

I think you like it here and like it that way for that reason - nothing but easy targets. You should come down to glenn greenwald's site. The loony conservatives on there are pounded into the ground, mostly without ever cursing or labeling people.

It wouldn't happen if they ever made arguments that weren't contradicted by basic common sense.

Posted by: glasnost on March 14, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's true that Democrats often seem hopelessly muddled when it comes to presenting a compelling foreign policy message......


This is bullshit. Their message does not get covered.

Posted by: Ba'al on March 14, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Kyoto, which was unanimously rejected by the Senate during Clinton's presidency.

Kyoto was never submotted to the Senate

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 7:14 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton never singed it or signed it either. Gore did

The VP has not authority unless he's acting for the President. It may have been Gore's handwriting but it was under the auhority of the President.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, rdw, 2009 is not a magic number.

2012 is, perhaps, but not 2009

2009 is magic in the sense Kyoto will be totally dead AND in any event it would be impossible to sign.

The real fun will be in Canada. Our Northern neighbors are in the worst of all possible positions. The liberals up there have been patting themselves on the back touting their own environmentalism as the blacken the skies.

They were the worst of the polluters BEFORE the Tar Sands became the biggest boom town on the planet.

Canada, one of the 1st and proudest of the signess's, will be the worlds WORST polluter under Kyoto guidelines.

Best of all, the majority of it's product is exported to the USA. Not only are we doing a much better job under Kyoto than Canada but we'll get to tease them about it every time they open their ignorant mouths.

This is a train wreck we can all enjoy.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

SA: The only thing that rdw cares about is "Bush wins" or rather "Rah Rah Red Team Wins!" He's just one of these sociopathic Republican partisan Bush-bootlickers who literally doesn't care about anything except that "his team" wins.

Well, he declared on another thread that he's a proud "Pepublican" which goes a long way to explaining his fixed and slavering idolatry of a former Yale cheerleader.

It's the pom-poms or something. Makes him drool into his bowl of Fruit Loops.

And, besides, anybody in the South knows that 'cfs' clearly stands for Chicken Fried Steak...

Posted by: CFShep on March 15, 2006 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

he's a proud "Pepublican"

I am a proud conservative.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

That the US isn't a signatory doesn't make it go away.

It doesn't have to go away. If the US doesn't sign it then for all practical purposes it does not exist. At this point it's a great tool however. To beat up the UN and he other fools who promoted it.

Tony Blair issued his 1st and last warning.


A future president and Congress could ratify it, but that's really irrelevant at this point.

Actually there's no chance either would ratify it. It's a joke of an agreement. The mere discussion of it will only humiliate Canada and the EU even more.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

And it's a joke to point to that as some evi
dence of Bush's "success".

GWB's success was not so much in dumping Kyoto but rather in how he dumped it. He gave it all of the attention and study it deserved. NONE!!! This drove, and still drives, the worlds liberals up a wall.

You've got to see the intent here. The liberal world spans California to New England to Canada to France and Germany, etc. and is especially infested within the UN and it's client organizations of which Kyoto is but one. American conservatives see all liberals as weak and feckless, not just the American group. We are in a political war with all of them.

GWBs treatment of the UN, Kyoto, the AMB treaty, decision to reduce our military and diplomatic presence in Europe by 90% and transfer to Asia is all part of this political war. His appointment of John Roberts and Sam Alito, each of whom views international law as totally unrelated, and without influence, on American Law, was a key part of the effort to marginalize not just domestic but global liberalism. Int'l law will never, ever supercede, or interfere with, the US Constitution.

Our dramatic move away from France and Western Europe toward India and Asia perfectly represents
GWBs marginalization of the left.

I would encourage you to read the WH press release describing Chirac's conversation with Bush over Iran. The only purpose of the release was to humiliate France. The only news was that GWB did NOT make the call, did not ask for it and did NOTHING to encourage it. The WH rushed ut out to make sure France did not try to characterize it any differently.

Consider as well John Boltons appointment to the UN. He's there for one reason and one reason only.

Consider as well GWBs aggressive pursuit of academia regarding the Solomon amendment. Clinton did nothing. GWB went after them. The stinging 8 - 0 ruling engineered by John Roberts againt the Ivy league Law crowd. This is a stinging rebuke. The best and the brighest liberal lawyers lose 8 - 0.

It's clear that GWB has done very significant damage to the left domestically and globally. A majority of Americans hold the UN and EU in contempt. The Kyoto crowd is uniformily viewed as a lefty freak show. And this is BEFORE they find out just how comically inept its application has been. In this regard GWB has been an exceptional President for conservatives.

You did notice John Kerry, lifelong Bostonian, ban the term liberal from his campaign right?

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

"I am a proud conservative."

You're not a conservative at all, of course, merely a member of the lunatic fringe and the "Seventh Grade Girls for Dubya" club. True conservatives are ashamed that people like you claim the title.

Also, based on your posts (see the four or five drooling examples above), you are not an American. Your pitiful attempts at English point to 1) English as a (poorly-learned) second language or 2) someone who was home-schooled by baboons.

Posted by: solar on March 15, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

2) someone who was home-schooled by baboons.
Posted by: solar

I love it.

Posted by: CFShep on March 15, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

True conservatives are ashamed that people like you claim the title

Not even a little bit. All are as happy as I watching the slide of global liberalism.

How's Kofi working out for you?

Have you been watching the Feingold -Censure charade? Cool isn't it? I'm not a Frist fan but he's been perfect on this. He's scheduled two votes that Democrats blocked and will continue to schedule votes until Feingold withdrawals his motion. Of course since his base, the looney left, loves it, he'll keep at it. A few conservatives acted like they wanted it to go away but with editorials from the WSJ, National Review and others demanding a vote there's a very good chance we'll get a vote.

What's a Hillary to do? Vote for censure and look as looney as her base? Vote against and look sane but piss off the base?

This is why Senators don't get elected President. Russ is a gem and we've got 3 more years of him.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Associated Press -- Chemicals maker DuPont Co. said on Wednesday it plans to cut 1,500 jobs and close four facilities in Europe as it restructures its performance coatings business. The company also raised its earnings outlook for 2006.

This sucks. American companies make record profits by cutting jobs in Western Europe. That's not fair!

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Solar, CFS

just out of curiosity, why would John Kerry ban the term 'liberal' from his biography?

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm not a Frist fan but he's been perfect on this. He's scheduled two votes that Democrats blocked and will continue to schedule votes until Feingold withdrawals his motion. Of course since his base, the looney left, loves it, he'll keep at it."

Frist's base is the "looney left"? Must you keep posting proof of your illiteracy?

Learn English, then come back.

Posted by: solar on March 15, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

But if military force is no longer the cornerstone of the Republican strategy to fight the war on terror, what is? In 25 words or less?

Walk quietly, but carry a big stick.

Posted by: Truk on March 15, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Feingold withdrawals his motion. Of course since his base, the looney left, loves it, he'll keep at it."

Frist's base is the "looney left"? Must you keep posting proof of your illiteracy?

Learn English, then come back.

learn how to read.

Posted by: rdw on March 16, 2006 at 11:02 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