Well don't forget that Dr Frist successfully diagnosed his own chances of winning the presidency...

The Supreme Court heard its first case on global warming.

They are sending Hamilton out as the advance man in an attempt to shift ownership of this swamp to the Democrats, but there ain't enough lipstick in the world to makie this pig look like a bipartisan prom-date - is there?

By the way - Kevin - your replacements were lame.

So, as the Republicans rode the Vietnam "stab in the back" conspiracy into power in the 70s and we don't want that to happen again, the real question is :

"How do we pull out of that mess while assigning the blame where it belongs, on the Republicans ?"

Any clue ?

Is that it? I'm trying to play some quick catchup from the past couple of days before I start blogging again in the morning. Do I have things about right?

That about sums it up.

Also, a whopping 68% of Americans believe that Iraq is in a civil war while only 14% do not. Guess the White House forgot to check their polling numbers before shaping the language and now they're way behind the curve.

By the way - Kevin - your replacements were lame.

???

Concise topical posts with the requisite dash of wry liberal snark - I thought they were fine.

But then maybe I'm not bloggy enough.

White House forgot to check their polling numbers

No. Shrub figures with no more pesky elections in front of him, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

Has anybody tried reverse psychology with this guy? He's just about the right mental age.

By the way - Kevin - your replacements were lame.

By the way - Kevin - your replacements were lame.

I take it you miss Amy Sullivan telling us how we don't praise Jeebus and say abortion is evil often enough?

Oh God no! I skip Amy altogether. Maybe I'm just bitchy?

Oh yeah, and the Iraqis say that their oil production is in dire jeopardy:

LONDON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - The present state of Iraq's collapsing oil sector, its economic lifeline, is bleak and its future looks far worse, despairing officials say.

Another damaging oil attack this week, the prospect of British troops handing over the oil city of Basra and virtual civil war have all but crushed hope for Iraqi officials battling to keep exports flowing to world markets.

"One thing is sure. The worst is yet to come," an Iraqi oil industry source said by telephone from Baghdad.

His task is made harder still by gross mismanagement at the oil ministry and chronic underinvestment in the vital sector -- already neglected for decades due to sanctions and wars.

"There is no line of authority at the oil ministry," said an oil official in the capital. "We are crippled. We have the resources and the finances and we are still failing."

Other than that and the ethnic cleansing and the civil war and the collapsing Iraqi government, everything is fine, though.

But Windhorse, there has to be a pony in there somewhere.

But Windhorse, there has to be a pony in there somewhere.

If there is, it's been radicalized and has joined a militia by now.

I smell the disrupter troll.

I still want the wingnuts to explain their military plans to win in Vietnam. I have sense enough to know that the super duper victory plans for Iraq cannot be revealed because of the danger to the lives of our military personnel. But no such issues are present for the long-gone war in Vietnam. So come on wingnuts, what was your brilliant military strategy for winning in Nam?

And then, if the plan reveals some concrete ways in which the Democrats and the media hampered the military from acting upon this plan, I might see your point and stop being so Democratic and skeptical and snarky about this whole "stay the course" and "get the job done" bovine byproduct.

There may not be an explicit, publicized timetable, but if you're gonna withdraw thousands of troops, and if that is part of the accepted recommendations, you'll need a timetable to do so. You can't wake up one day and arbitrarily send thousands of troops home. This is just another way to finegle the language so Bush won't have to say he's wrong again.

Is that it?

There was that thing about Jim Webb wanting to give the Preznit an open-handed smack in the mouth.

And the study showing that the more crazy you are, the more likely you are to vote for Bush.

Other than that, you covered it pretty well.

This is just another way to finegle the language so Bush won't have to say he's wrong again.

This isn't a defense of the administration. But if they do decide to withdraw, they will have a timeline. They just won't publicize it. That's ok though isn't it?

Here is a recap of the week tus far. Use it as a handy scorecard when the Friday newsdump happens.

Chimpy is on with Maliki right now, and he is shrill and impatient. He is fucking losing it. "So you bet it's worth it in Iraq!" followed by a "Good to see you." and he headed for the door.

Do you suppose Andrew Lloyd Webber already has the score to Miss Baghdad in a desk drawer? How long after the withdrawal before the London production gets underway?

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站，是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.
万维网火车站,您进行火车票查询和了解火车站的摇篮，我们会为您提供最新的列车时刻表信息。欢迎光临!

Gingrich Condensed: Terrorists can't destroy our liberty if we do it first!

Dick Cheney could have won Vietnam all by himself if he hadn't had to mow his lawn once a week. College republicans could win Iraq if it weren't for the papers they have to google. The President should grant them their degrees and let them have at it.

Oh, yeah: Al, AmericanChickenhawk, and Cheney's Frozen Head all admitted they'd been utterly clueless morons up until now, but that they'd give reality a shot, to see if it might work out a little better for them.

Kevin,

The Sadr bloc hasn't actually "withdrawn" from the government, per say, but have rather suspended their positions.

Even after the "suspensions" several Sadr ministers tried to play it down by suggesting that the work in their respective ministries is still going on and that they would be willing to help if their deputy ministers asked.

I personally think this Sadr threat was just political posturing. Once they realized that Maliki wasn't going to play into their "threats" then they decided to down play the importance of their "boycott."

Kevin, you missed the greatest story of our time. The Democrats have not announced the Intelligence Committee Chair yet. I can't believe that people are wasting space and time discussing war, the collapse of the housing bubble, global warming, and politics when we still don't know who will Chair the Intelligence Committee.

Just like people remember where they were when they found out that Kennedy was shot, the Okalahoma City bombing, and 9/11, people years from now will talk about the time that they found out that we did not have an Intelligence Committee Chair selected a mere five weeks before the Democrats took over the House.

Tom Friedman proposes that we re-occupy Iraq with 150,000 troops.

I propose that we sprinkle pixie-dust over the country.

We agree these are not mutually exclusive options-- we could do both.

reino, classic.

The simple fact that Maliki wouldn't have been able to form a government without the inclusion of Sadr pretty much says it all when it comes to the PM's chances of getting a handle on reigning in the militias.

Kevin's comment on Vietnam highlights one of my worst nightmares. This administration (or a Congressional opposition, if a Democrat wins in '08) will continue to propose more and more egregious restrictions on our liberty in the name of fighting terrorism for the simple reason that, as long as there is something that they asked for, but didn't get, their failure to prevent the eventual next attack can be scapegoated on their not having these expanded powers. The nightmare part is that, sadly, this gives a motivation to pursue these powers irrespective of their efficacy or necessity.

The "we could have won in Viet-Nam" saga will continue ad nauseam despite the fact that a military victory was impossible without an invasion of the north as well as Cambodia and Laos. The invasion tactic would have risked the Chinese responding and military planners weren't willing to take that risk (again).
The other side of the issue is that there were tactics,the John Paul Vann appraoch, that would have worked in V-N just as they could have worked in Iraq.But the Pentagon can't get gigantic budgets approved without a high tech, high equipment reliance.
We not only failed to implement a genuine hearts and minds strategy in V-N, we did the same thing in Iraq.
Of course, blowing shit up is much more viscerally exciting.

democrats have made themselves vulnerable to being blamed for Iraq because they have not clearly and efficiently defined how and why the 'mission' there did not and cannot succeed. Instead they have offered phony alternatives like withdrawal which seem to have more to do with appeasing anti-war types than actually dealing with blunt realism to the nothing but bad scenarios that Iraq offers. Democrats have answered the Iraq problem with rhetoric just as empty as that used by Bush - except that Bush rhetoric at the end of the day will leave impression behind that he sought victory while Democrats embraced defeat. Doesn't matter if it's true or not just so long as people tend to think it is. Certainly McCain is banking on such being the case.

Kevin. Welcome back, but it's worse than that: "London Bridge is falling down, falling down"

Let's start referring to it as "the Republican War in Iraq" in all communications. Let's tie it to their necks.

Instead they have offered phony alternatives like withdrawal which seem to have more to do with appeasing anti-war types than actually dealing with blunt realism to the nothing but bad scenarios that Iraq offers.

Funny, so did the Baker Commission.

James Baker is now appeasing anti-war types? Please. Try to better coordinate the talking points, okay?

I believe the Republican talking point is thank God Baker is giving us cover so we can cut and run and get the hell out of Iraq.

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天

>>>democrats have made themselves vulnerable to being blamed for Iraq

Have the Republicans made themselves vulnerable?

But Windhorse, there has to be a pony in there somewhere.

If there is, it's been radicalized and has joined a militia by now.

It's a jackass and it has missiles strapped to it's back.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/11/22/story72888254.asp

The Iraq study group: Old conservative party says to pull out, Bush says "no, you can't make me".

I hear Bush supporters on C-Span say he is the "elected one" but Bush is losing his mandate via lost poll numbers. Since Bush says, "It isn't civil war, in Iraq," it's a poll number no-no because the headlines and the pundits say, "Bush still in denial, lost in (old campaign loser) rhetoric".

All I got to say is it'll is that 2008 will be a good year for a Dem president. The Republicans learned nothing.

Clark might just be the ticket for conservatives that want the old conservative party back in power and liberals that want something done about the Iraq fiasco.

The best way for Republicans to lose is backing "stay the course" Bushie. As it would seem, McCain already hung himself with his own rope before he could even get around to hiring a campaign manager to advise him otherwise. If it's a draw between Clark and McCain, the old conservatives will chose Clark, if Clark plays up his conservative values. Everybody wants out of this damn war.

Bush's line is: we will stay until the job (undefined) is done, or until the Iraqi govt asks us to leave.

it sounds a lot like the al-Sadr part of the Iraqi government is asking us to leave. i wonder how long it'll be before the rest ask... and i wonder if we'll listen ...

...meanwhile, over at the New York Times, alas, under subscription, DAVID BROOKS is giving advice to Republicans on how they can win back someone like him.

I dunno. That seems seismic to me.

What has happened? Iraq Study Commission findings stovepiped to Saudis by Baker: Cheney (Mr. Energy)summoned to Saudi Arabia for a dressing down; told to get serious about resolving mideast issues (three or four conflicts in progess all abetted by the presidential nincompoop): Rice suddenly talking to Abbas to deal with "the daily humiliations". Hmm, maybe the Saudis and other oil countries have been buying treasury bonds recently (all other regions purchases down) in order to hold the collapse of the dollar over the heads of this administration. Not much, otherwise.

Bush said today that we won't leave until the Iraqi government tells us to. So has he abdicated as Commander/Decider in Chief?

The Iraq Study Group labors heartily and brings forth...mush.

Did they answer the question about who will be the last one to die for a mistake?

That sound you're hearing? That sickening, dull belly slap?

That's the wingnut worldview collapsing.

A few years from now, we'll regard the sighting of a wingnut as a rare occurrence. One of them will emerge and start carrying on about Bill Kristol's column and David Brooks and how the liberal media sold out the Iraqi people and blah blah blah.

The field guide will explain it all--wingnuts: harmless and furry, distended belly from living a sedentary life in squalid conditions, few markings, no feathers, some difficulty moving arms after a decade of frantic typing. No teeth to speak of; severe dementia can be offset by waving copy of Ayn Rand book.

DAVID BROOKS? Dang, what was the premise?

PTate could give us the short and long. Nobody wants to buy into NYT's select. I wonder is Bobo is saying that Bush needs to listen to Baker, that's that is the only ticket back to Repug glory?

The news says Bush is send 3,500 more troops to Baghdad.

Is this Bush's "Last Big Push?"

That this slight increase in cannon fodder is what will win the war in Iraq? Some big push, but, of course, that must be all of the manpower left of Bush's back door draft and that Bush is banking on his last ditch effort. I wonder how many of the GOP are torn between “stay the course” Bushie OR backing Baker as the new re-election ticket for 2008? We already know where McCain's position is, right beside Bush.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

David Brooks wants us to wash and wax his Beemer for his monthly drives to Suburbia land where he checks the pulse of the nation at Wal-Mart.

Pulling combat troops out of Iraq is essential, but, even more essential, is pulling Non-combat troop commanders out of the White House in 08.

Good to see Bill O'Arrogantone in the 14% group - he thought he was only taking on NBC when he said there was chaos, but no Civil War - He didn't know he was taking on Colin Powell and Rep Ike Skelton.

Global Citizen,

Lame? Hmmm - But, Debra Dickerson could have come back and really pissed the rick mick.

Global Citizen: But Windhorse, there has to be a pony in there somewhere.

Winhorse: If there is, it's been radicalized and has joined a militia by now.

Christ that's funny. Couldn't stop laughing.

I still want the wingnuts to explain their military plans to win in Vietnam. I have sense enough to know that the super duper victory plans for Iraq cannot be revealed because of the danger to the lives of our military personnel. But no such issues are present for the long-gone war in Vietnam. So come on wingnuts, what was your brilliant military strategy for winning in Nam?

The plan was victory!

And, of course, Armee Gruppe Steiner, which would break through Red Army lines to relieve Berlin. How, you ask, would relieving Berlin have saved Vietnam? The answer is simple: don't ask.

Neoconservatives and the Dilemmas of Strategy and Ideology, 1992-2006

In all the discussions of neoconservative foreign policy that have taken place over the past couple of years --- some more informed than others, some more disapproving that others --- there is one abiding perception that seems to unite critics and proponents alike: that a neoconservative foreign policy is distinct from other strands of conservatism because of its emphasis on democracy promotion and that, in fact, exporting democracy for strategic and moral reasons --- and through hard power if necessary --- is one of the central defining purposes of contemporary second generation neoconservatism.

This paper will challenge the dominant view that neoconservatism prioritises democracy promotion. It will examine the nature of the neoconservative foreign policy strategy articulated during the 1990s --- which, it is argued, has been widely misinterpreted --- and will discuss the strategic and ideological tensions inherent within the strategy. Though the George W. Bush administration has not followed a neoconservative strategy in every respect, his administration has been strongly influenced by it and so some of these strategic and ideological tensions have also emerged since 9/11. It is my belief that the central cause of this tension is that the most important priority of the neoconservative strategy has always been to preserve the post-cold war ‘unipolar moment’ by perpetuating American pre-eminence and this clashes with the purported emphasis on democratization. The strategy also risks imperial overstretch and, for the most part, it fails to consider matters that are not state-based economic or state-based military issues.

At the end of the cold war, the first generation of neoconservatives that had emerged in the early seventies, was replaced by a second, younger generation that began to gravitate around the idea of American unipolarism.1 (This is the group that will be the subject of our discussion here.) It is important to clarify from the beginning that although this younger group was organised and led primarily by neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, it was not their exclusive domain; rather it was a mix of neocons and other conservatives, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who all shared a vision of a unipolar America, a vision of global dominance. Gary Dorrien refers to this group collectively as “unipolarists”.2 In the main, neocons were the most important organisers and theorists within this network, but their ideas enjoyed some wider support.3 How much of a difference there, in fact, is between neocons and their other conservative sympathisers is an issue we will return to.

In terms of strategy, this group embraced the concept of unipolarism.4 At the end of the Cold War, American found itself, to use Charles Krauthammer’s famous phrase, in a “unipolar” position. It no longer had to accept the existence of a competing superpower, so rather than following a defensive strategy, like the one put forward by the first generation of neocons in the 70s, the US could now project power offensively to shape the world and construct an American imperium.5

This was captured in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance document, written for then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, by staffers Zalmay Khalilzad and Lewis Libby, who worked for the undersecretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz.6 In contrast to the first generation of neocons, they now had the freedom to develop a strategy that rejected coexistence with any rival power and actively sought to prevent the emergence of a new competitor. This was the essence of the neoconservative strategy that was built upon by their think tanks and advocacy groups during the nineties.

In preventing the emergence of a rival power, Washington would be constructing --- in the words of Kristol and Kagan ----a “benevolent global hegemony”.7 While this would not solve every problem in the world, American hegemony would be better than any conceivable alternative. Joshua Muravchik wrote in 1992 of “the soothing effect” of American power because it could maintain order in the world and reassure those feeling threatened by other states.8 Moreover, according to Kristol and Kagan, “most of the world’s major powers” “welcome…and prefer” American hegemony to any other alternative because they are much better off under Washington’s tutelage since it looks after their interests too9 and thus discourages them from seeking to challenge American power.

According to most of the neoconservatives, the “benevolence” of this “empire” --- to use Kagan’s words --- was assured by the fact that moral ideals and national interest almost always converge.10 What is good for American preponderance is, de facto, good both morally and strategically for most of the rest of the world too. As Wolfowitz wrote in Spring 2000: “Nothing could be less realistic than… the ‘realist’ view of foreign policy that dismisses human rights as an important tool of American foreign policy.”11

More:
Neoconservatives and the Dilemmas of Strategy and Ideology, 1992-2006 [pdf]

Josh Marshall makes a good point today that Iraq is actually much, much worse than Vietnam, because in Vietnam (and in most Cold War insurgencies we were involved in) there was a substantial number of anti-Communist pro-Americans, usually compromised of the military, the landowners and the business class. They were a natural constituency in league with American aims. In Iraq, however, there is no one we can count on to be our ally:

[A]mong the major, powerful groups in the country we have at best, contingent and often momentary support from whomever we're not against. So, we have a marriage of convenience with the Shi'as while we're mauling the Sunnis, and vice versa. The Kurds are a significant exception to this general observation, but because of their relatively small slice of the population, their inherent antagonism toward most of the neighboring states and the fact that they're geographically limited to the north, I'm not sure it's an exception that changes the general truth.

This bleak situation showed itself most clearly in the recent discussion of administration thinking on just whose side we would choose to support if and when we finally decide to start calling the situation in Iraq a 'civil war'. Going on four years running the place (officially or in effect) we're still not certain who our friends are. And that's really a round-about way of saying we don't have any.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

"Do I have things about right?"

Lets see:

Liberals still think that Iran and Syria, which have enthusiastically supported violence in Iraq from the beginning, are the key to peace and stability there.

Hersh is still hallucinating about war in Iran. Wasn't that supposed to happen as an October Surprise?

And the New Republic quotes a newspaper on what Newt said. Somewhat inaccurately.

Simple solution:

- Get rid of Maliki. (It will happen soon anyway)

- Rehabilitate Baathist Party. (See Juan Cole,28 November)

- Neocon-Sunni Entente (See Pat Lang, 28 November)

- Arm Sunni extremists and set 'em on Iran - (that's how we dealt with Russia in Afghanistan, wasn't it?)

- Find strong Sunni leader who'll win over the Sunnis, deal with the Shia and Kurds, unite the country, make Iraq a bulwark against Iranian expansionism, bring peace and unity to Iraq.

Yeah - but who? Well I know this bloke - saw him a lot on telly until a few years ago - got a beard, black hair, comes from Tikrit, currently in prison - proven track record - CV shows he's ideal candidate.

Rehabilitate S----m H-----n. Man for the job.

What the news media seemed to miss yesterday is that not only did Powell break the code and admit that Iraq is in a state of civil war, he basically gave a wholesale and damning confession that the administration was wrong on just about every aspect of the invasion and occupation, from it's evidentiary basis to its execution:

Powell on the violence in Iraq:

"It's time to face reality and recognise that Iraq is in a state of civil war," Powell said. "I think it meets the standard of a civil war."

Powell on the existence of WMD's:

"We have to come to the conclusion that there were no stockpiles," he said. "The UN did a better job than we thought." He also discounted the idea that any WMD were buried or were moved to Syria.

Powell admitted that had he not argued that Hussain had WMD, there would not likely have been a war.

"If we had known that there were no WMD, then the whole equation would have been different," he said. Powell said that if the WMD had not existed, and Hussain has come forward with the information required by the UN, the war might have been avoided.

Powell also said that without the WMD, Congress probably would not have passed the resolution that allowed the invasion to take place.

Powell on the lack of due diligence and planning by the part of the administration:

Addressing questions about the current state of Iraq, Powell admitted that the US failed to anticipate and eliminate the insurgency in Iraq.

"We did not handle that well," he said. "We did not bring order and security. We should have known an insurgency was possible. We were naïve."

Powell on the effect that occupying troops in Iraq has on the level of violence:

Powell also said that the US should have had more troops on the ground, but noted that keeping current troops levels was unrealistic and also helped fuel the insurgency.

"We're security, but we're also part of the problem."

Liberals still think that Iran and Syria, which have enthusiastically supported violence

Proof please.

in Iraq from the beginning, are the key to peace and stability there.

James Baker is a liberal?

For you, Cheryl: "PTate could give us the short and long."

David Brooks, NYT, Nov 30 offers seven points of advice: "I’ve never been a swing voter before. For most of my adult life I’ve felt the Republicans tended to have the best approaches to expand economic opportunity, meet foreign threats and restore a culture of personal responsibility. But over the past few years I’ve grown estranged from many Republicans, especially the ones leading the House. I’m one of those suburbanites who thought the G.O.P. deserved to lose the last election, and now I find myself floating out there in independent-land, not a Democrat, just looking for something new."

1) don't listen to your consultants and don't focus on groups, focus on problems
2) be policy-centric, not philosophy-centric. (money quote:"The Republican weakness is not a lack of grand principles, it’s a lack of concrete policies commensurate with the size of 21st-century problems.")
3) create a Republican Leadership Council ("In the realm of ideas, Democrats own the center."
4) support stem cell research
5) support free trade, while responding to the downside of globalization
6)spread assets. Every citizen, from birth, should have an I.R.A.-type savings account.
7)raise taxes on carbon emissions...

Hoo-hah! I have two further observations:
--I think Brooks may have written this same article in 2004,only substituting "Democrat" for "Republican" throughout.
--please note that Iraq, a plan for Iraq and providing leadership on national security, in the WOT, etc, etc, does NOT appear on his list. And what, I wonder, should we make of that significant omission????

"James Baker is a liberal?"

Only down at the local Committee for Public Safety headquarters - Litmus tests conducted daily - Tumbrills must keep rolling, as only the purest of the pure can remain in the Party.

AND there was Powell saying, "Don't let Saddam divide the UN".

ANYWAYS, this just in, (I don't believe it):

Bush acknowledged that pressure and said he wanted to start troop withdrawals as soon as possible. Still, he insisted the U.S. will stay "until the job is complete."

"I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq," he said. "This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all."

The president added: "I'm a realist because I understand how tough it is inside of Iraq."

GOP must have ganged-up on Bushie and in unison, declare together, “listen you stupid idiot, the Dems are the least of your worries buddy, cause we aren’t giving up our sits for you and Dick Cheney's big Iraq embarrassment.”

AND HEADLINES READ: Bush declares victory “with a graceless” exit strategy

Thank you, James Baker.

The old conservatives win out. McCain must be crying in his coffee, "boo ho ho, we lost Vietnam all over again"

Do I have things about right?

A few omissions on the Democratic side. As I quoted on the other thread, the Democratic House leadership has changed its mind about implementing recommendations of the 911 commission to increase House oversight of intelligence; they are going to form a new committee instead.

Brooks "a culture of personal responsibility."

Thanks PTate.

What a riot.

Brooks, your mission, even if don't like it, is to fund old people's retirement funds, cause sitting behind Times Select is a such a distinguish privilege that it requires compassionate conservative sacrifices. Why bank on iffy I.R.A's when you can bank on the personal responsibility of David Brooks. Keep writing Brooks because the old people of American are depending on you bud.

here is another story that you missed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6158121.stm

With revenues guraranteed from their oil sales to China, the Sudanese government has no need to respect the semi-autonomy of the south.

Plus, the Darfur crisis continues, though we are assured by Bashir that there is no "genocide".

Also, despite the obesity epidemic in other parts of Africa, there is ongoing large scale starvation in Zimbabwe.

Cheer up! Practically none of the serious suffering in the world at large was a result of Republican dysfunctionality.

Kevin wrote: "Is that it? I'm trying to play some quick catchup from the past couple of days before I start blogging again in the morning."

Not much has changed here. Your comment pages are still overrun with right-wing know-nothing ignorant dumbass dittoheads spouting scripted, bogus Republican propaganda, most noticeably to me in response to the posts about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the EPA's legal obligation to regulate CO2 emissions.

Of course, Scalia was spouting the very same right-wing know-nothing ignorant dumbass scripted bogus Republican propaganda at the hearing.

I have less and less confidence that we will be able to quell the violence in Iraq. But, holding talks with our enemies is utterly bizarre. Iran and Syria want us to fail in Iraq. They want the US out of the middle east. They want Iraq's democratic government to fail. They want Israel to be destroyed. What could talks with them possibly achieve?

ex-liberal: What could talks with [Iran and Syria] possibly achieve?

How about measures designed to put the brakes on the presumed Iranian and Syrian objectives you've listed?

Holding talks with enemies is "utterly bizarre"???

It's that sort of bullying approach to diplomacy that's gotten us into this mess...

Wonderin, what measures to put the brakes on Iran and Syria do you think would come out of talks with them?

Iran and Syria want us to fail in Iraq.

Nice of Bush to oblige them, then.

Holding talks with enemies is "utterly bizarre"???

Yes, much better to hold talks only with your friends. That way you never have to be disturbed by hearing something you don't agree with....

It's precisely because they're your enemies that you talk to them, in the hopes of persuading them to change their behavior. After all, as Churchill so famously said "to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war."

Wonderin, what measures to put the brakes on Iran and Syria do you think would come out of talks with them?

What measures to put the brakes on Iran and Syria do you think would come out of not talking to them?

"How do we pull out of that mess while assigning the blame where it belongs, on the Republicans ?"

We impeach, try and convict in the Senate, remove, try and convict in criminal court, and punish the Republican war criminals responsible. That's how you fix the blame where it belongs, by holding the blameworthy responsible for their actions.

If we don't try to do that, well, then it shows that we don't really think they were culpable, and validates their efforts to portray their actions as right and shift the blame for the results elsewhere.

ex-lib, we now know that Iran approached Bush a few years ago with an offer to talk, and that Iran offered to put everything on the table, including their "nuclear ambitions" and their support for radica-leaning groups such as Hizbullah.

Bush blew it off.

The point is that talks can lead in any number of directions: from measures designed to dial down the violence in Iraq (at least the violence that Iran/Syria may have some influence over), to measures that might keep any ongoing civil conflict from spilling over into the rest of the region, to discussions about the Israel-Palestine question, to discussions about Iranian nuclear ambitions, etc., etc.

It's important to realize that Iran & Syria really don't want to be attacked by us. They will talk. We are fast losing this window of opportunity.

ckelly asks for proof that Iran and Syria have enthusiastically supported violence.

ABC News International has a relevant story, hot off the press.

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
Hezbollah Training also linked to Iraq Violence

Of course, that story could also have read:

American Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
American Training also linked to Iraq Violence

But yeah, the thought that an Iranian-allied Shiite fundamentalist militia might be assisting Iraqi Iranian-allied Shiite fundamentalist militias to defend themselves? Shocking. And, I might add, precisely what we predicted might happen as an ultimate result of our attack on Iraq.

By the way, here's part of that article that ex-liberal linked to. Notice that the sole source for these assertions are only "U.S. officials," "a senior defense official," "one of the senior officials," etc. There isn't one named person or agency in the piece, not one person who's willing to stand and be accountable for these assertions. The whole thing reeks of Cheney and his crew. After the last five years, we can all agree that the word of an anonymous "senior defense official" peddling conspiracy theories isn't worth a dime.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.....

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

Charles Johnson at LGF and Michelle Malkin have embarked on a new kerning frenzy.

Remember those six Sunnis that were attacked and burned last week? Apparently a military public affairs officer wrote to AP and told them the incident couldn't be confirmed and no one had recognized the name of the primary source for the story.

The foamers in the righty blogosphere have determined that this means the AP is spreading insurgent propaganda.

Most interesting subtext: The Lincoln Group is involved. Remember them? They're the outfit that was found to be paying Iraqi journalists to write stories favorable to the coalition.

But yeah, the thought that an Iranian-allied Shiite fundamentalist militia might be assisting Iraqi Iranian-allied Shiite fundamentalist militias to defend themselves? Shocking. And, I might add, precisely what we predicted might happen as an ultimate result of our attack on Iraq.

And, moreover, "ex-liberal"'s cite falls somewhat short of "proof that Iran and Syria have enthusiastically supported violence."

To no one's surprise.

"ex-liberal," no one mistakes you for an honest commentator. You may show no shame at continuing to post your bullshit no matter how many times it's debunked, but it does raise the question -- why do you bother?

Back to the ABC article: there's virtually no independent reporting in the piece, no on the record confirmations by named officials, no interviews with Hezbollah, Syrian or Iranian officials confirming or denying, no confirmation by indepedent analysts or outside defense experts, etc. The whole thing is really nothing more than Cheney-cabal gossip transcribed as a news article. Which leads me to wonder about ABC "News" -- why do they bother?

True enough, Stefan, but even if the sourcing was rock-solid, it still wouldn't prove what "ex-liberal" claims it does.

Well, nothing ever does, does it? Why tarnish his unbroken record of failure, mendacity and incompetence now?

Good Ford -- I'd never considered that "ex-liberal" may be an actual Administration hack! ;)

Another Democratic story, a continuation of Pelosi's attempt to drain the swamp of corruption:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002059.php

Let's face it--we got our ass kicked in Iraq. The mighty Baathists, fierce Iranians, and crafty AQ have defeated the U.S. Way to go, guys.

Now that we have attempted to show our humanity in Iraq (democracy, liberty, liberation of women, etc--you know, the corny stuff), maybe it is time to show our inhumanity.

Now that we have attempted to show our humanity in Iraq (democracy, liberty, liberation of women, etc--you know, the corny stuff), maybe it is time to show our inhumanity.

I somehow doubt that the 600,000 Iraqi dead and the millions maimed, wounded and bereaved would agree that what we've shown in Iraq has been our "humanity".....

And, just to correct the record, but women in Iraq were already "liberated" before we invaded. Iraq was one of the most secular nations in the Arab Muslim world, and women enjoyed a higher status there than in its neighbors. It was only thanks to the US attack on Iraq that women have been forced indoors due to fear of rape, murder, and religious fundamentalism.

Something tells me the Kurds and Shia in Saddam's little funhouse may disagree with you there, Ol' Steffi.....But freking nice try, anyway.

Democrats prosper on K street, more being hired.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201940.html

K street is "under new management".

2006年工作总结 好狗网 大众健康的博客 关注肝癌 健康网的blog 肝癌浅谈 牛皮癣博客 人与疾病 关注胃癌 关注健康 悯泯之音 黑色幽默 心静的白话字 最后一口 我爱电影 我爱电影 想想未来 喜剧不俗 尘埃博客 秋菠太老博客 乒乓博客 唐诗博客 免费手机铃声

m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 m7 m8 m9 m10 m11 m12 m13 m14 m15 m16 m17 m18 m19 m20 m21 m22 m23 m24 m25 m26 m27 m28 m29 m30 m31 m32 m33 m34 m35 m36 m37 m38 m39 m40 m41 m42 m43 m44 m45 m46 m47 m48 m49 m50 m51 m52 m53 m54 m55 m56 m57 m58 m59 m60 m61 m62 m63 m64 m65 m66 m67 m68 m69 m70 m71 m72 m73 m74 m75 m76 m77 m78 m79 m80 m81 m82 m83 m84 m85 m86 m87 m88 m89 m90 m91 m92 m93 m94 m95 m96 m97 m98 m99 m100