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

October 3, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

VSP WATCH....The Washington Post has compiled a list of all the foreign policy advisors to the major presidential candidates. Matt Yglesias comments:

On the Republican side, John McCain's list probably contains the greatest quantity of frightening crazy people. Rudy Giuliani's list, on the other hand, is completely untempered with the inclusion of any big-name non-crazy people, whereas McCain at least leavens the Kagan/Kristol/Woolsey axis with some Armitage/Eagleburger/ Scowcroft counterweights. Basically, if McCain becomes president, we're probably doomed, but if Giuliani becomes president we're definitely doomed.

Quite so. Of course, what would be more genuinely useful is a list of the people who actually have each candidate's ear on foreign policy, not a telephone book of every single foreign policy wonk who's made an endorsement. I want to know which ones are figureheads and which ones are likely to have West Wing offices in 2009.

On a related note, remember Sally Field's cri de coeur at the Emmy Awards that "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place"? There's not really much reason for thinking she's right, but maybe we ought to give it a shot. Out of 148 names in the Post's list, a grand total of seven are women. Maybe it's time to tamp down the testosterone level among our foreign policy elite?

Kevin Drum 1:56 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (56)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Well, we have Coulter and Malkin as counter-examples. I'm not sure if they're mothers, but they're definitely in the "Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out if He can find the pieces" school of foreign policy.

Posted by: ArkPanda on October 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

It's "cri de coeur", Kevin. :-)

Posted by: Frenchdoc on October 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Coulter and Malkin are prima-facie evidence that gender and sex are independent. Which only means that some women are more masculine than your average man. Kevin meant to say "Out of 148 names in the Post's list, a grand total of seven are feminine".

Posted by: absent observer on October 3, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure if they're mothers,

Oh they're mothers alright.

Posted by: ckelly on October 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't they teach you in journalism school not to use abbreviations that are not in common usage? Maybe I'm slow, but I still can't figure out... what is VSP (other than a designation for cognac?)

Actually, it gets worse. Andrew Sullivan recently titled a post "MGM update." What? Is he going to give us his view on the classic Hollywood musicals? No, he means "Male Genital Mutilation." Wasn't that obvious?

Posted by: wagster on October 3, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

McCain is another Bush wanna be, a vote for McCain means that our troops will be over in Iraq for ever more, there is not a republican that is running for office that is worth a shit let alone have a chance of winning after all the corruption that Bush has put on this country I dont believe that any republican has a chance in hell at winning anything.

Posted by: Al on October 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Wagster, "VSP" = Very Serious Person

Posted by: Frenchdoc on October 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Not that this, in & of itself, means anything in particular, but 6 of those 7 women are lined up on the side of Democrats. But to your point that this would somehow tamp down testosterone levels, as you put it, it's not as if Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, and a Lieutenant General & former Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence are reluctant to use military force in pursuit of policy goals. Susan Rice & Sarah Sewall might inspire greater confidence in diplomacy over muscle. As for the other two, I know nothin'.

Posted by: junebug on October 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, Frenchdoc! [groan] Is this just because I'm old and I don't text-message all my BFFs?

Posted by: Wagster on October 3, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

After watching the final episode of The War last night, I have no patience with hyperbolic phrases like "definite doomed". Even if, for the sake of argument, Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, the consequences have been far from "doom." Doom would have been if we had lost WW2, allowing Hitler and Tojo to rule the world.

Nor am I happy with the phrase "frighening crazy". Foreign policy is tough and uncertain. In the 1930's, Neville Chambelain was lauded, while Winston Churchill was considered frightening and crazy by many. History subsequently reversed those judgments.

Those who disagree with the neo-con policy ought to acknowledge that they have no guaranty that their policy will necessarily work out better in the long run. People of good faith can disagree in their judgments without being crazy.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 3, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, for the days of yore - Those sweet matrons, Maggie Thatcher, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Phyllis Schafley.

And the Soviets used women snipers to stay behind the line of attack - No, not to shoot Nazis, but to shoot retreating Soviets.

Posted by: stupid git on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lax: Nor am I happy with the phrase "frighening crazy".

OK. How about "frighteningly stupid?"

Posted by: thersites on October 3, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's time to tamp down the testosterone level among our foreign policy elite?"

Can't quite agree that testosterone is an issue, when you have the forced suedo-nads of someone like Liz Cheney, who has both the proverbial chip and Daddy's backing to use it.

Male or female, Condi aside, what were once trustworthy and infallible attributes, like a calm mind, rationality, and sanity, have all been turned for the dark side by the GOP by way of a thorough Regent's education and instilling the beautific view that anything goes when one is under the calling of a Higher Power.

Posted by: Zit on October 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

On the Republican side, John McCain's list probably contains the greatest quantity of frightening crazy people.

The Carpetbagger Report did two or three posts a little while back asking readers questions like who was the best candidate for us to run for president, or who was the scariest among the Republicans, or who was the most favorable for us to run against (the only one I remember for sure was "who is the scariest Republican").

My answer was something like McCain was the most dangerous becaus he was most likely to go along with neocon requested military adventurism to the point of it being a fault.

Posted by: Swan on October 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: "... Even if, for the sake of argument, Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, the consequences have been far from 'doom.'"

Yes, it's been especially doom-free for you war supporters cheering from the comfort of your living rooms.

"Those who disagree with the neo-con policy ought to acknowledge that they have no guaranty that their policy will necessarily work out better in the long run."

Fittingly, yours is an argument to ignorance. "You can't say that the neocons were wrong, because history might someday, just maybe, prove them right. Maybe not next week or next year -- maybe not even 10 years from now -- but someday. Maybe."

"People of good faith can disagree in their judgments without being crazy."

Yup. Problem is, you're not one of them.

Posted by: junebug on October 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't worry about Jose McCain. A minimum requirement for president might be patriotism and honesty. His support for illegal infiltration demonstrates he is neither patriotic nor law abiding.

His old man, by the way, was a prime mover in the USS Liberty cover up. Breeding will tell.

Posted by: Luther on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Those who disagree with the neo-con policy ought to acknowledge that they have no guaranty that their policy will necessarily work out better in the long run.

Apart from the record of failure, incompetence and out-and-out delusion of the neocons, you mean. We're used to transparently, insultingly spurious arguments from you, but "it may work out in the long run" is pretty weak beer.

Anyway, if you really thought Iraq was a success, you wouldn't be working so hard on the Dolchstosslegende to shift the blame from your reeking neocon cabal. That dog won't hunt.

People of good faith can disagree in their judgments without being crazy.

Since when are you and your neocon pals "people of good faith." "ex-liberal"? Bad faith is your entire schtick here. Even so, while your statement may be technically true, ir does not follow that you deluded, mendacious, incompetenct neocon fuckwads aren't crazy, to a man and woman. Barking mad, the lot of you.

Oh, and "ex-liberal"? We know that your philosophy begins and ends with "I've got mine," but the concesquences of Bush's invasion certainly were doom for a couple of thousand Americans and Iraqis.

Jackass.

Posted by: Gregory on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

There's not really much reason for thinking she's right,

Heh, good point.

Maybe it's time to tamp down the testosterone level among our foreign policy elite?

I think as long as the men are running the scripts and the women are trying to please the male hawks, there's no reason to think that if we had a bunch of female conservative hawks running foreign policy they'd vary significantly from what the honchos who have indoctrinated them want. Look at Condi. We're past the point of women's contributing making that kind of a difference on foreign policy. The change would have to be more fundamental than using women who have already been socialized and indoctrinated into it in place of the men. Women have to bring a fresh perspective into the acadmic side of the field. Maybe they can do this by providing a counterweight to the expectation that one has to give arguments for application of the use of force (rather than erring on the side of caution) to be an interesting foreing policy expert. But there's no reason to think people besides women can't do this, either.

Posted by: Swan on October 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm wondering just why thes people need so many advisors in the first place, wingnuts or not. Seems like way too many cooks. Just window dressing or what?

Posted by: emjayay on October 3, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: "... Even if, for the sake of argument, Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, the consequences have been far from 'doom.'"

Might I suggest www.iraqbodycount.org in your favorites and glance at it once in a while. And these numbers are documented, the one below adds a few more for the deaths that aren't.

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
POSTED: 9:52 p.m. EDT, October 11, 2006

And this doesn't count the evacuated and displaced persons, the broken families, the smashed communities, the mere inconvenience of a war going on in one's home town.

Doom, indeed.

Posted by: Zit on October 3, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

but "it may work out in the long run" is pretty weak beer.

I thought it was piss - dumped it right out.

Posted by: ckelly on October 3, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

I, for one, intend to spend my savings and my entire paycheck on lottery tickets tonight. And I'll get cash advances on credit cards to buy some more. Maybe I'll take some money from the company till also. Who's to say that's not a wise investment until after the drawing? And even if I lose it all, my great-grandson might be inspired by the story of the sorry outcome, caused by my stupid-crazy evaluation of relative risks and benefits, to live a rational life and invent a car that runs on dog poo.

Who is to say?

In 4 billion years the earth will be inhabitable. Makes my stupid-crazy purchase of lottery tickets, WWII and the Iraq war look like pretty small potatoes, doesn't it?

Any decision can look insignificant if you compare it to the right, if unrelated, outcome.

Posted by: cowalker on October 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy has John Podhoretz, who even many "conservatives" acknowledge is completely insane.

Posted by: MaxGowan on October 3, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, the consequences of 9/11 weren't "doom" either, compared to WWII, or the destruction of earth's atmosphere. But the administration certainly encouraged us to think so, didn't they? In fact, FOX TV is regularly showing bits of faux news designed to make us think that leaving Iran in peace will be equal to "doom" for America.

I'm no doomsayer. I think America can survive an unbombed Iran.

Posted by: cowalker on October 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

So Rudy has former FBI director Louis J. Freeh, the person who spent all his time trying to "get" Clinton rather than investigating suspicious Saudi Arabian flight school students. Lovely.

Posted by: Jenna's Bush on October 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy has John Podhoretz, who even many "conservatives" acknowledge is completely insane.

He's a regular Sigmund Freud compared to his father, though.

Posted by: Gregory on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

I never heard Sally Field's cri de coeur. It had been censored in the delayed Emmy broadcast out here, apparently along with her statement calling upon the workers of the world to rise up and free themselves from their bourgeois-imposed chains. I suppose the powers-that-be probably forced designer Bob Mackie to airbrush her green Mao suit (the one with the cute little red star on the hat) into that lovely black chiffon evening dress we all thought she was wearing.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 3, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

.


I've been to all those places and met all those people.

Did I ever mention that Abbie Hoffman ran me for Secretary of Defense on the Pigasus ticket in 1968?

Yes, I know all these guys cold.

It will take me a little bit of homework to prosecute Bush and Cheney at The Hague.

. -dlj.




.


Posted by: .David Lloyd-Jones on October 3, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory: Apart from the record of failure, incompetence and out-and-out delusion of the neocons, you mean. We're used to transparently, insultingly spurious arguments from you, but "it may work out in the long run" is pretty weak beer.

No single approach has worked perfectly We now know that a militarily aggressive policy against Germany in the 1930s would have saved tens of millions of lives. That's more than the sum of lives lost due to all the situation when we were too aggressive, such as Vietnam.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 3, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Well it does look like ironies are going to bloom like daisies in 2009.

Most likely, Hillary's going to be President and Commander in Chief. You can stir together all the male VSPs you want in one huge vat of testosterone and still they'll have to answer to a woman, who's going to be the one and only VVSP.

Posted by: frankly0 on October 3, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

No single approach has worked perfectly

Again, you dishonestly imply that the neocon policy works at all -- at least, to the benefit of the United States.

The fact that you compare WWII with the consequences "being too aggressive" in Vietnam -- a nation with a much smaller population and industrial base than Nazi Germany, and moreover, that was fighting a nationalist insurgency against waht was viewed as a corrupt puppet regime rather than a war of conqest in Europe -- is just further proof of your bad faith. That post must have given you a special sick thrill, didn't it?

But arguing with you is a mug's game, "ex-liberal." The fallacious nature of your argument by ignorance was pointed out to you before, and here you are repeating it. It isn't convincing, but you know that; that's the whole point -- to insult your better by posting the most obvuiosuly spurious, bad faith arguments you can muster. It's an amazing bit of psychodrama I can only conclude is propelled by the collapse of your hero Bush and the deadly incompetence of your loathsome neocon cabal.

Why Kevin's moderators tolerate your bullshit but censor rdw -- who is annoying in his repetitive delusions but at least sincere in them -- is a mystery.

Posted by: Gregory on October 3, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

For an example of who not to get foreign policy advice from, seek out the identity of the "senior White House foreign policy official" (I'll give you a hint, it's probably someone who answers to the Vice-President and the Vice-President only) and get that person to endorse your opponent.

Mark it down on your calendars--the Bush administration actually let it leak out that they think the British have done a poor job in Iraq.

Way to fuck over your only significant ally in the whole entire world. Jeeeeeee-zus.

from thinkprogress:
White House Retaliates Against UK For Withdrawal: ‘British Forces Have Performed Poorly’ In Iraq

This week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he would reduce British presence in Iraq from 5,500 troops to 4,500 by Christmas. The Guardian reports today that Brown will cut “significantly more than the 1,000 announced yesterday” by next year.

In response to the withdrawal announcement, the White House has decided to slander Britain. The London Telegraph reports today that a senior White House official has revoked Britain’s status of being “the closest Bush ally“:

“There’s concern about Brown,” a senior White House foreign policy official told The Daily Telegraph. “But this is compensated by the fact that Paris and Berlin are much less of a headache. The need to hinge everything on London as the guarantor of European security has gone.”

The White House official added that Britain would always be “the cornerstone” of US policy towards Europe but there was “a lot of unhappiness” about how British forces had performed in Basra and an acceptance that Mr Brown would pull the remaining 4,500 troops out of Iraq next year.

“Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra,” said the official. “Maybe it’s best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq.”

----------------
For the record, the presence of British troops in Basra has freed up US troops. Way to go, Bush administration. Is it time to start bombing Sweden yet?

Posted by: Pale Rider on October 3, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Hey ex and or current asshat. If i'm not mistaken since ww2 you can count the number of countries that invaded other countries on one hand. So what are you saying we should aggressively attack all countries we have a thought might be trouble makers. I relly don't think that there are any current comparables to nazi Germany of the thirties unless of course you want to start heiling bush.

Posted by: Gandalf on October 3, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: "No single approach has worked perfectly"

Or even well. And your boy, Georgie, is responsible for every single one of those approaches.

"We now know that a militarily aggressive policy against Germany in the 1930s would have saved tens of millions of lives. That's more than the sum of lives lost due to all the situation when we were too aggressive, such as Vietnam."

Unless you're about to share with us Saddam's strategy to take over the whole of Europe & gas the Jews, your point is completely irrelevant. Your non sequitur about Vietnam isn't worthy of comment.

Posted by: junebug on October 3, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

We now know that a militarily aggressive policy against Germany in the 1930s would have saved tens of millions of lives.

Of course, we also know that the republicans and their business interests did business with the reich right up to the last minute, and resisted entering the war until Hitler actually declared war on the U.S.

But you are a member of a group of craven asshats who thinks it's immoral for hourly wage earners to be granted a penny more than necessary, but doesn't apply the same standard to the investors and bloodsuckers who profit off anothers sweat.

Posted by: Isle of Lucy on October 3, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

junebug: Unless you're about to share with us Saddam's strategy to take over the whole of Europe & gas the Jews,

As you may recall, Saddam had made war on Iran, taken over Kuwait, and had made unprovoked missile attacks against Israel. Saddam had come close to building nukes in 1991. The UN arms inspectors left Iraq in 1998. There was reason to be concerned that leaving Saddam alone might have disastrous consequences.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 3, 2007 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal," that lame bullshit has been shot down before, so many times, and you keep reposting it. You really do get a sick thrill out of insulting your betters with your bad-faith arguments, don't you?

Why Kevin's moderators don't find you repeating these long-debunked bad faith arguments sufficiently annoying is a mystery.

Posted by: Gregory on October 3, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Off topic again, and bordering on a dangerous obsession, but when the hell is NPR going to fire Juan Williams?

Juan Williams' appearance on The O'Reilly Factor last week defending the Fox News host for his racially insensitive remarks about Harlem almost certainly violated NPR's employee standards. They prohibit staffers from appearing on programs that "encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis" and are "harmful to the reputation of NPR." Read more here.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200710020005

Posted by: JeffII on October 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

As you may recall, Saddam had made war on Iran,

Wait, I'm confused...is making war on Iran a good thing or a bad thing according to the prevailing GOP talking point of the day?

Posted by: Stefan on October 3, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: "

"As you may recall... The UN arms inspectors left Iraq in 1998. There was reason to be concerned that leaving Saddam alone might have disastrous consequences."

As you may recall:

-- UNSCOM's 1998 estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before their withdrawal. No weapons have been found since;
-- Iraq's economy was crippled by the UN sanctions, directly affecting the regime's ability to sink money into weapons systems;
-- both of the above factors prevented Saddam from being a threat to anyone but his own people.

You'll notice that each of the claims to which you refer dates back to 1991 & before, conveniently ignoring the fact that Iraq had become a pathetic backwater & humanitarian disaster more akin to Bangladesh than Nazi Germany . The only reason to have been concerned about "disastrous consequences" was if you bought into bullshit claims about mushroom clouds & support for Al Qaeda. You did, but, what's worse is that you stand by those bullshit claims even after they've been completely debunked.

Gregory's not quite right about one thing. You've got to work your way up to jackass.

Posted by: junebug on October 3, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Help us out.

If McCain or Clinton are not elected Prez, how likely is the next Secretary of State to be chosen from the winner's WAPO list of advisers?

Posted by: Measure for Measure on October 3, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I wish I were a gifted cartoonist. I'd love to draw a picture of Republicans and wingnuts watching as Bush and Cheney finish the detailing on the armored muscle car the presidency has become. It's got flame throwers and stealth technology and even a tank full of sharks with lasers on their heads. It's got ten times the speed and power of Congress's bus or the Supreme Court's Town Car.

The guys who voted for Bush are watching Bush and Cheney work from outside the chain link fence that keeps out all the non-executive types. Then they notice Hillary Clinton beside them, taking notes. She's drawing diagrams with a generous sweep of her arm. One of the guys thinks from the movement of the end of her pencil that she writes "Nationalize Health Care!" and underlines it twice. Another thinks he hears her mutter something about "I'll show them what real humiliation feels like."

They are uneasy, but couldn't tell you exactly where things went wrong.

Posted by: cowalker on October 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

>>No, he means "Male Genital Mutilation." Wasn't that obvious?

It was if you read his "Male Genital Mutilation" blog. He used to post about it constantly. Thank God he cut back (pun intended..so there).

The only topic he posts about more is beards. Some people might get the idea that a blog by a man that constantly discusses the "tragedy" of circumcised penises and the joy of facial hair is, I dunno, kinda gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Except that if heterosexual bloggers like Kevin (just assuming) constantly blogged about the tragedy of uncut 70's bush and the joy of double-D racks, I dunno, I'd take them less seriously than I would otherwise.

Posted by: jim on October 3, 2007 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
As you may recall, Saddam had made war on Iran,

With the blessing of the United States to the extent that, when it became known that he used chemical weapons on civilians during that war, the US government rushed to reassure Saddam Hussein that the incident would not affect our support for him and his war effort against Iran.

And, in fact, later intervened directly military against Iran to support the Iraqi war effort. (Yes, nominally it was about freedom of the seas -- but why were Kuwaiti tankers being targetted in the first place? Because Kuwait was funding Iraq's war effort...)

Posted by: cmdicely on October 3, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

junebug: You'll notice that each of the claims to which you refer dates back to 1991 & before, conveniently ignoring the fact that Iraq had become a pathetic backwater & humanitarian disaster more akin to Bangladesh than Nazi Germany . The only reason to have been concerned about "disastrous consequences" was if you bought into bullshit claims about mushroom clouds & support for Al Qaeda. You did, but, what's worse is that you stand by those bullshit claims even after they've been completely debunked.

Of course, we now know that Saddam didn't have nukes, but I don't feel embarassed to have been concerned. Before the 2003 invasion, most world leaders suspected that Saddam had nukes, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, etc. Many of those leading Democrats stated as a fact that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal.

As it turned out, we were wrong about Iraqi nukes. But, that doesn't give you the right to imply that Bill, Hillary, Al and I are all jackasses.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: "Before the 2003 invasion, most world leaders suspected that Saddam had nukes, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, etc. Many of those leading Democrats stated as a fact that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal."

1. Neither of the Clintons, nor Gore, nor Rockefeller came up with the completely harebrained idea to invade a sovereign nation that hadn't threatened us, though Hillary Clinton & Jay Rockefeller are jackasses for having voted for the AUMF resolution -- as is everybody else who did.

2. Get your head out of your ass. Nobody ever said he had a nuclear arsenal. Some people were aware that he might try to develop nuclear capabilities, but only frantic bedwetters talk about nuclear arsenals & mushroom clouds.

"... that doesn't give you the right to imply that Bill, Hillary, Al and I are all jackasses."

1. See above regarding the Clintons & their respective jackass-ery status. Al is a confirmed jackass. As I said before, you're purely sub-jackass material, but it's like the Orchestra Hall joke -- keep practicing & you might get there one day.

2. I'm not looking for permission -- and certainly not yours -- to call you the moron you are.

Posted by: junebug on October 3, 2007 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Come now; some of the most nasty, vindictive, emotionless, soulless people I know are women.

Sally Fields' comment was sexist in the extreme, and just because women are oppressed in a patriarchal society (and they ARE), does not give her the right to make this claim, because it's not true. If women ran the world, I'm convinced that men would be DINNER.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on October 3, 2007 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

If women ran the world, I'm convinced that men would be DINNER.

You had me nodding along at the idiocy of the idea that we're less pugilistic than you guys, but you lost me with this silly bit about us being more so.

Posted by: shortstop on October 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

At least Giuliani and McCain's advisers haven't had to give up their security clearances for filching docs from the National Archives.

Posted by: Brian on October 3, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

You had me nodding along at the idiocy of the idea that we're less pugilistic than you guys, but you lost me with this silly bit about us being more so.

I see you never met my ex-girlfriend.

Posted by: Stefan on October 3, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK
Before the 2003 invasion, most world leaders suspected that Saddam had nukes, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller, etc. Many of those leading Democrats stated as a fact that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal.

Uhm, no. Many suspected that he weapons and/or weapons programs that were prohibited by the UN ceasefire regime (and, arguably, he did in the form of the missilea s that, without a warhead, at least arguably had a range just over the prohibited limited.)

None of them stated that they even suspected he had nuclear weapons, though some may have claimed, based on intelligence at an earlier time than that available to the Bush Administration, or based on intelligence spun by the Bush Administration, that it seemed that he had nuclear weapons programs. In fact, the only person who stated that he had nuclear weapons, that I am aware of, is Dick Cheney in his "reconstituted nuclear weapons" claim.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 3, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

John McCain, one of the few people in the country along with Colin Powell with the national security credentials to actually oppose the Iraq war, and be able to withstand the predictable torrent of rightwing criticism questioning his patriotism and mental health, continues to fail to take up this challenge.

How sad that even now men like Bill Kristol maintain their hold over this once honorable man. Disgusting.

Posted by: TR on October 3, 2007 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Generally, I'm against abridging freedom, but sometimes I wonder if there should be an exception for aging starlets with two digit IQs.

"If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place"?

Uh-huh. Margaret Thatcher was a mother. Golda Meir was a mother. Indira Gandhi was mother.

I think we can safely say that female heads of government, in some cases, for good reasons or bad, will lead their countries to war.

Posted by: James Kaplan on October 3, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

junebug: "You'll notice that each of the claims to which you refer dates back to 1991 & before ..."

Yeah, right -- like ex-liberal really cares about the facts.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 4, 2007 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Very nice site! cheap viagra

Posted by: John668 on May 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Very nice site!

Posted by: John668 on May 16, 2009 at 11:48 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