March 10, 2006
More Katrina Incomptence
Can we bring Michael Brown back? At least he has experience handling quadrupeds:
The story goes on to mention:
Game wardens Wayde Carter and Roger Guay said Louisiana apparently didn't make the proper arrangements with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to guarantee them housing after Thursday night, and their supervisor, Maj. Greg Sanborn, has called them back to Maine. The wardens were to stay in New Orleans until March 21. Carter and Guay, on loan from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, arrived in Louisiana from Maine late last week.
To sum up: Louisiana's government is still bumbling and incompetent and unable to handle even small-scale outside help, and FEMA is still strangling in irrelevant paperwork instead of getting the job done. Pathetic.
According to FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews, the agency has paid for a block of rooms at the hotel, and she promised to follow up on the men's dilemma Thursday. Carter and Guay said that Tuesday night, a FEMA representative greeted them at the hotel with a disclosure form asking them to identify themselves as long-term evacuees needing financial assistance; the men said they refused. A canine team from south Georgia also may leave New Orleans.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I live in Louisiana and take issue with the characterization of our elected representatives as being incompetent. It takes alot of work and intelligence to time and again do the wrong thing. Our politicians are the best that money can but. I know from personal experience that a state representative cost about $10,000 for a vote on a major bill, they will negotiate on lessor bills. As you look at the individuals that are currently being adversely affected by the politics remind yourself that these are the people that put our great governor in office. The north part of the state was solidly behind Jindell, despite the fact that people have characterized his loss as racism due to our redneck heritage. It was actually the ninth ward that put Blanco in as she offered to pay more for their votes.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 10, 2006 12:49 PM (6wTpy)
On the Sunken Ports Deal
David Ignatius hits the nail on the head in his Washington Post editorial:
Congress failed America last night. Try to remember that in November.
Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after. President Bush tried to do the right thing on the Dubai ports deal, but he got rolled by a runaway Congress. The collapse of the deal was a measure of Bush's political weakness -- but even more, of America's traumatized post-Sept. 11 politics. The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:08 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bah, I'll still support my own Senator for re-election, the excellent Mr. Talent. My congressional representative is far-left and I'll already be opposing him. I know that Republicans and Independent Conservatives get discouraged by things like this and consider not voting or throwing their vote away on a third party candidate. For my part, I don't think we have that luxury, especially if you live in a swing state like mine. If it were just about the current Congressional Republicans turning their backs on the Contract With America (and that's dear to my heart; the first time I ever voted was the 1994 midterms) I would agree. Problem is that we're at war with a serious enemy and I'm terrified by the thought of a Democratic-controlled Congress at this time. Should the Democrats gain the House of Representatives President Bush will spend the last two years of his term distracted by fighting impeachment. The oppositions base is HOWLING for it, they'll bring it. Vital programs like the NSA wiretapping operation and God knows what else will be at their mercy- that Party that has done nothing for the past four years but show that they are more motivated about recklessly opposing the war effort whenever it's expedient than they are about victory for America. 2006 just is not the year to make a statement at the ballot box for me.
Posted by: Thrill at March 10, 2006 12:22 AM (+E47Q)
2
Many are missing a few points on the sunken DPW deal.
The CFIUS committee and the Administration was precluded by law from consulting with Congress until they had completed their review. Furthermore, as to tone-deafness, Dubai and Saudi owned companies have been operating both marine and airPORT terminals in the US for many years. As an indirect investor in P&O, I’ve been aware of this story since early November. I consider myself politically sensitive but, as I knew the majority of terminal operations were in the hands of foreign operators including Ayrabs, I had no clue of the coming firestorm. Obviously the entire Administration, at the Asst Secretary level, didn’t either. For gods’ sake, we’ve been selling the UAE F-16s for over 9 years. We’re supposed to be worried about a flocking stevedoring company with absentee falconeers as coupon-clippers?
The argument that access to port security and disaster recovery plans by DPW endangers national security is hollow. DPW is a global stevedoring company (aka marine terminal operator). They manage terminal operations world wide.
I have several close friends who have spent their careers in global inter-modal transportation. They tell me there is virtually no difference in port security and disaster recovery plans worldwide. If you know one you know them all.
What companies like DPW or the ocean carriers don’t have is access to our cargo tracking, intelligence, and risk assessment systems which are used to evaluate high risk cargo containers as well as bulk and break-bulk cargo.
This whole fiasco has little to do with national security. It did have an awful lot to do with the hubristic howling and cackling of Chicken Little’s cousins the chickenhawks and the cowardly collectivist clutch. Both flocks were running in circles in fear of falconeering camel jockeys. They still are.
A truly sad day for America and our attempt to defeat totalitarianism and construct a peaceful pluralistic planet. I believe this will be marked as a significant and possibly catastrophic setback in The Long War, Ver. 2.0. Only time will truly tell but I believe our chicken-herder-in-chief and his clutch had this one right.
Both chicken flocks flocked this one up. An avian pox on both their coops.
The CFIUS committee and the Administration was precluded by law from consulting with Congress until they had completed their review. Furthermore, as to tone-deafness, Dubai and Saudi owned companies have been operating both marine and airPORT terminals in the US for many years. As an indirect investor in P&O, I’ve been aware of this story since early November. I consider myself politically sensitive but, as I knew the majority of terminal operations were in the hands of foreign operators including Ayrabs, I had no clue of the coming firestorm. Obviously the entire Administration, at the Asst Secretary level, didn’t either. For gods’ sake, we’ve been selling the UAE F-16s for over 9 years. We’re supposed to be worried about a flocking stevedoring company with absentee falconeers as coupon-clippers?
The argument that access to port security and disaster recovery plans by DPW endangers national security is hollow. DPW is a global stevedoring company (aka marine terminal operator). They manage terminal operations world wide.
I have several close friends who have spent their careers in global inter-modal transportation. They tell me there is virtually no difference in port security and disaster recovery plans worldwide. If you know one you know them all.
What companies like DPW or the ocean carriers don’t have is access to our cargo tracking, intelligence, and risk assessment systems which are used to evaluate high risk cargo containers as well as bulk and break-bulk cargo.
This whole fiasco has little to do with national security. It did have an awful lot to do with the hubristic howling and cackling of Chicken Little’s cousins the chickenhawks and the cowardly collectivist clutch. Both flocks were running in circles in fear of falconeering camel jockeys. They still are.
A truly sad day for America and our attempt to defeat totalitarianism and construct a peaceful pluralistic planet. I believe this will be marked as a significant and possibly catastrophic setback in The Long War, Ver. 2.0. Only time will truly tell but I believe our chicken-herder-in-chief and his clutch had this one right.
Both chicken flocks flocked this one up. An avian pox on both their coops.
Posted by: RiverRat at March 10, 2006 02:43 AM (oNFas)
3
In the Fox News poll released March 2, 2006 we find the following with regards to the ports:
37. How much of the opposition to the port deal do you think is based on bias
against Arabs--a lot, some, but not a lot, not much, or hardly any at all?
A Lot: 38%
Some: 32%
Not Much: 11%
Hardly Any: 13%
DK: 7%
Democrats said that 73% of them believe that the opposition is based on a bias against Arabs. 70% of Republicans thought that. Looks like prejudice to me - from the land of the free - and from the Democratic party (which was way oversampled in this poll) - we don't like you because of where you live and what you look like. Sends a great message doesn't it?
38. Do you think the political opposition to the port deal is due more to
serious concerns about homeland security or, due more to political grandstanding in an election year?
Serious Concern: 36%
Grandstanding: 42%
Combination: 14%
DK: 8%
Well....maybe people are starting to get it afer all. A plurality of Americans think it was grandstanding. Imagine that - politicians not concerned about what is best for us, but how good they look for the upcoming election.
39. Do you think it is fairly common for U.S. ports to be operated by foreign-based companies or not?
Common: 38%
Not Common: 48%
DK: 14%
Democrat:
Common: 31%
Not Common: 55%
DK: 14%
Republican:
Common: 42%
Not Common: 42%
DK: 16%
I think what killed me with this question was that with an issue of such importance (not!) so many people are so uninformed about the facts. So bottom line - we are giving the impression that we as a country are racially prejudiced and stupid.....great.
BTW - the demographics of the poll: 43% Democrat, 33% Republican, 18% Ind. Another biased poll to begin with. See more here.
37. How much of the opposition to the port deal do you think is based on bias
against Arabs--a lot, some, but not a lot, not much, or hardly any at all?
A Lot: 38%
Some: 32%
Not Much: 11%
Hardly Any: 13%
DK: 7%
Democrats said that 73% of them believe that the opposition is based on a bias against Arabs. 70% of Republicans thought that. Looks like prejudice to me - from the land of the free - and from the Democratic party (which was way oversampled in this poll) - we don't like you because of where you live and what you look like. Sends a great message doesn't it?
38. Do you think the political opposition to the port deal is due more to
serious concerns about homeland security or, due more to political grandstanding in an election year?
Serious Concern: 36%
Grandstanding: 42%
Combination: 14%
DK: 8%
Well....maybe people are starting to get it afer all. A plurality of Americans think it was grandstanding. Imagine that - politicians not concerned about what is best for us, but how good they look for the upcoming election.
39. Do you think it is fairly common for U.S. ports to be operated by foreign-based companies or not?
Common: 38%
Not Common: 48%
DK: 14%
Democrat:
Common: 31%
Not Common: 55%
DK: 14%
Republican:
Common: 42%
Not Common: 42%
DK: 16%
I think what killed me with this question was that with an issue of such importance (not!) so many people are so uninformed about the facts. So bottom line - we are giving the impression that we as a country are racially prejudiced and stupid.....great.
BTW - the demographics of the poll: 43% Democrat, 33% Republican, 18% Ind. Another biased poll to begin with. See more here.
Posted by: Specter at March 10, 2006 11:10 AM (ybfXM)
4
You say, "Congress failed America last night. Try to remember that in November." I agree with you, but what the hell are we supposed to do in November? Our choice is Republican or Democrat. Surely you don't mean vote for a Democrat, do you?
I feel pretty strongly that this vote lenghtened the WOT some unkown amount. But I don't think we really have a choice to fix this in November.
I feel pretty strongly that this vote lenghtened the WOT some unkown amount. But I don't think we really have a choice to fix this in November.
Posted by: Kevin at March 10, 2006 01:12 PM (o/IMK)
5
It's totally absurd, the idiot hypocrite left have cost us a decent win with an important middle east player.
Posted by: Martin Hague at March 10, 2006 02:01 PM (7T22U)
6
If know-it-alls want to call me and a bunch of Americans uninformed of the facts about ports, then so be it. Let's just say when something stinks, we smell it. Our elected representatives responded to our calls, emails and letters to stop the deal. Grassroots Americans spoke to our representatives on this issue. Gold plated islamophobe speaking here. They have to earn the respect of the absurd, stupid vast majority of us who spoke loudly against the deal. It is bad enough to give them our money at the pump and have it turned against us. Y'all still trusting Muslims?
Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at March 11, 2006 05:54 AM (6ldTE)
7
So Southern,
With all the support from the masses - I guess that's why the Congress had to hide the issue as an ammendment to "must pass" legislation rather than take it on directly. I mean with all the support you say they had, it made more sense to put it into another bill rather than make it stand up on its own, right?
BTW - there are quite a few muslims living in your neighborhood. Maybe you should put a burning cross on their lawns.....
With all the support from the masses - I guess that's why the Congress had to hide the issue as an ammendment to "must pass" legislation rather than take it on directly. I mean with all the support you say they had, it made more sense to put it into another bill rather than make it stand up on its own, right?
BTW - there are quite a few muslims living in your neighborhood. Maybe you should put a burning cross on their lawns.....
Posted by: Specter at March 11, 2006 11:02 AM (ybfXM)
8
Oh..and Southern,
Do you think there might be more to this than your self-admitted prejudices? Might there be other impacts? Like ME countries deciding not to pump more oil when we politely ask to keep our prices stabilized? That countries might be looking at the US as more trouble to invest in than say Europe or Asia? Did you think all of that through before your "emails, phone calls, and letters" to your reps? Believe it or not foreign investment in our shores brings us money that we have been sending away overseas. It brings us jobs, and economic stability. And while DP World might be small peanuts overall, it still sends the message that people like you are racist - and the overall image that the US is racist. Great work there Southern.
There is an article about this in the Chicago Tribune entitled: Scuttled ports deal may ship out dollars - Notion that U.S. markets `more trouble than they're worth' could hurt foreign investment, economic experts say
Sorry I can't seem to post a direct link to it, but I'm sure you can find it. You should read the article. (Oh....sorry...can you read? - oops sorry - just falling back on the stereotypical image of a southern boy again - I mean aren't all southern boys like that - you know Dukes of Hazzard types - rednecks and card carrying KKK - that is the stereotype after all). Quick excerpt:
But it is also likely to keep the heat on a simmering belief abroad that U.S. markets can sometimes be more trouble than they're worth, economists and foreign trade experts said Thursday.
"People are making decisions to invest elsewhere than in the U.S.," said Rachel Bronson, a Mideast expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Gulf money is being invested in Europe and Asia. This furthers that trend."
Do you think there might be more to this than your self-admitted prejudices? Might there be other impacts? Like ME countries deciding not to pump more oil when we politely ask to keep our prices stabilized? That countries might be looking at the US as more trouble to invest in than say Europe or Asia? Did you think all of that through before your "emails, phone calls, and letters" to your reps? Believe it or not foreign investment in our shores brings us money that we have been sending away overseas. It brings us jobs, and economic stability. And while DP World might be small peanuts overall, it still sends the message that people like you are racist - and the overall image that the US is racist. Great work there Southern.
There is an article about this in the Chicago Tribune entitled: Scuttled ports deal may ship out dollars - Notion that U.S. markets `more trouble than they're worth' could hurt foreign investment, economic experts say
Sorry I can't seem to post a direct link to it, but I'm sure you can find it. You should read the article. (Oh....sorry...can you read? - oops sorry - just falling back on the stereotypical image of a southern boy again - I mean aren't all southern boys like that - you know Dukes of Hazzard types - rednecks and card carrying KKK - that is the stereotype after all). Quick excerpt:
But it is also likely to keep the heat on a simmering belief abroad that U.S. markets can sometimes be more trouble than they're worth, economists and foreign trade experts said Thursday.
"People are making decisions to invest elsewhere than in the U.S.," said Rachel Bronson, a Mideast expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Gulf money is being invested in Europe and Asia. This furthers that trend."
Posted by: Specter at March 11, 2006 11:35 AM (ybfXM)
9
sorry CY...no offense meant to Southerners....trying to make a point about stereotypes
Posted by: Specter at March 11, 2006 11:50 AM (ybfXM)
10
Specter, do you expect me to apologize for being a Southern white male? That is exactly what I am. btw, did you hear about the nice Muslim male that drove a rented suv through the Pit at UNC? He may have lived in your neighborhood. Yep, I am islamophobic for sure. Staying alive comes before business.
Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at March 11, 2006 12:35 PM (6ldTE)
11
Southern,
No - I was hoping you might see that your stereotypes of all Muslims might not be correct. But I guess my impression of you was correct.
Did I see the story about the guy at UNC...you bet and he should be strung up. He even admitted he did it for Allah. So are what you implying is that if one person from a particular race/religion does something wrong we should punish all people from that race/religion? Or if a thousand do something wrong? If that is the case you better start ponying up money for the paying huge sums of money to the descendants of slaves. Because that is how ridiculous your viewpoint is.
Listen - there are an awful lot of radical muslims. We know that. There are more non-radical muslims. Unfortunately we do not hear much about them because they do not make the news. In my area there is a Muslim congregation (not sure if that is the right word) that has speakers from the local Christian churches come in to give sermons. The reason - they want to learn and want us to learn. They feel that even though many of our base beliefs are different - many of them are the same. It is not like we are all going to change churches - just develop toleration for other viewpoints. And isn't that what America is all about? Isn't the freedom to pursue religion of your own choosing one of the reasons that people fled to this country?
I notice that you completely disregarded everything else I posted. That tells me a lot about you. Ignore everything and cast blame on everybody else. Yep.
You might want to read this article at JustOneMinute. It is a repost and link from an article in today's NYT from a muslim woman who has dared to speak up against the mullahs. She has put her life on the line to go against the radical elements of Islam. Can you say you are as courageous? Prejudice does not take courage - it is a sign of small mindedness and weakness.
No - I was hoping you might see that your stereotypes of all Muslims might not be correct. But I guess my impression of you was correct.
Did I see the story about the guy at UNC...you bet and he should be strung up. He even admitted he did it for Allah. So are what you implying is that if one person from a particular race/religion does something wrong we should punish all people from that race/religion? Or if a thousand do something wrong? If that is the case you better start ponying up money for the paying huge sums of money to the descendants of slaves. Because that is how ridiculous your viewpoint is.
Listen - there are an awful lot of radical muslims. We know that. There are more non-radical muslims. Unfortunately we do not hear much about them because they do not make the news. In my area there is a Muslim congregation (not sure if that is the right word) that has speakers from the local Christian churches come in to give sermons. The reason - they want to learn and want us to learn. They feel that even though many of our base beliefs are different - many of them are the same. It is not like we are all going to change churches - just develop toleration for other viewpoints. And isn't that what America is all about? Isn't the freedom to pursue religion of your own choosing one of the reasons that people fled to this country?
I notice that you completely disregarded everything else I posted. That tells me a lot about you. Ignore everything and cast blame on everybody else. Yep.
You might want to read this article at JustOneMinute. It is a repost and link from an article in today's NYT from a muslim woman who has dared to speak up against the mullahs. She has put her life on the line to go against the radical elements of Islam. Can you say you are as courageous? Prejudice does not take courage - it is a sign of small mindedness and weakness.
Posted by: Specter at March 11, 2006 10:24 PM (ybfXM)
12
Yes, I saw the lady on MEMRI last week. She spoke the truth. Anybody listening in the ME? Nah. Specter, thank you deeply for all that deep analysis of my deepest personal misperceptions. I can't read. I may be a member of the kkk, etc.
You tell me a lot in your essays to me about you also. You are a multicultural give our country away'er peace love Southern-o-phobe. We must "understand" Islam. Bull. I learned everything I need to know about the ROP on 911. I learned that muslims cheered that day, and are raised and taught by Mo's example to think they are better than Christians and Jews or anybody else. They will kill us for that reason only. That sounds like more than prejudice but it's ok, we just need to understand them. Not. Get them out of America.
Get off the web for a moment, go to your local bookstore and start buying books on islam. Buy Bostrom's jihad research, Robert Spencer's PIG to Islam, Infiltration by Paul Speer, the shelves are full of good recent books on Islam. We got a war without boundaries on our hands.
Hold that sausage a little tighter. Out.
You tell me a lot in your essays to me about you also. You are a multicultural give our country away'er peace love Southern-o-phobe. We must "understand" Islam. Bull. I learned everything I need to know about the ROP on 911. I learned that muslims cheered that day, and are raised and taught by Mo's example to think they are better than Christians and Jews or anybody else. They will kill us for that reason only. That sounds like more than prejudice but it's ok, we just need to understand them. Not. Get them out of America.
Get off the web for a moment, go to your local bookstore and start buying books on islam. Buy Bostrom's jihad research, Robert Spencer's PIG to Islam, Infiltration by Paul Speer, the shelves are full of good recent books on Islam. We got a war without boundaries on our hands.
Hold that sausage a little tighter. Out.
Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at March 12, 2006 06:32 AM (6ldTE)
13
Southern,
Don't misunderstand. The extreme factions of Islam need to meet their makers. There is no question about that. It is just that we cannot, as a country, decide that ALL muslims are wrong when it is not ALL muslims. Simple concept.
Just so you know my son leaves for boot camp soon, with my full support. If I was young enough I would probably sign up too. So if you are trying to paint me in the light of one who does not believe in war for the right reasons you are wrong. I would suspect that on those particular issues we are more closely aligned in out thoughts than you may want to believe.
That sounds like more than prejudice but it's ok, we just need to understand them. Not. Get them out of America.
Is their prejudice among some Muslims? Obviously. Like I said - there are good and bad. You even admitted that when you talked about Dr. Wafa Sultan. Is there prejudice among Americans. You bet - you are a great example. The difference is that I don't group all Muslims into one category based on what the MSM showed me on the news. One camera angle...makes it look like all Arabia was cheering. How do you know how many were there? It could have been 10. Whatever number it was we should take it to them. Of course, when I see those shots I always hope that the ones shooting straight up in the air are taking out the people around them....'Course that would probably be blamed on us somehow....
Giving our country away? Pray tell - what ever do you mean? Want to just throw more rhetoric around or do you want to maybe, just maybe talk specifics? You know - like in proof of what you say....
But let's go back to your knowledge about the ports deal. How many terminals out of 829 in the ports concerned was DPW going to run? Can you think of any other countries that have ties to terrorism that run the same types of operations in US ports? What were your specific reasons - other than being prejudiced against every Arab (are you prejudiced against all Japanese, Russian, and Germans too?) - for not wanting the ports deal to go through? Why is it that you never answered my questions about why the chicken$*&ts in Congress attached the law to the funding bill for Iraq and Katrina rather than let it stand on its own and really see what people thought? Don't dodge the issues boy - answer the questions.
Don't misunderstand. The extreme factions of Islam need to meet their makers. There is no question about that. It is just that we cannot, as a country, decide that ALL muslims are wrong when it is not ALL muslims. Simple concept.
Just so you know my son leaves for boot camp soon, with my full support. If I was young enough I would probably sign up too. So if you are trying to paint me in the light of one who does not believe in war for the right reasons you are wrong. I would suspect that on those particular issues we are more closely aligned in out thoughts than you may want to believe.
That sounds like more than prejudice but it's ok, we just need to understand them. Not. Get them out of America.
Is their prejudice among some Muslims? Obviously. Like I said - there are good and bad. You even admitted that when you talked about Dr. Wafa Sultan. Is there prejudice among Americans. You bet - you are a great example. The difference is that I don't group all Muslims into one category based on what the MSM showed me on the news. One camera angle...makes it look like all Arabia was cheering. How do you know how many were there? It could have been 10. Whatever number it was we should take it to them. Of course, when I see those shots I always hope that the ones shooting straight up in the air are taking out the people around them....'Course that would probably be blamed on us somehow....
Giving our country away? Pray tell - what ever do you mean? Want to just throw more rhetoric around or do you want to maybe, just maybe talk specifics? You know - like in proof of what you say....
But let's go back to your knowledge about the ports deal. How many terminals out of 829 in the ports concerned was DPW going to run? Can you think of any other countries that have ties to terrorism that run the same types of operations in US ports? What were your specific reasons - other than being prejudiced against every Arab (are you prejudiced against all Japanese, Russian, and Germans too?) - for not wanting the ports deal to go through? Why is it that you never answered my questions about why the chicken$*&ts in Congress attached the law to the funding bill for Iraq and Katrina rather than let it stand on its own and really see what people thought? Don't dodge the issues boy - answer the questions.
Posted by: Specter at March 12, 2006 09:41 AM (ybfXM)
14
Schumer Fiddles - Congress Dances
Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 at March 12, 2006 10:57 PM (AuQij)
March 09, 2006
Brutalized, With a Smile
Sorry, Ramstein. Mother Sheehan won't be protesting you after all.
Perhaps Sheehan's injuries resulted from police brutality, but if that occurred, no one else seemed to have noticed, except for Sheehan ally al-Jazeera, which found something else repulsive about the event. I'll let you guess what:
Sheehan is due to arrive in Frankfurt on Thursday. Despite uncertainty clouding Sheehan's visit, protesters and counterprotesters still plan to gather outside Ramstein Air Base on Saturday afternoon. Sheehan was arrested Monday in New York City outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations when she and other protesters attempted to deliver a petition calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Her condition raises doubts as to whether she will make the trip to Germany and France. "If I am there, I won't be anywhere near the air force base ... or participate in the march," wrote Sheehan on Wednesday. "I was brutalized in New York the other day by the NYPD (New York Police Department) and I need to go to the doctor today (Wednesday)."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Man those pictures made me yak. No one should be forced to view suck pictures of her before lunch...
Freedom of the press can be taken too far you know...gross.
Freedom of the press can be taken too far you know...gross.
Posted by: WB at March 09, 2006 12:06 PM (eSDAF)
2
Actually I meant to say, "such pictures"...but hey, it works either way...
Posted by: WB at March 09, 2006 12:07 PM (eSDAF)
3
You should be placed under arrest for showing us pictures of the flab hanging over her pants.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 09, 2006 12:17 PM (6wTpy)
4
In her case, I wish W would follow Lincoln's wartime example and just deport her to Iran.
Posted by: Thrill at March 09, 2006 12:33 PM (+E47Q)
5
Didn't she claim she was abused when she was escorted from the SOTU address too? Seems like a pattern Cindy....Your rap sheet is getting longer and longer and the police know it.
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 01:19 PM (ybfXM)
6
Didn't Ms. Sheehan also say that the capitol police pushed and shoved her? She has the worst luck when she's getting arrested.
Posted by: cbi at March 09, 2006 01:29 PM (nE4gk)
7
That's not a smile on her face, you fools! It's a grimace of sheer terror and pain. I notice the right wing media didn't bother to publish the pictures of her being beaten with nightsticks! Yeah, go ahead, deny it ever happened! How many time must Mother Sheehan be tortured for our sins?
How many more innocent Iraqi women and children will it take to slake this bloddthirsty nation's thirst? Tell me...anyone...what, nothing but silence? I thought so. Now go back home - all of you and pray to Mother sheehan for her forgiveness.
How many more innocent Iraqi women and children will it take to slake this bloddthirsty nation's thirst? Tell me...anyone...what, nothing but silence? I thought so. Now go back home - all of you and pray to Mother sheehan for her forgiveness.
Posted by: Chimpy McHalliburton at March 09, 2006 01:33 PM (NvV+8)
8
LOL
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 01:56 PM (ybfXM)
9
That media whore just can't give up the limelight can she? Mama Sheehan is obviously grimacing because her big fat pasty white stomach has been exposed to the world. My eyes are bleeding from that visual. Just be thankful she wasn't worry hip-huggers otherwise we would have a screenful of her pasty white behind - crack and all.
Posted by: Chez Diva at March 09, 2006 02:17 PM (zmJNe)
10
Oh dear. worry should be wearing. I guess the subliminal message in my brain was to WORRY big time if I had the misfortune of seeing any more of Mama Sheehan's uncovered body.
Posted by: Chez Diva at March 09, 2006 02:42 PM (zmJNe)
11
You know, as obnoxious as she is, I really don't want to despise that woman. If I were to die a violent death the way Casey Sheehan did, I suspect my mom would go over the top as well. I reserve my hatred for her Leftist puppet masters who shamelessly keep encouraging her in these bizarre activities. That woman wrecked her marriage and broke her family apart because of all this...she really is to be pitied. However, I will confess that sometimes when I hear her talk, I want to slap her in the head just to see which way she falls.
Posted by: Thrill at March 09, 2006 09:36 PM (+E47Q)
12
It's time for Cindy to get off the stage. She's had way more than her alloted 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by: Saganashkee at March 10, 2006 10:13 AM (D0e+N)
13
Media WHore is a fitting title for her. She's certainly no lady. A real Lady does not make a living based on lies.
The fact that the MSM is back to covering her means that they are bored with reality. And don't cover reality anyway. Yeesh!
The fact that the MSM is back to covering her means that they are bored with reality. And don't cover reality anyway. Yeesh!
Posted by: benning at March 10, 2006 11:34 AM (GXvlP)
14
WorldSex Daily Updated Free Links to Hardcore Sex Pictures, Movies, Free Porn Videos and XXX Live Sex Cams
Posted by: SEXMENS at April 06, 2006 11:11 PM (lUZHh)
The Spawnling Hatched
I'm "Uncle Bob" again.
My blogging brother's beautiful wife gave birth to their first child last night, a handsome baby boy, weighing in at 8-14. Head on over and congratulate them, won't you?Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:24 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Shocking New Poll: Americans Don't Like Being Blown Up by Islamic Terrorists
Anytime you get the Washington Post (home of the 1,300 imaginary dead at the Baghdad morgue) together with James Zogby (of the discredited military poll) you know that anything they come up with will be highly suspect.
You would hope that they'd get past the first sentence, however:The invasion of Iraq began March 20, 2003. It is currently March 9, 2006. By my count, we've been in Iraq 2 years, 354 days. "Grinding" into a fourth year? Not yet. But on to the rest of the story:
As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
While this may seem shocking at first, upon reflection, this would seem to make sense. The terrorist attacks of September 11 cold be easily chalked up to a small subset of radicals. Events since then have consistently painted a darkening picture of Islam, with the defining moments for many still occurring for many right now. The "cartoon war" still echoes around the world, a terrorist organization is elected in Palestine, and Iran seeks nuclear weapons to annihilate Israel, with the much-vaunted "moderate" Islam still as rare and frequently seen as unicorns.
The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.
Again, we are forced to focus on the acts of Muslim extremists because any other kind of Muslim in an activist, leadership position is in short supply. Perhaps Americans believe that Muslims stoke violence because Muslims fund the terrorists, Muslims detonate IEDs, Muslims behead Christian schoolgirls, and blow themselves up to murder busloads of innocent civilians. Seeing, after all...
Conservative and liberal experts said Americans' attitudes about Islam are fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists. According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today.
...is believing. Could it possibly be that the perception of Muslim violence comes from the fact that Muslims act violently, again and again and again?
So did you here the one about the Cowboy, the Indian, and the Muslim? We are at war with Arab terrorists that profess the Muslim religion as the basis for their war against us. I think we have the right to doubt their motives at the very least, and we certainly have a right to joke about them, though they're willing to go to war even over that. Arab Muslims have proven to be the most violent towards westerners, but that does not give non-Arab Muslims a pass. It is the religion that we have reason to suspect, not a particular race practicing it. The rest of the article is worth a read—or not—but don't expect anything earth-shattering from it. What the Post has learned on this subject only confirms what many people figured out long ago.
The survey also found that one in three Americans have heard prejudiced comments about Muslims lately. In a separate question, slightly more (43 percent) reported having heard negative remarks about Arabs. One in four Americans admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims, the same proportion that expressed some personal bias against Arabs. Though the two groups are often linked in popular discourse, most of the world's Muslims are not of Arab descent. For example, the country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:05 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In a related poll, residents of the South favored legislation that would "ban hurricanes" and another said that a majority of Mexicans thought that a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico "would really suck".
Posted by: Thrill at March 09, 2006 10:04 AM (+E47Q)
2
Several things. There is nothing wrong with prejudice. Only blind prejudice. Prefudice shapes the social norms of our society. Sterotypes are real and useful. It is only when they are used in an incorrect manner that they are harmful. An example of a good sterotype. I am a WASP. I do not blow up planes or harm innocent people. Thus why am I hasseled at every airport in our country and my Fourth Amendment rights distroyed? The average Arab Muslim is problably ok. But is more prone to kill innocents than me. Why is he allowed on an airplane?
Muslims as a group have not been as proactive in eliminating the extremeist from their religion as other religious groups. Until they do so, they should be condemned and suffer the same fate as the terrorist acting in their name.
Muslims as a group have not been as proactive in eliminating the extremeist from their religion as other religious groups. Until they do so, they should be condemned and suffer the same fate as the terrorist acting in their name.
Posted by: David Caskey at March 09, 2006 10:48 AM (6wTpy)
3
Funny how life is when you think about the most dangerous jobs and places you have worked, and what could have caused your early demise. Was it logging in Vermont? Well, you can circle a tree as you're felling it, and not get hit. Was it working on a trawl boat off Cape Hatteras in the winter? Well, you can stay tied up at the dock if the winds are blowing a gale and the seas are high. Was it working at the World Trade Center? You can't know if somebody named Mohammed isn't about to explode a rented truck loaded with explosives in the parking garage, or fly high-jacked planes into the windows! If the Islamic community can't police themselves, we will have to do it for them!
Posted by: Tom Bosee at March 09, 2006 11:35 AM (y6n8O)
4
I agree. Look at how violent christianity was for 2000 years before America finally seperated church and state. Maybe we should focus on teaching Muslims the benefits of church state seperation instead of killing them and blaming their religion. Hell christianity was behind everything from the inquisitions to witch hunts to the hollocaust, but eventually it was brought under control. Not because christianity was destoryed...but because the evil people that were using it for power were either destroyed or had that power taken away.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. If the people on the right stop just acting on the first stupid idea that pops into their heads and spend timing looking for a real solution then maybe this thing can be stoped. Israel has proven that being dick heads towards another people just creates a circles of violence... isnt America better than Israel though? America has a long history of doing things that are above the fray of BS he said she said tit for tat that has proven to be the better way.
Dont act like the muslims in trying to change them. Set an example instead. WWJD?
There is more than one way to skin a cat. If the people on the right stop just acting on the first stupid idea that pops into their heads and spend timing looking for a real solution then maybe this thing can be stoped. Israel has proven that being dick heads towards another people just creates a circles of violence... isnt America better than Israel though? America has a long history of doing things that are above the fray of BS he said she said tit for tat that has proven to be the better way.
Dont act like the muslims in trying to change them. Set an example instead. WWJD?
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 09, 2006 12:41 PM (FohTw)
5
Gerald, just reading your comments makes everyone dumber for their effort.
Right or wrong, Chistianity has been blamed for much violence in it's history, but violence was never part of the message of Christ. Christanity was not the reason for the Holocaust, and the mtyhical separation of church and state in America had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation.
Islam, on the other hand, was founded by a man who activity participated in and promoted violence, and it has consistantly expanded by using the sword for 1,400 years. It is part fo the nature of Islam from the very beginning.
According to Mohammed himself, the Koran is the unchanging word of God. Reformation, therefore is to deny the existence of God. The concept of separating church and state is a concept from a modern western society, and is a concept quite alien to devout Muslims.
I'm sorry that Israle has had the temerity not to be wiped from the face of the earth, Gerald. Go away you ignorant, anti-Semetic ass.
You are no longer welcome here.
Right or wrong, Chistianity has been blamed for much violence in it's history, but violence was never part of the message of Christ. Christanity was not the reason for the Holocaust, and the mtyhical separation of church and state in America had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation.
Islam, on the other hand, was founded by a man who activity participated in and promoted violence, and it has consistantly expanded by using the sword for 1,400 years. It is part fo the nature of Islam from the very beginning.
According to Mohammed himself, the Koran is the unchanging word of God. Reformation, therefore is to deny the existence of God. The concept of separating church and state is a concept from a modern western society, and is a concept quite alien to devout Muslims.
I'm sorry that Israle has had the temerity not to be wiped from the face of the earth, Gerald. Go away you ignorant, anti-Semetic ass.
You are no longer welcome here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 09, 2006 01:14 PM (g5Nba)
6
Gerald must be a public school teacher...
It's great that anytime you lefties want to make a moral comparison between Islam and Christianity, you trot out the Inquisition and witch burnings. The Inquisition was five hundred freakin' years ago; We haven't burned any women alive since the 17th century. The responsible churches have long since expressed their regret for these acts. Let's talk about what's relevant to the world, Mr. Gibson: Muslims are blowing stuff up, assassinating officials, taking and murdering hostages, and rioting all over the world in the name of their religion TODAY. Their clerics are not expressing regret for this violence, they are egging it on. BIG DIFFERENCE! I could leave it off there, but I'm going to go for the field goal...the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were carried out by ATHEISTIC regimes in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Cambodia. Removing morality and holding up a belief that governments of flawed men, not God, are the most powerful force in the world leads to those horrors. Convenient how the Lefties can remember all the way back to 1500 but NEVER want to mention Stalin.
It's great that anytime you lefties want to make a moral comparison between Islam and Christianity, you trot out the Inquisition and witch burnings. The Inquisition was five hundred freakin' years ago; We haven't burned any women alive since the 17th century. The responsible churches have long since expressed their regret for these acts. Let's talk about what's relevant to the world, Mr. Gibson: Muslims are blowing stuff up, assassinating officials, taking and murdering hostages, and rioting all over the world in the name of their religion TODAY. Their clerics are not expressing regret for this violence, they are egging it on. BIG DIFFERENCE! I could leave it off there, but I'm going to go for the field goal...the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were carried out by ATHEISTIC regimes in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Cambodia. Removing morality and holding up a belief that governments of flawed men, not God, are the most powerful force in the world leads to those horrors. Convenient how the Lefties can remember all the way back to 1500 but NEVER want to mention Stalin.
Posted by: Thrill at March 09, 2006 01:30 PM (+E47Q)
7
Wow there's a shocker!
I am amazed by the idiocy that is the Wash Post. The fact is the violent image that many identify with islamic people did not come out of the void. The examples to empirically support this view are numerous and easy to find. Lets imagine some other group, for arguments sake, say clowns. If a group of circus clowns flew planes into buildings, blew up subways, and beheaded people etc, doesn’t it stand to reason that one would be wary of anyone with clown makeup on? That’s not stereotyping, that is just common sense.
-swamp6 http://www.headspaceandtiming.com
I am amazed by the idiocy that is the Wash Post. The fact is the violent image that many identify with islamic people did not come out of the void. The examples to empirically support this view are numerous and easy to find. Lets imagine some other group, for arguments sake, say clowns. If a group of circus clowns flew planes into buildings, blew up subways, and beheaded people etc, doesn’t it stand to reason that one would be wary of anyone with clown makeup on? That’s not stereotyping, that is just common sense.
-swamp6 http://www.headspaceandtiming.com
Posted by: swamp6 at March 09, 2006 01:41 PM (QUKTR)
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 01:59 PM (ybfXM)
9
Sorry CY...there was just no other response to his nonsense....Christians and Bush are resposible for everything....Sheesh.....including the Holocaust....even more BS
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 02:00 PM (ybfXM)
10
We saw a big fat fruedian slip in the statement that the war in Iraq is entering its fourth year.
As much as the media has tried to separate Afghanistan from Iraq, allowing them to paint Iraq as an unnecessary and costly distraction, the slip-up is subjective proof that the Washington Post, despite what they print, privately sees Iraq as another front on the larger war on terror, which is exactly what Iraq happens to be.
We invaded Afghanistan in October of 2001... just a little over four years ago.
As much as the media has tried to separate Afghanistan from Iraq, allowing them to paint Iraq as an unnecessary and costly distraction, the slip-up is subjective proof that the Washington Post, despite what they print, privately sees Iraq as another front on the larger war on terror, which is exactly what Iraq happens to be.
We invaded Afghanistan in October of 2001... just a little over four years ago.
Posted by: Mike McGill at March 09, 2006 09:23 PM (daKzi)
11
"The invasion of Iraq began March 20, 2003. It is currently March 9, 2006. By my count, we've been in Iraq 2 years, 354 days. "Grinding" into a fourth year? Not yet."
Before you question numbers the WAPO seems to have researched quite diligently and probably with quite a few risks involved you might want to question your own count.
On March 20th the Iraq War will have completed 3 years and is then of course entering the fourth... Grinding into means just that... slowly and painfully entering.
Before you question numbers the WAPO seems to have researched quite diligently and probably with quite a few risks involved you might want to question your own count.
On March 20th the Iraq War will have completed 3 years and is then of course entering the fourth... Grinding into means just that... slowly and painfully entering.
Posted by: Math teacher at March 09, 2006 09:35 PM (nYQ4c)
12
Math teacher,
That's not common usage of English, and you know it. By your logic, you'd use "The war is grinding into it's first year" on D-Day, the day of the beginning of the war." While technically correct, it's misleading at best.
We've been in Iraq for not quite even three years, much less four. Two years and 354 days isn't four years. It's not even three years yet, so how could it be almost four? Three years and a day are not four years. Three years and two months isn't four years. Three years and five months isn't four years. You get up there around three years and seven or eight months, then you can start calling it four years and you won't get too much argument.
You do bring up another possibility than the one I mentioned. It's very possible the editors at the Washington Post were purposely misleading rather than just stupid.
That's not common usage of English, and you know it. By your logic, you'd use "The war is grinding into it's first year" on D-Day, the day of the beginning of the war." While technically correct, it's misleading at best.
We've been in Iraq for not quite even three years, much less four. Two years and 354 days isn't four years. It's not even three years yet, so how could it be almost four? Three years and a day are not four years. Three years and two months isn't four years. Three years and five months isn't four years. You get up there around three years and seven or eight months, then you can start calling it four years and you won't get too much argument.
You do bring up another possibility than the one I mentioned. It's very possible the editors at the Washington Post were purposely misleading rather than just stupid.
Posted by: Mike McGill at March 09, 2006 09:57 PM (daKzi)
13
Mike McGill
"Grinding into" is a not yet completed process. So it's correct to use it a few days before the third year is completed. They didn't say "four years", they said "into its fourth year. A more neutral way of expressing it would be "heading into".
Your D-Day example is misleading. (D-Day didn't start the war btw). You can say, if you want, that with Pearl Harbor the first year of the war (at least for the U.S.) started (grinding into would be inaccurate because the process of "entering war" was already completed then).
I'm sorry but the WaPo is absolutely correct here and it's quite silly to pretend otherwise. LGF quoting this blog only makes the matter worse by saying:
"I missed it on first read, but Confederate Yankee points out that the war in Iraq is now “grinding” into its third year, not its fourth."
You may start an argument whether the "grinding into" metaphor was used a few days too early but the war is definitely NOT grinding into its third year.
Sorry, you better correct this before Daily Kos picks this up and makes fun of your counting skills.
"Grinding into" is a not yet completed process. So it's correct to use it a few days before the third year is completed. They didn't say "four years", they said "into its fourth year. A more neutral way of expressing it would be "heading into".
Your D-Day example is misleading. (D-Day didn't start the war btw). You can say, if you want, that with Pearl Harbor the first year of the war (at least for the U.S.) started (grinding into would be inaccurate because the process of "entering war" was already completed then).
I'm sorry but the WaPo is absolutely correct here and it's quite silly to pretend otherwise. LGF quoting this blog only makes the matter worse by saying:
"I missed it on first read, but Confederate Yankee points out that the war in Iraq is now “grinding” into its third year, not its fourth."
You may start an argument whether the "grinding into" metaphor was used a few days too early but the war is definitely NOT grinding into its third year.
Sorry, you better correct this before Daily Kos picks this up and makes fun of your counting skills.
Posted by: Math teacher at March 09, 2006 10:14 PM (nYQ4c)
14
Math teacher,
Umm, well, for starters, the term "D-Day" is a generic term that signifies the first day of a ground invasion, the same as H-Hour is the first hour of the same. I wasn't referring to Normandy.
Second, I don't really care what Kos thinks.
Finally, by common usage, a moment in time doesn't exist until you arrive at it. By that, "ginding into your fourth year" indicates to most everyone other than math teachers, I suppose, that we are now somewhere past the 48th month of whatever we are talking about. If you ask a kid who is about to have his third birthday how old he is, he says he is almost three, and he's right. Only a public school teacher would make the argument that he should have said "I'm grinding away at four."
Umm, well, for starters, the term "D-Day" is a generic term that signifies the first day of a ground invasion, the same as H-Hour is the first hour of the same. I wasn't referring to Normandy.
Second, I don't really care what Kos thinks.
Finally, by common usage, a moment in time doesn't exist until you arrive at it. By that, "ginding into your fourth year" indicates to most everyone other than math teachers, I suppose, that we are now somewhere past the 48th month of whatever we are talking about. If you ask a kid who is about to have his third birthday how old he is, he says he is almost three, and he's right. Only a public school teacher would make the argument that he should have said "I'm grinding away at four."
Posted by: Mike McGill at March 09, 2006 10:22 PM (daKzi)
15
Math Teacher,
I agree with your points. However, I submit to you that the construct "...grinding into its fourth year" was chosen to maximize the effect of its dragging on.
They could just have easily said, "...completes its third year" or "...just under three years since beginning".
I also can't remember such an emphasis on duration of a task when I read reports on the creation of, and vote on, a constitution in about 2 1/2 years. It took longer than that(as I understand) for Germany and Japan to create and ratify theirs. Hell, even the US Constitution wasn't ratified by all 13 colonies for over three years.
Am I jaded in thinking there's a conscious attempt to "up-play" bad news. Probably. But after reading the MSM since 9/11, I have dozens of reasons why I should be. You should too.
SB
I agree with your points. However, I submit to you that the construct "...grinding into its fourth year" was chosen to maximize the effect of its dragging on.
They could just have easily said, "...completes its third year" or "...just under three years since beginning".
I also can't remember such an emphasis on duration of a task when I read reports on the creation of, and vote on, a constitution in about 2 1/2 years. It took longer than that(as I understand) for Germany and Japan to create and ratify theirs. Hell, even the US Constitution wasn't ratified by all 13 colonies for over three years.
Am I jaded in thinking there's a conscious attempt to "up-play" bad news. Probably. But after reading the MSM since 9/11, I have dozens of reasons why I should be. You should too.
SB
Posted by: Stublu at March 09, 2006 10:40 PM (FIKLw)
16
Stublu,
My point is that while it is technically true, it is misleading. It's kind of a Clintonian argument. You could just as easily claim that we are grinding away at our first decade in Iraq, and that would be technically accurate as well, but also misleading.
My point is that while it is technically true, it is misleading. It's kind of a Clintonian argument. You could just as easily claim that we are grinding away at our first decade in Iraq, and that would be technically accurate as well, but also misleading.
Posted by: Mike McGill at March 09, 2006 10:43 PM (daKzi)
17
It doesn't matter whether you meant D-Day as a generic term or not. Doesn't change anything.
And no, it does not say anything about 48th month, it says "grinding into" the fourth year. It doesn't say "completing the fourth year".
It also doesn't say "grinding away at". If you want to play semantics, play them correctly.
As I said, they could have said "we're heading into the fourth year". This is correct to say shortly before the third year is finished.
In December 1999 we could as well have said: "We're heading into year 2000". To illustrated the painful, obstacle ridden process the author chose the metaphor "grinding into".
Re moment in time: The use of the present continuous tense is commonly used for actions happening right now (but not completed yet), or in the future. But it does not define "a moment in time", it describes a process.
"I'm singing" is happening right now but it's not finished yet. "I'm entering the U.S." is something that is happening right now but the process is not completed yet.
Same with grinding. The "into" indicates a destination that has not been (fully) reached.
If you really can't fathom the meaning of "grinding into", ok. It simply means a "slow, obstacle ridden way of getting somewhere ("into the 4th year).
On March 21st we will definitely have entered the fourth year of the war or are you questioning that, too?
And no, it does not say anything about 48th month, it says "grinding into" the fourth year. It doesn't say "completing the fourth year".
It also doesn't say "grinding away at". If you want to play semantics, play them correctly.
As I said, they could have said "we're heading into the fourth year". This is correct to say shortly before the third year is finished.
In December 1999 we could as well have said: "We're heading into year 2000". To illustrated the painful, obstacle ridden process the author chose the metaphor "grinding into".
Re moment in time: The use of the present continuous tense is commonly used for actions happening right now (but not completed yet), or in the future. But it does not define "a moment in time", it describes a process.
"I'm singing" is happening right now but it's not finished yet. "I'm entering the U.S." is something that is happening right now but the process is not completed yet.
Same with grinding. The "into" indicates a destination that has not been (fully) reached.
If you really can't fathom the meaning of "grinding into", ok. It simply means a "slow, obstacle ridden way of getting somewhere ("into the 4th year).
On March 21st we will definitely have entered the fourth year of the war or are you questioning that, too?
Posted by: Math teacher at March 09, 2006 10:56 PM (nYQ4c)
18
stublu, that's of course a different argument.
Posted by: Math teacher at March 09, 2006 11:02 PM (nYQ4c)
19
The Post story is misleading. "Grinds into" implies that the threshold has been reached. That is not yet accurate, though it soon will be. It is but another example of a media organization making a concerted effort to make things look as dire as possible.
The invasion of Iraq was almost three years ago, and you are welcome to make the best or worst of it as you see fit.
"Math teacher has not been charged with molesting students after class."
Accurate, yet misleading.
The invasion of Iraq was almost three years ago, and you are welcome to make the best or worst of it as you see fit.
"Math teacher has not been charged with molesting students after class."
Accurate, yet misleading.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 09, 2006 11:49 PM (0fZB6)
20
"The invasion of Iraq began March 20, 2003. It is currently March 9, 2006. By my count, we've been in Iraq 2 years, 354 days. "Grinding" into a fourth year? Not yet."
What are you a moron? 365 days in a year last I checked, so in about a week and a half the third year is over and we're grinding into a fourth. What you wingnuts can't read a calendar?
What are you a moron? 365 days in a year last I checked, so in about a week and a half the third year is over and we're grinding into a fourth. What you wingnuts can't read a calendar?
Posted by: Frred at March 10, 2006 12:22 AM (CegzN)
21
Oh my God! This has officially gotten ridiculous. CY has brought this up as an example of media bias because the first sentence invokes the amount of time that the Iraq War has been going on despite the fact that it does NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO ADVANCE THE STORY. Using the word "grinds" is an editorial verb. The writer could have used the word "entered" or "approaches". The WP author did not and instead chose to reveal his own personal perspective in a subtle way. That is all you really have to know about it. If you want to say in 2007 that the Iraq War has entered its fourth year, that will be a bit more palatable since the last time I checked 2003+4=2007. When you quibble with CY over a menial issue like this, you come across as a twit. Let's all agree to be better than that and keep the debate at an intelligent level.
Posted by: Thrill at March 10, 2006 12:34 AM (+E47Q)
22
Confederate Yankee, sorry but this is a wrong and ridiculous comparison.
Where is the misleading? That the Iraq war is about to enter the fourth year? Anyone with 4 thumbs can verify that.
"Grinding into" is not a neutral term, true. Where on earth is it written that a newspaper article has to use neutral terms only?
Sure, if you think the war is going well and impressive progress is made, you would not use this term.
But it's completely legitimate to assume otherwise. The Germans would not have used this term in the first week of WW1, when they stormed into France. After Verdun, they might very well have.
The situation in Iraq today is worse than in 2005, 2004 or 2003. It is very unclear whether the U.S. can make significant improvements over the year. It is entirely possible that Iraq is plunging into a full blown civil war. Not a given, but a possibility.
Getting people to vote isn't necessarily progress or democracy as we want to establish it in Iraq.
Imagine Mubarak calling for real free elections in Iraq and a radical Islamist jihadi group is elected by 80%. You may say, yippie, democracy on the march in the Arab world. But you might rather prefer the status quo.
All this has nothing to do with the example you quote. This would indeed be misleading because nobody would know what's actually behind the "denial".
Where is the misleading? That the Iraq war is about to enter the fourth year? Anyone with 4 thumbs can verify that.
"Grinding into" is not a neutral term, true. Where on earth is it written that a newspaper article has to use neutral terms only?
Sure, if you think the war is going well and impressive progress is made, you would not use this term.
But it's completely legitimate to assume otherwise. The Germans would not have used this term in the first week of WW1, when they stormed into France. After Verdun, they might very well have.
The situation in Iraq today is worse than in 2005, 2004 or 2003. It is very unclear whether the U.S. can make significant improvements over the year. It is entirely possible that Iraq is plunging into a full blown civil war. Not a given, but a possibility.
Getting people to vote isn't necessarily progress or democracy as we want to establish it in Iraq.
Imagine Mubarak calling for real free elections in Iraq and a radical Islamist jihadi group is elected by 80%. You may say, yippie, democracy on the march in the Arab world. But you might rather prefer the status quo.
All this has nothing to do with the example you quote. This would indeed be misleading because nobody would know what's actually behind the "denial".
Posted by: Math teacher at March 10, 2006 12:49 AM (nYQ4c)
23
It's not written anywhere that a newspaper article has to use neutral terms Math Teacher. The problem I and many on the Right have with MSM newspapers is that they claim to be objective and fair when they're really not. If the Washington Post would come right out and state that they are Democrats and they report the news in a way that fulfills a Democratic Party agenda, I would respect them for it. They do not, instead they call themselves impartial and then try to INFLUENCE events instead of merely reporting them. That's our beef. I'll give you an example: one time AP did a story on Halliburton misappropriating funds early in the occupation of Iraq. Is that a legitimate news story? Absolutely. Do you know how the story began? It read: "Vice President Dick Cheney's former company...". VP Cheney had nothing to do with it and he was not mentioned again in the article. Stating that VP Cheney had worked for Halliburton did absolutely nothing to advance the story but it did leave the reader with the impression that he was somehow involved in wrongdoing. That's subjective and partisan. This story led off in the same manner and remember, WP considers itself mainstream and objective. It isn't the New Republic or an admittedly partisan publication like that.
Posted by: Thrill at March 10, 2006 01:20 AM (+E47Q)
24
I am a conservative Republican supporter of the specific war efforts in Iraq as well as all other approaches to Islamic terrorism, but I agree with Math Teacher that to pick on the first sentence in the article is misguided. It is only days away from entering the fourth year, and it is a grind....as it was told to us from the beginning it would be, as what us true believers have come to expect. No foul in that.
Posted by: rastajenk at March 10, 2006 10:13 AM (cHimz)
25
Geez....here comes math teacher....another KOSite. Are you actually debating that the MSM doesn't slant things to make them fit their own POV? Are you an idiot or just a Bennishite? Look at the latest dissection of the AP/IPSOS poll released today here.
Get a clue...the point wasn't the specific words - it was the fact that it could have been said much differently and covered the same thing. Sheesh....you guys will find anything to argue about whether you believe it or not.
Get a clue...the point wasn't the specific words - it was the fact that it could have been said much differently and covered the same thing. Sheesh....you guys will find anything to argue about whether you believe it or not.
Posted by: Specter at March 10, 2006 10:43 AM (ybfXM)
26
"Bottom Story of the Day": WaPo Has Secret Agenda
Posted by: rastajenk at March 10, 2006 10:51 AM (cHimz)
27
"Dems Indicted; Clinton, Kerry Targeted"
A CNN headline
"The head of the Republican Party is expected to charge Friday that the opposition can't find an election-year slogan, let alone agree on an agenda."
So if you only read the headline (think Google News), would you find this a bit "misleading" or not?
The "main stream media"? Which main stream is it?
A CNN headline
"The head of the Republican Party is expected to charge Friday that the opposition can't find an election-year slogan, let alone agree on an agenda."
So if you only read the headline (think Google News), would you find this a bit "misleading" or not?
The "main stream media"? Which main stream is it?
Posted by: Math teacher at March 10, 2006 01:53 PM (zMrLn)
28
Get off it math teacher...you can't convince us. Try studying the issue for a minute or two. Just google "media bias" and see what you come up with. You will be amazed.
Examples: Quailgate (loser story from the start carried by every single MSM outlet), Imminent Iraq Civil War (Where's my war dude?), Katrina misstatements from AP last week (they actually published a correction), Kennedy and the CAP debacle over Alito, this mornings biased poll about Bush's ratings (AP/IPSOS - read more here. Just read. It happens. There is bias and it is overwhelmingly liberal.
Examples: Quailgate (loser story from the start carried by every single MSM outlet), Imminent Iraq Civil War (Where's my war dude?), Katrina misstatements from AP last week (they actually published a correction), Kennedy and the CAP debacle over Alito, this mornings biased poll about Bush's ratings (AP/IPSOS - read more here. Just read. It happens. There is bias and it is overwhelmingly liberal.
Posted by: Specter at March 10, 2006 03:48 PM (ybfXM)
29
Man, everything is coming up roses for the Bush admin but you'd never know it from the press. The Iraqis are quickly taking over their own defense, Iran really has nowhere to go for support, the Palestinians are leaderless and floundering, we have improved relationship with India and Pakistan, Denmark is showing resilience which could be an example for the rest of Europe to show some spunk, the Dems are on the ropes (nothing new there); what's there not to like (forget the port deals, that's just more media noise). I predict that when the Saddam tape translations are made public just before the elections, the approval surge will give the Republicans an increase their congressional majorities.
Posted by: docdave at March 14, 2006 09:57 PM (SbFQE)
30
I have just eaten lunch and read through this collection of opinions. It is actually nice to see opinions and, whether we agree or not, we have the right to them. I am becoming more anti-muslim (or Islam, as I am still confused as to which is which). Christianity had nothing to do with the Holocost, it had to do with hatred that was organized by a lot of people who needed something to hate in order to organize. Muslims are here in the USA and changing local laws along the way. They are doing it quietly and they are expanding. One just has to look around metropolitan Detroit to see the Mosques and how people dress in Southfield and Deaborn. They are 'moderate' NOW, but when they have sufficient numbers will they continue to be? How do they feel about the man in Afghanistan who should be put to death for converting to Christianity? What if I convert to Islam, should I be put to death by the Pope? Certainly this is a rhetorical question. But, what does it say about what Muslims want? I believe they want all of the Earth's population to be Muslim. As I stated in the beginning, it is only me expressing an opinion, I hope we still have these abilities in 50 years.
Posted by: Dennis at March 27, 2006 01:02 PM (QDMbN)
March 08, 2006
Ignorance and Congress... But I Repeat Myself
From time to time, Democrats and Republicans come together and agree nearly unanimously in such a way that makes me wonder if any of them are capable of rational thought at all.
This is one of those times:No matter how little I think of congressmen, time and again they prove I think far too much of them. Despite the profound ignorance of Lewis and others in Congress, America's ports have always been in American hands, the work carried out by American workers, as it has been done under foreign leadership for the last six years. Whatever "rational" excuses they come up with, our ports have been run, as Ed Morrissey notes, by British, Saudi, Chinese, and Singaporean operators, yet when an Arab company steps into the mix, all of a sudden we worry about security. Hypocrites. As I first stated on 2/25:
In an election-year repudiation of
President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections. "This is a national security issue," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the panel. The California Republican said the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands."
That emerging trust, fragile as it was, is now perhaps shattered. Thanks, Congress.
Dubai is one of our better Arab allies, and if we can't work with them, it seems to send the message we are unwilling to work with any Arab countries, at least when it directly affects us. Instead of having them literally buy into America, we sell them what our enemies have been whispering the entire time, "See? They will not accept you. Come back to us..." I have no stake in Dubai. I know some there have had their hands in terrorism, and I know that some still may. I know they don't recognize Israel, and that bothers me. At this point, there aren't a lot of good "outs." If Bush stands his ground, then most rest of the Republican Party will break with him to chase the polls in what has become a surprise election year turkey. If Bush backs down, we could lose some of the fragile trust we've tried to develop in Arab countries since 9/11.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:53 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What kills me is the fact that instead of trying to pass legislation against DP World directly, they took the chicken$hit way out of attaching it to "must pass" legislation. Cripes....if it is worth doing at least do it with integrity. My view is that if we kill the deal the members of the Committee who voted this way should have to pay the financial damage due to the breach of contract.
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 08:50 AM (ybfXM)
2
While I believe that DP should be allowed to acquire the facilities, I can see this from Congress' point of view. This deal is very unpopular and it's an election year where Republicans already feel threatened and I'm sure that their constituents have been barking at them incessantly to kill it. Still, if this deal is killed, it may be good for the Party in the short run, but bad for the nation in the end. Tricky.
Posted by: Thrill at March 09, 2006 10:16 AM (+E47Q)
3
Hi 
Posted by: Online Pharmacy at March 29, 2006 01:47 PM (9BuoG)
Hillary's Vision of "Police States"
Coming from a woman who spent a significant portion of her husband's term in the in the White House under one investigation or another, I guess this kind of comment shouldn't come as much of a surprise:
Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought part of what made America great was that we are a nation of laws, not men. What Hillary seems to state is that breaking the law without consequence is "what America stands for." If this is indeed her position, no wonder she would find a state where the police enforce the laws so unpalatable.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants. Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke out on the U.S. immigration policy after largely staying away from an issue that has roiled Congress in recent months and spurred a number of conflicting proposals. Speaking at a rally of Irish immigrants, Clinton criticized a bill the House passed in December that would impose harsher penalties for undocumented workers. "Don't turn your backs on what made this country great," she said, calling the measure "a rebuke to what America stands for."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:01 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'd be curious to know how a nation can have the most free gun ownership laws in the world and still be a "police state". OT, but I wanted to give a cheer for the upcoming demise of Air America. Their ideas have been rejected in the marketplace, even in NYC.
Posted by: Thrill at March 08, 2006 06:12 PM (+E47Q)
2
So, rounding up criminals makes us a police state?
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:25 PM (xEXsr)
3
"Coming from a woman who spent a significant portion of her husband's term in the in the White House under one investigation or another..."
Very nice. A quick little slap at Hilary. I'm just curious, since you failed to mention it. How many of those investigations resulted in findings of wrongdoing against Hilary? I mean, we all know a Republican Congress can investigate whoever it wants, but of course the results are a different thing. I'm hoping you'll enlighten us. Because I'm sure, as an honorable person, you acknowledge that mentioning someone was investigated, without mentioning that they were cleared, is a cheap shot. And I'm sure you're above that.
Very nice. A quick little slap at Hilary. I'm just curious, since you failed to mention it. How many of those investigations resulted in findings of wrongdoing against Hilary? I mean, we all know a Republican Congress can investigate whoever it wants, but of course the results are a different thing. I'm hoping you'll enlighten us. Because I'm sure, as an honorable person, you acknowledge that mentioning someone was investigated, without mentioning that they were cleared, is a cheap shot. And I'm sure you're above that.
Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:21 PM (80Sf7)
4
No, nothing came from the investigations Chris. On account of Hillary being very clever. Remember how she "couldn't find" the Rose Law Firm records until (conveniently) the statute of limitations of the offense under investigation had passed? If your side wants to pretend that she has none of this baggage and is squeaky clean, please go ahead and support her in your local presidential primary. Know that we relish the opportunity to show what America thinks of the Shrill One.
Posted by: Thrill at March 09, 2006 11:44 AM (+E47Q)
5
Hi
Posted by: Online Pharmacy at March 29, 2006 01:47 PM (pfnUh)
Nice, But...
I'm glad Glenn Reynold's new Book, An Army of Davids (which I did not get a pre-production proof of, by the way) is selling quite well (currently #167 in Books on amazon.com), but I think his formulaic followup book on the chief author of the Republican "Contract With America" might be pushing a good gimmick too far.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:46 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Kevin at March 08, 2006 06:12 AM (o/IMK)
NSA Wins, Terrorists and Liberals Lose
Senate Republicans have introduced a bill to provide oversight of the President's NSA terrorist intercept program while rejecting any further investigation:
Liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald is not happy:
The measure would create terrorist surveillance subcommittees under both the Senate and House intelligence committees to oversee the surveillance program. The panel, meanwhile, rejected a full investigation of the program, which was acknowledged by Bush in December after it surfaced in media reports.
Well, there is that perspective, isn't there? In Greewald's world, 535 members of Congress and the Republican-dominated press are complicit in Chimpy McHitlerburton's grand conspiracy (with the consent of the majority of the ignorant AmeriKKKan sheeple) against Glamourous Glenn and the Forces of Truth. I'm sorry, Glenn, that this reality presents a different picture than the one that you would star in. Top constitutional scholars, experienced federal lawyers past and present, and even the FISA Court of Review itself have all agree that the President has the power to conduct this kind of surveillance against the enemies of this country. Only Congress, with it's insatiable desire for more power, and the media with their ever-present desire to generate scandals for their advertisers brought this non-story along as far as they did. I admire your enthusiasm, Mr. Greenwald. I just wish you could harness your energies to fight the enemies of this nation instead of trying to antagonize those trying to hunt terrorists down.
Nobody who has lived outside of a cave for the last five years could possibly be surprised by any of this. One of the reason we are at the point we're at in our country -- where we have a President who not only breaks the law but claims he has the right to do so, while the media barely finds any of it worthy of much attention -- is because the Congress has completely abdicated its responsibilities at the altar of cult-like obedience to White House decrees. That's just one of the many rotted roots in our government.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:17 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Greenwald's problem (and that of many of his fellow travellers) is that he thinks -- or wishes -- that the Congress can legislate away the powers granted to the President by the Constitution.
Ya. I want to give those people the power to choose our judges. Right.
Ya. I want to give those people the power to choose our judges. Right.
Posted by: Russ at March 08, 2006 02:47 AM (utsLN)
2
I said all along that this is whole thing was a political issue rather than a legal one - that it would never see the inside of a court room. The whole reason was because of the polls - if the dems look weak they lose in the polls and it is an election year after all....
Posted by: Specter at March 08, 2006 04:53 PM (ybfXM)
3
I'm a huge science fiction reader. And I really like the alternate history books by Harry Turtledove. The man has written like 10 books encompassing from the South winning the Civil War all the way up through into WWII. And 2 books on pearl Harbor, where the Japs invaded. Plus tons of other alternative history books.
But, he doesn't come close to the alternate reality that the Surrender Monkeys consistently create hourly. It's mind boggling.
But, he doesn't come close to the alternate reality that the Surrender Monkeys consistently create hourly. It's mind boggling.
Posted by: William Teach at March 08, 2006 04:55 PM (TFSHk)
4
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document042602.asp
So when is Bush going to stop holding hands with the leader of the Saudis? I mean they attacked us on 911 and Bush just lets Osama go and stops thinking about him ...then he invades Iraq to please his neocon masters ...and then he goes around holding the hand of the leader of Saudi Arabia (you know the country that attacked us on 911) after almost all of the 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and Osama is a Saudi and Saudis were funding the 911 terrorists...
So when is Bush going to stop holding hands with the leader of the Saudis? I mean they attacked us on 911 and Bush just lets Osama go and stops thinking about him ...then he invades Iraq to please his neocon masters ...and then he goes around holding the hand of the leader of Saudi Arabia (you know the country that attacked us on 911) after almost all of the 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and Osama is a Saudi and Saudis were funding the 911 terrorists...
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:19 PM (FohTw)
5
Hey Russ "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" ...go remind your King that THE PEOPLE own America and Congress is given far far more power in the U.S. Constitution than is the president... look it up...read the Constitution. The founding fathers were hell bent on protecting THE PEOPLE from another run away crazy acting like he is King...
also ... ALL POWERS that are not specifically printed in the Constitution as powers of the president are RESERVED for the PEOPLE, the STATES, and CONGRESS... look it up ... the president is not that big a deal in America...we dont believe in kinds here ..go tell that to your leaders...
also ... ALL POWERS that are not specifically printed in the Constitution as powers of the president are RESERVED for the PEOPLE, the STATES, and CONGRESS... look it up ... the president is not that big a deal in America...we dont believe in kinds here ..go tell that to your leaders...
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:23 PM (FohTw)
6
Gerald,
I suspect we will never try to "invade" Saudi Arabia and they know it. The reason is that it would never be accepted for anywhere in the Muslim world for non-muslims to hold Mecca.
But along those lines - should we invade England - I mean Richard Reid came from there....LOL
I suspect we will never try to "invade" Saudi Arabia and they know it. The reason is that it would never be accepted for anywhere in the Muslim world for non-muslims to hold Mecca.
But along those lines - should we invade England - I mean Richard Reid came from there....LOL
Posted by: Specter at March 08, 2006 05:30 PM (ybfXM)
7
No read the link ... Saudi Arabia is the moral power behind Reid and the Bush family.. and all the others that use Taliban thinking to justify their actions. If we took down Saudi Arabia the bush families power would be gone ...they would be exposed as the benedict arnolds that they are and the rest of the muslim world would see that America wont let sleeze bags trick us from going straight for the throat just like the democrats did in WWII.
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:34 PM (FohTw)
8
Oh, Lord, another lefty who goes off topic. Talking points email not cover the terrorist intercepts today, Gerald?
Posted by: William Teach at March 08, 2006 06:28 PM (jNcSm)
9
You speak of invading Saudi Arabia, and yet you defend Saddam and Iran. Go take your hackery somewhere else; you only bring this up because we aren't actually planning to invade. If we were, you'd find some reason to defend them as well.
BTW, I'm extremely disappointed with Bush's handling of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. I'll bet you'd defend Bashir Assad and Kim Jong Il, too.
BTW, I'm extremely disappointed with Bush's handling of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. I'll bet you'd defend Bashir Assad and Kim Jong Il, too.
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:36 PM (xEXsr)
10
Gerald appears to be off his meds today.
What part of "powers granted to the President by the Constitution" (you know, that piece of parchment with the words We the People of the United States written at the top) might he have failed to understand?
What part of "powers granted to the President by the Constitution" (you know, that piece of parchment with the words We the People of the United States written at the top) might he have failed to understand?
Posted by: Russ at March 08, 2006 07:07 PM (j8SAh)
11
I'll take "all of it" for $500, Alex.
Posted by: William Teach at March 08, 2006 07:10 PM (jNcSm)
12
gerald,
perhaps you could then explain why Al Gore just took $250 THOUSAND DOLLARS to make a speech in Saudi Arabia - and imagine this - paid for by an organization dominated by the same families you want to link to Bush. Try reading something besides Newsweak and conspiracy blogs.
Oh yea gerald....you better take apart your computer and phone because you know they are bugged. And check all your vents, wiring, closets, basement, attic, and under your bed for transmitters because you know that the big, bad "THEY" are listening to everything you do....MUAHAHAHAHAHAAH
perhaps you could then explain why Al Gore just took $250 THOUSAND DOLLARS to make a speech in Saudi Arabia - and imagine this - paid for by an organization dominated by the same families you want to link to Bush. Try reading something besides Newsweak and conspiracy blogs.
Oh yea gerald....you better take apart your computer and phone because you know they are bugged. And check all your vents, wiring, closets, basement, attic, and under your bed for transmitters because you know that the big, bad "THEY" are listening to everything you do....MUAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Posted by: Specter at March 08, 2006 10:04 PM (ybfXM)
13
Specter ...When I heard that Gore had done that it really pissed me off. In fact the more this all does on the less I value the last two votes I threw into their direction. I expect anyone I call my "leader" to use reason. I dont expect anything like that from the right. The right uses "used car salesman logic"... which basically means they lie to themselves and others.. I would think that because the left glorifies diversity and THINKING before acting that they would be able to reason that the souorce of the religious fundamentalism in the world is 1) Saudi Arabi and 2) America. So why would Gore go make friends with the Saudis?
As far as spying ..dont joke about it... READ history. Those that do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Powerful centralized governments (Americas Feds ever since post-civil war) ALWAYS end up seeing their own people as the enemy. The U.S. government has done exactly that a couple times in the last century. There is nothing funny about it. It starts off being directed externally (Communists) and then turns against the people (Red Scare)... Mix that with the republicans allowing in the American version of the Taliban into their party and you got a dangerous mix. Laugh if you want. But later when the local religious police are taking your child to jail for breaking the old jewish code they dug up from somewhere in their bible you will be sorry you didnt think about human nature and history when supporting this.
As far as defending Saddam or Iran or North Korea once again you on the right are thinking like "used car salesmen". It is not about being on someones side... It is about reasoning (logic) about who did what and why. Saddam did NOT attack America. Saudis did. Saddam == bad. Saudis == invaders on our soil on 911. What is so hard to understand about that? I would go so far as to suggest paying Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia. He would have done it. And he wasnt behind 911 so who cares if we use him?
I do defend Iran as far as 1) They signed the NPT which gives them the right to use nuclear technology. That was Americas deal to the Iranians in the first place. 2) We (CIA) violated their soverignty by forcing who we wanted to as their leader back in the 50s and 60s.... which lead directly to the Iranian revolutions ...which is EXACTLY what America would have done if that was done to us. Infact that is what we did in the 1700s. HOWEVER I do NOT defend Irans religous fundamentalists. Religious quaks are dangerous. This is why the neocons should have no power in the US and why the mullahs in Iran should not either. However we must accept responsiblity for allowing them to come to power because we helped their previous leaders to abuse the people in the 50s and 60s. Iran must NOT get a nuclear bomb. But pretending like we did nothing to encourage that is not going to help us solve the problem without another war. If we accept our responsibility that will take them off their high horse they now ride in deviance of anything American.
Russ go read the U.S. Contitution. IT does not say ALL POWERS belong to the president. In fact it lists just a few things he can do and then says ALL OTHER POWERS belong to The People, The States, and Congress... go read it. And read the writings of the founding fathers... they meant what they wrote and they knew why they put it there like that.
If you cant figure this stuff out on your own dont be saying I need "meds" ...very childish. I have presented a line of logic. If you can find LOGICAL fault in it then present it and I have no problem accepting it and continueing with the thought process. This is the part of the left I admire. From the right I expect an understanding of the hard cold reality of the "bad people" out there. Befriending our enemy (Saudi Arabia) for money is what Bush, co has done for the last 50 to 60 years. Do YOU support that? Do YOU see the germans and the saudis as potential business partners? Or do you use your rightwing brain to see them for what they are? And if you do then why not force that on Bush, co?
You are right that the left wants to be friends with everyone even when that is not possible. Think Progress people dont like my ideas about Saudi Arabia either. But at least they are not sell outs like Bush, co... who on the left and the right uses both reasoning about the bad people in this world and logic about how to fix it? The left does part of that correctly and the right does the other part correctly. Where is the middle way where both parts are done correctly at the same time?
As far as spying ..dont joke about it... READ history. Those that do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Powerful centralized governments (Americas Feds ever since post-civil war) ALWAYS end up seeing their own people as the enemy. The U.S. government has done exactly that a couple times in the last century. There is nothing funny about it. It starts off being directed externally (Communists) and then turns against the people (Red Scare)... Mix that with the republicans allowing in the American version of the Taliban into their party and you got a dangerous mix. Laugh if you want. But later when the local religious police are taking your child to jail for breaking the old jewish code they dug up from somewhere in their bible you will be sorry you didnt think about human nature and history when supporting this.
As far as defending Saddam or Iran or North Korea once again you on the right are thinking like "used car salesmen". It is not about being on someones side... It is about reasoning (logic) about who did what and why. Saddam did NOT attack America. Saudis did. Saddam == bad. Saudis == invaders on our soil on 911. What is so hard to understand about that? I would go so far as to suggest paying Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia. He would have done it. And he wasnt behind 911 so who cares if we use him?
I do defend Iran as far as 1) They signed the NPT which gives them the right to use nuclear technology. That was Americas deal to the Iranians in the first place. 2) We (CIA) violated their soverignty by forcing who we wanted to as their leader back in the 50s and 60s.... which lead directly to the Iranian revolutions ...which is EXACTLY what America would have done if that was done to us. Infact that is what we did in the 1700s. HOWEVER I do NOT defend Irans religous fundamentalists. Religious quaks are dangerous. This is why the neocons should have no power in the US and why the mullahs in Iran should not either. However we must accept responsiblity for allowing them to come to power because we helped their previous leaders to abuse the people in the 50s and 60s. Iran must NOT get a nuclear bomb. But pretending like we did nothing to encourage that is not going to help us solve the problem without another war. If we accept our responsibility that will take them off their high horse they now ride in deviance of anything American.
Russ go read the U.S. Contitution. IT does not say ALL POWERS belong to the president. In fact it lists just a few things he can do and then says ALL OTHER POWERS belong to The People, The States, and Congress... go read it. And read the writings of the founding fathers... they meant what they wrote and they knew why they put it there like that.
If you cant figure this stuff out on your own dont be saying I need "meds" ...very childish. I have presented a line of logic. If you can find LOGICAL fault in it then present it and I have no problem accepting it and continueing with the thought process. This is the part of the left I admire. From the right I expect an understanding of the hard cold reality of the "bad people" out there. Befriending our enemy (Saudi Arabia) for money is what Bush, co has done for the last 50 to 60 years. Do YOU support that? Do YOU see the germans and the saudis as potential business partners? Or do you use your rightwing brain to see them for what they are? And if you do then why not force that on Bush, co?
You are right that the left wants to be friends with everyone even when that is not possible. Think Progress people dont like my ideas about Saudi Arabia either. But at least they are not sell outs like Bush, co... who on the left and the right uses both reasoning about the bad people in this world and logic about how to fix it? The left does part of that correctly and the right does the other part correctly. Where is the middle way where both parts are done correctly at the same time?
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 09, 2006 12:28 PM (FohTw)
14
Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Her, was a woman
There is a growing amount of evidence that The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Her, was a woman. I recall talking to my young niece, a strong believer in the Prophet, peace be upon Her. My niece became very excited and exclaimed, “You mean that the Prophet, peace be upon Her, is a chick?” Yes I replied. I also said that the Prophet, peace be upon Her, would probably prefer being called a woman, not a chick.
http://mohammedpeacebeuponherisawoman.blogspot.com/
There is a growing amount of evidence that The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Her, was a woman. I recall talking to my young niece, a strong believer in the Prophet, peace be upon Her. My niece became very excited and exclaimed, “You mean that the Prophet, peace be upon Her, is a chick?” Yes I replied. I also said that the Prophet, peace be upon Her, would probably prefer being called a woman, not a chick.
http://mohammedpeacebeuponherisawoman.blogspot.com/
Posted by: mohammed is a woman at March 12, 2006 04:13 PM (50PFg)
March 07, 2006
Rummy and the Troops
Funny, how the media is drawn to the fiction, but can't bother itself with the facts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:42 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
WorldSex Daily Updated Free Links to Hardcore Sex Pictures, Movies, Free Porn Videos and XXX Live Sex Cams
Posted by: SEXMENS at April 06, 2006 11:11 PM (K+UTQ)
A Proxy War No More
For the second day in a row, ABC News targets Iran with another bombshell allegation (my bold):
We know from yesterday that Iran is supplying Iraqi terrorists with sophisticated SCMs (shaped charge munitions) that can defeat the armor of even our heaviest tanks. It is this kind of charge that was responsible for the deaths of 14 Marines in their Iraqi interpreter last August near Haditha. Now we have the Secretary of Defense stating that members of the elite al Quds division—the same unit that deployed elements to Afghanistan to assist the Taliban and roughly analogous to the Green Berets in usage if not quality—are actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq. It is quite probable that this has not been a proxy war for some time, but instead a low-level special operations war. One has to wonder how and when the Iranian "error in judgement" will be corrected.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday rejected suggestions Iraq is engulfed in a civil war but predicted there would be additional "bursts" of sectarian violence in the weeks ahead. Rumsfeld also claimed that Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements had infiltrated Iraq to cause trouble. "They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq," he said. "And we know it. And it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment." He would not be more specific except to say the infiltrators were members of the Al Quds Division of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:17 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They must think that this administration wouldn't get support from Democrats should all this be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Axis of Evil indeed...
Axis of Evil indeed...
Posted by: Keith, Indy at March 07, 2006 03:19 PM (pVUxX)
2
This is casus beli if I ever saw it. Particularly against Iraq. But war is politics by other means. If it's not politically wise to do anything then nothing will be done.
Marsh
Marsh
Posted by: Marshall Neal at March 07, 2006 03:27 PM (Qa0tQ)
3
Iraqi fascist death squads commonly known as insugents are getting assitance from Iran to cause mayhem while Iran gets nuclear assistance from North Korea.
And how they laughed when the man said the words
"Axis of Evil."
And how they laughed when the man said the words
"Axis of Evil."
Posted by: Rob at March 07, 2006 04:09 PM (/ciiB)
4
I've heard it said that they want us to take military action against them because they believe that it will strengthen their support domestically. You know, unite the people to the 'common foe'. It probably is as dumb as it sounds.
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:24 PM (+E47Q)
5
Let me guess. Rumsfeld knows where these Iranian Revolutionary Guard elements are, just like the WMDs.
"They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
That's what happens when your personal credibility, and that of the president your work for, is crap.
"They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
That's what happens when your personal credibility, and that of the president your work for, is crap.
Posted by: Grace Nearing at March 07, 2006 05:49 PM (Ffvoi)
6
In Curt Weldon's book Countdown to terror he quotes his source Ali to the effect that the Iranians would be supplying the Iraqi terrorists with Shaped Charge weapons. I commented on this in an August 24,2005 article on my site Why the Able Danger story is important and why we must insist on an investigation!. Michael Leeden also long ago told of those sorts of weapons being imported into Iraq by the Iranians.
We have had plenty of warning that this was going to happen. But the Government just like it did prior to 9/11 has other fish to fry like CYA and the rest of the Bureaucratic nonsense that takes the place of actual work.
My prediction is nothing will come of this until a lot of us die....lots of us.
Pierre Legrand
We have had plenty of warning that this was going to happen. But the Government just like it did prior to 9/11 has other fish to fry like CYA and the rest of the Bureaucratic nonsense that takes the place of actual work.
My prediction is nothing will come of this until a lot of us die....lots of us.
Pierre Legrand
Posted by: Pierre Legrand at March 07, 2006 06:29 PM (8+Mab)
7
Loose Lips Sink Ships, Pierre.
Posted by: Red River at March 07, 2006 06:43 PM (wiIi5)
8
Conyank:
You might want to double check this but al Quds I believe is also known as "The Jerusalem Brigade" that our good friend President Ahmad-inejad headed up back in the 1980's.
If so, those cadres could almost be considered personal assassins - people loyal to him that he's sent into Iraq.
You might want to double check this but al Quds I believe is also known as "The Jerusalem Brigade" that our good friend President Ahmad-inejad headed up back in the 1980's.
If so, those cadres could almost be considered personal assassins - people loyal to him that he's sent into Iraq.
Posted by: Rick Moran at March 07, 2006 07:47 PM (Ffvoi)
9
Ah, Iran...
It would be so nice to meet you on a level playing field. I remeber, less than fondly, my first date with a foreign entity - that being the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Ah, the memories...
Back then we were under the intrepid leadership of one Jimmah Cahter...
Now we have George 'W' Bush...
You might want to think things through...
It would be so nice to meet you on a level playing field. I remeber, less than fondly, my first date with a foreign entity - that being the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Ah, the memories...
Back then we were under the intrepid leadership of one Jimmah Cahter...
Now we have George 'W' Bush...
You might want to think things through...
Posted by: Boghie at March 07, 2006 11:51 PM (Tkg0j)
10
Why do you call them Iraqi terrorists? They were not part of 911... I thought when you went into another mans home and start killing his family members that makes you a murderer and him a victim? Since when does it make the man a terrorist and his home a terrorist haven? Oh.. ever since faith based "logic" became "cool" in the republicans camp? I see... up is down ...down is up...ok now I get it. Guilt is a bitch.
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:28 PM (FohTw)
11
Oh, I see, so the Golden Dome was an American mosque then? And, all of the marketplaces, mosques, and infrastructure that are targeted don't belong to the Iraqis either, huh? And the Iraqi policemen and soldiers who get murdered? And the journalists and aid workers who get kidnapped and beheaded? These are all noble acts of self-defense, huh? How about when the bombers stake out an American medical convoy until it gets surrounded by Iraqi children and then blow it up? Nice to know who you're allied with, Gerald.
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:43 PM (xEXsr)
12
Oh, and your analogy is flawed. It should be "when you invade another man's home to save him from the murderer who is holding his family hostage."
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:45 PM (xEXsr)
March 06, 2006
Red-Handed
Iran may just been caught red-handed shipping high-tech IEDs into Iraq:
U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border. They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor. What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory. "The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Berry. "So it's the same make and model." U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October. "I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war. If these munitions can be tied to the Iranian government—and the article seems to strongly suggest just that—then we have the clear legal and moral justification to disrupt Iran's intentions to wound or kill American soldiers. We have been trying to settle our differences with Iran with non-military means, but by their actions, their intent is clear. The mullahs of Iran would wage war upon America, and in doing so, have determined freedom for their enslaved pro-western people sooner, rather than later. Update: Cox & Forkum weigh in:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:46 PM | Comments (77) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This has probably been going on all along, I'm glad we finally caught them in the act. Now we just have to ask, "What Would Reagan Do?" The answer is clear. Retaliatory bomings against military targets within Iran. They have violated their rights as a neutral with this and it's time to bring it home to the Ayatollah.
Posted by: Thrill at March 06, 2006 07:47 PM (+E47Q)
2
I've been in no hurry to attack Iran. My thought was if we do, they will make Iraq even more of a problem for us. Now it looks like that reasoning is gone. They already are. If that is the case, if they are sending substantial aid to the insurgents, it's time to bomb the crap out of them. Maybe we can send some former embassy hostages over to flip the switches to fire the Tomahawks.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 06, 2006 08:21 PM (4joLu)
Posted by: Marvin at March 06, 2006 08:53 PM (8cEPU)
4
It's an act of war.
Condi should immediately warn them continuing this one second longer will buy them some serious shock and awe.
We owe it to the troops.
Condi should immediately warn them continuing this one second longer will buy them some serious shock and awe.
We owe it to the troops.
Posted by: TallDave at March 06, 2006 09:52 PM (H8Wgl)
5
A bunch of AC130's just arrived...thay can put a world of hurt on scum trying to infiltrate the border.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 07, 2006 01:20 AM (TbnUR)
6
Time to take the gloves off. Iran has been helping the insurgents all along. They just got caught with their collective pants down. Now we need to stick it to them. Syria is doing the same thing. We have the people in place to get the job done. They were warned at the outset of hostilaties to stay out of it. They chose not to so, they need to pay the price. First Cut off there fuel supplies. They have alot of oil but can't refine it. Get word to the moderate pro western folks tell them to get the hell out of the way. Send in the Tomahawks and B2's. AIRPOWER BABY!!!!!!!!
P.S.
Expect no help from the U.N.
P.S.
Expect no help from the U.N.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 07, 2006 07:55 AM (JYeBJ)
7
And why should we take richard clarkes word on anything, he also said Iraq had wmd's. Also the only proof they offer is that the bombs have similar tool marks...they are not stamped Made in Iran!!!! So it looks like once again the war mongering right wants to start bombing brown people for no honest reason....keep in mind, the day we do that is the day before gas goes to $8.00 a gallon.
Posted by: madmatt at March 07, 2006 09:21 AM (J8hqn)
8
Did you guys actually read the original report? They were caught doing this last October by the Brits, and the Brits were quite embarrassed because the fuses on the weaspons were British ones the IRA had stolen and sold. In other words, this is old news. Sorry to harsh your frenzy.
Posted by: zen_less at March 07, 2006 09:21 AM (BkYcc)
9
PS Isn't it ironic you quote Richard Clarke NOW, when you heaped nothing but abuse on him before when he criticized the President's do thing actions against terror prior to 9/11? I guess that was then, and now he's your boy again!
Posted by: zen_less at March 07, 2006 09:24 AM (BkYcc)
10
"I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war."
Hoisting youself on your own petard, are you?
Hoisting youself on your own petard, are you?
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 07, 2006 09:33 AM (a0KXj)
11
hey zen_less, nobody here cares about Richard Clarke. This is not old news, it is a new find. It has been suspected, but the article makes clear that the new find demonstrates mass production of the devices so it unequivically demonstrates Iranian government complicity. As I said, I have not supported attacking Iran before. It is not a reflexive desire to bomb brown skins, but based on new evidence that the Iranians are already at war with us, moron.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 09:40 AM (4joLu)
12
The preceding "reality-based" comments are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink. Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. It’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale.
Come on, little liberals. Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it.
Come on, little liberals. Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 07, 2006 09:45 AM (g5Nba)
13
Libs, okay, you define for us exactly what point at which you think it is acceptable for a nation to defend its people. Go ahead, give us a "go to war" scenario you would support. And tell us what you would say to the mothers of all the soldiers who have been killed by Iran to explian how their deaths are not worth a war. Go ahead blameocrats, we are waiting...
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 09:49 AM (4joLu)
14
...and Syria is hiding the WMDs. We KNOW they are, because Georges Sada told us they are.
So let's start a massive bombing campaign against Iraq and Syria today!
Then the insurgency in Iraq will REALLY be in "it's last throes!"
Do you kool aid drinkers really think we have the means to wage a 3 front war in the middle east right now?
Confederate Yank - Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?
There must be a recruiting office nearby. Go sign up, buddy. If you're too old, convince your kids to go. It's your patriotic duty, tough guy.
So let's start a massive bombing campaign against Iraq and Syria today!
Then the insurgency in Iraq will REALLY be in "it's last throes!"
Do you kool aid drinkers really think we have the means to wage a 3 front war in the middle east right now?
Confederate Yank - Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?
There must be a recruiting office nearby. Go sign up, buddy. If you're too old, convince your kids to go. It's your patriotic duty, tough guy.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 10:18 AM (CIj8S)
15
From the article:
"U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October."
Actually, as the article makes clear, this is NOT a new story. It seems they have been aware since October that Iran was producing these weapons and smuggling them into Iraq.
We've apparently known about this for some time, so why haven't we invaded Iran yet? What's the hold up? Frankly I'm getting bored with this whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" thing. We don't use the cool weapons any more... I keep hearing about lame shit like new schools and power infrastructure.
Let's embed some reporters, fire up the cruise missles and get to work. I especially like those missle-camera shots so I can see the bomb as it slams into some filthy village full of brown people. Can we get a camera on an A-10? They're great for shredding anyone stupid enough to be standing around.
"U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October."
Actually, as the article makes clear, this is NOT a new story. It seems they have been aware since October that Iran was producing these weapons and smuggling them into Iraq.
We've apparently known about this for some time, so why haven't we invaded Iran yet? What's the hold up? Frankly I'm getting bored with this whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" thing. We don't use the cool weapons any more... I keep hearing about lame shit like new schools and power infrastructure.
Let's embed some reporters, fire up the cruise missles and get to work. I especially like those missle-camera shots so I can see the bomb as it slams into some filthy village full of brown people. Can we get a camera on an A-10? They're great for shredding anyone stupid enough to be standing around.
Posted by: Bob at March 07, 2006 10:33 AM (673ys)
16
"I am not a legal expert, but I think it is clear that when a nation chooses to participate in warfare against another nation, that participation is nothing less conscious and calculated than a formal declaration of war."
So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.
So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.
Posted by: abx at March 07, 2006 10:34 AM (A5ppj)
17
So then the Soviet Union would have been justified in invading or bombing the United States in the 1980's for supplying arms and training to the Muhjadeen in Afganistan?
Posted by: J at March 07, 2006 10:35 AM (XK3OX)
18
It's time to go into Tehran. I doubt that a prolonged occupation would be necessary. The Iranian people are famously pro-western (the recent election, which I think was a one-off, notwithstanding). Maybe some things haven't gone perfectly in Iraq (though they're going a lot better than the MSM claims, for sure), but we can apply whatever lessons we learned there to the invasion of Iran.
Freedom is on the march.
Freedom is on the march.
Posted by: Leonidas at March 07, 2006 10:37 AM (Xu9JJ)
19
I’m shocked that our long stated enemy is trying to undermine us in Iraqi. Imagine the nerve, don’t they realize that our mismanaged invasions of Afghanistan and Iraqi are costing us so much in lives, money and security not to mention international credibility and respect that their meddling is complicating our efforts to invade them? What about Syria and North Korea? Their on the plate too, how are we going to invade them if our hands are so tied in Nation Building in Iraqi? I gotta give the administration and the Republicans a lot of credit; thank God we have the Party that protects America running the show. I feel much safer now knowing that the whole world roots against us, and doesn’t believe a word we say, that our military recruiting is down even while we lower the standards to get in, that there is whole sale turnover of senior staff in our intelligence agencies that we depend on the French Foreign Intelligence for the bulk of our own intelligence, that the defense department is nothing short of dysfunctional, that we can’t even get busses to evacuate a major American city when we need to. I love the Patriot Act, I love the war powers act that gives our President essentially monarchical powers for a war he say will last for decades, I love the fact whenever someone questions the White House the documents they need can’t be seen because they are considered National Security secrets, I love that the President says one thing, but the reality is something else. Thank God Kerry wasn’t elected; I would have nothing to love…
Posted by: Joe at March 07, 2006 10:52 AM (jfbXj)
20
"It's time to go into Tehran. I doubt that a prolonged occupation would be necessary. The Iranian people are famously pro-western (the recent election, which I think was a one-off, notwithstanding)"
Why don't you start up a militia and go on in. I'm sure they'll welcome you with roses and serenade you with American songs as you march by.
Then the new "democratically elected" government will shake your hand and pat you on the back as you leave the newly constructed American embassy in the Green Zone with a free trade agreement in your cheeto stained hands, just 5 months later.
Let us know how it goes.
Why don't you start up a militia and go on in. I'm sure they'll welcome you with roses and serenade you with American songs as you march by.
Then the new "democratically elected" government will shake your hand and pat you on the back as you leave the newly constructed American embassy in the Green Zone with a free trade agreement in your cheeto stained hands, just 5 months later.
Let us know how it goes.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 11:13 AM (c+6Oi)
21
CY:
American soldiers do not "deserve" to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. But sadly, they should expect to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. And it is not their fault (the US soldiers that is).
Flashback to the 1980s when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. Who supplied the Mujahadeen (spelling?) with training and Stinger anti-aircraft missles to shoot down the Hind helicopters that were plagueing them so. We did. And we all felt so righteous doing it. Technically speaking, we were assisting the Afghan rebels, the predecessors of Al Qaida, in killing Russian soldiers. Some would call that a causus belli. They would be right. Russia could have declared war on the United States, but that would have been foolish for obvious reasons. And they probably could have proved it because they had folks like Aldrich Ames feeding them intel.
Which goes to show, just because you CAN declare war on another country, legally that is, does not mean it is wise to do so. History may one day demonstrate that if we had to wage war on either Iran or Iraq, we should have chosen the former and not the latter, and certainly not both. Iran took our embassy hostage, waged war against out onetime ally at the time Iraq, is governed by a fundamentalist regime that despises us, has a grudge against us for shooting down one of its airliners, and now is more allied than ever with the new Iraqi government.
Could we bomb some of their military targets? Sure. With spectacular accuracy and minimal loss of civilian life no doubt. Except for that pesky nuclear fallout. And great video for Faux News. Then what. If Iran doesn't stop sending alleged Iranian made land mines? Do we invade? Would we win? For a while. And then what. We will be tryinig to stabilize Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, simultaneously. I doubt our Old World Chocolate Making European allies will be much help. We would be surrounded by Turkey, a foe of the Kurds in the Northwest. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran in the North. (Oh, and Russia was accused by Rumsfeld early in the Iraq invasion of supplying night vision goggles to the insurgents. That made me laugh. Payback's a bitch. Don't get me wrong. I supported supplying Stingers to Afghan rebels, I am just old enough to understand that there may be some folks in Russia that hold a grudge) A bunch of former former Soviet republics in the Northwest that are fighting insurgents themselves. An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan (with Nukes) in the East and Southeast. India, a nominal ally that thinks we are completely off our rocker (also with Nukes) in the South (and fighting with Pakistan over a decades old border dispute). Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 attackers and primary bank of madrassas teaching their children that we are infidels in the Southwest. Jordan, a nominal ally (sort of like Switzerland) in the East with no real ability to help us except for that hottie of a wife. And finally, Syria, alleged to have WMD smuggled in from Iraq, also in the East.
Not that it is not bad already, but if you want a meat grinder for US soldiers, that is what you will get. If you think Gen. Shinseki's estimate that we needed 300,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq was high, we will need a cool million to stabilize Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, at least. Put them all together and you have Oceana.
Note: I keep saying "alleged Iranian made land mines." Why? Because we were told with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld said we had pictures of them. Buzzz. Not so much. There are cross allegations the bombs were made or partly made in Ireland. Payback for the British. They could be Russian, Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Lebanese, PA, Saudi, Eqyptian, or just plain Iraqi. And IED's? Please. They are land mines. You stick them in the ground and they go boom. That is a land mine.
American soldiers do not "deserve" to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. But sadly, they should expect to die because of alleged Iranian land mines. And it is not their fault (the US soldiers that is).
Flashback to the 1980s when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and installed a puppet regime. Who supplied the Mujahadeen (spelling?) with training and Stinger anti-aircraft missles to shoot down the Hind helicopters that were plagueing them so. We did. And we all felt so righteous doing it. Technically speaking, we were assisting the Afghan rebels, the predecessors of Al Qaida, in killing Russian soldiers. Some would call that a causus belli. They would be right. Russia could have declared war on the United States, but that would have been foolish for obvious reasons. And they probably could have proved it because they had folks like Aldrich Ames feeding them intel.
Which goes to show, just because you CAN declare war on another country, legally that is, does not mean it is wise to do so. History may one day demonstrate that if we had to wage war on either Iran or Iraq, we should have chosen the former and not the latter, and certainly not both. Iran took our embassy hostage, waged war against out onetime ally at the time Iraq, is governed by a fundamentalist regime that despises us, has a grudge against us for shooting down one of its airliners, and now is more allied than ever with the new Iraqi government.
Could we bomb some of their military targets? Sure. With spectacular accuracy and minimal loss of civilian life no doubt. Except for that pesky nuclear fallout. And great video for Faux News. Then what. If Iran doesn't stop sending alleged Iranian made land mines? Do we invade? Would we win? For a while. And then what. We will be tryinig to stabilize Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, simultaneously. I doubt our Old World Chocolate Making European allies will be much help. We would be surrounded by Turkey, a foe of the Kurds in the Northwest. Russia, a longtime ally of Iran in the North. (Oh, and Russia was accused by Rumsfeld early in the Iraq invasion of supplying night vision goggles to the insurgents. That made me laugh. Payback's a bitch. Don't get me wrong. I supported supplying Stingers to Afghan rebels, I am just old enough to understand that there may be some folks in Russia that hold a grudge) A bunch of former former Soviet republics in the Northwest that are fighting insurgents themselves. An unstable dictatorship in Pakistan (with Nukes) in the East and Southeast. India, a nominal ally that thinks we are completely off our rocker (also with Nukes) in the South (and fighting with Pakistan over a decades old border dispute). Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of most of the 9/11 attackers and primary bank of madrassas teaching their children that we are infidels in the Southwest. Jordan, a nominal ally (sort of like Switzerland) in the East with no real ability to help us except for that hottie of a wife. And finally, Syria, alleged to have WMD smuggled in from Iraq, also in the East.
Not that it is not bad already, but if you want a meat grinder for US soldiers, that is what you will get. If you think Gen. Shinseki's estimate that we needed 300,000 soldiers to stabilize Iraq was high, we will need a cool million to stabilize Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, at least. Put them all together and you have Oceana.
Note: I keep saying "alleged Iranian made land mines." Why? Because we were told with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld said we had pictures of them. Buzzz. Not so much. There are cross allegations the bombs were made or partly made in Ireland. Payback for the British. They could be Russian, Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Lebanese, PA, Saudi, Eqyptian, or just plain Iraqi. And IED's? Please. They are land mines. You stick them in the ground and they go boom. That is a land mine.
Posted by: Coltergeist at March 07, 2006 11:15 AM (/HJxW)
22
ABX,
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then...
Check out the video of Rummy and Hussein on the Internet. I tried to post the link but CY did not allow me to do so. Just google it, it comes up easily.
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then...
Check out the video of Rummy and Hussein on the Internet. I tried to post the link but CY did not allow me to do so. Just google it, it comes up easily.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 07, 2006 11:19 AM (fY4fP)
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 07, 2006 11:28 AM (fY4fP)
24
Confederate Yankee has a bad case of the kool-aid. Let's look at his comments in a little detail.
A few of the hallmarks of the cultist: they use 'code words' and phrases to short cut rational analysis to dismiss 'the enemy', assuming they're right and unable to really ask the hard questions.
For example, the little cult that thought they'd get a ride on the comet after drinking poison, I'm betting they had names to call the "reality-based" people - they probably quoted that, too - who tried to get them to ask the rational things about their assumption.
"The preceding "reality-based" comments"
And there we go - quoting "reality-based" as if that were an argument proving it wrong. But I'll cut him some slack if he proved the term was unwarranted; he doesn't, his argument is just to repeat the claim.
"are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink."
More name-calling, and of the richly ironic kind.
"Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. It’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale."
The irony meter is off the scale.
The left is the rational group generally, and the right the emotional gorup generally. Sure, there are exceptions - but you tend to see the left arguing the 'facts' of things like deficit reduction and other policies, while the right is all about the 'emotions', the mandatory flags on the lapel (not to mention the flag burning amendment to the constitution), yellow ribbons (made in China) on the cars, and so on, which makes them so richly manipulatable - and the manipulators are mostly on the right currently.
See the post following CY from the 'liberal' and ask who has more rational analysis.
"Come on, little liberals."
As predicted, the typical right-wing name-calling substituting contempt for reason.
And you have the gall to accuse the left of not aguing rationally.
"Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it."
Ah, finally, the speck of attempt, at the end of the post, at some argument.
Too bad that it, predictably, is utterly flawed in its poor logic.
Let's consider an analogy.
Let's say a liberal who opposes the Iraq war framed the same question: they asked you to explain why, instead of the soldiers being safe at home, they deserved to be killed in Iraq. And they repeated for emphasis, as you do - repitition in lieu of logic - tell them why they DESERVE that.
Oh no, you would protest, they don't deserve to be killed, that's not a fair way to discuss the issue; you would go on and on about the rest of the story the question doesn't include about the benefits of the war and why it was an unfortunate but justified price for a larger good.
But do you argue the same way you demand? No, you put out the garbage about asking why your opponents think the soldiers should be killed. And in a post where you attack the LEFT for not being logical in their posts.
Look, the right has major issues with their lack of rationality. The left isn't out to hurt them, the left is out to help them. For democracy to succeeed, the people cannot afford to be manipulated by well-funded campaigns for wrong, selfish, immoral policies (I'm speaking generally - this is a formula for how politics works today, selfish interests invest large sums which dominate our political process, in exchange for concessions out of the public good, whether in money, or the right to pollute, or whatever other public trust is violated; in exchane, their money pays for the propaganda to paint the crooks as flag-waving great Americans and gets them re-elected).
Get a clue, CY. For your own sake and the country's.
Your post had no 'facts' while you demand facts.
Let the grownups handle policy if you can't be bothered to grow up.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides much of the time to consider, but your infantile approach of trying to use big arguments about the left not arguing logically are only harmful to the public debate and you embarrass yourself.
A few of the hallmarks of the cultist: they use 'code words' and phrases to short cut rational analysis to dismiss 'the enemy', assuming they're right and unable to really ask the hard questions.
For example, the little cult that thought they'd get a ride on the comet after drinking poison, I'm betting they had names to call the "reality-based" people - they probably quoted that, too - who tried to get them to ask the rational things about their assumption.
"The preceding "reality-based" comments"
And there we go - quoting "reality-based" as if that were an argument proving it wrong. But I'll cut him some slack if he proved the term was unwarranted; he doesn't, his argument is just to repeat the claim.
"are brought to you courtesy of Peter Daou, emissary to the land of groupthink."
More name-calling, and of the richly ironic kind.
"Expect more outraged comments, but not anything coherent. It’s the emotion that counts, not any sort of reason or rationale."
The irony meter is off the scale.
The left is the rational group generally, and the right the emotional gorup generally. Sure, there are exceptions - but you tend to see the left arguing the 'facts' of things like deficit reduction and other policies, while the right is all about the 'emotions', the mandatory flags on the lapel (not to mention the flag burning amendment to the constitution), yellow ribbons (made in China) on the cars, and so on, which makes them so richly manipulatable - and the manipulators are mostly on the right currently.
See the post following CY from the 'liberal' and ask who has more rational analysis.
"Come on, little liberals."
As predicted, the typical right-wing name-calling substituting contempt for reason.
And you have the gall to accuse the left of not aguing rationally.
"Tell us why American soldiers should die because of bombs built by Iranian hands. Tell us why they deserve it."
Ah, finally, the speck of attempt, at the end of the post, at some argument.
Too bad that it, predictably, is utterly flawed in its poor logic.
Let's consider an analogy.
Let's say a liberal who opposes the Iraq war framed the same question: they asked you to explain why, instead of the soldiers being safe at home, they deserved to be killed in Iraq. And they repeated for emphasis, as you do - repitition in lieu of logic - tell them why they DESERVE that.
Oh no, you would protest, they don't deserve to be killed, that's not a fair way to discuss the issue; you would go on and on about the rest of the story the question doesn't include about the benefits of the war and why it was an unfortunate but justified price for a larger good.
But do you argue the same way you demand? No, you put out the garbage about asking why your opponents think the soldiers should be killed. And in a post where you attack the LEFT for not being logical in their posts.
Look, the right has major issues with their lack of rationality. The left isn't out to hurt them, the left is out to help them. For democracy to succeeed, the people cannot afford to be manipulated by well-funded campaigns for wrong, selfish, immoral policies (I'm speaking generally - this is a formula for how politics works today, selfish interests invest large sums which dominate our political process, in exchange for concessions out of the public good, whether in money, or the right to pollute, or whatever other public trust is violated; in exchane, their money pays for the propaganda to paint the crooks as flag-waving great Americans and gets them re-elected).
Get a clue, CY. For your own sake and the country's.
Your post had no 'facts' while you demand facts.
Let the grownups handle policy if you can't be bothered to grow up.
There are legitimate arguments on both sides much of the time to consider, but your infantile approach of trying to use big arguments about the left not arguing logically are only harmful to the public debate and you embarrass yourself.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:13 PM (2LCIG)
25
The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence.
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught."
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught."
Posted by: O'Reilly at March 07, 2006 12:14 PM (l7fko)
26
Now, for the issue - not to mix my castigation of CY with the issue in Iran:
In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected president. The US had the CIA overthrow the president - and democracy - and install the Shah who rule in a dictatorship for 25 years.
Was that not an act of war far, far beyond what is alleged here?
I should just stop the post here and let the right chew on this fact and try to answer is, rather than go on to other examples from our assistance to Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran with hundreds of thousands killed, to our recent sending of special forces inside their borders to collect targetting information, another act of war, not to mention the aggressive plans for going after Iran in the Plan for a New American Century, whose architects are generally in power now - and in fact, that's what I'm going to do.
Imagine a country overthrowing our democracy, and putting a dictator friendly to them in place for 25 years, before we are able to retake our country, and then that country saying they have the right to invade our country because we did an act of war, while they take zero responsibility.
I look forward to the well-reasonsed responses from the right.
In 1953, Iran had a democratically elected president. The US had the CIA overthrow the president - and democracy - and install the Shah who rule in a dictatorship for 25 years.
Was that not an act of war far, far beyond what is alleged here?
I should just stop the post here and let the right chew on this fact and try to answer is, rather than go on to other examples from our assistance to Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran with hundreds of thousands killed, to our recent sending of special forces inside their borders to collect targetting information, another act of war, not to mention the aggressive plans for going after Iran in the Plan for a New American Century, whose architects are generally in power now - and in fact, that's what I'm going to do.
Imagine a country overthrowing our democracy, and putting a dictator friendly to them in place for 25 years, before we are able to retake our country, and then that country saying they have the right to invade our country because we did an act of war, while they take zero responsibility.
I look forward to the well-reasonsed responses from the right.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:20 PM (2LCIG)
27
O'Reilly, I'm going to disagree:
"The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence.
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught." "
The red-handed refers to the nature of the evidence.
red-handed is a reference to any time the evidence is very direct, rather than indirect. Catching Iraqi forces with the weapons handing them to Iraqi militants would be 'red-handed', while less direct evidence - say, confessions, or financial documents showing activities, would not be.
So, the phrase red-handed is useful in clarifying what the type of alleged evidence is.
The 'may have been' is a separate issue, showing that the truth of the evidence is in question. Saying that the reports of the evidence are still being verified is a different issue than saying whether the evidence is very direct or not so much.
So, 'may have been caught red-handed' would mean that there are reports that they were caught in a very directly incriminating act, and that the reports are yet to be strongly confirmed.
"The phrases "MAY just have" and "Red-handed" do not belong on the same sentence.
Either they HAVE been caught RED-HANDED or they "MAY just have been caught." "
The red-handed refers to the nature of the evidence.
red-handed is a reference to any time the evidence is very direct, rather than indirect. Catching Iraqi forces with the weapons handing them to Iraqi militants would be 'red-handed', while less direct evidence - say, confessions, or financial documents showing activities, would not be.
So, the phrase red-handed is useful in clarifying what the type of alleged evidence is.
The 'may have been' is a separate issue, showing that the truth of the evidence is in question. Saying that the reports of the evidence are still being verified is a different issue than saying whether the evidence is very direct or not so much.
So, 'may have been caught red-handed' would mean that there are reports that they were caught in a very directly incriminating act, and that the reports are yet to be strongly confirmed.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 12:28 PM (2LCIG)
28
What would Reagan do?
Cut and run (Lebanon 1983) or negotiate and cut deals with the terrorists (1980-198
.
Any other questions?
Cut and run (Lebanon 1983) or negotiate and cut deals with the terrorists (1980-198
.
Any other questions?
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 12:58 PM (ByaZN)
29
Reagan did not "cut and run" from Lebanon. He was forced to withdraw troops thanks to the Treason Party-uh, I mean the Democrats-majorityj in the Senate. They were preparing a joint resolution to insist on immediate withdrawal of the troops after the suicide bombing of the Marines' barracks. They only backed off because they understood that it would make them look bad. Reagan pulled the troops out and also bombed into the Syrian occupied areas whenever they fired at our soldiers and Marines. Naturally, the Democrats also objected to that. When terrorists bombed a West Berlin nightclub and killed some of our troops partying there, Reagan traced the attacks back to the Libyans and bombed that country. We even targeted Khaddafi's home. Didn't hear much out of him for awhile after that. In this case, Iran could be responsible for hundreds of American casualties and they will inflict more if action isn't taken.
I'm always astounded by those on the left who try to criticize Reagan or W.'s foreign policies. A serious look at the record shows that the Democrats are and always have been weak on national security and sometimes actively worked against it.
I'm always astounded by those on the left who try to criticize Reagan or W.'s foreign policies. A serious look at the record shows that the Democrats are and always have been weak on national security and sometimes actively worked against it.
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 01:18 PM (+E47Q)
30
So Reagan pulled the troops out of Lebanon because the Dems were too scared to force the action because they might look bad?
I stand corrected. Reagan was being resolute when he cut and ran from Lebanon.
I stand corrected. Reagan was being resolute when he cut and ran from Lebanon.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 01:24 PM (ByaZN)
31
Almost forgot to answer your second accusation. Reagan never negotiated with terrorists. It was the stated policy of his Administration not to, though the defendants in Iran-Contra did so without his knowledge. They were fired and indicted. Maybe now we can talk about Carter allowing our embassy in Iran to be seized without any consequence whatsoever or Bill Clinton refusing to accept offers to arrest or kill bin Laden even after he was implicated in the first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers, the Cole, and the Embassy Bombings?
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 01:26 PM (+E47Q)
32
How do you think those hostages in Iran got released?
Or are you saying Reagan himself (personally) didn't negotiate with terrorists? Like Ike didn't really pour the concrete when he built the National Highway system.
And I know what his stated policy was. Big deal.
GW's stated policy is to protect all americans, but that doesn't mean the Katrina aftermath didn't happen.
Or are you saying Reagan himself (personally) didn't negotiate with terrorists? Like Ike didn't really pour the concrete when he built the National Highway system.
And I know what his stated policy was. Big deal.
GW's stated policy is to protect all americans, but that doesn't mean the Katrina aftermath didn't happen.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 01:32 PM (ByaZN)
33
Why don't we see this on the front page of every mewspaper? I suppose our troops are forgotten by the media, unless they've already died.
It's a crime to see them killed, a tragedy to let it continue unanswered.
It's a crime to see them killed, a tragedy to let it continue unanswered.
Posted by: Marshall Neal at March 07, 2006 01:56 PM (Qa0tQ)
34
John said
"Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?"
John, let me clear up a few things for you. We are talking about bombing IRAN not Syria. We are talking about BOMBING Iran, not invading. Are you capable of understanding the distinction. We don't need to send in divisions in Iran. We can punish them from the air and we have plent of assets to do it. Hell, we can launch the bombers from Nebraska numb nuts. Look at factcheck.org. They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that." Get a clue bobblehead.
John said
"Tell us why the troops shouldn't have better, and more body armor?"
John, let me clear up a few things for you. We are talking about bombing IRAN not Syria. We are talking about BOMBING Iran, not invading. Are you capable of understanding the distinction. We don't need to send in divisions in Iran. We can punish them from the air and we have plent of assets to do it. Hell, we can launch the bombers from Nebraska numb nuts. Look at factcheck.org. They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that." Get a clue bobblehead.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:16 PM (CdK5b)
35
So when the US provided weapons to the Mujahadeen during the Afghan-Soviet War, was that politics, or war? Giving weapons to your political allies is old news. The US sold cheap destroyers to Britain in WWII, China sold tanks to Vietnam, the USSR gave SAMs to Egypt, I could keep listing things for days. No one likes Iran, but this isn't cassus belli.
Posted by abx at March 7, 2006 10:34 AM
where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead.
Posted by abx at March 7, 2006 10:34 AM
where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:24 PM (CdK5b)
36
loanitus, I would like to see where you came to the conclusion that Iranians would welcome us. Sorry to tell you this, I think this is absolutely incorrect and would lead to tens of thousands of US casualties if we invaded. Iran is not Iraq, 75% ot the Iraqis wanted liberation, it would be more like 10% to 20% in Iran.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:27 PM (CdK5b)
37
Devils advocate said
"ABX,
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then..."
The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron
"ABX,
Let's not forget that the U.S. provided arms to Hussein during the Iran - Iraq war. Hussein was our ally then..."
The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:31 PM (CdK5b)
38
"The reason we supported Iraq over Iran is because Iran invaded our embassy and held embassy staff hostage for over a year. Funny how you bobbleheads always miss that little detail. Don't forget to say how you hate America on the way out, moron"
And I guess that explains why Reagan was secretly selling weapons to Iran and channeling the money to the Contras.
What about that, bobblehead?
And I guess that explains why Reagan was secretly selling weapons to Iran and channeling the money to the Contras.
What about that, bobblehead?
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:46 PM (c+6Oi)
39
The reason we supported Hussein was he was doing what was in the US's best interest.
The reason we don't support Hussein now is because he gassed his own people.
NOT.
It's because he stopped doing everything we wanted him to do.
BTW, that's the same reason we supported the Shah.
The whole "democratically elected leader thing" is a huge lie. It's not how you got to be the leader, it's what you do (for us) once you're there.
BTW< I don't hate America, but I'm not blind to our faults either.
The reason we don't support Hussein now is because he gassed his own people.
NOT.
It's because he stopped doing everything we wanted him to do.
BTW, that's the same reason we supported the Shah.
The whole "democratically elected leader thing" is a huge lie. It's not how you got to be the leader, it's what you do (for us) once you're there.
BTW< I don't hate America, but I'm not blind to our faults either.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2006 02:50 PM (ByaZN)
40
"They have a nice article about body armor and how even the troops don't want anymore. As they quoted a soldier in Iraq "some people want to encase us in concrete to protect us, but we can't do the mission like that."
That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed.
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed.
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:54 PM (c+6Oi)
41
"loanitus, I would like to see where you came to the conclusion that Iranians would welcome us. Sorry to tell you this, I think this is absolutely incorrect and would lead to tens of thousands of US casualties if we invaded. Iran is not Iraq, 75% ot the Iraqis wanted liberation, it would be more like 10% to 20% in Iran."
If you are addressing LEONIDAS, he was being sarcastic. I didn't see that at first either, so I guess I'm a "bobblehead" too.
If you are addressing LEONIDAS, he was being sarcastic. I didn't see that at first either, so I guess I'm a "bobblehead" too.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 02:56 PM (c+6Oi)
42
Craig mentioned the overthrow of the Iranian president but fails to mention this:
Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh
"Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended.
Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions.
To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossadegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy.
Commentators assumed it was only a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and made himself president. This would have made him the head of state, something Mossadegh had promised he would never do.
Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Funded with money from the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand. The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953.
One of the leaders of the coup, General Fazlollah Zahedi, was proclaimed Prime Minister. The Shah himself, after a brief exile in Italy, was rushed back to Iran and returned to the throne. His attempted overthrow and subsequent restoration to power had all occurred within a week."
Oh, so the elected President of Iran got 99.9% of the vote. Sounds just like Saddam's election. Yup, we sure screwed over the Iranians there. (nevermind there own army and king forced him to resign, it was all about the US screwing the poor dictator who disolved the parliment)...way to go Craig....clap....clap....clap
Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh
"Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended.
Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions.
To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossadegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy.
Commentators assumed it was only a matter of time before Mossadegh declared Iran a republic and made himself president. This would have made him the head of state, something Mossadegh had promised he would never do.
Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Funded with money from the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces quickly gained the upper hand. The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953.
One of the leaders of the coup, General Fazlollah Zahedi, was proclaimed Prime Minister. The Shah himself, after a brief exile in Italy, was rushed back to Iran and returned to the throne. His attempted overthrow and subsequent restoration to power had all occurred within a week."
Oh, so the elected President of Iran got 99.9% of the vote. Sounds just like Saddam's election. Yup, we sure screwed over the Iranians there. (nevermind there own army and king forced him to resign, it was all about the US screwing the poor dictator who disolved the parliment)...way to go Craig....clap....clap....clap
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 02:59 PM (CdK5b)
43
Look, let's stop all the crazy talk about bombing and invasion. We need to take a page from the "Reagan-North Playbook." Our alternative solution?
1. Begin trafficking arms to the Iranians as a bribe to stop sending IEDs into Iraq.
2. With the money we'll get, we put Pat Robertson's plan into action and fund a right wing group in Venezuela to oust Hugo Chavez - that is, between dodging the storms that God is hurling our way for tolerating gay marraige and abortion.
Simple and effective, with only the minor illegality that the Bush administration has proven rather adept at nullifying.
1. Begin trafficking arms to the Iranians as a bribe to stop sending IEDs into Iraq.
2. With the money we'll get, we put Pat Robertson's plan into action and fund a right wing group in Venezuela to oust Hugo Chavez - that is, between dodging the storms that God is hurling our way for tolerating gay marraige and abortion.
Simple and effective, with only the minor illegality that the Bush administration has proven rather adept at nullifying.
Posted by: john at March 07, 2006 03:30 PM (c+6Oi)
44
Ray Robinson, you fail to attribute the source of your post - Wikipedia - and to quote relevant facts.
As one of the reference links on the page you quote from explains the history of the 'king':
It shows that in decades before 1953, the British had set up a company to control Iran's oil, over which Iran had no say, not even to see the books, and a company which sent more money to Britain than to the government of Iran. It was the old system of colonialism/theft.
"To guarantee themselves such control over Iran the British had installed their own man in power in a coup in 1921. This man’s name was originally Reza Khan, but he later had himself crowned monarch and became Reza Shah... He was the father of Mohammed Reza Shah, the man whom the CIA later installed in power in 1953 when the democratic and progressive government of Mohammed Mossadeq, an Iranian patriot, tried to stop the plunder of Iran...
The man whom the 1953 CIA coup installed in power after deposing the popular and democratic Mohammed Mossadeq was the shah (king) Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. This man was a brutal thug. To keep himself in power, he made use of “SAVAK, the secret police force” which the CIA had created for him, and which was “the largest force of its kind outside the Communist bloc.” This iron-fisted dictator resorted to “torture...of political prisoners... and military courts,” the better to quash all opposition and ensure a steady flow of Iranian wealth to the United States."
(The post would not allow the URL to be posted, it's the first external link on the Wiki page).
Now let's look at your selective quoting of the article; the text immediately preceding yours:
"The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.
Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high cold war fears.
Acting on the fears created by Britain the United States and Britain began to publicly denounce Mossadegh's policies for Iran as harmful to the country...
The [CIA] plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community."
That's the plot it refers to: Mossadegh 'cracking down' in part fabrication by the CIA and in part response to the real plot to overthrow him from elected office, to put back in power puppets who would export Iran's assets to Britain and the US.
As the article notes, the coutnry had a feudel land system terrible for the people, and Mossadegh was taking steps to improve that, and to keep the coutnry's assets from being controlled and exported to Britain and the US.
And for good measure, as we now condemn the people who bomb for political causes there:
The NY Times report on Iran included, as part of the overthrow of the elected government:
"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."
Anyway, clap clap clap yourself for your support of selfish evil.
And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him.
The US has no business undermining democracy.
As one of the reference links on the page you quote from explains the history of the 'king':
It shows that in decades before 1953, the British had set up a company to control Iran's oil, over which Iran had no say, not even to see the books, and a company which sent more money to Britain than to the government of Iran. It was the old system of colonialism/theft.
"To guarantee themselves such control over Iran the British had installed their own man in power in a coup in 1921. This man’s name was originally Reza Khan, but he later had himself crowned monarch and became Reza Shah... He was the father of Mohammed Reza Shah, the man whom the CIA later installed in power in 1953 when the democratic and progressive government of Mohammed Mossadeq, an Iranian patriot, tried to stop the plunder of Iran...
The man whom the 1953 CIA coup installed in power after deposing the popular and democratic Mohammed Mossadeq was the shah (king) Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. This man was a brutal thug. To keep himself in power, he made use of “SAVAK, the secret police force” which the CIA had created for him, and which was “the largest force of its kind outside the Communist bloc.” This iron-fisted dictator resorted to “torture...of political prisoners... and military courts,” the better to quash all opposition and ensure a steady flow of Iranian wealth to the United States."
(The post would not allow the URL to be posted, it's the first external link on the Wiki page).
Now let's look at your selective quoting of the article; the text immediately preceding yours:
"The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's reforms and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.
Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high cold war fears.
Acting on the fears created by Britain the United States and Britain began to publicly denounce Mossadegh's policies for Iran as harmful to the country...
The [CIA] plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier. But the Shah was uncooperative, and it would take much persuasion and many meetings to successfully execute the plan. Meanwhile, the CIA stepped up its operations. According to Dr. Donald N. Wilber, who was involved in the plot to remove Mossadegh from power, in early August, Iranian CIA operatives pretending to be socialists and nationalists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," thereby giving the impression that Mossadegh was cracking down on dissent, and stirring anti-Mossadegh sentiments within the religious community."
That's the plot it refers to: Mossadegh 'cracking down' in part fabrication by the CIA and in part response to the real plot to overthrow him from elected office, to put back in power puppets who would export Iran's assets to Britain and the US.
As the article notes, the coutnry had a feudel land system terrible for the people, and Mossadegh was taking steps to improve that, and to keep the coutnry's assets from being controlled and exported to Britain and the US.
And for good measure, as we now condemn the people who bomb for political causes there:
The NY Times report on Iran included, as part of the overthrow of the elected government:
"Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."
Anyway, clap clap clap yourself for your support of selfish evil.
And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him.
The US has no business undermining democracy.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 04:03 PM (2LCIG)
45
"where do you people get your history, cereal boxes? The soviet union gave fighters to Korea and soviet pilots even flew them in Korea and Vietnam against Americans long before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was our chance to return the favor for USSR acts during the not so cold war which is only called the cold war cause we didn't nuke each other. We were definately in combat with the USSR in many theaters. The only reason it wasn't in the open is because it could have gone nuclear so the war was clandestine. We don't have that problem with Iran and we can kick the crap out of them now. get your facts straight bobblehead."
"bobblehead". That's funny.
There's no disagreement here with any of the facts I presented. Not only have the US, USSR and China long and rich histories of arming the enemies of their enemies, but it goes back to the days of Persian interference in the Peloponnesian Wars and probably further. It's just another political tool, and the US should suck it up, and look for a more subtle form of payback. Unless you're sure you can punch that tarbaby without getting stuck, or making a sticky mess all over the Middle East.
-Bobblehead
"bobblehead". That's funny.
There's no disagreement here with any of the facts I presented. Not only have the US, USSR and China long and rich histories of arming the enemies of their enemies, but it goes back to the days of Persian interference in the Peloponnesian Wars and probably further. It's just another political tool, and the US should suck it up, and look for a more subtle form of payback. Unless you're sure you can punch that tarbaby without getting stuck, or making a sticky mess all over the Middle East.
-Bobblehead
Posted by: abx at March 07, 2006 04:32 PM (A5ppj)
46
Wow, the Lefties in here are exactly like their elected leaders in Congress. I've read plenty of bitching about Reagan and W and how the US is so evil because it does things that all nations have done historically to defend their own interests but not a single alternative to the very sensible proposal made by most of us to begin firing cruise missiles at Iranian military targets. What would you suggest the US do? What would you have your beloved Hillary do if she were President? Maybe she would help the Iranians finish their nuclear program, just like her husband did for the North Koreans just to show them that we mean well so they will like us? Or start allowing them to acquire our latest military technology and supercomputers as her husband's Administration did. One thing is for sure, if I were an Iranian mullah, I'd start donating to the Hillary '08 campaign NOW!
Let's hear it from the Left: If it is demonstrated that the Iranians have been producing explosive devices of such power that none of our armor can resist it and smuggling those devices into Iraq to cause American casualties, how would you want John Kerry to handle it if he had won (God help us)?
Let's hear it from the Left: If it is demonstrated that the Iranians have been producing explosive devices of such power that none of our armor can resist it and smuggling those devices into Iraq to cause American casualties, how would you want John Kerry to handle it if he had won (God help us)?
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:07 PM (+E47Q)
47
Clarification: Bill Clinton allowed the CHINESE to acquire our latest military technology in exchange for campaign contributions.
Posted by: Thrill at March 07, 2006 05:10 PM (+E47Q)
48
john,
would you mind quoting your sources on armor? I've read lots of reports, but I've never seen anything like that. Unless of course you are talking about the study that showed that of the service people who died, there might have been armor problems. Of course that study wasn't quite up to proving the facts about body armor one way or another because it failed to find out how many people had been saved by the same body armor. At any rate, rather than just spew number, post your sources. Anybody can make stuff up....
would you mind quoting your sources on armor? I've read lots of reports, but I've never seen anything like that. Unless of course you are talking about the study that showed that of the service people who died, there might have been armor problems. Of course that study wasn't quite up to proving the facts about body armor one way or another because it failed to find out how many people had been saved by the same body armor. At any rate, rather than just spew number, post your sources. Anybody can make stuff up....
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 05:28 PM (ybfXM)
49
craig said
"And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him."
your key points then:
Mohammed Mossadeq was democraticly elected.
Does it sound reasonable that 99.9% of the Iranians voted for him? Are you really going to hang your hat on that argument, that he was democratically elected? You are so far and that is why you are a bobblehead.
The CIA overthrew him.
The CIA certainly played a hand, but it was the Iranian military that bombed his headquarters until he surrendered. Was that CIA agents in those tanks? You going to hang your hat on that one?
We replaced him with a puppet.
The Shaw, who replaced him, was already senior to the President according to Iranian law. Therefor he had the legal authority to demand Mossadeq resign. We didn't replace the President, Iranian law did.
Mossadeq dissolved the Iranian Parliment which is about as far away as you can get from democracy. Yet you still want to say we overthew a democraticly elected prsident and replace him with a puppet. You are a bobblehead.
"And the point isn't whether the guy was ideal - it's that he was a lot more democratically elected than the puppet we put into power, along with his brutal secret police the US created for him, the billions in weapons we sold him."
your key points then:
Mohammed Mossadeq was democraticly elected.
Does it sound reasonable that 99.9% of the Iranians voted for him? Are you really going to hang your hat on that argument, that he was democratically elected? You are so far and that is why you are a bobblehead.
The CIA overthrew him.
The CIA certainly played a hand, but it was the Iranian military that bombed his headquarters until he surrendered. Was that CIA agents in those tanks? You going to hang your hat on that one?
We replaced him with a puppet.
The Shaw, who replaced him, was already senior to the President according to Iranian law. Therefor he had the legal authority to demand Mossadeq resign. We didn't replace the President, Iranian law did.
Mossadeq dissolved the Iranian Parliment which is about as far away as you can get from democracy. Yet you still want to say we overthew a democraticly elected prsident and replace him with a puppet. You are a bobblehead.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 05:38 PM (CdK5b)
50
That's greay, Ray. But we're talking about IED's here, aren't we? These generally kill troops as they are driving or being transported on a vehicle. It has been shown that up to 80% of this type of casualty would be avoided if more body armor was employed.
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
First off, your comment shows you have no understanding of the use of body armor in a tactical situation. Let me help you.
If an IED can penetrate the vehicle armor, there is near zero chance body armor will protect you. When a vehicle is ambushed, in a react to contact scenario, you don't have time to fiddle with armor, you get out of the vehicle and seek cover and try to locate a target. When you are in 100 degree weather inside an armored vehicle, it is hell with the body armor they wear now.
That 80% you quote is from a medical study, not a trade off study. It simply showed that it is possible to reduce casualties with more body armor, not how that will affect the soldier in any other way. The soldiers themselves are saying no more armor, are you going to argue with them? You need me to post a link? I can find it...bobblehead
BTW, the reason I like the confederate yankee is because most of the regulars are vets like me, so you can take your lectures on anything about the military and shove them in your pie hole
How hard would it be for the troops to remove body armor as they leave their vehicles to engage in combat or searches on the ground, assuming that it was REALLY that restrictive, that is?
Facts is facts, bobblehead.
First off, your comment shows you have no understanding of the use of body armor in a tactical situation. Let me help you.
If an IED can penetrate the vehicle armor, there is near zero chance body armor will protect you. When a vehicle is ambushed, in a react to contact scenario, you don't have time to fiddle with armor, you get out of the vehicle and seek cover and try to locate a target. When you are in 100 degree weather inside an armored vehicle, it is hell with the body armor they wear now.
That 80% you quote is from a medical study, not a trade off study. It simply showed that it is possible to reduce casualties with more body armor, not how that will affect the soldier in any other way. The soldiers themselves are saying no more armor, are you going to argue with them? You need me to post a link? I can find it...bobblehead
BTW, the reason I like the confederate yankee is because most of the regulars are vets like me, so you can take your lectures on anything about the military and shove them in your pie hole
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 07, 2006 05:48 PM (CdK5b)
51
Ray Robinson:
You're misrepresenting the situation.
When I mention that Mossadeq was an elected leader, you fail to note the fact that he was, and you instead mention the activities he did *after* the US and Britain began the campaign to overthrow him. His actions were *in response* to that campaign.
Again and again this happens; when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar in Russia, soon after you had foreign 'interests' sending troops to attack them, including the United States. The new government had to take steps to defend itself; gee whiz, now you can point at the terrible police state.
Castro overthrows Batista, the US is in there doing terrorism and trying to assassinate him.
A left president, Allende, is elected in Chile, Nixon orders him overthrown (democracy gone).
The Sandinistas put democracy into Nicaragua to replace the brutal Somozas; the US hires a terrorist army to blackmail the people to vote them out of power.
Chavez wins in Venezuela and makes changes to relieve some of the overwhelming contentration of wealth (largely in the hands of a few hundred families), and the US takes all kinds of steps to try to remove him from power, including supporting a coup.
Many of these people have their own flaws, but again, it's not up to the United States to undermine democracy, and to cause problems to be worse.
If you had a foreign power strong enough to overthrow our president doing so, do you think for a moment that our president would not move towards a 'police state' to crack down on the threat to his power from abroad?
As for the absurd argument that the US is simply doing things that have been done by others, as if that's any defense, I'll point out that that logic would support, say, ending demoracy in the US. After all, all through mankind nations have not had democracy, so there's nothing wrong with it?
Let's bring back slavery - it's been used by nations forever, so that makes it ok.
Just because something has been done does not mean it's ok to do the wrong again.
Those of us who believe in a truly great America have a problem with the bastards who would let our country be as evil as it likes as long as they can say "at least Hitler was worse". We're for the real principles of the United States, and expanding its good to the world as possible.
The world leadership build over decades of democratic rule from FDR to Kennedy are being squandered by the right (and yes, I excluded LBJ from the 'good' side for his mistake in Viet Nam).
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
The right is too often too ignorant to know any more than 'make weapons, use weapons'.
The right has the US in huge decline, with only our military might left - and that greatly weakened because of the world losing its desire to ally with the US, and increasing the threats to the US.
You're misrepresenting the situation.
When I mention that Mossadeq was an elected leader, you fail to note the fact that he was, and you instead mention the activities he did *after* the US and Britain began the campaign to overthrow him. His actions were *in response* to that campaign.
Again and again this happens; when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar in Russia, soon after you had foreign 'interests' sending troops to attack them, including the United States. The new government had to take steps to defend itself; gee whiz, now you can point at the terrible police state.
Castro overthrows Batista, the US is in there doing terrorism and trying to assassinate him.
A left president, Allende, is elected in Chile, Nixon orders him overthrown (democracy gone).
The Sandinistas put democracy into Nicaragua to replace the brutal Somozas; the US hires a terrorist army to blackmail the people to vote them out of power.
Chavez wins in Venezuela and makes changes to relieve some of the overwhelming contentration of wealth (largely in the hands of a few hundred families), and the US takes all kinds of steps to try to remove him from power, including supporting a coup.
Many of these people have their own flaws, but again, it's not up to the United States to undermine democracy, and to cause problems to be worse.
If you had a foreign power strong enough to overthrow our president doing so, do you think for a moment that our president would not move towards a 'police state' to crack down on the threat to his power from abroad?
As for the absurd argument that the US is simply doing things that have been done by others, as if that's any defense, I'll point out that that logic would support, say, ending demoracy in the US. After all, all through mankind nations have not had democracy, so there's nothing wrong with it?
Let's bring back slavery - it's been used by nations forever, so that makes it ok.
Just because something has been done does not mean it's ok to do the wrong again.
Those of us who believe in a truly great America have a problem with the bastards who would let our country be as evil as it likes as long as they can say "at least Hitler was worse". We're for the real principles of the United States, and expanding its good to the world as possible.
The world leadership build over decades of democratic rule from FDR to Kennedy are being squandered by the right (and yes, I excluded LBJ from the 'good' side for his mistake in Viet Nam).
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
The right is too often too ignorant to know any more than 'make weapons, use weapons'.
The right has the US in huge decline, with only our military might left - and that greatly weakened because of the world losing its desire to ally with the US, and increasing the threats to the US.
Posted by: Craig at March 07, 2006 07:10 PM (VmbVS)
52
craig,
You are good with history. That does not make you an expert on current events. Sorry - just another "conspiracy theorist" talking head. The "Great Decline". Objectives of any government change over time. Strategy is not static - it is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the situation. This is a changing world so strategies - i.e. who we support and who we don't - are going to be modified. Plain and simple fact.
You are good with history. That does not make you an expert on current events. Sorry - just another "conspiracy theorist" talking head. The "Great Decline". Objectives of any government change over time. Strategy is not static - it is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the situation. This is a changing world so strategies - i.e. who we support and who we don't - are going to be modified. Plain and simple fact.
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 08:03 PM (ybfXM)
53
BTW Craig,
You brought up Hitler - you lose - Godwin's Law. If you are too young to know that law - look it up.
You brought up Hitler - you lose - Godwin's Law. If you are too young to know that law - look it up.
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 08:05 PM (ybfXM)
54
So does that mean we should be at war with ourseleves due to the fact that american soldiers are dying through the use of US made weapons in both I and A?
I'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do.
He came dancing across the water, George Bush George Bush. What a killer.
I'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do.
He came dancing across the water, George Bush George Bush. What a killer.
Posted by: lazerlou at March 07, 2006 08:44 PM (pBKzg)
55
lazer,
Do you include Hitler, Khmer Rouge, and other nut cases in that category? Pol Pot did not buy weapons from us. And how many did Hitler kill? We supplied those weapons? Or is this just more empty rhetoric?
Do you include Hitler, Khmer Rouge, and other nut cases in that category? Pol Pot did not buy weapons from us. And how many did Hitler kill? We supplied those weapons? Or is this just more empty rhetoric?
Posted by: Specter at March 07, 2006 10:18 PM (ybfXM)
56
'm no defender of Iraq, but I refuse to allow the fact that US defnse contractors are the greatest source of death ever known on this planet. Remember how Rummy supplied Saddam and the Sunni's with weapons in the 80s, and remeber how those same weapons are now being used against American soldiers now? I do.
Well, you sure have a shitty memory then. Here's our massive number of weapons systems sold to Iraq (exclude the ones delivered in 2004): (See the link because this table doesn't cut and paste well)
USA (31)
Bell-214ST Helicopter 1985 1987-88 (31) Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but
taken over by Air Force
4 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft (2004) .. Ex-US; aid; delivery 2005
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 7 Financed by UAE
30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter 1983 1984 (30) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force; Hughes-300C version
30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter 1983 1983 (30)
26 MD-530F Light helicopter 1985 1985-86 (26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force
Yep, those insurgents sure are working us over with all those light helicopters. Oh, wait... And don't you find it strange that every picture and every video shows insurgents carrying AK-47s, RPGs, PKMs, and RPK-74s (which are all Russian made) and no M-16s, M-4s, SRAWs, or SAWs?
Well, you sure have a shitty memory then. Here's our massive number of weapons systems sold to Iraq (exclude the ones delivered in 2004): (See the link because this table doesn't cut and paste well)
USA (31)
Bell-214ST Helicopter 1985 1987-88 (31) Originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but
taken over by Air Force
4 C-130E Hercules Transport aircraft (2004) .. Ex-US; aid; delivery 2005
7 Comp Air-7SL Light aircraft 2004 2004 7 Financed by UAE
30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter 1983 1984 (30) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force; Hughes-300C version
30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter 1983 1983 (30)
26 MD-530F Light helicopter 1985 1985-86 (26) Officially bought for civilian use, but taken over
by Air Force
Yep, those insurgents sure are working us over with all those light helicopters. Oh, wait... And don't you find it strange that every picture and every video shows insurgents carrying AK-47s, RPGs, PKMs, and RPK-74s (which are all Russian made) and no M-16s, M-4s, SRAWs, or SAWs?
Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:22 PM (pLJN7)
57
Here more:
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0
Yes, that's 0.46%
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0
Yes, that's 0.46%
Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:35 PM (pLJN7)
58
Argh! It got all jumbled. See the updated table here.
Posted by: Jordan at March 07, 2006 10:57 PM (xEXsr)
59
Brown people?
"Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." "
"Since ancient times, Persians (Iranians) used the term Aryan to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." "
Posted by: Leonard at March 07, 2006 11:48 PM (lPJXD)
60
If we're entitled to go to war against Iran because they supplied arms to Iraqi resisters, does this mean that Russia was entitled to attack American targets back when we sent Stinger surface-to-air missiles to the muhajjadin of Afghanistan?
Not that I'm crazy about the mullahs, but we have enough of a war on our hands at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln said during difficulties with Britain during the Civil War, one war at a time. And if the mullahs are wearing out their welcome with Iran's under-30 crowd, the WORST thing in the world we could do is take action against Iran and turn their young folks into sudden patriots. As Napoleon said, don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
Not that I'm crazy about the mullahs, but we have enough of a war on our hands at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln said during difficulties with Britain during the Civil War, one war at a time. And if the mullahs are wearing out their welcome with Iran's under-30 crowd, the WORST thing in the world we could do is take action against Iran and turn their young folks into sudden patriots. As Napoleon said, don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
Posted by: Middle Aged Artillery Veteran at March 08, 2006 12:32 PM (z2X7f)
61
Psychopaths? So what. Until NPR and the socialist Democrats say it's wise to as much as breathe a syllable of rhetoric, we should just placate. After all, terrorist states just need to be understood.
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
Assuming you could even categorize evil in this context, and assuming you could similarly categorize morals and a strong America, if the Left wasn't all about weakening America, you wouldn't have to protest as you are. That Emperor has no clothes.
The left does not want a weak America - they want a strong America and realize that the only way to get that that makes any sense morally and usually practically is by being a good nation, not an aggressive empire which rationalizes evil.
Assuming you could even categorize evil in this context, and assuming you could similarly categorize morals and a strong America, if the Left wasn't all about weakening America, you wouldn't have to protest as you are. That Emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: 6Gun at March 08, 2006 05:24 PM (QEBMZ)
62
This has been going on all along. You cant invade another mans home and not expect the neighbors to help... well republicans wouldnt do that but most of America understands that concept.
Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:30 PM (FohTw)
63
You cant invade another mans home and not expect the neighbors to help
So your definition of "helping" the Iraqis is blowing up mosques and trying to foment a civil war between them?
So your definition of "helping" the Iraqis is blowing up mosques and trying to foment a civil war between them?
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:23 PM (xEXsr)
64
Thrill: here is one reason to avoid bombing Iran:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633
They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age. Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40633
They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age. Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
Posted by: masaccio at March 08, 2006 06:41 PM (unNNA)
65
They might shoot back at us, or at Israel, with all kinds of ugly stuff.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age.
Yeah, this sounds familiar... Where have I heard this? Oh yeah, remember Saddam's uber-elite Republican Guard? And how Baghdad was going to be the next Stalingrad?
Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
Well, considering that only about 10% of our forces are in Iraq right now, that shouldn't be a problem. And there would be no occupation this time. Just a repeat of the thunder run, until the Mullahs crumble just like Saddam did.
Here is another: the population of Iran is about 66 million, 70% of whom are under the age of 30, prime fighting age.
Yeah, this sounds familiar... Where have I heard this? Oh yeah, remember Saddam's uber-elite Republican Guard? And how Baghdad was going to be the next Stalingrad?
Which army units did you plan to send to keep them under control?
Well, considering that only about 10% of our forces are in Iraq right now, that shouldn't be a problem. And there would be no occupation this time. Just a repeat of the thunder run, until the Mullahs crumble just like Saddam did.
Posted by: Jordan at March 08, 2006 06:53 PM (xEXsr)
66
There are plenty of arguments for why we should take action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The thing is, that wasn't the point of CY's post. He essentially said that if we are fighting an enemy, any country supplying that enemy with arms is de facto declaring war on us. This is unbelieveable. With the way international arms are traded, we could find ourselves at war with multiple countries at any given time. Are you seriously suggesting that once we start fighting someone, any country selling them arms has to immediately stop, or we declare war on them? Not pressure them to stop, but declare war? I'm sure you think we rule the world, but that's biting off a little more than we want to try and chew.
And trying to equate opposition to your point with thinking US soldiers deserve to die is childish demagoguery. Obviously, Bush sent them there, so he must think they deserve to die, as well. What foolishness.
And trying to equate opposition to your point with thinking US soldiers deserve to die is childish demagoguery. Obviously, Bush sent them there, so he must think they deserve to die, as well. What foolishness.
Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:01 PM (80Sf7)
67
And btw Specter
You might want to look up Godwin's Law before you get all smug. Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The idea that whoever brings up Nazis automatically loses the argument is not Godwin's Law, despite the many know-it-alls like you who continue to spread that misinformation.
You might want to look up Godwin's Law before you get all smug. Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The idea that whoever brings up Nazis automatically loses the argument is not Godwin's Law, despite the many know-it-alls like you who continue to spread that misinformation.
Posted by: Chris at March 08, 2006 09:15 PM (80Sf7)
68
one distinction missed here, The Iranians are not supplying "arms". They are supplying IEDs specifically built to kill US armor. Otherwise they would just be giving them AT weapons and RPGs. That is like slapping a "made in Iran to kill americans in Iraq" sticker on the devices. If you folks don't take that personal, there is something deeply wrong with you.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 08, 2006 11:43 PM (4joLu)
69
"If we're entitled to go to war against Iran because they supplied arms to Iraqi resisters, does this mean that Russia was entitled to attack American targets back when we sent Stinger surface-to-air missiles to the muhajjadin of Afghanistan?"
Yes. They chose not to (in a direct manner.) Is Iran mass producing weapons to kill American soldiers? Are they sending in special forces? In either case, we should respond vigorously and with the most effect to harm this enemy regime with as little damage to those people that are innocent as we can. Reduce the enemy and it's war making capacity to dust wherever it is found.
Yes. They chose not to (in a direct manner.) Is Iran mass producing weapons to kill American soldiers? Are they sending in special forces? In either case, we should respond vigorously and with the most effect to harm this enemy regime with as little damage to those people that are innocent as we can. Reduce the enemy and it's war making capacity to dust wherever it is found.
Posted by: ken anthony at March 09, 2006 04:56 AM (TvVjo)
70
Chris,
How long have you been on the internet? I've been playing with computers for over 35 years and I was one of the first people who debated on usenet when Godwin's Law was formed. Believe it or not it was used to end arguments there - the person who brought up Hitler actually lost the argument. Time honored tradition as opposed to the watered down Wiki explanation of it. I bet you call the WWW the Internet. LOL.
How long have you been on the internet? I've been playing with computers for over 35 years and I was one of the first people who debated on usenet when Godwin's Law was formed. Believe it or not it was used to end arguments there - the person who brought up Hitler actually lost the argument. Time honored tradition as opposed to the watered down Wiki explanation of it. I bet you call the WWW the Internet. LOL.
Posted by: Specter at March 09, 2006 08:59 AM (ybfXM)
71
Folks, I've just about had it with the name-calling. Debate over the substance of someone's comments, but enough profanity.
Chris, your comment was tossed for that reason.
Chris, your comment was tossed for that reason.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 09, 2006 09:39 AM (g5Nba)
72
First off, I want to apoloogize to CY for dropping his URL onto my post to hide my e-mail address.
I had to make this address after my old inbox got mail bombed to hell by people who didn't want to debate me. I really don't like it when people can't stick to the facts and have to resort to childish antics to "win" an argument. It sucked having to wade through a thousand spam e-mails to get the ones I wanted to read and I am not going to do that again.
Now, about the body armor debate. How many people here have ever worn body armor?
*Raises hand and looks around*
With full battle rattle and body armor, you are humping a good load and there is a tradeoff between mobility and armor. When I was wearing my armor, I was a believer in the "move fast enough to get out of the way when the bad guys shoot at you" theory of combat.
I am also a stone's throw away from the main gate of a major military base and the guys I know who have been over there have the same belief. Our vehicles can take the RPGs, land mines and IEDs (to a degree). Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot.
I had to make this address after my old inbox got mail bombed to hell by people who didn't want to debate me. I really don't like it when people can't stick to the facts and have to resort to childish antics to "win" an argument. It sucked having to wade through a thousand spam e-mails to get the ones I wanted to read and I am not going to do that again.
Now, about the body armor debate. How many people here have ever worn body armor?
*Raises hand and looks around*
With full battle rattle and body armor, you are humping a good load and there is a tradeoff between mobility and armor. When I was wearing my armor, I was a believer in the "move fast enough to get out of the way when the bad guys shoot at you" theory of combat.
I am also a stone's throw away from the main gate of a major military base and the guys I know who have been over there have the same belief. Our vehicles can take the RPGs, land mines and IEDs (to a degree). Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot.
Posted by: Jon The Mechanic at March 10, 2006 02:38 PM (8hHaL)
73
Hear Hear
Posted by: Specter at March 10, 2006 03:50 PM (ybfXM)
74
"Foreign made professionally manufactured bombs ARE a reason for us to make a parking lot, and I for one support the paving of that parking lot."
This is the voice of a war criminal. Why do I say that? Because it's a call for killing by someone using self-serving logic that is not applied equally to both sides.
The United States is the #1 arms merchant in the world; some more defensible and other less so.
Does everyone who is targetted by munitions supplied by the United States, from the Palastenians killed by Israelis using American weaponry, to the Saudi people held down by the Saudi regime using American weaponry (most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and had as much or more reason to 'turn the US into a parking lot' as Jon has to use violence against Iran using his own logic), to El Salvadorans or Chileans targetted by US-supported regimes using American weaponry?
If he'll say that they have every moral right to turn us into a parking lot for our supplying weapons to their attackers, then he can use that logic to justify his approval for attacking Iran.
But he won't. And that's why he's a war criminal, initating aggressive war, and then using the response to justify the violence, as if he raped a woman and then justified the father's murder because of the father striking back at him.
It's an illustration of the logic of arrogance and too much power.
Any resistance to the crimes of the powerful 'deserves' a harsh response.
You can see this anywhere in history - including the old south when blacks 'acting up' justified violence against them, including lynching, by a pepope drunk with their own power and unable to see the wrongs they were doing.
Those racists were not really any different than people today - the circumstances were different.
And we need to see the morality - and immorality - of this situation, lest we be a nation of evil.
And no, identifying the evil in other nations - and Iran has more than its share - is no excuse.
This is the voice of a war criminal. Why do I say that? Because it's a call for killing by someone using self-serving logic that is not applied equally to both sides.
The United States is the #1 arms merchant in the world; some more defensible and other less so.
Does everyone who is targetted by munitions supplied by the United States, from the Palastenians killed by Israelis using American weaponry, to the Saudi people held down by the Saudi regime using American weaponry (most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and had as much or more reason to 'turn the US into a parking lot' as Jon has to use violence against Iran using his own logic), to El Salvadorans or Chileans targetted by US-supported regimes using American weaponry?
If he'll say that they have every moral right to turn us into a parking lot for our supplying weapons to their attackers, then he can use that logic to justify his approval for attacking Iran.
But he won't. And that's why he's a war criminal, initating aggressive war, and then using the response to justify the violence, as if he raped a woman and then justified the father's murder because of the father striking back at him.
It's an illustration of the logic of arrogance and too much power.
Any resistance to the crimes of the powerful 'deserves' a harsh response.
You can see this anywhere in history - including the old south when blacks 'acting up' justified violence against them, including lynching, by a pepope drunk with their own power and unable to see the wrongs they were doing.
Those racists were not really any different than people today - the circumstances were different.
And we need to see the morality - and immorality - of this situation, lest we be a nation of evil.
And no, identifying the evil in other nations - and Iran has more than its share - is no excuse.
Posted by: Craig at March 12, 2006 10:45 PM (VmbVS)
No Terrorism Here
The local North Carolina news media, and adminstration at UNC Chapel Hill, and even the Daily Tarheel itself do not seem willing to call the "Jeep Jihadi's" Friday afternoon attempt to run down multiple UNC-CH students in the name of Islam an act of terror.
A quick cross-section of local media: Raleigh, NC News and Observer: The UNC-Chapel Hill graduate charged with driving into a lunchtime campus crowd Friday is scheduled to be in court today, accused of what some students are condemning as an act of terrorism. Raleigh, NC WRAL-TV: Headline: "Students To Protest UNC's Reluctance To Label Pit Incident Terrorism." Raleigh-Durham, NC WTVD-TV: Reports on the assualt and the protest and doesn't even use the words "terror" or "terrorism" when describing the attack or the anti-terror protests. Apparently, when launching an attack from a vehicle, using a bumper as a weapon is somehow different that detonating the same vehicle, or shooting from it into the same crowd. It doesn't matter how many people are injured or even why, but how they are injured that matters. It isn't the madness that counts, but the method. Future campus terrorists take note: if you want to be taken more seriously than Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, be sure to use something more conventional in your attacks, like explosives or automatic weapons. If it doesn't have the Good JihadKeeping Seal of Approval, the liberals in academia and the press just won't give you the credit you deserve.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:57 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: Specter at March 06, 2006 03:05 PM (ybfXM)
2
Kind of makes you sad to live in the Triangle doesn't it! But, would we expect any less from Chapel Thrill?
At least a few of us still know a terrorist when we see it! Must be all that misdirection regarding GWB as the worst terrorist of them all!
At least a few of us still know a terrorist when we see it! Must be all that misdirection regarding GWB as the worst terrorist of them all!
Posted by: NC gal at March 06, 2006 03:55 PM (PxX2b)
3
This guy can't be a terrorist. He's from the Religion of Peace(tm) for goodness sakes! Peace and Terrorism don't go together, therefore, he can't be a terrorist.
(sorry, I'm applying for CAIR membership, and need some brownie points)
(sorry, I'm applying for CAIR membership, and need some brownie points)
Posted by: Kevin at March 06, 2006 04:47 PM (o/IMK)
4
Hmm, let's see, we have a random attack on civilians (terroristic), using cheap, improvised weaponry (also terroristic), committed for the purpose of advancing a political cause (ding, ding, ding, ding!). I would just categorize it not as terrorism, but clearly as a traffic accident. Now if an abortion doctor had been in the crowd, that would be terrorism.
Posted by: Thrill at March 06, 2006 04:48 PM (+E47Q)
5
cheap? Have you looked at the prices for Jeeps nowadays? LOL
Posted by: Specter at March 06, 2006 05:03 PM (ybfXM)
Posted by: Marvin at March 06, 2006 08:55 PM (8cEPU)
7
OK, so maybe he can't be labeled a terrorist...but I certainly believe this can be labeled A HATE CRIME!
Posted by: Maggie at March 07, 2006 07:44 AM (QKXCW)
8
When I heard the tape of his 9-1-1 call (on WPTF) this morning and he said he did it as a protest against the US government I was convinced it was terrorism.
Random attack on innocent victims for a political or religious cause.
Random attack on innocent victims for a political or religious cause.
Posted by: Jack at March 07, 2006 01:26 PM (6WcBG)
Man Down
Posting will remain light during the rest of the day. Mind-crushing sinus headaches tend to block stimulating political discourse.
Funny, that.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:14 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
get better..we need you
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 06, 2006 10:19 AM (CdK5b)
2
I noticed you used the term "mind crushing" as opposed to "brain" crushing. I will take this an admission by omission. I will now submit my story to the AP so that they may flood the airwaves with this shocking revelation.
Posted by: Jason at March 06, 2006 10:33 AM (TwSjW)
3
Hope you feel better soon. And happy belated birthday!
Posted by: seawitch at March 06, 2006 10:39 AM (wGzku)
4
Hope you feel better. And a belated Happy Birthday!
Seems alot of people are not feeling real well around the Triangle. That time of the year for this stuff. My contacts have been going wonkers last couple of days.
Seems alot of people are not feeling real well around the Triangle. That time of the year for this stuff. My contacts have been going wonkers last couple of days.
Posted by: Prophet Sallami Sallami Mohammed at March 06, 2006 03:59 PM (IRsCk)
5
Woops, that was me above. Still had that silly name for something over at another mu.nu blog.
Posted by: William Teach at March 06, 2006 04:00 PM (IRsCk)
March 04, 2006
A Bone to Pick
One of the military experts who hangs out here from time to time just started his own blog. Go harrass Ray Robinson, and say, "hi."
I do think a lot of my fellow bloggers will have a minor bone to pick with him, however. Calling himself "The smartest man alive!!!" even in jest is sure to annoy those who would claim that title, and that's the majority of the blogosphere.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
thanks for the help Bob! I am getting hits already. Your the best.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 04, 2006 02:16 PM (4joLu)
2
whoops ....you're the best
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 04, 2006 02:17 PM (4joLu)
Tarheel Jeep Jihad
Among the details starting to emerge surrounding Mohammed Reza Taheriazar's attempted Jeep Jihad at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, is the realization that Taheriazar was not old enough to rent the SUV (Sharia Utility Vehicle*) used in the attack according the rental company's own internal policies.
The company forbids renting SUVs to anyone under the age of 25 for insurance purposes, and Taheriazar had to have an accomplice over the age of 25 to sign for the vehicle as the primary driver. Because of the close relationship between Confederate Yankee and the company in question, I was able to examine copies of the rental paperwork before it was turned over to authorities. The name of Taheriazar's accomplice?Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Excuse me, but this is my first time at your site. Is this a joke?
Posted by: rabidfox at March 04, 2006 05:58 PM (4N4Vs)
2
Wow, what a coincidence, it IS a joke, and it's my LAST time at this site.
Bush had the decency to wait a few months before he started cracking jokes about WMD's. For those of us North Carolinians who don't find this quite so hilarious, why not follow his lead and stop embarassing us.
(P.S. Sharia Utility Vehicle? You might want to hold on to that day job.)
Bush had the decency to wait a few months before he started cracking jokes about WMD's. For those of us North Carolinians who don't find this quite so hilarious, why not follow his lead and stop embarassing us.
(P.S. Sharia Utility Vehicle? You might want to hold on to that day job.)
Posted by: UNC Student at March 04, 2006 09:19 PM (qFFKb)
3
CY, I guess some of your posters have a different sense of humor!
Posted by: Tom TB at March 05, 2006 09:31 AM (wZLWV)
4
Too bad he missed YOU, UNC student. That would have been a REAL laugh.
Posted by: DaveP. at March 05, 2006 09:33 PM (RcA37)
5
I wonder if that Jeep Cherokee was one of those models powered by a Turban-boost engine?
Posted by: Toejam at March 06, 2006 01:28 AM (XNCp8)
6
I wonder if that Jeep Cherokee was one of those models powered by a Turban-boost engine?
Nah.
It uses a dual Allah-head cam engine and KoranTRAC four-wheel drive.
I wonder if that Jeep Cherokee was one of those models powered by a Turban-boost engine?
Nah.
It uses a dual Allah-head cam engine and KoranTRAC four-wheel drive.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 06, 2006 07:17 AM (0fZB6)
7
The following article, written by one of Mohammed Taheriazar's recent instructors, sheds additional light on Mohammed's character: http://www.cinekklesia.com/mt/archives/2006/03/v_for_vendetta_5.html
Posted by: Paul M. at April 02, 2006 10:42 PM (VpwKX)
March 03, 2006
Carolina Crusher
Is someone is taking tomorrow night's Duke-Carolina basketball game just a bit too seriously?
All kidding about the intense Duke-Carolina rivalry aside, I have it on expert authority that the SUV was a rental vehicle picked up last night from a central North Carolina rental car company. If it was picked up for use as a weapon, atttepted murder charges would seem plausible. Update: The 23-year-old driver has been identified as Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, which the News and Observer identifies as being a UNC-Chapel Hill student as late as last year. In what could be an unrelated event, the Daily Tar Heel joined the Cartoon Wars, running this editorial cartoon February 9:
Shocked UNC students watched in disbelief around noon Friday as an SUV plowed through a crowd at The Pit, the central gathering place, injuring at least two students. Several students said the driver was young and wearing a dark suit and tie and they said he intentionally swerved to hit people. The driver fled but was arrested soon after by Chapel Hill Police. His name was not immediately available. Classes had just changed and The Pit was crowded. Witnesses said the SUV was going at least 40 miles per hour as it passed Lenoir Dining Hall. The condition of those injured was not immediately available.
It appears to be an isolated incident. Also, the Duke-Carolina game is Saturday night, not tonight.
The driver of an SUV that plowed into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill on Friday told police it was retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world, according to ABC News.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:25 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Test
Posted by: TallDave at March 03, 2006 04:38 PM (M0J/c)
2
I heard about the "accident" on WRAL on my way to work this afternoon. (It was still being called an accident at that time.)
I suppose one need not have an airplane or explosives to be a terrorist.
I suppose one need not have an airplane or explosives to be a terrorist.
Posted by: Russ at March 03, 2006 04:59 PM (8Wes/)
3
Oops... I meant WPTF, not WRAL.
Posted by: Russ at March 03, 2006 06:00 PM (8Wes/)
4
Sounds like a little personal jihad to me. But what do I know; I'm a lowly infidel.
Posted by: foreign devil at March 03, 2006 06:50 PM (57Faw)
5
So instead of joining the military so he could go kill terrorists or Saddam who have been mass murdering Muslims for years, this guy decides to try to kill UNC students as a way to avenge the treatment of Muslims throughout the world. And these people wonder why Western Civilization has passed them by with "logical" thinking such as that. *rolling my eyes*
Posted by: Michael in MI at March 03, 2006 08:54 PM (GANmF)
6
I wonder if the suicidally naive apologists for Islam will stop to think about the fact that this was a group of students at one of the most liberal colleges in the southeast... This idiot was emboldened by the apparently limp reaction to worldwide jihad. We all need to stand together to defeat islamofascism. Divided we fall.
Posted by: Jeff in NC at March 03, 2006 09:30 PM (eyC/N)
7
Islamofascists kill other Muslims and this idiot is going to try and kill kids that more than likely never even voted for Bush? Thank God he was inept. Throw the book at him!
Posted by: Mark at March 03, 2006 10:04 PM (g1M0U)
8
off with his head!!!!
Posted by: josh at March 03, 2006 10:23 PM (MGRcs)
9
WHen I heard about this on the news at the mosque I dropped my BLT knocked over my beer and it spilled all over my porno mag.
Posted by: Akmed at March 03, 2006 10:41 PM (y+1sY)
10
Raleigh,NC alert
Organizing a group of RTP,North Carolina citizens that will educate the NC public about the ideology of radical Islam.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTP911
Raleigh,NC alert
Organizing a group of RTP,North Carolina citizens that will educate the NC public about the ideology of radical Islam.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTP911
Posted by: rtp911help at March 04, 2006 10:14 AM (wYdB3)
11
Imagine if I, a Christian, had tried this act in the old Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq,who amoung us feels I would survive. I wonder if the ACLU would come to my defense.
Mark
Las Vegas
Mark
Las Vegas
Posted by: Mark at March 04, 2006 10:55 AM (BJYNn)
12
Apparently, this kid didn't get the memo about how Muslims are temporarily using American liberals to further their agenda.
You know, if he'd spent more time with the Muslim student organization he would know these things!
You know, if he'd spent more time with the Muslim student organization he would know these things!
Posted by: Cate at March 04, 2006 01:59 PM (q/X8e)
13
So, how did he get a social security number? He is from Iran, right? Now that he has graduated, isn't it time for him to go home? Wonder what he majored in? Why are Iranian students (?) still in this country?
Posted by: Cowgirl at March 05, 2006 09:05 AM (HNE9b)
14
It's amazing to me that, while looking up this jerk's phone number, that there has not been a phone number or address for Mohammed Reza Taheriazar in the greater Raleigh/Durham area for the past two years. Makes you wonder, don't it?
Posted by: David at May 05, 2006 12:20 AM (r5/7C)
In a Word, Yes.
The next time you hear John Murtha speaking of withdrawal, the next time your hear Al Gore accusing anyone of playing on our fears, the next time you listen to Cindy Sheehan saying this country is not worth fighting for, remember this:
So far, 2,298 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives in 1,079 days to liberate 25 million Iraqis. Saddam Hussein's Baathists murdered 10,725 men women and children in just one building in Suleimaniya. Is this war on terror worth it? Only if you have a conscience.Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well said.
Posted by: High Desert Wanderer at March 03, 2006 12:23 PM (nA9AR)
2
The WSJ has interesting editorial about how we are being "protected" from details about Saddams regime. Their conclusion that post-war intelligence is as bad/worse than pre-war intelligence.
IT SEEMS; AP and MSM Press corp are happier re-cycling FOIA feeds than actually going out seeking answers to questions. In the past seeking news was caller reporting. Re-writing was for those who lacked the street skills.
IT SEEMS; AP and MSM Press corp are happier re-cycling FOIA feeds than actually going out seeking answers to questions. In the past seeking news was caller reporting. Re-writing was for those who lacked the street skills.
Posted by: Andy at March 03, 2006 02:55 PM (N0P14)
3
I hate that wording. Those Americans never "sacrificed" their lives. Their lives were taken from them. Not one of them died willingly, they died by the acts of murderers.
Posted by: Mike Rentner at March 03, 2006 03:49 PM (rr4ZT)
4
Terrific! Michael Totten did what the MSM has yet to do. Following the Iraq story closely, I had no idea their was a memorial museum set up in Kurdistan.
Posted by: Jim Hoft at March 03, 2006 04:10 PM (o2uob)
5
Don't be silly, Gatewaypundit. Everyone knows reporting how bad Saddam was is jingoistic warmongering, not responsible journalism like the 10,000 stories on Abu Ghraib (all of which naturally omit any mention of the thousands murdered there under Saddam).
Posted by: TallDave at March 03, 2006 04:39 PM (M0J/c)
6
"Those American never "Sacrificed" their lives."
If you truly believe that, then you have no idea what being a soldier is all about. Every day in uniform whether in a combat zone or a stateside garrison is sacrificial. The average stateside duty day is 12 or more hours long and usually runs six days a week. In "field training exercises" those 12 hour days will run for 30 or more days consecutively. Of course in a combat theater the 12 hour days usually become 14 or more hours and there are no "weekends". Now, if that is not sacrificial duty, then I don't know what is... And sometimes freedom demands the blood of patriots; patriots who have volunteered a sacrificail life in service to their nation.
If you truly believe that, then you have no idea what being a soldier is all about. Every day in uniform whether in a combat zone or a stateside garrison is sacrificial. The average stateside duty day is 12 or more hours long and usually runs six days a week. In "field training exercises" those 12 hour days will run for 30 or more days consecutively. Of course in a combat theater the 12 hour days usually become 14 or more hours and there are no "weekends". Now, if that is not sacrificial duty, then I don't know what is... And sometimes freedom demands the blood of patriots; patriots who have volunteered a sacrificail life in service to their nation.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 03, 2006 06:41 PM (owAN1)
7
I think every soldier's service is a sacrifice for his or her nation, in time lost with family and civilian privileges lost. But at the same time, there's no doubt those who have made the ultimate sacrifice have had their lives taken from them by murderers.
Posted by: edh at March 03, 2006 08:18 PM (Rkugq)
8
Unless you are willing to place our soldiers in the category of murderer every time they kill an enemy, then do not view our troops deaths as murder. To do so places their death in a useless category. One who is murdered dies to no useful purpose. Freeing millions of people is indeed a useful and noble purpose. No, our soldiers were not murdered. They died a soldiers death nobly serving their country and others desiring freedom. "No greater love hath any man than to give his life for another."
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 03, 2006 08:48 PM (owAN1)
9
I'm with Old Soldier. If you don't think our fighting men and women (and those who support them!) gave their lives, then nobody ever gave their lives for anything.
To put these people, who have already sacrificed so much before their deaths, in the same category as victims of random violence dishonors their memory and cheapens the cause of freedom.
Sorry, but soldiers don't need you to infantilize them.
To put these people, who have already sacrificed so much before their deaths, in the same category as victims of random violence dishonors their memory and cheapens the cause of freedom.
Sorry, but soldiers don't need you to infantilize them.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at March 03, 2006 11:35 PM (I+ywx)
10
My conscience is consumed with thoughts for the soliders and families that had died and been injured fighting for the freedom of the cowardly Iraqis.Those spineless people had 30+ years to deal with Saddam and the Bathists and did damn little but lay down and die.
Posted by: Little Debbie at March 04, 2006 08:37 AM (r99FU)
11
Little Debbie,
I assume you feel the same way about those murdered by the Nazis?
I assume you feel the same way about those murdered by the Nazis?
Posted by: Pope at March 04, 2006 01:09 PM (mXCvM)
12
You support this war? To liberate Iraq? That makes you a liberal by any definition.
You'll rationalize your way out of it -- you fuzzy-headed liberals-in-denial always do. "Persistent vegetative state" indeed.
Bush as Savior of the World is a failure for one simple reason. Democracies don't create liberal societies. Liberal socities create democracies.
You'll rationalize your way out of it -- you fuzzy-headed liberals-in-denial always do. "Persistent vegetative state" indeed.
Bush as Savior of the World is a failure for one simple reason. Democracies don't create liberal societies. Liberal socities create democracies.
Posted by: bathesheba at March 04, 2006 01:09 PM (Gm6NW)
13
"Liberal societies create democracies."
And in our case, after a couple hundred years, do their best to morph it into socialism.
And in our case, after a couple hundred years, do their best to morph it into socialism.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 04, 2006 06:03 PM (owAN1)
14
This is what confuses me about Republicans. How does one show such liberal compassion to people in other countries and so little to people in this one? If an American is poor or complains about anything they should get off their ass and fix it, but if an Iraqi or Irani suffers we should invade and set things right.
On a side note, the idea of freeing a people from their oppressive ruler seems like a fairly liberal idea but if one were to dress it up as preempting that same leader from attacking us or supplying other bad guys with the tools to the same, it becomes a republican wet dream. Very curious.
On a side note, the idea of freeing a people from their oppressive ruler seems like a fairly liberal idea but if one were to dress it up as preempting that same leader from attacking us or supplying other bad guys with the tools to the same, it becomes a republican wet dream. Very curious.
Posted by: curious at March 04, 2006 08:41 PM (stZIm)
15
Well, curious, the first problem is the multiple meanings of "liberal." It's used as a handy catch-all for members of one group whose centtral belief is to fix most problems through governmental intervention, and some of those goals are not what is known as "classically liberal", which is generally seen as a philosophy that espouses freedom and permissiveness.
The second is that you may not understand the mindset of Republicans as well as you think you do. Many Republicans believe that giving someone a handout is actually harmful in the long term, because it keeps people from developing their initiative. It's harder than you think to, as one sage put it, teach a man to fish rather than just give him a fish and be done with it. This is in no way contrary to the idea of helping overthrow a totalitarian state, where the people cannot organize to overthrow because of the agitators being taken away, tortured, and killed... or even just innocent people being taken away as an "object lesson."
The goal for Iraq was to do the thing they couldn't do internally— run the totalitarian state out— and then let the internal operations take over. The re-formed Iraqi Army is doing regular patrols now, and the Iraqi police force is growing daily despite (or even because of) officers being specifically targeted. It's more ambitious than the Marshall Plan was, and yes, we're still early enough it could fall to pieces. But if it works, which people from Iraq think it well might, then that's a good plan.
The second is that you may not understand the mindset of Republicans as well as you think you do. Many Republicans believe that giving someone a handout is actually harmful in the long term, because it keeps people from developing their initiative. It's harder than you think to, as one sage put it, teach a man to fish rather than just give him a fish and be done with it. This is in no way contrary to the idea of helping overthrow a totalitarian state, where the people cannot organize to overthrow because of the agitators being taken away, tortured, and killed... or even just innocent people being taken away as an "object lesson."
The goal for Iraq was to do the thing they couldn't do internally— run the totalitarian state out— and then let the internal operations take over. The re-formed Iraqi Army is doing regular patrols now, and the Iraqi police force is growing daily despite (or even because of) officers being specifically targeted. It's more ambitious than the Marshall Plan was, and yes, we're still early enough it could fall to pieces. But if it works, which people from Iraq think it well might, then that's a good plan.
Posted by: B. Durbin at March 04, 2006 09:37 PM (tie24)
16
Curious, how can you possibly associated people in the freest country in the world with the people under repressive despotic regimes such as Iraq and Iran? Even the poorest person in the US has the opportunity to better him/herself; not so the people of a leader who would gladly attack them with chemical artillery strikes. Too, my tax dollars are being spent showing the Iraqi how to be free, not lining their pockets for doing nothing. I have no problem helping those who desire a better country or personal life. I have a big problem funding people to do nothing toward bettering themselves.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 04, 2006 09:38 PM (owAN1)
17
Durbin, good point. I should clarify my use of liberal. In the first instance, I used it to mean generous, but in the second, obviously to allude to it being an idea a Democrat would dream up. It didn't seem to make sense to me to say that invading a country to free it and make it a democratic state is a conservative wet dream so I had to go with the Republican title.
I do understand the Republican mindset as you framed it and would agree that ideally it would be better to teach the man to fish, unfortunately politcs always screws things up. Remember Midnight Basketball? Turns out it was and is a good idea.
Old Soldier, two things: How do you tell the difference and of the money we have spent in Iraq, none of it was used to teach the Iraqi "how to be free". He already knew how to be free.
I do understand the Republican mindset as you framed it and would agree that ideally it would be better to teach the man to fish, unfortunately politcs always screws things up. Remember Midnight Basketball? Turns out it was and is a good idea.
Old Soldier, two things: How do you tell the difference and of the money we have spent in Iraq, none of it was used to teach the Iraqi "how to be free". He already knew how to be free.
Posted by: curious at March 04, 2006 11:51 PM (stZIm)
18
Shorter Yank:
Saddam is a murderous tyrant, therefore, everything done in Iraq is justified - dead soldiers, dead civilians, destroyed families, all of it.
And yet even Shorter Yank:
The means justify the ends, therefore, you have no conscience if you don't agree.
C'mon y'all. Does it hurt so much to think that that's the best you can do?
Saddam is a murderous tyrant, therefore, everything done in Iraq is justified - dead soldiers, dead civilians, destroyed families, all of it.
And yet even Shorter Yank:
The means justify the ends, therefore, you have no conscience if you don't agree.
C'mon y'all. Does it hurt so much to think that that's the best you can do?
Posted by: Uh, nope at March 05, 2006 02:43 AM (Yd8oO)
19
”How do you tell the difference and of the money we have spent in Iraq, none of it was used to teach the Iraqi "how to be free". He already knew how to be free.”
Curious, how do you tell the difference between what? That phrase didn’t seem to relate to my comment.
As for “teaching” the Iraqi peoples to be free… first we had to depose the totalitarian despot, then we had to institute some stability and stand up a provisional government, then transition that government over into a freely elected body of governors who wrote a constitution, the constitution was approved via referendum voting and another free election place permanent representatives into central and regional governments. Is that not spending money to “teach” the Iraqis how to be free under a democratic government?
I guess your last question could actually be the key to your first question; and it will depend upon your definition of “free”. If you base your definition upon the freedoms you experience within the United States, the personal freedoms and liberties, then, “No,” the Iraqi peoples did not know how to be free. If you mean; for the most part they were allowed to live at the whim of their totalitarian dictator, then, “Yes,” they were free. Not everyone instinctively “knows” how to be free or even what the word means to others. Kids that grew up in the 1950’s under the Communist rule of the USSR did not have the same definition of “free” as did the children of the same time period in the USA. You are, however, right to want all peoples to understand freedom based upon your experiences.
Curious, how do you tell the difference between what? That phrase didn’t seem to relate to my comment.
As for “teaching” the Iraqi peoples to be free… first we had to depose the totalitarian despot, then we had to institute some stability and stand up a provisional government, then transition that government over into a freely elected body of governors who wrote a constitution, the constitution was approved via referendum voting and another free election place permanent representatives into central and regional governments. Is that not spending money to “teach” the Iraqis how to be free under a democratic government?
I guess your last question could actually be the key to your first question; and it will depend upon your definition of “free”. If you base your definition upon the freedoms you experience within the United States, the personal freedoms and liberties, then, “No,” the Iraqi peoples did not know how to be free. If you mean; for the most part they were allowed to live at the whim of their totalitarian dictator, then, “Yes,” they were free. Not everyone instinctively “knows” how to be free or even what the word means to others. Kids that grew up in the 1950’s under the Communist rule of the USSR did not have the same definition of “free” as did the children of the same time period in the USA. You are, however, right to want all peoples to understand freedom based upon your experiences.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 05, 2006 08:54 AM (owAN1)
The Big Truth
It took until the seventh paragraph, but Washington Post reporters Peter Baker and Spencer S. Hsu uncovered the Big Truth about the AP's newly released Hurricane Katrina meeting video:
This debate is not a story of substance, but one of emotion. The disaster response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest, fastest rescue in American history. Yes, mistakes were made on all levels. The levees were poorly built. Evacuation plans were not followed. Leadership collapsed, and in some cases, hindered the rescue effort. There is plenty of blame to go around, and no shortage of imaginitive ideas to help boost our response capabilities for future storms to levels never before imagined. But none of that is the focus of the media. Over 1,400 people were confirmed dead, and more are missing. Damages exceeded $75 billion, making this the costliest hurricane in history, and what does the media worry most about?
In its substance, the video reveals nothing that was not already known from previously released transcripts and government investigations. But in politics, images carry a power far beyond written words, and the video, played again and again on cable television, instantly provided new fuel for an emotional debate.
But Bush was, despite all media claims to the contrary, correct. Fictional hurricanes "Zebra" and "Pam," were used to train for the event of a New Orleans hurricane strike, and neither exercise anticipated levee failure. According to Greg Breerwood, deputy district engineer for project management for the Army Corps of Engineers:
Three days after Hurricane Katrina wiped out most of New Orleans, President Bush appeared on television and said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." His staff has spent the past six months trying to take back, modify or explain away those 10 words.
Katrina made landfall at 6:10 am CDT on August 29 as a Category 3 hurricane, far less than the feared category 5 strike. Of course they didn't think it would be breached in a weaker storm that hit off-center. Another new video has also surfaced late yesterday, where Gov. Kathleen Blanco said nearly six hours after landfall:
We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped," he said. "We never did think they would actually be breached."
Officials did not expect a breach of the levees before Hurricane Katrina, and still thought they'd dodged a bullet almost six hours after the storm made landfall. That's the Big Truth of what was expected of the New Orleans levees, and the Big Truth about ten words that some opportunists would conflate into a disaster all their own. Update: The Associated Press backtracks:
"We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29, according to the video that was obtained Thursday night. "We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee. I think we have not breached the levee at this time."
To further clarify the AP clarification: Bush was told that the levees could be overrun (which is still inaccurate as a technicality, but as good as we are likely to get from the media), or topped, but he was not told the could be breached.
AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO
Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking. The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:26 AM | Comments (76) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Trying to make this into a political issue is distracting from the help that is still needed in New Orleans and Mississippi. Instead of focusing on the truly awesome aspects of the rescues in New Orleans and in Mississippi, the very swift response, and the remarkable evacuation that was doen, it's clear the media want nothing more than to smear Bush.
While they are playing their games, people in Mississippi towns such as Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian, D'Iberville, Waveland and others are still sleeping in tents six months after Katrina hit.
This political game is hurtful to us as we try to recover and rebuild. It causes people to think about Katrina in a negative light and makes many who might have been willing to help not want to do so.
While they are playing their games, people in Mississippi towns such as Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian, D'Iberville, Waveland and others are still sleeping in tents six months after Katrina hit.
This political game is hurtful to us as we try to recover and rebuild. It causes people to think about Katrina in a negative light and makes many who might have been willing to help not want to do so.
Posted by: seawitch at March 03, 2006 09:18 AM (ao+3A)
2
Yeah, that's it. The media should start doing stories about the positive aspects of Hurricane Katrina, like the fact that she missed Wisconsin. I would guess the media will get to that story after they write about how great things are going in Iraq; how much people like having their phones wiretapped; how the new Medicare drug plan is only a problem for people over the age of 65 and, how much the whole Bill of Rights is overrated and maybe we could make do with six instead of 10.
Posted by: shiloh at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (6Iqnp)
3
http://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/houston.htm
Some people predicted a levee breach as early as 2001. Isn't it the duty of disaster management planning to prepare for a worst-case scenario? Hope for the best, but expect the worst. For Katrina, they expected the best, and got screwed by the worst.
Some people predicted a levee breach as early as 2001. Isn't it the duty of disaster management planning to prepare for a worst-case scenario? Hope for the best, but expect the worst. For Katrina, they expected the best, and got screwed by the worst.
Posted by: Jeff at March 03, 2006 01:32 PM (/wkQg)
4
Of course - nothing new here, move along.
Finding out what went wrong and assigning blame only means dwelling on the negative. George Bush and Michael Chertoff did nothing wrong.
Most people who aren't blind right wing zealots had already concluded that this president and his administration are uncaring about common Americans, don't believe in the common good, and are incompetent to boot. The latest video only confirmed this for the 65% of us who still think.
As for the rest of you, nothing new here, move along ...
Finding out what went wrong and assigning blame only means dwelling on the negative. George Bush and Michael Chertoff did nothing wrong.
Most people who aren't blind right wing zealots had already concluded that this president and his administration are uncaring about common Americans, don't believe in the common good, and are incompetent to boot. The latest video only confirmed this for the 65% of us who still think.
As for the rest of you, nothing new here, move along ...
Posted by: Anon at March 03, 2006 01:37 PM (iHI2f)
5
Just move on? To what, pray tell? The importance of this video is it's affirmation of Bush's disengagement, his simple lack of curiosity combined with his tendency to mouth platitudes. Every time this Administration has someone accept responsibility, nine of that person's fingers point to others who were "more to blame", gave "bad information". And to those right wing cry babies who hate to see poor George dragged over the coals, life without a Fox spin is rough, but deal with it. If you want people to "move on", I don't want to hear another word about blow jobs, or about Chappaquidick (something that happened loooooooooooong ago).
Posted by: Dan at March 03, 2006 01:54 PM (KEtL9)
6
Actually, what we want is for you people (the 65% of people who 'think'), to come up with some actual legit complaints. Those "right wing crybabies" are the same ones raking Bush over the coals for emmigration, ports, his personal lawyer pick for the supreme court, tariffs, spending, budget, etc etc etc, but since we dont buy into your bullshit you have a problem. Since there is nothing to your spin to the Katrina story, then yeah, move on. Last I checked, Clinton was actually getting blowjobs, and Kennedy actually wrecked his car and killed someone. And I see no one other than you bringing either of those up here.
Posted by: buzz at March 03, 2006 02:43 PM (PZ/ZS)
7
You spent too many words needlessly to explain why the President was absolutely correct and truthful, and that none of the problems are of his doing. He has made that clear all along. Those who question him, are just traitors to the country. As the White House said this week, he was actively engaged during the entire disaster. The result of his engagement in Katrina, Medicare Drug Benefit, Iraq, Social Security is obvious by the resounding success of those solutions.
Posted by: Lew at March 03, 2006 03:28 PM (cv5Iw)
8
With regards to Clinton and now Bush neither one of these men will be remembered as one of our better choices to lead our nation. President Bush continues to lead by not leading at all. He failed by choice or incompetence to grasp the seriousness of Katrina's potential. The simple fact is, we are able to mount relief efforts half way around the world faster then we responded to our own peoples suffering.
Posted by: Mark Hoffman at March 03, 2006 03:40 PM (BMtu4)
9
URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
1011 AM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005
...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...
HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.
MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER.
AT LEAST HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...ALL WOOD FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED...ALL WINDOWS WILL BE BLOWN OUT.
THE VAST MAJORITY...OF TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED.
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
1011 AM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005
...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...
HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969.
MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER.
AT LEAST HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...ALL WOOD FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED...ALL WINDOWS WILL BE BLOWN OUT.
THE VAST MAJORITY...OF TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED.
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
Posted by: Slippery Pete at March 03, 2006 03:57 PM (Rw/yc)
10
You state that the media "worry most" about the president's false statement that nobody anticipated the levee breaches. This is also a falsehood. Far more print has been devoted to the effects of the hurricane and the aftermath than those 10 words.
This is a fact. It may not feel "truthy" to you, but it is the truth.
This is a fact. It may not feel "truthy" to you, but it is the truth.
Posted by: Slippery Pete at March 03, 2006 04:00 PM (Rw/yc)
11
Facts vs. truthiness, cont.:
The design of the original levees, which dates to the 1960s, was based on rudimentary storm modeling that, it is now realized, might underestimate the threat of a potential hurricane. Even if the modeling was adequate, however, the levees were designed to withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving hurricane that, according to the National Weather Service’s Saffir-Simpson scale, would be placed in category 3. If a lingering category 3 storm — or a stronger storm, say, category 4 or 5 — were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more than 20 ft (6 m) of water. (J.J. Westerink, The Creeping Storm, Civil Engineering Magazine, June 2003.)
The design of the original levees, which dates to the 1960s, was based on rudimentary storm modeling that, it is now realized, might underestimate the threat of a potential hurricane. Even if the modeling was adequate, however, the levees were designed to withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving hurricane that, according to the National Weather Service’s Saffir-Simpson scale, would be placed in category 3. If a lingering category 3 storm — or a stronger storm, say, category 4 or 5 — were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more than 20 ft (6 m) of water. (J.J. Westerink, The Creeping Storm, Civil Engineering Magazine, June 2003.)
Posted by: Slippery Pete at March 03, 2006 04:02 PM (Rw/yc)
12
The Big Truth is simple, the president was told before the hurricane hit, the levees were a very, very, grave concern. After the hurricane hit, the presdient said they didn't think the levees would be breached. He told an untruth and that's the real big truth. Exericises are only training tools, they are never close to the real thing. You can't anticipate the power of nature.
Posted by: Kevin at March 03, 2006 04:17 PM (j1KbG)
13
"Nobody," in these situations, actually means "nobody important/respectable/sympathetic/orthodox enough for me to pay attention to," or "nobody who couldn't be dismissed as an alarmist/weirdo/special pleader/political adversary/&c,"
Posted by: Jack C at March 03, 2006 04:41 PM (txxz5)
14
Facts hurt when all you got to work with is spin and opinion to stoke your hate with. This is just more of the same crap from the illiterate MSM and the left leaning loonatics.
The video clearly shows the head of the National Hurricane Center say "the levees may be topped"
The video does not say anything about levees being 'breached' or 'failing'. Topped is not the same as breached.
At some point the Democratic Party will have kick the dunces out and try to rehab itself. The rest of the country...the other 90% or so...are watching this show with bemused amazement.
Next up: One Clinton was in favor of the port deal, actually working for Dubai, while the other one was leading the charge against it! That is your 'front runner'? DOH!!!
Harry Reid votes FOR the Patriot Act...as does Barbara Boxer! Double DOH!!!!
Gotta love those principled Dems.
Loonies get a clue...you are being played like a fiddle by the Democratic Party...they no more believe the crap they're spitting out to get your cash than George W. Bush does. They think you are all morons and too dumb to figure it out.
They're probably right.
The video clearly shows the head of the National Hurricane Center say "the levees may be topped"
The video does not say anything about levees being 'breached' or 'failing'. Topped is not the same as breached.
At some point the Democratic Party will have kick the dunces out and try to rehab itself. The rest of the country...the other 90% or so...are watching this show with bemused amazement.
Next up: One Clinton was in favor of the port deal, actually working for Dubai, while the other one was leading the charge against it! That is your 'front runner'? DOH!!!
Harry Reid votes FOR the Patriot Act...as does Barbara Boxer! Double DOH!!!!
Gotta love those principled Dems.
Loonies get a clue...you are being played like a fiddle by the Democratic Party...they no more believe the crap they're spitting out to get your cash than George W. Bush does. They think you are all morons and too dumb to figure it out.
They're probably right.
Posted by: Mahatma at March 03, 2006 05:34 PM (3okw0)
15
Mr Yankie,
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this piece. The point is, and the video is just one more piece of evidence, President Bush is detatched and unconcerned with detail. He asks no questions in the video, he mouths platitudes. He continues his vacation while New Orleans drowns. He is wrapped in a buble, seemingly incapable of accepting any news that does not fit his world view. The video shows this in clear detail, then again, you are correct. Nothing new here, move on.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this piece. The point is, and the video is just one more piece of evidence, President Bush is detatched and unconcerned with detail. He asks no questions in the video, he mouths platitudes. He continues his vacation while New Orleans drowns. He is wrapped in a buble, seemingly incapable of accepting any news that does not fit his world view. The video shows this in clear detail, then again, you are correct. Nothing new here, move on.
Posted by: Mark at March 03, 2006 06:18 PM (1UUpt)
16
Making this into a political issue IS distracting from the real work that's being done there. It's also deliberately distracting from the work that needs to be done.
It cuts both ways: I suspect that many on the right side of the aisle still blaming Nagin and Blanco are searching for a reason to feel ok for not helping, and are simply trying to imply that the locals deserve what they're getting.
Fact is, it's not too late to help. And I'm personally still waiting for some evidence beyond a speech that this president could care less about any single person that didn't vote for him, especially those in New Orleans.
It cuts both ways: I suspect that many on the right side of the aisle still blaming Nagin and Blanco are searching for a reason to feel ok for not helping, and are simply trying to imply that the locals deserve what they're getting.
Fact is, it's not too late to help. And I'm personally still waiting for some evidence beyond a speech that this president could care less about any single person that didn't vote for him, especially those in New Orleans.
Posted by: jrc at March 03, 2006 06:19 PM (byPnp)
17
There was one made for TV movie and one documentary shown on TV a few month before Katrina struck.Both outlined in detail what would happen.Only the fictitiuos made for TV movie showed the effects not as bad as they proofed to be in reality.
Posted by: berger at March 03, 2006 08:42 PM (rMiZt)
18
No one anticipated the levees failing. No one anticipated terrorists flying planes into buildings. No one anticipated (insert disaster).
Why not? Isn't that what DISASTER PREPAREDNESS means?
Why not? Isn't that what DISASTER PREPAREDNESS means?
Posted by: curious at March 03, 2006 08:49 PM (stZIm)
19
"The disaster response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest, fastest rescue in American history."
Brother, that one takes the cake. I still can't believe you wrote it. Where I come from we call that some sorry s**t. I'll note your name and make sure I skip over your next offering should it come my way. But don't worry, I'm sure you'll find several other like minded people, those not familiar with the reality on the ground. Shame.
Brother, that one takes the cake. I still can't believe you wrote it. Where I come from we call that some sorry s**t. I'll note your name and make sure I skip over your next offering should it come my way. But don't worry, I'm sure you'll find several other like minded people, those not familiar with the reality on the ground. Shame.
Posted by: James B. at March 03, 2006 10:42 PM (8PHZv)
20
James B.: Find a community college, and see if you can develop basic reading comprehension. That statement was a direct quote from Popular Mechanics, not something I originated. It also happens to be true, all the same.
All: The Associated Press just issued what passes for a retraction in the modern media, a clarification that Bush was warned only of the possibility of overwash or topping, not a breach, as I stated above.
The exact wording of their "clarification" is noted in the update to this post.
For those of you who doubted my veracity; hey, no hard feeling.
Here's a parting gift.
All: The Associated Press just issued what passes for a retraction in the modern media, a clarification that Bush was warned only of the possibility of overwash or topping, not a breach, as I stated above.
The exact wording of their "clarification" is noted in the update to this post.
For those of you who doubted my veracity; hey, no hard feeling.
Here's a parting gift.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 03, 2006 11:08 PM (2lbsG)
21
Before attempting to deal out crow, you and those of your ilk should check out the relation of your now precious "topping" and "overwash" as it actually relates to the breaching of levies. But I know you wouldn't let facts get in the way of desperate spin. What's next for Bush, Bill Clinton World? "It depends on what the meaning of the word breach is."
So the hell what if it was in Popular Mechanics, you know the crap you're trying to pull. My comprehension is fine. I just could barely make it past your idiotic sighting or whatever you want to call it. F.Y.I., I seriously doubt you would question my education and comprehension credentials in person, especially if it was in this sort of context. I don't know you therefore I would never slur you like that. When I said yours was some "sorry s**t" I was reacting to what I thought you had written (i.e. your ideas.) Your approach seems an to attempt to discredit as opposed to a critical engagement in total. But I've come across some snarky pricks in my time so it's cool. Honestly, I'm sorry I came back to see if you had posted a response. It now feels like a waste of time and a temporary draining of my soul. You obviously are so blinded by party worship. So enjoy your Republican party as I shall enjoy its contortions.
So the hell what if it was in Popular Mechanics, you know the crap you're trying to pull. My comprehension is fine. I just could barely make it past your idiotic sighting or whatever you want to call it. F.Y.I., I seriously doubt you would question my education and comprehension credentials in person, especially if it was in this sort of context. I don't know you therefore I would never slur you like that. When I said yours was some "sorry s**t" I was reacting to what I thought you had written (i.e. your ideas.) Your approach seems an to attempt to discredit as opposed to a critical engagement in total. But I've come across some snarky pricks in my time so it's cool. Honestly, I'm sorry I came back to see if you had posted a response. It now feels like a waste of time and a temporary draining of my soul. You obviously are so blinded by party worship. So enjoy your Republican party as I shall enjoy its contortions.
Posted by: James B. at March 04, 2006 12:08 AM (8PHZv)
22
After all of this I'm reminded of a Groucho Marx quote: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 12:37 AM (D6UVE)
23
Boy someone opened the doors to the loony bin on this post. Blaming Bush for what was a total and complete failure of the state and city govrnment is total political drivel.
1. N.O. was not hit by Katrina. N.O. was on the NW side of the hurricane and only experianced CAT 1 storm effects.
2. The levee's failed because they were not built correctly and the levee's are managed by local control boards not the FEDS,the corruption of the local GOV caused this whole thing. Billions were given to N.O. to upgrade and refurbish the levee's over the last thirty years and they pissed it away.
3. Governor Blanco told Bush and others that the levee's were not breached and that they were ok. The film of Bush being briefed was before the hurricane hit. If you listen you will keep hearing CAT 5 mentioned.
4. If you live in a city that is below sea level and you have a CAT 3 or better storm heading your way do you evacuate your residents or do you tell them everything is ok? Nagin screwed up big time and Blanco with him.
5. The state response plan was not followed at all either by the city government or the state.
6. FEMA states on their web site that local authorities cannot expect any help from them for at least 72 hours after the storm, what part of that statement do you moonbats not understand? I have been through two CAT 3 storms and they tell you that on the radio and TV here on the Gulf coast over and over again at the beginning of hurricane season.
This whole thing can be laid at the feet of the N.O. city and state government not the FEDS and nothing you say or make up will change that.
1. N.O. was not hit by Katrina. N.O. was on the NW side of the hurricane and only experianced CAT 1 storm effects.
2. The levee's failed because they were not built correctly and the levee's are managed by local control boards not the FEDS,the corruption of the local GOV caused this whole thing. Billions were given to N.O. to upgrade and refurbish the levee's over the last thirty years and they pissed it away.
3. Governor Blanco told Bush and others that the levee's were not breached and that they were ok. The film of Bush being briefed was before the hurricane hit. If you listen you will keep hearing CAT 5 mentioned.
4. If you live in a city that is below sea level and you have a CAT 3 or better storm heading your way do you evacuate your residents or do you tell them everything is ok? Nagin screwed up big time and Blanco with him.
5. The state response plan was not followed at all either by the city government or the state.
6. FEMA states on their web site that local authorities cannot expect any help from them for at least 72 hours after the storm, what part of that statement do you moonbats not understand? I have been through two CAT 3 storms and they tell you that on the radio and TV here on the Gulf coast over and over again at the beginning of hurricane season.
This whole thing can be laid at the feet of the N.O. city and state government not the FEDS and nothing you say or make up will change that.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 03:34 AM (GBYkE)
24
"This whole thing can be laid at the feet of the N.O. city and state government not the FEDS and nothing you say or make up will change that." - Oldcrow
Or you mind, either. Obviously.
Political discourse about in this country no longer has much room for nuance. It's all personal, all binary, all the time. "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up."
I suppose it follows, then, that the folks in NYC were pretty much expected to be on their own for "at least 72 hours" after the twin towers fell. It says so on the FEMA website.
Or you mind, either. Obviously.
Political discourse about in this country no longer has much room for nuance. It's all personal, all binary, all the time. "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up."
I suppose it follows, then, that the folks in NYC were pretty much expected to be on their own for "at least 72 hours" after the twin towers fell. It says so on the FEMA website.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 10:35 AM (IPLDj)
25
The Coast Guard saved 30 THOUSAND people! That was a failure?
Nagin didn't follow his own evacuation plans and had thousands of people stranded in places with no relief logistics. That wasn't a failure?
Blanco doesn't send in the National Guard to maintain order (as has been done in devestating events for decades). That wasn't a failure?
Proportionally more white people died than black in the disaster. That's a racist response to a natural event?
You haters just care about politics, just another way to smear Bush and protect your little Democrat machine in Louisiana. We can all see what this is about, democratically led city and state governments across the country are as corruptly led as New Orleans and Louisiana. When the water recedes, the rocks are exposed.
Keep up the big lie, "Bush caused the hurricane to hurt black people". Yeah, that's the ticket.
Nagin didn't follow his own evacuation plans and had thousands of people stranded in places with no relief logistics. That wasn't a failure?
Blanco doesn't send in the National Guard to maintain order (as has been done in devestating events for decades). That wasn't a failure?
Proportionally more white people died than black in the disaster. That's a racist response to a natural event?
You haters just care about politics, just another way to smear Bush and protect your little Democrat machine in Louisiana. We can all see what this is about, democratically led city and state governments across the country are as corruptly led as New Orleans and Louisiana. When the water recedes, the rocks are exposed.
Keep up the big lie, "Bush caused the hurricane to hurt black people". Yeah, that's the ticket.
Posted by: gm at March 04, 2006 10:39 AM (j+7dt)
26
Thanks Confed for a great post, and thanks oldcrow for your input.
Meanwhile, the moonbats can do nothing but rage, rage, rage. I particularly enjoyed the dude who said "so what if it's in Popular Mechanics". Perfectly sums up the moonbat view. All emotion, all mommy state, ignore anything that doesn't fit into the view they've been fed by kos and atrios et al.
Good luck in 06 nd 08 moonbats. Your like will never achieve national power.
Meanwhile, the moonbats can do nothing but rage, rage, rage. I particularly enjoyed the dude who said "so what if it's in Popular Mechanics". Perfectly sums up the moonbat view. All emotion, all mommy state, ignore anything that doesn't fit into the view they've been fed by kos and atrios et al.
Good luck in 06 nd 08 moonbats. Your like will never achieve national power.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at March 04, 2006 11:08 AM (0OMpe)
27
"You haters just care about politics, just another way to smear Bush and protect your little Democrat machine in Louisiana. We can all see what this is about, democratically led city and state governments across the country are as corruptly led as New Orleans and Louisiana. When the water recedes, the rocks are exposed." - gm
Democrat haters are Satan incarnate but Republican haters are on the side of the angels? Is that it?
Nothing like an 'Our haters who only care about politics are better than your haters who only care about politics' schoolyard scrap.
I expect that if President Reagan and Tip O'Neil were looking down at all this right now, sharing a cocktail as they often did because, for them, it was politics and not personal, if they were looking down at this they'd be shaking their heads sadly saying, "Stupid f**ks."
Democrat haters are Satan incarnate but Republican haters are on the side of the angels? Is that it?
Nothing like an 'Our haters who only care about politics are better than your haters who only care about politics' schoolyard scrap.
I expect that if President Reagan and Tip O'Neil were looking down at all this right now, sharing a cocktail as they often did because, for them, it was politics and not personal, if they were looking down at this they'd be shaking their heads sadly saying, "Stupid f**ks."
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 11:15 AM (IPLDj)
28
"This whole thing can be laid at the feet of the N.O. city and state government not the FEDS and nothing you say or make up will change that." - Oldcrow
"Or you mind, either. Obviously."
First responders *have* to to be local. There are enough not resources for the feds to protect everything at once eveywhere. If you accept that fact, then you must accept the premise that responsibility for the medical/fire/police/rescue is state/local.
"Political discourse about in this country no longer has much room for nuance. It's all personal, all binary, all the time. "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up.""
"I suppose it follows, then, that the folks in NYC were pretty much expected to be on their own for "at least 72 hours" after the twin towers fell. It says so on the FEMA website."
Actually, even in this case. Local firefighters, police and paramedics were on the scene in minutes. They and a lot of ordinary people did their jobs. This is why a lot of them died when the towers collapsed.
Those in the Towers on 9/11 *were* on their own. Some became heroes and helped rescue people. If they had waited for the feds to tell them what to do, thousands more would have died.
Have you ever wondered why it might take 72 hours to get FEMA support up and running? They need to preposition far enough away that they are safe when the disaster hits, then they need to assess the damage and set up communications. Then and only then can they start operations.
"Or you mind, either. Obviously."
First responders *have* to to be local. There are enough not resources for the feds to protect everything at once eveywhere. If you accept that fact, then you must accept the premise that responsibility for the medical/fire/police/rescue is state/local.
"Political discourse about in this country no longer has much room for nuance. It's all personal, all binary, all the time. "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up.""
"I suppose it follows, then, that the folks in NYC were pretty much expected to be on their own for "at least 72 hours" after the twin towers fell. It says so on the FEMA website."
Actually, even in this case. Local firefighters, police and paramedics were on the scene in minutes. They and a lot of ordinary people did their jobs. This is why a lot of them died when the towers collapsed.
Those in the Towers on 9/11 *were* on their own. Some became heroes and helped rescue people. If they had waited for the feds to tell them what to do, thousands more would have died.
Have you ever wondered why it might take 72 hours to get FEMA support up and running? They need to preposition far enough away that they are safe when the disaster hits, then they need to assess the damage and set up communications. Then and only then can they start operations.
Posted by: EKP at March 04, 2006 11:25 AM (zbiCx)
29
Fact: NOAA predicted with a 70% probability, that the hurricane would hit New Orleans as a CAT3 or better, 5 days prior to landfall.
FACT: The City of New Orleans, just like every other major city, has a web page. On that web page was their Emergency Services preparedness plan for several different types of emergencies. Hurricanes, and what to do when they struck, were one of several natural disasters addressed and planned for on that website.
From those two sites alone, you have nearly all the information you need, to correctly deduce who is to blame for the cluster fuck that was New Orleans.
Now, once you have researched, ask yourself these questions.
1. Did the Mayor of New Orleans follow his disaster plan?
2. Did Governor Blanco follow hers?
3. Why was it necessary for the President to call Mayor Nagin and ask him to evacuate that city 46 hours before the hurricane hit, when the city's disaster plan called for that evacuation to already be in place, according to that city's own disaster protocol.
4.Bush offered troops to Blanco nearly 4 days prior to landfall, why did she dither over that decision for nearly two days before making it?
5. What is your understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act?
6. FEMA maintains, and has always maintained that their response should not be expected for nearly 72 hours after a natural disaster. Was this factor ed into New Orleans's disaster plan, as well as the State of Louisiana's, and if so, why were they not ready?
7. How much money per year is given to the City of New Orleans for their levees by the Federal Government, and what was it spent on?
8. The people who sit on the city's Levee Board are charged with inspecting those levees every year, and maintaining them. What did they normally do on their inspection tours? (Hint, a former board member has since spoken out about what their normal day was like. His interview was interesting, but buried, or not even covered by the MSM).
I've not provided any links here, because I want YOU to do the research. I already have, and since I spent 3 months down there after the hurricane, with my guard unit, I've got a better than average idea than what went down. Getting the info from the net was simple, and should be done prior to any of you blasting the Feds/The President, for the cluster fuck that is, and was, the City of New Orleans. That is, if you are honest.
FACT: The City of New Orleans, just like every other major city, has a web page. On that web page was their Emergency Services preparedness plan for several different types of emergencies. Hurricanes, and what to do when they struck, were one of several natural disasters addressed and planned for on that website.
From those two sites alone, you have nearly all the information you need, to correctly deduce who is to blame for the cluster fuck that was New Orleans.
Now, once you have researched, ask yourself these questions.
1. Did the Mayor of New Orleans follow his disaster plan?
2. Did Governor Blanco follow hers?
3. Why was it necessary for the President to call Mayor Nagin and ask him to evacuate that city 46 hours before the hurricane hit, when the city's disaster plan called for that evacuation to already be in place, according to that city's own disaster protocol.
4.Bush offered troops to Blanco nearly 4 days prior to landfall, why did she dither over that decision for nearly two days before making it?
5. What is your understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act?
6. FEMA maintains, and has always maintained that their response should not be expected for nearly 72 hours after a natural disaster. Was this factor ed into New Orleans's disaster plan, as well as the State of Louisiana's, and if so, why were they not ready?
7. How much money per year is given to the City of New Orleans for their levees by the Federal Government, and what was it spent on?
8. The people who sit on the city's Levee Board are charged with inspecting those levees every year, and maintaining them. What did they normally do on their inspection tours? (Hint, a former board member has since spoken out about what their normal day was like. His interview was interesting, but buried, or not even covered by the MSM).
I've not provided any links here, because I want YOU to do the research. I already have, and since I spent 3 months down there after the hurricane, with my guard unit, I've got a better than average idea than what went down. Getting the info from the net was simple, and should be done prior to any of you blasting the Feds/The President, for the cluster fuck that is, and was, the City of New Orleans. That is, if you are honest.
Posted by: Brad at March 04, 2006 11:41 AM (sPkUR)
30
EKP - You're right, of course, in all respects. I do know that only the first responders in NYC, both city and civilian, were there, heroically, to do what needed to be done. And I do know that it won't do to have the materiel and personnel prepositioned for a calamity be taken away by that calamity.
I was just thinking, hey, if I can't singlehandedly raise the tenor of the discourse to a level of simple civility, at least I can have some fun with it and make the point at the same time.
Your reply to me is just that level of civilized debate we should all be having.
You're determined to ruin my fun, EKP.
I was just thinking, hey, if I can't singlehandedly raise the tenor of the discourse to a level of simple civility, at least I can have some fun with it and make the point at the same time.
Your reply to me is just that level of civilized debate we should all be having.
You're determined to ruin my fun, EKP.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 11:44 AM (IPLDj)
31
When are those stupid ass liberals going to wake up and realize G W Bush cannot make a mistake?
Why this man has the intellectual prowess of an Einstein, the artistic skills of a Picasso, the athleticism of Jim Thorpe, and the machismo of John Wayne.
Surely a better man never lived!
Is he the result of a virgin birth? Perhaps the second coming of Christ?
God how lucky the world is to have this miracle man and his disciples!
That, for you conservative flaks in case you couldn't figure out, is sarcasm. Unfortunately I suspect it's very close to how you actually feel about this little nincompoop, or at least how you appear to the rest of us.
Why this man has the intellectual prowess of an Einstein, the artistic skills of a Picasso, the athleticism of Jim Thorpe, and the machismo of John Wayne.
Surely a better man never lived!
Is he the result of a virgin birth? Perhaps the second coming of Christ?
God how lucky the world is to have this miracle man and his disciples!
That, for you conservative flaks in case you couldn't figure out, is sarcasm. Unfortunately I suspect it's very close to how you actually feel about this little nincompoop, or at least how you appear to the rest of us.
Posted by: toM at March 04, 2006 11:54 AM (WUsgc)
32
Pertinent to nothing, today marks the anniversary of the day the U.S. Constitution went into effect.
217 years of '... securing the Blessings of Liberty' and counting.
217 years of '... securing the Blessings of Liberty' and counting.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 12:06 PM (IPLDj)
33
And all this time I thought Planck's constant was
The constant of proportionality relating the energy of a photon to the frequency of that photon. Now I know it is the constant proportionality relating volume of noise generated by a moonbat that is inversely proportional to the knowlege of the moonbat.
In otherwords Max Planck you are a pinhead who drinks cool aid by the gallon.
The constant of proportionality relating the energy of a photon to the frequency of that photon. Now I know it is the constant proportionality relating volume of noise generated by a moonbat that is inversely proportional to the knowlege of the moonbat.
In otherwords Max Planck you are a pinhead who drinks cool aid by the gallon.
Posted by: Not a Yank at March 04, 2006 12:23 PM (7yKae)
34
The political spin both ways is energizing, evidently, to many people, but so predictable, even tedious, despite its heat. But everything does progress through the political process. Once GWB made the decision to go into Iraq using the evidence that he had, the whole political process has taken on a kind of holy war intensity, attacking or defending him. Some, maybe many, people think that fighting continual battles is the way to defend the right, get what you need, whatever.
The left is dying to get GWB any way they can and he is bumbling along giving them plenty of ammunition. Not much of value seems to be happening on either side at the moment..
Am I missing something?
We have learned that in certain kinds of emergencies, neither FEMA nor the local responders are adequately
prepared to respond effectively. It may be that it is
simply too costly to have all the fast, backup, and deep response that this situation would have required. No one on either side of the aisle will come right out and say that, but it may be the hardest fact of all.
Apparently we will pay huge dollars to fight a war, but
that something that IS happening, for better or for worse, not something that MIGHT happen. Paying huge money for things that MIGHT happen and having a lot of people around getting paid with not much to do most of the time is not a political winner for either side.
I do resent how much money is being spent on Iraq, but it is not clear how much of it would go to a better cause, if it weren't being spent there.
Dwight
The left is dying to get GWB any way they can and he is bumbling along giving them plenty of ammunition. Not much of value seems to be happening on either side at the moment..
Am I missing something?
We have learned that in certain kinds of emergencies, neither FEMA nor the local responders are adequately
prepared to respond effectively. It may be that it is
simply too costly to have all the fast, backup, and deep response that this situation would have required. No one on either side of the aisle will come right out and say that, but it may be the hardest fact of all.
Apparently we will pay huge dollars to fight a war, but
that something that IS happening, for better or for worse, not something that MIGHT happen. Paying huge money for things that MIGHT happen and having a lot of people around getting paid with not much to do most of the time is not a political winner for either side.
I do resent how much money is being spent on Iraq, but it is not clear how much of it would go to a better cause, if it weren't being spent there.
Dwight
Posted by: dwight at March 04, 2006 12:26 PM (HCesK)
35
Hey, don't be too hard on the media. Consider its predicament - it's stuck in that 1972 time warp and can't get out. Oppressed women and oppressed blacks can do no wrong, by definition. So who to blame for not having crystal balls and magic wands? The guy on the spot, the mayor of NO? Oops, can't blame him, he's an untouchable. So go up the ladder, to the governor of LA. Oops, can't blame her, she's an untouchable too. So go up further to the federal level. Thank God, a white guy at last. He's fair game.
So, from there the story pretty much writes itself. Facts don't come into it - the dialectic points the way to truth, as always.
So, from there the story pretty much writes itself. Facts don't come into it - the dialectic points the way to truth, as always.
Posted by: tom swift at March 04, 2006 12:27 PM (UvdPl)
36
Damn, you guys have a really bad hippy infestation here. It would be nice if the left had the ability to think logically. They have the arguing skills of little kids. I guess that's what happens when everything you believe in is wrong and stupid. Then logic becomes the enemy of your beliefs.
Posted by: Stankleberry at March 04, 2006 12:28 PM (rKx58)
37
Good grief. As a resident of the Gulf Coast who experienced Katrina I just can't believe all the crap that's being written about the response.
1. Just a note: 9/11 did not wipe out an entire city or region---like a hurricane. (Sadly) city emergency workers were available to respond quickly. This is certainly not to minimize 9/11. It's simply not a good comparison.
2. Far too many people in N.O. either didn't evacuate or waited too late. Response to a disaster is much like triage: difficult priorities have to be set. With so many people remaining behind, the immediate priority was to pluck people from their rooftops and attics. Yes, they got dropped off on some mighty hot and uncomfortable highway overpasses...but they were ALIVE. They were left there because every chopper, boat, etc. was still assigned to rescue people who would die otherwise. I never heard one single person on those overpasses wish they were back in their attic.
3. The city decided at the last moment to use the dome and convention center as emergency shelters, despite their not being stocked with emergency supplies or manned with trained personnel. Have you ever been to an emergency shelter? They ALWAYS have adequate security, medical staff, makeshift kitchens, etc. In N.O. they didn't even provide emergency lighting, leaving the occupants in a dark hell hole. This was a LOCAL failure to plan adequately even though they had ample warning. (No need to rehash the flooded school buses.) The absolute worst was the failure to evacuate those who couldn't help themselves---hospitals, nursing homes, etc. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
4. After the storm we always know we're on our own for at least a few days. It's miserable. Hot. Dirty. Trees to be cut. Roof needs tarping. Neighbors to help. Go to bed worn out, but it's too hot to sleep. And there's no coffee to help you stay awake! Stores are all closed and there's no gas to be had for 100's of miles.
Stand on line in the hot sun for hours just to get some ice and water. Just awful. YET...I never heard one person complain about "the government". We simply presumed they were helping those whose needs were greater than ours.
4. Speaking of government, our local officials were on the radio constantly keeping us informed. It was bad. Crews were clearing and repairing main thoroughfares, but we should stay home as much as possible. Emergency provision sites were set up near neighborhoods so we could walk with our little wagons, wheelbarrows, etc. Never, ever did any official complain or whine about a slow response from outsiders. They drove home the message that we had to help ourselves and each other for a few days. Having gone back and watched the footage I can't find one single time Nagin was seen passing along helpful information to his citizens after the storm.
Some people did eventually complain about how long it was taking to get the power back on. But again, priorities were set. Crews focused on grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, etc. I can't tell you how happy I was the day I could go to the store and buy milk, bread and ice. Those who complained missed the fact that those crews couldn't work in the neighborhoods anyway until fallen trees were cleared...which took several weeks.
This is long, so what's my point? Hurricane aftermath is miserable. Katrina was the worst ever. And our area only had wind damage, not flooding over the roofs of our houses. I just don't understand people thinking any person or agency could set up an instant response in such a devastated area...other than life-saving rescue, which was apparently done amazingly well. I'm sick of everyone trying to make goats out of people who were trying to find a way to help...while the local government seemed to be making that job harder by going on TV to set new priority demands every few hours.
And I hope the lesson has been learned: either evacuate early or make advance preparations so your family can survive unassisted for several days.
1. Just a note: 9/11 did not wipe out an entire city or region---like a hurricane. (Sadly) city emergency workers were available to respond quickly. This is certainly not to minimize 9/11. It's simply not a good comparison.
2. Far too many people in N.O. either didn't evacuate or waited too late. Response to a disaster is much like triage: difficult priorities have to be set. With so many people remaining behind, the immediate priority was to pluck people from their rooftops and attics. Yes, they got dropped off on some mighty hot and uncomfortable highway overpasses...but they were ALIVE. They were left there because every chopper, boat, etc. was still assigned to rescue people who would die otherwise. I never heard one single person on those overpasses wish they were back in their attic.
3. The city decided at the last moment to use the dome and convention center as emergency shelters, despite their not being stocked with emergency supplies or manned with trained personnel. Have you ever been to an emergency shelter? They ALWAYS have adequate security, medical staff, makeshift kitchens, etc. In N.O. they didn't even provide emergency lighting, leaving the occupants in a dark hell hole. This was a LOCAL failure to plan adequately even though they had ample warning. (No need to rehash the flooded school buses.) The absolute worst was the failure to evacuate those who couldn't help themselves---hospitals, nursing homes, etc. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
4. After the storm we always know we're on our own for at least a few days. It's miserable. Hot. Dirty. Trees to be cut. Roof needs tarping. Neighbors to help. Go to bed worn out, but it's too hot to sleep. And there's no coffee to help you stay awake! Stores are all closed and there's no gas to be had for 100's of miles.
Stand on line in the hot sun for hours just to get some ice and water. Just awful. YET...I never heard one person complain about "the government". We simply presumed they were helping those whose needs were greater than ours.
4. Speaking of government, our local officials were on the radio constantly keeping us informed. It was bad. Crews were clearing and repairing main thoroughfares, but we should stay home as much as possible. Emergency provision sites were set up near neighborhoods so we could walk with our little wagons, wheelbarrows, etc. Never, ever did any official complain or whine about a slow response from outsiders. They drove home the message that we had to help ourselves and each other for a few days. Having gone back and watched the footage I can't find one single time Nagin was seen passing along helpful information to his citizens after the storm.
Some people did eventually complain about how long it was taking to get the power back on. But again, priorities were set. Crews focused on grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, etc. I can't tell you how happy I was the day I could go to the store and buy milk, bread and ice. Those who complained missed the fact that those crews couldn't work in the neighborhoods anyway until fallen trees were cleared...which took several weeks.
This is long, so what's my point? Hurricane aftermath is miserable. Katrina was the worst ever. And our area only had wind damage, not flooding over the roofs of our houses. I just don't understand people thinking any person or agency could set up an instant response in such a devastated area...other than life-saving rescue, which was apparently done amazingly well. I'm sick of everyone trying to make goats out of people who were trying to find a way to help...while the local government seemed to be making that job harder by going on TV to set new priority demands every few hours.
And I hope the lesson has been learned: either evacuate early or make advance preparations so your family can survive unassisted for several days.
Posted by: jeanneB at March 04, 2006 12:33 PM (c1CUF)
38
Meanwhile, those of us who have chosen not to live in a flood zone or behind a man-made levee or within 25 miles of a coast continued to be taxed to pay to bail out those who do. Remember Hurricane Camille?
Posted by: Letalis at March 04, 2006 12:39 PM (OqPFi)
39
"In otherwords Max Planck you are a pinhead who drinks cool aid by the gallon." - Not a Yank
I'm always open to high-minded criticism. Thank you. You're probably right.
I'm always open to high-minded criticism. Thank you. You're probably right.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 12:42 PM (IPLDj)
40
I agree wholeheartedly. Insurance rates should reflect risk. But your 25 mile swath is too broad. Hurricane flooding generally happens close to shore...even 5 miles is very extreme.
Now, when it comes to being BELOW SEA LEVEL, that's a no-brainer. Sorry, New Orleans. I just can't see re-insuring a sinking city that's already a bowl waiting to be filled.
Now, when it comes to being BELOW SEA LEVEL, that's a no-brainer. Sorry, New Orleans. I just can't see re-insuring a sinking city that's already a bowl waiting to be filled.
Posted by: jeanneB at March 04, 2006 12:54 PM (c1CUF)
41
JeanneB, I notice that you're the only person posting here who actually, you know, experienced this storm from somewhere other than the comfort of the easy chair watching cable news.
My inlaws lived in Gulfport a few blocks north of the CSX tracks, which held back the storm surge from Camille, a Category 5 storm. I was in the Coast Guard at that time and, coincidentally, my ship was dispatched to the Gulf for the days following that storm. Everyone agreed, at the time, that Camille was a once-in-a-century storm.
The storm surge from Katrina, not a Category 5 storm, DID get past the railroad tracks - by more than a mile. The families north of the tracks who chose to hunker down and ride it out, based on their Camille experience, met a bad end, including members of my inlaws' families.
Your post should open some eyes and shut some mouths. Mine, included.
My inlaws lived in Gulfport a few blocks north of the CSX tracks, which held back the storm surge from Camille, a Category 5 storm. I was in the Coast Guard at that time and, coincidentally, my ship was dispatched to the Gulf for the days following that storm. Everyone agreed, at the time, that Camille was a once-in-a-century storm.
The storm surge from Katrina, not a Category 5 storm, DID get past the railroad tracks - by more than a mile. The families north of the tracks who chose to hunker down and ride it out, based on their Camille experience, met a bad end, including members of my inlaws' families.
Your post should open some eyes and shut some mouths. Mine, included.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 01:05 PM (IPLDj)
42
The grasping at straws by Bush-hating moonbats evidenced in this comment thread is really part of the the normal cycle associated with grieving. And they have much about which to grieve. See, one of their biggest phony memes just got blown up.
Here are the stages, of which several are evident:
Denial -- Big time. My favorite - "binary" - why do lefties hate right and wrong so much?
Anger -- Besides the normal anger associated with the "hate Bush" crowd, they're angry now because another phony meme just got exposed for the scam it was. And to be betrayed by the MSM!
Bargaining -- It'll come - "I'll trade you a Katrina for a Dubai Ports meme."
Depression -- Hard to detected in lefties - they're pretty depressing folks all the time anyway.
Acceptance -- Logical step once all other lies and avenues have been blocked. But being who they are, Lefties are not likely to accept anything - they just get crazier. Acceptance of reality in Lefty circles is akin to "impure thought."
Here are the stages, of which several are evident:
Denial -- Big time. My favorite - "binary" - why do lefties hate right and wrong so much?
Anger -- Besides the normal anger associated with the "hate Bush" crowd, they're angry now because another phony meme just got exposed for the scam it was. And to be betrayed by the MSM!
Bargaining -- It'll come - "I'll trade you a Katrina for a Dubai Ports meme."
Depression -- Hard to detected in lefties - they're pretty depressing folks all the time anyway.
Acceptance -- Logical step once all other lies and avenues have been blocked. But being who they are, Lefties are not likely to accept anything - they just get crazier. Acceptance of reality in Lefty circles is akin to "impure thought."
Posted by: Michael at March 04, 2006 01:05 PM (cz2aK)
43
I have literally stopped watching and listening to all news via the MSM. Nothing they say or write can be believed without first being verified by the New Media. Now that their asses are being fact-checked (something that did not occur, ever, until the past few years), they put out prominent lies followed by buried retractions that only bloggers and Rush ferret out. The MSM is so past their sell-by date they are noxious.
This damage to their credibility is causing people to discount the magnitude of true disasters and true mishandling, so it's not only the MSM doing damage to itself but to institutions on which we all depend.
I'm to the point where the word "Katrina" is a joke. This can't be a good thing.
This damage to their credibility is causing people to discount the magnitude of true disasters and true mishandling, so it's not only the MSM doing damage to itself but to institutions on which we all depend.
I'm to the point where the word "Katrina" is a joke. This can't be a good thing.
Posted by: Peg C. at March 04, 2006 01:12 PM (OpyxE)
44
"This whole thing can be laid at the feet of the N.O. city and state government not the FEDS and nothing you say or make up will change that." - Oldcrow
Or you mind, either. Obviously.
Political discourse about in this country no longer has much room for nuance. It's all personal, all binary, all the time. "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up."
I suppose it follows, then, that the folks in NYC were pretty much expected to be on their own for "at least 72 hours" after the twin towers fell. It says so on the FEMA website.
Posted by max planck at March 4, 2006 10:35 AM
Max this is not a political issue and never was until the DEMS made it one in order to cover their asses. As for a debate, the response has been gone over again and again and Bush and specifically FEMA had some blame but most 90% is the city and state government the facts bair that out yet the DEMS insist on trying to lay this at the feet of Bush so at a certain point it stops being a rational debate and at that point I really don't care about what you moonbats think I post for the lurkers who come here not you, in other words you and the rest of the monnbats can kiss my pimply white ass! New York and 9/11 were completely different and you raise a strawman argument. Obvioisly you have never been in a hurricane zone so let me explain what it is like to be hit by a CAT 3 or higher hurricane. Imagine an F-2 tornado that is 400 miles wide and takes 12 hours to pass over you I am in the military and I have seen the aftermath of a major battle, the MS coast looked worse than anything I have ever seen. Look at the pictures everything within 20 miles of the coast from N.O. to Mobil AL was gone I dont mean destroyed I mean gone as in not even the foundations were left, so yes 9/11 was bad but there is no comparison to the destruction done by Katrina and just so you know yes NYC handled all the 9/11 response on their own because they had responsible competent leadership unlike N.O. and LA.
Or you mind, either. Obviously.
Political discourse about in this country no longer has much room for nuance. It's all personal, all binary, all the time. "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up."
I suppose it follows, then, that the folks in NYC were pretty much expected to be on their own for "at least 72 hours" after the twin towers fell. It says so on the FEMA website.
Posted by max planck at March 4, 2006 10:35 AM
Max this is not a political issue and never was until the DEMS made it one in order to cover their asses. As for a debate, the response has been gone over again and again and Bush and specifically FEMA had some blame but most 90% is the city and state government the facts bair that out yet the DEMS insist on trying to lay this at the feet of Bush so at a certain point it stops being a rational debate and at that point I really don't care about what you moonbats think I post for the lurkers who come here not you, in other words you and the rest of the monnbats can kiss my pimply white ass! New York and 9/11 were completely different and you raise a strawman argument. Obvioisly you have never been in a hurricane zone so let me explain what it is like to be hit by a CAT 3 or higher hurricane. Imagine an F-2 tornado that is 400 miles wide and takes 12 hours to pass over you I am in the military and I have seen the aftermath of a major battle, the MS coast looked worse than anything I have ever seen. Look at the pictures everything within 20 miles of the coast from N.O. to Mobil AL was gone I dont mean destroyed I mean gone as in not even the foundations were left, so yes 9/11 was bad but there is no comparison to the destruction done by Katrina and just so you know yes NYC handled all the 9/11 response on their own because they had responsible competent leadership unlike N.O. and LA.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 01:31 PM (GBYkE)
45
JeanneB, I notice that you're the only person posting here who actually, you know, experienced this storm from somewhere other than the comfort of the easy chair watching cable news.
Posted by max planck at March 4, 2006 01:05 PM
I live in Pensacola and personnely experianced Ivan(CAT 3), Dennis(CAT 4) and Katrina(CAT 3)just to give you an idea of how bad Katrina was N.O. is over 400 miles from here and we got hurricane force winds and lost power for three days and Dwight you are right some things you just cannot be prepared for no matter how much you wish it was not so a major hurricane CAT 3 or higher is a biblical disaster you just cannot be prepared for it that is why Nagin and Blanco are so F@@Ked up they should have ordered and evacution 92 hours before the storm hit.
Posted by max planck at March 4, 2006 01:05 PM
I live in Pensacola and personnely experianced Ivan(CAT 3), Dennis(CAT 4) and Katrina(CAT 3)just to give you an idea of how bad Katrina was N.O. is over 400 miles from here and we got hurricane force winds and lost power for three days and Dwight you are right some things you just cannot be prepared for no matter how much you wish it was not so a major hurricane CAT 3 or higher is a biblical disaster you just cannot be prepared for it that is why Nagin and Blanco are so F@@Ked up they should have ordered and evacution 92 hours before the storm hit.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 01:44 PM (GBYkE)
46
Oldcrow, I appreciate your reply.
Just for the record, I was in the military, the Coast Guard, and was a respondee to Hurricanes Camille and Agnes. I was on deck as bodies were pulled from the waters of the Gulf and from Chesapeake Bay. I'm told that those who followed me gave a good account of themselves in NO after Katrina. That said, I grew up in coastal New England and remember Hurricane Gracie (Cat. 4) and the dozen storms that came after her, though I appreciate your primer on tropical cyclones.
I don't know what makes you think I'm a Dem. All about which I commented was for respectful discourse. Respect is neither a lefty or righty perogative. And I don't believe any of my comments here laid anything at the feet of the President (or anyone else, for that matter).
That said, I'll pass on the opportunity to 'kiss your pimply white ass', sir. If you don't mind.
Just for the record, I was in the military, the Coast Guard, and was a respondee to Hurricanes Camille and Agnes. I was on deck as bodies were pulled from the waters of the Gulf and from Chesapeake Bay. I'm told that those who followed me gave a good account of themselves in NO after Katrina. That said, I grew up in coastal New England and remember Hurricane Gracie (Cat. 4) and the dozen storms that came after her, though I appreciate your primer on tropical cyclones.
I don't know what makes you think I'm a Dem. All about which I commented was for respectful discourse. Respect is neither a lefty or righty perogative. And I don't believe any of my comments here laid anything at the feet of the President (or anyone else, for that matter).
That said, I'll pass on the opportunity to 'kiss your pimply white ass', sir. If you don't mind.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 01:54 PM (arBCe)
47
Max,
Thanks for your service, I am in the Navy and I respect the Coast Guard a lot worked with them during Iraqi Freedom those guys did a fantastic job and continue to do so. I apologize for calling you a moonbat I get revved up to much sometimes by the otusement of the moonbats and I just start firng for effect and sometimes cause collateral damage. I am sick and tired of the lies it is stopping us from having a real discourse in order to fix the problem and make our response plans better.
Thanks for your service, I am in the Navy and I respect the Coast Guard a lot worked with them during Iraqi Freedom those guys did a fantastic job and continue to do so. I apologize for calling you a moonbat I get revved up to much sometimes by the otusement of the moonbats and I just start firng for effect and sometimes cause collateral damage. I am sick and tired of the lies it is stopping us from having a real discourse in order to fix the problem and make our response plans better.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 02:01 PM (GBYkE)
48
I would still like to know who was responsible for hospital and nursing home evacuation. In my city it was the mayor---on advice from the Emergency Response Director. On Wednesday, 4 days before landfall, they triggered that part of the emergency plan (evacuation sites had been pre-determined for all such facilities). Patients were moved on Thursday.
Nothing speaks to the incompetence of N.O.'s local gov't more than their leaving the old, sick and handicapped to die in the storm surge. I recently saw some video of Veterans Hospital patients arriving at their new facility in Washington after spending a hellish week in N.O. It just broke my heart. And remember the guy who blubbered on Meet the Press about calling his 90-year-old mother at her nursing home before the storm? Why the hell wasn't he raising holy hell with other local officials asking why she and her kind hadn't been evacuated?! I recall that some nursing home operators are being prosecuted. I just wish they could prosecute whatever officials didn't make them leave.
Nothing speaks to the incompetence of N.O.'s local gov't more than their leaving the old, sick and handicapped to die in the storm surge. I recently saw some video of Veterans Hospital patients arriving at their new facility in Washington after spending a hellish week in N.O. It just broke my heart. And remember the guy who blubbered on Meet the Press about calling his 90-year-old mother at her nursing home before the storm? Why the hell wasn't he raising holy hell with other local officials asking why she and her kind hadn't been evacuated?! I recall that some nursing home operators are being prosecuted. I just wish they could prosecute whatever officials didn't make them leave.
Posted by: jeanneB at March 04, 2006 02:09 PM (c1CUF)
49
Fair enough, Oldcrow. As you know, I'm looking for real discourse, too, with a dash of civility added in. Left or right, the American people are saying 'A pox on both your houses' because of the lack of civility, especially in these perilous times. I love my country and it's painful to see vitally important issues eclipsed by vitriolic rhetoric on the parts of both sides of these issues. They're too important to let the message be overshadowed by the its delivery. It's like an arms race of rhetoric. For every name someone's called, someone has a bigger, badder one in reply, and so on.
That said ...
In '70 I had the pleasure working with the Navy in 'Nam - Operation Market Time, '71. It was a successful joint USN-USCG op to block materiel headed for NVA by rivers and estuaries.
Thanks, too, for your service.
That said ...
In '70 I had the pleasure working with the Navy in 'Nam - Operation Market Time, '71. It was a successful joint USN-USCG op to block materiel headed for NVA by rivers and estuaries.
Thanks, too, for your service.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 02:25 PM (arBCe)
50
The Left have gone from "Bush Knew about Katrina!" and "Bush Lied about the Levees!" to "Bush seemed disengaged," "Bush did not ask the appropriate questions," and "Bush was not paying the appropriate attention to details."
Some on the Left are just upset because their new consensus does not fit on a bumper sticker or button.
Some on the Left are just upset because their new consensus does not fit on a bumper sticker or button.
Posted by: MnZ at March 04, 2006 05:38 PM (t54Ze)
51
And remember the guy who blubbered on Meet the Press about calling his 90-year-old mother at her nursing home before the storm? Why the hell wasn't he raising holy hell with other local officials asking why she and her kind hadn't been evacuated?! I recall that some nursing home operators are being prosecuted. I just wish they could prosecute whatever officials didn't make them leave.
Posted by jeanneB at March 4, 2006 02:09 PM
Because like so many of the stories coming out of N.O. he was lieing that never occurred, turns out his mother had been moved and yes some of the nursing home operators are being prosocuted.
Posted by jeanneB at March 4, 2006 02:09 PM
Because like so many of the stories coming out of N.O. he was lieing that never occurred, turns out his mother had been moved and yes some of the nursing home operators are being prosocuted.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 05:42 PM (GBYkE)
52
Max,
You are correct but I submit that the left have been the primary cause of this why? Because they believe Bush is not a legitimate President remember in thier minds he stole the election in 00 and 04 and also they wan't payback for the Clinton impeachment(which I thought was wrong and still do he did not commit an impeachable offense and I am ashamed of my party for doing it) all this combined with the total bias and outright lieing and misleading from the MSM and things just tend to escalate. A prime example is the 9/11 commission Bush was right to not want it done during an election year and it turned into a travesty how do I know this? Well I work in the INTEL community and ask anyone who is in that community and they will tell you it was a sad sad joke it did nothing to make us safer if anything it made us less safe becuase you added a layer of red tape to the mix and that is always a bad thing. The DEMS have no intention of offering any rational dialogue to the debate all they have is Angst,Anger and Rhetoric no solutions, They are totally focused on getting Bush and nothing else matters to them, it is almost like they are running a candidate against Bush not realizing he is not going to run in 08 because he can't meanwhile all of us lose and pay a price because of it. We need a two party system in this country it is healthy but the DEM party is no longer rational and therefore I hope it go's down the tubes, hopefully a new party will step into it's place soon and start a rational dialogue with the majority party.
You are correct but I submit that the left have been the primary cause of this why? Because they believe Bush is not a legitimate President remember in thier minds he stole the election in 00 and 04 and also they wan't payback for the Clinton impeachment(which I thought was wrong and still do he did not commit an impeachable offense and I am ashamed of my party for doing it) all this combined with the total bias and outright lieing and misleading from the MSM and things just tend to escalate. A prime example is the 9/11 commission Bush was right to not want it done during an election year and it turned into a travesty how do I know this? Well I work in the INTEL community and ask anyone who is in that community and they will tell you it was a sad sad joke it did nothing to make us safer if anything it made us less safe becuase you added a layer of red tape to the mix and that is always a bad thing. The DEMS have no intention of offering any rational dialogue to the debate all they have is Angst,Anger and Rhetoric no solutions, They are totally focused on getting Bush and nothing else matters to them, it is almost like they are running a candidate against Bush not realizing he is not going to run in 08 because he can't meanwhile all of us lose and pay a price because of it. We need a two party system in this country it is healthy but the DEM party is no longer rational and therefore I hope it go's down the tubes, hopefully a new party will step into it's place soon and start a rational dialogue with the majority party.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 05:56 PM (GBYkE)
53
I'm still waiting to hear someone respond to the solid questions from Brad, above. Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by: cdiddy at March 04, 2006 05:58 PM (1mq5k)
54
I'm still waiting to hear someone respond to the solid questions from Brad, above. Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by cdiddy at March 4, 2006 05:58 PM
I would not even go there my blood pressure is already to high, I know the answers to those questions and if I thought about them I would really get angry.
Posted by cdiddy at March 4, 2006 05:58 PM
I would not even go there my blood pressure is already to high, I know the answers to those questions and if I thought about them I would really get angry.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 06:05 PM (GBYkE)
55
Oldcrow,
Liberal and conservative positions both make valid arguments and those true to their positions are each patriots. These positions are the bases for a two-party system which, as you say, we do need because the U.S. is too large and too diverse for one-size-fits-all policies; the needs and problems of Pensacola, FL are different, for example, than those of Utica, NY. There are national priorities and there are local priorities (whereof comes the famous observation that 'all politics are local). All public office holders swear to preserve and protect the same Constitution.
That said, at the national level, the Democratic Party is abysmally out-of-touch with its constituency, but then, so is the Republican Party. Your point, though, is essentially that the Democrats have no 'message' other than "Republicans Bad - Democrats Good". The Republican Party has the same message but it's an implicit part of a larger, much better articulated message. As for me, I dismiss out-of-hand any messages from fringes of either party as pandering to the small constituency that agrees with them and is in no way inclusive of other ideas.
I haven't said for which party I have historically voted, nor will I, but for damn sure I won't vote for a candidate that panders, nor for one on the fringe, left or right. I WILL listen to reason, whichever party, and decide if that's what I think America needs when the time comes to make that decision. Right now the Democratic Party has no 'reason'. And neither party recognizes Utica, NY, if you know what I mean. The American people come from Utica, NY and Pensacola, FL and NYC and Ames, Iowa and Ogden, UT and everywhere in between and from their perspectives, when politicians talk, they don't hear how to bring the economy back in Utica (because They closed Griffiss AFB) or how They're going to sell the Wasatch Nat'l Forest off outside Ogden, or why No-one's done anything to help the commodity prices that have tanked in Ames. Or why new economy jobs are going to South Asia. Or why they can't fire bad teachers. All problems going back a decade or more, so both parties have a piece of that action. What they hear when politicians talk is that it's all about them, the politicians, and not them, the constituents.
And they're sick and tired of the rhetoric. They're sick and tired of earmarks (except, you know, their own particular ones). They're sick and tired of the crooks - and both parties have plenty of them. They're sick and tired of whatever party is in power right now, and neither is really doing a good job of convincing the farmer in Ames or the unemployed in Utica what the Party is doing for them. They get talking points from the Republicans and much of nothing but complaints about Republicans from the Democrats.
So, a two-party system is good and we need two parties to have one. I hope that the Democratic Party either gets their act together or steps aside for someone who better articulates. It will be good for both parties and good for America.
I meant what I said earlier - about President Reagan and Tip O'Neill. The politics was vicious but at the end of the day they could have a nip and talk old times and be able to look each other in the eye with respect. Disagreement, yes, but respect.
[This rambles but I'm loathe to spend more time to re-read it. I'll take my chances that some of it made sense. Besides, it's dinnertime.]
Liberal and conservative positions both make valid arguments and those true to their positions are each patriots. These positions are the bases for a two-party system which, as you say, we do need because the U.S. is too large and too diverse for one-size-fits-all policies; the needs and problems of Pensacola, FL are different, for example, than those of Utica, NY. There are national priorities and there are local priorities (whereof comes the famous observation that 'all politics are local). All public office holders swear to preserve and protect the same Constitution.
That said, at the national level, the Democratic Party is abysmally out-of-touch with its constituency, but then, so is the Republican Party. Your point, though, is essentially that the Democrats have no 'message' other than "Republicans Bad - Democrats Good". The Republican Party has the same message but it's an implicit part of a larger, much better articulated message. As for me, I dismiss out-of-hand any messages from fringes of either party as pandering to the small constituency that agrees with them and is in no way inclusive of other ideas.
I haven't said for which party I have historically voted, nor will I, but for damn sure I won't vote for a candidate that panders, nor for one on the fringe, left or right. I WILL listen to reason, whichever party, and decide if that's what I think America needs when the time comes to make that decision. Right now the Democratic Party has no 'reason'. And neither party recognizes Utica, NY, if you know what I mean. The American people come from Utica, NY and Pensacola, FL and NYC and Ames, Iowa and Ogden, UT and everywhere in between and from their perspectives, when politicians talk, they don't hear how to bring the economy back in Utica (because They closed Griffiss AFB) or how They're going to sell the Wasatch Nat'l Forest off outside Ogden, or why No-one's done anything to help the commodity prices that have tanked in Ames. Or why new economy jobs are going to South Asia. Or why they can't fire bad teachers. All problems going back a decade or more, so both parties have a piece of that action. What they hear when politicians talk is that it's all about them, the politicians, and not them, the constituents.
And they're sick and tired of the rhetoric. They're sick and tired of earmarks (except, you know, their own particular ones). They're sick and tired of the crooks - and both parties have plenty of them. They're sick and tired of whatever party is in power right now, and neither is really doing a good job of convincing the farmer in Ames or the unemployed in Utica what the Party is doing for them. They get talking points from the Republicans and much of nothing but complaints about Republicans from the Democrats.
So, a two-party system is good and we need two parties to have one. I hope that the Democratic Party either gets their act together or steps aside for someone who better articulates. It will be good for both parties and good for America.
I meant what I said earlier - about President Reagan and Tip O'Neill. The politics was vicious but at the end of the day they could have a nip and talk old times and be able to look each other in the eye with respect. Disagreement, yes, but respect.
[This rambles but I'm loathe to spend more time to re-read it. I'll take my chances that some of it made sense. Besides, it's dinnertime.]
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 07:38 PM (jZCRI)
56
Max,
No you did not ramble very good post. I love this country and it's people and I agree that our "representitives" in Washington have lost site of the fact they work for us and not the other way around however, what really bothers me and why I tend to get spun up at the DEMS and LIBS in particular is their blatant anti-Americanism aided by the MSM. I grew up in a union loving Democratic household but that was what I refer to as the old Democratic party that in the end believed in the greatness of this country, they just had a difference of opinion with how to make it better in other words it was an argument over process not policy now though since the sixties that has changed. It is now mainstream in the DEM party that America is an evil imperialistic nation and needs to be brought down a notch or two. I can never accept this point of view I would even say I reject it in the most agressive way I can mostly through words and debate. My hope is some day as I said either the DEM party rejects the people who are currently causing them to go off the track or as you said they step aside and let some other rational party take its place. As for the Republican party they are off the path also it seems to me and I believe the majority of the grass roots that our REPS in Washington have contracted a severe case of Potomac fever and no longer believe in the core conservitive principles they espouse they believe in and I really don't know how we are going to get them to get back on track I call and email my Congress critter and Senator all the time to let them know I am really getting frustrated with them and all I ever get is a form letter back or some lackey answering the phone in their office feeding me the standard feel good BS talking points. I really wish we had a viable third party along the lines of what Ross Perot started that really put the fear into them and why we got the contract with America but we have lost our way since then.
No you did not ramble very good post. I love this country and it's people and I agree that our "representitives" in Washington have lost site of the fact they work for us and not the other way around however, what really bothers me and why I tend to get spun up at the DEMS and LIBS in particular is their blatant anti-Americanism aided by the MSM. I grew up in a union loving Democratic household but that was what I refer to as the old Democratic party that in the end believed in the greatness of this country, they just had a difference of opinion with how to make it better in other words it was an argument over process not policy now though since the sixties that has changed. It is now mainstream in the DEM party that America is an evil imperialistic nation and needs to be brought down a notch or two. I can never accept this point of view I would even say I reject it in the most agressive way I can mostly through words and debate. My hope is some day as I said either the DEM party rejects the people who are currently causing them to go off the track or as you said they step aside and let some other rational party take its place. As for the Republican party they are off the path also it seems to me and I believe the majority of the grass roots that our REPS in Washington have contracted a severe case of Potomac fever and no longer believe in the core conservitive principles they espouse they believe in and I really don't know how we are going to get them to get back on track I call and email my Congress critter and Senator all the time to let them know I am really getting frustrated with them and all I ever get is a form letter back or some lackey answering the phone in their office feeding me the standard feel good BS talking points. I really wish we had a viable third party along the lines of what Ross Perot started that really put the fear into them and why we got the contract with America but we have lost our way since then.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 08:49 PM (GBYkE)
57
Oldcrow (is this an homage to Kentucky whiskey?),
There are members of both parties are off the reservation, in their own ways, I guess. I have a hard time, though, painting anyone 'anti-american' with so broad a brush as to lasso a whole political party and I think you probably do, too. I get the same response, by the by, from many of my own reps. The one who does have the courtesy, though, to reply less impersonally I rarely agree with. This, as it turns out, has been good for us both. I get to test my own beliefs and he gets to test his and - most importantly - we've both seen points we'd not otherwise have considered. I think he gets the better part of the bargain because he's in a position to do something with them. We get together to argue whenever he's in town and, heated might it get sometimes, we walk away friendly and look forward to the next time.
THIS is how political debate should be conducted. We're inundated more than enough with talking points and spin and doctrine and rigidity.
I absolutely agree with your insightful observation about the 'old Democratic party'. Where did THEY go off the reservation? How did they end up with Clinton and Gore and Ted Kennedy. Personally, I think they were sunk when Bobby Kennedy was killed and four years later they ran George McGovern. George McGovern! Whatever moral high ground they may have had they ceded with that bizarre nomination. (you should read Ted White's "The Making of a President - 1972". Seriously, Oldcrow, you should read it if you haven't already. It was a cautionary tale whose point no-one got, Dem or Repl., but mostly Dem. Personally, I believe this was where the Democratic Party went off the reservation.)
As a collorary to your very good point about the value of a two-party system I'd go as far as to say that the best governing has always been when the legislative and executive branches are held by different parties. Doesn't matter which holds which. This provides the best checks and balances going. It opens the political process to the bright light of review by peers and public and that is good. I like the idea of people who disagree with me keeping me honest.
As far as MSM is concerned, they're off the reservation much of the time, too. The thing is, though, the alternatives' best purposes are served where people who disagree are concerned - like my rep and me. The problem with that is that too often the non-MSM are viewed and read mostly by people who already agree with them. That's a little too much 'inside baseball' for me. Some people read it all, MSM and non-MSM of both colors, and then form their opinions. I do. Then I know I've got the whole story and not just the McNuggets. It's hard to know who to trust, these days. Having the whole story, so to speak, helps.
Let me ask you a provocative question: Is there any democrat holding a public office that you can point to and say, "His/her policies make me want to tear out my hair, but he/she isn't evil"? My rep is my example.
It's going to be interesting to see, long after you and I are gone, how history will treat the last 20 years of US politics.
Another long-winded blather from me. I appreciate your thoughtful replies.
There are members of both parties are off the reservation, in their own ways, I guess. I have a hard time, though, painting anyone 'anti-american' with so broad a brush as to lasso a whole political party and I think you probably do, too. I get the same response, by the by, from many of my own reps. The one who does have the courtesy, though, to reply less impersonally I rarely agree with. This, as it turns out, has been good for us both. I get to test my own beliefs and he gets to test his and - most importantly - we've both seen points we'd not otherwise have considered. I think he gets the better part of the bargain because he's in a position to do something with them. We get together to argue whenever he's in town and, heated might it get sometimes, we walk away friendly and look forward to the next time.
THIS is how political debate should be conducted. We're inundated more than enough with talking points and spin and doctrine and rigidity.
I absolutely agree with your insightful observation about the 'old Democratic party'. Where did THEY go off the reservation? How did they end up with Clinton and Gore and Ted Kennedy. Personally, I think they were sunk when Bobby Kennedy was killed and four years later they ran George McGovern. George McGovern! Whatever moral high ground they may have had they ceded with that bizarre nomination. (you should read Ted White's "The Making of a President - 1972". Seriously, Oldcrow, you should read it if you haven't already. It was a cautionary tale whose point no-one got, Dem or Repl., but mostly Dem. Personally, I believe this was where the Democratic Party went off the reservation.)
As a collorary to your very good point about the value of a two-party system I'd go as far as to say that the best governing has always been when the legislative and executive branches are held by different parties. Doesn't matter which holds which. This provides the best checks and balances going. It opens the political process to the bright light of review by peers and public and that is good. I like the idea of people who disagree with me keeping me honest.
As far as MSM is concerned, they're off the reservation much of the time, too. The thing is, though, the alternatives' best purposes are served where people who disagree are concerned - like my rep and me. The problem with that is that too often the non-MSM are viewed and read mostly by people who already agree with them. That's a little too much 'inside baseball' for me. Some people read it all, MSM and non-MSM of both colors, and then form their opinions. I do. Then I know I've got the whole story and not just the McNuggets. It's hard to know who to trust, these days. Having the whole story, so to speak, helps.
Let me ask you a provocative question: Is there any democrat holding a public office that you can point to and say, "His/her policies make me want to tear out my hair, but he/she isn't evil"? My rep is my example.
It's going to be interesting to see, long after you and I are gone, how history will treat the last 20 years of US politics.
Another long-winded blather from me. I appreciate your thoughtful replies.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 10:03 PM (jZCRI)
58
Oldcrow (is this an homage to Kentucky whiskey?),
osted by: max planck at March 4, 2006 10:03 PM
No it is a homage to my military specialty which is Electronic Warfare. It is a nickname given to those who practiced my job in WWII and is still used today.
osted by: max planck at March 4, 2006 10:03 PM
No it is a homage to my military specialty which is Electronic Warfare. It is a nickname given to those who practiced my job in WWII and is still used today.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 10:20 PM (GBYkE)
59
JeanneB, I notice that you're the only person posting here who actually, you know, experienced this storm from somewhere other than the comfort of the easy chair watching cable news.
Posted by max planck at March 4, 2006 01:05 PM
I was hit by Wilma, Frances, Jeane and Katrina (which only rattled my shutters). I wasn't watching cable tv, the power went out for up to a week at a time. My neighborhood lost a man to a heart attack because although I gave him CPR during the storm, paramedics weren't coming until the winds died down to below 70mph. We didn't have adrenaline, de-fibs oxygen or any real hope.
That's what a disaster teaches you, that civilized life is at the long end of a chain, when the chain breaks you deal with it or you die.
Posted by max planck at March 4, 2006 01:05 PM
I was hit by Wilma, Frances, Jeane and Katrina (which only rattled my shutters). I wasn't watching cable tv, the power went out for up to a week at a time. My neighborhood lost a man to a heart attack because although I gave him CPR during the storm, paramedics weren't coming until the winds died down to below 70mph. We didn't have adrenaline, de-fibs oxygen or any real hope.
That's what a disaster teaches you, that civilized life is at the long end of a chain, when the chain breaks you deal with it or you die.
Posted by: Eric at March 04, 2006 10:32 PM (zbiCx)
60
Let me ask you a provocative question: Is there any democrat holding a public office that you can point to and say, "His/her policies make me want to tear out my hair, but he/she isn't evil"? My rep is my example.
Posted by: max planck at March 4, 2006 10:03 PM
With the exception of maybe Ted Kennedy, John Kerry I don't consider any of them evil and I only think those two are evil because they are all about personnel power and nothing else OH forgot Hillery she is made in the same mold. As for taering out my hair well pretty much all of them drive me nuts at one time or another. I guess my biggest problem is remember the old saying politics stop at the waters edge? The DEMS forgot that during the Vietnam era and continue to do there utmost to undermine our country abroad, from Al Gore in Saudi Arabia to Jimmy Carter and his insane blather about telling the U.N. he promised them the travesty called the Human Rights Commission reforms would go through, I ask because maybe you know, what the hell is wrong with them? I can't understand how they can not know what they are doing to us during a time of war is undermining that effort and what really drives me insane is how can they support an idealogy(radical Islam and by their actions they are supporting it)that is anathema to everything they claim to believe in? Are they lieing when they say they are for gay rights, Womans rights and so on? I am beginning to conclude they are or they are just to stupid to realize what they are doing or they are following the old addage "the enemy of my enemy(U.S.)is my friend".
Posted by: max planck at March 4, 2006 10:03 PM
With the exception of maybe Ted Kennedy, John Kerry I don't consider any of them evil and I only think those two are evil because they are all about personnel power and nothing else OH forgot Hillery she is made in the same mold. As for taering out my hair well pretty much all of them drive me nuts at one time or another. I guess my biggest problem is remember the old saying politics stop at the waters edge? The DEMS forgot that during the Vietnam era and continue to do there utmost to undermine our country abroad, from Al Gore in Saudi Arabia to Jimmy Carter and his insane blather about telling the U.N. he promised them the travesty called the Human Rights Commission reforms would go through, I ask because maybe you know, what the hell is wrong with them? I can't understand how they can not know what they are doing to us during a time of war is undermining that effort and what really drives me insane is how can they support an idealogy(radical Islam and by their actions they are supporting it)that is anathema to everything they claim to believe in? Are they lieing when they say they are for gay rights, Womans rights and so on? I am beginning to conclude they are or they are just to stupid to realize what they are doing or they are following the old addage "the enemy of my enemy(U.S.)is my friend".
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 04, 2006 10:38 PM (GBYkE)
61
"No it is a homage to my military specialty which is Electronic Warfare. It is a nickname given to those who practiced my job in WWII and is still used today." - Oldcrow
Well, beats the hell out of bourbon. I never heard the term. Typical of us shallow-water sailors. Back in my day, we called them 'Radarmen'.
"Conn, combat. Surface contact designate Skunk one bearing 230 range 12,000 yards. Constant bearing, decreasing range."
"Conn aye."
"Conn, combat. Just where do you plan to ram her, sir?"
"Combat, conn. Eat me."
"Combat aye."
Or something like that.
Well, beats the hell out of bourbon. I never heard the term. Typical of us shallow-water sailors. Back in my day, we called them 'Radarmen'.
"Conn, combat. Surface contact designate Skunk one bearing 230 range 12,000 yards. Constant bearing, decreasing range."
"Conn aye."
"Conn, combat. Just where do you plan to ram her, sir?"
"Combat, conn. Eat me."
"Combat aye."
Or something like that.
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 10:42 PM (dKvAZ)
62
"I ask because maybe you know, what the hell is wrong with them?" - Oldcrow
Beats the hell out of me. Maybe they think that if they take them all out for ice cream cones they'll be our bestest friends.
Seriously, I can't say because they can't say. It's part of the same thinking, I guess, where they can say what they're against (Republicans and losing elections) but can't say what they're for (except winning elections).
When we fought WWII and Korea, we knew what we were about. When it got to Vietnam, it was different. There was no 'goal'. Tonkin Gulf ended up being a sham Lyndon Johnson perpetrated, so that's how we got into it. Then we stayed in it long after it was clear that it wasn't the kind of war that was 'winnable' without, you know, nuking them from the face of the earth. It became hugely unpopular as the American casualties ran into the tens of thousands without a clear reason that the American public could get its arms around. Also, it was a class war. Only the kids who weren't rich enough or lucky enough get into college were the ones dying.
Politics keeps getting its feet wet, doesn't it?
I think part of the problem now is that the dems are in the minority in all of the federal government - legislative and executive - and are just out there, leaderless. There's no elder statesman to step in, no voice. So they swat at gnats. I don't think they're intentionally sitting down and saying, "What can we do to undermine America today." The problem is that they're not sitting down and saying anything. They're running around in circles and when a tough issue hits, it's like deer in the headlights. Their reaction is to blame Republicans. Hell, even Republicans voted FDR back three times.
I don't think that they're following that 'my enemy' adage intentionally. THAT would be evil.
As for the rest, your guess is as good as mine, sir.
I obviously have waaay too much time on my hands, don't I?
Beats the hell out of me. Maybe they think that if they take them all out for ice cream cones they'll be our bestest friends.
Seriously, I can't say because they can't say. It's part of the same thinking, I guess, where they can say what they're against (Republicans and losing elections) but can't say what they're for (except winning elections).
When we fought WWII and Korea, we knew what we were about. When it got to Vietnam, it was different. There was no 'goal'. Tonkin Gulf ended up being a sham Lyndon Johnson perpetrated, so that's how we got into it. Then we stayed in it long after it was clear that it wasn't the kind of war that was 'winnable' without, you know, nuking them from the face of the earth. It became hugely unpopular as the American casualties ran into the tens of thousands without a clear reason that the American public could get its arms around. Also, it was a class war. Only the kids who weren't rich enough or lucky enough get into college were the ones dying.
Politics keeps getting its feet wet, doesn't it?
I think part of the problem now is that the dems are in the minority in all of the federal government - legislative and executive - and are just out there, leaderless. There's no elder statesman to step in, no voice. So they swat at gnats. I don't think they're intentionally sitting down and saying, "What can we do to undermine America today." The problem is that they're not sitting down and saying anything. They're running around in circles and when a tough issue hits, it's like deer in the headlights. Their reaction is to blame Republicans. Hell, even Republicans voted FDR back three times.
I don't think that they're following that 'my enemy' adage intentionally. THAT would be evil.
As for the rest, your guess is as good as mine, sir.
I obviously have waaay too much time on my hands, don't I?
Posted by: max planck at March 04, 2006 11:17 PM (dKvAZ)
63
Max,
Don't take this the wrong way but you must have got out of the Coast Guard awhile ago. We now use track numbers instaed of skunk and it is all digital data link tracking although we still train on the old chart table and DDRT. If you ever get a chance to tour a ship you will be amazed at the technology we have now, we use chatrooms instead of R/T COMMS and message traffic has pretty much been replaced by email for tactical and planning stuff. We track surface out to 200 miles and air out to 2000 via the data links.
I don't know what the solution is for the politics thing. I do know we are facing the worst enemy we have faced since WWII. With the USSR the adversary was at least rational and put survival ahead of idealogy, we do not hav ethat with this enemy they look at survival as desirable but only so they can kill more of us. I fear that before this is all over we will see a major World War along the lines of WWII and a similar loss of life and treasure. Teh LIBS/DEMS and the MSM better start understanding that becuase we cannot win without everyone on board this is going to be an all hands effort before it is over. I have hope they will come around but the cynic in me does not think so. Well have goodnight it is time to for bed.
Don't take this the wrong way but you must have got out of the Coast Guard awhile ago. We now use track numbers instaed of skunk and it is all digital data link tracking although we still train on the old chart table and DDRT. If you ever get a chance to tour a ship you will be amazed at the technology we have now, we use chatrooms instead of R/T COMMS and message traffic has pretty much been replaced by email for tactical and planning stuff. We track surface out to 200 miles and air out to 2000 via the data links.
I don't know what the solution is for the politics thing. I do know we are facing the worst enemy we have faced since WWII. With the USSR the adversary was at least rational and put survival ahead of idealogy, we do not hav ethat with this enemy they look at survival as desirable but only so they can kill more of us. I fear that before this is all over we will see a major World War along the lines of WWII and a similar loss of life and treasure. Teh LIBS/DEMS and the MSM better start understanding that becuase we cannot win without everyone on board this is going to be an all hands effort before it is over. I have hope they will come around but the cynic in me does not think so. Well have goodnight it is time to for bed.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 05, 2006 12:08 AM (GBYkE)
64
"Max,
Don't take this the wrong way but you must have got out of the Coast Guard awhile ago." - Oldcrow
Except for CGC Eagle, the other three ships on which I served (Gresham, Pontchartrain and Madrona) are all razor blades now. Gresham's keel was laid as the USS Willoughby, a 311' Navy seaplane tender in 1939, turned over to the CG after the War and recommissioned as Gresham, Pontchartrain's as a 255' cutter in 1944, and Madrona's as a 180' seagoing buoy tender in 1943 (I think it was).
I enjoyed discussion today, sir. Fair winds and a following sea.
Don't take this the wrong way but you must have got out of the Coast Guard awhile ago." - Oldcrow
Except for CGC Eagle, the other three ships on which I served (Gresham, Pontchartrain and Madrona) are all razor blades now. Gresham's keel was laid as the USS Willoughby, a 311' Navy seaplane tender in 1939, turned over to the CG after the War and recommissioned as Gresham, Pontchartrain's as a 255' cutter in 1944, and Madrona's as a 180' seagoing buoy tender in 1943 (I think it was).
I enjoyed discussion today, sir. Fair winds and a following sea.
Posted by: max planck at March 05, 2006 01:15 AM (dH+OK)
65
Max and Old Crow
Now that the dialogue has gotten more civil (and not as in Civil War) let me chime in on the internationalist
piece that you two seem to agree has something to do with the Democratic Party's current walkabout.
The perceptions of a large chunk of the college-educated population has gotten more international and less nationalistic (you would say patriotic, probably)
as such a high per cent of college kids now go abroad for a year of study. In past years, far fewer people went overseas when they were young, unless they were in the armed forces, in which case you have a built-in
American identity and PX coming along with you.
Many in the older generation are baffled why folks
would even care about the French viewpoint, the Islamic viewpoint, the Chinese, the Sudanese...etc. If you are firmly rooted in just your own country and see everything only
in terms of what is good for "my country", which often means, "what is good for people who think like me in my country", you might get outraged by people who think any other way. The John Birch Society was an
early (in my lifetime) manifestation of this outrage at
Internationalist, Trilateral Commission, blah blah thinking.
For whatever reason GWB decided, or had a vision on the road to Damascus that war against Iraq was the way to go; it would get rid of Saddam, remove a rogue state, get us an insider's chance at the oil, set up the potential for a democratically elected state etc. He has shown a passion and single-mindedness (of both the salesman and the true-believer) in supporting
this vision that one third of the country loves, because it's not the damned Clintonian shades of gray and the odd missile here and there, approach; one third of the country despises him and his approach because it is NOT the Clinton approach, and the
remaining third (and these thirds, of course, are fractions of the people who even care enough to vote)
goes back and forth, depending on the usual (and always the deciding factor) upper and lower level winds, booms, busts, quicksands, quick fixes, and quagmires.
GWB may be the only man who could cut through some of the extreme partisanship with his bully pulpit, but many would say he was doing it from weakness, he would lose people on his far right wing, but it seems to me that it is needed and what a true statesman would do.
Does he have it in him? Clinton did, but also had the excess baggage which destroyed his effectiveness. GWB has to find the language, the positions, the statesmanship to conciliate and rebuild a middle. He and Rove were wonderful campaigners, masters of going after the Dems weak spots, but now they have to rebuild something and just deriding the Dems won't work.
Should the Dems also be doing something similar? Of course, but they aren't yet, and if some Obama or who knows who can emerge to build a middle, it's going to take a while. I think that the public senses that as long as the Dems approach is just sniping at Bush, then they
don't have much to offer...but since everything is political and they want to make off-year election gains, which may well get us closer to the checks and balances system that Max, I think, mentioned, it's hard to see much happening for another year, as things slowly settle mudward.
Thoreau with Kids and a Gun
Now that the dialogue has gotten more civil (and not as in Civil War) let me chime in on the internationalist
piece that you two seem to agree has something to do with the Democratic Party's current walkabout.
The perceptions of a large chunk of the college-educated population has gotten more international and less nationalistic (you would say patriotic, probably)
as such a high per cent of college kids now go abroad for a year of study. In past years, far fewer people went overseas when they were young, unless they were in the armed forces, in which case you have a built-in
American identity and PX coming along with you.
Many in the older generation are baffled why folks
would even care about the French viewpoint, the Islamic viewpoint, the Chinese, the Sudanese...etc. If you are firmly rooted in just your own country and see everything only
in terms of what is good for "my country", which often means, "what is good for people who think like me in my country", you might get outraged by people who think any other way. The John Birch Society was an
early (in my lifetime) manifestation of this outrage at
Internationalist, Trilateral Commission, blah blah thinking.
For whatever reason GWB decided, or had a vision on the road to Damascus that war against Iraq was the way to go; it would get rid of Saddam, remove a rogue state, get us an insider's chance at the oil, set up the potential for a democratically elected state etc. He has shown a passion and single-mindedness (of both the salesman and the true-believer) in supporting
this vision that one third of the country loves, because it's not the damned Clintonian shades of gray and the odd missile here and there, approach; one third of the country despises him and his approach because it is NOT the Clinton approach, and the
remaining third (and these thirds, of course, are fractions of the people who even care enough to vote)
goes back and forth, depending on the usual (and always the deciding factor) upper and lower level winds, booms, busts, quicksands, quick fixes, and quagmires.
GWB may be the only man who could cut through some of the extreme partisanship with his bully pulpit, but many would say he was doing it from weakness, he would lose people on his far right wing, but it seems to me that it is needed and what a true statesman would do.
Does he have it in him? Clinton did, but also had the excess baggage which destroyed his effectiveness. GWB has to find the language, the positions, the statesmanship to conciliate and rebuild a middle. He and Rove were wonderful campaigners, masters of going after the Dems weak spots, but now they have to rebuild something and just deriding the Dems won't work.
Should the Dems also be doing something similar? Of course, but they aren't yet, and if some Obama or who knows who can emerge to build a middle, it's going to take a while. I think that the public senses that as long as the Dems approach is just sniping at Bush, then they
don't have much to offer...but since everything is political and they want to make off-year election gains, which may well get us closer to the checks and balances system that Max, I think, mentioned, it's hard to see much happening for another year, as things slowly settle mudward.
Thoreau with Kids and a Gun
Posted by: Dwight at March 05, 2006 06:40 AM (HCesK)
66
I'm hoping that the reason it's taking some folks so long to answer my questions, is because they are researching their answers. On the other hand, it's probably fair to say they have come to the conclusion that those answers might bring them face to face with some rather inconvenient facts, so they are avoiding the questions altogether. Instead they, like Tom above, are busily composing a sarcastic, barely coherent rant, that avoids the questions altogether. Typical of todays far left, and further proof of just how hollow their arguments really are.
Posted by: Brad at March 05, 2006 11:53 PM (sPkUR)
67
Hey Brad, As a retired teacher, I can tell you that if you ask a question that requires a lot of thought...or research, you will generally get no response from the left... or the right.
Evidently you believe that you have figured the whole thing out, but hey, it's a day later...and no one seems to care. People are evidently on to other things. It's how we all...on the left...or on the right...survive. :-)
The Thoreavian gardener, gunman, grandfather
Dwght
Evidently you believe that you have figured the whole thing out, but hey, it's a day later...and no one seems to care. People are evidently on to other things. It's how we all...on the left...or on the right...survive. :-)
The Thoreavian gardener, gunman, grandfather
Dwght
Posted by: Dwight at March 06, 2006 05:20 PM (HCesK)
68
About the only thing I've noticed missing so far in the Blame Bush for everything group is that He should have known that the damage to the levee would be so severe because HE actually caused the Huricane to begin with.... by failing to sign the Kyota Accords. Obviously this failure made the Hurricane Greater than it would have otherwise been,..everybody knows that..don't they?
Posted by: Dennis at March 06, 2006 07:37 PM (BJYNn)
69
Dennis -
The actual facts (as opposed to your fake facts) are these: Some scientists think global warming is making hurricanes more severe. No scientist - NONE - has claimed that Katrina would have been less severe if Bush had signed the KYOTO (not "Kyota") accords.
I have to honestly ask: What is the point of making up fake facts to demolish? Do you find that challenging?
The actual facts (as opposed to your fake facts) are these: Some scientists think global warming is making hurricanes more severe. No scientist - NONE - has claimed that Katrina would have been less severe if Bush had signed the KYOTO (not "Kyota") accords.
I have to honestly ask: What is the point of making up fake facts to demolish? Do you find that challenging?
Posted by: Slippery Pete at March 07, 2006 11:00 AM (hF6uM)
70
This is a classic in the annals of rewriting history Orwell-style:
Oldcrow: "N.O. was not hit by Katrina"
Really? LOL.
Oldcrow: "N.O. was not hit by Katrina"
Really? LOL.
Posted by: Slippery Pete at March 07, 2006 11:06 AM (Rw/yc)
71
Slippery Pete, yeah, that's right. The brunt of the storm hit to the east of NO. We were all giving thanks in churches on that Sunday, that they'd dodged a bullet, that the worst of the storm had missed the greatest center of population. The flooding began next day. The reason that President Bush tried to get Gov. Blanco to Federalize the National Guard before the storm was that he was informed and concerned about the possibility that a storm would cause a hundred thousand deaths. He can't, by law, do that,himself, except in case of insurrection. This is part of limited government. Over the centuries, thousands of times more people have died as a result of government action than from natural disaster. This fact is not, as far as I know, in dispute. I certainly do not hate Democrats. I used to be one. I find them silly and non-quantitative, but I don't hate them.
Posted by: Michael Adams at March 07, 2006 01:46 PM (+7Jrt)
72
This is a classic in the annals of rewriting history Orwell-style:
Oldcrow: "N.O. was not hit by Katrina"
Really? LOL.
Posted by Slippery Pete at March 7, 2006 11:06 AM
No N.O. was not hit by Katrina moron if you bothered to check the facts before you open your pie hole you would know that. As Michael Adams said it passed to the east of N.O. if you knew anything about hurricanes you would know that the west side of a hurricane is the least destructive. Katrina hit MS not N.O. and I am sick of hearing about the poor pitiful people of N.O. and not a single word about the people of MS who were the ones who took the direct hit from the storm. Here is a LINK take a lokk idiot.
Oldcrow: "N.O. was not hit by Katrina"
Really? LOL.
Posted by Slippery Pete at March 7, 2006 11:06 AM
No N.O. was not hit by Katrina moron if you bothered to check the facts before you open your pie hole you would know that. As Michael Adams said it passed to the east of N.O. if you knew anything about hurricanes you would know that the west side of a hurricane is the least destructive. Katrina hit MS not N.O. and I am sick of hearing about the poor pitiful people of N.O. and not a single word about the people of MS who were the ones who took the direct hit from the storm. Here is a LINK take a lokk idiot.
Posted by: Oldcrow at March 08, 2006 03:36 PM (BuYeH)
Drug of Choice?
Presumably, we can expect a full-on rant from drug abuse expert Lawrence O'Donnell later today, after NBC White House correspondent David Gregory's bizarre behavior on the Don Imus Radio show yesterday morning which led the host to ask Gregory if he was drunk (video and transcript here).
While I'm not an expert in speaking Drunkenese, I don't think Gregory sounded drunk. I would be interested to see the results of a drug test to make sure it wasn't something else, however. Bad curry, perhaps?Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:12 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Drudge's transcript is wrong. doesn't match the video. check oout the wikipedia entry on david gregory. I think it is a more accurate text.
Posted by: Dick Trimble at March 03, 2006 06:51 PM (oLzc4)
2
I'm sure he was on drugs.
Posted by: drug counselor at April 17, 2006 02:07 PM (j62Uz)
Processing 0.14, elapsed 1.1962 seconds.
37 queries taking 1.16 seconds, 324 records returned.
Page size 301 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.