Mitt Romney takes a fine jab at Obama
at today's debate:
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois... said recently he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran in his first year in office, and declared in a speech he would order military action to capture terrorists in Pakistan if that nation's president did not.
"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," said Romney. "I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."
Giuliani had a good quote too:
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme."
(And I'm totally surprised to read that there was another debate. I am constantly paying attention to the news and want to watch all the debates, yet I knew nothing of this one. How do they expect normal people to notice?)
Posts
142 comments:
I don't think the Democrats want normal people to pay that much attention to the ridiculous things they are saying at this point, they are playing to their nutroots.
Well, this was a Republican debate....
Giuliani had a good quote too:
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme."
Giuliani's campaign is based on fear mongering. He's programmed to use the words "terror," "terrorists" and "terrorism" as often as possible.
I hope the American electorate starts suffering from fear fatigue soon and realizes that Giuliani is little more than a fundamentally dishonest opportunist.
LOL good point, I had just finished reading about the Kos democrat debate. A mind is a terrible thing...
Ron Paul got the biggest applause of any candidate.
And why won't Romney ever actually answer a damn question? No matter what he's asked, he immediately launches into a long-winded rendition of his talking points. When asked about Grassley's health care suggestion, he spoke for about 5 minutes and never said yes or no.
The Republicans are toast.
I found it interesting that they all jumped all over Obama for saying something he did not say.
They said he would invade Pakistan without conferring with Musharraf first, but that is NOT what he said at all.
His actual comment was that he would do whatever was necessary..."if Musharraf didn't."
joe said..."I don't think the Democrats want normal people to pay that much attention to the ridiculous things they are saying at this point, they are playing to their nutroots."
That must be why they're so far ahead in the national polls.
They're basing their election prospects on eliminating all "normal" people from the mix.
What a hoot...
They said he would invade Pakistan without conferring with Musharraf first, but that is NOT what he said at all.
His actual comment was that he would do whatever was necessary..."if Musharraf didn't."
In other words, he would consult with the Pakistani leader first, but if he didn't do what Obama wanted him to do, and as quickly, he would violate our ally's sovereignty.
I would suggest that this is a distinction without a difference.
Let me also note that Lucky failed to debunk either the quote by Romney or Giuliani. Romney didn't say that Obama wouldn't consult with Pakistani leadership first, but rather merely that he would bomb an ally. And Giuliani only commented on the Democrats failing to mention the words together of "Islamic Terrorists".
bruce,
The real question is this: If we knew Osama or other terrorists were in Pakistan...and they wouldn't do anything about it...would we do something about it...whether they like it or not.
Why?
Well, because it was America that was attacked on 9/11 and we'd like to disrupt any future attacks...right??
Obama said he would.
Your buddies blathered on for about ten minutes, covering their asses on every front, but spending most of their time badmouthing Obama.
What would YOU do??
Sit on your hands?? Wait for permission?
This is exactly why the Republicans are toast.
Oh, and here's some more good news for the Bush team:
Iraq’s power grid is on the brink of collapse because of insurgent sabotage of infrastructure, rising demand, fuel shortages and provinces that are unplugging local power stations from the national grid, officials said Saturday.
Electricity Ministry spokesman Aziz al-Shimari said power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand, and there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days. The shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, he said.
Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that. The water supply in the capital has also been severely curtailed by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.
Karbala province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days, causing water mains to go dry in the provincial capital, the Shiite holy city of Karbala.
“We no longer need television documentaries about the Stone Age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having,” said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.
Bruce,
Still sitting on your hands?
Bruce Hayden wrote:
And Giuliani only commented on the Democrats failing to mention the words together of "Islamic Terrorists"
As Giuliani surely knows, and as anyone of intelligence must know, the Democrats have of course addressed the topic of terrorism. The dishonesty here (and I have to say it's typical of Giuliani), is the implication that because the two words "Islamic Terrorists" were not mentioned specifically together in the Democratic debates, the Democrats are therefore not concerned about terrorism in general or Islamic terrorism in particular. This implication is both illogical and wrong. However, consistent with Giuliani practice, the inherent dishonesty of the implication won't stop him from repeating his "zinger" ad nauseam.
Bruce Hayden,
BTW, can you tell me how many times the Republicans have used the two words "Islamic Terrorists" in their debates?
Giuliani's also the guy who didn't upgrade the radios for the fire department and selected the towers as the headquarters for the primary terrorist defense center.
This guy will literally say anything to get himself into the limelight or elected.
A week before 9/11 he couldn't get elected dogcatcher.
Giuliani's campaign is based on fear mongering. He's programmed to use the words "terror," "terrorists" and "terrorism" as often as possible.
I hope the American electorate starts suffering from fear fatigue soon and realizes that Giuliani is little more than a fundamentally dishonest opportunist.
This is illogical and irrational.
Isn't fear appropriate sometimes? You act as if it's somehow illegitimate to talk about a threat, even when the threat is real, after some undetermined period of time.
The Soviets became a nuclear power by 1950. Where was "fear fatigue" when JFK talked about a missile gap in 1960, a whole ten years later? Or when LBJ ran an ad featuring a nuclear explosion in 1964? The only American president to follow your prescription during the Cold War was Carter, with his admonition that the American people get over their "inordinate fear of Communism." Which led directly to a period of Soviet expansionism that is, coincidentally, responsible for the birth of Al-Queda.
If you want to counter Guiliani, you have to do it on the same turf, because despite your disapproval, the threats we face from radical Islam will be the #1 issue in the 2008 election. If it wasn't, why do you think Obama floated that absurd proposal about Pakistan? He realizes his biggest liability is his perceived inexperience in dealing with national security -- even in the Democratic primaries! The "oh please, enough about terrorism, can't we change the subject?" vote is very small.
A week before 9/11 he (Guiliani) couldn't get elected dogcatcher.
Those were the days, eh, luckyoldson? September 10, 2001 was just a wonderful day. You just keep living back there, guy.
P.S. The supposed unpopularity of Guiliani before 9/11 is somewhat of a myth. His chosen successor, Bloomberg, for whom Guiliani campaigned, was the favorite even before 9/11. The media and chattering classes of NY were tired of Rudy's personality and his peccadillos but his approach to governing the city was still very popular.
John says: "The supposed unpopularity of Guiliani before 9/11 is somewhat of a myth."
You're full of shit, as usual. His approval ratings, even after being mayor and supposedly single-handedly cleaning up New York, was in the 40's.
I guess you don't remember him announcing his divorce at a press conference, before telling his wife, or his connections with Kirik or the firefighters who would like to wring his neck for not suppling the radios they would eventually need during 9/11.
He's an asshole and as the campaign progresses, the American public will get an eyeful of what's still buried in his closet of horrors.
Being a Republican isn't easy, is it?
8/18 = 4/9 = 44%
John,
Here's more on your "hero":
From “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” by investigative reporters Dan Collins and Wayne Barrett:
1. "Far from being a heroic soldier in the war on terror—Giuliani failed to take adequate precautions before the attacks and was directly responsible for many of the city’s failures to cope with the crisis."
2. "The problem is that he did a lot of wrong things [too]—mostly prior to that day, some even on that day, and many after that day, as the respiratory cases related to 9/11 are showing."
3. "He seemed to have had no appreciation of the terror threat prior to 9/11. In fact, he took many steps backward in preparing the city."
4. "The dumbest decision he made was to put the [city’s emergency] command center in the World Trade Center even though his principal security advisers urged him to put it elsewhere." (Bloomberg has now put it: in Brooklyn)
5. "Also there was his decision not to support Jerry Hauer when he tried to do what he was mandated to do—to create matrixes of which agencies were in charge of which responsibilities and develop protocols for anticipated incidents. The police department resisted every single protocol that Jerry suggested. [The police commissioner] refused to sign off on them, and Giuliani didn’t make him. So there were no interagency protocols [on 9/11] for terror attacks or for a high-rise fire."
6. "There’s also a whole chapter about radios. It took until March of 2001 for the fire department to come up with new radios. And the radios failed in the first week and had to be withdrawn. But they could have been reconfigured to an analog mode, which would have made them [operable]. The company was willing to reconfigure them, but the lame-duck administration walked away from them instead and left the fire department with the same radios that had failed in 1993. In fact, there were memos we found all the way back to 1990 that said the radios would cost firefighters’ lives. And yet they were still carrying those radios 11 years later."
7. "Also, they were not interoperable, so the fire department couldn’t communicate with the police department, preventing commanders from warning firefighters inside the towers of the impending collapse on 9/11."
Seven Machos said..."8/18 = 4/9 = 44%"
And yet another deeply intellectual comment from one of the gang.
Duh.
You're kidding! His approval rating was all the way down to the 40s???? My goodness gracious.
I think your wishful thinking goggles might need a dusting-off. It's true, as I acknowledged, his personal problems took a toll on his image. To take it further than you did, he also had this tendency to get into aggravating feuds with other officials. He was in the 8th year of his mayoralty, a time by which almost all elected officials have worn out their welcomes. And there was the Diallo case, which demagogues like Sharpton used to convince NY's large black population that Guiliani was some kind of racist.
And yet: His popularity ratings were still in the 40s, which one would have to regard as pretty high under all those circumstances; and his chosen successor was primed to sweep the election.
Remember, your statement was "he couldn't have been elected dogcatcher," an expression that means he was universally unpopular. If you want to amend what you said to say, "In an election for dogcatcher, he might have been a slight underdog," I would agree with you. But that's nothing like what you said.
Just a point of reference here, Bill Clinton's approval ratings ranged "from a low of 36% in mid-1993" to 73% in the wake of his impeachment proceedings.
George W. Bush has always had low approval ratings, which is why we lost in 2004.
Fidel Castro's approval ratings are 98.4%, with 1.6% of all Cubans polled being imprisoned.
And there was the Diallo case, which demagogues like Sharpton used to convince NY's large black population that Guiliani was some kind of racist.
Guiliani IS some kind of a racist.
My counter-argument to Christopher:
Christopher is some kind of racist.
So far, dude, we are tied in terms of conclusory jibberjabbery and ability to provide reasons and evidence. I yield the floor.
Good luck!
So if Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan - we now know that the Republicans will leave him alone.
OK - just wanted to make sure that was clear.
And who's soft on terrorism now? Obviously it's the Republicans.
LOS,
You're familiar with the reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins? They worked for the Village Voice. The Village Voice hated Guiliani, and couldn't stand that he kept winning elections.
Thus, it's no surprise that the rhetoric in your quoted section does not match the weight of their allegations, which despite your attempt to spread them among 7 bullet points come down to 2: The mislocation of the emergency command center and the radio interoperability problem.
Even you would have to acknowledge these are "hindsight is 20/20" allegations. The entire US government didn't seem to know what Al Queda was planning, but somehow Guiliani was supposed to know when he sited the emergency facility? As for the radios, you're talking about a government procurement problem. I've worked in government, and in fact I ran a campaign in the City of LA to fund a new 9/11 emergency communications center. The campaign was in 1992. We won. The government was able to float hundreds of millions in new bonds. And yet, something like seven years went by before they even broke ground.
That's not to excuse the fumbling in NY, but it's in the nature of how government works, under both parties, and under all Administrations. Politics enters every major procurement decision. Bureaucrats, especially in places like NY with strong public employee unions, move excruciatingly slow, and if you kick their butts publicly, they respond by moving more slowly, just to show you who's boss. If you're mayor of a city like NY or LA, you learn to choose your battles. Obviously, in this instance, I wish Guiliani had made more of an issue of radio interoperability. But it's a cheap shot for the Voice's investigative reporters to go from that to blaming Guiliani for 9/11.
Downtown -- Don't be ridiculous. Osama has been talking with Ru Paul on the phone. Consequently, because we monitor Ru's and all other gay people's phone calls for suspicious gay activity, we are tracking Osama.
God bless the Republicans!
If only investigative reporters Dan Collins and Wayne Barrett had been runnning New York before Sept. 11th, then things would have been perfect.
This is the first time I have felt any attraction at all to Romney. Obama deserved exactly what he got there, and I had been wondering when the Republicans were going to start hitting the Democrats the way the Democrats have been hitting Republicans for the past 6 years. After all, if they can't formulate an effective counter-attack to their political opponents, why should we believe they can handle our national enemies? Up until now, only Giuliani on the GOP side had been showing any sharp elbows for the Democrats, where on the Democratic side all of the top-tier have shown that they are capable and willing to fight the GOP.
I want a candidate willing and able to fight.
It wasn't just his broadside against the naive pandering of Obama. It was refreshing to see him hit Brownback for his sanctimony.
Still, I can't help but feel that Romney panders too much. Too many of his positions seem to be recently found, and convenient to his quest for a Republican nomination.
Giuliani was solid again, and I loved his answer about his mistakes. Perfect, and more human than we have seen from any candidate on either side of the aisle. He remains my choice overall at this point, with Hillary in the running and Thompson (Fred) still in the 'not enough information to decide by' grouping.
John says: "And yet: His popularity ratings were still in the 40s, which one would have to regard as pretty high under all those circumstances..."
Yeah, that's what ALL politicians who are just finishing up their tenure as mayor want...approval from less than 50% of the citizens.
Are you dating Rudy?
Seven Machos said..."Fidel Castro's approval ratings are 98.4%, with 1.6% of all Cubans polled being imprisoned."
Now that's what I call a great point of reference for the fearless leader we have right now.
Keep in mind that Clinton, even during his impeachment hearings was about 40 points higher than the idiot we have now...and...his job approval rating consistently ranged from the high-50s to the high-60s in his second term.
EnigmatiCore said..."This is the first time I have felt any attraction at all to Romney."
Really?
As a friend or a lover?
Pogo said..."If only investigative reporters Dan Collins and Wayne Barrett had been runnning New York before Sept. 11th, then things would have been perfect."
And once again, little Pogo rears his ugly and uninformed head.
*What possible relevance is there to investigative reporters writing a book...and running the city of New York??
The Republicans don't even care about Osama or Al Queada. They stopped looking for him four years ago.
And now they are criticizing Democrats who vow to track them down whereever they are.
Pathetic.
"The Republicans don't even care about Osama or Al Queada."
That might be the most lame attempt ever to pin the Republicans as uncaring.
enigmaticcore - Osama has been loose for six years, since 9/11.
Your President has admitted he doesn't even think about him anymore and the military has admitted that they stopped tracking him down years ago.
And you support those policies.
That makes you 100% wimp.
Yeah, that's what ALL politicians who are just finishing up their tenure as mayor want...approval from less than 50% of the citizens.
Historically, most politicians at the end of an 8-year tenure struggle to get above 50 percent. Like that matters to you.
Since when are we supposed to be so obsessed with poll ratings? Many great (and not-so-great, but popular) leaders suffer through periods of low poll ratings. Sometimes a leader has to make decisions that are unpopular in the short run because they believe they are serving the public's long-term interests. Reagan's steps to wring inflation out of the economy in 1981-2 are a good example. We had people talking about a new Depression. But the economy came back, and was a plus for Reagan politically by 1984. More importantly, inflation has never returned to anywhere near the levels of the 70s and early 80s.
Plus, polls are becoming increasingly politicized and inaccurate. The NY Times didn't even publish the poll showing approval for the Iraq war rising until they ran the same poll a second time and got the same result. The polls before the 2004 election all had the election too close to call or Kerry ahead. Polls aren't worthless, but they are only one data point in analyzing a political situation.
Finally, I would argue very strongly that the problems with Clinton's presidency came as a result of his advisers valuing approval ratings above everything else. Nowhere in the Constitution does it describe presidential duties to include "maintain high approval ratings." It's a cliche, but the only polls that matter are the ones on election day. In between, a chief executive needs to govern based on what they think is right even if he or she is being told it's unpopular.
Reagan didn't wring inflation out of the economy.
Paul Volcker did.
And he was a Carter employee. ANY scholar of economic history would tell you that.
And if you want to blame anyone for the inflation of the 1970's, it would be Richard Nixon - who took us off the Gold Standard and implemented wage and price controls.
But everything for you has to be about partisan politics, doesn't it?
Republicans have never made a mistake and Democrats have never done anything right according to you.
Honestly Johnstodder - your're quite infantile in your actions and beliefs.
well, GWB went from saying that OBL could run but could not hide to saying that he really didn't care about OBL.
This past year, we had good intel that some AQ leadership were meeting in the tribal areas of Pakistan. At the last minute, the administration called off the special forces operation to go in and kill/capture them.
"I would argue very strongly that the problems with Clinton's presidency came as a result of his advisers valuing approval ratings above everything else."
I disagree with this pretty substantially. The problems Clinton had were in ignoring voter approval with the gays in the military matter at the start of his first term, followed by his overreach with Hillarycare, followed by his inability or unwillingness to keep it in his pants, followed by his lack of candor. None of that had anything to do with blindly following public opinion.
I remember there being support for welfare reform, but not overwhelming support. I remember there being a willingness to raise taxes, but not overwhelming support for the proposition (in fact, I believe polls supported the middle class tax cut that never materialized). I believe the polls supported our actions in Kosovo, but I believe that was because he made the case for it rather than him acting because the people demanded it.
About the only place were I think the President had followed the polls in an obvious way was when he had Gore sign Kyoto but then refused to send it to the Senate.
My God. I just saw an argument that Carter was not most of the problem and that Reagan was not most of the solution.
Someone's been hitting the mescaline again.
Normally I do try to distance myself from the more ridiculous people on both sides, but I do notice that not one of the right-wing posters here have answered an (actually) good question from LOS on the topic: If we have extremely good intelligence that Osama and other leaders are hiding in Pakistan, and Musharraf does nothing, what do we do? Go in as Obama seems to suggest, or just let Osama stay in Pakistan?
Re: "just let Osama stay in Pakistan?"
No reason to attack just to find Osama's remains. (He's just pinin' for the fjords.) Pakistan's delicate, but at least they're being somewhat helpful most of the time. You work with what you've got. Ideological purity in this fight would leave us completely isolated, which seems a tragically stupid plan.
Well, I don't consider myself a right-winger, but here are the thoughts that come into my mind.
If we have very good intelligence-- that's a loaded phrasing. We had very good intelligence that Saddam was pursuing WMD. We heard this from both sides of the aisle, dating back to before Bush was President. There was not any uniformity of opinion over what to do about it, until after 9/11 and Bush deciding that we had to do something about it then.
Since then, it turned out the very good intelligence was not so good, and we have had to deal with revisionist history of those saying the intelligence was always bad and Bush lied (even before he was President and even when it wasn't he who was saying it).
So in many ways your hypothetical is a bit unrealistic. We never truly know how good intelligence is, do we? Especially us armchair opinionators.
Further, is it realistic to say that Musharraf would do nothing if we had irrefutable intelligence as to the precise whereabouts of Bin Laden, and it being in Pakistan? What about a different hypothetical. What if we had very good intelligence that Bin Laden was in Russia and Putin would not take action? What about if we had good intelligence that Bin Laden was sitting smack-dab in the middle of Mecca and the Saudis refused to do anything? What if we had good intelligence that he was in France, and the French were telling us to pound sand? In which of these cases should we take unilateral action of invasion or attack, and which should we not?
But I suppose pointing out the problems with the hypothetical will not be satisfying to you. So despite my problems with the hypothetical, let's assume all the premises are airtight. We have 100% bullet-proof intelligence of where Bin Laden is. No doubt. Not even the slightest possibility of the intelligence being wrong. And we have tried to get Pakistan to take action, and Musharref refuses.
At this point, I think we would have to conclude that Pakistan is not the nominal ally they have been claiming to be. It would not be a question of us invading an ally at that point. It would be clear that Pakistan, instead, had allied themselves with our mortal enemies. At that point I would make it clear to Pakistan the ramifications of their choice, that we are going in regardless, and if they were to interfere or attack us in any way shape or form that we would retaliate and help their consistent enemy, India, deal with them in a permanent manner.
I would then pray that we would get him. And if we did not, or if there was no way to tell due to the logistics of the place, then...
...then I would be prepared to be demonized as a fascist unilateral war-monger by the far left and the far right, joined by whichever party I am not in. I would be prepared to have ideologues come out of the woodwork to claim that we fabricated the intelligence, and that we rushed to war.
Pogo wrote:
No reason to attack just to find Osama's remains.
Do you have any evidence that bin Laden is dead? Or is this just more of your "wishful thinking replaces reality" shtick?
Ideological purity in this fight would leave us completely isolated, which seems a tragically stupid plan.
Since when have Bush and his supporters objected to tragically stupid plans?
DTL -- I'm a Democrat. Sorry. When i referenced the 70s, I didn't leave out Nixon or Ford. But you're wrong about Reagan, Carter and Volcker. Yes, Carter appointed Volcker, but the inflation-fighting policies he advocated were pushed in '81-'82 with Reagan's support. I raised that because the public opinion polls went south on Reagan in a big way when unemployment skyrocketed. The Democrats were sure they'd win back the WH in '84. But the results turned out in Reagan's favor, and in the end, the Democrats had no chance that year.
EnigmaticCore -- Every one of the "unpopular" decisions you mention came in his first two years. I would agree with you, he was less sensitive to public opinion as expressed in polls during '93-'94. But then he lost both houses of Congress, hired Dick Morris and from then on, the pollsters were in charge. That history isn't really in dispute.
So the GOP stance this time around is "up with nuance," or something like that.
John, asks: "Since when are we supposed to be so obsessed with poll ratings?"
Well, generally when they're good.
Cheney was caught recently, blathering on about how he NEVER pays attention to them...then got to watch a clip of himself touting the latest polling in Iraq, about how happy everybody was that we invaded. (Of course that was a few years ago, when they still had water and electricity and a civil war wasn't raging on.)
Clinton was at 73%...AFTER the impeachment hearings.
*And please, don't give me that crap that MOST politicians are below 50% at the end of 8 years in office. I'd have to see credible evidence of such.
"That history isn't really in dispute."
That's funny. I thought I was disputing it. I guess I am wrong though, and I was not disputing it, since it isn't really in dispute. :-)
I believe Dick Morris is a self-promoter of the most brazen variety, and I believe a lot of the perception of his importance has come from his efforts to portray himself as being that important.
I think that the case that Clinton was a finger-in-the-air politician is overstated. So I guess I am back to disputing it.
I asked Bruce Hayden the following question:
Can you tell me how many times the Republicans have used the two words "Islamic Terrorists" in their debates?
I've now checked the first three debate transcripts and have found exactly two instances in which the phrase "Islamic Terrorists" was used. As you might have guessed, in both instances it was Giuliani who said it.
So now it's official... According to Giuliani "logic," all the Republican candidates are soft on terrorism! Except for Rudy, of course. Giuliani is the ONLY person in the United States who can keep us safe. Thank goodness he is sharp enough to realize that only he can protect us.
James said..."...I do notice that not one of the right-wing posters here have answered an (actually) good question from LOS on the topic: If we have extremely good intelligence that Osama and other leaders are hiding in Pakistan, and Musharraf does nothing, what do we do? Go in as Obama seems to suggest, or just let Osama stay in Pakistan?
Good luck on that one. I asked a similar question about why Bush is protecting sources from telling the Tillman family the whole story of how and why their son was killed, with executive privilege and nary a one would respond.
Right now, the Republicans are locked onto sound bites that they think will dissuade Americans from thinking through their choice for the next President.
Romney is for and against most things, depending on the day or the week, Rudy is using the same scare tactics he's been hanging with since 9/11, McCain is dead in the water, and Thompson is waiting until AFTER the election to announce that he's actually running.
Toast...one and all.
GOOD WORK CYRUS!!
As time goes on, we'll be hearing more and more of Rudy's bullshit being refuted and uncovered as just that: bullshit.
john stodder says: "...I'm a Democrat."
What??
1. Musharraf is not the best ally but he is the best ally we could have leading Pakistan.
2. Pakistan has atomic weapons.
3. Pakistan's autocratic government is able to kill, track, and control its radical elements in ways that are not publicized. (Does it occur to you that, possibly, there is a lot that goes on that you don't read about it newspapers?)
4. Therefore, rogue elements in Pakistan are mostly neutralized.
5. Invading Pakistan -- a country founded on Islam -- would enrage the Islamic world and may very well cause a wider war.
6. India, a much stronger ally that doesn't want war, is next to Pakistan. Iran is there, too. Russia is not far away. China would have nothing to lose by either sitting out or siding with Pakistan because it opposes Western imperialism.
Which of these statements is false or even arguable? It is necessary to realize that there are many problems that war will not solve. You people are absurd who hate the war in Iraq but want to send soldiers into Pakistan (or Darfur). Everybody hated Iraq, and look at the mess we are in.
There is this vision that we are going to send soldiers places and they will just run amok, unopposed. It's really quite insane.
P.S. -- The Tillman Scandal will not gain traction here or anywhere. Get over it. Move on.
There are plenty of scandals out there, thankfully, since Bush and Cheney are so diabolical and evil and stupid and ineffective.
seven says this about Pakistan: "...rogue elements in Pakistan are mostly neutralized."
You mean, other than Osama and the insurgents who travel to and from Pakistan, into and out of Iraq?
Right?
Seven,
If the Tillman affair is not a "scandal," why is Bush protecting his people via executive privilege?
And I'll ask YOU the same questions as others: If it was YOUR son or brother...would you want to know how and why he died?
C'mon, be a man and answer the question.
Kahn, he of the superior intellect, that lucky old son he, knows precisely where Bin Laden is.
That he has not taken it upon himself to go and neutralize him shows us just how much he cares about us all.
I love that people who want the U.S. out of Iraq are going to try to argue that they want the U.S. in Pakistan. Yeah. That makes sense. Let's invade a definitely nuclear, nominal ally. Let's kill a bunch of poor nomadic tribal folks.
Brilliant!
Hillary Clinton has already called this strategy incredibly dopey. That's because: (1) she's not an idiot and (2) she knows that 85 percent of the country would find this argument laughable.
But, please. I urge you. Use it. As President Bush so eloquently said: bring it on.
Yet they have not volunteered to be the first to go! Those chickenhawks!
Pat Tillman's family should buy land in Crawford, Texas and camp out in protest next to President Bush's ranch. The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Afghanistan is absolute.
Maybe then this scandal can have wings. Look how well it all worked out for Cindy Sheehan.
Seven, while I played off of a comment from you earlier, and while I share scorn towards those trying to exploit the Tillman tragedy for political purposes, I think it is shameful to try to make points using Tillman's family or somehow comparing them to Sheehan.
Seven Machos said..."Pat Tillman's family should buy land in Crawford, Texas and camp out in protest next to President Bush's ranch. The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Afghanistan is absolute."
You're a disgusting little prick.
John Stodder wrote:
This is illogical and irrational.
Isn't fear appropriate sometimes? You act as if it's somehow illegitimate to talk about a threat, even when the threat is real, after some undetermined period of time.
No, it's neither illogical or irrational, unless you mean something other than standard definitions of these words. And I never claimed it is illegitimate to talk about a threat; what I suggested was that the extent to which Giuliani focuses on the threat of terrorism is not proportionate to the actual level of the threat.
Fear is a natural human reaction. If you find yourself between a moose cow and calf, be afraid. However, don't expect me to sign on to a campaign to shoot all moose cows and calves on sight, as that is NOT a rational response and is not a response that is proportionate to the risk.
The threat of terrorism needs intelligent, purposeful planning and action. And we also need to be calm and accurate about assessing the risk of terrorism. Giuliani overplays the risk of terrorist attacks as it serves his political purposes. Your response suggests that any candidate who doesn't constantly babble about terrorism (as Giuliani tends to do) isn't serious about terrorism. Of course, that position is pure nonsense, and I know you are far too smart to believe it.
My comment addresses this point specifically. I nowhere suggest that terrorism isn't a serious concern. Rather, I'm making the point that there are MANY serious issues for the electorate to consider. Giuliani makes a point of obscuring these other important issues by consistently focusing on terror; his goal is to play to his strength (as he sees it). Still, it's fear mongering. The amount of time he shrieks about the threat of terrorists is not proportionate to the actual terrorist risk.
Now, I haven't predicted that the American electorate will start to suffer fear fatigue soon. I merely expressed a hope that they would. At the end of the day, the willingness of the American electorate to buy into counterproductive foreign policy "adventures" is enhanced if the fear factor is heightened. Fear isn't a good basis for public policy debate.
(BTW, how many of you have plastic sheeting and duct tape stored in your house?)
Look how well it all worked out for Cindy Sheehan.
Seven Machos is actually Barbara Bush?
Luckyoldson said...
Seven Machos said..."Pat Tillman's family should buy land in Crawford, Texas and camp out in protest next to President Bush's ranch. The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Afghanistan is absolute."
You're a disgusting little prick.
You noticed?
Enigmatic -- I agree completely. The man is a great hero. Cindy Sheehan's son is one, too. They all are.
I knew my sarcasm would hit a nerve. But this is my point. The left in this country used Cindy Sheehan precisely because her son died in Iraq. Her tragedy is their political gain. Now, she has been discarded.
Lucky is now trying desperately to use the death of Pat Tillman as a cheap tactic to generate scandal.
If Tillman's parents were to do such a ridiculous thing as to go and camp out in Texas, they would be trading on the glory of their heroic son, just as Sheehan has traded on the glory of her heroic son. It's tacky. It's wrong. It's immoral. And for Lucky to trade on the death of this man for political argument's sake is tacky and wrong and immoral as well.
What??
Yep. I've voted for exactly one Republican presidential candidate since I became old enough to vote in 1974.
In California, I worked for one Democratic gubernatorial candidate, and voted for all of them until the Davis recall. Davis really stunk, and I would've voted against him in his re-election, but the Reeps put up an awful candidate. As they tend to do out here.
I don't much like Boxer or Feinstein, but I've voted for each of them at least once.
I'm to the right on national security, in the middle on economic policy, and to the left on social issues. Pro-war, pro-gay marriage. Skeptical of government's ability to do anything right, but I don't consider that an ideological position. It comes from a decade in the public sector, where I saw how government works up close. If I really thought government could end poverty and racism, I'd be all for it. But it can't.
Liberals need to be focused more on goals/results and less on means. I support what Democrats say they want in most cases. But when they insist in empowering themselves to implement it, I become very cynical.
John Stodder: I often argue to left-liberal friends that liberals and conservatives want the same things. The goals are the same. The issue is the means of getting to the goals.
I am a conservative precisely because it became clear to me long ago that the means chosen by the left simply don't work and actually screw things up worse.
I nowhere suggest that terrorism isn't a serious concern. Rather, I'm making the point that there are MANY serious issues for the electorate to consider. Giuliani makes a point of obscuring these other important issues by consistently focusing on terror; his goal is to play to his strength (as he sees it). Still, it's fear mongering. The amount of time he shrieks about the threat of terrorists is not proportionate to the actual terrorist risk.
Well, I guess I just disagree that Guiliani is campaigning like this. He think the Dems are weak on terrorism. He has an argument. So, he's making it. Partly why he's doing this is that, in most other respects, he's running as a moderate, particularly on social issues and the environment. I gather the Republican voters want to see if he's just a namby-pamby moderate, or can he be a fierce partisan, so he's showing them he can stick it to the Dems. But all that said, his platform goes far beyond terrorism.
Describing anything Giuliani does as "good" is delusional. When he was mayor, he ran around this city trying to shut down art exhibits he didn't like and fighting petty battles with anyone who displeased him. On 9/10 he would have been soundly defeated if able to run again - we hated him. After his time in office, he ran around earning millions based on the fact that he had been NYC mayor on the day of our greatest tragedy. He is an authoritarian little runt, and his presidency, if if happens, will make Nixon's look like a walk in the park.
Actually, Guiliani wanted to prevent city money from being spent on a tactless exhibit that was offensive to thousands if not millions of the city's taxpayers.
Which is funny. Because let's just say that the exhibit was "Mohammed in a Bowl of Poop" of "Lynched African Americans on Parade." Would you really come here to argue that Guiliani "ran around this city trying to shut down art exhibits he didn't like" if didn't want that art funded by the City?
Bruce: In other words, he would consult with the Pakistani leader first, but if he didn't do what Obama wanted him to do, and as quickly, he would violate our ally's sovereignty.
Um, wake up, Bruce. That's what we've had to do to get Musharref's limited and half-hearted "help" ever since we persuaded him to stop backing the Taliban after 9/11. Colin Powell and Richard Armitage told the dictator we'd bomb Pakistan if he didn't turn from the Taliban and play ball.
As recently as a few months ago I was reading praises on the right wing blogs about Dick Cheney going to Pakistan and issuing threats.
Here's how InstaPundit posted about it in March, quoting Captains Quarters: HUNTING BIN LADEN in Waziristan. "It seems as if Dick Cheney's visit to Pakistan meant something rather significant for Musharraf. With AQ more active than any time in the last five years, and with Musharraf sitting on his hands, Cheney's visit was meant as an ultimatum for action. If Musharraf won't fight terrorists, then we have less interest in preventing his destabilization. Musharraf responded by arresting two senior members of the Taliban outside of Waziristan, and his lack of response thus far to American operations in Waziristan seems to indicate acquiescence to the new American policy."
This goes along with what he posted in some years back: Pakistan must be cleaned up. Preferably by Musharraf. But if not by him, then by any means necessary.
Here's more from Captains Quarters in March: For those who want action in Pakistan, it seems to be coming true. The US has tried to avoid trammeling Pakistani sovereignty in the past in order to keep from destabilizing Musharraf. The deal Musharraf signed with Waziri tribal leaders has changed the American perspective, it appears. If Musharraf will not fight for his sovereignty in Waziristan, then the US apparently has decided that we do not need to honor it, and will attack AQ assets ourselves....
Expect a much greater latitude in American action across the Afghan/Pakistani border from this point forward -- a new policy that will cripple the Taliban's expected spring offensive, and perhaps force Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri to flee their safety zone.
A new policy the right wing blogosphere was not attacking, seeming happy Bush finally started to get around to re-focusing on the hunt for bin Laden and other al Qaeda in Pakistan. But when Obama stresses this would be a central focus of his foreign policy and should've been a bigger focus for Bush, partisanship trumps national security and he gets called names.
Here's what I have learned from Obama:
-He will require much higher standards for intelligence than Bush before sending troops into battle, and he will not send troops into battle without having a good plan.
-He will increase our focus on Pakistan, an al Qaeda hotbed where bin Laden is residing.
-If Musharref sits on his hands when we have intelligence that needs to be acted on with respect to terrorists in Pakistan's lawless areas, he will be given stern warnings and if he still won't act then America will.
I wanna hear why that slickster Romney finds this insane. I wanna hear if Professor Althouse thinks her pal InstaPundit is like "Dr. Strangelove," too.
Among my problems with Giuliani is his track record with cronies. Bernie Kerick, for example.
Too bad most the voters Romney is trying to win over don't even no who Dr. Strangelove is.
Obama has never sounded like either Jane Fonda or Dr. Strangelove. Lord knows why Althouse praises that kind of BS from the BSer Romney. I've only heard sensible, rational statements from Obama about foreign policy that take the threats facing America and the world very seriously while also wanting to break with the failures and incompetence of the past.
Loafing Oaf -- Isn't the problem really cynicism?
sorry I meant "know" not "no" in my last post.
Yes, I am sure all of the Iowa farmers and christian right fanatics Romney is pretending to care about are up to date on their Stanley Kubrick characters.
Romney is the biggest phoney, opportunistic hypocrital wimp around. The republicans better hope he doesn't get the nomination because the democrats will saturate the airwaves with all of those Youtube clips of Romney flip flopping.
Heck, he even flip flopped on his favorite book because he was afraid the religious right would disown him.
After nominating Kerry, it would be quite amusing to see Democrats going after someone for being a flip-flopper. Although Romney is ripe for those attacks.
I'm a New Yorker who has lived in Manhattan since the days of Rudy and I would like rebut a few false statements:
1. On 9/10/01 Rudy could not have been elected dogcatcher in New York. New Yorkers were really tired of his act.
3. On 9/10/01 Michael Bloomberg was definitely not the favorite in the race for mayor. Mark Green was, in large part because New Yorkers wanted a change from Rudy. It was after 9/11 that Bloomberg started to spend money and Green began to shoot himself in the foot.
3. The art exhibit in Brooklyn did not offend "millions of New Yorkers", most of us were to busy to care about it. But I submit many New Yorkers found it rather hypocritical that a serial philanderer would bring morality issues while attacking this exhibit.
4. In his interview with Charlie Rose last week, Rudy said he agreed with Obama's position re Pakistan. So those of you who support Rudy but think Obama is naive better rethink your position.
If the flip flop fits...
Kerry was a flip flopper but Romney has elevated the flip flop to an amazing art.
Romney is plastic and have no values. He is an opportunistic wimp that will say absolutely anything to make people believe he is what they want in a candidate.
The list of Romneys flip flops are endless and Kerry isn't running this time around so who gives a shit if the democrats do it to Romney-it's true and he deserves it.
The democrats really dont even have to say flip flop just run the videos which say it all.
He was going to be better for the gays than Teddy Kennedy, yea the religious right will love seeing that video being played over and over again in Alabama.
"-He will require much higher standards for intelligence than Bush before sending troops into battle, and he will not send troops into battle without having a good plan."
The level of intelligence that history indicates he would require rarely exists.
"-He will increase our focus on Pakistan, an al Qaeda hotbed where bin Laden is residing."
In which case the left will point out that Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
"If Musharref sits on his hands when we have intelligence that needs to be acted on with respect to terrorists in Pakistan's lawless areas, he will be given stern warnings and if he still won't act then America will."
Musharref would be sitting on his hands because he doesn't want the generals to take over the country. The one with nuclear devices. I think the intelligence agency in Pakistan is more radical Islamic that the country as a whole. You really don't want to give them reason to take over.
Pretending for a moment that Bin Laden isn't dead, what more than likely would happen is that Musharref wouldn't do anything for political reasons but special forces would be in and out without official permission or official knowledge from the Pakistan government. I would be surprised if something like that wasn't already going on. On the other hand, the New York Times hasn't reported it so maybe not. I have to wonder though, how many people who approve of Obama saying that would jump all over the "neocons invading yet another country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
"In which case the left will point out that Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11."
No, they won't, as long as they consider Obama to be one of theirs.
"No, they won't, as long as they consider Obama to be one of theirs."
Yes, I should have indicated I was being sarcastic on that one. My bad.
The right is no better. They were all doves when it came to Kosovo.
Seven Machos said..."I knew my sarcasm would hit a nerve."
You're a liar.
And here's something for you to chew on, asshole:
P: New Details on Tillman's Death
By MARTHA MENDOZA 07.26.07, 7:28 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO -
Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.
The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Among other information contained in the documents:
_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."
_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.
_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
Some of "The right is no better. They were all doves when it came to Kosovo."
Fixed that for you.
In his interview with Charlie Rose last week, Rudy said he agreed with Obama's position re Pakistan.
I sure hope Rudy agrees with Obama on Pakistan. Even the White House's own intelligence assessments have declared Bush's approach in Pakistan a failure and call for more agreessive actions there.
The NY Times:
WASHINGTON, July 17 — President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.
As for Bush, he says one thing one day (Sept. 15, 2006):
Q.: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.
BUSH: Yes.
Q.: Now, recently you've also --
BUSH: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.
And another thing another day (Sept. 20, 2006):
BLITZER: If you had good, actionable intelligence in Pakistan -- where they were -- would you give the order to kill him or capture him and go into Pakistan?
BUSH: Absolutely.
BLITZER: Even though the Pakistanis say that's their sovereign territory?
BUSH: We would take the action necessary to bring him to justice.
And Tony Snow assured us (August, 2006):
Q.: I gather, Tony, from your answer to Martha that you don't think very much of Barack Obama's suggestion, he'd send U.S. troops into Pakistan to take care of those safe havens.
SNOW: Well, let me just say we think that our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government, but is also designed to work in a way where we are working in cooperation with the local government. So we think that our policy and our approach is the right one.
Links to all those transcripts.
Back to the NY Times (July, 2007):
President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed
Back to you, Professor. Do you still admire Romney's jab? What would your approach in Pakistan be, since you reject the "unsophisticated" and "naive" Obama on foreign policy?
The Tillman article by the way...is from Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html
"The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away."
Actually what they said was that the gunfire had to come from farther than 5 yards away. The AP came up with the 10 yards. Also they couldnt tell if the rounds came from a m-16 or not. They say the rounds could have come from multiple weapons that were being fired. The site of his death is riddled with bullets. It isn't surprising he was also. Appears to have been from panic fire. The implication is that he was hit 3 times from the same weapon in a small cluster and there is no evidence to support that. Including in this report.
"In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling.""
Actually his "panicky" comrade disputes this, he says Tillman never talked to him like that. I am not clear as to what this is meant to prove or disprove in any event.
LoafingOaf,
You might want to run some of the Pakistan information by Seven and his new BFF, Ged.
He apparently thinks everything is A-OK and that they're doing all they can to help out.
*Then again, neither of them never actually read anything, they just posts comments based on their...personal beliefs.
Jeff,
We'll eventually find out what happened, but it's disgusting for Bush to stonewall the investigation's report.
Try to remember the last time anybody asked the White House for anything, when they they didn't immediately invoke executive privilege or refuse to testify under oath or even with transcripts.
Within a few years, there are going to be books by "insiders" of this administration that will blow people's minds.
How to defeat the Dem candidate, whoever she is? Laugh her out of contention. Be not afraid Pubby candidate, whoever you are, to expose the naked Emperess, no matter how ghastly the sight.
Oops, typo: Tony Snow said that in Aug., 2007.
I consider myself a swing voter. I just want a foreign policy that actually works. Obama seems very persuasive to me, so far, that he could have a better approach in foreign affairs. The fact that everyone (from Hillary to Romney to partisan bloggers) keeps trying to distort and play games with what he says instead of being as much of a straight-talker as Obama makes me think they only want to confuse the voters.
George W. Bush, fearing that Pat Tillman would become a critic akin to John Kerry, made a call to a general. The general called a colonel. The command filtered down the line, until it came to a brigade. No one along the chain of command had any problem with the order. None of those given the final order refused. They all were bound and determined to do exactly what George W. Bush wanted-- the extermination of Pat Tillman.
All because he was a Cowboy fan, and Tillman had been a division rival Cardinal.
Of course, that dumbass Bush had not kept up on things, and did not realize that the Cards had moved out of the NFC East in 2002.
But thanks to the superior intellect of people like Luckyoldson, the world will see that Bush himself ordered Tillman killed. This was no accident. It was murder, covered up as only the evil mastermind can manage despite being dumb as a stump.
Or, there was a tragic killing of a soldier by friendly fire; the investigation of which was marred by people wanting to cover their own ass. Of which opportunistic partisan wingnuts spin tales of ominous intimation, not for the benefit of the Tillman family, but for partisan gain.
I have to admit, it is hard for me to figure out which of these two possibilities might be closer to the truth. It is a real poser, I say.
Pretending for a moment that Bin Laden isn't dead ...
Again, is there credible evidence that he is dead? Why do we have to pretend that he's alive when we have no evidence that he's dead?
LUCKYOLDSON,
We found you!
This is Junior. Please come home.
We forgive you for all the beatings. We know it was the booze and drugs. We know. Your sponsors say they are ready to try again.
We’re also willing to forgive that incident with the goat. We destroyed all of your videos of it.
Your parole officer was transferred and we haven’t seen or heard of anyone new yet, so you’re safe to come home.
We just want to get you back on your meds. You don’t have to go back and stay a long time at the “resort” this time.
Someone told us they saw your writings on this blog. Oh, yea, Mr. Kaczynski says hi.
Please call – don’t write! We know how you get when start typing.
"We'll eventually find out what happened, but it's disgusting for Bush to stonewall the investigation's report."
I don't know that this has happened. If so, then yeah. But in remains to be seen. Pat Tillman was quite a man and put his country ahead of his financial interests. I suspect that panic fire killed him, and the idea that someone who captures the nation interest effected the way the army handled things.
"Try to remember the last time anybody asked the White House for anything, when they they didn't immediately invoke executive privilege or refuse to testify under oath or even with transcripts."
The problem is that every time someone screeches that this is unprecedented it turns out that
it isn't, that past presidents have done the same thing. Does that make it right? I don't know. I would suggest that congress sue and let the Supreme Court do their job and decide if executive privilege applies.
Jeff,
What the fuck does executive privilege have to do with a soldier being killed by friendly fire????
I've listened to interviews and read articles with any number of constitutional attorneys and all say they can't imagine how it would apply...unless of course...somebody in the administration is involved in a cover-up.
By the way...the only reason you're reading the article I attached is because of the Freedom of Information Act.
If you want to believe Bush, that's your option, and I understand it, based on your right wing bullshit.
Bush could crap in you mouth and you'd say..."thanks!!"
"Again, is there credible evidence that he is dead? Why do we have to pretend that he's alive when we have no evidence that he's dead?"
There appears to be no evidence either way. However, he has not appeared in a dated video since 9/11. He wasn't this shy pre 9/11. Until someone digs up the mountain he is under, however, you can not pronounce him dead. Even if I believe there is a 95% chance he is dead, there is still that 5% hanging out there.
Hell, there is a very small chance that Jimmy Hoffa is living in Idaho quietly raising potatoes.
I think he's dead though, but I can't prove it.
Jeff,
You're wrong...again.
Past Presidents have never invoked executive privilege or refused testimony like this idiot.
While Clinton was being investigated (and for only 8 years) he allowed scores of staff to testify, under oath and with transcripts.
The last time we saw something like this was with another of your buddies...Dick Nixon.
Jeff,
The point of finding Osama is obvious (dead or alive as cowboy Bush likes to say)...at least to those who can think straight.
As long as people believe he's alive...he serves as a strong leader for those who are fighting and threatening America...got that?
Can something like that sink into your concrete-like head??
jeff wrote:
I believe there is a 95% chance he is dead
Can you tell me what you base this on? Why 95% instead of 80%, for example?
"What the fuck does executive privilege have to do with a soldier being killed by friendly fire????"
You're thinking of this in a very shallow way. My point is that if you give up EP for one thing, it effects keeping EP for another. As I suggested, let the SC decide if it is appropriate. I have already told you I don't know the details of why Bush is supposedly doing this, but since you have provided no documentation that he has other than your ravings, I haven't considered your argument.
"If you want to believe Bush, that's your option, and I understand it, based on your right wing bullshit.
Bush could crap in you mouth and you'd say..."thanks!!""
I could go for days on the stuff I disagree with Bush on. Clearly you can only see things very very black or very very white.
But once again, rather than debating in good faith, you would rather let fly with the insults.
Post away, we're done here.
Mr. Jeff, please be nice to my father.
He gets really mad when he writes and the doctors say his psychosis is so bad he will probably hurt others or hisself.
Sometimes he can keep writing and then soils hisself and keeps sitting in it, which he says he likes but always makes him even madder.
We need him to come home soon. We have his meds.
Here's an accurate description: Hillary is a horror from hell. Discuss.
"Can you tell me what you base this on? Why 95% instead of 80%, for example?"
As previously stated by me-"he has not appeared in a dated video since 9/11. He wasn't this shy pre 9/11."
YMMV
Jeff said..."My point is that if you give up EP for one thing, it effects keeping EP for another."
Geeee, strange, but that's exactly what Tony Snow and Bill Kristol and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly say.
(like minds think alike?)
And...if Bush lets people testify...it will set some kind of horrible precedent...and then...everybody will have to tell the truth.
Good God...we certainly wouldn't want that to happen.
JR, my bad. I assumed he could debate like an adult. Clearly I should have known better. It will not happen again. Best of luck to your family.
Oh, look...another gutless wingnut has joined the fray.
Posting under fictitious monikers...now that's chickenshit.
Please LUCKYOLDSON come home.
There were not any helicopters from the government looking for you.
We can all be a family again if you just come back, except for the goat.
Please Daddy!
Thelma forgives you for laughing at her during the school play when she was supposed to be doin a death scene. And they know it was you that wrote her name in the bathroom at the school because you signed it love, luckyoldson.
Come home!
Jeff,
Pick yourself up a few newspapers and maybe even a few books...then get back to me.
Until then, just keep on suckin'.
"Why 95% instead of 80%, for example?"
Because 78.6% of all stats quoted on the internet are completely made up, natch.
Mitt unplugged:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html
"Because 78.6% of all stats quoted on the internet are completely made up, natch."
When I said I was 95% sure he was dead, you didn't think I was quoting some sort of scientific survey did you? It was clear that was an opinion of mine. We still are allowed to have those, right?
Again, educated guess based on what I have already posted twice. What makes you think he is still alive?
Dear blog readers,
This Luckyoldson's son, junior.
We've been looking for my dad ever since he left Private Hills Center.
It is importanat that he be found and returned as soon as possible.
He is a danger to himself and others. Mostly himself. And others.
I cannot give out all of the details of the things he's done because of legal matters and our agreement with the Jerry Springer Show. Just trust me. He's not all right up there, if you know what I mean.
If anyone knows or has information about his whereabouts, do not try to contact him yourself.
If it's easiest, just send an email to luckyoldsonjr at yahoo.com
We appreciate the help
Signed,
Jumior, Momma, Thelma, Betty, Jake, Jill, John, Jeffrey and Cindy the goat.
Oh, you mistook my teasing about the stats as meaning I think Bin Laden is alive.
I don't. I think he's dead.
I love you, luckyoldsonjr! What took you so long? Now I can sleep with a smile on my face
:-|
Lest you misunderstand, LOSjr., that was sincere. Please keep trying to get through to your very lost father.
he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week
That IS a pretty funny line. I wonder if he came up with it himself. It still doesn't make me want to vote for him for the nomination, but it is a pretty good line. :)
I wonder who the "attack Pakistan" line was supposed to appeal to.
Ms Althouse your blog is loaded with some nasty sumbitches.
I'm sorry. Actually I was referring to 1 particular, obviously deranged, person (ostensibly a man).
The Ron Paul clip (where Romney reminds everyone about 9-11) will make You Tube.
Video correction: Contrary to assertions that no OBL videos exist after 2001, he issued his warning to American voters not to vote for Bush or his allies in 2004, threatening "deadly consequences" if they failed to listen."
Since then, the "deadly consequences" have mostly been on the radical Islamist's side. (of which OBL is just a side character in the broad Islamist movement)
I love that people who want the U.S. out of Iraq are going to try to argue that they want the U.S. in Pakistan. Yeah. That makes sense. Let's invade a definitely nuclear, nominal ally. Let's kill a bunch of poor nomadic tribal folks.
Brilliant!
Hillary Clinton has already called this strategy incredibly dopey. That's because: (1) she's not an idiot and (2) she knows that 85 percent of the country would find this argument laughable.
But, please. I urge you. Use it. As President Bush so eloquently said: bring it on.
Seven Machos did a nice little riff on what a naive imbecile Obama was. And as he fought 40 million wildass Pashtuns (assuming he didn't have to 1st conclude a major war up to nuclear against a radicalized Islamic nation to secure his supply lines into Afghanistan and the Pak tribal lands) - President Obama would be explaining to the public why he must resume a Draft to "bring bin Laden to trial and finish getting his Deck of Cards" in the face of millions of Pashtuns declaring not just Jihad but to the death Tribal blood feud.
****************
Loafing Oaf - Here's what I have learned from Obama:
-He will require much higher standards for intelligence than Bush before sending troops into battle, and he will not send troops into battle without having a good plan.
Ooooo! That is so commendable of the young lawyer! So, he would insist on better intelligence that bin Laden is in Cave #1XU in Baluchistan than say - The combined, stated Intelligence of Russia, Jordan, Turkey, France, America, Spain, Poland, Germany, Israel, US, Egypt, Italy, UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran (via Russian & Shiite groups contacts), the Kurdish resistance, China, and his own generals all concluding without a doubt Saddam had WMD. Given that half convinced he had 'em disputed the need for regime change. Not including the Clinton Administration and 60% of the Democrats back in 1998.
I feel so relieved to know the Esquire who talks so inspirationally and who promises to lift away liberal guilt and redeem America morally understands what "higher standards, better confidence in intel, more certainty, requires." The myth that intelligence is "perfect" or someone "lied" or was incompetent is a nice Hollywood myth that naive Obama and the Lefties clueless of military and national intel operations do not understand.
And it is so reassuring to know a lawyer with 2 years in national office and no experience will not send the US military into battle without a "good plan" to deal with defeating the Pakistan military, the 6 million Pashtun warriors that would attack invading forces, and has a "good plan" to secure the Pak nukes now at 7 locations we know about, plus perhaps a few more.
Yep, that's Obama, the Man with the Plan.
-He will increase our focus on Pakistan, an al Qaeda hotbed where bin Laden is residing.
By ignoring radical Islam is an ideology, not the creation of one CEO. Though Hollywood and now it seems the Nutroots and Obama likes to boil down all threats to one person for dramatic effect so you get a climax to the movie as the Head Evildoer is defeated. Or at least gets 10 years to give speeches and write books if he is ever "brught to justice in American courts" with his coterie of hundreds of Lefty and ACLU lawyers zealously protecting his ass - somehow the whole Islamic world is supposed to be cowed by a pack of infidel schmucks on a non-Sharia jury and a godless lawyer in robes having the authority over a Jihadi??
Reality doesn't work that way. OBL is just one of thousands of radical Islamist leaders, many with larger and deadlier in potential organizations than his. Plus, we have learned most tip of the spear Jihad groups are netcentric and have lines of competent leader succession ready. The Zionists found the more they pressured & worked on "taking out" Mr Bigs in Hezbollah or Hamas, the better and deadlier the successors were.
-If Musharref sits on his hands when we have intelligence that needs to be acted on with respect to terrorists in Pakistan's lawless areas, he will be given stern warnings and if he still won't act then America will.
So not only will maximum military and foreign policy expert Obama(I lived in a Muslim country for 4 years as a kid, I know these people!) invade Pakistan, he also wants a US invasion to stop more Muslim nuts from killing one another in Darfur. And presumably while the US groung combat military is still "hopelessly broken" from Iraq, as he has stated.
To Mr. Luckyoldsonjr:
Sir,
'Tis with mix'd emotions that I make bold to introduce myself. I am the Ghost of the Imaginings of a Madman in Bedlam, dead these 200 years. Perhaps you have already happened upon a Trifle or two that I have had the honour of addressing to several Persons who frequent this Theatre of Topicks, as I call it.
It has been my Avocation to try to relieve, and great Sport to observe Madmen through several Ages. I confess that I have seen fewer Lunaticks since my days in Bedlam, but I have tried to turn my Haunting to some account by possessing the Brains of Actors as opportunity arose, they being the closest to Madmen that may be found.
I hoped to add some Lustre to rude and unpolish'd Madmen, such as you poor Father, we see in this modern, uncheck'd Bedlam you call the Internet. I meant to do this by way of Criticism, whereby they learn from one who has haunted many a Theatre, and who fancies himself something of a Critick of Plays. As you are doubtless aware, if I be a Ghost or Spirit, I am myself quite beyond all Praise or Blame. But having had an extensive View of the Puzzles, Blunders, and Terrors of Madmen, I have sought to palliate these Unfortunates as I could. The living might yet have Benefit from the Dead if they had but Wit to listen.
It is with most sombre Sentiments that I must tell you that your poor Father is insensible to all Persuasion. I offer'd him sound Advice, which he refus'd. Like all Madmen, he is possess'd by a singular Passion that is pursu'd beyond all Proportion. You know perhaps too well that he has taken it upon himself to drive the Fortunes of a Faction within a Political Party. This may be a thing for Office-seekers, writers of News-papers, Statesmen and the like to do, but in the sad Case of your Father, a Lunatick Pauper, it were better done in Bedlam.
I see that you seek your Father's return to some Asylum where he may be given Physick for his Distemper. I am sorry to tell you than in my Day there was little Physick and fewer Means to effect a Cure. You may see for yourself, however, the handsome and commodious Building erected to house those who had no other Succor. Here is Mr. Hogarth's view of the Interior, which may perhaps give you to better understand why Bedlam was both a Hospital and a Source of Amusement for many.
I feel all the Impropriety of taking your Time thus, but I wish to call attention to the Care and Worry you exhibit for your Father. You, Sir, will doubtless not act as this Wretch has done, and leave your poor Parent upon the filthy floor of a Cell. I know I speak for the others who write in this Theatre of Ideas, that we would never wish such a Fate upon your unfortunate Father.
I am, Sir,
Your Humble and Obt. Servant,
Sir Archy
Bush is doing a really lousy job. His approval ratings are at 24% according to Zogby.
According to Zogby, Congress is at 3% and they did it in less than 6 months. Way to go guys. I wonder if they set a record?
I'm 96.9% sure Osama is dead.
Why the .9%? I attribute that to measurement noise.
out of luck says:
As long as people believe he's alive...he serves as a strong leader for those who are fighting and threatening America...got that?
Strong dead leaders. Or dead strong leaders.
Works for me.
Let him inspire jihadis everywhere. Then we can arrest them or kill them as the situation warrants.
Luckyoldson...just keep in mind the mindset of those who attack you. They don't have arguments or facts so they just hurl "traitor" and poke fun. It is the blog equiv. of 'Your momma'.
If the best thing Romney can come up with is the Fonda-Strangelove line it means that none of his "position lines" have any traction. The GOP moving forward slogan is obviously "Well where was the outrage when Clinton...". They do it so they won't have to answer the queston "Where was the outrage when Bush...." and I guess they learned it in Debate 101.
Just let sleeping dogs lie. Even when barking they don't add anything, they don't tell you anything, and they just make a lot of noise, pee on the rug and shit a lot. I guess that is the GOP in a nutshell isn't it.
Go Rudy
You're the treat
We get to beat
LoafingOaf said...
6:38 PM
Read it you nutjobs. He put you in your place with facts and quotes. He made fools of you. He showed you for what you are...sniveling buttlickers with no brains.
He quoted your GOP standard bearers. He showed you specificially that when you attack Obama for his position you attack Bush and the others....
but no...you GOP assholes are so full of shit vitriol that you just don't get it. You freaks couldn't be set afire with a torch.
HD, get a hold of yourself, you sound like Jim Cramer screaming about Bernacke on TV. What does this "You freaks couldn't be set afire with a torch," mean? Is that some sort of Truther reference? Fire can't melt steel? By the way, it can.
Seven Machos wrote:
As President Bush so eloquently said: bring it on.
Hahahahahahaha!
Luckyoldson said...
Posting under fictitious monikers...now that's chickenshit.
So, is your last name "Son" or is it "Oldson". Is your first name "Lucky"?
hdhouse said..."Luckyoldson...just keep in mind the mindset of those who attack you. They don't have arguments or facts so they just hurl "traitor" and poke fun. It is the blog equiv. of 'Your momma'."
I'm used to it.
I've posted a number of direct questions regarding the Tillman case, Obama's comment and have yet to receive a logical response.
Most here don't want to hear anything other than what they already believe to be so...and if they do, they immediately hide behind inane comments they appear to think are "funny??" (Don't give up you day job...)
It's not easy being a Republican these days...just ask Bush.
Lucky: I've posted a number of direct questions regarding the Tillman case, Obama's comment and have yet to receive a logical response
You're lying again. Several people have responded logically to you, on this thread and the prior one. Here's one example:
Jeff: My point is that if you give up EP for one thing, it effects keeping EP for another. As I suggested, let the SC decide if it is appropriate. I have already told you I don't know the details of why Bush is supposedly doing this, but since you have provided no documentation that he has other than your ravings, I haven't considered your argument
Again Lucky, the only reason you bring up Tillman is to use his corpse as a political prop to bash conservatives with. Necro-mongering. How pathetic.
Fen,
If you actually think it "logical" for the President to not allow his people to testify, protected under his executive privilege edict, about how a family's son or brother died while serving in the military...you're even dumber than I thought...which takes some doing.
This is nothing more than another cover-up by the most inept and corrupt administration in our nation's history...and time will prove me correct.
Why not drag your head out of Bush's ass for a few days and actually read something...instead of posting the same bullshit right wing talking points over and over again?
You say you were a Marine...what exactly do you think you were fighting for? A President's ability to lie to the American people? To hide the truth of how a serviceman was killed while serving? To never admit a single mistake?
You really need to read more and talk less.
Lucky: Fen, If you actually think it "logical" for the President to not allow his people to testify, protected under his executive privilege edict, about how a family's son or brother died while serving in the military...you're even dumber than I thought...which takes some doing.
I see you still don't understand Bruce's point about defending the principle of EP, regardless of content. So I guess your rage and frustration is to be expected. I'm sorry you don't grasp the logic. It was unfair of Bruce to debate an emotionally retarded and intellectually handicapped troll like yourself.
So... how's your golf game doing?
/edit, that should be Jeff's point, not Bruce's
Fen,
I understand the "principle," you idiot.
I just feel Bush is using that as his argument against EVER allowing ANYONE to testify.
You believe EVERYBODY in the administration should be shielded from ANY FORM OF TESTIMONY or even TRANSCRIPTS of questioning because the President says so?
Get your head out of Bush's ass.
Fen,
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said that he was bewildered by the White House's willingness to involve itself in such a clearcut case of contempt.
"The most straightforward act of contempt is not showing up," he said of Miers. "I'm not too sure why the White House did that. It was, in my view, a rather silly thing and dangerous thing to do. She could have shown up and still invoked privilege, but instead she didn't show up, and there are plenty of questions that might have been asked of her which did not involve privilege."
"Usually presidents will cooperate," Turley said in dismay. "The Tillman case is a great example of that. It's unbelievably weak as an assertion, but the White House seems to be invoking executive privilege if anyone is within a 25 mile radius of the building.
It's as clever and as elegant as a meat cleaver. ... Past presidents have compromised. On something like Tillman? I don't think past presidents would have said, 'Let's fight this one out.'"
"This is really coming out of Vice President Cheney's shop," Turley concluded. "Past presidents have issued conditional waivers. They've said, 'Look, we're invoking executive privilege but we're going to waive it in this circumstance because we think the public has a right to know.' ... What occurred to Tillman truly shocks the conscience. ... Why anyone in the White House would stand on executive privilege ... it baffles the mind."
Post a Comment