The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's not bait, really. I like having fights, and I don't mind being stupid. Enjoy!

Well now, that would be Episode 12, The Great Feud. Watch out for that buckshot, now!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
You may like guns, but does your enjoyment of guns trump my desire not to be caught in the crossfire of armor piercing high caliber automatic rifle rounds?

I'd trust Ty with a gun more than most.

But, Ty, you'd better move to Wyoming. Your parts seem pretty anti-gun, at least for law-abiding citizens.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
You liberals were correct. I really have to hand it to you. The invasion of Iraq was a complete waste of resources because Iraq has turned into a hell hole quagmire with no hope of ever turning into a democracy, or experiencing peace and prosperity. The risk was just not worth it because there was a hundred percent chance of failure.

Unlike the conservatives you were able to look into the future and see exactly what was going to happen. It was really stupid of conservatives to think that Arabs would ever embrace democracy. Just like we knew democracy would never work in Japan and Germany, we now know it won't work in Iraq.


'It's been a good day for Iraq'
Strong turnout reported, even among Sunnis, in historic elections

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html

It was a good day for Iraqi democracy, certainly.

So when Iraq becomes a democracy, what does this mean for advances in the War On the Terrorist Fuckhead Menace, the reason we went there? Perhaps not so much.

• Promoting freedom has become the cornerstone of the Bush administration's national security policy. Democracy and freedom are universal human aspirations as well as wise policy objectives that we should actively pursue. Democratic states are less likely to go to war with one another and more likely to govern responsibly.
  
  Yet, the American people would be ill-advised to accept as axiomatic the premise that democracy alone will secure our future or eliminate terrorism.
  
  The jury remains out over whether democracy in the Arab world would yield governments more supportive of U.S. interests, produce populaces less sympathetic to jihadists or prevent al Qaeda from pursuing its goals through terrorism. At stake is more than presidential rhetoric. Democracy promotion has become the sole and defining element of President Bush's long-term counterterrorism approach. That is why the administration has an obligation to go beyond assertion and demonstrate convincingly that its one-dimensional strategy will yield the desired result. If it cannot, the administration risks putting all of our security eggs in the wrong basket.
  
  The Bush formula is flawed on another score: As Rice outlined it, its premise is that democracy will enable weak states to become capable of providing for their citizens, controlling their territory and effectively combating transnational threats. But fragile democracies that are impoverished remain prone to coups and civil conflict. They also lack resources and institutional capacity to act as responsible states.
  
  From Mali to Tanzania, from Bangladesh to Indonesia, poverty hobbles many nascent democracies, which cannot prevent terrorists from operating on their territory or contain outbreaks of disease. To strengthen weak states, we must do more than promote democracy. We must join with others to build state capacity, in substantial part by helping to alleviate poverty.
  
  The administration's focus is also too limited geographically. The secretary said, referring to the Middle East: "In one region of the world . . . the problems emerging from the character of regimes are more urgent than in any other."
  
  Perhaps, but unless we focus on building state capacity in other regions, we will fall far short in thwarting transnational threats, which can emanate from anywhere.
  
  Finally, if freedom is key to our national security, why is the administration ambivalent about implementing this policy outside Iraq? The president's fiscal 2006 budget requested $30 million less for his Middle East Partnership Initiative than did the previous year's. That same budget also reduced democracy funds for the former Soviet Union.
  
  When Rice visited Cairo this summer, she laid out tough benchmarks against which we would measure Egypt's electoral process. But last week, after Egypt's violent electoral sham, a State Department spokesman termed the overall process "positive" before expressing mild concern about its flaws.
  
  These mixed signals must puzzle, if not deflate, democracy activists across the world.

Well, shit.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You liberals were correct. I really have to hand it to you. The invasion of Iraq was a complete waste of resources because Iraq has turned into a hell hole quagmire with no hope of ever turning into a democracy, or experiencing peace and prosperity. The risk was just not worth it because there was a hundred percent chance of failure.

Unlike the conservatives you were able to look into the future and see exactly what was going to happen. It was really stupid of conservatives to think that Arabs would ever embrace democracy. Just like we knew democracy would never work in Japan and Germany, we now know it won't work in Iraq.

The Iraqi elections seem to have been a big success -- which is an unmitigated good thing.

[eta: The broader questions about the medium- and long terms effects in the region and on U.S. Security remain to be answered over time.]

You, however, are both an asshole and an idiot.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It was a good day for Iraqi democracy, certainly.

So when Iraq becomes a democracy, what does this mean for advances in the War On the Terrorist Fuckhead Menace, the reason we went there? Perhaps not so much.

• Promoting freedom has become the cornerstone of
  
  These mixed signals must puzzle, if not deflate, democracy activists across the world.

Well, shit.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
[eta: The broader questions about the medium- and long terms effects in the region and on U.S. Security remain to be answered over time.]
S_A_M

So what you are saying is that ultimate outcome in Iraq may not turn out to be 100% in line with US interests. That is surprizing because wars and other foreign policy forays almost always end in a result that produces a situation that is perfect for US interests. Like it did in Somalia, Haiti, Lebananon, etc.

And of course, you are right, that it really doesn't matter if we establish a stable democracy in Iraq. The only thing that really matters is how this change will effect US strategic interests.

I guess we will just have to see what happens.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I suppose that depends on who has more votes in the legislature.

That is generally the bottom line in all political disputes. However, the NRA's endorsement in state wide elections in California is worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It was a good day for Iraqi democracy, certainly.

So when Iraq becomes a democracy, what does this mean for advances in the War On the Terrorist Fuckhead Menace, the reason we went there? Perhaps not so much.

• Promoting freedom has become the cornerstone of the Bush administration's national security policy. Democracy and freedom are universal human aspirations as well as wise policy objectives that we should actively pursue. Democratic states are less likely to go to war with one another and more likely to govern responsibly.
  
  Yet, the American people would be ill-advised to accept as axiomatic the premise that democracy alone will secure our future or eliminate terrorism.
  
  The jury remains out over whether democracy in the Arab world would yield governments more supportive of U.S. interests, produce populaces less sympathetic to jihadists or prevent al Qaeda from pursuing its goals through terrorism. At stake is more than presidential rhetoric. Democracy promotion has become the sole and defining element of President Bush's long-term counterterrorism approach. That is why the administration has an obligation to go beyond assertion and demonstrate convincingly that its one-dimensional strategy will yield the desired result. If it cannot, the administration risks putting all of our security eggs in the wrong basket.
  
  The Bush formula is flawed on another score: As Rice outlined it, its premise is that democracy will enable weak states to become capable of providing for their citizens, controlling their territory and effectively combating transnational threats. But fragile democracies that are impoverished remain prone to coups and civil conflict. They also lack resources and institutional capacity to act as responsible states.
  
  From Mali to Tanzania, from Bangladesh to Indonesia, poverty hobbles many nascent democracies, which cannot prevent terrorists from operating on their territory or contain outbreaks of disease. To strengthen weak states, we must do more than promote democracy. We must join with others to build state capacity, in substantial part by helping to alleviate poverty.
  
  The administration's focus is also too limited geographically. The secretary said, referring to the Middle East: "In one region of the world . . . the problems emerging from the character of regimes are more urgent than in any other."
  
  Perhaps, but unless we focus on building state capacity in other regions, we will fall far short in thwarting transnational threats, which can emanate from anywhere.
  
  Finally, if freedom is key to our national security, why is the administration ambivalent about implementing this policy outside Iraq? The president's fiscal 2006 budget requested $30 million less for his Middle East Partnership Initiative than did the previous year's. That same budget also reduced democracy funds for the former Soviet Union.
  
  When Rice visited Cairo this summer, she laid out tough benchmarks against which we would measure Egypt's electoral process. But last week, after Egypt's violent electoral sham, a State Department spokesman termed the overall process "positive" before expressing mild concern about its flaws.
  
  These mixed signals must puzzle, if not deflate, democracy activists across the world.

Well, shit.

interesting take from a Clinton admin staffer- especially considering the fallout from the clinton admin that we are starting to see:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20051213/...turbatingonher

Originally posted by Spanky
So what you are saying is that ultimate outcome in Iraq may not turn out to be 100% in line with US interests. That is surprizing because wars and other foreign policy forays almost always end in a result that produces a situation that is perfect for US interests. Like it did in Somalia, Haiti, Lebananon, etc.

And of course, you are right, that it really doesn't matter if we establish a stable democracy in Iraq. The only thing that really matters is how this change will effect US strategic interests.

I guess we will just have to see what happens.

Leaving aside the fact that we are apparently in the alternate universe where the stated purpose of the U.S. invasion was not to eliminate the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein's WMDs but to make it possible for Iraqis to go to the polls and vote for the Sunni, Shiite or Kurd of their choice as a prelude to civil war, you make a very good case for non-intervention generally.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Leaving aside the fact that we are apparently in the alternate universe where the stated purpose of the U.S. invasion was not to eliminate the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein's WMDs but to make it possible for Iraqis to go to the polls and vote for the Sunni, Shiite or Kurd of their choice as a prelude to civil war, you make a very good case for non-intervention generally.

Chicken little? Just yesterday you were yelling that there was going to be a transit strike, and everything worked out there, right?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Chicken little? Just yesterday you were yelling that there was going to be a transit strike, and everything worked out there, right?

What is it with you guys and declaring "Mission Accomplished" before everything's been settled? Nothing's been signed and Toussaint could still grow a pair.

But seriously, folks, there's a very good article in the New Yorker this week about Zalmay Khalilzad and the political maneuvering going on over there, and it sounds like the various factions are operating with an eye on an eventual move by at least the Kurds for an independent state.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Leaving aside the fact that we are apparently in the alternate universe where the stated purpose of the U.S. invasion was not to eliminate the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein's WMDs

Was the stated purpose of the US invasion to eliminate the clear and present danger of Saddam's Hussein's WMD's? Can you give me a cite? Are you sure that once we didn't find WMDs that the liberals decided that this was the sole purpose of the invasion.

It was my impression that the goal of eliminated the WMDs was one of many reasons, and was never stated as the main goal. Am I wrong?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Southern Patriot
Whew-ee boy. You've really struck it rich Jed!



Originally aired: September 26, 1962 on CBS

Writer: Paul Henning, Phil Shuken
Director: Richard Whorf
Show Stars: Paul Winchell (Homer Winch),

I don't remember Homer Winch at all. Can anyone provide a brief character sketch, please?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
to make it possible for Iraqis to go to the polls and vote for the Sunni, Shiite or Kurd of their choice as a prelude to civil war,

Are you sure there is going to be a civil war? Remember, your ability to predict the future 100% hasn't been that good up to this point.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
What is it with you guys and declaring "Mission Accomplished" before everything's been settled? Nothing's been signed and Toussaint could still grow a pair.

But seriously, folks, there's a very good article in the New Yorker this week about Zalmay Khalilzad and the political maneuvering going on over there, and it sounds like the various factions are operating with an eye on an eventual move by at least the Kurds for an independent state.

I recall postings on this board that stated that the majority of the Iraqis support the insurgency. It is totally naive to think a democracy could ever work in Iraq. It is a total quagmire just like Vietnam. Iraq is much worse of today that it was under Saddam. There is no way that the invasion can improve things, it will only makes things worse.

I never said the occupation would be easy, neither did the administration. Inever said there was a 100% chance of success, neither did the administration. It seems to me that only absolutist statements came from the other side i.e. we can never win.

I merely pointed out that the statements in the first paragraph seem rather absurd now. Are you saying that the above statements don't seem a little absurd?

[Replaced_Texan]

Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House
No bills were passed ‘bout which Fox News could grouse;
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon would be near;

Katrina kids were nestled all snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads;
In Iraq our soldiers needed supplies and a plan,
Plus nuclear weapons were being built in Iran;

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell;
Americans feared we were on a fast track to... well.
Wait--- we need a distraction--- something divisive and wily;
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O’Reilly

We can pretend that Christmas is under attack
Hold a vote to save it--- then pat ourselves on the back;
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger
Wake up Congress, they’re in no danger!

This time of year we see Christmas every where we go,
From churches, to homes, to schools, and yes…even Costco;
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy,
When this is the season to unite us with joy

At Christmas time we’re taught to unite,
We don’t need a made-up reason to fight
So on O’Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter, and those right wing blogs;
You should just sit back, relax…have a few egg nogs!

‘Tis the holiday season: enjoy it a pinch
With all our real problems, do we honestly need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues I say with delight,
A merry Christmas to all,

and to Bill O’Reilly... Happy Holidays.

--Rep. John Dingell, Democrat, MI-15