avatar

Recommended Posts

halfbaked

Details

Latest Comments

  • Frankly, I would like to see the French win this one.

    Posted at November 24, 2006 7:59 PM in response to Question for reporter to ask at next WH press briefing

  • Answer:

    "I disagree with the premise of your question. There is no civil war in Iraq. The lesson we learned from 9/11 is that it's better fight them over there than over here. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. We're winning!"

    Posted at November 24, 2006 3:36 PM in response to Question for reporter to ask at next WH press briefing

  • She's a woman.

    Posted at November 23, 2006 12:24 PM in response to Have the Shia Won the Civil War?

  • I'm going to pick at one of the points Larry made. In defending his argument that the Iraq war is largely between Iraqis rather than outside terrorists, he wrote:

    In fact, preliminary stats for 2006 indicate that the dramatic increase in international terrorist attacks we have seen during the last two years is now on the decline even though the violence in Iraq continues to spiral upward.

    I agree that Bush's argument that we're fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here is absurd. However, the fact you state could easily be seen as proof that Bush's plan is working. While we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, international terrorism has gone down. According to your own data, Bush's flypaper theory appears to be working.

    I can't help but wonder how the flypaper theory and the building of a democracy goals work together. Can we really build a democracy in Iraq while we are draw in terrorists so we can kill them. In addition to terrorists, we happen to be killing a lot of Iraqis. And the Iraqis are now fighting their own civil war and killing many more Iraqis.

    Bush has backed himself into a corner in Iraq. There are no more possible moves he can make. The Iraqis voted. The majority of the nation is Shia. They won. Now we have a civil war in Iraq. Which side do we pick? There are no good choices here and really nothing more we can do to win.

    There never was a plan to win. Prior to the war, what was victory supposed to look like? No one asked that question and no one proffered such data. All we were told was that it was going to be quick and easy. Rumsfeld said that he doubted the war would last six months. Wolfowitz said Iraqi oil would fund the entire reconstruction. All the while Bush, Cheney and Rice freaked everyone out about nukes. The press just sat there looking stupid.

    Posted at November 23, 2006 11:10 AM in response to Have the Shia Won the Civil War?

  • I think you might be missing the point a bit. The point isn't, were we all afraid, some were and were not. The point is that Bush used fear to get people support his radical policies. I think most people are unwilling to admit they were afraid because only pussies get scared. Right? Well anyway, I was a definitely fearful of an attack on my city on and immediately after 9/11.

    Did you see Bush's face when he heard about the attack? It looked like he had just dropped a load in his tighty whities.

    If 9/11 didn't happen, does anyone believe we would be in Iraq right now? Hell no, if it wasn't for the fear of another attack, we would not be in Iraq.

    Posted at November 17, 2006 1:33 AM in response to Mother Knows Best

  • Anyone who says Bush wasn't using fear after 9/11 hasn't been paying attention. Almost everyone, particularly those of us who live in cities, were certainly fearful after 9/11. We just watched 3000 of our fellow Americans murdered, that's pretty scary. I know I was freaked out for awhile after 9/11.

    What did Rice mean when she said that we don't want to wait for the smoking gun in Iraq to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. That's not fear-mongering? There was zero evidence that Saddam had a nuclear weapon, much less one that could hit the U.S. So why did she say that? She said it because she was trying to scare people into supporting the pending war in Iraq.

    There are many examples of Bush administration fear-mongering. It's not even debatable.

    Posted at November 16, 2006 2:25 PM in response to Mother Knows Best

  • Under the cover of the Baker group, Bush will tuck tail and scurry out of Iraq. He will say, "Mission Accomplished" again. Bush's legacy will be one of utter failure. He will spend the next two years trying to change that fact. He will fail, again.

    This is what happens when you elect a dumbass to be the president. Particularly one who is an ideologue, an ideologue without any actual ideas.

    Posted at November 14, 2006 12:45 PM in response to Behaving Like A Superpower in Iraq

  • Absolutely. The Bush adminstration actions have resulted in many many lives lost and our treasury depleted. This isn't just some mouse shit you can just brush under the rug. I don't think the Democrats are going to do that, perhaps I'm too optimistic. I hope not, because as you said, if we let them off-the-hook, it will set a bad precedent.

    Posted at November 11, 2006 11:36 AM in response to Richard Perle, Neo Chutzpah

  • It's easy to get bogged down in negativity, I know I do. But all is not lost. We can and probably will recover from Bush's two terms. We recovered from the Civil War and two World Wars. We've been through tough times and made it through just fine, even better. We can this time too. It's not going be easy, but no one ever said it was supposed to be easy.

    The bad news, is that we have probably not seen the end of Bush's policy failures. Much of the downside from Bush will be felt after he leaves office. The next president, if he or she is a Democrat, is going to have a lot of work to do. The damage done to our bureaucracies has to be pretty substantial. FEMA is just one shining example of Bush's inability to run our government properly. There's much more to come, but we shall overcome.

    Think positive. Look to the future. There may not be sun shiny days ahead but we will survive.

    Posted at November 9, 2006 12:40 AM in response to Richard Perle, Neo Chutzpah

  • Chris it would be amazing to see Democrats forwarding the progessive agenda, I just don't see it happening.

    Posted at November 7, 2006 4:31 PM in response to The "Progressive Plurality" Is Not Just Votes

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address