Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > August > 02 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USObama’s war
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Forty-three percent of the Democrats surveyed in a weekend Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. She’s up from 39 percent in June. Obama slipped three points, from 25 in June to 22 in July.
The next poll taken should reflect more slippage. Barack on Wednesday revealed that as President he’d send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists. “Let me make this clear,” said Obama, “there are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistan’s] President [Gen. Pervez] Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Barack and other Democrats have managed to appeal to those, especially on the Left, who want to be out of Iraq at any cost by being career second-guessers. Whatever President Bush did wrong, they would have done right. Whatever strategy had failed to achieve desired results, they would have avoided. Like most commentators, they’re brilliant in hindsight.
And then comes that moment, as it has for Obama, where they have to move from being critic to doer. It’s a Holy Cow! moment, the moment where people begin to realize the ramifications of this person or that in the White House. For Obama, that’s foreign policy and national security.
What he posits for the Waziristan tribal region controlled by bandits, terrorists and warlords in that vast mountainous “no-man’s land” between Afghanistan and Pakistan is an option, alright. And indeed it may be Obama’s plan. But if it were that simple and if Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts there could be pinpointed, we could already have taken him out with a drone. But it’s not. Musharraf hasn’t acted aggressively enough and, in fact, has ceded control there to the warlords.
But the additional fact is that he hangs by a thread and is always one security lapse away from assassination. An invasion by American troops would finish him off and our problems in the region would be complicated considerably. Complications there would no doubt hasten the day the U.S. would be forced to abandon Iraq, or at least shift substantial forces. Maybe that’s what Obama had it mind, but if so it’s the thought process of a guy who shouldn’t be in the White House.
Obama had already exposed his youth and inexperience in the YouTube debate by saying he he would be willing to meet without preconditions with the leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Hillary pounced, calling that stance naive and irresponsible. His response was to say you-too on Iraq and to call her “Bush-Cheney lite.”
Advantage Hillary. But pitfalls remain for the entire crew of Democratic contenders. When they stop second-guessing and start spelling out what they’d do differently, the warts appear. No wonder they’re so desperate to have it all over by election day.
Services »
Comments
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
Obama’s Holy Cow moment was the implied spread of the war into Pakistan.
Hillary’s Holy Cow moment was ……never mind.
“…if Bin Laden’s whereabouts could be pinpointed, we could already have taken him out with a drone……” Holy Cow!
By Jeff
August 2, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
We have ZERO business in interfereing with international affairs that do not DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the sovereignty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders.
Only ONE Presidential Candidate acknowledges that fact, and his name is Ron Paul.
Note that I believe we should completely pull out of the United Nations, ignore them completely, and kick them out of our country completely as well. Same with any other “international” organization that would threaten the soveriegnty of our government.
We as a people have been remarkably resilient in challenging our government when we believe it to be in the wrong, and we have had remarkable success in forcing it to change its ways. Why should we let ANYONE threaten that?
By whatever
August 2, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this
If we alter just a few words from Jim, he and I agree on something. “But the additional fact is that Saddam hangs by a thread and is always one security lapse away from assassination. An invasion by American troops would finish him off and our problems in the region would be complicated considerably. Complications there would no doubt hasten the day the U.S. would be forced to abandon Afghanistan, or at least shift substantial forces. Maybe that’s what GWBush had in mind, but if so it’s the thought process of a guy who shouldn’t be in the White House.”
Maybe seeing it in his own words will give Jim the epiphany he so sorely needs.
By RCH
August 2, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this
My progessive friends
Spin this one!!!!”“a real big problem for us”?
The truth is out. In chess this would be checkmate. The majority whip of the Democratic party making this statement. Maybe besides badmouthing the troops, cutting off there funding, John Murtha,Harry Reid, and the rest of the cronies can sell weapons to the insurgents. Maybe then they can realize the lost war in Iraq that they cry for. How has it gotten to this point; a win in Iraq is a loss for the Democratic party. They have chosen their careers and party over the lives of our soldiers and citizens.
Mr. Reid agreed that they would follow and respect the findings of Gen Patrious.Now suddenly they have lost confidence in him .Is it because the findings will not further their cause?
Hillary has better put her finger in the air to determine which way to dance because the wind has shifted!
You defeatist, you who wish to cut and run, you who embolden our enemies, you murderers.
By Redneck Convert
August 2, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
Well, I see the Minnesota folk need some good GA rednecks to do their bridges. We work real slow and take about twicet the time to finish, but at least our bridges don’t fall down. Course, sometimes we forget stuff like signs and striping and a bus or two falls off of one of our bridges, but leastwise the drivers don’t get dunked in the water.
When I watched Fox News last night it was clear as the sun in the sky the Minnesota people waste a lot of money on schooling. All the witnesses innervued talked all perfect-like, like they was reading from a school book. A good GA redneck would of said something like “When I high-tailed it past the bridge I looked back and that thing done fell down.” He would of got his point across without all the high-faluting words. Minnesota needs to spend more money on bridges and less on schooling, is all I got to say. They probly don’t spend nothing on fishing and NASCAR museums and important stuff like that neither. Bunch of libruls.
Anyway, I don’t want this Obama guy in the White House. He’s one of Those People. I don’t mind him saying he would go to war in Pakistan. Us GA rednecks love and support war. Even Sister Dusty is ready to put on her armor and go fight, if she can wake up in time. That is how strong we feel about fighting wars. Its just that having one of Those People as president would mean using my tax money on welfare and guvmint doctoring and making us go to school with Those People and other commie programs.
We need another fighting godly Republican in the White House. Course, it ain’t helping none that the Republicans keep trying to give away the White House to the libruls. With stuff like being caught wearing a diaper or chasing teenage pages and now letting companies pay for redoing your house. I halfway expect to see a big picture of some Republican in bed with a sheep or hog next. You got to be smarter than that when you stray from the Path of Righteousness. Just don’t get caught. Leastwise we can point to that La. Democrat that got caught with 100,000 bucks in his freezer or say Clinton done it first.
By Peter
August 2, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
Great job as always in Washington…..we are spending a Trillion dollars in the mid east blowing up stuff, killing folks, while our country is falling apart here at home……I sure feel SAFE…….HA HA HA with Bush as our leader….
HA HA HA HA HA……… HA HA HA HA
By Lee
August 2, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this
“*Democrats have managed to appeal to those, especially on the Left, who want to be out of Iraq at any cost by being career second-guessers. Whatever President Bush did wrong, they would have done right. Whatever strategy had failed to achieve desired results, they would have avoided.
As Senator Webb from Virginia said in his response to Bush’s State of the Union speech this year, the mistakes made in the war on terror were predictable and predicted — no hindsight needed.
By Billy
August 2, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
“Complications [in Pakistan] would no doubt hasten the day the U.S. would be forced to abandon Iraq, or at least shift substantial forces.”
FYI, al Queda and the Taliban are as strong as they were before 9/11. Of course, we should shift substantial forces out of Iraq and into where the heart of threat is. Apparently, Mr. Wooten has a problem with that. I, on the other hand, support this common sense approach.
One would think that Wooten would be happy with Obama since he’s clearly not part of the “anti-war left”.
Obama in ‘08!
By GodHatesTrash
August 2, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this
Face it, Woo-ten Klanners, it’s not hard to second guess Bush’s mess - it’s been FUBAR since its inception.
“We think Osama is in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan”.
Dumbya - “well, let’s invade Iraq then.”
And, amazingly, still downhill from there.
DAY 2152 OF “WHERE’S OSAMA?”
Murderer of 3000 people still free, while your idiot president kills tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
You silly stupid murderous sons of w-hores rednecks are responsible for this never-ending bloodbath.
Trash.
By Peter
August 2, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this
Hey RCH Cheney shoots his friends……Bush let the Bin Laden’s fly after 911……. It is easy to see what is going on here…..the country is falling apart, and US solder’s are dying in vain…….
By Kathy
August 2, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
Contrary to Jim Wooten’s assertions, speaking directly with one’s adversaries is a sign of strength, not weakness. Our president should establish and maintain a direct line of communication with with the leader of any country that may be a threat to us either politically, economically or militarily. Communication is fundamental to progress in relations with those we disagree with.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen how effective Jim Wooten’s favored approach is via the Bush administration. I’ll take Obama’s approach over these guys any day.
By Nicole
August 2, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this
“whatever” @9:00,
Great job! You nailed it buddy.
By jm
August 2, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this
To paraphrase Winston Churchill (the person W the incompetent likes to compare himself to): “you make peace with your enemies, not your friends”.
By Aquagirl
August 2, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
We should pass the collection plate. I’d contribute for travel expenses of RCH, Dusty, and all the other armchair warriors. They could deliver their “cut-n-run anti-American murderers” speech in person to the family of Pat Tillman. Yes, that would be money well spent.
Bet Kevin Tillman, the cut-n-running anti-American ex-Ranger would shut them up in a hurry.
By Jeff
August 2, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
I maintain:
If it does NOT DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the soveriegnty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders, we have NO BUSINESS meddling in international affairs.
This INCLUDES going after Bin Laden or any other terrorist outside our borders, as well as Darfur, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Rwanda, and anywhere else there might be tension.
We are NOT the world’s police force. If Great Britain has a problem with what is going on in Darfur, let THEIR troops die. NOT OURS.
If it does NOT DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the soveriegnty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders, we have NO BUSINESS meddling in international affairs.
If it does NOT DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the soveriegnty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders, we have NO BUSINESS meddling in international affairs.
If it does NOT DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the soveriegnty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders, we have NO BUSINESS meddling in international affairs.
(Yes, I know I repeated the same paragraph quite a few times. Some of you are extremely dense and need said repetition.)
By RCH
August 2, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Kathy
You will find indirect talks with many so called evil countries. Don’t be fooled.
Aquagirl The death of Tillman is regrettable. This is not the first or last time this will happen. War is not pretty. That is why when it is engaged(war) you win and then make peace.
“while your idiot president kills tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.” Please name me one American citizen that has strapped on a bomb and has become a human bomb. One? Who is killing whom?
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Jimmy Carter, in 1976, ran a stealth campaign, never betraying any of his governance philosophy, except for magnifying something he called “zero-based budgeting.” The mood of the country then allowed election of a “not ready for prime time” president, and the country deteriorated sharply and quickly. I respectfully note that none of our Democrat candidates offer any substance in their mumblings. As Limbaugh notes regularly, “they have to conceal what they stand for, because they cannot be elected if the people know what they really intend to do.” I think that is a sound observation; it’s the ideology, stupid.
By RCH
August 2, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
One more thing. Which of you “progressives” will blame Bush for the bridge collapse first? I thought I would beat you to it!!!
By Peter
August 2, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
HA HA HA RCH……Your President has empowered the nuts that like to blow themselves up……
He has not solved the one problem of 911 yet and never will……..he went after the wrong guys….
He will leave office and then the problem that happened while he was in office, will never be solved, and he will leave more problems.
The war HE STARTED…….he lied to US ALL about….he will never finish…….he never had a GOOD PLAN.
By Jackie
August 2, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
Osama Bin Laden is the person that planned the attack on the WTC. We have an obligation to pursue this person and bring him to justice. We do not have a right to kill over 600,000 innocent Iraqs; we do not have a right to make the living conditions of Iraq citizens less human by denying them clean water, food, electricity, education and medical care; we do not have the right to extort them for oil and water. We do have a right to protect and defend this country from Osama Bin Lade, who, by all accounts, is in Pakistan. Barrack Obama has taken a responsible and stand-up position. He said directly he would go after Bin Laden; he said that he would speak with the leaders of those nations that we have difficulties with. As the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet, speaking to these nations enhances our position and does not equivocate one iota.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
August 2, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
John Kerry, the candidate who had actually served in wartime in a place where the enemy was shooting back, had the common sense to realize that Osama bin Laden is not a soldier. Osama is a criminal. Going to war with him - making him into a warrior - glorified him and his cause.
It is interesting that so many rednecks are surprised that there are people in the world that hate the United States of America, when their own granddaddies hated the United States so much they took up arms against her.
Osama bin Laden makes a fool out of George W. Bush every day he breathes free, every day Dumbya keeps fighting him in Iraq while he’s somewhere in Pakistan.
Since George W. Bush is our president, he makes our country look foolish too.
You rednecks are congenital fools, and are used to being treated as such. So Dumbya is the perfect president for you, and this trumped up debacle in Iraq is the perfect phony ‘war’ for you.
Decent people are tired of you besmirching the good name and reputation of the United States with your bloodthirsty indiscriminate quest for vengeance, and your foolishness of thinking we can change the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East if we just put a gun to their heads, or kill enough of them.
Although if Sherman had been that kind of man, our problems would have ended 142 years ago.
By Peter
August 2, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Does anyone know the percentage of folks in Iraq currently without clean water?
How about electricity?
Don’t for a minute tell me Bush is doing GREAT things for Iraq !
What do all the RIGHTS have to say ???
Where is Wooteen in all of this…. I would love to hear the “spin” we would get on this…….
By Aquagirl
August 2, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
RCH are you referring to Kevin Tillman’s death being a result of friendly fire? I wasn’t. Such deaths are inevitable, though the following cover-ups in his case aren’t—-but that’s another subject.
I was referring to the “cut-n-run” label of those who think invading Iraq was a mistake, or that this administration has bungled the war and killed needlessly. You’re calling Kevin Tillman a cut-n-run defeatist murderer. You should have the opportunity to do so in person if you’re so sure of your principles. He’s emboldening our enemies, right?
You’re just the man to set this Benedict Arnold straight. As a Captain America style True Patriot, I fully support your efforts in doing so.
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
We need 500K troops in Iraq, and that would be just to contain the chaos. As wars evolve, the strategic mission has to evolve to match the reality on the ground. Lincoln realized this with his Emancipation Proclamation, which necessarily took Britain out of the war. When the strategic mission matches the geo-political situation in the war zone, then you can win. Why? Because the mission in all wars, initially is simply attrition, and the true mission is never really known until the nature of the warfare is revealed.
We aint nevah gonna git outta Iraq.
By Anonymous
August 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Maybe I missed the “foolishness” of Obama’s plan, could someone spell it out for me?
Bush attacked the wrong target and diverted attention away from the people who actually attacked our country; we knew going INTO Iraq that it was a doomed disaster, and—sure enough—we were proven right. If that’s “hindsight,” Wooten’s using a very strange definition of it.
By TW
August 2, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Of course, this argument could be totally avoided were the current ‘Commander in Chief’ earning the $400k we pay him a year - funny how you anti-welfare Republicans have no problem with this…
By The First Lady
August 2, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
The First Lady defends her POS husband
By @@
August 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
One of your best Jim.
The only good thing about this early campaign season is that it has created a “big picture” window that let’s the sun shine in. Obama is charming no doubt about it but campaigning is delivered in sound bites and the “sounds” he’s making are biting him in the a$$.
Strategies are something that escapes the Democrats unless it’s the one that will win them the presidency in ‘08. That truly is all they care about.
Global strategies are at play behind the scenes in the Middle East. Look beyond the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Look to the region, and then look at the world. Lots of players with lots of strategic interests.
Osama is done. His ideology remains, but then it was in force long before he stepped onto the world stage. It is being used to exploit young followers, not unlike the gang wars that exist within our own borders. His message of Holy War is no longer a hero’s refrain.
Is Jeff serious? Ron Paul? Talk about a man who wants to live in a bubble.
By RCH
August 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
Peter
According to the USAID,water and electrical levels are close to pre-war levels. During the Saddam regime many areas were crippled with infrastructure failure due to govt. neglect. It would be negligent to blame those on the current situation.
A statement: It is not the function of the United States or Bush to right all wrongs in Iraq. The Iraq’s must take up that task and responsibilities.
By DebbieDoRight
August 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
Dang!! Wooten is REALLY off his meds today!! I’ve never read so much gibberish from a “supposedly sane” person since I’ve read some of George Clinton’s lyrics!
This is so sad. To see a once, half-way, kinda o.k. man, go downhill like this from dementia; makes me want to weep.
He lauded Dumbya for declaring himself a “War President”, (he was a War President but not a War Airman while in the service — go figure); he stood by Rumsfeld, every step of the way, while he, Rumsfeld made some of the biggest, most arrogant military blunders in history, (even in Timbuktu history, there has never been a more incompetent “leader” of a war).
Wooten hoorayed Dumbya for invading a sovereign nation, Iraq, who hadn’t attacked us; then Wooten turned a blind eye to Dumbya’s inability to reign in South Korea, a real threat to US security and who has not stopped creating nuclear weapons even after he promised to last year; and to top it all off Wooten the Deranged, (poor man), is smirking at Obama who has said “Let’s take the Taliban and Bin Laden out”!!
Poor, poor Wooten. It’s so sad to see someone completely loose what’s left of their common sense — next he’ll be getting a job at Fox News. sigh.
By Curious Observer
August 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
In truth, bin Laden is safer than the bellicose Dusty in her freeway mansion. The existing Pakistani government is on the brink of falling, and a US-led invasion of the mountain regions would finish it. In any case, it is only a matter of time until the Musharraf regime falls and the Islamists assume control of the government and its nuclear weapons. The US is utterly handcuffed, just as we were when the Viet Cong were able to slip across the border to sanctuary in Laos or Cambodia whenever US forces threatened.
I fail to see what the US has to lose in going after bin Laden and his associates now. We are merely postponing the inevitable in our present course. By coddling the unpopular Musharraf, we are buying a temporary but costly peace—effectively trading coalition lives for the benefits of some Pakistani intelligence and cooperation. If you think bin Laden is a threat now, just wait until all pretense of Pakistani opposition to him is gone. Once he is joined by the Pakistani army and its nuclear weapons, our position in Afghanistan will become untenable. We might as well go after the architect of 9/11 now, for he will surely be coming after us again, next time from a much stronger position.
By DebbieDoRight
August 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
If it does NOT DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the soveriegnty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders, we have NO BUSINESS meddling in international affairs.
You mean like in IRAQ?
By WTF
August 2, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
So…Jim doesn’t like it that Obama is against the war in Iraq and he doesn’t like it that Obama says he would invade Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden?? Is there any position that Senator Obama could take on this matter that Jim would approve of? Or is he just going to criticize every position taken just because Obama is a Democrat? Jim, take the blinders off! There’s a big world out there that is much more complicated and nuanced than the world of partisan hacks.
By harold
August 2, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
“If we have actionable intelligence”
key word = actionable
“uh, that was not actionable.”
By Jeff
August 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
Debbie:
AND Afghanistan
AND Pakistan
AND Germany
AND Korea
AND Japan
AND Darfur
AND Kosovo
AND Belgium
AND The Phillipines
AND Central America (with the exception of Mexico)
AND the list goes on….
By WTF
August 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
Woops…I meant to say “invade Pakistan” - not Afghanistan.
By deegee
August 2, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
Pakistani politics 101. The consequences of US civilian leaders shooting first and then aiming.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/01/opinion/edharrison.php?page=1
By RCH
August 2, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
“If it does NOT DIRECTLY threaten the borders of the United States of America or the soveriegnty of the Government of the United States of America within those borders, we have NO BUSINESS meddling in international affairs.”
Was that not our stratagy before WWII. Neo-Isolationism?
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
Pakistan President’s hold on power is tenuous enough without the US invading their territory. If we went in there to get Osama, we could be unwittingly giving nukes to the Islamists.
Obama is a loose cannon with looser canons.
It’s the Hill.
Hillary ‘08
By harold
August 2, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
this is all by design of bind laden
eventually pakkistan will be nuked to all hell and then www iii is on: muslims v everyone else
By Lily Toad
August 2, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Jeff, I agree that the US gets into military conflicts where we have no business, but how do you feel about countries that are committing genocide? Should any other countries get involved to stop it?
By Jeff
August 2, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
RCH:
You’ll notice we only got involved in WWII after we were directly attacked. (Pearl Harbor).
Even then, we did it right: We declared war on JAPAN, not Germany. HOWEVER, since Germany was Japan’s ally, once we declared war on Germany, they declared war on us. And we responded to BOTH. (Winning both, I might add.)
THAT is the proper sequence of events. By all means, when we are attacked, we should track the country that orchestrated the attack and use the FULL force of EVERY military asset we have to “leave not one stone unturned” within said country.
And then we should come home. As SOON as the DESTRUCTION of said objective is complete. At that point, we have secured our objective in making sure said country - and probably its neighbors - know that we do not take attacks lightly and also in destroying any further capability for said country to attack us.
Note that the end of WWII was where we began to see today’s concept of “nation building”. We stayed in both Germany and Japan, and we STILL have major bases in both countries - 60+ years AFTER the job was complete.
By BS Aplenty
August 2, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
I note in the New York Times article that the criminal dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert “Takin’ It Back For the People” Mugabe continues to reap the “fruits” of his brand of communo-fascism.
Note to America: socialist Democratic ideas are like taking a slower train ride to this same s**-y destination.
By jbmlaw
August 2, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Our leftist friends seem divided, with a slight majority siding with Obama’s idea of fleeing Iraq and invading Pakistan. I presume the rest would follow Jeff’s strategy of withdrawing from the middle east without further regard for consequences. I perceive almost no leftists (other than the two Brookings guys in the NYTimes) are willing to fight the war against the terrorists in Iraq to its natural end, even if that now looks winnable.
At risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, I think Osama bin Laden is already dead, and has been for years; I thus think invading Pakistan would be somewhat sillier than Pershing’s pursuit of Pancho Villa (the Villa escapade had the virtue of pursuit of someone who was alive.) But invading a putative ally would be worse than merely ineffectual. I believe invading Pakistan would produce a consequence roughly analogous to the Carter administration’s withdrawal of support for the Shah, i.e., that a truly radical and dangerous bunch of nuts would take over Pakistan, leaving a real problem for future presidents.
By Jackie
August 2, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
According to all the information coming out of Iraq, even from the Pentagon, UN, etc., the Iraqi people have LESS safe drinking water, LESS electricity - about 2 hours per day in 135 degree temp - LESS medical care, LESS food, MUCH LESS security and are subject to ethnic cleansing in that each sect lives in neighborhoods with those who are of the same religion.
We have to remember there are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees in surrounding countries and there is no infrastructure available to care for these innocents. How many Iraqi’s that worked for the USA were allowed to emigrate to this country? Less than 650 since the invasion began!!!!
By deegee
August 2, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
Jeff@10:53 - AND Central America (with the exception of Mexico)
Jeff, what happened? Did you get a bad burrito or something? Bwaaaaaa
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
Point of order: it was the Germans who bombed Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese bombed on the radio with their rip off of Minnie Pearl: Tokyo Rose, whose act was so bad that they hanged her, man.
Lets please try to at least acknowledge the historical facts when we blog.
Please?
By DebbieDoRight
August 2, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
By your own standards Jeff, how do you explain our invasion in Iraq, (a sovereign country who did not attack us NOR did they have anything to do with 9/11)? Why are we in Iraq Jeff?
By Jackie
August 2, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
As is the usual case, jbmlaw use false statements to prove an illogical logical conclusion. I must commend him for his eloquence and voracity, however.
By Tim
August 2, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Barak Obama’s foreign policy speech solidified my support for him in the Georgia Democratic primary next year. He is, by far, the most intelligent, authentic, and articulate Presidential candidate out there.
I recommend actually reading the speech yourself rather than relying on right-wing propagandists to parse it for you.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CpHR
By THE GOD OF WAR
August 2, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
I just cant believe all you supposedly God fearing Christians havent put together that maybe God doesnt want us in the middle east.. I mean with all the natural disasters happening here makes me think we are reaping what we have sowed.. Just take a gander at the natural disasters that have happened since we invaded Iraq.. Including Hurricane Katrina because most of you dont think that was a disaster, just a bunch of poor people that lost everything they owned.. WAKE UP People! God dont like Ugly.. Start questioning whats going on around you… Stop believing everything the media feeds you and do what’s right.. Pass the good will forward.. WWJD
By From Senator Obama's Speech
August 2, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
“It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.
Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.
The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.
And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.
By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
Point of order: Eloquence cant be read, it can only be heard, moron.
Point of Parliamentary Proceedure: Voracity can only describe what goes into the mouth, not what comes out of it, Stuntwit.
I know all. I see all. I am RetroRocketMan!
By Republi News
August 2, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
One more thing. Which of you “progressives” will blame Bush for the bridge collapse first?
That DANG LIBRUL MEDIA is always blaming Bush! Why don’t they leave him alone?
WASHINGTON - President Bush offered his condolences to victims of the highway bridge collapse in Minneapolis on Thursday and said the federal government would help ensure that the span is rebuilt as quickly as possible.
“We in the federal government must respond, and respond robustly, to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity — that bridge — gets rebuilt as quickly as possible,” Bush said in the Rose Garden following a Cabinet meeting.
First lady Laura Bush will visit Minneapolis on Friday to console victims of the collapse…… President Bush first learned of the disaster while having dinner Wednesday night with the first lady……
Bush asked Federal Highway Administrator J. Richard Capka and Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to go to Minneapolis, where she will announce a $5 million grant to help pay for rerouting traffic patterns around the disaster.
Bush called Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 8:45 a.m. EDT Thursday to offer encouragement…… Bush also called Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak to offer his condolences and prayers….
Bush then called Peters….. “He stressed the importance of projecting hope and optimism and offering any help,” Snow said.
The president has offered comfort to victims several times in recent months. In March, Bush he visited survivors of tornadoes that ripped through Alabama and Georgia. In April, he offered words of hope at Virginia Tech after a gunman killed 32 people and committed suicide. In May, Bush went to Kansas after a tornado wiped out the tiny town of Greensburg. In July Bush took milkbones and chewy toys to the rural Virginia dog kennels where Michael Vick’s victims are recuperating.
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this
This bridge collapse is just a symptom of the decay that Bush has allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate into. Bush is spending our highway bridge money to bomb bridges in baghdad.
Expect many more infrastructure catastrophes dead ahead.
I know all. I see all. I am RetroRocketMan!
By Read Bush's Lips
August 2, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
It’s the lip service that matters. Our President cares deeply about the white folks that went off that bridge, and feels just gosh awful that the nation doesn’t have enough money to maintain our own infrastructure, since we’ve spent it all on “defense” contractors and rebuilding the infrastructure we destroyed over in Iraq. But with the $400 tax cut I got, I can use the free market forces to build my OWN darned highway bridges and levees and such! WOO-HOOOOO! What a great President. He sure does care!!!
By Jeff
August 2, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
Jackie:
Mexico has unofficially declared war on us by allowing their citizens to invade us at will, often with government encouragement and support. Because of Mexico, our Southern Border is HIGHLY insecure. The ONE country at this time that I would in fact support war against is thus our southern “neighbor”: Mexico.
Debbie:
Admittedly over the past several years I have undergone a right-shift in my politics. I was 18 on 9/11 and 20 when the ground war in Iraq commenced in 2003. As we all know well (well, the kids younger than me won’t admit it), there is quite often a drastic shift in religious/political ideologies from 18-24, and I am typical of it. I vocally supported Bush in 2000 (as vocal as I am in support of Paul now), and I supported him in 2004 primarily because the other option was a washed-up has-been idiot ccksck*r, worthy of nothing but utter contempt. (Though admittedly at the time I still thought Bush could make some good changes, and indeed he did with Roberts and Alito.)
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
R U suggesting, sir, that al queda used a brick of brie to take down the lee?
By Bush Derangement Syndrome
August 2, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Bush Lip-
FACT: The MN DOT inspected the bridge in 2006 and found it sound.
FACT: There was construction on the bridge at thee time of failure.
FACT: A rare tremor for that area just prior to the time of the collapse was measured.
FACT: Structures have failed around the globe for faulty steel casting, concrete casting, mixing, or pouring, and design flaws.
It didn’t take you pathetic Bush deranged liberal dumocraps long to blame Bush, did it? Idiots.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Barak the hideously brainless big eared magic negro needs to STFU!! This treasonous vapid far left appeasing coward whose ONLY real achievment is being about half black is typical of the yellowbellied gutless demoNcrat filth who can’t wait to run away from a noble, just war that was inevitable. Better to fight the towel head mohammedan nazi vermin in their own backward third world cess pits than in the latte sipping west. Although there are some bits of America that really aren’t even worth a lick of possum spit - Nuu Yawwwk City, Kalifornia, VT, MA, Boulder Co, Madison WI and the other rat infested liberal enclaves.
The magic mushroom negro’s rather sudden macho “plan” to go be beastly to the murderous towel heads in bits of Pakistan is as flawed as his choice of ear reduction surgeons.
The whoralicious crackpipe debbieturd is back to its imbecilic Duke lynching best with its unhinged bile about Senor Wooten.
As for the murderous doltish psychopaths godneedstoINSTANTLYkillthistrash and VT’s newest would be genocidal child molestor, the insane Mrs Oedipus-NAMBLA … clearly the grim reaper needs to get a lot more grim and a lot more proactive!!!
(just wittily mirroring back your murderous hate ladies)… smirk
By WTF
August 2, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Hey TFTT! Witty as ever! I wish everyone here could see your humor the way I do. You crack me up! -Your Friend, WTF
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
Is there any question in anyone’s mind over who was responsible for this bridge disaster?
Lets be real. Who has the most to gain from a total nationwide infrastructure collapse?
It’s so obvious. We all know who knocked that bridge down, and the many bridges about to fall. Come on!
And I think it’s a damn shame.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
@ GFY
Happily I have NO far left simpering cheese eating surrender monkey loving “friends”.
Please confine and forever limit your obsessive homosexual stalking activities to those cut and run far left perverts that psychotically agree with your treasonous Bush hating poison.
thanks very much - now F Off!!!
By jm
August 2, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
shoot, I am just waiting for one of Halliburton’s divisions to get the no bid contract to rebuild the bridge in MN.
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
We aint nevah gonna git outta Iraq
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
What is the mission of US troops in Iraq.
Everyone.
As Americans, we better be able to tell others what our mission is in Iraq without sounding like Goebel Goobers.
By WTF
August 2, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Folks, TFTT is just joking with me. I think it’s really cute how he does a play on my name and calls me “GFY” don’t you? Only a true blue friend would have a nickname for me! So, TFTT, I don’t actually have any homosexual interest in you, but I’m flattered that you would consider me. But don’t worry buddy, I’m still your BFF! - WTF/GFY
By BDS
August 2, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
One Democrat from North Dakota (never heard of it) says he ‘cant stand’ Bush and calls him a ‘clown’.
Jesse Jackson Jr threatens a fight with a Republican in the chamber.
What is wrong with Democrats? Why are they so unhinged these days? I say round them all up on a bridge and..
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
GFY
your sickening queer effete advances are as nauseating as any cut and run speech by any treasonous hate America leftist.
GFY is very obviously NOT a nickname but a simple sententious, seriously contemptuous (imperative) sneer.
By WTF
August 2, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
Time for the Truth May often appear aloof But he’s not as I can attest ‘Cause as my friend he’s the best!
I’m not much of a poet, and that really was just off the cuff, but I can promise you it is heartfelt. I’m really glad we’re working though our issues and building this friendship. Sure, there will be rough patches since we don’t see eye to eye, but it’s what in the heart that counts right? And you know I love you man!
By GA Calling
August 2, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
WTF
You’re outta your league, pea-brain.
Go back to playing in the sewer with the rest of your Demo-rat friends.
By WTF
August 2, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this
GA Calling @12:57
We’re all forced to read TFTT’s incessant racist, sexist, homophobic rants yet I need to go play in the sewer? Can’t you take a joke? Lighten up man! This is a frickin’ blog on a second-rate newspaper. You think this is serious?? LMAO
By Billiam the snowman
August 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
The gop are scared of me.
Clinton/Obama.
By Steve
August 2, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
This was the provocative part of a lengthy and detailed speech.
“As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair — our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.”
The right-wing echo chamber went berserk with breathtakingly hypocritical criticism, insisting that Obama wants to “invade” Pakistan. Of course, that’s not what Obama said.
We’re talking about a country where al Qaeda has sought refuge in tribal areas outside the reach of Musharraf, who, Bush’s nonsense to the contrary notwithstanding, is a military dictator, not a democratic leader. Are Obama’s critics saying if the White House gets actionable intelligence on, say, Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani cave, and the U.S. is in a position to act, we shouldn’t? Indeed, given those circumstances, wouldn’t Musharraf approve a special-ops mission anyway? (And for good measure, attacking al Qaeda leaders responsible for 9/11 is not “pre-emptive,” it’s “responsive.”)
I thought Obama’s speech was close to perfect, and could help serve as a model for an effective counter-terrorism policy. Read the whole thing and decide for yourself.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/thewarweneedto_win.php
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
GFY … watching you “bite” so hard on witty feedback to your ultra lame, obsessive wussy “joke” is my kind of entertainment!!
BTW … this is at best only a third rate newspaper!!
WTF is “homophobic”??? there’s NO such ‘real’ word - it’s just another moronic micky mouse word made up by limp wristed queers.
homo is anglocised Greek/Latin for your own kind/man … phobic means having a (strong) aversion/fear/dislke of. I do not fear/dislike etc ‘man’ or my own kind.
I do NOT fear queers (see the fab rhyming poetry there) … I am NOT especially averse to queers - I don’t even especially dislike queers … although the shrill screechy fa ggoty ones are decidedly repugnant.
There’s never NOTHING (smirk) sexist or racist in my posts. I humbly proffer fact filled reasonable, witty banter and commentary - albeit from the moderate side of the centre-right. I occasionally do adopt a slightly harsh tone - but only when selflessly mirroring back vile bedwetting leftist hate!!!
By RidgeT
August 2, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
Steve, I’ll side with what veteran Democrats like Reid are saying in response to Obama’s rather null and void mouth piece: it shows his lack of experience. You see, in politics, being someone who can speak well and BS like he knows what he’s talking about can only carry him so far. This is the major league, and Obama never was at bat in the minors.
By WTF/GFY
August 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
Ok, I admit it TFTT. I think you’re hot. You’re my kind of man. Macho. Taking no gruff from no one. A real man’s man! Although, I do have to correct you on something. According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “homophobic” is indeed a word. The English language is a living language and therefore is always changing and growing, much like some people’s minds. And unlike others. But that’s enough about languages. Let’s talk about you hot stuff!
By Terrence
August 2, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
It sure looks like Obama is riding on Bush’s coattails with this threat Wooten. The threat to invade Pakistan was made already so Obama has nothing to waste but time and hot air. No risk and no responsibility at present.
Talk is cheap.
By Harold
August 2, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this
HEY DID ANYBODY TELL DUBYA AND BROWNIE A BRIDGE COLLAPSED? THEY NEEDS TO GET FEMA AID TO MINNESOTA ASTAT!
By Lily Toad
August 2, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
Someone needs to tell Bush his administration is collapsing. Doin’ a heck of a job, Gonzo.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
@ GFY
your pansyish poofy whining and bleating about my sensible, fact filled critique(s) of the resident cowardly leftist vermin on here and their venal demoNcrat surrender monkey fuehrers might elicit a very slightly less vexing response if you actually overtly channeled some of your shrill monthly PMS hormonal bile to similarly upbraiding the resident knuckle dragging flotsam that post unremitting homicidal brutish Bush derangement syndrome malevolence.
see the typical far left hypocrisy bubbaturd??!! its fine and dandy to hand it out … but NO conservative is “allowed” to hand it back!! YOU NASTY PIG IGNORANT MORAL FASCISTS!!!
I note your wimpering queeralicious defence of the micky mouse queer enabling word … I also note you do NOT challenge my learned etymology of this craven enabling of buttock bouncing and anally injected death sentences which have cost this nation so much in hopelessly wasted expenditure on utterly preventable diseases of the depraved San Fran Sicko bathhouse crowd type.
your obsessive filthy homo cyber stalking of your conservative betters is obviously a desperate cry for help in your socially inadequate lonely little world. please instantly desist or I will (very reluctanctly) demand in suitably malevolent retaliation that the doltish analwart/aborted foreskin post a noxious stream of its execrable, puerile, utterly unfunny Vick related dog puke…. DAMN!! TOO LATE!!!
By Billiam the snowman
August 2, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
The gop are mafia:
“Sidney Blumenthal: Omertà (or a code of silence) has become the final bond holding the Bush administration together. Honesty is dishonorable; silence is manly; penitence is weakness. Loyalty trumps law. Protecting higher-ups is patriotism. Stonewalling is idealism. Telling the truth is informing. Cooperation with investigators is cowardice; breaking the code is betrayal. Once the code is shattered, however, no one can be trusted and the entire edifice crumbles.
And this is what the 29%ers are cheering for.”
Just say no to snitching.
Geez.
By irish65
August 2, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this
Jim keeps saying that the Dems have no plan, but keep criticizing Dumbya.
1) Here’s the plan, as it was laid out (not for the first time) in 2004 by John Kerry: By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan….
2) Jim keeps committing the sin he claims to abhor, criticizing the plans of others, but he has no plan other than follow a group that has demonstrated that it can’t do the job.
What a great pundit!!
No wonder he doesn’t publicize his email address like the rest of the AJC columnists do.
By Lily Toad
August 2, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
Proof that AJC is a third-rate paper: Look at the front page for news about the MN bridge collapse. It’s below the fold under 3 - count ‘em - 3 pictures of Football players sweating in the heat. What news!
By WTF
August 2, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Back to the topic at hand — I’m not sure if Obama is ready for prime time yet, but at least he’s generating some thoughtful discussion about the issues and the importance of strong foreign policy leadership. I suppose Jim is technically correct when he says that Democratic candidates are “second guessers” when they fault his policies, but isn’t that what they are supposed to be doing? The only other option is to agree with his policies, right? And for the record, while I’m not a betting man, I’d wager that the Bush Administration is in no way responsible for the trgedy in Minnesota and that they will do the right thing in the aftermath of this tragedy.
By WTF
August 2, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
“his” meaning President Bush (see above)
By irish65
August 2, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
@GFY:
Put down the thesaurus before you hurt your little head!!
By WTF
August 2, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this
@Irish65
Huh??
By irish65
August 2, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
time for the truth: Put down the thesaurus before you hurt your little head!!
By snowflake
August 2, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
”..And this is what the 29%ers are cheering for.”
Snowman @2:23, are you referring to the 29%ers who support the Democrat controlled Congress right now? I just want to be clear where you are coming from, that’s all.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
@ the thick bog stirring fenian
you obviously seriously hurt your little pointy head a long time ago. a thesaurus is for brainless inarticulate liberal wankers who indolently just settled for ‘snorting’ narcissistic self esteem in their liberal run skools … we conservative intellectuals don’t need ‘em!!!
By Country Joe
August 2, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die Rag
Come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he’s got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in the desert sand so
put down your books and pick up a gun
we’re gonna have a whole lotta fun
(CHORUS) And it's one, two, three, whatare we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give adamn, next stop is the desert sand
And it's five, six, seven, openup the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why,whoopee we’re all gonna die
Come on generals, let’s move fast
your big chance has come at last
now you can go out and kill towel heads
cos the only good Mooslim is the one that’s dead and
you know that peace can only be won when we’ve
blown ‘em all to kingdom come
Come on wall street don’t be slow
why man this war is a go-go
there’s plenty good money to be made
by supplying the army with the tools of its trade
let’s hope and pray that if they drop the bomb
they drop it on that Persian throng
Come on mothers throughout the land
pack your boys off to the desert sand
come on fathers don’t hesitate
send your sons off before it’s too late
and you can be the first ones on your block
to have your boy come home in a box
By Billiam the snowman
August 2, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this
w, you little flake.
He spent a trillion over there and now our infrastructure is crumbling over here.
By Typical Georgia Redneck
August 2, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
I agree with that TFTT feller. I might be scared of q-ueers and f-ags because I think I might be one, but I ain’t no homophobe, whatever that is.
By Dusty
August 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
What is this, Liberal Loon Day? Jim writes a clear and thoughtful essay. Then it is apparent we got a stampede from the Zoo on this blog.
Never have I read so much moronic moaning from people who can read and write. I am talking about the total lack of sensible thought.
So far we have accusations of dementia, bridge failure fingerpointing, Pakistan attack, water works blame, electrical shortage blame, Pat Tillman propaganda,war on MExico, Haliburton, “white folks” bigotry, homosexual jokes, “first” lady puns,then derision at Bush’s”hope and optimism”, and a few remarks about Cheney shooting people, miscellaneous lies, etc., etc., etc. Even our brainless butterfly Analchord can’t “lighten” this group.
If I were looking for a circus of freaks, I’d round up most of these bloggers.
By FranklySpeaking
August 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
The Democrats would be absolutely insane to start getting specific. As long as this administration keeps shooting itself in the foot they don’t have to.
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
By Country Joe
Feel Like I’m Fixing To Die Rag
what the hell is holding up this munificent, long overdue relief for the rest of us then?
smirk
By time for the truth
August 2, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
typical Ga rednekkk
a homophobe is a micky mouse mincing yanKKKee slang term for a closet liberal buttock bouncer who is wisely too skeered to tell the truth about how liberals shamelessly pander to the shrill, often rather effiminate, often rather nasty, often limp wristed, unnatural queers and fa ggots who happily rarely if ever multiply.
glad I was able to clarify that for ya!!
By Chai
August 2, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
MN bridge collapse. It’s below the fold under 3 - count ‘em - 3 pictures of Football players sweating in the heat. What news!
but is it the newspaper’s fault for catering to their audience? SNORT/LOL
By Timus
August 2, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
We SHOULD be going after Al Qaeda instead of letting them create an Al Qaeda nation in Pakistan. It makes no sense for us to be here waiting for them to attack us again as well as burning an endless amount of money in Iraq trying to repair what we hosed up!!
By Timus
August 2, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
We SHOULD be going after Al Qaeda instead of letting them create an Al Qaeda nation in Pakistan. It makes no sense for us to be here waiting for them to attack us again as well as burning an endless amount of money in Iraq trying to repair what we hosed up!!
By Rand
August 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
If we have Iraqi partners unprepared to make the tough political decisions needed and Iraqi security forces with little commitment to the Iraqi nation, we cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to be more willing to defend Iraq’s future than Iraqis themselves.
For some time ahead, Iraqi society will remain entangled in multiple sectarian and factional conflicts. The Iraqi military and police will remain similarly fractured. And the national government, a reflection of broader society, will likely remain dysfunctional. Competing patronage systems and differing agendas will make reconciliation distant. Externally imposed stability efforts will run counter to the calculations of the internal actors.
Unable in this environment to foresee what the United States and the international community will do next, Iraqis are choosing the proximate security of their faction over any broader vision. Unable to depend on the central government, the United States now aligns itself with local militias in hopes of achieving local success, but, in reality, merely reinforcing factionalism and undermining the national government we profess to defend.
A failing strategy demands alternatives. Committing our forces to costly assaults in the Iraqi quagmire is better replaced by a strategy allowing flexibility and economy of force.
The time for more time has passed. It’s time for Iraq’s neighbors to join the political reconciliation process in Iraq or, at minimum, to contain the violence to Iraq. It’s time for serious U.S. involvement in the Middle East Peace process. And, as Barak Obama stated, it’s time to focus on the real Al Qaeda threat along the Pak-Afghan border. But only beginning the U.S. disengagement from Iraq will allow such alternatives to prosper.
By TW
August 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
Any word on Bush appointing a bridge czar?
By Cross Chris
August 2, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this
Every time a disaster happens, it’s W’s fault. Apparently Democrats will stoop to no low for politicizing a disaster when people are still dead in their cars as I type this. It’s disgusting. Yet these same fine group of people talk about Bush politicizing a disaster when he simply goes there and then they call it a photo op. It’s ridiculously two faced and hypocritical. But we know that about the Democrats, don’t we?
I’ll tell you one thing - if a Democrat gets into the White House after 2008, he or she is going to have one hell of a lot to be accountable for that even the Clinton administration didn’t have to. Why? Because Democrats held Bush’s feet to the fire for so many things, up to and including what was really incompetence in state and local leadership. What did the governor of Minnesota do about that bridge when two years ago it was determined to have compromised structural rigidity?
By Outraged
August 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this
The 35W bridge collapse was, as the cliché has it, an accident waiting to happen. A tragedy courtesy of politicians who, in their own ways, follow Grover Norquist’s dictum of reducing government until it’s small enough to drown in the bathtub. And of passing out massive tax cuts, mostly to people who need them least.
It’s not just bridges. As the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card 2005 points out, we’re $1.6 trillion behind in infrastructure investment. That, by the way, is the amount of tax cuts Mr. Bush tried to get passed in 2001, before he had the Global War on Terrorism with which to shape his legacy. Congress “compromised” and gave him only $1.35 trillion, tax cuts that writer Robert Freeman once labeled a “national form of insanity.”
It’s understandable in impoverished Chad or Haiti or East Timor or the back-country of the People’s Republic of China. But there is no excuse for lethal tumbledown infrastructure in this country. Congress gave Bush $1.35 trillion in tax cuts. Congress has appropriated more than half a trillion (so far, with more to come) for a war that should never have happened. Congress enables the military-industrial complex to vacuum up additional hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars annually. Congress just approved $25 billion in annual farm subsidies, the vast majority of which go to rich farmers.
And on, and on. It’s not just the Feds, obviously. In state after state, the bathtub drowners argue for tax cuts which ensure that this shameful deterioration of American infrastructure will continue. Every old bridge that falls down is, symbolically and actually, a testament to their vision.
By benji
August 2, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this
New York Times => “In Fox News, Giuliani Finds a Friendly Stage.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/politics/02FOX.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Well he’s sure not going to find it at CNN or MSNBC.
What about Hillary, Obama, and Pelosi on ABC’s GMA or CNN? Is anyone going to say those are not friendly media outlets to democrats and liberals? First they had Bush derangement Syndrome and now it’s Fox News Derangement Syndrome. What’s next these quacks on the left and in the media can muster up? Bush Disaster Derangement Syndrome? Oh wait..
By tt
August 2, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
Jeff
Unfortunately, your vision is short-sided. We now have a Global economy. Where do the boaders stop in a Global economy?? Like it or not, we have “interests” all around the world and those interests need to be protected. If they are not protected, our economy takes a serious hit. Now what good will it do when we bring all our troops home and no one has a job. Can you say civil chaos. You trade one problem for another. 1929 would look like a picnic.
By Cross Chris
August 2, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this
Outraged,
While true about the ASCE, people like you need to understand our infrastructure began failing LONG before Bush ever came in. Read some of the dates in the link. You Democrats don’t want to do anything either (don’t kid anyone that you do), and the only time you raise a stink about it is when something happens. It’s like the homeless - we never hear about the homeless when a Democrat is in the White House.
By Analchord
August 2, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this
You know, the same thing happened to The bridge of San Louis Rey.
By Cross Chris
August 2, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this
Whoops, that link to the ASCE got flubbed up.
By W is for What are they hiding?
August 2, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this
Hey, if Karl Rove didn’t do anything wrong, sneaky, underhanded, or slimy, why won’t he just answer questions honestly? Surely he’s innocent of anything those evil committe members might assume! Why not throw open the doors and let the sun shine in? He’s all squeaky clean isn’t he? Isn’t he? He’s not covering up anything, RIGHT?
By st73
August 2, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this
Many months ago the liberal moonbats got all pi$$y when A.M. talk radio show hosts went to the White House. It appears the same thing is happening again this week. Watch out for The Return Of Psycho and more chills and thrills of screaming. Isn’t that the same group of complaining a$$ clowns that are all happy with democrats connecting with the Daily Kos wingnuts this weekend? Those kooky liberals.
By st73
August 2, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this
Hey, if Karl Rove didn’t do anything wrong, sneaky, underhanded, or slimy, why won’t he just answer questions honestly?
Uhm, because perhaps he probably can’t recall something that was said 778 days ago? Can you? It’s easy to self-incriminate in front of rabid democrats out for blood, as Scooter found out. Of course, he could always go Clinton and repeat “I do not recall” about 50 times.
I don’t blame him for telling demobrats to FO. They’re animals out for a kill.
By Cut and run Kesinger
August 2, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this
They are hiding from accountability.
Cowards do not have the guts to man up to their failures.
These cowards should resign for their country but they not man enough.
By Outraged
August 2, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the excellent link Cross Chris. Anybody who reads the details provided can see that the information in this link supports my argument.
I’d encourage others to review the information in your link, and then write their representatives in Washington to request an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts (with the exception of the lowest marginal rate which affects every working taxpayer regardless of income).
By Cross Chris
August 2, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this
You are welcome Outraged. However, I’d rather see cuts in domestic earmarks that Democrats want. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Give people their money back, and the economy goes up and up and everyone wins from the top down. Those who contribute to the economy anyway. And contrary to popular liberal interpretation, the economy is WAY UP. It’s not a complicated concept. When you pay poor people with other people’s money, they just spend it on booze and lottery tickets instead of building their lives up. Yes, tax people to death and see what happens to the economy. I almost wish a Democrat for the White House to prove the concept. Of course then you people would blame the previous Bush administration for massive corporate layoffs, small business failures, and high unemployment that would make the Carter days look dreamy. Go ahead. Prove me right.
There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. - Ronald Reagan