Smelling salts for all Democrats please
 

You think it's okay for the Palis to protest even though the Israelis say they're in charge, right?

Smelling salts for all Democrats please
 

I called my cousin in Spokane and he said at this point all they can do is pray that W will extend the spread of Democracy and Freedom to the West coast.

To make him feel better I pointed out that he should watch what he wishes for, after all I call Hillary a Senator.

through the looking glass
 

They wanted him IN. He's done very good things for them. But, in a world that lives and dies by government contracts and public perception, when your company is already widely perceived as being ethically challenged, (they've had a tough three or four years on that front), I think you gotta do what you gotta do.

He boinked where he oughtn't have boinked. He's gone. I think it's that simple.

the ends justify.......whaaaa???
 

Are you trying to claim that personal behaviour has consequences!?!? Shocking.

through the looking glass
 

I just don't buy this line. An intracompany affair has what to do with business ethics? And why disclose it? For the minimal gain in public confidence? This investor does not think this means a damn thing when it comes to ethics in contracting.

I've seen first hand several executives of public companies get canned (sorry, be asked to resign). Even in cases of fraud, the public disclosure says something like "CEO resigned today. New CEO, who has a world of experience in [insert exactly what company needs right now] was appointed [interim] successor. Company reaffirms guidance for quarter and year."

This reaks of a broken down negotiation and setting of the stage for litigation. Either that, or bad lawyering.

The sexy face of Lebanese democracy here.

Let's not get carried away, shall we?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...cnd-beirut.jpg

After years of watching where Arafat's face got the Pals, the Lebanese knew they needed a better spokesmodel.

Not wanting to seem hateful- but I have 5 senses- you might want to get a view from downwind of this honey before you get too enraptured IYKWIM

through the looking glass
 

They spent years breaking all the really important, big rules (and getting caught.) They're trying to rehab now, and they can't afford for even minor transgressions to be treated cavalierly (sp?). Remember that "punctilio of honor" thingie from law school? They're stuck with living up to it for a while. Plus, when the guy who makes the new rules is the first one to break them, while he's there for one express purpose of cleaning the culture, well, he gets no break.

through the looking glass
 

I agree with club; there HAS to have been something else. All the news reports on it are weird, and I think that it's especially weird that they don't mention that this is a little out of the ordinary. Sort of a "we're not going to mention the obvious" tactic. A few points:

He was already on his was out; there was already a search on for a new CEO to be appointed sometime in 2006.

Adultery or intracompany affairs weren't even against the rules. They fired him because he breached a policy of "not doing anything that brings the company's ethics or public image into question" or something like that.

Apparently he had been a real hardass about enforcement of that policy, so maybe he just reaped what he had sowed and Boeing looked at it as a way to get some good press.

through the looking glass
 

Sure screwed that one up, then, eh?

Golddigger Returns
 

It appears our favorite shrew has decided to stop spending John Heinz's inheritance for a brief moment and make - yet another - moronic statement:

From Drudge:

through the looking glass
 

Maybe, maybe not. If Boeing is trying to send the message of "we are such hardasses about rules that we canned our CEO just for banging a coworker," they have been pretty successful.

The whole thing seems silly to me. Are governments and airlines that easily influenced? "Gee, you guys might have ripped us off for years, but now that you've got a strong no-office-fucking policy, things are different!"

Wolfie
 

David Brooks sings his praises today in the op-ed pages of Pravda

• Giving Wolfowitz His Due
  By DAVID BROOKS
  
  et us now praise Paul Wolfowitz. Let us now take another look at the man who has pursued - longer and more forcefully than almost anyone else - the supposedly utopian notion that people across the Muslim world might actually hunger for freedom.
  
  Let us look again at the man who's been vilified by Michael Moore and the rest of the infantile left, who's been condescended to by the people who consider themselves foreign policy grown-ups, and who has become the focus of much anti-Semitism in the world today - the center of a zillion Zionist conspiracy theories, and a hundred zillion clever-Jew-behind-the-scenes calumnies.
  
  It's not necessary to absolve Wolfowitz of all sin or to neglect the postwar screw-ups in Iraq. Historians will figure out who was responsible for what, and Wolfowitz will probably come in for his share of the blame. But with political earthquakes now shaking the Arab world, it's time to step back and observe that over the course of his long career - in the Philippines, in Indonesia, in Central and Eastern Europe, and now in the Middle East - Wolfowitz has always been an ardent champion of freedom. And he has usually played a useful supporting role in making sure that pragmatic, democracy-promoting policies were put in place.
  
  If the trends of the last few months continue, Wolfowitz will be the subject of fascinating biographies decades from now, while many of his smuggest critics will be forgotten. Those biographies will mention not only his intellectual commitment but also his personal commitment, his years spent learning the languages of the places that concerned him, and the thousands of hours spent listening deferentially to the local heroes who led the causes he supported.
  
  To praise Wolfowitz is not triumphalism. The difficulties ahead are obvious. It's simple justice. It's a recognition that amid all the legitimate criticism, this guy has been the subject of a vicious piling-on campaign by people who know less than nothing about what is actually going on in the government, while he, in the core belief that has energized his work, may turn out to be right.
  
  I've had only two long conversations with Wolfowitz. The second was the day after the Iraqi vote. I figured that would be an interesting day to get a sense of his mood.
  
  He wasn't nearly as exuberant as I expected him to be, in part because, like everybody in government, he's busy with the constant flow of decisions. He said he spent 75 percent of his time on the Pentagon's budget and administration.
  
  He deflected all my Oprahesque attempts to get him to open up and describe what it's felt like to be him for the past few years. Our tissues remained dry.
  
  But he was eager to think ahead. "It's fascinating how many echoes this is going to have," he said. "The Iraqi election is an inspiration. It's going to be a real challenge to all absolute rulers."
  
  He went on to suggest that American democracy-promotion could now get back onto its preferred course. Iraq, he said, was the outlier. "Iraq is exceptional because of the use of the U.S. military," he observed.
  
  Normally, the U.S. plays the supporting role. For example, Americans can usefully raise the profile of dissidents so dictators feel less inclined to kill them. Wolfowitz was the first U.S. official to meet with Corazón Aquino. The U.S. can use its access to dictators to pressure and annoy them. Wolfowitz worked with George Shultz in the testy exchanges with Ronald Reagan, who was less inclined to ease Ferdinand Marcos out the door.
  
  The U.S. can spark debates, but it cannot conduct them. When he was ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz gave a speech calling for political "openness." He was careful not to use the words "freedom" or "democracy" because under Suharto, Indonesians might have felt inhibited about talking in such bold terms. But they were comfortable with openness, and it became the subject of magazine cover stories and a great national discussion.
  
  Wolfowitz doesn't talk like those foreign policy blowhards who think the world is run by chessmasters sitting around at summits. He talks about national poets, national cultures and the power of people to bring sweeping change. His faith in people probably led to some of the mistakes in Iraq. But with change burbling in Beirut, with many young people proudly hoisting the Lebanese flag (in a country that was once a symbol of tribal factionalism), it's time to take a look at this guy again.

through the looking glass
 

They've successfully convinced the investment world that they are stupid effin' dorks, maybe.

(I agree that that was the message they were trying to send. Lots of procurement people out there would love to see Boeing people wearing "Rulz!" tee-shirts. But, like so many such attempts, they just end up looking silly. Better to have quietly dumped him.)

Wolfie
 

Right there. The justification for the whole Wolfie gameplan. He's an accurate optimist.

Wolfie
 

Mission Accomplished?

Wolfie
 

No. Nice optomism though. The elections in Iraq, and the democratic reforms in Egypt along with the mass protest to move towards democracy in Lebanon are huge real gains- but we are not at the end yet.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

Apparently Scalia explained these views in a journal called First Things in 2002, and cited Saint Paul in Romans 13:1-5: "government . . . derives its moral authority from God."

So if it's from the Bible, no Establishment Clause problem, right?

Wolfie
 

Taliban out of Aghanistan? Check.
Elections in Afghanistan? Check.
Saddam gone? Check.
Elections in Iraq? Check.
Seeming mass movements in nearby non-democracies pushing for democracy? Check.
Syria moving out of Lebanon? Check.
Huge progress in Israel/Palestine talks? Check.

Is it all one mission, such that there can never be a successful end? Or, were all of these properly termed "missions"?

Wolfie
 

One of the noteworthy things about Pravda was all the opposing views they ran. Like FOX News, say.

It's nice that conservatives have gotten to the point where they can acknowledge "the mistakes in Iraq." But you've got to regret Brooks' timing with this Lebanon thing on a day when Hezbollah turned out hundreds of thousands of Shiites in Lebanon to rally for "respect" for Syria. Are we going to see the same sorts of pictures of that rally, too? Maybe the Shiites just aren't as, um, photogenic.

Wolfie
 

All those Hezbollah killers standing in the same place?

Boy, do I have an idea . . .

Wolfie
 

Um, wrong. Out of Kabul, yes. But they're still there. "A surge in Taliban attacks is expected again this spring as the country emerges from a particularly harsh winter." That's from a story from this morning.

What countries are you talking about?

Um, wrong.

What was Bush's line about the bigotry of low expectations? "Huge progress"?

Wolfie
 

Who said they were all killers? Hezbollah is the political movement that speaks for most of Lebanon's Shiites.

Wolfie
 

Beyond Ty's comments above, unless CIA operatives snuck into Arafat's Paris hospital room with a pillow, handgun and silencer, I think that with at least some of these missions you're looking at some mild post hoc ergo propter hoc problems.

But, as history looks back on the War to End Iraqi Genocide and Further Middle East Freedoms (and, incidentally, Some Other Stuff that Seemed Important at the Time But We're Not Really Gonna Worry About Anymore), I'm sure that the gods will smile.

Wolfie
 

http://ali.apple.com/ali_media/Users...cab_4Signs.jpg

http://www.primates.com/gorillas/koko.jpg

"Show me your nipples Ty"

Wolfie
 

QED. Susan Estrich was spewing on Fox the other night.


Reminds me of the last time a Hundred Thousand or so chose to march against freedom.
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ...nfrancisco.jpg

Wolfie
 

How does Koko sign when she's taking the oath?

Wolfie
 

Morocco? Egypt? There's a round-up listed here

Wolfie
 

Smart nukes?

Wolfie
 

"Dozens of supporters of a banned Egyptian party demonstrated yesterday in Cairo...."

If that's a mass movement, so was Gary Coleman's gubernatorial campaign.

Wolfie
 

It's great to see what the Iraq war is doing for Bolivia.

Wolfie
 

It's even greater to watch you lefties bemoan and belittle all of the democratic progress currently occurring in the world.

Wolfie
 

Salk did nothing for diabetics. Nothing!

Worthless fucker.

Wolfie
 

On this note, the latest from Rich Lowry:

• When Good News Strikes”
  Glum liberals’ try coping with a changing world.
  
  If the world that Democrats have been living in lately were made into a reality disaster show, it would be called “When Good News Strikes.”
  
  One of the inconveniences of political debate is that occasionally reality intrudes to invalidate a given position no matter how much its partisans want to believe it. This is what has been happening recently to the argument that the invasion of Iraq produced an irrecoverable mess. Although surely setbacks still await us in Iraq and the Middle East, stunning headlines from the region have left many liberals perversely glum about upbeat news.
  
  Schadenfreude has faded into its happiness-hating opposite, gluckschmerz. Liberal journalist Kurt Andersen has written in New York magazine of the guilty “pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration.” According to Andersen, the successful Iraqi elections changed the mood. For Bush critics, this inspiring event was “unexpectedly unsettling,” since they so “hat[ed] the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team.”
  
  The legendary liberal editor Charlie Peters confessed to his own attack of gluckschmerz: “New York Post columnist John Podhoretz asked liberals: ‘Did you momentarily feel a rush of disappointment [at the news of the Jan. 30 Iraq election] because you knew, you just knew, that this was going to redound to the credit of George W. Bush?’ I plead guilty …”
  
  On his show the other night, comedian Jon Stewart — half-jokingly — expressed a feeling of dread at the changes in the Middle East and the credit President Bush will get for them. “Oh my God!” he said. “He’s gonna be a great — pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, ‘Reagan was nothing compared to this guy.’ Like, my kid’s gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.” Stewart is badly in need of the consolation of a yet-to-be-written pop theological tract, “When Good Things Happen to Bad Presidents.”
  
  The Democratic foreign-policy expert who was Stewart’s guest that night, Nancy Soderberg, tried to comfort him, pointing out that the budding democratic revolution in the Middle East still might fail: “There’s always hope that this might not work.” There is historical precedent for that, of course. Liberal revolutions failed in Europe in 1848 and Eastern Europe in 1968. What is an entirely new phenomenon is liberals calling such reverses for human freedom — half-jokingly or not — occasions for “hope.”
  
  Soderberg added: “There’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s hope.” The way Bogart and Bergman “will always have Paris,” liberals now tell themselves they “will always have Iran and North Korea.” No matter the good news anywhere else, these nuke-hungry rogue states will provide grounds for bad-mouthing Bush foreign policy. But these two intractable problems won’t seriously detract from Bush’s world-changing accomplishment should he succeed in transforming the Middle East.
  
  Some liberals are reluctantly giving him his due. The New York Times surveyed the fresh air sweeping the region and concluded, “The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit.” Liberal commentator Daniel Schorr remarked: “During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that ‘a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region.’ He may have had it right.”
  
  Has the administration gotten a few fortunate breaks in the Middle East lately? Well, yes. Asked how he seemed to make so many lucky saves, the great Montreal Canadien goalie Ken Dryden explained that it was his job to be in the right position to get lucky. By toppling Saddam Hussein and insisting on elections in Iraq, while emphasizing the power of freedom, Bush has put the United States in the right position to encourage and take advantage of democratic irruptions in the region.
  
  And so we have created the conditions for being pleasantly surprised by the positive drift of events in the Middle East, or unpleasantly surprised — depending on your politics.

Wolfie
 

We think progress is wonderful. But we get sick and tired off conservatives taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning. When the sun sets, though, it's someone else's fault.

Wolfie
 

And it's the greatestest to watch the Bushies try to take credit for "all of the democratic progress currently occurring in the world," whether or not there is some arguable connection to the last episode of bombing the living fuck out of a bunch of people. Not one sparrow falls to the ground without your Father's consent, right?

ETA: Ty, as usual.

Wolfie
 

They failed to see it in the 80s as well. It's a repeat. This is why they are simply not credible on foreign policy, though they have become more credible on fiscal policy.

Wolfie
 

Dissent.

They haven't become credible on fiscal policy at all. It's just that we haven't been credible either.