Politics As Usual

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
The first time you said it, I thought you were just trying to be funny. Now I see you really believe we invaded Iraq for the oil.

I believe you're the one touting the Iraq war as an element of a larger coherent strategic effort to re-shape the ME to be more consistent with our interests. If petroleum is not, at the very least, among the things y'all are keeping in mind in crafting the New ME, I want my damn money back.

Oh, to be clear --- I don't speak for Ty. Personally, I think we invaded Iraq for many reasons, one of which was our strategic interest in its oil, and another of which was Bush's messianic belief that things done with good intentions turn out well. Like Ashcroft being a man with a "good heart," such that Bush could not understand the opposition to his appointment.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Technically, I believe Peggy Noonan said it first and Reagan repeated it.

While no one appreciates your gratiuitious shot at the honourable President Reagan, I will admit that I truly enjoy reading Peggy Noonan's work and have to admit that she is spot on 10 times out of 10.

Coincidentally I was going through a scrapbook of old columns of hers yesterday in celebration of the Memorial Day holiday and also pulled out an old greatest conservative hits videotape I had made several years back with classic visages of conservative commentators. Next to Peggy N. and Anne Coulter my favorite conservative she-warrior was Barbara Olson, God rest her soul. I have an old Chris Matthews show on tape were she righteously railed against the libertine liberals in a brilliant thought provoking manner. The subject was Gary Condit. Talk about a democrap loser. Typical.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think it is fair for you to say I am on his side. I have views that diverge from conservatives and libertarians. You cannot put a label on my politics because I take the side that makes the most sense to me. I vote Rep because more of my ideas are endorsed by the Rep party.

I believe the conservatives and libertarians had the ideas first and you are just endorsing them you two bit hooha tramp!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
my favorite conservative she-warrior was Barbara Olson, God rest her soul.

Cute sock you got there bilmore. I just want to add that God rest Barbara Olson's soul, too. Too often we forget about the Pentagon victims of 9/11.

Actually, lately it seems, too many Americans forget 9/11 altogether. The rest of you need to make sure you stock up on your semi-automatics. We will need a well armed militia if we don't get radical islam under control.

I only hope that there really is a moderate islam and they will finally join in this war with us. So far, I have seen little to no evidence this is true.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
two bit

Apparently you haven't read my posts on the FB.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Oh, to be clear --- I don't speak for Ty. Personally, I think we invaded Iraq for many reasons, one of which was our strategic interest in its oil, and another of which was Bush's messianic belief that things done with good intentions turn out well. Like Ashcroft being a man with a "good heart," such that Bush could not understand the opposition to his appointment.

People like Ignatius are floating this "tax gas more" idea because they are thinking that our foreign policy has become distorted by the need to devote resources to ensuring our supply of oil. If we reduce our dependance on oil, we won't need to spend so much money cleaning up messes in the Middle East, or so goes the theory. If the Middle East didn't have oil, it would be like Africa to us.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Not Me

I only hope that there really is a moderate islam and they will finally join in this war with us. So far, I have seen little to no evidence this is true.

This is a liberal myth, like socialism. Speaking of which am I the only person who sees the resemblance between JFKerry and this aspargus cartoon character?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
This is a liberal myth, like socialism. Speaking of which am I the only person who sees the resemblance between JFKerry and this aspargus cartoon character?

POTD.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe you've already posted on this, and I missed it, but does this mean you support the exemption of so-called light trucks from CAFE? Because people who drive Hummers are only hurting themselves, and to make them more fuel efficient would provide the incentive to drive them longer distances?

Granted, I read the Chron so I'm at a disadvantage, but the CV out here is that CAFE has been a disaster because fuel economies have increased, but the percentage of drivers choosing those cars is offset by the growth (both in sales and in size) of CAFE-exempted cars.

I would repeal all of CAFE. I would instead increase taxes on gasoline.

CAFE creates distortions, and has done little to decrease gasoline consumption. What matters is the amount, not the rate. A partial exemption from CAFE for light trucks used as passenger cars simply introduces more distortions (likewise with differential safety rules--why are pickups so popular?) But there's a reason for exempting light trucks--they're bigger vehicles and therefore less capable of getting "good" gas mileage. The complaints have come only since people realized "hey, I can get a super-large truck for less that a merely large truck, since the former is exempt from CAFE, and therefore doesn't have to cross-subsidize the production of tin cans."

CAFE was a failure long before people shifted to exempt cars. That's just exacerbated the problem. It started withpickups in the early 90s, but it's not like you saw suburbans driving down lombard more that a few years ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would repeal all of CAFE. I would instead increase taxes on gasoline.
But there's a reason for exempting light trucks--they're bigger vehicles and therefore less capable of getting "good" gas mileage.

This is so obvious as to be silly. Why should the fact that they are larger make them exempt? I mean, the big bmw 700 series cars are bigger and therefore heavier than, say, a Civic or even a small BMW, and they aren't categorized differently.

I have to say I do like that carmakers have to list their fuel efficiency, which must be some legal thing because apparently H2s are too big to be subject to that rule.

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This is so obvious as to be silly.

What I find so obvious that it is silly is the obvious connection between Saddam and 911. On the other hand it seems that the leftwing-dead-from-the-neck-up-reality-tv-show-watching-intellectroids will never make this connection or understand that if we don't destroy them there, we will be destroyed by them here. Instead you would rather drone on about gas taxes and other socialistic inanities.

Answer me this, why hasn't the leftwing media given this picture the play that it has the panties on the terrorists head shot?



IS THE TRUTH TO HARD FOR THE FIFTH COLUM TO HANDLE?!?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This is so obvious as to be silly. Why should the fact that they are larger make them exempt? I mean, the big bmw 700 series cars are bigger and therefore heavier than, say, a Civic or even a small BMW, and they aren't categorized differently.

I have to say I do like that carmakers have to list their fuel efficiency, which must be some legal thing because apparently H2s are too big to be subject to that rule.

"The 2003 Hummer H2 ranked dead last in a survey of new owners, with 225 reported problems per 100 vehicles sold, far more than the industry average of 133....

J.D. Power surveyed 52,000 new car owners, quizzing them on 135 problem symptoms. The most common complaint among H2 owners was excessive fuel consumption (22 complaints per 100 vehicles). The H2, which gets 8-14 miles per gallon, is classified as a light truck and thus not required to report its fuel efficiency to the government nor post it on its dealer sticker. Brian Walters, director of automotive research for J.D. Power, says given rising gas prices, fuel economy is now the second-greatest concern among respondents."

link

It's hard to believe that people who buy Hummers could be surprised by the lousy mileage, but there you go.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Since Chalabi seems to still have his defenders on this board, I'd like to see them explain away this:

• American officials said that about six weeks ago, Mr. Chalabi told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East.
  
  According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code. That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off American officials to the fact that Mr. Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the American officials said.
  
  American officials reported that in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Mr. Chalabi had said that one of "them" — a reference to an American — had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Mr. Chalabi said the American had been drunk.
  
  ....It could not be learned exactly how the United States broke the code. But intelligence sources said that in the past, the United States has broken into the embassies of foreign governments, including those of Iran, to steal information, including codes.

Ooh. Busted.

link

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since Chalabi seems to still have his defenders on this board, I'd like to see them explain away this:

• American officials said that about six weeks ago, Mr. Chalabi told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security that the United States was reading the communications traffic of the Iranian spy service, one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East.
  
  According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code. That encrypted cable, intercepted and read by the United States, tipped off American officials to the fact that Mr. Chalabi had betrayed the code-breaking operation, the American officials said.
  
  American officials reported that in the cable to Tehran, the Iranian official recounted how Mr. Chalabi had said that one of "them" — a reference to an American — had revealed the code-breaking operation, the officials said. The Iranian reported that Mr. Chalabi said the American had been drunk.
  
  ....It could not be learned exactly how the United States broke the code. But intelligence sources said that in the past, the United States has broken into the embassies of foreign governments, including those of Iran, to steal information, including codes.

Ooh. Busted.

link

What if:

The Iranians decided they didn't like Mr. Chalabi;
The Iranians independently realized that their traffic is probably being monitored by the Americans?

Why hasn't:
The American government determined who told Chalabi this stuff?


One day when I was 16 or so, after a night of drinking, one of my friends comes over. My dad was like, Hey John, how ya doin? I heard you guys had a rough night last night, but at least nobody was driving drunk. SO my friend was like, you weren't supposed to know about the drinking, but yeah, there's always a sober driver...

And my dad was like, I didn't know about the drinking, until you just told me.


So why did the Iranians want us on their borders again? Its another thing to manipulate things entirely once we are already there, but did they really prefer us to Saddam in 2002-2003? And if Chalabi is out of favor with them, maybe they just killed two birds with one stone.

Which is to say, who knows?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This is so obvious as to be silly. Why should the fact that they are larger make them exempt?

Come on. Do you really think heavy trucks--the ones that drag 50 tons of gravel around--should be subject to the same standards? If so, you need to spend a bit to buy a piece of reality. If not, you have to draw the line somewhere. Quibble with congress as to where it drew the line. I have no idea if it's right or wrong. But there it is.