Politics: J'accuse!

[sgtclub]

A few weeks ago I ripped into the Iraqis for being cowards and not standing up with the US for their own freedom.

I may have spoke too soon. Heard last night (on Charlie Rose I think) that, in Najav, the Iraqis are rising up against Sadir's (sp?) militia. Now this may be just one sheik's militia going after another, but nonetheless this is truly welcomed news.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the amazing thing is, this well-stocked boat had no tube of Bactine. if only there was some topical antibiotic, JFK wouldn't have needed to leave the boat at all for treatment of his combat wounds. with the extra time, he could have advanced our penetration up the Mekong, or maybe just slaughtered some more innocents......

Or, if he had been really brave, he would have been blowing off duty in the Alabama Air National Guard.

But keep up the chicken-hawk routine. It's cute.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Jihadi ettiquette question...do you have to tip your guide? say offer him one or two of your heaven-virgins?

I think Robin Williams said it best, when discussing the whole "72 virgins" thing..... "Of course, anybody's whose ever been with even one virgin...."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A few weeks ago I ripped into the Iraqis for being cowards and not standing up with the US for their own freedom.

I may have spoke too soon. Heard last night (on Charlie Rose I think) that, in Najav, the Iraqis are rising up against Sadir's (sp?) militia. Now this may be just one sheik's militia going after another, but nonetheless this is truly welcomed news.

It was in a written media report yesterday, and hinted-at on CNN or CNBC this morning.

Supposedly, 5 or so of Sadr's gunmen were killed quietly in Najaf this week, along the lines of assassinations or hits. An unknown organization came forward and took responsibility for the killings, at least one local Sheikh called the followers cowards before 2500 people at a mosque (for hiding in a holy city among civilians), blah blah blah.

The result was that a lot of Shiite kids suddenly decided that maybe they didn't want to dress in ninja outfits today (or yesterday).

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I need to address Indyk. He has, for years, been a consistent anti-Israel voice. (I note that the WaPo is running this piece that I think Indyk wrote for the Palestinian Times.) In spite of having been the Israeli ambassador twice (I think), he is fairly roundly despised over there, as one who sees no difference between putting up a fence and sending kiddies with bombs into restaurants.

Second, I think he reads far too much into what the letter of assurance says and means, just so that he can push the point he wants to push (which is, primarily, that anything Sharon does is evil.) It is, he says, a "hidden meaning", and it is so well hidden that no one but him apparently sees it.

Well, I don't know enough about the details of Indyk's career or positions to argue with you over this, but will say that the piece I read was not anti-Israeli at all, in tone or content. [The end-note to the article identified him as having been twice ambassador to Israel and a Depty Sec'y of State, all under Clinton.]

From your description of his positions, which I suspect may be a bit over-blown, I'd guess that Indyk is unpopular with the Israeli center-right but viewed by the Palestinians as an honest broker.

I don't know if we have any of those left anymore, especially since Bush came out in support of the Sharon plan and just up and volunteered positions on other issues (i.e. right of return, West Bank Settlements) which changed the "declared" U.S. positions for the past 30 years and planted us pretty firmly on Israel's side.

This may all fit well with what I perceive as your belief that the only chance to solve this mess is to compel the Palestinian militants to eat another pound or two of shit and like it (or lump it). Maybe you're right. I'm not so sure.

As to Hank -- yes, this course of action is most decidedly a bold move on Bush's part. Every Arab state is even more pissed off at us than they already were. Maybe it will all work out. Not optimistic.

As to the meaning of the assurance, we'll see (but not before November). I'm sure we'll get Egypt to do as much as we can, but Egypt has already said that they will not occupy/govern, etc. Gaza.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A few weeks ago I ripped into the Iraqis for being cowards and not standing up with the US for their own freedom.

I may have spoke too soon. Heard last night (on Charlie Rose I think) that, in Najav, the Iraqis are rising up against Sadir's (sp?) militia. Now this may be just one sheik's militia going after another, but nonetheless this is truly welcomed news.

Meanwhile in Fallujah, the Sunni Bathists are using children as human shields.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
As to Hank -- yes, this course of action is most decidedly a bold move on Bush's part. Every Arab state is even more pissed off at us than they already were. Maybe it will all work out. Not optimistic.
S_A_M

Why? Isn't withdrawl from Gaza a step forward? Innocent question...

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Or, if he had been really brave, he would have been blowing off duty in the Alabama Air National Guard.

Come on now, Sidd. I'm sure that the Bush campaign will eventually be able to find _somebody_ willing to say that they actually saw Bush at that base or who trained with him during the relevant period.

It may well be good tactics for the senior Bush surrogates (including recently Cheney and Karen Hughes) to have been hitting Kerry over both his service and his anti-war positions. They want to at least neutralize or muddy up a potential plus for Kerry, whether or not it is a bit unseemly.

They count on no one caring that these attacks come from a candidate team that: (a) used family connections to get preferential admission to hide in the NG and then _maybe_ didn't even finish that service; and (b) "had other priorities at the time".

Bottom line is that the GOP -- party of muscular patriotism -- has had to adjust to the fact that, with the exception of Bush I and Dole, the GOP nominees since Eisenhower have usually faced Democratic candidates who matched or outclassed them, in terms of actual military service to the nation.

S_A_M

[I know, club, I know, the Gipper made some fantastic training films.]

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why? Isn't withdrawl from Gaza a step forward? Innocent question...

Not an innocent question at all, I suspect.

But that part probably is a step forward. As I understand it, the U.S. support for that move isn't what has most of them all torqued.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A few weeks ago I ripped into the Iraqis for being cowards and not standing up with the US for their own freedom.

I may have spoke too soon. Heard last night (on Charlie Rose I think) that, in Najav, the Iraqis are rising up against Sadir's (sp?) militia. Now this may be just one sheik's militia going after another, but nonetheless this is truly welcomed news.

The NYTimes carried this story yesterday. I don't remember a suggestion that it was a rival militia. It sounded like Sadr's militia is a bunch of thugs (in contrast to the Falluja insurgents, who are really disciplined thugs led by people with some experience in the military or terrorist activities*). Now that the Sadr thugs are in control, to an extent, and openly armed, instead of keeping their weapons in hiding, they are bullying others in Najaf and making normal life impossible.

It's hard to say if this is "standing up with the US" or not. As the old saw goes, in the Middle East the enemy of my enemy is usually my enemy too.




*There is a real contrast here, which is hard to draw without inviting the cries of "anti-American! You love the Fallujah militants!" that sometimes rumble in the background when anyone characterizes people fighting Americans as anything other than evil morons.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Kerry going to lose big, and I'm pissed the GOP is asking questions about his alleged record.

Look, Kerry was in Vietnam. To the extent his injuries weren't that bad, I'm happy. Enough people were killed and injured. and he spent some time in a combat zone, which is admirable. I'm sure his reason was that he wanted to be able to point to his military record years later when he ran for office. Problem though:
Military record became non-important Clinton/Bush I. See Slave's JFK quote.

Kerry's is trying to use his military record as a positive in comparison to Bush II. All anyone is doing is calling Bullshit. The details of what Kerry actually did do show him to be a coniving little schemer thought, don't you agree?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
This may all fit well with what I perceive as your belief that the only chance to solve this mess is to compel the Palestinian militants to eat another pound or two of shit and like it (or lump it). Maybe you're right. I'm not so sure.

Read some of his writings, then come talk to me about your first paragraphs. Point here is, Bush has offered to help Sharon try something new, in an arena in which everything else has failed. Indyk can only look at this and come up with hidden-except-to-him reasons why this will fail, too. That's because he has one goal in mind, and the phrase "complete right to return" figures prominently in it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry's is trying to use his military record as a positive in comparison to Bush II. All anyone is doing is calling Bullshit.

You don't think Kerry's military record is a positive in comparison to Bush II?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Tremendous load of bullshit in which he pretends to find Kerry's record of service admirable, but then justifies the attacks on it by saying it is BS to suggest that Kerry did more than Bush II or Cheney

If you think Kerry will lose big, you're nuts.

If the Dems just had a slightly more charismatic or "unifying" figure leading the ticket (i.e. like my man, JE), the polls would be on the other foot. Anyway, its a long way to November.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry's is trying to use his military record as a positive in comparison to Bush II. All anyone is doing is calling Bullshit. The details of what Kerry actually did do show him to be a coniving little schemer thought, don't you agree?

What a fucking joke. If Bush (or any prominent Repub) had served in the military and Kerry had not, you people would be screaming about it incessantly.

Remember all the Repubs calling Clinton a "draft dodger" because he dared to go to graduate school instead of Vietnam? You people are pathetic.