A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
But, that requires strongmen accustomed to autonomy throwing their lot in with strongmen accustomed to total control (e.g. Uzbekistan). Not sure how that benefits the Afghan Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc. May make sense to the Pashtos, if Pakistan let the rest go.

Damn! Your avatar doesn't look this bright.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The guys who have really been doing bin Laden's bidding are in the White House. At a point when Afghanistan was increasing coming under control and the options for places to deploy and maintain significant a.Q. forces were dwindling, we created a place where thousands of them could likely find shelter. In the absence of Iraq, they'd be in places where it would be easier to root them out and control their recruitment.

Just as the first Iraq invasion was really the jumping off point for a.Q., this Iraq invasion has been a phenomenal gold mine for them. It gives them a reason to exist and helps build their support in the Arab world.

Not particularly responsive to this post, but I'll go back to something I said months ago - I'm pretty sure that things won't be settled in Iraq until there is a full blown civil war and either (1) one side is a clear cut victor or (2) it leads to a negotiated settlement. Assuming this is true, I'm not so sure it is a bad thing (for US interests, not the humans involved).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Mitt Romney, busted.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

FWIW, Peggy Noonan saw it my way:

• Mr. Webb did not want to pose with the president and so didn't join the picture line. Fair enough, everyone feels silly on a picture line. Mr. Bush approached him later and asked after his son, a Marine. Mr. Webb said he'd like his son back from Iraq. Mr. Bush then, according to the Washington Post, said: "That's not what I asked you. How's your son?" Mr. Webb replied that's between him and his son.
  
  For this Mr. Webb has been roundly criticized. And on reading the exchange I thought it had the sound of the rattling little aggressions of our day, but not on Mr. Webb's side. Imagine Lincoln saying, in such circumstances, "That's not what I asked you." Or JFK. Or Gerald Ford!
  
  "That's not what I asked you" is a sentence straight from cable TV, from which many Americans are acquiring an attitude toward public and even private presentation.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
FWIW, Peggy Noonan saw it my way:

• Mr. Webb did not want to pose with the president and so didn't join the picture line. Fair enough, everyone feels silly on a picture line. Mr. Bush approached him later and asked after his son, a Marine. Mr. Webb said he'd like his son back from Iraq. Mr. Bush then, according to the Washington Post, said: "That's not what I asked you. How's your son?" Mr. Webb replied that's between him and his son.
  
  For this Mr. Webb has been roundly criticized. And on reading the exchange I thought it had the sound of the rattling little aggressions of our day, but not on Mr. Webb's side. Imagine Lincoln saying, in such circumstances, "That's not what I asked you." Or JFK. Or Gerald Ford!
  
  "That's not what I asked you" is a sentence straight from cable TV, from which many Americans are acquiring an attitude toward public and even private presentation.

Perhaps Webb should have said "My son is in a warzone with no likelihood of getting out. How the hell do you think he is?"

I mean, that is what W asked him, no?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Perhaps Webb should have said "My son is in a warzone with no likelihood of getting out. How the hell do you think he is?"

I mean, that is what W asked him, no?

Yes, then it would have a merely honest showing of disrespect to the leader of his country rather than the assholeish, smarmy showing of disrespect to the leader of his country.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, then it would have a merely honest showing of disrespect to the leader of his country rather than the assholeish, smarmy showing of disrespect to the leader of his country.

These guys keep complaining how their disagreement with the President's positions does not mean they are unamerican. i think everyone here agrees, providing they disagree for a reason other than political advancement.

But what Webb did, and what Ty et al seem quite pleased with is disrespect for the office. that is unamerican.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, then it would have a merely honest showing of disrespect to the leader of his country rather than the assholeish, smarmy showing of disrespect to the leader of his country.

Excuse me? I am sure that the all of the many social snubs that Clinton received from GOP elected officials from 1993 to 2001 struck you as "assholeish, smarmy showing[s] of disrespect to the leader of [the] country" as well.

The more I read about this incident, less I think of both of their manners. Webb behaved badly. If he didn't want to act in a polite manner to the host of the event, he should have have declined the invite.

At least he avoided the photo line, which means that Bush had to actively seek him out. And Bush's testy response was just as rude as Webb's comment, arguably more so since he was the host.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, then it would have a merely honest showing of disrespect to the leader of his country rather than the assholeish, smarmy showing of disrespect to the leader of his country.

A more honest showing of disrespect would have been "Stuck in Iraq, thanks to you".

As has been mentioned, Webb could have made the same point in a more diplomatic manner, but Bush could have also been more diplomatic, no? In any case, at least neither of them stooped to Cheney's level of bluntness--then we'd have to hear about it for at least the next 2 years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Excuse me? I am sure that the all of the many social snubs that Clinton received from GOP elected officials from 1993 to 2001 struck you as "assholeish, smarmy showing[s] of disrespect to the leader of [the] country" as well.

maybe where you come from two wrongs equals a right, but we use a different math up here fella. when you guys finally give us up, have you given any thought to whether you'll go sunni of shia?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, then it would have a merely honest showing of disrespect to the leader of his country rather than the assholeish, smarmy showing of disrespect to the leader of his country.

Good one. Because the Rs have never disrespected a leader of our country.

(ETA: damn, handle a call in the middle of a post and look what happens.)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But what Webb did, and what Ty et al seem quite pleased with is disrespect for the office. that is unamerican.

If I am included in the "et al" you are wrong. I have already stated that Webb behaved badly.

But "disrespect for the office"? Please. Did you think that telling the press that the President of the United States was not welcome to visit your state, and that he probably wouldn't be safe if he did indicated any disrespect for the office? Did you think that making comments suggesting that the suicide of one of senior officials appointed by the President of the United States was perhaps a hit ordered by the same President was somehow showing "disrespect for the office"? Did you think that when suggestions were made that the military should not obey orders from the Commander in Chief?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Excuse me? I am sure that the all of the many social snubs that Clinton received from GOP elected officials from 1993 to 2001 struck you as "assholeish, smarmy showing[s] of disrespect to the leader of [the] country" as well.

The more I read about this incident, less I think of both of their manners. Webb behaved badly. If he didn't want to act in a polite manner to the host of the event, he should have have declined the invite.

At least he avoided the photo line, which means that Bush had to actively seek him out. And Bush's testy response was just as rude as Webb's comment, arguably more so since he was the host.

I don't remember those headlines (of nasty, sideways comments made to Clinton at official White House events and then taken by the other party to the media), but I will grant you I am sure there was frostiness from time to time.

In what context, though? A social situation is an inappropriate venue for that. If he just couldn't hold his tongue (and these people are professional politicians - geez), he should have stayed home. That after Webb's utterly and unnecessarily rude behavior about the photo line, Bush had the grace to seek him out (have you ever had to do tha? It is not easy.) says something positive about Bush. That he didn't continue to accept the rude behavior reveals his well-known flashes of temper, which he also should check. And Webb's subsequent publicizing of it - pathetic, dirty, juvenile and opportunistic.

None of this is to suggest that Webb should not feel the way he does. But if he can't handle the whole job, he shouldn't have it at all.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe where you come from two wrongs equals a right, but we use a different math up here fella. when you guys finally give us up, have you given any thought to whether you'll go sunni of shia?

Is this funny Hank or serious Hank?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Did you think that making comments suggesting that the suicide of one of senior officials appointed by the President of the United States was perhaps a hit ordered by the same President was somehow showing "disrespect for the office"?

Clinton probably ordered some 25 hits, but all while Govenor for the State of Arkansas. I have little respect for that state, (other than Fringey mentioned recently she spent some time there so it cannot be all bad.) or any of its offices.

the suicide was never attributed to WJC. It was ordered by HRC. Technically she was never the President. The co-presidency was not something ever constitutionally sanctioned.