Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
The software available to the mods must be pretty advanced. I have to type my replies manually.

It's new downloadable shareware called Douchebag v 2.1.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I never look like a jackass.

It was worth coming over here and reading all this crap just for this.

Everyone should know you have absolutely no credibility now. I believe there are photos of you in fuzzy, metrosexual sweaters, and feathered boas out there ready to surface.

Thurgreed(admits to frequently looking like a jackass)Marshall

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If Slave's "I'm going to make this statement true at whatever cost" succeeds, Cheney did more than utter an irrelevancy --- it was a complete non sequitur.

With flower here now, Slave is going for the dadist vote.

I've thought you were many things, but stupid was never one of them.

Umm, err, that's my line tumor face.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My quibble is that, in a time of war, instead of critisizing the president's every move (and for some, almost celebrating every misjudgement), they should be offering support. This is not to say that there shouldn't be honest policy objections, but the manner in which they are voiced should be far different than today. Comparing the president to Hitler, saying that the war was hatched in Texas for political purposes, comparing him to a Nazi, demeaning our allies, etc. How can anyone take a party like that seriously. And (to anticipate Ty) it is not just the wingnuts. It is the leaders and nearly all of the DEM presidential nominees, except for Lieberman, who to me is a responsble politician (with the exception of when he had to whore for gore in the 2000 election).


This would not be happening to Roosevelt in 1943.

This is rich. Lemme get this straight. The incumbent can attack the challenger with all sorts of lowball tactics, engaging in the sleaziest of smear campaigns and personally attacking the challenger, but the challenger can't attack the incumbent back with similar smear which is BASED ON THE INCUMBENT'S RECORD? Are you seriously saying that?

Bush chose to take the risk of going to war in Iraq. Caveat emptor. To NOT attack bush's record and challenge the basis for his dubious decisions would be treasonous.

Comparing Bush to Roosevelt is like comparing Quayle to Kennedy. Roosevelt was a master at manipulating allies and creating strategic alliances, and he risked his health, and in fact died, because he worked around the clock to get this nation through one of its worst periods (he was on a plane to meet with Churchill late in the war when doctors told him his hypertension was so high he should be nowehere near a plane). Bush is not Roosevelt. Not by a long shot.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Comparing Bush to Roosevelt is like comparing Quayle to Kennedy. Roosevelt was a master at manipulating allies and creating strategic alliances, and he risked his health, and in fact died, because he worked around the clock to get this nation through one of its worst periods (he was on a plane to meet with Churchill late in the war when doctors told him his hypertension was so high he should be nowehere near a plane).

Huh? Roosevelt waited until there was only one ally left (albeit, the ally was an empire), and even then didn't do anything. Sitting back and waiting until we were attacked, all the while basically forcing the Japanese into a bad position (oil embargo) so that they would have to attack us, and not doing a thing to ensure we would have allies available when the time came?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Hello

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I haven't heard anyone else indicate they have family there. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I do too.

The Iraqis who oppose Allawi and/or his rule don't need any statements by Kerry or other Democrats to make them think he's a U.S. puppet. Yet, Bush has used him shamelessly.

If the Bush Administration did not want to create the impression that Allawi was being used for political purposes (leaving the window for "puppetry" accusations wide open), it could have done at least three things very differently:

(a) Not bring him to the U.S. and have him address Congress about six-seven weeks before the Presidential elections and thank the U.S. for the invasion and aftermath. Why do this? It surely did not help Allawi at home.

(b) Not have the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad think that Negroponte could meddle in his appearance schedule, and in fact do so -- ordering the State Department liason to cancel a previously scheduled TV appearance -- before reversing course when the decision came under scrutiny.

To answer a question Slave asked a while back -- all foreign dignitaries have State Department liasons who help handle the press and schedule appearances, etc. I'm sure most coordinate their public appearances with the U.S. government, and try to avoid giving offense. However, I'd garauntee you that most (e.g. Blair, Putin, Howard, etc.) don't have the U.S ambassador to their country giving the thumbs up or thumbs down.

(c) Not have a liason from the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign help write Allawi's f-cking speech to Congress (to be sure that numerous key phrases from the campaign trial appeared therein). JFC!!

For Bush-Cheney to do (a) - (c) and expect the Democrats to shut up and take it is hypocritical and irresponsible.

To respond to Ty's question -- Allawi is well aware of the extent to which Bush's hand is up his ass (or not), and no doubt tries to ignore the prostate exam while looking towards the future. People trying to ignore shit like that take offense when it is pointed out. Nonetheless, I suspect Allawi would work just as well with Kerry as Bush (although he may be unhappy with Kerry's larger hands).

S_A_M

P.S. We'll see how all of this works out. To me, the handling of the current process -- particularly the rumored plans by both parties to have the U.S. out of Iraq next year no matter what -- brings disturbing historial echoes. No one is using the term "Iraqi-ization" yet -- but are we sure Allawi isn't really named Dinh?

To avoid a similarly bad result, we need much more money delivered and spent for reconstruction (recall Sen. Lugar's comments on the adminsitration's "incompetence" in that regard) -- which we may provide -- as well as (probably) more troops that we will never provide.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This would not be happening to Roosevelt in 1943.

You might want to research that point.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I do too.

The Iraqis who oppose Allawi and/or his rule don't need any statements by Kerry or other Democrats to make them think he's a U.S. puppet. Yet, Bush has used him shamelessly.

[Stuff about Allawi and Bush]

S_A_M

P.S. We'll see how all of this works out. To me, the handling of the current process -- particularly the rumored plans by both parties to have the U.S. out of Iraq next year no matter what -- brings disturbing historial echoes. No one is using the term "Iraqi-ization" yet -- but are we sure Allawi isn't really named Dinh?

To avoid a similarly bad result, we need much more money delivered and spent for reconstruction (recall Sen. Lugar's comments on the adminsitration's "incompetence" in that regard) -- which we may provide -- as well as (probably) more troops that we will never provide.

Apologies for not recognizing your family members. So somehow it doesn't surprise me that now the two posters here who seem to have relatives on the ground are each people who have been shaking their head at the conduct of this war.

I note that a deep underlying problem of this administration is their myopia. With Bush in power, we will only help build a stable long term government there by accident - because we will keep making decisions to put US interests above those of the Iraqis, which will lead to undermining the government we are trying to support. The handling of construction contracts is another area where, if done correctly, we could have been playing a major role in building up Iraqi businesses and the middle class, but as done now, we are mainly building up the coffers of foreign contractors like Halliburton.

I know - we fought the war, we deserve the spoils. And with that attitude, we will end up having to fight another war down the road.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I was looking last night at some of the emails I've gotten in the last few months from Iraq and Afghanistan. One thing I find very interesting is that in the photos from Afghanistan, the soldiers are on base or behaving in soldierly ways in only about half the shots. The other half show the guys (and I see only guys in American uniform there) on construction sites, visiting schools, and doing other kinds of humanitarian relief work. On the other hand, all the photos in Iraq are focused on military endeavors, and the emails seem to indicate that nobody leaves base much.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

. . brought to you by club:

96,000 jobs created in September, 2004. Weak performance and missed projections.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/08/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Confidential to Slave -- This is one reason why even folks without cars should care about oil selling for $45-51 per barrel.

S_A_M

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Apologies for not recognizing your family members. So somehow it doesn't surprise me that now the two posters here who seem to have relatives on the ground are each people who have been shaking their head at the conduct of this war.

Count me as another one of these people (on both counts, if that isn't abundantly clear). That said, I am an infrequent poster here (though I do read it fairly regularly), so no offense taken.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I was looking last night at some of the emails I've gotten in the last few months from Iraq and Afghanistan. One thing I find very interesting is that in the photos from Afghanistan, the soldiers are on base or behaving in soldierly ways in only about half the shots. The other half show the guys (and I see only guys in American uniform there) on construction sites, visiting schools, and doing other kinds of humanitarian relief work. On the other hand, all the photos in Iraq are focused on military endeavors, and the emails seem to indicate that nobody leaves base much.

Meaning.......

Doesn't this mean that Afghanistan is going fine, and that we really don't need more troops there?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Meaning.......

Doesn't this mean that Afghanistan is going fine, and that we really don't need more troops there?

I don't feel an urge to boil it all down to a single meaning. It's an observation and I'll let everyone draw their conclusions from it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't feel an urge to boil it all down to a single meaning. It's an observation and I'll let everyone draw their conclusions from it.

Well understand that no one can resonably draw any conclusion as we haven't seen the evidence of which you speak. Actually, Ty will draw the conclusions that Bush has lied and gotten us into a quagmire, but no one else will be able to do so.

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
It was worth coming over here and reading all this crap just for this.

Everyone should know you have absolutely no credibility now. I believe there are photos of you in fuzzy, metrosexual sweaters, and feathered boas out there ready to surface.

Thurgreed(admits to frequently looking like a jackass)Marshall

`

Didn't hurt Jesse Ventura all that much, now did it?