Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Scheduling the vote on the Iraq war before the midterm elections, months before we went in. And Ty's point about the DHS.

The president now sets the timing for votes in congress? What Article of the Constitution is that in?

He certainly co-opted DHS, but I don't see how DHS is politicizing the war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Whereas Al Zaqwari would prefer Kerry as he would probably pull out of Iraq and allow the Islamist insurgency to thrive and drive the country into civil war.

Why do you think Kerry would pull out? That's not what he said during the primaries, and it's not what he's saying now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This was disussed eleswhere - and it was suggested that Bin Laden would want Bush to remain as he is more apt to "take the fight" to the Islamists and engage them in their worldwide quest for dominance.

Whereas Al Zaqwari would prefer Kerry as he would probably pull out of Iraq and allow the Islamist insurgency to thrive and drive the country into civil war.

Well, I hate Bush because he and his people are lying, criminally stupid fuck-ups. BUT, they started one hell of a war, and there's a good case to be made that even if they didn't hit Iraq, we'd have been dragged oever there sooner or later anyway (Mubarak admin collapsing from lack of successor in Egypt; Iran starting a nuke program, etc..), so, I'm inclined to support the idea of four more years for W. Lets just get the goddamn bloodbath over with and move on.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So what's their motive here?

I'm pretty sure they sell advertising on this board and get paid per page hit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Musharraf had previously been the driving force behind Pakistan's little invasion of Kashmir a few years ago, so he was not exactly on the Islamists shit list. In any event, noting that people have other reasons to blow him up does not change the fact that he has helped Bush out.

Michael moore says pulling out of Kyoto was one reason we got attacked on 9/11. Pakistan has not signed onto Kyoto so they should be in al Queda's sights too. Or do you dispute MM on this one point?

[the Spartan]

These two must be taking a page from Slave and SS's fraternity handbook.

Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees...

John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!

the spokesperson added, "I hope we do not see them wearing matching outfits when they ride bikes this weekend."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think Kerry would pull out? That's not what he said during the primaries, and it's not what he's saying now.

That fucking waffler -- he's at it again. Slave, time to post some t-shirts or bumper stickers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think Kerry would pull out? That's not what he said during the primaries, and it's not what he's saying now.

What he's saying now isn't worth the binary code used to present it on your screen. Name me a president in the last 50 years who hasn't broken at least three major promises in office.

Kerry and Bush will be moving out of Iraq, and both would make it look like anything but a "ooops, that was a fuck-up... sure hope the new admin sticks" scenario. Bush is probably wishing he could have done so earlier. He put it all on red, and it ain't working. Or at least it ain't perceived to be working, and thats all that really counts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Musharaff has a tenuous hold on power in Pak, and perhaps there were sensitivities related to that.

You might explain this to your compeers here.

Another Catch-22: You want the Admin to act multilateral and treat other countries like partners, except when you don't.

Are you purposefully being obtuse? I have no problem with working with Pakistan. It's specifically what we're telling them that I have a problem with.

And that's not a Catch-22. Read the book or something. Whoever wrote your definition is missing the point. It's not simply a no-win situation -- the point is that the alternatives are dependent on each other and cancel each other out.

Dean was an opportunist. At the time, no one was questioning. Dean ran as an outsider and used this as a wedge issue to differentiate himself from the other Dems in the primaries. This is clear, particularly given his earlier statements on Iraq.

Accepting all this for the sake of argument, so what? There's still a difference between running for office by saying that you favor a different foreign policy ("there's a bear in the woods") and adopting a foreign policy while in office that's oriented towards the needs of the GOP instead of those of the country.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That fucking waffler -- he's at it again. Slave, time to post some t-shirts or bumper stickers.

His plan is to get NATO, yes NATO, to send in troops. That will free up 20000 troops. Of course NATO won't and 20000 troops is menaingless even if it did.
So his plan is to not change a fucking thing. You all act like Iraq should control people's votes, but JFK won't do anything different, or at least claims he won't.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michael moore says pulling out of Kyoto was one reason we got attacked on 9/11. Pakistan has not signed onto Kyoto so they should be in al Queda's sights too. Or do you dispute MM on this one point?

I do. I like Moore's movies, and plan to see F-9/11 soon. But his statements on 9/12 were atrocious and idiotic.

See, we dems can criticize people with whom we often agree on the points where we don't agree. You should try it sometime; it's a quality that has been plainly lacking in the Repubs on this board. For example, a couple of weeks ago all of the Wahhabi Repubs were chanting the Admin's praises and saying that Bush was absolutely right to hold people captive forever, without charges or access to counsel or right of judicial review. Y'all put yourself to the right of Scalia and Rehnquist on that one (and took a position that the arch-liberal rag the Economist characterized as scandalous).

(See Hank -- I don't have you on ignore, I just generally find your posts either incomprehensible or moronic, or both, and don't bother responding.)

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think Kerry would pull out? That's not what he said during the primaries, and it's not what he's saying now.

I believe what he said the other day during the "John and John Show" was the following:

• As you know, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and also a leader in fighting bioterrorism and understanding the threats we face, he shares my unshakable commitment to having a military that is second to nobody in the world but also to restoring old and rebuilding new alliances that make America stronger.

Which says Kerry believes two things:

1) Our military can be downsized so long as it isn't smaller than the standing army of that other superpower, Belgium.

2) France and Germany should have a veto over our foreign interests.

Your article shows he wants to punt the security aspect to Nato (to which France already said no) - and this flies in the face of his "alliances first" stand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michael moore says pulling out of Kyoto was one reason we got attacked on 9/11. Pakistan has not signed onto Kyoto so they should be in al Queda's sights too. Or do you dispute MM on this one point?

I'm hoping the President decides to run against Michael Moore instead of John Kerry, because it doesn't strike me as a particulary wise strategy, even though he'd surely win re-election if that were the choice on the ballot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You might explain this to your compeers here.

Please respond to this, please Ty:
Assume they can bring one in to order. Assume Bush is saying (it really is tough to fit inside your brain) get me one in July so I can sidetrack the Dem's convention. assume the Pakis bow to the pressure, go further than they otherwise would and grab one late July, and they wouldn't have if they didn't have the pressure. If the above is true, I'm okay with it bacause we've caught a guy we otherwise wouldn't.

But the fact is that they probably can't just go grab one, so the story is silly, and your believing it true means that you believe the US intelligence service is really naive.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I do. I like Moore's movies, and plan to see F-9/11 soon. But his statements on 9/12 were atrocious and idiotic.

See, we dems can criticize people with whom we often agree on the points where we don't agree. You should try it sometime; it's a quality that has been plainly lacking in the Repubs on this board. For example, a couple of weeks ago all of the Wahhabi Repubs were chanting the Admin's praises and saying that Bush was absolutely right to hold people captive forever, without charges or access to counsel or right of judicial review. Y'all put yourself to the right of Scalia and Rehnquist on that one (and took a position that the arch-liberal rag the Economist characterized as scandalous).

(See Hank -- I don't have you on ignore, I just generally find your posts either incomprehensible or moronic, or both, and don't bother responding.)

You did stop using the parenthetical sign off because of me, though, right?