Still Hating America.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
scoreboard is trash talking 101. Say you are ahead in a game (typically b-ball) and someone on the other team starts trash talking about how he used you on a play, you look at the score, then back at him and say "scoreboard?" it means you should stop trying to insult me, because you are way behind.

"No one calls you Mr. Hoops."

[Spanky]

Every time I think Senator Kerry can not say anything more ignorant and preposterous he tops himself. Maybe he has never understood the concept that actions speak louder than words. Here is his latest flashes of brilliance:


WASHINGTON — Senior U.S. defense officials say they have evidence linking some of the deadliest weapons being used against U.S. forces in Iraq to the highest levels of the Iranian government, but congressional Democrats are warning the administration to go slow in making its case.

"Every leader in the region and every observer, every expert here in our country, tells us that Iran does not want a complete and total implosion in Iraq," Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said Sunday.

According to U.S. military officials, a significant increase in a number of explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, found in Iraq have tracked back to Iran. EFPs, which can penetrate heavy armor used in tanks, have killed 170 American troops since 2004.

According to the officials in Baghdad, they recently confiscated a number of EFPS that were found before exploding. The C-4 explosive in them has been chemically traced to Iran, the "machining process" required to make the projectile is not available in Iraq and the triggering devices are also traceable to Iran, they said.

That is also true of a significant number of mortar rounds as well as rocket-propelled grenades, which can be identified by the markings and designs on the tailfin of the mortars, the officials said. The date on most of the ammunition is 2006, which means it was manufactured in 2006 and is not material left over from the era of Saddam Hussein. The officials said the Iranian supplies are mostly going to surrogates here, primarily Mahdi Army militia members.


Officials said they developed the information in part on the arrest of the five operatives in Irbil, including Mohsin Chizari, an operation chief in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite arm of the Quds force that reports to Iran's supreme leader.

The conclusions are also based on documents seized during a December raid on the Hakim compound in Baghdad. In the raid, troops found inventory sheets of weapons supplied. U.S. officials said they are announcing this information in order to put Iran on notice publicly.

But Democratic Sen. Jack Reed wondered whether the influx of Iranian armaments was a plan by the Islamic regime in Tehran or just "rogue elements" within it.

"There are certainly indications, as Mr. Gates pointed out this week, that these explosive foreign projectiles seem to be coming from Iran. They've been used. The question is is this a deliberate policy of the Iranian government at the highest levels. Is it rogue elements within the government?" Reed said on "FOX News Sunday," referencing Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"And then the other question is to what extent are there countervailing signals that the Iranians actually are trying to — not control, but not to further raise the stakes in Iraq," he said.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said the administration could be laying the groundwork for an attack on Iran and that "I'm worried about that. That's how we got into the mess in Iraq," by relying on what Dodd called "doctored information."

Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said, "the administration is engaged in a drumbeat with Iran that is much like the drumbeat that they did with Iraq. We're going to insist on accountability."

Kerry, the 2004 presidential candidate, said despite the evidence, the United States must try to engage Iran diplomatically.

"Ultimately, they want an Iraq that is stable. They want influence. They want to be players in the region. And we need to recognize that and engage in a kind of diplomacy that the Iraq Study Group recommended," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."

Iran's response to the allegations appeared in an op-ed published last week in The New York Times. Even before the military briefing in Baghdad, Iran's spokesman for its mission to the United Nations said America is forging imaginary threats with Iran to provide "temporary domestic cover" for the administrations failure in Iraq.

"Now the United States administration is — unfortunately — reaping the expected bitter fruits of its ill-conceived adventurism, taking the region and the world with it to the brink of further hostility. But rather than face these unpleasant facts, the United States administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq," wrote Amb. Javad Zarif.

At home, on the Republican side of the aisle, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi said he does not think the United States is trying to make a case for attacking Iran. Lott said the U.S. should try to stop the flow of munitions through Iran to Iraq but that "you do that by interdiction ... you don't do it by invasion."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he has not been briefed fully on the topic, but he's not prepared to say whether the evidence would require U.S. forces crossing Iran's border.

"If we're going to protect our forces in Iraq, and if there are Iranians in Iraq, inside Iraq, seeking to do harm to our soldiers, of course we'll take the appropriate action," he said. "There is not indication that any of this has to do with going beyond Iraq, but inside Iraq, if there are foreigners in there, seeking to harm American soldiers, certainly we are going to respond to that."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, however, spoke in more aggressive tones, saying that "we have to do everything within our power to stop" any cross-border flow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if, by "they", you mean the islamists, I am encouraged by your question.

I meant as in, "how do they get that little wire inside light bulbs?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I meant as in, "how do they get that little wire inside light bulbs?"

string theory?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
string theory?

If you need a hook to post a picture of Eva again, go for it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky, check out Obama on the campaign trail:

• The inevitable anti-No-Child-Left-Behind question from a teachers union member brought a balanced, but tough response from Obama--more $$ for teachers, yes, but more responsibility from teachers, too. "My sister is a teacher," he said, "and she tells me that you go into any school and everyone [on the faculty] knows which teachers are good and which are not so good." I remember wanting to jump out of my skin when Howard Dean answered similar questions in 2004, pandering wildly to the teachers unions, promising the moon and refusing to say ask anything of them.

Joe Klein in Iowa.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, check out Obama on the campaign trail:

• The inevitable anti-No-Child-Left-Behind question from a teachers union member brought a balanced, but tough response from Obama--more $$ for teachers, yes, but more responsibility from teachers, too. "My sister is a teacher," he said, "and she tells me that you go into any school and everyone [on the faculty] knows which teachers are good and which are not so good." I remember wanting to jump out of my skin when Howard Dean answered similar questions in 2004, pandering wildly to the teachers unions, promising the moon and refusing to say ask anything of them.

Joe Klein in Iowa.

Having heard his announcement speech, I understand Biden's clumsy "articulate" comment. He is amazingly articulate in the same way early Reagan and Clinton were. I hope he has staying power. He'll fucking kill Hillary in debates. You listen to him and realize he's not just reading teleprompter text - this motherfucker's actually able to think in real time as the words tumble off his lips. Nobody else running can do that so effortlessly. He'll make Hillary look shrill.

Hell, anyone would make her look shrill. I just think she'll hate him so much by primary time it'll be all she can do not to throw things at him from her podium.

[Shape Shifter]

Oh, you're talking about Kerry. When I saw the subject line, I thought it would be about someone else.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
\
He'll make Hillary look shrill.

Hell, anyone would make her look shrill. I just think she'll hate him so much by primary time it'll be all she can do not to throw things at him from her podium.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
"Ultimately, they want an Iraq that is stable. They want influence. They want to be players in the region.

I actually agree with this, insofar as Iran ultimately wants (I think) a stable, Shiite-dominated Iraq allied with the Tehran government. If that isn't possible, they want a weak and fractured state.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Having heard his announcement speech, I understand Biden's clumsy "articulate" comment. He is amazingly articulate in the same way early Reagan and Clinton were. I hope he has staying power. He'll fucking kill Hillary in debates. You listen to him and realize he's not just reading teleprompter text - this motherfucker's actually able to think in real time as the words tumble off his lips. Nobody else running can do that so effortlessly. He'll make Hillary look shrill.

I really like him -- and am liking his 1995 book too. Penske -- as a committed compassionate multiculturalist you should pick up a copy -- good tale about race and identity -- includes depictions of corrupt Chicago (from his time as a community organizer).

My big concern is that he is to the left of HRC, and while I like a lot of his domestic policy, I'm not sure I want him as a "wartime" President. This, of course, is not a concern to those of you who just want someone to knock HRC off.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I really like him -- and am liking his 1995 book too. Penske -- as a committed compassionate multiculturalist you should pick up a copy -- good tale about race and identity -- includes depictions of corrupt Chicago (from his time as a community organizer).

My big concern is that he is to the left of HRC, and while I like a lot of his domestic policy, I'm not sure I want him as a "wartime" President. This, of course, is not a concern to those of you who just want someone to knock HRC off.

S_A_M

Don't worry. Neither he nor Hillary have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. Luckily for him, his problem is inexperience and the unfortunate leftover racism in this country. Both of those are fading, and he's young. Hillary's congenitally unelectable.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Stop it. Else I'll start thinking that you don't like women with power.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I actually agree with this, insofar as Iran ultimately wants (I think) a stable, Shiite-dominated Iraq allied with the Tehran government. If that isn't possible, they want a weak and fractured state.

S_A_M

When the US was in Vietnam (and the rest of South east Asia) the Soviet Union wanted the US to fail. That was their number one priority. They probably didn't want a complete blood bath like happened in Cambodia, but goal one was for the U.S. to get kicked out and then they were going to deal with step two. Same goes for US policy in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Yes we wanted a stable and Democratic Afghanistan, but goal one was to get rid of the Soviet Union. Therefore, we supported all sorts of nasty anti -democratic people to help us achieve our goal.

Iran's goal in Iraq is to get rid of the US in Iraq. That is more important to them them than a stable Iraq. Yes they want a stable Shiite dominated Iraq, but they want the US to leave Iraq with its tail between it legs even more. Once the US is gone, then they will deal with step two. What is more I don't think they want a Democratic Iraq after we leave. They want an Iraq controlled by Shittes sympathetic to Iran, and the Sunnis having absolutely no say. They also don't want the Kurds to have any influence, because the Kurds in their own country are going to want rights.

Right now they have every incentive to make things worse in Iraq for America.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
When the US was in Vietnam (and the rest of South east Asia) the Soviet Union wanted the US to fail. That was their number one priority. They probably didn't want a complete blood bath like happened in Cambodia, but goal one was for the U.S. to get kicked out and then they were going to deal with step two. Same goes for US policy in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Yes we wanted a stable and Democratic Afghanistan, but goal one was to get rid of the Soviet Union. Therefore, we supported all sorts of nasty anti -democratic people to help us achieve our goal.

Iran's goal in Iraq is to get rid of the US in Iraq. That is more important to them them than a stable Iraq. Yes they want a stable Shiite dominated Iraq, but they want the US to leave Iraq with its tail between it legs even more. Once the US is gone, then they will deal with step two. What is more I don't think they want a Democratic Iraq after we leave. They want an Iraq controlled by Shittes sympathetic to Iran, and the Sunnis having absolutely no say. They also don't want the Kurds to have any influence, because the Kurds in their own country are going to want rights.

Right now they have every incentive to make things worse in Iraq for America.

Why do you think this is different than what I said, instead of just longer? I surely never said they wanted a democracy.

[eta: OK. Different emphasis.]
S_A_M