Obama’s Anti-Israel Rhetoric in Softball Vox Interview

Earlier this week Vox.com released an interview with President Obama where he dismissed the radical Islamist attacks on a Jewish deli in France as just some “random shooting of a bunch of folks” instead of the Islamist terror attack it was. But what many didn’t seem to notice was Obama’s anti-Jewish rhetoric uttered during that same segment.

In the interview released Monday, Obama rambled about the history of capitalism and gave another example of his “you didn’t build that” garbage. Obama then explicitly endorsed communist-styled wealth redistribution.

But his comments about the attack on a French deli by radial Islamists got a lot of press. Here is the full quote:

Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that–the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive. I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was counterproductive to the goal of keeping our country safe.

Many people lit on the “random shooting” comment, and rightfully so. There wasn’t a single thing “random” about the Islamist terrorist’s actions that terrible day. The Jews were specifically targeted by the Muslim murderers. There wasn’t a thing “random” about that. Further they weren’t merely “a bunch of folks.” The Muslims meant to target Jews. The “folks” were very specific, not random.

But back up a bit on that quote and take a look at another anti-Jew word that Obama used there.

In that second sentence, instead of calling the terrorists Muslim extremists Obama called them “a bunch of violent, vicious zealots.”

As a friend of mine pointed out, Zealots is an interesting choice of words because the original meaning of the word was applied to Jewish fighters. The original definition historically applied to “a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until AD 70.”

So, it is interesting that Obama used this dog whistle word originally applied to Jews, isn’t it? It seems that Obama is trying to blame Jews for all this, doesn’t it?

Last Weekend's Caption Contest™ Winners
Chicago So Corrupt Even 'Champion' Little League Baseball Team Found Cheating
  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    “So, it is interesting that Obama used this dog whistle word originally applied to Jews, isn’t it? It seems that Obama is trying to blame Jews for all this, doesn’t it?”

    Yeah, I am sure that was it.

  • Brucehenry

    Micronitpicking an extemporaneous interview for excuses to feel vicarious butthurt. That’s our Warner.

  • Really hard to fight something you can’t even define…

    Can you imagine WW2 being fought without reference to the Japanese or Germans?

  • Commander_Chico

    That’s a very niggardly complaint, Warner. Trying to stick Obama to the Tar Baby of anti-Semitism because he used the word zealot. I feel gypped reading this, it was weak.

    Obama has had the temerity to say “my first job is to protect the American people” rather than to protect Israelis first a couple of times in recent days, so the Israel-firsters are outraged. Their position is for American soldiers to die for Israel in wars of Netanyahu’s choosing.

    • jim_m

      Yep, Chico justifies the murder of Jews because Israel once upon a time did something that was wrong.

      Somehow I doubt that any of the Jews in a french market had anything to do with the affront you mention. But I am pretty damn certain that your going to such great lengths to justify the religious/racially motivated murder of Jews shows exactly what an anti-Semite you are.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        When did he justify the murder of Jews?

        Wow, what a leap.

        • jim_m

          He brings up an incident nearly 50 years old as a reason for why we should not care about a few Jews dying. It isn’t about protecting American interests, it is a justfication for saying that if some Jews die we should be glad because they once killed some of us.

          • ND52

            Strawman much @jim_m723:disqus?

          • jim_m

            Straw man? Screw you dumbass. Why is this relevant to the discussion of a crime committed last month except for bigots like you attempting to claim that Jews deserve to die for simply being Jewish?

          • Commander_Chico

            This guy Jim is all about strawmen and ad hominems. You called it, he is a neocon propagandist.

            The neocons are ramping up the propaganda now because their leader Netanyahu is coming to Congress to ask for an American declaration of war on Iran. That will be Americans fighting another war for Israel, like Iraq was.

          • ND52

            @Commander_Chico:disqus

            I love it when the sheeple talk about Iran!

            Only in America can you use you intelligence services to overthrow another country’s leader, install your oown dictator and then turn around and demonize said country’s citizenry when they rise up in open revolt!

          • jim_m

            He will not ask for a declaration of war on Iran. But he will ask for opposition to letting them get the bomb. Of course that last is precisely what obama DOES want. He sees Iran getting the bomb as being “fair” because Israel has it. He doesn’t care how that will shift the balance of power in the region nor does he care that very recently Iran had a president that declared that he would use a bomb unilaterally to destroy Israel without provocation.

            I will accept being called a propagandist from a racist, misogynist and anti-Semite( and self confessed sex tourist)

      • ND52

        @jim_m723:disqus

        Yet you and your fellow neocons see no irony whatsoever in your views about Muslims just because a handful of them did something horrible in 2001.

        • jim_m

          Note dumbass, that I consistently refer to them as radical islamists. Meanwhile you argue that Jews deserve to die because they are Jewish.

          • ND52

            Strawman argument and Ad Hominem—-you’re batting a 1,000 @jim_m723:disqus

          • jim_m

            OK, then back up your BS and explain why a mistake by Israel 50 years ago is relevant to the murder of innocent people in France and why i ti s that you feel that it justifies ignoring their deaths?

            The only reason that Israel could be relevant in this at all is because you are a bigot. Chico is already known widely by the commenters on this board as an anti-Semite. It is clear that you are too.

    • ret military

      Gee I saw Israel in the title of the thread and I knew that
      a. Cheeko would bash Israel
      and
      b. Cheeko would defend Obama
      Again he goes with option D. Da JOOs

      • ND52

        You are familiar with the attack on the USS Liberty @ret_military:disqus?

        • jim_m

          Please enlighten us how it is relevant to the murder of innocent people in a shop in France? Or just admit that you’re an anti-Semite.

          • ND52

            @jim_m723:disqus

            Please enlighten us how you—-a known neocon—aren’t outraged by the actions of the Jewish Homeland against american servicemen.

          • jim_m

            I’m discussing different issue that was part of the tipic posted above. Explain why you feel it necessary to bring up an unfortunate incident that his 50 years old because you believe that it justifies doing nothing about this incident because you hate Jews. My dad fought the nazis. Appears he missed one.

          • jim_m

            Come on smart ass. Explain how the Liberty has ANY relevance in this issue except to say that Jews deserve to die because you are prejudiced.

          • jim_m

            Wait… as I recall on your very first visit here you accused me of being a lefty.

            No this is funny. Maybe you could figure out what you think before you speak.

          • ND52

            My mistake @jim_m723:disqus—-you’re most definitely a douchebag neocon!

        • ret military

          So what does an attack on the USS Liberty have to do with Cheeko’s hatred of the Jews and his blaming the jews for so many things that it is listed in one of his top 5 memes?
          Oh wait. You are just throwing out a shiny. another thing cheeko does with regularity.

          • Commander_Chico

            Because the neocons like Warner are ramping up the propaganda now because their leader Netanyahu is coming to Congress to ask for an American declaration of war on Iran. That will be Americans fighting another war for Israel, like Iraq was.

            Americans need to remember the USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair before jumping into another war.

          • Retired military

            So according to you we shouldnt defend Germany because of WW2?
            Israel is our ally. Our best ally in the middle east. Of course that doesnt matter to you because they are DA JOOs. Or Option D. Also screwing over allies is an Obama specialty so everything is fine.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am surprised your allegance is with a foreign country.

          • ND52

            @disqus_lvhCtnIc3l:disqus

            We pay them billions annually in “aid” and they’re still the only country from that region to attack us and get away with it scott-free.

            You’re retired military and you support a country that tried to sink one of our naval vessels in international freaking waters???

          • jim_m

            So you would still say the same about the following countries and peoples, all of which have engaged in military conflicts against the Untied States: Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, N Korea, Vietnam, Spain, Algeria, Libya, Cuba, Argentina, Indonesia, Fiji, Samoa, The Gilbert Islands, and others, all of which have attacked or otherwise fought US military forces at various times in our history.

            Or maybe you just single out Israel because you are a bigot.

          • ND52

            You are one big bag off stupid @jim_m723:disqus. Canada and Vietnam never attacked this country. Extra psycho credit for trying to throw in islands that most don’t even know exist.

            Do you and Rush share the same pharmacist by chance?

          • jim_m

            The people of Canada certainly did make war against the US in the French and Indian war as well as during the Revolutionary War. If you have forgotten the Vietnam war it certainly speaks volumes about your intellect.

            Again, all those nations and peoples have made war against the US. But you don’t care because they aren’t Jews.

          • ND52

            @jim_m723:disqus

            The War of 1812 was started by the United States. And Vietnam never attacked this country you moron!

            What ridiculous religious school did you attend to learn all of this revisionist nonsense???

          • jim_m

            So at no time were US soldiers killed by Vietnamese? Interesting. Kind of makes you wonder why we have a monument with 58,282 names of dead soldiers on it then, doesn’t it?

            And I had not mentioned the War of 1812, but it is arguable that it was started by Great Britain blockading US trade with Europe and providing support to Indian proxies who made war upon the US. But then I suppose that you believe that the US should have just rolled over and let the Brits do whatever they wanted to us.

          • ND52

            America invaded and attacked Vietnam—-not the other way around. And how in the world do you hold a grudge against a peoples whose only “sin” was to defend themselves from a foreign invader????

          • jim_m

            I see. So you believe that the genocide that followed our withdrawal was justified. I’m glad to see that not only are you an anti-Semite, but you are also a supporter of genocide.

            I like it that you are consistent in your beliefs.

          • jim_m

            And also, The US never invaded Vietnam. To say so is a lie and you probably know that it is a lie. The US went in with the support of the Vietnamese government initially to train and support their troops and then later to conduct the war.

            But to say we invaded is bullshit. You know that, but you lied about it anyway.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s tough to say whether you view history through a prism of wildly delusional insanity or a prism of inexcusable revisionist ignorance.

            Some advice for you, Jim, the guy who thinks Middle East history started with the Embassy takeover of 1979 and US history started with Reagan’s election — you should never ever opine about Vietnam to anyone who was alive and paying attention during the era of the war. Because if ever you reveal your ignorance, and blindness to any but the most simple-minded version of revisionist nonsense history, it is always about Vietnam.

            Although you come close above when you claim “Canadians” (who didn’t yet exist) attacked “the US” (which didn’t yet exist) during the French and Indian War.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I am a historical revisionist and you defend the loser who just claimed that the US invaded Vietnam when you, yourself admit that that is false.

            And yes, you will note that I phrased it “peoples” because some of the nations listed did not exist in their current forms but the people certainly did.

          • ND52

            Of course the U.S. never invaded Vietnam @jim_m723:disqus! And why do I agree with you, you may ask?

            Because we lost

            It was the single biggest foreign policy disaster in this country’s history so in the mind of the radical neocons it couldn’t have been a war, it couldn’t have been good and it most certainly cannot be called an invasion.

          • jim_m

            What a sack of shit ylu are. I caught you in at outright lie and you lack the backbone to admit that fact.

          • ND52

            Whatever the crazy keeps telling you jim……………..

          • jim_m

            Everyone knows that we did not invade. You just admitted that we did not invade, yet in at least two comments you insisted that we did.

            That’s called a lie dirtbag.

          • ND52

            @jim_m723:disqus

            Have someone explain the terms “sarcasm” and “facetiousness” to you. Also, if anyone you know who has an I.Q. above room temperature, ask them what “argumentum ad populum” means.

          • jim_m

            Screw you. Just like Bruce , when caught in an untenable position you come out and claim you were joking.

            THAT is the height of dishonest argumentation. I will admit when I have been wrong. You just outright lie and refuse to admit it when caught.

          • ND52

            I didn’t claim that I was “joking” @jim_m723:disqus. Again, have someone explain my posts to you.

          • jim_m

            OK so you respond to my claim that you are lying with a comment that refers to sarcasm and facetiousness that apparently has no relevance to the discussion because you were not being sarcastic or facetious in your posts. Then when I call you out for claiming that you are dismissing your lies as jokes you claim that you never said any such thing.

            You are irrational and dishonest.

          • ND52

            And you are just plain…………….special

          • jim_m

            You are a liar and you just can’t allow yourself to admit that you misspoke so you continue to double down on your lies.

          • Brucehenry

            He asked you to have someone explain but since you have no one to ask I’ll do it for you.

            No, the US involvement in Vietnam didn’t spring from an “invasion” ala Omaha Beach but the effect — half a million foreign troops on Vietnamese soil — was the same. Is this really so hard to understand?

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry, that would have been a metaphor, not sarcasm. Let the scumbag explain his own BS.

          • Brucehenry

            Deflection. And I guess you still don’t understand.

          • jim_m

            And neither do you

          • Brucehenry

            Nope, not bullshit.

            The US went in with the support of the South Vietnamese government, that is true. But the South Vietnamese government was never elected. It was installed by the French colonialists and was already a puppet of the US by the time the first “advisers” arrived. It never ever had any legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

            You know absolutely nothing of the period. Worse, you know less than nothing. Revisionist time-traveling nonsense.

          • jim_m

            I knew that and what you say is fair enough. But the US never “invaded” and to say so is more revisionist time traveling than anything I have ever posted.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet the US wound up with half a million troops there. But not an “invasion” per se in Jim-speak.

          • jim_m

            No an invasion is when you attack a nation. When you are invited in by the sitting government you are not invading. Like it or not the sitting government was more legitimate than the communists , who were supported by foreigners and had not achieved legitimacy through elections regardless of how much you will claim they were preferred.

            I would call it expected if obama were to betray our country to the enemy. I find it revealing that you come up with that example. I suspect you secretly wish he would.

          • Brucehenry

            “…who were supported by foreigners…”

            Who do you suppose supported the corrupt South Vietnamese government, Jim? Hint: They spoke French and then they spoke English.

            Which side agreed to nationwide elections in 1954 Jim? And which side reneged on the promise to hold them?

            You know less than nothing of the period. You should quit proving it while you can still look slightly less ridiculous than you usually do. Or you should quit dodging my hypothetical question.

          • jim_m

            The point was that we did not invade. Our intent was to defend the existing government and not to overthrow another or to seize territory that did not belong to us. Characterizing it as an invasion is incorrect.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course it was not technically an “invasion” as in D-Day Normandy. But if you woke up eight years from now and found the equivalent of half a million foreign troops on American soil I’m sure you would feel as if we had been invaded. And if you weren’t an all-talk gasbag coward you might get up from your keyboard and fight them.

            BTW I didn’t see you quibbling about the technical definitions of the words “invasion” and “colonization” when Warner was hysterically claiming that that was what MOOOOSLIMS were doing to Europe the other day.

          • jim_m

            Words have meanings not feelings.

            Context is important. Warner’s rhetoric is clearly metaphorical. This other tool was not being metaphorical at all, and even having had the opportunity has not made that claim.

            In the same fashion the Beatles did not invade the US, but we refer to it that way.

          • Brucehenry

            If there had been half a million Beatles we may have.

  • jim_m

    Damn straight that obama is an anti semite and all our resident anti semites have been quick to rush in and defend him.

    Consider this you bigots:

    Thought experiment: What if a white racist with a submachine gun broke into a convenience store in South Central Los Angeles, grabbed seven or eight African Americans who were shopping (maybe there was one Korean) as hostages for the release of some other white racists and then, when attacked, started spewing the N-word while shooting up the place, killing three or four of the African Americans and wounding three or four others, one or two critically.

    How would President Obama react?

    Do you think he would say there was something racial about the obscene incident? Damn right he would — and he should. In fact, he would do it forcefully and immediately. After all, when Trayvon Martin died in far more ambiguous circumstances, he was quick to jump in, identifying with the 17 year old who would resemble, Obama said, his own son if he had one.

    Your antisemitic hate blinds you to the fact that obama is an antisemite. You don’t see what is wrong with him because you can’t see it in yourselves. You can’t see that obama’s unwillingness to blame this on muslim based anti-semitism is itself anti-semitic

    Yet, you would look at his response to Trayvon Martin and call it just and proportionate.

    Yep. Anti-Semites EVERY. LAST. ONE. OF. YOU.

    • Brucehenry

      Don’t get hysterical, Mary.

      So if I follow your logic, because you are so sure about what Obama would say in a hypothetical hate-crime scenario, the fact that I or Chico or Buster would mock Warner’s over-the-top loony article makes us all anti-Semites. EVERY. LAST. ONE. OF. US.

      L.O. Fucking. L.

      • jim_m

        You rush to claim that obama is correct in his refusal to acknowledge this incident as religiously/racially motivated. Chico rushes to claim that it is justified by a military incident 50 years ago.

        Your denial is driven by a prejudice that demands that when Jews are killed you find an excuse to say why it isn’t important.

        • Brucehenry

          I did nothing of the sort. I “rushed” to mock Warner’s micro-nitpicking of two words, taken not from a carefully prepared speech but from an extemporaneous interview, as somehow revelatory of Obama’s alleged “anti-Semitism.”

          “Random” and “zealot.” Yes, overwhelming evidence. History’s Greatest Monster.

          You are insane.

          • jim_m

            So you see nothing in obama’s continued refusal to blame islam for islamic terrorism and to point out the obvious that this mass murder in France was motivated by islamism and antisemitism? You fail to see the inconsistency in his behavior where he is eager to call acts against blacks as racist, call police out for acting stupidly and declare that rioting in the streets is understandable because they are black, but when Jews are murdered because they are Jewish he doesn’t see that as being a problem and won’t even call it for what it is?

            It will be impossible to ever confront the danger and threat of radical islam if the President of the United States refuses to even name it or to call it out for what it is. Your backing of that delusional behavior only puts the US in a worse position going into a future where dealing with these lunatics is unavoidable.

          • Brucehenry

            Everyone knows who killed the people at the Paris deli and who killed the magazine personnel. It is not necessary for the President of the United States to keep on using the word “Islamic” over and over when referring to the killers. I’ve addressed this issue before. “Violent extremists” is just as accurate and avoids inflaming religious enmity any further.

            Obama has over and over decried the usurpation of the word “Islamic” by violent extremists murdering in the name of a twisted faith that mainstream Muslims don’t recognize as Islam at all. But that’s not good enough for jingo-shouters like you and Warner, who insist that ISIS barbarians and murdering Paris fundamentalists are representative of mainstream Islam. It isn’t, any more than the KKK is representative of mainstream Southern Baptist dogma.

            The President has the full weight of the US military and diplomatic apparatus to back him up. Bin Laden is dead as Julius Caesar, whether or not Obama ever called him an “Islamic terrorist.”

          • jim_m

            “It is not necessary for the President of the United States to keep on
            using the word “Islamic” over and over when referring to the killers.”

            I’d like you to point out where President “work place violence” has used the term once in reference to an incident of islamic terrorism. In fact, he is renown for denying that these people are muslims to begin with.

            Go ahead. We will wait for the direct quote.

            Even if you can find one instance (i’d be shocked if you could find more, if you can even produce one), the point is that it DOES need to be called out. The only way you can deal with radical islam is if you motivate otherr muslims to ostracize and isolate them so they no longer have a recruiting ground. obama’s refusal to name radical islam on multiple occasions is a refusal to confront the problem and it is a cowardly act driven by his ideology.

          • jim_m

            No. I just want a President who talks about the world as it is instead of the world as he imagines it to be. (there was a slam on obama’s ideological beliefs there if you are clever enough to notice it)

          • ret military

            “It is not necessary for the President of the United States to keep on using the word “Islamic” over and over when referring to the killers”
            Maybe if he would use it just once it would be differnet from all the rest of his bullshit.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, if you want a president who inflames anti-Muslim passion and ramps up the rhetoric till we find ourselves in yet another war, elect Cruz or Huckabee.

          • Retired military

            Last time I checked we are at war with radical Islam. THe only ones who dont seem to recognize it are the left.

          • jim_m

            We are already at war. It doesn’t take two to make a war it only takes one. Radical islam has already made that decision for us.

          • ND52

            So @jim_m723:disqus, you’re okay with the President using the term “white men” or “European-American males” when referring to mass school shootings?

          • jim_m

            As soon as you prove that their skin color is relevant to their crimes. It seems that usually these people are crazy.

            The point is that obama refuses to call out the real nature of the crimes.

          • ND52

            @jim_m723:disqus

            But the vast majority of school shootings are in fact committed by white males.

          • jim_m

            So. The vast majority of terrorist acts are committed by middle easterners. However, there are middle easterners who are Christians and Jews so we refer to the one distinguishing fact that motivates these people to commit acts of terrorism: their religion.

            By extension you are now claiming that people commit school shootings because white people are motivated to commit these atrocities because they are white. Please supply proof of this contention.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    I have never observed such a concerted and consistent concentration on semantics in a long time.

    One thing I really do appreciate about Obama; his observance of the dictum, “Let cooler heads prevail”.

    When I read or listen to right wing websites, radio and television shows I am amazed at how often a call to action is based on emotion.

    It could best be described as a serious case of “hair trigger”.

    Just how many military conflicts would we be in right now if that is how decisions were arrived at?

    I remember seeing a list of all of the countries for which John McCain advocated military engagement; it was a long list. I guess we really dodged a bullet (perhaps literally) when he lost the election. Other than that I truly like a lot of what he stands for, especially campaign finance reform. Additionally, a good friend of mine spent a few years with him in the Hanoi Hilton and spoke very highly of him.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      The heads are cooler because they’re no longer attached to their bodies.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I havent noticed any lack of military action with President Cooler Heads. Have you?

      • Brucehenry

        Well I noticed we didn’t go to war with Russia in 2009 over Georgia, as we would have had John “We Are All Georgians Now” McCain won the election. Nor did we bomb Assad when McCain was howling for it and posing with Islamic wackos, even if they turned out not be ISIS themselves. We didn’t put boots on the ground in Libya as McCain wanted, nor in Syria as McCain and Miss Lindsey Graham demanded we do. We haven’t sent ground troops to Ukraine yet but you can be sure McCain wants them next door in Poland.

        And famously we didn’t bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

        • LiberalNightmare

          Funny that you mention Libya …

          • Brucehenry

            I’m sure I touched your Benghazi bone but try to calm down and quit salivating like Pavlov’s dog.

        • jim_m

          Too bad we won’t have the opportunity to know if you are correct. Nice straw man you’ve got there. obama is the worst president ever, except for all the people who have never been president.

          Seems to me that what we have today is an ideologue who wants to see America lose every war and who has said that ISIS must be confronted but simultaneously claims that he won’t be the one to do it. Oh, he’ll throw some drones at them but his own people admit that it will take ground troops to deal with them and they say that ground troops will never be used by obama.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t think it’s too bad. We always must choose between two candidates in November, and given the choices I was offered in 2008 and 2012, I’m happy with my vote.

            If it had been up to me an immortal Bobby Kennedy would have been elected in 1968 and would still be president today (not really, that’s a joke.)

            But McCain is a maniac.

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/john-mccain-world-attack-map-syria

          • jim_m

            You would always be happy with a president who wants to destroy the US and it’s society.

          • Brucehenry

            I read a novel once that was written like a history of two successive RFK administrations and a follow up by his VP. Can’t remember the name of it but it was interesting.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Bobby Kennedy was a political opportunist who waited for Eugene McCarthy to test the anti-LBJ waters before he jumped in. He was a completely lawless Attorney General, who trampled on the civil rights of those he went after. He wasn’t even a shadow of John.

          • Retired military

            But McCain will be HIllary’s VP choice.

          • My son said once he thought I’d be a good President. I reacted with horror. I’d take the job seriously, worry like hell about the results of policy changes, and be constantly checking my assumptions to make sure that they were right – and if what I proposed or enacted wasn’t working the way it should I’d rescind it as fast as possible, figure out what went wrong, and try to get it corrected.

            Currently – there seems to be no corrections for things that don’t work right. Unintended consequences are the order of the day. How much was spent on green tech that didn’t work out? How much was spent on a web site for ‘health care’ that overall has helped a few while buggering up the entire industry?

            Now they’re talking about ‘net neutrality’ – which seems to be something that nobody outside of government is really asking for.
            After what was done to health care in the guise of making it fair and equitable and all the ‘unanticipated consequences’ of a 2000 page bill nobody bothered to even read, who would really want Washington ‘managing’ the Internet?

            Obama doesn’t seem to take the job seriously, doesn’t seem to care about the long-term results of his policies, and seems much more concerned with being a celebrity than being President. Popularity’s the key to his ‘success’ – and we’re seeing just how shallow his actual competence is.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          President Peace Prize’s recently requested AUM “…includes no geographic limitations on a possible extension of the war beyond those two countries in pursuit of the Islamic State and “associated persons or forces” and includes “…ground deployment of Special Operations forces for rescue missions and unspecified assistance to local forces.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-makes-formal-request-for-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/2015/02/11/881cc0b0-b1f7-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html
          All against an enemy whose name we dare not mention. He’s a complete putz.
          The difference between him and McCain is that if McCain went to war, he’d want to win. President Putz is more worried about how he looks to the enemy. We’d be better off if he played golf 24/7.

          • jim_m

            He does play goal 24/7. The problem is that he tries to squeeze in being President in between strokes.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet do you have any doubt as to against whom those operations would be directed?

            Neither do they, or anyone else.

            And the question, had McCain won in 08, would not be “if” he went to war, but against whom first. If it had been Russia, we might all be radioactive cinders by now.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You sound like those bed-wetting commies who produced LBJ’s daisy commercial, only to see LBJ get us into Vietnam, or those bed-wetting commies who complained about that cowboy Reagan, who defeated the USSR without firing a shot.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            One of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was their misadventures in Afghanistan; they simply stayed too long in pursuit of a victory that lacked definition. Hmmm…sounds familiar.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes LBJ escalated in Vietnam, as Goldwater would have — the difference being LBJ never used tactical nukes as Goldwater would have, and as Goldwater said he would have. So we didn’t have to fight China and the USSR as a consequence of Vietnam. That’s one wet bed I’m glad we woke up in.

            And Reagan’s policies might have led to disaster had it not been for the adroitness of GHWBush, who led us through the period following Reagan’s presidency, when Ronnie himself was settling into retirement and dementia. It could have been ugly, but what did Ronnie care? He had “mommy” to take care of him.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’m sure our Ditherer-in-Chief will prosecute just a wonderful campaign against our enemies, whose names we dare not be mentioned:

            “Obama White House dithered for nearly a month before launching rescue after UK told the administration where to look for ISIS hostages Kayla Mueller, James Foley and Steven Sotloff

            British intelligence knew in June 2014 the locations where released European hostages had been held by the ISIS terror army

            Obama’s national security team refused to act on the intelligence because it was from a foreign government

            By the time the administration launched a Juky 4 rescue raid, the hostages had been moved

            French authorities also reportedly shared intelligence in March 2014 about where they were believed to be

            Beheadings of ISIS prisoners began a month after Obama’s failed rescue mission
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951148/Obama-White-House-dithered-nearly-month-launching-rescue-UK-told-administration-look-ISIS-hostages-Kayla-Mueller-James-Foley-Steven-Sotloff.html

          • Brucehenry

            It’s “Obama’s failed rescue mission” — but had it succeeded you’d be jumping up and down about him claiming credit for it undeservedly.

            You guys are transparent as glass.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            It’s not “Obama’s failed rescue mission.” It’s the Obama White House dithering about what to do, thereby causing the mission to fail. Typical Obama.

          • Brucehenry

            You just now called it “Obama’s failed rescue mission.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’re right. It was his failed mission.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure but had there been a successful rescue you’d swear up and down Obama had little or nothing to do with it.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’m sure he would have rescued those hostages if he hadn’t had that golf date.

          • jim_m

            Funny that you should point out that had it succeeded he would, indeed, have claimed that it was all due to him and his heroic decision to risk the lives of others to bring himself greater glory.

            You are as self aware as a rock.

          • Brucehenry

            We in the South have a saying when a guy finds himself damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He says “I guess I cain’t win fer losin.'”

          • Brucehenry

            We in the South have a saying when a guy finds himself damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. He says “I guess I cain’t win fer losin.'”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’m sure Obama will carry on the campaign against our enemy, whose name dare not be mentioned, with the same success as he has with our ally Yemen:

            “The unraveling security situation in Yemen — the same country President Barack Obama cited as a model for his fight against ISIS — could throw the President’s counterterror message into question ahead of Tuesday’s State of the Union address.”

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/politics/obama-yemen/index.html

            Obama managed our operation so well we exited our “model” with approximately the same modicum of dignity as when we left Saigon:

            “Marine embassy security guards smashed personal weapons with sledgehammers and scattered them before departing Yemen as the U.S. Embassy was being evacuated this week, officials with Marine Corps Headquarters said.

            The officials offered new details of the Marines’ departure in the wake of differing reports about what had become of personal weapons the troops had to leave behind before departing the country via the airport at Sanaa. A Pentagon spokesman told reporters Wednesday that Marines handed over the weapons to Yemeni officials before boarding commercial aircraft for departure, while staff with the Sanaa airport told the Associated Press that Houthi rebels had seized U.S. Embassy vehicles, some with weapons inside.”

            http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/12/marines-new-details-yemen-evacuation/23281977/

    • The only heads that Obama wants cooled are those of the Joooos, but only after that white hot flash of a nuke kills them all. That IS his final solution for the Israel question. We are lucky. For the US he only wants economic destruction.

  • Paul Hooson

    I’m the resident Jew here, and I perfectly understand the reasoning behind this statement. The U.S. has a strong commitment to Israel that is unshakable. But, Israel needs to step back out of the spotlight while Western powers recruit moderate Arab states to combat ISIS. Jordan, for example has well proven they will battle ISIS as our proxy if only given the aircraft to do so. Jordan has good relations with Israel itself, but not so much with Netanyahu.

    Israel certainly understands that they need to let the moderate Muslims combat ISiS, and allow this to be a Muslim vs. Muslim conflict without Israeli complications right now.

    • jim_m

      The point is that this was not a random shooting as obama claimed. It was islamic terrorism. You can call it for what it is without bringing in Israel.

      What needs to be done is to mobilize the islamic world against these lunatics. Refusing to name radical islam is not the way to accomplish that. Hell, even Al Sisi from Egypt is willing to call these people out but the ideologue in chief is to cowardly to do so. obama could have referenced Al Sisi in his comments to justify calling out the islamists but he still refuses.

      You cannot defeat an enemy you refuse to name.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    Nothing could be more foolish than the United States taking the lead against ISIS. Who is most threatened by ISIS? The countries in the region and then Europe.

    Eventually Turkey will have to take action (instead of playing it safe and playing both sides because of the Kurds) with help from other countries in the region and probably Europe. We should not be the primary force.

    • jim_m

      Nobody is saying to take the lead against ISIS in this dscussion . The point is that obama cannot even bring himself to identify radical islam as the force behind the killings in France.

      obama has repeatedly claimed that this has nothing to do with islam. Even Egyptian President al Sisi has been able to make this point. obama cannot lead (in the sense of leading the political war against islamism) when he is cowering behind the teleprompter, refusing to even name the enemy.

      As for ISIS, I would refuse to give him military authorization as I have no confidence that he would use our military with the purpose of actually winning a military victory. There is no point of engaging the enemy if you do not intend to defeat them.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        When you say “winning a military victory” relevant to the current state of affairs in the Middle East you are only talking about one thing.

        As there are no uniforms and the enemy is ensconced in residential neighborhoods there is no “military” victory unless you decide to go into full “Dresden” mode.

        So the rhetoric of “taking it to the enemy” is simply code for killing every man, woman and child in a specific geography.

        • jim_m

          That’s bullshit and you know it.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s what your logic “boils down to.” LOL.

          • jim_m

            We were approaching victory in Iraq before your lord and savior bailed and forced a US loss. No firebombing of Dresden was necessary.

            But this does point out an interesting fact that the left is more upset about Dresden than it is about Auschwitz. I wonder why…

          • Brucehenry

            So you get in your time machine and set it for “2020 Iraq IF a neocon was president” and see a peaceful US client state and that’s supposed to prove anything?

          • jim_m

            It proves just as much as your historical fantasies but has the advantage that we were actually on that course before the people that believe America must always lose took over and charted a course to make certain that what is currently happening happened. You will recall that a host of people here predicted that obama’s policy would have led to something just like this.

          • Brucehenry

            And a host of people predicted that an invasion of Iraq in the first place would lead to thousands of dead Americans in a hopeless quagmire and unforeseen unknowable consequences but you ignored them. They were right and you were and are wrong.

            Just like Vietnam.

          • jim_m

            Ah, but the difference is that when things were actually headed in the opposite direction those who predicted failure took over and determined that failure was the only option and acted to ensure that it would.

            Certainly you must see that truth.

          • Brucehenry

            The US was always going to leave Iraq eventually. The SOFA agreement negotiated by the Bush administration foresaw that. Even the Bushies knew we had to leave sometime.

            The difference is when things started to fall apart, as liberals always said they eventually would, Obama refused to be sucked back in, and the American people supported that position. They STILL don’t want to return.

          • jim_m

            The choice was to renegotiate the SOFA and stay to ensure that the government stabilized or to walk away to guarantee a US loss. obama chose the latter because that was what he wanted. US casualties were down to single digits per month. The risk involved in staying was minimal. Instead, due to obama’s choice that we should lose we are looking at the need to commit over 100,000 ground troops to retake territory that he gave up from an islamist military force that grew as a direct result of his feckless foreign policy.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet despite your prognostications and what-might-have-beens the American people elected a candidate who promised to extricate us from Iraq and reelected him AFTER seeing what the result of our extrication from Iraq would be.

            Sorry we don’t live in a country where the generals rule, Jim. Perhaps you’d be happier in Pinochet’s Chile or Mubarak’s Egypt.

          • jim_m

            Yep and after 8 years of media propaganda that told them that record employment levels and low inflation were “the worst economy in history” and instead we got record unemployment levels and growing inflation and a president who has made US foreign policy a laughing stock.

            And actually, we have already seen that Egypt preferred Mubarak over the alternative that obama wants for them, which is an islamic state ruled by islamic fascists, because the al Sisi government is merely Mubarak redux.. We have also seen that he is plotting with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the current Egyptian government because he believes that islamism is a valid alternative to democracy.

          • Brucehenry

            The ignoramus speaks again.

            Egyptians rioted in the streets to rid themselves of the American puppet Mubarak and elected Morsi. When he showed himself to be a bad choice, Egypt may have elected a different leader — maybe even al-Sisi — had there been any tradition of liberal democracy in the country.

            I mean, since we are indulging our fantasies of what-might-have-been.

            However, since Nasser, Sadat, and then Mubarak had tortured, imprisoned, and executed all the socialists and liberal democrats in the country who might have opposed them, only Islamists remained in the opposition.

            The rest of your comment is all boilerplate conspiracy nonsense as is most of your geopolitical outlook. You are an insane idiot who, thank God, will never come near the levers of power.

          • jim_m

            Egypt did not elect al Sisi. They wanted rid of Mubarak and obama pushed them to have early elections that threw it to Morsi. The people did not want an islamist regime that was 3 times as repressive as Mubarak and they welcomed the coup. The government they have today is Mubarak redux and they prefer that to Morsi and you know it.

            obama has been conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood and you know that too. You refuse to admit these facts because tt would mean that you would have to reevaluate your ideology. For you ideology is more important than fact.

          • Brucehenry

            “Conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood.” What a paranoid crock of shit. You can swallow all the tainted red meat from Wingnuttia you want, Jim, the rest of us aren’t necessarily as gullible as a fearful sheep like yourself is.

            I never claimed al-Sisi was elected. What I said was that he might have been elected had there been a tradition of liberal democracy in Egypt. There wasn’t, though, because the previous puppet rulers of Egypt had murdered all the secular liberals who might have opposed them.

          • jim_m

            Morsi was never going to allow another free election and you are a fool to believe he would have.

            obama’s state department met with the Muslim Brotherhood and they immediately followed with an announcement that they plan to remove the al Sisi government. Even if there was nothing to that meeting you cannot say with a straight face that the rest of the world does not believe that obama supports their aims and that his administration is helping them achieve them.

            In some cases appearances are fact until such a time as obama comes clean about his intentions. But then since he is the least transparent president in history we are unlikely to know that.

          • Brucehenry

            In other words paranoid conjecture based on wingnut fearmongering as usual.

          • jim_m

            Just to reiterate: While you claimed that Iraq would be a disaster it was headed in the opposite direction at the end of the Bush Presidency. When obama took over, those who had predicted failure were in charge and they were heavily invested in making sure that Iraq resulted in a failure. obama acted directly to destroy our position there and to destabilize the new government, resulting in the current disaster.

            We have what we have as a result of the fact that the dems needed to have this result. Having a success was NEVER an option. Failure was necessary at all costs.

          • Brucehenry

            It was NOT headed in the opposite direction but was ruled by an unpopular Shiite kleptocrat who wanted to make himself the next Saddam, but it was enjoying a temporary, exhausted respite from the worst of the sectarian violence the US invasion and occupation had stirred up.

          • jim_m

            Temporary? It seemed like it was a continuous trend.

          • Brucehenry

            It may have seemed that way to someone with his buried in wingnut propaganda websites but not to those paying attention to what was actually happening.

          • jim_m

            The casualties were declining. You cannot deny that. Oh, well I guess you do. I suppose that facts don’t have any relevance to truth for you. That’s something I have pointed out multiple times before.

          • Brucehenry

            American casualties had declined but marketplaces in Baghdad and elsewhere were still blowing up with an alarming frequency. Everyone could see we needed to get out.

          • jim_m

            No. Cars burn nightly in Paris and no one suggests that the French should get out.

            Your argument is fallacious.

          • Brucehenry

            And this desperate non-sequitur is hilarious. What the fuck.

          • jim_m

            Not a non sequitur. You say that daily violence is a reason to get out and it is not. The only reason to get out was our loses, which had been controlled.

            And if our losses were too severe at single digits, what exactly will you say when we finally have to confront ISIS? Because one day we will and it is a danger that is the complete responsibility of obama and his policies. His policy is that islamism is just another political belief and is every bit as justifiable as our democracy. He believes that we have no reason to oppose them.

          • Brucehenry

            Iraqi lives matter too Jim. We may have been taking fewer losses on a day-to-day basis in 2008 than in 2006-7, but Iraqis were still being blown up because Maliki was misruling the country and killers were still killing.

            But I agree that no one seriously advances the notion that the French should flee Paris. What a moron.

          • jim_m

            If Iraqi lives matter then you would have supported keeping US troops there because more Iraqis are dying now than at any time under Bush. But then you really don’t care about them, all you care about is that the US loses. And if that means more flag draped coffins on the nightly news you couldn’t care less.

          • Brucehenry

            You can’t be serious. More Iraqis are dying now than AT ANY TIME under Bush?

            In any event the SOFA agreement, negotiated by the Bush administration, mandated we leave Iraq. And before you say it should have been renegotiated by Obama let me ask you why we should expect Obama to get the Iraqis to agree to something the Bush administration was unable to?

          • jim_m

            Do we have body counts from ISIS?

          • Brucehenry

            You tell me, genius.

            Note my edit above.

          • jim_m

            It’s arguable that more civilians are dying at the hands of ISIS regardless and more certainly will if we look to how similar regimes have functioned elsewhere(but you dont care about deaths of brown skinned people elsewhere where they are not politically useful for you).

            The Iraqis were interested in a renegotiation but wanted different terms. A compromise could have been found but obama is an utter incompetent at foreign policy and completely out of his depth. He couldn’t find a compromise with anyone.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, “it’s arguable”, huh? Well that settles it.

            And your wingnut sources tell you (or is it The Voices?) that the Iraqis were interested in renegotiation but that that darn lazy uppity Obama was just too much of an incompetent man-child to pull it off, huh? Shocker.

            Here’s a fun fact. A couple of ’em actually. ISIS grew out of “Al Qaeda in Iraq” which DID NOT EXIST before the US invasion. To blame Obama for a situation that occurred because blind, stubborn, ignorant neocons could not be persuaded to consider what might be the longterm unintended consequences of a reckless military invasion and a wholly botched occupation, is the height of hypocritical folly.

          • jim_m

            If we do not have the facts all we have is argument. If you have hard facts you would have produced them.

            Yes, it is fair to blame obama for creating a power vacuum that our enemies have filled. If a stable Iraqi government had been able to persist this would not have happened.

          • jim_m

            A Saddam controlled Iraq was no longer tenable. While better than ISIS, it was no longer possible to tolerate a regime openly funding terrorism. The difference between obama and Bush is that obama sees no difference between terrorism and the US. Neither do you apparently.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha if it was “no longer possible to tolerate a regime openly funding terrorism” why is the House of Saud still ruling the Arabian peninsula?

          • jim_m

            Because they are not ‘open’ about it. Certainly, they fund wahabist mosques and that should be stopped. But Hussein was making direct payments to families of suicide bombers and harboring training camps for terrorists.

            There is a degree which was too far in 2001. Perhaps a further degree will be too far in the near future. It is to be hoped.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh my God they are ABSOLUTELY open about it. Everyone knows they fund not only mosques but countless Wahhabi madrassas (and training camps) in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Everyone knew it in 2001.

            Saddam was making payments to the families of suicide bombers during the Second Intifada but the Saudis have been financing terror groups for decades and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. What the fuck is wrong with you?

            This from a guy who claims up thread that he is willing to admit when he makes a mistake.

            EDIT: Even if it were true that the Saudis were funding terrorists “but not openly” does that mean the US should tolerate that support from them but not from Saddam?

          • jim_m

            Financing? Apart from the mosques etc, nothing direct like Hussein. Also, nothing like material support as he was providing.

            Again, I said it does need to end. I am not a fan of the House of Saud.

          • jim_m

            I’m just saying that there was a difference between people who throw money around and people who use chemical weapons on their own populace. If you can’t tell the difference it says a lot about you

          • Brucehenry

            If the most unkind thing you can say about the Saudis is that you are “not a fan” of these people who “throw money around” you have convinced me of your profound and utter ignorance of all issues pertaining the the history of the region in the last 65 years or so. No one is more committed to the throwing of the Jews into the sea than the House of Saud.

          • jim_m

            I disagree. No one is more committed to persuading other people to throw the Jews into the sea than the House of Saud.

            They don’t do physical labor. They pay other people to do that.

          • Brucehenry

            And their regime is “tolerated” — something that you said could not be allowed in 2001.

            EDIT: Yes, the Saudis are committed to paying others to throw the Jews of Israel into the sea. Yet you are apparently willing to “tolerate” their actions as long as they’re “not open about it.” Why are you so anti-Semitic, Jim?

            That last is a joke, dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            You are completely ignorant. Google the subject, educate yourself and then STFU. What a blind stubborn ignoramus.

          • jim_m

            So Saudi has training camps for terrorists?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes dumbass just not on Saudi soil. Who do you think financed the Taliban government of Afghanistan in the 1990s? God please shut the fuck up you are embarrassing yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            Hint: It wasn’t Saddam’s Iraq.

          • jim_m

            And the Taliban financed Bin Laden. Not quite the same thing as directly financing terrorism. Just saying.

          • jim_m

            Oh and don’t go on about how you give a damn about the people of Afghanistan. You were perfectly willing to let them suffer at the hands of the Taliban just as you were wiling to let Hussein continue to gas his own people.

          • Brucehenry

            You mean like they did during the Reagan administration? And continued to enjoy American support — until Saddam’s Kuwaiti overreach — under Reagan’s chosen successor?

          • Brucehenry

            Bin Laden IS a Saudi whose family has marriage ties to the royal family. Why are you trying to excuse the Saudis? What kind of neocon blinders are you wearing?

            Again, this kind of desperate hairsplitting from a guy who claims he’s always willing to admit when he’s wrong. Pathetic know-nothing.

          • jim_m

            Bin Laden was not a member of the House of Saud. There is a difference between a citizen doing something and their government doing it. By your reasoning the US government assassinated Martin Luther King Jr.

          • Brucehenry

            Bin Laden’s family is an elite one, with multiple marriage and business ties to the Royal family. Again with the ignorance — you have no idea how a medieval, tribal monarchy works, do you?

            Again I beg you stop digging the rhetorical hole you are burying yourself in. I’m actually starting to feel sorry for you.

          • jim_m

            Go right ahead. I’m shocked that you cannot tell the difference between a country that has indirect connections with Bin Laden and another one that supported him, financed him, gave material aid in the form of training and weapons to terrorists, paid people to slaughter innocents, used illegal chemical weapons to murder civilians and conducted aggressive war against its neighbors.

            You feel sympathy for me? Fuck you Bruce. You are incapable of seeing what you are arguing about. You claimed that we should let Hussein stay in power! You supported everything he was doing and said we should do NOTHING about it.

            Yes, the Saudis are execrable. They were not and are not Saddam.

          • Brucehenry

            The only thing — the ONLY thing — on your list that Saddam did and the Saudis have not done is use chemical weapons on their own people (as far as we know).

            You are the one who said that a regime that funded terrorists could not be “tolerated” after 2001 but yet you are perfectly willing to tolerate Saudi support for terrorist groups going back decades. The amount of Saudi money going to terrorism DWARFS what Saddam spent.

            BTW I omit “waging war against its neighbors” because the Saudis actually helped SADDAM in his aggression against Iran during the Reagan years.

            And here you are claiming that the Saudis aren’t so bad and we should do NOTHING to end their support for Islamic terror. You say we should let the House of Saud remain in power! Oh, they’re “execrable” you guess but hey whatever.

            BTW just so you don’t think you got away with your ignorance and making shit up let’s see a link proving that Saddam supported Bin Laden. Everyone knows Saddam hated and feared Wahhabism and fanatics like Bin Laden.

            Everyone except you, an ignoramus with an impressive vocabulary — and that’s it.

            EDIT: “Indirect connections” that’s fucking rich. How unfuckingbelievably ignorant can you be?

          • jim_m

            Everyone in the ME was paying Saddam to fight the Iranians in the 80’s. Everyone.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t deny that but mention it so as to make clear the chemical weapons issue was the ONLY one that Saddam was guilty of and the Saudis, as far as we know, aren’t.

          • jim_m

            Really? ‘m trying to think of the last aggressive war that Saudi Arabia was involved in where they unilaterally sent troops into a neighboring nation. I think the last time was 1948 and the war of Israeli independence (and that wasn’t unilaterally).

            [edit] and if you have evidence that they are funding Hezbollah (doubtful, since they are Shiites), or Hamas or ISIS, it would be interesting to hear.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? Because I happen to think that one can wage war through proxies, as was the case in 1980-89. I didn’t know you were adding qualifiers to the accusation of “conducting aggressive war against its neighbors.”

            And even if you were, aren’t you admitting by that tidbit about 1948 that the Saudis WERE guilty of the same things you accuse Saddam of? Except for the gassing, of course.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, except there were three heads of the House of Saud since then and Saddam was guilty of both Iran and Kuwait. So there was no need to depose someone who was already dead and buried.

          • Brucehenry

            Aaaand again, you said that “a regime” that supports and finances terror can not be “tolerated” but yet a regime that HAS supported and financed terror for many decades and has waged aggressive war against its neighbors apparently CAN be tolerated.

            In a way I agree. The US can’t go around deposing every despot in the developing world. But wingnuts who make claims about what can and cannot be tolerated should be forced to defend wars of choice on the individual merits of the wars in question.

            To say that Saddam had to be opposed because we could not tolerate a regime that supported terror, and then turn around and say if the Saudis do the same shit that’s just fine and dandy, is to have it both ways. This whole argument demonstrates that you are the most willfully ignorant dumbass on the subject of the Middle East that Wizbang’s got.

            Stick to global warming and Obamacare. Even though vitriolic you make some degree of sense on those subjects.

          • jim_m

            ther were distinct differences between those two regimes.

            And you are making an ass out of yourself because for many years now you have said that we should not have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. So you are really arguing in favor of doing nothing about the Saudis when we get down to it.

          • Brucehenry

            I have never said that regime change in Iraq wasn’t desirable. I opposed the invasion and watched in horror at the botched occupation because I knew that invasion and occupation were not the best ways to achieve the long term interests of the US.

            The Saudis are, to use your mild mannered expletive, indeed “execrable” and the House of Saud will hopefully be deposed and replaced with a secular Ataturk-style government someday, but I would not advocate the invasion and occupation of Saudi Arabia. Only a bloodthirsty ignoramus impervious to the lessons of history would do that. So you’d probably advocate it.

          • Brucehenry

            I agree. Saddam’s government was remarkably stable. It wasn’t going anywhere, and it fer damn sure wasn’t going to allow any al-Qaeda types.

            That’s facetious but the blame ultimately rests on the neocons who destabilized the region with their reckless invasion and their botched occupation in the first damn place.