« "Tell it to the Marines!" | Main | Moonlighting »

President Bush: Unplugged

This is part of why I like President Bush. He doesn't believe in mincing words when expressing his opinion of Hezbollah to PM Tony Blair. Allah has the video.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Bush: Unplugged:

» Another Blogger linked with OMG Bush Said a Naughty Word

Comments (84)

Yeah, you gotta love that l... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yeah, you gotta love that little chimp.

Yes indeed I love the chimp... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

Yes indeed I love the chimp.
Lee your living proof that the only good commie is a dead one, now do the world a favor and make your self a good commie (in an environmentally friendly manner).

This was on non-syndicated ... (Below threshold)
K in RI:

This was on non-syndicated talk radio this morning here in blue as blue can be Rhode Island. The tone of the callers commenting was basically that MSM was overstepping...even though they don't like the President, they thought this was pretty ridiculous as a focus of the cable news programs.

It's the most intelligent t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It's the most intelligent thing George has said since the fighting broke out -- of course the television outlets would be using it.

This report makes me think ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

This report makes me think of the 5 year olds who giggle with glee and tattle whenever someone says a bad word...

"Mommy mommy! George said a bad word! He said the S-Word, Mommy!"

LeeThe bank called... (Below threshold)

Lee

The bank called. Your morality check was returned marked "NSF".

The bs that the Drive by Me... (Below threshold)
stan25:

The bs that the Drive by Media saying that President Bush's microphone was unintentional is a load of shit. He intentionally left it open to have it pick up exactly what he meant. He got his point across and now the Drive by Media is having a cow.

I'd like to see him <a href... (Below threshold)
JimK:

I'd like to see him flesh out the whole idea for a speech. :)

Darleen - Coming from peopl... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Darleen - Coming from people like you, who think they've attained some sort of moral high ground by electing an idiot to the office of President, that really hurts.

Your opinion of me is very important to me -- in fact, if you didn't loathe me, and weren't provoked into childish statements like that as a result, I would conclude that I wasn't trying hard enough.

Thanks for the validation! Now let's see what dumbsh*t thing George does next. The world hasn't laughed at our country enough yet today --- let's give them more Georgie! Here's a banana -- Speak boy, Speak!

Typical troll dribble . . .... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Typical troll dribble . . .

Please don't feed the troll.

Ah, the actual admission of... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Ah, the actual admission of the pooh fligging monkey/troll.

Please don't respond to any of the pooh fligging monkey/troll's comments. It only encourages more.

<a href="http://adamboulton... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Transcript

Bush: Yo Blair How are you doing?
Blair: I'm just...
Bush: You're leaving?
Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy...[inaudible]
Bush: yeah I told that to the man
Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?
Bush: If you want me to
Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises...
Bush: I just want some movement.
Blair: Yeah
Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement
Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it maybe that it's impossible
Bush: I am prepared to say it
Blair: But it's just I think what we need to be an opposition
Bush: Who is introducing the trade
Blair: Angela
Bush: Tell her to call 'em
Blair: Yes
Bush: Tell her to put him on them on the spot.Thanks for [inaudbible] it's awfully thoughtful of you
Blair: It's a pleasure
Bush: I know you picked it out yourself
Blair: Oh, absoultely, in fact [inaudble]
Bush: What about Kofi [inaudible] his attitude to ceasefire and everything else ... happens
Blair: Yeah, no I think the [inaudible] is really difficult. We can't stop this unless you get this international business agreed.
Bush: Yeah
Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon
Blair: But that's that's that's all that matters. But if you, you see it will take some time to get that together
Bush: Yeah, yeah
Blair: But at least it gives people...
Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to...
Blair: Well...it's only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk
Bush: You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over
Blair: [inaudible]
Bush: [inadubile]
Blair: Syria
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing
Bush: Yeah.
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way...
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet
Blair: He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Bashad [Bashir Assad](9a and make something happen
Blair: Yeah
Bush: [inaudible]
Blair:
Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government
Blair: Is this...? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)

There's darned few moments ... (Below threshold)

There's darned few moments I like Bush. This is one of them. Imagine, calling the spade a spade.

Today U.S. President George... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Today U.S. President George Bush issued his most strongly worded statement yet on the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East.

Bush: "You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over".

Lee demands a president tha... (Below threshold)
Dan Tana:

Lee demands a president that demands the status quo, bangs head against the wall, rushes Maddie Albright for more shuttle diplomacy and repeats the mistakes of the last 40 years and to reinvigorate Oslo!!

The Chimp learns from history!!! He doesn't participate in the international circle jerk!!

Hey Lee, what's your opinion of Israel?

Isn't that what we've been ... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Isn't that what we've been saying all along - if Hezbollah would stop this shit Israel wouldn't have to retaliate?

It scared the sh** out of t... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

It scared the sh** out of the lefties. Just last week they were saying the 'cowboy' was gone. Oh well, just as all of their predictions have been, they were wrong again. I'd like to see President Bush (aka the Cowboy) walk over and punch the sh** out of Chi-rac, the French coward.

Lee sounds more and more like the cowardly commie leftie that posted on here previously with a different name. Could there have been a name change, along with the sex change?

I think Israel should not s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I think Israel should not stop until the job is done. I'm disappointed with their offer for a cease fire. Momentum and world opinion is in their favor - they should finish the job.

Lee, all the Israelis have ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Lee, all the Israelis have done is offer the reasonable terms of ceasefire that the situation requires... Terms any REASONABLE group wouldn't hesitate to comply with...

... Of course, any REASONABLE group wouldn't have started the bullshit with the abductions in the first place, so let that be your guide as to whether or not Hezbollah will capitulate.

What's funny to me is how h... (Below threshold)
jp2:

What's funny to me is how his "unplugged" statement is vastly different than anything he has said in public thus far.

In this case, I wish he was a straight-shooter. He rarely is, instead being a blue-blood politician until the end.

Jeez - looks like I've step... (Below threshold)
KC:

Jeez - looks like I've stepped into a circle jerk here.

"Just last week they were saying the 'cowboy' was gone. Oh well, just as all of their predictions have been, they were wrong again. I'd like to see President Bush (aka the Cowboy) walk over and punch the sh** out of Chi-rac, the French coward."

Would this be before or after being told to his face that Russia didn't want Iraq style "democracy". Note Bush's non-reply.

Look - it's obvious that Russia is moving backwards and back toward out and out communism (albeit slowly) but the case in point here is that no foreign leaders can take Bush as a person seriously when he has a weaker grasp on the English language than many of the foreign dignitaries with whom he meets!

ON the subject, I'm glad that Bush does grasp the notion that the Lebanese government does not have the capability to keep Hezbollah in check, and that it is Iran and Syria pulling the strings here.

Israel should be careful of taking the disproportionate attacks too far in fear of losing the goodwill of the world. Hezbollah is a problem and should be wiped out, IMO, but two soldiers does not justify destroying a nation's infrastructure and pissing off the world at the same time.

...Of course, any REASON... (Below threshold)

...Of course, any REASONABLE group wouldn't have started the bullshit with the abductions in the first place...

U-u-u-u-uh oh. Somebody said a naughty word.

Listkeeper, I understand t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Listkeeper, I understand that diplomacy suggests that Israel once again offer the terms they offered before launching their attacks -- I just hope that a cease fire, if it happens, is not the end.

The time for talk has come and gone. It's time to Israel to push ahead and eradicate Hezbollah, while the U.S. has surplus troops and assets in the region to assist if this gets totally out of hand. I really, strongly hope that is what happens. I see the situation today as the best chance Israel has to finish the job -- the timing is good. Finish it.

Who are you, and what have ... (Below threshold)

Who are you, and what have you done with the real Lee?

KC and Lee, first Lee. Lee... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

KC and Lee, first Lee. Lee, Bush, at 60 years old could kick your ass. I would shut up if I were you. No I would jump off a bridge if I were you. KC, when is it exactly that Israel enjoyed the benefits of world goodwill? Take your time in finding such.

when is it exactly that ... (Below threshold)

when is it exactly that Israel enjoyed the benefits of world goodwill?

After Munich/'72?

When they destroyed the USS Liberty?

Before the Raid on Entebbe? [I say "before" because the world, patronizing anti-semites that it mostly consists of, can extend pity to Jews only if the Jews know their place and don't go gettin' uppity, like, acting as if they had a real nation and sovereignty and all].

Would this be befo... (Below threshold)
DavidB:
Would this be before or after being told to his face that Russia didn't want Iraq style "democracy". Note Bush's non-reply.

Yes, we wouldn't want to have open elections where everyone can vote and there are multiple candidates. No, don't want that!

Being on the edge of a civil war has more to do with the insurgency, and those that lost power wanting it back, and little to nothing to do with the selected form of government.

Maybe Bush didn't respond for the same reason we shouldn't respond to trolls here, it just encourages more crap.

Israel should be careful of taking the disproportionate attacks too far in fear of losing the goodwill of the world. Hezbollah is a problem and should be wiped out, IMO, but two soldiers does not justify destroying a nation's infrastructure and pissing off the world at the same time.

The vast majority of the targeting in Lebanon has been very select and has not been to destroy the infrastructure. They have targeted the terrorist infrastructure and there has been collateral damage. That is somewhat expected when you place your infrastructure among civilian facilities for protection.

I doubt that Israel really gives a damn about world opinion. Particularly when the majority of the world stands by and condemns them for responding to terrorists attacks and not condemming the terrorists for their attacks.

At least try to appear balanced, you may come off as a little more genuine.

I understand that even Chir... (Below threshold)
jim:

I understand that even Chirac was considering issuing a strong statement until he learned that Paris was still low on automobiles.

KC - Your suggestion that I... (Below threshold)
Lee:

KC - Your suggestion that Israel's only justification for their push into Lebanon is: "... two soldiers does not justify destroying a nation's infrastructure and pissing off the world at the same time." -- that's really short sighted. This was only the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Hezbollah movement has in the last few days revealed itself to be much more seated and powerful than their mere numbers would indicate. Lahoud's recent hugfest with Syria, and the fact that the Lebanese army is unwilling or unable to keep Hezbollah militants in check, makes this the entire country of Lebanon's problem.

Setting the country's infrastructure back into the 19th century would provide some measure of security for the Israeli people. In my opinion Israel has every right have to respond to Hezbollah's call for their annihilation with this well defined "reality check" - and as to the rest of the people of Lebanon -- well, if you sleep with dogs you get fleas. If you want to allow scum Like the Hezzbolah to operate freely in your midsts, be willing to pay the price for that.

This is what fighting terrorism is about - rooting out the cancer directly. You have to expect to lose some healthy tissue is the process. In this case, Lebanon has been too generous a host to this cancer, and I find it difficult to feel pity for them.

DavidB:"At least try to ... (Below threshold)
KC:

DavidB:"At least try to appear balanced, you may come off as a little more genuine."

As I stated: circle jerk. More clearly defined: Israel apologist circle jerk.

re: Iraq democracy and Putin's statement - I pasted this as a reality check to the circle jerkers here who get off on Bush's tough talk when it isn't backed up by anything. See: Iran, North Korea, Russian human rights/media concerns, etc. Putin basically made fun of Bush and Cheney in the course of a month, with no consequenses.

I'd have to disagree with you re: the targeting of infrastructure. Airports, roads, bridges, etc. are called "Infrastructure". While much of the targeting was on known Hezbollah strongholds in southern Beirut, the majority of the bombing, has indeed - and this is admitted by the IDF, been infrastructure.

And Lee: "KC - Your suggestion that Israel's only justification for their push into Lebanon is:... that's really short sighted. This was only the straw that broke the camel's back."

I know plenty about the history between Hezbollah and Israel, and recent events there. Yes, Hezbollah made an incursion into Israeli territory to capture two soldiers in hopes to negotiate for the release of some Lebanese "citizens". And yes, although I'm not going to jizz all over myself about how Israel has the right to exist (which I agree it does), I think that Hezbolla needs to go.

However, with all the money we throw at that area, and all the money available to Israel, why must they resort to extremely unbalanced warfare against the citezenry of Lebanon with the express stated goal of making it too painful for the citizens of Lebanon to tolerate the existence of Hezbollah? Israel is perfectly aware that Lebanon cannot root them out, due in large part to Israel's prolonged war on Lebanon, and the Syrian influence there. The Lebanese government is basically impotent in that regard, and bombing the citizenry back to the stone age is not going to solve the problem.
When Israel allows Hezbollah to gain popular support by building hospitals and schools instead of sending money in there to do the same thing, I feel no pity for them.

With the massive amounts of aid borne of our tax dollars going to Israel, there simply is no longer an excuse.

The right wing neocon hacks, like those so prevalent here have partially hijacked the Israeli national discourse and played into peoples' worst fears. Every minor threat is now a threat to the very existence of Israel. ANY KIND of negotiations are a sign of weakness and will only encourage more of the same.

Israel does face credible threats, and I believe that this particular one is military and not terroristic.

"This is what fighting terrorism is about - rooting out the cancer directly. You have to expect to lose some healthy tissue is the process. In this case, Lebanon has been too generous a host to this cancer, and I find it difficult to feel pity for them."

You fail to grasp the issue. If you think that ther is a military solution to terrorism in this area, you're more deluded than your Commander in Chief.
Tell me when you're finished spouting right wing talking points, and maybe we can have a real discussion on the matter. One beliver in Israel's right to exist to the other.

"The vast majority of the t... (Below threshold)
KC:

"The vast majority of the targeting in Lebanon has been very select and has not been to destroy the infrastructure. They have targeted the terrorist infrastructure and there has been collateral damage. That is somewhat expected when you place your infrastructure among civilian facilities for protection."

If I'm not mistaken, you fail to grasp the meaning of "infrastructure".

"KC, when is it exactly tha... (Below threshold)
KC:

"KC, when is it exactly that Israel enjoyed the benefits of world goodwill? Take your time in finding such."

See examples above. So let me get this straight, tough guy (and I'd take your bet on Bush any day), the rest of the world HATES Israel blindly and secretly wishes for its destruction, right?

Would that be because the rest of the world is full of raging, ignorant anti-Semites?

I'm interested to hear your opinion on the world's view of Israel.

This is what fighting te... (Below threshold)

This is what fighting terrorism is about - rooting out the cancer directly.

I gotta repeat: who are you and what have you done with the real [pucillanimous] Lee?

OF COURSE this is what fighting terrorism is all about. Terrorism exists only through of a handful of necessary ingredient:
1] huge wads of poor, uneducated, disaffected rabble with no prospects and less ability to gain prospects;
2] some "intellectual" [say, the third-world equivalent of a college sophomore with a course of PoliSci under his belt] to whip that rabble into a severely disgrunted mass; and
3] some deep pockets willing to pay that disaffected rabble to fight surreptitious wars on their clandestine behalf.

Without any one of those ingredients, you don't have terrorism. Without masses of the poor and uneducated, you have rich, "educated" liberals spouting off.

Without someone to whip the well-funded rabble into fighting shape, you have the Air America audience. [Or the Rush Limbaugh audience, as you prefer].

Without the money to buy weapons, you have an anrgy mob rushing Da Man with pointy sticks.

[Only #1 gives you any group of squatters anywhere, at any time in history; only #2 gives you the town crackpot you laugh at when he gets another Letter to the Editor published -- or any number of bloggers; only #3 gives you, say, George Soros]

And people don't "get" the War in Iraq? Hussein was one of the primary sources of funding for Hamas. With Hussein gone, Hamas needed to secure alternate financing. ...predominantly Syria and Iran -- both of whom see themselves as some heir-apparent of Arab Primacy. [Yes, Iran is not "Arab", but they see themselves as the creator of the Persian Empire of the New Millenium].

That is indeed exactly how you go about fighting the war on terror: its source. You can piss off billions of the world's poor and uneducated with high-handed foreign policy, but without money, they're only pissed off.

Would that be because th... (Below threshold)

Would that be because the rest of the world is full of raging, ignorant anti-Semites?

Pretty much, yes.

If they are not outright anti-semites, then they are equivocal anti-semites.

"Oh, gee, Israel kills children ... how would I feel if, say, Canuckia invaded my home town and killed my children who were doing nothing more than going to school, playing nintendo and watching Spongebob?"

...except Palestinian children don't do any of those things; Palestinian children are turned into soldier by their parents to wage war that their parents cannot wage against a nation that they cannot defeat. 10 year-olds transport explosive; 15 year-olds wear those explosives until the last moment on earth.

It's easy to mask anti-semitism under the dodge of "they kill children" until you remember that Palestinians have no children; they have war-making midgets.

"1] huge wads of poor, uned... (Below threshold)
KC:

"1] huge wads of poor, uneducated, disaffected rabble with no prospects and less ability to gain prospects;
2] some "intellectual" [say, the third-world equivalent of a college sophomore with a course of PoliSci under his belt] to whip that rabble into a severely disgrunted mass; and
3] some deep pockets willing to pay that disaffected rabble to fight surreptitious wars on their clandestine behalf."


That's a perfect description in my book too. However,I'd ask that replace "intellectual" with "religious fanatic intellectual".

"Without any one of those ingredients, you don't have terrorism. Without masses of the poor and uneducated, you have rich, "educated" liberals spouting off."

Can't think of too many "liberals" who I'd classify as religious extremists. Too bad I can't say the same for "conservatives".

You see, you grasp the basic concepts. And I mad e mention of the money issue as well. IF Israel and the US would just spend as much money on PR in these countries (that includes building schools, etc.) as we do on the military machine which is ill suited to fight assymmetric wars against imbedded elements of a poor, disenfranchised population (note right-nutters: I didn't say dismantle the military or stop spending on it), they'd have a much easier time of winning the "war on terrorism".


"And people don't "get" the War in Iraq? Hussein was one of the primary sources of funding for Hamas. With Hussein gone, Hamas needed to secure alternate financing. ...predominantly Syria and Iran -- both of whom see themselves as some heir-apparent of Arab Primacy. [Yes, Iran is not "Arab", but they see themselves as the creator of the Persian Empire of the New Millenium]."


Don't remember his support for terrorism being one of our concerns when we were supplying him with weapons and weaponizable biological weapons during the Iran Iraq war.

How often was his support for Hamas cited as a main reason for the current Iraq war?

"Pretty much, yes.... (Below threshold)
KC:

"Pretty much, yes.

If they are not outright anti-semites, then they are equivocal anti-semites."

Please clarify. You see, being against Israel's policies in the region (the Israel Palestine conflict is a subject worthy of a doctoral degree - which I don't have or desire) is not equivalent to being an anti-Semite.

I'm not talking about "killing children", but about addressing (for Israel's own national interest) the conditions and enablers that lead to the continuation of violence there. Even when that includes looking within. If you can't grasp that, then there's no point debating. Has the military solution EVER worked there? You tell me.

As I mentioned before, there's a huge contingent of people who advocate a peaceful solution to the situation that exists there (and it's largely economic) within Israel, who are effectively silenced by the Hawks and their control of the state media.

I understand that there is and always will be portion of the Arab/Muslim world who advocates for the destruction or dissolution of Israel, and for this reason Israel must always be vigilant, and since they don't actively advocate for similar results, Israel is obviously on the moral high ground. But their methods do not do them any good, and neither do ours for the most part.

Missing phrase that Bush or... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Missing phrase that Bush or Blair should have said: "Those fucking Iranians..."

KC-- Hamas was not a reason... (Below threshold)
Lee:

KC-- Hamas was not a reason behind our invasion of Iraq. Don't take Rwilmyz's attempts to suggest otherwise at face value. He's just trolling for an argument.

Yup, even the Sunni prefer ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Yup, even the Sunni prefer "our method" now. So the American left as represented by the despicable NYT is beneath contempt. Any decent people on the left should strongly condemned the NYT or any entities that try to smear the US military again.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007523.php
America's Stock Rises Among The Sunni -- As They See The Alternative

What is it about Israel tha... (Below threshold)
KC:

What is it about Israel that makes the right nutters wet their pants with glee?

On the surface, it's a quasi theocratic democracy in the middle east. One of very few democracies there.
While I'm big on the democracy part, I don't see why so many of my tax dollars go to support a theocracy who actively spies on us, engages in disproportionate(and often violent) means of squelching dissent, builds on land that is not theirs, discriminates against Christians and Muslims, and steals our technology.

Do you require links? I have them. When can we discuss the real issue without going back to the anti-Semitism charge?

Does anyone have any idea how much money we've funneled into Israel?

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630

Tell me how we benefit. Is there not a better way?

However,I'd ask that rep... (Below threshold)

However,I'd ask that replace "intellectual" with "religious fanatic intellectual".

Doesn't matter what form of "intellectualism" you have. You want ageneralizable formula that can explain paramilitary movements in drug-running South America to anti-religious communists or Khmer Rouge-types, to pan-islamism, all you need is the intellectual with the buzzwords, and the ability to know which buttons to push.


Can't think of too many "liberals" who I'd classify as religious extremists. Too bad I can't say the same for "conservatives".

Quit living in your navel. The world in general does not operate on current American party-lines.


You see, you grasp the basic concepts

Oh, gee, thanks. Can I use you as a reference on my resume now? Maybe now I can get the job I've had for the last 25+ years...


IF Israel and the US would just spend as much money on PR in these countries ...

Then we'd have the same problems, only different. Pay attention to what these hotheads say: they are in a fight against our
cultural warfare; our
economic imperialism; our
[pick any phrase which uses two or more of the following words: culture, economy, imperialsm, hegemony].

It doesn't matter what we do or don't do, they don't like it. Why? because we're top dog, Alpha-Nation. No matter what we do it upsets somebody; witness Cuba. We invest our dollars and our corporate culture in certain countries and it's called "economic warfare" because it means we're trying to infiltrate them, suffuse them with everything American and transform them into us. Yet we don't do this with Cuba, and Castro accuses us, through our withholding of inventment and corporate riches of ...? you guessed it: "economic warfare".

Wanna go on just our plain-old humanitarian efforts? The Peace Corps was roundly criticized by insurgents in friendly nations as a means to prop up the hated governments thereof, and detested by the unfriendly nations because it "provided assistance" to the insurgents therein. AIDS efforts in Africa ... either the condoms and sex-ed of the one side versus the abstinence-ed of the other side ... both are attempts to make African nations follow American rules.


Don't remember his support for terrorism being one of our concerns when we were supplying him with weapons

RealPolitik is not a new invention. And the government does not tell you every motive it has for doing what it does.

You're a bright boy; read, for godsake.


and weaponizable biological weapons during the Iran Iraq war.

Don't recall "weaponizable biological weapons" being provided.


I understand that there is and always will be portion of the Arab/Muslim world who advocates for the destruction or dissolution of Israel

In the Middle East, these people are, alas, the majority. Until they are little more than town crackpots whose anti-Israeli aggitation amounts to little more than writing inflammatory Letters to the Editor about the familiy of kikes down the Damascus road, then any "peaceful solution" is doomed to fail.

We see how well the various negotiations have gone over. But on the other hand, we cannot help but see that if you kick their asses hard enough often enough, they sign peace treaties.

KC, I think the aid... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

KC,
I think the aid to Israel is money well spent. At least they have a military and willing to spend the blood of their own people to fight the evil terrorists. Look at the money spent on the European parasites who depend on the US military for their protection during the cold war. They kept stabbing us in the back (esp the French) and selling out us/Is for the Arab oil and their own cheap security (don't attack us, go ahead blowing up the Is and the America, we are against them too).

I don't understand what is up with the liberals that make them so reflexively anti-Is and pro-communists (during the cold war) and pro-terrorists now.

"Quit living in your navel.... (Below threshold)
KC:

"Quit living in your navel. The world in general does not operate on current American party-lines."

Cute trick there, big guy.
1. Use American political lingo to make a "point" completely unsubstantiated by reality. If you think that any terrorist organization is headed by or influenced by a "liberal" of any kind, provide links or shut up.
2. Accuse opponent of misunderstanding the issue. Nice. Typical.

"Don't remember his support for terrorism being one of our concerns when we were supplying him with weapons

RealPolitik is not a new invention. And the government does not tell you every motive it has for doing what it does.

You're a bright boy; read, for godsake."

Funny you mention Realpolitik. Yeah, I know. I t just sounds Russian. What you really mean though, is that we have a bunch of Trotskyites running the Pentagon and State Department. Forever wed to the concept of warding our Christian friendly, eschatologically consististent theocracy in place in the Holy Land.
Again for the inevitable accusations of being an Israel hater: do I agree that Israel has the right to exist? Yes - for historical reasons.

"Don't recall "weaponizable biological weapons" being provided."

Forgive my phrasing. I meant to say weaponizable biological AGENTS. My bad. See the Riegle report if you want. Do your own research.

"It doesn't matter what we do or don't do, they don't like it. Why? because we're top dog, Alpha-Nation. No matter what we do it upsets somebody; witness Cuba."

Dude, are you seriously comparing Cuba to fundamentalist Isam? I think we can all tell who needs to start reading.

I don't care about your 25+ year experience as a greeter at Wal Mart. You wouldn't want to put that on youre resume anyway.


Dude, are you seriously com... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Dude, are you seriously comparing Cuba to fundamentalist Isam? I think we can all tell who needs to start reading.
-------------------------------------------------
Yup, North Korea is working with Iran now. Communist Chavez is also getting into the act. This is an axis of evil. They are both oppressive dictatorship at the very least. That 's why they are in league now.

What stops you from seeing the obvious?

Good grief:"Then w... (Below threshold)
KC:

Good grief:

"Then we'd have the same problems, only different. Pay attention to what these hotheads say: they are in a fight against our
cultural warfare; our
economic imperialism; our
[pick any phrase which uses two or more of the following words: culture, economy, imperialsm, hegemony]."

Wrong. Wrong, and Wrong. Which country did the majority of the people in these primarily Muslim countries IDOLIZE for years? Was it the U.S.S.R.? Nope, guess again.

The "hotheads" are the very MINORITY you mentioned before. Who, deprived of money (in your view), would have little to no influence or ability to purportedly supply weapons. When the economic conditions are bad, and the U.S. is losing the propaganda war (as we most definitely have been since Iraq) this minority of "hotheads" has the ability to whip the masses up into anti-American hatred.
That's ALWAYS going to happen, and when you take military action as a first resort, you only create more resentment and dig the hole deeper. Our very actions (war first) grant legitimacy to what these kooks were ALREADY saying. Don't you get it? Geez. What have you been doing for 25 years?

If you think we can just keep bombing them into submission, you are sorely mistaken.

"Yup, North Korea is workin... (Below threshold)
KC:

"Yup, North Korea is working with Iran now. Communist Chavez is also getting into the act. This is an axis of evil. They are both oppressive dictatorship at the very least. That 's why they are in league now.

What stops you from seeing the obvious?"

Besides for all the OTHER things, can you not see why they might be alligning? Can you picture them ever gettin' togetha before the Cowboy in Chief started talking?

KC, Even the Sunni ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

KC,
Even the Sunni now prefer the American method. In Iraq, we had 17 UN resolutions and you still spout this leftist non-sense "military is the first solution". The left cannot even be honest about the points they are making. Simply have to spin.

Just hope that the American left as represented by the NYT would stop giving propaganda aid to the enemies of AMerica

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005548.htm

IN THE COMPANY OF THE ENEMY
By Michelle Malkin · July 16, 2006 08:13 AM

Which side are they on? The New York Times settles the question definitively with a hysterical, unreality-based lead editorial today recycling the BDS attacks on the War on Terror--but even more so with this disgusting pictorial tribute to Iraqi terrorists killing American soldiers, spotted by the vigilant Charles Johnson at LGF. The picture featured by the Times is just one of many being hawked here as a photo compilation titled "In the Company of God by award-winning New York Times photographer, Joao Silva."

KC:Can you pict... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

KC:

Can you picture them ever gettin' togetha before the Cowboy in Chief started talking?

Yes.

Besides for all the OTHER t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Besides for all the OTHER things, can you not see why they might be alligning? Can you picture them ever gettin' togetha before the Cowboy in Chief started talking?
--------------------------------------------------
Yup, they took advantage of the liberal weasels under Clinton to build up their arsenals. Europe is the clear example of the liberal policies: surrender to live. I am not even sure that the Islamist terrorists would let them live if they surrender.

Just like Hamas and Hezbollah would let Is alone if they give up land. Another liberal virtual-reality.

"Yup, they took advantag... (Below threshold)
KC:

"Yup, they took advantage of the liberal weasels under Clinton to build up their arsenals. Europe is the clear example of the liberal policies: surrender to live. I am not even sure that the Islamist terrorists would let them live if they surrender.

Just like Hamas and Hezbollah would let Is alone if they give up land. Another liberal virtual-reality."

Until you start using the word "liberal" like Nazis used the word "Jew", I can't really take anything you say seriously. I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a conservative.

What, if anything, do you know about Europe's policies toward radical Islamists?
I guess you're not aware of the rather substantial militaries and nuclear deterrent arsenals that European nations built up during the Cold War.

What planet do you live on?

What, if anything, do you k... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

What, if anything, do you know about Europe's policies toward radical Islamists?
I guess you're not aware of the rather substantial militaries and nuclear deterrent arsenals that European nations built up during the Cold War.

What planet do you live on?
--------------------------------------------------
Ya, they couldn't even take care of their own backyard in the Balkans. Why did we have to take care of Milosevic if the Europeans have built up a substantial arsenals and militaries? Why do we still have AMerican troops in Bosnia and Germany? What a joke.

What planet do you live on? AGain, I notice that leftists cannot be honest about who they are.


From rwilymz's earlier post... (Below threshold)
KC:

From rwilymz's earlier post:

2] some "intellectual" [say, the third-world equivalent of a college sophomore with a course of PoliSci under his belt] to whip that rabble into a severely disgrunted mass; and...

i.e.: beck, hannity, coulter, malkin, limbaugh. Am I getting the picture?

LAI - give me a minute to read over that NYT article.

Back to Europe, if they did something wrong, it wasn't bowing to terrorists, but to the militant multiculturalism there which led to many immigrants identifying more with the "homeland" than the country to which they had immigrated.
Guess that was sort of guilt for the centuries of Imperialism and leaving the middle east worse (if that's possible) than they found it.

We don't have that problem here.

The Europens SHOULD HAVE an... (Below threshold)
KC:

The Europens SHOULD HAVE and eventually WOULD HAVE cleaned up the Balkans.

But let me get this straight: Is this the Europeans' fault or is it Clinton's fault? Seems like it was rather successful compared to the fiascos these days, doesn't it? Clinton, the foreign policy CONSERVATIVE, that is.

Here are some interesting quotes re: the Balkans:

Why did they second-guess our commitment to freedom from genocide and demand that we cut and run?

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

Why did they demoralize our brave men and women in uniform?

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."

-Senator Inhofe (R-OK)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Why didn't they support our president in a time of war?

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

"The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president."

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Why did they blame America first?

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started"

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."

-Michael Savage

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"

-Pat Buchanan (R)

"By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia."

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

Back to Europe, if they did... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Back to Europe, if they did something wrong, it wasn't bowing to terrorists, but to the militant multiculturalism there which led to many immigrants identifying more with the "homeland" than the country to which they had immigrated.
--------------------------------------------------
Whatever they do, they don't deserve any respect. Their gov was knee-deeped in the oil-for-food corruption while they are selling out us/Is. All the time they are carping about the US. I am tired of these people making excuse for the terrorists and Baathist insurgents while they are quite willing to sell out the IRaqui people who are striving for democracy. This is simply leftist propaganda. If they have guilt, they should have supported the IRaqui people against the terrorists and the former Baathist insurgents, not blurring the lines.

Yup, they took advantage... (Below threshold)
KC:

Yup, they took advantage of the liberal weasels under Clinton to build up their arsenals.

Got some links to back that up? Pretty please?

I am tired of these peop... (Below threshold)
KC:

I am tired of these people making excuse for the terrorists and Baathist insurgents while they are quite willing to sell out the IRaqui people who are striving for democracy.

Links please. Who's making excuses for anyone? Do you deny that the "reconstruction" or "occupation" portion of the war was ill conceived and poorly planned?

Do you have faith in Rumsfeld, assuming he is given unlimited lee way and resources, to be able to make positive ground here?

Just asking.

What it really comes down t... (Below threshold)
DCE:

What it really comes down to in reagrds to America - the so-called Alpha Nation - is whether we want to be liked or respected. Give me the latter any day, even if that respect is along the lines of "Fer cryin' out loud, don't do that shit!! You've got one hell of a short memory! Do you want the Yankees to bomb the shit out of us, just like they did the Ba'athists/jihadis/harahahis? No? Then KNOCK IT OFF, dipshit!"

Excellent demonstration of ... (Below threshold)

Excellent demonstration of thread degenerating with tone set by the initial commenter, and KC off an running with opponents.

Personally, I don't give a Flying F*** for most of the S*** bantered about Israel from ether side above. This is another great example of why we need to F***ing remember DNFTT. Enough of this S*** already.

The Europens SHOULD HAVE an... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The Europens SHOULD HAVE and eventually WOULD HAVE cleaned up the Balkans.

But let me get this straight: Is this the Europeans' fault or is it Clinton's fault? Seems like it was rather successful compared to the fiascos these days, doesn't it? Clinton, the foreign policy CONSERVATIVE, that is.
--------------------------------------------------
YOu are denying reality at the very least. So at least can we agree on the hypcorcisy of the left: Clinton didn't bother to seek a UN resolution when he attacked a country that didn't attack us? Nothing conservative about the attack about Serbia. This is the liberal war and what a joke about liberal foreign policy: attack countries that do not attack us and do it from the air only.

You can spin whatever you want, but the Europeans didn't take care of the problem in their own backyards. Your arg sounds like this: the communists SHOULD HAVE and WOULD HAVE clean up their acts eventually.

You are denying reality.

Links please. Who'... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Links please. Who's making excuses for anyone? Do you deny that the "reconstruction" or "occupation" portion of the war was ill conceived and poorly planned?

Do you have faith in Rumsfeld, assuming he is given unlimited lee way and resources, to be able to make positive ground here?
--------------------------------------------------
Just read the NYT, the liberal newspaper of record.

I have more faith in Rumsfeld thant the current crop of liberal Dems.

The occupation is not perfect for sure, but it would have gone much better if the American left was willing to unite against the terrorists/insurgents. I can see the left denouncing Bush/Rumsfeld day in and out. If they have done the same wrt the terrorists, they would probably have folded in Iraq.

Balance + Warfare = Someone... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Balance + Warfare = Someone looking to loose.

YOu are denying reality ... (Below threshold)
KC:

YOu are denying reality at the very least. So at least can we agree on the hypcorcisy of the left: Clinton didn't bother to seek a UN resolution when he attacked a country that didn't attack us? Nothing conservative about the attack about Serbia. This is the liberal war and what a joke about liberal foreign policy: attack countries that do not attack us and do it from the air only.

Tell me: who did Iraq attack? Hahaha. This is getting funny. Are you kidding?

Liberals were all over Clinton about that war (as were the conservatives)

"The George W. Bush Doctrin... (Below threshold)
KC:

"The George W. Bush Doctrine on U.S. foreign Policy:
(1) The U.S. claims the right to preemptive use of military power, including nuclear weapons;
(2) The U.S. will not be bound by international treaties or agreements if these are deemed by the government to interfere with our national self-interest;
(3) The U.S. will actively work to prevent the emergence of any strategic rival on the world scene;
(4) The U.S. will use military policy and power to advance the interests of U.S. capitalism around the world."

KC, What is your fo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

KC,
What is your foreign policy or whoever you claim to support?

Liberals were all over Clinton about that war (as were the conservatives)
I didn't hear much about it though. Most of the Dems in Congress were fully behind it.

Again: you seem to support Clinton policy: attacking a country that doesn't attack us and do it without all this scrap about the UN and international laws.

KC, BTW, Clinton di... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

KC,
BTW, Clinton didn't bother to negotiate or refer Serbia to the UN etc... He simply went for a military solution first and you claim that to be a success. Wow, what a change!

KC - FYI -- LoveAmerica is... (Below threshold)
Lee:

KC - FYI -- LoveAmerica is a troll who will reduce any argument down to solely the fault of liberals. Responding to her blatherings only encourages her. Generally, adult commenters will leave a thread once LAI moves in and starts her hate talk. I'm sure she blames that on Clinton as well.

If I'm not mistake... (Below threshold)
DavidB:
If I'm not mistaken, you fail to grasp the meaning of "infrastructure".

Well of course you are, mistaken that is.

Do you for a moment think that the IDF could not have leveled the majoroity of the infrastructure if they had wanted to? Do a little more reading and a lot more investigating. The infrastructure that has been destroyed so far has been selective and, for the most part, has been done to deny the terrorists avenues of exit and supply.

You take a very narrow read on what you do read, try to expand your horizons a little, you will find it refreshing.

Oh, and don't assume to know me, I don't apologize for anyone but myself.

KC, you are only ri... (Below threshold)
McCain:


KC, you are only right on one new doctrine, and left one out. The twin highlights of Bush's first term from a foreign policy perspective is the doctrine of preemption and the doctrine of holding host countries responsible for the conduct of their inhabitants. The second "doctrine" you claim doesn't actually exist, and the last two are not Bush's doctrines even if you stated them properly which you did not. Give Monroe credit in 1823, Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, and subsequent presidents who considered communism's dark march, credit for that which you praise Bush.

BTW, capitalism is in world interests, meaning the empowerment of all individuals, not just U.S. interests.

Hi Lee, Welcome bac... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hi Lee,
Welcome back. Thanks for the insult. It means that you have no counter points to make.

I don't know why you guys blame Bush for taking a military solution first after 2 years in the UN and 17 UN resolutions against IRaq (over 10 years). Also claim that we cannot bomb them into submission. AT the same time, you claim the action of Clinton as a success: bombing Serbia into submission without even seeking a UN resolution.

Can you explain that to me?

"The George W. Bus... (Below threshold)
DavidB:
"The George W. Bush Doctrine on U.S. foreign Policy: . . .

Where did you find that drivel? Plus provide the link, or course don't bother if it is a left-wing wack jobs site.

Yeah, the liberals in Congr... (Below threshold)
KC:

Yeah, the liberals in Congress pretty much disappeared when confronted.

Lets look at this in perspective though:

Casualties: Kosovo/Balkans as a result of NATO activity - less than 10K by anyone's account, and even less by Human Rights Watch's count. Iraq - far, far more by any reasonable estimate.

Refuges: Kosovo/Balkans - mostly resettled after war, relatively unheard of in previous wars. Iraq - not as applicable.

Support for the Kosovo war: From Wikipedia: "Many on the left of Western politics saw the NATO campaign as US aggression and imperialism, while critics on the right considered it irrelevant to their countries' national security interests. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign. However, in comparison with the anti-war protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the campaign against the war in Kosovo aroused much less public support. The television pictures of refugees being driven out of Kosovo made a vivid and simple case for NATO's actions."

KC,
What is your foreign policy or whoever you claim to support?

As I stated before, I agree with Israels right to defend herself in a manner consistent with the attack. I also agree that Hezbollah is a cancer that is only so successful because Israel has not only allowed, but fostered the environment necessary for it to grow. The huge population of refugees from the various wars in the region, coupled with a largely inherently racist/theocratic Israeli government, and rampant poverty among Palestenians is not going to be fixed militarily without a MAJOR war. Nobody except the "defense" contractors want that, right? You can keep telling yourself 'till the cows come home that our efforts at positive PR will only fall on deaf ears, and that they'll always hate them, but until they have a reason NOT to hate them, we'll never know.

In this case, I think a multinational UN presence is needed to avoid further worsening the situation and poisoning the well for any future agreements. And the populace of Lebanon needs to rise up and denounce Hezbollah and recognize Israel's right to exist.

I do, however, resent so much of my tax money going to Israel. Especially in light of the things I mentioned before. They treat us like shit. Period. As if we OWE them something. It's really a big welfare program for spoiled, unthankful a-holes.

I think Iraq was a fool's endeavor; especially with the incompetence at the top of our executive branch. I've seen it first hand. I have spoken to officers deploying and upon their return. A real Commander in Chief would be able to see what's happening and affect change. Fact is, the only reason the right bitches about Kosovo and not Iraq is that Iraq involves oil and Israel. If you had the balls to come out and say it, you'd have had my respect (but not support), but probably not the nation's.

I was all for taking out the Taliban, and considered enlisting, even at my age. But conflating Iraq with AL Qaeda is just dishonest, and proves that you're reaching.

I see militant Islam as a huge problem - but one that we have no realistic hopes of countering militarily. We need to engage with the world and try to wipe out the root causes by means including the military, covert ops, propaganda, econonmic warfare, and good old fashioned diplomacy.

I'm sick of the rabid ranting from the right about how I'm a traitor if I am not for the Iraq war because I'm not stupid enough to believe the lies that were told to sell the nation on it. I was aware of PNAC well before this war.


I wish we could be more isolationist militarily and not feel the need to garrison the planet in order to protect our economic and strategic interests.

Most of all, I'm sick of people who can't think in terms other than black or white, and call the other side evil instead of understanding the subtleties of getting what you want without force.

All these terrorists and totalitarians are just big babies waiting for a hug. And if they don't calm the f*ck down after that hug, that's why we have a military.


You take a very narrow r... (Below threshold)
KC:

You take a very narrow read on what you do read, try to expand your horizons a little, you will find it refreshing.

Provide links, then.

Going home for the day. Maybe can continue tomorrow.

But conflating Iraq with AL... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But conflating Iraq with AL Qaeda is just dishonest, and proves that you're reaching.
--------------------------------------------------
There are proofs that Alq is in bed with Saddam Hussein. Is the left dishonest or what?

KC,
THe Europeans treated us far worse compared to Israel. Nato was maily American and British airplanes. You should know better. Why can't the Europeans do that themselves?
Serbia didn't attack us. Bosnia and Kosovo are hotbeds for Islamist terrorists still. Need to get your facts straight.

Granted the anti-AMerican left would be against the US no matter what. Still that doesn't explain your own support for Clinton "military solution first" in "bombing Serbia into submission".

Iraq yields its fruit already: we have one less regime to support the Hezobollah terrorists who attacked the AMericans already. BTW, what is the problem of having a functional democracy in Iraq? Why stand on the side of the terrorists/Baathist insurgents againt the people of Iraq and our national security interest?

KC: You keep demanding link... (Below threshold)
Inquiring:

KC: You keep demanding links, yet you are obviously to lazy or intellectually dishonest to peruse the very blog you are trolling on.

All the links you are demanding happen to have already been provided, too bad you seem to lack the capability to bother to look.

Casey has enough typing ski... (Below threshold)

Casey has enough typing skills to start its own blog.

Yawn.

There is a certain alanis t... (Below threshold)
crape:

There is a certain alanis type irony to the fact that Bush's words can't be broadcast unedited because the station would violate decency standards. The same ones he pushed to make more strict.

I don't know, I could care less if my kid learns the word shit from the president of the united states, or some actor in a television series, or me...when I drop something on my foot. The kid is going to learn the word anyway, that is a given. You, as a parent, teach them how to use it...sparingly.

I guess I'm just tired of all these puritanical fucking language restrictions!

KC shows off the sagacity o... (Below threshold)

KC shows off the sagacity of a tomato:
If you think that any terrorist organization is headed by or influenced by a "liberal" of any kind, provide links or shut up.

You were the one who equivocated "terrorism" with "religious fundamentalism" and then from there to "religious = conservative". Do not accuse me of that which you are doing. Get that quick, get that forever.


Accuse opponent of misunderstanding the issue

When you're confused, you're confused. Sorry. Pay attention and maybe you'll learn something.


What you really mean though, is that we have a bunch of Trotskyites running the Pentagon and State Department

No I don't. Apart from accusing me of your intellectual failings, you do not have the authority to tell you what I'm saying. I'm telling YOU what I'm saying, and your duty is to pay attention. RealPolitik has been around for millenia, and it is the concept of "doing what needs to be done now in order to further our current interests". When Hussein is warring against a nation that just embarrassed us, our current interests are to help him.


I meant to say weaponizable biological AGENTS. My bad. See the Riegle report if you want. Do your own research.

What you meant to say was that we sold them what any US land-grant university has in their agricultural research department. If you want to conflate that to "weaponizable" then the intellectual conclusion-leaping is your own.


Dude, are you seriously comparing Cuba to fundamentalist Isam?

We.Are.Talking.About.The.Perception.Of.The.US.In.The.Third.World.

Do you know how to do ANYTHING but equivocate?


Wrong. Wrong, and Wrong.

Right. Right. And right.

Wetting your panties doesn't change reality.


The "hotheads" are the very MINORITY you mentioned before.

The ones with Kalishnikovs are the minority. The ones who stand and cheer when the AK shoots an Israeli are the majority.

You are again equivocating "people with weapons" to "people who support the destruction of the West".


when you take military action as a first resort, you only create more resentment and dig the hole deeper

So then you should have no problem, then, should you? You DO know how to find the 'history' section
of the public libbarry, right?


Besides for all the OTHER things, can you not see why they might be alligning? Can you picture them ever gettin' togetha before the Cowboy in Chief started talking?

So, that's why the NKorean freighter caught delivering rockets to Hamas in '99 [or was it '98?] didn't really happen.

Or are you hopping into your Wayback to play "Axis of Evil" for Lil Kim?


I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a conservative.

You're just brainless.


Guess that was sort of guilt for the centuries of Imperialism and leaving the middle east worse

Was that BEFORE or AFTER the 800 years of Ottoman vassal states running through the center of Europe?

BEFORE or AFTER 500 years of Ottoman-protected Barbary Piracy and the tribute needed to stay safe from that? France dared, da-a-a-a-a-ared I tellz ya, to invade Algeria in 1830 after having their sailors killed and women enslaved for 500 years, and the north African Arabs act like a spoiled infant who is no longer allowed to hit his sister over the head with the Playskool Xylophone.


Tell me: who did Iraq attack? Hahaha. This is getting funny. Are you kidding?

The US and Britain.

Familiarize yourself with the recognized acts of war.


"The George W. Bush Doctrine on U.S. foreign Policy:

You are intellectually dishonest, and should probably have "allah akbar" stamped on your forehead now. Beat the rush, dhimmi.

ha ha ha...spank!... (Below threshold)
914:

ha ha ha...spank!

The great leader of the Wes... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The great leader of the West who didn't know there was a difference between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq before the Iraqi war in the spring of 2003, is shockingly still early on the learning curve "Cloud Cuckoo Land"about the realities of the situation in the Middle East..I think more of the commenters here recognise or are willing to spend more time on the complexities of the conflict than Bush.

more of the commenters h... (Below threshold)

more of the commenters here recognise or are willing to spend more time on the complexities of the conflict than Bush.

One of the "complexities" is this:

In the pan-islamist worldview, when the subject is The West, Sunni/Shi'a don't matter squat.

Which points up another of the "complexities", which is this:

We can play the same game as they play, and pit one against the other. This, naturally, results in the rudeness of fomenting civil wars in places like Iraq, and pitting the Ba-athist Sunni masters against the Hezbollah Shi'a servants... but, hey, that's what RealPolitik and national survival is all about.

You were the one who equ... (Below threshold)
KC:

You were the one who equivocated "terrorism" with "religious fundamentalism" and then from there to "religious = conservative"


No more snark. Can you read? Name one terrorist or "insurgent" who operates against us under any banner than religious fundamentalism. Please?

"No I don't. Apart from accusing me of your intellectual failings, you do not have the authority to tell you what I'm saying. I'm telling YOU what I'm saying, and your duty is to pay attention. RealPolitik has been around for millenia, and it is the concept of "doing what needs to be done now in order to further our current interests". When Hussein is warring against a nation that just embarrassed us, our current interests are to help him."

First there's the right wing paranoia and inabilaty to do sh^t about Iran. Then there's the obvious and obligatory inability to address the (admittedly obscure) point that the definition of "Trotskyism" is one who is willing to subjugate the interests of his own country to that of the one he truly represents. Simplistically. Bush I, Clenis, Bush II. All the same. Figure it out.

We.Are.Talking.About.The.Perception.Of.The.US.In.The.Third.World.

Do you know how to do ANYTHING but equivocate?

Is any other "third world" "country" in our own hemisphere at war with us? Tell me please about the opinion held of the U.S. within the Mexican militant community. Let me guess: they think we're corrupting their society with American secularist Hollywood style propaganda. It's obvious.

The ones with Kalishnikovs are the minority. The ones who stand and cheer when the AK shoots an Israeli are the majority.

You are again equivocating "people with weapons" to "people who support the destruction of the West".

I'm not arguing, nor have I ever said that the opinion of the psuedo intellectual minority is not swaying the opinion of the larger minority in the ME. That applies to the fundamentalist Islamic wannabes in the mideast (their intellectual base? Saudi Arabia). But bombing civilians will only lead to more and more problems. If you can't grasp that, then you're a fool. What exactly do you propose to do with the people "without weapons" who advocate the "destruction of the west"?

So then you should have no problem, then, should you? You DO know how to find the 'history' section
of the public libbarry, right?

So what you're saying is that every nation that ever waged an admittedly preemptive war was successful; especially in the collective mind of the "west", right? Name one example. Include commies and facists if you can't find one in the "west". Or maybe ANY nation that did, right? A link shouldn't be so hard to find, genius. I'd appreciate it if you'd humor me with one.

So, that's why the NKorean freighter caught delivering rockets to Hamas in '99 [or was it '98?] didn't really happen."

"Or are you hopping into your Wayback to play "Axis of Evil" for Lil Kim?"

Again, please provide a link. I'm interested in real discussions. I'm admitting my ignorance on this "story", and that I'm a victim of the MSLM. I tend to think that NK doesn't sell as many weapons to (our own enemies) other countries as Israel does. But don't let my "hatred of Israel" stop you from answering the previous questions.

"Was that BEFORE or AFTER the 800 years of Ottoman vassal states running through the center of Europe?"

"BEFORE or AFTER 500 years of Ottoman-protected Barbary Piracy and the tribute needed to stay safe from that? France dared, da-a-a-a-a-ared I tellz ya, to invade Algeria in 1830 after having their sailors killed and women enslaved for 500 years, and the north African Arabs act like a spoiled infant who is no longer allowed to hit his sister over the head with the Playskool Xylophone. "

Are we back to just-post-Biblical times? Way to take a quote out of context. All I intended to do is guess why Europe as a whole allowed way too many assumed disgruntled immigrants from its failed colonization efforts to emmigrate to the homeland; especially without the organizational effort to assimilate them that is SOP in the USA. What exactly are you trying to do? SYMPATHIZE with Euro multi-culturalism-at-any-cost practices that the right wing loves to denigrate? Please explain how what you said refutes my point. Luckily, we don't have the same legacy...yet.

"The US and Britain."

"Familiarize yourself with the recognized acts of war."

Humor my ignorance. How exactly did Iraq attack either? Preemptively? I really want to know what you're talking about.

"You are intellectually dishonest, and should probably have "allah akbar" stamped on your forehead now. Beat the rush, dhimmi."

I read your "about me" statement on your blog. Is your persona here a lie, or are you trying to maintain a grasp on credibility in hopes of achieving blog fame?

For some reason I'm not bei... (Below threshold)

For some reason I'm not being allowed to respond in this topic while I can in others. On the possibility that this is a "length" or "link" issue, I'll break it up.

No more snark. Can you read? Name one terrorist or "insurgent" who operates against us under any banner than religious fundamentalism. Please?

FARC in Columbia. There's one.

First there's the right wing paranoia and inabilaty to do sh^t about Iran.

What do you want done? Let's invade because they're a threat? Or do you want to "negotiate" them to disarmament? the neo-Persian Empire ambitious Ahmadinejad?


Then there's the obvious and obligatory inability to address the (admittedly obscure) point that the definition of "Trotskyism" is one who is willing to subjugate the interests of his own country to that of the one he truly represents. Simplistically. Bush I, Clenis, Bush II. All the same. Figure it out.

What I've figured out is that you are trying to change the subject. The US is the bad guy for playing world politics according to the same rules as every other nation has played them since day one. While some of the ankle-biting is expected -- particularly from other nations, who object to the Alpha Nation no matter what that Alpha Nation does -- hairshirted citizens are enablers of the inevitable decline.


Is any other "third world" "country" in our own hemisphere at war with us?

What kind of war do you want? We were at "war" with the Soviets for decades and didn't fire a shot. In that respect: Venezuela and Cuba qualify.

Tell me please about the opinion held of the U.S. within the Mexican militant community. Let me guess: they think we're corrupting their society with American secularist Hollywood style propaganda. It's obvious.

You're trying to play dumb, and I'm willing to let you.

I'm not arguing, nor have I ever said that the opinion of the psuedo intellectual minority is not swaying the opinion of the larger minority in the ME.

Golly, and that poor, uneducated Arab majority haven't been spoon-fed their worldview by these "intellectual" mullahs until the US invaded Iraq. No, wait; it was when the US based troops in Saudi. No, wait, it was really when the US first lent support to Israel in '73. No, wait, it was first when ...


...fundamentalist Islamic wannabes in the mideast (their intellectual base? Saudi Arabia)

Wahabbi-sect Sunni, yes. Shi'a? Intellectual base is Iran. Ba'athist Sunni? Intellectual base was tossed out of Iraq and is now in Damascus.


But bombing civilians will only lead to more and more problems. If you can't grasp that, then you're a fool.

What you can't grasp that makes you a fool is that there are more variables in the equation than that, and variables that are more easily addressable. Civilians -- the poor and uneducated masses -- have existed E.V.E.R.Y. D.A.Y. since human civilization began 10,000 years ago and have been warred upon and around most of those days. So why does "terrorism" pop up in the mid- to late-20th century when "bombing civilians" is the cause, and has been occuring since day one?

Pay attention now ... because of the other variables. Specifically and to wit: a plethora of money to pay these poor and uneducated masses to turn their undirected anger into a proxy-war by [usually] nations or [sometimes] wealthy individuals who do not want to get their own hands dirty.

The difference between mid2late 20th century and the middle ages and Hellenistic Greece and the bronze age is money.

You want to make billions worldwide no longer poor and uneducated? Good luck; there isn't a system yet devised that can do that, though democratic capitalism has come the closest. Or would it be easier to address the handful of financiers?

The closest anyone came to the current "terrorism" paradigm was the Barbary Piracy of the late middle ages, which was financed by the fabulously wealthy Ottomans.

What exactly do you prop... (Below threshold)

What exactly do you propose to do with the people "without weapons" who advocate the "destruction of the west"?

Given that cultural evolution will turn these tribal worldviews into nation-state worldviews eventually, a policy of keeping them playing their tribal bullshit on their own turf is the most practical long-term solution. Infants grow up eventually. So when they attack us here, we kick their ass *there*.

When they attack us *there*, we kick their ass *there*. If they insist on playing war, we will play it ... on their turf.

Or... We can conflate into a winner-take-all, but that's a little apocolyptic for my tastes. How about you?

So what you're saying is that every nation that ever waged an admittedly preemptive war was successful;

All wars are, in one way or another, "pre-emptive". I really don't see what the problem is.

Some wars "work", and others blow up in their faces. Surely you know this.

Name one example. Include commies and facists if you can't find one in the "west".

Pre-emptive wars that the US fought include the Span-Am and the Mex-Am. Grenada. Panama.

Kosovo, frankly. The EU doesn't want a simmering tribal war on their south-eastern border any more than the local 7-11 wants a druglord turf war a block away from his front door. It's bad for business. The EU is/was trying to consolidate their economies for efficiency and clout, and Serbia was getting in the way. No real clear sovereignty violations, so invent one. The US went along with it because the US is/was trying to pal-up to Europe.

It's what nations do.

Wars to further self-interest. Sometimes the wars violate the formal Hoyle rules, other times they don't but get so heavily politicked that the formal rules being followed gets lost in the weeds.

Again, please provide a link. I'm interested in real discussions. I'm admitting my ignorance on this "story", and that I'm a victim of the MSLM. I tend to think that NK doesn't sell as many weapons to (our own enemies) other countries as Israel does. But don't let my "hatred of Israel" stop you from answering the previous questions.

I'm sorry, it was '96. Time flies.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/abs96.htm


Are we back to just-post-Biblical times? Way to take a quote out of context.

Ah ha. "Out of context".


All I intended to do is guess why Europe as a whole allowed way too many assumed disgruntled immigrants from its failed colonization efforts to emmigrate to the homeland; especially without the organizational effort to assimilate them that is SOP in the USA.

So when I reply here accusing you of selective imbecility in citing "failed colonization" of Arab lands that -- apart from France/Algeria -- did not happen, and the "organizational effort" to assimilate immigrants in the US that also does not exist, am I again going to be accused of taking you "out of context"?

Well, what you meant when you said that Europe tried and failed to colonize the Arab Middle East is that they didn't try, therefore the non-attempt wasn't a failure... yeah, that's what you meant.


Humor my ignorance. How exactly did Iraq attack either? Preemptively? I really want to know what you're talking about.

International rules have declared since Westphalia that a nation's warships on the [open] high seas are sovereign territory, and that attacks upon them are violations of a nation's sovereignty and therefore an act of war. Soldiers ditto. After the invention of aircraft, it was extended to aircraft as well.

This is why freedom of the high seas is considered an act of war when it's denied. ...as is any other "strategic resource". Such as food, or water, or necessary materials such as ... petroleum.

The US was operating aircraft in airspace declared "open" to US aircraft over Iraq; Iraq attacked those aircraft repeatedly between 1991 and 2002. These therefore constituted an attack upon US sovereignty.

This is international diplomacy 101.

I read your "about me" statement on your blog. Is your persona here a lie, or are you trying to maintain a grasp on credibility in hopes of achieving blog fame?

I have an incredibly low tolerance for people who cite their opinions as fact; when they do so in the area of my career field, they are in essence telling me how to do my job. I do not come into your space and tell you how to do yours, you don't do that to me.

You can have any opinions you want, but not any facts you want.

The fact that you have an opinion does not make your opinion fact.

Pick any bumper sticker slogan you like and apply it.

So he said something in pub... (Below threshold)

So he said something in public that others say in private. Maybe if the mike was left on more often we might actually know what our leaders were really thinking.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy