Thursday Open Thread
I've been a little snippy and moody in the last week or so - don't take it seriously since I change my mind quite often and go through stages. Sorry if I offended anyone :)
Jordin Sparks won the American Idol. Democrats will be bringing up the Iraq War Funding compromise for a vote today. President Bush will be addressing the American people at 11am presumably on the Iraq War and Immigration Reform. Lots of stuff happening. This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Thu, 2007-05-24 09:03
Tags:
Comments :
Prophetic words
Link
qui tacet consentire
BTW
That quote was from McCain, in the forward to David Halberstam's book.
qui tacet consentire
Joe Biden on the compromise
Way to go, wuss.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There you go again
If all democrats had said they were going to vote no, you would be attacking them rabidly.
I don't see the consistency of your position here other than spite.
It is the economy, stupid.
I can attack
Democratic inconsistencies and pathetic pandering in trying to avoid difficult votes. The focus is on Democrats here and they are valid targets regardless.
Also you are wrong. I would not be attacking democrats rabidly if they all voted no. I am not even sure what the right course of action is. I don't like democrats but that doesn't mean I can't attack them from any angle.
Spite? We all do that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hey now, Ender, here's a clip even you can love:
Keith Olbermann rips the Democrats a new a**hole on the Iraq funding bill
. It no doubt makes your skin crawl agreeing with some of what Keith says. Don't worry, you can still insist the main message is treasonous.
Conservatives are whining
about the pesky pork in this bill.
There is a chance it might not pass. The R's are complaining that they haven't had time to read it.
It includes a minimum wage hike. That is Bush's big HUGE compromise.
Not everyone is happy about it on either side. So R's have to sacrifice their precious free market principles on minimum wage.
The bill as made available at 5:30 this morning after a little rewrite. 23 hours to review a spending bill of 119 BBBBBillion.
But everyone wants to leave town tomorrow for the holiday. Will they stay and read it? What was slipped into it last night?
It is the economy, stupid.
Why do you hate conservative so much?
I mean that is all you do. Go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about those evil conservatives.
We all get it, OK, you hate the conservatives ... especially that evil George Bush.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Because their stupid ideology is destroying America
The conservative republican Greg Walden, is on the houe floor now begging for a bill to pass so that all 15 of his libraries in his county which are now closed.......... can reopen.
Because conservatives don't believe in public institutions, and they keep cutting funding to our schools and are programs.
You can take you vote values sign and shove it where the sun don't shine.
All you have to do to see conservative values in action is look at New Orleans.
It is the economy, stupid.
See, you DO hate conservatives.
Go ahead. Let it all out. I know you hate them and sometimes it is good to talk about these things. You don't have to feel ashamed.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Speaking for myself...
I don't hate conservatives. I don't hate George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, David Addington, Jerry Falwell or god forbid, even Osama bin Laden.
Hate hurts the person who does the hating. It clouds their minds. It puts emotions over reason.
Loath. I loath some of those people. I loath many of their ideals and politics. But I'm not weighted down by hate. I'm not willing to spend my energy beating myself up with hate.
I understand this.
I have just decided that today I am going to follow missliberties around and bait her with this type of thing in retaliation for the fact that she does it to me so much.
Is that a mature reaction? No. Is it fun? Yes. Is it an equivalent use of "force"? Yes.
I suppose that I actually favor the equivalent of "Verbal Jujutsu
", where I try to use my opponent's force and momentum against them without expending a lot of effort on my own.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Personally
I would have a lot less animosity toward Republicans if they would stop demonizing Democrats as weak on defense, criminal coddlers, etc.
Many Republicans spout this over and over because it has been burned into their hard drives. And then they can't understand why Democrats respond with such anger and venom.
It's because what goes around comes around. You reap what you sow.
qui tacet consentire
And in a way, this is the point of my obnoxious
comments:
I would have a lot less animosity toward Democrats if they would stop demonizing Republicans as racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.
Many Democrats spout this over and over because it has been burned into their hard drives. And then they can't understand why Republicans respond with such anger and venom.
Sound familiar? Equally accurate from my POV.
I agree with your point, I just don't know how to fix it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Perhaps if Republicans also stop saying
I would also have less animosity toward Republicans if they stop demonizing Democrats as unpatriotic, baby killers, socialists, weak in National Security, godless, etc.
I would not say
that Republicans are racists, but the Republican Party has taken advantage of racism. Racism is the reason the Republican Party dominates politics in the South.
I also would not call Republicans I know homophobic, but the Republican Party stokes anti-gay passions by pushing ballot measures to ban gay marriage as a way of boosting the evangelical vote.
I would note that Alabama has one openly gay state legislator, a white woman who was elected last year from a black-majority district in Birmingham. The person who fought the hardest to keep her from winning was Joe Reed, the head of the state's largest black political group and vice chair of the state Democratic Party. Reed has said that only blacks should represent black districts.
So, you see, there are Democrats who indulge in racism, sexism and homophobia -- just as there are Republicans whose actions harm national security and the troops.
qui tacet consentire
Now that there is what is called "irony." -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sweet, a Thurday thread. I was begining to wonder.
Who wants to discuss Iran? I know, it usually devolves into the same claims back & forth, but I'm willing to give it a go. Especiall after reading todays Digby
:
"President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."
Is that how best to deal with them? And this is seen as a MODERATE move by the right because dubya's not invading Iran like Darth wants.
It's the long war.
The troop surge is a build up for Iran???? Monsters. These people are monsters. Iraq has a critical clean drinking water problem. Due to all the dead bodies and fecal matter in the once beautiful Tigris. Children are dying from the water. Nice freedom agenda George.
What folks should really be worried about is China. Those that worship at the alter of pure profit are upset with China's bullying ways.
They keep undercutting the value of the dollar to benefit their own export profits in violation of the rules of the IMF. Paulson wants China to allow more freedom of investment into the Chinese stock market.
Paulsons sees all the money that the Chinese are saving..... savings rate 50% as potential liquid capital for hedge fund mergers...... and is negotiating with the Chinese to try and get them to start letting loose of some of their savings.
The savings rate in China has a lot to do the lack of a safety net for it's people. No social security etc.
Do safety nets allow people to feel more secure and invest more. That's what Paulson seems to be implying.
It is the economy, stupid.
of course
it is moderate. But the more overriding issue here is yet another treasonable disclosure of classified information.
If I was running our government, people would be hanging from the lampposts for such offenses. It's a sad state of affairs that the media runs these kinds of stories that provide aid and comfort to our enemies.
I am serious about the death penalty for anyone found leaking this kind of stuff.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Joe Stalin smiles from his grave......
You are a good expatriot.
you do know
that we have serious serious penalties for leaking classified info? For very obvious reasons? It's just that we are not enforcing those laws seriously enough.
I am not proposing anything new. Enforce the laws. Catch the people leaking and make examples out of them like the traitors that they are.
Especially in this case where we are simply following the road we've always followed with Iran - to support destabilization of their government. It was a policy under all the presidents since Reagan, including Clinton. To leak continuation of that policy and the methods we are employing is sick and only a traitor would do that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Leakers are patriots
"This kind of stuff" needs to be leaked. People need to know when their government is conducting a covert program to destabilize a country that we are not at war with.
The death penalty should be reserved for the idiots who dream up this crap. These are the same people who came up with the idea of killing Castro with an exploding cigar.
qui tacet consentire
it's our fricken policy
to destabilize Iran to change their regime. It was with Iraq and it is with Iran.
I hope whoever leaked this gets executed eventually.
Iran rulers deserve a lot worse than this though.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Agreed.
Except for the executed part. Prosecuted and jailed for a long time? Fine. Executed (literally)? No.
I completely agree with your frustration on this. I would favor a law that required MSM journalists to reveal their sources on governmental leaks. This "unnamed sources" BS has to stop.
It is far too easy for liberal malcontents within the government to wreak havoc with national policy. You don't see much of this in reverse because conservatives have too much integrity to hide behind some veil of anonymity, we prefer to have the debate out in the open and in an honest way.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I am not sure
the threat of jail is enough... There has to be public humiliation part involved for traitors to the Republic.
People need to understand what awaits them if they are caught disseminating our classified secrets. I just bet there would be a lot less of it.
Yes, I am extremely frustrated with these bastards screwing with our policy and the punishment for screwing our policy should be extreme.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well then put the cuffs on me
I once wrote a story based on a police department internal affairs reports about the mental instability of a police officer who had just been involved in a shooting incident.
I, and my newspaper, agreed that the public needed to know that the police department was aware of this officer's mental problems and did nothing about it and then someone ended up getting shot.
The police chief disagreed. He demanded to know who leaked the report. I refused to tell him. He threatened to haul me in front of the grand jury. I told him to go for it.
He was bluffing, of course.
I also wrote a series of stories based on leaked audits about a guy running a rural electrical co-op who was stealing from it. He sued the paper (we won).
And I wrote story thanks to a whistleblower about a man who was unjustly imprisoned by a judge in a state hospital for the mentally ill without ever having been convicted of anything.
And then there was the series of stories about a savings and loan that was bilked for millions and had to be closed at great expense to the taxpayers -- al of which were based on confidential sources in law enforcement and regulatory agencies.
You seem to think that "leaks" all involve some huge national security operation. They don't. The vast majority expose stuff like psycho cops and crooked county commissioners.
What I cited above goes on every day at newspapers all across the country -- at least the ones that are doing their jobs. Muckraking journalists are among the key elements that prevent a democracy from being swamped by a tsunami of corruption and incompetence.
You want all leaks stopped? Fine. But don't complain when your city councilman or your state legislator robs you blind. Actually, you probably won't have the chance to complain because you'll never hear about it to begin with.
Ignorance is bliss.
qui tacet consentire
I don't necessarily want the leaks stopped.
I just want the anonymous sources stopped. If I distrust the MSM, as I do, then I have to judge the value of the information based on the credibility of the leaker.
There is absolutely nothing to stop someone from making shit completely up (what was that Blair guy's name again? Or Dan Blather and 60 minutes?) and attributing it to "anonymous sources". It is Carte Blanche for the MSM to completely fabricate anything that they want and then hide behind some phony "protecting their sources" claim.
I, for one, am tired of it and am willing to let the pendulum swing the other direction for a while.
By requiring that the sources be willing to be identified, you are automatically setting the integrity bar higher than it otherwise would be. People are going to have to be truly serious about the need to leak things, as opposed to now when even the leaker can make shit up and give it to an MSM who simply reports it in all good faith.
Shine the light of public scrutiny on the situation if you want to get to the truth.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yes
And people in hell want ice water.
The person who leaked the internal affairs report would not have done so if his name would have been attached to it. And why is that? Because he would have been fired by the vindictive police chief, of course.
There are legions of honest, hard-working Americans who believe in playing by the rules and hate seeing crooks and liars and incompetents get away with everything. Many are willing to blow the whistle, but not if it means they won't be able to pay the mortgage or feed their kids.
And you obviously don't understand how the whole anonymous source thing works. There are many levels to it.
First -- if someone gives a reporter a copy of an official document, the name of the person leaking it is irrelevant. The document speaks for itself.
Second -- if the story is going to be based on information provided by an anonymous source that is not backed up by a document, then you seek to confirm that information from other sources.
For instance, a tipster might tell you that the mayor has been taking kickbacks from companies doing business with the city. You can't write a story based on that alone. So you start calling around to see who else might know about it, whether the grand jury is looking into it, etc. etc. When the story appears in the paper there might not be any information attributed to anonymous sources, but the story began with an anonymous tip.
Sometimes, you might write a story in which you directly quote an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up. In that case you have to ask yourself many questions first -- How credible is this person? Is he in a position to know what is really going on? Is he telling you this because he has an axe to grind? Are you being set up? Has this person provided reliable information in the past? Are you convinced enough of this person's accuracy that you are willing to risk the fallout if it blows up in your face?
If you don't think there are major consequences to quoting an anonymous source and getting the story wrong, you are woefully mistaken.
qui tacet consentire
Kevin Drumm thinks it was a
planted leak from the Administration to show they're "tough on Iran".
Why do I believe him? Well because ABC News waited 6 days for a response from the Administration and no one once told them not to run the story fearing for the lives of the spys.
Yea, in communist states they are. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It was a leak by the administration
shocking I know.
They did it before the Iraq war and they are doing it now.
ABC submitted their story to the White HOuse PR guys to make sure it was okay. They got no response..... until after they ran the story.
Serve two purposes.... attack the press, and warn Iran.
YOu should be thrilled. You clearly don't understand the propaganda machine that operates our govt.
It is the economy, stupid.
hmmm
I don't mind leaking for disinformation but this doesn't qualify. Did ABC say they checked with the WH?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Rove and Libby First
BTW, It is possibly unauthorized disclosure of classified information (we cannot know for sure as this administration has done a lot of leaking authorization on these matters) and not treason.
Ender, come on...
...the most likley source of the leak is the whitehouse, isn't that obvious?
They want to go into the negotiations with Iran looking strong. SO they leak a couple stories about supposed US covert actions and they send more naval vessels to the gulf. It's all show to put some pressure on Iran to make concessions.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
dunno man
I gotta run for the night - leaving for the weekend. Back sometime tomorrow. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
and I will be cheering
when we bomb Iran.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I know.
And the best part is that Tlaloc thinks we need to go nuclear!
Yippee! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Amazing...
...I have to admit that your brazenness in lying is astounding. How you think you can get away with it is just mindboggling.
Here's what I said: the only way we could take Iran down is with nukes
Here's what you report: Tlaloc wants us to use nukes!
And you expected to not get caught in this lie- how exactly?
P.S. it's too bad you went and added your comment after mine, huh? Otherwise you could have claimed that I edited my post after you lied about what I said. As it is now everyone can see exactly what I wrote and how it in no way means what you said. Just a heads up for next time, Goright.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
:) Yea, I'm really trying to be sneaky.
What with giving a pointer to your direct comment and all. Anyone reading this knows I was just yanking your chain and was not being serious.
Your original comment: "Not unless we want to go nuclear."
Your claimed meaning: "[ The only way we could take Iran down ] is with nukes."
My original statement: "Tlaloc thinks we need to go nuclear!"
My intended meaning: "Tlaloc thinks we need to go nuclear [ if we want to win ]!"
The implied meanings (assumed by us each, respectively, in the [ ]) are essentially equivalent in both cases.
I was just joking. I never said you WANTED to to nuke Iran, I just worded it (intentionally) in a craftily ambiguous way because I knew you would object. That's why I left the pointer and locked the comment. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Syria, Jordan, Egypt dealing with Iraq refugees
We should bomb Iran because........
Why not bomb N Korea and Pakistan too--since they also make nuclear weapons. Why are we choosing only Iran who is farther away from success.
Pakistan
is a much greater nuclear threat to the United States than Iran is. Pakistan is unstable and getting more unstable with each passing week.
qui tacet consentire
Absolutely...
...although that doesn't mean we should bomb pakistan. In fact I don't see where we really have any good options regarding pakistan.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Innocents
How many innocents will die due to such inhumane thinking? You suggest a very collectivist way of thinking, which doesn't suprise me, i.e., because Iran's leaders are evil, the lives of Iranian civilians are expendable.
I'm an individualist, however, so I have a very different way of thinking I suppose. Each and every individual in Iran should be judged on their own merits, i.e., we cannot morally attack their country unless it is done by units on the ground who can discern between good and bad Iranians. To drop bombs as a means of conserving the lives of American troops is the mentality of the street mugger, who will gladly kill for his bread. No, our country will not sacrifice innocents to stay safe or strong; that is what evil countries do, and we are not evil.
It will take a lot of American blood, but unless one is a die-hard racist, Iranian blood is just as sacred as American blood. And the blood of a solider from any nation is completely expendable when compared to the blood of any civilian.
Morality knows no borders. It is objective, and universal. To say that American blood is more important to yourself than any other is the height (depth?) of moral relativism, and has no place in American dialogue. Our country was founded on objectivity and empericism, not myopic, irrational self-interest.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Don't Get Happy
Get even.
Crushing dandelions in an effort to get rid of spring fever.
It is the economy, stupid.
I love seeing
dandelions... It reminds me of my childhood in Russia when seeing them was the best announcement of Spring.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Doesn't it just make you want
to go roll in the grass.
Everyone treats them like a pesky weed, but they are quite pretty. Especially when they cover a whole field. You can eat them in salads too!
Maybe you can go for a walk on your lunch break and do some dandelion crushing.
It is the economy, stupid.
hehe
I don't like crushing them :) Well sometimes it's cool to kick them but otherwise the look of a field covered with them is very pleasant.
I am leaving very early today (1pm) for a nice long weekend so no lunch break!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No, no, no.
As a conservative you have to use them to play the "Mary had a baby ... [ use thumb to flick the top off the dandelion ] ... and its head popped off!" game. Silly Ender.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Does it bother you that Mary Cheney's baby has
two mothers and no father?
Do you think Heather Poe should be able to adopt Mary Cheney's baby?
No.
Because contrary to the negative mental stereotype baggage that you seem to be carrying around, I am NOT anti-gay or homophobic.
EDIT:
On the question of gays adopting children, it is OK with me, I guess. Some of the nicest people I know are gay. Children who are unfortunate enough to be up for adoption could do a lot worse than most of the gays I have met in terms of being socially conscious role models.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I agree with you.
Gee, do you feel sort of "dirty" now? :) n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm the true conservative here guy.
I believe in fiscal & personal responsibility. I believe you're better paying down your debts than adding to the burdens you hand your children.
I believe in a state that cares about it's citizens without being a nanny. I believe that I have the freedom to think and do as I like, so long as I don't break a law (well, most laws) or hurt others.
I think our country is best served by a less powerful, less all encompasing central government that gives every citizen the same access to decisions being made in their names.
Bush43 just like Ronnie Reagan before him has turned the definition of conservatism on it's head. Every thing they've done has furthered a more powerful Federal Government at the expense of the actual citizens. They both plundered the National Treasury to redistribute the National wealth to the already wealthy instead of paying debts they created. Both restricted individual rights more than than what citizens had when they came into office.
No....I'm liberal in the odd liberal/libertarian mix. But I won't call much of what I see written by the right as "conservatism".
I agree on Bush 43.
Disagree on Ronnie.
I would actually love to have a libertarian government, but I cannot back one because in our (current) two party system a vote for the Libertarian is a vote for the Democrat ... and for better or worse I come down on the side of the Democrats as being the worse of the two evils we have to choose from.
I am not as die hard Republican as I am probably perceived. I just make it look like it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
We all come from our perspectives.
But it isn't really so easily cut and dried.
I'm a liberal. But I believe that citizens should be able to own guns*. I believe that some crimes deserve the death penalty. I don't want the state to protect me from myself, so much as from unscrupulous persons or businesses. I don't want my kids to pay my debt. And sometimes, you have to hold your nose & do what's right.
*with certain things like a 2 week waiting period upon purchase or transfer, no fully automatic weapons( ie - machine guns-sorry Georgia, your state is nuts), and I'd be OK w/ limiting calibur to 50 cal BMG & smaller for civilians.
My point is that what makes a liberal and what makes a conservative sometimes overlaps.
Bill Clinton is more conservtive than all GOP pres
Clinton paid down the debts, he had surplus, he shrank the govt, etc.
Other Dems that were conservative and competent leaders and still have a heart were Gov Mark Warner, Gov Dean, Gov Richardson, Gov Napolitano, Gov Vilsalk.
There seems to be more real conservatives or competent leadership in the Dem side than in GOP.
Good Reps like Bloomberg and Swarzneggar are considered RiNO by GOP.
I think the reason is Dems go in public service because they have a heart for the common good thus make policies that works.
While GOP go to public service to further business goals, and ideology of private enterprise first.
I'd laugh but this subject is too serious.
Jose Padilla's prosecution is going down in flames
. That's right, the prosecutors are loosing the case badly with their own witnesses.
Now I don't think Padilla was a nice guy. But I also don't think he should have been jailed & held in solitary confinement for 4 years without being charged with a crime and given access to a lawyer.
But you know....I'm just a liberal who believes in what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights says....unlike some others who don't. Me? No, I wasn't pointing fingers!
From what I recall reading
Padilla has gone batshit crazy from years in isolation.
qui tacet consentire
And we know that he wasn't
"batshit crazy" before this all started, how?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wow, what do you know.
I'm just a conservative who believes in what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights says ...
If we keep finding all this common ground who KNOWS what might happen?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Padilla should have been watched.
he was a great candidate to FISA & tap all his communications. If he showed he was doing something, they should then have jailed him & charged him with a crime.
They jailed him before they had anything on him. That's why he's gonna get off.
My complaint about how he was treated was that it was tyranny. One individual, above the law, jailing someone on only his own word. That's what we fought a revolution with the British over.
From King George to George Washington back to Emperor George.
I am sympathetic to your position.
And in other circumstances I would be arguing with you, but I truly believe that the government has to be given some latitude to be able to effectively fight what I believe is the GWOT.
I support(ed) the Patriot Act because of this, but I have always argued that the provisions therein should ALWAYS be subject to a sunset clause. That way we are forced to continually reassess the situation in order to keep the provisions in place. If times change, it will be harder to get the votes to continue the provisions. This means that it will be easier to get rid of them than it would be to muster the votes to repeal them later.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you believe
that the government should be able to imprison someone because he might be a terrorist or is the government required to meet a standard of proof?
If so, what is that standard? Should someone accused of being a terrorist be able to defend himself in a fair and impartial proceeding?
qui tacet consentire
Yes, in our current circumstances, I do.
I adopt the same rationale and reasoning used by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
See the following diary for more:
The Brilliance of Abraham Lincoln
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
NY Post uses Wayne Madsen as source
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm
Quoting Wayne Madsen in Daily Kos will get you a lot of troll ratings or even be banned.
And here NYPost a MSM is sourcing Wayne Madsen for this story on Wolfowitz.
Just shows how credible MSM is.
That's Page Six
aka gossip. You can get away with just about anything in a gossip column. For some strange reason it is deemed OK to print rumor and innuendo about who is sleeping with whom but not OK to use the same standard when covering City Hall.
qui tacet consentire
But using Wayne Madsen as source
That is really beyond gossip.
Coulda been worse.
They could have used the NY Sun as a source.
Jesus' General has a sadly funny column out today titled
Just a Few innocent Mistakes
. Read it and weep. Read it and laugh. They're both fair game.
War on Terror
I do not understand why GOP thinks to fight the War on Terror, we do not need to capture Bin Laden even to the point of invading Pakistan, and yet equate Iraq War with Al Queda War.
The Islamic Fundamentalists like Hezbollah and Hamas and Wahabbis Madrassas are fighting for hearts and minds of Muslims around the world with building hospitals, social welfare, schools, story of victimhood and they are successful--because there are more conservative and fundamentalists Muslims now than seculars compared to decades ago.
If Bush et al wants to win against Islamic fundamentalists it has to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and promote secularism.
Build more American University like that of Beirut. Uplift poverty in Muslim countries, peace corps in muslim countries will do more fighting for hearts and minds than invading Iraq which is not related to WOT at all.
Forget winning hearts and minds
I'd settle for no more inflamation of the hatred.
I agree with your rebuilding.
Awful that the Iraqi's water supply is befouled with waste and fecal matter, and mothers watch their babies cry with sickness and infection from drinking the putrid water. Clean water would be a start! But project abandoned.
It is the economy, stupid.
Be careful of our leaders. Every time, they've said
uplifting things to us and to the world. They uniformly speak with forked tongue.
They don't give a rats ass about anyone's hearts and minds.
Look at who runs with dubya and Darth. All they care about is control and what they primarily want control of is oil. Don't look at their words, look at their actions. After the invasion, our people left the weapons depots, the museums unguarded. They did have GI's guarding the Ministry of Oil though. It was the only facility protected initially.
Iraq was invaded to control it's oil. Blood for oil isn't a bumpersticker, it's bushco's mantra.
That is why their talk about war on Islamic Fundamentalists
is all hypocrisy......
They are not out there to win against Islamic Fundamentalists. In fact they are friends with Islamic Fundamentalists like Saudi Arabia who funds madrassas all over the world and teach hatred againsts the West. They also fund through charities knowingly or unknowingly terrorists groups in guise of charity.
I bet if Iran says right now---I will privatize Oil and give Exxon and Texaco rights and generous sharing--they will suddenly turn their eye blindly to the nuclear building and Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.
I don't care about the hearts and
minds of the Islamic Fundamentalists. I care about keeping Islamic Fundamentalists out of the United States and I think that a policy of determining who is a radical islamist and then legally deporting them will help tremendously in the war against radical islam overseas. If a person is a radical islamist no more green card, no student or tourist visas, no family reunification, nothing.
I hope to write a diary about this topic.
name the enemy, win the war
Hearts and Minds of US Soldiers
How about the hearts and minds of men in the army?
Serving their hellish tours stressed out, counting the days until they get out of
Iraq, packing their bags to come home and hold their wives and children.
The day they were to leave their stay was extended.
Sorry, our army isn't big enough so you have to stay.
That is a betrayal of our own troops. It's bulls***. Do you care about the hearts and minds of the soldiers with your rah rah bs.
It is the economy, stupid.