What's AQ want with Baghdad anyway? That's Shiite territory. The Sunnis didn't have much of a chance in Baghdad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Printable View
What's AQ want with Baghdad anyway? That's Shiite territory. The Sunnis didn't have much of a chance in Baghdad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
IMO, to create instability and death. Thats what they've been doing for quite a while now. AQ isn't dumb. They know the headlines that are created when they blow up a convoy. It helps the we (US) is being defeated in Iraq.
I take it you were a fan of the Shah of Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
The Dems race is way more fun then the Reps...so far anyway.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/...ons/index.html
You Republicans have nothing but an assortment of corpses to vote for. And on top of that, one of them is a whacked out Mormon. Holy shit. That fucking party is scary.
Rudy can be lots of things but a corpse is way off. I spect it'll heat up at some point.
I like the Dems, when they form a firing line, they form it in a circle.
Does Hillary think that Edwards falling would be good for her?
I'd expect if Edwards left, the person who'd stand to benefit the most is Obama.
I don't know if I quite agree. Is Edwards' supported more by men or women? It seems that Edwards would also have the most support of more centrist Democrats, the kind who may even go over to the dark side aned vote Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
Obama is gaining momentum, especially among male voters. Something odd I heard is that Hillary, as of yesterday, was trouncing Obama among Black voters.
I always assumed BO and Edwards were fighting for the same voters and Hill had more center leaning Dems.
I can't see real Liberals voting for Edwards. I know nothing about him, but he seems like a Republiwolf in Democrat clothing. I've never got it with him. I think Hillary probably has the broadest support base, with Obama maybe having the far left and pockets throughout the Democratic party.
I wish I saw the entire speech he made yesterday in Iowa, Chris Matthews raved about it today on Hardball.
I really do feel that Hillary's support comes mostly on the heels of her hubby, especially with The Ladies.
Compared to the Ayatollahs? Meh, I'd probably say it's a wash. The Shah brought holy hell down on rebels and anyone connected with rebels. But the Ayatollahs have brought down hell on everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
One person I like quite a lot is Ataturk. And so does Musharraf.
Trent Lott is retiring at the end of the year. Should have retired some time ago, but the GOP always provides for a graceful exit for racists.
And it looks like Musharraf has announced his resignation from the Army. He'll still run the country, though.
I think for Dems the R coming just after the name (Trent Lott (R)) means racist. lol
I thought it stood for Retiring.
Anyone dealing with the Council of Conservative Citizens should know that they're making a deal with the devil. That group is not just your average everyday conservative grass-roots lobbying committee - they are a political front for the Klan and are openly opposed to racial integration.
I don't doubt that, TBS, but the only known Klansmen I know of is Byrd (D).
(R) also retard
Yeah, Byrd's for sure an ex-Klansman. He's one of the few Southern D's around who stayed with the D's after they left their pro-segregation platform behind in the days of Lyndon Johnson. Most ended up jumping ship - Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, for example.
He's also so incredibly old, and he's been in Washington so long that I'm not really sure anything he knows is relevant anymore.
I was thinking about this a lil more. IMO, Your first paragraph is ridiculous, but roll with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Swami
But I'm glad the guy came back and won. First the comments were innocuous as hell, iirc. If they came from a Dem, nothing would have been done, secondly, Bush threw him under the bus. He didn't give the ol "good job brownie' treatment. He let him fry. So this is a lot like what Lieberman did to the Dems when they threw him under the bus. Lott ran again and got the whip job. Lieberman ran again and won too.
Bush doesn't control who gets elected and niether do the Dems.
Right and wrong are not a matter of public vote. H.L. Mencken is kind of a crotchety bastard, but I cannot deny that there's some truth in what he says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H.L. Mencken
More rioting in the Paris suburbs. Apparently it's exactly the opposite of how it is here in Detroit - only the rich get to live in Paris, all the poor are relegated to the suburbs. This time, though, gunshots have been fired. The new French President Nicholas Sarkozy tells everyone "So zat sings are vewy cleah: What has happened is absolutely unasseptaahbluh," You're doing an excellent job, Nicko. Keep up the good work.
Very nice accent.
mmm, Sarkozy's
(a Kzoo bakery with awesome bread)
CIA sez no nuke program in Iran since 2003.
I'm not sure whether to believe our intel or not.
Oh I see. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
And anyway, what do you mean you don't know whether to believe our intelligence? It's all you have. It's not like you're running an alternative intelligence program out of your garage, or your buddy Jim has some keen insights that somehow the intelligence agencies that are all run by the Executive Branch are somehow being manipulated by their bosses into saying something that isn't true and does not conform to the agenda being propagated by the Executive Branch. For them to be mistaken...how would any one of us have any idea about that? And for them to be intimidated or manipulated...it wouldn't make any sense.
This is the same thing that frustrates me about the truck drivers and PC repair technicians who say "evolution isn't a fact, I disagree with how some of the evidence is interpreted." OK, Professor Microscope, what fascinating insights do you have in the tedious and scholastically competitive field of genetics?
I don't believe in Iran.
I believe the intel that I agree with and don't believe the shit that might limit my ability to go to fucking war.
Except that...you know...no one has any cause to disagree with the CIA and the 17 other intelligence agencies, because none of us are the ones putting themselves at risk to collect the secrets? And if Iran has no significant nuclear weapons or missile technology program, there's no reason to go to war with them at all? Other than that, we're in complete agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Fascinating interview with the Pakistani political writer Ahmed Rashid on NPR today. He said 3 things that were REALLY interesting.
1. Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is using the whole "war on terror" thing to get political support from the USA. He's not well liked at home (obviously), but apparently he has a habit of letting Islamist rebellions fester into a crisis so that it will make the nightly news in the USA, and when he has to send the troops in to fight the rebels, it makes him look like a hero. For instance, he let the Islamist extremist student groups take over the Red Mosque in Islamabad for 6 months before he decided to do anything about it. So things that seem small at first, and could be cleared out by the cops, actually get many times worse because the extremists fortify their positions and then he has to send in the Army.
2. A lot of the problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan are actually caused by the hatred between India and Pakistan. Say there's a crisis in Afghanistan, and India decides to lend some support. The Pakistanis will see this as a case of India trying to influence affairs in the greater Middle East, and will actively fight against whatever it is - even if it's actually stabilizing the region. Pakistan will always view India as an enemy at the cost of common sense.
3. When the report came out that said Iran isn't working on nukes, everyone was relieved a little bit in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The way they saw it, if there was ever a war, the Pakistanis and Afghans would have to fight on the side of the USA, and Iran would do whatever it could do undermine their already fragile governments, so they don't want it to come to that. But they're also pissed off at us for putting them in this position - they know the USA is pushing hard for war with Iran, but they would be the ones to suffer the most, and it would be especially bad if there was no reason to go to war with them in the first place.
Interesting stuff.
Prescient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip Goshboots
Instead of holding a vote on FISA today, Congressional Dems decide to hold in contempt of congress Harriet Myers and ???
No wonder Congress aproval ratings are at an ALL-TIME low.
Congress approval = Presidential approval minus some %. That's how it's always been. People's rating of Congress largely reflects how well they feel governed, and they routinely give an edge to a humanizing face rather than a faceless crowd. You have to go back to the Watergate era to find Congress significantly ahead of the President for any great length of time. Even then, a majority disapproved of Congress when they were doing the right thing.
The telco immunity bill is just stupid. Don't give immunity until you have a better idea of what they did and how it was wrong, OR unless they want to cooperate with you in going after bigger fish (the only bigger fish being lame duck Bush who no telco wants to attack). BTW, it's not FISA that's in any danger, but the "Protect America Act" mostly-crap extension that's expiring. FISA as originally conceived of was largely fine and gets restored.
If I were gonna give Congress in particular disapproval ratings, it'd be over the inordinate amount of time spent with baseball players and steroid abuse.
BOO JOHN MCCAINS 2 FACED ASS!Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
But mxy they've been massaging this bill for close to 2 years now. The Senate approved it. The Prez gave a lot to get them to agree to it, but they are just being bitches and won't bring it to a vote. Just to jab the Prez, the day they had penciled in the vote, they hold a vote of contempt on 2 of the Prezs aids.
Its just that our elected assholes up there would rather do a 2nd grade stunt, then do the peeps bizness.
Not saying the Reps hasn't done this too, but it doesn't make it any less fucking childish, imo.
The Senate is a bunch of of bought-for paid-for tools when it comes to the telco immunity bullshit.
"Vote to keep our ass out of jail, or watch us fuck you in a close election by giving hard to your opponent." I'm all for that... NOT!
You don't give anyone immunity unless you know what they did and are willing to take the heat for it, or unless it's for a higher purpose (e.g. nabbing a bigger fish, a Truth Commission to heal the country, etc.). I'm not buying the rationale that it's needed to elicit cooperation. If a cop asks me to spy on my neighbor and get me nekkid pictures of her, I don't do it because a cop said so, and I don't get immunity. It's gotta be a lawful directive.
The Reps decided to call for a procedural vote in the middle of a memorial for Tom Lantos just to fuck with the Dems. It's all crap on both sides.
I want our Gov't to try to stop peeps from killing me. But thats just me.
Nothing about the telco amendment is about stopping terrorists of the killing variety. FISA is still in place, and was never going away. This is about burying crimes committed by telcos at the request of our government, the nature of which we can only guess at, and which may come to bite us in the ass later. It draws its support from politicians who can be bought by telco interests -- mostly Republicans, but Debbie Stabenow voted for it too. Our justice system for sale... film at 11. Swell.
And thats the part where Michael Moore will help us out. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
The Senate Intel committee with Dems aproved this thing. Thats where it belongs.
The Dems want to drag this out so all our secrets will be exposed to our enemies. Ridiculous.
I have some small professional connections to this mess, which I am 100% sure is driving my passion on it, and which I shouldn't speak more of. Bleah.