Absolutely spot on. Gore is prrobably the only one who could do it and some people would listen.
Posted by soccerdad at May 30, 2007 02:28 PMGore is waiting for Hillary to stumble. If she falls and falls hard, he's in.
Posted by Christopher at May 30, 2007 02:41 PMI wouldn't blame Gore in the least if he doesn't want to inherit this gods-awful mess that Bush has created, but I have to believe in my heart of hearts that he will be willing to wade into this awful morass for the sake of our troops, the country and the world. Please, Al, sacrifice these next few years in order to help ensure a safer, more secure future for people everywhere.
Posted by Via at May 30, 2007 02:58 PMReuters reports that Bush states the American presence in Iraq should be like the one we have in Korea--a 50 yr presence. And Tony Snow obligingly "clarified" that Korean basing of troops is no more "permanent" than the ones proposed in Iraq. Oooooh, that's comforting.
If it were not obvious before, it should be perfectly obvious now that the Cheney-Bush game all along was to make a permanent presence in Iraq the better to control oil. Oil, Oil, Oil.
Nothing to do with terror.
The corruption of the US Government under George Bush deserves nothing but contempt.
Posted by gtash at May 30, 2007 03:28 PMPlease always remember: If the republicans are speaking, they are lying. Ask them again how many of their sons/daughters/husbands/wives, etc are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. You would be very surprised at how few of them are 'worthy' of this clash of civilization - as the chimp put it. So we are in a fight for our very survival, but those who would benefit and profit the most, don't have to sacrifice anything? Does that sound ok to you folks?
Posted by Tom at May 30, 2007 03:43 PMKind of funny how long Bushco held back with the direct Korea analogy, but now it's finally been vomited out for BushAmerica to see and hear.
Authoritarian Rightists (i,.e. the Repub Party) can be expected to quickly digest and start parroting the wisdom of this new Koraq "development" back to the gullible, as will the corporate press.
In any event, the curtain on Cheney's permanent occupation gambit has finally been lifted.
Posted by euzoius at May 30, 2007 03:48 PMOh, and as to the question posed: Never.
Dems will apprently never talk about the Cheney agenda or frame it as a permanent occupation.
The various "insurgent" groups in Koraq may have an opinion on this little pronouncment by Nero, I'll wager.
Posted by euzoius at May 30, 2007 04:00 PMexactly euzoius. the Iraqi resistance to this illegal and murderous occupation will eventually make the cost of staying in blood and treasure too high, i'll wager.
Posted by ran at May 30, 2007 04:35 PM
This is why the so-called vast American "embassy" complex we're building in Iraq to the tune of almost $600 million is in reality a military base complete with its own electricity, water system, etc., not to mention surface-to-air missiles.
This is nothing more than an effort to extend our empire.
The price tag in the end: the demise of the republic.
Posted by hancock at May 30, 2007 05:06 PMwhy do you say Gore? He is not running. and he won't. Please face the reality of it.
he was groomed to be president and he did as the family asked.
Now that he is free of obligations and can do what he WANTS, why do people insist on making him still follow the path he was not givent he choice in following.
We don't have to wait for the politicians. Since we all must buy gasoline, we can't boycott all the oil companies. We can effectively boycott one of them. We can stop buying gasoline from one big oil company today. All participants can boycott the same oil company until we pull out of Iraq. Until we have the courage to start a movement like that, we should stop blaming others for what we won't do.
Posted by smooth at May 30, 2007 05:56 PMThe planet is dying? Are you sure? How long does she have to live, doctor?
Posted by muckdog at May 30, 2007 05:58 PMevery time you post you show your ignorance muck idiot...
Posted by at May 30, 2007 06:22 PMWhat do you care? As long as you make money, money, money, the planet could go to hell for all you care.
Posted by at May 30, 2007 06:45 PMThe planet is dying? Are you sure? How long does she have to live, doctor?
That raised the discussion to the level of a red state missing-toothed high school dropout.
Posted by phidipides at May 30, 2007 07:17 PMEvery political objective cited for the Iraq war could've been advanced, consolidated and/or secured without military means. Al Qaeda. Bases. Hegemony. Israel. Oil. Security. Nuclear Weapons.
The only political objective for which military means are an absolute necessity is to justify a war economy and military budget equal to the balance of the world combined.
Oops. Me @ 07:24 PM.
Sorry.
I think this fits here:
Progressive Stance
I was very happy to see what a progressive stood for in a national and state elections:
*Iraq War - Out now, leave no permanent bases, return property and sovereignty.
*Hold Bush administration accountable for lies and crimes.
*Veterans rights & Health care for all who served, including DU screening.
*Universal health care
*Election integrity guarantees & clean elections
*Fair trade, including active support for organized labor.
*Protect Civil liberties and human rights.
*Strong anti-poverty measures.
*Katrina & Rita victims right to return and rebuild.
*Humane and economically responsible border & immigration policy.
*Effective regulation of corporate behavior (environment, health and safety, media).
*Alternative Energy Investment.
Yep, that's me! How about you? Anything missing?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 30, 2007 07:32 PMMuck, if you are even asking that question, then you are a fucking idiot.
Be gone.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 30, 2007 07:47 PMMuck, if I were you, I'd stopped posting. You're getting the regulars and the blog host very pissed off. I think I have suggested this before, but go and post at Power Line. They may agree with your crap.
Posted by tempus at May 30, 2007 08:14 PMCaptainReality (love the name), another member of the less than 30% we love Bush crowd.
Posted by Judith at May 31, 2007 12:37 AMHey Seven of Six: Let me debunk some of your lefty notions. I'll actually agree with some of them. Yours are preceded by asterisks.
*Iraq War - Out now, leave no permanent bases, return property and sovereignty.
Sovereignty to whom? The Shia death-squads, or the Sunni ones? Return what property? Iraq would become a puppet state of Iran, if it became a functioning state at all.
If that's what you want, sure, pull out.
*Hold Bush administration accountable for lies and crimes.
Which lies and crimes would those be? Can you say 'political witch hunt'?
*Veterans rights & Health care for all who served, including DU screening.
Fair enough. This one's sensible.
*Universal health care
I don't mind this one for some countries, but it won't work for America. With the baby-boomers getting older, it'll send your government broke.
*Election integrity guarantees & clean elections
You've already got that. You're just sore because your side conclusively lost in 2004. I don't buy the conspiracy theories about Florida in 2000. Both sides of politics were attempting to manipulate the vote count for their own benefit through perfectly legal mechanisms.
*Fair trade, including active support for organized labor.
Ha ha ha ha ha!! That's hilarious. I'm Australian. The USA puts large tariffs on our agricultural exports to your country, because they know that your farmers can't compete with us, mostly on sugar, but also on a number of other crops. You lefties would be the first to scream if your government really started removing protectionist barriers (the first step to 'free & fair trade'), because it would be poor American manual workers who would be fired first.
Of course, in the long run, removing protectionist barriers would make you all richer, but since both the left and the right love protectionism, it won't happen. The left love it because it protects 'the workers', and the right love it because it protects 'American industry'. Really, it just protects entrenched inefficiency, drives up costs, and makes everyone poorer.
As for organized labour, yeah, sure, get yourselves a big fat group of unions. Then watch employers stop hiring, because it's no longer worth it. Then watch your unemployment rate rise to about 10%. Then discover what corruption, graft, and cronyism really means when your country has large, powerful unions.
Sure, all those who still have jobs will have GREAT conditions. Too bad for the unemployed though: this has always been the left's failing when it comes to industrial relations. The left don't realise that their policies boost unemployment, or don't care. Let them eat (and rot on) welfare!
*Protect Civil liberties and human rights.
Oooh, that sounds nice! Shame that it doesn't mean anything. Warm fuzzy hugs for everybody, and no more fighting at home! There, I feel better too.
*Strong anti-poverty measures.
The best anti-poverty measures involve a healthy labour market, something that the left usually wreck when they get in government and over-regulate the labour market.
Universal education would help. Kiddies shouldn't be handicapped just because their parents are losers :).
*Katrina & Rita victims right to return and rebuild.
No comment on this one. That whole situation in New Orleans looks like a big mess. From what I can understand, it was a big mess created by the state of Louisiana; not the Federal Government.
One thing that I do know was when I visited New York one month after Katrina, a lot of New Yorkers were openly laughing at the whole situation. Apparently many New Yorkers consider the Louisiana state government to be incompetent fools, and the people of Louisiana to be trash who deserve what they get.
*Humane and economically responsible border & immigration policy.
In other words, let 'em all in! Or keep 'em all out! Or only let in the educated ones. Or only let in the ones that are escaping poor conditions. I can interpret your statement as meaning any of these, or a combination of them.
In Australia, we don't have this problem. You either come legally, or we catch you, and deport you. Nice and simple, no surprises for anyone. We don't have illegal immigrants here. America should do the same thing.
*Effective regulation of corporate behavior (environment, health and safety, media).
Nice warm-fuzzy phrase. Good luck turning it into policy without your economy ending up like France's, or worse.
You already have pretty good health and safety regulations. An example: in 2006, 47 American coal miners died at work. 4,746 Chinese coal miners died at work. You've got it pretty good.
No new oil refineries have been built in the USA since 1975 because of your environmental regulations. That's why you guys now import petrol. The USA has strict environmental regulations for everything except CO2 emissions.
Regulation of the media? What a people's paradise you would create, comrade.
*Alternative Energy Investment.
Yes, I'll agree with you on this one. It would be good for the economy, environment, and energy security. No downside.
Posted by CaptainReality at May 31, 2007 01:22 AMJudith,
You'd be surprised to know that I don't actually like Bush. I think that he's incompetent, doesn't think long-term, and is an awful communicator. I liked Reagan and Thatcher.
However, I find the conspiracy theories attributed to him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest to be absurd. I think that they actually did believe that Saddam had WMD, and he was certainly a tyrant. Their biggest problem was in sidelining to the generals who said 'you'll need 400,000 troops to secure Iraq'. That miscalculation is the cause of the whole damn mess. If you're going to invade someone, do it properly.
The left is also very quick to blame anything and everything on Bush.
Posted by CaptainReality at May 31, 2007 01:32 AMLooks like shooter Cheyney is contributing under Captain Reality. I got a taste of reality for him and thank you Steve for your wise commentary. There seems to be some notion that our philisophical underpinnings are the basis for the actions of those who run our government. How naive. The government, such as it is, operates in the interest of global equity and capital concerns whose boundaries are not defined by geography or nationality. It is and has always been a grand resource grab and the romantic notions of freedom and liberty are ascribed to the process to wrap the corruption in the American Flag. The reason Cheyney would never disclose the participants and content of his ultra hush-hush energy meetings is precisely because he committed the US military to the process of securing control of Iraq oil for his big oil partners. This has no benefit for the safety and security of this nation or any other nation for that matter.
Posted by felonious at May 31, 2007 05:35 AM"Republican'ts are losers who loathe themselves,
their fellow Americans, freedom, democracy, and self-determination".
"Republican'ts are losers who loathe themselves, their fellow Americans, freedom, democracy, and self-determination".
"Republican'ts are losers who loathe themselves, their fellow Americans, freedom, democracy, and self-determination".
"Republican'ts are losers who loathe themselves, their fellow Americans, freedom, democracy, and self-determination".
"Republican'ts are losers who loathe themselves, their fellow Americans, freedom, democracy, and self-determination".
Times ten.
Posted by (: Tom :) at May 31, 2007 07:25 AMCaptainWhatever:
If you are simply another troll who pops in here and starts off like you did on another post by making the usual smears against those who don't agree with you, then go somewhere else. I have already deleted your comments on that thread.
And if you keep up using false generalizations and straw men to argue against commenters here using the same tired right wing talking points, go somewhere else before I ban the IPs you are using.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 31, 2007 07:52 AMoooh, "CaptainReality" put on his cape of blind ignorance and expects us to take him seriously? Ah hahahaaahaa!!
What a schmuck.
Operation Iraqi Liberation
To this day that still cracks Cheney up.
Posted by Daryl at May 31, 2007 10:45 AMSteve Soto:
"And if you keep up using false generalizations and straw men to argue against commenters here using the same tired right wing talking points, go somewhere else before I ban the IPs you are using."
In other words, don't disagree with me, or I'll ban you.
You guys are a laugh a minute.
Posted by CaptainReality at May 31, 2007 08:13 PMThis blog and forum are a collection of the saddest, most vacuous clap-trap that I've seen for a long time. Extreme left conspiracy theories with the usual 'the West is evil' undercurrent running through all posts.
I've noticed a pattern. Whenever anyone posts here who disagrees with you guys, there's a flood of purile name calling and character attack. The instance Muck made light fun of one of your more ridiculous statements "The planet is dying", there followed a flood of insults in this very thread.
Steve Soto summed it up when he threatened to ban me for using 'the same tired right wing talking points'. Here's some news. You're entire blog is a collection of tired extreme left-wing orthodoxies. There, Steve! Two can play at that game. Ohhhh, but it's your blog, and you've got the power to ban people. I'm impressed!
That's why I'm trolling. Your forum has already descended as low as it can go, so I'm trying to spice it up a bit.
I bet that you're going to ban me now. Good! I'm sure that I've managed to upset a few of you by breaking your grubby little orthodoxies. After you've banned me, you can all feel good that you got rid of the heretic, and go back to whining about republicans and red-necks.
Posted by CaptainReality at May 31, 2007 08:26 PM"The left is quick to blame anything and everything on Bush"
CaptainClapTrap, who was responsible for electing NOT to send the recommended 400,000 troops into Iraq? Who's the Codpiece-in-Chief again?
And if Bush is "incompetent" (as you admit), why isn't it essentially correct to blame his administration's multitudinous failures on him? Sounds like you actually agree with the substance of the left's critique, eh?
Oh, how the crowing, puffed-up Right has fallen.
Posted by euzoius at June 1, 2007 07:46 AM