Just why the fuck does the MSM insist upon airing the fucking moron neo-cons that were FUCKING WRONG about virtually everything like Kristol, Gaffney, Perle, etc. and refuse to have those that were 100% right about most of the stuff like Scott Ritter and others?
WTF is with that?
Posted by angryspittle at February 26, 2006 10:41 AMAnd will some asshole talking head finally ask them how it feels to have been so fucking wrong about everything and to have caused so much fucking chaos and death?
Posted by angryspittle at February 26, 2006 10:46 AM"Rummy and the White House would have needed to deploy the 300,000-400,000 troops necessary for a successful occupation in Iraq. But in order to do so, those troops would have to been available in the first place. They weren’t, and still aren’t. That was the point of General Shinseki’s comments in the first place."
That's an important point, and one that I have not seen stressed nearly enough. Shinseki apparently NOT ONLY said that we would need the 3 to 4 hundred thousand troops, but seems to have implied that the project was not do-able in the first place, (given that we didn't really HAVE these numbers available to pour into the Iraqi Adventure).
Posted by 1MaNLan at February 26, 2006 10:59 AMSurprising that things are going so wrong when they have spent so much [of our] money telling us how right things are going.
The pic is priceless, Steve, greatest laugh all morning.
Posted by Anjha at February 26, 2006 11:16 AMChickenhawk + Actual War = Abject Failure
Simple algebra, y'all.
Kristol should be set up against a wall and shot with the rest of them.
Posted by God Of War at February 26, 2006 11:25 AMIf there aren't enough troops, perhaps Kristol and his buds should join the army.
Posted by Rick at February 26, 2006 11:26 AMThat picture of Kristol is so goofey, there should be a caption contest with it. My entry "What's an overpaid, underworked neocon to do at a time like this, uh-huh huh huh huh huh"
Posted by herbal tee at February 26, 2006 11:34 AMSteve Soto raises some very valid arguments against the Administration and its supporters.
But the gratuitous shot at Bill Crystal
"Kristol, who hasn’t gotten close to serving his country in combat since the last time he saw Rambo..."
Is intellectually dishonest. The "chicken hawk" argument is invalid. I have posted before: folks find a new slur. Find one that has some validity and is premissed on rational, intellectual honesty.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 12:06 PMWhat the fuck is "intellectually dishonest" about accusing someone who advocates war, yet never served? A huge majority on PNAC never served but it's OK for someone else's kid to die for their ideas?
Your ideals are way irrational for me, teabag.
Great picture. I vote for a caption contest. Mr PNAC has been wrong about everything.
Posted by Daryl at February 26, 2006 12:50 PMThat picture says "Assclown" to me.
Posted by Sharon at February 26, 2006 01:08 PMA chickenhawk is a chickenhawk. There is nothing dishonest about frankly discussing the lack of military experence by those who were most in favor of this war. In fact, the reality is that Colen Powell was alone amongst senior Bush advisors in both having combat military experence and in urging caution pre war. If anything, this suggests that it is dishonest to say that the lack of military experence in such situations does not matter.
Posted by herbal tee at February 26, 2006 01:26 PMStv, thnks vry mch fr th xcllnt pc nd th grt lgh y gv m wth yr 'Rmb' pnt. Hv y ntcd hw ll ths wht bys lk lk? Ft nd sft: nd thy thnk lk thy lk. Ths s ls rflctn f thr prsnl lf nd vls, (slf-ndlgnc, slf-gn, grd, grd, mrdrs grd). Whr s Gd n thm? Gd dspprd wth vry xtr mthfl f fd. Cld t b tht ft crts th slf-stm nrmlly rsrvd fr th crtn f psd-gds? gss s, fr thy ct lk thy r lttl gds. Thy dn’t fr Gd nd dn’t fr nyn bt sm crprt gd tht cld pssbly tk thm dwn cpl ntchs.
GOP=Chickenhawk Brigade.
It'd be great if we could bring all the troops home. Close down every foreign military base, and slash spending on the war machine. Just tell individual countries that we hope they can police themself. We can't afford to.
The Taliban and Saddam are gone. Those countries now have the opportunity to govern themselves in the way they see fit.
Posted by muckdog at February 26, 2006 02:34 PMThe "chicken hawk" argument is invalid. I have posted before: folks find a new slur. Find one that has some validity and is premissed on rational, intellectual honesty.
So bagley, the argument is invalid because ... why? Because you say it's invalid? Right. Does the shoe fit?
And rational, intellectual honesty is certainly a hallmark for all the chickenhawks - like wolfowitz and the number of troops required; rumsfeld knowing that WMDs were North, South, East and West of Tikrit; cheney and the last throes of the insurgency; then of course powell (the only non-chckenhawk) and the mobile bio labs cited in his UN speech.
Go away and don't come back until your remarks are based on rational, intellectual honesty.
The Taliban and Saddam are gone. Those countries now have the opportunity to govern themselves in the way they see fit.
"The way they see fit" seems to be a lot worse than it was before we fixed it for them.
After three years of our assistance in killing thousands of people, shouldn't we expect things in Iraq to be BETTER than they were under Saddam?
Posted by Repack Rider at February 26, 2006 02:42 PMThe Taliban and Saddam are gone. Those countries now have the opportunity to govern themselves in the way they see fit.
Actually, the Taliban is not gone.
Saddam is gone, but even Bill Maher suggested that maybe we should bring him back because at least he knew better how to keep Iraq out of civil war.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 02:55 PMBill Kristol is the most patronizing member of the patronizing fascist membership. Fox might as well give him a prop cigar and a prop brandy so as to more convincingly call Juan Williams an ignorant savavge. I hate Bill Kristol with all my heart.
Posted by ghandi at February 26, 2006 03:03 PMActually, the Taliban is not gone.
Resurgent actually.
Please also note what is going on here. The groundwork is being laid for the fall guy (Rumsfeld) and also for massive pullout before the 2006 mid terms. We might as well leave if they are in a civil war. That's Iraqi's fighting Iraqi's and the US doesn't want to get involved in Iraq's internal problems.
Don't be surprised when they (neo-chickens) start asking, "What business do we have meddling in Iraq".
Yes, I'm serious, and don't pretend you will be shocked by the incredible presumption of a statement like that 3 years after we ... meddled. Posted by Dilapidus at February 26, 2006 03:49 PMKristol looks like he's shitting his pants. Or maybe he was receiving a blowjob from one of the Faux News Bu$hCo rimjobbers. Fuck him.
Posted by red_neck_repub at February 26, 2006 04:22 PMSo do Kristol and the Neo-Kraps now acknowledge that we have "failed" (i.e. lost) in Iraq and need to apportion the blame, or are we to redouble our efforts, get "serious" and institute a draft? What's their message to BushAmerica at War?
Presumably getting "serious" would involve a big "uptick" in "brutality", as one of our Reactionary Right Regulars recently opined. Oh yeah, bring that on!
To what fabulous successes will Nero Jr. and our Neo-Krappers lead us next? Out with von Rumsfeld and in with.....who? Who's a bigger Neo-Krapp stooge than Rummy? Seriously....Richard Perle?
Yowsa---even greater triumphs await us in the Islamic world! Onward Christian Soldiers, bring us our coveted Judgement Day, as we shake with ecstatic joy for the coming Rapture!
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2006 04:36 PMWait for it. The next talking point will be that the failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault.
Posted by goose1 at February 26, 2006 04:50 PMFar worse than a chicken-hawk, Kristol, along with the likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kaplan, Brooks, Podhoretz, ..., used America (via Bush's incompetence) to accomplish likudite goals. They should all be tried as foreign agents then hung.
Posted by ken melvin at February 26, 2006 04:51 PMghandi: "Uncle Jaun" Williams IS ignorant. Fox would'nt have it any other way.
scout: Are you posting from a monastary, or a mental health facility? Oops, being redundant again.
Bill Kristol sucks at predictions, he should stick to hosting the academy awards.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 04:54 PMFar worse than a chicken-hawk, Kristol, along with the likes of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kaplan, Brooks, Podhoretz, ..., used America (via Bush's incompetence) to accomplish likudite goals. They should all be tried as foreign agents then hung.
Posted by ken melvin at February 26, 2006 04:51 PM
*****
Hung, shot, whatever. Works for me.
Posted by God Of War at February 26, 2006 04:56 PMJust to be clear, the PNAC doctrine assumed that Iraq, Syria, Iran (and others) would be easily defeated and swiftly reconstituted as US-friendly democracies. Even more dreamily, it assumed that China, Pakistan, Russia and India would sit quietly on the sidelines while the US "terraformed" Central Asia.
Kristol is pissed that his plan has been incompetently executed, when in fact he should be shooting himself for its naieve conception.
It's a shame so few of his viewers realize how culpable he is for both this policy and its failure.
Posted by Rotwang at February 26, 2006 04:57 PMThey should all be tried as foreign agents then hung.
I have a much better idea! They should have to forfeit all of their worldly goods, then have to go fight in the war they started - as infantry.
No body armor. No Humvees. Only MREs to eat, and short water supplies. No recreational facilities. No clean underwear, or bathing facilities. Nothing to sleep on but the dirt by the side of the road. No idea when they are going to get to go home.
And be stationed in Fallujah.
Kristol is a founding member of PNAC. He's more invested in US control of Iraq's vast oil reserves than even George Bush.
Posted by Christopher at February 26, 2006 05:05 PMLet me add; no reinforcements, no re-supply of ammo, no air cover and having to shit in the squating position using nothing but their dirty underwear to wipe with.
Fucking scum! Oh, but please let us all deal with them honestly and intellectually!
Posted by bbtb at February 26, 2006 05:14 PM
I endorse your additional conditions, bbtb! Let's also add - not getting enough sleep for weeks at a time.
In fact, why not make their boot camp six months in Abu Ghraib? It would only be fair, especially if the gaurds were former Iraqi inmates!
I wonder if Krystal would have the same smirk on his face if he had a hood over his head. and two wires held in his hands while standing stationary on a stool?
Well, there's enough blame on both sides of the isle. Getting the US involved in foreign wars goes back to President Wilson. President Truman started the practice of going to war without Congressional approval.
The question is where do we go from here? I think we have to admit that we can't afford to fight wars. We're bankrupt.
And as an aside, Arnold's bonds in CA are a horrible idea, too. The state has a spending problem, and Arnold wants more debt. California has another estimated $40 billion to $70 billion the state will need to pay future health care benefits for retired state workers. Link.
We can't afford the military or these social benefits.
Posted by muckdog at February 26, 2006 05:24 PMHow much different would things be today if Gerry the nit-wit Bremmer hadn't disbanded the Iraqi army???.....didn't this moron get a medal of honor something as ridiculous???......looks like Muqtada al Sadr is winning the hearts and minds that we couldn't.....great strategy by him....start the reprisal killings and then appear to be the hero that stopped them....our gang is no match for these types.....I wonder if Iraq will be an election issue or will the war aginst the "Evil-Axis (Iran)" be in full force by November?
Posted by Goyo at February 26, 2006 05:29 PMWell, there's enough blame on both sides of the isle. Getting the US involved in foreign wars goes back to President Wilson. President Truman started the practice of going to war without Congressional approval.......nice try moron....the blames goes to the Bu$co cult...100%
Posted by Goyo at February 26, 2006 05:31 PMWell, there's enough blame on both sides of the isle.
Nope, sorry. The Iraq debacle/quagmire is a Republican/neo-con fuckup through and through. Yes, I know, many Dems in congress voted to authorized military action if diplomacy failed but Bush didn't try diplomacy. He and his chickhawk neo-cons had always planned to go into Iraq, regardless of congress. So don't even try to spin the disaster that is Iraq as a bipartisan fuckup.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 05:34 PMWe're bankrupt.
Oh, come on. The economy is doing great! Inflation is non-existent, there is no unemployment and with enough new tax cuts, the treasury will be pulling more receipts in than ever before! You're so negtive, muck!
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 05:46 PMI endorse your additional conditions, bbtb! Let's also add - not getting enough sleep for weeks at a time.
In fact, why not make their boot camp six months in Abu Ghraib? It would only be fair, especially if the guards were former Iraqi inmates!
I wonder if Krystal would have the same smirk on his face if he had a hood over his head. and two wires held in his hands while standing stationary on a stool?
This 'posting delay' needs repairs!
Posted by pessimist at February 26, 2006 05:49 PM"What the fuck is "intellectually dishonest" about accusing someone who advocates war, yet never served? A huge majority on PNAC never served but it's OK for someone else's kid to die for their ideas?
Your ideals are way irrational for me, teabag."
Ok. Shall we (once again) deconstruct the "chickenhawk argument...."
"Go away and don't come back until your remarks are based on rational, intellectual honesty."
....for the benefit of all the posters who challenge my idea that the chicken-hawk argument is intellectually dishonest.
Here we go...
The chickehawk argument presupposes that the only people who can argue in favor of a particular action are those people who are intimately involved in the action.
What then is the requirement for people that argue against the action? Is there no requiremet? Is being removed from any intimacy of the particular action afford you the authority to argue against the action? Seems rather a convenitient circumstance.
Would you suggest that the only people who can argue in favor of abortion are those people who have their feet in the stirupts? Intellectual honesty would demand that you answer this question in the affirmative....if you are a supporter of chicken-hawk logic.
Posted by Bagey at February 26, 2006 05:51 PMThe chickehawk argument presupposes that the only people who can argue in favor of a particular action are those people who are intimately involved in the action.
bagey, I guess you don't see what is wrong with people setting an agenda, not being forthcoming about this agenda with the US public prior to elections, gaining national power, implementing that agenda, abusing their governmental powers and corporate connections, then sending other people's children to die in a war they profit from, while killing innocent civilians from a another country.
Do you think if this PNAC agenda was put into MSM it would have gone over well?
I forgot your in favor of dirty elections, inhumane treatment of prisoners, the abolishment of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution, NSA wiretapping, secrecy at all levels of government, outing of NOC CIA agents, the hiring of cronies to positions that create ineptitude that is literally killing people and a modern day monarchy in the USA.
And yes I do think only women should decide the issue of abortion, I have no right what to say on the matter. I know what I believe, but I will not force my beliefs on a woman, who I have no idea what they go through.
It's like us forcing democracy down the throats of the Iraqi's who are turning it into a theocracy.
Your sick, dude, go to a Dr.
Posted by bbtb at February 26, 2006 06:35 PMFind one that has some validity and is premissed on rational, intellectual honesty.
Okay. You'll understand this elucidation.
Bagley,
Fuck off, you chickenshit chickenhawk.
You're one of them.
Posted by God Of War at February 26, 2006 06:47 PMThat's a pretty poor analogy, Bagley. First of all, the decision to go to war effects the entire society. We pay for it with our tax dollars and we feel the impact in the loss of our sons and daughters. A politician who advocates war yet has been reticent to serve his country in combat, is most certainly best described as a chickenhawk. They are forcing men and women to go to war when they would never do the same themselves.
A woman who seeks an abortion does not effect anyone but herself, and perhaps either her parents of husband/boyfriend if they are involved. A politican who advocates that a woman should have the right to choose for herself, is nothing close to a chickhawk. The politician is not forcing any woman to undergo an abortion, it is a personal choice.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 06:58 PMWould you suggest that the only people who can argue in favor of abortion are those people who have their feet in the stirupts? Intellectual honesty would demand that you answer this question in the affirmative
Against my better judgement, I'll be your huckleberry.
I would make that argument and more. The only people who can truly argue the merits of abortion pro and con are the ones who's feet is in the stirups. Others can blather on as there right as idiotic ponificating americans, but only the ones who truly face that can know.
And for that reason, they should be the ones who make that choice.
Thats why service matters, as only people who truly understand the cost of war should be entrusted to wage it. You can ponificate for applied violence to your fellow man all you want. But you should also be willing to wage that war on a personal level. Otherwise I have the right as an informed american who did his patriotic duty to apprase you and your ilk as moral cowards.
You get to spout your insane drivel, and I get to rightously judge you harshly with the added benifit of being morally and intellectualy correct. Literaly a win-win situation.
As for me, I am more than happy to wage what i advocate for. I will wage the peace.
Posted by SnarkyShark at February 26, 2006 06:58 PM"Chickenhawk" speaks to the PNAC crowd's abundant willingness to spill blood—"ours" and "theirs"—but only when the risks fall on others,rather than their own families.
Bagley's right: this epithet only gets at the hypocrisy of their position, and doesn't really reach the substance. These people are idiots.
Their idiocy is only possible, of course, because they are so sheltered from the horrific consequences. So we get back into the issues of chickenhawkery.
Which came first, the chickenhawk or the idiot?
Posted by dj moonbat at February 26, 2006 07:00 PMAll of this just makes you sound weak on defense. Are you planning another election campaign based on hate instead of ideas?
Posted by muckdog at February 26, 2006 07:02 PMAll of this just makes you sound weak on defense.
Sorry muckpuppy, we have reached a tipping point.
We have gone from this
We can't trust the Democrats with national security
To this
Anybody would be better than these ass-clowns
That's called winning by default. Game. Set. Match.
The incompetence displayed in choking so very very badly of recent can only be discribed as breathtaking.
Posted by SnarkyShark at February 26, 2006 07:10 PMTrivia quiz. Which of the following did muckdog write?
a) The question is where do we go from here? I think we have to admit that we can't afford to fight wars. We're bankrupt.
b) All of this just makes you sound weak on defense.
c) Muckdog should probably STFU.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 26, 2006 07:19 PMHm...can we be strong on defense when we are bankrupt?
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 07:23 PMOh what fun!
Let us begin:
bbtb, your post is does not address the validity of the chicken-hawk argumet.
"A woman who seeks an abortion does not effect anyone but herself, and perhaps either her parents of husband/boyfriend if they are involved."
YOur post is simply a rant, without substance regarding the validity -- or lack thereof -- of the chicken-hawk argument.
These people are involved, yet you casually dismiss whatever concerns they may have.
Ann,
"We pay for it with our tax dollars..."
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the United States. Do a Google: how many tax dollars does planned Parenthood hoover in each year?
SnarkySnark. How are you my brother-in-arms. A fellow veteran (?).
"Against my better judgement, I'll be your huckleberry....The only people who can truly argue the merits of abortion pro and con are the ones who's feet is in the stirups.....Thats why service matters, as only people who truly understand the cost of war should be entrusted to wage it."
Then please do disregard Franklin D. Roosevelt -- you know him....I mean, as student o fhistory and all that.
Abandon any argument you may have against the war.
djmoonbat,
Again, you fail to understand the post: do you understand the English language?
"Which came first, the chickenhawk or the idiot?"
The idiot begat the chicken-hawk argument.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 07:34 PMAgain, you fail to understand the post: do you understand the English language?
About as well as I understand anything.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 26, 2006 07:37 PM"About as well as I understand anything."
I am more than willing to provide you with an education, djmoonbat.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 07:48 PM...government grants are given for specific projects and are prohibited by law from being used for abortions....
Try again, Bagley, taxpayer dollars are not given to Planned Parenthood for abortions. Not to mention that they are not the only abortion provider in the country. Planned Parenthood charges individuals who seek abortions for those services.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 07:52 PMAnn,
This is why conservatives have no problem with the UAE running ports or Bandar getting classified information. They really like the social stances of the Islamic nations. It mostly agrees with their agenda.
"Try again, Bagley, taxpayer dollars are not given to Planned Parenthood for abortions."
Try again, Ann: money is fungible. Money hoovered up by Planed Parenthood frees up the other money they may have to provide abortions.
"Planned Parenthood charges individuals who seek abortions for those services."
An accounting function. Most of the abortions are covered under the mantra of "health services." The individual pays nothing.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 08:01 PMhow many tax dollars does planned Parenthood hoover in each year? sez Bagley
*********
Planned Parenthood is also the largest provider of prenatal care and reproductive care for the under and uninsured.
Suppose all those poor wittle babies you, with your cock and no uterus, are so desperate to protect, need no prenatal care. We should allow them to all be born premature and underweight with low APGAR scores. That'll serve the future of America.
Planned Parenthood is also where people get birth control who would not have access to it otherwise. Let's cut that off so that the level of abortions increase. Better yet - now that abortion will be outlawed...let's cutoff all access to birth control so that thousands more children can be born into poverty and addicted to meth and beaten and abused.
Nice plan Bag.
I say take yourself to the nearest Urologist and get yourself snip-snipped so that you are one less seed spewer that we have to worry about out there. Good gawd the thought of your spawn roaming the streets is terrifying.
"Planned Parenthood is also the largest provider of prenatal care and reproductive care for the under and uninsured."
You do not disagree, then, that Planned Parenthood is [also] the largest provider of abortions in the United States.
"We should allow them to all be born premature and underweight with low APGAR scores. That'll serve the future of America."
I am well aware of the problems associated with these issues. It is interesting, however, that you choose to focus on the abnormalities - which represent a small portion of the whole - than the normal babies that are aborted.
"...let's cutoff all access to birth control so that thousands more children can be born into poverty and addicted to meth and beaten and abused."
Yes, shall we. So your solution to drug addiction, poverty, and abuse is abortion? At least you are honest. Mis-guided, but honest.
"I say take yourself to the nearest Urologist and get yourself snip-snipped..."
I have two children and I am "snipped-snipped."
Anything else?
Goodnight to the LeftCoasters: you continually re-inforce my observation that the left has lost all sensibility and is (for the most part) incapable of formulating a rational, well-tought out argument.
Thanks for the bandwidth.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 08:26 PM...money is fungible. Money hoovered up by Planed Parenthood frees up the other money they may have to provide abortions.
Neither here nor there. And trust me, I know, I manage finances for a non-profit that receives federal money. Federal money that is granted for a specific purpose cannot be spent for any other purpose, otherwise the npo must pay it back with interest and won't be eligible for any more federal money. There is a LAW: federal money cannot be used to pay for abortions. If you want to claim that the law is being violated, please bring a lawsuit and prove it.
An accounting function. Most of the abortions are covered under the mantra of "health services." The individual pays nothing.
Sorry, the individual most definitely does pay. Perhaps some are not charged because they have low income and cannot afford the service (you'd like them to have a child with no income? Then the taxpayer most definitely will pay!) and perhaps some are charged on a sliding scale but that matters not a bit in this discussion because taxpayers are simply not bearing the burden that they are by funding Bush's Iraq quagmire. Which is what we were taling about anyway, perhaps you forget? Are those dollars "fungible" as well? Are there private contributions covering the governments' war costs? Didn't think so.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 08:33 PMOther than his over-ridden "Chickenhawk" Hobby Horse, I fear Bagley has nothing to say about the dubious fate history will accord his fellow Neo-Cons like Kristol (the subject of this thread) or their role in the Iraq debacle.
Kristol must be getting pretty concerned about how he is going to be viewed by history if he is willing to throw von Rumsfeld (of all people!) to the sharks.
Tired Chickenhawk-squawking, lame ass diversions on abortion funding, it's all falling apart for the Reactionary Right---all that's left is the clown dancing.
Posted by euzoius at February 26, 2006 08:39 PMNeither here nor there. And trust me, I know, I manage finances for a non-profit that receives federal money.
Allow me to elaborate on this point a bit. If we did not receive the federal grant for the very specific project they are willing to fund, we would not be doing those projects. We would continue our core mission regardless of federal funding. It is the same at PP, because they simply cannot use federal money to pay for abortion services, whether they call them "health services" or not. Regardless of federal funding that they receive for specific projects (such as reporting on abortion statistics) they would continue to provide abortion services that they charge clients for.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 08:44 PMMost of the abortions are covered under the mantra of "health services."
And oh, yes, on this, you are only mentioning the expense side. There is a corresponding revenue side to this as well. The "accounting function" that you mention is a matter of the functionality of expenses, of which, abortion sevices most definitely would fall within the parameters of "health services" or "program expenses."
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 08:53 PMAll of this is the chickens coming home to roost in a way that no one has covered. I'm writing about the triumph of symbolism over substance that begain during the Reagan presidentcy. Remember the late 70's? Jimmy Carter was elected president partly because he promised an honest presidentcy post Watergate. He told us that we needed to sacrafice to end our dependancy on middle easten oil. He told us that we needed to challenge our assumptios that a bigger, more gas consuming car was the ultimate status symbol. And he told us that the post WWII assumption that America was going to endlessly enjoy the use of a disproportunate share of the world's resources was coming to an end.
He was an honest president. We voted him out in a landslide.
What did we get in return? A quarter century of lies. Lies that it was possible to spend more money than we took in in taxes. Lies that our education system could be underfunded, remember children can't vote, yet we could somehow remain competitive in cutting edge industries. Lies that we could forget about the plight of the poor without the wolf soon turning his ravionus appitite toward the middle class. In short, all of the lies that flowed so smoothly from Reagan's lips and less smoothly from his successors that have led us to where we are.
Oh, we've given it a good run. For a quarter century, America has lived off the symbols of the past. Yes, the flag still flies, but it is made in China. Yes, our roads are choked full of gas guzzeling SUV's, but most of them have multi year notes bigger than a house payment was just a few years ago. Yes, our ports are still busy, but....
The truth is getting the knock the hell out of America in many ways. It could even be argued that it has already started. Regardless, the belief in American exceptionalism is going to end willingly or unwillingly. If you want a civilization you must pay the taxes to support it. If you wan't a future worth living for, you must make choices about education, protection of the young and infastructure devolopment won't pay dividends for decades, much less in time for the next election.
If America is going to have a future worth living, it is going to have to be willing to elect and re-elect leaders who will tell the truth no matter how unpleasent it may be.
And we all know what happens to the bearer of bad news.
Furthermore, Bagley, since I am thinking about it, let me share with you my own personal experiences with Planned Parenthood. When I was 17, I went there for my first pelvic exam and to obtain birth control. I was not sexually active, but I wanted to be prepared. In my mid-20s, I went to PP for my annual pap test and pelvic exam because I was working in the restaurant business while I attended graduate school, and I did not have health insurance through my employer. I paid for my services at PP. During that time, I developed cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous cells) and went through both a colposcopy and cryotherapy at PP, that I paid for. Thank God for PP, because without their health services which you deride, I would be sterile, if alive, at this time.
Posted by ann at February 26, 2006 09:21 PMMuck sez: Are you planning another election campaign based on hate instead of ideas?
Why would Democrats use a Republican election strategy?
Why not debate some issues, like why there are so many indicted Republicans, why CIA agents have their careers ruined if their husbands tell the truth, why Mr. Bush has to lie so much, and why the administration is selling off our country to Red China and the UAE?
I say we make the entire campaign about governmental corruption and see where it takes us. Surely you don't see rejection of corruption as a campaign based on hate, do you?
Posted by Repack Rider at February 26, 2006 09:44 PMIs this the definition of a "chicken hawk"?
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Let's check facts:
1. How many total hours of combat have the bush camp and the neocons experienced?
2. How many total combat medals did the bush camp and neocons earn?
3. How many deferrments did the bush camp and neocon get?
4. How many ordered drills did the bush camp and neocons fail to attend?
5. How many hours of duty did the bush camp and neocon fail to serve?
Any moron can see there is no dishonesty about appying this term to these cowards.
Posted by smooth at February 26, 2006 11:36 PMLet's put this republican embryo ala Sheivo concearn aside for a moment. How many women, pregnant women, children, and babies have the Neocons murdered because of their misguided adventures?
If each of the 20,000 killed or wounded soldiers, reporters, and contractors have an average extended family and friend base of 100, that means 2 million Americans have been directly negatively affected by this illegal war.
And THEY claim the moral high ground? How do these bastards sleep with that much blood on their hands?
Posted by TIKI AL at February 27, 2006 01:26 AMIn the Republican newspeak "hate speech" is any critism of Republican, regardless of its validity.
Posted by herbal tee at February 27, 2006 07:34 AMHy, my lght jst wnt n; y gys dn't knw th strt mnng f 'chcknhwk?' r, myb y d nd thr's nw grl spn. Th gngstrs dntfy chld mlstrs/pdphl hmsxls wth th cd wrd: chcknhwk. Thy r sxl prdtrs. f rcll, ths trm s nt nw, bt svrl dcds ld; s ld, tht hmsxls wr dntfd s 'dvnt.' Jst s vry hmsxl tdy knws mmdtly pn ncrcrtn. Ds ths trm mk mr sns whn ppld t r DC f fft?
[Editor: ignore=off]scout,
I can see how in the context that you used the phraise "chickenhawk" that it would have that meaning. In fact, it's hard if not impossible to imagine a context in which "chickenhawk" would be a complement.
Posted by herbal tee at February 27, 2006 05:14 PM"ut at least Kristol isn’t the only disaffected GOP cheerleader this morning."
I think you are buying a Can of Hype.
"THERE IS NO MORE IRAQ. THERE WILL BE THREE TERRITORIES." -- Henry Fkr. Kissinger, early 2004, in Saudi Arabia
Kristol is a deep, deep sonofab*tch. He has known, from the start, that civil war was coming--it's the only way to keep 4 huge airbases, which you need WHEN YOU INTEND TO ATTACK IRAN.
He just doesn't care about the genocide implicit to such plans.
He is announcing the plan as if it is the 'found exigency' of a policy that --without grinning-- he sold as a flower-toss.
I think they get muscle relaxant shots to keep from smiling -- they think they are SO cool.
Kristol is guilty of genocide.
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;...
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Their genocidal crime is far from over. They do, still, intend to attack "(Iraq), Syria, Lebalebaon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia" and fKing Kissinger said he wanted to partition Saudi Arabia too.
Kristol is pulling your chain. 'Uh gee, guys, democracy doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's time to try NUKES.'
Posted by at February 27, 2006 11:36 PM