Stv, hv y cm crss fgrs shwng rq l xprts? Tht s th crprt msrmnt f sccss, rght? 'll bt thy'v mplcd rmy rglrs bckng p Krd mlts lng vry strtch f ppln p t th Glf. Wth ch dy f 'fld' Vchy rq, thy'v bn xcdng prft xpcttns. Ths gys r gd. f crs, rq l xprts r clssfd nf., prbbly. Y knw, th dmn blgs, nd ll. nd, n l fr th cts, y knw, 'nsrgnts.'
[Editor: ignore=off]Thanks for the NYT link. I'll give it to my fellow student who was talking about joining the military to be an officer and get grad school paid for. I doubt she'll want to be in for "more like 12 years" just to save some dough.
Posted by Sharon at April 10, 2006 10:50 AMNo one knows what Iraq is pumping. The flow is un-metered which probably means millions and millions of barrels are being stolen.
Posted by JWP at April 10, 2006 10:52 AMAt this hindsight point, why don't 100% think the war wasn't worth fighting? I guess when the skin is worn off your knuckles, it's hard to think straight.
If Bush fired Rumfuk now, it would look like he made a mistake on the invasion, so he can't do it. Besides, who would want that job now? They can't even fill the FEMA position.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 10, 2006 10:52 AMHyperlink correction for un-metered Iraqi oil.
Iran + Iraq = IraNq.
A lovely Frankenstein creation courtesy of BushCorp.
Stv, f y hvn't lrdy, pk t JWP's lnk (thnks mch) nd y'll hv yr rsn why w dn't hv 300,000 rglrs n rq. t's, f crs, th mny. Th src f sch plcy cn nly b th Wht Hs, s thy d th mpssbl: sck th trsry, mk strnmcl prfts n 100% l thft, nd, dn't frgt th Fd Rsrv nd Wrld Bnk bl t prdc prft n l ppr crdt ln. Mnwhl, r wn chldrn r xpltd fr whtvr hmnty tht stll xsts, nd, th rqs gt thr btts kckd by ch thr, dstrctd frm th rl cs: th gds f crpvll. Crprt bsnss s sl.
[Editor: ignore=off]The ultimate irony in all of this is that by calling the alarm on the possibility of the US using tactical nuclear weapons, Seymour Hersh might have actually helped the administration in advancing some of its public relations goals: reinforce the expectation that military action is inevitable, and make that action appear measured and responsible if it only involves conventional weapons.
Meantime, while focusing attention on the question of whether or not this administration is reckless enough to use nuclear weapons, Hersh's article raises another issue that -- at least to my mind -- is in the immediate term more critical: the fact that the White House views (or at least claims that it views) Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Hitler.
This is a wild claim -- though of course we're now used to the administration seeing new Hitlers on the rise wherever it looks. Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- each, according to Bush, Rumsfeld and co., has the potential or aspiration to become the new global tyrant.
To assess whether the Ahmadinejad-potential-Hitler claim has any merit, it's worth looking back at Germany, 1933, during Hitler's first year as Reich Chancellor. Within two months of being sworn in, Hitler had opened Dachau concentration camp to house mostly communist political prisoners who were soon being tortured and murdered. By the summer of 1933, 2 million brownshirts (stormtroopers) were terrorizing Germany and effectively shut down all political opposition. Within a year, through a national campaign of violence and intimidation, the Nazis had won the overwhelming support of the German people.
Three quarters of the way through his first year in office, does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran in 2006, look anything like Germany in 1933? (more...)
So now newly elected Iranian president Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.
I guess we're to ignore the fact that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamani actually runs the show in Iran. Obviously, he'a a Hitler, too. Wait, maybe it's an entire country of Hitlers! Wait for the talking points from bagley.
When the moderate Rafsajani was prez, the presidency was dismissed as feckless and powerless. Now that the Iranians elected a more "conservative" rhetorical bombthrower (after WE re-elected our "conservative" bellicose Clown-in-Chief, btw), suddenly the weak Iranian president is an all powerful "Hitler" figure.
What was that thing about "groupthink"? Do you think literally anyone gives opposing viewpoints to Nero about anything?
Posted by euzoius at April 10, 2006 02:12 PM
Owwer Leedur, $nearo the Hear-no, needs no one to give him opposing views as he only listens to his Heavin'-lie Father. Any other viewpoints could - by definition - only come from [cue the Church Lady] .... $ATAN????
Posted by pessimist at April 10, 2006 05:31 PMWhen the moderate Rafsajani was prez, the presidency was dismissed as feckless and powerless. Now that the Iranians elected a more "conservative" rhetorical bombthrower (after WE re-elected our "conservative" bellicose Clown-in-Chief, btw), suddenly the weak Iranian president is an all powerful "Hitler" figure.
euzolus, that's a great point, but i think you're referring to president khatami. rafsanjani was before him, IIRC, and ran against ahmadinejad this time, defeated for his notorious corruption. but i digress.
Posted by benjoya at April 11, 2006 09:23 AMbenjoya, you are quite correct.
Thanks for trying to rehabilitate my post after my error!
Posted by euzoius at April 11, 2006 01:19 PM