I wonder how "direct talks with Iran" would go?
US: We'd like you to reconsider nukular power.
Iran: No.
US: Please?
Iran: No.
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 10:46 AMHeck, we do know this:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who announced on Tuesday that Iran had produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for power stations, threatened last year to "wipe Israel off the map," provoking international condemnation.
Ah, that's why they needed to go nuclear. I guess it's none of our business then.
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 10:49 AMSo why in hell is it so difficult for any national Democrat to take Bush on over Iran, and use the war drive as the opportunity to remind voters of a similar campaign four years ago?
Because of the constant smears from Republicans that the Democrats are "soft on terrorism." To uneducated voters, this sounds like the Republicans are better at national security, which even in the face of this disaster we call "Operation Iraqi Freedom" the batshit loonies are stil faithful.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 10:51 AMIran has the right under terms of the NPT to enrich uranium for use in civilian nuclear power plants. There has been no credible evidence made public thus far that Iran is doing anything but that. Traces if plutomium found during IAEA inspections have been attributed to the centrifuges being second hand and most likely contaminated by Pakistan's nuclear program.
Why aren't the Democrats pointing out these facts? Like all DC pols, they are under the significant influence of the AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying entities. Not that I blame the lobbyists....our system is set up to breed corruption.
There really is no mystery as to why the United States Middle East policy is decidedly one-sided.
Posted by brisa at April 12, 2006 10:59 AMThey better do something.
When Bush does go in, they're going to say the Dems didn't say anything, so they thought we agreed with their wonderful plan.
NOTE: Letters and phone calls and private meetings with the President are WORTHLESS and should not be relied on by our side to convey the message.
Posted by Zappatero at April 12, 2006 11:05 AMmuckdog,
I'm glad a simpleton such as yourself is not in charge of our foreign policy. (Lord knows Bush is bad enough.)
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 11:13 AMIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who announced on Tuesday that Iran had produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for power stations, threatened last year to "wipe Israel off the map," provoking international condemnation.
And before that ever happened George Bush labelled Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "Axis of Evil" and proceeded to wipe Saddam Hussein of the face of the earth.
Ah, that's why they needed to go nuclear.
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 11:16 AMSteve, your killing me I'm laughing so hard. You are expecting the cowardly dems to do something?
HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HA
Posted by jj at April 12, 2006 11:26 AMSnark, that's been Iran's dialogue so far. Don't you even pay attention to the news?
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 11:28 AMSnark, that's been Iran's dialogue so far. Don't you even pay attention to the news?
Is that your effort to convince me you're not a simpleton?
Posted by at April 12, 2006 11:38 AMI guess Muck and the rest of the Reactionary Right is completely on board with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, not to protect us, but to protect an ally.
Sure sounds to me like a case for the time-honored, time-tested recipe of Mutually Assured Destruction, which protected our European democratic allies from an authoritarian superpower for, oh, only 45 years. And not a pre-emptive strike in sight!
Leave aside the fact that Israel is without question itself a nuclear power, with the most powerful, well trained, effective armed forces on the planet. They are quite capable of carrying out their own doctrine of MAD against the Iranian ayatollahs, thank you very much.
War--the first solution for a crazed militarist power like BushAmerica. And in BushAmerica absolutely anything can be up for debate, including pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, right Muck?
And where are the Dems? Maybe they're doing a focus group. Maybe it's hard for them to switch gears after peddling the same "Iran is an awe-inspiring threat" rhetoric that the Rightists have for more than a decade. If the NSA spying issue is any guide, I think you can be sure they'll keep quiet---wouldn't want to lead on a national security issue.
Posted by euzoius at April 12, 2006 11:40 AMas euzolus pointed out on another thread, when iran had a moderate presidents, all we could say is how powerless he was. now that the pres is a loon, the usual bedwetters wet their usual beds. never mind india broke the NPT, while iran didn't.
hey muck: boo!
Posted by benjoya at April 12, 2006 11:43 AMmuck, honey, you want me to change those sheets for you?
Posted by muck's mom at April 12, 2006 11:44 AMDoes anyone really think Iran is just going to nonchalantly lob a nuke onto the Dome of the Rock?
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 11:50 AMThe Democrats are gutless and inept. In fact, they may be even more gutless and inept than they were four years ago. At least four years ago, Bush was riding high. Now his administration is imploding. Yet the Dems do nothing. Were it not for the fact that currently there is no alternative, the party would deserve to die.
Posted by Phil from New York at April 12, 2006 11:56 AMAgain - Everyone should read Ian Welsh's observations on Iranian foriegn policy.
Principle 1: Iran wants its neighbours to not be a threat. Principle 2: Iran needs a deterrent against the US and other great powers. Principle 3: The Mullahs intend to stay in charge.Really, almost everything else is a corollary of these three rules.
Pop quiz - when and how did the Democratic Party get the label "soft on national defense"?
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 12, 2006 12:03 PMidiosynchronic-
a label by the Repubs for the dems antiwar platform in 1968...and later 1972...
A fair effort, John, but no cigar.
It used to be "Soft on Communism". It's now Soft on Terror or Terrorism, but the overall theme has been, "Soft on National Defense" and has been so successful that it's been expanded to 'soft on crime', 'soft on welfare abuse', ad nauseam.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 12, 2006 12:20 PMIran will not nuke Isreal. Pure garbage.
Posted by Lucky at April 12, 2006 12:23 PMregarding jj's comment; a few weeks ago a LC'er sneered at me because I name called Dems, and accused me of being a troll! The whole PNAC thrust is about occupying Iran, Syria and Venezuela eventually. Reps and Senate Dems are benefiting from the tax cuts Bush is giving them. Let's be thankful for victories against Bush allies in Italy and France. And...praise God for protesting Latinos!! Democracy works!! Still! Well, sort of.
Posted by Mal Feasance at April 12, 2006 12:23 PMI'm not antiwar. War is useful. War can solve problems...namely the elimination of evil and threatening jackals who should have been aborted in the first place. And war can serve as a warning to other bad-intentioned suckasses, unless it reveals your incompetence (see: Iraq), in which case it emboldens them (see: Iran, North Korea). So war ain't necessarily a bad thing, and I'm not antiwar.
I'm anti fucking idiot, though, and you don't nuke a country because its leader is a blustery blowhard.
Its a nonstarter. The burdens outweigh the benefits on such a massive scale that only an individual whit shit for gray matter would seriously entertain such notions.
Posted by God Of War at April 12, 2006 12:33 PMI'm anti fucking idiot,
this qualifies you as an "irrational bush hater"
you don't nuke a country because its leader is a blustery blowhard.
good thing for us.
Posted by benjoya at April 12, 2006 12:40 PMyou don't nuke a country because its leader is a blustery blowhard.
good thing for us.
I swear to God. It's the humor here that keeps me from becoming throughly depressed about another three years of this bullshit.
a toast to that, snark...
Posted by John B. at April 12, 2006 12:48 PMStv, y r gn sng tht r WH cbl, flld wth whrmngrs nd whrs, wll prvl. lthgh th plls ppr t b shwng ngtv rctn t prcvd WH trcts, t s ltgthr sprfcl: th rhd fmnzd vtrs smply dn’t cr. Thy dn’t cr bcs th vry src f Trth, th rlgs nstttn tht ss th Bbl s nsgn, tht nw t-dtd nd crrntly wll-pprd wth drsv dsdn, vn mckngly sng Stnc symbls t hd ts Trth, hs bn systmtclly dsmntld trshd by r crprt nstttns.
Bcs wtht th rl bckbn f Bblcl Trth, tr knwldg tslf s brtlly kckd sd nd rplcd wth vrs flsh mn-md ntns grndd n th fls ‘scntfc’ nthrplgcl trm, ‘rltvty.’ ll ths mns s tht thr s n trth; ls, tht trth s cnsnss f pnn tht lds n nly n drctn: whchvr wy th pltcl wnd s crrntly blwng. Ths s cnfsn, chs, dsrptn, cmplt mckry f nt nly r trdtns f pst mrcn nstttns f tr Chrstnty, pc, nd frdm t ll, bt hs csd s t ccpt th mrdrs tttd f nbrn nfntcd, th mprttn f myrd f pgn rlgns, t ccpt r wmn t b xpltd n th wrk frc, nd t ccpt r wmn t hv thrty vr mn, whch ndcs scl pthy tht mnts t th dvltn nd-pnt wtnssd s th ttl dgnrtn f mnknd.
s r crprt lrds bsly dstry r scl nstttns fr th lst 100 yrs, w rp th whrlwnd f tdy. Crp, w hv nstttnlzd trtr; Lk, w’v nstttnlzd nbrn nfntcd tht ss s kllng r wn chldrn t th rt f 500,000 pr yr; Lstn, w’v cmpltly dstryd r fmly nstttn by pshng r mthrs, sng thr nhrnt vnty s crrt-n--stck, t bndn thr srvvng chldrn (thy’r r nw ‘ccdnts’) t strngrs f ‘chld cr,’ t prs crr cmpltly bsd pn th mtphyscl prst f shs! (s thr sh gd?)
nc r crp lrds ffctvly dstryd r tr Chrstn sprt, wth ts nly src f knwldg, th pwr lts r fr t prs th scl thrds tht nly ld t thr cmplt lvtn t th px f fscst pwr: rlr f th nw wrld rdr, (w ll wrk fr n stpd cmpny; th wrld bcms tht ld cmpny twn f th 19th cntry mrcn Wst. Ths s th whr, Hllry’s, ‘glbl vllg.’)
ftr ll th cnfsn s bld wy, w nt n cmmn tl sd by r crprtn lrds t fcltt thr rsh t grd: th fmnn psych. Stn tld v tht sh wld b lk Gd f sh bt tk bt; r crp lrds tld r wvs tht thy wll b lk mn f thy tk bt f thr Gdlss nt-trth.
sbmt tht th nprcdntd pthy f th Hll ’fft s grndd n th mst cntntd bnch f hstrcl cws vr t gthr tgthr nd cll thmslvs, ‘ldrs.’ Thy r mst crtnly ldrs: thy r ldng vryn t dmsdy. S scrd, thy cn’t vn rn t th bthrm t p wtht n scrt; thy cn’t thnk; nd thy r nly bl t s thr dsgstng mths t xprss thr ht fr thmslvs, ch thr, nd try t fgr t wht rstrnt t vst fr lnch nd wth wh.
Why wld ny f ths cwrds wrry bt mrdrng rnns? Thy r p t thr lbws n nncnt bld lrdy. Thy rtnly spprt mrdrs lws nd njy prsng thr mrdrs mgntns v thr crp md fddr. cld g n fr mny pgs, bt y gt th pnt: vl s s vl ds.
Um, scout, you're wrong. Sooooo wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. There are plenty of us who go through life with a strong moral compass that isn't based on the Bible. I don't break laws, I don't cheat and I don't steal, and my mother worked outside the home, so frankly, shut the fuck up.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 01:01 PMSnark, that's been Iran's dialogue so far. Don't you even pay attention to the news?
Don't you? According to Sy Hersh, the Iranians were not long ago desperately signalling to the Bushies that they'd like to talk. They were not just ignored, but they were insulted.
I believe that is what's known as bugfuck insane. Please can we ban scout now, pretty please???
Posted by iamcoyote at April 12, 2006 01:04 PMScout: you are going straight to the loony bin. You are one fucked-up bastard. Please do us all a favour, and never post on this site again.
Posted by tempus at April 12, 2006 01:11 PMI am generally not in favor of banning, but it scout's case, I would make an exception. That last post is completely offensive and hateful and totally off topic.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 01:16 PMaye...but you know, one should always keep ones enemies in front of them...
Posted by John B. at April 12, 2006 01:16 PMAfter all the confusion is boiled away, we note one common tool used by our corporation lords to facilitate their rush to greed: the feminine psyche. Satan told Eve that she would be like God if she but took a bite; our corp lords told our wives that they will be like men if they took a bite of their Godless anti-truth.
Yeah. Enough of the misogyny already.
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 01:17 PMUm, scout, you're wrong. Sooooo wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. There are plenty of us who go through life with a strong moral compass that isn't based on the Bible. I don't break laws, I don't cheat and I don't steal, and my mother worked outside the home, so frankly, shut the fuck up. Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 01:01 PM
Good shot Ann, but I think we will have to go with a Daisycutter to get rid of this bastard.
Tempus
Posted by tempus at April 12, 2006 01:19 PMI thought I read somewhere in one of the European newspapers this past weekend that to finance the Iran invasion (if it comes to that), an unnamed source said the administration would be tapping into the Social Security fund.
Yet I haven't heard anything on this side of the pond about it yet.
Posted by A Reader at April 12, 2006 02:06 PMBTW, Mal, I remember that incident, and I'm sorry if I didn't speak up, because I knew you weren't a troll. As you can see, we tend to lash out when we're cranky. Forgive our bad day?
Posted by iamcoyote at April 12, 2006 02:10 PMScout, you seem like "just another left coaster" to me. Peas in a pod. But what do you think of the idea that maybe Iran going nuclear and uniting and leading the countries of the middle east?
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 02:11 PMscout, Time to turn the keyboard over to Bill so he can write his retort.
Be gone...Beelzebub breath! (as I push back on scout's forehead with my hand)
Posted by bbtb at April 12, 2006 02:13 PMscout, Just take that response over to muck's site.
Posted by bbtb at April 12, 2006 02:15 PMand muck...fuck you!
Posted by bbtb at April 12, 2006 02:16 PMScout, you seem like "just another left coaster" to me. Peas in a pod.
At least you're consistant muckdog. Absolutely nothing you write here has even a semblance of honest sentiment behind it.
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 02:17 PM
Muckdog: so you think all other 'Left Coaster's' are religious, sexist, moronic lunatics?
Posted by tempus at April 12, 2006 02:20 PMmucky likes being a prick, it makes his mommy happy. Ignore him, he **snicker** takes michele "rabid shi-tzu" malkin seriously.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 12, 2006 02:28 PMMuckdog: so you think all other 'Left Coaster's' are religious, sexist, moronic lunatics?
There's not one shred of doubt about the last one. I come here to see what the "crazy people" are thinking! LOL
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 02:49 PMI come here to see what the "crazy people" are thinking!
Is there a rightwingnut web site that acts as a talking point vending machine, because just about every troll that comes in here says this, and it's a lie. mucky, we all know you hang out here because you hate the company of your own people, and you long to be a part of a cohesive, intelligent, enlightened community. All your life people have picked on you because you're a selfish, semi-literate, money-grubbing nerd with no redeeming qualities. Now that you've made it, you think running around pretending to be an all-knowing "economist" gives you some sort of status, but it hasn't done that, nor has it gained you any friends, but for the doltish minion trolls that show up once in a while to agree with you. You dream of the respect of smart folks, but it will never be realized, so you come here and make stupid little comments that make you feel temporarily superior, and peripherally part of the group you so desperately wish you could join. I pity you, because you'll never be anything more than the sad, money-grubbing little twerp sitting alone on the playground, trying in vain to reach the "kick me" sign one of your classmates taped to your back.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 12, 2006 03:23 PMI come here to see what the "crazy people" are thinking! LOL
That's funny. That's why I read muck's posts.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 03:25 PMMuckdog: so you think all other 'Left Coaster's' are religious, sexist, moronic lunatics?
There's not one shred of doubt about the last one. I come here to see what the "crazy people" are thinking! LOL.
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 02:49 PM
Muckpuppy: why do you keep posting at TLC? Surely you know that nobody here can stand you, and your Money, Money, Money attitude. Fuck off, and keep to your own blog, or some right-wing lunatic blog. You are not welcome here. Does your calculator not understand a negative poll number?
Posted by tempus at April 12, 2006 03:28 PMmuck, Your continual support of bu$h will be your downfall. Your not part of their club, never will be. They will take your money when they are done with the middle class. That is what you should be afraid of.
And you certainly don't belong with people of rational thought.
Poor muck, all alone on the life raft of capitalism.
Thank you. And that's why I don't give a "f" for Dems.
Posted by gg at April 12, 2006 04:29 PMHeh.
This has been a very entertaining thread.
Scout's Thorazine sits in a little sticky pile under his mattress, where he hid it after pretending to swallow, so the need to proselytize here is uncontainable.
Muck was just served with a paternity suit and worries that some littler muckpuppy offspring might get his hands on his portfolio, so he comes to insult us as a distraction.
Meanwhile, cable news, again, repeats the meme that Bu$hCo is a victim to Darth Cheney's war mongering and Rumsfeld's ineptitude - none of anything is Bu$hCo's fault. Then, again repeated, is that GW had to invade Iraq because Clinton didn't or did blah, blah, blah. Also, the immigration fiasco is the Dems fault.
All the while - bickering and distractions aside - we have a completely insane bastard with his finger on the nuke button - and I am not speaking of the Iranian president.
Bizzaroland.
Posted by Anjha at April 12, 2006 04:40 PMStv, mck’s qstn bt rnn nks rmnds m t mntn tht th ntr nk qstn s mstly cvr fr rnn l rsrvs. r prsnt, t rslvs, s t rllbck t pr-1979 wth r ld pppt, th C mplcd ‘Shh,’ nd hs mst btfl wf.
Hwvr, f y d srch n ‘rnn nks,’ y’ll s fw rfrncs tht rn bght fw nk mssls frm th krn. Nw, w knw tht rn dsn’t ppr t lly tslf wth sm’s bys, bt ds spprt Hzbllh nd lls wth Syr.
Nw, lt’s prtnd tht rn ds hv cpl nk mssls, (f rn hs cpl, thn Syr my hv t lst n mr). Thr rcnt hstry shws tht thy r prtndng t nvnt h-tch mssl stff. Wht d y thnk bt thm sddnly, n bt tw mnths, sptng ff tht thy hv md ‘brkthrgh’ cmng p wth cpl f sly vrfbl nk mssls cpbl f httng nythng btwn thm nd Tl vv?
Nw, srl hs hd bnch f nks snc th 60’s. Wld rn b n pstn t rdc srl’s nk-pwr pstrng by skng th N t ntrvn t tk vryn’s nks, nd kckng th S t f rq?
f th bv scnr s vn smwht ccrt, wll, rn cld b th crp bys’ grtst nghtmr. Wht d y thnk?
Money, Money, Money
Cool song!
I'm actually liking one of the Democrat candidates in 2006. Steve Westly for CA Governor.
Arnold hasn't been able to do anything he wanted to do, so what's the point of having him around another 4 years? I liked many of his ideas for change, but they didn't go anywhere so he's running on an empty tank. He can go back and make movies.
I think Westly has a great chance, because he'll appeal to the centrist voter. He's not interested in hiking taxes, so I think he can get some GOP voters to go his way.
I think Angiledes is a non-starter. All he talks about is raising taxes. Sheesh. A vote for Angilides is a vote for Arnold.
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 04:56 PMBy the way, for those of you wanting to invest in Israel, there is an exchange traded fund (ETF) out there with the ticker ISL. It's very thinly traded, though.
It's outperformed the SP500 in the last 1, 2 and 5 year time periods. Link.
Disclosure: I don't own any ISL at this time.
Posted by muckdog at April 12, 2006 05:03 PMWhy Aren't Democrats Challenging Bush on Iran?
That's not too hard to understand. Strong decisions are hard to make for a weak leaders. You really need to ask? It is easier for dems to sit on the sidelines now and bark later.
Um, scout, you're wrong. Sooooo wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. There are plenty of us who go through life with a strong moral compass that isn't based on the Bible. I don't break laws, I don't cheat and I don't steal, and my mother worked outside the home, so frankly, shut the fuck up.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 01:01 PM
Sorry Ann. He is right!
AMEN Snark.
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2006 06:28 PMSorry Ann. He is right!
yeah, he's a rightwing looney freakazoid.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 06:42 PMIt used to be "Soft on Communism". It's now Soft on Terror or Terrorism, but the overall theme has been, "Soft on National Defense" and has been so successful that it's been expanded to 'soft on crime', 'soft on welfare abuse', ad nauseam.
I know y'all have moved on to the dog pile, but I wanna post this in case anyone does wanna know:
The meme that Democrats are soft on National Defense is an outgrowth of the blame levied at the Democratic Party of 1949, which was in complete control of the Executive and Legislative branches when the Mao Zedong's Chinese Commmunists won over the Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists and forces the Nationalists off the mainland to Taiwan. While the US supplied some materials and lot of cash, the government of Kai-shek was largely inept and corrupt. Despite this, political enemies of the Democrats have been using the fall of nationalist China as an albatross ever since.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
The incident would prove to be catastrophic for the administration, because it signaled the end of the Democrats' ability to manage the early Cold War in the eyes of the American public. Within a year of Nationalist China's collapse, Alger Hiss was accused of being a Communist agent and war had broken out between South Korea and North Korea. In 1950 Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy publicly accused the State Department of being riddled with Communists.Posted by idiosynchronic at April 12, 2006 07:00 PM
"I swear to God. It's the humor here that keeps me from becoming throughly depressed about another three years of this bullshit."
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 12:45 PM
Sorry, the AMEN was for this post by Snark.
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2006 08:01 PMI thought it was an AMEN for my collective wit.
Oh well.
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 08:28 PMThese overly sedentary, money obsessed, anal types like Muckdog tend to be "into the rough stuff"; verbal humiliation and the like. I think thats why he comes here, so he dosnt have to pay out to Madame X. The "grovely" screen name fits the m.o too.
Posted by jondee at April 12, 2006 10:33 PMhow to be a democrat and speak out on iran war planning?
-- this will be another national security disaster for the united states.
or
this will be another of george bush's national security disasters - like iraq.
or
--georg bush lied us into one national securtiy disaster and he's trying the same trick again.
and you keep saying it over and over
with some juicy tidbits to illustrate details of incompetent foreign policy thinking.
now that wasn't hard was it?
Posted by orionATL at April 13, 2006 07:21 AM