Bets on the time stamp of the first wingnut to arrive and post a frothing at the mouth comment about this post?

wait a second: this poll says that mcgovern would beat nixon? better make sure all the liberal hawks read that one!

Well, do you think the American people have learned a lesson? Nope.

Here's the kicker. So a Democrat wins the WH. My biggest fear is that there will be another attack while a Democrat sits in the WH, either planned by 'them' or a real attack from terrorists. We better hope to God that doesn't happen. Putting on my tinfoil hat, the players in the GOP controlled Government will still be around, and if you want to blame the Democrats for security failure, plan an attack while a Dem sits in the WH. That would probably assure the GOP control forever. That is why these people need to be brought to trial and imprisoned. Maybe it is better to control all branches of the Government in the next election, and let the GOP have the WH.

Eugene McCarthy is probably looking good to some people also.

Ignore that last statement about McCarthy. Lost my head for a moment.

Sorry, no do-overs. What we lost we lost. Just like the peace between Israel/Lebanon. The big loser? The U.S.S.A. when America, for the first time in 230 years, did not support an ally.

Thanks to you, neo-cons and republi-cons, America is weaker than it has ever been. And you did it single-handedly! And to think, you spout on about WW-III and WW-IV without ever realising it could easily be the world against us. But I think you would like that, what with your myths of self-reliance and going it alone. You know what I mean, you are self-made men after your publicly funded educations, driving to work on a publicly funded road, working at a corporation that gets part of the $1 trillion in corporate welfare. You guys are so much like Natty Bumppo, except you're nothing like him.

W-09 and Supporters. Frog March to the Hague.

A do-over? Is this kickball or what? I actually had to laugh. Do we get a do-over on the upteen pardons Clinton handed out to criminals? Do we get to look back at the handing over to China of our mfg. capabilities by the Dem.'s? A talk about a do-over is fitting for a liberal discussion because it is hypothetical. Just like ideas, future plans, and the positive road laid out by liberals. As usual, the Dem.'s look back at what might have been or could have been. Let's hope they do that in the upcoming elections as it will show AGAIN that they have no plans for the future.

I was going to ask who the whacked out 38 to 40% might be.

Then I saw the comment from USA1, and I realized that the wingers are among us, and just don't give a damn how many have died because of Bush's ineptitude, lies and deceits.

It's still all about Clinton.

Talking about looking back and wondering what might have been! But alas, irony seems lost on USA1.

Aw, isn't that cute? Another graduate of PeeWee Troll Academy. Sigh. At least this one's got the talking points down - a generalized rant about nothing in particular, and the everpresent Clinton-envy. You'd think this kid would be playing outside the last couple weeks of summer vacation, but stoopid never takes a holiday.

americans need to stop flip-flopping thats what democrats do

Well I have to admit I do not think "the do over" does much for me. You know what actually occurred so the other candidate gets the benefit of "what might have happened."

With that said, I must say USA1 seems to be blaming the wrong guy for the China deal. This is coming from a registered Republican (a true moderate) and a guy who never voted for Clinton (in the first election I did not even vote -- I could not vote for Bush 1 since he was wooing the Fundamentalist vote and I had never voted Democrat my whole life). The China deal was pretty much negotiated under Bush 1 and was pushed by the Newt house. Clinton attempting to be a centralist signed the treaty (probably pushed by Rubin to enrich his Wall Street buddies) and it was ratified by a Republican house. Bush the idiot along with the Republican House and Senate have had 6 years to roll it back and not done so. Why, their financial backers on Wall Street as well as the Walton family (one of Bush the Idiots biggest backers) have made a freaking fortune from that treaty.

Even though I did say I was a register Republican, I recognized the problems with Bush the Idiot very quickly. All I got to say is this is not your father's Republican party. It has been taken over by the Neo Cons and true conservatives sit around retching. No true conservative would not have ran up the deficits incurred, invaded Iraq or supported the Lebanese venture.

In case you did not know it, Bush the Idiot has been so bad that no Republican will ever be elected again. Hover 2.

brasta,

That's why the netroots are taking over the party. You do have to stand for something.

The key is to stand for something that will work. The Republican policies clearly haven't.

The other thing we can do is figure out how to rescind the laws and bills that were passed over the last five years. And make sure that the "evildoers" go to Leavenworth.Which is why we will not be allowed a free & honest election. The Repubs will finally understand when they have voted for Dems in record numbers and their votes all evaporate just like ours did.

All I got to say is this is not your father's Republican party. It has been taken over by the Neo Cons and true conservatives sit around retching. No true conservative would not have ran up the deficits incurred, invaded Iraq or supported the Lebanese venture.

In case you did not know it, Bush the Idiot has been so bad that no Republican will ever be elected again. Hover 2.
Posted by Ishmael at August 14, 2006 10:18 AM

*****

Yep. I doubt the GOP will wander in the wilderness forever. If they have any instincts of self-preservation, they'll purge the neotheocon crowd and get back to sanity.

It's real fuckin' hard to believe that Abe and Teddy were Republicans. Man, how things change.

Herbal tee:

Humm I guess that statement was aimed at me.

Personally, I think the Republican Party did stand for things and I will not reiterate what was previously listed.

Now since this seems to be the place for revisionist history lets look at how Newt and his gang took control. First you had the Guns and Butter campaign of Johnson which started the deficit and inflation ball rolling. The deficits were covered up by Johnson by switching over to the Unified Budget which used the Social Security surplus to cover up the large federal deficits being racked up.

Then we move forward to Jim Wright, speaker of the House who resigned in disgrace with his large kick backs from the Savings and Loan business that led to the large Savings and Loan disaster.

Let us not also forget how the Democrats never did have any kind of energy program but just wanted to keep it as cheap as possible so they could stay elected. This led to no alternative sources being developed.

Do you think that the reason the Democrats lost the WH and both Houses just because the Republicans have better PR people. There are a number of reasons including bad policies.

YES! I knew that the bashing would commence. First, we discuss the past so as to hope not to repeat the errors of our judgement and decisions. We don't dwell in it. I hope that at least that is something to be agreed upon.

Are the Dem.'s actually taking steps to actually improve the lives and safety at home or abroad? If we do look back, we can truly say that we are in the position today because of failed policies in the 90's? We talk about the 2-3K that have died over in Iraq as a result of a consensus vote by our elected officials and overwhelming support at home (at the time), both Dem. and Rep. It is heartbreaking but the hope and plan was to not lose 1. Since that hasn't happened, can we have a do-over now that we know that everything isn't always a slam-dunk? As the Dem.'s bailed ship by the boatload, the troops have been over there, supported by the same folks that will always stand behind them, trying to give people just a small taste, day by day, of what we have now: freedom.

For those that value a good debate and actual sharing of ideas and information, alas, I've been let down again.

"americans need to stop flip-flopping thats what democrats do"

Everyone applaud Brasta for stupidity. Hey stupid, "flip-flop" is no longer the correct phase. It's now "cut and run." Geeeze, get your talking points correct idiot. This from the Party of Deceit and Corruption.

Whatsa matter. Clinton get something you couldn't buy on a good day?

YES! I knew that the bashing would commence.

And here's your lollipop, little one. You've passed PeeWee Trolling Academy and Preschool's first post test. What a good little doobee. Naptime!

Do we get a do-over on the upteen pardons Clinton handed out to criminals?

I agree. He should only have been allowed to pardon innocent people.

Ismael,

Let us not also forget how the Democrats never did have any kind of energy program but just wanted to keep it as cheap as possible so they could stay elected. This led to no alternative sources being developed.

That is clearly wrong. Jimmy Carter was a clear leader in energy efficiency and the country was on a strong path to reducing their energy consumption both by conservation and by promoting alternative energy sources. It was Ronny who came into the White House and removed the solar panels that had been installed by Carter. Ever since Reagan, the Republicans have been clear enemies of the environment, what with James Watt (he believed you didn't need to conserve anything because the world was going to end in a couple of decades), Dan Quayle and his council of competitiveness, and the oil cartel that occupies the current administration.

Even real conservatives should be able to figure that out.

Are the Dem.'s actually taking steps to actually improve the lives and safety at home or abroad?

They'd like to but the Republicans seem intent on only allowing really important issues like preventing gays from marrying, stopping people from burning a piece of fabric and reducing the tax burden on people who inherit millions in wealth and property to find there way onto the floor of the House and Senate.

If we do look back, we can truly say that we are in the position today because of failed policies in the 90's?

If that's a question the answer is no. But I'd like a further expansion of your thoughts on how all our problems originated in the 90's.

We talk about the 2-3K that have died over in Iraq as a result of a consensus vote by our elected officials and overwhelming support at home (at the time), both Dem. and Rep. It is heartbreaking but the hope and plan was to not lose 1.

No. No one in Congress voted to commence hostilities with Iraq. George Bush did that. And hoping that you can start a war and not have 1 dead soldier pretty much sums up the neo-cons concept of 'supporting the troops'.

As the Dem.'s bailed ship by the boatload, the troops have been over there, supported by the same folks that will always stand behind them,...

Wingnut philosophy 101. There is no distinction between 'supporting the troops' and agreeing with the mission.

...trying to give people just a small taste, day by day, of what we have now: freedom.

The nation building that George Bush expressed so much fondness for before he got elected. I recall him going on and on about how that's how he would use our military. Oh, but we're not looking back. Are we?

If you take the 8% figure offered and add that to the number of actual Gore and/or Kerry votes in 2000 and 2004 that were switched through manipulation or crookery to Bush... well, that would be quite a bigger number of electoral college votes for the Dem party. Ah, hindsight...(:>

The stunner to me was that McGovern would win in a do-over with Nixon! That puts a bit of a damper on all the wailing about the McGovernization of the Democratic Party, doesn't it?

He'd win in a re-vote, as well he should. He was an authentic war hero with a distinguished public career. Any democrat who decries "McGovernites" reveals themselves to be Republicans at heart.

Big fucking deal.

It is less than meaningless.

The people already did defeat Bush in both fucking elections.

Both were stolen in the light of day and we did nothing. Fucking Nothing.

It is apparent AGAIN that Dem.'s have no real answer for improving the lives and safety of Americans. Blaming the Rep.'s for not allowing them to do something is another excuse. Let's point the finger at someone else for not getting the job done. Would it be fair to show stat.'s on your examples? We'll even use some of the more liberal media sources.

1. The SF Chronicle (extremely biased) newspaper showed that 51% opposed and 39% for gay marriage. 59% said that states should decide. Even the gay and lesbian polls show that a majority of Americans are opposed. Before we get into a human rights debate, I'd say that although I find this to be completely and absolutely wrong, we should allow the people to decide. Dem.'s want to decide first.
2. A CNN poll in June of 2006 showed that 59% of respondents supported an amendment against burning the American flag. Burning a piece of fabric...I must say for someone that holds dear and can probably quote all of the Amendments of the Constitution, it must not be considered just a piece of fabric. Many women and men have given the ultimate sacrifice for what this represents. Do we not hold anything as value?
3. A minimal amount of money each year is given to the government through inheritance taxes. It's much less than 1% or under $6B. Whether it is reduced, increased, or whatever; does it really matter in the scheme of things. If someone was successful, worked hard and then died, should we penalize her or him and the family? The fight is to not penalize people for getting married or dying. A majority of Americans would benefit if the Dem.'s would actually support and push some of these more important tax issues that Rep.'s support also.

Supporting the troops and not agreeing on the mission? Most everyone did at one time...again, when the ship takes on a little water, let's abandon it rather than pull together.

Failed policies in the 90's? We can talk about a myriad of issues from the economy to state's rights to national safety. Since we are consumed daily on safety issues, let's start there. Let's say the opportunity to stop the spread of terrorism that we see and experience everyday could have been severely curtailed with the capture of BinLaden.

It's smoke and mirrors with Dem.'s. No real issues or plans nor the willingness to tackle social problems. If we piss off 1% of the people and help 99%, let's not do it because the 1% may have some voting Dem.'s in there.

Supporting the troops and not agreeing on the mission? Most everyone did at one time...again, when the ship takes on a little water, let's abandon it rather than pull together.

Posted by USA1 at August 14, 2006 11:42 AM

*****

You probably thought the Titanic took on a little water, eh shiteater?

"Do we get a do-over on the upteen pardons Clinton handed out to criminals?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wait until you see the pardons Bush will hand out to his criminal friends. To bad Ken Lay kicked the bucket before getting his pardon.

Ishmael,

Actually I addressed 'brasta' in that post. Nevertheless, I will comment. First, I remember the house post office scandal in 1993-94 and I could see early on that it was going to be a major scandal. It did cost the Dems. their leadership of the house and deservidly so. At that time, I fully expected Clinton to be a one term president. But, after getting off to a goodwill start with the voters, Newt and gang made the mistake of 'shutting down' the government. That gave Clinton the room he needed to play the role of reasonalble restrainer against the radical GOP. He played the role well enough to get re-elected, yet the house GOP backbenchers still had enough personal good will that enough of them were re-elected to keep the house in GOP control.

Actually, a lot of the partisan change over time is generational. The congress elected in 1994 was the first congress that had a boomer majority, including with Newt, boomer leadership. The boomers have always been more Republican than their GI parents who experenced the new deal. A big part of the reason the GOP was able to gain congress in 1994 was the passing of the GI's from leadership. This is also the reason that Bush has come to believe that he could privatize Social Security. As long as the old WWII veterians were the main recipreants of SS checks, proposing anything that didn't clearly help pensioners was political sucide. It may still be for the 60 city Social Security tour last year was the beginning of cracks in the Bush facade.

My point in bringing up generations is to point out that even if the Republican majority somehow survives the apparent tidal wave coming at it this fall, they don't have long left. The huge millinnal generation, the only age group that Kerry was able to carry in 2004, is solidifying into a Democratic generation and are more like their GI grandparents than their boomer parents. Had 911 been handled better, it is possiblethat this trend towards the Democrats could have been reversed. Bad policies do have a long term impact, I can't agree with you more on that point.

"Let's say the opportunity to stop the spread of terrorism that we see and experience everyday could have been severely curtailed with the capture of BinLaden."

Let's say the opportunity to stop 9/11 and save 3,000 lives could have been prevented if Bush had bothered to read "BinLaden Determined to Fly Airplanes into Buildings" and taken it seriously.

The world is falling into fucking chaos and the troll wants to talk about gay marriage, flag burning and Paris Hilton's bank account? Christ on a cracker, here is a perfectly preserved example of Bush's base. Uninformed, obssessed with garbage, and easily led by the nose with symbolic, but ultimately meaningless issues.

Ken Lay doesn't deserve a pardon but you all are probably happy about that now. The reality is Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who fled the country on tax evasion charges and was linked to the Dem. party because of campaign contributions. So the difference is: one is gone and one is "free". Again, another good Dem. policy of rewarding the fat Cats.

So you agree with the Republicans that same sex marriage, flag burning and the repeal of the estate tax are the issues that should top their agenda. I do not. Does that make me un-American?

If someone was successful, worked hard and then died, should we penalize her or him and the family?

Once a person is dead there is nothing the goevernment can do to penalize him or her. The estate tax has nothing to do with the estate owner who has died. It has to do with the person who inherits the estate. You're so entranced by your ditto head talking points that you can't think for yourself. An heir who inherits a multi-million dollar estate and pays the estate tax is no different than a lottery winner who wins millions and pays a windfall tax. It's the same concept. A tax on income.

Supporting the troops and not agreeing on the mission? Most everyone did at one time...again, when the ship takes on a little water, let's abandon it rather than pull together.

I didn't. And neither did most who comment here. And I believe most Dems in Congress supported the sanctioning of the use of force to disarm Iraq should Iraq refuse to disarm peacefully. Last I checked Iraq didn't have any banned weapons. George Bush decided to invade Iraq. Not Congress. Please go find me some quotes of Democrats expressing support for removing UN inspectors in the fall of 2002 and invading Iraq. Again, more of your clouded republican thinking.

Let's say the opportunity to stop the spread of terrorism that we see and experience everyday could have been severely curtailed with the capture of BinLaden.

I seem to remember hearing a lot of Republicans criticizing the president at the time for 'wagging the dog' to take attention off his personal life. Of course you weren't one of those people were you? The republicnas spent 8 years of the Clinton presidency trying to get the duly elected president out of office anyway they could. What were they doing about bin Laden then? What has George Bush done about capturing bin Laden in the past 5 years. Las t I checked he was still issuing commands to his followers and George Bush had no idea where he is inside Pakistan. But Clinton was just supposed to pluck him from his bed while he was sleeping? More irrational Clinton hatred.

No real issues or plans nor the willingness to tackle social problems. If we piss off 1% of the people and help 99%, let's not do it because the 1% may have some voting Dem.'s in there.

You mean like the less than 1% affected by the Estate Tax. You're a putz.

3. A minimal amount of money each year is given to the government through inheritance taxes. It's much less than 1% or under $6B.

WRONG. It will generate about 100 billion dollars a year over the next ten years.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. And as far as supporting the troops without supporting the mission. If the mission is badly planned by incompetent leaders who won't spend the money to provide body armor and other protection, the only way to support the troops is to critize the flaws in leadership. Being a good American does not mean remaining silent while some of our best young people die needlessly.

WTF is wrong with you people? The pukes do not have one single fucking issue. Not a one.

The neo-cons stand for corporations merging interest with government (AKA Fascism).

Every policy that has been implemented in the last 5 years benefits large corporations and the wealthy top 1% of people.

This is what the Dems will do when we regain control of the Congress.

We will immediately increase the minimum wage. The Congress has given themselves over $30,000 in pay increases since the last minimum wage increase. Raising the minimum wage increases opportunities for all people and increases economic growth. It has been proven time and time again that when you increase the income people spend the money which increases small biz growth. Demand creates jobs; people do not.

The Dems will immediately implement (restore) Paygo rules. Want something in the budget - Pay for it. Balanced budgets. What a concept.

This Republican Congress has raised the debt ceiling at least 4 times. $9 Trillion in debt. Tell me troll, how does $9 Trillion in debt make America safe?

The Dems will immediately implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Want to see the roll call votes of all of the times that the pukes have voted down port security?

The Dems will implement Honest and Open Government. Real reform. The puke crooks are not too fucking happy about this.

They will do this on the first day.

After this they will fix the price gouging of the oil companies, implement real energy independence, real education reform, a new direction in Iraq, real oversight of war-profiteering and fraud, and MORE.

Pukes do not have a single issue. It is simple. Dems stand for all people; Pukes for top 1% equity holders.

You are serious?? World in chaos? You need to get your head out from the dark area and go through the trail to see how this originated. Go back to your SpongeBob cartoons.

More conspiracy theories about 9/11. It's absolutely amazing that you still do not want to blame the fascists for actually doing this. Let's blame Americans- the mindset of the Demogogue's of today

An heir who inherits a multi-million dollar estate and pays the estate tax is no different than a lottery winner who wins millions and pays a windfall tax. It's the same concept. A tax on income.

That's a brilliant analogy, snark, thanks. I'll remember to use it the next time someone spouts off on this issue. I keep hearing, "But they're taxing the same money twice!" when in reality, the money isn't taxed, the person who receives the money is taxed. Why is this such a complicated issue? But your lottery analogy is an elegant response.

Oh boy tax evasion! We all know you're a real big fan of people having to pay taxes.

And George H W Bush pardoned all the Iran-Contra prinicpals. All they did was lie to Congress and piss on the Constitution.

"Again, another good Dem. policy of rewarding the fat Cats."

Oh my, oh my, oh my.

Surely this guy is in here for satric amusement and to see how much he can get us all worked up. That comment alone beats the concept of class warfare framing into a bloody mess that's unrecognizable without dental records.

I do blame the facists for the world in chaos, ya dumb shit - The Cheney Facist cabal starring Bush the Dumber. And you, my dear little kid, are their base, because you're stupid, you'll believe everything they say, and you don't care who knows what kind of moron you are. USA, indeed. Thanks for the laugh, though!

Mary:

I concede your point. I look back on the Carter years and think if we had taken the correct turns there we would have been far better off. He was close to the center of the problem with the Malaise speech but either did not quite get there or Americans just were not smart enough to get there. I know I was one of them.

When I say energy, I am talking about putting a Windfall Profits tax on the energy industry. The income from those taxes were just wasted. If they had been used to develop alternative sources of energy that would have been ok. In addition, we should never have allowed oil to take the big drop from $32 a barrel back to $12. We should have done like Europe and kept large taxes on energy to forced conservation. Granted a large part of this happened while Reagan was in office but the Dems had both houses.

Herbal tee

I generally agree with you. The Republicans as we know them are history. As I said earlier I always voted Republican (even though I am very liberal on most social issues) but voted straight Democrat last time. Bad policy decision by both parties for the last 30 to 40 years have resulted in major problems.

With regard to the real problems starting in the 90's, that is somewhat true. For instance when Newt and his gang came into power they rolled back a number of controls on the financial service industry. This allowed the financial service industry to gain a large amount of political power. It was very much in the interest of the financial service industry to open China to them so they sacrificed manufacturing to do so. Clinton went along.

In addition, if you look at the growth of money supply, this really started to grow at a much larger rate in 1995 than historically. Part of this was due to the percent of reserves that banks needed to hold was dropped to zero. The large increase in the money supply as well as the loosing of controls on Wall Street led to the Dotcom bust and the beginning of what is now the Real Estate bubble. It should also be noted that in the middle 90's the joint and several liabilities of the accounting firms was removed by Newt and signed by Clinton which resulted in the accounting firms loosening their risk management controls (the AICPA is in the top 3 or contributors to the GOP). This helped lead to Enron and MCI. By the way, the Telecoms and Silicon Valley were major contributors to the Clintons and Democrats.

On the military front, Clinton just deserted Afghanistan once the Russians pulled out. We are talking about a broken country that was used as our proxy to defeat the soviet union. This allowed the Islamic Fundamentalist to step in and take control. If we had stepped in at that time and spent a few billion to help these people it would have saved us hundreds of billion later on.

In the Middle East once the Soviets fell and stopped supporting the Arab countries we should have moved to more of a neutral position and assisted everyone in the region. We should have stopped giving the Israelis all the toys that they currently have and taken some of the funding that was going to Israel and assisted the Palestinians. Hard core right wingers and neocons would whine, howl and gnash their teeth but that would have set the stage for peace in the Middle East and Israel would have been better off ultimately. When people have no hope, they do not mind dying for a cause. Give them chance to raise their family in peace and a reasonable life and people then do not want to die. Ireland is a good example of that.

Finally, when Russia fell on hard times we should have stepped in and helped the people more. Instead we sent a bunch of Harvard MBA's over who assisted with the raping and pillaging. We should have sent all the food over there that the people needed. We should have moved further from China and more towards Russia. In the Great Game you always want to play the number three power against the number two power. China had been number three and we used them against number two Russia. When Russia fell upon hard times we should have reversed this position.

Well in my mind that is where we failed in the 90's. Instead we over consumed and created an economy so energy dependent it is unsustainable.

No matter what happens, Republican or Democrat in charge, the people of the US are going to experience a lower standard of living. It is just who is going to give us the best plan for a quality of life in the future.

CNN just reported that a man, decribed by his co-workers as a trollishly neurotic individual seemingly obsessed with Staw Wars figurines and George Bush, spontaneously combusted in his cubicle this afternoon. They are reporting that he was pounding furiously on his keyboard and muttering USA#1, USA#1, USA#1 as he crumpled to the ground in a flaming mass. It's a developing story.

Dem.'s stand for all Dem.'s, and only Dem.'s. You want rights, great, but only if you are non-White, fat, a vegetarian, Hindu, immigrant, green, whatever.....you all need a job. Do some work and quit spending your time writing about issues, playing video games and actually get out there and solve them. Your language in your responses is repulsive as well as your personal assaults. It's good to see that it confirms my belief in the true character (or lack of) of the Demagogue. The world is feeling much better after today...thanks! What a great day off to rile up some supposedly info. knowing hypocritical liberals. Happy day to you all in Castro's army!

On the military front, Clinton just deserted Afghanistan once the Russians pulled out.

February 1989 - last Soviet soldiers leave Afghanistan.

April 1992 - Islamic fundimentalists take full control of Afghanistan.

January 1993 - Bill Clinton becomes president of the United States.

I think it was George H W Bush who deserted Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out.

USA1, wake up. It's time for school.

More like USA1 please.

There's nothing like a ranting unhinged rightist lunatic to reassure you that we're doing something right.

I dunno, snark, this freak's putting me to sleep. Same old crap from the uninformed Bush base camp.

ok...one more, can't resist to attack and simple parry with these likes.

anyway, that was a nice one....imagine that, a bunch of Afghan Arabs fighting the Soviets and when the Soviets leave, there will be a Islamic state. WOW...that was pretty quick to come up with that and include the blame of America. Good job...got us there. You know, you never can get one by the Dem.'s.

Hey, there's a tragedy somewhere that's got to be our fault in there. You might actually be able to take someone to court here in America (or maybe the World Court, Hooray!) to pay for stress related damages to the Afghans and possibly the Soviet soldiers who were disgraced....maybe they were made to eat meat or felt ashamed...

You're really not very well educated are you USA1?

The overly patriotic "handle" says it all. Paid intern. Yawn.

another good one...how do you keep up with that quick mind.....wrong as usual from the Dem. side....another simple parry.....

Gee, snark, why would an America-hating, batshit crazy, OBL-loving POS like this troll name itself USA1? Is it opposite day?

Do Over = Mulligan to a repuke troll!

snark, I could have swore that bu$h sr. cut aid to the Afghan rebels, I might be wrong.

SOS, I think this one would like to go back to the Clinton days, but can't say it out loud. That's why they come here, wishing to be a part of the reality based community. But since they were only taught hate and blue dresses, they don't know how to communicate properly.

Luckily, most Americans understand that Republicans don't want peace and prosperity, and will vote against them in November.

Nope, no do over here, just bend over.

Source Wikipedia:

After the overthrow of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords that emerged from the Mujahideen forces that the U.S. had helped to bankroll.

May 25 (1997), Taliban forces, along with those of the mutinous generals, entered the undefended Mazar-i Sharif. That same day, Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, followed by recognition from Saudi Arabia the following day.

Ishmael:

As can be seen above the Soviet backed government did not fall until 1992 approximately at the time that Clinton was assuming the Presidency. The United States could not begin assisting Afghanistan citizens with aid until the soviet backed government fell. Clinton had a couple year window to have brought a more stable government in place.

According to legend per Wikipedia, the Taliban consisting of about 30 people did not appear until late in 1994. Ok, so a group of 30 people was able to ultimately take control of Afghanistan. Just think if Clinton in 1992/3 was able to find a reasonable leader, give them some support and start furnishing aid what would have happened.

Granted, since the presidency was changing at that time it probably took every ones eye off of the ball in some back woods place like Afghanistan. However, getting the Russians out of Afghanistan had been a major strategic objective. Also granted, as usual with our country better plans should be in place once phase one occures and we move to phase 2. Of course that is not say that such plans were not in place and just discarded with the administration transition.

Hey, why do these guys hate Clinton so much. I just don't get it. I have a friend, we don't talk politics, I brought up something and she just went off about how much she hated Clinton. What did he do?

USA:

I notice that you do not think the US has much responsibility for the way Afghanistan went. Hummm, we train and equip the Mujahideen for a number of year and help destroy the country. In addition, we specifically push the Islamic Fundamentalist card to go after those atheist Russians. Then when the Russian government falls. What do we do. Cut and Run (to use a GOP term) leaving our allies to exist is a stack of rubble. That is certainly a way to win friends and influence enemies.

CNN just reported that a man, decribed by his co-workers as a trollishly neurotic individual seemingly obsessed with Staw Wars figurines and George Bush, spontaneously combusted in his cubicle this afternoon. They are reporting that he was pounding furiously on his keyboard and muttering USA#1, USA#1, USA#1 as he crumpled to the ground in a flaming mass. It's a developing story.

Posted by snark at August 14, 2006 12:58 PM

Snark, spit my lunch out with that one.

That's the beauty of the system....you can vote how you want. Do I hear another WOW in the background? Peace and prosperity is by Dem.'s? Tax everyone, make it harder on the middle class and poor....especially tax the folks who make the most. That makes all of us feel better; doesn't solve anything but makes us feel better that we really are helping the "little" man. The reason the poor vote Dem. is that the promises are always made and never followed through. They'd lose their contingency if the Dem.'s actually helped them. I'm also sure there is peace in those households that live week to week and paycheck to paycheck. The Dem.'s wouldn't want it any other way. But it's got to be someone else's fault.

Good points, Ishmael. Clinton made plenty of foreign policy errors, especially with Russia as you detail.

But he certainly didn't blithely ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he was on the verge of a comprehensive missle deal with N Korea that idiot-boy torpedoed in his first month in office.

Compared to the current "president", however, he looks like Metternich.

Compared to the current "president", however, he looks like Metternich.
Posted by euzoius at August 14, 2006 02:00 PM

*****

During the 90's, I thought Clinton was a slightly below average president.

Man oh man what comparison to a follow-up failure can do. Clinton looks like the second coming of George Washington compared to the Idiot Son.

al gore was elected president in 2000..don't ever forget it.

Then when the Russian government falls. What do we do. Cut and Run.

Which, in turn, created Bin Laden and brought him to power.

Clinton looks like the second coming of George Washington compared to the Idiot Son.

And that's why it's frightfully scary that Bill now really fits the nickname Big Dog. In 1999, I would have laughed myself unconscious hearing the Democrats refer to Clinton as the Big Dog. The concept of the Oral-In-Chief as a giant statesman would have been ridiculous.

The reason the poor vote Dem. is that the promises are always made and never followed through.

Are you kidding? The Republicans have been promising to overturn Roe v. Wade, privatize Social Security, ban gay marriage and numerous other treats for the fundies and guess what? None of it has ever happened - even with the Republicans controlling all branches of government. But they have managed to give some great tax breaks to the top 1% on the back of the middle class.

It's funny about this new troll, he points his finger at the Dems on every issue that the Repubs are actually responsible for. It's almost like a parody.

USA1 is exactly like all the other trolls. Same cookie cutter mentality. It never changes.

see yall all at the next lillith fair

What you wrote was that Clinton abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left. That is impossible. Clinton was not in power when the Soviets left.

As can be seen above the Soviet backed government did not fall until 1992 approximately at the time that Clinton was assuming the Presidency.

April 1992. Clinton inaugurated in January 1993. Nine months.

The United States could not begin assisting Afghanistan citizens with aid until the soviet backed government fell.

Why not? Why did we not continue to help the non-islamists fighting the Russian backed government?

USA1 is exactly like all the other trolls. Same cookie cutter mentality. It never changes.

Judith, I do wonder what their paid?

Re: Russians in Afghanistan.

Actually, the main thing Russia got out of its Afghan adventure was a herion epidemic.

Euzoius, God Of War, idiosynchronic:

Generally I am in agreement with your comments. I was kind of neutral on Clinton during most of his tenure. I really got tired of the GOP harrassing him and the whole investigation.

Personally, I could not give a rats ass if he is off getting a BJ on the other hand it seemed pretty bad judgement. Here is a guy that's every movement is being watched by the GOP and he can't keep it in his pants. In retrospect Monica could have been a plant by the Neo Cons. Then the whole "is is" thing was a turnoff.

On the other hand the almost coming to agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians was a big deal and compared to this bunch of losers we currently have Clinton was a God.

Snark:

Afghanistan is an islamic country. Generally, I do not know who would have been fighting Russia unless it was islamic people. I am sure we were in Afghanistan after the Russian backed government fell. My point is that the Taliban consisted of 30 people a year after Clinton came to office and these are the people who ended up running the place. If he had done anything during the next year or two period surely this effort would have been more than what 30 people accomplished.

Does any one ever remember any kind of foreign aid going to Afghanistan during this period. Did we put anything in place to rebuild schools and government buildings. Did we help feed the people or offer medical care. What about assisting in clearing land mines or even making sure that they got clean water. This was a place where we fought a proxy war and left the country devastated. If any of this was done during the first couple of years that Clinton was in office then the Taliban would never have happened. Surely it was not off of the radar screen. Carter did not go to the Russian Olympics over Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Clinton came to office on the domestic economy issue. So that is where his focus was. Also the GOP was very parisan and the fight had started which kept him from probably focusing more on doing his job.

Ishmahel,

Good analysis on the 1990's. It is clear to me that much of the answer to a better future lies in electricity. Not only can the internet substitute for gasolene powered travel in many cases, but electricity, especially from relativly clean scorces will be needed by science. IMHO, a lot of the key to getting America out of the hole it is in will involve science. As late as 2000, I worked for McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary-I was a registered independant at the time-part of the reason why I eventually became a Democrat was because of the anti-science attitude I saw in too many influential Republicans. In being breif, I'm somewhat oversimplifing a long thought process but I guess my main point is that I an somewhat optimistic for I believe that America can get out of the hole if we realize that the future belongs to the nations that embrace science. More than anything else, I want America to stay on the cutting edge that we're in danger of losing.

Herbal tee:

I hate to be such an agreeing sort of guy but I agree on this also. Even though I was a registered Republican I really saw myself as more of an independent.

My turn off on the Republicans besides the Neo Cons are the Christian Fundamentalist. I almost break out in a laugh when ever they open their mouth. We are becoming a nation of Luddites.

The only way to get out of the hole we are in is technology.

On the electrical front interesting I was in a sushi bar in San Jose. Got to talking to a Korean guy there. Turns out he has a Phd in Nuclear Engineering. He told me has was brought over by the government to start developing a standard nuclear reactor like they are using in Korea. Maybe we are moving forward on the electricity issue.

Afghanistan is an islamic country. Generally, I do not know who would have been fighting Russia unless it was islamic people.

It's a muslim country. All the groups battling for power in post-Soviet Afghanistan may have been muslim but they were not all Islamists.

My point is that the Taliban consisted of 30 people a year after Clinton came to office and these are the people who ended up running the place.

The Taliban yes. But had GHW Bush taken to opportunity to exploit the situation for the 3 years after the Soviets left to support non-Islamist groups perhaps the Taliban would not have found such a convenient vacuum to exploit.

It was just the implication of your comment that Clinton dropped the ball as soon as the Soviets withdrew. Clinton was not in office when that happened. Bush was. Clinton inherited a policy. Could he have been more proactive in changing it. Perhaps. But to say that Clinton abandoned Afghanistan when the Soviets fled is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

Wikipedia:

A Muslim (Arabic: مسلم, Turkish: Müslüman, Persian and Urdu: مسلمان) is an adherent of Islam. The feminine form of Muslim is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". There are approximately 1.31 billion Muslims worldwide.

Ishmael:

Muslim and Islamic are one and the same.

Please do not interpret when I say Islamic to mean Islamic Fundamentalist. Most Islamic/Muslims people are not fundamentalist.

Basically, the CIA pushed the Fundamentalistic nature of Islam to fight the atheist Soviets. It is my understanding that really Fundamentalist did not exist but really was a creation of the CIA in Afghanistan. I could be wrong here.

Tax everyone, make it harder on the middle class and poor

You really aren't paying attention to what's happening in Merca. Still on your parents dime? Don't tell me...College Republi-con? Yes indeed! I know many. Daft as sorority bulemics and you blow just as many frat boys when you get drunk.

Basically, the CIA pushed the Fundamentalistic nature of Islam to fight the atheist Soviets.

Yep. We supplied the textbooks that told the kids in schools to make Jihad on the godless foreign infidels. That may have backfired a bit. But Ray-guns administration wasn't big on assessing unintended consequences either.