The Rip Van New York Times Wakes Up
Brilliant editorial by the Times that states what the 62% in this country are thinking.
"After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long. "More. Link
posted by Phil at 8:20 PM
28 Comments:
My favorite line comes from, of all places, Bob Novak, who wrote in his column: "The crowning indignity for Bush was the Friday night state dinner starting at 10 p.m., an hour when the president normally is in bed. He left the dinner early, but it was midnight by then."
No wonder he was so cranky. It was past beddybyes before he got his din-din.
Yeharr
they never expected him to really run the big show, they just new he could sell it, and Rove could manage it, and Cheney would supply the wisdom. That was always the plan. But after the campaigning won the white house, the campaigning never stopped and the governing never started. They're still in photo-op land while disaster break cities, the war breaks the treasury, the budget breaks the bank, the states run out of federal support...
I'm so glad he ain't my leader.
The sidebar has too much stuff. The "Cost of the War in Iraq" javascript makes the Google ad blink every second in Mozilla. When I view this page in IE, the whole sidebar goes underneath the content of the page. That may have something to do with my resolution, but I use 1024 768 which is not uncommon. Just letting you know. I would post this on the tagboard, but it is not loading right now. I have used Chatterbox before and I think it is the best. This blog would be a nigthmare to load with dial-up.
This is a picture of this blog in IE. Where's the sidebar? Why do I care? Just because I am a web programmer so I point it out when websites don't appear right in both major browser bases.
Shawn: thanks, I appreciate that, I'll see what I can do.
first off, daniel: your leader is our leader's pet poodle- or so some media outlets will have us believe...
second, boni: checks and balances. I like that, especially if the following were to actually lead your party:
—"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
—"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." — Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
—"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
that last quote brings to mind an important point in all this whole Bush LIED debate: our President gave the Butcher of Baghdad one more chance: let the weapons inspectors have all access or you will be attacked. He gave the Butcher 24 hours to comply. The Butcher raised a finger in the air, the war happened.
but you Libs like to believe that Bush LIED, that Bush had planned for the attack since day one.
You re-write history to benefit your arguments.
But Bush went on TV and made his final declaration: you have 24 hours to let weapons inspectors in... or else...
An awfully big gamble from a guy who was going to attack no matter what.
And what if the Butcher let the inspectors in? In your dilluded minds, do you think Bush would have still attacked?
Oh, well, whatever makes you sleep at night.
You know that game you play with Chinese fortune cookies when you add "in bed" after the fortune? Well let's play it this way. To each of the quotes that the rethugs are throwing around lately like Peter's above add "based on the intel from the President."
Speaking of "dilluded minds", Peter you have the story very wrong. Shrubco went on TV and demanded that Saddam leave Iraq in 48 hours or else. It was Tuesday March 18th 2003 at 8pm eastern/4 am Baghdad. Later that day 200 UN staff including the 60 Weapons inspectors left. The inspectors were already back in Iraq and working when the ultimatum was made. Source
Shrubco knew Saddam would never give in. That's what makes his whole facade of force as a last resort more ridiculous.
Hmmmm...if the Butcher let the inspectors in? In my dilluded mind, do I think Bush would have still attacked?
Let's see, The butcher did let the inspectors in and bush did attack.
Now Peter, what was your point? You wouldn't be trying rewrite history would you? Because you rethugs keep saying people who do that are irresponsible. You wouldn't want to be irresponsible now would you?
Maybe you were just mistaken and don't know much about the subject. Maybe you got that incorrect information from someone who claims to know the subject well and makes great claims to his accuracy, integrity and his purpose occupies the highest possible moral grounds.
Now that you know that you were fed incorrect information, possible manipulated and mislead, you might be man enough to admit you were wrong. You might display some righteous indignation that you took this erroneous information and made retrospectively embarressing statements. You might regret some decisions you made based on that information. You might ask even ask your source to explain himself.
Nah, that's pre-911 thinking.
While I'm on a roll...
Someone here was talk pointing about parties and ideas.
Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the Democratic Party. They need to stop acting like gop light and start acting like the liberals they claim to be.
Anyway, something about microwaves and fresh ideas came to mind recently reading another blog, Nitpicker
Apparently while the rethugs have been yapping about the Dems being "bereft of ideas" the Dems were putting some ideas concerning the quagmire in Iraq to pen.
Well, that's all fine and good, but what makes it deliciously ironic is that the "party of ideas" proposed a plan for Iraq that, "...is built upon the Democratic approach..."
That's right folks, the grand visionaries of the party of ideas opened up the Democrat's microwave oven of ideas. The gop plan softened some of the timetables but is nothing more than a cut and paste job rip-off of the Democrats.
The GOP Explains:
Mr. Warner said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue.<
Beautiful...
Peter: Bush would not have been able to attack Iraq without Blair. Which makes me as sick as it does sad. We are now tainted by association with an asshat.
cranky
you seem like a guy that shouts down what other people are saying with minute details.
but that doesn't change the fact that bush went before the world, gave an ultimatuum of -sorry- 48 hours. the butcher failed to respond.
but in all your omnipotence, you KNEW that bush, who also must have the same omnipotence as you, KNEW that the butcher wasn't going to respond therefore triggering a war.
Wow! War 101! that simple...!Okay... cool...
It wasn't only the minutia with which I shot you down. Yes, you were wrong about the deadline in the ultimatum, but that is relatively minute compared to everything else got wrong.
Are you just dense or did you stop at the first point of refutation? The timeline, while wrong, was not your major inaccuracy. Your major oversight is the claim that Hussein did not allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq when in fact he did. Bush's ultimatum had nothing to do with weapons inspectors. In fact those same inspectors were in Baghdad when he made his famous ultimatum and had to rush out of the country. It was shrubby who threw the inspectors out of Iraq this time. Bush's ultimatum was an order to abdicate his rule and leave his country. Do you see how big the difference is between the true facts and that what you said?
Do you see how that mistake renders your argument and everything else you say dismissible or at a minimum questionable? This lack of a basic understanding of the timeline of events leading up to the war exposes your own ignorance and speaks to your level of credibility. If this specious argument isn't founded on ignorance than it is willfully manufacturing support for the unsupportable, lying or just plain making shit up in the hopes that no one will catch it and call you on it. Consider yourself called.
With strong opinions like yours it would logically follow that you had accurate facts to back them up. Maybe you really are just parroting talking points from someone like Sean Hannity. It sure sounds like it, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I guess I may have been mistaken. I'm sorry. You probably consider logic...kooky talk or maybe French. So let's put it this way, don't show up to a gun fight armed with a knife.
My omnipotence has always been one of my strong points, only exceeded by my good looks. But, alas, I'm not using it in this case. No one expected saddam to accept shrubco's ultimatum. Where were you in 2003? Do you own a TV, read a newspaper or have internet access? It was a universal given that Saddam wasn't going anywhere and that we would invade once the threat was made. Even Fox News was saying so. I'm sure you have heard of Fox News.
Pwn3d!
no, in 2003, i was in the mountains of afghanistan hunting usama...
and yes, cranky, i'm as dense as they come... so dense, i have trouble deciphering a lot of what you said in your comment... but don't worry crankster, i'll read it and re-read it, so help me God!
i don't watch the seanster, by the by, but i do watch movies... be more original with your tuff guy grandstanding, sean connery says that line with more relalism than you can write it...
"Your major oversight is the claim that Hussein did not allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq when in fact he did."
really? He let them back in? To Iraq? Yes. But did Saddam stone-wall them on areas of interest? yes he did, thereby raising the levels of suspicion.
Peter, Thanks for serving in Afghanistan. Some of my old comrades had him in arms reach back in 2002 at Tora Bora.
Anyway, back to business. You made a declarative statement based on bullshit. You got called on it and now you are trying to weasle your way around it. Shrubco did not tell saddam he had 48 hours to let the UN inspector back into Iraq or, to your assertion, into any sites. He gave him 48 hours to get out of Iraq. Go back and reread what you originally wrote and with your new found knowledge see if it makes any sense.
But most importantly, be a man. have the balls to admit you were wrong. Man, you people are all alike.
Do you see any parallel between this discussion and then ongoing discussion over the pre-war intelligence? Sorry, that might be a bit abstract.
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991...
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again - because we are not dealing with peaceful men...
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq...
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed...
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully..."
So, Cranky, thus far into the president's speech he's clear that up until that date, inspectors had been threatened, etc. That Saddam had chances to disarm, or prove that he had done so. He stonewalled against Resolutions 678 and 687...
But Cranky, I was wrong in saying that the prez specifically said 48 hours to let our inspectors in. My bad. My alcoholic-stifled memory had taken a very clear theme and message in the president's speech and tacked it on to:
"Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals - including journalists and inspectors - should leave Iraq immediately.
So, I admit my error, an error where I combined the importance of the stonewalling (which, as soon as Resolution 1441 passed in the September prior, Saddam and his men stonewalled, delayed, wasted time, didn't allow sites to be chartered, elevated suspicions and even went so far as to say inspectors were spying for Israel and the U.S.) and made a real boo-boo... one of the few in my life and i will lash myself a thousand times over for commiting such a sin of semantics!
Can you ever forgive me Crankster? Can ya?
ANd while we're on this topic of pre-war intel and so on, some more choice quotes for you and the left to digest:
Democrat Mark Warner:
"The Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war (Peter adds: their own revisionist history, wouldn't ya say? No, we didn't vote, I mean we did vote for war, but, the things is here, Cranky Yankee said we wanted to buy votes, and that's exactly what we did... wait, did I just say that out loud???) and, again continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job."
Holy smokes! A dem with some common sense! I crapped my diapers! I truly did!
Former Chairman of the S.C. Democratic Party, Dick Harpootlian says:
"If Democrats around the country don't wake up and take notice, we're going to go down the same road we went down in '04."
Okay, now i just did a number one AND two in my diapies!
I mean, from all the whining i hear from you guys you're stuck in yesteryear. You probably still cryin' over Al "I created the internet" Gore's loss in 2000!
Nice job. It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. Very unrepublican of you.
See, you could have expressed your opinion and had your facts somewhat lined up behind them. That way you would have been only half wrong. But that of course is subjective.
I love the debate. Thanks for forcing us to examine our positions. I only wish the right wing blogs were so open to critical thought. I can't tell you how many wingnut blogs I am currently banned from. I usually get banned after the second or third post.
Oh...and btw, the whole world is still crying over Gore's loss in 2000.
yawn.
Philip, what's so boring? two guys, sluggin' it out? One having to buckle... but just a little... I mean, c'mon, man, doesn't it turn you on? Just a little?
listen cranky, gotta tell you, i don't think w is the second coming or anything. but, i can't vote for the alternative. and there's plenty of us white, male, homophobes, sexist, misogynists, anti-semetic, anti-muslim, anti-life, anti-god, anti-devil, anti-freedom and all the other sterotypes we've been tagged with, republicans who feel the same...
has ol' w made some shit ass mistakes? of course! so did regan (which, to me, is the closest to blasphme i can get)! but, i can only imagine armageddon under gore and i-don't-know-what under kerry...
but i agree with you, i enjoy the free flowing ideas that can be batted back and forth. But, uh, i guess his holiness mr morton disagrees. i guess mr morton aka god, would rather see bloodshed spew when a battle has ceased. when a certain peace has been established on a topic. i guess he needs all that pent up frustration to write the next stevan segal movie, or something...
but don't you worry mr morton aka god, i'm sure cranky and i will find something more to disagree on down the road. don't you worry...
Peter: Yes, I do hope you disagree soon,
so, what you're saying is that it does turn you on?
Sorry I let you guys down.
I suppose it would have been better if I had gone classic Cranky with belittling insults, sarcasm, anger, threats, all that good stuff, right? I'm sure that would have gotten better results than what I got using message discipline, facts and logic, sprinkled with sarcasm and a few light jabs.
I guess I was a litle too subtle for my own good. Did the structure of my argument sound familiar to anybody?
Peter,
How do you decide which details are minute and which are not? The truth is in the details. What is said is important, though minor compared to what is done.
polanco... this debate is over... i admitted my lack of details... crankster set me straight... deep down, that guy's the shit! (for all you unhip dems, i mean, he's cool, or using a swinging clinton term, jazzy!)
So you are above doing your own research? Find the details to support your position if you're so sure you're right.
yes polanco, you got me, i am above doing my own research. i suck.
jeez! do ya gotta kick a stupid republican when he's down? this is beginning to really hurt! there's a little frost building up around my eye... i may just squirt out a little ice... for you humans out there, that means we republicans are as cold as ice, so on the very, very, very rare occasion that we cry, ice forms, not tears. just to, you know, clarify that point in case you thought i was somehow being racist. or sexist. or... whatever...
yes... sustained ignorance... you got me...
i can't believe, from everything you have said, that you are a republican.
but back to my fave subject: me. i am a goof, an idiot... jeez! how long are we gonna play this game?
you say i fail to learn more after an ass kicking. okay, let's dissect this:
polanco, i based one argument, like a dumb ass, on memory. cranky yanky corrected me (passionately i might add, something it seems your comments lack, sadly). he got me thinking (i know, it hurt me to). so, i stopped, thought holy moly, maybe i should just go back to the original source of my argument: the president's own words.
and, since you have failed to read the post correctly, or you just fail to ignore my sainly honesty, there are reasons i took the position i did. it's all there. now go back and read it properly this time.
"going back to the source". jeez polanco, that kinda refutes your arrogant assumptions about me. that if you actually had read my response to cranky you would have seen i went and researched the president's words, found i was guilty, admitted it and we moved on.
something you fail to do...
as an afterthought: if you continue stalking me polanco, i'm gonna start thinking there's something between us...
Post a Comment
<< Home