You know, I'm just an average guy, freezing my balls off in a Buffalo winter, worrying about the future, trying to make a living, trying to provide for the selfish ingrates that constitutes as my family, reading the news, watching the telly, fretting over the course this country has taken over the last seven years and hoping for a better day.
I'm concerned about FISA, I worry about Gauntanamo, I closely watch the economy, I criticize the wrecking crew in charge of our foreign policy, I scrutinize the election race on both sides, I insult republicans because they are knuckle dragging neanderthals intent on dragging not only this country, but the world, back to some dark age where their collective memories and deepest heresies reside. They are to the modern world what shit is to a shoe, something to be scraped off.
I saw LameDuck-BubbleBoy on the telly telling all us smart people what he knew about Obama and as usual he framed the debate in his own petulant, arrogant and ill-informed brain and concluded that Obama would invade Pakistan and negotiate with Iran. Demonstrably false of course but the geniuses on the telly were telling me that this was a piece of vintage LameDuck-BubbleBoy campaign speechifying that no one could stand up against because of its sheer audacity and genius geniusness.
The fact that 24% LameDuck-BubbleBoy is about as politically fetching right now as cold baby sick on the shoulder of an Armani suit is lost on the punditocracy who continue to treat 24%LD-BB with all the affection and respect he has never deserved. He has never been right about anything and all the information he receives in his Oval Office bubble has been sanitized, pasturized and edited for his listening pleasure, its purpose being not to upset his devine right to unfettered self confidence. It is machismo gone mad, a grand idiocy that thrives on its own incompetence, feasts on paranoid delicacies and shits out policy based on nothing but greed and fear. The fact that I knew in 2002 that Iraq probably did not have WMD, had no ties to Al Qaeda and had no Nuclear weapons program is testament to the crap going into that place and in turn being regurgitated to a MSM so wanting to kick someones ass, anyones ass - the Taliban having succumbed too easily to get our full revenge blue railer on - that they would willingly believe just about anything as long as it had the imprimature and 'blessing' of the 'Crusader' president LameDuck-BubbleBoy.
He really has taken this country as far down as it can go, we are now down to the lowest common denominator when it comes to political discourse. He comes down from his ivory tower, uninformed, whitless and without his puppetmaster Rove and makes a preposterously false claim and Candy Crowley and the others on the 'best political team on TV' stares at its collective navel and calls it genius. My stars! I get more gravitas watching Everyone Loves Raymond reruns.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(134)
-
▼
February
(27)
- Fabulous Funky Friday
- McPain
- Of Course...
- Rats... And The Smelling Of
- Benched
- McCain
- Huckleberry
- Evolution
- Fabulous Foursome Friday
- Ho Hum
- Of Course...
- It's Been A Bad Day
- Da Fed
- Decanonization
- Crikey!!
- Invading Pakistan!
- Holiday From History
- Creep
- PAA Petulance
- Game On
- Ambivalence
- Bubbles
- Fabulous Friday
- MSM Meme
- Fabulous Freaky Friday
- Compassionate Conservatism
- Exxon
-
▼
February
(27)
Links
About Me
- righterscramp
- In my mid forties, two kids, nuff said.
7 comments:
Whew! Good One!
I'll gloss over the whole knuckle-dragging thing. My fondest wish is that someday you may reach a stage of enlightenment from which you can comprehend the higher path.
LameDuck-Bubbleboy is the President of the United States. He beat the best your lame-ass party could throw at him twice--and spare me the whole Florida/Ohio bullshit. He won.
That gives him gravitas.
Of course, the reason the President said that Obama would invade Pakistan and negotiate with Iran is that that's what Obama himself said. On one of those rare occasions when he's said anything besides "hope" or "change".
When you say you "knew" all about Iraq in 2002, it makes me yhink that you don't know what "knew" means. You didn't know. You guessed. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) you had no first hand knowledge. You simply chose to believe something, contrary to all the available evidence at the time, because that was your political predisposition.
A President has to make decisions based on the intelligence he's given. Intelligence, by the way, that's formed over years. The Bush administration did not create the notion that Saddam had WMD, or that he had ties to Al Qaeda. The Clinton administration bombed the hell out of Iraq in 1998 because Saddam threw out the UN inspectors. The Clinton administration bombed a chemical plant in Shifra because it believed that the plant was a chemical weapons plant that was a joint venture between bin Laden and Iraq.
In 2000, it was a given that Saddam had WMD and had ties to bin Laden. Nobody "knew" otherwise until after we invaded. Even now, I think it's safe to say there is much more that we don't know about those topics than we know.
It's easy to second-guess while freezing one's nuts off. Hindsight is 20/20. The particular human being who is the object of your hate had to make immensely weighty decisions whose consequences would be felt by the whole world.
He made the right calls.
Hans Blix reporting to the UN in February of 2002.
www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf
It's a pdf... guess your boy and his posse were getting a little trigger happy by this time and had no choice but to ignore the report on the grounds that it contained too much progress toward Iraqi compliance with UN res. 1441 and eventual Iraqi disarmament.
I know, I know... the truth hurts!
Obama, by the way said nothing of the sort... it's complete propaganda.
You really should stop getting all your disinformation from Faux News and the WSJ opinion page, it's getting embarrassing.
Hans Blix reporting to the UN in February of 2003.
www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf
It's a pdf... guess your boy and his posse were getting a little trigger happy by this time and had no choice but to ignore the report on the grounds that it contained too much progress toward Iraqi compliance with UN res. 1441 and eventual Iraqi disarmament.
I know, I know... the truth hurts!
Obama, by the way said nothing of the sort... it's complete propaganda.
You really should stop getting all your disinformation from Faux News and the WSJ opinion page, it's getting embarrassing.
I can't believe I read the whole thing. I suggest you do the same, as it seems to support my side of the argument far more than yours. They report finding and destroying proscribed weapons, and state that Iraq really did not cooperate on substance.
In fact, this report proves the exact opposite of what you said. Iraq did in fact have WMD in 2002, some of which was found and destroyed by UNMOVIC.
The basic conclusion of the report seems to be too little, too late. We gave the guy twelve years. This was not Ghandi we deposed, he was a murdering tyrant. You act like you've got a man-crush on him. Fuck him.
As for Obama, I saw him say on TV in the debates that he would talk to Iran, and that he would challenge Pakistan in order to get bin Laden. This is not controversial. It sort of resembles a position, which is why you haven't heard him repeat it lately. But he did say it.
Admit it... you didn't read the entire thing.
The point is, this report to the United Nations by a respected and expert witness is like night and day compared to the crap Colin Powell presented to the United Nations.
Powell's was nothing more than fear mongering, propagandistic conjecture.
Blix's report showed that there had been no new movement toward WMD or Nuclear production since 1998. The WMD they found still had the tags on them from UNSCOM and the amounts had not increased, infact Iraq had started to provide paperwork proving continued destruction of WMD between 1998 and 2002.
The amount of existing WMD in Iraq in 2002 was miniscule and degrading and hardly worth going to war over and if UNMOVIC had been allowed to continue its mission all WMD in Iraq would have been eradicated within months.
This is one example of many I was reading at the time. The Europeans and some here in America were highly skeptical of the information coming out of the WH and finding its way on to the front pages of our most trusted newspapers. The arguments for not going to war were as, if not more, compelling than those to hasten the rush toward it. It was not guess work on my part and had nothing to do with my political predisposition, I was against the war in Iraq because I felt we were being railroaded by an administration and its cheerleaders who had long been 'predisposed' to war with Iraq.
With their time lines diminishing and their flimsy evidence coming under increasing scrutiny, Bush had to start the war when he did, no WMD = no congressional or public backing for the war.
It's a very easy equation, you're a scientist see if you can work it out.
He already had overwhelming congressional and public approval.
If that document had said that the UN had combed every square inch of the country and found not a trace of WMD, and had complete cooperation, and it came ten years earlier, I'd say great, Saddam, you're all good.
I will say that a crucial error was made by the Bush administration in going back to the UN a second time for the authorization to use force, which was done to placate Tony Blair.
That second trip produced the lame Colin Powell performance and had the effect of turning the entire multifaceted rationale for removing Saddam into a referendum on whether or not Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD by the time we got there.
We didn't need a WMD rationale to take out Milosevic. Clinton never even went to the UN.
Liberals, who pride themselves on being able to mange nuance and complexity, somehow turn into black and whiters on the Iraq war. We found no WMD, so therefore the war was wrong.
If we had backed away in 2003, it would have constituted a gigantic victory for Saddam. He would have been rightly perceived as having defied the UN and the US for 12 years after the first Gulf War. It would have shown conclusively that UN resolutions mean nothing, that treaties mean nothing, that a rogue dictator like Saddam can commit genocide, gas his own people, violate sanctions, enrich himself by robbing a UN program meant to feed his people, starve thousands of children a year, operate rape rooms, harbor and fund terrorists, fire on American warplanes AND operate a WMD program, and the civilized world is absolutely powerless to do anything about it.
It is crucial to understand that even if Saddam completely got rid of his proscribed weapons before the invasion, but labored to create the impression that he hadn't, that was sufficient justification to take him out. Deceiving his neighbors into believing that he still had WMD created a perceived threat that was in itself destabilizing. He was required to disarm completely and verifiably in 1991. He never did.
It all gets back to the first Gulf War. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was an attempt at disrupting the established world order. Failing to effectively deal with Saddam in the aftermath sent the signal to others, like bin Laden, for example, that we were a paper tiger, and that perhaps he too could begin to overthrow the established world order. Men like Saddam, bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and that fuckstick we just killed from hezbollah, wish to bring to an end the world order established after WWII, which to them is symbolized by Israel.
Pax Americana has been the best period the world has ever enjoyed. Personally, I'd like to see it continue.
I'm going to guess that your position emanates from one strong conviction: War is wrong. We should seek to resolve our differences peacefully. This is a lesson that America successfully imposed on Europe (finally) after a century in which Europeans slaughtered each other in numbers that are hard tgo imagine.
For Europe, it worked, but only because everyone agreed to play by the same rules, and the Americans were there to referee.
Dealing with today's challenge requires a different solution because we're not all playing by the same rules. Our enemies don't like our rules because they consign them to the third rate status they deserve. So they employ horrendous violence to achieve their aims.
Attempting to negotiate peacefully with a counterparty who refuses to renounce violence cannot succeed. Our reluctance to go to war only serves to add value to the violence our enemies are willing to perpetrate as negotiating leverage.
Our reluctance to use the power we possess encourages the use of violence by our enemies. By failing to go to war when justly provoked, we cede the fruits of war to our enemies without even forcing them to suffer the inconvenience of fighting.
So, yeah, somebody had to "crack the whip", somebody had to "send a signal". I know you understand human nature. You're a football fan for God's sake. That's just the way it is, even as we both may wish it wasn't.
You keep putting the cart before the horse in a vain attempt at rationalizing this debacle. We were assembling our armada and ground forces in the middle east months before most of the rationales for war were even conceived. 'Preemptive War' was a neocon tenet that became official WH policy after 911, Bush was going to have his war come hell or high water, the rationales that you so gloatingly drool over were afterthoughts to a course already set. As Rumsfeld so quaintly put it, 'Iraq had better targets' to test out their reckless modern theories of realpolitik.
You can spout off all you like about our reasons for going to war but in reality Iraq was just a petrie dish for neocon philosophical mumbo jumbo. Saddam made for a nice boogieman that they could rally their flags behind but in all truth he was a spent force in the region whatever implied threats you imagine or conjour from manipulated intelligence coming out of Doug Feiths office.
You keep harping back to Clinton and Milosivic, that was a NATO operation, NATO troops were already staged in the arena, Clinton didn't have to go to the UN, and the same dickheads in Congress, Tom Delay and his fellow criminals, who condemned Clinton for his unilateral but ultimately brilliant success, were the ones cheering on Bush when he brought us into this debacle, it is hypocracy of the highest order.
I am not against all wars, if it is justifiably and truthfully demonstrated that our national interests are being threatened or we have been directly attacked, as we were on 911, then I am all for a devastating response.
You insist on painting all liberals as bleeding hearts and traitors, it really is pointless rhetoric and displays a complete lack of intelligence and a tenuous grip on the reality and history of this nation.
Post a Comment