So you actually do feel morally responsibly for what Osama Bin Laden cooked up in his little squirming pathetic excuse for a brain? Wow.
Well then it’s great I didn’t give it. I said the policies should not be changed on account of the terrorists attacks. i.e. by all means change them if you find them wrong (even in the direction the terrorists wish) – never ever change them because you’re threatened by terrorists.
Idiotic. But off topic and I’m off to bed.
That, sir, is a scurrilous accusation! Can you find one cite – just one – that the blood is, in fact, rat? I thought not. There’s been no proof one way or the other; I doubt that it is even rodent.
Meh, another quote that plays to their crowd. Methinks this is the beginning of the mockery that was promised for the RNC. :dubious: No doubt an attempt to make themselves appear to have more personality than the famously stiff Kerry.
I wonder if they are even going to try to reach those swinging independent voters or just keep speaking solely to their constituents by making these silly little digs.
More likely it’s formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde? In “Bits o’Kitten”? Ewwwwww!!! Now that’s just gross!
:rolleyes:
Because that’s what I said. I see that you’re probably too stupid for nuance. I should have guessed given your support for the Bush Administration and its little ventures.
Ah. So you were throwing up a strawman. Gotcha. Nobody ever says give in to terrorist demands. No “liberal” or “leftist” (oooh…scary) would support giving in to any terrorist demand that violated their values or ideals. Nobody would support giving in to a terrorist demand to change the Constitution to strict Wahhabist Sharia law.
What people say is that if our foreign policy since WWII had been more intelligent and worked more for justice and professed American values rather than idiotic policies designed to benefit the wealthy elite, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. So when calls are made for changes in policies, they aren’t to appease terrorists, they’re to drive policy in the direction it should have gone in the first place.
But I know its easier for supporters of this Administration’s policies to just scream, “Giving in to terrorists! The terrorists will win! You’re a terrorist loving wimp!” rather than actually take a hard look at the consequences of our past foreign policy strategies.
No, informed. Something you should try to be. But it might interfere with your childish black and white interpretation of the world, so I don’t expect much from you.
I like Lynne Cheney. She is a very smart lady. I just happened to have been reading one of her books right now.
The Bushiviks aren’t doing this because they want to, they’re doing it because they have to. They got bupkiss.
They would much prefer to think of themselves as models of propriety and somber civic discourse. But not if it means losing. I’m sure there are any number of Pubbies who finds this sort of word-ferreting silly. As well, I’m sure there are any number of them who find the entire “SwiftBoat” slanderfest repugnant, and would be most happy to have the White House sternly condemn it in no uncertain terms.
But not if it means losing.
They let their guard down. A year or so ago, they were a shoo-in, gleefully anticipating the landslide and the ringing mandate for permanent Republican rule, now and forever, amen. Then things got rockier, but still…they were gonna run against Dean. But then the Democrats did something most unusual, most uncharacteristic: they wised up.
The thing that’s wrong with Kerry is that there’s not much wrong with him. So they go straight to Plan B: “making shit up”. They accuse of him of being consistently and unwaveringly liberal, yet constantly flip-flopping. They desperately want to accuse him of lacking patriotism, but cannot directly do so, they would get clobbered. But if someone else does it, someone not directly on the payroll, well, then, that’s just serendipitous, no?
But are honest conservatives embarrassed? Sure. Would they prefer to “fight fair”? Of course. But not if it means losing.
We don’t bear one iota of responsibility. The terrorists who killed the ~ 3,000 random people on 9/11/01 bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions.
Whether or not Kerry meant to say they don’t, don’t know. I would suspect, however, that if you asked him, he’d agree with my statement, above.
My friends, this is no more than one more illustration of the Big Dawg approach to international relations – we, by the grace of God, are the United States of America, we don’t need no stinking cooperation from anybody. We will do what we want to who we want when we want and nobody, I say nobody, has the power to stop us. Hence, screw ‘em and mock anyone who suggests that the Big Dawg approach is not the right and perfect, the heavenly ordained, way to do things.
Yee-haw! We like oil selling at $45 a barrel plus. We like talking like a drunken trail hand. We despise thoughtful consideration of how best to combat the threat of terrorism. We think that the more people we piss off the more chance we have to play the reckless cowboy. We like playing the reckless cowboy because then every body thinks we are crazy and they don’t interfere with our role playing.
If this keeps up, mark my words, it is going to bite us in the ass.
I do.
I voted for Gore. I’m didn’t vote for Resident Numbnuts. I feel there’s a good chance Gore’s admin. might have caught Al Qaeda … might have been paying attention and all. And their response would have been something a little more effective than starting up a bogus war with a tinpot dictator who had fuck-all to do with 9/11.
So many, many, many American’s are not responsible for what’s happening. A majority of us, in fact.
You people who voted for Bush, eat shit and die. You brought this on us. You’re dumb as fucking box of rocks.
Um, speaking as a liberal, I’ve got some problems with this line of reasoning. I agree we’ve supported disgusting, murderous regimes, but the more I learn about the Middle East, the more I see that the only choices we’ve had, for the most part, have been between one disgusting, murderous regime and another. We should have worked hard to foster democracy and freedom in the region, but it’s always been a long row to hoe in many Middle Eastern cultures.
Then we should have supported neither.
I’m not saying break off all diplomatic relations or imposing sanctions - but no aid, no sales of weapons, no CIA meddling in affairs, limited sanctions against the leaders of the country, etc.
Man, I hate feeling like I’m the only one who proactively* collects information on the candidates. -You do realize, don’t you Lib, that politicians pepper their speeches with pithy one-liners because the electronic media like to broadcast the sexiest 5 second soundbite out of a half-hour lecture on the candidate’s effective, thoughtful, strategic, etc. position on Issue X?
Both Kerry and Bush have outlined their strategies in more detail where they don’t have time limitations:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/terrorism.html
http://www.georgewbush.com/NationalSecurity/Brief.aspx
I disagree. There’s nothing wrong with the Big Dawg approach to international relations - provided you’re working towards ridding oppression in the world.
The problem that we’re having has nothing to do with unilateral actions, but our policies of supporting and using terror tactics. Overthrowing legitimately elected governments and installing brutal dictators, “strategic” bombing, training governments in torture methods, etc.
I supported the Afghanistan venture, but I object to the neglect the Bush Administration pursued that theater in favor of Iraq. I opposed the Iraq venture on that basis, even more so now given what we know of the methods the Bush Administration used to gain support for it, and I oppose it even more because the Bush Administration is not setting up a proper democracy with respect for civil rights - they’re setting up another Egypt. A democracy in name only, with corrupt elections, a dictatorial executive with no regard for human rights with their eye only on setting up a puppet state. They are just continuing and deepening widespread hatred of the United States and opening us up for more terrorist attacks. Attacks that will likely never affect them in their country retreats and beach houses, leaving the less wealthy Americans to bear the full burden of reprisals.
“Lick my bag”? Boy, I haven’t heard* that* one in decades.
I do not feel any responsibility for the terrorist attacks. The terrorists alone bear responsibility for their atrocities.
I will point out, with great sensitivity, that U.S. policy in the mid-east for the past 60 years was not formulated in a vacuum. There was a great deal of check-checkmate with the Soviet Union.
I know it is popular on this message board to pooh-pooh the communist threat. I suppose we’ve evolved, and become so much smarter than every administration from Truman to Reagan that we can now see how foolish they were to waste time countering the moves of a Paper Tiger…
We did that? That’s terrible! I mean, sure, a certain amount of pragmatism was justified in the face of the Soviet threat, but the Soviets have been gone for a long time now. As a person who believes in self-determination and human rights, I call upon – No, that’s too weak. I insist – that our government immediately start using some of its vaunted military might to start overthrowing these regimes and spending billions of dollars to plant the seeds of democracy. We’ll start with the most murderous regime and see what happens from there.
Who’s with me? It’ll be tough overcoming the opposition from conservatives, who value stability and cheap oil over human rights, but surely there are enough progressives who believe this to get the job done, right?
I’m aware, but some of what happened had little to do with the Soviet Union. Read Bitter Fruit about the overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala. There was an organized effort by United Fruit and the CIA to plant stories in US media about Soviet ties to Arbenz when none existed in order to justify what they were going to do. That’s one example.
Sometimes there did appear to be a legitimate threat. Vietnam, for instance. The war was a bad idea, but the disaster it became had more to do with the tactics and strategies used than the idea of rolling back communism. IMHO, anyway.
:rolleyes:
If I thought that this administration had any interest whatsoever in establishing real democracy and human rights in Iraq, I’d be more inclined to support the venture. Afghanistan should have been taken care of completely first, but it’s too late for that.
But between the strategic bombing of civilians, torturing of prisoners, shutting down opposition newspapers, appointing terrorist and thug after terrorist and thug to the governing council and just making a general disaster of everything, it makes me doubt that this was about anything except establishing a pliant, puppet government to provide a steady supply of oil (to be exploited by Bush cronies, of course).
As for there being enough progressives to get the job done properly in Iraq now, unfortunately, I doubt it. The American public and a pathetic US media is doing a wonderful job of ignoring what’s going on there. We’ll end up reaping another little harvest of misery with this one.
But such a proud tradition, Manny! To be cast aside simply because of brute practicality. Doesn’t your heart throb with pride at the list - Arenas, Samoza, Pinochet, Trujillo, oh! so many!.. To this day, citizens of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, revere America, how generous we were in providing guidance, how we helped them find the way from disorder to clear and pristine military dictatorship, led by some of the finest and most humane men to ever order or massacre, or gun down an archbishop. A simple law for a simple peope: only one crime, only one penalty. Mention our name, and they spit on the ground, according to thier colorful custom in expressing gratitude.
Mustn’t be hasty, now, Manny. Baby with the bathwater, and all that.