Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mizbinkley
Published Letters: 870 Editor's Choice: 116
Pace’s assessment is a little off-putting on its face, but he’s not really wrong. Iraq needs military stability and political compromise to move forward. The U.S. can provide some stability, but we can’t create a unity government. It has to be an Iraqi solution. And if they don’t want it, won’t work for it, don’t see progress or hope for progress, we can’t make them.
Even Bush knows this “Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens.” From his 2005 Inauguration, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html
The problem is that Bush has “complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom” as “the longing of the soul.” I guess his soul chatted with the Iraqis' souls and concluded they wanted this transformation as much as he did. He’s pure faith, and led us into war because of it—Iraq is a religious war for him. Scary.
Scary still is the number of Iraqi leaders who are prepared to throw in the towel. Bush’s faith can’t transform Iraq.
meffert is right—Evangelicals are being played. And they just keep taking it. And why not? At least the Republicans (moderates and wingnuts alike) humor them. Democrats can’t even be bothered to fart in their general direction. Evangelicals, are, of course, people of faith. And they have faith that eventually the Republican Party will deliver them from Roe and gay marriage (a.k.a. evil).
Not that Brownback’s comments matter. It’s Sam Brownback. He doesn’t have a snowball’s chance. He’s talking to a crowd of a hundred “supporters” in Iowa. And according to the link to the Des Moines Register, one of these so-called supporters owns a Christian bookstore and even he’s not convinced.
However, Brownback did just write NOW, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood’s next direct mail piece. So I say, thank you, Sam.
big-nose makes some good points about the people being held at Gitmo.
I’ll add that some individuals have been paid handsome rewards to turn over “terrorists,” creating an obvious financial incentive to accuse innocent people.
I’ve also read about innocent people held at Guantánamo Bay, that everyone recognizes are innocent, but, after being held without trial and tortured now really hate America. Thus it would be dangerous to release them. [anyone know a source for this? I can’t remember where I read this]
Finally, according to the Bush administration, those being held aren’t “soldiers.” They’re “enemy combatants” or “terrorists,” and are thus afforded no protections.
FYI: See this article for lots of other good info: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008230.php
"It would simply be the opening shot to outlaw birth control, divorce, criminalize premarital sex and generally make The Handmade's Tale a procedures manual."
Unlikely considering who the Republican presidential frontrunners are: John McCain (divorce), Rudy Giuliani (divorce, divorce) and possibly even Newt Gingrich (divorce, divorce).
It's easy to be vocally against abortion because no one knows if you or a close family member had one (I actually wonder about some of the most vehement anti-abortion folks). Not so with divorce.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html
Anyone have any poll numbers on how many people in 1980 knew who the chief justice was? 1960? 1940? 1920? Not an excuse, I'd just like a little context. Have we always been this stupid or is it a new phenomenon? And if we are just as stupid as we were 80 years ago, why aren’t we smarter when we have access to so much more info? Is it because we have access to so much more info (and lots of it’s incorrect info)?
Yellow Dog makes some good points about the pride in being ignorant. I’d like to add that nowadays, anyone with whatever ignorant thought floating through their ignorant head can have a platform to spew their ignorance with pride.
Stephen Colbert satirizes this well in his usage of the word “truthiness,” or “truth that comes from the gut, not books.”
Well, of course. Cheney's not part of the Executive Branch. He's not part of the Legislative Branch. He's part of the Dictatorial Branch. Which, being dictatorial, is more trunk than branch. Maybe it's even root. The point is Cheney transcends all. It's almost biblical. He’s the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (but mostly evil).
I think I’ve over-mixed my metaphors.
Snow: What we've been trying to do is be straight with everybody about the difficulties of proceeding and trying to make sure that people are getting information in a timely fashion about what's going on.
Really? Since when?
Amb. Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus are in the midst of a multi-faceted program that will not proceed in a linear way and will not generate clear and consistent metrics in all of its phases. The early signs are positive in a number of respects, although difficulties and challenges clearly remain. But it is too soon to evaluate the outcome of an operation that is just moving into the first of several phases intended to produce significant positive change in the situation overall.
Why are people still talking about “too soon to evaluate”? The “new” “surge” may have just started, but we entered this war in March 2003. What have we been doing for the past four years and why aren’t we done yet?
gen. apathy, If we had one president who obfuscated about his sexual practices and another who obfuscated about his torture practices, does this mean the next president will obfuscate about his/her BDSM practices?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
