Don't bother learning Mandarin cuss words from the GOP.

Ta men de "GO P" bu tung.

"Da-shiang bao-tza shr duh lah doo-tze"

The explosive diarrhoea of an elephant

That will work for me as long as the head is pointed at us the enemy and the followers do their job correctly.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/gary_hart_lynne_cheney_and_war.php

Gary Hart, Lynne Cheney, and War with China
July 5, 2007

Early in 2001, the ["U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century," aka the Hart-Rudman Commission] presented a report to the incoming G.W. Bush administration warning that terrorism would be the nation's greatest national security problem, and saying that unless the United States took proper protective measures a terrorist attack was likely within its borders. Neither the president nor the vice president nor any other senior official from the new administration took time to meet with the commission members or hear about their findings.

The commission had 14 members, split 7-7, Republican and Democrat, as is de rigeur for bodies of this type. Today Hart told me that in the first few meetings, commission members would go around the room and volunteer their ideas about the nation's greatest vulnerabilities, most urgent needs, and so on.

.

.

.

At the first meeting, one Republican woman on the commission said that the overwhelming threat was from China. Sooner or later the U.S. would end up in a military showdown with the Chinese Communists. There was no avoiding it, and we would only make ourselves weaker by waiting. No one else spoke up in support.

.

.

.

The same thing happened at the second meeting -- discussion from other commissioners about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, anarchy of failed states, etc, and then this one woman warning about the looming Chinese menace.

.

.

.

And the third meeting too. Perhaps more.

.

.

.

Finally, in frustration, this woman left the commission.

.

.

.

"Her name was Lynne Cheney," Hart said.

"I am convinced that if it had not been for 9/11, we would be in a military showdown with China today."

Not because of what China was doing, threatening, or intending, he made clear, but because of the assumptions the Administration brought with it when taking office. (My impression is that Chinese leaders know this too, which is why there are relatively few complaints from China about the Iraq war. They know that it got the U.S. off China's back!)

Lee Hamilton, who had also been on the commission, was sitting at the same lunch table and backed up Hart's story.

- - James Fallows

"The body count is so much lower and its much less expensive and a great deal more effective, as Europe has proven time and again."

Especially in Madrid, I presume. Who knows how many commuters would have died otherwise?

It's this blithe attitude of "incidental losses" that I absolutely despise, as if people are simply check marks or pieces of meat (as Shiekh Al-Hilali has insisted kaffir women are) that can be racked up to balance "policing" accounts, or as victims of "garden-variety" threats like, I suppose, identity theft. Investment, reward. Disgusting.

And Mr. Greenwald: To paraphrase John Belushi in "Continental Divide": "You know what you wrote, you were there when you wrote it." Go through your own piece, as if you were in a journalism class, and pick out every inflammatory, insulting, accusatory, and sarcastic label, descriptor, and adjective you apply to those you disagree with. You're writing cheap-shot propaganda just as poisonous as the right-wing loudmouths and ignoramuses who got us into the Iraq mess.

However much as I agree with you on the unconstitutional and even criminal behavior of our administration, I can't bear to see someone who supposedly prides himself on "journalism" pulling the same techniques while vigorously patting himself on the back for being -- and you'll excuse me for using your same technique here of Sarcastic Capitalization -- the Clear-Eyed Defender of Truth and Freedom.

Now, should you folks actually have it sink in, that someone like Steyn is ready to cede ground on the argument, are you going to pick at him abut why he is relenting, or be pricks and insist on a public confession of sin? I ask, because if you are pricks about the whole thing, this step forward will be withdrawn.

Are you Mark Steyn? Do you have some amount of influence on Steyn and when he might feel so offended enough by prickishness that he would back-peddle on the concession of a portion of a debate?

Or is this just speculation on your part?

Or...are you just projecting?

See....this is interesting. You would rather see a withdrawl of Steyn's concession based on the unappreciative reaction of the posters here than on the merits of the discussion itself. You would rather he toss out his concession and defend the bad arguments out of spite.

Actually, that's not interesting at all. That's what you and yours do all the time.

As always your logic is finely tuned and superbly impeccable (IMO).

The right wing is bankrupt because of their simpleton logic, as in: Osama Bin Laden is bad because he ordered a terrible deed. No, Bin laden is a bad person because he's a screw-up fanatic whacko who had way too much money; money that had a root in America’s insatiable appetite for a corrupt regime’s oil (Saudi Arabia).

Then what do (America) we do? Instead of treating him like the common yet murderous criminal that he is, we turn him into a holy messiah thus giving whacko's a purpose and moderate Muslims a bad name.

As Mr. Christ once was purported to have said: “He who is without sin cast the first stone” – something people like Joe Lieberman, et al, regardless of the religion fail to grasp.

I digress – to get back to your excellent point: the right wing conveniently breaks the world into goodies and badies, and that must end if our children are ever to see a better day on this planet.

I burn hotter about this every day!

Kasimira, perhaps you are not aware that at the time of the Madrid bombings, Spain was led by s right-wing Bush clone who supported the Iraq war against the will of the overwhelming majority of Spaniards. After the bombing, the government immediately mounted a disgraceful and false PR campaign attempting to deflect deserved blame for inciting terrorism by blaming Basque separatists.

The Spanish people, who after Franco know a thing or two about lying, right-wing authoritarians, wisely tossed the government out on its ear.

And this incident supports your argument how?