Sunday, June 27, 2004

We're not mocking your European Army, Karthik

Hat tip: Instapundit.


Of 1.4 million soldiers under Nato arms in October 2003, allies other than the US contributed all of 55,000. Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre. SACEUR General James Jones testified before Congress in March 2004 that only 3-4% (42 000, about two divisions - I'd bet mostly UK) of European forces were deployable for expeditions. Then there are the problems of interoperability: there is a recurring problem of coalition-wide secure communications which can be drawn on in operations. Allies other than the U.S. have next to no precision strike capabilities [The United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, Australia], although these are slowly improving. The US is generally the sole provider of electronic warfare (jamming and electronic intelligence) aircraft, as well as aircraft for surveillance and C3 (command, control, and communications). The US is also capable of much greater sortie rates than its allies.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 6:27 PM |

Questions for Kerry

Reprinted at length, edited for clarity. Thank you IMAO! Bolded are my favorites.

June 22, 2004
So, Do You Have Any Military Experience?
I got an e-mail from the John Kerry campaign titled "What would you ask John Kerry" saying how if I set up a house party, I could ask a question to John Kerry. So, I put it to you, my dear readers, to think of what would be the perfect question to ask him. I'll pick the best one, and the author of it gets to ask me a question (yes, I'm tired of Frank Answers™, so you only get to ask me questions by winning a contest).

So, what would you ask John Kerry?

Posted by Frank J. at June 22, 2004 11:38 AM | TrackBack

Comments
What is more Nuanced? Voting against something, then voting FOR it? Or Voting for something, and THEN voting against it?

Posted by: Evil Midnight Poster what Posts at Midnight on June 22, 2004 11:46 AM
To Sen Kerry:
Was the tossing of "your" Vietnam campaign medals over the White House fence a "wardrobe malfunction?"

Posted by: Cory on June 22, 2004 11:54 AM
So, Senator, how does four months of actual combat experience make you a better candidate than say, Lyndie England?

Posted by: Bob Owens on June 22, 2004 11:54 AM
Have you ever been to bohemian grove?

Posted by: Cb on June 22, 2004 11:56 AM
As I have passed the age of 40 I was wondering, Senator Kerry, how do you manage to stay so young looking?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 11:58 AM
Senator, why are you married to 'Tootsie'?

Posted by: DixieDarlin' on June 22, 2004 12:02 PM
Hey, Frenchie! Pull my finger?

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin on June 22, 2004 12:04 PM
Senator (*spit*), when will you stop hating your country?

Posted by: the markman on June 22, 2004 12:10 PM
Mr. Kerry, how can I get combat experience in Viet Nam?

Posted by: LibertyBob on June 22, 2004 12:16 PM
Senator, as the state of Massachusetts I was wondering if you would be returning your salary to me. Considering you've missed 78% of the votes here. I was also wondering if you would be stepping down as Senator once you accept the Democraptic nomination. Or mebbe you're just to haughty and french-looking for that?

Posted by: Massachusetts on June 22, 2004 12:16 PM
I would ask:
Did it hurt when they pulled the band-aids off your wounds in Vietnam?

Posted by: JusTalkin on June 22, 2004 12:26 PM
Mr. Heinz-Kerry,

You have said that as president, you would create 10 million new jobs for Americans. Does that mean American citizens, or North Americans is general? I mean, do you plan to create a bunch of jobs for us, or illegal aliens?

Posted by: Chris on June 22, 2004 12:30 PM
I loved your performance as Treebeard in LOTR: The Two Towers. Can I have your autograph?

Posted by: Sam on June 22, 2004 12:34 PM
Dear Kerry, there was a rumor that you served in Vietnam, as a anti-war protestor how do you face these accusations.

Posted by: Monster Kabasue on June 22, 2004 12:37 PM
Senator Kerry, just what are the 57 Heinz varieties?

Posted by: James on June 22, 2004 12:37 PM
What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? A European Swallow that is.

Posted by: Aric on June 22, 2004 12:50 PM
Senator Kerry, when is it appropriate to place the chafing dish directly on the dinner table?

Posted by: lance on June 22, 2004 12:51 PM
"Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?"

or

"Do you know the Muffin Man?"

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 12:54 PM
"Why the long face?" Yeah, I know. Okay, how about: "Is that Hunts Catsup on your collar?".

Posted by: jonag on June 22, 2004 12:58 PM
Mr. Kerry,

How long have you been a goober?

Posted by: Mr. Bubble on June 22, 2004 12:58 PM
In your appearance before the Senate in the 70's you stated as fact that you engaged in war crimes in Vietnam. If this was not true, then why should Americans elect someone who'd lie about that? Conversely, if it is true, then why would Americans elect a war criminal?

As a follow-up...since you approve of the U.S. being subject to the U.N....then will you present yourself to the ICC in the Hague to answer your war crime charges?


Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:01 PM
Does Jaques Chirac really talk in his sleep?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:02 PM
How much does Ter-ay-sah give you as a weekly allowance? Do you have to do chores for it?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:03 PM
If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? And, if you fell in the forest but no-one was around to hear, would anyone care?

Posted by: Former Hostage on June 22, 2004 01:04 PM
Mr. Kerry, How do you reconcile the fact that you have testified before Congress that you were an accessory to war crimes during your time in Viet Nam yet you incessantly mention that you served there and use it as a source of pride when comparing yourself to the current president?

If you didn't have the moral conviction to stand up to war criminals, why should the American public believe you'll have the moral conviction to do what is right (not what is politically expedient or what focus groups/polls indicate) if you're elected president?

(OK, so that's 2 questions. Sue me...)

Posted by: A fine scotch on June 22, 2004 01:05 PM
What's that on your shirt?

Posted by: toothless redneck on June 22, 2004 01:08 PM
Senator Kerry, is it true that you are indeed the illegitimate son of Herman Munster & Gladys Kravitz?

And if I may follow up, will you enact forced famines like your mentor Joseph Stalin?

Posted by: FilthyMcNasty on June 22, 2004 01:09 PM
Senator Kerry, if you lose the 2004 Presidential Election, will you move to France to form a government-in-exile?

Posted by: Chris Marcellus on June 22, 2004 01:11 PM
Johnny, is Tear-ree-saw as big a biatch as ol' shrillary?

Posted by: peloperz on June 22, 2004 01:12 PM
Why is there air?

(thanks to Bill Cosby)

Will you be mandating Botox injections be covered by a National Health Plan???

Posted by: SteveLowe on June 22, 2004 01:13 PM
Senator Kerry, what kind of extras do you get when you spend $1,000 for a haircut? Lapdances, or just shampoo and conditioner?

Posted by: Cap'n Yoaz on June 22, 2004 01:14 PM
Has Theresa ever worn kneepads for Teddy??

Posted by: NationalEnquirer on June 22, 2004 01:15 PM
Senator Kerry, were you ever in Viet Nam?

Posted by: Cap'n Yoaz on June 22, 2004 01:16 PM
Have you now, or ever been, a member of the Ho Chi Minh School of Democracy?

Posted by: LancelotLink on June 22, 2004 01:17 PM
Senator Kerry, does your butler have a butler?

Posted by: Cap'n Yoaz on June 22, 2004 01:17 PM
Ho Ho Hey
Ho Ho Hey
What will Theresa let you say?

Hey Hey Ho
Hey Hey Ho
She wears the pants (as we all know)

Posted by: HippieScum on June 22, 2004 01:19 PM
Senator Kerry: How does it feel to be the first dustmop nominated by a major party for the office of President?

Posted by: 5minutes on June 22, 2004 01:23 PM
Senator Kerry,

Since your wife has been on the scene no one seems to know where Dustin Hoffman is. Care to comment?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:24 PM
Did you enjoy playing Lurch on The Addams Family?

Posted by: Colt Springfield on June 22, 2004 01:27 PM
Do you have a burning sensation when you pee?

Ever get that not so fresh feeling?

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 01:27 PM
C'mon, for old times sake. Could you please say, "You rang?" in that low, slow baritone voice of yours?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:30 PM
Last one

"If Ted Kennedy is killed, will you commit seppuku?"

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 01:31 PM
Would you like to comment on any of these questions before deciding not to comment on them?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:32 PM
Got any snowboarding or bike riding tips?

Posted by: El Jefe on June 22, 2004 01:33 PM
Should you become the President, and Dan Rather shows up at the White House in a blue dress holding a pizza and says "you're hair looks very French today, may I come in?", your response would be what?

Posted by: Paleo on June 22, 2004 01:37 PM
Senator, can you tell us how to marry money so we don't have to work either?

or

Senator, how can one man suck so much?

Posted by: Exile on June 22, 2004 01:49 PM
Senator, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck would chuck wood? Alternatively, since you spend more on your hair than most third world nations spend on food, why do you still look like one of those angry trees from the Wizard of Oz?

Posted by: Pat Rand on June 22, 2004 01:51 PM
If you were President today, what would be your response to the third beheading of a hostage by terrorists in the past month?


And please don't tell me the response will involve seeking U.N. approval.

Posted by: Libertarian Hawk on June 22, 2004 01:58 PM
Let's see, something theological, so he can show us he's a religious guy.

Senator, in your opinion, did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Posted by: Dave in Texas on June 22, 2004 02:03 PM
Since you have indicated on national TV categorically (Russert- Meet the Press) that the war on terror should be primarily one of intelligence and law enforcement, and since trying that in the 90's resulted in as many dead as at Pearl Harbor, why should we expect a return to this policy to result in anything more than more american dead, and dead HERE? Please be EXACT in how you expect to have this result in a different end.

Posted by: epimondas on June 22, 2004 02:13 PM
Senator, with the fact that your head is bolted on, will you be willing to stick your neck out to round up the Iraqi scum responsible for the beheadings? And will you utilize your extensive 4-month Viet Nam skills to do so?

Posted by: FilthyMcNasty on June 22, 2004 02:23 PM
Mr Kerry
If you win the election, will you be painting the white house pink?

Posted by: James Old Guy on June 22, 2004 02:32 PM

Senator Kerry, Do you or do you not own multiple SUV's? Even a ...gasp.....*CHEVY SUBURBAN*?!

If John Kerry can't answer that, he shouldn't be allowed to run a coffee maker, much less the USA.

Posted by: Scott Sanburn on June 22, 2004 02:47 PM
If you become president, will you and your wife share the secret of producing the regenerating flesh you use to cover your cyborg endoskeleton?

Posted by: Beck on June 22, 2004 02:52 PM
So Johny-boy, how many times a day do you check out IMAO?

Posted by: DaDougster on June 22, 2004 03:06 PM
Did you serve in Vietnam?

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus on June 22, 2004 03:16 PM
During your life Mr. Kerry you've been married to two rich women. Being that you have no personality or sence of humor, how did you do that?

Posted by: Robert on June 22, 2004 03:27 PM
If you had the opportunity to change the vote you made in favor of the Iraq War in 2002, would you, and why?

Posted by: Scotwalker on June 22, 2004 03:29 PM
With what tyrant/dictator/despot/barbarian from history do you most identify?

As a follow up, please provide several examples of amusing ways in which his/her name can be incorporated into your own.

Posted by: No One of Consequence on June 22, 2004 03:34 PM
In that you seem to hold two contradicting views on issues, just how many personalities are fighting for dominance inside your head?

Posted by: Aris Ravencroft on June 22, 2004 03:39 PM
Senator, in one of your commercials you say the country is headed in the wrong direction because 43 million people don't have health care [insurance]. Given that a greater number of people today have benefits than ever before in the history of the country, would you consider the "right way" to be the removal of these benefits?

Posted by: LibertyBob on June 22, 2004 03:39 PM
Senator Kerry, wouldn't electing you to the office of Commander in Chief be like putting an Anti-Christ in as the Pope?

Posted by: Grant Jensen on June 22, 2004 03:44 PM
"Let me begin by telling you I am a Republican, and I voted for George W Bush in the last election, and you're welcome. Now... Hey, wait up! I didn't get to ask my question!!"

Posted by: veep on June 22, 2004 04:01 PM
If I kill you do I become you?

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 04:07 PM


Since I'm sure that he wouldn't have a comprehensible answer to any question I asked, why waste my time with a question that I really want asked? So here goes my rude, let's see him turn red and start to bluster, question:
Sen. Kerry, why do you prefer France to the US?

Posted by: Veeshir on June 22, 2004 04:29 PM
I have several questions:

Senator Kerry, you claim that the Iraq war is the worst foreing policy debacle in the last 200 years of American history; did you forget that you served in Vietnam?

Senator Kerry, you keep on claiming that we are in the worst economic quagmire since the great depression; how does our current record economic growth, 1.4 million jobs created since August, near zero inflation, near zero interest rates, all despite the Clinton dot-com bubble, the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center, and two wars, compare to the Carter Administration?

Senator Kerry, you keep calling for Bush to reach out to the "international community" in the war on terror, even though 15 of 19 NATO countries, half the EU, and a total coalition larger than that of the first Gulf War are all behind the U.S.; does this mean that, in essence, what you really want is for all U.S. foreign policy to be approved by FRANCE?

Senator Kerry, you keep reminding us of your service in Vietnam while deriding Bush for his service in the Alabama National Guard; didn't we lose Vietnam, while Alabama today remains free from Soviet aggression?

Senator Kerry, you seem fixated on the unemployment "crisis" under Bush; how is the national unemployment rate of 5.6% today worse than the national unemployment rate of 5.6% at the end of Clinton's first term?

Senator Kerry, you complain about the 43 million Americans without health care and desire a socialist-style universal health care system similar to Canada and Europe; are you suggesting that the thousands of wealthy Canadians and Europeans who come to the United States to spend money on our capitalist-based system when they are unable to receive the same level of quality at home are somehow in error?

Senator Kerry, can you point to a single action in your long Senate career that actually acomplished anything of historical significance?

Senator Kerry, it is clear that if you lose this election that Hillary Clinton is set up as the savior of your party in 2008, and if you win, her hopes of ever being President will suffer tremendously; do you really expect the Clintons to do anything at all to help you win this election?

Senator Kerry, you continuously comment that we need to end our dependence on Arab oil; does this mean that you will support drilling in ANWR, coastal oil exploration, wind farms off the coast of Massachusets, a resurgence of coal, the upgrading of American refineries and power plants, or the use of nuclear power, or is your only solution to raise taxes on SUV's to the point that only someone with $600 million in the bank can own one?

Senator Kerry, do you own a tie that isn't pink or lime green?

Senator Kerry, you have yet to articulate a clear and definitive stance on gay marriage; are you confident that if you don't give overt support of gay marriage you will cater to mainstream America knowing that the gay lobby will give you unconditional support simply because you are not George W. Bush?

Senator Kerry, you continue to make a big deal out of the fact that you served in Vietnam while the President was only in the Guard; has your view of military service changed since 1992, when you lectured that Americans should put Vietnam behind them and support Bill Clinton, who avoided military service altogether, going to the Soviet Union while the President flew dangerous missions in fighter jets over the Artic Circle, keeping us safe from Soviet Attack while the bulk of our military was bogged down in Vietnam?

Senator Kerry, many of your supporters would like to see you run with John McCain as your running mate, calling for a "unity ticket" to end partisan politics; since McCain will never run with you, how about if you instead take a lead in the Senate to work with Republicans instead of against them, creating a "unity legislature" to end partisan politics?

Speaking of McCain, Senator Kerry, since McCain is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war and pro-capitalist, and since many of the people who wanted him to be President seem to now be supporting you, do you feel pressured to take on any of those extreme right-wing stances?

Senator Kerry, Ralph Nader is running, asking democrats who oppose the war to turn to him because you voted for the war; in order to avoid another Nader spoiler like 2000, how will you cater to the extreme left-wing?

Senator Kerry, you keep saying you aren't going to raise taxes, yet you also keep saying you want to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich; what, exactly, is the difference between repealing a tax cut and raising taxes?

Senator Kerry, you seem to like being compared to John F. Kennedy: you note that you have the same initials, you recall your childhood as a guest in the Kennedy compound, you note that you are both Navy men who went to war, then went to law school, then became Massachusets Senators; what do you think of the facts that President Kennedy cut taxes, spent money on space exploration, fought communism, and appointed his brother Attorney General for the purpose of fighting the unions who were corrupting business in America?

Senator Kerry, you oppose American "unilateralism" in attacking Iraq without the support of France; do you now regret supporting the unilateral American attacks on Iraq in 1998 and Kosovo in 2000?

Senator Kerry, in all your speeches, you say you are going to solve all the problems of the Bush Administration; what, exactly, are you going to do in order to achieve this result?

Senator Kerry, in recalling the battle where you won the Silver Star, you say that after an initial fire-fight, you used a .50 BMG to gun down a Vietnamese soldier in the back while he was retreating; how does this compare to American prison guards who took photographs of terrorists in silly poses?

Senator Kerry, do you offer any solution to any problem in the world other than repealing tax cuts and reaching out the international community?

Senator Kerry, I live in a state where liberal democrats like yourself run nearly every government office from the governor's chair down to the local city council; my state is one of only four that is still on an economic downslide, does this mean that you want the other 46 to follow suit?

Senator Kerry, will you just hurry up and lose already so I can get on with the next four years?

There--one of those ought to win.


Posted by: dvgulliver on June 22, 2004 04:34 PM
In the posse scene in the movie First Blood ("we're not huntin' Kerry - Kerry's huntin' us!") would you have "screwed-up" and left them all alive like Rambo did?

Posted by: Paleo on June 22, 2004 04:50 PM
What valuable lessons on work ethic did you learn during your struggle to build your vast ketchup empire?

Posted by: Paleo on June 22, 2004 05:01 PM
Question: What country is the only country in history that coninuously relies on other nations to bail it out of trouble, only to turn around and spit in the face of its liberators? (If you need some help, it smells of cheese and rhymes with "can'ts"!)

Posted by: The Knights Who Say "NEE"! on June 22, 2004 05:13 PM
Who wrote the book of love?

Posted by: Dave in Texas on June 22, 2004 05:29 PM
You said you would create 10 million new jobs in the next four years. We are on a pace, despite 9/11, wars, etc, to create 14 million new jobs in the next 4 years (largely due to Bush administration initiatives). Why would you cut 4 million new jobs out of the economy in the next 4 years (putting 4 million people out of work)?

Posted by: matt on June 22, 2004 05:32 PM
Kerry is it true that you are hung like an elf?

Posted by: Sloofus on June 22, 2004 06:22 PM
Senator, did you know that Bendict Arnold was a war hero, too?

Posted by: N. O'Brain, IMfUI on June 22, 2004 06:24 PM
Mr. Kerry, what type of wood is it that you use to build that fence on which you ride?

Posted by: Lillian on June 22, 2004 06:54 PM
Got any gum?

Posted by: Josh on June 22, 2004 07:00 PM
"Excuse me Senator, I can't seem to remember....did you serve in Vietnam?"

Posted by: Jen on June 22, 2004 08:33 PM
So what size are the family pants your wife wears?

Posted by: Turkeyhead on June 22, 2004 08:45 PM
Dear Mr. Kerry,

Will you apologize to Andy Serkis for blatantly ripping off his portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol to use during your campaign?

P.S.

Please do not blame your loss on the "nasty hobbitses".

Posted by: cb1100rider on June 22, 2004 09:42 PM
If the U.N. and France disagreed about what the U.S. should do in a certain situation, (and both were equally against our interests), who should we listen to?

Posted by: Megan on June 22, 2004 10:15 PM
Mr. Kerry, why are you still standing on my great country's soil?

Posted by: CommieBastard on June 22, 2004 11:27 PM
Senator Kerry, you recently (like when you decided to run for President in Florida) revealed that you are not Irish (like you've implied for years), but are in fact partly Jewish. Why do you believe electing someone who is partly Jewish will endear us to Islamofascists and, perhaps even more questionably, to the French?

Posted by: twalsh on June 22, 2004 11:48 PM
Finally thought of something.

"Senator Kerry, in November, will you vote for yourself before voting against yourself for president?"

And I'm 85th! (God, I need to get a life.)

Posted by: Matt on June 23, 2004 12:50 AM
Sen. Kerry: Can you validate my parking?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:35 AM
Sen. Kerry: Are you going to finish that sandwich?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:36 AM
Sen. Kerry: How many mutually exclusive opinion can fit in your head at one time?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:37 AM
Sen. Kerry: If you were ice cream what flavor you be?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:38 AM
Sen Kerry, who are you liking for president this time?

Posted by: SpaceMonkey on June 23, 2004 01:39 AM
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

or

Does Barry Manilow know that you raid his wardrobe?

Posted by: John on June 23, 2004 01:59 AM

Is Teresa really a 92 million piece of ass?

Posted by: on June 23, 2004 02:22 AM
Senator Kerry, do you like botox?

Posted by: Dan on June 23, 2004 05:15 AM
Senator Kerry, have you possessed my Magic 8-Ball? It only answers "yes and no.."

Posted by: LokiDoki on June 23, 2004 09:02 AM
Senator Kerry;

We all know you served in Vietnam. Which side did you fight for?

Posted by: J. Fielek on June 23, 2004 09:11 AM

Sen. Kerry:

1) Do you know what its like to be shoved into the mud and kicked in the head with metal boot?!?!?

2) Did you order the "Code Red"???!?!?!

Posted by: "Magoop" on June 23, 2004 02:10 PM

Do you know who I am?

Posted by: Ken hahn on June 23, 2004 04:29 PM

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 3:12 AM |

Which one do you disagree with?

Adam Michnik: I look at the war in Iraq from three points of view. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a totalitarian state. It was a country where people were murdered and tortured. So I'm looking at this through the eyes of the political prisoner in Baghdad, and from this point of view I'm very grateful to those who opened the gates of the prison and who stopped the killing and the torture. Second, Iraq was a country that supported terrorist attacks in the Middle East and all over the world. I consider that 9/11 was the day when war was started against my own work and against myself. Even though we are not sure of the links, Iraq was one of the countries that did not lower its flags in mourning on (sic.) 9/11. There are those who think this war could have been avoided by democratic and peaceful means. But I think that no negotiations with Saddam Hussein made sense, just as I believe that negotiations with Hitler did not make sense. And there is a third reason. Poland is an ally of the United States of America. It was our duty to show that we are a reliable, loyal, and predictable ally. America needed our help, and we had to give it. This was not only my position. It was also the position of Havel, Konrad, and others.

...

We take this position because we know what dictatorship is. And in the conflict between totalitarian regimes and democracy you must not hesitate to declare which side you are on. Even if a dictatorship is not an ideal typical one, and even if the democratic countries are ruled by people whom you do not like. I think you can be an enemy of Saddam Hussein even if Donald Rumsfield is also an enemy of Saddam Hussein.

Hat Tip: Chicago Boyz.

And may God bless the Polish Government and people.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:59 AM |

The ethics of unilateral action

Let us remember why we are RegressiveDecision:



I did this because I could.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:48 AM |

Saturday, June 26, 2004

A helpful reminder from the Ministry of Truth

Remember the things you need to keep in mind to enjoy Fahrenheit 9/11:

1. Al Quaida came into existence January 21, 2001.

2. The World Trade Center was certainly not attacked in 1993, nor were our embassies bombed in Africa, nor the Khobar Barracks bombed in Saudi Arabia, nor the USS Cole attacked when Bill Clinton was busy shagging the help. Nut-uh, didn't happen.

3. Afghanistan didn't go to hell because of the Soviet invasion of that country on Christmas Day 1979, because there was no Soviet Union. Duh, communism has never really been tried, so never really failed. The Soviet Union was just another form of rapacious capitalism, like WalMart and jock itch.

4. Jimmy Carter's presidency never welcomed the coup in Iraq that brought Saddam to power, nor was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the fault of Carter's feckless foreign policy. See #3.

5. Iraq/Saddam was armed by Amerika, so ignore the fact that their military sported Soviet made hardware. See #3.

Hat tip: Commissar!

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 7:05 PM |

I CONQUERED! ROAR!

I saw...

Farenheit 9/11 last nigt and, I must say, it was quite a moving film.

Like Triumph of the Will but in English!

I went into the theater thinking that there would be a lot I would disagree with.

The support for Ralph Nader's abjectly anti-war position, for example. Whereas Kerry believes Americans should die in Iraq under a UN mandate, Nader believes they should come home. Where do you stand, infidel?

With all of the facts layed out, however, I believe most of his opinions were right on the mark.

There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Take, for example, the assertion that only 1 member of the Congress out of 535 has a son or daughter serving in Iraq. Why did he narrow the scope so much?

[1] This measure discounts all war veterans to zero. The case in point which was most apparent was Senator Inouye of Hawaii:

Daniel K. Inouye, the third most senior member of the U.S. Senate, is known for his distinguished record as a legislative leader, and as a World War II combat veteran who earned the nation's highest award for military valor, the Medal of Honor.


[2] This doesen't count those who served in the military in general, such as Senator Jon S. Corzine, who served in the Marine Reserves.
[3] This doesn't count members whose children are serving in non-Iraq, non-Afghanistan operations.
[4] It does not count the extended family of members; to wit, a member of the North Dakota Congressional Caucus has a cousin (?) serving in Afghanistan.


Hopefully, this growing fervor against the war will change some opinions.

I think the fervor is shrinking.

John Stewart made an amazing comment on his show the other night.

I'd speculate he also made a funny one too...

He pointed out that if you look at the reasons why we went to war, the weapons of mass destruction, the ties to Al-Qaida, and the liberation of an oppressed people, those reasons could have described six or seven different countries, which makes me wonder why Iraq, out of all the ruthless dictatorships, out of all the terrorist countries (now we know otherwise), HAD to be first, HAD to be the example.

Well, you blood thirsty warmongering fascist imperialist neocon Jew, you are an ambitious one! Perhaps you would consider supporting Bush's reelection campaign if you believe we should attack the following nations:

[1] Syria
[2] Lebanon
[3] Iran
[4] Saudi Arabia
[5] the Sudan
[6] Yemen
[7] Somalia

I'm kidding about the neocon Jew part, but seriously - we took enough shit for attacking Iraq, the center of the Arab world. How many other nations do you want to hit?


Now that we have "liberated"(TM) Iraq, it comes to light that the first two arguments against Iraq were, if not false, extremely weak.

Does it?

[1] Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq.
[2] Link between Saddam and bin Laden found from Iraqi Government sources.

Oh and by the way, for someone whose people came from this you think you would not piss on the graves of people like this.

As someone who is Polish, I can state my fair opposition to the machinery of death.


Even before this war, there was a much better and more convincing argument to invade other middle eastern countries,

Are you doing this because of your pro-Israeli stance? Is the United States supposed to carry Israeli water by annihilating every nation that is a security threat to them?

actively harboring terrorists, and contributing greatly to the terror war that plagues our society.

Syria comes to mind,

Oh does it really now?

with ties to hizbullah, Islamic jihad, and Al-Qaida. (Not to mention the two-for-one deal we'd get with invading Syria, we'd get Lebanon free!)

I doubt we'd get Lebanon free...consider Israel's experience in Lebanon in 1980.

I'm not even going to mention Saudi Arabia, there's NO WAY Bush would ever go to war with the Sauds.

Warmonger. Seriously, if you want to go toe to toe with the Sauds, shouldn't we have a reliable footprint in the region first?

So here are the questions we can ask: Why was Iraq the goal for conquest?

Look at a map. Tell me how much power Iraq's strategic location is worth.

We've created a Baghdad - Kuwait City - Ankara? - Amman - Jerusalem - Cairo axis. Across the Middle East and running down the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia (where the oiiiiiiiiiiillllllllll is) are a ring of American allied states. We are occupying the critical center of the Arab heartland. The strategic reason alone was good enough.


Why was the Bush administration so eager to place blame for the terror war on Saddam?

Because he was responsible for aiding and abetting enemies of the United States of America?

Why did we pevert this war against terrorism?

You little prevert. ;)

We peverted the war on terror because it is not enough to smash al-Qaida, but to drain the fighters and logisticians away from their war against us and to strategically encircle states that are opposed to America *cough Iran cough*.


...I'll let Michael More respond
.
And for after the movie, ask this question: How can we make things right?
try this

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 3:52 PM |

Comment

Dan: I saw 911
Brian: : I did as well!
Dan: and?
Dan: crap?
Dan: some well made points?
Brian: : It made me a stiffer Republican
Dan: okay
Brian: : I thought what he did to the war mother was very sad.
Dan: I think she wanted her story out there.
Dan: He did nothing
Dan: It was the war that did everything
Brian: : But provide the microphone.
Dan: so whats wrong with shedding a tear with the entire liberal majority?
Brian: : I cried in the beginning.
Brian: : Not the end.
Dan: She would cry whether that mic was there or not.
Brian: : I cried from when the sound started until when the pictures started.
Brian: : Then I remembered just how deep my hatred runs.
Dan: and I remembered how carried away I was
Dan: at how badly I wanted to blame ANYONE
Dan: and bomb the shit out of something
Brian: : I felt no pity at all when I saw the woman with her bombed out house.
Dan: nor did I
Brian: : I thought that was a good start, and that disproportional retaliation is the bedrock of American military doctrine.
Dan: i felt pity when I saw our soldiers dying
Brian: : That America would not exist today if we did not use disproportionate retaliation.
Dan: okay
Brian: : And that Kerry has the balls to do it if push comes to shove.
Dan: you believe that?
Brian: : I can't believe he doesn't, because the next time will be worse.
Brian: : I thought the last 5 minutes could have been put into like a dozen pro-Bush commercials with like 5 seconds of editing.
Dan: Then why wouldn't you want someone in office who won't put corporations before American lives,
Dan: someone who doesn't stand to benifit?
Brian: : Corporations are people too, Daniel.
Brian: : But seriously, every politician is bought.
Brian: : It requires a more serious link.
Dan: okay
Brian: : You proved how Governor Kean is involved with the Saudi bin Ladens. Do you believe he was culpable in covering up mass murder?
Dan: well if you walked away feeling a stronger republican, I walked away a stronger democrat
Brian: : I thought it was a cheap stunt with what he did to the mother.
Brian: : I thought alot of it was unsubstantiated.
Brian: : I thought the sound track was magnificent.
Dan: and I think she wanted her story out there
Dan: thats my philosophy with film
Dan: sound is 80% of the film
Brian: : She wanted her story out there.
Brian: : Maybe.
Brian: : Who knows?
Brian: : The letter is when I knew it was a stunt.
Brian: : ...and that George Bush W idiot...
Dan: why do you think Speilberg sticks with Williams
Dan: you think it was faked?
Brian: : We're all classicists at heart :)
Brian: : It told you everything you wanted to hear.
Brian: : My cousin, the liberal democrat, was floored by it.
Dan: so what is so upsetting to you about a soldier who wanted to let out his anger at why he was there with his mother
Dan: he liked it,
Dan: or hated it?
Brian: : He hated the mother thing, thought it was a stunt.
Dan: really
Brian: : Considering what Moore does in past movies, you know it's a stunt.
Dan: i say bs.
Dan: she was no actor,
Brian: : Ever see Roger and Me?
Dan: yes
Dan: long time ago
Brian: : No, she was selected from 1 out of ~800.
Dan: in hebrew school
Dan: who happened to be from the same town as Moore?
Brian: : Flint?
Dan: yah.
Dan: thats where she was frim
Dan: she worked at the unemployment office there
Brian: : He had a man like me call her and ask for a few moments of her time to talk about an article he saw in the Flint Free Press.
Dan: why does your coz think its a stunt again?
Dan: i still don't see it
Brian: : He thinks that it was set up with too overt a political agenda and it was used bluntly.
Dan: that was the point
Dan: read Binart's peice in TNR about being overly bi-partisan
Dan: it gets you nowhere.
Brian: : Do you think Clinton agrees?
Dan: probably not
Brian: : Or FDR?
Brian: : Or LBJ?
Brian: : Or Reagan?
Dan: they all were partisan at one point
Dan: thats why they were part of a party
Brian: : The great legislative achievements of our time - whether I like them or not, were done with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Brian: : Reagan loved Tip O'Neill
Dan: we were so bipartisan over this war, and thats why we're in this mess today
Dan: its even in the film
Dan: when daschle supports the Iraq war
Brian: : Yes.
Brian: : Ahead of the 2002 elections.
Dan: we tried to be bi-partisan
Brian: : Thus you were presented with me and me, too.
Dan: we tried to trust you guys
Dan: and you failed us
Brian: : I didn't fail you.
Dan: you lied to us
Brian: : The Republican leadership beat the Democrats.
Dan: whatever,
Dan: now we have to deal with it
Brian: : You make it seem like this is an existential threat to the American Republic.
Dan: and I'd rather it be John Kerry to do it frankly.
Brian: : You seem caught up in the wave of fear.
Dan: its an existential threat to our standing in the world
Dan: its isolationism flipped inside out, this new policy
Brian: : It's neoimperialism.
Dan: unilateralism
Brian: : Except we're closing bases in Europe and NE Asia.
Dan: uni=iso
Brian: : Did you ever wonder, at night, who was left standing?
Dan: our integrity sure wasn't
Brian: : No, I meant amongst the great powers.
Dan: you mean at the end of the cold war?
Brian: : No, I mean today.
Brian: : Which powers are left?
Dan: you tell me how big of a power Saddam was
Dan: right before the war
Brian: : Above Saudi, the GCC and below Iran, Turkey and Israel
Dan: how could you honestly go against the quotes made by colin powel and rice in 2001 about saddam with "no weapons" and "a deteriorating regime"
Dan: it was all a facade
Dan: thats what the makup at the beginning of the movie meant
Brian: : How do you reconcile that with what Clinton did?
Dan: in regards to?
Dan: kosovo?
Brian: : Bombing the shit out of Iraq in '98
Brian: : Saying there was a link between Iraq and Saddam
Dan: you mean bin ladin?
Brian: : No! lol yes
Dan: those were the only grounds for bombing iraq?
Brian: : There were alot.
Dan: i was only 12, but if i do remember correctly, we bombed iraq because of no-fly zones violations
Dan: and that is REALLY jogging my memory
Dan: from when I was 12
Brian: :
Brian: : we had to deal with iraq's WMD program
Dan: Israel did that
Dan: but yes, i do remember something about bio-chemi
Brian: : Go look it up. We recycled Clinton's allegations and added Zawaqiri (sp.)
Dan: but it seems as though those days were gone by 2003
Dan: the lesson learned
Dan: good for Clinton, bad for Bush
Brian: : Do you think Saddam got rid of his systems?
Dan: you mean launch systems
Dan: or delivery systems
Dan: or actual weapons-grade materials
Dan: which one was actually there?
Dan: NONE!!!
Brian: : We found WMD.
Dan: now?
Brian: : a while ago
Dan: where?
Dan: kansas?
Brian: : No...
Brian: : Iraq
Dan: apparently he did
Dan: one way or another
Brian: : One moment
Brian: : Check regressivedecision, post#2
Dan: what about it
Dan: it cuts off
Brian: : The New York Times
Brian: : post
Brian: : http://regressivedecision.blogspot.com/2004/06/saddam-bin-laden-links-found-new-york.html
Dan: and 10 years before that WE were helping Usama
Brian: : No.
Brian: : That's wrong.
Brian: : Really really wrong.
Dan: its a decade old reason
Dan: give it a rest
Dan: no current ties
Dan: no connection
Dan: enemy of my enemy is my friend
Brian: : http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/hizbi-islami.htm
Dan: type thing
Dan: and we fed our supplies and resources through pakistan
Dan: fas fails to report that
Brian: : That was the Party that got virtually everything.
Brian: : I recommend Charlie Wilson's War.
Brian: : It shows the good ol' days when Democrats had spine, the South.
Dan: we still do have spine
Dan: the boss
Brian: : Oh really?
Brian: : 100%
T/F Is Iraq a quagmire?
Dan: define quagmire
Dan: remember who taught me modern US history
Brian: : Think of Vietnam, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket
Dan: you mean no moral reason for why our soldiers are dying
Dan: false
Dan: you mean terrible mistake in geopolitics
Dan: true
Brian: : Why is it a terrible mistake?
Dan: isolationism
Brian: : No
Brian: : No
Brian: : Why was attacking and suborning Iraq a mistake?
Dan: "the Bush administration accepts anti-Americanism as a compliment"
Brian: : We are rationalizing our defense priorities with a new war. I understand that, as a function of your religion, you would support keeping the Germans down forever - but it does not match our new agenda.
Dan: i support engaging with the germans instead of shirking off their input
Brian: : Of?
Dan: globalization is deteriorating our superpower status, and a united europe could overtake us
Brian: : Have they stopped giving us feeds at Interpol?
Brian: : Have they closed Ramstein?
Brian: : The Bundeswehr is shot to hell.
Brian: : It's still a partial-conscript force.
Dan: look at the broad picture
Brian: : Look at the broad picture. Let's go for the remote corners of this planet - the Straits of Malacca.
Dan: shirking Europe will exclude us from the collaberative nations
Brian: : We just signed a deal with Singapore to sweep pirates out of the way.
Dan: we don't want that
Brian: : America is recentering on our priorities - Europe is not a priority.
Brian: : Europe is a collapsing entity.
Brian: : Every index shows a Europe in meltdown.
Dan: im so tired
Brian: : I mean not just we can fix it meltdown - like Europe ex-Luxembourg is so fucking poor.
Brian: : They are poorer than Bama!
Brian: : They are poor, unemployed, looking for past glory and pursuing nuclear weapons.
Brian: : Britain is about to destroy the EU.
Brian: : Stick to Milton Friedman.
Brian: : He says the Euro will be the greatest monetary disaster of our time.
Brian: : If Europe doubled their defense spending, they still wouldn't match America.
Brian: : They are too far behind.
Brian: : And this isn't the time where we can dig for salt-peter. It's industries and subcontractors...
Brian: : You saw it in part today.
Brian: : United Defense isn't European. It's American.
Brian: : Go to bed, young one.
Dan: (2:46:52 AM): i'm tired
Dan: (2:47:11 AM): i can see we have opposing views on foriegn policy
Dan: (2:47:45 AM): yours grounded on present situation, mine floating on speculation
Dan: (2:48:03 AM): but at least I'll admit that.
Brian: (2:48:10 AM): i cant take the prospect that you're right
Brian: (2:48:15 AM): because then we're facing the entire world alone
Dan: (2:48:44 AM): just read wieseltier's article about iso=uni
Dan: (2:48:52 AM): its interesting, thats all
Dan: (2:49:11 AM): http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=wieseltier062804
Dan: (2:49:15 AM): its not restricted
Brian: (2:49:22 AM): k
Brian: (2:49:58 AM): I would not have supported this war.
Brian: (2:50:02 AM): Have you ever seen the pictures?
Dan: (2:50:26 AM): just read
Dan: (2:50:30 AM): bypass the rhetoric
Dan: (2:50:35 AM): get to the juice
Brian: (2:50:36 AM): You're a Jew, you should see this.
Brian: (2:50:45 AM): Same reason I, a Pole, should
Dan: (2:50:45 AM): im going to sleep
Brian: (2:50:49 AM): Wait
Brian: (2:51:16 AM): http://massgraves.info/
Brian: (2:52:22 AM): We cannot fight Islamic radicalism, I mean militarily, without creating Islamic radicalism.
Brian: (2:52:30 AM): We cannot fight German radicalism, I mean militarily, without creating German radicalism.
Dan: (2:53:17 AM): germany is a country
Dan: (2:53:21 AM): islam is a religion
Brian: (2:53:25 AM): Not always.
Brian: (2:53:28 AM): We both know that.
Dan: (2:53:29 AM): a people beyond one border
Brian: (2:53:48 AM): At our expense, Germany was not a country but a messianistic spirit that wanted to subjugate most of the world.
Dan: (2:53:51 AM): think about it
Dan: (2:53:53 AM): 911
Dan: (2:53:57 AM): we were attacked
Dan: (2:54:04 AM): what did the western countries say?
Brian: (2:54:12 AM): Why do you care what they say?
Dan: (2:54:12 AM): "were all americans!"
Brian: (2:54:16 AM): Why not care what they do?
Brian: (2:54:26 AM): THE TALIBAN SENT US CONDOLENCES
Brian: (2:54:27 AM): lol
Dan: (2:54:35 AM): THERE ARE FRENCH AND GERMAN FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN
Brian: (2:54:40 AM): Good for them.
Brian: (2:54:43 AM): I thank them for it.
Dan: (2:54:45 AM): they fought the war on terrorism
Dan: (2:54:50 AM): not our stupid perversion
Brian: (2:54:59 AM): I don't believe stupid is the right word.
Dan: (2:55:04 AM): irresponsibl
Brian: (2:55:07 AM): But tell me, how much power does Iraq have in the Arab World?
Dan: (2:55:08 AM): unilateral
Dan: (2:55:15 AM): reckless
Brian: (2:55:17 AM): What is the center of the Arab world, of the Middle East and Central Asia?
Dan: (2:55:20 AM): unforseeing
Brian: (2:55:24 AM): It's not reckless - it's premediated.
Dan: (2:55:35 AM): premeditated recklessness
Dan: (2:55:39 AM): lol
Dan: (2:55:44 AM): oxymoron
Brian: (2:55:44 AM): Lebanon, 1980
Dan: (2:55:50 AM): but its so true
Dan: (2:56:01 AM): Zanzibar 1913
Brian: (2:56:13 AM): What?
Brian: (2:56:14 AM): lol
Dan: (2:56:26 AM): lol
Brian: (2:56:34 AM): We picked the fricking center smack dab of the Arab World.
Brian: (2:56:38 AM): Everything rotates around Baghdad.
Dan: (2:56:46 AM): bullshit
Brian: (2:56:54 AM): What other Arab country has that gravity?
Dan: (2:56:58 AM): SA
Brian: (2:57:10 AM): All on a base of 20 million people, most in the desert?
Brian: (2:57:24 AM): No, they got oil and Allah but that doesn't give them the sustainability for delusions of power.
Dan: (2:57:46 AM): which is why they have gone to terror!
Dan: (2:57:53 AM): and perverted their allah
Brian: (2:57:59 AM): Well, it's not a perversion of their Allah.
Brian: (2:58:03 AM): It's old-skool.
Brian: (2:58:03 AM): llol
Dan: (2:58:06 AM): ok
Dan: (2:58:07 AM): fine
Dan: (2:58:12 AM): hudna style
Brian: (2:58:16 AM): Bingo
Dan: (2:58:19 AM): skeet skeet
Dan: (2:58:22 AM): lol
Brian: (2:58:26 AM): My goodness.
Brian: (2:58:32 AM): With Iraq, we can pressure Saudi Arabia in a way we could not before.
Dan: (2:58:35 AM): think of congo, 1411
Brian: (2:58:42 AM): Their oil resources are majority-Shi'a in Saudi Arabia.
Dan: (2:58:54 AM): skeet skeet skeet
Brian: (2:58:56 AM): If we can create a responsible Shi'a Government, we can encourage the demise of the House of Saud.
Brian: (2:58:58 AM): But is that the goal?
Dan: (2:59:03 AM): my uncle told me a great story
Dan: (2:59:05 AM): the other day
Brian: (2:59:06 AM): Dr. Gottlieb thought it was.
Brian: (2:59:07 AM): Do tell.
Dan: (2:59:30 AM): he told me of this time when he was in LA, south central, where my mother and him grew up
Dan: (2:59:36 AM): visiting his old home
Dan: (3:00:11 AM): and as he was walking from their old house to their school, some guy comes up to him in a dashiki robe, and a big hat
Dan: (3:00:27 AM): pulls out a 2 foot blade, and says...
Dan: (3:00:48 AM): "If this was the markets of Zanzibar, you'd be dead by now"
Brian: (3:00:56 AM): lol
Dan: (3:01:06 AM): so my uncle just walks on like nothing happened,
Dan: (3:01:13 AM): he gets about a block away
Dan: (3:01:26 AM): turns around, and the guy is still there looking at him with his blade in the air
Dan: (3:01:43 AM): probably the best story ive ever heard
Brian: (3:01:49 AM): It's very good.
Brian: (3:01:54 AM): They think that French is funny.
Brian: (3:01:59 AM): (1) lol
Brian: (3:02:05 AM): (2) France is done for.
Brian: (3:02:20 AM): You heard about the Israeli Minister for Overseas Jewry, right?
Brian: (3:02:32 AM): He drew up plans to handle 200 000 French Jews in a mass exodus.
Dan: (3:03:03 AM): nice
Dan: (3:03:06 AM): im going to sleep
Dan: (3:03:12 AM): soo tired
Brian: (3:03:18 AM): wait
Dan: (3:03:23 AM): but thanks for keeping my feet on the ground
Brian: (3:03:25 AM): 1 more second
Brian: (3:03:31 AM): Go here
Dan: (3:03:33 AM): no i cant even keep my eyes closed
Brian: (3:03:38 AM): Of course not
Brian: (3:03:41 AM): Jerusalem - The Jewish Agency is bracing itself for the immigration of tens of thousands French Jews into Israel as a result of a growing anti-Semitism in France, a spokesperson for the organisation said on Sunday. ...
Brian: (3:03:43 AM): 30000?
Brian: (3:03:51 AM): I saw 200 000...
Brian: (3:03:57 AM): Vatikai said that a report compiled by the agency had found 30 000 out of France's 575 000-strong Jewish community were considering immigrating to Israel. ...

French Justice Minister Dominique Perben said last week that 180 anti-Jewish acts had been recorded so far this year, including cases of assault, arson and verbal insults. ...

Vatikai said the situation for French Jews was becoming increasingly "difficult".


Brian: (3:04:02 AM): I saw in another article 200 000.
Brian: (3:04:08 AM): Maybe thats how bad they thought.
Brian: (3:04:09 AM): Go tobed.
Dan: (3:04:11 AM): yup
Dan: (3:04:18 AM): bad french
Dan: (3:04:29 AM): bad europe
Brian: (3:04:35 AM): God bless America.
Dan: (3:04:39 AM): bad muslims
Dan: (3:04:45 AM): bad christians
Brian: (3:04:52 AM): Because if you're right about Kristalnacht, it will be where it started...
Dan: (3:04:54 AM): we're better off alone, in israel
Brian: (3:05:00 AM): Not alone.
Brian: (3:05:03 AM): But you get the idea.
Dan: (3:05:03 AM): we'll surely win our war alone
Brian: (3:05:10 AM): Enough nukes, sure.
Dan: (3:05:17 AM): who will support Israel in america if we all left
Brian: (3:05:24 AM): The Christian right.
Dan: (3:05:25 AM): noone
Dan: (3:05:35 AM): there's no constituancy
Brian: (3:05:48 AM): Ever ask a Republican about this?
Dan: (3:06:07 AM): i need sleep
Dan: (3:06:09 AM): email me
Brian: (3:06:11 AM): Ask a Republican
Brian: (3:06:13 AM): Go to bed.
Dan: (3:06:14 AM): ok
Dan: (3:06:16 AM): will do

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:47 AM |

Does this make any sense?

Poll finds Bush, Kerry race still close
Wisconsin voters remain in favor of president
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: June 24, 2004
Wisconsin voters have had a lot to absorb since the Bush-Kerry race began in earnest in March: millions of dollars in TV ads, high-profile campaign visits, the Iraq prison scandal, improving job numbers, Ronald Reagan's death, the early findings of the Sept. 11 commission.

But the net effect of it all has been in many ways negligible, a statewide Badger Poll suggests.

In key respects, the race is almost exactly where it was three months ago.

In a Badger Poll done March 23-31, 46% of Wisconsin adults thought President Bush was doing a good or excellent job.

Today it's 47%.

Back then, 45% said they would like to see Bush re-elected.

Today it's 43%.

Back then, 52% had a favorable impression of Bush, 41% unfavorable.

Today it's 52% favorable, 42% unfavorable.

Back then, 37% had a favorable impression of John Kerry, 34% unfavorable.

Today it's 36% favorable, 36% unfavorable.

Back then, in a three-way matchup, Bush had a small lead over Kerry - 47% to 41% - with independent Ralph Nader at 5%.

The new poll, of 504 voting-age adults surveyed June 15-23, is almost identical: Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%. That lead is within the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Even the share of undecided voters is virtually unchanged, despite the fact

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 1:16 AM |

What the devil?

(CPOD) Jun. 25, 2004 – George W. Bush could carry the state of Nevada in the 2004 United States presidential election, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive published in the Wall Street Journal Online. 47.3 per cent of respondents would vote for the Republican incumbent, while 44.8 per cent would support prospective Democratic nominee, while

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 1:13 AM |

Nads for Nader!

The rest of the polling data is inconsistent, however we will go with what we've got.
Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, gained 44 percent in Pennsylvania compared with 43 percent for Bush among 839 registered voters surveyed June 21-22 by Quinnipiac University.

The two states were among the 17 closest races in the 2000 election, when Bush defeated Democrat and former Vice President Al Gore. Bush, 57, won Ohio by 3.6 percentage points in 2000; Gore, 56, took Pennsylvania by 4.3 points. Kerry, 60, and Bush are spending most of their advertising dollars in those 17 so-called battleground states.

``Pennsylvania is living up to expectations as having one of the closest presidential battles in the nation,'' said Clay Richards, assistant director of the polling institute at Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac, in a statement. ``Ralph Nader clearly is cutting into Senator Kerry's vote.''

Nader, 70, a consumer activist, garnered 7 percent support in the Quinnipiac poll. In a poll last month, Kerry drew the support of 44 percent to Bush's 41 percent and Nader's 6 percent.

Two-Way Race

In the new survey, 49 percent said they would vote for Kerry in a two-way battle excluding Nader, while 43 percent picked Bush. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. Last month, Kerry led by 3 percentage points in a race with Bush alone. Quinnipiac counted responses only from registered voters and didn't determine how likely respondents are to vote.

In Ohio, Kerry's 6 point lead includes Nader in the race, according to Manchester, New Hampshire-based American Research Group's poll. Nader gained 2 percent support and 6 percent were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Democratic party leaders including party Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Nancy Pelosi, the party leader in the U.S. House, say Nader may be a ``spoiler'' in the election by drawing votes from Kerry.

``His presence in the race will jeopardize the election of a Democratic president,'' Pelosi told reporters today. ``I think he should get out of the race.

In 2000, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and got 2.7 percent of the vote nationwide. He drew as much as 5 percent in some states, such as Minnesota, that the Bush and Kerry campaigns expect will be decided by a few percentage points.

Nader doesn't have his name on the ballot yet in every state for the Nov. 2 election.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 1:12 AM |

Friday, June 25, 2004

Follow up


r00troute: Just admit you want the blacks to die and we'll move right over to the domestic side.
Dan Schaer: ok fine they all should die

I'm sure Dan's kidding. While he is a statist, he's not that bad.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 11:19 PM |

Saddam - Bin Laden links found -- New York Times

All the news that's fit to print.


WASHINGTON, June 24
- Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

So...if I understand correctly, Saddam was helping Usama. Oho!

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

Zionist Lies!

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Because Saddam keeps reciepts of this sorta thing? I'm surprised we found this.

Last week, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks addressed the known contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which have been cited by the White House as evidence of a close relationship between the two.

The commission concluded that the contacts had not demonstrated "a collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Bush administration responded that there was considerable evidence of ties.

The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to The New York Times several weeks ago, before the commission's report was released. Since obtaining the document, The Times has interviewed several military, intelligence and United States government officials in Washington and Baghdad to determine that the government considered it authentic.


Well, aren't we fuckered?

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 9:16 PM |

We're all tools

contacts, yes. collaberation, a defiant no.

Except we're not too sure about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's identity.

It's also collaboration.

By that standard, describe Syria and Iran's involvement in Palestinian affairs. Are they contacting or collaborating? BTW, there was a memo released by DOD today from Saddam's HQ detailing how he ordered cooperation with Saudi Hezbollah and UBL.



...Kean, a Blind idealogue.

He knows more about the situation than you do, Comrade.

*ideologue


In fact, there's just as much evidence connecting KEAN himself to Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Thomas_H._Kean

lol

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 9:08 PM |

Why is Kerry a shill for the capitalist classes?

Why was Kerry vacationing on Nantucket, of all places?



To go to this island retreat of the rich sent all the wrong messages to undecided voters, and it discourages his hard core.


Like his ski trip to Sun Valley, Idaho after the primaries, the junket to Nantucket, where Kerry owns a home, reinforces the image of Kerry as a member of the upper class. Since Bush traffics on his own synthetic image as a regular guy, Kerry's indifference to looking hoity-toity is foolish.


What's more, there are millions of Democrats who are so desperate to get Bush out of office that they don't want Kerry to waste a single minute.


Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 8:57 PM |

An interesting article on Ron Reagan, Reagan's son

Reagan, 46, who is a contributor to MSNBC and an occasional host on the Animal Planet channel, has long been an outspoken political liberal.

...

"If the younger Ron Reagan had a history as a conservative activist, I think this would mean something much more serious," he said. "But he had departed from many of his father's policies long ago, so this comes as less of a surprise."

...

Besides, Khachigian said, the GOP still has the other Reagan son in its corner: Michael Reagan, the nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host. Since his father's death, Michael Reagan has said that his father, like Bush, would have opposed stem cell research on moral grounds -- and that the suggestion such research is likely to cure Alzheimer's disease is politically motivated disinformation. "This is junk science at its worst," he wrote in a recent column.

...

In interviews this month, Ron Reagan has talked about Bush in conflicting tones, speaking with contempt for his policies but expressing gratitude for the courtesies the president extended to the Reagan family -- such as the use of Blair House and a presidential jet -- when they came to Washington for memorial services.

Reagan said those gestures "made life a lot easier" and that he also liked the eulogy Bush gave his father at Washington National Cathedral, saying it was "sweet." He also told CNN that he had "no personal animus" toward Bush, even though he believes the president is using religion inappropriately to justify his political actions and does not want him to win reelection.

...

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 8:49 PM |

Are terrorists evil?

Is it evil to behead innocent men? (See: here, here, here, and here) Are terrorists evil?

Who has said all along that terrorists are evil-doers? And who has tried all along to instead portray terrorists as a group of slightly misguided people who can be negotiated with and dealt with by law enforcement?

Who identified the terrorist threat right from the start as what it truly was? And who instead has been out of touch with reality?

Who is the right choice for President during this war?

Posted by calimacala at 9:47 AM |

Thank you, Liberals, for revealing one of our weaknesses...

"The bad, and entirely ignored, news [about the Bush interrogration documents] is that our most deadly enemies now know where the U.S. will draw the line should they fall into American hands." (Source)

This is another Mogadishu for Osama bin Laden.

What happened when Clinton yanked our troops out of Mogadishu at the first signs of something going wrong? Osama bin Laden used that little juicy tidbit as a promotional tool for al Qaeda, preaching that Americans are weak-spined and won't go very far to defend themselves.

What happened when Bush stuck to his word on Iraq? Osama bin Laden lost his propaganda tool because America was no longer the weak-spined country she was a decade earlier. Now, America is a force for terrorists to reckon with. (See: Gadhafi, Libya, surrender.)

What happened now that the terrorists know where we draw the line vis-a-vis torture? They're back in their post-Mogadishu, pre-Iraq mindset. They know that they are not bound by any rules, while we are.

AND THIS WAR CANNOT BE WON AS LONG AS WE ARE BOUND BY RULES AGAINST AN ENEMY THAT IS NOT.

"The incentive from now on will be for lawyers to provide internal counsel along the lines of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's infamous 1995 memo instructing FBI agents and federal prosecutors to go "beyond what the law requires" in limiting their collaboration against al Qaeda. We trust the folks who've forced this retreat stand ready to offer their mea culpas to the commission investigating the next major terrorist attack on the United States."

Posted by calimacala at 9:23 AM |

Thursday, June 24, 2004

By their own admission

Consider the following AIM conversation:
Dr. Gonzo (10:39:49 PM): oh, way to be unpatriotic you liberal fuckas
Dan from ProgressiveDecision (10:39:59 PM): yeah i hate america

-Dr. Gonzo

Posted by Adam Gonzalez at 10:41 PM |

John Kerry would force America into another recession

This comes right out of the Wall Street Journal, one of the foremost sources and authorities on the economic and financial situation: John Kerry's policies would throw many poor people out of work.

In fact, the logic is so basic I don't even need to quote the article. If you raise the minimum wage as Kerry wishes to do (to $7 per hour), that doesn't mean that people who are now getting just $5.15 will suddenly be making $7 and prospering. In most cases, industries and businesses and corporations will decide that the employees making $5.15 aren't worth keeping at $7... and so will fire them. So the end result will be the for many, many poor people, instead of their wages going up as a result of the minimum wage being increased, their wages will decrease to the absolute minimum wage: zero dollars per hour.

What's the lesson in this? The government cannot control the economy. Only the market supply and demand can control the economy.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

When does the War on Terror end?

Simple question, simple answer: when the terrorists no longer have any reason to commit terrorist attacks against America. When is that? Let's ask one of them:

"A recording purportedly made by Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi threatened to kill interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and fight the Americans 'until Islamic rule is back on Earth.'" (Source)

So what are the liberal peaceniks trying to say? They want to end the war. That means appeasing the terrorists (can anyone say "Neville Chamberlain"?) and letting "Islamic rule [be] back on Earth."

Come on, join me in saying it, all together now: "Allahu Akbar!"

Posted by calimacala at 4:19 PM |

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a tie!?

According to Election Projection 2004, it's an electoral tie at 269 votes apiece for both Bush and Kerry!

Posted by calimacala at 7:44 PM |

Budget blunders for 800$!

No one less than former Soviet Union foreign minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has credited Reagan’s defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile Communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America’s defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan’s powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets that they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire. Without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 1:34 AM |

Koncerned ameriKans for _erry...

Q.: If you were a mischievous Bush person and wanted to make some trouble for John Kerry, what would you do? A.: Start a rumor that Kerry has picked John Edwards as his running mate. That will ratchet up the current press buzz that Edwards is the inevitable, obvious choice, due to his charismatic brilliance as a campaigner. Then, if Kerry doesn't want to choose Edwards, he will a) be faced with annoying unwanted pressure and b) look like a vain man who doesn't want to be upstaged. If Edwards is the pick, then a) the pre-emptive rumor will blow the big surprise of Kerry's announcement and b) Kerry will look like he's been stampeded. It's win win! And it won't be a hard rumor to start. ...

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 1:29 AM |

Monday, June 21, 2004

Speaking of Voting One's Conscience...

I read an excellent article this morning which, although from the conservative OpinionJournal, takes a very fair stance on the upcoming elections in light of what happened during 2000. (*cough* Florida *cough*)

Instead of "lawyering up," both parties should be working to prevent another Florida.

...

As the presidential campaigns pick up their brickbats again, it's time to look toward November and see if we might avoid recounts, lawsuits and challenges. But the campaigns are preparing for another Florida. "Both sides are lawyering up and we could see Florida-style challenges in every close state," says Doug Chapin of Electionline.org, which monitors electoral reforms.

The level of suspicion between the two parties is greater than ever. John Kerry says he believes Al Gore "won" the 2000 election and has assembled a team of 2,000 lawyers to "challenge anyplace in America where you cannot trace the vote and count the votes." Republicans have their own legal team to combat fake voter registrations, absentee-ballot fraud and residents of nursing homes being overly "assisted" to cast votes. Maria Cardona of the New Democrat Network dismisses such concerns, saying "ballot security and preventing voter fraud are just code words for voter intimidation and suppression." Liberal legal groups are suing to set aside laws in some of the 11 states that require photo ID at the polls on the grounds they discriminate against the poor and minorities.

...

In a rare example of bipartisan agreement, Reps. Rush Holt (D., N.J.) and Tom Davis (R., Va.) both back amending HAVA to require voting systems to produce a verifiable paper record. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supports a Senate version of the idea, says another contested election will cause people to "fundamentally lose confidence in our democracy and in their vote."

...

Mr. Gore's decision to contest the Florida election in 2000 until the bitter end may have permanently changed the way close elections are decided, in much the same way that judicial nomination battles have changed. If the election is close this November, endless lawsuits and recriminations could poison of public opinion and create a climate of illegitimacy around any final winner. Voters are used to having the final word in an election. Let's take steps to keep it that way, so we can minimize the use of scorched-earth tactics of trial lawyers to settle elections. The Floridification of our politics isn't something anyone should want.

Posted by calimacala at 9:02 AM |

Sunday, June 20, 2004

Vote your conscience

A bumper sticker worth procuring.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 4:04 PM |

Friday, June 18, 2004

Retraction

It is wrong to call Karthik a sanctimonious twit in regards to my post debunking his praise for Gorbachev. I apologize and retract statements to that effect.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:31 PM |

The sound of imminent destruction

From the outside: a new Club for Growth ad airing on national cable and in a few spot markets directly compares Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to John Kerry.

To wit: The ad dredges up a sound bite from Kerry's 1971 testimony on Capitol Hill, where Kerry says 'We cannot fight communism all over the world . . . ' and then plays Ronald Reagan's 'Tear Down This Wall' sound bite from 1987.

The final sound bite: President Bush, on the pile at the World Trade Center site, telling firefighters, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from us all of us soon." It ends with a recapitulation of what Kerry said in 1971 and displays in chyron: "John Kerry. Wrong then, Wrong now."

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:55 AM |

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Kerfuffle

Industrial Production Surged Last Month

Confirming recent progress in the manufacturing sector flying in the face of John Kerry's pessimism and misery tour, industrial production surged 1.1 percent last month:

Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities surged in May, posting its biggest gain in almost six years, the Federal Reserve reported Wednesday.
The Fed said industrial production rose a larger-than-expected 1.1 percent in May after a 0.8 percent gain in April. The May increase was the biggest since a 2.0 percent rise in August 1998.

While the Fed said "unseasonably warm weather" caused utilities output to surge, the gain in overall production was broad-based and reflected the continued revival in the U.S. factory sector, which began declining ahead of the 2001 recession.

"The numbers show the manufacturing sector has very solid forward momentum," said Anthony Karydakis, senior financial economist with Banc One Capital Markets in Chicago.

   

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:56 AM |

The body is cold.

A Comment on Reagan
Or rather, several.

First of all, while Reagan's death is a tragedy, he's been close to dead for years now.

Good thing you didn't have your way with him the way you tried with Terri Schiavo.

The country had already accepted that Reagan was gone, and the mourning for someone who's already been gone for years is not the mourning for someone who was vibrantly alive into their deaths.
And saying this is not insulting Reagan, and not saying people didn't like him, but simply stating the truth.

What?

Secondly, I find it interesting that Ronald Reagan Jr., Reagan's son, hates W with a passion. Or, as he says, "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."

So he supports Kerry?

Hello? Is this thing on?


I can't imagine Nancy's a big fan, either, at least based on Bush's position on stem cell research (I've always wondered: why aren't all the anti-stem cell research people also anti-in vitro? After all, it also results in plenty of wasted zygotes, humans in their terms).

Bush's position is the compromise between willy nilly and no research at all. What was Clinton's position?

Thirdly, to all the people who can't stop writing Reagan hagiographies: remember Iran contra? Where he was selling weapons to the Iranians to fund guerillas in Nicaragua? Yes, those Iranians. But it's alright, because the Iranians having weapons stopped the Iraqis from becoming too powerful with their weapons. Which, um, Reagan gave them, too (Picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein, anyone?). The Reagan presidency was not all sunshine and happiness. In fact, it was far from perfect.

So...he balanced two dictators off each other. Why is that bad? Isn't that what FDR did to Hitler and Stalin and Nixon to Mao and Brezhnev? I think that's a good thing.

Another thing - are you sure the weapons worked?


But for a balanced view on some of Reagan's policies, and a comparison of his to those of our current President (how are you going to pay for that tax cut? with another, bigger tax cut!), read Paul Krugman's excellent article.

Which has been debunked already.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:50 AM |

The hobgoblin of little minds

Ah ha! An Out!

That is very insightful.

I mean, come on. It makes me sad when I have to say that Scalia (ugh) made the most honorable decision on a case (he abstained because he'd commented on the manner publicly).

You're right. 88% of the SCOTUS is out to get you. So are 92% of Americans...

The problem is that "under god" is a hard issue to touch, but it's so obviously and blatantly unconstitutional that an easy out like this one is the only out for justices of conscience.

hmm...unconstitutional. Funny...

Let's try a little basic law. To bring a lawsuit in a court you have to have standing. Oh, you don't have that if you're a minor...and if you're not the Guardian. Game, set, match, right?


Not that justices of conscience should be taking an out, but oh well.

But this isn't a real out, because it's a poor ruling. Don't take my word for it, read Scrivener's Error, a blog written by a Real Lawyer, who explains in legal speak why the ruling is incorrect.

Capitalize Lawyer but not God. Let's see what Scrivener says:

"Leaving aside the dubious neglect to ask the child what her wishes are..."


I'm no lawyer, but I believe that the child is a child (tautology alert) and, therefore, the Guardian (the mother) is the one who will have to stand if there is such a case. The mother decided no. Tough cookies.


Wait a minute, you say. Obviously and blatantly unconstitutional? Absolutely.

How? Unsubstantiated allegation.

If you don't think it's an issue, just imagine you have a daughter (or a son, but let's assume daughter so I don't have to worry about pronouns). Now imagine you're an atheist.

So you're under 10% of Americans.

Just try it for a minute, I know it might be hard, but we're people too.

Who are trying to establish your religion - nihilism as the official religion of the United States.

Now imagine that your young daughter goes to school every day, and every morning she hears her teacher and all her classmates say "under god".

Imagine if your daughter hears the English language, or mathematics.

So what do you do? Are you an understanding parent, who tells her it's ok to say it, possibly planting the seeds for future indoctrination?

I'd be a tolerant person who stands on the convictions of their argument, not an intolerant bigot...

Or are you a strict parent, cruelly forbidding her from saying it to stand up for your principles, making her feel left out? And will she even obey you if you do forbid her?

My guess is Teddy leans towards intolerance and bigotry.

Or, if it's too hard to imagine you're an atheist, imagine you're a Christian (hell, statistics say you probably are) but the pledge contains the words "under Allah," or "under Zeus". Are you okay with that?

Sure. Obviously, pluralism isn't your strong suit.

You (if you disagree with me) need to accept the fact that not everyone believes in "god",

Just enough to make a law. If you disagree, go write a law. You need a majority in both houses and the support of the President.

and you need to understand that I'm not attacking your religion.

You are trying to abolish my God and replace it with a nihilistic creed.

Believe in god. Believe this nation is under god. Believe this nation is under Cthulu, I don't care, believe what you want, and teach your kids about it all you want. But don't stuff it down my throat, and certainly don't try to stuff it down my (hypothetical) kid's throat. Not having the words "under god" in the official pledge doesn't harm your religion, doesn't stop you from practicing it in any way.

Intolerance and bigotry

Besides, the words "under god" ruin the rhythm of the pledge.

I'm sorry it's not aesthetically pleasing to you. Would it be better if it was in Russian?

And they're a legacy of McCarthyism, a part of this country's history we'd all like to erase (or at least, all reasonable people would).

Because, you know, Communists never penetrated    this Government.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:40 AM |

Ra!

I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts, Deedly Deedly...

Is there a little something odd about Karthik saying Deedly Deedly?

The end of the mourning period for the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, a sort of leader of the province of Lau, Fiji, will be commemorated by the plaiting of the magimagi, a term that translates roughly to "coconut fiber."

Plait forth.

Due to the popularity and importance of this Tui Nayau (roughly translated as "governor"), the magimagi will be made with 3000 coconuts involving four to six people; usually, only one or two people are involved in plaiting a 100-200 coconut magimagi.

Let me be the first, therefore, to urge Americans of all ages and walks of life to join together to lift our great nation out of its mourning for the late president Ronald Reagan by plaiting an enormous magimagi, made with at least 100,000 coconuts and utilizing the hard work of 2,000 people, slaving day and night only on this task. Truly, only such a great work will show this nation's love for our fortieth president.

We capitalize President.

Aside from that, it has already been done before.


I'm absolutely serious.

This idea makes plenty of sense.

More sense than Reagan replacing FDR on the dime, at least.

Because FDR had his plaiters work overtime.

Since you, the reader, are obviously interested enough in this idea to keep on reading, I would like to propose an addendum to this idea: only top Republican law-makers, neocons, and Ann Coulter be allowed to create this magimagi.

Ahem.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


That way, Republicans will be able to get plenty of PR and bragging rights later on, and Democrats can govern the country more effectively.

Yes.

Oh, and Ann Coulter will finally shut up for a while.

Silence your opponent?

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:24 AM |

A coat of whitewash. No, make that two.

June 12, 2004

And the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor Goes to…

Mikhail Gorbachev once remarked that Ronald Reagan was extremely instrumental in ending the Cold War, and that he was probably also the whole reason the Cold War ended so peacefully.

Funny, so did Margaret Thatcher and countless other world leaders...Let's go to Gorbachev's words:

"Reagan was a staunch conservative. So for him, coming from that background, it was easier to make the move towards us and meet us halfway. Someone else might not have been able to do it. And the chance could have been lost."

That someone else? The Jew hating Peanut Farmer.


Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt: Gorbachev was an unabashed flatterer who used his charm and wit

Hold right there. Gorbachev was an unabashed flatterer? Let's just look at his resume.

I see member of the Supreme Soviet, Presidium of the USSR. Flatterer? No, just an unfounded assertion...


as best as he could to end an arms race that he knew was just as destructive to his people as the repression of the communist state was.

That is an amazing coat of whitewash.

Gorbachev truly believed in communism,

...
just as destructive to his people as the repression of the communist state was....
charm and wit ...


but he also believed in two things more: political, economic,

His defense team drew up a plan, later expanded into National Security Decision Directive 11-82, that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end." The objective was to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."

and social reform that would serve the people more ably than the previous emphasis on state, called perestroika; and greater openness and transparency for the people about what was going on, called glasnost.

"I had a meeting in Moscow with Marshal Ogarkov, the chief of staff of the Soviet Armed Forces. And he said, 'You know, all modern military capability is based on the computer. You have little kids in America 3 years old who know how to deal with computers! It takes years here to train Soviet recruits in the military to use them because they've never used them before. We're afraid of computers! If we start deploying computers, it's going to mean loss of political control for the Soviet leadership.'"

Thus, again, Reagan was right.


Gorbachev needed a way to end the Cold War so that he could help his people get on with their lives.

Really? So what about Brezhnev and the predecessors of Gorbachev?

I believe you are making a fundamental error in your assumptions - you are not mentioning how and why Gorbachev rose to power. You are placing more good will in the dictator of the Soviet Union than the American President.


He saw that strength, or the façade thereof, was far too costly too his people, so he decided to give "weakness," as Neocons call it, a chance.

So..if we understand Karthik's history lesson correctly, weakness will lead to the dissolution of America, the breaking away of states and our collapse in world circles.

In 1985, he offered a unilateral moratorium on nuclear arms testing; unfortunately, Reagan and his administration thought this was a scam and didn't rise to it.

Because you know how you can trust those Soviets.

Karthik, you are transcending naivete and moving towards aiding an enemy of the United States.


Gorbachev then decided to try to implement a plan that would rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000; again, Reagan didn't bite.

The zero-pledge in Europe came from the Reagan camp. It's good to see that you botched history on that one. This became the INF Treaty. Notice how the substantive moves towards nuclear disarmament are taking place under Reagan.

Then came the Reykjavik Summit, when Gorbachev offered another plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons in exchange for the US pledging support and abandoning its "Star Wars" program. There was ample reason for Reagan to be suspicious about this,

I thought you just said we could trust the Soviets. Again, you are wrong.

but the tantrum he threw,

Who appointed you to be the arbiter of what is acceptable moral behavor and what is not?

storming out of the Summit without offering anything in return to Gorbachev's plan,

We offered him to go back to Moscow and take his plans with him. That is calling the bluff - obviously you are not familiar with it.

only got Reagan the disdain of the world.

Look at what it was worth.

Reagan, it seemed, was too suspicious and paranoid to give peace a chance.

Yes. As you know from being alive, it didn't work.

Interesting to note must be how Gorbachev was holding up under internal pressures.

You mean how he failed to hold up under internal pressures?

The Strategic Defense Initiative-colloquially known as "Star Wars"-made more than a few Kremliners nervous,

Oddly, that’s not the way the Russians see it. Says Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to Leonid Brezhnev, "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that you won the Cold War because of your president’s insistence on SDI," the Strategic Defense Initiative, as Star Wars was formally called. Grofimenko marvels that the Nobel Peace Prize went to "the greatest flimflam man of all time," Mikhail Gorbachev, while Western intellectuals ignore Reagan -- who, he says, "was tackling world gangsters of the first order of magnitude."

KGB Gen. Nikolai Leonev also admitted that the much maligned SDI actually worked, as intended even if it didn't work as advertised.


(SDI) "played a powerful psychological role, It underlined still more our technological backwardness."


and Gorbachev's continual gambits for peace must have seemed as rational as a hammer made of chocolate.

Metaphor alert.

There of course, lies the central point: Gorbachev still had vast armies, powerful weapons, and a secret police as repressive as any Orwellian could dream of.

And you whitewash him. What does that say about your moral fibre?

Yet, even though he had the option of continuing the Soviet state of business, he decided the Cold War had gone on long enough.

He did? In a pique of good will he decided to cave to America? Where do you see this? Cite it.

To say that it was Reagan's aggressive overtures that forced Gorbachev's hand is false;

Obviously. I mean, isn't it obvious that Reagan failed to end the Cold War?

after all, there had been arms races before,

The arms race is but a small part of it, you twit. The other part was that we decided to roll back Communism in the Americas and in Central Asia. This is the difference between Truman, Eisenhower, et. al. and Reagan...

and the Soviet economy had always been pitifully weak next to the US economy.

Ahem.

John Kenneth Galbraith, the distinguished Harvard economist, wrote in l984: “That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene?One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets?and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops?Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower.”



Doubtless, a five-year plan would have helped keep the Soviets afloat. However, for Gorbachev, that price was too high.

Doubtless? I doubt it.

Somehow, it all worked out. During Reykjavik, Gorbachev decided that Reagan was a man whom he could work with to end the Cold War.

I'm sorry, but this is farking insane.

In the end, both sides kind of got what they wanted: Gorbachev got his democratic elections and reforms,

When did he say he wanted that?

though he lost power as a result; and Reagan was able to rest peacefully for the remainder of his life knowing that what he considered the greatest threat to the free world had been dissolved.

Amen.

There is no doubt that Reagan would have not been able to have done anything without Gorbachev: had Konstantin Chernenko had lived longer, had Yuri Andropov had better kidneys, Reagan's aggression might have ended in disaster.

Reagan's aggression might have ended in disaster.

Yet, to be fair, if Gorbachev had been opposite a man with Kennedy's penchant for machoism, or Nixon's hard-liner approach, he might not have been able to ensure that the dissolution of his empire happened peacefully. Without the one, the other would not have been able to make history.

Sanctimonious twit or unsupported/unsound judgment. You make the call.

As we remember and mourn the loss of a man who did what he truly thought would help America, and as we thank him for his concessions and softening towards, it helps to remember these things, that we may admire the man for the great things he actually did instead of putting him on a pedestal and taking him away from who he was. The two were partners in peace, and at their time, the two greatest actors on the stage of the world.

Yes. The American one a little better.

Posted by Mahmoud the Weasel at 2:13 AM |