"Obamaâ€™s nutty preacher is a problem, but I doubt itâ€™s fatal."
Oh but it so clearly is. Because sooner rather than later Obama will be tied so closely to this fanatic that he will be unable to extricate himself. It's far too late to throw the loon under the bus and the bus is now headed for the nearest cliff. Especially since everyone really 'knows' that at least Michelle Obama agrees completely with this loon, and suspects that a man cannot be somewhere for 20 years without getting a clue about exactly where he is. That Obama is STILL there speaks volumes.
This 'pastor' is so viscerally repugnant, that the general election voters will be viscerally turned off and vote accordingly. It is almost a subliminal process.
Goodbye New Mexico.
Goodbye New Hampshire.
Goodbye Obama.Comment Posted By dougf On 16.03.2008 @ 16:38
"Get your own damn blog. If you have ignorant criticisms to make, write them there."
Obama should never even be considered for the Presidency at this point. He's a BOY playing Mr.Dressup and in a time of International Conflict he should be somewhere learning about the World so that someday he might have something to contribute.
Today ain't that day.
His bubble will burst before the election and when it does great will be the lamentation from the easily suggestible. Not to mention the gullible and delusional.Comment Posted By dougf On 3.03.2008 @ 19:41
While I respect your thoughtful analysis, in the interests of brevity might I just say that I don't agree.
Not with the arguments in favor of NOT destroying the tapes.
Not with the underlying arguments about how we are 'better' than that.
Not with the assumption that rules are rules even if they are completely at odds with 'reality' and that "that the Geneva Convention is ridiculously out of date, moldy in its thinking and laughably naive about men at war and the exigencies of the times. And the fact that we and other western countries are the only ones who even make an attempt to conduct ourselves by its rules is patently unfair and revealing of a sickening double standard abroad in the world."
And certainly not with the assumption that our Western 'goodness' protects us from harm. Our weapons and the will to use them ,protect us from harm as they did in WW2. Goodness like 'deserve' in "The Unforgiven", 'ain't got nothing to do with it'.
Someday a city will be obliterated and then the 'true' nature of society will reveal itself. We certainly won't be fretting then about 'stressful techniques'. One can only hope that, in the meantime, the 'fretting' beforehand does not in itself actually lead to that dire result.Comment Posted By dougf On 8.12.2007 @ 12:59
Excellent post. The only thing I might suggest requires review is the 'conservative' identification with certain type of personal 'values'.
There is nothing 'wrong'(well there might be something 'wrong' with some of them IMO, but that's just me) with those values, but there is possibly a great deal wrong with some of the 'messengers' and the message format. 'Social Conservatism' has distorted the whole movement, and while it has provided short-term gain, I think it will inevitably provide long-term pain as well.Comment Posted By dougf On 24.10.2007 @ 09:17
For all those wringing their hands in 'outrage' at the coldly realpolitik nature of Mr. Kondrake's analysis, I have one tiny little question-----
What exactly do you think that the Shia Government/Militias/Death Squads will do when the US washes its hands of trying to put an end to the SUNNI 'Insurgency' ? There appears to be some confusion here as to the difference between recognising a likely reality and pushing for that likely reality.
I keep hearing that the SUNNI 'Insurgency' is on its last legs,and that it WILL be overcome. For the sake of those Sunnis who can see the writing on the wall---- it had better end soon, because by the end of 2008 the US will not be a factor in Iraq. We can ALL see that, can we not ? So the SUNNIS have about 12 months to SURRENDER on the best terms they can now get or prepare for a Shia driven 'counter-insurgency'.
All this angst appears to be predicated on one foundation---
It's almost certain unless the Sunnis 'give it up' that they WILL be cleansed right out of Iraq at some future point. The angst apparently arises because someone is 'honest' enough to say that someone should be looking at lemonade recipes before the need to make use of all those lemons actually arises. All this angst will NOT prevent the Shias from doing what they feel they have to do to stop the terrorists. It is therefore, with respect, more a 'moral' posture than a reality-based 'solution'.
But I guess it's OK for the Shias to hammer the Sunnis as long as we don't have even the possibility of salvaging anything from the debacle. It's OK for 'B' to kill 'A'(who has been aiding and abetting the killing of 'B'), but it's not OK for us to 'accept' this. We must 'prevent' it(at considerable costs to us) even if preventing it is not going to ever succeed. Whether Kondrake's 'friendly' Shias even exist is a completely different matter than whether we should be seeking them out and trying to 'cut a deal'. Apples and oranges so to speak.
If Iraq BLOWS UP completely, the least we should be doing is trying to SALVAGE something from the remnants. Perhaps Kondrake is 100% wrong in his analysis, but please spare me the high moral dungeon and knee-jerk 'outrage'. In case anyone has not noticed ---- this World does not operate on the basis 'good intentions'. Surely that was all Kondrake was saying and he was correct.
It IS usually better as a RULE, to WIN dirty than to LOSE. The discussion should be 'how dirty', what is 'losing', and in THIS case is it the rule or the exception which should be followed.
IF the situation is essentially binary as Kondrake postulates ----- which data point should we be at ?
WIN or LOSE ? If it comes to that, what is the 'right' answer ?Comment Posted By dougf On 13.05.2007 @ 11:47
So may I presume that the 'base' of your utilitarian argument is that Iran will not use nuclear weaponry even should it manage to develop it ? They are spending billions just to indulge themselves, and compensate for perhaps some physical shortcomings? And of course to threaten their neighbours and protect themselves from US actions at any future point. All for show and not for go if you will.
If so, I certainly agree with your analysis. In fact, I am not really in favour of 'limited' wars, unless it's a police-type action. If the cause is sufficient to engage in combat then the cause is sufficient to pursue "all out war with a clear strategic goal such as unconditional surrender of the enemy."
I just wonder how you managed to decipher Iranian intent from the lunacy that seeps daily from the theocrats in Tehran? Are they really 'rational' actors and not vision-seeing madmen ?
If they are just sort of nuts, then I think you are undoubtedly correct. If they are really playing at being a second-rate Reich, then I vote for the full-scale route. As a previous poster implied--- one 1938 was more than sufficient for any lifetime.Comment Posted By dougf On 5.04.2006 @ 16:11
Pages (1) :