Comments Posted By ed
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 205 Comments
I DARE YOU TO MAKE ME A DEMOCRAT
Western civilization has withstood repeated attacks from armies and terrorists in the past. If you sincerely believe that terrorists can topple the governments of the United States, Great Britan, Japan, Canada or China, then you have no sense of international political and economic realities. If, as I rather expect, you are trying to play the terrorist superboogyman card one more time, then you have no real desire to be a Democrat, especially when you set the parameters so narrowly, that only a conserative response will please you. Nice try, no cigar. Only a fool would take this bait.
Comment Posted By ed On 13.11.2006 @ 17:25
Bipartisanship and cooperation is important to our future. Senator Allen was gracious indeed. There are a thousand reasons Democrats are prickly about Republican operations. Do you remember Lee Atwater, Donald Segretti, Karl Rove and their ilk's political hardball?
Here is some material from a Lee Atwater interview in Alexander Lamis's book, "Two-Party South", discussing the Republican Southern strategy circa the Reagan era:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'Multiply this dirtiness a thousand fold in Republican political behavior since then and you too will be suspicious and angry. I hope in your new born-again conservatism, you will have the honesty to admit that politics is a dirty game and Republicans are just as dirty as Democrats have ever been. Surely the macaca's will appreciate Allen's grace under fire and how much better he is than any Democrat.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.11.2006 @ 16:59
A DECLARATION OF (SEMI-AUTONOMOUS) INDEPENDENCE (SORT OF)
I know you will take a lot of flack for this. I have certainly called you out when you have appeared to be cheerleading only for the sake of cheerleading in regard to the War in Iraq. But you will keep your readership because you are thoughtful, articulate, informed and gleefully contankerous at times. Our country is now entering a phase of reflection, reduced certainty in our partisanship, and less tolerance for the artifical red state/blue state divide. The time for extremes on the right and left driving their respective parties is over for now.
The War in Iraq was lost before it ever started. Hubris, greed and a refusal to listen to anyone that wasn't on the out of control train to war (if you don't know of the Abilene Paradox, look it up; Bush's Iraq War is the perfect example) lead to extremely poor planning and execution of the invasion and particularly the nation building aspect of the mission.
Terrorism will continue regardless of what we do in Iraq. We cannot "win" in Iraq because there is no win to be had, in the sense of controlling the terrorist threat to America. Continued tracking of terrorist plots, through financial records, communications and other forms of spying is the central battle of the War on Terror, not Iraq. This realization will allow us to execute the war on terror in a manner that best protects the United States. Let's all work together for the funding needed and the focus needed to wage an effective war. As I have said before, if we stay in Iraq for 50 years, it will not be a democracy like the United States, as its colonial history and enmity between it arificially thrown together citizens cannot be controlled except through the brutality of a dictator such as Saddam. Let Iraq split into its natural constituencies and work out its own problems. Terrorists have plenty of places in which to plan their activities. If they don't plan in Iraq, they will plan elsewhere. We can do nothing more for Iraq. Let's admit our mistake and move on to a more effective War on Terror.
Comment Posted By ed On 9.11.2006 @ 10:10
Regardless of outcome, isn't it great to live in a country where we can vote freely and find ways to live with the outcomes, even when our candidates don't win? Conservative, moderate or liberal, we have a good country. Perfect? No. Good? Yes.
Comment Posted By ed On 7.11.2006 @ 17:18
"I have a theory about what’s going on in the country with people’s ambivalent feelings toward the war. And to illustrate it, allow me to pose a counterfactual for you.
Suppose D-Day had failed and the allies had been thrown back into the sea. Most of our airborne troops dead or captured. The assault waves decimated. Instead of the more than 2,000 men who sacrificed their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the number of dead could have approached ten times that."
Well, gee, let ME propose a "counterfactual". Suppose on D-Day, the allies invaded India, got bogged down, and the Axis powers threat fronted local oposition to kill Americans on a daily basis, while Germany, Italy and Japan continued their activities. I think the American people would have justifably thrown the Congress out on their backsides, but not before that Congress would have impeached Roosevelt and Stimpson for such gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.
And by the way, if you were to ask 100 Americans if there was a way to win the lottery for you, would you buy a ticket?, my guess is that the majority would say yes. But that would be a very stupid question, wouldn't it?
Comment Posted By ed On 6.11.2006 @ 20:21
IRONY SO THICK YOU CAN BATHE IN IT
After wading through the verbage and the "oohhh, aren't liberals awful" boilerplate, you approve of the government posting instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in the public arena. Is there no bottom to the cesspool conservatives use to never be wrong?
Comment Posted By ed On 3.11.2006 @ 15:03
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE GET A GRIP... IT WON'T BE THAT BAD
I agree. Let's keep a Republican majority and get real busy undoing the liberal nanny state. No more seat belts in cars to reduce injuries and deaths. No more mandatory inoculations to prevent the spread of deadly infectious diseases. Hell, let's eliminate all federal taxes. The Republican majority will continue to dazzle the American citizenry so much that we will all pay a voluntary tithe to the government to keep up the military. We don't need any of that other crap anyway. Let's do away with food inspections and the thought police who label some entrepreneur's dream a "safety hazard". Everybody will die anyway, so what's the harm in picking up a few bucks with something that causes the occasional death? Liberal creeps always interfering where they are not wanted! Let's give the tobacco industry back all of the ill-gotten legal settlements and stop restricting one of our best industries. Tobacco is good for you!!
Let's show them liberals we mean business internationally. Stay the course in Iraq. A few American kids die over there so no one has to die here from the terrorists. So what if we have no military resources left to deal with Iran and North Korea? We got rid of Saddam and his desire to invade Montana. Donny Rumsfeld has reshaped the military to his liking (small and cat-like, no need for herds of soldiers to secure borders, stop looting or any of that Cold War thinking) and personally kept the nasty CIA from destroying the Taliban and al Qaeda when they had the opportunity (and keeping his undisputed heavyweight title of King of Bureaucratic Smack-downs, by God!). We don't need no stinking allies in the GWOT. So what if the rest of the world is reluctant to join us for anything now? Mission accomplished, bring 'em on!
Now that the Republican majority has fixed Social Security, has NASA firmly fixed on a triumphant return to 1969, brought the federal budget under control, downsized government by 50%and kept them queers from ruining society by getting married and all, what can possibly go wrong with maintaining a solid Republican majority?
This majority is so important, I plan to vote twice. I just don't trust that Diebolt software.
Comment Posted By ed On 3.11.2006 @ 14:33
IS KERRY MELTDOWN A BLIP? OR A TURNING POINT?
John Kerry has long proven himself to be a small, mean-spirited man with an intense dislike of the military and a massive personal sense of entitlement. And an unmatched political tin ear. Republicans will keep the Senate and very possibly the House because the likes of Sen. Kerry is the best the Democrats have to offer. The small group of undecided's and independents that will likely determine many of the Congressional races will hold their nose and vote for incompetence and arrogance that is principle-based rather than incompetence and arrogance based on nothing.
Comment Posted By ed On 1.11.2006 @ 13:12
Of course, the fact that the passage has nothing to do with incest and pedophilia but deals with tribal rituals and how out of place the American characters felt when seeing it, means nothing?
The hell with truth and context, there are elections to be won!
Comment Posted By Ed On 27.10.2006 @ 13:07
IS DEFINING "VICTORY" IN IRAQ AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY?
How interesting it is to learn that terrorists don't hate America, that they hate Republicans and work to help Democrats in the United States. I thought terrorists hated America and all Americans, seeking to kill us, one and all. But no, they are racheting up violence in Iraq now just to help the Democrats in the 2006 election. I guess they were practice-killing during the last couple of years for this actual run-up to the U.S. election. Rick Moran, you are too smart of a man to believe such claptrap. This is your playing to the least common denominator in the conservative base to keep those hits coming.
And this: "When we exit Iraq, it will not be a peaceful, democratic island in the troubled seas of a despotic Middle East." Who, besides ideologues pitching the invasion of Iran, ever believed this bit of magical thinking? Who thought the severe splits between the Sunni, Shia and the Kurds could be healed by an externally imposed Constitution and some U.S. dollars?
Last bit to describe our progress in Iraq: "But it will not be a threat. It will not have WMD’s. And it will not have Saddam Hussein running the country."
Iraq was never a threat to the United States. (It did invade Kuwait, but you, me and a platoon of ROTC cadets could have invaded Kuwait.) The true statement here is that Saddam Hussein is not in power. The history of Mesopotania indicates to me that some other dictator(s) will take over within 5 years after the U.S. leaves. As far as WMD's, what guarantee can you give me that whatever entities take over Iraq will not start a WMD program in the future? You can't and you know it. Most likely outcome? We invest a massive multi-billion dollar fortune and the lives of thousands of Americans in order to trade a devil for a witch.
I don't hope for defeat in Iraq. Our failure to set clear goals, to plan intelligently for a post-invasion Iraq, and delusions of grandure on the part of Rumsfeld and Cheney (we only need a few soldiers for this mission, per Rumsfeld's grand post-Cold War revision of the military) created the outcome we are getting. Blaming this mess on the media and Democrats is false, cowardly, and a confirmation that the Crawford Cowboy never cowboy's up when the shit hits the fan. The Presidency is just one more venture for George W. to run into the ground and then let Daddy's friends pick up the pieces. Good ol' Jimmy Baker always pulls the irons out of the fire for the Bushes. And guess who will be putting out a report and a new plan for Iraq after the Fall election?
Comment Posted By ed On 26.10.2006 @ 14:41
