Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 839 Comments
IS OBAMA BEING PRUDENT OR IS HE INCOMPETENT?
Sota:
So, you "get it already" that in the real world you're wrong on the facts.
Then you insist that terrorists don't really think much about causing terror. Which is really just . . . just . . . kind of amazing.
Then you insist that they wish to lull us. Which they do by . . . attempting to blow up an airliner. Because what's more calming than that?
And you wrap it up by attacking the liberals who . . . were not in power while the conservative government missed 9/11, lost Osama Bin Laden, let North Korea go nuclear and actually managed to strengthen Iran.
One wonders what the foreign policy successes were that you now see us missing.
Could you name some?You display the modern conservative mind: historically ignorant, illogical, and full of chocolate pudding.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 1.01.2010 @ 21:47
. . . wants to release Gitmo terrorists to places like Yemen (some to kill again), that’s who.
I realize you're not well-informed, but you do understand that it was Mr. Bush who released the Yemenis, right? And established the policy? Because his own administration admitted most were innocent men?
And what evidence do you have that Obama wants to release people from Guantanamo? Last I heard they were being moved to Illinois.
Travis: they want fear, and you want to give them fear. They are not the Nazis, they are not an existential threat. They're not the Soviets.
You NEED them to be 10 feet tall because you PROFIT politically. That's why you freak out when a guy burns his balls off on a Delta flight. You and the bad guys have congruent goals: terrify the American people by making Al Qaeda seem bigger than they are. Their success is your political gain.
This has nothing to do with killing them. We don't need to panic to kill them. Again: it was Obama who insisted on sending Predators into Pakistan over the objections of your candidate. And it is Obama who reinforced Afghanistan and sent the Afghan surge.
Jesus, when it was the Japanese and the Germans "the only thing we had to fear is fear itself." Now it's a handful of religious nuts with panty bombs and it's fear, fear and more fear.
Churchill? Yeah, right. You're far more French than Churchillian.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 1.01.2010 @ 18:23
Travis:
The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror.
So tell me, which political party is feverishly magnifying the terror for its own political ends?
There is a symbiosis between Al Qaeda and people like you. They want fear, and you want fear.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 1.01.2010 @ 12:28
Buckeye:
Your ignorance of Iran is almost absolute.
1) The Iranians need us as enemies. They require an external enemy.
2) We eliminated their mortal enemy, Iraq.
3) They clearly have no great concern about US troops in Iraq since they pursue their nuclear ambitions throughout.
4) The clenched fist of Mr. Bush coincided with Iranian nuclear advancement.
5) The green revolution coincided with Mr. Obama's open hand.
You have no case to make.
Raising fleet mileage requirements only works in the short term. They force the market to supply lots of fuel efficient cars, which in turn lowers demand for gasoline and eventually the prices, and people also drive longer distances in their fuel efficient cars, live farther away from work, etc. If/when gas gets cheap enough, they go back to buying Navigators and Suburbans.
Which is why a gas tax is such a great and obvious idea: the price is kept high.
. . .they killed or captured a lot of jihadis.
We're stil doing that. Predators have struck a number of high value targets in Pakistan recently. You know, the Predators the GOP candidate wanted to call off. So by your logic Mr. Obama is doing as good a job as Mr. Bush. I'll accept that.
. . .trying to save conservatism from its excesses.
Empty name-calling. I have a long online record as a Democrat hawk. I laid it out for you in some detail.
Let me tell you something: when I was yelling on my previous blogs for more men and more force in Iraq, it was dumb-ass Righties telling me I was a fool and a weakling and a coward.
So frankly I don't really have much interest in chest-thumping Right wingers who know nothing of the history involved, nothing of the countries involved, or the issues involved, but reduce everything to some imbecilic assumption that conservatives are always right on defense and foreign policy.
Let me repeat: in 8 years you people failed. You were catastrophic failures. You have zero credibility on foreign policy.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.12.2009 @ 23:12
Buckeye:
1) I've never blamed Mr. Bush for 9/11. You're trying to blame Mr. Clinton. Which is ridiculous.
2) Iran was far stronger at the end of Mr. Bush's term than at the start. That's simply a fact. Mr. Bush's actions actively strengthened Iran by removing Saddam and by convincing Iran that only nukes would save them from possible regime change. Iran has been weakened during this last year because of the greens, and because, thank God, we had a president smart enough to ignore right-wing loudmouths demanding that we discredit the protesters by embracing them.
3) No, we cannot neuter Iran. No, we cannot stop them from developing nukes. Sanctions won't work and an attack would be counter-productive to put it mildly. The best we can do is establish a policy of Unilateral Assured Destruction in the event of any Iranian use -- direct or indirect.
If you have a better idea I'd love to hear it. And details please, including reasonable sequelae, not just posturing. (And I'd love to hear why we didn't do it in the last 8 years.)
4) Nonsense. We can quite easily cut our fossil fuel use. We could do it tomorrow by raising fleet mileage requirements and/or by taxing gas at a higher rate. When gas prices rise, use goes down, it's not rocket science. It doesn't require a breakthrough, it requires people to stop driving Navigators and Suburbans.
4) Mr. Obama hasn't caught OBL yet because OBL had eight long years to hide. Mr. Bush lost him at Tora Bora on advice of his idiot SecDef, and once we let him escape it was harder to find him. Your guy had 8 years. My guy's had 1. In 7 years Mr. Obama will have failed as much as Mr. Bush. Check back in then.
Fortunately Mr. Obama has renewed the effort and assigned more resources. Among those resources are the first round of reinforcements sent to Pakistan, and the second wave now en route. And the Predator missions inside Pakistan that Mr. McCain attacked as "reckless" during the campaign.
The GOP record on counter-terrorism is one of mediocrity at best. The Democratic record is just beginning. But you have zero reason to attack Mr. Obama on this issue. And for Rick to be quoting approvingly the most incompetent, meddlesome, dishonest and stubbornly stupid Vice President in modern history, is appalling and reveals an utter lack of seriousness.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.12.2009 @ 19:52
Buckeye:
9/11 happened under Mr. Bush. Not Mr. Clinton and not Mr. Obama.
North Korea also went nuclear under Mr. Bush.
And Iran's main strategic opponent was neutered by Mr. Bush which hugely strengthened Iran.
And under Mr. Bush Iran moved without let-up to develop nuclear weapons.
Under Mr. Bush we did nothing to moderate our use of oil which fed hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemies.
And under Mr. Bush Osama bin Laden escaped and continues to look for ways to attack us.
So how exactly are the Republicans experts on this? Or anything?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.12.2009 @ 15:23
SShiel:
Wat do you think he needs to do?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.12.2009 @ 14:43
Buckeye:
I'm not a member of the academy: high school drop-out, been working full-time since age 16, now a writer. (They don't let drop-outs into "the academy.") Army brat. Pro-military. Supported Reagan on his naming of the USSR as an evil empire, backed IRBM's in Europe, supported strike on Qaddafi.
I supported Gulf War 1, Afghanistan and yes, Iraq. Screamed my head off for more men to Iraq even before McCain figured it out. Long, long before you right-wing Rumsfeld-enamored loudmouths did.
Support and have always supported Predator strikes inside Pakistan -- even while McCain was denouncing them in the campaign. Support covert ops wherever necessary including targeted assassinations of Al Qaeda. Supported Obama when he rushed desperately-needed reinforcements to Afghanistan after Mr. Bush's neglect. Support Obama's increase in forces there now, (though I have a different spin on it.)
But those are mere facts, so don't let them get in the way of your cliche assumptions.
We need to do what works, not what gives right-wingers a boner.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.12.2009 @ 13:41
The difference in approach between conservatives and liberals lies in the fact that you guys need the terrorists. You have a symbiosis with them. They're a political winner for you. So you lose no opportunity to do the terrorist's work for them. They want to spread fear and appear to be 10 feet tall, and you profit when they spread fear and appear 10 feet tall.
We don't. We don't think it's helpful to do Al Qaeda's work for them.
American conservatism requires an enemy. You were weaned on anti-communism. It was a tragedy for conservatism when the wall came down -- although it came down in large part because of conservative spine-stiffening of the west. Suddenly you had no viable hate-object. You switched as best you could to liberals, but while that worked with your hardcore base the rest of the country drifted ever further into the liberal camp: pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-woman, increasingly secular, open-minded on progressive taxation and government regulation.
Then 9/11 and we once again had an enemy. A genuine enemy, very evil men doing very evil things. But as bad as they were they were never an existential threat. Compared to 10,000 Soviet nukes they were nuts with popguns.
So since then conservatives have worked night and day to make the threat bigger, scarier, more existential. Which of course is precisely what Osama bib Laden wants.
We take a different tack. We will fight them, but we will try to fight them effectively. Which means we start by depriving them of their mother's milk: fear.
I didn't need reassurance. My wife and kids didn't need reassurance. I don't know anyone outside of right-wing blogs who needed reassurance.
But you guys, you needed reassurance. Needed lots and lost of reassurance. From the president you despise.
Right. I totally believe that.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.12.2009 @ 12:06
Mannning:
My obsessive compulsive son just asks to "start over" when things go awry.
How about if we all do a start over for New Years? Amnesty and extended handshakes and all that. Grudges forgotten, clean slate, glasses raised to a good 2010.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 30.12.2009 @ 12:25
