Shameful is something you folks have the market on. Take your horseshit somewhere else
1 Like
Flagged and reported.
Say goodbye again, Beej.
1 Like
She’s no pragmatist.
Gotta’ be how EG/Libs chooses his sockpuppet names:
jw1
2 Likes
Mostly. Some of them might be Repugs, which makes your grown-up arguement weak.
Yeah, and he said “horseshit” over a month ago .
Thank goodness neither Dumbya or St. Ronnie the Vacant could even spell “horse” or “shit”
1 Like
Sometimes I think it’s too bad that Obama is so measured and gentlemanly in public.
A little blunt talk with the public is really in order.
1 Like
If only he had learned vocabulary like this in 2009-10, and used it more often. This Nation would be in a lot better place
Hillary is just trolling for the Jewish Wall Street vote with her odious pandering to that demographic.
It is sleaze of the highest degree, but par for the course for the “Third-Way” democrat (with a VERY small “d”.)
1 Like
Hillary, McCain and the rest need to watch Liife of Brian. Despite being satire it was astute in pointing out the difficulty of distinguishing between the Judean Peoples’ Front, the Peoples’ Front of Judea, the Judean Popular Peoples’ Front (splitter!!!) and all the rest.
We seem to screw it up every time we try, and by dumping weapons on one side or the other we worsen the longterm impacts.
1 Like
I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the remark from theDick was directed at Senator Leahy.
Not that he hasn’t said it to reporters as well - I imagine it’s a pretty common turn of phrase for him, considering he’s a proven a$$hole and war criminal.
1 Like
^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^
Why in the HELL is Ms Clinton not out there supporting Democratic candidates in 2014? Because she thinks she’ll play the role of Democratic ‘savior’ in 2016? She just might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
I have to assume it’s because she is over-triangulating (again). Seems to be the Clinton’s most significant flaw.
Clearly, ISSL needs more of our military hardware.
Well, I don’t agree with the premise that a candidate (particularly one from one of the highest levels within the current administration) has to automatically state “would have done differently”. This bit of “conventional wisdom” has no basis in reality (I hear it in marketing circles from more than a few with which I work in professionally) and is easily refuted by real world examples such as Al Gore circa 2000.
Really, the only people who might, MIGHT, want this policy are the Israelis if they thought that the power vacuum would be short-lived, as all they want is a centralized power they can threaten to retaliate against, but they seem to know that this is going nowhere but chaos no matter what and seem satisfied that the main islamists are heading north.
I don’t believe that Hillary actually thinks that. She is reflexively doing politics when none are required.
The whole idea/premise that she has to separate herself from Obama is ill from the get. Only foolish pride, Clinton ego, would cause that. It makes no sense otherwise. Does talking trash make sense, does being wrong?
The way over thousand year war in the desert is the burial ground of over anxious, out to prove themselves, politicians.
We don’t need a conqueror, a contrarian or a cowgirl set to outdo the dudes. A no war first policy will suffice and the commander of that policy will be righteous and leave their post with pride.
Don’t do dumbshit is PC for, don’t preemptively invade based on horseshit data. Don’t stay the foolish course. Don’t let your inner Napoleon guide you.
And don’t ever, in any way, let yourself look like dumbshit GW Bush!
We concur.
In their blind quest for power for the sake of power, the authoritarian crowd would take us all down with them.
They use the evangelicals, they think, but they actually fulfill the God squads ultimate goal. War in the ME that causes nuclear global destruction. So we can see God I guess? Not realizing of course that she/he will bitch slap them all for their ignorance and for destroying it’s/his creation.
I say again, Barack was the right guy at exactly the right time. There are so many intangibles.
The only real problem is the resistance to helping those at risk from these guys due to the legacy of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Nobody wants to get their hands dirty and these chumps get to run wild. It’s interesting you mention Baathists. I wonder if the Syrians and Iraqis running ISIL are from Baathist families. I have no doubt there are members in their ranks but if they’re driving the bus that would be something.
Thomas Friedman has noticed some of the holes in the pro-intervention camp’s arguments, and poses a series of questions:
- Can they name the current leader of the Syrian National Coalition, the secular, moderate opposition, and the first three principles of its political platform?..
- Can they explain why Israel… has chosen not to bet on the secular, moderate Syrian rebels or arm them enough to topple Assad?
- The United States invaded Iraq with more than 100,000 troops, [and] replaced its government… but, the minute we left, Iraq’s “moderate” prime minister turned sectarian. Yet, in Syria, Iraq’s twin, we’re supposed to believe that the moderate insurgents could have toppled Assad and governed Syria without any American boots on the ground, only arming the good rebels. Really?
- How could the good Syrian rebels have triumphed in Syria when the main funders of so many rebel groups there… are Sunni fundamentalist monarchies that oppose the very sort of democratic, pluralistic politics in their own countries that the decent Syrian rebels aspire to build in Syria?
- Even if we had armed Syrian moderates, how could they have defeated a coalition of the Syrian Alawite army and gangs, backed by Russia, backed by Iran, backed by Hezbollah… without the U.S. having to get involved?
- How is it that some 15,000 Muslim men from across the Muslim world have traveled to Syria to fight for jihadism… yet the Syrian moderates would not only have been able to defeat the Assad regime… but also this entire jihadist foreign legion?..
Yes, there has been a price for Obama’s inaction. But there is a price for effective action as well, which the critics have to be honest about. It’s called an international force. We are dealing not only with states that have disintegrated, but whole societies — and rebuilding them is the mother of all nation-building projects. Will the ends, will the means. Otherwise, you’re not being serious.