ThinkFast: December 19, 2008
ThinkFast: December 19, 2008
The investigating judge in the case of Muntader al-Zaidi says the Iraqi journalist shows signs of being beaten after being arrested for throwing a shoe at President Bush. CBS News reports that Zaidi has also “been kept completely out of the reach of his legal representation and his family.” In a letter to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Zaidi has apologized for his actions and asked for a pardon.
President Bush will announce today that his administration will “come to the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler by providing them with low-interest loans” using money from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. In exchange, “the automakers will need to restructure, getting tough concessions from creditors, suppliers and the labor union.”
In a first, a declaration “seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.” The United States did not support the nonbinding measure, joining the ranks of Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson issued a memo yesterday declaring that “[o]fficials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output.” “The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls” in these cases, Johnson said.
In a press conference today, President-elect Obama will announce Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) as transportation secretary. It is unclear whether Obama will announce other appointments today that have been recently reported, such as Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) for labor secretary and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk for U.S. trade representative.”
Obama has reportedly selected Adm. Dennis C. Blair for Director of National Intelligence which oversees “the federal government’s 16 intelligence agencies” and supervises the president’s daily intelligence briefing. Previously, Blair commanded U.S. forces in the Pacific, served on the National Security Council, and worked on counterterrorism at the Pentagon.
Federal regulators adopted new rules governing the credit card industry yesterday. The rules, which take effect in July 2010, “will allow credit card companies to raise interest rates only on new credit cards and future purchases or advances, rather than on current balances.”
In a move that might give him “more room to pursue energy and environmental legislation,” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced “an unusual power-sharing arrangement” with former chairman Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Dingell will take the lead role in drafting health reform legislation and will become “chairman emeritus” of the committee.
A new DOJ audit concludes that the FBI encouraged agents posted in Iraq from 2003 through 2007 to improperly claim overtime pay, resulting in $7.8 million in cost to taxpayers. Due to a “faulty” policy, agents billed work hours when they were “watching movies, exercising, and attending parties.”
And finally: Capitol Hill offices are “a little more Scrooge-like this year,” according to the DC Examiner. Most offices are missing the traditional holiday decorations. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), however, has a real 15-foot Christmas tree in his office, but his staff admits that the tough economy forced them to downsize on the decorations. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) gave up decorations altogether and donated the funds to a needy family in his home state. The office Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), who recently lost her race for re-election, is also noticeably empty. “We’re in a period of transition,” an aide to Dole said.
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why doesn’t George show some real compassion and forgive Muntader al-Zaidi? He could defuse the whole thing.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:04 amThe investigating judge in the case of Muntader al-Zaidi says the Iraqi journalist shows signs of being beaten after being arrested for throwing a shoe at President Bush. CBS News reports that Zaidi has also “been kept completely out of the reach of his legal representation and his family.”
Exportation of BushCo style of democracy and justice: Mission Accomplished.
PEACE
December 19th, 2008 at 9:05 amA new DOJ audit concludes that the FBI encouraged agents posted in Iraq from 2003 through 2007 to improperly claim overtime pay, resulting in $7.8 million in cost to taxpayers. Due to a “faulty” policy, agents billed work hours when they were “watching movies, exercising, and attending parties.”
Well, We the People paid Georgie to do the same, and provided first class transporation to and from the venues, too.
It will be news when it can be reported that some office, department or official didn’t abuse the system under BushCo.
PEACE
December 19th, 2008 at 9:08 amUsing the EPA to wage war on the environment. Bush and Cheney claim to be Christians, but it’s Orwell they really worship.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:10 amWait a minute. Government regulators are taking action to protect credit card customers from abusive rate hikes and too quickly applied changes and late fees?
I am truly shocked by this.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:12 amThe United States did not support the nonbinding measure, joining the ranks of Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Finding our “natural” level in the international community. Well done. Yew Ess Ayy!!!
December 19th, 2008 at 9:20 amWait a minute. Government regulators are taking action to protect credit card customers from abusive rate hikes and too quickly applied changes and late fees?
I am truly shocked by this.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Don’t get too excited. This is just a drop in the wind. The card companies STILL have 18 months to rip you off at the current rate and rules.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:21 amWow… our government is to the right of the catholic church…
December 19th, 2008 at 9:24 amWinter Cupcake Says:
Wait a minute. Government regulators are taking action to protect credit card customers from abusive rate hikes and too quickly applied changes and late fees?
I am truly shocked by this.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I agree. What’s the catch? This sounds like exactly the right thing to do. Let the evil credit card companies raise the rates on new purchases, but keep the current balances under the old rate. Of course, they are already allowed to apply any payments you make to whichever of your balances they want. So they can just apply anything you pay above the minimum to the part of your debt that has the lowest APR, leaving the higher-interest balances to accumulate more finance charges. (If you pay $50 extra, instead of eliminating some of your debt that is at 29%, they’ll simply put that $50 toward balances at 12%. This makes them more money and keeps you in debt longer.)
December 19th, 2008 at 9:25 amI’m guessing the right wing will say that al-Zaidi should be grateful it wasn’t Saddam Hussein standing up there, instead of al Maliki. Saddam might have had al-Zaidi executed in the hallway, within earshot of any visitors. Of course, if Saddam was still in power, there would have been no reason for Bush to be there to have two shoes thrown at him in the first place. But this fact won’t have any part in their reasoning.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am“Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) gave up decorations altogether and donated the funds to a needy family in his home state.”
I have to admit, Sen. Inhofe’s actions are worthy of praise. This does not, however, reduce my disgust at his other actions with which I adamantly disagree.
“The office Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), who recently lost her race for re-election, is also noticeably empty. “We’re in a period of transition,” an aide to Dole said.”
I’m sure her husband will help ease her doldrums at being sent to the curve by her constituents. Of course, it will require the assistance from a pharmaceutical sourse. . . .
Eeeew! Mental picture of THAT scene, GO AWAY! ;-)
December 19th, 2008 at 9:35 amWait a minute. Government regulators are taking action to protect credit card customers from abusive rate hikes and too quickly applied changes and late fees?
Too late.
Damage done.
Greed bad.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:36 amIn a first, a declaration “seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.” The United States did not support the nonbinding measure, joining the ranks of Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
First of all, NON-binding. Jesus Tapdancing Kee-RIST. What the fu(k is the point?
Second of all, we didn’t support it. Jesus Tapdancing Kee-RIST. Being a homosexual, though it makes you a second class citizen, is still LEGAL in the U.S. last I checked. What exactly was the fu(king rationale for not supporting this? I’d love to hear it.
I thought we were the champions of human rights? Right-wingers? Any thoughts?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:37 amThey already are…
December 19th, 2008 at 9:38 amThe rules lock into place the current practices for the first two years of Obama’s term. Much damage can be done to anyone holding an outstanding balance on their credit cards in that time. I predict a massive rise in consumer bankruptcies as a direct result of credit card companies raising their interest rates sky-high shortly after Obama is sworn in.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:38 amOh and going back to my comment at #15: This is yet another reason that I will one day take a dump on the pope’s chair/throne. Some day, I will do it, if I die trying.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:40 amThe investigating judge in the case of Muntader al-Zaidi says the Iraqi journalist shows signs of being beaten after being arrested for throwing a shoe at President Bush. CBS News reports that Zaidi has also “been kept completely out of the reach of his legal representation and his family.”
Bush justice brought to Iraq. Heck of a job George.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:40 amPresident Bush will announce today that his administration will “come to the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler by providing them with low-interest loans”
Blue collar gets a loan, white collar gets a gift. Such as it is the USA.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am#10 – Wayne A. Schneider Says:
———————————————————–
“Of course, they (Credit Companies) are already allowed to apply any payments you make to whichever of your balances they want. So they can just apply anything you pay above the minimum to the part of your debt that has the lowest APR, leaving the higher-interest balances to accumulate more finance charges.”
Most, if not all, credit companies allow their customers to allocate the payments against higher-rate balances rather than lower-rate balances but the customer has to specifically request this by calling a representative.
I noticed in one of my latest “mailers” from a credit company that they were changing the formula for applying payments against debt. It stated in VERY FINE PRINT that you had to call for the exact formula, and to request any personal changes.
Minimum payments are generally allocated at their discretion, but anything above the minimum payments is allocated to the balances of your choice. This has been my experience, and keeping in touch with your credit company is always a good idea..
December 19th, 2008 at 9:41 amThey already are…
Really? Got any links to blogs where I can post a comment refuting that stupid argument?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:41 am“The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls” in these cases, Johnson said.
Fortunately for this planet, this will end in 30 days.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:41 amFederal regulators adopted new rules governing the credit card industry yesterday. The rules, which take effect in July 2010,
And why does this not take affect immediately, when we need it the most?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:43 amCafferty isn’t exactly a total wingnut or anything, but my point is you know if it’s being phrased this way in the supposedly “liberal” mainstream media some wingers can’t be far behind in the echo chamber.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:44 amRahm Emanuel talked directly to Blago
President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had a deeper involvement in pressing for a U.S. Senate seat appointment than previously reported, the Sun-Times has learned. Emanuel had direct discussions about the seat with Gov. Blagojevich, who is is accused of trying to auction it to the highest bidder.
Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
Obama’s next pastor controversy – at inauguration
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a pastor who opposes gay marriage as a speaker at his inauguration, creating a commotion over what inclusiveness will mean for his administration.
CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory ‘Arrogant’
Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:45 amCNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion.
Bullsmith Says:
Using the EPA to wage war on the environment. Bush and Cheney claim to be Christians, but it’s Orwell they really worship.
And the almighty dollar.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:46 amLike anything else that comes out of our govt, if it actually took effect when it would be useful then it might actually change something.
Can’t have that.
All that needs be done is the appearance that they’re helping us out.
We’re practically living in an Aristocracy.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:46 amRahm Emanuel talked directly to Blago
President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had a deeper involvement in pressing for a U.S. Senate seat appointment than previously reported, the Sun-Times has learned. Emanuel had direct discussions about the seat with Gov. Blagojevich, who is is accused of trying to auction it to the highest bidder.
Oh really. Now I don’t find that at all surprising. What I would have found surprising would have been if Obama had not let Blago know who is preferences were. Also, one will note that the Sun-Times (suited for use to line birdcages) says that Emanuel had “direct discussions about the seat”. Is that illegal? Is that immoral? Is that anything other than a chief of staff doing his job? Thought not.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am#15 – liberal traitor Says:
———————————————————–
“Being a homosexual, though it makes you a second class citizen, is still LEGAL in the U.S. last I checked. What exactly was the fu(king rationale for not supporting this? I’d love to hear it.
I thought we were the champions of human rights? Right-wingers? Any thoughts?”
December 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
As one of these second class citizens, let me give my interpretation of an average right-whiner response(absent the whining):
If the US were to support decriminalizing homosexuality, that would imply that we support homosexuality, which we view as being inimical to the “traditional family” and heterosexuals in general.
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, but this a distilation of the most cogent responses by right-whiners. One could assume that right-whiners, in general, assume that heterosexuals will only give birth to other heterosexuals. This stance of thiers is demonstrably wrong, and disingenuous at best.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:48 amOrdinarily, I wouldn’t care, but … Bristol Palin’s futhre mother in law has been arrested on 6 felony drug charges.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:49 amI knew Icebox would bite, so here’s some chum chump:
But the climate and the weather are not the same thing: we experience only the weather, which is the day-to-day, sometimes hour-to-hour changes of temperature, precipitation, wind and more. The climate, on the other hand, refers to the cumulative average of the weather around us over decades, centuries and longer.
God, are you stupid…
December 19th, 2008 at 9:49 amconfusion is a major symptom of hypothermia. could one of our trolls be a victim?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:51 amliberal traitor Says:
Like anything else that comes out of our govt, if it actually took effect when it would be useful then it might actually change something.
Like the new GI Bill. How many of you know that it doesn’t start until 2011 and it is not retroactive? In the end it did nothing to help the vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:51 amSince we agree with the Islamic world on so much (death penalty is good, gays are bad, torture is ok), why don’t we get along with them better? /sarcasm
December 19th, 2008 at 9:52 amWhat is it about economic justice that bothers you, cully?
Socialism is inevitable. Even Kapitalism’s most ardent advocates realize it (e.g., Jos. Schumpeter). Kapitalism is organized, official parasitism…
December 19th, 2008 at 9:52 amAnd don’t forget these “facts”, Icebox:
2008 was still the ninth warmest year on record since 1880, and much of the localized cooling in parts of the planet was due to La Niña.
-The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was the third costliest, after 2005 and 2004.
-The U.S. had nearly 1,700 tornadoes from January through November, which ranks second behind 2004 for the most tornadoes in a year since records began in 1953.
-Arctic sea ice in 2008 reached its second lowest level at the end of the melting season in September, following a record low in 2007. In 2008, the ice shrank to 1.74 million square miles, which was 0.86 million square miles below the average annual minimum from 1979 to 2000.
http://www.miamiherald.com/ news/ politics/ AP/ story/ 815690.html
December 19th, 2008 at 9:52 amWar criminals roll around free and a shoe throwing protester gets, the death penalty ? Or is it torture without parole ?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:53 amA good barometer of Veterans welfare are the Veteran themselves, not the idiots in Washington:
Veterans’ groups sue for faster disability rulings
The lawsuit, filed by the Vietnam Veterans of America and Veterans of Modern Warfare in U.S. District Court in Washington, seeks to force the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide an initial ruling on every veteran’s claim for disability benefits within 90 days and to resolve appeals within 180 days.
The veterans’ groups also are seeking interim benefits for veterans whose claim rulings take longer than those time periods.
“The failure to expedite veterans’ compensation claims creates, at best, the impression that the nation does not respect its veterans,” John Rowan, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America, said in a written statement. “America’s veterans deserve more, and the VA’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities brings dishonor to our nation and can only make the call of military service more challenging.”
LINK
December 19th, 2008 at 9:55 amUnprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion.
Well, Chad Myers is a moron. Human activities can absolutely affect the climate. Only people with their heads in the sand refuse to see the truth. They are, as Stephen Colbert says his character is, willfully ignorant. They don’t like the truth, so they refuse to see it.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am“billed work hours when they were “watching movies, exercising, and attending parties.”
makes sense *sheesh*
December 19th, 2008 at 9:59 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says
December 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Blue collar gets a loan, white collar gets a gift. Such as it is the USA.
____________________________________________________________
I’m sure that whatever is given to the auto companies will also be a gift, unless some significant collateral is demanded in return. Otherwise the loan will just be forgiven when the auto companies default, making it a freebie.
If we loan the auto companies anything, we should demand control of the companies themselves if the loan is not or cannot be repaid. It’s only this that will hold the executives accountable while protecting the jobs of the line workers.
And to your point — this is exactly how we should have approached the situation with the banks as well. It’s shameful that we play Santa to Wall Street while playing Scrooge to Detroit. It really IS a blatant slap in the face of the working class.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:01 amPresident Bush will announce today that his administration will “come to the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler by providing them with low-interest loans”
This has been in the works since before they were giving tax breaks for buying their gigantic, land yacht suvs.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:01 amOF COURSE Obama (Emanuel) would want to input preference into the vacated seat in the Senate — why are some trying to make this sound sinister or illegal?
Do people think that once Obama left the Senate, he would not care about Illinois and who follows him? How ridiculous to even think that!
The Sun-Times (and the Tribune, to a lesser degree) is a right-wing pandering rag of a newspaper.
It used to be the working man’s paper because its shape was suited to those riding the bus, but it does not take the side of the working man.
Many of its reporters are not much better than gossip mongers, and I would take whatever a columnist for the Times says with a grain of salt. (I could say the same for some Tribune columnists)
They are trying to make perfectly logical conversations about the Senate seat appear to be something crooked.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:01 amMarie,
They also like to forget that Blago was complaining that all the Obama team would give him was “their (bleeping) appreciation.” Sounds to me like nothing illegal at all was going on as far as the Obama teqam was concerned. You can make any little detail seem sinister if you leave out important facts. For example, Laura Bush once killed a man.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:05 amand if there’s anyone here who knows about irrelevance, it’s tracy.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:17 amThis is classic winger behavior. They love nothing more than badmouthing their fellow Americans.
Once they’re out of power, the Right preoccupy themselves with inventing scandals against the Democrats. They will hire epopel to cook up stuff. See Blinded by the Right, by David Brock, and The Hunting of the President, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons for documentation of this basically treasonous behavior.
All accusations against Democrats–however idiotic–are instanty and uncritically believed, and clung to until death. There was a period during the 90’s when you could say any scrofulous thing you pleased about Bill Clinton or his family…and it would be headline news the next day. Wingers still smile when they recall those happy times.
Republicans even have the power to make up an accusation one minute and believe it the next–rather like putting one’s head up one’s own ass.
They did a lot of damage during the Clinton years. But, now that we have the internet, the accusations get debunked within minutes. So the damage should be less now.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:17 amDid you know, Tracy_MMVIII, that Saddam Hussein was executed for putting to death people who were trying to kill him? He was not put to death for using chemical weapons on his own people, or for any of the other atrocities for which he was accused. He was put to death for executing people who tried to kill him. Most people would accept this as something a head of state was allowed to do.
I’m not saying he was an angel, or even a good person. But Saddam was not a threat to the United States, no matter how the right wing tries to twist reality. Bush’s “Preventive War Doctrine” is not only against international law, it’s un-American. We, as a nation, are better than that.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:17 amso lemmie get this straight:
twacy is on here touting how great iraq is since this reporter could throw his shoes but, doesn’t continue on with the way this incident is being dealt with is similar to what would have happened un saddam hussein’s regime?
so, twacy, iraqis now have the right to be beaten to snot before they are tried and this is a plus in your book?
December 19th, 2008 at 10:22 amBut then again this guy was a Saddam Baath party supporter, therefore he was content with the way things were being run by Saddam.
First, got evidence?
Second, got relevance?
Are we going back to the days of “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Baath party, even if it was just because you wanted to stay alive from day to day?”
December 19th, 2008 at 10:32 amBut then again this guy was a Saddam Baath party supporter, therefore he was content with the way things were being run by Saddam.
Seriously, Tracy, this statement is just plain stupid. You leap to the conclusion that he was “content with the way things were being run by Saddam” simply because he was, according to you, a member of Saddam’s political party. Your ignorance and inability to produce a logical, well-constructed argument never cease to amaze me.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:34 amThe **ENVIRONMENTAL**PROTECTION** agency can’t consider the release of pollutants and their effect on the environment.
I’m missing something here.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:35 aminteresting… from the googlenews page:
Commentary: Respect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren
CNN International – 49 minutes ago
By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist.
[...]
Commentary: Choosing Rick Warren was a mistake CNN
…
sorry… it was a HUGE mistake.
obama needs to CHANGE his mind… CHANGE that bad decision.
pRick Warren is a charlatan, a glutton and a BIGOT.
.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:37 amoh, and a LIAR>
December 19th, 2008 at 10:38 amI saw Bush’s speech this AM on the Auto bailout. While I wonder how the prez was able to generate money (as all financial bills have to originate in the House) and I guffaw at his insistance that he’s doing things to make it easy on Obama’s first days in office (only left the economy, 2 wars, etc.)
This AM he appeared presidential. He was taking initiative. The initiative even seems close to what the consensus was among both parties debating the auto industry a few days ago.
What has happened to turn him from his beligerent “History will judge me”, I go by my gut, etc. to actually making a consideration ?
December 19th, 2008 at 10:38 amLet’s say that your kid was in a car wreck and suffered a pretty nasty cut. No problem, the EMT gets the bleeding stopped but he needs a simple transfusion. BUT, the EMT is a Jehova’s witness and he doesn’t believe in that so your kid dies. Bush thinks that’s just fine. Some religious freak’s personal belief takes precedence over another’s life.
Conscientous Refusal is what the Chimpfck calls it.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/23/bush-version-conscientious-refusal-puts-us-all-at-risk
December 19th, 2008 at 10:39 amDo you have some evidence to back up your claim that it wasn’t because of his 30 years of illegitimate rule, multiple wars, and execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
Your stupidity is no excuse for ignorance of facts.
Fact 1: We supported and help install Saddam as Iraq’s “illegitimate rule”.
Fact 2: We supported his wars against Iran (and subsequently, those in Iraq supporting Iran)
Fact 3: You’re by far the dumbest motherfcuker on this blog.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:40 amoohhhh twacy,
i asked you a couple of days ago for a link stating the shoe tosser is a baath party supporter. you were asked again this morning.
one would assume you could produce a reliable link for this fact since it took jesus less time to raise from the dead than it has for you to find a reliable link for this “fact”. what gives?
December 19th, 2008 at 10:40 amTracist_5 is in da howze!
Snow day?
December 19th, 2008 at 10:41 amTwacy = Faux Schooz Rhodes Scholar de rigeur
December 19th, 2008 at 10:43 amccccc”Oh so now that I don’t mention this part you assume that I am OK with it?”
well, twacy, no one here has seen you condemn this action.
point blank, do you condemn the fact this person was beaten following his arrest?
a simple yes or no will do.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:45 amWayne A. Schneider Says:
I agree. What’s the catch? This sounds like exactly the right thing to do. Let the evil credit card companies raise the rates on new purchases, but keep the current balances under the old rate.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:25 am
_________
The catch? The catch is that they don’t go into effect until July 2010, leaving credit card companies ample time to jack up their already insane rates even higher to compensate for the revenue they’re going to lose in a year and a half.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:47 amIn a first, a declaration “seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.” The United States did not support the nonbinding measure, joining the ranks of Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
From the article…
The official American position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like “without distinction of any kind,” was too broad because it might be interpreted as an attempt by the federal government to override states’ rights on issues like gay marriage, American diplomats and legal experts said.
How does backing a NON-Binding Declaration come close to overriding states’ rights? Homosexuality isn’t illegal – under the definition of Homosexuality – in US state. Sodomoy, yes, still illegal in various states.
What wusses. Let me just say that Larry Craig better not try his vaudeville foot-tapping routine in some bathroom stall in the airport in Moscow (or Singapore or New Delhi or Kington, Jamaica or…).
December 19th, 2008 at 10:48 amOh I wonder why they were trying to kill him?
Why they were trying to kill him, Tracy, is irrelevant to the fact that he was the head of state and, as a head of state, the world would recognize his right to protect his office.
Do you have some evidence to back up your claim that it wasn’t because of his 30 years of illegitimate rule, multiple wars, and execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
The trial, and the news reports that translated what it was about. I suppose one might conjecture that he was sentenced to death for all those other things not brought up at trial in the same sense that OJ Simpson was really convicted of killing his ex-wife and her friend.
So if an ally of ours in the future ever asks us to intervene to get rid of their leader by force we should just tell them “Hey that isn’t our problem…you are our own.”??
Who are you talking about as being the “ally” of ours? If they are an “ally” of ours, then we probably wouldn’t want to get rid of their head of state. In fact, their head of state might be the very reason they are an ally of ours. This was a stupid argument to make.
We as a wanna-be country asked France to help us get rid of a governement, i.e. the British which we wanted to be free from their control. Was it against “international law” when the French engaged the British militarily during the Revolutionary War.
No, it wasn’t, because the International Law that prohibits a country from invading another just to produce “regime change” came a couple of centuries later. International Law is not something that has been around since the days of the Bible.
What legitimate “threat” did the British pose to the French that justified them helping us?
The French and the British were fighting each other for centuries before we came along. They didn’t need an excuse.
BTW a rebel group of people in Iraq, i.e. the Iraq National Congress, tried to lead a revolt against Saddam just after the 1st Gulf War but we decided to let them twist in the wind and die.
We were also the ones who encouraged them to revolt in the first place. (Bush 41 said they should do that.)
December 19th, 2008 at 10:50 amFrom the article…
The official American position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like “without distinction of any kind,” was too broad because it might be interpreted as an attempt by the federal government to override states’ rights on issues like gay marriage, American diplomats and legal experts said.
So, if they agree that gay marriage is a states’ rights issue, then why did the Republicans insist on forcing the Defense of Marriage Act down our throats? (They were hoping Clinton would veto it, but he didn’t, and took away one of their favorite campaign issues.)
December 19th, 2008 at 10:54 amUnprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion.
Myers is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. This is comparable to having your chiropractor disagree with your cardiologist’s findings.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:54 amTracy__5 Says:
Do you have some evidence to back up your claim that it wasn’t because of his 30 years of illegitimate rule, multiple wars, and execution of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
________________
There are plenty of illegitimate, warmongering, innocent civilian-executing leaders we don’t invade or overthrow. In fact, those are the kinds of leaders we usually put in power after overthrowing the democratically-elected kind.
Besides – Saddam’s rule wasn’t illegitimate for 30 years. Just the last 15 or so, after he stopped doing our dirty work for us.
________________
So if an ally of ours in the future ever asks us to intervene to get rid of their leader by force we should just tell them “Hey that isn’t our problem…you are our own.”??
December 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
__________
Considering how badly we’ve botched Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t expect anyone to be asking us to intervene anywhere for a very long time, so this is a real non-issue.
December 19th, 2008 at 10:56 amSo if an ally of ours in the future ever asks us to intervene to get rid of their leader by force we should just tell them “Hey that isn’t our problem…you are our own.”??
This would be like asking, “If the British people didn’t like Gordon Brown, would Gordon Brown ask us to overthrow him?” Dumb premise for a question. Try to think, man.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:00 amTracy__5 Says:
Got evidence that this Muntader al-Zaidi who was the head of the student union under Saddam Hussein was doing it out of fear?
December 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
___________
Being a Ba’ath party member doesn’t mean you were a Saddam supporter. You HAD to be a Ba’ath party member in Saddam’s Iraq if you wanted to get any kind of decent job. He may not have done it out of fear, but he certainly did it out of necessity.
And if az-Zaidi believes Iraq would be better off under Saddam, can you blame him? It’d have a million fewer dead people, four million fewer refugees, and approximately zero mosque and market bombings.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:04 amConsidering the current information about this guy that is avaliable it was a safe conclusion.
Okay, I believe that al-Zaidi was a member of the Baath party, but I also contend that this was a matter of survival (economic, if for no other kind), not ideological support.
That does not prove, however, that he was a supporter of Saddam. Yes, he said in his reports that he was reporting from “occupied Baghdad”. But that doesn’t prove he supported Saddam. We refer to it as an occupation, too, because that is simply the objective fact of what it has been since Saddam’s ouster.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:12 amTracy, bear with me as I lay this out. At a crucial point in time when we seemed to be closing in on Bin Laden in Bora Bora, the man actually logistically responsible for the 9/11 attacks and leader of al Queda, Bush decided to pull out a majority of troops from Afghanistan and brought them to Iraq to chase down Saddam Hussein. He left non-trustworthy locals to continue the search for Bin Laden with a tiny US contingent. We later find that not long after this the task force put in place to find OBL has been all but disbanded. Intelligence could prove no link with Hussein and al queda. Intelligence could not prove (actually most refuted the idea) that Hussein possessed wmds. A massive pile of evidence has shown that Bush/Cheney were hoping for an excuse to attack Iraq from the very beginning of Bush’s term. The Downing Street memo confirms Bush’s insistance in attacking Iraq despite a lack of proof. Evidence clearly shows that Intel agencies tried to block the WH from using the dispelled story of Nigerian yellow cake but they used the lie anyway. Evidence has proven that a media propaganda network was formed by the Pentagon and WH to help scare America into supporting his Iraq war aspirations or at least not question his motives. My question to you Tracy, after over a trillion in borrowed money spent and well over 4,000 US soldiers dead, was turning our sites away from bin Laden to focus on Hussein a sound decision? Can you with a straight face claim that this was the right move?
December 19th, 2008 at 11:18 amTracy__5 Says:
Don’t get it? Not my problem.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
___________
No, it’s yours, actually. You proposed the hypothetical. In what type of situation do you envision the leaders of any country in the world asking us – the United States – to invade them and depose them?
December 19th, 2008 at 11:23 amhussein toasterhead Says:
Tracy__5 Says:
Don’t get it? Not my problem.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
___________
No, it’s yours, actually. You proposed the hypothetical. In what type of situation do you envision the leaders of any country in the world asking us – the United States – to invade them and depose them?
Not just “any country”, but an “ally”. If the French people decided they didn’t like Sarkozy, who would be the one coming to us asking us to depose him? And why would we listen to that person or persons?
December 19th, 2008 at 11:41 amWould I have condemned him getting his ass thrown to the ground and “roughed up” a little? NO!
And that is because you endorse the use of violence to resolve disputes.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:43 amActually it is a snow day? Still I fail to see the relevance of the weather…
December 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pmTracy__5 Says:
I do remember the Halabja incident in which Saddam ordered thousands of Kurds gassed being one of the FIRST charges brought up in the trial. How did you miss this one?
______________
Halabja… Halabja… oh right…
THAT Halabja…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department’s list State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq’s “Full, Final and Complete” disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips. Both companies have since undergone reorganization and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company while Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.
Well, thank god American companies were involved, to make sure Saddam got it right, and of course, heh, to MAKE MONEY!!! I mean, it’s not like anyone had had any warnings by then about Saddam’s, uh, “proclivities”, huh?
“Enabled by Ronald Reagan…”
December 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pmAh. One thing we can always count on – our trolls invariably show up to defend the indefensible.
Way to go, fellas. You rock!
December 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pmTracy_5
December 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pmWasn’t the old rallying cry during the Clinton years that the US wasn’t supposed to be the global policeman? Did that shit have to change in order to support the dumb moves of the Bush administration? Do you pick and choose the bad leaders you want regime changed?
Will you go away until then…
December 19th, 2008 at 1:04 pmTracy__5 Says:
When this guy al-Zaidi says that he still wishes Saddam was still in power even AFTER Saddam is gone pretty much means that you were a Saddam supporter.
___________
Or it means that, despite Saddam’s despotic rule, it was still better than the hellish chaos we created when we invaded Iraq and systematically destroyed it.
If that makes him a Saddam supporter, so be it. In that case, I guess I’m a Saddam supporter as well.
Wow – I actually agree with Ronald Reagan on something. Go figure!
So continuing under a brutal dictatorship and then an additional 30 yeas after Saddam steps down and installs his sons to power would have been better?
December 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
__________
I don’t see why not. Do you think they would’ve killed 1.2 million people and displaced 4 million others and utterly destroyed Iraq’s economy and infrastructure and social order?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pmTracy__5 Says:
If the man was acting like a totalitarian dictator I would think that there would be organized political groups inside France who would ask for our help especially if he had total control over the French military and police….the way Saddam did over his military and police.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
__________
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding U.S. foreign policy over the last 60 years. I’ll try and break it down for you. It’s real simple.
We don’t overthrow totalitarian dictators. We install totalitarian dictators. Or, at least, we keep them on the gravy train.
Pinochet, The Shah of Iran, the Argentinian junta, Suharto, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Yoweri Museveni, the list goes on.
We love totalitarian dictators. They’re good for business, and bad for all that unprofitable crap like social justice and fair wages and organized labor.
So if France had a totalitarian dictator in power, what on Earth makes you think we would be on the side of the opposition?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Wasn’t the old rallying cry during the Clinton years that the US wasn’t supposed to be the global policeman?”
For some. In this instance and this regime it was necessary.
__________
Actually it wasn’t, your endless rationalizing notwithstanding.
It was a bloody F8ckin’ fiasco, especially for the Iraqis, whom you seem to have no empathy for whatsoever. You’re a disgusting fraud.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Wasn’t the old rallying cry during the Clinton years that the US wasn’t supposed to be the global policeman?”
For some. In this instance and this regime it was necessary.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
_______________
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Why? Do explain. Why was it necessary? Feel free to use the words “oil,” “PNAC,” “Saudi Arabia,” and “Israel” in your answer.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pmTracy__5 Says:
The “architect” of 9/11 was not bin Laden. The logistics commander and planner was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
That’s right – thank goodness we tortured him in order to get that information!
Oh, wait – my bad. We got that cause he bragged about it in a Pakistani newspaper. Never mind.
I still don’t see why you wrongly think that if bin Laden was captured or killed that means that al Qaeda would be shut down as a terrorist organization. Why do you think that if we were to have concentrated strictly on bin Laden in Afghanistan we would have had any better results in finding him. I don’t think more troops would have helped considering he would have just retreated into Pakistan.
It wouldn’t be. Al-Qa’ida is a decentralized franchise organization that would go on just fine without its head bloviator. There would be some symbolic value, but that’s it.
Still – the other central figures in the organization BESIDES bin Laden were and are still in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We didn’t make our task of catching them any easier by moving our troops to Iraq, and thus solidifying the idea in the minds of many Muslims that the U.S. was engaged in a war on Islam.
If we’d kept more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, doing more humanitarian operations and reconstruction and building better alliances with local tribal groups, instead of downsizing that force and trying to maintain the peace by dropping bombs on wedding parties, we might have had a much easier time finding al-Qa’ida members. We might have even gotten more support inside Pakistan. Invading Iraq just galvanized the Muslim world against us, making it impossible to function in Pakistan with anyone but Musharraf.
Why are you intent on thinking that regime change in Iraq is not something that needed to be done?
Because it wasn’t.
He didn’t care about his people so it didn’t matter to him what kind of conditions they had to live under when sanctions were in place.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
OH NOES! He didn’t CARE about his PEOPLE!! Imagine that – a head of state who DOESN’T CARE! What a BIG MEANY!!!!
Seriously. There are a lot of leaders of a lot of countries fitting this description, including our own. If we really gave that much of a crap about their “people,” we’d be invading half the world.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:37 pmTracy__5 Says:
That was in the past and is changing or do you think that the current Iraqi goverment is illegitimate as well?
No, but they’re putting on quite a brilliant show of being independent. I’d nominate al-Maliki for an Oscar if I could.
We just did it with Saddam.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
________
And that worked out just swimmingly, didn’t it? :)
December 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pmTracy__5 Says:
Sounds like you be totally unreliable is someone asked you to participate in a revolt against the government if the need arose. I will be sure not to seek your help if that time came.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
_________
Depends. How’s the pay? What are the hours? Do I get full medical and dental or what?
December 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pmTracy__5 Says:
I guess during the American Revolutionary War those asses in France who were against their government and military aiding the American rebel colonists against the British, it was also a “bloody F8ckin’ fiasco”.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
__________
I don’t recall the French sticking around after the Reolutionary War and selling off our government and banks to corporations and imposing IMF austerity measures on us and shooting up our civilians at checkpoints and raiding our houses and torturing our people in secret prisons and starting a civil war between our people.
Perhaps that’s how it went down in Canada, but you’ll have to ask them.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm“For some. In this instance and this regime it was necessary.”
Tell me why and be specific. Also tell me why if this is a moral imperitive we should not be doing so in all locations which suffer. The used to whine about moral realitivism as well…
December 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pmTracy__5 Says:
Aside from the PNAC BS. Yes oil security (i.e. world security whether you like it or not), and Israeli security. I have mention these very legitimate reasons before.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
__________
So what you’re saying, then, is that the big “necessity,” the “moral imperative” to invade Iraq, was:
1. Keeping gas below $2/gallon.
2. Protecting our multibillion dollar investment in our little buddy Israel.
Yup. Great reasons to invade a country and kill a million people. Worth every one of those four trillion dollars, those are.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Bush’s “Preventive War Doctrine” is not only against international law, it’s un-American. We, as a nation, are better than that.”
So if an ally of ours in the future ever asks us to intervene to get rid of their leader by force we should just tell them “Hey that isn’t our problem…you are our own.”??
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont see what kind of point you think you are making. The French gave us material support during the Revolutionary war they didnt INVADE us. This argument is specious at best actually it makes no sense at all. Your argument would work better as a justification for Iran helping the Iraqis.
BTW a rebel group of people in Iraq, i.e. the Iraq National Congress, tried to lead a revolt against Saddam just after the 1st Gulf War but we decided to let them twist in the wind and die.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is ALMOST a right. It was actually a Shiite and Kurdish revolt. I have never heard of the IRC being anything but a defector organization. Led by Chalabi who hadnt even BEEN in Iraq since 1957. I agree it was DISGRACEFUL the way Bush sr encouraged the revolt then not only refused to support it but also refused to let them have the captured Iraqi military equipment right there. We pretty much watched them die within a few miles of our military. The bottom line is it is ridiculous to use as an excuse for invading Iraq the attrocities comitted WHILE HE WAS A CLOSE ALLY. Whether you approved or not overall conservatives are pretty late on the Saddam is a monster bandwagon. I could have been convinced about an invasion in 83 or 88. I was screaming he should be tried for crimes against humanity while Raygun was still strongly supporting him. When he used poison gas against the Iranians he used US targetting intelligence to do so. To claim NOW the we are invading for reasons that WHILE THEY WERE HAPPENING didnt even make us mad enough to break diplomatic relations with him doestn pass the laugh test. Its an EXCUSE not a reason. An EXCUSE made necessary when all the previous excuses like WMDs and collaboration with al Queda dissapeared into the fairy dust from whence they came.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Wasn’t the old rallying cry during the Clinton years that the US wasn’t supposed to be the global policeman?”
For some. In this instance and this regime it was necessary.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are the one asleep AND delusional the Iraqis were NOT begging us to invade them which is why they were KILLING US ONE A DAY for several years. Saddam at the time of our invasion was NOT any worse than a minor league thug. According to Human Rights Watch there was NOT humanitarain rationale for the invasion his regime was killing about 300 political enemies a year in Iraq. Now that is bad, it makes him a butcher but that is a good MONTH in Columbia or Guatemala and I assume we wont be invading THEM any time soon and its PALTRY by comparison to some of the MONSTERS we have supported over the years like Pol Pot or Suhaurto one of the worst mass murderers of the Century or Rios Montt or Tacho Somoza. Ya got nothin. Right now we STILL support Islam Karimov who BOILS that many people alive per year. IF we invade every country with a dictator killing only TWICE that many people per year as Saddam was AFTER we stopped supporting him we are going to be VERY busy and getting tens of THOUSANDS of our troops killed all across the globe. These are EXCUSES NOT REASONS.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pmTracy__5 Says:
Well that just isn’t possible is it? Hey but what’s the big deal?…under your caring attitude the Iraqi people should have been satisfied with Saddam and continued to take it up the ass.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
_________
And under your idea of “caring attitude,” 1.2 million of the Iraqi people are dead and 4 million are displaced indefinitely and their country is a hellish shitscape on the brink of bloody civil war for the forseeable future.
I pray you never get a puppy.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pmTracy__5 Says:
We really didn’t have a problem with foreign terrorist comming into our country stirring up trouble between two rival ethnic groups trying to start a civil war either.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
____________
Such a good point. Isn’t it just terrible when foreign terrorists — oh, what’s that word? Starts with an I. Rhymes with “blimvade.”
Oh, never mind. I’ll think of it. Anyway, you’re so right.
Isn’t it just terrible when foreign terrorists go into a sovereign country – uninvited, no less – and stir up trouble between rival ethnic groups, leading to a civil war?
December 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pmTracy__5 Says:
Keeping gas below $2/gallon? How about keep the world economy from going to crap if Saddam were to have been left to his own devices and accuired nukes?
___________
Ahh yes, Saddam’s nukes. Not that he even had an active nuclear program or a fraction of the required technology for years, but yes – somewhere in Saddam’s brain, when he wasn’t working on his novel, he may well have been thinking about how nice it would be to maybe someday have a nuclear weapon.
So what you’re saying is that we have a moral imperative to protect the world from fictional weapons. Is that right?
Marvin the Martian must be shaking in his helmet.
Yes, allies like Israel aren’t really worth protecting.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
___________
Finally, something we agree on.
December 19th, 2008 at 3:51 pm“In this instance and this regime it was necessary.”
Are we gonna get a clear answer to this or not Tracy_5?
December 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pmTracy__5 Says:
Iraq was the dog we had in our proxy fight against Iran and we sure as hell didn’t want a radical religous cleric run nation like Iran controlling one of the largest oil reserves in the world.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
____________
Yes. It’s SO MUCH BETTER now that we have radical Shi’ite governments controlling TWO of the largest oil reserves in the world.
I wonder if we can install some mullahs in Canada…
December 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm“In this instance and this regime it was necessary.”
Come on Tracy_5.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pmDo explain why in a simple series of cogent maybe even bulleted items. Then explain why we need not intervene in other locales of unpleasantness.
Thank you in advance…
Tracy__5 Says:
Oh so now this is a matter of we are only allowed to send our troops into places where genocide is being committed but screw the rest of our national interests like preventing economic meltdown which is exactly what would have happened if Saddam were to have obtained a nuke sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world not to mention the global panic the would have ensued.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
____________
Ahhhh, thanks for the clarification. I understand completely now why we had to invade Iraq.
So by invading Iraq and preventing Saddam from obtaining Make-Believe Weapons Technology (MBWT), we avoided a worldwide economic meltdown – a global financial crisis, if you will.
Yay, us!
December 19th, 2008 at 4:33 pmTracy__5 Says:
If you are suggesting that the U.S. when in to CAUSE trouble the you are a POS demented individual not to mention the fact that you seem to enjoy calling our troops terrorists. Pathetic try, but those foreign terrorist I was referring to were intentionally trying to get the Shiites and the Sunnis to fight each other by bombing civilians.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
___________
I really don’t think it matters so much to the 1,200,000 dead civilians in Iraq whether the terrorists who bombed them wore a uniform or not. They’re still dead, completely needlessly.
And no, I don’t enjoy calling our troops terrorists. It gives me no pleasure at all. But the fact is that they followed orders to commit an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, and many followed orders to commit acts of barbaric brutality against the citizens of that sovereign nation. “Shock and Awe” is intended to provoke terror in the population being shocked and awed, specifically by bombing civilians. Someone who intentionally terrorizes a population is, by definition, a terrorist.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pmI nominate Muntader al-Zaidi for the Medal of Freedom.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pmIran is using its nuclear ambitions for defensive deterance reasons just as every other nation which claims the right to do so claims. Someone please just once explain to me why they would be interested in anything else. The bullshit line feed to the masses and eaten up by a few is so illogical
December 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pmDid I read #129?
December 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pmYes, yes I did. Are you suggesting that someone else need answer for you? Man that is sort of weak…
Dear Tracy – I don’t need a facelift.
But you could use a brain implant.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS, moron.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pmIn all seriousness Tracy_5. Where do you obtain your info as to how Iran works. You seem to be spouting a line which has been sold to you. The impression the average American (US) has of this nation is bunk and is the product a a marketing campaingn which goes back long before the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis which of course has also been spun to meet the needs of those with the agenda to which you seem to have boughten into.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pmIs Tracy_5 suffering some sort of point shift mutation?
December 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pmMust be either the deletion or addition of a single nucleotide which is throwing Tracy_5’s codons off each time…
December 19th, 2008 at 5:20 pm169 – you have obviously mistaken me for someone else, T. I don’t have such a picture on my page. Sowwy, Twacee.
Brain implant.
Just sayin’.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:55 pm“Where do you obtain your info as to how Iran works?”
Are you suggesting that the mullahs, i.e. the Iranian Supreme Council, doesn’t have the final say on the political decisions in Iran?
————–
No. I was asking you where you get the information from which you formulate your vision as to the dynamics of the nation of Iran.
As to my sources. Well I have a close Iranian friend who has surely influenced and educated me. Still I am not sure why I would have to justify any sources as I have made no declaritive statements as to the activities and intentions of the government and peoples of Iran. You have….
Oh other than the obvious value of a nuclear detererant
December 19th, 2008 at 6:16 pmTracy troll pwned again. :-D
December 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pmTracy__5 Says:
You are absolutly ridiculous the FRENCH gave US support for OUR revolution we did NOT give support to Iraqis. The Iraqis NEVER asked us to invade. WE INVADED. Your weird example isnt even apples and oranges its planets and screendoors.
You are INSANE he was a VERY strong ally we sold him precursers FOR WMDs directly to their military KNOWING they would use them for chemical weapons we GAVE him a low interest billion dollar loan AFTER Halabja, we GAVE him US targetting intelligence. THAT is a STRONG ally. You are simply denying reality. We STOPPED the UN investigation into Halabja. There is no possible argument he was not treated as a STRONG ALLY.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pmTracy__5 Says:
Oh so now this is a matter of we are only allowed to send our troops into places where genocide is being committed but screw the rest of our national interests like preventing economic meltdown which is exactly what would have happened if Saddam were to have obtained a nuke sitting on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the world not to mention the global panic the would have ensued.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OH MY GOD. You arent even TRYING to make sense. He didnt HAVE a nuclear program. The IAEA TOLD US THAT. We had ZERO evidence he did. The French, Germans and Russians all told us he didnt. So IF he had been breeding giant lizzards that shot lazer beams from their eyes THAT would have been a real problem too but since he wasnt any more than he was aquiring nuclear weapons you are simply thrashing around WISHING you had an argument. There are MANY worse dictators than Saddam and WE SUPPORTED SEVERAL OF THEM. You arent withing MILES of a cogent argument. You cant be serious with this inane BS.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pmTracy__5 Says: 147
If YOU think we went in there for any other reason than to control the regions oil and take a shot at the neocon political wetdream you are a moron.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pmTracy__5 Says: 150
150 was a MONUMENTALLY STUPID POST. Yeah we KNOW the Iraqi nuclear weapons program in 2003 was fictional EVERYONE WITH A FUNCTIONING CEREBRAL CORTEX KNOWS THIS NOW. IF you were at all up on current events YOU would know that too. Since 16 of our intelligence agencies UNANIMOUSLY said that Iran WASNT pursueing nuclear weapons right now exactly what do YOU know that they dont? Why are you wasting time here. You need to be informing our intelligence community how YOU with your vast resources in middle east intellingence, all your contacts there and all know so much more than THEY DO. Set them straight. They are awaiting the succor of your wisdom and knowlege. Explain to them how much more YOU know about this than THEY do.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pmTracy__5 Says:
#147
“Thank you in advance…”
No thanks I don’t have the time nor the patience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YOU DONT HAVE THE ABILITY. If you tried we would rip your Limborg talking points to shreds. You know it. I know it. Anyone who can READ knows it.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:03 pmTracy__5 Says:
Do Iraq’s government’s final decisions have to be approved by the mullah’s the way they do in Iran?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean like Khatami? The Supreme leader of religious clerics in Iran? The one who put a FATWA on nuclear weapons and said NO country has a right to have them? Those kind of clerics? You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pmTracy__5 Says:
#156
RHF when I want a opinion from a coward like you I will let you know if it’s worth my time.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Tracy you are nothing but an ignorant brainwashed PUNK. You NEVER know what you are talking about and we put up with your ignorant uninformed opinions all the time. What makes you think YOU get to tell anyone else what to do. What a loaf you are.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:06 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Where do you obtain your info as to how Iran works?”
Are you suggesting that the mullahs, i.e. the Iranian Supreme Council, doesn’t have the final say on the political decisions in Iran?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are YOU suggesting we take ANYTHING you post more seriously than a regurgitation of Limborg talking points and stupidity to laugh at? You can show yourself out in disgrace you dont have the slightest idea what you are talking about you rarely do.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pmI dont have to read up on anything Tracy. I know this stuff not being as stupid as you I know what I am talking about BEFORE I post. As your citation says they wield CONSIDERABLE power but are not all powerful. Again we ARE talking about the same Kameini who put a FATWA on nuclear weapons? I am not disputing the clerics have considerable power but exactly WHERE is your information about their nuclear program coming from? The one that is contradicted by ALL OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES? What awesome resources do YOU have that our intelligence community is lacking as a moron who THINKS he knows everything and posts on a website? How are you arguing BOTH that Kamenei is both ALL powerful and has no power to enforce his FATWA ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS? You do know you arent very good at this dont you? You just get stupider as you get more hysterical when you are SHOWN to be full of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_fatwas
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/10/iran.iaea.1350/index.html
Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa declaring the “production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons” against the beliefs of Islam.
So tell me Tracy do you EVER know what you are talking about or are you just into embarassing yourself?
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 amTracy__5 Says:
Wow Tracy you have some top level STUPID in this post.
“The Iraqis NEVER asked us to invade. WE INVADED.”
The Iraqis would have NEVER been able to overthrow Saddam with just our material support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How irrelevant are you going to be with this stupidity? THEY DIDNT ASK US TO INVADE. What they COULD do isnt what is being talked about we dont get to decide for other countries they will be better with another leader and we will just invade and give you one. We SUCK at regime changes look at the many times we overthrew democracies and put in military dictatorships. Most every time we do the regime change things the people suffer IT ISNT UP TO US. The Iraqis never asked us to invade we had ZERO moral justification for the invasion.
“THAT is a STRONG ally.”
No that’s helping the dog who we wanted to win the fight. We had no embassy, no real diplomatic relations, and no shared values as a nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OH MY GOD. Do you really think you can just define words to mean whatever you want them to mean in order for your STUPID arguments to make sense? We gave him intelligence we gave him money we sold him the precursers to WMDS THAT IS DIRECTLY TO HIS MILITARY. We STOPPED A UN INVESTIGATION INTO HALABJA. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to rationally argue he wasnt a strong ally. My GOD Raygun even appologized for him attacking a US Naval vessel in 86. Tell me how anyone but a strong ally can attack a US naval vessel and dodge retaliation. You are working hard on your delusional fantasies but do yourself a favor and give this one up its plain stupid and you are embarassing yourself.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:57 am