Saturday, November 25, 2006
You've got to admire a country that can bounce back from two nuclear attacks and within a few generations are churning out quality television programing such as this:
Keep in mind, these guys believed their leader was divine and they killed about couple of thousand Americans with organized suicide attacks 60 years ago. Today, they're a democracy (imposed through military force by the way) and pioneers in robotics and Hello Kitty technology.
If they can come this far, there's still hope that my kids will be spending Spring Break at MeccaDisney when they grow up.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The Times Policy on Iraq
A typical Sunday morning in November. Up at a civilized hour. A mug of coffee and a crackling fire to warm me in my favorite chair as I survey the raw autumn day out my picture window and review the events of the week with the Sunday New York Times while Bunny Berrigan gently tickles the ivories in the background.
Actually it’s more like lock myself in the bathroom to escape the howls of children and/or dog and read whatever soggy section of the Times that hasn’t been chewed up or spat upon by beast or infant . . . or both!
So it was with excitement that I read the lead editorial in the Times . . . the one that promised at last to reveal the official policy of the Enlightened with regard to Iraq. After years of criticism of Chimpy McHitlerburton and his evil croneys, the Times is finally putting its cards on the table.
Let’s see what we have here:
“Unless America’s exit plans are coupled with a more serious effort to build up
Iraq’s security forces and mediate its sectarian divisions, a phased withdrawal
will only hasten Iraq’s descent into civil war.”
Umm, where have I heard that before? Why yes, it’s the policy of the United States of America. President Bush has on a number of occasions expressed U.S. policy in Iraq as building up Iraqi security forces, mediating Sunni, Shiite and Kurd divisions, and then withdrawing forces. And he’s been downright vocal about the foolishness of cutting and running before the mission is complete.
“We also fear that Iraqis will have no interest in anything but retribution,
until they see that security and rebuilding are possible.”
Wait a second. This too is American policy, is it not? Establish order and rebuild the nation while giving citizens a stake in the future. Didn’t we depose a ruthless dictator at one point, restore electrical power and oil production and then offering ordinary Iraqis a chance to vote for the first time in generations? I’m pretty sure that is in fact the mission defined.
“For that reason we have suggested one last push to stabilize Baghdad. That
would require at least a temporary increase in American and Iraqi troops on
Hey, that’s the Bush policy too. Use armed soldiers, lots of them, to impose peace on the capital and then expand the zone of stability outward. That’s a great idea. Some might even say bold and visionary. The Times policy on Iraq is the Bush policy on Iraq except without all the self determination nonsense.
So what exactly was the fundamental difference of opinion with Bush on Iraq? I mean, he’s the worst president in human history, right? How many forests has the Times clear cut to inform us that Bush is wrong on a molecular level?
And yet, I can’t see any daylight between the Bush policy and the Times policy. What’s with that?
And what if the “Times” policy succeeds; what would be the result? A peaceful, multiethnic democracy taking root in the heart of the medieval Islamist fascist bone yard posing no threat to the United States and serving as a beacon of hope to a region mired in gloom.
But wait, isn’t that . . . no, it couldn’t be . . . didn’t he once say . . . I’m sure this can’t be true . . . but, could it be . . . that Bush is right??!!
Now you tell us!
If Bush lied about the threat of Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development programs – cloyingly known as WMDs – then what’s the deal with these guys? Are they lying too? Are they lying now? Could it be that partisan advantage crept into their calculations at some point?
Of course, you can’t trust the images you're seeing or the sounds coming from the speakers' mouths because the video was produced by the Republicans and the remarks are surely taken completely out of context.
Or perhaps the truth is that the Hussein dynasty maintained the will and the means to resume its WMD program as soon as it had finished undermining the UN sanctions in place to curtail such programs.
In fact, The New York Times mistakenly verified this alternative reality earlier this month with a breathless account of how the Bushitler regime incompetently posted Iraqi nuclear weapons plans on the internet for all to see.
Not that they had such plans, mind you.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran -- Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.
Bush has accused Iran of trying to make a nuclear bomb, being a state sponsor of terrorism and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq, all charges Tehran denies.
"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday.
"Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."
The Democrats wrested control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans in this week's mid-term elections, partly because of voter concern over the war in Iraq.
Khamenei, a senior cleric in power since 1989, has the last word on matters of state in Iran's complex system of Islamic rule, while the government, under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in charge of day-to-day decision making.
"The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration," the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
Khamenei said military maneuvers in the Gulf this week in which Iranian forces tested new missile systems showed Iran was ready to face any threat.
But, he said: "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."
Khamenei condemned Israel for its artillery attack on Wednesday in Gaza which killed 18 civilians, and also the "silence" of Western nations over "this great oppression."
"The daily crimes by the savage Zionists in Gaza once more prove that holding talks with this occupying regime is of no use."
Thursday, November 09, 2006
President Bush will announce that Donald Rumsfeld is resigning because of ill health. In his place, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, the President appoints newly re-elected Joe Lieberman (I) to be the new Secretary of Defense.
Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) then gets to appoint someone to fill out Lieberman’s term.
Defeated Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R) happens to be available or Bill Nickerson, the long-serving and enormously popular State Senator from Ned Lamont’s hometown, Greenwich. Oh, and Nickerson is an (R) too, by the way.
Since the Democrats lost the Lieberman seat this year to Lieberman, they can’t exactly call foul. And Lieberman owes the Democrats a bit of payback for their betrayal of him. The Republicans get an extra Senator and the Democrats get rid of Rumsfeld.
Everyone happy, yes?
UPDATE: Good prediction. Just wrong.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
With the election only a week away, the only excitement left is wondering how the Democrats will blow it this time. Well, let's take it from the legendary "fast closer" himself:
Of course, they support the troops. And don't you dare question his patriotism!
Kerry now says that he wasn't saying soldiers were poorly educated rubes, but that he"botched" a joke.
This is plausible to me. I can't imagine Kerry delivering anything close to an unbotched joke. This is a guy so crushingly humorless that he holds a press conference to explain a joke . . . and I still don't get it.
It's been a while since I was lectured to by the pompous billionaire. As usual, it's all Kerry bluster about fighting, and the crazyness of opponents, and "real men" all from a coiffed asshole who is the only politician so elitist that he actually looks like an ivory tower.
Is this an actual issue or a distraction? Well, it brings up the contempt of the Left for the military (60% of the troops vote Republican), the derangement of Bush hatred that makes otherwise normal people behave as barking moonbats, and the harshness of political discourse.
But it's also a wonderful reminder that we came really close to electing this guy and the world is better for his defeat.