#2
I would think that there would be some type of protests by Vietnamese Americans until Harkin is forced to spin his statement into something else entirely .. as all politicians are wont to do. Vietnamese Americans are certainly more reticent than Cuban Americans.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/18/2008 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
McCain looked like he'd been punched in the gut. Doesn't he yet realize freedom and liberty have domestic enemies and that Harkin is one of them?
#4
Harkin deserves to have someone who survived the Killing Fields come have a few words with him about those comments...preferably the last words he'll ever hear.
The U.S. Senate has far more fools in it than people of wisdom. We as a nation couldn't do much worse.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
05/18/2008 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What a friggin deluded out-of touch-with-reality pollyanna Harkin is. I suppose when the Titanic went down, it was a good party?
Posted by: The Democrats ||
05/18/2008 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Maybe this will wke McCains dubm ass up about "reaching across the aisle".
Those peopel have no honor and are enemies of the nation and the Republic that it is.
Harkin should be recalled by his state for such a hateful ignorant thing that he said.
Hay Harkin you mental midget, tell it to the boat peopel, the peopel who died in reducation campts, thoe ones who made it here , and msot of all, to the millions who died in the Killing Fields.
#9
Oh, god, what a ***king idiot. Yeah, thank you to all the people who voted to put him into office. Thank you, you not only drank the koolaid, you dived in from a great height and swam a couple of laps in it.
Did you, Sen. Harkin, ever actually talk to a ***king Vietnamese boat person? Maybe, some of those who came out in 1975? Someone who looked over the Cambodian killing-fields? I am so sorry, I would be so rude about this idiot Sen. Harkin, if I really cut loose on this topic I would be sink-trapped for sure...
By Dick Morris Former Clinton staffer; now Hillary Hater
John McCain is America's favorite kind of candidate. With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties -- and independents, too -- could easily support.
But he has been dealt a terrible hand: a tanking economy, an unpopular war, a Republican incumbent whose approval ratings are at their all-time low and a gloomy national mood, with 82 percent of Americans saying in a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week that the country is on the wrong track. Political scientists add all that up and predict that the Democrats are destined to win the White House. But I don't do political science; I do politics, and I'm convinced that McCain can still win -- if he's willing to follow the road map below.
McCain needs to not run as a traditional Republican, which is easy, since he's not one. After all, how did an anti-torture, anti-tobacco, pro-campaign finance reform, anti-pork, pro-alternative-energy Republican ever emerge from the primaries alive? Simple: The GOP electorate, along with the rest of the country, has moved somewhat to the left. (In Florida, for example, exit polls showed that only 27 percent of Republican primary voters described themselves as "very conservative," while 28 percent said they were "moderate" and 2 percent said they were "very liberal.")
Meanwhile, McCain's likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging campaign. With the help of the incendiary comments of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's negatives have been rising even as he nears the finish line.
Still, voters are tending heavily toward the Democratic Party. Normally, party preferences are about even, but recent national polls give Democrats a decided edge. In last week's Post-ABC poll, 53 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats or leaned toward the party, compared with 39 percent who were Republicans or tilted to the GOP.
To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat. Apparently, the Dems are the former, and the Trunks the latter.
In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center.
His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers. Wright has become the honorary chairman of McCain's get-out-the-vote efforts. It would be nice to think that race isn't a factor in American politics anymore, but it is. The growing fear of Obama, who remains something of an unknown, will drag every last white Republican male off the golf course to vote for McCain, and he will need no further laying-on of hands from either evangelical Christians or fiscal conservatives.
So McCain doesn't have to spend a lot of time wooing his base. What he does need to do is reduce the size of the synapse over which independents and fearful Democrats need to pass in order to back his candidacy. If the synapse is wide, they will stay with Obama. But if they perceive McCain as an acceptable alternative, there is every chance that they will cross over to back him in November.
If the GOP nominee were Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, independents and Democrats might not vote Republican even if they became convinced that Obama is some kind of sleeper agent sent to charm and conquer our democracy. Even Rudy Giuliani, with his penchant for confrontation, might have elicited sufficient doubts among Democrats to hold them in line for Obama. But McCain doesn't threaten anyone. Everyone can appreciate the ordeal that tested his courage in Vietnam, and independents and Democrats can celebrate much of his legislative record. Voting for McCain is an easy sell. There are two more pages at the link.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/18/2008 05:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
McCain can win since Obama or Hillary are down right scary.
No. "He's part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker".
Here is David Brooks:
Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on "all those who have influence with Hezbollah" to "press them to stand down." Then he declared, "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."
That sentence has the whiff of what President Bush described yesterday as appeasement. Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What "Lebanese consensus" can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?
If Obama believes all this, he's not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He's off in Noam Chomskyland.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."
If only he were for the same things in his 'hometown' of Chicago or his 'home state' of Illinois!
Of course he never mentions that, now does he? Maybe because he is part of the Democrat Organization that has destroyed the economy of Illinois and made sure only 'the right people' have access to a decent school and have access to jobs and Gov. contracts. Like his wife and Tony Rezko, and a host of chicago Dem hacks who are always on the podium when he wins a Primry.
#2
Condi's 2-state strategy for Israel,etc includes all parties in the negotiating process.
And it is US policy to use diplomatic efforts alone against Iran's use of its Hezbie puppets in Lebanon. The Hezbies look at US roadmaps and blueprints as an indulgence.
As we've said in the GPB {Global Power Barometer} since it began, astute global strategists (of which Osama bin Laden is clearly one) figured out long ago that the military might of superpowers can essentially be borrowed to achieve regional goals. When bin Laden began ratcheting up his attacks on the US 15 years ago, his goal was not, as many politicians suggested, to "punish" the US for its infidel ways and certainly not to defeat the US and institure Sharia law. Making that assumption is both to believe bin Laden is a quixotic idiot and to dramatically underestimate the strategic ability of US opponents. Rather, as the GPB has pointed out many times, bin Laden realized he couldn't afford the US military, so he sought to "borrow" it. His goal was to goad the US into creating the Middle East chaos under which Islamist movements could both thrive and gain political power.
And, he achieved his goal to an extent he likely never dreamed possible.
But we cannot change the past. The US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But is the path to "victory" as John McCain suggests to continue to do the bidding of US opponents? Is it to continue to keep the Middle East in chaos...a chaos that has benefitted radical Islam and Iran...a chaos that has allowed China and Russia to gain the edge in striking deals to develop Iraq's oil and gas assets (yes, believe it or not, the US is losing even in the business of producing Iraq's oil).
As Washington Post columnist and PostGlobal founder, David Ignatius said in his Thursday (May 15) column, "Odd as it sounds, I fear that the Bush administration is making the same mistake as hard-liners in the region. It doesn't know when to compromise. It accumulates lots of chips through its military power, but it never plays them at the bargaining table." Mr. Ignatius states that in both 2003 and 2006, the Iranians made serious attempts to discuss the stabilization of Iraq but was rebuffed by the Administration. When Syria asked for help in negotiating a peace deal with Israel, the US also refused.
Mr. Powers points out rightly that while the US Democrats promise that planning for Iraq withdrawal will "begin on Day One...the plans will be hostage to events." That's an understatement. There is little disagreement among analysts that the continuing US presence both empowers US opponents and has been the recruiting gift for radical Islam that keeps on giving. And, as the cost of Iraq exceeds $3 trillion, there's a growing question as to whether this continual bleeding of US treasure will not begin to permanently weaken the US.
Nearly all global analysts believe that Iraq will go through a period of increased violence, perhaps even a breakup whenever the US leaves regardless of how long it stays. Mr. Powers goes so far as to suggest that "The surge, therefore, has not so much ended the sectarian strife as it has set the stage for a renewal of civil war at a higher level of violence."
Nearly all global analysts also concur with the view of the authors Mr. Powers reviews that Afghans will go on fighting among themselves like Donks and Trunks long after the US leaves.
So, one might ask the obvious questions. If the US is helping its opponents by staying in Iraq and even Afghanistan, would it not be victory to deny this valuable asset by the simple act of leaving? If the US is weakening itself far more by staying in Iraq and Afghanistan than a thousand al Qaeda terror attacks would ever weaken the US, would it not be victory to leave?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/18/2008 05:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Substitute out Osama for Hitler and Europe for the Middle East. Same results right? Amazing how the mind can create Ptolemaic designs to force 'systems' into a mindset.
Osama wants the return of the Caliphate, somehow a point ignored in the piece. Missed the point of the Iraqi people turning on the radicals like AQ when they got enough of them and their real goals.
#2
Notice how fools invariably try to create a false subjective "measurement" to create the illusion that their opinions are based on some imaginary standard?
I think of the "nuclear doomsday clock", which because of Ronald Reagan should be at about 3:17.
But when a Republican is president, it is automatically set to 11:55.
If you think about it, Jimmy Carter probably advanced it by about three hours, permitting or even encouraging about five friendly or neutral countries to fall to dictators, communists and theocrats.
#3
Both Radical Islam and gener Islam are trying to preclude their own natural obsolescenece and implosion ala the former USSR - THE ISLAMIST JIHAD, + ISLAMIST-FUNDAMENTALIST REVOLUTION [IRAN], INTRINISCALLY FAIL IFF THESE IDEOS DO ACHIEVE PARITY ANDOR SUPERRIORITY VV THEIR OPPOSITES, AND WILL ALSO FAIL IFF UNABLE TO VALIDATE THE DIVINE = PERFECT MODEL OF HUMAN GOVERNANCE-LIVING THAT IS ISLAM.
"Goad the US into creating the Middle East chaos ...thrive and gain political power" > IT CHANGES LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR EITHER PAN-ISLAMIC/MUSLIM "MANIFEST DESTINY", NOR RADICAL ISLAM TO DO SO AND LEAVE THE US + WESTERN DEMOCRACIES STILL IN DOMINATION.
Islam premissorily desires "STRATEGIC PARITY/SUPERIORTY" vv the US-WEST, whilst Radical Islam desires same INTRA-ISLAM. THIS WHERE THE ISLAMIST JIHADIST DRIVE FOR STRATEGEIC OFFENSIVE-DEFENSIVE CAPABILITIES 2008-2012/13 COMES IN.
If the events in Lebanon today are perceived in accordance with who won and who lost, then the answer is undoubtedly Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah are the losing party.
Hassan Nasrallah and his party were defeated the day the divinely-guided leader lost his credibility on the Lebanese street and before the Arab and Islamic worlds. It makes no difference how much he pledges today or tomorrow; the Arabs, Muslims and Lebanese will never forget how Hezbollah turned its weapons against its own people after numerous vows that it would only use them against Israel.
The pro-Iranian Hezbollah and its supporters and allies lost after the party invalidated its own immunity and was exposed through abhorrent sectarian practices that the residents of Beirut have witnessed firsthand and will not forget irrespective of the solutions proposed in Beirut now or the outcome of the talks held in Doha today.
Nasrallah lost when he unleashed the beast of sectarian war and its slogans among the Sunnis and Shia, and in the process assaulting many. And if the streets of Beirut have been cleaned, the wounds have still not healed and the families of victims will not forget their loved ones.
Furthermore, the Arabs will never forget, no matter what they claim, what the Iranian Hezbollah did in the Sunni areas of Beirut. Hassan Nasrallah has raised the alarm and warned the people of the danger of his model throughout the Arab world.
Nasrallah and his party were defeated after he [involuntarily] persuaded the Lebanese citizens and their leaders to lose all confidence in Hezbollah and its leadership so that the obsession today has become one of accumulating and stockpiling weapons and this will be the major concern in the near future, and the coming days will prove it.
The Druze will not forget the battle of the mountain and how the intruders infiltrated and entered into the Druze areas guised as farmers; however when things heated up, they were revealed to be agents of Hezbollah. Today there will be searches and inspections of intentions and souls not just weapons.
Moreover, the Sunnis will not forget the occupation of West Beirut and the pictures of Hassan Nasrallah and his [religious] references, while pictures of the martyr [Rafik] Hariri were ripped and replaced by the ruler of Damascus instead in what was the worst form of treason, subordination and a mockery of Lebanon's symbols.
All the media personnel throughout Lebanon will not forget that by seizing control of the state, the Iranian Hezbollah muzzled the media and the Lebanese people have borne witness to the burning of media outlets in Lebanon just as they have witnessed the assassination of media personnel and their elimination without knowing who was responsible for it. But today, the Lebanese can see who is behind the disruption of its media.
Hezbollah emerges defeated today and its subordination and treason, with its affiliation to Iran and Syria, has been exposed. But before all that, Hezbollah was defeated after the scale of their party and military might was exposed, undoubtedly by opponents that would jump at the chance to break up the pro-Iran Hezbollah. Arrogance has blinded Hassan Nasrallah who has become vanquished on all levels.
Hezbollah lost its standing with regards to controlling the Lebanese state just as it lost the halo that had granted it personal conviction that it was invincible. The party has come to realize that its weapons will not be easily granted by Beirut and suffice it to recall what happened to Hezbollah during the clashes in the [Druze] mountain.
If, as some believe, [Lebanese Prime Minister] Fouad Siniora's government has committed an error when it made the two decisions that led to Hezbollah's occupation of Beirut, then it is the cleverest of mistakes because it ended the fraudulent legend of Hezbollah without firing a single bullet.
The legend of the leader has died, as has the legend of arms, independence and the myth that the party is not sectarian.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
So the Hezzies lost by winning? In another opinoin piece, US thinkers explain how we can only win by losing. I'm confused.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/18/2008 6:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Compare wid REDDIT > ROBERT FISK: SO WHEN WILL ALL THIS MADNESS END? AL QAEDA IS NOT DEFEATED, HEZBOLLAH HAS WON WARS IN LEBANON, AND HAMAS CONTROLS GAZA???
Bush may not be as naive as Obama, but U.S. policy under his watch has failed on the Iranian issue.
Idaho senator William Borah didn't live to see the end of World War II. He died in 1940, before the U.S. had even joined the Allies and gotten involved in the war. Borah was an isolationist who wanted nothing more than American withdrawal from world affairs. And it is his words that Bush quoted Thursday in Jerusalem: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
Bush did not waver Thursday from the policies that have guided his administration since September 11, 2001. His position on Iran is longstanding. But on Thursday, when he again spoke of the naivete of those who believe dialogue can block Iran's nuclear program, it blipped on America's political radar. Barack Obama's campaign was quick to respond, calling it "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy." If those who want to talk to Iran are like those who wanted to talk to Hitler - then Obama is Neville Chamberlain or Senator Borah.
But Bush should be measured by the same yardstick. Meetings will not stop Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but neither will speeches in Knesset.
Bush may not be as naive as Obama, but U.S. foreign policy under his leadership has failed time after time on the Iranian issue. International sanctions are too skimpy to mount any real pressure against Iran's uranium enrichment program, and Tehran is gaining.
One knowledgeable observer was using this baseball metaphor yesterday. The Iranians have players waiting on all three bases. Hamas on first, Syria on second and Hezbollah on third. All they need now is the grand slam homerun - a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran that will send them running around the bases for home.
Bush often says he learned a thing or two from his years as the owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team: "I developed a thick skin against criticism. I learned to ignore minor setbacks and focus on the long haul." But in the case of Iran, the long haul is creeping ever closer, and it appears Bush plans to leave the problem for his successor.
Earlier this week, he gave the Israeli press a rather complicated answer regarding what he hopes to accomplish during his term. "I think what definitely will be done is a structure on how to deal with this, to try to resolve this diplomatically. In other words, sanctions, pressures, financial sanctions; a history of pressure that will serve as a framework to make sure other countries are involved."
And here is what he said Thursday: For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And he added: "America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions." Bush's declarations could be seen as a calming expression of support: The U.S. president clearly does not favor a nuclear Iran. But one can also wonder about the wording he chose in this speech. Does relying on what the "world" does - or standing with Israel, which might take action itself - mean that America does not plan to be the one to stop Iran?
Posted by: Fred ||
05/18/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
I don't think that there is a question whether Iran will gain nuclear weapons. I don't think there is a question that the world will do nothing once Iran gains the weapons (Israel and the US are handcuffed. Nobody else has the guts.) I think the question remains what the US and Israel will be allowed to do once Iran, North Korea or Pakistan attacks another country with nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
05/18/2008 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Iran will use the nuclear option once it gets it. They will not be guided by environmental issues, human rights issues, humanitarian concerns, or any of the other issues that Western civilization has handcuffed itself with is guided by.
#4
DEM CANDIDATE OBAMA > has said he will withdraw = seriously redux US milfors in Iraq, albeit "measured/calculated", and send them to Afghanistan-Paki where Osama + Taliban, etc. are. PAKISTAN for its part is still RESISTING US EFFORTS TO SEND TROOPS INTO ITS NW FRONTIER + REFUSES TO STOP ARMED ISLAMIST MILITANTS FROM CROSSING INTO AFGHANI TO FIGHT THE US-NATO + LOCAL GOVT.
Read - YOOHOO, RUSSIA-CHINA, US-NATO IN YOUR BACKYARD.
POTUS OBAMA > presuming that Barack makes good on his agenda, IRAN WILL HAVE AT LEAST THRU YEAR 2010 TO WORK ON ITS NUCDEV PROGS + LIKELY THRU 2012 [beyond?] as well. IOW, ODDS ARE VERY GOOD THAT ISLAMIST IRAN WILL GET NOT ONLY URANIUM BOMB TECH BUT ALSO PLUTONIUM BOMB TECH, besides ADVANC MISSLE TECHS + for other WMDS.
US REDIRECT TO AFGHANI-PAKISTAN > besides US-NATO vz. RUSS-CHIN politix, OSAMA + RADICAL ISLAM WILL LIKELY CHOOSE TO RELOC ITS CENTRE AND INTENSIFY ITS JIHAD THROUGHOUT ASIA [already active].
The RUSH LIMBAUGH histoire questionnez of the day is whether the US-NATO believe RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA, SOUTH-SOUTHEAST ASIA, AUSTRALESIA, etc. CAN SUCCESSFULLY FIGHT INTENSIVE ISLAMIST INSURGENCIES WIDOUT US-NATO SUPPORT???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Here is David Brooks:
