Droning On About Pakistan by Kwicko

I'd like to add two op-ed pieces from my favorite foreign corespondent... who just happens to be a long time expert on the region in question

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/fed-up-with-karzai-
try-zardari.aspx

An analysis of past and current Pakistan politics

" Washington is finally getting some of the democracy it has long been calling for in Pakistan. The result is a disaster for US “Afpak” policy.
The Obama administration is fast discovering that its man in Islamabad, President Asif Ali Zardari, may be an even bigger ethical and managerial liability than its overseer in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai. "

My feel, from this piece and others... Pakistan will remove Zardari, either legally or through a miltary coup. This might not be bad, if not for the drone attacks and American intervention in the area, any new leader would have to take a stand...

Second,

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/some-things-we-lear
ned-in-.aspx

A look at where the US is involved world wide and what it costs

The interesting thing is the likely hood of anyone born in Afghanistan travelling to the US and taking the fight to the Americans is very remote... but Pakistan, Yemen, West Africa... all have groups of educated, English speaking people who will not be happy at how their country and their people are treated at the hands of US policy and would be recruited to do something about it.

Hitting targets without good intel or even common sense has been going on longer than Obama, or Bush

remember Bill Clinton Bombs an Aspirin Factory
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html

Reagans shelling of Lebanon
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19840209&id=SNUVAAAAIBA
J&sjid=OBIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5687,1690672

Hell, " If there is one Al Qaeda target in a building with 34 innocents, then 35 people are going to die that day." By that kind of thinking, wouldn't others be completely justified in firing missiles at CIA headquarters in Langley, or at Blackwater's headquarters nearby? After all, there is very good intelligence that much planning and logistical support for attacks on other nations went on in those places... "

Are US flagged airliners not a legitimate target?

After all, they could and have been called upon to carry troops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Reserve_Air_Fleet

Why not extend that to all US government agencys, all contractors, suppliers and logistics support. If they buy toilet paper from Home Depot put them on the list.

Hell, for that matter the tax payers who fund the whole mess ( mind you if they show restraint and simply blow up the IRS they may win some allies )

Military targets or Industrial Infrastructure targets you could justify alot using US targeting as a guide...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:48 AM

Mike,

Sadly, I'm forced to conclude that the President is not as much of a victim of manipulation as it appears. He wants to play the good guy. It's an old democratic party trick that I'm only just beginning to understand:

The reason the Dems looked like spineless wimps during the Bush admin. was that they were playing a game that goes like this:

"Oh look, A policy, by the opposition, that we want, and it's evil. Ah. Let's oppose it loudly, but buckle just enough to let it pass. Then they'll look bad, we'll look good, and we'll get the evil policy that both parties want."

As a pattern, it's as plain as the GOP "shout everyone down" or "if one of your own votes against you, expose them as gay or something, and then throw them to the wolves of the media and support some other candidate against them. "you're either with us, or you're against us" right?

So, I'm starting to see Obama this way. I'm not 100% sure, but he *does* have the power remove people or to appoint decent ones, or to give orders. He *is* in control of the military and the executive.

His past seems to indicate a pretty solid connection to the whole globalist one world crowd, and his circle of friends aren't all that different from neocons.

I think he's just playing wounded puppy here. He knew damn well that there was no popular support for expanding a war in Afghanistan, and that it would get lots of people on both sides killed.

Obama weakly opposed it, asked McChrystal for a plan, and made himself look like the good guy, secretly planning to cave when McChrystal gave him a plan. But McChrystal gave him no plan, and he caved anyway. But he doesn't have to cave to McChrystal anyway. McChrystal has no power but what Obama gives him. It's like Gates and Rahm and Geitner and Bernanke and Summers: Obama caves to his own people. He sets them up as bad cop, so that people will sympathize with him when he actually does enact bad policy.

On the other points: watch for it to happen anyway, and get no level of media scrutiny.

And yes, we need a word for this sort of invasion. If you are able to get a local corrupt dictatorship to draft an army for your invasion, then it's like a proxy invasion anyway. Very similar to China re: Korea and Vietnam, and now Bhutan and Nepal. No real Chinese soldiers crossing borders, but de facto Chinese soldiers drafted from the local population to support a radical Maoist takeover.

I'm going to go with, yes, proxy invasion is an invasion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, and thank you Mike for the topic, it's bothered me a lot as well. And for the same reasons. I have no answers, and you guys have pretty well covered it, so all I can say is "me too" on that.

As to Pakistan itself, for me it's a double-edged sword. If the Pakistan government is unwilling (as it has been in the past) to do anything, part of me thinks it might be good to deal with the border problems ourseves. On the other hand, and much more so, I abhor the whole thing.

But to expand it, what about Yemen? Apparently we've been doing drone attacks there for years, and of course heard nothing about it. That most recent attempted terrorist attack was by someone who claims he was trained in Yemen, and apparently numerous things recently can be tied to Yemen.

Maddow last night was positing that it'll be "America's other other other war", and from the escalation I've heard about, that's becoming more a possibility as time goes on. The Yemenite (? don't know what term to use yet) government is SOLIDLY behind fighting the insurgents, and we're no doubt arming them, so even more than Pakistan, we're "invading" an ally.

I kind of agree with DT here, in that Obama had the power to choose what to do, and while I don't want to see us abandon Afghanistan, I recognize that's subjective and not necessarily in the best interests of our country.

Where I disagree is his motivation. I see it far more as his wanting to find a middle ground, as he has done so many times (with poor results). The American people want us out; the military wants us in, and in bigger numbers. And Bush was accused so often of "not listening to his military in the field". I think Obama is definitely trying to look like the good guy in contrast, but I think he's also trying to find some middle ground...which I"m getting right tired of.

Ergo: an increase in troops, but a deadline to get out. To me, while a nice concept, not a workable one. And Pakistan is bad business, as I kinda think Yemen is. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen...if nothing else, it's just too much to ask of our military, drones or no drones.

Just curious here; I thought McChrystal DID give Obama a "plan" of sorts: 40,000 troops. Is that wrong?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:46 AM

"Throw more money and personnel at the problem" is not a plan. It's also the only suggestion any of the generals could have given, because NO ONE has any idea what the crap we're doing over there any more. Well, besides pulling out, but the military high ups aren't going to suggest that, they have their Christian American pride to think of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sigh.

How did we get ourselves in such a mess ?

The US needs to take a lesson from Britain and the IRA, or even Israel and the Palestinians.

If you are getting attacked on your home soil (9-11) or having attempted attacks due to your polices, rather than fight the atackers, it might be wiser to change your policies. Because frankly, you will NEVER win a war of that kind, you will only create more attackers - unless you exterminate each and every one and then each and every one who might side with them on principle and then those who might side with them ...

And even if you could do such a thing, do you really want to spend the resources and the time, and every bit of credibility and moral standing you might have left ?

But, in for a penny, in for a pound it seems.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:13 AM

Quote:
Just curious here; I thought McChrystal DID give Obama a "plan" of sorts: 40,000 troops. Is that wrong?

My apologies if this was sarcasm, but answering seriously:

That was the request to which Obama said "I will need a plan"

My understanding was that the exchange went something like this:

McChrystal: I need 40k more troops
Obama: Not so fast, you don't get more troops until you submit a workable plan
[jeopardy theme plays]
Obama: Okay, you can have your troops.

I'll admit it's an improvement over the last administrations logic:

Bush: How many troops are needed to secure Iraq?
Generals: 500,000
Bush: But the bible says 144,000
Everyone else: Maybe 2,000 years ago, but looks like 1/2 a million.
Bush: I like the bible. It stopped me drinking. I'm sending 144,000

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:38 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

The US needs to take a lesson from Britain and the IRA, or even Israel and the Palestinians.

If you are getting attacked on your home soil (9-11) or having attempted attacks due to your polices, rather than fight the atackers, it might be wiser to change your policies.

OK, I'm not hostile to your Point of View, like some here, and I agree with you to a degree, BUT...

Expound please. Which policies should the USA change? In which direction? Bring all the boys home from Iraq & Afghanistan? from Everywhere? quit supporting Israel? or go the other way? Massive retaliation? Summary draconian punishment for opposing foreigners? Legalized assassination of foreign leadership figures by the CIA or Army? Congressionally approved Crusade? Negotiate a peaceful co-existence?Adopt an international isolationist position, backed with violent response to attacks on American citizens and business interests?

My snarky tone of voice aside, what should we change, and how will those changes cause a change in the folks who oppose us?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:42 AM

KWICKO

This article caught my attention, mostly because it makes my head hurt just trying to decipher what the fuck we're even TRYING to do in "the AfPak"...

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A930023

Here's an excerpt. Try to follow the Byzantine Rube-Goldbergian logic, if you dare.

Quote:
Our government's objective: "The United States should focus on diminishing the Taliban insurgency but not destroying it" (The New York Times, Dec. 6, p.1). What exactly is the Taliban? According to the CIA ( www.cia.gov), the Taliban is "a hardline Pakistani-sponsored movement that emerged in 1994 to end [Afghanistan's] civil war and anarchy." Pakistan is our ally, but we're fighting a Pakistani-sponsored movement, which Pakistan itself fought a few months ago when the Taliban made a run at taking over that country. "For years ... Pakistani intelligence has played a double game with Islamist extremists, nurturing them as a force to use against Pakistan's archrival India in the disputed territory of Kashmir and helping create the Taliban as a buffer against Indian influence in Afghanistan" (The New York Times, Dec. 6, p.WK1). India is our ally. So is Pakistan. The Taliban is Pakistan's ally, except when it's not, and fights India in Kashmir, while in Afghanistan the Taliban fights the Afghan government and us. We intend to diminish but not destroy the Taliban, which can please neither India nor the Afghan government.

I am being as clear as the facts permit.

So, are we all clear? ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:44 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
"Throw more money and personnel at the problem" is not a plan. It's also the only suggestion any of the generals could have given, because NO ONE has any idea what the crap we're doing over there any more. Well, besides pulling out, but the military high ups aren't going to suggest that, they have their Christian American pride to think of.

Byte wins for the most succinct summation of the problem.

Only one problem, though. "Throw more money and personnel at the problem" IS the plan. That's the entire plan, as far as anyone can tell.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:46 AM

DT: I'm not convinced Bush really was a born again Christian, considering his daughters, and I kind of think that the inspiration from god thing was an act, but still good. :)

The funny thing is, the only nation in the world that I think even HAD 144,000 soldiers during the biblical time was Persia or Babylon... In those times the residents and occupiers of the region.

People don't realize when the Bible is being tongue in cheek.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:04 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"My snarky tone of voice aside, what should we change, and how will those changes cause a change in the folks who oppose us?"

Most - nearly all - terrorists are recruited b/c of some real world problem - usually of resources, or the lack thereof.

The US needs to stop supporting Israel in its apparent drive to exterminate Palestinians.

The US needs to stop explicitly supporting repressive governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) with aid and/ or lots and lots of arms sales and 'technical assistance'.

The US needs to stop unilaterally targeting countries it 'doesn't like' - Iran for example - and trying to railroad everyone else into going along.

The US DOES need to become involved as an active (but not dominant) party to global issues - Somalia and Ethiopia for example.

The US needs to take a lesson from South America - while it was involved in the Middle East that continent to the south was freed from oppressive and constant meddling and seemd to be doing ebtter as a result.

The US needs to stop exporting it's paticularly pernicious form of capitalism through the IMF, World Bank, and global trade agreements. The institutions don't benefit anyone except the very rich.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:11 AM

Byte,

It was "truthiness." an attempt at humor, to avoid the horrifying reality that mike was presenting.

Mike is right on the money, as is his quote, and wonderful term, rube-golbergian logic.

As per the 144,000, I think it *did* come from the bible, but I agree with you that Bush wasn't much of a Born Again Christian, but then again who is ;)

I actually think that the coincidence of the attack plan with the revelation of St. John the Divine actually had some basis in trying to keep Christian support for the Administration.

I humbly submit, for example, that if he had sent 666,000 troops, and bombed assyrian christian churches in northern iraq during prayer rather than mosques, he would NOT have been re-elected, even though the effective policies would have been essentially the same.

Even if the extra troops would have meant that he won the war ;)

Mike,

I'll add another problem:

The US is not only an ally of Pakistan, we have sworn by treaty to defend Pakistan against ANY foreign attack.

Does that include against ourselves?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:15 AM

Total agreement Rue,

One of the articles I posted above had the question

We now openly trade with Communist Vietnam whom we were at war with, but we still embargo Cuba ?

I think US foreign policy needs to be openly debated point by point until something resembling common sense takes hold...

Add to your list

The US needs to begin closing its overseas bases, particularly where the people there don't want them

The US needs to begin to treat countrys who violate treatys the same, rather than ignoring one and hammering the other for the same thing...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:02 AM

Another example

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/20091229134142350297.
html

Putin warns US over missile defence

Putin says "The problems of missile defence and offensive arms are very closely linked," Putin said in comments broadcast on state television.

"By building such an umbrella over themselves our partners could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want, which upsets the balance.

"Aggressiveness immediately increases in real politics and economics [in this situation].

"To preserve the balance, we must develop offensive weapons systems, not missile defence systems as the United States is doing,"

Extend the same argument to conventional arms, the more the US flails about it the world, does it provoke a resurgence in Russian military build up to contain it ?

Can we really afford another cold war?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:36 AM

Quote:
"By building such an umbrella over themselves our partners could feel themselves fully secure and will do whatever they want, which upsets the balance.

...Welll... That's actually a bad argument. No country is going to agree to limit it's defenses to give countries that want to attack it more even ground in the interest of balance. That's just not smart. Nor is advocating production of offensive weapons. Weapons are weapons, and Putin is pushing his own agenda, remember that.

But, where Putin does have a point, (and this is considering that I think of Putin almost as the head of a Hitler Youth-esque personality cult), is that Americans ARE arrogant, and do feel like they have the right to go into allied countries and install those same defenses, which do locally cause a sense of invulnerability and aggressiveness.

And then people get greedy, and find economic reasons and resources to fight over, and viola, instability caused indirectly by efforts to stabilize a region.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:17 PM

Bytemite wrote:

" No country is going to agree to limit it's defenses to give countries that want to attack it more even ground in the interest of balance. "

But the SALT treaties did just that by limiting deployment of ABM systems, and this was a key point in every nuclear treaty until Bush2 took office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

The strategic nuclear forces niche of the Soviet Union and the United States were changing in character in 1968. The U.S.'s total number of missiles had been static since 1967 at 1,054 ICBMs and 656 SLBMs, but there was an increasing number of missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads being deployed. MIRV's carried multiple nuclear warheads, often with dummies, to confuse ABM systems, making MIRV defence by ABM systems increasingly difficult and expensive. One clause of the treaty required both countries to limit the number of sites protected by an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system to two each. The Soviet Union had deployed such a system around Moscow in 1966 and the United States announced an ABM program to protect twelve ICBM sites in 1967. A modified two-tier Moscow ABM system is still used. The U.S. built only one ABM site to protect Minuteman base in North Dakota where the "Safeguard Program" was deployed. Due to the system's expense and limited effectiveness, the Pentagon disbanded "Safeguard" in 1975.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

At about the same time, the USSR reached strategic parity with the US in terms of ICBM forces. A nuclear war would no longer be a favorable exchange for the US, but both countries would be devastated. This led in the West to the concept of mutually assured destruction, MAD, in which any changes to the strategic balance had to be carefully weighed. To the US, ABMs now seemed far too risky – it was better to have no defense than one that might trigger a war.

Putin, simply wants to go back to status quo, where neither side needs to spend money it doesn't have to provoke similar spending elsewhere...

My argument, is US foreign policy provokes the world to arm itself rather than become the end of that policy

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:31 PM

Nuclear arms are a special case, most countries are scared enough of them that they're willing to limit the amount of nukes just so they have the assurance of knowing their enemies ALSO don't have many.

Except for the U.S., who seems to still be riding high on post soviet collapse paranoia, and who still has a lot of the missiles from the cold war build up.

I was saying, in general, countries aren't going to agree to limit their defenses programs, not if they have the money to pay for them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nuclear arms are a special case, most countries are scared enough of them that they're willing to limit the amount of nukes just so they have the assurance of knowing their enemies ALSO don't have many.

Except for the U.S., who seems to still be riding high on post soviet collapse paranoia, and who still has a lot of the missiles from the cold war build up.

I was saying, in general, countries aren't going to agree to limit their defenses programs, not if they have the money to pay for them.

" not if they have the money to pay for them "

there you go, reason enough

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nuclear arms are a special case, most countries are scared enough of them that they're willing to limit the amount of nukes just so they have the assurance of knowing their enemies ALSO don't have many.

Except for the U.S., who seems to still be riding high on post soviet collapse paranoia, and who still has a lot of the missiles from the cold war build up.

I was saying, in general, countries aren't going to agree to limit their defenses programs, not if they have the money to pay for them.

As for conventional arms....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure
s

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute produces a list of the top 10 biggest spenders of military expenditure annually in their Yearbook publication. The following figures for 2008 are from the SIPRI Yearbook 2009 and were calculated using market exchange rates.[1]
Rank ↓ Country ↓ Spending ($ b.) ↓ World Share (%) ↓
— World Total 1464.0 100
1 United States United States 607.0 41.5
2 People's Republic of China China 84.9a 5.8a
3 France France 65.7 4.5
4 United Kingdom United Kingdom 65.3 4.5
5 Russia Russia 58.6a 4.0a
6 Germany Germany 46.8 3.2
7 Japan Japan 46.3 3.2
8 Italy Italy 40.6 2.8
9 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 38.2 2.6
10 India India 30.0 2.1

So in order to feel safe, the US needs to spend seven times what the next closest country does in defence spending ?

41.5% of all military spending on Earth ?

must be a guilty conscience thinking everyone hates them like that... lol

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:32 PM

That, and the whole corporate economic system America has lends itself really well to propping up the industrial military complex. They're a big lobbyist and ever since WW2 they've pretty much been running rampant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:33 PM

Gino, Rue, add to your list: All treaties should be symmetrical. Right now, Chinese goods can be sold in America with no tariff, but American goods are sold inn China at 50% tariff. There are tons of raw deal treaties like this, in every direction.

Re: Putin and AMB, "anti-missile systems" are actually small missile system, capable of launching fairly sizable nuclear missiles. Anti-missile has become a Luntz term for a missile system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

What a great discussion. Wouldn’t we just solve the world’s problems if they let us loose on them? How can all the people on just this one website have such a clear grasp of the situation and those in our government be so obtuse and idiotic? Yeah, I know the answers…still…

Quote:
"Throw more money and personnel at the problem" is not a plan. It's also the only suggestion any of the generals could have given, because NO ONE has any idea what the crap we're doing over there any more. Well, besides pulling out, but the military high ups aren't going to suggest that, they have their Christian American pride to think of.

Bingo.

Quote:
Because frankly, you will NEVER win a war of that kind, you will only create more attackers - unless you exterminate each and every one and then each and every one who might side with them on principle and then those who might side with them ...

Absofrigginlootely.

Quote:
Bush: How many troops are needed to secure Iraq?
Generals: 500,000
Bush: But the bible says 144,000
Everyone else: Maybe 2,000 years ago, but looks like 1/2 a million.
Bush: I like the bible. It stopped me drinking. I'm sending 144,000

Hysterically right on. And while I have the same doubts about any “born-again Christian”, I do think Dumbya felt he was doing right (among other things). Not that he was clear on ANY concept, or didn’t have other incentives, too. Old joke:

Quote:
Cheney walks into the Oval Office and tells Bush “Mr. President, three Brazilians died in Iraq today.”

Bush jumps to his feet and cries in anguish “Oh my god! How many are in a Brazillion?!”

I gotta deviate here and toss in a couple of giggles (everyone can use a giggle now and then, especially the way the world is right now):

Quote:
President Bush was visiting a primary school. One of the classes was in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meaning. The teacher asked the president if he would like to lead the discussion of the word "tragedy." So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a tragedy.

Little Jimmy stood up and offered, "If my best friend, Johnny, who lives on a farm, were playing in the field and a tractor ran him over and killed him, that would be a tragedy."

"No," said Bush, "that would be an accident."

Little Suzie raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."

"I'm afraid not." explained the President. "That's what we would call a great loss."

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room.

"Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of tragedy?"

Finally at the back of the room little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: "If Air Force One carrying Mr. and Mrs. Bush was struck by a "friendly fire" missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."

"That's right!" exclaimed Bush. "Can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?"

"Well," says little Johnny, "it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."

And just to be fair, here’s a few on Clinton (with apologies to African-Americans everywhere, as it’s an unfair stereotype):

Quote:
From a show on Canadian TV there was a black comedian who said he misses Bill Clinton.

"Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever got to having a black man as President.

Number 1 - He played the sax.
Number 2 - He smoked weed.
Number 3 - He had his way with ugly white women.

Even now? Look at him ... his wife works, and he don't! And, he gets a check from the government every month.

And just for the fun of it:

Quote:
Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America 's shelves this week with " Clinton Soup," in honor of one of the nations' most distinguished men. It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water.
_______________

Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton. The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada .
_______________

When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied, "I don't know, I never had one."
________________

The Clinton revised judicial oath: "I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."
________________

Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to do Hanky Panky between the Bushes."

Okay, back to business:

Rue: every goddamned thing you listed, plus Gino’s and DT’s additions!

Byte:

Quote:
...the whole corporate economic system America has lends itself really well to propping up the industrial military complex. They're a big lobbyist and ever since WW2 they've pretty much been running rampant.

Damned straight!

That’s all I have to say on the matter (as it’s all been said better for me by you guys!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:12 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Great! We agree then... that there's absolutely nothing we can do. Lovely, back to where I was when I didn't care.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Is it ever any different, sadly?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:00 PM