<p>Payback isn’t the guiding principle. And I don’t car if you’re concillatory or not until you recognize the magnitude of the disaster that Bush is and has been. Ejecting the drunks who are driving the car and continuing to inflict extensive damage within and without is the guiding principle. Payback is just a side effect, albeit one that I will enjoy in moderation. (Incessant and negative partisanship? The country can’t stand much more of the rabidly partisan, my way or the highway, using narrow margins as a mandate, way of governing the way that Bush & Co. have done. When he was elected, I thought he might be someone we could grudgingly live with. But he’s governed from the Right with no sense of compromise. To the blazes of eternity with him and all who sail with him.) Otoh, if you think that you and yours are going to get off free and easy, think again.</p>
<p>
Anyone on the Right would find that notion ludicrous. Wasn’t it you that recently noted that our pal Bill Buckley’s clucking had more to do with domestic policy than foreign?
Now…when you begin to sound like our dear departed amigo Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I begin to think this isn’t just fun anymore, and you need serious help.</p>
<p>Oh, BMan, here’s a link for you: an interview with two experts, including the guy who does the websites for the RNC. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001314.php[/url]”>http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001314.php</a></p>
<p>Standard Republican riff, Driver: impugn the patriotism or sanity or both.</p>
<p>But, hey, congratulations…I see where you and yours bumped off Joe Schwarz the other night.</p>
<p>
I was referring to the tone. If you begin distributing video threats to me and other infidels, at least make sure you know how to un-jam your weapon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You still think I’m a Republican! What the hell is wrong with you! Are you that dense!</p>
<p>That’s the thought process of those on the far left who are Lamont supporters. If you don’t agree with them on Iraq and how the U.S. is fighting against those intent on killing us, you’re a Republican or might as well be one…and we all know what they think of Republicans. Lieberman is going to be treated to a barrage of hate unlike anything he’s ever experienced. It’s going to be quite a show.</p>
<p>But i still think Liberman will win in november. The republicans will see a candidate that they think will win, and he’ll still get the support from his own camp</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TheDad, I am not about to recognize the magnitude of a disaster just because you say there is one. The full history has not been written yet, and we are far from even starting the final chapters. If you want to jump to foregone conclusions, be my guest. You have your opinions and I have mine, and there is no need for the both of us to have to agree. Let’s leave at that I respect your opinions but fail to espouse them. I just hope you do not believe I dismiss them without attempting to understand where you are coming from. </p>
<p>As far as my going free and easy, inasmuch as I recognize the rethorical nature of the threat, I do not see why this would be necessary. On this board, the worst faux-pas has been to roll back the clock to the previous two administrations. Why would I simply not be able to adopt the routine of the past years, and bury the skeletons in the closet, ignore the comments about the ineptitude of the previous administration, and cling to a narrow band of items? </p>
<p>However, all of this will probably turn out to be moot. Not unlike Mark Twain’s, the rumors of the demise of the current administration have been greatly exaggerated. At the end of the day, voters do not follow the small polls because they are presented with two choices. Having to choose between Scylla and Charybdis, they may prefer to pick the worst of two evils, and no matter how you slice it, your people are still, and by an extreme margin, the worst solution for our country. And this will so, until you do recognize the magnitude of the hollowness and the utter vacuity of the leadership of your party. They are nothing and have nothing to offer. Just nothing! As I said, go back to the same well and you’ll drown again.</p>
<p>Well, at least Ned has the cash. He grew up in Grennich, close to where old Bush did</p>
<p>A succinct retelling of history by Robert Kagan in The Washington Post</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>"Xiggi, the fact that the latest threat comes from Pakistanis living in Great Britain makes me and mine think that 140,000 American troops in Iraq is a misallocation of resources, blood, and dollars. "</p>
<p>Just curious. If we ever absolutely had to deal with Iran, where would you like the troops to be?</p>
<p>"But he’s governed from the Right with no sense of compromise. "</p>
<p>This statement proves once and for all that TheDad has no idea what he’s talking about.</p>
<p>
We should all be so fortunate as to have emanated from his father’s gene pool.</p>
<p>Abu-al-TheDad sent this from his cave:
The latest headline:
A coincidence? I think not.
<a href=“http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERROR_PLOT_THE_NEW_THREAT?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-11-08-06-48[/url]”>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERROR_PLOT_THE_NEW_THREAT?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-11-08-06-48</a></p>
<p>FountainSiren is like one who crows about eliminating plague but causes a smallpox epidemic in doing so. </p>
<p>ZM: if we ever have to deal with Iran, our troops in Iraq will be of little help. Primus, the will be engaged to the top of their eyebrows with the Shiite Iranian sympathizers and even ordinary supply operations will become extremely difficult. Secundus, there is insufficient logistics infrastructure to support an invasion of Iran from Iraq…constricted mountainous terrain, etc. Beyond that, as one would think that Iraq has demonstrated to all but the most dim-witted Bush supporter, it is one thing to militarily occupy a space with conventional forces; it is another to hold it. I suppose you believe that we’d be greeted as liberators by a cheering populace with flowers. </p>
<p>Two of the consequences of the debacle in Iraq are that we mostly can’t use our Army for anything else and public support for <em>any</em> foreign military mission has been driven downward. The scenario that gives me the willies is an Islamist coup in Pakistan, which has nuclear warheads. A far from low-probability scenario. But this administration reacts on toddleresque emotion and can’t discern degrees of threat and make contingency plans accordingly. At root, we have a president who, determined to “make right” what he perceived as his father’s failure to secure victory in Iraq, wanted to wave his willie around the Middle East, thinking it would be a cheap easy victory. </p>
<p>As for knowing what one is talking about, I believe you once asserted that you had a Bush action figure…a statement I took at rhetorical rather than literal value. The fact that you don’t think Bush has governed from the Right says more about the lack of parallax due your distance from the center than it does me. To oversimplify American politics, I’m about on the 40-yard line. Bush is governing from the opposite 15. To the eternal blazes with him and all that sail with him. And may you enjoy the fruits of his vision of bi-partisanship when the tables are turned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only do you sound like a bible-beating republican there, you sound like some guy who has been couped up into a faculty position for far too long.</p>
<p>Like the guy said in Ghostbusters: I’ve been in the private sector. They expect results.</p>
<p>
Abu-al-TheDad----how do you get these messages through from your cave without being blasted by drones? I’m guessing a trusted messenger riding a mule.</p>
<p>"As for knowing what one is talking about, I believe you once asserted that you had a Bush action figure…a statement I took at rhetorical rather than literal value. The fact that you don’t think Bush has governed from the Right says more about the lack of parallax due your distance from the center than it does me. "</p>
<p>Not rhetorical. It was a tongue-in-cheek gift from a very liberal friend in Florida. Your statement was that Bush governs from the right without compromise. The “without compromise” part was what I took issue with, despite your conveniently leaving that part out.</p>
<p>TD</p>
<p>You must have just taken one to the head on that last tackle. You’re actually in your own end zone.</p>