Good News
Here are two headlines that were nice to see:
Dow Jones passes 14,000 for record high
&
Damn that Bush and his tax-cutting, surge-supporting conspiracies!
Posted by Tony Turner on October 01, 2007 at 2144 hrs
Did they this time count Iraqis shot in the front of the head?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2007 at 2224 hrs
Two dead American soldiers and 33 dead Iraqis per day-and you call that good news.
And that is only what they reported. How many mercenaries? How many unreported Iraqi deaths?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 01, 2007 at 2228 hrs
33 dead Iraqis per day
And how many were raped, tortured and killed per day under Sadaam? Oh, wait…we wouldn’t know because there was no such thing as freedom of speech or press in that Iraq. But back then people didn’t bother thinking about it or facing facts…Clinton just turned a blind eye and touted “his” economic boom (p.s. - actually brought to you by the signers of the Contract With America).
The Hillary Machine is going to have to remind those editors that “good news” is not allowed until Her coronation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 0019 hrs
Besides the sad attempt to dismiss the deaths of Americans and Iraqis alike, Wiaggie apparently missed this little tidbit. Is that really any better, or wouldn’t one be safe to say, both are unacceptable?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 0732 hrs
Capper, the headline said “Good News.” No bad news allowed. Mercenaries don’t count! Selective interpretation of the data is the easiest way to shift the curve, apart from cooked-up distractions. Look, over there, a shiny object!
Wiaggie, want a nightmare scenario that’ll keep the Republicans up late at night? I can’t wait to see what Hillary will do with all the new executive powers that Bush has carved out! Think she and Bill will rescind them all or use them in ways the GOP will approve? Let the howling begin. Oddly enough, maybe it’ll take a Democratic president to teach Congress to regrow its spine.
Posted by John Foust on October 02, 2007 at 0854 hrs
And how many were raped, tortured and killed per day under Saddam?
A lot less than are now. Hard as it is for you to take, everyday life in Iraq under Bush is far worse than it was under this obvious villain.
Let’s start Wiggie with the four million displaced in a country of 23 milion. The move on to the 50% unemployment and then the dozens killed everyday. Neocon paradise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 0914 hrs
capper - No one is “dismissing” deaths, but this is still essentially a war zone. The people who are intent on undermining freedom in Iraq are using guerrilla tactics that do not fit nicely into the neo-liberal view of war as law enforcement. You can’t arrest and question someone (with a lawyer present) if he’s willing to drive right up to you and detonate his car bomb…so how many chances would you be willing to take in their place?
A lot less than are now. Hard as it is for you to take, everyday life in Iraq under Bush is far worse than it was under this obvious villain.
What do you base this on? Was Katie Couric allowed to tour Sadaam’s rape rooms, or Abu Graib prison before some stupid, juvenile antics by our MPs turned it into a punch-line?
Let’s start with the fact that if you want to “liberate” any country from oppression (a noble goal, I would hope we all could agree), there’s going to be some upheaval and hard times for the citizens. How many were displaced in Bosnia during the “peacekeeping” operations of Clinton and the UN? (possibly 1/3 of the country?). Perhaps, your fervor would be better directed by appealing to the Islamic radicals to stop the attacks and let peace and freedom come to the country (unless ripping on Bush is more important).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1123 hrs
Of course, selective data works for everyone doesn’t it? 50% unemployment includes women in a Muslim country…nice. And to say there was less death in a peace time situation, compared to what is essentially a Civil War…also not that impressive. I am not for this War or a Bush lover, but out of sight out of mind memories of Saddam or comparisons between him and Bush show monumental stupidity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1132 hrs
juvenile antics by our MPs turned it into a punch-line?
Didn’t somebody die from these “antics”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1142 hrs
One of the worst things about this entire sorry mess is the complete loss of credibility by the United States government. Nobody believes the casualty figures because of the weird arbitrary way they count some dead bodies and not others, some types of violence and not others. Another thing. Still and forever, for God’s sake, no one is saying that Saddam Hussein was anything other than a brutal dictator. But which justification for the war was Saddam? The second? The fourth? Was he after or before weapons of mass destruction? Did we catch him before or after Bush finally admitted (even though Cheney still hasn’t) that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq?
And juvenile antics? If American soldiers were forced to act as if they were going to sodomize one another or had electrodes attached to their genitals or were waterboarded or otherwise tortured, you’d rightfully be screaming for the culprits to be brought up on charges of war crimes. If American citizens were snatched up off the streets and taken to a foreign country and held without charges, you’d rightfully be screaming for the 101st Airborne to be sent in. That’s what Abu Ghraib is. That’s what Guantanamo is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1213 hrs
Didn’t somebody die from these “antics”? No, which makes it more ridiculous how out-of-proportion it was blown by the liberal media.
Still and forever, for God’s sake, no one is saying that Saddam Hussein was anything other than a brutal dictator. So, if you’re willing to call him “brutal”, what does that entail? Or would you rather not think about it or elaborate on it? For me, there were more than sufficient reasons for his removal…just pick one…we just had to get a President with the stones to do it. All of the justifications were simply intelligence estimates to further “build” the case for the doves out there…like also charging a murderer with illegal possession of a handgun.
I am amused by the knee-jerk moral relativism used to denegrate the US actions…especially when the two sides are not even close to following the same rules. Yeah, “torture” at Abu Ghraib (“forced to act as if they were going to sodomize one another”) is the same as cutting off heads on videotape.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1353 hrs
wiag, hate to let the facts get in the way, but the U.S. military said back then that it had been ruled a homicide.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1523 hrs
I stand corrected…one CIA mistake that came to light amongst the furor over the other juvenile antics. I’m just not so naive as to think that a war can be fought, a “brutal dictator” can be toppled, and vital information can be gathered through non-violent means. Maybe if we were to “ask nicely”?
The real point here is that the troop surge is working, there is not an unlimited supply of the enemy, and just maybe the Iraqi people are growing more confident that we won’t cut and run and leave them hanging (literally) this time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1549 hrs
I’m just not so naive as to think that a war can be fought, a “brutal dictator” can be toppled, and vital information can be gathered through non-violent means.
And then we become them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1555 hrs
Typical relativism.
So, when a soldier kills another in war, is he a murderer? Or, is it possible to keep one’s personal moral compass intact while doing otherwise unthinkable things when they need to be done? I think many of our combat veterans would tell you that your civilized point of reference sometimes has to be adjusted…and that doesn’t make you the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1622 hrs
Exactly pjr. Thus country is a mess, and sorry wiggie, a spade’s a spade. We shook up the bottle and popped the top. This is not hatred of America but of the stupidity brought on by this administration that has resulted in death and dislocation of millions in Iraq, something that was not happening under Saddam no matter how much you spuuter about it.
Where do we learn about this stuff? Read. The New York Times virtually every day has stories about the impact this war has had on these people’s lives. It is a shame that you won’t admit just to protect the idiot in the White House. You guys talked constantly about responsibility. Why does Numbnutz get a pass?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1625 hrs
“This is not hatred of America but of the stupidity brought on by this administration that has resulted in death and dislocation of millions in Iraq, something that was not happening under Saddam no matter how much you spuuter about it.”
Tell that to the Kurds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1635 hrs
So, when a soldier kills another in war, is he a murderer?
Except he was a civilian, and just a suspect.
Or, is it possible to keep one’s personal moral compass intact while doing otherwise unthinkable things when they need to be done?
Like raping and murdering a teen age girl.
Guess this all comes under the heading of “there’s going to be some upheaval and hard times for the citizens.”
wiaggie, you talk alot about war like someone who has never been there. Give it a try and get back to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1638 hrs
I wouldn’t argue the fact that many people’s lives have been turned upside down by this decision. The question is whether it will all be worth it in the end…if you were diagnosed with cancer, would you just live with it or risk having surgery to remove it?
I happen to agree with President Bush, and others before him, that freedom is always worth fighting for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1639 hrs
I happen to agree with President Bush, and others before him, that freedom is always worth fighting for.
Except he didn’t fight when he had the chance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1643 hrs
pjr - you talk like an naive idealist. Get back to me when our world is completely civilized and evil has been vanquished - only then will we no longer need to look to violence as an option.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1645 hrs
Get back to me when our world is completely civilized and evil has been vanquished - only then will we no longer need to look to violence as an option.
Like when? Oh, you mean never.
That’s a cute justification for being a criminal in uniform.
By the way my enlistment (Army) was 1 week after high school graduation, June, 1968.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1655 hrs
I respect your service, but I do not believe that our troops are criminals in uniform. You may cite certain incidents, but on the grand scale, no one else has shed as much selfless blood as the United States.
And for further “cute” justification, I will remind you of the quote that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Bush understood that big picture, even if you cannot see it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1714 hrs
Wiag, I have not made any sweeping generalizations, you are to good at it, I can’t compete.
Notice what I said, “criminal in uniform”, you recognize that it is singular, right? No reference to, “our troops are criminals in uniform.”
Oh and remember I was just responding to this little diddy;
Get back to me when our world is completely civilized and evil has been vanquished - only then will we no longer need to look to violence as an option.
A little trigger happy, that’s called aggression, Not Freedom
no one else has shed as much selfless blood as the United States.
The old guys pick the fight and the young guys are the ones who shed the blood.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 1756 hrs
wiaggie
What you are doing is know as rationalization. Yes, Hussein was a bad man, but there are many bad men out there. The revolving excuses Bush and company used for justification for the war kept proving false. There was no need for the invasion.
The war should have been taken to the enemy, not to the bystander. Even though Iraq might have cheered 9/11, they were not responsible for it. That is like giving the Packers 4-0 start and crediting it to the fan sitting on his recliner, watching the game. The situation might be different in your eyes, but I doubt the Iraqi civilian doesn’t really care who is holding the gun to his head, he just doesn’t want the gun there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 2005 hrs
The point is wiggie that Bush had handled this properly from the beginning we wouldn’t have to be climbing all over his behind. I knew this would be mishandled from the get go and never felt this invasion was a good idea. But you know, the GOP had an election in 2002 to win and our soldiers and millions of Iraqi civilians are around to pay the price.
Old senile Rumsfeld never wanted to hear about plan B or any thing approaching an organized occupation. We never did have enough soldiers to do it right because of course in this administration tax cuts are semper superior.
Based on Bush’s policies on violating our rights, he has no idea about what freedom is. The Chinese might was well export cheese.
Justifying this policy when so many Iraqis, the ones we are supposedly trying to save, are suffering is plain pathological.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 2006 hrs
What I choose to support is the big picture…9/11 was the final straw, not the sole reason - not unlike Pearl Harbor pulling the country out of that period of isolationism. Bush knew it was time to stop ignoring the growing problem of radical Islam and engage it, something Clinton should have done but was unwilling. So a “brutal dictator” with military capabilities, a history of supporting terrorism and a habit of defying the UN would seem to have rightly been pretty high on the list (same reason to be concerned with Iran).
Also, looking back at history, it’s pretty hard to get tactics right from the start. It took other war-time Presidents (like Lincoln and FDR) years, and many setbacks, before finding success. In hindsight, it’s pretty easy to say that Bush should have listened to the other military experts with different opinions.
As for rights violations, I haven’t noticed any changes…but then again, I don’t make cell calls to Pakistan or try to wire money to “charity” groups in the Gaza Strip. It’s liberals that want everyone to be inconvenienced so that certain groups do not have to feel targeted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 2135 hrs
Apparently, Wiaggie’s picture tube is dirty. It has been proven time and time again that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. After Pearl Harbor, the USA declared war on Japan and its allies, Germany and Italy.
They did not declare war on China just because it was there. Hussein was contained, there was no need to invade.
But you’re right on one thing. Bush didn’t ignore the growing problem of radical Islam, he threw gas on that fire.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 2256 hrs
Bush knew it was time to stop ignoring the growing problem of radical Islam and engage it,
Get your wiaggie on it!
Let me get this “big picture” straight.
Bush invades Iraq to strike a blow against the radical 9/11 Islamists from Saudi Arabia and to take out Sadaam for being a murdering bastard who killed his own people who even hinted at being radical Islamists or Kurdish seperatists or just about anyone who wasn’t completely loyal and subservient to him.
Now we are there and are blowing the bejeesus out of anyone who opposes the government that we set up or who is unfortunate enough to get in the way or wears the wrong tie to a Christmas party(yeah that Blackwater guy didn’t like the bodyguard’s tie).
Oh, and we are spending enough a year in Iraq to fund Healthy Wisconsin ad infinitum if we would wisely stick it in a stock market that makes a Vegas blackjack table look like a conservative investment.
It’s liberals that want everyone to be inconvenienced so that certain groups do not have to feel targeted.
You mean those liberal rascals that wrote the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, right?
Wow, I think I got it all but I’m a little dizzy from hyperventilating.
If you spot anything that I got mixed up just find an appropriate quote to set me straight. Thanks
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 02, 2007 at 2312 hrs
wisely stick it in a stock market that makes a Vegas blackjack table look like a conservative investment.
That’s a foolish statement. Since the inception of the stock market it’s overall average have been 10-11% per year increase this includes the great depression. Long term diversified stock market investments are always going to pay off. If you look at it in the short term it seems to be up and down a lot but the long term trend is always upwards. Unless our country somehow completely goes to hell (civil war, economic breakdown, plague, famine, and other extremely unlikely devastating events) it’s not a bad investment at all.
Thanks for all of your hindsight is 20/20 insight about how we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, that is extremely relevant and very helpful to how we ought to deal with the situation we find ourselves in after the fact. It’s so easy to say we shouldn’t have done something, but not as easy to say how we ought to proceed given the current situation. When we see reports that violence and death is down in Iraq, maybe that means things are getting better, it doesn’t change whether or not we should have invaded, but it lets us know that maybe we are doing something right at this point in time.
Or do you disagree? Are lower death tolls in Iraq a bad thing?
Posted by Matt on October 03, 2007 at 1342 hrs
anyone who opposes the government that we set up
Denigrating Bush is not enough? You would also cynically dismiss the incredible bravery shown by millions of Iraqis to cast a legitimate vote for their new government (for the first time in almost 50 years)? They went to the polls despite many threats of suicide bombings, and a few actual ones, and emerged proudly showing their purple fingers…personally, I found it an inspiring sight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 03, 2007 at 1511 hrs
Unless our country somehow completely goes to hell
How about a nice shift in the dynamics of global economic activity, or the baby boom generation starts cashing in their chips to actually start retiring on their investments, or nobody wants to buy our paper because there is to much of it around.
How could any of that happen, right?
My answer in Iraq is the same as it was, probably about a year or so ago. It is a Civil War. The thing to do is to split the country up and get our people out of harms way.
Get your wiaggie on it, is that you all you have say?
personally, I found it an inspiring sight.
Oh, you were there?
I have a finger I would like to proudly show you, it ain’t purple.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 03, 2007 at 1556 hrs
Come now, PJR, if any country threatens our economic or political interests, we can always invade or threaten with nukes.
Posted by John Foust on October 03, 2007 at 1618 hrs
Aren’t we already doing that.
It doesn’t seem to be working out like it used to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 03, 2007 at 1622 hrs
Oh, you were there? No, I saw it on the news. Did you witness the Blackstone actions you proudly cited?
I have a finger I would like to proudly show you, it ain’t purple. Real classy retort…that’s enough for me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 03, 2007 at 1817 hrs
No, I saw it on the news.
Presented by those professional liberal liars that are part of the loathsome MSM?
Uh no, I didn’t see Blackstone do anything, I made up the part about the tie.
...that’s enough for me.
Amen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 03, 2007 at 2055 hrs
did you miss that part about even through the great depression the average rate of return for the stock market is 10-11% per year. It’s not a bad investment long term. regardless of various shitty situations.
But never mind, its apparent from your comments you aren’t really interested in learning anything or having an actual debate.
Posted by Matt on October 04, 2007 at 1420 hrs
you aren’t really interested in learning anything or having an actual debate.
I pretty much retired at 45 (13 years ago) based on my own investment strategies and continue to live quite comfortably.
How about you?
What is it you wanted to teach me?
As far as the stock market goes have at it. It’s your money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 04, 2007 at 1605 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134036
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 11:00 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 92
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:32 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).