Cynical Nation

Barry,
Iran is a real threat, in contrast to Iraq that was not. Bush started the wrong war (by lying repeatedly and deliberatedly) because he thought it would "make an example" of Iraq that would stop others. That approach proved to be wrong and, retrospectively, stupid. Importantly, now that we are dealing with a real threat (Iran) we have no resources to even threaten a war. The lunatic president of Iran knows that and thats why he now ignores everybody and says he will do whatever he wants.

In other words, the Bush administration has messed things up. Big time.

Hillary has been perfectly consistent is her support of the Iraq war and the troops (though not Bush and his stupidity, naturally) and so her position on Iran should be expected. Like her husband, she is not a Dove at all.

You are confused because you think all Democrats must be Liberals, and all Liberals must be Doves.

Clinton was always very moderate, almost conservative. He was certainly more conservative than Bush fiscally. He didn't mind using the military, even though I think he took up the wrong side and should have helped Serbia cleanse their nation of muslims.

> You are confused because you think all Democrats must be Liberals, and all Liberals must be Doves.

I made no such assumption about HRC, nor can you find any on this blog. Quit making shit up.

Bailey,
What are you talking about? Do you agree with Hillary on Iraq? She is not consistent. She took that position because she thought that it was the politically correct move at the time (like Kerry). She will not get my vote in the dem primaries in 2008.

Well, both of you assume that Hillary could not POSSIBLY hold her position on Iraq or Iran because she might think that it is the RIGHT position!

Yes, this is very much Cynical Nation when it comes to Democrats!

Remember this the next time you are whinging on about how Bush or one of his co-criminals is just trying to "do the right thing" when they accidentally enrich their buddies over and over.

Hillary has not changed her position. She is a hawk. She always was. Bush on the other hand, was not going to get into "nation building" remember? Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop!!!

> Remember this the next time you are whinging...

All right, Bailey, the next time I start "whinging" I'll remember that.

Remember hillary was all over the TV and media the last 5 years saying "NOOO it's IRAN not Iraq!!!!" Remember the incessant drumbeat of the Dems that we needed to stop Iran and North Korea with whatever it takes?

Neither do I...

When are we going to stop Iran and North Korea? When Halliburton figures out how to rip off billions in taxpayer dollars off the wars?

Anyone who supports "strong action with Iran," while insisting that "Iraq was never a threat," is woefully naive and should stop pontificating about things they apparently know nothing about.

From 1989 to 2003 Saddam's Iraq topped the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism." Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, the Sudan and Pakistan have been on that list, some of them, like Syria and Iran for nearly all that time, and others intermitantly.

Saddam's Iraq WAS the leading rogue state sponsor of terrorism until Saddam was toppled. Syria and Iran have moved to the forefront because of the vacuum left by Saddam's ouster.

NO ONE, no one writing for the NY Times, no one else of ANY import has ever said anything like, "Iraq was not a threat to American interests (oil & Israel) in that region." The reason no one of any credence has ever said that, is that viewpoint cannot be supported by any facts.

Ironically enough, G W Bush's "Axis of Evil" quote got it just about right, Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea form the backbone of what can best be termed a contemporary "axis of evil."

Michael Scheuer (author of "Imperial Hubris") and an ex-CIA agent who has strongly criticized Bush's anti-terrorism programs (he feels that both domestically and abroad, they DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH), has recently said that the problem abroad is that "America simply isn't killing enough of its enemies."

America's "enemies," right now, are ALL those who subscribe to Wahabbism/Islamo-cultism and those "rogue" governments that have supported, sponsored or in any way assisted international terrorism.

Saddam's Iraq was the leading state sponsor of international terrorism and both Iran and Syria remain major state sponsors of international terrorism.

Once again, Bailey Hanging shows his patented naivete, "Clinton was always very moderate, almost conservative. He was certainly more conservative than Bush fiscally. He didn't mind using the military, even though I think he took up the wrong side and should have helped Serbia cleanse their nation of muslims."

Your first assertion was right, with welfare reform, the sidetracking race/gender preferences and signing onto seven of the ten planks of Gingrich's "Contract with America," Bill Clinton was indeed "almost a Conservative."

However, your last statement, "...even though I think he took up the wrong side and should have helped Serbia cleanse their nation of muslims," is dead WRONG.

Yes, morally, the Serbs were justified in responding in kind to the Albanian Muslims who began the genocide in Kosovo, BUT if that were the only issue, there would've been no reason for America to get involved in the Balkans at all.

America's interests in the Balkans was the Albanian oil pipeline, which the powers that be decided the best way to help that interest along was to get involved militarily on the side of the Albanians.

National interest overrides morality every time.

Even DUMBER is this, "When are we going to stop Iran and North Korea? When Halliburton figures out how to rip off billions in taxpayer dollars off the wars?"

There will almost certainly be actions in Iran, and very possibly North Korea and Syria down the road...and NO MATTER WHO is in the White House, Halliburton will get virtually ALL of the contracts in those theaters as well...and thank God for that. Halliburton has been providing services that no other entity can provide.

Wake up Barely and buy some stock in Halliburton. It's still a good deal right now...it'll be going up.

So, JMK, you are saying that NO OTHER COMPANY can transport a quart of cooking oil into Iraq with a military export for less than the $2,000 it took Halliburton to do it? Wow, are you SURE about that?

Let's remember, Halliburton was not capping oil wells or putting out raging fires. They were used to supply almost everything, at outrageously inflated prices that were simply a billion dollar giveaway of our tax dollars to fat wealthy lying weasels like Cheney.

Oh wait, is Wahabbism a problem? Let's see, where did all that start up ... hmmm. Which country is putting out all this Wahabbism. You know don't you. Come on, you know. Bush's best friends in Saudi Arabia.

When do we attack Saudi Arabia, Gump?

Cheney?!

Dick Cheney???

He's not involved with Halliburton any more. He reportedly doesn't even own any Halliburton stock at this point. He purportedly divested himself of that in the spring of 2000, well before his election to VP.

He WAS involved in Halliburton when that company got virtually EVERY contract in Bosnia (under Bill Clinton) and nearly EVERY contract in Gulf War I (under Bush Sr)...and again, rightly so.

Blaming the Saudi government for Wahabbism is much like blaming the Irish government for the excesses of the IRA...it's idiotic.

The Irish government once tacitly supported the goals of the IRA, even encouraged recruitment, while publically decrying its excesses. It's the same with the House of Saud. Like the Irish government, THEY can be negotiated with, and more importantly Saudi Arabia has never been suspected of funding, supporting or sponsoring international terrorism. Despite the fact that there are many Islamo-cultists/Islamo-nazis who are also Saudis, that government has been a "pseudo-Ally" of the United States.

Saudi Arabia has NEVER been on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism," and like the Irish government, they can be negotiated with.

This may come as a surprise to you, but America has no truck with true Islam. Our rightful and vital interests in the Mid-East include Israel (America's sattelite in that region) and OIL, as we will remain a largely oil-based economy for some time to come.

Now buy that Halliburton stock, it's the best move you could make right now.

JMK, don't be a child. Do you really think that Cheney will not get his fat cut of the windfall profits he scammed for Halliburton? Didn't he get a $34 MILLION "retirement" bribe, er, I mean payoff, um, no, I mean package right before he became Vice President? Oh wait, that's right!

CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!

Saudi Arabia is NOT a pseudo ally of the United State, it is an enemy. It is a true ally of the corrupt Bush family, and the ties go way, way back. They even helped retard Dubya get one of his Big Oil jobs, you know, the one he was at when he was investigated for Insider Trading. Actually I think he was investigated three times for various illegal stock activites, wasn't he?

Daddy got him off. Dubya is a criminal.

Cheney divested himself of all his Halliburton stock before becoming VP.

Halliburton RIGHTLY glommed virtually ALL the contracts in Bosnia (under Clinton) and Gulf War I (under Bush Sr) because there aren't any other firms able to deliver what they do, on the scale they do. Besides, old Red Adair would never have sold his oil well firefighting business to Halliburton if he didn't believe in that institution.

The Saudi government is no more "an enemy" of the United States than are the governments of Ireland and Pakistan, which is none at all. Saudi Arabia was NEVER on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism." There has never been any evidence that Saudi Arabia ever sponsored, or otherwise supported international terrorism. In fact, it's been an official "Ally" (I say a "pseudo-Ally") of America since the Johnson administration.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have both offered tacit cooperation with America's "War on terrorism" and the Saudis have (1) allowed the U.S. to station troops within their borders and (2) expelled Usamma bin Laden twice, and the second time (1996) they froze all his assetts in that country.

The three main "rogue state" supporters of international terrorism in the Mid-East have been Iraq, Iran and Syria. There was one Mid-East nation that was run by and for terrorists (Taliban run Afghanistan). Two of those governments (Afghanistan's Taliban government and Iraq's Baathist/nazi regime) have been toppled.

There are other supporters of terrorism in Africa (the Sudan and Somalia).

The legitimate Mid-East targets of "the war on terrorism" are Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, pretty much in that order.

Musharef and the House of Saud don't come close to making the list.

Just tell me JMK, what country produced almost all of the 9-11 terrorists? Tell me also, which sect of Islam is most popular RIGHT NOW in Saudi Arabia?

Cheney divested himself. Well, I guess that ends any conflict of interest! ... if you are five years old. It's better than Hastert could do, or Bush the Insider Trader. Maybe Cheney had a lot of time to learn the rules while he chickened out of his military service by hiding in college year after year, like a true "patriot!"

"Just tell me JMK, what country produced almost all of the 9-11 terrorists? Tell me also, which sect of Islam is most popular RIGHT NOW in Saudi Arabia?" (BH)

Immaterial.

So is the fact that Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 groups's leader came from Egypt.

Neither the Egyptian government NOR the Saudi government are targets in the West's "war on terrorism." BOTH those governments have offered tacit support and NEITHER has been on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism."

Those may all be very inconvenient facts for you, but there they are.

Again, during the height of the IRA's bombings in England, America enjoyed very friendly relations with the Irish government, despite vehemently opposing IRA terrorism. For that matter, even the English government NEVER considered the Irish government an "enemy." There was nothing inconsistent about that position.

Now if the Irish government hadn't publically denounced terrorism as a tool, and tacitly, if not fully cooperated with both England's & America's attempts to bring the IRA to justice, or if the Irish government supported or otherwise sponsored IRA terrorism, or even if the IRA had actual leradership positions in the Irish government, then that would've been the same situation we've faced with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now face in Iran, Syria and the Sudan.

The reason you seem to have a tough time seeing those not so subtle distinctions is because (1) you're not as swift on the uptake as you think you are and (2) you really don't want to see them.

The fact is that Halliburton has never been accused, let alone convicted of anything like "bid rigging." The fact that they got virtually ALL the contracts in Bosnia (under Clinton) and in Gulf War I (under Bush Sr) sort of proves that out. Surely, if there were ANYTHING untoward about Halliburton, that fine Democrat, Bill Clinton, would've found another company to provide those services in Bosnia...a place where we STILL have a presence to this day!

VP Cheney did everything required of an elected official concerning his personal holdings. In fact, he did more than Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire Mayor of NYC, who merely put his substantial holdings (some of which do business with the city) in a blind trust.

Does that make G W Bush and Dick Cheney great guys?

No.

Thankfully, we don't generally elect "great guys" to public office. Most "great guys" are out running real businesses, or trying to cure cancer, things like that.

The political class is generally comprised of people with high levels of personal ambition, combined with relatively low levels of personal and interpersonal skills. In short, much as most politicians bleat on about how they "would earn so much more in the private sector," short of nepotism, most of the political class lack the requisite skills needed to succeeed in the private sector.

That's why America's Founders were absolutely right, The government that governs LEAST governs BEST." Government should be extremely limited and largely decentralized.

America's original Consitution got that part pretty much 100% right.

So then, you are against the Patriot Act and the vastly expanded Executive Powers Bush is claiming? After all, that is a lot of government, when they can kidnap Americans without indictment, hearing, or trial indefinitely -- or would you, in your intellectual state of godhood, disagree?

Once again, you play dumb on Halliburton. Maybe you have forgotten the countless claims of Halliburton obscenely overcharging and fraudulently stealing taxpayer dollars. That's a fact, but I guess you don't want to see it.

As for Saudi Arabia, you are wrong yet again. They do NOT cooperate on terrorism, and never have. They only allowed American troops onto restricted bases because they were afraid that after Kuwait, Saddam would come after their precious oil. It had nothing to do with cooperation.

If countless Americans went around blowing up mosques all over the world, I wonder if the Arabs would accept that "hey, we are really against that!" while we did absolutely nothing to prevent it.

"So then, you are against the Patriot Act and the vastly expanded Executive Powers Bush is claiming? After all, that is a lot of government, when they can kidnap Americans without indictment, hearing, or trial indefinitely"

The Patriot Act as "government excess?"

Since when is self-preservation an excess?!

Yes, citizens like Jose Padilla have been legally locked up without access to visitors, even attorneys...and rightly so.

The last thing America needs is these guys getting their day in an open court.

You've probably never heard the arguments these guys make in support of what they do, but they can be compelling from the vantage of religious freedom, what constitutes a "legitimate religion," not to mention the questioning of some of America's past foreign policy initiatives - WE DON'T NEED ANY OF THAT RIGHT NOW.

In the case of most of the guys we've captured as terrorists, America would've been a lot better off, if they'd been "captured" dead...and that includes the likes of John "Taliban Johnny" Walker-Lindt and Lynne Stewart (American citizens both).

Right now, we need secret courts (FISA) and we need Military Tribunals for terror suspects instead of criminal court proceedings. A lot of gullible Americans might be suspectible to the anti-American rhetoric that these vile people look to use as their defense.

"Once again, you play dumb on Halliburton. Maybe you have forgotten the countless claims of Halliburton obscenely overcharging and fraudulently stealing taxpayer dollars. That's a fact, but I guess you don't want to see it."

Again, Halliburton is the only company capable of delivering some of the services they do. That's why they got virtually ALL the contracts in Bosnia and in Gulf War I.

"As for Saudi Arabia, you are wrong yet again. They do NOT cooperate on terrorism, and never have...

If countless Americans went around blowing up mosques all over the world, I wonder if the Arabs would accept that "hey, we are really against that!" while we did absolutely nothing to prevent it."

Countless Irish citizens went around blowing up English department stores and such and neither England, nor America ever declared Ireland a "terrorist state" - AND RIGHTLY SO.

Ireland was/is NOT a terrorist state, hard as that might be for you to understand.

Ireland offered tacit, though not complete cooperation against the IRA, but never was suspected, nor proven to have ever sponsored or supported IRA terrorism. Ireland's GOVERNMENT was never considered an "enemy" of either England or the United States.

Same thing with BOTH Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Neither of those countries was ever on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism," and rightly so. Saudi Arabia expelled Usamma bin Laden TWICE, the second time, they froze all his assetts in that country.

Same with Pakistan. despite the horrific acts of A Q Khan (the father of nuclear proliferation), Pakistan's government was never implicated in Khan's spreading nukes to terror sponsoring nations.

On the other hand, Saddam's Iraq was the leading rogue state sponsor of international terrorism from 1990 to 2003. Afghanistan was run by a group (the Taliban) alligned with al Qaeda and Iran and Syria have been on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism for most of the past fifteen years.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have NEVER been suspected of sponsoring or assiting international terrorists, while Saddam's Iraq, Taliban led Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and the Sudan all have. That's the reason that Iraq, Iran and Syria are all part of "the Axis of Evil," while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not.

The majority of the money and manpower for all this terrorism comes from one place: Saudi Arabia. It is a fact. They aren't even trying to stop it, and will not let us come in and stop it either.

So you really do believe in Big Government, don't you? We need those smart government people protecting us, and we should be happy to hand over all of our rights for a while. In fact, you seem to believe in an All-Powerful Government. You and Ted Kennedy think alike.

Just because you support Big Government when you are scared makes you no less a Big Government proponent, it only makes you a sissy to boot.

It's a good thing you are far more intelligent than the framers of the constitution! They didn't leave a Chicken Little clause that allowed the government to suspend the law when people got scared.

i'm going to miss this kind of exchange now that Bailey has left us.

Yeah, it won't be the same, will it?

Well, I'm a lot more skeptical about Barely Hanging's departure. Sure, he feigned disgust over not being able to get through to those he's labeled neo-cons here, but that is belied by the fact that he never once made a credible argument for any one of his so-called "views." He's only offered the most vile and sophmoric attacks, without any rhyme, reason or rationality whatsoever.

Even this post of his is not an argument either against the invasion of Iraq (Saddam's Iraq was indeed on the State Department's list of "State Sponsors of International Terrorism" from 1990 to 2003), nor in favor of including Saudi Arabia among the "Axis of Evil" (the Saudis did expel Usamma bin Laden and they, like Pakistan, have tried to walk a very thin tightrope between appeasing the radical element within their own countries and placating the West).

Saudi Arabia just rebuffed calls from Iran to cut back on its oil production in order to have a better chance of harming the Western oil-based economies.

There's no doubt that the governments of both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan place their own self-interest above anything else. We do the same.

Right now, America and the West has a vested interest in both the Musharef government in Pakistan and the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the alternative, at this point, is control of those two nations by far more radical elements and that CANNOT and WILL NOT be allowed to happen.

That doesn't mean that these governments are "our friends." There is no such thing. We merely share some temporary interests and a temporary alliance has been tenuously forged from that.

With a remade Middle East, it is very possible that Britain and the United States might want to replace both those governments with ones "more in tune" with our long term objectives in that region, but for now, both the House of Saud and the Musharef regime have more to fear from the Islamo-cultists/Islamonazis than even we do. That's why those "State Sponsors of International Terrorism" (Taliban led Afghanistan, Saddam's Iraq, the Mullah led government of Iran and Syria's Bashar al-Assad regime) all and exclusively form the Mid-East's "Axis of Evil."

Here at home, we've rightfully ratcheted up the security apparatus. Over 4,000 Arab & Muslim males (mostly non-citizens) were rounded up in the wake of 9/11. That was NOT part of the Patriot Act, which had not yet been signed into law. It was a legally authorized directive, as the then INS had the right to target specific groups of illegal aliens for "targeted enforcement" of our immigration statutes.

Also pre-9/11 and pre-Patriot Act, the NSA monitored INCOMING CALLS to America FROM targeted/suspect foreign portals. Post 9/11, the current administration ordered that OUTGOING CALLS from Americans TO targeted/suspect foreign portals ALSO be monitored.

In the wake of 9/11/01 American traitors from John "Taliban Johnny" Walker-Lindt to Lynne Stewart have been treated better than they deserveed to be treated under our laws. Not one of these anti-American traitors has yet been hung...and still, to the rabid, radical Left, "America is the world's biggest terrorist," and "The Patriot Act is eradicating our cherished civil liberties."

Those are bigger lies than any they claim have been told by Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.