Dems: Cancel Iraqi speech to Congress

[Jim]

This has a bad smell to me. I am very supportive of Israel's position but I'm not sure that the PM's position hurts Israel considering our support. Snubbing the prime minister of Iraq at this time seems almost calculated to disrupt.

 

 

It has the smell of blatent politics triumphing over national security. Instead of making his own serious foreign policy statement, here's Schakowsky making the most hay possible against the Bush admininstration:

 

Unfortunately, it has become clear that the new government in Iraq, which came to power with the blessing of the Bush Administration, does not share the same foreign policy goals ....

 

The Bush Administration, who conceived this tragic war....

 

The Bush Administration was flat wrong....

 

"For that reason we have asked Speaker Hastert to cancel the Iraqi Prime Minister's invitation to address a joint session of Congress if he does not secure an apology or satisfactory clarification...

 

I'm sure it will help this fledgling democracy if their Prime Minister is humliated before the world. Let's never forget that national security is about blasting Bush. Nothing comes before that primary goal.

 

I'm sure it is not lost on the dems that the polls show Americans solidly behind Israel in this controversy...

[ecoli]

Bi-partisan bellyaching triumphs even common sense, it seems.

[Pangloss]

I disagree, I think it's a reasonable response to a very ignorant and demonstrably dangerous position on the part of the Iraqi PM.

 

It's utterly vapid for him to support Hezbollah or oppose Israel while other Arab nations are actively trying to stop them. Granted he's dealing with an Iran-fueled insurgency, but that just makes it appeasement which is contrary to his country's approach in every other area of engagement (even political).

 

That's not the kind of nation we want in Iraq, it's not the kind of nation IRAQ wants, and it's not the kind of nation ANYBODY ELSE wants in that region, EXCEPT for Iran. Does that actually strike you as something we should support?

[Jim]

I disagree' date=' I think it's a reasonable response to a very ignorant and demonstrably dangerous position on the part of the Iraqi PM.

 

It's utterly vapid for him to support Hezbollah or oppose Israel while other Arab nations are actively trying to stop them. Granted he's dealing with an Iran-fueled insurgency, but that just makes it appeasement which is contrary to his country's approach in every other area of engagement (even political).

 

That's not the kind of nation we want in Iraq, it's not the kind of nation IRAQ wants, and it's not the kind of nation ANYBODY ELSE wants in that region, EXCEPT for Iran. Does that actually strike you as something we should [i']support[/i]?

 

Oh, I agree that the PM is in the wrong but the method here and the timing could not be worse. America's interest is directly engaged in Iraq and humiliating the newly elected PM is not helpful.

[CPL.Luke]

I think he's coming to terms with the very real possibility of an iranian invasion following a US withdrawal.

 

Just think about it, in a few years when the US makes its withdrawal we will leave iraq with a military just large enough to give the government some legitamacy. And there will still be a large chunk of shiites in the country who would welcome an iranian theocracy.

 

As for the Iranians I'm sure they would be happy to gobble up iraq, remember that the same leaders are there today as those who fought Iraq in the 1980's. And with a few nuclear bombs behind them an exhausted US wouldn't do anything more than fire off some missiles and push for international sanctions.

 

 

^while I do believe that the US would do more than what I outlined above the fact that the above seems so reasonable is cause for alarm.

 

But I'm sure that these thoughts have crossed the mind of the Iraqi Prime Minister and faced with that threat he may be trying to bring the Iraqi government into line with the Iranian government.

[Jim]

I think he's coming to terms with the very real possibility of an iranian invasion following a US withdrawal.

 

Just think about it' date=' in a few years when the US makes its withdrawal we will leave iraq with a military just large enough to give the government some legitamacy. And there will still be a large chunk of shiites in the country who would welcome an iranian theocracy.

 

As for the Iranians I'm sure they would be happy to gobble up iraq, remember that the same leaders are there today as those who fought Iraq in the 1980's. And with a few nuclear bombs behind them an exhausted US wouldn't do anything more than fire off some missiles and push for international sanctions.

 

 

^while I do believe that the US would do more than what I outlined above the fact that the above seems so reasonable is cause for alarm.

 

But I'm sure that these thoughts have crossed the mind of the Iraqi Prime Minister and faced with that threat he may be trying to bring the Iraqi government into line with the Iranian government.[/quote']

 

I expect bizzare statements resulting from the democratic process in this area of the world. I expect better of our own leaders.

[Pangloss]

Oh, I agree that the PM is in the wrong but the method here and the timing could not be worse. America's interest is directly engaged in Iraq and humiliating the newly elected PM is not helpful.

 

Perhaps; I guess I can understand your concern. I don't know enough about how that snub would play in the Arab world to know if it constitutes "humiliation", or what impact there would be if such were the case. I could read a dozen articles on this and still not know.

[Sisyphus]

I'd think being at odds with the U.S. would help his credibility at home.

[walrusman]

Let's never forget that national security is about blasting Bush. Nothing comes before that primary goal.

 

Bi-partisan bellyaching triumphs even common sense, it seems.

 

Nice to know that people can still see through these idiots. The democrats have hurt themselves because they hate Bush so much, that is doesn't matter if he does something right, they're just against it. Their eyes are on the pitcher, not on the ball.

 

And the rest of us pay the price.

 

Is anyone here libertarian?

[Sisyphus]

Is anyone here libertarian?

 

I have strong libertarian tendencies, and I think most regular posters here do as well. If you mean an actual member of the Libertarian Party of America, then I think they're generally too pigheaded and silly for my taste.

[walrusman]

I have strong libertarian tendencies, and I think most regular posters here do as well. If you mean an actual member of the Libertarian Party of America, then I think they're generally too pigheaded and silly for my taste.

 

I'm kind of getting that too. That's why I asked. I seem to be right in line with most libertarian ideas, but they still have some ridiculous tendencies.

 

Do you vote libertarian? I think this country could use some heavy doses of libertarianism before we'd need to pull the reigns.

[Pangloss]

I voted libertarian recently. It was kinda ironic, actually. I was annoyed with my Republican congressman because he didn't keep his personal promise to me regarding the assault weapons ban. He didn't have a Democratic opponent, so I ended up voting for a guy who probably wouldn't vote for an AWB to save his life. (chuckle) Ironic, but such is our voting process.

[walrusman]

I've noticed that most people are libertarian and don't know it. If you run through a short list of questions you'll find the same thing.

[Sisyphus]

Maybe at first glance and in overarching principles, but I think most people are also too pragmatic to be libertarians. For my part, I agree with the basic libertarian principle that anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's rights to be legal. But I also understand that that's an ideal and not always practical in the real world. For example, I'm glad private citizens aren't allowed to own anti-aircraft missles, even if they promise not to use them...

[walrusman]

Maybe at first glance and in overarching principles, but I think most people are also too pragmatic to be libertarians.

 

But that's just it. Libertarianism is pragmatic. Instead of trying to legislate and mold the people into some goofy politically correct expectation with law books that take a forest to publish, you put the responsibility back where it belongs - on the public. People see government as the great "legitimator" ( yes that's a word ) and safety net, regulator of all right and wrong in the country.

 

I was listening to a talk show on my way home tonight and they were talking about America's overweight problem. This lady called in and blamed the government for our food containing high fructose corn syrup and etc. I couldn't believe it. She went on to say the government should do something about cheap "poor folks" food not being good for you, to make more "affordable" healthy food. This is nuts. Do you see how ridiculous the expectation of our government has become?

 

But I also understand that that's an ideal and not always practical in the real world. For example, I'm glad private citizens aren't allowed to own anti-aircraft missles, even if they promise not to use them...

 

Not bad. I hadn't thought of anti-aircraft missles. But I believe, even under a libertarian based government, there would still be limits.

 

I also don't like the idea of a privatized police force. And I don't care much for their take on national security. They have some other funky ideas too that I don't agree with, but I have more in common with the libertarian label than any of the others...

[Jim]

Perhaps; I guess I can understand your concern. I don't know enough about how that snub would play in the Arab world to know if it constitutes "humiliation", or what impact there would be if such were the case. I could read a dozen articles on this and still not know.

 

This event struck me as cyncial politics of the worst kind. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Jim]

I'm kind of getting that too. That's why I asked. I seem to be right in line with most libertarian ideas' date=' but they still have some ridiculous tendencies.

[/quote']

 

 

Yep, I think most of us here at SFN are unelectable in either party.

[Pangloss]

Howard Dean's in Florida this week, and he somehow managed to track down some television cameras and talked them into talking him into giving his opinion on the congressional rejection of the Iraqi PM.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-0726howarddean,0,4761469.story?coll=sfla-news-florida

 

"The president made a big deal about bringing the Iraqi prime minister to address Congress," said Dean, the former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential candidate. "The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite. We don't need to spend $200, $300, $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself."

 

Um, Howard... Arabs are a semitic people. They cannot, by definition, be "anti-semitic". You blithering idiot.

 

It's astounding that people actually touted this guy as the intelligent alternative to George W.

[Sisyphus]

Would it all be ok if he had just said "Jew-hater," or "Islamic fascist?"

 

Wourm, are you saying you would abolish the FDA? (A lot of libertarians would, and I think that's completely ridiculous.) Or is it just that people should be allowed to eat whatever they want, as long as its sold as what it is and they know what they're getting? If the latter, I agree, but that's a much more moderate position than many of the crazies at the LP. Their position is essentially that the free market will take care of any conceivable problem all by itself, putting bloody-minded idealogy over reality. It's an article of faith for them.

[walrusman]

Wourm, are you saying you would abolish the FDA? (A lot of libertarians would, and I think that's completely ridiculous.) Or is it just that people should be allowed to eat whatever they want, as long as its sold as what it is and they know what they're getting? If the latter, I agree, but that's a much more moderate position than many of the crazies at the LP. Their position is essentially that the free market will take care of any conceivable problem all by itself, putting bloody-minded idealogy over reality. It's an article of faith for them.

 

I'm not sure I saw Wourm make a post on here, but judging your post I'm assuming you meant me.

 

Yeah I'm not sure about the FDA thing either, but I do know that the market place is much more responsive than the government is about things.

 

Look at the whole Carb diet fad. Wendy's, McDonalds, Burger King and all the rest of them had "Carb Friendly" meals on menus practically overnight. Competition drives them to give people what they want. If you want crap, they'll sell it to you. If you want good stuff, they'll sell it to you. They don't care either way.

 

Government is sloooooowwwwww and sloppy. No one in government cares about being efficient or giving people what they want, they aren't competing with anybody. Well I guess you could say they're competing with the rest of the governments of the world, but as long as half the world is war torn and decades in the past there's no real competition.

 

The free market does solve alot of problems on its own. But big business and corporations are evil. I think there would always need to be some kind of watch dog over this size of business, especially when they are dealing with other countries and their governments potentially causing problems that we the people have to go fight over - like oil.

 

I'm far more focused on eliminating the current tax structure, inviting other countries to build their businesses here in the US, providing jobs and keeping the manufacturing industry here instead of turning into a obese consumer society that has to have everything made in other countries to be the least bit affordable.

 

Another major appeal, to me anyway, to libertarian style governing, is the elimination of victimless crime. I don't like the idea of people rotting in prison because they grew a plant some people don't like. Or the idea, the nerve, that we can tell two grown adults that they can't have sex in trade for money. This is all nosey, ammoral crap that both liberals and conservatives are guilty of.

[Pangloss]

Would it all be ok if he had just said "Jew-hater," or "Islamic fascist?"

 

Would it all be ok if maybe you got my point?

[Sisyphus]

Maybe you could spell it out for me. Is it that Howard Dean is stupid?