President Obama being too tired to entertain British P.M. Gordon Brown was a hot topic around the blogosphere last week, but because I had something in common with Mr. Obama, I didn’t post about it. You see, I was too tired.
My children are 7, 5, 3 and 8 months and, being a deranged lunatic who should know better, I homeschool them. The ones who are old enough for school, anyway. The other one just takes the house apart bit by bit while I teach math and phonics. They all joined in the taking apart this week because I was busy sitting on the phone with Dell tech support and trying to get caught up on a backlog of bank statements in preparation for being patriotic and sending in some of our wealth to be redistributed. But I digress. Probably because I’m tired.
President Obama’s job is much harder than mine, of course. If I don’t teach Elizabeth how to subtract with borrowing today, the Daily Mail isn’t going to excoriate me for it. If I don’t get the laundry out of the dryer and folded, the worst that will happen is that it will get wrinkled. The British Foreign Office will not be involved, and nobody will know but me and my family. If I don’t get Microsoft Money running properly….wait, that’s a bad example. There will be consequences on that one. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama need my money, after all. There are banks and insurance companies and car companies to be bailed out, overextended homeowners to be kept in homes they can’t afford, and embryos to be dismembered in the name of apolitical science. But again, I digress. Probably because I’m tired.
I really do understand that the President is tired. I understand that the job is harder and more taxing (okay, pun intended) than he thought it was going to be. I understand that he needs that work-out every day to keep him in tip-top shape for tackling what ails the country. I get it. I really do.
What I don’t get is this: does the man not understand the concept of delegating? I mean, aren’t there protocol apparatchiks over at State whose job it is to know what’s an appropriate gift for a head of state and where you’re supposed to meet a head of state and how much fawning and sucking up is necessary? Who dropped the ball on this one? The President, or Madam Secretary? Was this a case of PUMA vengeance? I’m asking because I really don’t know. After all, I’m not the President or the Secretary of State or even a protocol apparatchik.
I’m thinking it might be a generational thing. Barack and Michelle Obama are the same age as my husband and I. And our generation is notorious for not giving a damn about the niceties of protocol. We’re lousy at thank you notes and the like, and we don’t always know the right things to say and the right gifts to give. I’ve made a conscious effort to learn these things, but I think most of my contemporaries think it’s just stupid and pointless: So what if he gave the guy a bunch of DVDs? The polar ice caps are melting and these people are talking about inappropriate gifts?
Don’t worry, Mr. President. Shoot some hoop and have a nap. The British Empire’s in the dustbin of history, and if you want to treat the P.M. as though he were the president of Burkina Faso, it’s all good. What are they going to do, not invite us to tea?
Comments 77
My husband brought up the gift thing last week. He loves to point out anything negative about Obama to me. I immediately said that the gift thing was a staff mistake. At least I hope the President of the United States has more important things to do then picking out gifts.
Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 8:08 pm ¶It’s definitely a staff mistake. I’m sure Barack and Michelle didn’t hop in the ole Prius and go to Target and pick something out themselves. But it begs the question, who is minding the store? What kind of staffers are being put in charge of things? There are protocol people whose actual job includes doing stuff like this, and they aren’t political appointees. And if the protocol people aren’t doing their jobs, or aren’t being called upon by the Administration to do their jobs, then who else isn’t being called upon to do their jobs?
Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 8:48 pm ¶Ah yes, the Carter Administration, Part II, is on display for all the world to gaze in on in awe!
Carter also deplored delegating and was good friends with the terrorists of the world!
Hold on to you hats people, it’s going to be a bumpy ride like in the late ’70s.
Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 9:48 pm ¶If Carter was such a good friend to the terrorists of the world then why were they so eager to show him up by releasing the hostages the moment his term expired? I suppose you can chalk that one up to the deal Al Haig cut with them to sell US military ordinance to them at cut rate prices.
Just as a reminder, Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the Taliban were both results of Reagan foreign policy. Oops.
Posted 11 Mar 2009 at 9:53 pm ¶If Carter was such a good friend to the terrorists of the world then why were they so eager to show him up by releasing the hostages the moment his term expired?
Well that is because the terrorists enjoyed humiliating him over and over.
I clearly remember Carter being a supporter of the Ayatollah Khomenie (sp?) when the Shah was in trouble. Cater lost Iran. No one else did and it is Iran which is the head of the snake of terrorism today.
I take it you were too young to have remembered Carter though.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 1:26 am ¶I like how you continue to assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with your far right opinions must just be young and experienced Bowden. It really adds credence to your opinions!
Reagan cosied up to the Ayatollah to prevent the release of the hostages until his inauguration. that’s a simple fact of history. He then proceeded to illegally sell arms to Iran in order to illegally finance the Contras. For someone who claims to be so cognizant of history you sure do forget inconvenient details.
You also don’t seem aware of the fact that Iran has never attacked a foreign country, unlike Reagan’s other buddy from the time, Saddam Hussein. Nor did Iran fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. That was the organization of Osama Bin Laden, another creation of the Reagan CIA. Feel free to keep blaming Carter for everything though.
Just so you know, the Shah seized power in a US-backed military coup, displacing the the democratically elected government of Iran. Sounds like we should support!
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 2:51 am ¶Ah, yes, I feel that exhaustion too – we won’t go down that path.
What I would like to see, and if I wasn’t otherwise exhausted would do it for fun, is a showcase of before-and-after pictures of the presidents. If you’ve ever noticed, they do tend to age a lot more than the 4 or 8 years that everyone else ages in the same amount of time.
Perhaps Obama just thought that it wouldn’t be like that for him, because he is a “special case.” Well, not unlike all those overextended homeowners who didn’t really think that they REALLY owed the money.
Just wait for this next generation. Since it seems a large percentage now have EIPs in school, I wonder just how much this next generation is going to be a “special case.” (The truth is, I have high hopes for the younger generation, but there are a few things that alarm me – must be my age.)
Individuality is great, but at the end of the day friends, you aren’t any more special than anyone else – oh, except to your mommy.
Yes, of course, you’re special to me sweetie. =).
Maybe next time Obama’s mama can take care of making cupcakes for the heads of state. That should help. Yes, thats what we need, a “First Mommy.”
Oh, okay, I digress. Just some savvy staffers would probably be better.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 2:52 pm ¶I like how you continue to assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with your far right opinions must just be young and experienced Bowden. It really adds credence to your opinions!
I’m sorry, I guess you forgot that I did ask for you “credentials” a couple of weeks back and you protested about being asked to present them most vociferously!
You had your chance and you blew it, unless you wish to tell us all about yourself now Dan.
Reagan cosied up to the Ayatollah to prevent the release of the hostages until his inauguration. that’s a simple fact of history.
And your proof of this “simple” fact lies where?
I want dates and times, Mr. “Daily KoS”.
You also don’t seem aware of the fact that Iran has never attacked a foreign country, unlike Reagan’s other buddy from the time, Saddam Hussein.
Dan, taking your arguments apart is so easy it reminds me of changing a diaper on a baby: the mentality of the baby and you are similar and your arguments and lack of knowledge stink like said diaper.
Iran, Dan, did attack the United States when it OVERRAN our EMBASSY in February of 1979. That was an act of War, Dan. President Carter was too afraid to defend the honor and integrity of American soil, which is what the land of an Embassy is Dan, in order to “negotiate” with the terrorists in Teheran.
You see Dan, I was 18 when this all went down, I suspect on the other hand you weren’t alive yet or just a little todler.
Nor did Iran fly airplanes into the World Trade Center. That was the organization of Osama Bin Laden, another creation of the Reagan CIA. Feel free to keep blaming Carter for everything though.
Well, the liberals tell me that our support of the Afghan resistance brought about Bin Laden, and that support, Dan, began when President Cater started sending aid to the Mujihadeen after the Soviets invaded in December of 1979.
Just so you know, the Shah seized power in a US-backed military coup, displacing the the democratically elected government of Iran. Sounds like we should support!
Well, it appears that women had it much, much better under the Shah than under the “Democratically elected” Islamic fundamentalist regime that took power and proceeded to spread terrorism to all points of the globe.
So yeah, I prefer a modern, pro-western Shah to that of Jimmy Carter’s terrorist-Disneyland of Iran that Carter gave us.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 5:22 pm ¶Iran, Dan, did attack the United States when it OVERRAN our EMBASSY in February of 1979. That was an act of War, Dan.
Actually, Iranian students overran our embassy, specifically because we (the US) materially supported the military coup that displaced Iran’s democratically elected government, an act of war.
Well, it appears that women had it much, much better under the Shah than under the “Democratically elected” Islamic fundamentalist regime that took power and proceeded to spread terrorism to all points of the globe.
So yeah, I prefer a modern, pro-western Shah to that of Jimmy Carter’s terrorist-Disneyland of Iran that Carter gave us.
Actually, the government that was displaced by the US-backed coup was not Islamic in nature. It was a secular democracy which had the temerity to nationalize its oil resources, so the CIA (and MI6) initiated a coup and replaced it with a military dictatorship which had no support from the people, which ultimately lead to the 1978 revolution. Are you really under the impression that any US president could or would have reversed the outcome of the revolution? What do you think the appropriate response to the overrunning of the US embassy would have been? Nuking Tehran?
Well, the liberals tell me that our support of the Afghan resistance brought about Bin Laden, and that support, Dan, began when President Cater started sending aid to the Mujihadeen after the Soviets invaded in December of 1979.
Yes, and when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the US (under Reagan) immediately ceased all funding and didn’t give them a dime or a single man-hour to help rebuild the country, which lead to the power- and infrastructure vacuums that the Taliban stepped into.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 8:19 pm ¶Actually, Iranian students overran our embassy, specifically because we (the US) materially supported the military coup that displaced Iran’s democratically elected government, an act of war.
Weak come-back. Very weak. Your attempts to cover for the Islamic fundementalist government of Iran, which assisted and directed the attack on our embassy is sad. Just admit you didn’t know that that was an act of war and we’ll leave it be.
Do you think those were “Students” who held our men hostage and paraded them around the place in front of the cameras?
I guess what you’re attempting to fool the readers of this blog into thinking is that the Iranian govt. had nothing to do with occupation of sovereign US territory for all those 444 days.
The Nazis rose to power on the back of “Democratic” elections. What’s your point? Putin came to power on “Democratic” elections.
What do you think the appropriate response to the overrunning of the US embassy would have been? Nuking Tehran?
A declaration of war would have been justified and appropriate. But we’re talking about Pres. Carter, a man who hates America and doesn’t know what the concept of national honor is.
Yes, and when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the US (under Reagan) immediately ceased all funding and didn’t give them a dime or a single man-hour to help rebuild the country, which lead to the power- and infrastructure vacuums that the Taliban stepped into.
No, Dan, you’re wrong, again. The Communist ran with their tail between their legs AFTER Reagan left office. You see, you act like you’re young/inexperienced because you make all these bush-league mistakes. The Russians left in February of 1989, Bush senior was president then, not Reagan.
And the govt. of Afghanistan was still very hostile to the US under Pres. Najibullah. Said Govt. fell in 1992.
The Taliban came to power in 1996. Let’s see….how was President in 1996….hmmm…oh yeah, that guy who said,”No Sudan, you can keep Bin Laden, I’m busy getting oral sex in the White House.”
Again, the Taliban came to power 3 years into the Clinton Regime. Clinton did nothing to prevent the rise of the Taliban and the oppression of women in Afghanistan. Oh yeah, he was too busy oppressing women in the Oral Office, I mean Oval Office, to care about anything but his sorry behind.
Once again Dan, your despicable historical revisionism has been unmasked as a bad case of intellectual dishonesty.
Oh yeah, Cater also assisted Sadaam in getting him to attack Iran in September of 1979. Cater was the big supporter of Sadaam. Thus, Carter’s huge mistake of not supporting an excellent ally of ours caused the most bloody war in the last 50 years and sewed the seeds of terrorism that led to the loss of thousands of Americans on 9/11.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 8:50 pm ¶What do you think the appropriate response to the overrunning of the US embassy would have been? Nuking Tehran?
Ah, yes, all us Redneck Republicans are just chompin’ at the bit to drop a nuke on somebody. Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a Special Forces assault on the embassy. While it’s true that some of the hostages might have been killed or injured, a successful rescue would have prevented the humiliation and demoralization of the United States that lasted well over a year. I’d be willing to wager that the net effect of that national humiliation was more innocent deaths by terrorism, as it was an incredible propaganda victory for the Islamists and energized their movement considerably, no doubt bringing in lots more recruits and money to terrorist organizations.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 8:55 pm ¶Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a Special Forces assault on the embassy.
You mean like Operation Eagle Claw?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
BTW your presumably non-redneck but definitely republican husband advocated declaring war on Iran just above you.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 9:54 pm ¶Ah, yes, all us Redneck Republicans are just chompin’ at the bit to drop a nuke on somebody. Actually, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a Special Forces assault on the embassy
While that rectifies the immediate hostage situation, it does nothing to deter future aggression, like Iran’s surrogates did to the USMC in Lebanon in 1983, and redeem national honor and uphold the rule of law.
We easily, I repeat easily, could have brought down the out-law regime in Teheran through a naval blockade against Iran which relied heavily on exports of crude oil to maintain their regime.
But no, Cater wanted to be “liked” and to try and “understand” the why behind the lunactic’s hatred for us in Teheran.
And in doing so he paved the way for decades of low-intensity warfare waged against the West and helped to destablize the Middle East.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 10:18 pm ¶But no, Cater wanted to be “liked” and to try and “understand” the why behind the lunactic’s hatred for us in Teheran.
It doesn’t take any effort to understand why the Iranian revolutionaries hate America. We fomented a coup to overthrow their elected government. What did you expect?
If Putin’s Russia fomented a military coup which destroyed our elected government (pretend for a moment the government is controlled by the good and pure GOP and not the evil socialist Democrats) would you continue to respect their embassy after we took our country back through a popular uprising?
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 11:06 pm ¶It doesn’t take any effort to understand why the Iranian revolutionaries hate America. We fomented a coup to overthrow their elected government. What did you expect?
Man, you really make my job of displaying the child-like thinking of liberalism so easy.
If Putin’s Russia fomented a military coup which destroyed our elected government (pretend for a moment the government is controlled by the good and pure GOP and not the evil socialist Democrats) would you continue to respect their embassy after we took our country back through a popular uprising?
Putin came to power via free elections. Is he your idea of a legitimate president?
The Nazis came to power via free elections, thus, in your opinion, that is a good thing since you seem so eager to defend the idea of “democracy.”
Way too easy Dan.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 11:53 pm ¶BTW your presumably non-redneck but definitely republican husband advocated declaring war on Iran just above you.
Huh? I guess you’re saying I’m a “redneck” for wanting to punish the Iranian outlaw regime by blowing the living-daylights out of them.
Well, if I’m a redneck Dan, care to guess what that makes you?
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 11:56 pm ¶Reagan cosied up to the Ayatollah to prevent the release of the hostages until his inauguration. that’s a simple fact of history.
I also asked you to back up this slanderous comment about one of America’s favorite Presidents.
I’m not letting you go on this one.
Posted 12 Mar 2009 at 11:57 pm ¶Huh? I guess you’re saying I’m a “redneck” for wanting to punish the Iranian outlaw regime by blowing the living-daylights out of them.
Well, if I’m a redneck Dan, care to guess what that makes you?
Your reading comprehension is about as advanced as your knowledge of history. Feel free to re-read what I said and note that I said you’re a non-redneck.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 12:19 am ¶BTW your presumably non-redneck but definitely republican husband advocated declaring war on Iran just above you.
Saying Brigette is non-redneck then saying, “but”, implies a contrasting comparison.
You have, I assume, called me a redneck.
Now why are you dodging the challenges I have made to you? Can’t back them up?
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 12:23 am ¶Putin came to power via free elections. Is he your idea of a legitimate president?
You’re right Bowden, we should just overthrow any government we don’t like. Also, other governments should overthrow ours. That would be totally cool. As long as embassies are respected throughout the process, of course.
Feel free to name a single thing about the Mossadeqh presidency that is in any way illegitimate or comparable to the Nazis or Putin. I’ll give you extra time to look up who Mossadeqh was since it is very apparent that you have no idea who he was.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 12:23 am ¶Why would I bother further trying to explain things to you when you can’t even understand simple English sentences or conceptualize that overthrowing foreign governments is a bad thing?
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 12:33 am ¶You’re right Bowden, we should just overthrow any government we don’t like.
No Einstein, I’m talking about overthrowing a regime which declared war on us.
Is that concept just so beyond your limited capacity to rationalize self-defense?
The good Dr. you love so much, Mossadeqh, was a socialist who was pro-Soviet.
Perhaps you didn’t know we we’re at war, albeit a cold war, with the Soviet Union at the time?
(And we beat them with Zero help from the Democrats by the way.)
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 1:35 am ¶Dan,
You slandered President Reagan. Back up your bogus claim Dan.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 1:36 am ¶You never cease to amaze me Bowden. You’re irrational and incapable of any form of logical thought or analysis. This is why I decided to stop responding to you the first time. You’re incapable of admitting you’re wrong even when its something as simple as having misread whether I called you redneck or a non-redneck.
I’m not sure who’s stupider, me for deciding to start responding to you again or you for frankly, how amazingly unintelligent you are.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 1:41 am ¶You never cease to amaze me Bowden. You’re irrational and incapable of any form of logical thought or analysis.
And you sir, are worse than Hitler.
;->
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 2:31 am ¶Yeah, I know about Eagle Claw, Dan. I meant a rescue operation that would actually WORK, but I guess after four years of a Carter Presidency, that just wasn’t possible.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶Dan-
You’re looking kinda like those guys who walk along the street and accuse the folks they don’t like of random stuff, then change the topic when folks ask for proof.
If it’s such a simple fact, it should be easy to prove you accusations against Reagan.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 3:10 pm ¶Yeah, I know about Eagle Claw, Dan. I meant a rescue operation that would actually WORK, but I guess after four years of a Carter Presidency, that just wasn’t possible.
Yes, Damn that Jimmy Carter for accepting the plan that the oafish and inept US Military created and assured him would be successful. If only we had had military geniuses like George W Bush or Ronald Reagan to point out the flaws in the plan. Surely Gerry Ford would have been able to predict the sand storms which lead to engine failures and collisions between aircraft.
Stupid Carter with his pathetic service in the US Navy. When will America learn good presidents should have either dodged the draft or served in purely propaganda roles in order to avoid combat?
Its beyond me how you think that the failure of Eagle Claw is somehow Carter’s fault. It was a result of a lack of preparedness and training for that type of mission by the US Military.
To quote the wikipedia article:
“Retired Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James L. Holloway III led the official investigation in 1980 into the causes of the failure of the operation on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Holloway Report primarily cited deficiencies in mission planning, command and control, and inter-service operability, and provided a catalyst to reorganize the Department of Defense, and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.”
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 4:02 pm ¶You’re looking kinda like those guys who walk along the street and accuse the folks they don’t like of random stuff, then change the topic when folks ask for proof.
Grue,
Bowden has never, ever provided a shred of proof of any accusation he’s ever made, and as a result I’ve stopped bothering trying to provide him with any since he refuses to ever acknowledge what I provide him with. However, since you asked politely, here’s a collection of articles on the subject:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920205-october-clips.htm
Most tellingly, the Reagan administration began illegal arms sales to Iran just six weeks after taking office.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 4:16 pm ¶It was Foxfier, not Grue. And welcome back, Foxfier! We’ve missed you.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 4:23 pm ¶Apologies, my mistake.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶Was about to say, I didn’t think I’d gotten around to replying in this thread yet…
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 4:52 pm ¶Dan quoted Wiki:
To quote the wikipedia article:
“Retired Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James L. Holloway III led the official investigation in 1980 into the causes of the failure of the operation on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Holloway Report primarily cited deficiencies in mission planning, command and control, and inter-service operability, and provided a catalyst to reorganize the Department of Defense, and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.”
Did you notice the “planning” comment Dan?
Let’s see, who takes responsibility for a failure in planning in a military operation?
Well, in Dan’s world, we don’t hold Democratic Presidents responsible for ANYTHING that goes wrong (unlike we do with Republican Presidents, i.e., it’s Bush’s fault for everything including bad weather).
Nope, we give Carter a pass for his handling of the Iraninan FUBAR (and that includes everything about Iran post-Shah).
Dan, it’s now apparent to me that you weren’t politically aware back in the late ’70′s to know just how much the American public despised Carter. That is why he got his tail kicked in the 1980 election because unlike you, the American public could recognize a stinker with dirty diapers a mile away.
And I’m still waiting for you proof that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to hold our hostages.
I will not let that go. Ever.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 6:27 pm ¶Okay, here is Dan’s source about the “Historical Fact” that Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians prior to his 1980 win. His source, which is the New York Times (Oh please Dan, this is the paper you rely upon? They hire notorious liars to write their stories).
From the article Dan claims “Proves” his “historical fact”:
Former officials and participants in the Reagan-Bush campaign team uniformly have denied any personal knowledge or involvement in such a deal, although none of them categorically denies that contacts with Iran before the 1980 election may have taken place. Richard V. Allen vehemently denies any agreement between the campaign and Iran over the timing of the hostage release. He told me and others, however, that there are `self-starters’ in every campaign and that he cannot vouch for every `independent, freelance, spontaneous, over-the-Iransom’ volunteer.
Can this story be believed? there is no `smoking gun’ and I cannot prove exactly what happened at each stage. In the absence of hard documentary evidence, the possibility of an elaborate disinformation campaign cannot be excluded.
Dear Lord Dan, even Gary Sick, the author admits, as I’ve highlighted, that he cannot prove his assertion.
Yes my friends, Dan has, as always, fouled up and over-played his hand.
Gay sick is a notorious liberal.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 6:37 pm ¶I take back that Sick is a liberal. He’s a loon.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 6:37 pm ¶To quote the wikipedia article
*gets the giggles*
That’s like saying “to quote the guy outside the post office–”.
Wiki is a formalized collection of man-on-the-street information, *and* it’s well known for having a liberal bias that defies reality– internationally known, even. attempt at linking Telegraph
*curtsies @ Brigette Russell*
I never left, I just didn’t read so many comments or comment myself.
Given my nom de’keyboard, it’s kinda funny to be confused with Grue– I wanted a name that implied a threatening appearance but nothing to fear, while a Grue is something to fear without an appearance!
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 7:14 pm ¶http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
Didn’t work, oh well.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 7:15 pm ¶I had to look up Grue in GuyOutsideThePostOffice.com.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 7:38 pm ¶Reagan conspired with the Ayatollah…and I suppose you believe 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by Prince of Darkness Dick Cheney?
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 7:39 pm ¶Given my nom de’keyboard, it’s kinda funny to be confused with Grue– I wanted a name that implied a threatening appearance but nothing to fear, while a Grue is something to fear without an appearance!
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶You’re right Brigette, I’m sure its a big coincidence that Ronald “tough on terrorists” Reagan immediately began selling US weapons to Iran after taking office. At least Ronald “savior of democracy” Reagan made up for it by simultaneously giving money to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in order to help them fight Iran.
I mean after all Saint Ronny needed some money to illegally give to the Contras thus warranting impeachment (but oops he was too old to remember having done that so its ok) and lord knows the only way a POTUS could possibly raise any money is to sell weapons specifically to the country that had (completely coincidentally) decided (after meeting with Reagan’s campaign advisors) to not release its US hostages in order to weaken Reagan’s opponent. Its all a big coincidence! Did you know he liked jelly beans? What a swell guy!
Now, some rumors about Clinton selling secrets to China, that’s hard evidence baby. I heard he had an affair, can you believe it?
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 8:32 pm ¶*gets the giggles*
That’s like saying “to quote the guy outside the post office–”.
You know, if you’re so distrustful of wikipedia they have their sources right at the bottom of each article. Here’s the Holloway report:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB63/doc8.pdf
I suppose the response to that will be that you can’t trust it because it comes from the government and everyone knows government is evil (unless it happens to be controlled by the GOP at the time.) Stupid liberal Admiral James Holloway III. Get a job and stop asking for handouts, hippie!
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 8:40 pm ¶Dan said,
You’re right Brigette, I’m sure its a big coincidence that Ronald “tough on terrorists” Reagan immediately began selling US weapons to Iran after taking office. At least Ronald “savior of democracy” Reagan made up for it by simultaneously giving money to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in order to help them fight Iran.
Wow, you really are a conspiracy nut, Dan.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 9:44 pm ¶You know, if you’re so distrustful of wikipedia they have their sources right at the bottom of each article.
Actually, only *some* assteritions have citations– some have “source needed” as the footnote.
If you want to refer to a source, go to that source.
You are basically saying that offering, as proof, a high school paper–then scolding folks who won’t accept it for not reading the foot-notes–rather than going to the foot notes and citing a more primary source, is somehow a reasonable or even rational act.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 10:40 pm ¶Now, some rumors about Clinton selling secrets to China, that’s hard evidence baby. I heard he had an affair, can you believe it?
Unlike your little fantasy where Reagan, a great American, conspired with the terrorist in Teheran to keep the hostages till he wins the election, Clinton did indeed give military secrets to the Chicom for campaign contributions.
And no one doubts that Clinton was busy inspecting Monica’s tonsils instead of bringing Bin Laden to justice.
Man’s got his priorties I guess. Pitty for all the dead of 9-11 that they just happened to be getting serviced.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 1:40 am ¶Wow, you really are a conspiracy nut, Dan.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60702,00.html
Oh no Saint Ronny!
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶At least Ronald “savior of democracy” Reagan made up for it by simultaneously giving money to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in order to help them fight Iran.
turns into:
According to the senior officials, who asked not to be identified, Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior military officials supported the program that had more than 60 DIA officers essentially working for Iraq, giving Baghdad detailed information on Iranian strengths and troop deployments, tactical planning, airstrike plans and damage assessment.
So, according to annon sources, we were providing tactical support– not money, tactical support.
Can I laugh about how when liberals try to be all puppet master, it’s nuance, but when conservatives do it– by selling weapons to a hopefully less-bad group in Iran and tactical support to the not-psychotically-religious side — it’s “he gave weapons to one side and paid the other!”
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶Oh no Saint Ronny!
Son, were you dropped on your head when you were a child? No one denies we gave aid to the Iraqis druing the war with Iran. It was in the interest of the US NOT to have Iran overrun Iraq and then Kuwait and drive the price of oil north of $100 a barrel in 1986.
Iran, the nation you constantly apologize for on this board, was and still is an exporter of terrorism. This appears to be something lost on you. Terrorism Dan, you know, the type that killed thousands of Americans on 9/11?
What I like though, is your brilliant, white-hot hatred for President Reagan, who with Thatcher and Pope John Paul II won the cold war, yet your apparent comfort with President Clinton who only cared about inspecting Monica Lewisnky’s tonsils in the Oval office instead of prosecuting Osama Bin Laden.
Thousands died due to his negligence/narcissism and you could care less.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 4:27 pm ¶Yes Ronald Reagan was so dead set against Iran that he sold them US Weapons illegally! Its such a brilliant plan! That Ronny sure was a strategic genius!
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 8:54 pm ¶ps: Remember Bush’s response to the CIA warning “Bin Laden determined to strike within the US”? That was an awesome response. Stupid Clinton with his dumb briefings about what a grave threat Al Qaeda was. Go get a blowjob somewhere you stupidhead!
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 8:56 pm ¶I also like how Bowden is so vastly stupid that he’s not even aware that Iraq invaded Iran and not vice versa.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 8:57 pm ¶I also like how Bowden is so vastly stupid that he’s not even aware that Iraq invaded Iran and not vice versa.
Yes, I said that earlier. Carter encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in September of 1979.
You’re losing it with your insults Dan. The sure sign that you’re getting your hat handed to you is this display of mental desperation with the insults.
Man that must bug you that the entire world looks upon your favorite President, Bill “BJ” Clinton as a sexual deviant.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 9:45 pm ¶Go get a blowjob somewhere you stupidhead!
Wow. That’s a new low Dan, even for you.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 9:46 pm ¶*cough* So, working looking for “moderate Taliban”– fine.
Finding moderate Iranians and helping them– bad.
o.0
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 11:28 pm ¶Foxfier are you really pretending that Reagan sold weapons to “moderate Iranians” and not the central Iranian government who Bowden claims we were at war with? Nevermind that Bowden believes that the US was at war with any country that was even sympathetic to the USSR (a group that includes our current ally, India).
The way that Republicans pretend that Reagan was a great president and didn’t engage in all kinds of illegal activities that ultimately leads to 9/11 and then pretend he was too stupid/old to remember doing so never ceases to amaze me.
Then again those same Republicans actually believe that 9/11 happened because terrorists “hate us for our freedom” and not because of all the ways we’ve fucked middle eastern countries over (under presidents and congresses of both parties) so I suppose its excusable for delusional people to believe delusional things.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 11:47 pm ¶The way that Republicans pretend that Reagan was a great president and didn’t engage in all kinds of illegal activities that ultimately leads to 9/11 and then pretend he was too stupid/old to remember doing so never ceases to amaze me.
Wow, tough day Dan? You’ve been on a roll recently.
Look Dan, History has already given Reagan a pass on the Arms-for-Hostages deal. I didn’t know we we’re going to re-fight 1986 again. He shouldn’t have done it, but his motives were good: to free the CIA agents held captive in Lebanon.
Again, it was a mistake.
But a mistake tha pales in comparison to Carter’s numerous FUBARs with the Shah and the Iranian govt.
It also pales in comparison to Clinton’s sexual harassment of women in the Oval office (I have to keep myself from typing “Oral Office”) and his failure to persecute his own war on terror, which was an unmitigated disaster. His failure directly led to the 9/11 atrocity. Let’s face it, he was more interested in grouping Kathleen Wiley than nailing Bin Laden. Shame on Clinton and his supporters.
Jimmy Cater was a disaster of the 4th-degree. I know that bothers you that history hasn’t been kind to Cater, like it has been to the Cold-war winning Reagan, but those are the breaks.
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 1:10 am ¶Go get a blowjob somewhere you stupidhead!
Oh, dear. Things are getting rather sophomoric around here. Am I going to have to post one of those annoying “comments policy” things?
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:15 am ¶Hey, Dan, please show where I said anything about Reagan in in 53.
That is what is called a “throw away remark”– because you made it plenty clear that taking you seriously is a waste of time and effort.
Do love how you try to blame EVERYTHING on “St. Ronny”, despite the bend-over-backwards clarity that Carter planted a lot of the ideas, and Clinton threw fertilizer on the weeds.
Looking back, Prez Reagan shouldn’t have pulled our guys out after the Marine barrack bombings; this is hind sight, where he was treating the situation in a way that is culturally fitting to our way of thought he should’ve been thinking like a *blankety blank* terrorist. They see it as running away, we see it as taking our ball and going home.
Clinton, on the other hand, turned down getting Bin Laden– even though that’s culturally *inappropriate* to both sides.
Really love how you try to take an obvious throw-away as an excuse to ignore the person who actually offered something you’d have work to counter, though.
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶Looking back, Prez Reagan shouldn’t have pulled our guys out after the Marine barrack bombings; this is hind sight, where he was treating the situation in a way that is culturally fitting to our way of thought he should’ve been thinking like a *blankety blank* terrorist. They see it as running away, we see it as taking our ball and going home.
Actually FF, Reagan had no political option but to pull the Marines out of Lebanon. The Democrats, led by Tip O’Neil, made it very clear that they would hang the “Lebanon is Viet Nam” tag on the mission the entire campaign season (pull out began in February of 1984).
So we lost Lebanon because the Democrats wanted to play politics with national security.
And, as you pointed out, thousands of Americans would die because of the Democrat perfidious political strategy years later.
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶BR-
I just know looking back, stratigically, it made the wrong folks look strong. (Makes a lot more sense to know that folks did the stupid ‘Nam thing.)
It’s about as useful as saying “oh, if Bush had just stopped all airplanes on 9/11, the towers would be in place!”
Thanks for taking the time to offer a bit more background.
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 9:26 pm ¶Thanks for taking the time to offer a bit more background.
Well, I figure someone has to counter the revisionism that is prevalent here due to a certain someone.
;->
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 10:31 pm ¶Actually FF, Reagan had no political option but to pull the Marines out of Lebanon. The Democrats, led by Tip O’Neil, made it very clear that they would hang the “Lebanon is Viet Nam” tag on the mission the entire campaign season (pull out began in February of 1984).
This is the sort of thing most people don’t know because the media doesn’t point it out periodically the way they repeatedly remind people about Iran-Contra and anything else they think will make the Republicans look bad. Anything that makes the Democrats look bad gets left out of all those “retrospective” news pieces that are really thinly disguised DNC compaign ads. Conservatives have to pay very close attention and work hard to collect their ammunition in the rhetorical struggle for the future of our country, whereas liberals get spoon-fed theirs.
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 4:02 am ¶Just to summarize this comment stream:
Bowden’s argument is that getting a blowjob is worse than selling weapons to a country he claims we were at war with. Consensual oral sex is worse than treason, as long as that treason is done in order to fund far-right wing guerrillas! You see, when you agree with terrorists’ goals, you call them “guerrillas”. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians? Necessary in order to overthrow the oppressors! Targeting health workers for assassination? A harmless joke! Raping civilian women? They probably enjoyed it! Executing civilian men, women, and children? Better than the alternative! Also, abortion is worse than all those things!
Clinton also gets the blame for 9/11 despite his administration’s well-documented attempts to make the Bush administration understand what a grave danger Al Qaeda was, because he had been too busy getting a blow job four years earlier! Did he mention Clinton got a blow job? Blow job! Also, he definitely sold nuclear secrets to China. Proof? Unnecessary! Seriously, blow job! By the way, you must show him hard evidence that Reagan’s immediate commencement of arms sales to Iran upon taking office had nothing to do with their deciding to release the US Hostages simultaneously! Its all a coincidence! Prove its not! You can’t prove it!
He’s also of the opinion that Reagan was a hero for being too much of a wimp to stand up to those frightful democrats in the Senate for political reasons. Doing what he knew to be wrong to score political points? Heroic! Presumably after securing re-election in 1984 he was too forgetful to remember that he intended to invade Lebanon. Dazzling! Was Hezbollah aided by the same Iranian government that Reagan sold weapons to just two years earlier? Irrelevant! Reagan is a hero!
Bowden believes Reagan’s eagerness to sell weapons to Iran and direct funding and support for Nicaraguan terrorists makes him an anti-terror hero.
Carter’s refusal to sell Iran weapons makes him, to quote Bowden, “good friends with the terrorists of the world!” Examples of this friendship with terrorists: None? Irrelevant!
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 11:18 pm ¶Just to summarize this comment stream
Translation:
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:13 am ¶Strawman, I summon YOU!
Actually, I can back up every assertion in it with quotes from Bowden. Which one do you think is a stra man?
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:44 am ¶1. Bill Clinton approved the technology transfer by Loral Industries to China that enabled China to put multiple sattelites on their missiles, thus giving China MIRV capabilities (look that acronym up Dan). He signed off on this tech transfer against SECSTATE Christopher Warren’s objections w/r/t encryption technologies he gave to the Chicom.
2. In return the Chinese gave the Clinton Re-election committees $100,000. This donation was ILLEGAL and it came from China Aerospace, a branch of the Communist People’s Liberation Army. Therefore, the Chincom directly were attempting to help re-elect their main benefactor in Washington.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E5DA1739F93AA25756C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
From Softwar.com:
President Clinton also overrode the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher who opposed exporting advanced encryption technology to China.
So yeah, I back it up. He was more interested in getting serviced and taking ILLEGAL communist campaign contributions than getting Bin Laden.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 6:57 am ¶Carter’s refusal to sell Iran weapons makes him, to quote Bowden, “good friends with the terrorists of the world!” Examples of this friendship with terrorists: None? Irrelevant!
Son, lay off the stupid pills. Have you not seen Carter kissing the ASS of Hezbollah and Hamas? He loves those terrorists.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 6:58 am ¶Son, lay off the stupid pills. Have you not seen Carter kissing the ASS of Hezbollah and Hamas? He loves those terrorists.
I admit I would need pills to be as stupid as you. Carter’s supposed asskissing of Hezbollah and Hamas is worse than Reagan’s direct military and monetary support for the country you claim the US was at war with, Iran (which would amount to Treason), and the raping, murdering, pillaging terrorist Contras? Right. Or did you want to back off your claim that the US was at war with Iran?
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶So yeah, I back it up. He was more interested in getting serviced and taking ILLEGAL communist campaign contributions than getting Bin Laden.
You seem to be making the same connections between Clinton and China as I did with Reagan and Iran. Both have an obvious quid pro quo pattern but neither is hard evidence. Typically, you’re unable to see your own hypocrisy. Could it be your partisan blinders?
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 1:52 pm ¶Actually, I can back up every assertion in it with quotes from Bowden.
And they’re just as accurate as your quote from the Bible in another list of replies– you know, the one you offered against the death penalty, which flat out says that the ruler packs the sword to use against evil doers?
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶You seem to be making the same connections between Clinton and China as I did with Reagan and Iran. Both have an obvious quid pro quo pattern but neither is hard evidence. Typically, you’re unable to see your own hypocrisy. Could it be your partisan blinders?
AS I SAID BEFORE DAN: Reagan shouldn’t have done that. We all know what happened and why Reagan did it. He did it to free the CIA hostages being totured in Lebanon.
Clinton, on the other hand, compromised national security for his own personal gain: Getting re-elected. He knowingly took bribes from numerous individuals who had known connections to the Chincom Army. He had these “donors” to the white house for fund-raising. Believe me, the FBI does background checks on all individuals who attend these fund-raisers: Clinton knew it was illegal for them to donate money and he still took it.
For you to compare the serial-sexual-predator Clinton to President Reagan is beneath the pale, even for you Dan.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:36 pm ¶And they’re just as accurate as your quote from the Bible in another list of replies
I think your memory is playing tricks on you. I didn’t quote the bible, I just referenced a specific verse and a specific commandment from it without quoting it at all.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶AS I SAID BEFORE DAN: Reagan shouldn’t have done that. We all know what happened and why Reagan did it. He did it to free the CIA hostages being totured in Lebanon.
So you admit Reagan committed treason. Good, we’re on the same page. Now we just need to work on the part where either adultery or getting illegal campaign funds is worse than treason.
Clinton, on the other hand, compromised national security for his own personal gain: Getting re-elected. He knowingly took bribes from numerous individuals who had known connections to the Chincom Army. He had these “donors” to the white house for fund-raising. Believe me, the FBI does background checks on all individuals who attend these fund-raisers: Clinton knew it was illegal for them to donate money and he still took it.
And yet you yourself said that Reagan pulled out of Lebanon following the Beirut bombings for purely political reasons – so that he could get re-elected. Reagan also knew that both selling arms to Iran and aiding the Contra terrorists were illegal. I will give you this though, at least Reagan never got a blow job as far as we know.
Isn’t it funny how the GOP controlled congress spent nearly $30 Million investigating Clinton – good ole fiscal responsibility! – and all they could come up to try him on was lying about whether he got a blow job or not? High crime or misdemeanor indeed! It was especially funny when it came out that half the house leadership were also engaged in extra-marital affairs, most notably Republican superhero Newt Gingrich.
This as opposed to Reagan’s getting off on Iran-Contra by being senile.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 7:29 pm ¶Dan said,
AS I SAID BEFORE DAN: Reagan shouldn’t have done that. We all know what happened and why Reagan did it. He did it to free the CIA hostages being totured in Lebanon.
So you admit Reagan committed treason. Good, we’re on the same page. Now we just need to work on the part where either adultery or getting illegal campaign funds is worse than treason.
Instead of addressing Dan in my posts, which appears to be a waste of time as he doesn’t believe in discourse, but only in yelling and propaganda (of the worst sort), I had decided to use Dan’s comments as an exercise in taking apart and dealing with the comments of a person who is ignorant of history and who has been spoon-fed pablum from some hyper-socialist university.
No one accused Reagan, until tonight that is, or Clinton of Treason. Dan’s ranting is just beyond the extreme. I never accused Clinton of treason and Reagan’s actions don’t come near to the level of treason, as witnessed by Jane Fonda. Note, Fonda we were told in the 1970s couldn’t be tried for treason for her actions in North Viet Nam since an official state of war never was declared against North Viet Nam.
And yet you yourself said that Reagan pulled out of Lebanon following the Beirut bombings for purely political reasons – so that he could get re-elected. Reagan also knew that both selling arms to Iran and aiding the Contra terrorists were illegal. I will give you this though, at least Reagan never got a blow job as far as we know. </I.
Reagan was told by the Democrats who controlled the House no funding would be appropriated to continue the mission in Lebanon in the following year, 1984. Thus, the Democrats forced Reagan to pull out.
Isn’t it funny how the GOP controlled congress spent nearly $30 Million investigating Clinton – good ole fiscal responsibility! – and all they could come up to try him on was lying about whether he got a blow job or not? High crime or misdemeanor indeed!
Again, we see one of the favorite tools of the left-wing in the world: Obfuscation. Dan likes to leave out at Clinton was impeached for LYING IN A FEDERAL COURT UNDER OATH.
He wasn’t impeached for preying on Monica Lewinsky, he was impeached for perjury and obstructing justice. You see, the Republicans believed that no one, not even Clinton, is above the law. The Democrats, as typified by Dan, like to think that when it comes to their president they can tell whatever lies they want under oath at any time. Dan’s attempt to lessen the charge is again, just another sad attempt to apologize for one of the most pathetic human beings to serve as President in our life-time.
Frankly, the Republicans should have impeached Clinton for “Lying to the American public” just like the Democrats were doing to do to Nixon (the first article of impeachment which was drawn up for Nixon was lying to the American public).
Notice how Dan attempts to equate the affairs of Gingrich, whom I despise, to that of Cliton’s pefidity of corrupting the judicial system! This only shows what a hyper-partisan individual he is.
Instead of just saying that Clinton was a terrible man he stoops to “Gingrich did it also!”. No, Gingrich, whom I despise, didn’t lie under oath. But those are just minor details that, as usual, get in the way of Dan’s continuous “big lie.”
And lest any one forget, Clinton was stripped of his law license by the Arkansas Supreme Court for his perjury in the federal case.
How humiliating for the President of the US to be disbarred. I don’t think any other President has that distinction!
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 4:55 am ¶I didn’t quote the bible, I just referenced a specific verse and a specific commandment from it without quoting it at all.
It’s effectively the same result, you referencing it is just as good as you quoting it just with you leaving someone else to do the legwork. No weaseling.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 5:13 pm ¶It’s effectively the same result, you referencing it is just as good as you quoting it just with you leaving someone else to do the legwork. No weaseling.
You implied that my quotes would be inaccurate because of inaccuracies in quotes from the bible that I never actually made. Just sayin.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 9:33 pm ¶You implied that my quotes would be inaccurate because of inaccuracies in quotes from the bible that I never actually made. Just sayin.
No, you listed a verse which clearly states that “rulers” are to use the sword against evil doers as an anti-death penalty argument.
Either you were ignorant of what you were citing, or you were amazingly wrong in your interpretation of the verse cited.
Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 8:08 pm ¶Post a Comment