Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
I have to wonder who TIME’s person of the year will be
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 17, 2007

My money, for various reasons (mostly to do with ideology and cynicism) is on Al Gore.

My vote is for Gen. David Petraeus.

Who do you think TIME will name and why?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama

Depending on who they’re endorsing
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
It’s a "slam dunk" for Al Gore.
Right on NAFTA, Joe Liberman and AGW.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Were I a betting man, I would wager either Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, or Chavez...

Favorites being Gore and Chavez...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
My vote would be for Condi Rice who, along with Robert Gates, has engineered a major shift in the President’s foreign policy to one defined by realism and which is opening to Iran and Syria in an effective manner. While I’m convinced that Iraq is not on the verge of stability (see my blog for December 10th, "A War of illusion" — I think the optimism about the surge will collapse just like past optimistic moments), the last year has been a vast improvement. Rather than trying to defeat the insurgents, we try to coopt them, rather than going to war with Iran and Syria, we’re talking with them, and it’s yielding real benefits. Rather than trying to win and spread democracy to the Mideast, we’re trying to simply stablize so we can leave, and allow regional balances of power to operate. Realism has trumped neo-conservative idealism.

Secretary Rice seems to symbolize the new, more rational, policies of the Bush Adminstration, and thus she would get my vote.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
If Erb falls in a forest and no one really cares, does he make a sound?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The question was
Who do you think TIME will name and why?
I would have to bet on the Goracle. His Nobel prize is still fairly fresh news and TIME won’t miss an easy opportunity to stick it to Bush, much like the Nobel Committee did in selecting The Great Jimmuh:
Although Mr Carter has not openly criticised President George W Bush’s policy on Iraq, Friday’s award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," said Committee chairman Gunnar Berge.

"It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States," Mr Berge said.
That being said, if I could nominate anyone or anything, I would join Professor Erb in nominating the Decline of American Power as person of the year.



 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
I actually would not be surprised if Time named Rice. When you think about 2007 and world events, the change in American foreign policy tone and substance is perhaps one of the most important things shaping the year, including an apparent turn about recently on global warming. If Time’s people notice this, Rice would be the obvious choice to acknowledge this change in the Administration’s approach. So I’m sticking with her as my prediction — it would also be a way Time could avoid making the ’obvious’ choice. I just hope they choose a real person this time.

JWG, thanks for caring!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It occurred to me that Time magazine, which was once, long ago, an important publication, has become like Mr. Blackwell, who we only hear of once a year when he announces his list of the Worst Dressed celebrities. We now only hear from Time when they name their Person of the Year.

So, in keeping with that theme, I think Time should name Mr. Blackwell as Person of the Year.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Chatty Erb speaks:
I actually would not be surprised if Time named Rice.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your students spiked your Gatorade with bull urine.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Chatty Erb speaks:
I actually would not be surprised if Time named Rice.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your students spiked your Gatorade with bull urine
The fundamental flaw in this statemnt is that you suggest there’s a difference to beging with. :)

And I would not only be surprised if Time named Sec of State Rice Woman of the Year, I would actually die of shock.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Gore....not even a question
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
These guys obvious think it would be Gen. David Petraeus.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Gore: He’s certainly had a good year and is riding a wave of acclaim that, at the very least, probably makes him inwardly happy he didn’t win the Presidency in 2000. But I don’t see him as person of the year.

Petraeus: Choosing him would be to make a false premise: that he is responsible for more stability in Iraq. What really happened is the Bush Administration recognized that their original policy failed, and shifted goals and tactics completely. If Petraeus had been in charge in 2004 or 2005, or if one of the generals from that era were in charge of the surge, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. What was necessary was for the Bush administration to recognize that they had failed to achieve their original goals, and no change of tactics would alter that. The only thing to do in such a situation is to create new, obtainable goals (a ’peace with honor moment’) and that’s what’s helped. Hence: partnerships with insurgents rather than vowing to defeat them, dialogue and increased cooperation with Syria and Iran, and recognition that we’re not ’spreading democracy,’ all we want now is to leave and hope things don’t collapse in the region.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris "Chatty" Erb dissembles:
What was necessary was for the Bush administration to recognize that they had failed to achieve their original goals, and no change of tactics would alter that. The only thing to do in such a situation is to create new, obtainable goals (a ’peace with honor moment’) and that’s what’s helped. Hence: partnerships with insurgents rather than vowing to defeat them, dialogue and increased cooperation with Syria and Iran, and recognition that we’re not ’spreading democracy,’ all we want now is to leave and hope things don’t collapse in the region.
Well, ah, Boris, the Iraqis have written and ratified, by referendum, a constitution and they have an elected government under that contitution, so it would seem that the missing ingredient was security and civil order.

Now, your narrative might go unchallenged in your classroom, where you deal with isolated teenagers who go glassy-eyed listening to you, but the "big change" by the Bush administration was to combine more force with Iraqi war weariness and employ a classic counter-insurgency strategy that required the U.S. to know all the customers in the saloon, which they do, after four years of dealing with them.

The Belmont Club can help you get it straight. If you’re having your usual problems understanding the written word, try Victor Davis Hanson being interviewed about his trip to Iraq.

May 2008 be the year that Maine taxpayers wake up to what they’re paying for.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
failed to achieve their original goals
Please entertain us with a little more clarity...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I think Bill O’Reilly should be, since he has declared the War on the War on Christmas a victory.
 
Written By: buma
URL: http://
Erb, maybe you can point out which goals have changed?

2003: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-4.html
2005: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf
2007: ???
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Petraeus: Choosing him would be to make a false premise: that he is responsible for more stability in Iraq.
Right, so, Patraeus not being responsible for any of the good makes Sanchez not responsible for any of the bad.
I like it.
Good plan.
all we want now is to leave and hope things don’t collapse in the region.
We’re not leaving though, you’re kidding yourself.
But then again, we’re not dividing up the country into three domains either.
On the whole I’ll take Bush’s ’failed to achieve their original goals’ over the suggestions you & Pelosi, and Murtha were making about ’how to do it’ not so very long ago.
I’m betting on the Iraqis, you, you’ve been betting on the Democrats setting fire to it.

Person of the year wise - Since it’s supposedly based on who affected events most the previous year, Gore, or maybe Nasty little ferret faced Git from Iran.

If they were giving it for who affected things least, they could split it between Reid and Pelosi or maybe just award it to Congress.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker on Person of the Year:
Since it’s supposedly based on who affected events most the previous year, Gore,
Gore’s a little too oversold at the moment, I think, to sell any magazines. This is, after all, Time’s equivalent of the swimsuit edition.

The little creep in Iran might result in some backlash. Besides, who buys a mag with that punk on the cover?

And aside from winning prizes, how exactly did Gore affect anything?

How about one of those generic winners, like "the academic numbnuts?" That’s got a catchy, self-explanatory ring to it, something everyone cycled through an American university will be able to relate to. (Time’s readers are, after all, probably reading at about a 10th grade level, so they’ve all been to college.)
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
JWG writes:
Erb, maybe you can point out which goals have changed?


How you bluster, JWG. Erb has posted all the data and the sources before, try to keep up. You missed it, you say? Search the site then. Erb will engage in honest discussion and debate with anyone who comes prepared, but he can’t keep repeating himself. Have you read his blog for details? He’ll have some sources for you. He’s teaching this very question in his foreign policy course next week. He has notes. Teaching this stuff, he knows bluster when he sees it. But he’s only interested in honest discussion and debate, and he’s willing to admit when he was wrong. He thinks much less of you now. He really questions your character. But there’s no "left or right" solution. Those are old, worn out distinctions. Meaningless bluster, to the pragmatic libertarian who knows that Iraq is a fiasco. So stop the bluster and bring something to the honest discussion and debate, and Erb will respond to you if he has time. He has classes. He’ll suggest some reading for you. Honest discussion and debate, that’s all he wants.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Come on, this is Time. Remember the silvered piece of plastic that was supposed to act like a mirror, so we all could be people of the year.

It will have to be someone who can make them look like a fool later on, so it’s got to be Al Gore.

I’m sure all my Democrat friend will agree .. he was
.. right on NAFTA (rudely interrupting Perot on CNN while shipping US jobs elsewhere),
.. right on picking Joe Leiberman (who endorsed Republican John McCain today), and
.. right on the " settled science" of AGW (allowing him to get rich and look Nobel at the same time).
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Martin, you scare me!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG writes:
Martin, you scare me!
I’m terrifying on Mondays.

And, what, you’re not up for honest discussion and debate?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin, you scare me!
"He thinks much less of you now." was the coffee meets monitor moment for me.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Gore due to his global warming hogwash.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
"He thinks much less of you now." was the coffee meets monitor moment for me.

Is this a patented phrase...I want to add it to my repertoire when necessary? Is a licensing deal possible?

I am gob-smackingly shocked and disappointed with the ad hominem attacks being leveled in here today...I believe that if one takes the time from one’s academic job to enlighten the Masses, the least the Masses can do is give one a little homage. Unless of course, you have a REALLY cute daughter, you know a buxom sort of lass....any way I digress....just send my my homage or your nubile daughters of legal age, and drop the ad hominem attacks. It lessens my respect for you.

Good Day Sirs!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I don’t expect anything more from those who continue to deny that Iraq is a fiasco and the worst foreign policy disaster in American history and that America is now much weaker because it is overextended, its military broken, its budget deficits skyrocketing, the dollar crashing, all with a crisis of capitalism no more than one bad quarter away.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The US has essentially moved where the Iraq Study Group suggested, which has led John Bolton to say President Bush’s foreign policy is in free fall and that he should reign Rice in (another reason for her to be person of the year!) The neo-conservatives had a vision, which they sold to the President, of an easy Iraq victory plus reconstruction leading to a pro-American Iraq which would accept Israel, and allow us to put intense pressure on Syria and Iran to change (perhaps with our assistance — Gen. Clarke reports of seeing a memo calling for the US to bring regime change to seven countries! You can choose to disbelieve that, or go with the boilplate put forward to the public "we just want Iraq to choose for itself, yada, yada..." but of course that had to be the public statement.

The insurgents were to be defeated, Iran and Syria marginalized, and the US was bound and determined to bring change to the region. That’s been very effectively cast aside. First, the insurgents, even those who had killed Americans, are now being coopted. Shi’ite militias are not being pursued most of the time (indeed, when they are it’s often due to internal Shi’ite divisions) as long as they don’t create trouble, meaning people like al Sadr are amassing more weapons and strength. They know as long as they stay quiet, we won’t attack, and we’ll leave (and if we don’t, then they can rachet up the violence again).

Beyond that major internal decision to stop going after two enemies, the US has also stepped up diplomacy. Iraq recently praised Syria for its help, the US has worked with Iran to reach understanding, and essentially we’re seeing diplomatic openings to Iran and Syria that are slowly moving from quiet behind the scenes to being more public.

In short, the administration finally realized that the fantasy of reshaping the region or having Iraq as a major pro-American ally wasn’t going to work. President Bush is, ironically setting up the next President for a successful withdrawal from Iraq (perhaps leaving some forces in Kurdish areas), though I doubt Iraq will remain stable (again, my blog of December 10, as well as December 5th on the defeat of the neo-cons, and November 30th when I note how Bush has gone from being JFK/LBJ to Nixon — also I predicted a lot of this when I first wrote about the surge on my blog on January 17).

The irony is that right now I am forced to conclude that American foreign policy is finally on the right track on many issues — I note they even shifted on global warming. It’s been a real change, based on learning that the ’with us or against us’ approach doesn’t work, they learned the limits of American military power. And, while I’m sure a lot of blog commentators will refuse to publicly admit that this is happening, what matters is that the Administration has changed. And thus: Condi Rice for person of the year!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Al Gore - Forget About It!
Condi Rice - Not a Chance!
David Patreaus - Maybe Next Year!
Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama - Wait til one of them wins something!
Hugo Chavez - No Pinkos This Year!
Allonmydinnerjacket - A Has Been!

The Real Favorite?

Alfred E. Newman, naturally!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
the administration finally realized that the fantasy
Erb, your obviously wrong because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say that nothing has changed.
I read it in a newspaper so it must be true.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Boris Erb exclaims:
Gen. Clarke reports of seeing a memo calling for the US to bring regime change to seven countries!
I just had to pick that one out of the heap of accelerated rhetric in case someone missed it.

and
The irony is that right now I am forced to conclude that American foreign policy is finally on the right track on many issues — I note they even shifted on global warming. It’s been a real change, based on learning that the ’with us or against us’ approach doesn’t work, they learned the limits of American military power. And, while I’m sure a lot of blog commentators will refuse to publicly admit that this is happening, what matters is that the Administration has changed. And thus: Condi Rice for person of the year!
Well, I guess the Surge really is working. Boris is starting to rationalize success in Iraq as the result of the Bush administration adopting his policy preferences.

That’s irony, all right.


 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb fantasizes:
Beyond that major internal decision to stop going after two enemies, the US has also stepped up diplomacy. Iraq recently praised Syria for its help, the US has worked with Iran to reach understanding, and essentially we’re seeing diplomatic openings to Iran and Syria that are slowly moving from quiet behind the scenes to being more public.
Israel attacked Syria, Boris, what, about two and a half months ago.

That seems to have helped to bring about a return of "understanding" and "diplomatic openings." Syria received "help" in "understanding" directly. And Iran received it by implication.

Beneath your excitable surface, Boris, lies an affect so flat that embarrassment won’t stick to it.

And George Bush, by the way, has consistently handled foreign policy problems out of sight. He bends arms back to the breaking point, and when he needs to, he breaks them. That’s been his style all along. Musharraf knows what it’s like; Maliki knows what it’s like; Quadaffi knows what it’s like; and Saddam and his lovely boys knew what it was like at the rougher end.

This is a president who had U.S. forces on the ground in Afghanistan less than 30 days after 9/11, who took out Saddam Hussein and John Kerry within 18 months of each other, and who went ahead with the Surge in Iraq even after his own party lost both houses of Congress. If he’s doing a little song and dance to distract the enemy within, think about what he said about the Israeli attack on Syria, which he surely approved: Nothing. Not a word.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Woahhhhh there mistah Professah - ah you implying Iraq might show some kind of success undah the current methods?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Woahhhhh there mistah Professah - ah you implying Iraq might show some kind of success undah the current methods?
Clearly the policy to invade was a failure and that cannot be changed. I doubt (as my December 10 blog explains) that Iraq is going to have a stable secure time in coming years. In a best case scenario Iraq may find some stability (I thnk partition would help bring that about), but that’s hardly enough to undo the damage done by this utterly failed policy.
Erb, your obviously wrong because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say that nothing has changed.
I read it in a newspaper so it must be true.
Well, I don’t pay much attention to Pelosi or Reid. However, the "positive" spin put on the news in this blog is totally out of touch with reality. I feel like I’m reading something from an alternative reality when I read the giddiness of some posters who seem to think things are going super in Iraq. At base, conditions are very dangerous for the future, but if the Shi’ites stay quiet for awhile and the US continues to limit its objections we may get a peace with honor moment. Iran really has gotten the most out of the recent changes in policy — that’s the legacy of this war: our inability to pressure Iran.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I have difficulty taking seriously a professor who doesn’t properly use the term ’rein in’.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Well, I don’t pay much attention to Pelosi or Reid.
The man get an attaboy !
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
That’s been very effectively cast aside.
I notice Erb ONCE AGAIN refuses to actually provide any citation for his claims, even though I provided TWO official documents (from 2003 and 2005) which clearly outlined the Bush goals for Iraq.

In other words, Erb is talking out his @$$.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I notice Erb ONCE AGAIN refuses to actually provide any citation for his claims, even though I provided TWO official documents (from 2003 and 2005) which clearly outlined the Bush goals for Iraq.
This is opinion exchange, cites are rare. But you might want to start with some recently published books, such as Ron Suskind’s "The One Percent Doctrine," or Bob Woodward’s books about the war. Actually, there are a number of good books out there that reallly give some inside information. That’s the kind of thing I search for in preparing for, say, next semester’s course on American foreign policy.

But I don’t think you really are ignorant about the neo-conservative arguments about Iraq as a force for change in the Mideast, how easily they thought the war would go, and all that. I don’t think you are ignorant enough about how politics works to think those documents you link to are anything more than propaganda. You’re playing games, as usual.

The irony is, I’m praising the administration for making adjustments — adjustments pretty much everyone is noticing and discussing, with John Bolton even saying the Bush administration is in free fall — and you apparently can’t even accept that. Shrug.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Ah, inside information, like some of the guys who have actually been there and walked the streets who have commented here.

As opposed to Bob Woodward, gathering his information like Karl Marx did when he reported on the Crimean War, over a continent and ocean away.

What truly should amaze you, in all your objectivity, is that it appears on a regular basis that none of your sources on any subject would or could ever contain propaganda, and yet according to you, all of ours do.

Amazing isn’t it?



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Boris Erb confesses:
This is opinion exchange, cites are rare. But you might want to start with some recently published books, such as Ron Suskind’s "The One Percent Doctrine," or Bob Woodward’s books about the war. Actually, there are a number of good books out there that reallly give some inside information. That’s the kind of thing I search for in preparing for, say, next semester’s course on American foreign policy.
Your cites are rare. This blog features cites in each of its posts. And opinions, you awful fake, are not something found floating in midair, they are interpretations of facts — those things your scrupulously avoid.

You use Woodward and Suskind for your "foreign policy" course?

Add to that the fact that you don’t know anything about foreign policy and you’ve painted a self-portrait of an enormously silly little man.

And this from slightly higher up:
Well, I don’t pay much attention to Pelosi or Reid. However, the "positive" spin put on the news in this blog is totally out of touch with reality. I feel like I’m reading something from an alternative reality when I read the giddiness of some posters who seem to think things are going super in Iraq. At base, conditions are very dangerous for the future, but if the Shi’ites stay quiet for awhile and the US continues to limit its objections we may get a peace with honor moment. Iran really has gotten the most out of the recent changes in policy — that’s the legacy of this war: our inability to pressure Iran.
Taking it from the first sentence: Boris, you don’t pay attention to anything. You never have. Your interest is two-fold: you detest the United States; you love socialism (though you’ve briefly donned a clown’s nose and are calling yourself a "pragmatic libertarian," there are those who remember when it was "left libertarianism" you were droning on about). This blog is more readily in touch with reality in its off moments than your entire life’s moments added together (if my decade long sample of your moments can be safely extrapolated). You don’t even understand what happened in geopolitics during the Post-WWII era, which is predicate to understanding what we see now. You overestimate the difficulty of Iraq, thereby underestimating the U.S. Anyway, there’s no need to run down the whole thing, until your students are successfully brought in here to witness it.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
those documents you link to are anything more than propaganda. You’re playing games, as usual.
As usual, you don’t even know what’s in the documents.

They claim as goals the very things YOU are claiming the Bush administration has suddenly "adjusted" to.

I guess if you want to make the claim that the "propaganda" that began back in 2003 and were reemphasized in 2005 are now suddenly a new reality, then go ahead. We’re used to you making a fool of yourself. That’s why you don’t dare let your students know about anything other than your "reality."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, you’re simply wrong. There has been a major shift since Bush’s re-election, and a move towards realism, starting especially in 2006. It’s been noticed by almost everyone, and if you want to close your eyes to that fact, and claim links say things they don’t, then you can have your fantasy. It’s harmless.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
claim links say things they don’t
They say EXACTLY what you claim is an "adjusted" goal against the insurgents (i.e. "Rather than trying to defeat the insurgents, we try to coopt them"):
Our strategy involves three integrated tracks – political, security, and economic – each with separate objectives, but together helping Iraqis to defeat the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists, and secure a new democratic state in Iraq.

POLITICAL:
Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;

Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation
Erb further claims:
rather than going to war with Iran and Syria, we’re talking with them
Feel free at any time to provide quotes from Bush where he says he does not want to engage Syria or Iran to become helpful rather than interfere with Iraq.

Of course, I know you won’t. But it’s always fun to point out once again that you do nothing but talk out of your @$$.
Rather than trying to win and spread democracy to the Mideast, we’re trying to simply stablize so we can leave
We have always stated that we’ll leave Iraq at some point. Now that Iraq is on a path to better stability, you’re trying to make it out to be some sort of retreat. Once again, you prove yourself to be an obnoxious sack of weasel droppings.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Boris Erb eructs:
JWG, you’re simply wrong. There has been a major shift since Bush’s re-election, and a move towards realism, starting especially in 2006. It’s been noticed by almost everyone, and if you want to close your eyes to that fact, and claim links say things they don’t, then you can have your fantasy. It’s harmless.
Boris, there has been no "major shift." That is nonsense. This is typical American foreign policy as it has been for most of our history: realism mixed with idealism. We announce a high purpose in which we believe — freedom, especially as freedom located in consensual governments, for example — and then work through the gritty details by situation. You simply do not understand American foreign policy, and you never will.

Europe, such as it is, has moved more in our direction than we have in theirs.

We now have a huge counterbalancing mega-alliance with India for our dealings with China and the rest of Asia.

And our policy in the Middle East is to bring it towards reform, which we have initiated in Iraq.

That you’ve refused to swallow your peas until we are defeated in that goal doesn’t mean that anyone is going to be impressed by the fact that you’re now again running around the dinner table doing your usual pee-pee dance. So, swallow the damn peas and go take a pee and stop bothering the adults.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
JWG writes:
We have always stated that we’ll leave Iraq at some point. Now that Iraq is on a path to better stability, you’re trying to make it out to be some sort of retreat.
As the insurgents are absorbed by civil society, or killed by it, we will draw down to the back-up position that we wanted to assume all along. We should stay in Iraq for 50 years if we have to, but be about as noticeable as we are in Europe or the Far East, which is to say present but not all that noticeable.

There are obviously other problems in the Middle East, like the Saudi hairball, that are going to require bracing applications of American anger and threat behind the scenes.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
doing your usual pee-pee dance
Yesterday it was coffee meets the montior -
Today it was causing Prairie Dog effect as I loudly snorted and choaked to prevent a replay of yesterday.
Martin you need to stop it, my equipment can’t stand the abuse...
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker writes:
Martin you need to stop it,
I know. I’m going to have to attend meetings. It can’t continue.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Feel free at any time to provide quotes from Bush where he says he does not want to engage Syria or Iran to become helpful rather than interfere with Iraq.
Gee, remember all the discussion when the Iraq study group suggested this as a major change? No, you’re simply lying and you don’t care. But that’s OK — you don’t have to accept my analysis. You also can’t stop me from having it as my analysis, one I share with lots of other people, and one that is getting taught, published and discussed. You’re on the margins on this one JWG. But that’s OK. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and if you wish to pretend you don’t know what’s happening (because I’m convinced you do, and you’re just playing games), that’s harmless.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb accuses:
Gee, remember all the discussion when the Iraq study group suggested this as a major change? No, you’re simply lying and you don’t care. But that’s OK — you don’t have to accept my analysis. You also can’t stop me from having it as my analysis, one I share with lots of other people,
Boris, refresh my memory, did Bush initiate the Surge before or after the Iraq study group issued its report?

Now, going back before Iraq, who was the first President of the United States, Boris, to support the formation of a Palestinian state?

Then, Boris, about Syria, which of the following countries — a. Syria, b. Syria, or c. Syria — was attacked by Israel with the tacit approval of the Bush administration just a while back?

Just those three examples, plus Bush’s direct reaction to the absurd NIE report about Iran, should underscore the irony of your argument that you bolster by saying you that it is "one I share with lots of other people."

I feel so sorry for your KGB handler, Boris. It can’t be easy.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Gee, remember all the discussion when the Iraq study group suggested this as a major change?
Yes, I remember what Bush said. Here it is:
"The truth of the matter is that these countries have now got the choice to make," Bush said. "If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it’s easy: Just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict."
Bush never said he would not talk to these countries. He said there were conditions.

Unless you can show that Bush has changed course on those conditions, then you are the liar.

You are trying to have it both ways: You want to deny that progress is being made in Iraq while at the same time you want to claim that any progress is due to Bush becoming more Erb-like.

It’s a classic weasel move.

Success has many authors. First you admitted that you don’t necessarily buy into the IPCC consensus (you’re a closet denier!) and now you see the surge having positive effects and you want in on the action.

Sad, but unsurprising.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Ah, Time never fails to prove it’s color: Red.


Time’s person of the year, and Erb’s compatriot, Premier Vladimir Putin
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Bush never said he would not talk to these countries.
He’s also never said he wouldn’t sacrifice Laura to appease the Gods.

Lots of things he’s never said.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider