Fuckin' A.

Now we need a prez with that crazed Dennis Hopper look who the whole world "isn't quite sure about"

Its an almost univeral social taboo that nobody provokes someone who they believe to be bad crazy. IMO true craziness, or the ability to fake it, is a valuable geopolitical tool.

Heh, I thought you'd like this one, Laura. :) As for a cigarette, I'll let you bum one of mine if you come keep me company on AIM. Since Slubs has bugged off for the night... the slacker.

Toots!
How you doin'.

I'm done for the evening meself, cross-eyed and all.

Talk tomorry if its OK with you?
Alllll righty then

I'm like the only person with any stamina at all on this damn site. Everyone else goes off into their comfy beds every f'n night.

:(

See you tomorrow, bitch honey. I'll go look for someone else to bother.

argh. HTML trips me up once again.

Nothing comes out the way it's supposed to and all my attempts at humor are ruined. RUINED I TELL YOU

[broods about this for a while]

hell, we'll both need a pot of coffee in the morning.

I have a pot of coffee right now. It's just that I'm adding bourbon to it.

I think I'll poke Karol. She's probably away, though, with my luck.

fare thee well, Megan

Not all that late out here in Colorado. The nuclear option sounds intriguing (I used to work on ICBM reentry vehicles), but I doubt we'd ever really use it.

Bleah. Repeats on Fox, nothing worthwhile anywhere else. Karol away, asleep, or busy, nonresponsive in any case. Third report not coming out the way I want it. At all.

Maybe I should just go to bed too.

"Not all that late out here in Colorado"

So then what's your excuse for not catering to my every whim? :(

Your whims can be overwhelming (I hearken back to a particular Friday when you summoned lauraw and bbeck to serve your needs), but gallantry insists that I pony up with some catering.

Seems like a kind of tough day for you, what with the aunt and all. I hope a little bourbonated coffee will take the edge off.

Heh Vice City was getting boring so let's see what on at Ace.

Oooh we get to nuke first. Cool. Hope Mecca's on the short list.

Well, Laura almost always does what I ask her. bbeck almost never. :/

And I've gone back to straight coffee now. [prowls] Ah, there's Diana. I'll bother her.

...and paydirt! She's awake!

is not your type. hirsute.

pity

Well, Laura almost always does what I ask her.

You've got de power. The Last Wave paraphrase>You are an owl. You can fly tru de air - do many wunnerful thingsThe Last Waveparaphrase>

Ach, I've butchered me HTML. Oh well - a man gotsta know his limitations.

There really should be an ACE chat room at this site.

It couldn't hurt.

There really should be an ACE chat room at this site.

Absolutely...I could troll for hot teens here.

WE all know how hot teens love Ace's political commentary.

I'm thinking Megan and LauraW are like 18 or 19.

Occasionally. In my dreams. Of course, those dreams also involve nuns who look like Natascha McElhone making me stay after class for extra exegetical transcription.

those dreams also involve nuns who look like Natascha McElhone making me stay after class for extra exegetical transcription.

You know, I didn't get any work done that Friday, and here you go again . . .

Sparkle - I can set up a chat room or forum if Ace is interested.

The folk at Slashdot are going bananas over this. So I went and poked them with a stick. :) (It's a bit of a liberal swamp, but less so than other swamps because it's mostly about technology rather than politics.)

those dreams also involve nuns...after class for extra exegetical transcription.

You're into that too? I'm firing up the blender right now darling...

"You're into that too? I'm firing up the blender right now darling..."

Don't get any ideas, buddy. I ain't gettin' in no car with your bloated ass.

But make it a strawberry daiquiri while you're there. And keep your hands in my line of sight - I like my drinks unadulterated, thank you.

We need to finish the fleet JFK considered and send Iran a few snapshots like this

http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/05/evasive-dive.html
http://spacebombardment.blogspot.com/2005/06/threading-rings.html

Now we need a prez with that crazed Dennis Hopper look who the whole world "isn't quite sure about"

I thought that was who we elected in 2000 and 2004?

I'm thinking Megan and LauraW are like 18 or 19.

*doubled over, laughing, clutching sides*

Ohhh...(wiping tears) that was good.

Yes, yes. Nineteen. Me.
Think of me that way always.

Was anybody really surprised? Who has nukes? China, Russia, France, Britain, India, Israel, Pakistan. Now maybe North Korea and Iran.
The list is kind of short and the first six aren't likely to give a nuke to anybody to use in the USA. So a nuke goes off. You don't buy those at Rite-Aid, so the list of providers becomes very short, and they have a lot of scrambling to do to prove to us that they didn't do it. Prove to our satisfaction, that is. And if they can't?
Boom. Tilt. Game Over, thanks for playing, no free copy of our home game, 'cause you don't have a home.

I find it amusing that the lefties are losing their shit over this.

I think the fundamental difference between us is that we don't think rogue regimes are kind of cute, the way they do.

Great. Now you're willing to get us ALL killed just to escape the realization that the Bush regime is dragging us all down an Old Testament, social Darwinist, take from the poor, give to the rich, combat for profit, kinder kirche kuche flume to Hell.

You know, under this policy, the US could have nuked Baghdad.

I mean, sure, the WMD claims turned out to be bogus, but AT THE TIME, we could have killed millions of flower-throwing victims of Saddam Hussein. Crazy, huh?

lauraw said, "I think the fundamental difference between us is that we don't think rogue regimes are kind of cute, the way they do."

I don't know about the usefulness of "rogue", but the current admin loves plenty of repressive regimes. Uzbekistan, anyone?
http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war47.html

Pakistan? Still a friend of the US, despite admitting its role in disseminating nuclear technology.

Does anyone think the Bush administration wants to spread democracy to Saudi Arabia?

But I digress. Time to figure out who to nuke! Woo-hoo!

LOL!
See what I mean?

Great. Now you're willing to get us ALL killed just to escape the realization that the Bush regime is dragging us all down an Old Testament, social Darwinist, take from the poor, give to the rich, combat for profit, kinder kirche kuche flume to Hell.

Don, what in the hell are you talking about?

I mean, that was entertaining and all, but criminy, man. Show some restraint. You've got to dole this stuff out gradually, not go all nutso in one rant.

Far be it for me to engage in reasoned debate with a bunch of drooling morons, but ... well, I'll make an exception.

Hey, moron! We withdrew from Uzbekistan precisely BECAUSE of humanitarian concerns after the massacre in Andijon.

And your definition of "friend" is pretty flexible. The Pakis are not among the axis of evil because we need their help to get Bin Laden and keep Afghanistan stable. They also know that the second they piss us off we'll be solidly on the side of India.

Oh, and A. Q. Khan isn't exactly popular with the current Paki regime, so there goes that strawman.

In addition, this wouldn't have allowed us to nuke Baghdad unless you admit that Hussein was thinking about giving al Qaeda WMDs. But maybe your biggest problem is that you seem to be too slow to realize that this policy is something called a "deterrent."

Here, let me throw out some more troll-bait:

I heard all this shit when Reagan was president. He was going to DESTROY THE PLANET!! No nukes! Aiiigh!

And the Earth is still here. Everybody's OK, except for the Soviet Union. And he ended up being right. About nearly fucking everything. Ronald Reagan was right.

So tubino, enlighten us mere mortals. What would you 'do' about Pakistan if you were President?

Rejkavyk. Major victory. Turning point in the war.

"In addition, this wouldn't have allowed us to nuke Baghdad unless you admit that Hussein was thinking about giving al Qaeda WMDs."

Oh, so I can rest assured that this and all future administrations will come ask my opinion about their propaganda, as well as my assent, before acting on it.

So there won't be invasions based on propaganda I know to be false.

And the Bush admin didn't push the BS about Saddam's WMD's falling into terrorist hands.

And monkeys are flying out of your butt.

MORON.

Oh, so I can rest assured that this and all future administrations will come ask my opinion about their propaganda, as well as my assent, before acting on it.

Well, if you begin with the assumption that this administration would simply make up reasons for annihilating a population, then it follows that one would oppose this policy.

I, however, do not begin with the same assumption.

You know, under this policy, the US could have nuked Baghdad.

tubino, my little shrimp cocktail, the US could have nuked Baghdad anyway.

It didn't.

Well boys and girls, the current administration has won its case to lock up a US citizen, allow no legal counsel or recourse. There is nothing to prevent this or any future admin from locking up political opponents, and there is no recourse.

US citizens are having their guns taken in NOLA.

We now know that the WH pushed one debunked lie after another to make the case for invading Iraq.

Even David Brooks admitted that the WH insiders say the WH lies, routinely.

We now know the WH routinely cooks the science reports for political purposes, classifies more documents than any previous one, and insists on an unprecedented level of secrecy in using our money.

We now know that our tax money was used to pay journalists to promote WH propaganda (and probably still is -- no investigation!!!).

Afghanistan is still not secured, and has transformed into an incredible heroin source. Iraq is turning into a terrorist training ground, no constitutional draft has even been agreed upon (!), and the Islamic clerics with ties to Iran are on the ascendant. Yet the WH keeps peddling lies rather than deal with reality.

The national debt, according to the WH figures, is growing even faster than under Reagan or Bush 1 (see http://zfacts.com/p/318.html), even with the Soc Sec surplus.

This administration has repeatedly shown a preference for rewarding donors and loyalists over accomplishing stated goals. The party power comes before the country.

This administration is demonstrating all the evils of corruption and self-preservation and cronyism you've ever leveled at any previous administration. And still you are content to defend this administration? And a right to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons?

Why?

The excerpt that has Tubino in such a snit is actually one of the least interesting parts of the draft Doctrine. The draft seems to represent a complete turnaround from our former policy of marginalizing nuclear weapons in our post-cold war defense strategy. One has to wonder how much of this is driven by China.

As far as Tubino's nonsense: 1) the policy would not have allowed us to nuke Baghdad - try reading the text; 2) we're not going to run our strategy by you because you're Italian and you don't understand what you're talking about; 3) what means of deterrence would you suggest?

sweet relief....have a smoke now!?!?

only problem with this....no one..NO ONE
SURVIVES THE $$$ SHOT!!

bet ya LOVE JESUS too.....

So, this is what passes for political commentary out here - trolling for dates while the world burns.
Back in the '60s, the Cuban Crisis stopped the world, as everyone wondered whether a nuclear war would start. Now, it's just "Woo Hoo!"
Did it occur to any of you yahoos that other nations might consider this new policy a good reason to hit AMERICA first?
Nations that might fear a country with a lot of power (and nukes) and no compunctions as to who to use them on?
God, you people are clueless. You spout gibberish behind the anonyminity of a web name and ignore the possible consequences. People READ this stuff, yahoo. People from other countries, who don't like the idea of bullies threatening their sacred places because a few crazed members of their religion bought nukes.
The goal of any defence policy must be to keep this country safe from attack. Deliberate aggrivation of potential enemies does not fall under that goal.

"Deliberate aggrivation of potential enemies does not fall under that goal."

Sometimes it does. But what you really want is to be the most polular slave in the world, don't you?

On the flipside we got Halliburton stealing oil for us.

pretty much a wash I'd say.

It would be madness to nuke the US without utterly breaking it, because in the aftermath, the US would have no constraint at all. No player capable of doing such a thing desires it. No player desiring such a thing is capable.

The whole point of Mutually Assured Destruction was that neither of the players was completely mad. Some of the mullahs may be that mad, but none of them has the arsenal. And, frankly, I don't think they're that mad. It's no accident that the actual suicide bombers are kids or losers. When the mullahs themselves start strapping on the explosives, then I'll believe that they believe it's a one way ticket to a really cool place.

Small Town Hick:

Untwist your panties. First, this is being analyzed by many as if it is the original text of the draft, rather than an interpretation by AFP. The excerpt above is very loosely worded, obviously not reflecting the original text very accurately.

Second, I don't know if you understand the concept of deterrence, but you don't write as if you do. The idea is not to punish the populace at large for the actions of the buyers, but to punish the sellers. A nation that sells WMD to terrorists has done something illegal, immoral, and is a witting accomplice in a plan for the death of tens of thousands of innocents.

Third, no one was trolling for dates, as you can clearly tell from the comments.

To all the troll boys and girls out there, a question. Please answer completely and rationally. Do not try to flame.

Taking into account the fact that nuclear weapons are expensive to produce in material, personnel, and equipment costs, and that such development and production can only be accomplished by a state, what should the USA do if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the USA and detonated?

Second question: Should the USA publicly announce such a policy? What are the arguments in support of that and in opposition?

Have fun, you aren't being officially graded, just answer the question(s), please.

Nukes are an excellent idea, starting with a pre-emptive strike on Iran, if possible. That would be the most moral thing, and the least costly in US lives. The left can thank itself when we do use nukes, becuase they have:

1. Destroyed the ability of the US to use conventional forces, thanks to their constant complaints about casualties.

2. Encouraged the terrorists by word and deed to think that they can win.

Inevitably, there will be nuclear terrorism, followed by nuclear retaliation. It would be better for the US, of course, to simply retaliate before the terrorism takes place. And, since the list of suspect countries is short, it will simplify targeting.

Of course, another good use for nukes is in the counter-terror role. Once we are energy-independent, there will be no reason not to make the Saudis pay for their support of terrorism, not to mention taking out terror bases in say, Syria, Gaza, etc.

Nuclear weapons are good!

I like the obligatory "scare quotes" from Yahoo around the words "war on terror".

No liberal bias here, move along.

If it weren't for these enviro-wacko lefties we wouldn't be dependent on foreign oil in the first place. As we have plenty of reserves around the nation. We wouldn't be sending bajillions of dollars to the Saudis who in turn fork it over to the whahabis so they can turn around to kill us.
And guess who's got their panties in a twist over the US getting Nukes. That's right, the enviro-weenies. I wonder if anybody's ever looked into how much the Saudi-Whahabis are paying these guys. It'd really explain alot of their moonbatishness when you think about it.

This post must have gotten Kos'ed or something.

Did it occur to any of you yahoos that other nations might consider this new policy a good reason to hit AMERICA first?

To what end? So our boomers can glaze them in the counterstrike?

Unless you're good enough to take out the boomers at the same time - YOU ARE SERIOUSLY FUCKED. A single Ohio or Vanguard(Brit) can really ruin your day.

I don't think you comprehend the choice of "consequences" available. Most lefties are 100% clueless about US order of battle

Why is this story even news? We've ALWAYS had the ability to legally nuke ANY strategic location. Right, Hiroshima? Can I get an Amen, Nagasaki?

This report is just clarifying what we're already legally capable of doing..and it's stating that we WILL do it so be warned, bad guys. Relax, lefties, it's not granting us ADDITIONAL powers.

Later,
bbeck

Gosh. Can't even get a yip, whine, or moan to any of my questions. I'll try to make it simple.

This question is for those on the left-side of Ace's comments threads. You know who you are.

(1) What should the USA do in response to a nation giving a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, said terrorist group then using that nuke on an American city?

(2) Should that policy be made public knowledge or not? Why?

Please support your answer with reasons, no insults.

You know the answer, Mikey. If someone gives a nuke to terrorists we should stop everything and hold a big Blame Bush party. Then wheedle and beg for our lives and shit like that.

Help me out here peeps

I am not sure if this is the right forum for me or not. I was posting over at some liberal sites, but they called me a "troll", and I do tend to agree with what is posted here, but the problem is, I don't have a tiny tiny penis, so I am not sure I would fit in here.

Can you help me out? I mean, is the fact that my regular sized penis is not erect at the thought of preemptive nuclear war based on the hard work of our US intelligence officers unlike the tiny tiny boners you all seem to be cursed with a no go for me to find a cozy home here? Because other than not having a tiny hard-on for preemptive nuclear war, I am with you all 110%.

Except for having a tiny tiny penis. I am not with you on that either.

Oh, that's the answer I expected spongeworthy. I just though it would be fun to tease by asking a simple, straightforward question.

The silence says everything. They are not serious people, and to the extent they do not violate any laws, they are not to be taken seriously.

seattleslough, I don't like the idea of preemptive nuclear strikes. But enough about feelings. What do you think should be done?
All ideas are on the table, bu they have to be ideas, not feelings. Everyone has feelings and all feelings are valid as feelings. But not every idea is worthy, so let's go with thinking ideas (I know a rarity for the internet or a site that thrives on humor and/or general wackiness) for this one.

What do you think we should do? Why?

Ha! Penis jokes.

Wow, you lefties really know how to raise the level of discourse.

It must suck to be like seattle slough. A prisoner to his inability to express a coherant thought. Reduced to making a fool of himself by thinking its pithy and cool to use the word penis instead of expressing an opinion on what our policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be.

but the problem is, I don't have a tiny tiny penis

That's ok, Seattle. Some would say that a clitoris looks much the same.

Seattle Slough:

I'm disappointed - you normally come here and comment in a rational, modestly open-minded fashion. Now you're babbling and name-calling.

Seattle:

Edgy, bro. Edgy.

"It would be madness to nuke the US without utterly breaking it, because in the aftermath, the US would have no constraint at all. No player capable of doing such a thing desires it."

Uh, that is so pre-9-11. Terrorists have no state, knucklehead. OBL is happy to have the US do what he couldn't do: turn Iraq into an Islamic country.

Plenty of terrorists would like to pull the US further into their trap. The only way they can win is to provoke the US into attacking a Muslim country, preferably to occupy it for a while -- best recruiting post EVER.

So Bush has fallen into bin Laden's gambit, and now bin Laden stands to win more than ever. Jeez, now Bush is worried about losing the Iraqi oil fields to terrorists! Talk about going BACKWARDS.

So great, how that's deterrence working out? Oh, attacks on the US are UP UP UP under Bush? More attacks than ever?

And who is sending the message that guerilla forces can defeat the US?

Bush, in Afghanistan. He lost interest. Doesn't think about OBL much anymore.

Bush, in Iraq. Never committed enough troops to do it right, lied too much to ever get international support, and has privatized so much of the military function as to waste money horribly, and demoralize the real troops.

Who but Bush could manage to oversee the "loss" of $8.8 billion in a matter of months? The Iraq effort was undercut from the beginning with the profiteering contracts, lack of accountability, and incompetent civilian leadership of the military.

So you want to know who is sending the message to the terrorists that they can win against the US?

George W. Bush.

What do you think the Katrina response taught the terrorists?

preferably to occupy it for a while -- best recruiting post EVER.

I prefer to think of it as a honey pot. We HAVE to deal with these loons, so better it happen elsewhere.

I don't buy the leftist response that "we're creating terrorists" either. We may be concentrating them, but nobody not inclined to become a splodydope to begin with is likely to become one because of something the USA does. Proof? Israel. The rest of the islamofacist splodydopes are perfectly happy to let the Hamas and PLO jerks do the heavy lifting. Israel had 50 years to become worldwide terrorist central and IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Uh, that is so pre-9-11. Terrorists have no state, knucklehead.

Did you bother to read the single paragraph at the very top? You know, the news item that this thread is about? That's why we're threatening the states that might give nuclear arms to terrorists. Because it takes a state to build them. Guys squatting in caves on the border of Afghanistan are not going to build their own.

So great, how that's deterrence working out? Oh, attacks on the US are UP UP UP under Bush? More attacks than ever?

Attacks on our military in a faraway land. That's what we call a -- how you say? -- war. Insurance agents in suits launching themselves out of the 101st floor of a burning skyscraper we've had no more of, praise allah. What exactly have the terrorists won?

I wonder. If he knew how it would turn out, would bin Laden do it all over again just the same? I mean, assuming he really is still alive.

Oh, attacks on the US are UP UP UP under Bush? More attacks than ever?

UP UP UP all the way to ZERO ZERO ZERO.

Yeah.

Weasel,

The terrorists have won Gaza!

Ah, Dale, you're quite right. One can only hope the Israelis are working toward a Palestinian state because you can't declare war on a refugee camp.

We spent the Twentieth Century proving that terrorism as a tactic works, if only you keep it up long enough. I wonder how much of the Twenty-first Century we'll spend paying for that?

What do you think the Katrina response taught the terrorists?

That our greatest weakness is idiots like you.

That our greatest weakness is idiots like you.

Money shot -- game, set, match.

"will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit"

The lunatics currently in control of the government, if not put on a very tight leash by Congress P.D.Q., will get us all killed!

If the Bush Administration had been in power during the Cuban missle crisis, the world would have been devastated by a nuclear holocaust.

"Nuclear weapons are good!"

But before we use them, the televangelists must find an answer to the question: " What country would Jesus nuke?"

If the Bush Administration had been in power during the Cuban missle crisis, the world would have been devastated by a nuclear holocaust.

You overrate the effect of nukes greatly.

Thusfar, going on past performance, its Democrats who tend to drop nukes.

"Nukes are an excellent idea, starting with a pre-emptive strike on Iran, if possible. "

The joker is in the "if possible."

The reason that countries like North Korea and Iran have obtained, or are trying to obtain, nuclear weapons is because they have concluded that having such weapons is the only way they can prevent the United States from attacking them, like the Bush Administration did with Iraq.

If Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons and a halfway capable delivery system, the Bush administration would not have attacked.

The Bush Administration does not dare attack North Korea because it does have nuclear weapons and can use them to retaliate.

Iran is vulnerable to an attack by the Bush Administration, or a comparable successor, as long as it does not have nuclear weapons and the ability to use them. Only once it has a creditable nuclear deterrent can it be safe from U.S. attack.

Conclusion: The Bush administration's policy of engaging in an unprovoked war of agression against Iraq, and its announced policy of using preemptive attacks against contries, is precisely what is encouraging third world countries to get, or try to get, nuclear weapons.

"You overrate the effect of nukes greatly."

Look at what two very primitive, low yield FISSION weapons did in Japan.

In light of that, the modern, large FUSION weapons, if used, would have destroyed civilization.

The kind of mindset you display can get us all killed. And the horrifying reality is that this seems to be the mind set of the people in the Bush Administration.

Jack Kennedy's restraint and judgment during the Cuban missle crisis is the reason we can have this excachange.

Hm. Interesting theory...

FOR ME TO POOP ON!

I keed...I keed...

Conclusion: The Bush administration's policy of engaging in an unprovoked war of agression against Iraq, and its announced policy of using preemptive attacks against contries, is precisely what is encouraging third world countries to get, or try to get, nuclear weapons.

A conclusion completely unsupported by facts, especially when you consider the timeframe in which the Norks and Pakistan have gotten nukes; and the time frame during which Iran and Iraq had been persistently trying to get them.

But never mind, you are right, all time started at Bush's inauguration, when we all sprang forth fully formed, with all these memories of a past which never happened n'shit.

" Israel had 50 years to become worldwide terrorist central and IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. "

Oh. So the Israeli occupation of Lebanon didn't create Hezbollah, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine didn't create Hamas, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan didn't create the resistance there that morphed into Al Qaeda (with US help), and the British occupation of Ireland didn't create the IRA, and ...

And monkeys are flying out of your butt. Got it.

"UP UP UP all the way to ZERO ZERO ZERO."

Uh, sorry to interrupt your fantasy, but according to state dept figures, terrorist attacks have been up steadily since 2001.

UP every year.

And you are an idiot.

So I take it, tubino, you hereby acknowledge that roadside bombs in Iraq are terrorist attacks and not guerilla warfare tactics used by a legitimate insurgency?

What do you think the Katrina response taught the terrorists?

"That our greatest weakness is idiots like you."

How about, that Bush has squandered billions on the Dept of Homeland Security without managing to actually DO anything?

What frame of mind is it that imagines potential terrorists paying more attention to obscure blogs than to the actual events in the US?

If the levee had been blown with an explosive-laden boat, with New Orleans NOT 80% evacuated, and ALL the buses underwater, how would DHS/FEMA have done?

Oh wait, sorry, they would have failed to do their job because of idiots like me.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

It would be funny if you weren't so sadly desperate to avoid facing what your party has become: the party of FAILURE that is LOSING a WAR due to greed, corruption, and incompetence.

If the levee had been blown with an explosive-laden boat, with New Orleans NOT 80% evacuated, and ALL the buses underwater, how would DHS/FEMA have done?

About the same. Considering this was about the same response time as in the past, if not a bit quicker. Since there would be no warning for a terrorist attack, as there was for the hurricane, there would be a great deal more loss of life. See, terrorist attacks are really, really bad things. And government, no matter how big and intrusive it gets, can't make that untrue.

So, what would your party have done differently? Spent more money on a FEMA that would take exactly the same amount of time to show up? The time it takes to assemble and mobilize is the time it takes.

The lesson isn't "government has failed, we need more government." The lesson most Americans are taking away is, "have three days worth of food and water in the house, and a firearm, because that's how long it's going to take help to arrive." Oh, and try not to live in a city so up to its eyeballs in corruption that the first responders don't.

The Weasel tries to be clever: "So I take it, tubino, you hereby acknowledge that roadside bombs in Iraq are terrorist attacks and not guerilla warfare tactics used by a legitimate insurgency?"

Uh-oh, double stupid.

Look, the US has a system of classification. Roadside bombs in Iraq are usually NOT considered terrorist attacks, and are not counted in the #'s that are steadily rising since 2001.

OTOH, the 6 simultaneous car-bombs today in Baghdad, with Al Qaeda claiming credit, is unambiguously a terrorist attack. Got it?

I'm okay with consistently using the standard US military and state dept's definitions here. The problems begin when people selectively mix to make rhetorical points (like Bush has done by connecting IEDs to 9-11).

My point above is that, historically, occupations create terrorist organizations. That correlation is stronger than any other, including religion. The US occupation of Iraq is predictably creating a new terrorist network.

Also, occupations always fail in the long run. In 10-20 years, if the Brits uphold the Good Friday agreements, Northern Ireland will vote to join the state of Ireland, and hundreds of years of occupation will come to an end.

Do I think the US will be able to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq? I think it's unlikely. Has Bush openly explained this as a goal of the US? No. Has the press pushed the question? Of course not.

Also, occupations always fail in the long run.

Oh, yes. The shattered, brutal, chaotic, anarchic, terrorist societies of modern Germany and Japan prove this conclusively.

Putz.

I repeat; tubino what is your suggestion for Pakistan? North Korea? Iran? I'm not expecting an answer BTW. I realize your problem is Bush Derangement Syndrome and you really don't care if any of these issues ever get resolved. You are single-mindedly obsessed with hating the President and NOTHING is as important as that, is it?

Weasel keeps weaseling: "The lesson isn't "government has failed, we need more government." The lesson most Americans are taking away is, "have three days worth of food and water in the house, and a firearm, because that's how long it's going to take help to arrive."

More dumbness. The lesson is that appointing unqualified hacks in position of responsibility is BAD government. The lesson is that no amount of government is sufficient for services if it is BAD. The lesson is that Republicans can win elections, but they can't govern.

Former FEMA officials have explained how they used to be on the ground, in a local control room WITH local officials, to solve problems WITH them, using their shared resources.

That's what FEMA used to do. It worked. Now stories keep coming out that the new Bush-corrupted FEMA couldn't even deliver basic medical supplies because it insisted on being FAXED requisitions -- and fax machines were unavailable.

The real crime here is that the National Response Plan adopted in Dec. 2004, was designed SPECIFICALLY to do away with the red tape and bureacracy it imposed. I actually read the relevant passages -- the whole thing is online as a PDF.

Uh, sorry to interrupt your fantasy, but according to state dept figures, terrorist attacks have been up steadily since 2001.

OK, Tubino, I went to the State Dept site and found their summaries of terrorist incidents - the latest one I found was here.

The trend does not appear to reflect a steady growth since 2001. Do you have a different source?

Weasel shows severe brain damage: "Oh, yes. The shattered, brutal, chaotic, anarchic, terrorist societies of modern Germany and Japan prove this conclusively."

Can someone explain to this yo-yo what happened to EAST Germany?

Can you find someone from Germany or Japan who considered their nations OCCUPIED by foreign powers?

Are you so moronic as to imagine that what the US is doing in Iraq is paralleled by what happened to Japan and Germany???? Do you understand that Japan and Germany SURRENDERED? Do you understand the word SURRENDER?

Good God, the stunning idiocy here. I give up.

"The trend does not appear to reflect a steady growth since 2001. Do you have a different source?"

Not handy, but will try to come back with one if time permits.

I *do* know that the Bush admin squelched publication of the usual yearbook when reality undermined their rhetoric about success in the war on terrorism.

Gotta get some work done though.

The lesson is that Republicans can win elections, but they can't govern.

Well, this part is absolutely true. Sometimes they're barely any better at governing than Democrats.

And we didn't occupy East Germany. Communists did. It makes a difference who's running the occupation and what they want from it.

You must be very young if you have never owned goods (toys and teacups I remember especially) labeled "Made in Occupied Japan." Oh, they were so occupied. They weren't happy about it, but they haven't pulled any more of that kamikazi stuff in decades.

I *do* know that the Bush admin squelched publication of the usual yearbook when reality undermined their rhetoric about success in the war on terrorism.

OOOHHH! A conspiracy theory! How surprising, given the level of grounded rhetoric you've shown thus far.

I mean, I think you've used a variation of the word "stupid" at least a dozen times and offered up few facts of your own to back up your own statements.

So let me ask the question - how does is really feel to have your head so far up your ass? Is it erotic?

I *do* know that the Bush admin squelched publication of the usual yearbook when reality undermined their rhetoric about success in the war on terrorism.

OOOHHH! A conspiracy theory! How surprising, given the level of grounded rhetoric you've shown thus far.

I mean, I think you've used a variation of the word "stupid" at least a dozen times and offered up few facts of your own to back up your own statements.

So let me ask the question - how does is really feel to have your head so far up your ass? Is it erotic?

wOOt!

The above is me.

Try running a Google Images Search on"Occupied Japan" if you'd like to see some examples of the charming porcelain the Japanese made under the brutal American lash.

Wait, does my teacup collection make me a homo? Or was that my mother? And if I bought her the bisque...?

Okay, I've totally mixed my punchlines now...

How about, that Bush has squandered billions on the Dept of Homeland Security without managing to actually DO anything?

hmmm.

nope. it's still pretty much that idiot thing.

Wait, does my teacup collection make me a homo? Or was that my mother? And if I bought her the bisque...?

See 'man-love' thread, above.

Guess tubino's computer lab is over and he had to go to gym class or something.

I think I see the issue: incidents of international terrorism (terrorists from one country attacking another) are down, while domestic terrorism is up (due to largely to Iraq). It does not appear to be a "steady" increase, per Tubino.

Really cool site here which allows you to make plots of terrorist activity with various selection criteria. If you make a plot of terrorism from all countries, you see that it does a "hockey stick" in 1998 - the year they switch from counting only international terrorism to domestic+international terrorism.

As far as suppressing the reports - the State Department published pre-2004 reports under the title, "Patterns of Global Terrorism," and published the 2004 report under the title "Country Reports on Terrorism." Not much suppression going on here.

It appears that Palestine is also a significant contributor to the international terrorism numbers - particularly over the past 3 years.

A couple challenging questions were posed for the leftists here:
(1) What should the USA do in response to a nation giving a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, said terrorist group then using that nuke on an American city?

I will assume that the provenance of the nuke can be definitively established, better than the existence of WMD in Iraq. We should publish this provenance and simultaneously destroy, using conventional munitions, all nuclear related sites in the offending country. In the process we will of course largely destroy the countries air defenses and Command & Control infrastructure. We should also announce that the leadership of the offending country must turn themselves over to the International Court of Justice within 48 hours or we will kill them.

(2) Should that policy be made public knowledge or not? Why?

I'm not sure. My first take is that the level of response needs to be know, that we will destroy the offending nation's ability to do this again and we will hold the leadership personally accountable, because deterence doesn't work if the deterent is unknown, but I'm not sure that is true. Operationally we have a better chance of success with minimal casualties if the exact response is not known in advance, so I would not announce our targetting plan.

Tubino is ignorant that during our long occupation of Germany after WWII many brave American soldiers were killed by German insurgents.

Apparently some Germans thought they were under occupation.

Tubino. Go read a history book of events that actually happened, not one that your communist University Professor wrote.

The US occupations of Japan and Germany were extraordinarily successful. We showed patience, focus, compassion, and planning in rebuilding those societies and have been reaping the benefits of our ethical and strategic work ever since. To say that no occupations ever work is to not only ignore those recent examples but also the many imperial examples throughout history; Mongols, Romans, Chinese, etc.

It is certainly true that many occupations fail, but that only means that one cannot make a valid generalization about occupations.

Well put.
I think Tubino sensed he stepped in it, when he started pulling things like East Germany out of his butt.

I used humor above (the penis joke that some called namecalling and others called immature) as the only way to wrap my head around the appalling and disgusting cheering, celebrating, and mouthwatering that appeared on this blog in response to our apparent repositioning of our protocols in order to make worse our new (failed and embarrassing) doctrine of "preemptive defense" by adding hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and irreversible environmental destruction to our poor decision making.

The fact that the decision to use a nuclear weapon would be met with anything other than sober reservation and grave reluctance ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that our sole (yes SOLE) justification for a preemptive attack on Iraq was that they were building nuclear weapons (yellow cake and aluminum tubes ring a bell?) and that they were planning on giving such weapons to terrorists to use against us, is evil at its most flippant and callous.

You wonder why the entire planet now hates us? Read the top of this thread. One "Fucking A", a 'we should have a crazy looking president' and about six or seven, 'let's talk about stupid sh*t in light of the fact that we are talking about nuclear war'

And you claim that I am being immature? F*** all of those who expressed such sentiments. Seriously. F*** you.

As an aside, do you really think aggressive posturing is helping? These zealots we are fighting are not afraid to die. So what is the point with threatening them? "Bring it on" indeed.

What planet are you from that you think nuclear weapons are cool or fun? I attacked your tiny tiny boners because is was a lot nicer and easier than attacking your tiny tiny souls.

The day the US drops another nuclear payload on some city or town is the day every damn person in this country better be on their knees begging for forgiveness from whatever sky fairy, wood nymph, or wind spirit they happen to think controls their destiny.

If you were disgusted that Palestinians were cheering in the streets after 9-11 (I was) then you have no business cheering this announcement. None.

And you claim that I am being immature? F*** all of those who expressed such sentiments. Seriously. F*** you.

No, really. You first.

...our new (failed and embarrassing) doctrine of "preemptive defense"

RTFA - this doctrine (which I'm sceptical of in any case, considering the source) has nothing to do with "preemptive defense." It states (with what I suspect is some augmentation by AFP), rather, that sales of WMD to terrorists for the purposes of attacking the US will be considered an act of war.

These zealots we are fighting are not afraid to die. So what is the point with threatening them?

RTFA - the threat is to those nations who would consider arming terrorists with WMD.

And you claim that I am being immature? F*** all of those who expressed such sentiments.

We were obviously not engaged in a serious discussion. If you wanted a serious discussion, you certainly took an inflammatory tack.

about six or seven, 'let's talk about stupid sh*t in light of the fact that we are talking about nuclear war.

We just picked a convenient thread to late night gabbing, and those comments will certainly prove to have more enduring worth than your rampant inaccuracies and misinterpretations.

As an aside, do you really think aggressive posturing is helping?

Yes, but only when it's occasionally backed up with actual aggression, so everyone knows it's not just posturing.

These zealots we are fighting are not afraid to die. So what is the point with threatening them? "Bring it on" indeed.

You'll notice the mullahs never strap the bombs on themselves, or their own children. Yassir Arafat died, old, in a hospital bed. Our new enemies just as afraid to die and just as enamored of this world (and the riches thereof) as any other enemy.

The idiots who actually wear the bombs or take the field are the same disaffected losers, twisted middle class boys who want to be somebody and just plain stupid, angry kids that the rotten old ideologues always take advantage of. Khmer Rouge, Hitler Youth, Red Army...again and again, tapping the terrible confluence of stupid, idealistic and hella testosterone.

You wonder why the entire planet now hates us?

I don't care why our enemies hate us and I never have.

Ugh. He takes it all way too seriously.

First of all, this is cheering an announcement, not cheering dead enemy. Though we'd probably do that. Quietly, you understand. In our homes. With cake.

Second of all, as Bbeck helpfully pointed out, this announcement does not do anything but explicitly re-state powers that we already have.

See? Nothing to get in a twist about. Unless, of course, you think America shouldn't have nukes. You'd be wrong, but I can see why you'd be mad in that case.

Unless, of course, you think America shouldn't have nukes.

I'd be very happy if the US was actively working to fulfill its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to decommision all of our nukes. This does not mean that I think we should unilaterally decommission, but we should be making it a priority and not attempting to re-start testing and the development of new more usable nukes. We made a good start vis-a-vis the former Soviet Union, but the current administration seems to view the NPT in the same light as the ABM treaty, Kyoto, and the World Court; our standard seems to be that everyone else should de-nuke/control greenhouse gases/be subject to international law, but anything that might conceivably infringe on our freedom of action is illegitamite.

We made a good start vis-a-vis the former Soviet Union, but the current administration seems to view the NPT in the same light as the ABM treaty, Kyoto, and the World Court; our standard seems to be that everyone else should de-nuke/control greenhouse gases/be subject to international law, but anything that might conceivably infringe on our freedom of action is illegitamite.

Woo HOO!

U - S - A! U - S - A!

Oh, wait, you meant that as a bad thing.

Sorry.

Seriously, though, I don't think Russia is interested in disarmament at the moment. The poor state of the Russian economy has led them to see their leftover weaponry as something to sell to other countries rather than destroy.

bbeck is an idiot.

We are not legally allowed to drop H-bombs on sovereign nations simply because our (underfunded and poorly run) intelligence services tell us to do so.

Citing WWII is as asinine an example as I could imagine.

1. We were already in a long drawn-out war with Japan (who actually attacked us first).

2. The world had never even heard of a nuclear warhead to say nothing of having seen one in action until after we had dropped two of them within three days of each other.

Believe it or not, some things have changed since 1945, not the least of which was the creation of the UN Security Council.

Do you really think Hiroshima set a standing precedent that would allow the US, today, to drop an H-bomb on a country that had not attacked us? Really?

Is anyone that dim?

Dave in Texas doesn't care why our ENEMIES hate us. As outrageously stupid as that statement is, it doesn't get at my point. Our former allies hate us. Regular folk who didn't have a horse in this race hate us. We had the world's sympathy after 9/11. Not only did we squander this goodwill. We undid it back to levels never seen before. Never has the US been more universally hated. Never.

And jackasses like you don't even care to ask why. You and people like you are the reason why.

Dave in Texas doesn't care why our ENEMIES hate us. As outrageously stupid as that statement is, it doesn't get at my point. Our former allies hate us. Regular folk who didn't have a horse in this race hate us. We had the world's sympathy after 9/11. Not only did we squander this goodwill. We undid it back to levels never seen before. Never has the US been more universally hated. Never.

Hey, quit cribbing from John Kerry.

At least attribute.

We had the world's sympathy after 9/11. Not only did we squander this goodwill. We undid it back to levels never seen before. Never has the US been more universally hated. Never.

We had the world's sympathy because we'd just been bitch-slapped, hard, and they just love the sight of America with blood running down its upper lip. Then we decided to hit back, and the sympathy vanished. Some sympathy. No thanks.

The idea that consensus is the same thing as being correct -- that being popular is what statecraft is all about -- is so very twisted and...High School. It is no violation of any principle of logic that the whole rest of the world hates us, and the whole rest of the world is wrong and we're right.

What if seattle sludge is john kerry?

We had the world's sympathy after 9/11

when we finally got a taste of what they thought we deserved.

fuck them.

now, did you manage to get my point?

We are not legally allowed to drop H-bombs on sovereign nations simply because our (underfunded and poorly run) intelligence services tell us to do so.

We're not?

Can you cite the World Criminal Code for that proposition?

It continues to be a weird thing with lefties that the Iraq War was immoral and illegal, BUT, if France had agreed with us, it would have become moral and legal.

Either it was or it wasn't, and it doesn't matter much what the fucking French have to say about it.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Nonproliferation treaty:

The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to an attack with non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction", such as biological or chemical weapons, since the US may not use either of these in retaliation. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".

The policy statement in the original posting extends the policy described by Wikipedia by saying that those who supply weapons to terrorists may be targeted as well, (since it is difficult to respond in kind to a terrorist attack).

Your objection over the intelligence is certainly valid, although it is an objection over the practicality rather than the philosophy of the policy.

Never has the US been more universally hated.

I think it was worse a year ago than it is today. Though the left seems to hate the administration more than ever . . .

Do you really think Hiroshima set a standing precedent that would allow the US, today, to drop an H-bomb on a country that had not attacked us? Really?

Nope.

Please refresh me; why did we invade Afghanistan? The Afghans didn't attack us.
Oh, that's right, they were providing the base of operations for Al Qaeda.

Lets imagine for a minute what we should have done to Kabul if Afghanistan was a rogue regime that had nukes, and if Al Qaeda had detonated a nuclear device here instead of using airplanes.

But its so nice to know that when Seattle disappears in a fiery cataclysm, there will be people like you in this country saying 'Don't retaliate! We had it coming!'

That's it. I have no further time to talk to somebody who says that Bbeck is an idiot.

"You wonder why the entire planet now hates us"

You lose a lot of credibility when you say things like this. Its simply not true. You might not like to admit it but there are waiting lists to get into this country. Long ones. From people in every country in the world who allow their citizens to emigrate. And for those countries who don't allow it people risk their very lives to get here.

Seriously, if somebody says the words, 'Bbeck is an idiot' I just have an aneurism.

Don't anybody ever say Bbeck is an idiot. It is untrue. That lady has more class and wit and charm in her little finger than you do in your whole body, Seattle.
And she can crush you with her mighty Star Trek figurine collection.

I'm just so angry that he said Bbeck is an idiot. What an ass he is.

What. An. Ass.

Oh! I am so angry!

We had the world's sympathy after 9/11

It is interesting that this forms an important argument for the left. Lakoff (the guy who's teaching the left to 'frame' the issues) says that the right values moral strength and the left values empathy. The response of the right ("Huh? Who cares?") to the left's bleating about the 'world's sympathy' underscores Lakoff's point.

The left must have been basking in the warm validating glow of the world's empathy, when the right harshed their buzz ('son of a bitch must pay' - BTiLC). No wonder they keep bringing this up as a major policy flaw. And no wonder we keep going "Huh? Who cares?"

Being a victim, and having others observe your bruises, is the most important thing.

Pity validates us.

NOT

The rest of the world, and the Left, just loves to watch us bleed.

Wow, y'all have been busy.

But WEASEL still doesn't understand the meaning of the word SURRENDER.

The Germans SURRENDERED.
The Japanese SURRENDERED.

Your assignment is to practice these phrases until you understand the word SURRENDER.

Then think about Iraq. Did Iraq SURRENDER? It's a simple question.

Good gracious y'all have some dumb bunnies in here.

Marshall Plan is NOT what the US is doing in Iraq. War profiteering was made specifically ILLEGAL. See how that works?

In Iraq, war profiteering is NOT illegal. We already know that $8.8 billion is MISSING, but we also know that overbilling and misrepresenation to the tune of billions is also there, because accountability was rejected in the bill.

See how that works?

See why your analogies were really, really stupid?

East Germany was under Soviet control. OCCUPATION. Now it isn't.

See how that occupation stuff works out?

Now, scamper off and try to think of an OCCUPATION (today's new word!) where the occupied people didn't SURRENDER. It's a big word, but we studied that earlier. Can you think of any? How did they work out?

I'm sorry, I can't dumb down enough for Weasel.

Sigh.

Hey, look, everyone. Tubino is trying to make a point and calling people bad names.

Awwwww....trolls are so cute when they're angry.

"Tubino is ignorant that during our long occupation of Germany after WWII many brave American soldiers were killed by German insurgents."

No, actually I'm pretty sure I know more about that than you do.

Did the Germans surrender?

Did our enemies in Iraq surrender?

See the difference yet?

See why your analogy is really, really stupid?

No? Keep trying.

PS -- it was WEASEL who thought that Germany and Japan were appropriate analogies. lauraw just jumped in after.

Hey tubby, Iraq surrendered!

Laura never "jumps in." She descends gracefully from her exalted station amid the strains of angelic hymns and a gleaming halo of silver light.

"Tubino is ignorant that during our long occupation of Germany after WWII many brave American soldiers were killed by German insurgents."

No, actually I'm pretty sure I know more about that than you do.

Why? Did you read a Stephen Ambrose book once? You like making these bold assertions, but never actually back them up with information.

Actually that IS funny. Thanks for reminding me Brewfan.

The reason we invaded Iraq is because they were in VIOLATION of the terms of their surrender years prior.

Not that the surrender aspect matters anyway, after the power structure of the nation has been completely dismantled, who exactly would have the authority to surrender to us?

And what would it matter to the foreign terrorists who are not fighting for Iraqi Sovereignty anyway?

Did the Germans surrender?

Not all of them.

Did our enemies in Iraq surrender?

Not all of them.

See the difference yet?

Not based on your supposed distinctions.

- and do you know what you do to a country that violates the terms of their surrender? Hmm?

"Not that the surrender aspect matters anyway, after the power structure of the nation has been completely dismantled, who exactly would have the authority to surrender to us?"

Thanks for making my point.

That's why Iraq is not Germany, Iraq is not Japan.

That's why Iraq is not likely to be a governable country. That's why the current conditions for writing a constitution are not at all like 1789 in the USA. Read this explanation:
http://tinyurl.com/a7otk

Can you get this information to the decision-makers in DC? Please?

Geoff,

The philosophy of something necessarily includes the practicality of it.

It is akin to saying a blind man shouldn't practically be allowed to buy a gun, but philosophically it is OK. No it isn't.

LauraW,

I will gladly stop calling your Star Trek figurine co-collector an idiot when she stops suggesting that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki created a precedent for preemptive nuclear war in 2005.

Also, I am no victim. When I say sympathy, I mean we had the world on our page. That page was to bring murderers to justice. Not drum up a fake war for our friends in the oil industry to reap profits from the deaths of Iraqi and Americans alike. Yes, sometimes the truth is just that bad.

P.S. I am not John Kerry.

"Not drum up a fake war for our friends in the oil industry to reap profits from the deaths of Iraqi and Americans alike"

Prove this (which should be easy, you can give us a link to a 10K or an annual report showing an increase in profit directly related to OIF) or find a new talking point. This makes you look silly. I admit to visiting your blog and if its true you took the bar exam I am quite distressed at this level of discourse from a supposedly educated individual. If you passed the bar it would be a nice public service on your part if you gave your real name (caveat emptor).

lauraw: "- and do you know what you do to a country that violates the terms of their surrender? Hmm?"

Oh I know! I know! Get the UN inspectors out, make up evidence about WMD, invade, kick out anyone like Garner who seems to have a clue, install Bremer and appoint unqualified political hacks into positions of responsibility, disband the Iraqi army against the advice of all experts, hire private contractors at exorbitant cost-plus contracts, remove all accountability in the funding bills, lose $8.8B, put private contractors in charge of interrogation with grunts doing the actual work, keep Iraqis unemployed by insisting all contracts go to US contractors, have the country descend into chaos, then have just enough voting to get pro-Iranian SCIRI get seats, and then 2.5 years later be breaking the US military while the number of insurgents increase. And just borrow all the hundreds of billions to fund it.

Yup, that's how I'd do it -- if I wanted to fulfill Osama bin Laden's mission. Oh, and always say that UN control would be worse.

Is there anything you would change?

If you're serious about looking at what happened in Iraq regarding US oil companies... well, you'd have to get Cheney's Energy Task Force minutes, and just because it's your government and your tax money, don't think you can do that anymore.

But you can try this from Greg Palast:
http://tinyurl.com/9k4jz

Why were Iraqi elections delayed? Why was Jay Garner fired? Why are our troops still there? Investigative reporter Greg Palast uncovers new documents that answer these questions and more about the Bush administration’s grand designs on Iraq. Like everything else issued during this administration, the plan to overhaul the Iraqi economy has corporate lobbyist fingerprints all over it.

In February 2003, a month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a 101-page document came my way from somewhere within the U.S. State Department. Titled pleasantly, "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Growth," it was part of a larger under-wraps program called "The Iraq Strategy."

The Economy Plan goes boldly where no invasion plan has gone before: the complete rewrite, it says, of a conquered state's "policies, laws and regulations." Here's what you'll find in the Plan: A highly detailed program, begun years before the tanks rolled, for imposing a new regime of low taxes on big business, and quick sales of Iraq's banks and bridges—in fact, "ALL state enterprises"—to foreign operators. There's more in the Plan, part of which became public when the State Department hired consulting firm to track the progress of the Iraq makeover. Example: This is likely history's first military assault plan appended to a program for toughening the target nation's copyright laws.

And when it comes to oil, the Plan leaves nothing to chance—or to the Iraqis. Beginning on page 73, the secret drafters emphasized that Iraq would have to "privatize" (i.e., sell off) its "oil and supporting industries." The Plan makes it clear that—even if we didn't go in for the oil—we certainly won't leave without it.

If the Economy Plan reads like a Christmas wishlist drafted by U.S. corporate lobbyists, that's because it was.

From slashing taxes to wiping away Iraq's tariffs (taxes on imports of U.S. and other foreign goods), the package carries the unmistakable fingerprints of the small, soft hands of Grover Norquist.

Norquist is the capo di capi of the lobbyist army of the right. In Washington every Wednesday, he hosts a pow-wow of big business political operatives and right-wing muscle groups—including the Christian Coalition and National Rifle Association—where Norquist quarterbacks their media and legislative offensive for the week.

Once registered as a lobbyist for Microsoft and American Express, Norquist today directs Americans for Tax Reform, a kind of trade union for billionaires unnamed, pushing a regressive "flat tax" scheme.

Acting on a tip, I dropped by the super-lobbyist's L-Street office. Below a huge framed poster of his idol ("NIXON— NOW MORE THAN EVER"), Norquist could not wait to boast of moving freely at the Treasury, Defense and State Departments, and, in the White House, shaping the post-conquest economic plans—from taxes to tariffs to the "intellectual property rights" that I pointed to in the Plan.

Norquist wasn't the only corporate front man getting a piece of the Iraq cash cow. Norquist suggested the change in copyright laws after seeking the guidance of the Recording Industry Association of America.

And then there's the oil. Iraq-born Falah Aljibury was in on the drafting of administration blueprints for the post-Saddam Iraq. According to Aljibury, the administration began coveting its Mideast neighbor's oil within weeks of the Bush-Cheney inauguration, when the White House convened a closed committee under the direction of the State Department's Pam Quanrud. The group included banking and chemical industry men, and the range of topics over what to do with a post-conquest Iraq was wide. In short order, said Aljibury, "It became an oil group."

This was not surprising as the membership list had a strong smell of petroleum. Besides Aljibury, an oil industry consultant, the secret team included executives from Royal-Dutch Shell and ChevronTexaco. These and other oil industry bigs would, in 2003, direct the drafting of a 300-page addendum to the Economy Plan solely about Iraq's oil assets. The oil section of the Plan, obtained after a year of wrestling with the administration over the Freedom of Information Act, calls for Iraqis to sell off to "IOCs" (international oil companies) the nation's "downstream" assets—that is, the refineries, pipelines and ports that, unless under armed occupation, a Mideast nation would be loathe to give up.

The General Versus Annex D

One thing stood in the way of rewriting Iraq's laws and selling off Iraq's assets: the Iraqis. An insider working on the plans put it coldly: "They have [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz coming out saying it's going to be a democratic country … but we're going to do something that 99 percent of the people of Iraq wouldn't vote for."

In this looming battle between what Iraqis wanted and what the Bush administration planned for them, the Iraqis had an unexpected ally, Gen. Jay Garner, the man appointed by our president just before the invasion as a kind of temporary Pasha to run the soon-to-be conquered nation.

Garner's an old Iraq hand who performed the benevolent autocratic function in the Kurdish zone after the first Gulf War. But in March 2003, the general made his big career mistake. In Kuwait City, fresh off the plane from the United States, he promised Iraqis they would have free and fair elections as soon as Saddam was toppled, preferably within 90 days.

Garner's 90-days-to-democracy pledge ran into a hard object: The Economy Plan's 'Annex D.' Disposing of a nation's oil industry—let alone redrafting trade and tax laws—can't be done in a weekend, nor in 90 days. Annex D lays out a strict 360-day schedule for the free-market makeover of Iraq. And there's the rub: It was simply inconceivable that any popularly elected government would let America write its laws and auction off the nation's crown jewel, its petroleum industry.

Elections would have to wait. As lobbyist Norquist explained when I asked him about the Annex D timetable, "The right to trade, property rights, these things are not to be determined by some democratic election." Our troops would simply have to stay in Mesopotamia a bit longer.

New World Orders 12, 37, 81 and 83

Gen. Garner resisted—which was one of the reasons for his swift sacking by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the very night he arrived in Baghdad last April. Rummy had a perfect replacement ready to wing it in Iraq to replace the recalcitrant general. Paul Bremer may not have had Garner's experience on the ground in Iraq, but no one would question the qualifications of a man who served as managing director of Kissinger Associates.

Pausing only to install himself in Saddam's old palace—and adding an extra ring of barbed wire—"Jerry" Bremer cancelled Garner's scheduled meeting of Iraq's tribal leaders called to plan national elections. Instead, Bremer appointed the entire government himself. National elections, Bremer pronounced, would have to wait until 2005. The extended occupation would require our forces to linger.

The delay would, incidentally, provide time needed to lock in the laws, regulations and irreversible sales of assets in accordance with the Economy Plan.

On that, Bremer wasted no time. Altogether, the leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority issued exactly 100 orders that remade Iraq in the image of the Economy Plan. In May, for example, Bremer—only a month from escaping out Baghdad's back door—took time from fighting the burgeoning insurrection to sign orders 81—"Patents,"and 83, "Copyrights." Here, Grover Norquist's hard work paid off. Fifty years of royalties would now be conferred on music recording. And 20 years on Windows code.

Order number 37, "Tax Strategy for 2003," was Norquist's dream come true: taxes capped at 15 percent on corporate and individual income (as suggested in the Economy Plan, page 8). The U.S. Congress had rejected a similar flat-tax plan for America, but in Iraq, with an electorate of one—Jerry Bremer—the public's will was not an issue.

Not everyone felt the pain of this reckless rush to a free market. Order 12, "Trade Liberalization," permitted the tax- and tariff-free import of foreign products. One big winner was Cargill, the world's largest grain merchant, which flooded Iraq with hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat. For Iraqi farmers, already wounded by sanctions and war, this was devastating. They could not compete with the U.S. and Australian surplusses dumped on them. But the import plan carried out the letter of the Economy Plan.

This trade windfall for the West was enforced by the occupation's agriculture chief, Dan Amstutz, himself an import from the United States. Prior to George Bush taking office, Amstutz chaired a company funded by Cargill.

There's no sense cutting taxes on big business, ordering 20 years of copyright payments for Bill Gates' operating system or killing off protections for Iraqi farmers if some out-of-control Iraqi government is going to take it away after an election. The shadow governors of Iraq back in Washington thought of that, too. Bremer fled, but he's left behind him nearly 200 American "experts," assigned to baby-sit each new Iraqi minister—functionaries also approved by the U.S. State Department.

The Price

The free market paradise in Iraq is not free.

After General Garner was deposed, I met with him in Washington. He had little regard for the Economy Plan handed to him three months before the tanks rolled. He especially feared its designs on Iraq's oil assets and the delay in handing Iraq back to Iraqis. "That's one fight you don't want to take on," he told me.

But we have. After a month in Saddam's palace, Bremer cancelled municipal elections, including the crucial vote about to take place in Najaf. Denied the ballot, Najaf's Shi'ites voted with bullets. This April, insurgent leader Moqtada Al Sadr's militia killed 21 U.S. soldiers and, for a month, seized the holy city.

"They shouldn't have to follow our plan," the general said. "It's their country, their oil." Maybe, but not according to the Plan. And until it does become their country, the 82nd Airborne will have to remain to keep it from them.

Osama bin Laden's mission was to spend the rest of his life (assuming he is still alive) pooping in a bucket in a cave in Afghanistan while Saddam goes on trial for crimes against Iraq?

Huh. So that's the definition of "Caliphate."

Why is it that when you ask an idiot leftist to defend his assertion, his predictable reaction is:

1) deny that it is an assertion and insist it's a fact

2) go find similar unsupported assertions from an even bigger idiot leftist and wave them in your face and shout "SEE"?

And for some reason, they seem to think they're paid by the word.

Weasel sez "Osama bin Laden's mission was ..."

He was clear. Get US troops out of Saudi Arabia, turn the US-supported 'apostate' regimes into Islamic ones. Suck US into an Afghanistan-style quagmire, with results similar to former USSR's.

Bush gave him the first, and he's working hard on turning the most secular nation of Iraq into an Iranian-style theocracy. He's almost done, but he's making great progress on #3.

Mark Danner has it all with citations in the NYT magazine last Sunday. Qaedism is doing great, thanks to W.

Greg Palast?

Greg F'in Palast?

That's who you've got to support your claims?

That's like one of us trying to prove our point by saying "This is true! Rush Limbaugh says so, and so does Sean Hannity!"

tubino, for christ's sake. Links, not articles.

"Greg F'in Palast?"

Oh good God. Remember his asinine article praising that retarded bitch McKinney, Slubs?

This one?

Yep, that's the one.

Of course all of Palast's lies about her being "misquoted" can easily be refuted by reading the KPFA transcript... but facts be damned, eh?

tubino - Palast ain't getting you nowhere.

Liberals (and all rational and educated people) rightfully worry about nuclear attacks not only for their collateral damage but also for the fact that every action has a reaction and the principle of reciprocity may apply.

Secondly, in case of nuclear attack in the US neither Iran nor N. Korea should be obligated to prove their innocence. The burden will be on the US. It is the same principle that make the US the greatest country on earth despite backwardness and sheer stupidity of large proportion of its population.

Lastly, the US will leave Uzbekistan not because of human rights violations (since there were there before the US came there) but because Uzbekistan declared so during the meeting of Russia, China and Central Asian Republics regarding new milatary alliance. Stop lying you rightwing nuts.

Education (going to school or library or just reading real books) is the best way to enlightenment.

As for assuming that we are still in a full invasion of Iraq for the purpose of oil profiteering, I think I am being generous.

What is your argument?

You do know that they KNEW they couldn't make the WMD case.
You do recall that the weapons inspectors on the ground knew Iraq had no WMD.
You do know they were planning the war BEFORE 9/11.
You do know that gas is now $3 a gallon.
You do know that we elected a, quote, oilman as President.
You do know that oil companies are reaping record profits.
You do know that the vice president's old company has "misplaced" billions of dollars in wartime contract money.
You do know that our military spent far more resources protecting the oil ministry and oil fields in Iraq than any other resource including the Iraqi people.

What do you chalk all this up to? Stupidity? Incompetence? I am being generous in assigning a design to this madness, albeit a criminal one.

As for revealing my name, nice try. Rest assured that I only practice law in Washington State. And the chances of you being represented by a complete moron like me are fairly small even if you do live here.

Seriously, Slough. The fact that the president worked in the oil industry, oil is a valuable commodity and we're fighting a war in a land with a lot of oil isn't a conspiracy. It's three disparate facts. Take the time to explain to me what you're implying. Draw me a chart. Connect the dots. Be specific. I honestly can't work out what you guys are alleging.

The price of oil is set globally, right? And we pay the same price of it as the rest of the world, right? No matter where it's coming from? So wouldn't the effect of a steady flow of Iraqi oil entering the market drive the price down? For everybody in the world? Why is this not good?

Who's profiting, according to your theory? Not the American people, if you're citing the high price as part of the plot (the current high price is due to nervousness after Katrina, of course). The gas companies generally? Do they benefit from higher supply and lower prices? And isn't their financial position pretty transparent? And isn't a whole industry a lot of people, and isn't a lot of people doing well a good thing?

Do you think something is going on under the table? Do you think the gas companies are siphoning off gas secretly? How? Do you think the CEOs of these corporations are siphoning off money secretly? How? I'm serious about these questions; I don't understand what you are darkly hinting at.

Oil is valuable; Iraq has oil. I get that. But if nobody's stealing it, where's the foul?

Seattle,

We've debunked all of those DNC talking points many times before on this blog. You can browse this site for less then an hour and you will find plenty refutation of those points. You do realize when you come here and write something like:

"You do know they were planning the war BEFORE 9/11. "

We all laugh at you? Because we're intelligent people and we happen to know that plans are continually being created and updated for conflicts ALL OVER THE WORLD! Yes, its true. And, believe it or not, we've heard the same thing 1000 times before. And its still wrong!

On a serious note, I don't think you're a moron but I do think, for some reason, you've chosen the path of least resistance when it comes to critical thinking. A few hours of that would destroy any of the talking points above.

PS

Here's another revelation for you; the people who created those political talking points you like to quote don't actually always believe them. They don't care if you get embarrassed by using them either. Their job is to disseminate political disinformation. This applys to both sides of the aisle, btw.

I don't know whether or not Paul O'Neill cares if I am embarrassed but he WAS there at the first National Security meeting.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Is that merely a talking point, or might the words of a former Cabinet Member have some reliability? Seriously.

Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq part of the OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY of the USA in 1998. What's your point? That some people were talking about carrying out that policy?

Criminy, this thread is still going strong?

So far, we have as our sources from the left:

Greg Palast
Paul O'Neill.

Nope, neither of them has an axe to grind with the president.

Sheesh Seattle, I hope you get a good nights' sleep and reconsider the following:

The philosophy of something necessarily includes the practicality of it.

So, say, the philosophy of John Rawls, which is formulated in the complete absence of a practical framework, would then not be philosophy. I guess we can discard the entire liberal raison d'etre.

Weasel:
I think that gas prices doubling is a good thing for oil companies because their profit margin remains the same. Yes it is transparent, that's why we know they are making lots and lots of money. This is at the expense of you and me by the way. (less so me likely because I take public transportation to work 95% of the time and live very close to my job) A whole lot of people making a killing at the expense of the rest of us is not a good thing and is, unfortunately, a hallmark of this administration.

Slublog:
If what Paul O'Neill said was false, don't you think someone would have denied it by now? Having an axe to grind is a far stretch from fabricating an entire meeting. That is a tough lie to pull off. Every single thing Paul O'Neill said back then has been supported and borne out subsequently. Everything. Just like Richard Clarke. Just like Hans Blix. They were right.

BrewFan:
You pulled that particular "talking point" out as if it was especially wrong. I did not single it out. You did. Then you hide behind the 'Clinton suggested a similar outcome,' meme when the "talking point" is demonstrated to be accurate.

What is it? Is it a talking point created by some nameless operative? Is it a lie cooked up by a disgruntled employee? Is it common knowledge that's consistent with the prior administration's plans? You guys need to get your denial stories straight. I am getting dizzy.

How about it's the truth?

Another truism that applies to both sides. Just because it is a talking point, doesn't make it untrue.

"You pulled that particular "talking point" out as if it was especially wrong. I did not single it out. You did.

I used that one because its a quick google for you to see that I'm right about the historical context lacking in this trope. I can see, however, you chose not to do this. This isn't all bad for me becauses it is evidence of my earlier contention the you like the path of least resistence; you just regurgitate the crap you're fed without any serious thought.

"How about it's the truth?"

Its disinformation. The actual words are true but they are presented without historical context so they appear to mean something else. The talking point you presented was that plans to invade Iraq were discussed pre 9/11. What you didn't mention and I did was that plans for regime change in Iraq began in 1998. This has nothing to do with 'Clinton suggested a similar outcome'. Clinton made policy. You may want to delude yourself into thinking thats a meme but its a verifiable fact. Trying to twist it into your talking point constitutes creating a meme.
.

I think O'Neill's revelations were not quite as damning as was originally presented. From the Today Show:

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

I think that gas prices doubling is a good thing for oil companies because their profit margin remains the same.

Let's pretend that I don't know what a profit margin is, and you explain this statement to me.

Please. Talk to me like I'm a retarded monkey, and you are my patient handler. I like it.

Geoff, I was talking to someone about that earlier; Clinton formally made US policy toward Iraq one of 'regime change.'
And exactly how is that performed in such a country, without military intervention?
He dropped some bombs and passed the buck, successfully.

Please. Talk to me like I'm a retarded monkey, and you are my patient handler. I like it.

mmmm . . . pillow talk

Clinton formally made US policy toward Iraq one of 'regime change.'

Yes, in the Today Show dialog Couric makes that clear in her followup comment - I thought that since it was common knowledge here I wouldn't include that statement. But note that Paul O'Neill isn't outraged over the Bush adminstrations discussions about Iraq - he was just surprised at the prioritization. A far cry from the way it was presented in earlier interviews.

Ah - the preceding comment was mine.

The Weasel closes his eyes and says, "Oil is valuable; Iraq has oil. I get that. But if nobody's stealing it, where's the foul?
"

I notice that NOT ONE of you slackers can be bothered to dispute a single claim by Jay Garner, or about the privatization of Iraqi assets, or the missing $8.8B (MINIMUM).

What do you mean, nobody's stealing it? Can you read?
http://tinyurl.com/9go5g

"One thing stood in the way of rewriting Iraq's laws and selling off Iraq's assets: the Iraqis. An insider working on the plans put it coldly: "They have [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz coming out saying it's going to be a democratic country … but we're going to do something that 99 percent of the people of Iraq wouldn't vote for.""
[...]
Elections would have to wait. As lobbyist Norquist explained when I [Jay Garner] asked him about the Annex D timetable, "The right to trade, property rights, these things are not to be determined by some democratic election."
---------------
There's your sovereignty and freedom for you.

I notice that NOT ONE of you slackers can be bothered to dispute a single claim by Jay Garner, or about the privatization of Iraqi assets, or the missing $8.8B (MINIMUM).

What do you mean, nobody's stealing it? Can you read?
http://tinyurl.com/9go5g

Maybe you've just gotten boring.

I notice that NOT ONE of you slackers can be bothered to dispute a single claim by Jay Garner, or about the privatization of Iraqi assets, or the missing $8.8B (MINIMUM).

Okay, so...who's in the tropics with a suitcase full of greenbacks, and how long before we catch up with him?

I don't doubt the money's missing, or at least not accounted for (not quite the same thing). I don't doubt the organization on the ground leaks like a seive; some of it to grease wheels that need greasing, some of it to grease wheels that don't. That's bad. But not a bit surprising in a massive reconstruction project. (You watch -- the practiced thieves of Louisiana are going to put Iraqi pikers in the shade in this regard).

Thing is, you can hide pilfering in the fog of war. You can hide in opaque uber-bureaucracies like the Pentagon or the UN. It's really, really difficult to hide in a legit corporation. Well, to hide forever.

And that's where you lose me: the idea that Bush's corporate buddies are theiving ratbags, and theft was the point of the exercise. Whenever I hear a theory like that, it makes me wonder if the speaker has ever had a job in the private sector. It isn't so easy to pull off in a publicly-traded company. If you guys ever wonder why it's so hard to whip up general public paranoia about evil corporations, it's because so many of us work for them and have a general idea how they work.

Tubino:

In my second attempt at fact checking your claims, I find that once again you are wrong. You said:

I notice that NOT ONE of you slackers can be bothered to dispute a single claim by Jay Garner, or about the privatization of Iraqi assets, or the missing $8.8B (MINIMUM).

But the $8.8 billion isn't missing.

From Stewart Brown's Testimony before Congress, June 21, 2005.

This audit addressed $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds overseen by the CPA. The number attracted a lot of attention and led to some misunderstanding. To be clear: our audit report did not say that the DFI was “lost taxpayer money,” nor did we allege or imply that U.S. officials had engaged in any fraudulent practices. Here’s what our January 30, 2005 audit report said: • the Coalition Provisional Authority provided less than adequate controls for approximately $8.8 billion in DFI funds provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process; • specifically, the CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial, and contractual controls to ensure DFI funds were used in a transparent manner; • and, consequently, there was no assurance that funds were used for the purposes mandated by [United Nations Security Council] Resolution 1483.

Please check your own facts before wasting our time.

I NEED YOUR HELP,

MY NAME IS MARCUS OLIVEIRA,I AM AN AGENT IN EUROPE ,I
NORMALLY GET ROOMS FOR GIRLS WHO WANT TO MODEL ,SO I HAVE A
COMPANY IN THE U.S. THAT WILL NEED SOME GIRLS WITH A
DIFFERENT ROOM FOR EACH OF THEM, I'M INTERESTED IN THIS
YOUR APPARTMENT SO THAT I CAN REACH THEM EASILY.

THEY WILL BE COMING BY THE END OF OCTOBER BY GOD'S GRACE
.SO LET ME KNOW WHAT IT WILL COST,FOR RENTAGE FOR AT LEAST
6 MONTHS AND OTHER EXPENSES THAT I'M LIKELY TO INCURE SO I
CAN EFFECT PAYMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.THE
COMPANY WILL ISSUE YOU A CHECK AS SOON AS WE AGREE ON
TERMS.

AVAIL ME WITH THE NECESSARY DETAILS IMMEDIATELY PLEASE.
BETTER STILL YOUR FULL NAME,CONTACT ADDRESS AND PHONE
NUMBER FOR FAST COMMUNICATION.THANK YOU.

MARCUS OLIVEIRA