Re: "You are right about the hair trigger. It is one problem with electing a woman President. We force them to prove they have a pair. Sorry ladies…it’s our, (Men’s) fault."
She's no different than the Neocon chicken hawks who feel they have to prove the same thing!
It is Hillary's State Dept., which is behind the U.S. recognition of the election in Honduras under the auspices of the coup govt. Lanny Davis (a Clinton advisor) was an open supporter of the coup regime.
Yes, She of the "Right-wing Conspiracy" (who was right all along about that) surely wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to (naively) play nice with the Repugs.
You are right about the hair trigger. It is one problem with electing a woman President. We force them to prove they have a pair. Sorry ladies...it's our, (Men's) fault.
@DRichards for “So what is the REAL reason the US is in Afghanistan?”:
You mean other than hubris?
Corporate interests. This is largely a media/corporate/military complex thingy. Lotsa wealthy folk have stock and sit on boards. Look at the holdings of Pappy Bush, Darth Chee-Nee and Slick Willy.
Hillary most likely wouldn't have been any better in regards to these wars we are in, but, my guess is she wouldn't want to emulate Reagan or be hung up on bi-partisan clap trap. She might even have bitch-slapped the banks and Wall St. i doubt Rahm would have had such sway either. We know Bill wouldn't. Oh well...what is done is done.
@Quark: My read on Clinton remains Democrats Love Corporations . . . She remains a Goldwater Gal. No real difference than Obama except a little more hair trigger cuz there is something to prove.
@DDay: If there was a re-do, I’d have already jumped into the wayback-machine and bitch-slap Edwards just before he did the nasty-naked with the bad videographer and drag him into the race for really-reals.
I've thought about Hillary, too, except that she comes out of the corporate DLC which her husband used to such damage to our media and other corporate consolidation. When I think about it, there isn't much Hillary promised which Obama isn't doing, is there?
Echo my constant refrain: Obama has never been anything other than a wishy-washy, mediocre, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist centrist AND there is no/nada/zip/zero evidence extant anywhere that even hints that this assessment is incorrect.
Truth is he was a better choice than McCain and/or Clinton and that is all we have to console ourselves.
My guess is that the President got in the Whitehouse and had a big Holy %$^&! -OR perhaps he is the Manchurian Candidate.... for which then this is our big Holy %^&*!
We have got to use more intelligence and we have to keep fighting the Military Industrial Complex. I do not like Rom Manual.
It could be that he will get the vote from the right if he goes in with more troops as they get excited when they get to go to war. Us? we will have little choice unless of course we could dream about getting in Sanders, Kucincich or Alan Grayson in as President- but then...they may have the same Holy #$%^!
I have the same thought. He has done so much "bargaining" with legislation, appointments, etc. so far. I would like to know what is REALLY involved here (i.e., the motivation.)
DDay,
Re: "You are right about the hair trigger. It is one problem with electing a woman President. We force them to prove they have a pair. Sorry ladies…it’s our, (Men’s) fault."
She's no different than the Neocon chicken hawks who feel they have to prove the same thing!
It is Hillary's State Dept., which is behind the U.S. recognition of the election in Honduras under the auspices of the coup govt. Lanny Davis (a Clinton advisor) was an open supporter of the coup regime.
DDay,
Yes, She of the "Right-wing Conspiracy" (who was right all along about that) surely wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to (naively) play nice with the Repugs.
You are right about the hair trigger. It is one problem with electing a woman President. We force them to prove they have a pair. Sorry ladies...it's our, (Men's) fault.
@DRichards for “So what is the REAL reason the US is in Afghanistan?”:
You mean other than hubris?
Corporate interests. This is largely a media/corporate/military complex thingy. Lotsa wealthy folk have stock and sit on boards. Look at the holdings of Pappy Bush, Darth Chee-Nee and Slick Willy.
Hillary most likely wouldn't have been any better in regards to these wars we are in, but, my guess is she wouldn't want to emulate Reagan or be hung up on bi-partisan clap trap. She might even have bitch-slapped the banks and Wall St. i doubt Rahm would have had such sway either. We know Bill wouldn't. Oh well...what is done is done.
Richard,
Yes, she always seemed to be quite a hawk (to me.)
@Quark: My read on Clinton remains Democrats Love Corporations . . . She remains a Goldwater Gal. No real difference than Obama except a little more hair trigger cuz there is something to prove.
DRichards,
THAT (the Kurdistan pipeline) probably says it all...sadly.
Richard,
Yes!
So what is the REAL reason the US is in Afghanistan? (Does it have anything to do with the kurdistan pipeline)?
@DDay: If there was a re-do, I’d have already jumped into the wayback-machine and bitch-slap Edwards just before he did the nasty-naked with the bad videographer and drag him into the race for really-reals.
DDay,
I've thought about Hillary, too, except that she comes out of the corporate DLC which her husband used to such damage to our media and other corporate consolidation. When I think about it, there isn't much Hillary promised which Obama isn't doing, is there?
If we all remember back to the campaign . . . Obama held the Afghan theater to be a righteous war and Iraq was house of cards built on a sham.
@ Richard
I'm not so sure about Hillary anymore. If I could push a redo...I might.
Echo my constant refrain: Obama has never been anything other than a wishy-washy, mediocre, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist centrist AND there is no/nada/zip/zero evidence extant anywhere that even hints that this assessment is incorrect.
Truth is he was a better choice than McCain and/or Clinton and that is all we have to console ourselves.
@mstag lol ! So Groucho--
Zero G.,
"Zero G. December 1st, 2009, 9:59 am – Your comment is awaiting moderation.
still? was I immoderate? que?"
This often happens when we list more than one URL in a post.
Doesn't the Chinese own our military. Aren't we just their patsys? We will clear off the Middle East, and then sell them cheap Chinese junk.
Zero G. December 1st, 2009, 9:59 am - Your comment is awaiting moderation.
still? was I immoderate? que?
Yes Quark-
My guess is that the President got in the Whitehouse and had a big Holy %$^&! -OR perhaps he is the Manchurian Candidate.... for which then this is our big Holy %^&*!
We have got to use more intelligence and we have to keep fighting the Military Industrial Complex. I do not like Rom Manual.
It could be that he will get the vote from the right if he goes in with more troops as they get excited when they get to go to war. Us? we will have little choice unless of course we could dream about getting in Sanders, Kucincich or Alan Grayson in as President- but then...they may have the same Holy #$%^!
mstaggerlee'
I laughed when Groucho said it, I laugh (with scorn) when Obama says it:
"Hello. I must be going!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6yLRmo7CjU
@DRichards: Personally, I’m okay with 30,000 more troops, if XE/Blackwater gets a pink-slipped w/o lay-off benefits.
@Food Fascist -
I agree - along with Obama's announcement of a temporary troop level escalation in Afghanistan, I also expect he will detail a plan for withdrawal.
Why is it that things always have to get worse, before they get better?
Food Fascist,
Re: "I fear our Obama has been forced into this."
I have the same thought. He has done so much "bargaining" with legislation, appointments, etc. so far. I would like to know what is REALLY involved here (i.e., the motivation.)