« (Almost) No good news | Main | A worthy (and wordy) diatribe from Al Gore »

May 25, 2004



Hm, we're LESS safe now than before? NO! I couldn't be, Dubya said we would be more safe.

Remember that no-good, ultra-liberal radical Ted Kennedy who warned before the war that "an invasion of Iraq will only serve to swell the ranks of al-Qaeda." I guess in his rush to appease Saddam's vast arsenal of WMDs, he forgot to turn his brain off and stop thinking. The Blame America crowd ought to just shut up, while real men like Bush make us more secure.


Yep, it's "Blame America First", by the way, JJ.

Why is Bush better than Clinton? Well I know Billy is a smooth talkin' good ole boy. Ain't he sweet with the ladies and all.

Why is be better? Because when he was handed Usama on a silver platter, he said, no he ain't so bad. After all he's never attacked us on own soil anyway, (yet). But at least Bill's a sweet talkin' nice nice kinda guy.

Speaking of the Clinton years, remember employment and growth numbers like these?


Remember when we actually had a gigantic budget SURPLUS? Sigh...

Interesting. This must be another Liberal hotbed?
The President has barely finished his speech which, by the way, is supposed to be the first of six speeched and already the drive-up window generation of Liberal nausea and their "balanced" news media types are bitchin? Perhaps after the 3rd or 4th speech but the first one?

And then there's the "the good ol' days" boys and their nostalgia; "Remember when we actually had gigantic budget surpluses". Right, nevermind Clinton was busy getting himself taken care of by Lewinsky while UBL was busy attacking the USS Cole, the embassy's in Kenya, and the first attack on the Towers instead of doing his friggin job. Yep, those were the good ol' day alright.

You guys are a real hoot to watch and listen to.
Amazing how you can take small select pieces of the truth and make it appear to be all there is.
Selective thinking at its finest... Hilarious,
absolutely hilarious......

Thanks for the laughs


Not me above, but I agree.

Everyone wants instant gratification and instant success without looking at the big picture. Hey a dozen of our troops abused Iraqi prisoners. (that would be a dozen out of 135,000). Hey, there's still 1,000 people fighting our troops (out of 25 million).
I know the news media has a role to play and it's supposed to be critical. That's fine. But if all you did was get your news from the BBC, Al Jazeera or NPR, you'd think nobody was happy in Iraq and that every single person wanted us out and that they really don't want elections, they would rather have an Ayatolla or Imam ruling them. Give the Iraqi people a little more credit.

had we listened to the BBC or NPR, we´d know that the reasons for war were a bunch of lies


Is it not arrogant to believe that only people from North America, Europe, and Australia want representative governments? Was that a lie? Is it a lie that Saddam used and hid WMD? Was it a lie that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, raped and murdered young girls, cut off people's hands just for doing business in U.S. currency, IGNORED 18 U.N. SANCTIONS, killed his own sons in law, invaded two sovereign nations, and used the oil of his country that was supposed to go for food and medicine to go for palaces and weapons. Are those all lies? Scoff all you want, but I think the unborn generations of Iraqi's would rather live in a democracy than under the tyrant. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the party of the people. Why do you hate the Iraqi people so much? Go home human shields.

Guys, get a grip. If you want to engage in a debate with people on this site, it would be useful to actually address the issues and leave the psychotic ranting for Yahoo message boards.

At the moment these sweeping generalizations and insults just come across as buffoonish and unhinged. I for one, am getting unnerved that guns are available in America when there are people with this degree of anger and irrationality around, know what I mean?

Please get a dog you can kick or something but at least stop making up bizarre and random assumptions about people. For example, find a post on anywhere on this site that says we don't think Iraqis should have a democracy before you make absurd claims. At the moment you're just coming across as a little unbalanced.


Hey, no dog-kicking!

Still haven't heard "Clinton was a worse president than Bush", backed up by evidence. So far all we get is that Clinton a) is a smooth/sweet talker (is that the same as good communication skills?) b) shagged around and c) let terrorist attacks happen. But:
a) can be a good thing
b) is irrelevant and pro-Bushies must be desperate or they wouldn't keep mentioning it
c) so did Bush. Bigtime.


In reference to item C. Clinton let terrorist attacks happen and did nothing about it. When things got tough in Somalia he cut and ran, which is why Usama felt by attacking on our home ground, we would leave Saudi Arabia and stop supporting Israel. Bush on the other hand, took the fight to the terrorists, (after they started it) and made an example of someone who paid vast rewards to suicide bombers families. I won't argue that Clinton is a good speaker, but sometimes just saying "let's be friends" doesn't work.


I continue to be amazed by the quality of the arguments in favor of Bush's policies when they have so obviously failed. Was Saddam evil? Sure he was. So who was it that kept him in power? That's right, the good 'ol USA when we wanted him to fight Iran. Come to think of it, who supported the Taliban? They were courageous freedom fighters when they fought Russia, weren't they? Bush says democracy, freedom, and the American way just like past presidents who got us into a mess we couldn't handle, yet so many of you worship him without using your brains. The entire administration is filled with oil men, who got suckered into this by Iraqi exiles and had no problem ordering other people children to die for their causes. There are a lot of bad people in the world and get this, some of them can actually hurt us (anyone remember North Korea, they actually have WMD) and we're messing with Iraq while al-Qaeda is growing every day. You think the ordinary Iraqi is worried about democracy? How about getting through the day alive and eating? We know that the American body count is about 800... how about the estimated 20,000+ Iraqi dead that we're responsible for? How many mass graves have we dug? Tell you what, as bad as Saddam was, the normal Iraqi could walk the streets without fearing for his life. To give that up, you better have a damn good reason and ours was about greed, pure and simple. Even worse, our cover story is so bad that our credibility is shot and everyone, even our friends think we suck. Congrats on creating future 9/11s.


Back in the real world, Al Qaida is getting stronger, the Taliban are making a resurgence in Afghanistan, and Palestinian terrorists becoming more violent. Seems nailing Saddam hasn't had suicide bombers quaking in their boots after all.

The war and occupation in Iraq have diverted attention away from dealing with terrorism, and made the world less safe - according to reports from raving lefties like the Army War College and Institute of Strategic Studies. But as they're pointing out that Bush's policies are a dismal failure, they must be wrong. Right?


I'm trying to remember exactly when Bush supported Iraq against Iran. I guess Bush has been in office longer than I thought. By the way, it wasn't exactly Russia, but the Soviet Union at the time. Yes we supported Afghanistan in it's defense against a Soviet invasion (not necessarily the Taliban). So that was wrong to support them now?
North Korea has WMD yes (despite Clinton playing nicey nicey with them). On the other hand, I don't know that they have defied 18 UN sanctions or invaded neighboring nations. I also think Al Qaeda would stick out like a sore thumb and have a hard time recruiting or finding refuge there. But if you want to invade N. Korea and cause them to retaliate against Japan and S. Korea go ahead. Great strategy.
You're right, Iraqi's don't want democracy and they felt better with Saddam in power. I'm sure that's what the majority would say - at least according to Al-Jazeera.


Jim, you must be fluent in arabic, cause the english-text version of Al-Jazeera online doesn't exactly say anything along the lines of: "Iraqi's don't want democracy and they felt better with Saddam in power."

As for the Clinton being the cause of 9/11, let me put that to rest once and for all. In 1983 (or there abouts, don't remember the exact date) a Hizbullah suicide bomber drove a truckbomb into a US Marines building, killing 241 peacekeepers. What did Ronald Reagan do? He promptly recalled all US Marines from Lebanon.

So, here you are today, standing at the crossroads: either Ronald Reagan showed weakness in the face of terrorism and is to blame, or he did the right thing, the smart thing, he pulled
out. Either way, he did the same thing that Clinton did about a decade later. So stop trying to blame everything on Clinton. Everything he did can be said about Reagan, but you don't hear any Democrats or Independents trying to stick the pin on his tail. I think this is a convenient excuse for so many pro-Bushies to keep the blame on anyone and everyone but their beloved hero.
There, hopefully, I won't have to bother with that sad excuse of 'Clinton is to blame' again.


Did I say "Clinton was to blame" for 9/11? No. The terrorists are to blame. I just said Clinton didn't do much when they had attacked. Since when is Ronald Reagan running for office now? Are we going to go through every Republican who has ever held office now? Ok, Lincoln killed hundreds of thousands of southerners who had not attacked us. The main reason for that war was to keep the country together - not to free the slaves. So was it wrong?


Following the teaching's of moral relativism
being taught in schools these days Clinton would
be responsible for 9/11. On the other hand
moral absolutism would say the terrorists are
responsbile for 9/11.



Was Lincoln wrong to engage the south in the American Civil War? Yes? No?


Jim, why do you keep making irrelevant arguments? Obviously Bush didn't support Iraq against Iran and I don't advocate invading North Korea, so why bother saying this or laying blame on Clinton?

My point is that we never act to fight evil as the politicians tell our public. Instead, we use force in accordance with our own greed and continue to do so now. If we were right to support Afghanistan against a Soviet invasion, why are not suicide bombers and the al-Medhi army right in opposing the American invasion of Iraq? Even if they are wrong, why should we give them any excuse to feel so righteous that they would give up their lives to kill us? Imagine people dying every day, foreign troops rolling down your street, searching your house, and having a gasoline shortage when that's something you're supposed to have a lot of?

Your attempt to justify war just because Saddam was evil is lame. Since when has violating a U.N. sanctions been a cause for war? When did Saddam last invade a neighboring nation? Did we do anything about it? We did when it was Kuwait, but we did nothing when it was Iran and a much deadlier war. I wonder why. At least, the rest of the world agreed with us last time. This time, U.S. greed is plain to see.

Your Iraqis want democracy is just as misinformed. Obviously, lots of Iraqis FEAR democracy and did have life better under Saddam. The Sunnis want the life of privilege that they had before and the Kurds want their own country. We thought the Vietnamese wanted democracy too when what they really wanted was an end to the war and foreign troops out of their country.

Last thing, if Lincoln fought the civil war just to keep the country together, then he was wrong. Go ahead, tell me that you would kill a fellow American or risk your own life just to keep that fellow American a member of your own country. In Canada, they took a vote.


the only reason I bring Reagan into this debate is to show you how ridiculous it is to try to blame Clinton for showing weakness. As for Lincoln, I am an amateur student of his writings, so don't even bother.


what I mean is that Lincoln is irrelevant to this debate just like the appeasement comparisons with Hitler were irrelevant to the Iraq war. Can we move on now from these silly point the finger of blame at past presidents?



You use history and association when it's convenient for you, but not when it's not. You bring up Ronald Reagan, who has nothing specifically to do with Iraq. But you say, it's just because I brought up Clinton. Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. all had the Iraq problem. Reagan didn't - at least not in the sense that these three did.
We never go to war to fight evil. Whether it was right or wrong to defend the Vietnamese against communism, I don't think we did it for their oil. They are not, nor were they ever, a very big trading partner with us. And Hitler, who never attacked us, were we after his oil too? And S. Korea., which was one of the poorest counries in the world before the Korean "conflict", did we defend them against communism for the gold in them thar hills? Do you think the people in North Korea wouldn't rather live in the South if they only knew what was there? Most have no idea.
Have a wonderful and safe Memorial Day Weekend.

Hey, it's almost June 6. Vive La France!

Now where did I put all my extra oil?


There is more to US economic interest than oil. It is widely acknowledged that most of our Cold War foreign policy had to do with fighting the "domino effect", which would have (had it been allowed to happen) seriously damaged our trading prospects in the developing world.

It's a little kooky to think America has spent trillions of dollars and sacrificed countless of our own young men out of a deep sense of altruism, don'tcha think?


Well Maryann, I guess I just can't be that cynical. I guess we've all been duped. I know Korea and Vietnam were clearly our biggest trading partners during the Cold War, so I guess it was necessary to defend them.
Was it wrong to stop the spread of communism during the cold war? Look at what it did to those countries who were forced to adopt it, vs. those that didn't.


In this case (communism) you are very right, Jim. Unfortunately, and much to my regret, the Bush administration basically decided to spit on those countries in Europe who didn't want to go along with the war; but along with that, he also trampled the hard work of all the presidents from Truman to Reagan who spent so much time and effort helping defend western Europe from communism. Seems so counterproductive now.

by the way, I was reading this article in the Independent about the anniversary of D-Day. I'm not posting it here to be political but just want to give people access to it. It really isn't that political of an article, it's more of a tribute to the soldiers who died in those days, and our efforts (good and bad) to remember them. Cheers.



Was it wrong to stop communism? Well, when it comes down to it, what exactly is wrong with communism? It's a pretty cool idea for a government, right? Tell you what, I'm an expat in Singapore and think the government is damn close to communism. There's very little crime, virtually no poverty, the city is clean as can be, and there ain't no homeless either. The government subsidizes low wage earners and built an incredible mass transport system...

Do you really think western countries are true democracies? If I am the CEO of a company that gives a candidate a few million bucks, I probably have a much better chance of getting my way than the average schmoe, don't you think? Are you really naive enough to think that Dick Cheney being the former CEO of Halliburton had nothing to do with them landing a lucrative no bid contract for work in Iraq?

I would say that it was right to defend against communism when the people living in the state didn't want it. Unfortunately, the U.S. has always defended against communism for ourselves, so we backed corrupt "democratic" governments in so many places that I can't name them all. Defending against communism worked out well in the former West Germany, but it was a total disaster in China and Vietnam, where we didn't bother to ask what the people wanted. Likewise, what we're defending in Saudi Arabia, an outrageously wealth flaunting corrupt and oppressive government that happens to pump oil for us is exactly what creates terrorists. We used the same formula when we supported Saddam... hell the U.S. even managed to support apartheid in South Africa when it suited us.

My geographic location gives me a pretty good perspective on this. Having been to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, South Korea, and China, it's obvious that little countries were stomping grounds for the wars of big countries. Why don't you ask the kids who are still stepping on American landmines and getting cancer from Agent Orange whether it was worth trying to stop communism for? Go to Myanmar and figure out who those sanctions are hurting, the people in charge or the little guys?

One last thing... since the whole idea of this site is expats against Bush. When I first came to Asia, everyone thought it was very cool that I was American. I was from the dominant country and culture of the world... hell, even my accent was thought more prestigious to that of locals, British, and Australians. In two short years, the Bush administration has managed to change all of that. I swear everyone hates us now. I don't even dare to stay in a Marriott or eat at McDonald's the next time I'm in Malaysia or Indonesia. Give me a reason why it had to be this way?

One last thing, Jim, you really have to get your history right. Hitler didn't attack us, but his Axis ally, Japan, bombed Pearl Harbor. Is that enough provocation for you? He sure as hell would have attacked us if we were closer, even backstabbing former ally Russia.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003