Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (4.00 / 2)
I repeat, I mean repeat, what I kept shouting before March 2003:

You think [Saddam/Iran] is a problem? But Bush is not a solution. He is another, bigger problem.


I will become a patissier, God willing.
by tuasfait on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:46:21 AM EST
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 0)
9/11 turned Bush into a problem. Before that he was a first-term lame-duck president.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (4.00 / 2)
I'd argue that Bush was a problem from the get go.  He was not elected but appointed by the Supreme Court.  9-11 was just a very good excuse (a little too good) to invade Iraq, and invading Iraq was why they stole the Presidency.  

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 1)
Except that in his first what? 3 months? Bush managed to piss off Jim Jeffords so much that they lost the Senate majority. So, even in that they were incompetent.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:30:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 1)
Jeffords was already moving in that direction.  He's an old-school, Yankee Republican, sort of in line with Howard Dean.  If we were living in 1905, both Dean and Jeffords would be strong, liberal Republicans.  It's only been in the last three to four decades that the GOP has become a hotbed for extremism.  Even Nixon and Ford maintained some heavily progressive views.

I think he simply found Bush's agenda so irresponsible -- for example, taking us from a record surplus to a projected record deficits (we weren't yet in deficit, but we knew we would be) -- that he decided it was time to leave the party.  There are a few Republicans who haven't left but still hold that sort of view.

Chuck Hagel, who I disagree on any number of issues but greatly admire nonetheless, is increasingly looking that way on foreign policy.  I'd love to see the GOP nominate him in '08, as a safety net to avoid the possibility of more Christian Right influence, but it won't happen.  Lieberman's increasingly right-wing talk sort of cancels out the Hagel effect, too.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 12:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 0)
you got that right regarding Hagel.  I would put him at 100:1 or worse on that.  Personally, I find him clueless--but I would admit there is just something about his personal style that really turns me off.  
by wchurchill on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 02:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (4.00 / 2)
The New York Times Magazine did a profile on him last Sunday.  A big part of his problem is that he doesn't come off as a very optimistic guy, and, as you know, we Americans constantly need sunshine shoved up our asses from politicians.  (Why that is, I don't know.)  Bill Maher told a hilarious joke about it:

"Like Reagan.  He was sunny!  FDR was the sunniest Democrat, but he had polio, and his wife was a dyke.  There was nowhere to go but up."

FDR would've gotten a kick out of that.

Hagel's a Vietnam veteran, so I'm inclined to listen to him on issues of war and peace more so than non-veterans.  That may be unfair, but it's simply a knee-jerk reaction of mine.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 05:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (4.00 / 2)
true, and that sunny thing applies to me as well i'm afraid.
by wchurchill on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 06:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 0)
It applies to me a bit.  I'd like to think I'm reasonably optimistic.  But an intelligent pessimist would be an improvement these days.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 12:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 1)
Americans constantly need sunshine shoved up our asses from politicians.
The Titanic sank during a race to elect the Captain. The guy whose program was to rearrange the chair on the sunbathing deck.</snark>

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 01:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (4.00 / 3)
NOnonononononononononononono-NO!!!!! Iraq WASN'T why they stole the presidency. Getting the presidency by any means neccessary is the reason in and of itself.
by messy on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? (none / 0)
I have to agree, a war was their way to shore up Bush's legitimacy after stealing the presidency.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:50:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: