Comments on: Christmas Wish List

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:56:19 +0000

Preston, you are all over the place, and trying to follow your meanderings is an exercise in futility.
The NYSlimes is a liberal rag, and the mouth for the leftist agenda in this country. After their constant attacks on W, and his administration, along with divulging classified documents, they have no wiggle room. As a sold out corporate supporter of this administration or this country, that is really an odd thing to say, considering that they continue with their leftists agenda, regardless of their shrinking revenue and credibilty. In case you didn’t notice, the Slimes and the Tribune both did a double-take, and an about face, in the link you provided. His being a leftist didn’t bother them, just his being a dictator.

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:22:35 +0000

but the mystery to me on this would be that the NYSlimes and President Bush would be in agreement. Really? It doesn't seem so surprising- where in the corporate media has there ever been enthusiasm for socialism? If that means overthrowing a democratically elected President in a coup d'etat- well, so be it.

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:46:27 +0000

Actually, you might note that I didn’t make any assertion regarding the validity of the claim simply that a Presidential candidate was howled at by the Beltway cognoscenti for making the claim.

For the purposes of my earlier comment I was more interested in the unelected pundits at the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, and Fox that decide for us what is a permissible political opinion- not some theory you may or may not have about the danger of Saddam Hussein conducting operations against the US from his spiderhole.

In any case, Howard Dean did not even say this: Soddomâ€™s capture is directly correlated with the increase of American or coalition service members deaths is a stretch. just that his capture would not make Americans safer.

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:04:41 +0000

I have visited that site many times, mostly for end of month stats, but for comprehensive empirical data, I always refer to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. This pdf is a valuable source of information, but for this discussion, pages eight, fifteen, and sixteen are pertinent. Saying Soddom’s capture is directly correlated with the increase of American or coalition service members deaths is a stretch. That didn’t occur in a vacuum, as the violence by the “dead-enders” and foreign fighters increased as each Iraqi election approached, and as Al Qaida focused on Iraq as the front in the GWOT.
You made an assertion, I asked for you to show causality to support it, and you avoid answering by deferring to some shadowy conspiratorial group? Dang, if you aren’t prepared to support your contentions, then don’t make them.
I’m also glad the Hugo didn’t get to change the Venezuelan constitution, but the mystery to me on this would be that the NYSlimes and President Bush would be in agreement.

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:04:01 +0000

See for yourself. Saddam was captured December 15, 2003- the middle of 'period 2'. The number of Americans has only gone up since his capture. As for causality- that would be the burden of the Villagers. It was their assertion- not Howard Dean's- that Americans would be safer because of Saddam's capture. All of which is an aside to the original point which is that I'm glad that Chavez wasn't granted powers to change the Constitution yet the focus by the New York Times and George Bush on Chavez's authoritarianism- practically alone among world leaders- is a mystery to me.

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:16:13 +0000

Preston, are you being intentionally vague about which Americans?
Are you referring to our troops? Is it you believe there was an increase in the number of dead service men and women because Soddom was captured? I challenge your contention, if so. Show me causality.

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:57:08 +0000

A statement belied by the dramatic increase in American deaths following his capture…

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:25:06 +0000

Unilateral invasion…when did that happen, besides Granada and Panama?
Saddam’s capture, trial, and execution made a whole bunch of people safer, including America, even if it did put a bunch of rapist and mass grave diggers on unemployment.

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:29:59 +0000

I agree No2- but it didn’t turn out so well in Russia…

But I echo these sentiments:

I always find Hugo Chavez to be a somewhat annoying subject because he’s neither the Satanic Hitler as reflected universally in our media (and it’s really creepy how much he’s distorted) nor the Great Savior Of The Left. He’s a left wing populist with an authoritarian streak, but no matter what they say it’s “left wing populist” which makes the Villagers froth, not the authoritarian part. There are plenty of dictators around the world which get respectful treatment from our media, and the anti-Democratic authoritarian actions of our own president disturb them not at all.

But, in any case, it seems the dictator lost an election. Strange dictatorship indeed.

FYI- the term ‘Villagers’ is used for the inside the Beltway journalists and politicians who are allowed to determine the boundaries of acceptable speech, ie It’s acceptable to launch a preemptive, unilateral invasion; It’s not acceptable to note that the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make Americans safer.

By: no2liberals

no2liberals — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:49:19 +0000

Dang! Ever wish for a special Christmas gift, but you just know it is unattainable? Well, Christmas came early this year.