? ?
01 August 2007 @ 01:51 pm
Excellent read: "Six years later, most Americans still rightly believe that the United States must confront Islamic terrorism - and must be relentless in preventing terrorist networks from getting weapons of mass destruction. But Bush's premises have proved flawed, and the war-on-terror frame has obscured more than it has clarified."

"So, in the space of a year, the Bush team seems to have gone from condemning the decades-old U.S. policy of backing the Arab regimes to championing precisely that course."

* The largest Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament has walked out.
* House passes ethics bill.
* Bush plans to move against... the Turkish Kurds?
* Guiliani's ideas on health care are sure to be creating discussion.
* Tom Tomorrow has been wondering about a few things.
* Since the fall of the Taliban, what's popular on TV in Afghanistan?
* Indonesian fishermen catch 4-ft. long coelacanth.
* Gambling banned on Second Life.
* Famed football coach Bill Walsh passed away.

EW.com interviews Uwe Boll.
PMMJ: Newscheetahmaster on August 1st, 2007 07:28 pm (UTC)
No, seriously, read this.

"If the United States is to reduce the terrorist threat (diminishing both the probability of attack and the likely scale of harm), the next president must do a far better job of improving the security of civilians abroad, discerning and exploiting fissures among our enemies, persuading our allies to share the burdens of tackling terrorism and strengthening our capacity to withstand attacks at home. None of these steps will be taken in earnest unless we acknowledge the fallacies not simply of Bush’s post-9/11 policies but also of his post-9/11 premises. One question in particular hangs over this discussion: Are the American and international publics so disenchanted with Bush’s effort to curb terrorism the wrong way that they will deprive his successor of the resources he or she needs to change course?"
(Deleted comment)
PMMJ: Newscheetahmaster on August 2nd, 2007 02:28 pm (UTC)
Re: Obama Speaks
* Do you believe he would really take action against Waziristan if Pakistan failed to act?

No clue.

* Do you feel that the phrase "actionable intelligence" is political speech for "never", given the state of our intelligence agencies?
* Do you feel that basing another pre-emptive invasion of another Muslim country on "actionable intelligence" would lead to just another Iraq-esque situation?

Both these are primary considerations from this point forward, thanks to the Bush administration. Remember when intelligence was one of those things you could count on? Good times.

* Do you have concerns that none of the Democrat front-runners listed military action as a possibility in relation to Iran?

I am not concerned, as I don't think Iran has actually taken any actions that would lead me to believe military intervention is a good idea.

Or is that just good sense?

I also seriously, seriously don't think the majority of voters want the government to start a war with Iran at this time.
(Deleted comment)
Strange Detractor: blurprofessorbooty on August 3rd, 2007 01:54 am (UTC)
Re: Guiliani's Health Care Plan
Your commitment to the "mainstream media is leftist and bad" talking point is duly noted.  May Rove's blessing be upon thee.
PMMJ: Newscheetahmaster on August 3rd, 2007 03:55 pm (UTC)
Re: Guiliani's Health Care Plan
This is a fine example of why the mainstream media is no longer worthy of attention and support, in my opinion.

But the nonmainstream media should get your attention, because it's completely unbiased?