Bad Chihuahua

Moon Dawg

Polythene Pam

Fortunate Son

And the others

Thanks

We miss you

hawkb660 - LMAO!

Oh, they're still lurking around here, these days they're going under:

JoAnna Smith1 = selfish redhead

Mixed Bag = full moon

dangerfield = bad chihuahua

And such!

And they are becoming increasingly agitated about this country not failing under President Obama's calm, intelligent leadership! See you at the Dew Drop Inn, Feisy, out to town today.

Hey, Feisty- is Spanky really B. Dophf?

..and Dangerfield really is Bad Chihuahua.....the Chihuahua Gang is who?

Once gain through intelligence and patient behind the scenes diplomacy President Obama achieves the desired end. The man is a Zen master.

Joe's talking again. This is never good.

Give me VP Biden anyday over the likes of Cheney, or Dan Q-o--as in potato.

No, no, no Jody it's potatoe. I totally agree with you. I take Biden or for that matter President Elect Gore as VP over Darth Vader or the Spelling Bee Champion from Indiana any day.

Biden is as close as you can get to a decent human being in D.C.

Ursula-279622

I think ultimately it'll come out that Mubarak didn't have a death wish after all.

Couldn't you just see him singing Jennifer Hudson's Dreamgirls before he left?

I'm staying

And you, and you

You're gonna love me, oh ooh mm mm

You're gonna love me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMsYg_tACZQ

President Obama said "Oh…Hell to the Naw" and " let me break it down clearly, you didn't hear me the first time....

As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people.

All praise due to the will of the people. Their weapon was was strength in unity and not a sword or gun.

Kinda reminds me of the Civil Right's movement

All right; Crickets (right wing trolls) Holla 3,2,1,...

Like you said Ursula he's gonna live but only without the Egyptians. I doubt if Hosni r will join the rest of the Pharaohs in Cairo.

Well, here goes, dangerfield-

Obama has two historical models to follow in this situation: 1989, or 1979.

In 1989, GHW Bush sent teams of advisors to help eastern Europeans develop models for democratic self governance. Those advisors were instrumental in helping those newly liberated peoples build the institutions necessary for successful, democratic governance.

In 1979, Carter relied on his, and his advisors, viewpoint that Ayatollah Khomeini was a peaceful, "Gandhi like" figure, who would lead the Iranian people to a holy, peaceful state. No one was more shocked than he by the turn of events, and the Iranian people are paying for his miscalculation even today.

It remains to be seen what course Obama will take.

Listen to, and try to emulate the two grown-ups above and see if you can discuss this topic without the "he hit me first" mentality that permeates every thread...

I realize you're feverishly working overtime to reinvent yourself - but so far it's nothing more than an EPIC fail!

Sorry if I can't forget you physically threatening other posters on this board in the past!

I can't say I agree with your limited options or your ideology-drenched "assessment" of the historical parallels, but I will agree that there are several options in dealing with the current situation.

The world is a different place than in 1979, or 1986 and the Egyptian people are the ones who will determine their own future, while the rest of the world watches on 24/7 media and personal media coverage.

Nobody "lost" China...it was presumptuous to ever believe it was ours to lose.

You are firmly ensconced in the "Obama can do no right" camp, which is as rational in it's underpinnings as those in the "Obama can do no wrong" group you do battle with here daily. Neither group can be right when they deal in absolutes and work backwards-beginning with conclusions.

I do agree that it remains to be seen what course EVENTS will take, and that being able to quickly and correctly assess those events will be the difficult job of the administration, which is democratic and the hundreds of dedicated career foreign service professionals who are of all political stripes and do not change from administration to administration. Something you and your many admirers should think about when they're bashing each other.

Hey Feisty Brown-nose. Shouldn't you be off preparing your weekly suck up, I mean thanks, to First Read?

A name-caller that can't stand someone showing appreciation and courtesy to another.

Neat. You will fit right in over here, instead of over on FoxForums, Rocco.

What I like about President Obama, Dangerfield, is that he will not be boxed in by the 2 models No Joe proposes. He will study the history for what can be learned from it and then task his advisors with exploring all the alternatives and challenge them to think outside the box. That is the leadership I voted for. And I think you are right that he will listen to the professionals who serve in the State Department.

Wow, dangerfield. I thought you were looking for "non bashing" conversation.

Where, may I inquire, did I bring up China? I went back to read my post- did not see it.

Nor did I bash Obama. I brought up two parallel situations, and wondered what course he would take.

As to his advisors, I am well aware that there are career professionals at State, and hope that he tunes in to their advice- as his political appointees seem to be rather out of touch with the situation- witness their testimony that they were getting their
Information from the news.

I have applauded Obama on two occasions: when he signed an executive order to allow hospital patients the care and company of whomever they chose, and when he signed DADT. Thus far, those are the only policies with which I have agreed.

This being the U.S., I am not compelled to congratulate him for policies with which I disagree, not to mention those I find destructive to this nation.

I wish there were more from this administration that I could support. That there is not is a source of more angst to
me than to you.

If it is Obama cheerleading you seek, you are on the right website.

Right wing posts are so predicatable--whatever event, insert Pres Obama negative; whatever positive thing, insert Pres Obama negative; and above all, insert comment that President Obama is not intelligent and a failure. Funny thing, all those negatives are the naysayers wishes and none are the reality.

I am very proud of President Barack Obama for bringing the country back from the brink of depression despite the GOPers obstructionism, for being optimistic for our future, for saving the American automobile industry, for passing health care reform, passing financial reform, signing legislation for women's equal pay for equal work, repealing DADT, signing a new START treaty and well just many, many other accomplishments.

To the naysayers--don't let the door hit you on the way out; take your friends with you because misery loves company. Oh, and have a nice weekend!

no joe, no bo, nj

Wow, dangerfield. I thought you were looking for "non bashing" conversation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed I am, and I did not "bash" you or your post. Your assessment of the two "options" you presented are fueled by your ideology, and slanted accordingly. A left leaning doppelganger here would obviously see things differently vis a vis Carter and Bush1, and we might even see someone illustrate that before the end of the thread...

As to the "who lost China?" thing... Sorry,as a student of history(?) I thought you would know that it hearkens back to the supposed failures of US diplomacy and foreign policy to correctly predict and control events in China post WWII...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Hands

It is dusted off for every one of the uprisings that seem to always catch the rest of the world, us included by surprise.

Actually, dangerfield, it is my understanding that "who lost China" was a point of debate between JFK and NIXON during their campaign. I fail to see the relevance to my post.

As to my "ideology " drenched post in re Carter v. Iran,

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7832

While I do not have a ready, scholarly citation to hand with regard to eastern Europe, and Bush 41's impact on those states, I DO remember the furor which arose when he sent state department advisors to guide them in constructing the necessary infrastructure for self governance. One only has to look to the stability of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, et als, to see the wisdom of that strategy.

I did not agree with many of GHW Bush's domestic policies, but on foreign policy, he was proven correct in many, if not most, areas.

This administration could use a little of that.

Republicans need to face up the fact the reason most of the world wishes the U.S. ill is because the neo-con Repubs think they rule the world, other nations have also tried the world domination thingy, it didn't end well for them, it won't for the Repubs either, just wish they wouldn't take the rest of us down with them.

Yes your "ideology suffused" citation clearly supports my statements...

The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements. The Institution has long been a place of scholarship for high-profile conservatives with government experience. A number of Hoover Institution fellows had connections to or held positions in the Bush administration and other Republican administrations. High-profile conservatives Edwin Meese, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Amy Zegart are all Hoover Institution fellows. Retired U.S. Army General John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, was recently named the Institution's first Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

The Hoover institution is a CONSERVATIVE think tank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

How about Brookings?, a LIBERAL think tank?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2004/persianpuzzle.aspx

Wanna bet they have a different take? Of course they do, and that IS my point.

As to the who lost china thing (Kennedy Nixon!!! Was that a joke?), sorry you don't understand the reference...here's a little help

http://www.bookrags.com/research/who-lost-china-debate-aaw-04/

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/acheson4.htm

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article03.html

http://www.economist.com/node/13606318?story_id=13606318

Personally, I believe that it pays to read more than one slant and one source...

Obama has two historical models to follow in this situation: 1989, or 1979.

Sorry njnb but I hope the President doesn't think he has only those two models to choose from. While what happen in Iran was and still is a horrible tragedy and what happened in the old Soviet Eastern Bloc are totally different situations. The Iranians politics and culture are totally different from European politics and culture. They are apples and oranges.

I have high hopes for the Egyptians and with ours and the rest of the worlds help they have a good chance to becoming the democracy they thirst for.

Less than a quarter of the responses to the "Fake Sarah Palin" thread here...that is a statement in itself...

History in the making vs. "shiny object"

make that ratio 10 to 1...

nojonobo:

In 1979, Carter relied on his, and his advisors, viewpoint that Ayatollah Khomeini was a peaceful, "Gandhi like" figure, who would lead the Iranian people to a holy, peaceful state. No one was more shocked than he by the turn of events, and the Iranian people are paying for his miscalculation even today.

There was absolutely nothing that Carter could have done to change the outcome of the revolution in Iran after the US had backed the brutal Shah dictatorship for decades, and before that, having assisted the British in the overthrown the DEMOCRATIC Iranian government in the '50s so the Brits could get at their oil. If the US and Britain hadn't meddled in Iran's affairs, there probably wouldn't have been any Ayatollah Khomeni for the US to worry about.

The situation in Egypt now is more similar to Iran in the '50s prior to the US/British coup. In both cases, there was a home-grown pro-democracy movement. Fortunately for the Egyptians, contemporary Muslim baiters don't have the influence on President Obama that the Red baiters had on President Eisenhower in the '50s.

BTW: I think Eisenhower was one of our best presidents, but backing the Iranian coup was his worst decision.

Unnamed forces in Bahrain have declared a "day of rage" on Monday.

Still hopping up and down with glee?

And, dangerfield, the Hoover Institute is part of Stanford University- not some right wing nut house.

Moreover, the quotes are the same from Brezinski, Young, et ALS, whatever the source.

As are the outcome of the events.

I expect that you are still a Carter supporter.

Pity. I had more respect for your I telligence.

I have to say though that some of the fake Palin posts are really funny.

NJ

The Hoover is a right wing think tank. Half a loaf is still half a loaf. There is more than one assessment of what occurred, and who did or didn't do what, hence the "who lost China" reference.

I haven't stated a position here, so your characterization of my opinion of President Carter is made of whole cloth, no? Once again, your bias is showing. One thing both sides here share is an overeagerness to descend into personalities when confronted with the one sided presentation of their argument.

Did you really not know the history? Surprising.

Would have been nice to be able use sources we BOTH could agree on, and have an actual exchange of ideas...

You had respect for my intelligence?

NoJoe, you of all people should know, dangerfield don't get no....:)

Dangerfield, no, there is NOT more than One assessment what happened in Iran.

The people believed that they were throwing off a repressive regime. They got a MORE repressive regime.

Carter and his advisors thought Khomeini was "some kind of saint", a "Gandhi like figure", "great, holy man". He was anything but.

Egypt? I worry for the state of the world. First, Tunisia. Then Egypt. Yemen. Jordan. Now, Bahrain.

We may be witnessing the end of the world as we know it.

Tell me, do you have a windmill in your yard, and a solar shingle on your car?

You cited just one source. It's the Hoover, uber-conservative, I even provide a list of the "schholars" and suggest we look at other sources too. I reply with multiple sources and if you'd read them (even if you never took history in school) you'd know that there was more than one take (Kissinger, the Mayo Clinic? Catalyst?) then and certainly many over the intervening years. There is always more than one perspective on historical events, often driven by a particular political or social philosophy. Not only that, events are reassessed by every generation of historians and often revised.

Two things you shouldn't worry about; Things you can change...and things you can't change. What happens in Egypt is unknown as of now and we don't get to decide what happens. You are witnessing the beginning of a new world, fearing the worst is your prerogative, but even you hope that things go well I am sure. As the lovely Doris Day sang in "The Man Who Knew Too Much"..."what will be will be"...

You didn't know about the China Hands, "who lost China" or what I meant by the reference, then you erroneously placed it firmly in the wrong historical context, despite my providing a lot of links to the information. Even If you didn't attend college (and I don't know your resume'), as a conservative "thinker" here in the midst of MSNBC-land, it sort of behooves you to know the American history that directly pertains to the very philosophies you espouse, and the events surrounding the communist takeover of mainland China would be one of the biggies in that area.

I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, so no car and no yard and no offense taken...

My remArks about China denoted my belief that "who lost China" is not germane to the is discussion, dangerfield, not my ignorance of the events. That is another discussion, for another time.

While we are on that one, we can bring up Yalta, and the division of Europe, the alliance of Roosevelt and Stalin, among other esoteric topics.

In the situation, 1989 and 1979 are far more germane.

I gave you only one source because the quotes from Brzezinski, Young, Vance, and Carter are the most important clues to what went wrong in Iran. All of them totally and completely misread the Ayatollah Khomeini. In fact, one might conclude that they were deliberately ignorant of his aims- as Clapper is about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Both you and I lived through the Iranian crisis. Our knowledge of that event is extemporaneous. Therefore, you must remember that allowing the Shah, who had been bouncing from country to country since his overthrow, to seek medical treatment in this country was the catalyst for the Embassy takeover- the shah had already been overthrown.

The catalyst for the Shah's overthrow lays at Carter's feet- his administration demanded that Khomeini be allowed back into Iran from his exile in France. So committed to their willful blindness about the motives of Khomeini were they that they excoriated the Washington Post for printing Khomeini's writings while these negotiations were taking place, because these writings revealed a vile, violent fanatic, rather than a "Gandhi like" figure.

It was from your attempt to deflect this fact that I deduced that you still supported Carter. If that deduction was wrong, I am sorry.

I pray for the best for the Egyptian people, but fear the worst. One sees the dominoes falling, and cannot help but see a coordinated effort behind their topple.

What role does the U.S., play? Some have posited that wheat shortages, caused by growing corn for ethanol, contribute to the anger of the mobs, which is being exploited by forces unfriendly to this country.

Is this the only cause? Hunger is certainly a source of anger, but there is probably more than one catalyst.

Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain- all governments friendly to the U.S. I do not know about you, but I see a pattern here.

The fact that I do not believe that the White House sees the same pattern is worrisome. The fact that they make statements that betray their ignorance of the well known philosophy of such groups as may be perpetrating these actions is more worrisome still.

I have never been very good at ignoring that which I cannot change. While I admit that I cannot change things, I can develop a strategy to deal with the aftermath.

One part of which is pointing out the failures of those responsible.

Too late to edit- I meant to say "contemporaneous" rather than " extemporaneous"

I should not type before I have finished my first cup of coffee.

What's amazing Houston, is that FR never called on the previous administration to 'own' anything!

I know that candidate/President Obama certainly asked the Republicans to 'own their mistakes'!

Still waiting for that!

At least we can rest assured that as long as things in Egypt progress in a positive direction, we won't hear about how Obama "owns" what is happening there. It looks to me like the people of Egypt are the real owners of what's going on there, and have been from the start.

But aren't the Republicants perfect? and of course everything for 8 years was Clinton's fault. Hmm..some kind of common link - everthing bad is the democrats fault...and when it is fixed...it has to get broken by the Republicants....but it could not have been fixed by the Democrats because it was their fault. Sounds like they were for it until they were against it and then for it - or was it against it?

Houston. Chuck is still trying to spin the "liberal media" narrative that Obama was caught flat footed, while in reality the administration got it just right. And if anything it is the media who was flailing around looking for answers.

The problem with the media in general and our hosts at FR (for which I am very grateful so please pardon the criticism) is that they are always trying to see the big picture/end result of events rather than allowing the events to play out and then reach a conclusion as to their import.

And just last week, they were whining the President needed to take sides, needed to support Mubarak, needed to be on the right side of this, or whatever. No doubt some will certainly be pushing that line. Poor Glenn Beck, he must be headed to his underground cave where he's got a year's worth of dried food stored.

President Obama doesn't have any friends in the plutocrats media, actually validates that he ain't too bad a cat.

w bush

President Obama doesn't have any friends in the plutocrats media, actually validates that he ain't too bad a cat.

So true. I flipped over to C-span to watch the President's remarks. Some whack-o-doddle Republican called in and said that the President's remarks were immature because he spoke too soon yesterday. That is more proof those who listen to the FOX NOISE echo are such low information voters. If he had said premature, I'd give him a partial break. When the situation is changing from minute to things could be premature. I still maintain the President did his best to strike the necessary balance.

Another whack-o-doddle Republican called in saying that the President's talking about unity, democracy, blah, blah, blah was nothing more than a campaign speech.

Does any one believe me when I say the rabid right wing repeats FOX NOISE verbatim?

No, W used "democracy" as his last excuse for the Iraq War. Did you miss the protester signs "Yes We Can, TOO"?

Jody, Iowa

No, W used "democracy" as his last excuse for the Iraq War. Did you miss the protester signs "Yes We Can, TOO"?

Yes Jody I can prove it too.

Commerce Dept docs: Cheney and oil execs decided to take Iraq's oil in spring 2001

Cory Doctorow at 8:06 AM Thursday, Feb 21, 2008

[snip]

The Commerce Department has been forced by Judicial Watch to turn over records of spring, 2001 meetings held between Dick Cheney and execs from global oil giants, records that suggest that the group decided months BEFORE September 11th that the US energy policy would center on taking control of Iraq's oil:

Since we all now know the Bush administration’s energy policy, there can be only one explanation for the extraordinary efforts Cheney has taken to keep this secret–he was discussing the potential for a takeover of Iraq’s oil with the companies that might manage the resource, even BEFORE 9/11 gave him the excuse to do it.

http://boingboing.net/2008/02/21/commerce-dept-docs-c.html

I flipped over to FOX NOISE and was just shocked, shocked to hear FOX NOISE GIVE it robots this talking point-- this would never have happened if "W" hadn't started the process for democracy in Iraq.

Let's look at the fake time line: Going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan--> dropped Afghanistan to march onward to Iraq for WMDs--> free Iraqis of a dictator-->

The truth is it was all about the oil.

What "credit" would you proudly attribute to our illustrious Commander in Chief, Banana? Just wondering....

Ellie Mae (should) Clampett President Obama done all the correct things looks like to me, he inconspicuously moved some of our aircraft carries into place in case they were needed, he kept his mouth shut until he had meaningful intelligence from the region, and when he did speak he didn't make stupid statements that would piss off others in the region. If Bush and Cheney would have been in office they would have to of immediately made somebody eat lead, not anyone necessarily directly involved, but somebody, maybe invade and occupy some country or something, get it?

Ellie Mae Clampett

What "credit" would you proudly attribute to our illustrious Commander in Chief

For one thing, I'd give him credit for being blamed by the Islamist tyrant that rules Saudi Arabia. Kind of messes up the "Obama is a secret Muslim" narrative, doesn't it?

Houston and W Bush,

Great comments and thank you for your support. Have a great weekend and Happy Valentine's Day!

Ummm Houston, we have a problem... I'm not exactly sure why we would credit Obama for being blamed for anything??? Could you please elaborate a bit more extensively on your post?

Congratulations w bush.. You win the "blame it on Bush" award for today.. You must be so excited? Now run along and get your box of cracker jacks and claim your surprise, get it?

Banana, fawning all over w bush and Houston's posts didn't answer my question? Let's try again... What credit should we give Obama for the happenings in Egypt? I have another question for you.. It is apparent that your hatred runs so deep for Fox News, why are you watching that channel anyway? You should call your cable provider and insist that they delete that channel from your line up.. Whatever happened to that boycott y'all had going for anything Fox and Beck?