Mission Accomplished!
A big ole Texas salute to our tough talking monarch who we see here spreading some festive red, white, and blue cheer via the guise of permanent bases. Fuck Yah America! Let's bomb Iran now.
posted by George W. Bush at 1:47 PM
8 Comments:
What's the big deal? We've had over 100k troops in Germany since 1945 and no one seems too upset by that. Having bases in strategic locations makes sense and is in our countries interest. I'm sure Iran has noticed we basically have them surrounded now (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Oman, UAE, Dubai, the US Navy controlls the Persion Gulf.
I agree, we should be bombing Iran to take out their nuclear capability as I elaborated on in a post earlier this month. The pieces are in place.
I also have to ask, what the hell is all of this "tough talking monarch" crap. The last time I checked President Bush has won two elections, will step down on Jan. 20, 2009, and attacked Iraq with Congressional approval (checks and balances and all of that nonsense).
"What's the big deal? We've had over 100k troops in Germany since 1945 and no one seems too upset by that."
You really feel comfortable using the Germany analogy wrt your wonderment that anyone should be concerned about permanent bases in Iraq? The current reading selection suggests that there's a very big deal associated with us having permanent bases in Iraq. There's also the fact that the administration strenuously denies it, so I think they probably understand that it's a big deal, too.
As for it being in our contry's interest, that's highly debatable. According to most people who are reporting on this, the fact that we have 136,000 troops there now doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the infiltration of Iranian agents. Beyond that, why would we need bases in Iraq to bomb Iran? As you noted, our force penetration in the region is already pretty high.
If you like the idea of a permanent US presence in Iraq, that's one thing. It's another thing completely to pretend that the administration's quiet establishment of permanent bases--while denying the whole thing--should be uncontroversial, or has always been part of the deal.
As for the "monarch" thing, Herbman is probably not literally claiming that Bush is a monarch, but rather highlighting the fact that Bush apparently thinks that things like the pesky parts of the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments don't apply to him.
Jeffrey is correct, I wasn't being "literal" when I called el presidente a monarch, I was being facetious. For the record, the Supreme Court handed the 2000 election to him, and the verdict is still out on 2004 voting fraud and irregularities, but that's a whole nother shaBang.
HL, you're absolutely correct, I think, to sustain our status as the numero uno hegemon, we really should be bombing everyone and playing world policeman. Luv kicking ass.
I think we need to have the 2000 election debate, because I'd like to hear what you think of that pesky Article Two that gives state legislatures the power to direct how Electoral College votes are won or lost.
I admit I was upset with the way the 2000 election was handled. It should never have been in the courts. I thought it should have gone to the Florida legislature or to the US House of Representatives. However, the outcome would have been the same since republicans controlled the Fl. leg and the house at the time.
As far as the 2004 election still in question, that is just paranoid fantasy and pure hatred of Bush. Bush clearly won going away. It is wishful thinking by Bush haters that there is any doubt.
"As far as the 2004 election still in question, that is just paranoid fantasy and pure hatred of Bush."
I have to agree with this. Even if Ken Blackburn helped steal Ohio for the Republicans, I would be ashamed to have had Kerry win with the electoral college, but lose the popular vote, just as the shameless Republicans should have been with Bush in 2000. I know it's "in the Constitution," but that part of the Constitution is just bullshit. There's no justifiable excuse for limiting democracy that way if you want to think of your country as a democratic republic.
Debating whether Bush won the 2000 election and the efficacy of the Electoral College are two different debates. Bush won in 2000 with the system that was in place.
I am torn by the electoral college. I understand the argument that it should be a straight popular vote. There is a lot of validity to this argument in my mind. However, I worry about unintended consequences. Why mess with a a system that has worked for 230+ years. There have only been 2 cases where the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral college. Everyone knows the system going in and plays by the same rules.
"Why mess with a a system that has worked for 230+ years."
Because it's not democratic. Either you're for one man, one vote on a republican basis, or you're not.
"Everyone knows the system going in and plays by the same rules."
The rules aren't the same for everyone. If you happen to live in a more populous state, you're vote (for prez, senate, and likely for HOR) counts for less than if you live in a less populous state, and in the presidential election, if you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Utah, your vote is practically meaningless.
I would really like to hear a more substantive argument in favor of the electoral college than "that's just the way it is."
Post a Comment
<< Home