Is Barack Obama pushing the stock market down?
A network news outlet has the guts to admit Phil Gramm had a point.
Servicemen shouldn’t feel so bad–Obama doesn’t want to answer questions from Hispanics, either.
An eloquent tribute to Tony Snow’s sense of gratitude. In a town dominated by huge egos, ingrates and backstabbers he was extraordinary, wasn’t he?
Obama says of the Bradenburg Gate kerfuffle “We didn’t have a particular site in mind.” Huh? If so, that’s a whole lot of inaccurate reporting and bizarre leaks from his campaign. He couldn’t be lying, could he?
What was the New Yorker thinking? Conservative publications would never have made the error since they are accustomed to anticipating outrage, but liberals think they can do no wrong. How can they possibly insult and offend when their motives are so pure?
Left largely unsaid in the Tony Snow tributes: the White House was in its defensive crouch in large part due to the utterly incompetent press secretary who preceded Snow.
It is fairly easy to spot the inaccuracy in this post from Andrew Sullivan about the surge’s success: “This is a major achievement, and it would be churlish and wrong to deny the Bush administration credit – at least for the past year or so. At the same time, it confirms everything Obama has said about this conflict from the beginning and much that McCain said over a year ago about the surge.” Confirms everything Obama has said? Except for the part about the surge not working, the desirability of immediately cutting off funds for U.S. troops, the surge’s non-impact on Al Qaeda and the unimportance of Iraq as a battlefield in the war on terror. Small stuff.
Is the bloom off the waffle?
“then what?”
Then we have a nuclear Iran, adding to the vastly enhanced regional power it accrued as a direct result of the Iraq war, and consolidating its power in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan.
And it really is all George W. Bush’s fault. That’s simple fact. It will be one of Bush’s legacies. It is itelling that we are now in the position where we have to sue for peace with them, instead of the other way around.
#1
You need to stop sniffing the glue while you’re working on your famous utopians scrapbook. It wouldn’t matter if Mary Tyler Moore was president, the Iranians have goals that don’t correspond to U.S. goals. The Shiite mullahs that have spread their bishts over the Peacock Throne want power over the secular West and the Sunni Muslims that have held them in bondage these many centuries as well as the removal of Israel from the planet. The U.S. wants their own version of free trade that enhances the American economic hegemony and a status of forces that keeps the U.S. as the most powerful military establishment on earth. Reconciling these two disparate objectives is an impossible chore for diplomacy. Regime change would make it easier. There’s been regime change in the U.S., the mullahs expect it to work in their favor. They will keep spinning the centrifuges, gathering up the materials for nuclear Armageddon, because there is no reason for them to stop. The U.N. sanctions don’t have enough teeth in them to keep the Iranians from building atomic weapons that they have promised to use against the West. Since the mullahs decide who the candidates for public office will be, there’s no immediate danger of regime change there. The most interested western parties will let those most in danger, the Israelis, take steps to neutralize the situation and then chastise them for protecting themselves.
If it fails, as it will, we hit them with tactical nuclear weaponry, and end once and for all their satanic fixation on genocide, annihlationism, world Jewry and global supremacy.
Jeff is dead right to finger GW too.
His legacy will be DEFINED by his decision to allow Tehran to go nuclear.
Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE, Iraq, Afghanistan, EVERYTHING will dwarf into insignificance when compared to the mushroom clouds rising in the high deserts of Persia.
How could it ever have been allowed to get this far; how could it ever have been allowed to come to this!