19
Weekend at Henry’s
Why, and how, is Henry Kissinger still alive?
As for what he’s been up to:
Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday. [...]
“A dramatic collapse of Iraq – whatever we think about how the situation was created – would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region,” he said.
Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq’s neighbors – including Iran – and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region.
“I think we have to redefine the course, but I don’t think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal,” he said. [Emphasis added]
First the old “however that happened,” and now comes “the situation was created” — it’s like no one was actually actively going about creating it. Or advising those that did the creating. Well, at least all the problems in Iraq the region can be worked out by getting the permanent members of the Security Council and Iraq’s neighbors together. Why didn’t anyone think of that before?
mikey said,
November 19, 2006 at 22:37
Why, and how, is Henry Kissinger still alive?
HK is the world’s leading authority on authoritarian, dictatorial leadership, suppression of the populice, government terror, death squads, mass torture, idustrial scale murder and genocide. If he didn’t exist, who else could continue to advise western governments on how to shred their constitutions and piss on human rights? Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, Caeser? All dead. Sharon? In a coma. Ahmedinijad, Putin, Hu, Kim? Nope, they play for the other team. Nope, for a “bush league” wannabe dictator like gwb, the guidance of veteran slaughterer kissinger is invaluable…
mikeey
Mr. Mordant said,
November 19, 2006 at 22:50
Why, and how, is Henry Kissinger still alive?
By feasting on the blood of the living, of course! Why? There is no why. Just accept it.
Some Guy said,
November 19, 2006 at 22:56
And unicorns, Mr. Mordant. The sweet, cursed half-life that can only be attainted with tender uncorn blood and meat.
He looks almost like non-masked Vader.
Kathleen said,
November 19, 2006 at 22:57
Unicorns were eaten.
Candy said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:03
Someone should have politically staked that bloodsucker right through his shrivelled black heart years ago. I actually did think he was gone.
a different brad said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:03
Nononononono.
Kissinger stays alive by injecting stem cells harvested from the embryos we’re all told are destroyed. But it takes hundreds of embryos to create enough stem cell solution for an injection, and he needs at least 2 a day to be able to continue to bang the 12 year old he’s currently with. This is why the Bush White House is so vehemently opposed to stem cell research; they need the supply for Henry.
After all, Nixon is dead, so he can’t be there to lead them in the quest to show the country Tricky Dick was right about… ummmmmm, whatever the hell they think it is.
g said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:10
Mistakes were made.
uh huh
Dakota Blue said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:36
Kissinger says military victory is impossible. Sounds like another Bush defector, right? A closer look suggests his thinking is right in line with Bush’s.
“If you mean by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp.
In other words, he’d rather caste aspersions on American democracy than say that past incompetencies have made the situation irretrievable.
Also…
“A dramatic collapse of Iraq — whatever we think about how the situation was created — would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region,” he said.
In other words, we’d better stay the course.
Possible new GOP talking point: “Our plan would bring about the GRADUAL collapse of Iraq; the Dems want a rapid collapse.”
Thlayli said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:41
… now comes “the situation was createdâ€? — it’s like no one was actually actively going about creating it.
Government by four-year-olds. “How did that break?” “It fell.”
(Today’s impeachment drumbeat: “California Ãœber Alles”.)
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:44
I read the transcript of GWB’s post-election press conference. You know, the one where he explained that the voters’ rejection of Republican candidates was “a call for bipartisanship”. But what jumped out at me was this sentence:
“Yet, I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat”.
The dictionary could do with a new definition…
“re·al·i·ty (ree-al-i-tee) (n). A situation that doesn’t go away when you refuse to accept it.”
steve_e said,
November 19, 2006 at 23:50
How can you guys disregard the advice of an elder statesman like Henry Kissinger? He talks to the bobbleheads on teevee every once in a while. That means he’s a serious thinker we should listen to.
J— said,
November 20, 2006 at 0:43
First the old “however that happened,� and now comes “the situation was created�
Step three will be Aerosmith lyrics as foreign policy analysis:
“The past is gone. It goes by, like dusk to dawn.”
Gary Ruppert said,
November 20, 2006 at 1:50
The fact is that the Dems do not have anyone with the creditability or presence of Kissinger to help win the world for USA. All you can do is surrender, and you do not have the guts to win.
jeff said,
November 20, 2006 at 1:50
Mayor’s tie is crooked
Lesley said,
November 20, 2006 at 1:55
Yeah, it’s akin to a serial killer’s defense attorney saying “However the women ended up stabbed 50 times…”
a different brad said,
November 20, 2006 at 2:03
Creditability.
Yes Gary, only Kissinger has the creditability.
a different brad said,
November 20, 2006 at 2:08
And yes, it is a word, but that’s just because of the Gary’s of the world.
The word is credibility, dammit.
Djur said,
November 20, 2006 at 2:13
“… win the world for USA …”
There’s the crux of it, ain’t it.
EdsAppliance said,
November 20, 2006 at 2:19
With zombie Kissinger that close, if I were Bloomberg, I would keep an eye on my brain.
His Grace said,
November 20, 2006 at 2:24
I agree Gary. Kissinger’s victory in Vietnam teaches us that we should just keep staying the course, indefinitely, regardless of the consequences. Because admitting defeat is actually worse than destroying a nation.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
November 20, 2006 at 2:47
Or a bunch of nations, His Grace. Hey, how our Cambodian friends, the Khmer Rouge?
Did somebody mention teh Dead Kennedys?
P.S. This one’s for you, Thlayli.
mikey said,
November 20, 2006 at 3:06
All you can do is surrender, and you do not have the guts to win.
Golly gee, Gary, I sure wish we had your guts. Wowie, that would be something. Tell me again about your combat experiences? And your medals? And all those times you were wounded. Yeah, man alive, to have your guts would make all the difference in the world.
Pppssssshhhh….
mikey
His Grace said,
November 20, 2006 at 3:12
Ifthethuderdontgetya, I was thinking more in the present context. My current optimistic hope for the future is that Bush only manages to completely destroy one nation with damning consequences for the entire world. But crap, I forgot about Afghanistan and have probably put too much faith in the idea that a stern rebuke at the polls might convince the Let’s Bomb Iran crowd that more carnage in the Middle East will solve the world’s problems.
Because that secret bombings of Cambodia worked, didn’t they?
Adorable Girlfriend said,
November 20, 2006 at 3:21
Much like Rose Kennedy, when it comes to Kissenger, we have a don’t ask and don’t tell policy.
Notorious P.A.T. said,
November 20, 2006 at 3:28
Government by four-year-olds. “How did that break?� “It fell.�
Reminds me of a four-year-old I used to know. “How did that toy break?” “Not my fault!” “But it wasn’t broken when we gave it to you.” “yeah” “And it’s broken now” “yeah” “So who broke it?” “I dunno!!!”
steve_e said,
November 20, 2006 at 3:29
Gary has a throbbing callus on the tips of three, count ‘em, three of his fingertips. He should get a Purple Heart, a Medal of Freedom, and a Keyboard Kommando Golden Cheeto for his service.
Kathleen said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:04
too bad you can’t run Kissinger in 2008, huh Gary?
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:07
His Grace, I just wanted to make sure Kissinger got his dew. Or due.
And I forgot East Timor, and the Kurds.
The Kurds:
The U.S. coldly betrayed its erstwhile Kurdish “allies,” but even then, as the Pike Commission sardonically noted, “The cynicism of the U.S. and its ally had not yet completely run its course.” Barzani had written to Kissinger, pleading desperately for help. Kissinger didn’t bother replying.
Washington then “refused to extend humanitarian assistance to the thousands of refugees created by the abrupt termination of military aid,” the Pike Commission reported. One CIA cable acknowledged, “[O]ur ally [Iran] was later to forcibly return over 40,000 of the refugees and the United States government refused to admit even one refugee into the United States by way of political asylum even though they qualified for such admittance.”
East Timor:
Suharto was given the green light to do what he did. There was discussion in the Embassy and in traffic with the State Department about the problems that would be created for us if the public and Congress became aware of the level and type of military assistance that was going to Indonesia at that time. Without continued heavy US military support the Indonesians might not have been able to pull it off.
(I thought it would be nice to include drunken Hitchen’s indictment, since he and Henry are now BFF with regards to Iraq.)
phlebitis rex said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:20
“Why, and how, is Henry Kissinger still alive?”
That photo’s from a Vegas wax museum.
Smiling Mortician said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:21
A brief history of the passive voice in the United States:
1. Africans were enslaved.
2. Native Americans were placed on reservations.
3. Japanese Americans were ordered into internment camps.
4. Students were shot at Kent State.
5. Cambodians were bombed.
6. Opposition candidates’ medical records were stolen.
7. Eighteen and a half minutes were erased.
8. Convicted officials were pardoned.
9. Attempts were made to trade arms for hostages.
10. Deals were made to enrich energy executives.
11. Iraq was linked to 9/11.
12. WMDs were said to exist.
13. Government contracts were offered to enrich more executives.
14. The war was waged incompetently.
15. Invasion of Iran was considered.
*sigh*
But seriously — Sharon’s still in a coma? I lost track.
Jillian said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:32
Interesting historical sidenote…
I have it on good authority that Kissinger doesn’t leave the country without first contacting whatever the other country’s equivalent of the State department is to get assurances that he won’t be arrested and turned over to the Hague.
In other words, we’re harboring a war criminal. But why should that matter? We’re America; we can do whatever we damn well please.
DocAmazing said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:41
New slogan:
The Republican Party–Activists for the Passive Voice!
mikey said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:41
People I don’t know tried real hard to kill me.
I don’t like this game
miikey
Mo's Bike Shop said,
November 20, 2006 at 4:59
After all, Nixon is dead, so he can’t be there to lead them in the quest to show the country Tricky Dick was right about‚–ummmmmm, whatever the hell they think it is.
Checkers!
annieangel said,
November 20, 2006 at 5:30
That’s a mean thing to say about Kissinger. Mean isn’t funny, dumbass.
George Johnston said,
November 20, 2006 at 5:57
I noticed ““the situation was created” also. It appears the passive voice gets a lot done.
the_millionaire_lebowski said,
November 20, 2006 at 7:44
anyone else see the Venture Bros rendition of Kissinger: “Number Doctor Henry Killingger”?
Some Guy said,
November 20, 2006 at 8:28
Meaness is the kernal of all humor, Anne. That’s why it’s so tricky to do it well.
TC said,
November 20, 2006 at 8:35
I don’t think Kissinger rates humor.
At this point, he deserves mean.
Anne Laurie said,
November 20, 2006 at 8:42
Why, and how, is Henry Kissinger still alive?
As my late Irish granny would say, “Heaven won’t have him, and Hell doesn’t want him!”
I have it on good authority that Kissinger doesn’t leave the country without first contacting whatever the other country’s equivalent of the State department is to get assurances that he won’t be arrested and turned over to the Hague.
Don’t be silly, Jillian. Kissinger has people who take care of messy little details like that. Carlyle people, for instance — like Bush 41.
That’s a mean thing to say about Kissinger. Mean isn’t funny, dumbass.
Mass murder isn’t funny, and enabling mass murder in various places around the globe is what Dr. Kissinger will be remembered for. You kids shouldn’t be hanging around here, you know — next time you get caught posting with the grown-ups, your parents are going to take away your internet privileges until you’re old enough to vote, assuming you live that long.
Passive Voice said,
November 20, 2006 at 8:44
Someone has to do all the work around here.
Passive Voice said,
November 20, 2006 at 8:45
The tag was already broken when I came here!
Gary Ruppert said,
November 20, 2006 at 9:05
It appears that the Dems are going to push for a mandatory military draft.
Well, I guess they have to take out their frustrations on Republicans somehow.
But then again, the Democrat base won’t face military service. After all, illegals and homosexuals don’t actively seek out military service.
Some Guy said,
November 20, 2006 at 9:21
Hahahaha! Ohhhhh, Gary, you little rascal!
heee-hehehehe.
By “Dems”, you, of course, mean one guy.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html
And his mandatory draft proposal (never going to happen) would be used as a tool to bring about some… close to home repercussions to deciding to go to war.
I’m not sure i see how this is “taking out frustrations”, but okay. I guess I could buy that is it, since his big talking point is, “we would never have gone to Iraq if Congressmen and the President had to worry about their own kids going off to Baghdad. Though he apparently proposed a draft BEFORE Iraq started, so I guess that kinda invalidates that.
Actually, many homosexuals DO seek out military service. You would know this, if you paid any attention at all. I can’t swee the Army turning down illegals who enlist as grunts, and there are quite a few legal immigrants and non-imigrants serving in the military as well.
I have not read his proposal, maybe you have, but I doubt there’s a “Excemption for Democrats” subsection.
Sorry, I’m in a real “feed the trolls” mood.
Famous Soviet Athlete said,
November 20, 2006 at 10:22
After all, illegals and homosexuals don’t actively seek out military service.
On July 3, 2002, President Bush recognized the contributions of immigrants in the U.S. Armed Forces by signing an executive order that provided for “expedited naturalizationâ€? of non-citizen men and women serving on active-duty status since September 11, 2001. The order granted some 15,000 members of the U.S. military who served fewer than three years the right to apply for expedited citizenship in recognition of their service. – White House Office of the Press Secretary, July 4, 2002 White House Daily Briefing.
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2003_pr001_soldier.asp
Gary, why aren’t you in uniform?
Worst. President. Ever. said,
November 20, 2006 at 11:32
But then again, the Democrat base won’t face military service. After all, illegals and homosexuals don’t actively seek out military service.
Maybe Gary’s got a point here, All the following people must be illegals or homosexuals!
Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.
Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond
a different brad said,
November 20, 2006 at 11:40
One of the quickest ways to citizenship is to serve in the armed forces. Something like 1% of the total of our men and women in uniform are non-citizen immigrants, based on a little quick googling. That 1% is tens of thousands of non-citizens who are doing far more than you ever have or will for this country, Gary.
But maybe we’re wrong and you did serve but are too dignified to bring it up. Tell us about your adventures in active service in your 20s in Clinton’s wars, Gary my second greatest love after ricky moran. Tell us about the ways your fat ass has defended the nation.
I didn’t serve, but I don’t say the stupid shit you do, Gary.
a different brad said,
November 20, 2006 at 11:43
Whoops. Didn’t see famous soviet athlete’s post. Damn commies, using steroids to be faster than good ole God and black men fearin’ amurkins.
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 20, 2006 at 12:03
A brief history of the passive voice in the United States:
16. The Preview button was stolen.
His Grace said,
November 20, 2006 at 14:57
Come on people, Gary is bravely battling on the home front of the War on Terror. He is employing sophisticated electronic warfare techniques against an enemy sometimes only he can see. True, it might be brave to drive down the highway connecting the green zone to Baghdad International Airport. Neither I nor Gary have been there, so we can’t say. What I do know is that Gary takes the initiative every day and puts his neck on the line, bravely denouncing people and putting the blame for the carnage in Iraq squarely where it belongs: On people who have had no power over the decisions that got the US in there. With your leadership Gary, and your eye for getting what needs to be done, done, I can’t possibly imagine why the Iraq policy, as Kissinger said, is going to fail.
Gary Ruppert said,
November 20, 2006 at 16:25
I’ve helped fight terrorism by voting Republican.
As for the Democrat Draft plan. Rangel is a very senior Democrat and a committee chairman.
I expect Nancy Pelosi to try and strongarm Democrats into supporting the Draft, like she did with John Murtha.
Gary Ruppert said,
November 20, 2006 at 16:37
Plain and simple: Rangel wants a draft so he can undercut the War on Terror.
His Grace said,
November 20, 2006 at 16:50
Wow, what a brave sacrifice that was Gary. Truly the greatest generation would be impressed.
Gary, I am sorry I am even asking this, but WHY would a draft undercut the War on Terror? Seems to me that the current brilliant plan to save the day is to send 20 000 troops that you don’t have to Iraq (or merely shift some around robbing Peter to pay Paul but I digress). So how would a draft hurt, other than maybe ship your sorry ass to the desert?
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
November 20, 2006 at 17:26
I ran across this comment over at alicublog.
Gary, does it remind you of anyone in particular?
Shalimar said,
November 20, 2006 at 20:22
Translated to the financial world, Kissinger is basically saying, “I know you were a millionaire before you took my advice a few years ago, but forget about that now. I have a great investment for your last $5000 that’s guaranteed to earn more than any of the alternatives.”
dAVE said,
November 20, 2006 at 21:11
As if 20,000 more troops will do anything. You’d need at least 10 times that, and it still probably wouldn’t work.
Remember how we were all told how evil and cruel Saddam was because if you crossed him, he’d kill everyone in your family all the way out to your third cousin, your parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, children, etc?
Maybe that’s what you HAVE to do in order to maintain control in Iraq. Of course, it’s evil and utterly wrong.
So, let’s just leave.
His Grace said,
November 20, 2006 at 22:13
Your right Dave. I think it is a matter of inevitability before the wingnuts and the whitehouse start championing the need for someone “strong enough” to take charge of Iraq because the Iraqis aren’t worthy of freedom or something. Well, that’s what the wingnuts will say. The whitehouse would say something in of the order of this is a temporary cessation of the constitution to prevent the disintegration of the Iraqi state.
JelloWasRight! said,
November 20, 2006 at 22:54
Jello was fucking right 25 years ago and he is still right today.
Did anyone listen? No.
craigie said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:01
How do we know he’s still alive? I mean, in the human sense?
craigie said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:05
Plain and simple: Rangel wants a draft so he can undercut the War on Terror.
Wow. Just wow. Frame that one. It’s incoherence made into electrons.
“If we send more people to Iraq, we will lose! If we bring the people who are there back, we will lose! The only way to win is to stand very, very still, and whisper ‘we’re hunting wabbits. huhuhuhuh’ “
dAVE said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:19
Your Grace –
The other week I saw a Frontline piece called “The Lost Year” – It was all about the first year after the invasion. My God, they really did everything wrong that they possibly could. It was horrible. There was no chance for Iraq to not descend into chaos from the moment they went in with insufficient troops to prevent the looting. Then, they disbanded the entire fucking Iraqi army and let them go home with no jobs and their weapons. What did they think was gonna fucking happen? Oh right, flowers and chocolates.
Look, people want security and stability before freedom. Look what happened here in the USA after 9/11. People got scared and were more than willing to give up all kinds of rights in order to feel more secure. In a country that’s been a police state (I’m talking about Iraq now) for a few decades, of course people are gonna freak out when the powers that be are overthrown.
Then, the privileged minority (the Sunni) get thrown out of their jobs while the long-oppressed majority (the Shia) get the opportunity for some payback. Plus the Kurds. Of course there’s gonna be all kindsa shit going on.
So, how did I know all this shit was gonna happen, and the so-called “experts” didn’t?
Grrr!!!!
mikey said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:29
“If we send more people to Iraq, we will lose! If we bring the people who are there back, we will lose! The only way to win is to stand very, very still, and whisper ‘we’re hunting wabbits. huhuhuhuh’ “
Craigie, that’s freakin beautiful. You have the makings of a real high quality wingnut, except you seem to be smart and sane. But if you paid somebody to drop ten cinderblocks on your head every day for a few years, you’d blow glenn and hugh away.
But can anyone explain to me why gary and his ilk think we want the terrorists to win? Do they think we want to be blown up? And we’re seriously pissed about the patriot act, why would we want Shari’a law? And many of us are deeply disdainful of religion, why would we support clerical rule? I mean, this makes no sense to me. Maybe somebody can ‘splain it to me, loocey?
mikey
Kathleen said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:36
I love the Venture Bros.
I am so glad to see the real Gary is back. “Plain and simple: Rangel wants a draft so he can undercut the War on Terror.” Oh Gary, that is why you are my favorite.
Some Guy said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:47
Reading Gary is like watching a bulldog chase it’s tail. It’s just.. hypnotic…
a different brad said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:50
They don’t actually think it, mikey, except for the clinically retarded members of the group, which admittedly is a large part of it. Even shrub owned up to it being campaign propoganda. What makes Gary especially sad is he’s still trying to sell it, after the electorate made clear they’re done falling for it.
So are you just a poor loser and a liar, Gary, or are you really that stupid?
I live in nyc, Gary. Since before that day. I ride the subways daily. Insofar as terrorism really is a threat, which is debatable, I’m at a hell of a lot more risk than you. Yet I haven’t pissed my pants and grabbed hold of the nearest politican to play strong daddy.
What I need explained to me is how obvious cowardice such as Gary’s gets transmogrified into a brave stance.
I didn’t let the terrorists change me, Gary. 9/11 did not change everything. You, on the other hand, as acting rep of the conservative movement, gave up everything you ever claimed to believe in, like small government, the individual’s right to not have government monitor or interfere in their lives, and so on.
If you’re just stupid I pity you, Gary. But considering you’re a paid government contractor you’re a traitor, not just to America, but to the principles of your side. You have no beliefs, you’re just a sports fan cheering on the team in red.
dAVE said,
November 20, 2006 at 23:54
mikey -
I’ve had the same thought: the hedonistic, pro-gay, pro-atheist, pro-feminist liberals want the Islamofascists to win is somehow supposed to make sense in the wingnut mind. Here’s what I’ve come up with:
1) We do not realize that by opposing the war, warrantless wiretapping, etc, and tolerating diversity (muslims) we are sowing the seeds for America’s defeat. This one says that we don’t realize that our actions will our downfall. Our very philosophy is self-defeating. Wingnuts who subscribe to this view delight in the idea of the liberals being the first to be stoned to death when the Islamofascists do take over.
2) We liberals hate America and Bush soooo much that we would rather live under Sharia law just to make Bush look bad. We would rather see Christians oppressed than Muslims, just because we are SOOO full of hate.
3) “I know, it’s crazy! But that just goes to show you, Liberals are so irrational, that they just don’t even see that they don’t make any sense!” This projects the irrationality of the view onto liberals, rather than acknowleding that painting liberals as both pro-gay, feminist, etc. and pro-Islamofascist doesn’t make any sense on it’s face.
craigie said,
November 21, 2006 at 0:02
Look, it’s very simple:
1. Terrorism is a true, existential threat to the US. That is, if the terrorists win, then the US will cease to exist. That is the fear we are meant to buy into.
2. Following on from (1), it stands that we must do everything we can to not let them win. After all, if they win, we die. This is for all the marbles, people. Everything, that is, except
– raise taxes
– draft people, especially not Republican people
– preserve the Constitution, the thing that defines the freedoms that they hate so much
– conserve energy and/or look for ways not to rely on foreign energy sources
See? Perfectly logical.
His Grace said,
November 21, 2006 at 0:11
Easy. You asked yourself questions, beginning with “OK, so what if things don’t go according to how George Bush says they’ll go…”
The whole pundocracy never thought to ask that question. Hell, they even began with the incredibly stupid assumption that Gulf War II would be the same as Gulf War I, but with twice the ratings. And sure, like any sequel it sold more tickets than the first movie, BUT the thing of it was, it was about as well thought out as any hurried direct to video release.
Side note: The Fact is that Rural Missouri is the #1 Target of Al-Qaeda. The terrorists would never attack the freedom hating regions of the USA.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
November 21, 2006 at 0:50
Here’s some more The Fact Is, courtesy of Josh Marshall.
The fact is, we can’t afford to let the pretendisent waste two more years ‘staying the course’ just so he can hand the debacle off to someone else.
Yasonyacky said,
November 21, 2006 at 1:08
That’s a mean thing to say about Kissinger. Mean isn’t funny, dumbass.
Yeah, guys, Annie’s right! Don’t be mean to the grandfather of state-sponsored torture in the U.S.!
mikey said,
November 21, 2006 at 1:31
I’m sure annie could have found plenty to laugh at in the National Stadium in Santiago in the fall of ’73. No need to be mean….
mikey
craigie said,
November 21, 2006 at 1:41
I think the word you want is “shrill”
Do anything you want, just don’t be shrill. We can’t have that.
TC said,
November 21, 2006 at 1:47
Yeah, it’s been a while since we were shrill.
Righteous Bubba said,
November 21, 2006 at 1:50
I don’t think Kissinger rates humor.
Kissinger? I don’t even know her!
Smiling Mortician said,
November 21, 2006 at 2:11
Personally, I blame Eric Idle.
Henry Kissinger
How I’m missing yer
You’re so chubby and so neat
With your funny clothes and your squishy nose
You’re like a German parakeet
All right so people say that you don’t care
But you’ve got nicer legs than Hitler
And bigger tits than Cher
Henry Kissinger
How I’m missing yer
And wishing you were here.
Strange Forces said,
November 21, 2006 at 2:36
Mikey – I believe that it’s part of the “us or them” mindset. If they (Das Wingnutten) are _against_ the terrorists, it only logically follows that we (Crazy Loony Leftists) must be _for_ the terrorists. Otherwise, we’d be totally voting Republican!
Some “logical” constructs:
Givens-
(Questioning) (The Government) = (Displeasure) at (The Government) = (Hatred) of (The Government) = Desire to (Violently Overthrow) (The Government)
(The Terrorists) wish to (Violently Overthrow) (The Government)
(Everyone) = (Any Politcally-Minded Group)
(Everyone) wants to (Win)
From these givens, we can deduce:
(Everyone) who (Questions) (The Government) is a (Terrorist)
And
(Terrorists) want to (Win)
Or something like that.
His Grace said,
November 21, 2006 at 2:49
Strange Forces, may I take a stab at it too?
The Terrorists want to defeat the US
Ergo, they wish to defeat the American strategy of Stay the Course
Ergo, pointing out that said slogan has failed aids the terrorists
Ergo, anyone who proposes anything other than what the Republicans do is aiding the terrorists.
Ergo, if you aid the terrorists, you must want them to win
Ergo, Rep Rangel’s plan to reconstitute the draft means he wants the US to be defeated in the War on Terror.
Am I close Gary?
Worst. President. Ever. said,
November 21, 2006 at 3:12
I think His Grace has nailed it.
Wingnut logic eminds me of the old saying by Cyrano de Bergerac (Edmund Rostand)
“You can call it a lie if you like, but a lie is a kind of myth, and a myth is a kind of truth.”
mikey said,
November 21, 2006 at 3:38
Ahhh. And in the depths of my most sociopathic moments, I have explained calmly and carefully that: “To the extent that you genuinely believe it to be true, it’s not a lie”.
And in the words of Jackson Browne.
“And that’s true”….
mikey
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 5:30
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/20/oreilly-ipod/
I think Billo has finally accepted that his audiance is geriatric retirees. “Damn kids! With their technology and their gadgets! Back in our day, we had nothing but a wooden train, and that was more then enough to keep us happy! In fact, we didnt’ even have a train, it was brick with wheels; we had to PRETEND it was a train!”
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 5:49
Liberals always become what they hate, because they know they are inferior.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
November 21, 2006 at 6:30
Ladies and Gentlemen, this wingnut editorial deserves some kind of prize.
Watch out, Pastor Swank!
America won’t win another war until the 1960s flower children are pushing up petunias.
Radicalized, the flower children morphed into lefty loonies who now masquerade as social progressives.
….
It’s crucial that we come to terms with war questions because we will have war with Iran and North Korea. It will come down to their children or ours, their soldiers or ours, their countries or ours.
a different brad said,
November 21, 2006 at 6:47
But what about us liberals who don’t give in to hate, princess?
I realized back in college that often what I respond most negatively in others is what I most want not to be in my own self.
Plus, when you hate someone or something, you give them power over you. Passion takes over and reason goes byebye. It’s the flip side of love, only without benefits.
So what’s my ordained destiny?
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:01
If you can hold on to your principles until you grow up, you’ll be a Republican. :)
a different brad said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:06
My principles and republicanism are mutually contradictory, princess.
Ask the magic 8-ball again.
craigie said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:11
I think pretty much by definition, a Republican is a 5-year-old child. It’s all “me me me mine mine mine.” Plus, like children, if you disagree with them they freak out and start shouting “you hate me! I hate you! etc”
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:18
What the hell is your problem, would-be Brad? Miss Annie isn’t your princess.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:19
Call her a princess again and I’ll kick your ass.
Astrid said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:22
A new post for a new week? Sadly, . . . .
[Of course, you know that people whining about how there's no new posts is a GOOD kind of problem to have!]
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:24
Gary Ruppert said,
I’ve helped fight terrorism by voting Republican.
That’s a classic Gary-ism… imagine it on a t-shirt. Or more likely a lapel button (do Young Republicans wear t-shirts?).
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:25
He’ll climb through his intertubes and do it, different brad. I’ve seen it. It’s like that old X-Files episode, about the guy with no bones. Creepy.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:27
I have to watch out, though, a different brad is a *fencer*
Scary? No.
ifthethunderdontgetya said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:29
You see, a different brad, why drunken annie and her as yet undrafted fellow dimwits merit no response?
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:31
I’m not drunken.
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:40
And anyway, ITTDGY, Brad wants to marry me and take me to live in his parent’s mansion in Florida. So bite me.
a different brad said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:48
Final feeding, but I have to take issue with that last one.
First off, I don’t want to live in Florida. Nice place to visit, but full of batshit crazies.
Second, ain’t a mansion. Nice place, but don’t get your hopes up, princess.
Finally, you’re running out of child bearing years. Sorry, but it’s true. I want the girl I marry to be able and willing to squeeze one out.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:52
Different Brad, trying to be mean to Miss Annie because she has constantly rejected you and you haven’t a chance in hell doesn’t make you a man.
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 7:52
Nonsense. Nice attempt an an insult though, I’m glad that you don’t hold hate in your heart, Brad. :)
Mauro said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:00
After a time the liver spots began to organize. They developed a rudimentary means of steering the host from state dinner, to summit meeting, to long afternoons at the club. Some spots learned to operate the larynx and others learned to form the lips into the beginnings of vocalizations in a sort of guttural Germanic sub dialect. Eventually the spots developed a world view from the perspective of their symbiotic relationship with the Henry. They looked at the war and decided the Henry should say something, but not in a way that it would be understood by others without spots.
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:09
This is turning into some weird, Degrassi fanfic thing.
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:13
You’re Joey Jeremiah, Some Guy.
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:20
Is he the dude with the hat? Cause that’s a pretty badass hat.
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:22
I thought Joey Jeremiah was just some guy.
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:23
It made him go bald.
Jezebel said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:32
Just curious Annie and Gary:
Have either of you ever fought in the current conflict or the previous one(s) Kissinger advocated? Had any relatives who did?
Shoelimpyâ„¢ said,
November 21, 2006 at 8:52
I have relatives who fought in previous conflicts Kissinger advocated. One still has a bullet in his gut that was fired at him by enemy agents in the line of duty. And let me tell you, he is very much in support of the current conflict as well.
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:05
I dunno, I’d say bald is better then some weird obsession with an online political commentor.
And it’s still a pretyt badass hat.
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:19
In other news.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6851/680/1600/HFUKteaser.jpg
Sweet bloody christ, where is my calender, and when can I mark it?!
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:30
I really wish Brad would get over his obsession with me. :(
a different brad said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:44
At best you come in third, princess, behind ricky moran and gary.
Pam Atlas is just about tied with you. Start doing vlogs in string bikinis, maybe.
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:54
You’re a sexist asshole. Just so you know. You’ll never find a woman, because you really don’t like women. I’m not saying you’re gay, just that one a deep level, you hate women.
And Jesus.
Plus you are very boring and you don’t know it. At first it was funny to see you try so hard, but then it just got old and you didn’t stop.
I’m not your princess, or your lover, as you have called me. Your remarks only go to show that you are a sexist and therefore not a true liberal. :D
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:57
Don’t you kids have homework to do?
annieangel said,
November 21, 2006 at 9:57
Brad does. :D :D :D
TC said,
November 21, 2006 at 10:27
AA, you’re the one who always shows up over here, making weird statements and trying to derail threads.
I think you better re-think your concept of who is obsessed.
a different brad said,
November 21, 2006 at 10:38
The only thing you said that’s true is that i have homework i should be doing. In fact, i am doing it. You’re providing me with breaks from Heidegger.
But you’re wrong. You are my princess, you’re just not my true love like ricky moran is. I’m sorry that upsets you, but we can’t pick who we love.
Every woman is my special princess, no matter where they fall in my private rankings, rankings based on how attractive they are and how likely i think it is they’d sleep with me. If i hated women why would i spend so much time revising those rankings?
Some Guy said,
November 21, 2006 at 11:28
“And Jesus” should have been immediately following your statement that he is a woman hater, as I assume you mean he hates Jesus as well as women, and should not be in a separate paragraph. Paragraphs indicate a change of subject, and cannot be used to visualize a pause of thought.
Did he even mention Jesus? I’m not sure how your personal standards can be applied to his love of Jesus, anyways.
Did he even mention his undying love for you? (Previous thread?)
“Your remarks only go to show that you are a sexist and therefore not a true liberal.” Is a good example of what I like to think of as the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” It takes someone’s statement, and applies it to an arbitrary and intangible scale or unit of measurement. Now, had Person A said, “Woman should not be able to vote, as they are stupid and perhaps have cooties.” this CAN be taken as sexist, as it infers a betterment of one gender over the other, and has no bases in factual evidence, but own personal opinion.
If Person A said, “Woman are better at cleaning then men.” then his statement is still not sexism. While it does infer a betterment of one gender over another, it is backed up with factual evidence. In this case, studies have been done to show that female brains are more attuned to the presence of dirt or untidy-ness then males, and show a far lower tolerance to dirty conditions then men.
But let’s return to this particular debate. Your charge against different brad is based on two items: his reference to you as “princess”, and his suggestion that you done a bikini to boost your appeal to Brad R. against Atlas Shrugs.
Let’s take a look at the second one first. I have been lurking and posting at Sadly, No! for several months now, and I do not believe that I have once seen him post a topic about you, while I have seen several about Atlas. Clearly, you have a lower appeal to S,N! then she does. Now, unless you are willing to debate against “sex sells”, and your site would indicate that you cannot, then different brad’s suggest to wear a bikini is based in hard reality.
Incidentally, I would suggest you start up a kitten war. Rowr.
Now, “Princess.” Sexist? Well, no. Princess, in so much as is used in modern English, generally refers to a woman who is demanding, high maintenance, or self-absorbed. Also can be used as a father’s nickname for his daughter, but I think we can agree that’s a side note at best.
Could you take offense to that? Sure. But your offense does not equal proof of sexism on his part, and nor does his like or dislike of you prove his political affiliation.
And, no, I don’t have homework to do. Yes, I do have abundant free time.
… I want Simon Pegg’s babies.
Marie said,
November 21, 2006 at 15:11
WARNING! The following videos are of actual American soldiers, many of whom where in combat situations when their images were captured for posterity. Some of the footage contains extreme violence, profanity, and partial nudity. Parental discretion is advised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeFNgVGQtsE – Sgt. Mark Seavy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoTn40Gh26g – Troop Music Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp_mw927VmM – Target Practice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nveBbEIlfo – 101st Airborne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEEoo1yd_hs – Message To John Kerry From Troops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb9iWbPRDlU – Medal of Honor Recipient Sgt. Paul R. Smith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjHT2AgirhI – Down Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn767HFM-Pc – Operation Enduring Freedom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GDHKv5v0sM – Training Iraqi Soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOk3NWJqkyQ – Troop Prank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzaaRy6GBU0 – Taking Fallujah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsK8_IbBGRw – Marines On A Beach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NsdBP_N8lc – The MP’s Of Qalat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3FEtGdDAGc – Shoes For Iraqi Children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6gQHhqHosE – Sgt. Michael Sarro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ3x4TMvQYs – A Wounded Hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deOqJqp9sHw – Winning The War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW19rzu49Xw – Close Air Support
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG-0OvrcLU0 – Lazy Ramadi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-sNm9WNu0M – Task Force Lightning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-ITMFNNF1E&l=38 – 20 Reasons To Vists Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMxTarA_mcg – Liberating Mosul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2wc9fPMGD0 – Killing Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbjttlAf6Is – Navy Cross Recipient SSgt Anthony L. Viggiani
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prs-W5z1w1w – Cry Havoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPXMgDb_CJc – Close Order Drilling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Y4q2tFi8U – Iraq Sandstorm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JOQz3HkOKI – Election Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKiWn56keY – Monkey Butt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLeoWskPUpw – Marines Assault Fallujah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsvbi9mcG68 – CPT Wedley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LMNOS37Yy8 – Iraqi Forces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUizDzmr8-Y – Goofing With Iraqi Soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ros10wDFWqQ – Liberation Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy4BgKhgvJo – Band Of Brothers In Ramadi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIYfBGvTIco – Kandahar Sandstorm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4x-1BU1vnQ – Soldiers Dancing With Kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tISQ1nM-REo – Project Wizard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__GNwYwc-I – Send In The Helos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKy_vXvcfrQ&l=50 – Just Plain Stupid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlHj7HoKyvg – Welcome Home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYAneQMvEuw – In Memoriam
Zombie Kissinger said,
November 21, 2006 at 19:04
BRAIIIINS!
sammy said,
November 22, 2006 at 19:56
The fact is that the Dems do not have anyone with the creditability or presence of Kissinger to help win the world for USA. All you can do is surrender, and you do not have the guts to win.
Well… I mean, I hate to point it out, Gary, but Kissinger is saying we can’t win.
I think that if you look hard enough, you’ll find that there are some Democrats willing to agree on this point with Kissinger. Some Republicans too, even.