David Ignatius is Makin’ Sense
David Ignatius, whom I recently savaged here, has a pretty good column today. Let’s take a look:
We are in the ditch in the Middle East. As bad as you think it is watching TV, it’s worse. It’s not just Iraq but the whole pattern of America’s dealings with the Arab world. People aren’t just angry at America — they’ve been that way to varying degrees since I first came here 27 years ago. What’s worse is that they’re giving up on us — on our ability to make good decisions, to solve problems, to play the role of honest broker.
I’ve pretty much given up on that too, if it’s any consolation.
Let’s start with some poll numbers presented at the Doha conference by Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor and a fellow of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, which co-sponsored the conference with the Qatari foreign ministry. The polling was done last year by Zogby International in six countries that are usually regarded as pro-American: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
In these six “friendly” countries, only 12 percent of those surveyed expressed favorable attitudes toward the United States. America’s leaders have surpassed Israel’s as objects of anger. Asked which foreign leader they disliked most, 38 percent named George Bush; Ariel Sharon was a distant second at 11 percent; and Ehud Olmert was third with 7 percent.
Eep.
The poll data show a deep suspicion of American motives: 65 percent of those surveyed said they didn’t think democracy was a real U.S. objective in the Middle East. Asked to name two countries that had the most freedom and democracy, only 14 percent said America, putting it far behind France and Germany. And remember, folks, this is coming from our friends.
During the Doha conference, speakers put into words the attitudes summarized by the poll numbers. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a fiery Sunni preacher who appears regularly on al-Jazeera, said that America acted as if “some people were created to lead and others to be led,” and that America had “lost the trust and confidence” of Muslims. Well, okay, he’s notorious for his anti-American and anti-Israeli views. But I heard the same thing from Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, who said Arabs were “losing confidence in the U.S. role” as a peace broker.
And my friend Rami Khouri, who is one of most who is one of most balanced journalists in the Arab world, warned that a broad popular front is emerging to challenge American hegemony. Iraq “discredits what America tries to do in the Mideast,” he said. Khouri explained that Arabs admire Hezbollah because it represents “the end of docility, the end of acquiescence.”
This really is worth reading and re-reading, people. As someone who reads right-wing blogs more than any normal person should have to endure, I tend to forget that there is an objective reality out there that has nothing to do with photoshopped smoke, crescent-shaped memorials or (shudder) J-am-l H-ss–n. And in that reality, certain unpleasant things are occurring. Among them:
1.) Lots of people are dying in Iraq.
2.) Lots of people in the Arab world are sympathizing more and more with violent radicals.
3.) People whom we should be supporting- the pro-democracy student movement in Iran, for instance- are being undermined because they’re being linked to our unpopular policies.
To most people, these things are incredibly obvious. But to Wingnut Nation, these things signal that it’s only time to burrow further and further away from reality:
Anyway, let’s finish David’s column:
To get out of the ditch, America must change its Iraq policy, soon. That doesn’t mean pulling out of Iraq quickly, as many Democrats in Washington seem to favor. I found few people here who thought a quick American pullout made sense. But it does mean shifting the American focus — so that we are talking with Iraq’s neighbors and negotiating with the Iraqis on a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Tellingly, the one American who got loud, sustained applause here was Chris Kojm, a senior adviser on the Baker-Hamilton report.
And to get back on the road, for real, America must broker a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I winced when I heard Prime Minister Olmert say last weekend in Jerusalem that “the American and Israeli positions are totally identical” on the terms for recognizing a Palestinian unity government. The Israelis are right in insisting that Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist. But how to get there? What if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had responded: America is a mediator in this conflict. Its positions are independent of either side, and it is willing to talk to all parties to achieve peace.
I would have loved to see the looks of astonishment from the America-bashers here.
“Wouldn’t it be nice?” as the Beach Boys once sang.
Unfortunately, Bush will never negotiate with Iran or Syria (“We don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it“), nor will he make any serious attempt to bring the Isrealis and the Palestinians to a settlement. This puts sane people in a very difficult position, because we don’t want to immediately pull out of Iraq and leave it in total chaos, but we also don’t want to stay there with a plan that has zero shot of working. I think setting a timetable might work, because it might get other countries in the region to realize that we’re about to leave a giant security vacuum in a very dangerous region. Who knows? General Odom had some good thoughts on this.
But none of it matters because Bush is president, and hoping that he’ll wake up one day and start doing sensible things is not a sound plan.
P.S.- If you want to read something fall-down-hilarious, I recommend this Dr. Sanity post:
In spite of the 2006 midterm elections which saw Democrats obtain a small majority in Congress, life has actually been going very badly for the left .
As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their ideology; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to suppress all dissenting opinions. (See the style of one of their heroes for an example of this)
9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along–the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course!).
Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them and have not lost many opportunities to enable and encourage them, even as they denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy out of one side of their mouth, while remaining convinced that their actions are patriotic and are representative of “true” American values.
This is almost as funny as the rant the Editors found today. If only he’d explicitly called The Left worse than Hitler!
The problem is that the cavalry ain’t coming. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are more Zionist than Bush so there is little chance of America behaving like an honest broker on Israel/Palestine any time soon. And it is just going to get worse.
Fears grow of a radical Islamist Maghreb
A wave of lethal bomb attacks on police stations and other targets in Algeria today has underscored concerns that al-Qaida and like-minded Islamist groups are rapidly gaining strength in north Africa. While the terrorists’ immediate fight is with the pro-US governments of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, their longer-term target is western interests in the Maghreb – and possibly Europe itself.
…………….
A militant Salafist organisation formerly known as the Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) admitted responsibility for these incidents and today’s bombings. It recently changed its name to al-Qaida in the Maghreb, in an attempt to emulate al-Qaida in Iraq, after receiving “official recognition” from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy. Yesterday’s attack looks like its handiwork.
We will soon be hearing of “al-Qaida in Blackburn”!
“How to Lose Friends and Irritate People” G.W.Bush — coming to a bookstore near you…
Dr. Sanity stares into the
abyssmirror, perhaps for a little too long?Isn’t projection the first diagnosis they teach you at armchair psychiatry school?
Ironic, isn’t it, that moderates/liberals in Iran are tarred by accusations that they are US apologists while over here anyone who doesn’t want to wipe all musselmans off the earth is supposedly in bed with al qaeda? No, actually it’s not ironic at all.
That crazy wingnut “pim’s ghost” referenced PJ Harvey’s “50 ft. Queenie” in a response to Righteous Bubba. That shit is not right. Someone that excretes such a fucked up blog post should not be allowed to have any musical taste at all and should be made to listen to maroon 5 all day long. I hope PJ comes across it and sends pim’s ghost a “go fuck yourself” email.
Dr. Sanity’s nom de plume is like John Goodman blogging under the name “Captain Svelte.” In the many bills of indictment that have ever been handed down against me, the good Doctor came up with the wackiest:
Such openness and obvious expectation of universal kudos and praise for courageously speaking such self-absorbed pap, surely indicates that the virulent disease that infects The Left is reaching a critical point and the pus is now oozing out.
Hey! I’m TRYIN’ to eat a sandwich here!
Can it really be? Dr. Sanity is Pat Santy. “Dr. Pat Santy, a former NASA psychiatrist who evaluated the astronaut’s mental fitness.” She wrote the book! “But Santy, author of the definitive book on this issue, Choosing the Right Stuff: Psychological Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts.”
It can’t be. Mo
Shorter Dr. “Sanity”: Hey, how come everybody stopped listening patiently while we call them traitors and advocate religious genocide? WTF???
This puts sane people in a very difficult position, because we don’t want to immediately pull out of Iraq and leave it in total chaos…
Your definition of ‘sane people ‘ must be different from mine.
The mission was accomplished years ago.
we don’t want to immediately pull out of Iraq and leave it in total chaos
See, there’s this free-floating belief just kind of out there that somehow if the American occupying force withdrew, there will be “chaos”. There’s no data to support this. There’s no reason this must be true. It is just another “truth”, believed by many for no real reason at all.
Look. There is no doubt there is chaos already. There is no doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites will continue what we allowed them to start. There is no doubt that the Sunnis will have to fight for a piece of the pie, and the kurds will decide negotiation is not working and secede from Iraq. But this is a narrow question. Will there be more or less violence if our troops leave. And I submit we do not know the answer to that question….
mikey
The problem is that the cavalry ain’t coming. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are more Zionist than Bush so there is little chance of America behaving like an honest broker on Israel/Palestine any time soon.
1.) Being Zionist- in the sense that you believe in the right of Israel to exist- does not mean you cannot be an honest broker in negotiating between Israel and the Palestinians.
2.) I would posit that the only way Israel can ever exist semi-peacefully is by brokering a political settlement with the Palestinians.
3.) Hillary and Obama cannot possibly be less honest brokers than Bush has been. Ronald Reagan was a more honest broker. Bush’s dad was a more honest broker. In fact, everyone has been a more honest broker because they’ve actually taken seriously the idea that Israel and Palestine should negotiate a political settlement. George W. Bush was the first preznit to break that pattern.
And this is why we need to wind down our Iraq adventure (strategically redeploy, declare victory and leave, cut and run, whatever) – the situation there has been hopeless for more than two years, we’re going to leave Mesopotamia in disgrace no matter what happens, so why not get out sooner rather than later? Not only do we avoid throwing away thousands of American (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi) lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, but we can start rebuilding our alliances, our standing in the world, and our military now, instead of letting them get damaged for another two years. Every minute we stay there, every dollar we spend, every drop of blood we shed, and every bullet we fire, costs us and hurts us for no possible benefit.
How much better off would we (and Southeast Asia) have been if we’d gotten out of Vietnam in 1968 instead of 1973? Do you suppose the Chinese foreign minister dances a little jig every day when he comes in to office and reads his morning new briefing?
See, there’s this free-floating belief just kind of out there that somehow if the American occupying force withdrew, there will be “chaos�. There’s no data to support this. There’s no reason this must be true. It is just another “truth�, believed by many for no real reason at all.
I think there is very good reason to think that if we pulled out immediately, things would continue being very bad, or even get worse. At the same time, I think our continued presence doesn’t noticeably help the situation, and in crucial ways makes it worse (i.e., it makes people hate us that much more).
It’s debatable about what we should do here. There are bad ways to leave, and perhaps slightly-less-bad ways to leave.
How much better off would we (and Southeast Asia) have been if we’d gotten out of Vietnam in 1968 instead of 1973? Do you suppose the Chinese foreign minister dances a little jig every day when he comes in to office and reads his morning new briefing?
I hear ya.
The question is, what is the best way to withdraw? Clearly we can’t just stay there, and when we leave, there’s going to still be chaos and massive killing. Is there some way to mitigate this at all?
(PS to Ted Strickland- dude, we’re gonna need to accept Iraqi refugees in the coming years. Don’t say that you don’t want them in your state.)
2.) I would posit that the only way Israel can ever exist semi-peacefully is by brokering a political settlement with the Palestinians.
This is a true statement. Much in the way of: “A human must not stop breathing or he will not continue to live” is true. That is, it is accurate without being helpful. There are two things that must happen. A Palestinian leadership with some kind of credibility must emerge. It is there, but it is not the current players. And second, the Likudniks (just Israeli neocons, but more tightly ensconced in power) must be pushed out of power. Out of the government and out of the Knesset. They are the ones driving the fear and hate message, the call for a state of permanant war. Then, the real brokers will have the breathing room to broker. The US is unneccesarry, and historically counterproductive to this process….
mikey
This is a true statement. Much in the way of: “A human must not stop breathing or he will not continue to live� is true. That is, it is accurate without being helpful.
I know. But there are lots and lots of people who think that any compromise with the Palestinians constitutes the Very Surrender of Western Civlization. And they aren’t marginal figures- they were until very recently American ambassadors to the UN.
I think there is very good reason to think that if we pulled out immediately, things would continue being very bad, or even get worse. At the same time, I think our continued presence doesn’t noticeably help the situation, and in crucial ways makes it worse (i.e., it makes people hate us that much more).
I think there is a very good reason to think that you use the word ‘think’ too much.
It’s debatable about what we should do here. There are bad ways to leave, and perhaps slightly-less-bad ways to leave.
Yeah, how exactly to get those troops out? Damn if there isn’t a major investment there.
The question is, what is the best way to withdraw?
A convoy to Kuwait.
Clearly we can’t just stay there, and when we leave, there’s going to still be chaos and massive killing. Is there some way to mitigate this at all?
No.
No.
A very clear answer, and most likely the correct one.
I think the only way we could make things better in Iraq is if we recruited a very large international peacekeeping force of over 500,000. But of course, that just ain’t gonna happen at this juncutre, especially not with Bush still in office.
I think the only way we could make things better in Iraq is if we recruited a very large international peacekeeping force of over 500,000. But of course, that just ain’t gonna happen at this juncutre, especially not with Bush still in office.
As much as I’d like to recruite huge armies to enforce my will, I think the only way ‘we’ could make things better is to butt the fuck out.
Or should i say-
As much as I’d like to recruite huge armies to enforce the will of old colonial powers I think the only way ‘we’ could make things better is to butt the fuck out.
Not that I wouldn’t happily accept the position of Supreme Ruler and sort this shit out right quick.
As much as I’d like to recruite huge armies to enforce my will, I think the only way ‘we’ could make things better is to butt the fuck out.
Well, let’s make some distinctions here. I would not want a large multinational security force to be an American enterprise where America imposes its will upon Iraq for the sake of America’s national interest. I’m talking about recruiting an international peace force that would simply exist to stop Shiite militias from kidnapping Sunnis and drilling holes in their foreheads. Basically, I’m saying it’d be nice if we could stop Iraq somehow from becoming Yugoslavia.
Even a giant international peacekeeping force is unlikely to quell the sectarian violence. Short a full-on coup that installs another Sunni-affiliated totalitarian government, the Shi’ites are going to have their revenge, which means the Sunni’s are going to resort to terrorism to try to keep them at bay. I’d like to hope that some sort of truth and reconciliation commission would be possible, but I don’t see it.
Beyond all that, though, the US is an occupying force, unwanted by basically everyone there. Those who do want us there know that being seen as too close to the US is the kiss of death (literally). So, our possible contributions are really limited, even diplomatically.
It grieves me to say it, but Bush shit the bed in an unprecedented way when he invaded Iraq, and no amount of can-do American know-how is going to unshit the bed at this point.
It’s debatable about what we should do here. There are bad ways to leave, and perhaps slightly-less-bad ways to leave.
Brad, brad, brad. All of the people advocating less-bad ways to leave are only doing so because they want to draw a distinction between themselves and their totally discredited exterminationist friends (and employers).
David Ignatius is just as morally bankrupt as he’s always been. He’s just a bit more adept at smelling the changing winds than say, Mark Noonan.
There’s no chance Bush is going to change Cheney’s Iraq policy, soon. So Ignatius can just STFU. We should leave Iraq, now.
It grieves me to say it, but Bush shit the bed in an unprecedented way when he invaded Iraq, and no amount of can-do American know-how is going to unshit the bed at this point.
It’s a fair argument to make. A very depressing one, but fair nonetheless.
9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along–the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course!).
Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them
Al-Qaeda advocates multiculturalism, political correctness, and intellectuality? Really??? I did not know that. I suppose they are pro-gay too.
David Ignatius is just as morally bankrupt as he’s always been. He’s just a bit more adept at smelling the changing winds than say, Mark Noonan.
I have a policy of ripping pundits when they’re wrong and patting them on the head when they make good points. I thought that, for the most part, Ignatius’ column this week was quite good and it did a good job of reporting how people who are not Islamist radicals are coming to positively loathe us. That is not a perspective you get to read first-hand in much of the mainstream press, and to the extent that Ignatius’ piece told WaPo readers this important information, I think he gets a pat on the head for it.
Again, this is not an overall “Acht-ya” of his overall body of work. I’ve ripped him for shitty punditry many times in the past.
Well, let’s make some distinctions here. I would not want a large multinational security force to be an American enterprise where America imposes its will upon Iraq for the sake of America’s national interest. I’m talking about recruiting an international peace force that would simply exist to stop Shiite militias from kidnapping Sunnis and drilling holes in their foreheads. Basically, I’m saying it’d be nice if we could stop Iraq somehow from becoming Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia is an almost* perfect example. Butt the fuck out, let them sort themselves into proper post-colonial countries,eh? Its gonna happen one way or the other.
*No oil
Al-Qaeda advocates multiculturalism, political correctness, and intellectuality? Really??? I did not know that. I suppose they are pro-gay too.
Apparently they’re all womynysts as well. You learn new things every day from reading Dr. Sanity.
Butt the fuck out, let them sort themselves into proper post-colonial countries,eh? Its gonna happen one way or the other.
“Sort themselves out” = ethnic cleansing.
And I agree that there’s not much we can do to stop it, but let’s call it what it is.
Notorious P.A.T., it is Al Qaeda’s tireless advocacy of early childhood education that has really caught my attention.
Brad, you remember that guy, Jim Webb? We both donated to his campaign.
What does he say about getting out of Iraq?
What does he say about getting out of Iraq?
This:
For more than two years, Jim Webb has been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq. The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term. It has not done so, and we should be mindful of the many comments by those who pushed so hard for this war, to the effect that we should set up a long-term “MacArthurian Regency� in Baghdad. We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.
If the Congressional Dems proposed this and seriously committed to it, that would be a good thing. Right now, though, they seem stuck on non-binding resolutions that wouldn’t stop Bush’s ability to do more stupid shit.
“Sort themselves out� = ethnic cleansing.
And I agree that there’s not much we can do to stop it, but let’s call it what it is.
Fine.
Hey, I didn’t create the boundries. I don’t live there. I’ll be damned if i want to send my children to fight in someone else’s war.
Maybe its best this shit gets sorted by the people involved?
Sadly, the Bush administration could not negotiate its way through a spring zephyr. All it can do is lay down demands and go home in a huff if they are not met, abjectly.
That is why Democrats call for a simple withdrawal. We would consider ourselves very lucky if the Bush administration could pull off a force withdrawal with no outrageous loss of American or Iraqi life.
Yes, we would love (possibly even in an impure way) someone in the Bush administration who could enter the fray and really communicate with Syria, Iran, the Palestinians and the Sunnis in Iraq. That person is a pipe dream (or alcoholic hallucination, whatever).
Maybe its best this shit gets sorted by the people involved?
I think there are very very few justifications for military force. They are:
1.) In national self-defense
2.) In defense of allies who have been attacked
3.) To prevent genocide.
Eventually, if this Iraq mess devolves into an outright genocide, it is going to be the world’s concern. That’s when a multinational force to prevent Sunnis and Shiites from slaughtering each other (much as what NATO did in the former Yugoslavia) might come in handy. I’ll leave you with the last word, as I’m going to bed.
That person is a pipe dream (or alcoholic hallucination, whatever).
Touche.
I will say, though, that this problem isn’t going to go away once Bush leaves office. In all likelihood, a Democratic president in 2008 will inherit this mess and will have to deal with it. At that point, they’ll have to make a decision about how to withdraw. Is there any way to prevent outright genocide from happening in Iraq?
3.) To prevent genocide.
Eventually, if this Iraq mess devolves into an outright genocide, it is going to be the world’s concern. That’s when a multinational force to prevent Sunnis and Shiites from slaughtering each other (much as what NATO did in the former Yugoslavia) might come in handy. I’ll leave you with the last word, as I’m going to bed.
Bed? Dude, its only 3 in the afternoon.
Outright genocide only counted in Yugoslavia cuz they was whitish folk in Europe. The outright genocide you are worrried about in Iraq only counts cuz they got oil. Outright genocide in Africa don’t count.
cowalker said…
That is why Democrats call for a simple withdrawal.
Who are these Democrats? Which ones exactly are calling for a simple withdrawal?
Is there any way to prevent outright genocide from happening …
No.
liberal interventionism isn’t an actual stance–it is a shifting rationale for making people’s lives slightly less horrible under very specific circumstances. so in rwanda, the LI says “let’s go in” albeit too late. yugoslavia, same thing–let’s go in. darfur, basically, that’s a yes as well. there isn’t that much connective tissue between these interventions, beyond the “we aren’t there to stay there and steal/own their stuff and we can save some lives”, but that’s about as much as there is to LI intellectually.
perhaps its simplicity is its strength as an idea. it also assumes having a massive military budget, but let’s table that for a moment.
so what does an LI like a Brad R. or A. do with Iraq? well, let’s pretend we aren’t in Iraq right now and the shia are about to fuck the sunni up but bad. your garden variety LI like Brad (or me, for that matter) says “we’ve got to go in, and in time, with an international force, and save these people, but the hard way, serbia/kosovo style, none of that waiting around until several hundred thousand are dead stuff.” and i think the intellectually honest amongst us Liberals, and even more LIs, will have to admit that is what we would want.
which totally makes me lean against leaving. but then i remember several things, none of them related to the just-why-are-the-shia-able-to-kill-so-many-sunnis-right-now factor (also known as our most illiberal prior intervention against sadaam). 1) there isn’t an international force poised to work with us–this isn’t NATO, it isn’t the UN. this is the US alone (no offense, Australia, and much offense, Britain). 2) the policy machine in our country is run by the most illiberal man in US history, Dick Cheney. his motivs for doing anything are never going to be mine, or yours, or any other LIist. they will always be about resource grabs, making cash for friends, and fucking up israel’s (or saudi arabia’s) enemies.
so the LI is left in a total quandary–we want to save the Sunnis, but we know the kind of intervention we can have will do terrible things for all the wrong reasons. it just does not compute.
now end the thought experiment. we are in fact in this conundrum because we created it. we are already there. we are in no way stopping, nor even slowing down, genocide. we are facilitating it in many ways.
i’m a positive guy, but the only thing that i get from all of this is despair. despair that my country is not going to be capable of what i would term a good LI for 100 years afte rthis, consigning future humans somewhere to hideous slaughter, and despair because what we are doing will blowback somewhere somehow, and most of all despair because somewhere in baghdad right now some guy just like me, a father of two, a good and decent person who loves his family and wants the best for the world, is about to go the market and get blown into a thousand pieces. and to whomever that guy is , who will die tomorrow as surely as i will drive my commute to my job with a minimum of misfortune, i say: I am so fucking sorry.
Robert Green has it. One of the core problems with Liberal Interventionism is that it requires the creation of a huge, standing, forward-deployable, interventionist, military force, and a doctrine of the US sticking its nose into other countries to set things right for ideological reasons. That’s all well and good (or not) when you have liberal Democrats running the works, but it’s a catastrophe when a Bush or a Cheney or some other species of wingnut (including all of the Tier-1 contenders for the 2008 GOP nomination) manages to win (or “win”) and election. Now you’ve just handed these assclowns a pre-made, trillion-dollar, imperialism machine. Oops. And don’t count on these clowns ever learning from their mistakes – they learned nothing from Vietnam, they think “24” is a documentary, and they’re currently laying the groundwork for blaming this debacle on namby-pamby liberals.
The only solution is to switch back to quasi-isolationism – a small, professional full-time military with few forward bases and a cadre of military units to build up in case of national emergency. Oh, and small (but robust) nuclear deterrent. I really don’t think we should build our military back up to 2000 A.D. levels – these assholes will just use it, again, to launch another imperial boondoggle that will bring The Year Of Skulls to some poor developing country that’s already sufferred enough.
We see the same problem with Rubinomics – defraying spending on liberal programs, being nice to corporations, “fixing” the budget deficit, and creating a surplus did exactly zero for liberalism in the long run. All it did was give the GOP a giant pile of money to kick back to their zillionaire base. Sorry, Medicaid patients, retirees, and poor kids trying to go to college – Paris Hilton needs a great big tax cut, and Halliburton needs cost-plus-20 to fly pallets full of untraceable cash to Iraq. Suck it up and take one for the team.
Close tag, dammit.
Dammit!
I think there is very good reason to think that if we pulled out immediately, things would continue being very bad, or even get worse. At the same time, I think our continued presence doesn’t noticeably help the situation, and in crucial ways makes it worse (i.e., it makes people hate us that much more).
It’s debatable about what we should do here. There are bad ways to leave, and perhaps slightly-less-bad ways to leave.
So, it seems like the Great NeoCon Iraqi Adventure has become an example of what the economists call “sunk costs”?
When I asked an economist to explain how I could tell when any given investment had turned into a “sunk cost” (i.e., something to be abandoned because it was only going to entail further loss), they gave me an analogy. There’s a pigeon in every poker game, they said. If you’ve been playing a game for more than five minutes and you haven’t spotted the pigeon — it’s you.
That would make America the pigeon in the current Iraqi poker game.
This really is worth reading and re-reading, people. As someone who reads right-wing blogs more than any normal person should have to endure,this article is very interesting for Self defense, click on the following link to find similar articlesSelf defense
Don’t you guys listen to the Dear Leader? Victory will not look like what you think it will look like. It might look like, oh, I dunno, a cute lil ole Hummel figurine of two cherubs on ice skates. Or it might look like we’re skulking out in the darkness of night with arrows flying at our backsides. It might look like delicious pie. It might look like permanent fortresses to protect oil companies. Whatever form it chooses to take, it will be Glorious.
I was gonna say that victory has big hair and plays Flying Vs, but then realized that would be Triumph.
I think the only thing we might be preventing in Iraq is a lot of outright warlord activity a la 90s Somalia.
these assholes will just use it, again, to launch another imperial boondoggle that will bring The Year Of Skulls to some poor developing country that’s already sufferred enough.
Where’s Croaker when you need him?
Oh man, Pat Santy is a find.
Q:What has been your worst blogging experience?
A:Dealing with trolls in the comment section and getting a lot of hate mail from people who disagree with me. It’s representative of how much civil discourse has deteriorated that there are people who can’t stand what I say even on my own blog. I don’t force anyone to read what I write, but some seem to resent it anyway.
Imagine that. You say liberals have made common cause with terrorists, and the filthy hippies are so uncivil that they say mean things about you in your comments section! Another sad case of wingnut victimization.
Q:Who are your intellectual heroes?
A:The Founding Fathers (especially Adams and Jefferson); and Ayn Rand.
Because nothing goes better with Jeffersonian Democracy than Objectivism! (pounds head on desk)
The fact that this is coming from someone with a doctorate in psychology who wrote the book on screening NASA astronauts for mental stability (add your own diapers joke here) is just the cherry on a very filling sundae of wack.
Sometimes I wonder how it is possible for an educated, apparently intelligent person to be so unmoored from reality as many of these rightwing bloggers seem to be. The degree of projection in the post above is so over the top that it reads like a parody. She sounds like a crazy person.
Sept. 11 did something to the minds of a lot of people in this country and I don’t think they are ever going to heal. For some reason the attacks cracked their worlds to such an extent that something inside them broke. It would be pitiable if their response had not been to call for endless killing in make-believe “revenge” in a phony forever war.
Good thing the national press is there to put the brakes on this madness. (puts fist through wall)
Here’s Santy’s profile interview:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/06/the_normblog_pr.html
Her heroes include both JFK and Bush. She wants to abolish the IRS. She thinks Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision — because abortion should be a personal choice. Her positions are so incoherent and self-contradictory that they make my brain hurt.
Comedy gold, baby!
Dr. Sanity for this person is like a nom de plume “Slim” for a really fat guy.
People who still like Ayn Rand beyond 11th grade, always a problem.
Sept. 11 did something to the minds of a lot of people in this country and I don’t think they are ever going to heal. For some reason the attacks cracked their worlds to such an extent that something inside them broke.
Their sense of safety, methinks. Previously, the wingnut’s America was a fortress impermeable (except to Mexicans on foot). People honestly thought that here they were immune to the world’s ills, as if America is just some gated community in Palm Springs, and all else is in South Central.
CS Lewis Jr said,
February 22, 2007 at 19:05
Here’s Santy’s profile interview
Oh, this is good… I particularly enjoyed the self-serving melodrama of In what circumstances would you be willing to lie? > To save a life.
Lordy, lordy, lordy…
People who still like Ayn Rand beyond 11th grade, always a problem
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/102306/ayn-rand.gif
Given her profession, ideological stance, love for Bush and tendency to diagnose BDS and denial in moonbats, I was wondering what her opinion on Dr. Justin Frank’s “Bush on the Couch” was. Unfortunately I couldn’t find anything on her blog about it.
Dr. Sanity is Pat Santy. “Dr. Pat Santy, a former NASA psychiatrist who evaluated the astronaut’s mental fitness.� She wrote the book! “But Santy, author of the definitive book on this issue, Choosing the Right Stuff: Psychological Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts.�
J’accuse!!!
Terrific site, lots of fun!
Now that we’ve dispensed with the niceties, perhaps you might elucidate what exactly your criticism of Dr Sanity’s opinions might be. I will assume the criticism leveled centers around her ideas and not her persona.
Aside from the vacuousness and drivel that seems to be in great abundance, there seems to be little in the way of substantive criticism or relevant opinion.
Dr Sanity is a psychiatrist with over 20 years experience in world class settings. She is not a psychologist. Anyone reading her blog that cannot make that distinction can hardly be qualified as a critic of any merit.Her remarks are observational only. In discussing the left, she categorizes and defines the public remarks and behavior.
It is interesting to note that her critics do not originate in the psychiatric or medical communities, but rather, they are found to be woefully inadequate in terms of education, experience and familiarity with even the most basic of psychological principles.
Clearly, anyone can take issue with her politics. That said, to assail her professional credibility is hubris and delusion of the highest order. That becomes evident when the subject of her ideas are rarely discussed or considered. When professional or personal ridicule is regarded as ‘informed’ or ‘credible,’ well that speaks more to the critic’s shallowness than anything else- and that is a pathology of the highest order, that cannot be disguised.
Uninformed critics are merely apes in tuxedos. The apes might even learn how to dance, but in the end, the only one who believes the tuxedo is effective camouflage, is the ape.
Of course they’ve given up on us. No matter how many troops we surge over there, all the Sunni and Shia insurgents are going to do is fire over our heads or through us. They’ve pretty much washed their hands of any hopes that we’ll help them out in any way.
As an ape in a tuxedo once said, “opinions are like assholes.” Dr. Santy is more than welcome to her opinions, but she doesn’t merely give political opinions, but also posts bald assertions about the mental state of a large aggregation of people she doesn’t know in ANY capacity. Worse yet she gives these assertions the façade of impartial diagnosis, and that is unprofessional at the very least. As you are also guilty of this, I expect you conveniently won’t find this criticism relevant or credible either, and perhaps will even find it shallow, a pathology of the highest order. Hubris indeed.
“…posts bald assertions about the mental state of a large aggregation of people she doesn’t know in ANY capacity.”
That remark is incorrect by any standard of measurement. Her assertions are not assertions at all, but rather, observations and classifications of behavior.
She does not offer up any kind of diagnosis whatsoever- again, her comments are predicated on well documented and predicated behavior. While I am grateful that you attempt to offer up serious critique without resorting to personal attack, it is also clear that you are misreading her remarks.
Inasmuch as you took it upon yourself to engage a personal attack on me as opposed to a more substantive exchange, allow me to reciprocate.
Clearly, you know nothing of the differences between diagnosis, classification and behavioral interpretation. Anyone with even a modicum of any kind of scientific background would be able to discern that truth. In addition, your repetition is clear indication of a lack of original thinking skills as well as a clear inability to discern between abstract and linear thinking.
Not to worry- not everyone is cut out for medical school, analysis or other serious fields of study. Plumbing, septic work and restaurant work are all honorable professions for which you seem to be eminently qualified.
Finally, thank you for proving my point about apes in tuxedos. No doubt you believe you are Belle of the Ball.
Someone’s an elitist prick.
Wow… the new Troll (Model SCA) comes with its very own detachable elitist prick!
Come now, I was not the first to offer insults. As for speaking to the substance of your post, frankly I didn’t think it very substantive, but rather arguing from (perceived) authority and fairly brimming with ad hominem. I did address your point, for what it was worth.
She does not merely make observations, because she has not observed all those whom she “classifies.” Instead she asserts that a large number of people she has not observed suffer from denial based on a few statements of a sliver-or her interpretation of those statements. She goes on to say that this denial stems from, among other things, self-delusion and “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” I’d go through it assertion by assertion, but I don’t have that kind of time. I will paste a couple of her unsupported “observations” in for you to chew on, though: they have supported surreptitiously all along–the elimination of free speech … they have made common cause with [Islamic terrorists] … they don’t give individual’s[sic] in our own society the same “rights” to express their religion as they would like in public Perhaps more than just the left needs to examine its hidden motives and agenda.
Finally:
Clearly, you know nothing of the differences between diagnosis, classification and behavioral interpretation. Anyone with even a modicum of any kind of scientific background would be able to discern that truth. In addition, your repetition is clear indication of a lack of original thinking skills as well as a clear inability to discern between abstract and linear thinking.
Not to worry- not everyone is cut out for medical school, analysis or other serious fields of study. Plumbing, septic work and restaurant work are all honorable professions for which you seem to be eminently qualified.
Finally, thank you for proving my point about apes in tuxedos. No doubt you believe you are Belle of the Ball.
I’ll let the good doctor respond:
In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier’s frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview
And now I wish you a good night.
Clearly, anyone can take issue with her politics. That said, to assail her professional credibility is hubris and delusion of the highest order. That becomes evident when the subject of her ideas are rarely discussed or considered. When professional or personal ridicule is regarded as ‘informed’ or ‘credible,’ well that speaks more to the critic’s shallowness than anything else- and that is a pathology of the highest order, that cannot be disguised.
wow. Im The Highest Order. nanee nanee.
WTF is this thread, Brad starts with using ‘think’ over and over in a paragraph and now this chap uses ‘predicated’ and ‘highest order’ over and over.
In addition, your repetition is clear indication of a lack of original thinking skills…
I am so waiting for a Democratic president and Democratic Congress/Senate to use all the new powers to lock these illegal enemy combatants up indefinitely.
Am I the only one who blinked tiredly at the pic, wondering whether they were advocating for Britney to shave her eyebrows as well?
Um, Brad… I believe Dr. Sanity is a woman. Just sayin’.
They are truly amazing over there. They’ve decided that 1+1=3 and prove it by quoting IQ scores.
That is one of the incredibly wonderful aspects of psychological denial. In the vacuous recesses of their own minds, those who deny reality have managed to convince themselves that they are “reality-based”.
Well, this sentence seems quite sensible, albeit couched in terms that are hardly those of a clinical psychiatrist. Imagine if a real clinical psychiatrist were to refer to the ‘vacuous recesses’ of her patients’ minds. How unprofessional.
That aside, the fact of Dr Pat having a degree of some sort hardly qualifies her as an authority on everything. I myself, for example, while being an afficionado of dried whitebait and flaky tuna, freely admit my vast ignorance of topics such as zero-gravity engineering or the Dow-Jones index.
Also, she is making a grave error in ‘diagnosing’ various symptoms in the majority of humanity that she refers to in such a cavalier fashion as ‘the left’. For starters, the concept of reality has been hotly debated by rich white men for centuries, and to the best of my knowledge they still haven’t come up with anything definitive. So her claim that her reality is the real reality, while the reality of the left is a fake reality, faces some serious questions.
And back to the convergence of these ideas. On the one hand, we have her reality, that in which the Bush junta is wise, competent, and all-seeing, while ‘the left’ (hissssss) secretly wishes the terrorists to win. On the other hand, we have the reality of most of humanity, in which the Bush junta is dangerously incompetent, corrupt, and the producer of much innocent death and the fostering of extremism across the globe.
In defence of the reality of the left, we have the statements of many extremists, who say they’ve been turned from ordinary people to extremists because of the death and torture of the US. In defence of Dr Pat’s reality, errr, well, isn’t vague paranoia and belief in shadowy conspiracies a hallmark of some forms of mental illness?
Anyway, all that aside, I can’t take seriously someone who’s named after a brand of pipe tobacco.
Let me make this easy.
MoveOne.org ( a highly effective and well run organization) is now calling for Fox News to be ‘excluded’ from the presidential debated and ‘de certified’ as news organization. Why? Because they don’t like what Fox News has to say.
In other words, MoveOn wants to do exactly what many on the left openly accuse the right of doing- stifling speech and opinion inconsistent with their.
Even as they accuse the Bush Administration of stifling free speech, that is exactly what a mainstream leftist organization is doing. One does not have to sit down with the Board of MoveOn to understand the disconnect and the pathologies involved. One does not have to sit down with the Board of MoveOn to recognize behavior paranoid behavior (“Make them go away. We are afraid of what they have to say. What of people like them instead of us. We don’t like what they have to say. Make them go away.”)
Further, (and actually, even more troubling) one only has to regard the lack of outcry on the blatant assault on free speech from other leftists and realize, from an observational standpoint (almost conclusive, in fact) that issues of denial and projection are in full bloom.
A real commitment to a principle (free speech) is not dependent on who is speaking. That MoveOn and others, with their silence, want to do the same thing they accuse the Bush administration of doing (and so viciously denounce), is more than disingenuous- it is pathology of serious nature. This kind of behavior is indicative of a lack of credibility, which in fact, is the ‘welcome mat’ for deceit.
Again, political discourse and debate are one thing- a good thing- but when attempt to engage in areas that are clearly beyond your scope of reasoning and expertise, that debate becomes moot and irrelevant, no matter what you have to say, because your credibility is non-existent.
Familiarity and expertise come about over time and with much experience. That is true of every field of endeavor. To assume that you can engage intelligently in a conversation with someone who has the education, knowledge and experience you do not, and discuss their field of expertise, is an example of the absurdity and hubris I noted earlier.
Dr Sanity is not ‘analyzing’ anyone, She is, as has been noted, classifying and defining what are clearly well documented behaviors.
Whew! It’s verily a hurricane of vapid sophistry in here!
Since you include no link, I can only assume you mean this, a petition to dissuade the Democratic party in Nevada from working with Fox to broadcast a presidential primary debate among Democratic contenders. You misrepresent it, but your conclusion of leftist denial and projection en masse would not follow even if you didn’t.
As for political discourse and debate, what debate is possible with someone who believes disagreement with her underlying opinions is a clear sign of denial and delusion? Such a person doesn’t want to debate her political opinions, she wants to affirm her preconceptions.
You first mistake, Dr. Fucking Sigmund Carl and Alfred, was in calling Fox a ‘News’ station. They are calling for it to be declassified as such, as it is only a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration – reiterating the government’s daily talking points does not equate to news.
Also, what are you attempting to accomplish here, other than using big words and sounding like a pompous ass?
All kinds of debate on substantive issues is possible. That goes without saying.
Your remark, “As for political discourse and debate, what debate is possible with someone who believes disagreement with her underlying opinions is a clear sign of denial and delusion? Such a person doesn’t want to debate her political opinions, she wants to affirm her preconceptions” is understandable if erroneous.
In fact, Dr Sanity would be delighted to debate her political opinions. Indeed, if you can present a viable and coherent alternative to her conclusions, as a scientist, she would welcome any and all credible input.
Watch what you say!
Assault on free speech?
Hardly. They may have reccommended that Fox News lose certification as an objective news organization for its obviously slanted coverage and undenied rightward bias.
They have NEVER suggested that Fox News does not have the right to say whatever scurrilous things they feel like blurting out.
It’s their claim to be unbiased that is at issue, not any right of free speech. The right of free speech does not give you a comparable right to be taken seriously.
It’s funny how you seem to have that mixed up.
SCA,
Are you seriously saying that a substantive debate is called for on the merits of abolishing the IRS? I’m supposed to explain to an adult who has a crush on Ayn Rand and who supports the Iraq war that the government needs money? Is the War on Terror is going to be funded voluntarily by Halliburton?
Pretentious provocation from a pompous ass notwithstanding, I so do not have the patience for this shit.
Given her penchant for diagnosing people she does not know with a syndrome that does not exist, I’d put her professional credibility on a par with Bill Frist’s.
Bye now.
“In fact, Dr Sanity would be delighted to debate her political opinions. Indeed, if you can present a viable and coherent alternative to her conclusions, as a scientist, she would welcome any and all credible input.”
As a scientist, Dr. Sanity would be able to form coherent views that could be questioned and debated on their implications, merit or methodology. Lacking this, and nevertheless appealing to credible and relevant arguments when faced with criticism, is akin to demanding martial law every time one feels like crossing the highway on foot.
I mean, it woud be funny to watch, if it wasn’t for the fact that somehow there’s a lot of traffic jams around nowadays.
You say she would be delighted, but the linked post provides no evidence for it. Underlying assumptions, such as “radical Islam is an existential threat” or “the ends justify the means in combating such threats,” are not addressed except by manufacturing psychological conditions in those who show they disagree by, to use one of her examples, voting to restrict the use of torture. She discredits her ideological opponents based not on their ideology but on her fanciful notion of their mental state, and in this way enables herself to discount any possible opposing argument. This is not a viable or coherent conclusion, or a valid one.
Now forgive me for leaving the matter there, but I will be traveling.
MoveOne.org ( a highly effective and well run organization) is now calling for Fox News to be ‘excluded’ from the presidential debated and ‘de certified’ as news organization. Why? Because they don’t like what Fox News has to say.
In other words, MoveOn wants to do exactly what many on the left openly accuse the right of doing- stifling speech and opinion inconsistent with their.
============================
Nope, MoveOn is saying “Stop standing there and taking their abuse and twisting of information. In other words “Walk away from the Abuser.”
Sound Psychological advice actually, Siggy.
A real commitment to a principle (free speech) is not dependent on who is speaking.
==========
Committing to listening and heeded pathological liars is upholding Free Speech and ignoring liars and con-men isn’t denying them their right either, Siggy.
Again, political discourse and debate are one thing- a good thing- but when attempt to engage in areas that are clearly beyond your scope of reasoning and expertise, that debate becomes moot and irrelevant, no matter what you have to say, because your credibility is non-existent.
====================
Hasn’t stopped you has it Siggy?
Dr Sanity is not ‘analyzing’ anyone, She is, as has been noted, classifying and defining what are clearly well documented behaviors.
==============
Its too bad she and her “advocates” don’t understand how mirrors work. An article about ‘Denial’ while sqawking how ;”THE LEFT” , after September 11th 2001, pushed to stifle free speech in America? Who is in denial Siggy?
Is NOT upholding Free Speech.
Agree to her rules and approved sources for the debate and she is in?
Brave of her Siggy. Real Brave.
Walk away from the Abuser!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/fox-attack-enough-is-eno_b_41902.html
CS Lewis-
Interesting observations and assertions. You seem rather sure of yourself when discussing psychological pathologies?
Where did you get your medical degree from and where did do you psychiatry residency? How many years have you been in practice?
Further, I am reminded of the hysterical and shrill leftists who insisted that the elections were going to be ‘stolen’ by the right. Before the election they said they even had ‘proof.’
Are we to assume now that this last election, the Republicans threw the election?
Also, election fraud is a serious charge? Where is all that ‘proof’ of election fraud? That would certainly bury the Republicans, if it were true!
Politics has always been a dirty game. To imply any one side has cleaner hands than the other is laughable.
Notice how Siggy always follows a specific ‘form’ in communications? We all see it as “Pompous”, “Elitist”, even “Priggish” but for Siggy the ‘FORM’ is what it is all about. Content is irrelevant as long as the ‘form’ is followed. As for ‘context’? Fuck context! It NEVER follows ‘form’!
The ‘Form’ allows Siggy to “Intelligently”(in his mind) respond with, “Oh yeah! What school did you go to?”
Brilliant!
My favorite part of SCA’s style is that, apparently, I am supposed to be intellectually intimidated by someone who ends statements with question marks.
sig-car-al seems to be asserting that we are obligated to take Dr. Pat seriously and subordinate our opinions to hers, since she apparently has a degree from somewhere.
George W has a degree from Yale, but that hasn’t prevented him from being an idiot.
You’re tossing around claims and accusations with little understanding of what you’re saying, Pal. Indeed, one might say that you’re a complete tosser. But I digress.
Again, political discourse and debate are one thing- a good thing- but when attempt to engage in areas that are clearly beyond your scope of reasoning and expertise, that debate becomes moot and irrelevant, no matter what you have to say, because your credibility is non-existent.
Au contraire, Bertie. I hope you don’t mind if I call you Bertie. I feel we’re friends, somehow.
To my point. My credibility is not at issue. What I am saying is simply a matter of logic and evidence. My statements could be evaluated even if they were anonymously scrawled on a wall, because they rely on the basic rules of logic. I’ll use an analogy, and I’ll embolden some of the words to make it easy for you.
Let’s imagine Dr Pat faced by a man who says “There’s a maniac with an axe behind you!” Dr Pat, using the centuries of knowledge and expertise she apparently has, diagnoses the man as psychotic. Let’s look explicitly at her reasoning:
If there is no axe-wielding maniac, then the man is clearly psychotic.
However, and I want you to pay attention here Bertie, if there is such a maniac, then the man is not psychotic. Are you with me?
I’ll be tiresomely explicit: her ‘diagnoses’ are made on the basis of certain assumptions. If she fails to examine the validity of her assumptions, then her boundless expertise matters not a jot, and she is clearly and idiot, albeit a highly-educated one.
In the example cited, she bases her ‘diagnoses’ on the assumption that her ‘reality’ is the real reality. However, she clearly makes no attempt to check that her reality coincides with the real reality. Indeed, it can be easily demonstrated that her reality does not touch the real reality at any point, and therefore her ‘diagnosis’ is baseless.
I can explain the mysteries of logic further, if you wish.I know it’s hard for some people to understand, no matter how well-educated they may think themselves to be.
Familiarity and expertise come about over time and with much experience. That is true of every field of endeavor. To assume that you can engage intelligently in a conversation with someone who has the education, knowledge and experience you do not, and discuss their field of expertise, is an example of the absurdity and hubris I noted earlier.
Pal, to assume that this falls within the bounds of her field of expertise is an example of absurdity and hubris. It’s a matter of logic, and if you fail to understand that one, simple, indeed elementary, point, then you’re just a highly-trained monkey with a degree. I’ll say it once more, just in case there’s a chance you might understand: She is basing her ‘diagnoses’ on assumptions. It is incumbent on her to examine the validity of those assumptions in order to check the truth or otherwise of her ‘diagnoses’.
Sheesh, buddy, I sleep 20 hours a day and eat raw fish, and yet I’m still way ahead of you. Get a grip, and not on yourself.
Oh and just so Siggy can’t go away saying, “I notice you failed to address my adroit observations concerning election fraud.”
Soon after in Mid-2001 the United States Commision on Civil Rights made this recommendation:
George Bush ignored this entirely because a Republican member of the committee called it “a Partisan attack.” That was all. No other evidence. But the ‘Form’ had been followed and George could ‘safely’ ignore it by simply agreeing with the ‘dissenting’ members.
In 2004, in Ohio , thousands of voters were cast by people who decided not to vote for President. This after standing in line for 10 or 11 hours. Others were called in the days ahead of the election and were mis-directed about polling times and places and hundreds of other ‘irregularities’ .The Republicans dismiss it as “Partisan bickering’ and ‘safely’ ignore it because ‘form’ has been followed.
So 2006 comes along and we say, “Watch the Republicans CLOSELY, they don’t care if elections are stolen. As evidenced by their previous LACK OF CONCERN and enabling (K. Harris, K. Blackwell).
During 2006 many more people pay attention to the voting and what is actually happening on election day. Democrats win. Siggy responds, “Are we to assume now that this last election, the Republicans threw the election?” No Siggy, I think we can really ONLY assume the extra vigilance PREVENTED further Republican HACK shenanigans.
And just to follow form:
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch9.htm
Someone please tell me that sigmund-carl-&-alfred is a parody. I have done my earnest best to read his or her comments, but the prose is giving me a lingering pain in the kidneys.
Someone please tell me that sigmund-carl-&-alfred is a parody. I have done my earnest best to read his or her comments, but the prose is giving me a lingering pain in the kidneys.
Indeed, good Herr Doktor, the creature is exceedingly full of shit. Organs of purification and elimination must work overtime to ensure that one does not drown in it, hence your discomfort (the correct medical term, I believe) in the kidney region.
This is just one of the many reasons I’m glad I have 18 very sharp claws, ‘cos critters like that get completely up my nose, but a good clawing soon sends ’em off wailing.
In fact, Dr Sanity would be delighted to debate her political opinions. Indeed, if you can present a viable and coherent alternative to her conclusions, as a scientist, she would welcome any and all credible input.
Oh dear. There seems to be a strong odor of sockpuppet in here.
Interesting observations and assertions. You seem rather sure of yourself when discussing psychological pathologies?
Where did you get your medical degree from and where did do you psychiatry residency? How many years have you been in practice?
Sounds like wounded vanity to me. Cough [sockpuppet] cough.
Further, I am reminded of the hysterical and shrill leftists who insisted that the elections were going to be ’stolen’ by the right. Before the election they said they even had ‘proof.’ yadda yadda yadda
Da wha? How did that topic get in here? Trying to shift to more comfortable ground, much? Can we say “disorganized thinking”? Very bad for a psychiatrist sockpuppet troll who’s presuming to lecture others on sound reasoning.
Oh. My. God.
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2005/10/on-couch-with-dr-sanity.html
SCA:Pat Santy::Atlas Pam:John Bolton
If this is sockpuppetry, it’s pretty frickin’ elaborate.
How the fuck do these people get diplomas?
I am so glad you have discovered Dr. Sanity, that tears of joy are running down my morally bankrupt, godless, multicultural, socialist, denying, communist, shrill, hysterical, mindless liberal face.
I read her blog every day to reaffirm that America — founded on noble liberal principles — is truly a great country. Where else would she have the freedom to spew her hate-filled and wacky invective?
She. Is. One. Piece. Of. Work. (And most of the commenters on her blog are quite the same.)
vraqljpoe ecxmvzg qwdtil krjc vftd ecjarbzd vxcm