Another e-exchange with local radio talkshow wingnut (calls us "blind pigs

[UTUSN]

-------My opening shot, re: Bill KRISTOL abandoning Iraq---------

I had heard of BUCKLEY and FUKUYAMA having turned against the Iraq attack----gee, thanks, not-even-better-late, boys----------but today on Maury and Connie, they said that Bill KRISTOL had now fallen off the Iraq war wagon.

Gee, Billy is one of the biggest, original PNACers. The problem is that they're all saying, well, nothing we can do now but to see it through.

So this FUKUYAMA was on with Maury CHUNG and said that any policy might incur "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES which might come to outweigh the original good intentions."

That's what this so-called intellectual said. Yeah, well, I'll say again, how come most of us Dems who were against their blasted idiot ideas didn't NEED any special "intelligence" or, now, elitist so-called intellectual authority to KNOW what was NOT RIGHT and WOULD NOT WORK???

So it's down to the deadenders among you personality-cult Shrubbites, eh, ***? As I recall you weren't aware of Neoconism and PNACism back when. You were just following Shrub and CHEENEE wherever they would take you. Then you went into your Stratfor phase, when you thought you were being oh-so-smart about strategy.



********QUOTE,His response, with my answers highlighted*******

As for the Democrats being “right” about Iraq, I’ve always thought that if they turned out to be “right” it would be in the even-a-blind-hog-finds-an-acorn-sometime variety. That is, they were right not because of superior analysis or foreign policy vision but out of blind luck.

Pigs find acorns with their sense of smell, so you're inadvertently crediting Dems with a VERY high track record---thanks!.

This sounds testy but it really isn’t. What DO Democrats, to the extent that you speak for every single one, think should happen in the Middle East? What would THEY have done in the same circumstance Bush was in? You can say not invade Iraq and that’s a good start. Then what? How to confront the jihadists around the world, or do they think they are a threat? In the same way the commies were (as I do). Some Democrats simply didn’t see the Communists as as big a threat as I did.

Yes, after that first step of un-Iraq-attacking, we would have been focused on the actual threats to national security, not on the un-threats. As for the "circumstance Bush was in"----uh, that's the point, he totally mis-read and misdirected.

What about the larger question of democracy or self-government and Arabs and Moslems? Bush thinks all people yearn for freedom and self-government on the Western model and that given a chance they will go for it? It is not too big a jump to say that Arabs, etc. aren’t ready for self-government NOW because they haven’t had the groundwork laid as we had, etc. TO Arabs and Moslems, well, they just can’t handle it; they’re too willful and emotional. They’re a lot like children, you know. I have always believed that everybody wants the same freedom we enjoy but I’m questioning myself. Maybe some people just can’t handle self-government. It looks like we can’t sometimes, as license undermines liberty here at home.

To begin with, Shrub doesn't "think" about much, much less what freedom people yearn for. We've been around the block about what his real motives were, with his ever-changing "reasons" and rationales for the war of choice. You have been flogging the allegation that we make the racist claim that Arabs-aren't-ready-for-democracy for a hog's age. Who has ever said that? You are the only source for that I've seen anywhere. *My* point has always been that we have no business violating SOVEREIGNTY of those who have not attacked us. As for we ourselves sometimes failing at our own self-government, you might use as an example all the fundie/Minutemen/anti-Choice/wingnut-wackos whose sole mission in life is to attempt to deny freedoms to others and dictate what others must think, do, and curb-to-feel.

But back to national politics. The Democrats have had it easy with Bush as a foe because he was a big, fat target, in the same sense that the GOP had it easy as they hated Clinton.. But they will not have Bush on the 2008 ballot, so, what is their plan and what is the philosophy underlying the plan? I think the Bush/Wilson era of remaking the world is probably over so now, what is their plan? I don’t think they have one.

Ah, yes, the eternal Shrub-is-off-limits argument. It started months ago, that Shrub will not be on the ballot so HUSH UP about him. Nobody has ever had such an easy run as Shrub: In Campaign '00, it was "Don't be mean to Shrub, don't mess with TX," then it was "Nothing is Shrub's responsibility, it's all CLINTON's fault," now it's, "He's over, so look to the future." No accountability, no responsibility, what happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY? We went through our WILSON phase nearly 100 years ago. We have had a series of UPDATED plans ever since then. I suppose Shrub would like to re-live history with each PAST Dem plan, you know, to complete his education at our expense. And don't be too sure Shrub is out of office in 2009. He just might decide to suspend the Constitution OFFICIALLY, as opposed to DE FACTO. And there's always Jeb Crow Shrub, otherwise known as SATAN II.

*********UNQUOTE***********
An illustration:

[LaurenG]

1. Why do these people HATE America, and other Americans?

I would like to say they are naive but I think they are blind on purpose. Sad, small minded people they are.

[Syncronaut Seven]

2. And what are the chances of 100 million blind pigs finding the same acorn

in the mountain of PNAC shit being shoveled? Pretty damn improbable.

All though I really do feel for *, He's a victim of bad intelligence dont'cha know! :sarcasm:

On edit:
The twisting and evasion of responsibility from the "conservatives" is truly vile. The pukes DO represent the party of responsibility don't they? That's the impression I got, seeing as they wore that catch phrase in to the ground. I'm still waiting for a single concrete example.

Absolute self serving hypocrites. 100%

[UTUSN]

3. Kick for high tea n/t

[blm]

4. What's so blind about putting WEAPONS INSPECTORS IN FIRST and THEN

determine whether Iraq should be dealt with militarily?

It's common sense, and Bush VIOLATED the IWR when he iunvaded Iraq DESPITE the findings of the weapons inspectors on the ground there.