Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Does John Edwards really believe this?

Trial lawyer who got wealthy tugging at the hearstrings of juries. Hmmm. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say no.

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 08:17 AM

Who are "they" ?? Most likely he means supporters of Hillary.

Or perhaps whoever thought up that "Breck girl" meme as if Edwards haircuts are somehow worse than Condi Rice's shoe buying habits.

Or maybe those who insist that anyone who expresses more than superficial disagreement with this Administration seeks the triumph of the global caliphate.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 08:17 AM

Yet NPR is still on the air, and, I'm sure, will be exempted from any revived "Fairness Doctrine', since it's already more fair and objective than is humanly possible.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at August 1, 2007 08:41 AM

Or perhaps whoever thought up that "Breck girl" meme as if Edwards haircuts are somehow worse than Condi Rice's shoe buying habits.

Bill, you can't be serious. You're comparing a man vainly obsessed with his appearance with a woman who collects shoes, and can't seem to throw out any old pairs. Then from you're point of view, it's stranger for a woman to spend four hundred dollars on a pair of shoes, and never throw them out, than a man who spends the same amount on a single haircut.

I've got only two questions:

1) Who cuts your hair?

2) Have you ever lived with a woman before?

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 08:44 AM

Edwards haircuts are somehow worse than Condi Rice's shoe buying habits

Has Condi been buying shoes with campaign funds? Did I miss something?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2007 09:16 AM

And does Condi pay air fare for shoe salesmen to fly to her whenever she gets a shopping urge?

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at August 1, 2007 09:20 AM

Of course Edwards doesn't believe it. He believes that his best (only) chance to be nominated is to appeal to the Loony Left of his Party. If he somehow became the nominee (Intrade odds: 7%) he would quickly move to the Center to be competitive in the general election. I'm glad he's doing so poorly, because he's so cynical and unprincipled that Hillary comes off looking like Margaret Thatcher by comparison.

Posted by Jonathan at August 1, 2007 09:56 AM

Bill is the undisputed king of absurd analogies.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2007 09:56 AM

No matter, Rand, Edwards is a dead armadillo.

Whether fair or not "Breck girl" sticks and I just don't see him overcoming it.

Barack Hussein Obama is the guy you guys need to aim at. I predict he will pass Hillary and become the Democratic nominee.

This snippet from today's speech is simply dead spot on (IMHO, of course):

"Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for...

Exactly right.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission...

Again, exactly right.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 10:27 AM

BHO "To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for..."

And yet he does not recognize that we are fighting the enemy in Iraq right this very minute. Either that or he does recognize that we are doing so and yet he wants us to abandon the battlefield to that enemy nevertheless.

Face it Bill, the entire leadership of the democrat party and the entire field of democrat presidential candidates are morally bankrupt. They neither believe what they say nor say what they believe.

BHO: "overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11"

That is exactly what Obama is doing. Al Qaeda in Iraq IS Al Qaeda, it is currently the most active, most aggressive, most deadly branch of Osama Bin Ladens AQ. If we let AQI win, AQ wins, IE Osama wins. The propaganda value of such a win for AQ is immeasurable. Obama and anyone else who can't see that is an IDIOT.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 1, 2007 10:40 AM

The man that wants to leave Iraq, but invade Pakistan is going to pass Hillary?

Posted by Al at August 1, 2007 10:44 AM

Okay, Rand. You got me.

It's me. I'm secretly a multi-billionaire, and I cut $100 checks to a million Americans a month in return for their not listening to Air America, and for posting insipid and/or disgusting and offputting comments on Democratic Underground.

And I would have gotten away with it, too, if not fo you meddling kids!

Posted by Sigivald at August 1, 2007 10:46 AM

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 10:27 AM

Barack Hussein Obama is the guy you guys need to aim at. I predict he will pass Hillary and become the Democratic nominee.

First of all, Bill, I'm sure why we (whoever we is) need to aim at anyone due to their status as a candidate. People on this site are concerned about ideas. That is what we take aim at.

Second, the Clinton election machine is extremely powerful. Unless she does something increadibly stupid, Hillary is likely going to be the Democratic nominee.

This snippet from today's speech is simply dead spot on (IMHO, of course):

Stating the absolute obvious, as Obama did in the speech you quoted from, was intended to deflect his foreign policy gaffe from a week ago.

At that time he stated that he would PERSONALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY meet with any leader of any country that has an enmity between the them and the U.S. Any semi-literate foreign policy wonk knows that's an absolutely absurd position.

That gaffe portrayed him as an unserious candidate, and Clinton was starting to take advantage of it. This "get tough" speech was damage control, pure and simple.

Unfortunatly for Obama, in trying to act "tough but smart" he committed another (and possibly worse) foreign policy gaffe. By suggesting (publicly) that we should consider sending troops into Pakistan, without the Pakistani government's permission, shows him to be a serious lightweight when it comes to foreign affairs.

Rule Number 1: Don't alienate governments that are cooperating with you. And that's exactly what he is suggesting.

Obama is a likeable guy, but he just doesn't have the foreign policy bona fides. For what it's worth, however, he's a Kissinger compared to Edwards.

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 11:16 AM

And Cecil, I say this above statement is simply INCORRECT as a simple matter of facts.

Also, AQI cannot win in Iraq because the vast majority of Iraqis desire to smoke and keep their fingers.

Also, Tehran is opposed to AQI winning in Iraq (even if they are pleased when AQI causes us casualties).

Finally, to re-define the mission in Iraq is not the same as pulling out every last soldier. No matter who wins in 2008, we will have a substantial presence in Iraq for many many years to come.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:17 AM

Obama did not say what Hillary's people are saying he said. Or what you say he said.

And if it was a gaffe, why did Bill Clinton step in to mend fences on the topic?

The MSM wanted Obama's comment to be spun as a gaffe but that is not how it is playing out.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:20 AM

> No matter who wins in 2008, we will have a substantial presence in Iraq for many many years to come.

Every Dem candidate disagrees. Are they lying or wrong? The answer may depend on the candidate, so what does each candidate's answer tell us about said candidate's merit?

White seems to believe that the country would be better off with a Dem president, but he keeps ducking that question wrt Dem candidates. Does he think that some other Dem will win the nomination?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 1, 2007 11:30 AM

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:20 AM

Here are two articles regarding this issue:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_el_pr/obama_clinton

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/25/obama_clinton_resume_battle_over_leading_the_world/

The fact is that Obama's handler's immediately went into damaga control status, sent out representatives to tell the media what Obama "really meant".

Doesn't really matter now anyway. With Obama's latest gaffe, we've got a trend. And that will be used against him.

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 11:39 AM

Actually, kayawanee, all the spin about Obama invading Pakistan suggests a secret alliance between the Bush family and the Clinton family.

4 years of Bush 41
8 years of Bubba
8 years of Bush 43

And now here come Hillary.

Like Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson have a prayer.

Gingrich might since he's mean enough and neither Rudy or Fred can take punches with the NY York firefighters and Rudy's ex-wives waiting out there to sink Giuliani soon enough.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:52 AM

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 11:52 AM

Actually, kayawanee, all the spin about Obama invading Pakistan suggests a secret alliance between the Bush family and the Clinton family.

Conspiricy theories, Bill? That's where you want to go? Do youself a favor, and stay away from Daily Kos and Democratic Underground for a while.

The fact is Obama, on his own website, has issued an unveiled, public ultimatum towards Pakistan. If Obama doesn't wish to be "spun" or "misinterpreted", then maybe he shouldn't be making such blanket statements with implicit threats of violence.

Posted by kayawanee at August 1, 2007 12:14 PM

He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan.

But they ARE there now, or should we overlook that? Because we went to Iraq, the president was taken to task by the left for derailing the war on terror to go after terrorists that did not exist in that location. They exist there now, but the left now wants us to not fight the terrorists we're fighting and go fight them somewhere else? So, it was wrong the first time, but right the second? Why am I not surprised this is the thinking on the left?

Posted by Mac at August 1, 2007 12:23 PM

Mac, the question is whether AQI would thrive without our presence.

Since the Iraqi Sunni/Baath have turned against AQI and since the Shia (Iran) see AQI as a useful proxy for fighting us but despise AQ otherwise, if we did not provide AQI with targets no one in Iraq would want them there.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 12:48 PM

Bill, we're not going by what the MSM says (the notion that any of my readers would do that is hilarious). We're going by what the Democrats (your Democrats, who you continually defend here) are saying. Why can't you answer Andy's question (which he's asked you many times). Are they lying, or delusional?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2007 01:05 PM

Rand, they simply are not saying what you say they say.

Just like the "invade Pakistan" kerfluffle.

And yes, many on the Right are not going by what the MSM says, rather they are following the Rove play book in order to frame what Rove wants the MSM to say that the Democrats are saying.

Posted by Bill White at August 1, 2007 01:26 PM

And yes, many on the Right are not going by what the MSM says, rather they are following the Rove play book in order to frame what Rove wants the MSM to say that the Democrats are saying.

Gee, Bill, I must have missed my fax from Karl this morning. Guess I'm not "on the Right."

You're starting to sound almost as paranoid as John Edwards. I would have thought you folks would be happy, now that you control Congress.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2007 01:57 PM

"And Cecil, I say this above statement is simply INCORRECT as a simple matter of facts."

Which part is incorrect Bill? Where are your "facts"

Do you think AQI is not part of AQ? Zawahiri has said it is, several times.

Is AQI not the most active, most aggressive, most deadly branch of AQ? If not, pray tell where any other branch of AQ is killing more people than AQI is these days.

Explain how a win for AQI is not a win for AQ in general, or why it doesn't matter. Explain how the US military retreating from the fight with AQI is not a win for AQ.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 1, 2007 02:35 PM

Bill, you are losing it.

I think you are desperate lately. More specifically, acting trapped. You realize Obama will not be able to overcome the Clinton machine as much as you would like him to and that Clinton is so incredibly lousy outside the event horizon of the hardcore democratic base, she is guarenteeing a shellacking of apocylaptic proportions of your entire party to the impending Thompson campaign.

That is the paradox of Hillary: So powerful in the Democratic party she is virtually unstoppable and so lousy outside that event horizon she is virtually unelectible.

This is your guys best chance in years and you see it melting before your very eyes. Even faster with the meltdown of the Dems in congress and the impending loss of the 'Iraq as an ablatross' issue to use against the Republicans.

I understand you don't like what you see but please try and regain your composure.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 1, 2007 03:15 PM

Mac, the question is whether AQI would thrive without our presence.

That's not the question, since we are there and so are they. We cannot change the past, only learn from it.

No one in Iraq wants them there now, but they need our help in running AQI out of town. Their military and police forces were cowed dogs until we began to train them, and now they're taking more and more actions on their own. Again, arguing what "might have" happened is ridiculous.

And no matter what the MSM says, the next President will be keeping size-able military units in Iraq (perhaps out of sight at desert bases) available for rapid deployment to strike at genuine terrorist targets.

I lot of my military friends still have rotations to Bosnia. So what? We have interests all over the world, should we not carefully husband them?

From Walter E Williams:

Today's debate over the Iraq War is so often discussed in terms of whether it should have been initiated in the first place, our faulty intelligence about Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, and whether the Bush administration lied to the American people. Whether these observations and charges are true or false should in no way be a part of today's decision-making, for history is one of those immutable facts of life. We can change the future, but we cannot change the past, though we can learn from it.

Posted by Mac at August 2, 2007 05:32 AM

> Rand, they simply are not saying what you say they say.

Oh really?

Let's get this straight. White thinks that some/all of the Dem candidates are not promising to withdraw from Iraq?

What will White do when we start posting cites to where they say that they are?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 2, 2007 10:14 AM

Post a comment