When he says he dilates endlessly, he means endlessly. Hurrah!

Posted at February 23, 2007 7:18 PM in response to Late Updates from the Formerly Ill Management

And the Iranians have lots of infantry. Lots and lots and lots of infantry. And guess what's a really brilliant defense against air attack? Hostages.

Posted at February 8, 2007 11:52 AM in response to Can The Neocons Really Get Us Into a Second War?

The nub of it all is that today the left does not have an alternative economic model. Some of that is perception, the Soviet Union was capable of some rapid advances, first into space and all that, but the Marxist-Leninist economy proved that it was acutely vulnerable to being gamed by the agile surpluses produced by capitalism. As well as being non-transparent and prone to corruption and tyranny and all those other failings, of course. Really, the Future of Mankind should be above that kind of thing.

Posted at January 15, 2007 10:24 PM in response to MY LEFT FANNY

Tsk. The British nuclear deterrent has nothing to do with providing insurance or feeling safer. It is all about Britain's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. There is no message that Blair can send by giving up the deterrent that he can't send more directly by sitting in that seat.

The British deterrent should certainly go. How to plan the consequences of this is far from clear.

Posted at December 7, 2006 2:44 AM in response to Tony Blair’s Missed Opportunity

I agree. Maliki can't even wag his own dog. This looks to me more like the Iraqi consensus is that the US is the problem, not the solution.

Posted at November 30, 2006 1:55 PM in response to Guess Who's Not Coming to Dinner?

I have to agree with hoppy and tpmmal. Worse than that, I have to agree with your cartoon Shias and Sunnis. I simply don't see the difference between their idea "that we are deliberately and purposefully dismantling every vestige of what was the most secular Arab state in the Middle East" and the Bush-neocon idea of dismantling said vestiges because some set of magical free-market enterprises is going to emerge from nowhere and take their place.

Posted at November 13, 2006 4:48 PM in response to Behaving Like A Superpower in Iraq

Categorically not. Few people in Britain have any memory of the Mesopotamian campaign; those who do may have had some family involvement but most of the discussion should be read as a not-so-veiled criticism of Winston Churchill-style conservatism. In short, it is a reminder of just how non-beneficial the British Empire was.

The best explanation of why Blair followed Bush into Iraq was that Blair wished to preserve Britain's UN Security Council veto, which is under threat as the EU develops a collective foreign policy.

Posted at October 9, 2006 12:29 PM in response to England's Blunder, by Blunkett

I would think that the distortion of reality has been glossed more by using the opposition of the French than by using the support of the British. In other words, had Blair followed the examples of Chirac or Harold Wilson, the RWNM would simply have changed its tone to accommodate.

Posted at October 8, 2006 2:21 PM in response to England's Blunder, by Blunkett

Reagan wallowed in blood in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq and Angola. I suspect also in Peru and Mozambique. A disgusting man but yes, a genius compared to GWB.

Posted at September 12, 2006 3:56 PM in response to Not So Radical

In the context of your comment, I would remember Republicans, Corporates and Christians. I wouldn't state that they are treated "like Jews", because I don't believe Jews are treated here "like" anything.

I have found no unequivocally anti-semitic speech at TPM Cafe. The most borderline is Marc Parent but it is possible from what I could bear to read of his clumsy writing that he is actually a Palestinian, in which case his animus derives from a grievance rather than from a racism.

There is real anti-semitism around, for sure. Look at Delaware. But the accusations here are a load of blather and have damaged the community.

Posted at July 17, 2006 6:59 PM in response to Discussion v. Diatribe