-
"Wolfowitz wanted the war in Iraq to bring liberty to the Middle East."
No, the neo-cons wanted to set up a bunch of puppet states in the Middle East, with more control than the US usually exercises. As did Bush, Cheney, etc. None of them wanted democracy, and all of them worked against it, accepting it only when democracy was forced upon them.
Posted at February 23, 2006 11:13 AM in response to Neo-Conservative Culture and Our Foreign Policy
-
Curahee: "No one likes having their institution and life's work criticized by an outsider. "
If he's a combat officer, he'd better drop that attitude. The enemy always gets a vote and a critique on the plan. The Iraqi guerrilla's have been performing some very effective criticism.
Posted at January 13, 2006 10:02 AM in response to Among Allies ....
-
"The goal is not to have bad shit happen so Democrats can win elections. The goal is to win elections so bad shit doesn't happen. I'd prefer not to be the party of fiddling while Rome burns."
And by now, nobody should be able to propose any version of 'the worse things get, the better', without a strong feeling of doubt. The GOP has proven itself far too capable of profiting from the misfortunes of others.
Posted at January 10, 2006 10:46 AM in response to Carts, Horses, and Judges
-
Presidents get to pick judges? That's odd - I recall a time, way back in the 1990's, where the GOP Senate had no problem refusing to confirm. In fact, refusing to hold hearings.
The only reason that Bush should get to choose Alito is if the GOP triumphs in this particular battle. And even if they do, it can be used in the fall elections to persuade some American voters that the Democratic Party stands for something other than submission to the GOP.
Posted at January 10, 2006 10:33 AM in response to Carts, Horses, and Judges
-
Matt: "One of the great perversities of Bush's domestic policy is that, when he does deviate from conservatism, he follows this same pattern--that is, he tacks left not because it is in the broad public interest but because it will please a narrow but powerful special interest...."
Matt, this isn't tacking 'left'. The 'right' isn't free market oriented, except when it helps them.
Posted at January 5, 2006 11:17 AM in response to The K Street Presidency
-
sjk: "In this environment, a discovery that a particular company has horded and is using private information against individuals is likely (though not necessarily) to lead to the collapse of the company as customers take their business elsewhere. The risk of colllapse is enough to ensure most companies steer clear of privacy concerns."
Ever heard of Choicepoint? A major aggregator and holder of personal financial information. Did you hear of what it did when it was ripped off of data a few months ago? It notifed those California 'customers' whom it was legally required to. The rest were out of luck, until the publicity hit. At which point Choicepoint notified them of the breach, and offered, for a fee, to help monitor their credit information. Which is a great scam, if you can do it.
I use 'customer' in quotes, because those people hadn't signed up with Choicepoint; rather, a company with whom they had dealt signed up with Choicepoint. Or a company with whom that company had dealt with did.Posted at December 21, 2005 11:29 AM in response to Speaking of Surveillance...
-
"(I'm sure I don't need to remind people why Affirmative Action originally came into being....) "
Because, unlike the rest of society, there was active discrimination by unions against blacks, women and hispanics?Posted at July 6, 2005 9:14 AM in response to Why Progressives are Fools to Ignore Labor Issues
