And, yet Ms. Kagan cannot get herself to state, without reservation, we (Americans) have certain unalienable rights. Another 'gift' from Barack Hussein Obama... for the rest of her life.
You're leaving out the best part, CM. When SOLICITOR GENERAL Kagan says:
"You should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief" in people's rights outside the Constitution and laws, Kagan retorted. "I think you should want me to act on the basis of law."
As I said, I thought you guys believed in the primacy of the Constitution.
CM, you want Kagan to say there is one God, the Christian God, and that Muslims can be hunted down and be killed because they don't believe in the correct God. Oh wait, Kagan also doesn't believe in the true God either.
And you never did say what Bush what accomplished in Afghanistan.
Yet you want to complain about Kagan answering that the Constitution is more important than any one religion. In fact, that was exactly what the founding fathers did not want, the promotion of one religion over all others. But of course, you know better than the rest of us, you know the true God and what She wants.
But you don't know what Bush accomplished in Afghanistan.
Rich, I was referring to a past post where CM said much the same thing as you. I don't know your motivation for saying so, but CM's was a pretty transparent attempt to undermine Obama by ignoring the effects of the previous seven years of Bush administration occupation of Afghanistan.
If you don't understand how the Bush administration's activities in those seven years constrain what Obama can accomplish, I have neither the time nor energy to explain it to you, assuming you would listen with an open mind.
ED spare me the bs!! How long are you gonna blame Bush for Obama? As far as I'm concerned we should get outta there as soon as possible. As I recall it was Bush's Iraq surge that Obama so strongly denigrated and oh yeah ridiculed Petraeus....so now Bush's general is the go to guy to save Obama's ass in Afghanistan.....now that's not too long for you is it??
So, Rich, you are seriously saying that Bush's seven years has no effect on Afghanistan, that Obama started with a clean slate there and messed it up all on his own?
As for leaving, yes we should, except ... for the niggling concept of trying to leave it as a functioning democracy, or at least not run by the Taliban and once again a haven for terrorists, or some kind of narco-thingie that sells huge amounts of heroin. I mean, assuming we aren't breaking some kind of NATO treaty obligation, we can leave tomorrow. However, doing so will place huge pressure on the other NATO troops there, and may sooner rather than later cause the country to fall into chaos.
Now, you can, like Michael Steele, say that Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing, but in the real world it was Bush who took us in, it was the military under Bush that failed to capture Osama bin Laden, and it was the military and civilian administrators under Bush who spent seven years *not* getting Afghanistan ready to stand on its own. And you can say all that has no impact on where Obama found himself in January of 2009, but you undermine your own credibility in doing so.
And in January of 2009, Obama found himself with the possibility of the US plunging into depression, with issues like health care to face, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan to manage. And Obama has received zero cooperation and active attempts to undermine the country domestically and abroad from Republicans in Congress and outside of it. And then you want me to blame Obama for where Afghanistan is now. Because you think I'm stupid.
Ed under no circumstances do i think you're dumb...obviously you have some self doubt...but don't worry we all go thru that....what i think you are is an ideologue who is stuck in his progressive box and thinks only after he reads the talking points put out by fools like arriana Huffington or the daily Kos...marxist-capitalist who reap millions while touting the policies of fiscal destruction...much like the clintons who have made millions while never creating a productive thing in their lives..or Prince Al Gore born with his silver spoon waiting to make Billions on his Carbon scam....
I have no"niggling" belief that we are going to turn that pile of rocks into anything even vaguely reminding us of a democracy...a country with a pre-historic culture,run by tribal leaders,who subjugate women,deny education to girls,and run narco-syndicates while embracing Islamo-fascism is far beyond the recuparative powers of America...let them descend into the craggy abyss where they are comfortable....
and yes Obama's war with its surge and change of military leadership will have no more success than McCrystal,Bush, the Russians,or the Brits have had...as Kipling stated in 1895......
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Rich, the amount of oversimplification in your last comment is staggering, and I don't know that I can address all its facets. Just one small part; I rarely read Huffington Post (maybe once every 60 days or so) and I read Daily Kos even less. I do read the New York Times daily online, mostly the opinion pieces (both liberal and conservative). And the self doubt you say I have I assume is from my tendency to express caveats for at least some of my opinions. I am aware that no one has all the information, and I have less than a lot of people. And distilling all the information that is out there to venture an opinion on Afghanistan or how the economy is doing is a difficult process (deciding what is important to consider and what is not, how you construct a mental model in other words). But you want to say I view the world with progressive blinders. Of course, you have no biases at all (or rather you are aware of them and are not influenced in your expressed opinions by your biases). You see everything clearly, but are not appreciated by us deluded people.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I think Colin Powell was talking about Iraq when he invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule", but I think in the eyes of the rest of the world it is true for Afghanistan too. It doesn't matter that it might have already been broken when we invaded, we have not tried hard enough (yet) to try to fix it, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. And world opinion is worth something, especially when we claim we want to fight terrorists all over the world.
Now all of what I just said about Afghanistan is an oversimplification too, but the point is that it is a different slant on the issue than what you have said. Is my slant less descriptive of the situation in Afghanistan than yours? Why? Do you think we can fight terrorism through the Middle East and the rest of the world if we are seen as dismissing the Afghans as too "prehistoric" to be a democracy, and we just walk away from the country? And will we have to invade again in five years, when the country starts harboring terrorists again?
And by the way, what does it matter if the Clintons or Al Gore makes money? Are you saying liberals should not allow themselves to become wealthy because every liberal is a secret Marxist?
Rich, the amount of oversimplification in your last comment is staggering, and I don't know that I can address all its facets. Just one small part; I rarely read Huffington Post (maybe once every 60 days or so) and I read Daily Kos even less. I do read the New York Times daily online, mostly the opinion pieces (both liberal and conservative). And the self doubt you say I have I assume is from my tendency to express caveats for at least some of my opinions. I am aware that no one has all the information, and I have less than a lot of people. And distilling all the information that is out there to venture an opinion on Afghanistan or how the economy is doing is a difficult process (deciding what is important to consider and what is not, how you construct a mental model in other words). But you want to say I view the world with progressive blinders. Of course, you have no biases at all (or rather you are aware of them and are not influenced in your expressed opinions by your biases). You see everything clearly, but are not appreciated by us deluded people.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I think Colin Powell was talking about Iraq when he invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule", but I think in the eyes of the rest of the world it is true for Afghanistan too. It doesn't matter that it might have already been broken when we invaded, we have not tried hard enough (yet) to try to fix it, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. And world opinion is worth something, especially when we claim we want to fight terrorists all over the world.
Now all of what I just said about Afghanistan is an oversimplification too, but the point is that it is a different slant on the issue than what you have said. Is my slant less descriptive of the situation in Afghanistan than yours? Why? Do you think we can fight terrorism through the Middle East and the rest of the world if we are seen as dismissing the Afghans as too "prehistoric" to be a democracy, and we just walk away from the country? And will we have to invade again in five years, when the country starts harboring terrorists again?
And by the way, what does it matter if the Clintons or Al Gore makes money? Are you saying liberals should not allow themselves to become wealthy because every liberal is a secret Marxist?
Rich, the amount of oversimplification in your last comment is staggering, and I don't know that I can address all its facets. Just one small part; I rarely read Huffington Post (maybe once every 60 days or so) and I read Daily Kos even less. I do read the New York Times daily online, mostly the opinion pieces (both liberal and conservative). And the self doubt you say I have I assume is from my tendency to express caveats for at least some of my opinions. I am aware that no one has all the information, and I have less than a lot of people. And distilling all the information that is out there to venture an opinion on Afghanistan or how the economy is doing is a difficult process (deciding what is important to consider and what is not, how you construct a mental model in other words). But you want to say I view the world with progressive blinders. Of course, you have no biases at all (or rather you are aware of them and are not influenced in your expressed opinions by your biases). You see everything clearly, but are not appreciated by us deluded people.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I think Colin Powell was talking about Iraq when he invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule", but I think in the eyes of the rest of the world it is true for Afghanistan too. It doesn't matter that it might have already been broken when we invaded, we have not tried hard enough (yet) to try to fix it, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. And world opinion is worth something, especially when we claim we want to fight terrorists all over the world.
Now all of what I just said about Afghanistan is an oversimplification too, but the point is that it is a different slant on the issue than what you have said. Is my slant less descriptive of the situation in Afghanistan than yours? Why? Do you think we can fight terrorism through the Middle East and the rest of the world if we are seen as dismissing the Afghans as too "prehistoric" to be a democracy, and we just walk away from the country? And will we have to invade again in five years, when the country starts harboring terrorists again?
And by the way, what does it matter if the Clintons or Al Gore makes money? Are you saying liberals should not allow themselves to become wealthy because every liberal is a secret Marxist?
Sorry Ed I don't see it as over simplification....if we wanna kill Al Queda in Afghanistan we are better of with snipers,elite troops,and drones.We are not at war with Afghanistan:we are at war with what remains of AlQueda..maybe a hundred still in Afghanistan....Democracy Building was certainly an objective in Iraq..it is not so much so in Afghanistan..they are a soveriegn nation with their own culture,institutions,and beliefs....let them sort out their own democracy agenda....as for NATO,the rest leave soon after we do..no doubt about it....If karzai wants to allow his brother to sell heroin....that's on him...not us.... as for Obama's war,its a fact that after taking office,obama made no changes to the Bush policies in Afghanistan...Obama's embrace of Bush's point man Petraeus shouts"no change of policy"... even Petraeus told the Senate he supports: not a “race for the exits,” but a “conditions-based,” open-ended transition.That means when the commander on the ground thinks conditions are right....that is a Bush policy emulated now by obama...spin it any way you want Ed, its Obama's war....Gore's carbon scam speaks and his gas/oil guzzling lifestyle speaks for him and his beliefs.. as for Clinton,he spent his wholelife in public office and yet he's now worth a 100 million....it reminds me of Arafat a guy who never had a real job dying worth about 500,000,000.....
Rich, it sounds like you favor leaving Afghanistan immediately. It may be that if we had captured or killed Osama bin Laden in December 2001, we could have left shortly there after. But I assume even you will admit that the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda, greatly assisting them in carrying out terrorism. So naturally some people might think that it would be in our interest to assist Afghanistan in not turning back into a state that sponsors terrorism.
The Afghan institutions you glibly talk about were never really in place, and have been battered out of existence by 30 years of war and/or Taliban rule. Yes, it is now Obama's war, but it was not in 2001, nor from 2002-2008 (Remeber Michael Steele called Afghanistan a war of Obama's choosing, which it obviously wasn't). It is ironic that you say Obama is emulating Bush policy, since in fact Obama is now doing what Bush couldn't be bothered to do, to pay attention and try to make things work in Afghanistan. Bush simply let Afghans and Americans alike bleed for seven years. Now, we could walk away after being there eight years and say it is Afghanistan's problem or we could try to split up the country into tribal regions, because those are the easy things to do. That will increase the likelihood of future terrorist attacks from bases in Afghanistan, and conservatives will blame Obama, so I guess actually Bush would then have accomplished his goal. Or we can, as the Sunday morning talking heads said earlier today, try to create a hardened terrorist proof state. Mind you, it will be incredibly expensive, and cost many lives, all because George Bush couldn't be bothered to try for seven years. But the alternative is to lose lives in future terrorist attacks from Afghanistan. And have to invade all over again.
ED..leave the sooner the better....who are we at war with?? You're argument of "fight there"so there's no terrorism here is weak.Your logic is faulty.If that's the case, then Bush's ineffectual policies should have lead to more attacks.Surprisingly under Obama,there is now a rash of Islamo-fascist attacks on US soil.Ed staying there is probably the biggest foreign policy blunder since Carter's Iran fiasco.Maybe CBS will start keeping the body count like they did in Iraq when Bush was president!Embrace it all you want....it can be your war too!!!
15 comments:
And, yet Ms. Kagan cannot get herself to state, without reservation, we (Americans) have certain unalienable rights. Another 'gift' from Barack Hussein Obama... for the rest of her life.
And I thought you guys were Constitutionalists.
You're leaving out the best part, CM. When SOLICITOR GENERAL Kagan says:
"You should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief" in people's rights outside the Constitution and laws, Kagan retorted. "I think you should want me to act on the basis of law."
As I said, I thought you guys believed in the primacy of the Constitution.
CM, you want Kagan to say there is one God, the Christian God, and that Muslims can be hunted down and be killed because they don't believe in the correct God. Oh wait, Kagan also doesn't believe in the true God either.
And you never did say what Bush what accomplished in Afghanistan.
Yet you want to complain about Kagan answering that the Constitution is more important than any one religion. In fact, that was exactly what the founding fathers did not want, the promotion of one religion over all others. But of course, you know better than the rest of us, you know the true God and what She wants.
But you don't know what Bush accomplished in Afghanistan.
Ed I'm more interested in what Obama has accomplished in Afghanistan...
Rich, I was referring to a past post where CM said much the same thing as you. I don't know your motivation for saying so, but CM's was a pretty transparent attempt to undermine Obama by ignoring the effects of the previous seven years of Bush administration occupation of Afghanistan.
If you don't understand how the Bush administration's activities in those seven years constrain what Obama can accomplish, I have neither the time nor energy to explain it to you, assuming you would listen with an open mind.
ED spare me the bs!! How long are you gonna blame Bush for Obama? As far as I'm concerned we should get outta there as soon as possible. As I recall it was Bush's Iraq surge that Obama so strongly denigrated and oh yeah ridiculed Petraeus....so now Bush's general is the go to guy to save Obama's ass in Afghanistan.....now that's not too long for you is it??
So, Rich, you are seriously saying that Bush's seven years has no effect on Afghanistan, that Obama started with a clean slate there and messed it up all on his own?
As for leaving, yes we should, except ... for the niggling concept of trying to leave it as a functioning democracy, or at least not run by the Taliban and once again a haven for terrorists, or some kind of narco-thingie that sells huge amounts of heroin. I mean, assuming we aren't breaking some kind of NATO treaty obligation, we can leave tomorrow. However, doing so will place huge pressure on the other NATO troops there, and may sooner rather than later cause the country to fall into chaos.
Now, you can, like Michael Steele, say that Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing, but in the real world it was Bush who took us in, it was the military under Bush that failed to capture Osama bin Laden, and it was the military and civilian administrators under Bush who spent seven years *not* getting Afghanistan ready to stand on its own. And you can say all that has no impact on where Obama found himself in January of 2009, but you undermine your own credibility in doing so.
And in January of 2009, Obama found himself with the possibility of the US plunging into depression, with issues like health care to face, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan to manage. And Obama has received zero cooperation and active attempts to undermine the country domestically and abroad from Republicans in Congress and outside of it. And then you want me to blame Obama for where Afghanistan is now. Because you think I'm stupid.
Ed under no circumstances do i think you're dumb...obviously you have some self doubt...but don't worry we all go thru that....what i think you are is an ideologue who is stuck in his progressive box and thinks only after he reads the talking points put out by fools like arriana Huffington or the daily Kos...marxist-capitalist who reap millions while touting the policies of fiscal destruction...much like the clintons who have made millions while never creating a productive thing in their lives..or Prince Al Gore born with his silver spoon waiting to make Billions on his Carbon scam....
I have no"niggling" belief that we are going to turn that pile of rocks into anything even vaguely reminding us of a democracy...a country with a pre-historic culture,run by tribal leaders,who subjugate women,deny education to girls,and run narco-syndicates while embracing Islamo-fascism is far beyond the recuparative powers of America...let them descend into the craggy abyss where they are comfortable....
and yes Obama's war with its surge and change of military leadership will have no more success than McCrystal,Bush, the Russians,or the Brits have had...as Kipling stated in 1895......
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Rich, the amount of oversimplification in your last comment is staggering, and I don't know that I can address all its facets. Just one small part; I rarely read Huffington Post (maybe once every 60 days or so) and I read Daily Kos even less. I do read the New York Times daily online, mostly the opinion pieces (both liberal and conservative). And the self doubt you say I have I assume is from my tendency to express caveats for at least some of my opinions. I am aware that no one has all the information, and I have less than a lot of people. And distilling all the information that is out there to venture an opinion on Afghanistan or how the economy is doing is a difficult process (deciding what is important to consider and what is not, how you construct a mental model in other words). But you want to say I view the world with progressive blinders. Of course, you have no biases at all (or rather you are aware of them and are not influenced in your expressed opinions by your biases). You see everything clearly, but are not appreciated by us deluded people.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I think Colin Powell was talking about Iraq when he invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule", but I think in the eyes of the rest of the world it is true for Afghanistan too. It doesn't matter that it might have already been broken when we invaded, we have not tried hard enough (yet) to try to fix it, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. And world opinion is worth something, especially when we claim we want to fight terrorists all over the world.
Now all of what I just said about Afghanistan is an oversimplification too, but the point is that it is a different slant on the issue than what you have said. Is my slant less descriptive of the situation in Afghanistan than yours? Why? Do you think we can fight terrorism through the Middle East and the rest of the world if we are seen as dismissing the Afghans as too "prehistoric" to be a democracy, and we just walk away from the country? And will we have to invade again in five years, when the country starts harboring terrorists again?
And by the way, what does it matter if the Clintons or Al Gore makes money? Are you saying liberals should not allow themselves to become wealthy because every liberal is a secret Marxist?
Rich, the amount of oversimplification in your last comment is staggering, and I don't know that I can address all its facets. Just one small part; I rarely read Huffington Post (maybe once every 60 days or so) and I read Daily Kos even less. I do read the New York Times daily online, mostly the opinion pieces (both liberal and conservative). And the self doubt you say I have I assume is from my tendency to express caveats for at least some of my opinions. I am aware that no one has all the information, and I have less than a lot of people. And distilling all the information that is out there to venture an opinion on Afghanistan or how the economy is doing is a difficult process (deciding what is important to consider and what is not, how you construct a mental model in other words). But you want to say I view the world with progressive blinders. Of course, you have no biases at all (or rather you are aware of them and are not influenced in your expressed opinions by your biases). You see everything clearly, but are not appreciated by us deluded people.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I think Colin Powell was talking about Iraq when he invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule", but I think in the eyes of the rest of the world it is true for Afghanistan too. It doesn't matter that it might have already been broken when we invaded, we have not tried hard enough (yet) to try to fix it, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. And world opinion is worth something, especially when we claim we want to fight terrorists all over the world.
Now all of what I just said about Afghanistan is an oversimplification too, but the point is that it is a different slant on the issue than what you have said. Is my slant less descriptive of the situation in Afghanistan than yours? Why? Do you think we can fight terrorism through the Middle East and the rest of the world if we are seen as dismissing the Afghans as too "prehistoric" to be a democracy, and we just walk away from the country? And will we have to invade again in five years, when the country starts harboring terrorists again?
And by the way, what does it matter if the Clintons or Al Gore makes money? Are you saying liberals should not allow themselves to become wealthy because every liberal is a secret Marxist?
Rich, the amount of oversimplification in your last comment is staggering, and I don't know that I can address all its facets. Just one small part; I rarely read Huffington Post (maybe once every 60 days or so) and I read Daily Kos even less. I do read the New York Times daily online, mostly the opinion pieces (both liberal and conservative). And the self doubt you say I have I assume is from my tendency to express caveats for at least some of my opinions. I am aware that no one has all the information, and I have less than a lot of people. And distilling all the information that is out there to venture an opinion on Afghanistan or how the economy is doing is a difficult process (deciding what is important to consider and what is not, how you construct a mental model in other words). But you want to say I view the world with progressive blinders. Of course, you have no biases at all (or rather you are aware of them and are not influenced in your expressed opinions by your biases). You see everything clearly, but are not appreciated by us deluded people.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001. I think Colin Powell was talking about Iraq when he invoked the "Pottery Barn Rule", but I think in the eyes of the rest of the world it is true for Afghanistan too. It doesn't matter that it might have already been broken when we invaded, we have not tried hard enough (yet) to try to fix it, at least in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. And world opinion is worth something, especially when we claim we want to fight terrorists all over the world.
Now all of what I just said about Afghanistan is an oversimplification too, but the point is that it is a different slant on the issue than what you have said. Is my slant less descriptive of the situation in Afghanistan than yours? Why? Do you think we can fight terrorism through the Middle East and the rest of the world if we are seen as dismissing the Afghans as too "prehistoric" to be a democracy, and we just walk away from the country? And will we have to invade again in five years, when the country starts harboring terrorists again?
And by the way, what does it matter if the Clintons or Al Gore makes money? Are you saying liberals should not allow themselves to become wealthy because every liberal is a secret Marxist?
Oops, sorry about the repeats. Blogger was acting weird.
Sorry Ed I don't see it as over simplification....if we wanna kill Al Queda in Afghanistan we are better of with snipers,elite troops,and drones.We are not at war with Afghanistan:we are at war with what remains of AlQueda..maybe a hundred still in Afghanistan....Democracy Building was certainly an objective in Iraq..it is not so much so in Afghanistan..they are a soveriegn nation with their own culture,institutions,and beliefs....let them sort out their own democracy agenda....as for NATO,the rest leave soon after we do..no doubt about it....If karzai wants to allow his brother to sell heroin....that's on him...not us....
as for Obama's war,its a fact that after taking office,obama made no changes to the Bush policies in Afghanistan...Obama's embrace of Bush's point man Petraeus shouts"no change of policy"... even Petraeus told the Senate he supports: not a “race for the exits,” but a “conditions-based,” open-ended transition.That means when the commander on the ground thinks conditions are right....that is a Bush policy emulated now by obama...spin it any way you want Ed, its Obama's war....Gore's carbon scam speaks and his gas/oil guzzling lifestyle speaks for him and his beliefs.. as for Clinton,he spent his wholelife in public office and yet he's now worth a 100 million....it reminds me of Arafat a guy who never had a real job dying worth about 500,000,000.....
Rich, it sounds like you favor leaving Afghanistan immediately. It may be that if we had captured or killed Osama bin Laden in December 2001, we could have left shortly there after. But I assume even you will admit that the Taliban sheltered al Qaeda, greatly assisting them in carrying out terrorism. So naturally some people might think that it would be in our interest to assist Afghanistan in not turning back into a state that sponsors terrorism.
The Afghan institutions you glibly talk about were never really in place, and have been battered out of existence by 30 years of war and/or Taliban rule. Yes, it is now Obama's war, but it was not in 2001, nor from 2002-2008 (Remeber Michael Steele called Afghanistan a war of Obama's choosing, which it obviously wasn't). It is ironic that you say Obama is emulating Bush policy, since in fact Obama is now doing what Bush couldn't be bothered to do, to pay attention and try to make things work in Afghanistan. Bush simply let Afghans and Americans alike bleed for seven years. Now, we could walk away after being there eight years and say it is Afghanistan's problem or we could try to split up the country into tribal regions, because those are the easy things to do. That will increase the likelihood of future terrorist attacks from bases in Afghanistan, and conservatives will blame Obama, so I guess actually Bush would then have accomplished his goal. Or we can, as the Sunday morning talking heads said earlier today, try to create a hardened terrorist proof state. Mind you, it will be incredibly expensive, and cost many lives, all because George Bush couldn't be bothered to try for seven years. But the alternative is to lose lives in future terrorist attacks from Afghanistan. And have to invade all over again.
ED..leave the sooner the better....who are we at war with?? You're argument of "fight there"so there's no terrorism here is weak.Your logic is faulty.If that's the case, then Bush's ineffectual policies should have lead to more attacks.Surprisingly under Obama,there is now a rash of Islamo-fascist attacks on US soil.Ed staying there is probably the biggest foreign policy blunder since Carter's Iran fiasco.Maybe CBS will start keeping the body count like they did in Iraq when Bush was president!Embrace it all you want....it can be your war too!!!
Post a Comment