Posts Made By: Joe Bergeron

And here's another question which is so obvious it didn't even occur to me to ask it earlier. When did it become okay to attack countries because some of us think they might do something to us someday? Is that okay for all countries, or only for us? Should we all lash out at our potential enemies now, before they get us first?

Is that morality? Is that honorable?

I'm leaving for the weekend. Have fun stargazing.

"Flip Flop" McCain?

http://flipflop.bi30.org/

Sure, you know where the man stands, how could you not? He stands everywhere sooner or later.

Putting him forward as some paragon of consistency is laughable.

Nope, I don't think McCain changing his mind on issues as circumstances dictate is a sign of weakness. I do think it's a sign of mere political expediency when he does it to fit in better with the right-wing extremists who he must court in order to be nominated and elected. And I do think it's a sign of Republican hypocrisy when a Democrat's similar policy changes are derided as flip-flopping, sometimes to the extent that it becomes the totality of their message.

As for your derision of that "far left" web site, web sites always seem to become far left when they dare to point out the faults and inconsistencies of Republicans. Rather than ranting about them and declaring them full of lies, you might be more convincing if you were to point out exactly where and how they are inaccurate.

I think more Democrats should be elected to Congress too. One excellent reason for their failure to accomplish much of anything is that they lack the votes to defeat Republican filibusters. That, plus their usual spinelessness and the ease with which they are cowed by the Right. I remember when the Democrats showed some real panache and were not easily pushed around. It's sad.

International law: of course the USA heeds it only when it suits our purposes. But your comment is interesting. Are you saying there's some codified international law which says that if you invade a foreign country and overthrow its government, you are required to set up a nicer one in its place?

Are you appealing to the UN for justification? You're aware that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the war was illegal back in 2004? That there should have been a UN resolution specifically authorizing the war? Or are you referring to the earlier resolutions demanding that Saddam give up his WMDs? How could he have complied with that, given that he didn't have any at the time?

I'm curious about your assertion that we've crippled al Qaeda. What's your basis for saying this? We've killed a bunch of their guys and about a dozen of their #2 men. Bad news for them, I'm sure, but crippled? I'm under the impression there are always more where they came from, and that they sort of expect to die. Does that mean we can ramp down the security circus at airports now?

You do know that Palin just said she'd go into Pakistan too if important terrorist targets were known to be there, don't you? It was on Charles Gibson's interview.

Gee, now I'm blindly repeating what I hear too!

You'd better hope she never becomes president so she can pursue this immoral, reckless, idiotic policy.

Your capital-letter emphasis on "sovereign" seems a little peculiar. Iraq was sort of sovereign too, even if it was bottled up and helpless, wasn't it? But oh yeah, we didn't like them, so that made it okay.

By the way, I'm not eager to invade Pakistan, or to "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" either (classy, John, classy).

"Yeah, the big, bad, old, awful USA. Never does anything for anybody but themselves. What a horrible country."

I realize that sarcasm is fun, but does this response actually clarify or illuminate anything? Do you believe that the USA should comply with international law at all times? If not, isn't it awfully self-serving of you to invoke it when it's convenient to you?

"But, while I'm no expert on international law, I've heard it mentioned several times that there are international legal obligations which, assuming the nasty rotten no-good US government follows them, obligate us to help put the country back on its feet. "

So, you've heard that mentioned. It's good to know that all aggressor nations are obliged to clean up after themselves, lest they suffer the world's disapproving glare.

"Instead, Saddam hindered the weapons inspectors and actively engaged in programs to deceive them. "

Yeah, I remember the games he played. I also remember it was absolutely clear there was nothing Saddam could have said or done to halt the invasion. He certainly couldn't have handed over the non-existent WMDs which were being demanded (unless he launched into a crash program to develop some, or fake some, so he could hand them over). Possibly if he had walked out of the desert to turn himself over to the US commander with a noose around his neck, that might have slowed things down a bit.

Good for us if we actually hampered al Qaeda as thoroughly as you say. As you also say, your mileage may vary on whether that result was worth the many thousands of lives it cost and the hundreds of billions of dollars we've borrowed from China to pay for it. As for me, I'd be happier if we hadn't incurred that debt of blood and money, if Saddam had been left to fester and fall in his own time, and if the USA were in a state of far less turmoil as a result of this wholly optional war.

By the way, I'll hold few Democrats up as standard-bearers of integrity. I was living in California during the lead up to the war (which I always opposed). When she voted to allow the use of force I wrote to Diane Feinstein requesting that she consider not running for re-election, so a real Democrat might have a chance. She responded by saying she had secret information which made it clear an invasion was necessary. Mmm hmm. Sure you did, Senator.

Sarcasm is best withheld when your reading is quick and sloppy.

"I'd rather not get to the point where I wash out and re-use ziploc baggies like the folks I knew growing up who did the first great depression. "

In other words, the people he knew while he was growing up who went through the depression. Get it?

My apologies for my needless snippiness.

Richard's sentence was a bit ambiguous, and at first I misinterpreted it as you all did.

"I'd rather not get to the point where I wash out and re-use ziploc baggies like the folks I knew growing up who did the first great depression. "

He says "who did the great depression" to mean "who experienced the great depression". If he'd said "who did during the great depression" then that clause would mean that's when they did the baggie-washing.

Here's an equally biased item, only coming from the opposite direction:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-bailout-plan-welcome_b_128450.html