That place that must have the Peter Principle engraved on every war.

If that was deliberate, Jay, that's brilliant.

Puntastic.

I suppose nothing is going to alter Jay's idea that the Iraq experiment is going o'kay, but it was the State Department in 'The Future of the Iraq Project' report which cautioned the Pentagon and White House that things could go badly in Iraq. In fact the author of the report Thomas Warrick was fired for it. James Fallows has written extensively on how it happened: "The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge." (Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld).

Because we all know the status quo in Iraq was winning us lots of friends and it would get any worse by itself because we all know Saddam was going to live forever.

If Armitage did indeed warn Mush that Pakistan was going to be bombed back into the stone age, it would have been one of the few things the Bush adm. did which I could support.

Islamabad, specifically, the Pakistan Army and the ISI are more responsible for Jihadi extremism than anyone else on the planet. Unfortunately, the poor people of Pakistan have suffered greatly for it.

Pakistan is a very volitile country and if it does fall to the islamofacists you need to remember they do have nuclear weapons and systems to deliver them although I'm betting the first one off the rails will be hand delivered here by AQ.

Then Armitage's statement will come to fruition.

If Armitage did indeed warn Mush that Pakistan was going to be bombed back into the stone age, it would have been one of the few things the Bush adm. did which I could support.
-------------------------------------------------
I guess you would support the policy to bomb Iran back into the stone age as well given that Iran openly advocated the second holocaust. Again, it just shows how bad the left and the Dem party has become when prominent members of their party could defend Chavez and many could embrace Adm.

No way.

"Bomb them back to the stone age", is general talk (LeMay) not that of a career diplomat.

I will not believe this until I hear a recording.

No way.

"Bomb them back to the stone age", is general talk (LeMay) not that of a career diplomat.

I will not believe this until I hear a recording.
-------------------------------------------------
I guess you wouldn't believe Clinton when he said that he was serious about terrorism and Bin Laden.

I should clarify: I remember Armitage being sent to meet with the head of ISI after 9/11, where he was supposed to have had an "eyeball peeling" conversation with him.

The net was that if the ISI didn't stop doing what it was -- namely pimping for Al Qaeda -- that the US was going to let them have it.

I am not in favor of indiscrminate bombings of countries. But laying on American muscle to stop people like the ISI is a very useful and strategic thing to do. If a heavy like Armitage goes in and says to Mush, "we're going to bomb you into the stone age", and Mush acceeds, well, so much the better.

Words are a lot less expensive than bombs, if used strategically. And if there there is credible threat behind it.

Saying crap like "dead or alive", "smoke 'em out" and then "he really doesn't matter anymore" takes out the credibility bit quite effectively.

I guess you would support the policy to bomb Iran back into the stone age as well given that Iran openly advocated the second holocaust. Again, it just shows how bad the left and the Dem party has become when prominent members of their party could defend Chavez and many could embrace Adm.

I don't. I don't mostly because I have several Iranian friends and have known many Iranians. Almost all of the ones I have known are moderate, pro-American and anti-mullah. I don't like the Iranian regime, and do believe that it poses a serious threat to world peace. But bombing Iran is likely to leave us with more long term problems than it would fix.

And for the record, I don't think Pakistan should have been bombed either ( typed too fast).

I don't. I don't mostly because I have several Iranian friends and have known many Iranians. Almost all of the ones I have known are moderate, pro-American and anti-mullah. I don't like the Iranian regime, and do believe that it poses a serious threat to world peace. But bombing Iran is likely to leave us with more long term problems than it would fix.

And for the record, I don't think Pakistan should have been bombed either ( typed too fast).
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, it is good that you have clarified your position. Reflexively supporting anyone who is anti-Bush can get oneself in trouble!

Anyway, I have many Iranian friends myself. It is a shame that the liberal Dems have abandoned the Iranian people as well as poor Ven people. Instead, they provide cover and excuse for the thuggish dictators of these countries simply to fight against Bush and regain political power at any cost. They are willing to risk wars simply for political power while hypocritically talking against war. For example, instead of consistently and strongly denouncing the terrorists and these dictators, they provided propaganda cover for these terrorists to continue their brutal terror against the women/children of Iraq. They also continued to provide cover for the regime to abuse the people of Iran and Ven. Instead of strongly pushing the UN using sanction and more international pressure to demand more democratic reform in Iran, they continue to provide anti-Bush and anti-Amrican propaganda. Looks like the liberal left is wishing for more death and destruction of poor Iranian, Iraqui people simply to show that Bush is wrong. That 's why I conclude that decent and well-informed American should not support the liberal Dem any more.

Saying crap like "dead or alive", "smoke 'em out" and then "he really doesn't matter anymore" takes out the credibility bit quite effectively.
------------------------------------------------
Apologizing for real and more often imaginary misdeeds as well as cheap diplomacy like the French is far worse. IN fact, it provides the propaganda cover and incentive for the terrorists and thuggish dictators to continue their reign over the people.

So I guess the liberal left would join in a "word" campaign to strongly condemn the terrorists and the thuggish dictators like Adm/Chavez. Probably we should start with Carter, who embraced Chavez at the expense of the Ven people. This may be useful common cause for all of us. Strongly condemnining liberal dems like Carter is really a good start.

Compare and contrast:

"Stop supporting the represive Saudi Arabia royal family, or we will attack your country."

vs

"Stop supporting Osama or we will attack your country"

Re: Rance.

Today's lesson in moral equivocation ?