Hard News: Weekend Warriors
311 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Got to agree with Giovanni here. They almost certainly were't there when Bush et al started their little adventure. They almost certainly are now, five years on.
Juan Cole is pretty good on this (and knows his stuff better than most)
Virtually in a class by themselves are the Islamic State of Iraq in the Sunni Arab areas of Iraq, and the Taliban, whether the Tehrik-i Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan or the neo-Taliban of southern Afghanistan. The Islamic State of Iraq and similar organizations are called by Washington 'al-Qaeda in Iraq or AQI-- but the groups themselves generally do not call themselves this since the killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi.
-
__Given the title of this post, RB, a brief nod in the direction of the Warriors, and their achievement this last weekend, might have been in order!? ;-)__
Lol; so that would be finishing bang middle of a 15-team competition then?
And staring at a thrashing next week…
Good call, LB. :-)
-
@Simon.
Good article. However, I don't think that negates the point. AQ influence in Iraq was effectively zero before the US invasion/occupation/police action in 2003. It then rose to a peak in around 2006 before dropping away again to the apparent current low-level background threat.
So i was incorrect to sugges tthere is current significant influence/presence, but there certainly was until very recently.
I've read other analysis that suggests Iraq is effectively becoming divided along 'robber-bandit' lines. Various groups control different territories, and charge 'taxes' on people moving through, or doing business in, those territories. Most of the fighting and violence in Iraq is factional in-fighting over control of those territories, in much the same way that drug gangs feud over turf.
Fanatics are bad for business and so get 'dealt with'. The official government is effectively a dead letter.
-
Lol; so that would be finishing bang middle of a 15-team competition then?
And staring at a thrashing next week…
Heh. I think someone didn't keep the faith.
-
I think this [Palin] is gonna be a core theme from hereon and it potentially has legs.
Yes, it does for Republicans.
McCain polls a 55 - 35% lead in terms of qualities. McCain is a senator of long standing and was a senator well before the current crop (including Obama) brought Congress' approval rate down to 14%. Palin is a governor with 80% approval ratings. You think with 6 weeks to go in a campaign you can turn all that around with a yahoo account, a losing mayor and a waitress as criticism of the Veep - WTF?
It says so much about McCain that could really hurt him if it gets traction.
If it takes 10% out of McCain's credibility it will be a massive achievement and McCain will lead by 50 - 40% on election day. If it raises credibility as the MSM reason du jour it will relegate the issues - economy, climate, Iraq - to minor importance. Credibility voters (mostly supporting McCain) will be motivated to vote and issue voters (mostly supporting Obama) will be less motivated.
McCain will win.
PS - After the election, somewhere well away from prying eyes, Karl Rove will raise a small toast to the netroots. Because it is the netroots who are doing massive spade work and tireless hours that are required to make credibility the central theme of 08.
PPS - McCain is 3% ahead on popular vote and projected to win the electoral college, so already we can see the "benefits" of a focus on Palin.
-
McCain polls a 55 - 35% lead in terms of qualities.
Depends if selling your country down the river is a quality you admire. Lets face it, Americans have never been smart in picking qualities in Presidents.
But I still stand by my statement that she is a Dem asset and is more and more an indicator of how corrupt McCain has become. Regardless of whether he wins, that fact won't change. If you regard that as credible..well it rather speaks for itself.
They don't need to dig a hole for her..she's doing it herself and that will really hurt McCain.
Who really gives a toss what her rating is in Alaska. It's utterly irrelevant and a really silly thing to throw into the mix. The only question is, is she fit for the VP job, and quite clearly, taking a step back, no-one could reasonably say she was. She hasn't a clue and to introduce her to the ticket to win votes is morally corrupt.
Gallup tracking btw is down to 2% and three polls over the weekend had a draw or Obama agead. Pollster is still showing the Dems 14 EVs ahead and the Palin shit..the ABC interview, The View, the lies over the library, Iraq, crowd numbers, and the raft of criticism over the inaccurate ads haven't had any effect yet.
And then we have those two stories in the NYT and WaPo about Palin. Dear, oh dear...spite, viciousness, cronyism.
But then, again, it comes down to what you call qualities I guess.
-
And then we have those two stories in the NYT and WaPo about Palin. Dear, oh dear...spite, viciousness, cronyism.
As I say in today's post, anyone who could read those deeply-researched stories and still regard Palin as fit for presidential office is basically lying to themselves. She's an absolute horrorshow.
-
She's an absolute horrorshow.
But, but, that's not what Deborah Hill Cone said in the Listener! Doesn't that make you some kind of intellectual elitist?
OTOH, Tina Fey appears to have job security for the next few months. That's uncanny.
-
OTOH, Tina Fey appears to have job security for the next few months. That's uncanny.
That's the first thing I thought when I saw her. She looks like Tina Fey! What are the chances?
-
But, but, that's not what Deborah Hill Cone said in the Listener! Doesn't that make you some kind of intellectual elitist?
Well, I'm trying to come up with a civil, polite letter to The Listener suggesting the candidates who don't like their "parenting decisions" being public property shouldn't allow their disabled infant to be passed around on stage during a political convention like a joint at a Grateful Dead gig.
And I'm more than a little pissed off at Hill Cone saying there's some kind of sexist double standard at play. Well, I guess Hill Cone forgot about Rudy Guiliani -- whose very public, very nasty marriage break-up -- and very public strained relationship with his children -- didn't do him any favours with Republican primary voters.
-
Who really gives a toss what her rating is in Alaska. It's utterly irrelevant and a really silly thing to throw into the mix.
A whole 3 electoral college votes! Which have gone Republican since LBJ won the state in 1964.
I would have thought, if you were going to pluck someone out of obscurity, you'd pick a battleground state to try and lock up 20 or 30 votes with a local boy/girl.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.