This is Vigilante's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Vigilante's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Vigilante
Recent Activity
Good point, Facebooker! I can't cover everything in one comment. I'll explain later at my site. But I'm with you. Let's pull out our troops where we don't belong, and bring them freaking home where they belong after eight fruitless, bloody and wasteful years! I'm totally with you!
1 reply
According to the Washington Post, the Taliban already have establised a shadow government which rules after sundown. Why doesn't NATO just back out and let the Afghans themselves decide whether or not the Taliban should rule, 24 hours a day? Is that too reasonable? I say support the troops - bring them home. They've done enough.
1 reply
Indecision???? I call it a "slam dunk" It costs $1,000,000 to send one pair of U.S. boots per year "over there". $26,000,000,000 could be saved by withdrawal. But if President - I mean 'General' - McChrystal's recommendation is followed, we will be "investing" $734,000,000,000 in Chaosistan. Is that more than the military budget of the Bush administration? That can't be! Matt Hoh's description of Valley-istan is confirmed. But we can't mention falling morale, can we?
1 reply
I want to hear more about who these "enemies at home" are. Are the people who want Obama to fail on the domestic economic recovery the same people who want him to double down in Afghanistan? Do you think?
The thrust of the argument, it seems to me, is why have we gone at this ass-backwards? Pakistan is a failing state (with nukes!) as opposed to Afghanistan which is not a state. It seems to me, the most economical approach - and in these days of the eclipse of America as a global super power we should be concerned with economy of effort - would be to shore up Pakistan with as much aid as fast as they can absorb it. (No boots on the ground, of course!) Our effort should also be to secure be peace between India and Pakistan. Afghanistan can go to rot. The Taliban? They are not terrorists of global reach. The biggest stakeholders in Afghanistan are the Euros. Yes, those allies of ours who are NINO's (Nato-In-Name-Only). Their populace is totally indifferent to standing by our side in our Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). But it is they who have insisted in poppy crop eradication. (That's been a non-starter in our winning hearts and minds of the Afghan farmers - we should all be glad we're 86-ing that at long last.) The Blue Dog argument is that Obama's post-Bush effort in Afghanistan is too big to fail. I understand that. But I've also heard that before, too. I heard that in 1969. I heard that last week. In other contexts. Too big to fail…. There's also the caboose argument that we have to take Obama's back to protect him from the Dolchstosslegende accusation. That, to me sounds a little like arguing that loyality, even though well-placed, trumps honesty. Here's an idea. We've been in Afghanistan eight years. I'm saying I won't be alive whenever it is that we are able to leave. So I don't matter. Don't try to convince me. But find some one in his 40's or younger, young enough to be a stakeholder. Tell him/her what Afghanistan will look like when we are able to stop spending blood and treasure in its deserts and mountains. Tell him/her when that will be. And convince him/her that this OEF will eventually yield a worthwhile ROI. Sell Afghanistan. No one in this lifetime deserves my loyalty more than President Obama. But show me how I can support him effectively if I surrender my honesty and integrity?
I have followed links provided on your site. The world knows about Litvinenko. But I have not heard about Paul Joyal until now.
Yeah! Now that all the GOP's cards have been played, those of us who laid down our bets years ago that 20th Century Dixiecrats would morph into 21st Century Republicants can collect our winnings and leave the table!
Toggle Commented Jul 18, 2009 on Cynthia Tucker is an idiot. at Where Are My Keys?
1 reply
Cheney was out of control. Nothing he did as VPOTUS should escape scrutiny. That said, I think this super secret program was not unlawful surveillance of Americans, but (planning) assassinations of Al-Qaeda targets If this is what it turns out to be, I don't think this story packs much of a wallop and Progressives do not serve our cause well in lending it legs. In the wake of 911, getting al Qaeda leaders dead or alive (later vacated by Bush!) was of paramount importance and absolute legitimacy. It was much, much, much more appropriate than invading and occupying Iraq. As far as who in Congress is entitled to information like this, that's pretty much of a slippery slope. (Loose lips and loosely-bound minds.)
1 reply
It seems clear that this coup was constitutional.
I linked Tambopaxi's comments with approval!
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2009 on Honduran Coup at Beautiful Horizons
Is it not true that the Honduran constitution, which contains 375 articles, can be amended by a two-thirds majority vote in congress? However, there are eight “firm articles” which cannot be amended. These include presidential term limits, system of government that is permitted and process of presidential succession. Since the president has the ability to amend the remaining 368 provisions by means of a congressional majority, some have called into question what the president’s true intentions may be. This seems to be a thinly disguised attempt to grab power through a Chavez-type populist putsch.
Boehner is living proof of global warming. Just look at his sun tan. Or is it just that he's spent too much time in the sun?
1 reply