home

Saturday Night With the Dem Debate

Well, for you guys, I have somewhere to go.

Debate Open Thread.

Update (TL): I'm watching. The theme is terrorism.

Hillary looks great. She sounds so much more experienced on foreign affairs than Sanders and O'Malley. Hillary says we can support the countries fighting ISIS, but it's not our fight. I agree. O'Malley is much more hawkish, on both war and intelligence. Sanders doesn't come off anywhere near as sure of himself as he does on economic topics. I wouldn't trust either O'Malley or Sanders to be chief Executive.

< At Least Four Prior ISIS Videos Threatening France | Who Did the U.S. Kill In Libya Airstrikes? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • You're right about one thing. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:53:28 AM EST


    A glimmer of hope? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    Diplomats Invoke Plan For Joint Action In Syria

    LINK

    Impressions of the Democratic Debate. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    The moderator, John Dickerson, made the trains run on time without much help from the side panel. His demeanor came across as calm and disingenuously curious.  Some follow-up questions were constructive, others aimed at stoking fires.

     An example of the latter, was the attempt to derail a serious discussion of degrading and eliminating ISIS into a Republican paroxysm of fever:  can you say radical Islam? (radical Islamists who behead Christians, even better).

    After Mrs. Clinton carefully set forth the need for a unified and broadly-based front that, critically, included Muslim and Islamic states, it seemed irresponsible know-nothingism to pursue that line.

     As Mrs. Clinton stated, we are not at war with Muslims or Islam, rather, at war with violent extremism of those who use religion for power and oppression.  That seems like a good position, after all a major task in eliminating ISIS is to enlist Muslims in creation of a hostile environment for ISIS survival.

    Much was made of the minimum wage proposals. Senator Sanders ($15/hour), Mr. O'Malley ($15) and Mrs. Clinton ($12).  Now there is a difference to talk about.  But, how much of a difference.  Senator Sanders wants $15/hour "over the next few years, not tomorrow,  but over the next few years."  Mrs. Clinton states, $12/hour and move to $15 over the next years, using larger cities for guidance.  

    Overall, neither Senator Sanders or Secretary Clinton were better than in the first debate. Gov. O'Malley was marginally improved. Sanders made an abrupt pivot in his opening remarks from the Paris ISIS attack to economics.  It seemed odd.  Mrs. Clinton knowing the structural concern of PACs need not have found Sander's comments as impugning her integrity. Too defensive. Her response, otherwise, was satisfactory, although better upon subsequent clarification.

    The Democratic debates have been serious and informative about candidates and issues.  Not the snap, crackle and pop of the Republican debates--no hammers on mothers or knives in abdomen of friends/cousins.  No analogies to child molesters.  No son of a bartender/maid. Kind of boring, but still, not as bad as that other SNL that followed.

    So she beat the stooges (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    Would anyone here honestly prefer Hillary as a leader to Jerry Brown or Elizabeth Warren?  The fact that the field is so pathetic reflects the hollowing out of the Democratic Party at the local and congressional levels; except for the above two and maybe Andrew Cuomo and Joe Biden there is no one of national stature to even consider.  
    The 2015 version of Jerry Brown has made a lot of tough decisions in California and has made them right.  You know that is true.  We could do much worse than to have a Brown-Warren one term ticket in 2016.    

    I (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    don't consider Sanders to be a "stooge".
    I consider him principled.
    As usual, he is ridiculed on a "leftist" blog that is actually geared to promote a victory for the Democratic party - no matter how rightward it may swerve.

    As for the field - I would much prefer Elizabeth Warren.

    She is not running, so there is not all that much point in going on about it.

    Clinton is now on the same page as Jeb! regarding terrism -- so we have a lot to look forward to there.

    Imo - Cuomo is a stiff. Self-centered. Arrogant. And what has he done for New York?

    Biden - a mean s.o.b. with a Cheshire Cat grin.

    2016 is an election to which I do not look forward. That is, if it does not wind up being canceled for reasons of "national security".

    Parent

    Thomas is concern trolling. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    And in your own inimitable way, so are you. Because were Elizabeth Warren to ever become president someday, I've no doubt that you'd soon find something about her and her policies to dislike intensely.

    Your statement that Mrs. Clinton's policies regarding terrorism mirror those espoused by Jeb Bush or any other GOP candidates is absolutely nonsensical and absurd, as is your fanciful notion that ISIS is somehow a rational and reasonable group with which one can negotiate successfully.

    I freely admit that I'm not at all certain what can be done about ISIS at this point, given the current political constraints on U.S. policy in the region which are imposed by an American citizenry that's quite understandably weary of war. But I'm nevertheless convinced that to simply walk away and ignore ISIS entirely would be a profoundly foolish and ultimately tragic mistake on our part.

    Our country's longstanding and often mindless support of vile despotism in the Middle East -- most specifically the respective feudal baronies that are present-day Saudi Arabia and the former Iranian monarchy -- is responsible in great part for having created the volatile political vacuum in the region which ISIS is presently seeking to fill.

    We therefore have a collective moral obligation and national responsibility to deal with this problem as it actually exists, and not as any one of us might otherwise wish it to be.

    What we can't do here is simply throw up our hands and abandon the peoples of Syria and Iraq to their respective fates, under the misimpression that the current crisis will somehow and eventually remedy itself. It won't, at least not in any way which we would find acceptable over the long term.

    Rather, we need to instead develop and maintain a policy of creative and flexible multilateral engagement in the Middle East, one which will eventually require us to both normalize our diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and bring sufficient pressure to bear upon Israel to resolve their own current impasse with the Palestinian people.

    Absent either one of those two significant concrete steps, and the present situation will very likely only grow far worse for our determined obstinacy in the face of our predicament, and our continued willful neglect of the underlying issues which have long plagued the region.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I would take Brown over Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    But that is not on offer, last time I looked. Neither is Warren on offer- but I would take Clinton over Warren, just based on breadth of experience. Will be happy to look at Warren next time.

    Clinton-Warren or Brown-Warren, or Clinton-Brown or Brown-Clinton ticket? All for it!

    Parent

    That simply isn't going to happen, ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:01:53 AM EST
    ... so you're wasting your time even pondering it. Gov. Brown is 77 years old, and his legacy will be turning California around after the Arnold Schwarzenegger fiasco and getting it back on the right track. He will finish his term and then retire to write his memoirs.

    Parent
    Well, Donald (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:44:33 AM EST
    that comment is progress. It's pretty much admitting that the GOP field is awful. Love the concern trolling though pushing someone conservatives thoroughly detest like Jerry Brown.

    Parent
    Nope, Brown has his own problems (none / 0) (#178)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    Per CNBC
    http://tinyurl.com/q78jsyw

    State records obtained by The Associated Press show Brown in June 2014 directed senior officials at the Department of Conservation's oil and gas regulatory agency to map, research and assess the oil, gas and mineral history and potential of his 2,700-acre family ranch in Northern California near Williams.

    State law prohibits elected officials from using state resources for personal purposes. Spokesmen for Brown and the oil and gas agency say the governor is allowed to access public records the same as any member of the public, and say that oil and gas regulators routinely do such research for the public.

    Parent

    Hillary heaps praise on Henry Kissinger (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:22:38 AM EST
    That, alone, is enough to make me flip her the bird and never vote for her but with a metaphorical gun to my head, which this election will, no doubt, provide.

    She praises Kissinger. Fathom that all ye supporters. That is akin to heaping praise on Dubya.

    That is simply not a serious human being on any sort of intellectual or political level.

    And, again, you won't hear me engaging in personality politics with Sander, no "Feel the Bern" shirts here. I just cannot suspend my intellect long enough to consider ANY Clinton at this point except under duress, which, again, I admit I will be under when I cast my vote for President for her. Phucking moron she, and we, all are.

    Henry K... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:29:05 AM EST
    Nixon's boy.

    Carnage is him.

    I wouldn't want to be in the same room - or city with that creepy crawly relic of the worst era in modern American history - until the advent of W.

    What does Clinton find praiseworthy about that man pray tell?

    Parent

    Kissinger has always been (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    if nothing else, an utterly polished Machiavellian suck up who's always courted the protection of the powerful, like the Rockefellers, and has managed over the years to bedazzle uncritical admirers in the media like Ted Koppel and Charlie Rose who've been eager beaver helpers in the rehabilitation of Kissinger's image..  

    Parent
    It's hard to believe there could be rehabilitation (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:08:51 PM EST
    for a man who devised a years long, secret bombing campaign against civilians, and cynically named the first bomb drops "Operation Breakfast." Any democrat who aligns with that war criminal is suspect.

    Parent
    He's the teflon-coated turd (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    of the 20th century, or one of them..

    Hillary is the evoking that flashy historical brand name the way Obama evoked Reagan: to appeal to the on-the-fence moderates..

    Parent

    Yet (none / 0) (#179)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    another stomach-turning moment in this wretched campaign.

    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    do you even think about politics, much less discuss it endlessly if it makes you so ill?

    Parent
    If you are (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    addressing me, I will answer the obvious answer:
    I am a citizen, and the decisions made by these people have an effect on my life.

    Parent
    Yeah, funny how that works, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    no matter how hard you try to avoid them those nauseating, gut-wrenching moments just have a way of finding you.

    You know, you'd think that with all the state-of-the-art, high technology out there they'd bring back the on/off switch and channel selector like they had when I was a kid.

    Well, Keep your chin up, kid; you'll figure out something.

    Parent

    Then I guess you're done with her (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:30:29 AM EST
    He did say (none / 0) (#155)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    "under duress, which, again, I admit I will be under when I cast my vote for President for her."  (Emphasis mine.)
    So it sounds like he will, in fact, be voting for her.  Reluctantly, and "under duress," but still, a vote is a vote.
    I won't be best pleased, myself, to cast my vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I will, mainly because the possibility of having any of the Republicans in the White House is too horrible to contemplate.  And I appreciate her long-standing support for women's and children's issues, not just here, but globally.
    OTOH, if Clinton comes out heaping praise on Dick Cheney, as well, I may have to reconsider my vote...........(yes, that was snark, because I sincerely doubt that she ever would).

    Parent
    zorba don't get all het up (none / 0) (#159)
    by fishcamp on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    about stuff before it happens.  Have a mid afternoon glass of Chardonnay.  Think about getting your crops in before the snow flies, or has it flown?  It's rainy and 75 down here.  Very chilly for us.

    Parent
    Crops? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    In mid-November?
    Bushels of apples and potatoes are already stored in the root cellar.  Last batch of hay was made two months ago.
    OTOH, mid-60's here, which is nice and warm for us.
    Chardonnay?  Forget the Chardonnay.  Maybe a nice glass of Alsatian Riesling.     ;-)

    Parent
    Autumn photograph? (none / 0) (#173)
    by sj on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    Did it happen? :)

    Parent
    Sadly, no (none / 0) (#176)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    We were out of town at the peak of our fall foliage.  By the time we returned, the foliage was not very interesting.
    Maybe next year.   :-)

    Parent
    "I wouldn't trust either O'Malley or Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    to be chief Executive."

    This should surprise anyone? We already know you are an HRC fanboy.

    While I certainly appreciate that events (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:13:19 PM EST
    that took place in Paris should be addressed in this debate, I have to say that I'm not looking forward to hearing an entire debate built around them.  

    it's not really about Paris (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:31:52 PM EST
    but how they would respond to ISIS as President. I can't think of anything more important than whether our next President is one who will take the country to war or have the backbone to resist that.

    Parent
    hummmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#5)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:46:10 PM EST
    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    *

    Well, I always thought Nato was kind of a dumb idea.  Lets disband it.

    Parent

    I know it's not about Paris, but the events (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    there are what prompted the emphasis on dealing with ISIS.

    Interesting, isn't it, that there was no mention of the attacks that took place in Lebanon on Thursday.  Over 40 people were killed.  Where was the coverage?  Why the selective concern about France?  Is that because it's easier to identify with the French than the Lebanese?

    I'm glad to see that the entire debate will not be about that - there are too many other, as important, issues that need to be discussed and debated - but I'm finding the selective interest in the Paris attacks rather off-putting.

    Parent

    Lebanon is not the West (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:00:58 PM EST
    France is the West. And Hillary mentioned it's not just about ISIS, we have to look at the bigger picture, like Russia. No one talks about the death toll in Syria either -- which is one of ISIS' big gripes. They always ask why do people killed in France and the West get more press than those killed in Syria.

    At least Hillary said we have to learn what ISIS believes and understand them in order to defeat them. (Or something close to that, which I've been saying for a year and a half.)


    Parent

    Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:51:11 PM EST
    said that bit about learning what ISIS believes and understanding them in order to anticipate their actions and defeat them militarily.

    Essentially, she is talking about gathering intel.

    I would be on her side on this if her expressed desire to understand them was for the purpose of negotiation.

    No one talks about the death toll in Syria either -- which is one of ISIS' big gripes. They always ask why do people killed in France and the West get more press than those killed in Syria.

    The key to defusing their attacks is taking in on a human level what they feel they have suffered and continue to suffer from European countries and the USA.

    Clinton, I fear, is hooked in with the concept of some kind of military victory - which I feel is utterly impossible.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:58:08 PM EST
    ISIS has exactly zero interest in negotiating with the U.S. or anyone for that matter. No amount of understanding their suffering will make them feel better, make they decide to throw down their weapons. There is no talking to ISIS.

    Now, there is value in understanding what is happeneing to the many many people in Syria who are not members of ISIS, who are not loyal to Assad or fighters for any other terrorist group like Al Quada. These ae the people who are suffering.

    ISIS is not suffering.

    Parent

    This obsession with ousting Assad (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:44:25 AM EST
    needs to go on the far backburner for like five years..

    Nation building is not the U.S's forte, and no one seems to know for sure from one day to the next just exactly who these legendary "moderate rebels" are and where they are from one day to the next..

    As far as "killing his own people" goes, Charles I and Abraham Lincoln also killed their own people. It's what happens in a civil war..

    The main priority right now needs to be establishing some semblance of order out of the chaos in Syria and Iraq and for the world to cooperate to the utmost to neutralize these completely unhinged blood thirsty Islamic fanatics, who would probably use a dirty bomb in a city in a heartbeat if they could get their hands on one..

    Parent

    Charlie Pierce- Stop the flow of $$ from Saudi (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    These are a few things that will not solve the terrible and tangled web of causation and violence in which the attacks of Friday night were spawned. A 242-ship Navy will not stop one motivated murderous fanatic from emptying the clip of an AK-47 into the windows of a crowded restaurant. The F-35 fighter plane will not stop a group of motivated murderous fanatics from detonating bombs at a soccer match. A missile-defense shield in Poland will not stop a platoon of motivated murderous fanatics from opening up in a jammed concert hall, or htaking hostages, or taking themselves out with suicide belts when the police break down the doors. American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will not stop the events like what happened in Paris from happening again because American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will be dying there in combat against only the most obvious physical manifestation of a deeper complex of ancient causes and ancient effects made worse by the reach of the modern technology of bloodshed and murder. Nobody's death is ever sacrifice enough for that.
    ...
    ... Tough talk in the context of what happened in Paris is as empty as a bell rung at the bottom of a well.
    ...
    Clinton when SOS: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said. Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
    ...
    It's time for this to stop. It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back.


    Parent
    This (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:19:50 AM EST
     is undoubtedly the best way to fight the GWOT
    It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back.
    and Saudi Arabia should of course be ground zero. They are snakes, show us the 28 pages, the American people deserve it.

    How I wish one of the debate questions was:
    Secretary Clinton, in a leaked memo from 2009, you described the Saudis as being "the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups". Do you still condiser this to be true and how would you address this as president?

    Who am I kidding, this is the question that has gone unasked since long before 9/11.

    Parent

    Careful with your descriptions, jondee. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:20:00 AM EST
    You and I may think them accurate but I recently had a post deleted and tossed into the TalkLeft Memory Hole for being insufficiently respectful of ISIS.  

    That was ironic, since ISIS has literally no respect for us, our culture, or anything we have to say.  They don't give a rip about our sympathy or attempts to "understand" their "gripes."  

    They hate us.  They hate everything we are.  They hate everything we represent.  They would happily kill any or all of us for any of a half dozen, half baked rationales.

    So be nice.

    Parent

    Im sorry.. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:26:04 AM EST
    when I said "ISIS" I actually meant the NRA and the Gun Owners of America..

    Parent
    Probably? (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    who would probably use a dirty bomb in a city in a heartbeat if they could get their hands on one..

    I believe that is the greatest fear of many governments,

    And no doubt Israel lives under threat every day.

    There would be no qualms about it,

    And celebratory dances in small sections of many US cities as well,

    Like those I saw on 9/11


    Parent

    "Dirty bombs" are more hype than danger (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    (LINK)

    A conventional nuclear blast, obviously, is quite another story.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 01:03:52 PM EST
    Learn something new every day

    Parent
    Clarification (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 10:06:13 PM EST
    ISIS is not suffering.

    It is the people that they claim to represent that are suffering.

    I'm afraid that that is undeniable.

    Parent

    Forget Assad already.. (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:50:03 AM EST
    Assad isn't the one who's giving money and other resources to ISIS..

    Parent
    As I wrote below, (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    it is not ISIS that is suffering.
    Agreed.

    It is the people they are claiming to represent who are suffering.

    As long as we are perceived as being responsible for that suffering, we will be targets.

    Maybe others here draw different conclusions.

    Parent

    Anonymous declared war on ISIS (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    or it is that (none / 0) (#15)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    Either people in the West don't care about people in the Near East . . . though I have a friend who teaches Arabic and lived in Egypt . . .

    or cnn and others have the idea that

    "bombs going off in the street, killing a handful to several dozen people" in a Near east nation does not always rise to the level of "news."

    In the past six weeks . . .

    Magen David Adom reports: Between October 1 - November 8, 2015, 12 people have been killed and 158 wounded - of them 20 seriously. MDA also treated 72 for shock.

    IDF: Terror attacks by numbers (as of November 10):

    65 stabbings
    7 shootings
    8 car rammings

    Not much reported on cnn . .  . cause we think it is normal for Israelis to be killed in terroristic attacks . . .  right . . .

    In July 2015, a series of car bombings killed dozens in  Bagddad and other parts of Iraq . . .

    not reported much in the media as I recall . . . cause we think it is normal for car bombs to go off in Iraq . . .

    Neither the teror attacks within Israel nor the car bombings in Iraq have become the topic of threads or conversations at talkleft . . .

    Now that ISIS has killed 130 people in Paris, provoking the wrath of 66 million Frenchmen with jets, tanks and nuclear bombs you suggest that missing from the news was the simultaneous bombing of 40 people in Beirut . . . a land where, like Israel and Iraq, such things almost never happen . . .

    Perhaps you have a Christian moral sensibility and you are now concerned that all lives matter, including those in Shia neighborhoods supporting Hesbollah?  

    Should the USA react to a bombing in Beirut by declaring war on the perpetrators?  Usually . . . no  . . .  Frankly, I don't think we have the resources to always react in that way.  I assume you would agree with me on that?

    Should the USA react to a mass shooting and bombings in Paris by declaring war on the perpetrators?  It appears so, given the fact that ISIS has declared war by implication on every other government on the face of the earth and has begun killing French, Americans and Russians to prove it.

    Parent

    Good question. (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:39:03 AM EST
    Interesting, isn't it, that there was no mention of the attacks that took place in Lebanon on Thursday.  Over 40 people were killed.  Where was the coverage?  Why the selective concern about France?  Is that because it's easier to identify with the French than the Lebanese?

    My answer to that question would be, reluctantly, because we are hooked in with a sense of entitlement and racism - which considers certain peoples as less human than others.

    Parent

    why the concern . . . (none / 0) (#145)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    different news organizations choose different topics to tell us about.

    Not sure if you missed this one  . . .

    here is another . . .

    Parent

    Is NBC quite liberal? (none / 0) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    NBC news headline:

    Democratic Candidates Say U.S. and Allies Must Rid World of ISIS

    *

    NBC news content in article . . .

    "This cannot be an American fight . . ." HRC

    cbs news content explaining part of Clinton plan to deal with ISIS . . .

    Clinton says Congress should "update" the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to make sure the president has the authority that is needed for the fight against the ISIS.

    Does that mean Presidents "going to war" without a congressional declaration of war?

    That has worked out so well in the past . . .

    9:11 p.m. Clinton is asked whether the Obama administration -- herself included -- underestimated the threat from ISIS. She placed the blame on former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

    O'Malley . . . "we must anticipate these threats before they happen. This is the new sort of challenge . . ."

    Or, you could read the little magazine that ISIS publishes . . .  I don't know if the CIA or your advisors have been able to get a copy.

    Parent

    and judging from past experience (none / 0) (#113)
    by pitachips on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    I think it's fair to say that a President Hillary would definitely be quicker to pull the trigger and less likely to have the "backbone" required to put resist the pull towards war.

    Parent
    We need someone like JFK (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:19:18 AM EST
    who can stand up to the generals.....

    Parent
    Given that she's not even in office yet, ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 07:42:58 AM EST
    ... your projection that a prospective President Hillary Clinton would "definitely" do anything of the sort is absurd -- so no, it's really not fair at all for you to state that as though it were fact. It is strictly your opinion.

    Parent
    This is Hillary's (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:26:04 PM EST
    wheelhouse and she knows the subject backwards and forwards. She should sound more experienced because she is more experienced.

    Go Ducks... (none / 0) (#4)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:35:27 PM EST


    Sanders (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    His posture was terrible during the terrorism debate. He looked like he was in pain and something was wrong with his neck. He straightens up when he talks about economics. I was going to suggest he get a posture coach, but it seems like he hunches over when he's unsure of himself.

    Fidgety too, when he is not speaking (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:50:18 PM EST
    You vcn see that the director is choosing a different angle to keep him out of the picture. Not sure what is going on there.

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:27:22 AM EST
    my perception that the CBS folks were out to marginalize Sanders - giving him as little air time as possible...

    The attempt, if there was one, to bolster Martin O'Malley certainly flopped.

    And coming out as seemingly more hawkish than HRC... not the best of ideas.

    Parent

    Is that why he is on Face the Nation this morning? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    Not a great marginalization plan, CBS.

    In the hour or so if the debate I saw, I didn't notice a huge disparity in speaking time. It seemed more like they were trying to protect him from having an Al Gore 'sighing' moment when someone else was speaking.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#65)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    I wasn't sure what I was witnessing, and mentally drifted a few times, and so I am grateful for your perception.

    Parent
    Just tuned in, missed the terrorism debate (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 09:25:48 PM EST
    Haven't heard anyone say anything new on the domestic topics, basically seems like a rehash of the last debate.

    I forgot about this (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:29:02 AM EST
    I must be getting senile.

    Saturday is a dull tv night so I was watching the last three episodes of season 2 of House of Cards.  

    No regrets.

    Parent

    You made the right call (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    It was like mom and dad and grandpa arguing loudly but saying the same thing they say every year at the holiday table. I love them all but mostly wish they'd just have a conversation that is not all talking points.

    Parent
    I read an article that (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    questioned the wisdom of holding the debate on a Saturday night. Not a good night to attract a large audience especially young people.

    Don't remember where I read the article so unable to link to it but IIRC it was on a Dem blog.

    Parent

    Has been much talk (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    Of the scheduling being intentionally planned by DWS that way, at least among Sanders supporters.

    Politico
    The next Democratic National Committee-sponsored presidential primary debate is on Saturday night. The Democratic debate after this one? The Saturday before Christmas. The one after that? The Sunday of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend.
    For the average viewer (and even some campaigns) the schedule seems suspect, especially since having fewer viewers reduces the chances of a rival delivering a serious blow to front-runner Hillary Clinton while costing the party a chance to reach more voters. According to Vox, since 2000 only seven debates across both parties took place on a Saturday.

    http://tinyurl.com/o2468gt

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure I didn't read the (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    Political article, as it is not a site that I read. But I did read another article that questioned the wisdom of having too few debates and the choice of the days that the debates were scheduled.

    One of the objections was that the Dems were ceding too much air time and exposure to the Republicans. I tend to agree with that assessment.

    Parent

    my questions for those in the debates (none / 0) (#16)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    1 Are we at war with ISIS?

    2 Should we be?

    3 Should there be a declaration of war against ISIS?

    4 What sort of surrender should we expect?

    How can (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:44:19 AM EST
    we be at war with a non-government?

    With a tactic being used by fanatics who want us to leave them alone?

    That's our war?
    With that?


    Parent

    well . . . (none / 0) (#54)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    we could make war on their courts (none / 0) (#57)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    Quick perusal of Twitter (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 14, 2015 at 10:21:03 PM EST
    The twitter-verse seems very self congratulatory because Nancy Cordes used people's comments to frame a very obvious follow up question to Clinton, one that any journalist worth his or her salt would have asked had they had a mind to ask follow up questions.  Maybe Nancy Cordes could have been spending the time thinking of her own follow up questions?

    She "looks" great. (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:18:55 AM EST
    She "sounds" experienced.

    And you don't trust Sanders?
    The one person on that stage that has been consistent?

    The one you do trust said in September she was a moderate, and in October said she was a progressive?

    I don't care who you find trustworthy, or who you thinks sounds or looks great.

    Vote for whomever you wish.

    But remember one thing about looks and sounds:
    Obama.

    The "rock star".

    A "rock star" (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:30:03 AM EST
    With much more experience.

    Parent
    At the (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:37:30 AM EST
    time the "rock star" earned that designation his "experience" was being a one-term Senator with an undistinguished record.

    Parent
    My point exactly (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:48:15 AM EST
    Which is why anyone who thinks HRC is getting support just because she's a "rock star" has it completely backwards.  She is a rock star BECAUSE of her resume, not in spite of it.

    Comparing her to Obama of 2008 is silly.

    Parent

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:08:52 AM EST
    If she is a "star" in any manner of speaking, it is because the Democratic party sees in her their best chance of winning in 2016.

    I entertain no such certainty,

    So she is being proclaimed as being trustworthy - even as she says that she will take a lot of dough from Wall Street but will not be beholden to them....

    and says that the fight with ISIS is not ours, but it is something we must lead.

    (eyeballs spinning).

    The democratic establishment, as well as most progressives, are dismissing Sanders as unelectable.

    A self-fullfilling prophecy imo.

    Clinton, the hawk, the one who is taking Wall Street's money and assuring us that she will make it possible for them to earn much less.

    Oh yeah.

    Maybe someone will ride in from somewhere else and turn this thing upside down - the way Carter did - or Bill Clinton did - or Obama did.

    Otherwise - win or lose for the Dems - I don't have much hope for us.

    Parent

    She was rock star (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    Long before she decided to run for office.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    She certainly had a lot going for her.

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:17:10 AM EST
    referring to BTD's penchant for getting a wee bit over-excited about a Democratic candidate and descending into hyperbole.

    It is he who went along with dubbing Obama the "rock star" - as he now is telling us how good Hillary looks and sounds - and how trustworthy she is.

    A fight that is not ours that we must lead.
    Uh huh.

    Inferring that Wall Street is giving loads of money to her with the absolute knowledge that she will give them nothing in return.
    Yeah. That happens...

    The Democratic Party is in big trouble - looking for and not finding its soul.

    Parent

    Today's daily dose of lentinel hyperbole (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    It ain't a daily dose, CG; (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    looks more like a Monthly dose............lol

    I don't know if he/she lives alone, but, I suspect after pouring a nice dose of cheerios in bowl this morning, someone done switched the milk with the 5-hour energy stuff.

    (i'll have a talk with him/her; I think she/he has a dictionary deficit; she/he may not know the opposite of constricted isn't, necessarily non-stop, out-of-control, motor-mouth. downer diatribes.)

    eeek!

    Parent

    Please enunciate (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    Your perfect preferred candidate and all the reasons why they would be the best choice for the Dems and who would be the best actual president.

    Parent
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    Washington Post...and the debate

    Inferring that Wall Street is giving loads of money to her with the absolute knowledge that she will give them nothing in return.
    Yeah. That happens..

    Clinton got tons of Wall Street contributions because of 9-11

    CLINTON: So I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.

    As a defense of your Wall Street contributions, it was bad. Very, very bad.

    Parent

    In the media age, looks and sounds matter (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    Sanders has a way of haranguing me with things I agree with that makes me not want to listen any more. If he is rallying millions to his side with that style, great, I will vote for him happily, and then turn off my tv for 4 years when he wins.

    But I don't think any of that is happening. Maybe some people are looking for a benevolently cranky grandfather to rally behind, but I'm not.

    Parent

    I remember in 08 all the non-issue related (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    criticism leveled at HRC that drove her supporters up the wall.

    People just couldn't stand her voice.
    She cackled
    People made fun of her hair
    People made fun of her clothes

    Now I read many of the same non-issue related criticism leveled at Sanders by HRC supporters.

    Where you view Sanders as a cranky grandfather some men (maybe some woman) view HRC as a mom and not in a good way. 2008:

    As one 54-year-old man complained to Newsweek.com during our coverage of last Tuesday's primary race: "Watching Senator Clinton the past couple of weeks reminds me of haranguing and scolding by my mother."

    Might not be a good talking point outside the blog.

    From everything I've read, the primary reason given for people who like Sanders policies voting for HRC is they believe she can win not that they love her optics.

    Parent

    That (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    guy has serious issues from his mother that he is projecting onto HRC. I'm willing to bet his issues with women go past his mother.

    Parent
    Many people have issues (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    with their mothers, even women.

    Using non-issue related judgements like grumpy grandfather is the equivalent of scolding mother. Changing the focus doesn't really change that.

    Parent

    I try (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    to stay away from personality politics.

    Parent
    Good point, it does go both ways (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    i didn't really think of it since we don't have a history of using personal characteristics as an excuse to deny equal rights to grandfathers in this country.

    Maybe we should just have essay contests instead of debates.

    Parent

    Debates on the issues are (none / 0) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    a good thing IMO. What makes for good or bad optics is a personal thing more often than not based on preexisting experiences and biases of the viewer. They are not IMO not a good indicator of whether the candidate's policies will be beneficial to people.

    Ageism might not reach the same level as prejudice against women but it is alive and well. IMO Grumpy grandfather does play into a negative stereotype of old people.

    I can choose to put the emphasis on the optics or on policy when promoting the candidates I support. I'm not a big fan of promoting optics as one of the criteria for who to vote for or against and would prefer we as a country move away from placing more emphasis on optics than policy.

    Emphasis on optics at times results in people choosing to vote for an alcoholic who doesn't drink because he would be a fun person to have a beer with. Concentration on optics rather than policy is also IMO the reason Trump and Carson lead the polls.

    Parent

    I see I went too far with the grandfather part. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:42:17 PM EST
    I'll put it that I respond better to a reasoned measured tone than to a tirade.

    Parent
    Yes, as HRC supporters (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    discovered in 08, tone (slanted and marketed as a negative) can be very important.

    Parent
    Whoops seems I forgot (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    That HRC's tone is once more an item of discussion and the descriptors were not reasoned or measured.

    Parent
    I'm not (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    looking for someone with a particular style.

    I do appreciate some of the views Sanders is articulating, and hope that he influences others to adopt them.

    Parent

    HRC on both sides.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:51:49 AM EST
    "We will support those who take the fight to ISIS," Clinton said, adding that was why the U.S. has troops remaining in Iraq and special operations forces in Syria. "This cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is indispensable."

    Can someone explain how this "cannot be an American fight", and also be a fight which we must lead?

    BTD may find this a trustworthy statement from HRC, but I find it to be more hawkish gobbledygook guaranteed to keep us fighting in that region for the indefinite future.

    gobbledygook was when Hillary (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:22:55 AM EST
    tried to spin her way out of the discussion of her cushy Wall Street relatinonships..

    As far as ISIS and it's affiliates go..I'm a peace-loving man, but the superpowers need to pool their resources and intelligence and with alacrity make a big greasy spot in the desert out of ISIS..

    Hell yes, it's an American fight..and a Russian fight..and a French fight ..and a German fight..and an Israeli fight..and an Egyptian and Jordanian fight..

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:01:10 AM EST
    with you about what she was slinging when trying to 'splain how she can take so much dough from people to whom she claims she will not be beholden.

    And she wants us to buy that?

    As to the other topic - the people in the region in which ISIS is functioning are the ones who must take the initiative in defeating them.

    Talking about American leadership is, as Jeralyn has said upon numerous occasions, simply putting a target on our backs.

    Your rhetoric about making, "a big greasy spot in the desert out of ISIS" is rather chilling to me.

    In fact, "greasy" is tinged with a sort of racism imo. Perhaps you did not mean it as such. But it reminds me of lingo like, "gook" which dehumanizes the enemy and allows us to wipe out thousands at one go without even blinking an eye.

    But you are refusing to acknowledge that from their often stated point of view - it is we who attacked them. Burned their hospitals. Killed their civilians. Hundreds of thousands and counting. Left them without water or electricity.

    And we are continuing to do so - and expecting a different result?

    Parent

    One thing to consider (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    is that "Wall Street" does not actually contribute money to campaigns. Nor do the big investment houses......What they are talking about is the occupation of those who contribute.

    So, if you work on Wall Street and contribute, then your contribution gets labeled as a "Wall Street" contribution.

    Those who work on Wall Street will live in Manhattan....or at least in the surrounding urban areas....And they would be unlikely supporters of Huckabee, for example.....And perhaps are motived by social and defense/foreign policy issues....    

    Parent

    The earth moved (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    As far as ISIS and it's affiliates go..I'm a peace-loving man, but the superpowers need to pool their resources and intelligence and with alacrity make a big greasy spot in the desert out of ISIS..

    I totally agree and have been calling for that for months.

    I trust your position is not a "death bed conversion."

    Parent

    Amusing comment (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    and unintentionally revealing, Jim.

    You do know the origin of the phrase "the earth moved," right?

    Papa Hemingway used it to describe a good lovemaking experience.  Conservatives getting aroused over war and violence.....

    And the corollary:  Pilar tells Robert Jordan the earth only moves three times in one's life.  But that goes to show what a lousy lover Hemingway was....But he was macho....

    Parent

    killing everybody (none / 0) (#55)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    killing everybody in the area is not the American (when it is acting in its better moments) or the Christian way . . .

    much as we might think it to be easier and cheaper way . . .

    Parent

    It is time for you to understand (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    that people in a war zone have the choice to leave or suffer the consequences.

    Remember Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Parent

    War Crimes (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    I think ignoring you, Jim, is usually best.

    But you advocate War Crimes....Fortunately, most disagree with you.

    Talk about blaming the victim.

    Parent

    If they support their government (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    they are not victims. They are participants.

    At some point in time the societal norms of Islam allowed the development of all that has followed.

    They are no more innocent than the southerners who accepted slavery.  

    Parent

    Truly demented response (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    You do not get to kill civilians because of their government.....especially where those governments are dictatorships....

    Parent
    Uh, you probably don't like remembering WWII (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:13:42 PM EST
    in which lots of civilians were killed and we won.

    War ain't the NFL,

    And we only started losing when we started the BS "proportionate response."

    Parent

    It's called the Geneva Convention (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    But it is clear.  You are just like the terrorists......

    Parent
    Irony (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:17:47 PM EST
    of ironies is that is almost verbatim as to what Osama Bin Laden said regarding 9/11. All those people in the twin towers deserved to die because they support the US government.

    Parent
    Of course he said that (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    And from his viewpoint he was right.

    From my, and perhaps your, viewpoint he was wrong.

    That's what war is all about.

    You should try and remember that we destroyed Germany and Japan and then remade them in a democratic image. First things first.


    Parent

    Might makes right (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    Sure, many believe that....

    But there is a difference.....The Brits' fire bombing of Dresden did not result in V-E day and was not their finest hour.

    Dropping the atomic bomb is so unique it does not translate.

    Parent

    As someone who's father was in the Marines (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:06:23 PM EST
    and was waiting for the invasion of Japan to start I  am grateful that Truman had the good sense to drop two.

    And I doubt that the Brits in England who had suffered terribly under the German bombings and rocket attacks gave a flip about killing Germans, military or civilians.

    Face it MKS, you are someone who has profited by the sacrifices of many others. And even worse, you don't understand that the radical islamist are looking forward to killing us and changing our society into one that stones females for fornication, practices female genital circumcision to reduce enjoyment of sex, practices honor killing for doing anything that the male members of the family believes dishonors them, condones rape by the husband, requires male witnesses for claims of rape, prevents girls from being educated and other things such as hanging homosexuals, killing people who leave the Islamic faith, chops off hands for simple theft...and won't even allow women to drive.

    War is hell. And we are in the middle of one.

    Whose side are you on?

    Parent

    Actually, many Brits (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:05:44 AM EST
    were conflicted about Dresden....and it was not repeated.

    Save your breathe about the wrongs committed by the terrorists.  You advocate the same.

    The atomic bomb issue would take weeks to discuss.  I have no doubt you would be fine with killing millions today.      

    I am totally clear on your values:  we need to kill enough of their children until they quit.    How that is different from the wrongs the terrorists commit is beyond me.  

    Parent

    As I wrote (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    the Brits who had been bombed for years didn't give a hoot about who got killed in Germany.

    Save my breath about the radical islamists?? Why? The facts speak. Are you ashamed to admit what they have done and will do??

    And weeks?? We dropped the bomb and the war was over and thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of US military were saved. You want to discuss whether or not that was good??

    My values are straight forward. If you attack me I respond. I would never send troops to fight with their hands tied by silly ROE's that aid and protect the enemy. I would never engage in a war where troops die because I didn't use all the resources I had.

    You have children and want to protect them? Then don't start a fight and then hide behind them. If government has done so then change that government or else we will change it for you.

    But don't worry. Hard men and women will continue to protect you. They will suffer and die while you spout nonsensical hypothetical's from your warm safe place.

    Nothing is truer than this quote from Heinlein.

    "Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accept the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay-and claims a halo for his dishonesty."


    Parent
    The "one" is for the insult (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    about spouting nonsensical hypotheticals.

    I quoted Churchill.  And Ike was against using nukes against the Japanese.....There are assertions that we knew the Japanese were going to surrender anyway....as revealed by scholarship on the issue.  I spent an entire semester in a study group that included this issue.  Your know-nothing simplicity is what cost us in invading Iraq.

    Jim, you have a habit of offering dogmatic opinions on things that you know nothing about.  Just recently, you gave a definitive opinion about the commute time between John Wayne airport and Laguna Niguel.  Remember that?  You said it was 90 minutes.  That was an absurd answer.

    You may have been here once or twice.....but you were so dogmatic about your answer....when you knew nothing about the subject matter.  

    Parent

    Do you really think I care about a "1?" (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    Good grief. Real people have died. We're at war and you think I care that you disagree with me?

    Yes, you quoted Churchill and I pointed out why he said what he said and what the military wanted to do. You can disagree with that strategy but it doesn't invalidate their goals.

    As to using the bomb, it worked. You speculate.

    And no, what I wrote, based on this qustionn was:

    OT - Question for you and other TL folks (none / 0) (#88)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 11:34:41 AM CST
    familiar with southern California.
    Which airport would be better to fly into, LAX or San Diego, if I plan to go to Laguna Niguel?

    Fly into John Wayne (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 25, 2015 at 04:17:17 PM CST

    and pick up Rt 1 if you want some scenery.

    Otherwise take the 405 down to the 5 and then down it. Should take about 90 minutes road time depending on traffic. John Wayne is easy to rent a car at and easy to get in/out.

    That was based on my memory and I stand by it. And if you can fly into John Wayne, rent a car, and do it quicker I crown you "Barney Oldfield."

    But I do admire your attempt to change the subject.

    Parent

    Sticking to the 90 minutes "road time?" (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:08:05 PM EST
    You have no idea what you are talking about....Unbelievable....you and Donald Trump....can never admit a mistake.

    And, fwiw, no once here calls PCH "RT 1," and, no, the trip to Laguna Niguel or San Diego from John Wayne does not involve taking PCH at all, scenic or not.

    But you felt totally confident being the busy body to give advice--on something you have no idea what you are talking about.

    This, and your prior comment about visiting Latin America when you went to the Bahamas, show how profoundly and blissfully ignorant you are of the subjects that you offer opinions on.

    Parent

    Jim knows as much about living in So Cal (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    as he does about being in a war. Which is to say: nothing at all.

    Parent
    Uh MKS, I have never claimed to have (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:45:01 PM EST
    lived there... I have spent quite a but of time there...and the directions I was giving was to a person who had not lived there...So seeing as how the road signs say "1" I think that'd be the think to do...

    So all you are doing is just attacking because you disagree with my position.

    Okie Dokie

    And I still say about 90 minutes. Even the maps say 51 minutes during rush hour... Heck, it has taken me an hour to get down to the Marriott in COsta Mesa/

    And shoephone. You continue to feel guilty that you haven't served. Don't worry. No one holds it against you.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    You are so wrong.  You opine on that for which you have no knowledge.

    Parent
    I know enough to understand (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:15:18 PM EST
    that we are under attack by radical islamists.

    You'll figure that out sooner or later.

    But in the meantime feel free to spout psycho babble and make wild claims.

    Parent

    I am going to be driving from Dana point/ (none / 0) (#198)
    by vml68 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:22:21 PM EST
    Laguna Niguel to SNA tomorrow afternoon. Will let the 2 of you know how long it took me :-).

    Parent
    This is what Churchill (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    wrote in March 1945 about Dresden:

    It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
    The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.[105][106]


    Parent
    He wasn't concerned about the (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    civilian populace.

    Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.


    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#142)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    must have missed this part,
    I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    He just confirmed he didn't want the cities destroyed. These comments were after the attacks and obviously political. It is interesting to remember that Churchill lost his office almost immediately after the war.

    So what was the military's view??

    We should use available effort in one big attack on Berlin and attacks on Dresden, Leipzig, and Chemnitz, or any other cities where a severe blitz will not only cause confusion in the evacuation from the East, but will also hamper the movement of troops from the West".

    snip

    In response to Churchill's enquiry, Sinclair approached Bottomley, who asked Harris to undertake attacks on Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, and Chemnitz, as soon as moonlight and weather allowed, "...with the particular object of exploiting the confused conditions which are likely to exist in the above mentioned cities during the successful Russian advance

    They wanted to keep reinforcements from getting to the forces opposing the Soviets.

    Remember. The more land the Soviets took the less we would have to.

    Or do you agree with Patton that we should have pressed forward, taken the casualties and captured Moscow??

    Parent

    Talk to us about My Lai (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    It appears that you would be in favor of the killings...After all, war is hell...and we should take off the gloves.  The civilians were responsible for Charlie.....So, they deserved it.

    Captain Medina and Lt. Calley were innocent, right?  And they should get medals....

    Parent

    Nope. (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    It appears My Lai offered no resistance.

    You're getting desperate now.

    When you gonna call me a "racist" for noting that radical muslims have been killing people?

    Parent

    Oh good lord (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    Most civilians are not offering resistance....they are, after all, civilians....but you would kill them nonetheless

    Parent
    Typical (none / 0) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:40:00 AM EST
    ploy from you, resorting to a total non sequitur( when you are losing an argument.

    Parent
    What argument?? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 11:36:24 AM EST
    I merely pointed out Churchill's motives and explained what the military wanted.

    Face it. you want to take something completely out of context and try to use it.

    You got exposed.

    Parent

    What does this even mean: (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    "You got exposed."

    Answer: It means absolutely nothing It's just your newest slogan to lob whenever someone doesn't agree with your right-wing talking points. I guess you got tired of "Stop stalking me!" and "You're making things up!"

    Parent

    The only one exposed (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    is the another bogus christian-jihadist who is utterly cavalier about murdering thousands of  children as a viable military tactic in the name of self-interest.

    Parent
    All the children and all the infirm (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    had a choice?

    The precedent of the scale of strategic bombing in WWII was blot on the soul of humanity, not some sort of spiritual breakthrough.

    Parent

    Who ever told you that war is spiritual?? (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:17:36 PM EST
    War is about winning and thus protecting your tribe.

    Fail to do that and they will suffer.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#83)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    every so often I spent some time wondering if Hiroshima was a war crime

    and I tend  to regard Dresden and Hamburg as war crimes, given that the pilots had orders, it appears, to intentionally target the areas of civilian population or some of them acted in that way . . .

    Carpet bombing from the air only sure did not work on the Vietnamese.  Do you wish to simply nuke a few cities?

    "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"
    --Lincoln

    If Lincoln had been less forgiving, we could still be fighting the south . . .

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    General William Tecumseh Sherman might disagree

    After Sherman captured Atlanta in September 1864, he did not plan to stay for long. There was still the Confederate army of General John Bell Hood in the area, and cavalry leaders like Nathan Bedford Forrest and Joe Wheeler, who could threaten Sherman's supply lines. In November, Sherman dispatched part of his force back to Nashville, Tennessee, to deal with Hood while Sherman cut free from his supply lines and headed south and east across Georgia. Along the way, his troops destroyed nearly everything in their path. Sherman's intent was to wreck the morale of the South and bring the war to a swift end.

    Parent

    that kind of (none / 0) (#87)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    That kind of behavior was done by the British during the American Revolution and it has the uniform effect of turning any remaining survivors against them and of muting the ability of any Tories to support them.

    The Germans who entered the Ukraine were initially regarded as liberators from Russian-Soviet oppression, but after a few days and weeks of total war against them, anyone still alive wanted to kill them.

    based on Sherman's march to the Sea, you wish to rewrite the conclusions of Christian just war doctrine and try your new one?

    The brits tried your ideas in 1918 and 1919 and tried to starve Germany after the armistice had been signed and Germany was conceding.

    They created chaos, death and starvation and a lot of anti-Brit anti-French feeling . . .  that really turned out well.  Perhaps you remember that?

    I'll remember the march to the Sea if you remember  starving Germany in 1919 and you tell me how these things worked out.

    Parent

    Perhaps they didn't follow the model as designed.. (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:43:40 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/pjvmx8g

    At the end of his march, when the people of Savannah surrendered virtually without a fight -- they were "completely subjugated," he wrote -- he saw no need to wreck the city's military and industrial facilities or destroy private homes. Five months earlier, Sherman had told the mayor of Atlanta, "If you and your citizens will give up, I and this army will become your greatest protectors," and it was a lesson not lost on Savannahians. The fate of the city where the March to the Sea ended was different from the one where it began.

    Parent

    note also (none / 0) (#94)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    Note also that Sherman's new idea of war by breaking the morale of the civilian population by stealing or destroying their things was opposed by both Lincoln and US Grant.  Sherman argued with them to persuade them it was necessary and he "won," but I suspect it was a poor victory . . . will have to learn and ponder . . .

    Parent
    And . . . (none / 0) (#95)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 04:10:02 PM EST
    In case you don't recall . . .

    the assassination of pres lincoln was set in motion after plans to assassinate Jefferson Davis were found on Union soldiers or spies . . .

    If you wish to starve civilians, sometimes you reap what you sow.

    z

    Parent

    Sherman destroyed (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    civilian property....

    He did not intentionally kill civilians....There is a difference....

    Parent

    And I am sure you would be the scion (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    of fairness.

     

    given that the pilots had orders, it appears, to intentionally target the areas of civilian population or some of them acted in that way . .

    It appears? Acted that way?

    Really??

    And we never attacked Hanoi in such a manner as to render it unfit for habitation. I wonder how many lives of US military and civilian Vietnamese would have lived if we had destroyed the capital? Could it be that we would have won and the stability of that would have prevented Pol Pot killing millions?

    War is terrible. But if war is to be made it must be fought with all resources and won as quickly as possible. We owe that to the people we ask fight them.

    And it is beyond plain that the radical islamists have declared war on us. Time to return the favor.

    Parent

    What you advocate (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    from your armchair is a violation of international law, and constitutes war crimes.....

    It also violates U.S. law.....

    And, I suppose you support the atrocities at My Lai.....Truly sick, you are.

    Parent

    You are just like (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    those guys in the videos who behead others.  No difference.

    The terrorists advocate killing civilians too.  You are just like them....

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:31:51 AM EST
    do you expect her to say? What do you expect any of them say?

    Punching the ISIS must be "destroyed/American leadership" ticket is mandatory for any candidate, if you don't understand that you don't know squat about modern politics.

    we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more-- open and cooperative way-- that we can bring people together.

    is about as boiler plate as it gets, probably the only thing you can really say about a thorny such as this.

    Of course this is not America's fight, as it's not
    France's nor Russia's  this is the world's fight.

    Can we, should we show leadership, in this and other "fights" around the globe? Certainly we must, but it doesn't mean we own them.

    BTW: Just saw Jeb! jumping on the "it's not an American fight" statement, insisting it is, then launching into virtually the same boilerplate as Hillary.

    Parent

    Comfy. (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:43:40 AM EST
    Just saw Jeb! jumping on the "it's not an American fight" statement, insisting it is, then launching into virtually the same boilerplate as Hillary.

    Jeb and Hillary. On the same bs page.

    Not quite the endorsement I would want were I her.

    Look.

    If people want to be enthusiastic about HRC, for whatever reason, let them be so.

    I just think that we should keep our eyes open - something we did not do in 2008.

    Parent

    Okay-enough of the Obama bashing (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    I like Obama.  I think he has done a good job.  And over time will be more and more recognized for such.

    This parroting of GOP talking points that Obama did not have enough "experience" is tiresome and dated......

    Parent

    My point was (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    that people were granting him the mantle of being anti-war,  and progressive in terms of income distribution.

    And paying little attention to the things he was actually saying at the time.

    Eight years later, we are still in the two wars we hoped he would end, and are on the brink of yet another one - with others lurking in the background.

    And income distribution worse than ever.

    I'm not even evaluating his performance, just pointing out that we could have been, imo, a little more realistic about our perceptions of what he actually was about.

    There were certainly enough clues out there.

    Parent

    Despite your believe (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    that he is omnipresent.

     

    Eight years later, we are still in the two wars we hoped he would end, and are on the brink of yet another one - with others lurking in the background.

    That has never been in his capability.

    Now, if you want to argue that he could cut, run, apologize and surrender.

    He has done a fine job.

    Parent

    Call me when he in Des a Middle East country (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:45:01 PM EST
    On trumped up evidence, presides over the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and ignores a PDB.  


    Parent
    Molly, the past is the past (2.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    Saturday night in Paris happened.

    And nothing you claim is accurate.

    But that is what you want to argue about rather than supporting an end to radical islamism.

    Sad.

    Parent

    Nothing is accurate? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    Little Boots did not ignore a PDB? Seriously?

    Little Boots did not invade Iraq on trumped up evidence? SMH.

    The past may be past, but there are some things we do not forgive or forget least we become doomed to repeat it.

    And what exactly do you mean by "supporting an end to radical islamism?" What exactly (other than this general platitude) am  I being asked to support? What does it involve specifically? Given your past record (there we go again dwelling on that pesky past) of supporting people who shoot from the hip first and ask questions later, I just am not inclinded to blindly support anything.

    Parent

    ... and not Saturday night, O Accurate One. And speaking for myself only, I'd gladly settle for the end of your noxious brand of inflammatory bigotry and self-righteous intolerance. But alas, just like the demise of dogmatic extremism amongst certain adherents to all the world's major religions, that's likely not going to happen any time soon.

    Parent
    It (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    actually is comforting when that bs reverts to standard American foreign policy. I know it's only theory and the devil is in the details, but once again what do you expect them to say?

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#56)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    do you infer that I would expect them to say anything other than what they are saying?

    I don't.
    They are fulfilling my expectations.

    Parent

    If (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    they are fulfilling your expectations why do you seem so baffled by it
    Can someone explain how this "cannot be an American fight", and also be a fight which we must lead?

    You  scan perfectly predictable political pablum and your CDS translator turns it into
    hawkish gobbledygook guaranteed to keep us fighting in that region for the indefinite future.

    Ok, so you don't expect them to say anything different, just politicians being politicians, I get it. Let me ask the question is a less rhetorical manner. What would you expect your ideal candidate to say  in regard to the ISIS ? Please proceed, or I am "expecting" to much asking for a simple answer?

    Parent

    No plan (none / 0) (#40)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:46:38 AM EST

    Hillary says we can support the countries fighting ISIS, but it's not our fight.

    In other words she has no plan to defeat ISIS. In her view that responsibility falls to unnamed foreign powers and the US can help out a bit at the margins.

    If ISIS decides to shoot up the Mall of America her statement of reluctance to lead is going to guarantee the nomination and election of Donald Trump. A pity.

    Listen to (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:09:56 AM EST
    what she said:

    She said it's not our fight, but "American leadership is indispensable."

    So she wants to lead a fight that is not ours.

    The same position reported taken by none other than Jeb!.

    Trump's position is that we go in and take over all the oil fields.

    Probably not all that different than the thinking in the think-tanks that come up with all this stuff.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    this is the crazy Ann Coulter screeching comment of the day. Thank you for letting us all know you are a Fan of Crazy Ann.

    If screeching and chest thumping ala Bush is a plan I sure would like to know what it is. Trump has no plan for anything.

    Parent

    HtF can she come up with a "plan" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    before she sees the situation from inside the oval office?

    None of the wannabe presidents has a freakin' clue what to.  Even the best of their completely predictable public statements could have been written by a sixth grader.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:14:49 AM EST
    sounds about right given that most Americans have a sixth grade level of geo-politics, at best.

    Of course these wannabes have no clue, neither do those that are already "there".

    Any plan will have to be  multi-pronged, multi-lateral and nuanced far beyond what will fit into a soundbite or campaign slogan.

    Parent

    New Hampshire poll this morning (none / 0) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    It's from Gravis Marketing which I downplay but others may be impressed with their work.

    Clinton  46
    Sanders  25
    O'Malley 3

    If Gravis has improved from the past, we could be looking at a Clinton 50 state sweep in the primary.

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    a Clinton 50-state primary sweep would be completely in keeping with the Potemkin Village that is the Democratic Party's primary process this year

    Parent
    The only Potemkin Village thing (none / 0) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:49:56 AM EST
    taking place this year in the Dem Primary are those that are running a primary campaign and can't win a state.

    Parent
    I guess you mean (none / 0) (#164)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    Bernie & O'Malley, both of whom are de facto Clinton campaign operatives in their function as window dressing for the fake Democratic primary

    Parent
    I agree that the "esteemed" head of the (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    DNC has done her best to engineer a debate schedule that doesn't threaten Clinton's perch atop the heap, but I also think that without Sanders, and to a more limited extent, O'Malley, we'd be looking at a very vanilla, center-to-right-of-center campaign, that would only end up moving more to the right in a general election contest.

    I think Sanders has kept Clinton more to the left than I think she is really comfortable with. It comes through, though, like when she tiptoes around trying to find ways to maybe raise the retirement age, or praises Henry Kissinger (I mean, I can't even), and I sometimes get the feeling that she admits to making a mistake with her Iraq war vote because she didn't have any choice - not because she truly regrets it.  

    I like seeing the dynamic when Sanders and O'Malley challenge her - and there's more than a little bit of anger at being challenged as opposed to rising to the challenge and putting it to bed.  

    I sometimes suspect that Debbie Wasserman Schultz must be gnashing her teeth at how Sanders and O'Malley keep refusing to get with her program; I don't find her to be at all helpful in this great and consequential election process, at all.

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR! (none / 0) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 01:10:27 PM EST


    When (none / 0) (#100)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    I suggested that perhaps we should consider taking in what these terrists want, and perhaps find a path to negotiation, I was met with a round of derision.

    Of course, it may well be deserved.

    Negotiation is just a thought.

    The negative reply seemed to focus around the idea that they don't want to negotiate.

    I was thinking that they had, in fact, made demands - and offered conditions for the cessation of their campaign of violence in France. Jeralyn provides lots of documentation.

    For example, in essence, they said, if you want peace, stop bombing in Syria. If you continue to bomb in Syria, we will attack you in France and make your lives a nightmare. France joins in on bombing in Syria, and ....

    Now, in response to the atrocities in Paris, France is.... bombing in Syria.

    It is as if they think, or we think, that there is an ISIS central and if we can just bomb it, everything will be cool.

    But there isn't.
    These people are all over the place.
    The recent felons came from Belgium.
    Some were French nationals.

    They made demands.
    If you do this, we won't do that.
    That, to my way of thinking, is a basis for negotiation.
    Someone issued those demands. Maybe that is a person worth finding and talking to.

    Of course, I admit that there is a possibility that they are just a bunch of unreasoning religious fanatics and that our behavior, our invasions and toppling of governments, has nothing to do with their animosity towards us and our allies.

    But the present course, they bomb, we bomb... just seems like it will continue, escalate, and finally, after countless casualties, a solution will be found.

    On the other hand, maybe no solution will be found and we are doomed until there is no one left anywhere.

    The human race seems to me to be bent on a suicidal mission with respect to global warming. We are willing to take the planet down -- ending all human and animal life.

    So - this could just be a manifestation of that strange impulse.

    Admittedly, I am at a loss.
    Feeling numb, sad, and helpless to affect any change.

    Lopping off heads and advertising it (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    broadly to multi-thousands, burning people alive and filming it, etc. ...Nope, that is NOT negotiable.  Neither is saying "but, but, but, bring back the medieval ages.

    And--if anyone has missed it--ISIS own publicized pronouncements about caliphates and murdering any & all with a different belief system are very clear to all who have ears or eyes. ISIS seeks expansion and control ... occasionally in history, we have witnessed the brutal results of failure to defy and confront dictators.  They do not go away; and --they do not just want everyone to go home.  

    As a longtime negotiator myself, I fervently believe that most matters can & should be negotiated.  And, as for matters occurring during my lifetime, the expansive and building and now very obvious threat posed to the world by this terrorist group known variously as ISIL, ISIS, DAESH is the only one that I believe will not be altered/ameliorated by negotiation.  As President Obama and President Hollande stated, ISIS actions are a threat to civilization.  And, as Hillary Clinton has stated last night, it "cannot be contained, it must be destroyed."

    I trust that the G20, meeting in Turkey today, will combine their considerable international know-how to produce & carry out a worldwide effort to stop the depravity that is ISIS.  (I see that France has already delivered its responsive foray against a key ISIS center in Raqqa via its fighter jets.  Timing may be of the essence.)

    Parent

    You just pointed out (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    That IS IS us not a country.  With who do you wish to negotiate?  What are you willing to give away, because that's what a negotiation is all about?  And most likely importantly, do you REALLY think that even if you have ISIS we whatever it is you think they want, what are you willing it negotiate away the NEXT time these cockroaches (or the next day nea)crawl out of their hole?  Because if you think they are going to go away quietly, then you are seriously misguided.

    Also still waiting on your affirmstive answer on who you think would be a good Dem nominee, and then a good and effective president.  What policies specifically, and how do you think your preferred candidate will be able to achieve those plans?

    Parent

    Typos. Oh lord. (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:04:46 PM EST
    Here is how the radical islamists view (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    neogitation.

    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

    BIN LADIN: .... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

    The above is from a 3/97 interview by Peter Arenett, then with CNN.

    What they want is to do what they want, when they want, how they want, where they want and to whom they want.

    They are and have been at war with us for years and years. Time for us to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Parent

    Who is they? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    You know, Molly. You know. (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 15, 2015 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    Yes, Jim, Molly knows lots of things. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:16:26 AM EST
    "When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who 'them' was. Today, we are not so sure who the 'they' are, but we know they're there."
    George W. Bush, Iowa Western Community College (Jan. 21, 2000)

    But you and your friends sure don't.

    Parent

    And your point is?? (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    Today, we are not so sure who the 'they' are, but we know they're there.

    Let me help you.

    (Clarke)Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    Issues that just laid there for two years.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Bush took immediate action. Almost as fast as Obama did when he stopped the increased drilling in the US.

    But I digress.

    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    Link

    And then he used the information.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    That's 32 days before the infamous PDB that Molly writes about.

    So she's wrong. You're wrong. All either of you want to do is elect Democrats. You are putting politics ahead of national security....and lives.

    Parent

    Lives... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 12:30:21 PM EST
    what do you know or care about saving lives?

    You're still tap dancing, going through contortions, and generally falling all over yourself for the sole purpose of doing damage control for an administration that didn't protect us on 9/11 and lead their nation into an unnecessary, destabilizing, devastating war.

    And all because your ego can't come to terms with the fact that you wholeheartedly supported it all.

    Parent

    Outside of grounding all (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    commercial air flights or keeping all Muslims off them... What would you have done??

    And remember:

    At the time of the attacks, commission staffers testified, the FAA prohibited passengers from boarding aircraft with knifes having blades longer than 4 inches, tear gas, mace and similar chemicals.

    CNN

    Why the FAA, who had 32 days, didn't forbid all weapons I do not know. Bush should have fired the head of it as an example.

    But since you want to complain, Clinton had 8 years to fix that and he didn't do it.

    Parent

    Horrific cycle of violence. (none / 0) (#128)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 06:43:39 AM EST
    The French have retaliated by dropping bombs on Raqqa, described as a "stronghold".

    This target was previously known to one and all, but had not been attacked until now because of the presence of a civilian population and the inevitable casualties that would be the result of a bombing campaign there.

    You all know what the result will be.

    But that's different.
    They're collateral.


    cnn says (none / 0) (#201)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:34:32 PM EST
    there is a group called raqqa slaughtered silently
    that is reporting from raqqa, it appears.  Per a cnn news article, there are few or no civilian casualties and perhaps a few ISIs casualties/deaths.

    Though one of the targets was a stadium which is being used both as a hq and also as a jail . . .

    not sure what has been happening with any prisoners . . .

    Parent

    Ruffian (none / 0) (#147)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    How did you like Zac Brown on Friday?

    Might need kdog to know how to classify Zac Brown's music. Sunday there were covers of the Beatles, Bob Marley, Avicii, and Queen (I see where you also got a little Metallica and Marshall Tucker), it's safe to say the Zac Brown Band can't be pigeonholed as just country...maybe Caribbean/Country/Rock with a few gospel singers thrown onstage for lagniappe.

    It was entertaining. Never expected (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    a 'Bohemian Rhapsody' cover, that's for sure. The band is wonderful. I would classify them as a country-rock band with a Jimmy Buffett streak - kind of a throwback to the 70-80's when genres were not so clear cut. Fiddle player was AMAZING, as were all of the guitars, and everyone else for that matter.

    My only gripe was song selection. The Marshall Tucker song went on WAY too long....I think I would have liked fewer covers and more of Zac Brown's songs.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#177)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    I would have traded a few of the covers for a few more of his ballads. Perhaps those are saved for the indoor/non-amphitheater venues.

    Parent
    I was really happy they did 'Colder Weather' (none / 0) (#191)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    Can't recall if I said so the other day, but I don't know much of his music . I do know that song though since it was heavily featured in the episode of Sonic Highways he was in, and I just think it is close to a perfect song. Beautifully done at the show too.

    Were you at the Tampa show?

    Parent

    I went last night (none / 0) (#194)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:41:44 PM EST
    in West Palm Beach.

    I agree with your Jimmy Buffett leanings which are visible in both Knee Deep and Castaway.

    Parent

    site violator (none / 0) (#171)
    by fishcamp on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 03:03:24 PM EST


    Holy Deathbed Batman (none / 0) (#180)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:04:58 PM EST
    UMass National GOP poll:

    Trump  31
    Carson 22
    Cruz   13
    Rubio   9
    Fiorina 4
    Kasich  4
    BUSH  3

    Oh hell it's even worse (none / 0) (#182)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    Rand Paul has 4 pushing Bush down to 8th.

    Parent
    Yeah, Donald! (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    Hope he gets the nomination.

    Parent
    Looks like (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    Cruz is picking up the Carson voters and probably Trump getting some of them too. This is the second poll showing Trump leading everybody.

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#189)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 06:35:03 PM EST
    an internet poll I believe, all those those numbers seem consistent with the trend over the past month.

    If anything it shows Carson and Trump holding steady and Rubio and Cruz picking up from the slow steady decline of Bush and Fiorina and maybe now Huckabee and Christie.

    The really interesting factoid is Cruz jumping past Rubio into third. He is well positioned to capture Carson's evangelical base after his inevitable crucifixion by the SP's, he also has outsider cred (everybody in DC hates him, especially the Republican establishment) in case Trump tires of the game or really,really say's something beyond the pale for even his slobbering base.


    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 07:03:34 PM EST
    Cruz is climbing up in the polls. Of course none of this surprises me. Last year when I was talking about Cruz being the possible nominee I was getting laughed at.

    Rubio is going to be the next Jeb Bush. Last time I checked both Cruz and Jeb were aiming their guns at him. Jeb seems to be locked into some kind of murder suicide mission with Rubio. To Cruz he is just seems to be another one he needs to take down to reach the top.

    I think it's possible Cruz could sneak a win in Iowa since I'm not sure if Trump or Carson have any actual people on the ground organizing for them.

    Parent

    Well, okay, yeah for Cruz! (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 08:01:50 PM EST
    That works for me....

    Parent
    Think back to Maslow (none / 0) (#185)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    When people are fearful/afraid, they can easily slide back to the physical needs level.  Food, shelter, and--here in 2016 perhaps?--security move to the forefront and become paramount. Trump's tough-talk and seeming confidence can be reassuring to those who otherwise feel threatened.

    Two things: (1) While even the trauma of the onslaught may well temper with time as to US political foreign policy ramifications, any major violent recurrence would probably change all assumptions about the 2016 race to date. (2) In the Repub primary, would fear-based response in the foreign policy area change the dynamics about whether Repub primary voters would prefer experience as they used to do or not?

    Parent

    O'Malley (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    cutting his staff at his Baltimore headquarters and looks to be going all in with Iowa and NH. With money getting tight, he'll be trying to survive until then and hope to finish 2nd in one of the two early states.

    Inna explains when to invade ISIS (none / 0) (#200)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    Two observations re the Met's (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 11:03:57 PM EST
    performance tonight of Verdi's Rigoletto, in which the title character is the court jester to the Duke of Mantua.

    (1). All audience members were wanded.

    (2). In this controversial production, which is set in a Las Vegas casino, Count Monterone, whose daughter the Duke has seduced, is now a sheik, complete w/Saudi royalty style headdress. Did not seem very PC to this observer.  

    Is opera required to be PC? (none / 0) (#203)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 16, 2015 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    The only thing I require of the operas I attend is that the singing, sets, and orchestra are in escellent form. In that regard, I've been quite lucky. Seattle Opera is a top-notch company.