Crap Throwing Monkey

Jewel's actually had more than one top-40 song; I'd hardly call her a one-hit wonder. And no list of female one-hit wonders is complete without "Mickey" by Toni Basil. The ultimate one-hit wonder; she's actually in the Rock and Roll HOF because that POS song somehow limped its way to #1 on the charts for one week. You don't get much more "one-hit wonder" than that.

Or we could always subordinate it to the Secretary of Defense, like this administration seemed to during the Iraq crisis.

I didn't mean it as a Clinton "bash" per se (a Clinton foreign policy bash, certainly - but I hasten to point out that I hate Clinton's foreign policy record on its face, not because it's Clintons)...it was just the example of reactive foreign policy goals I'm most familiar with. While he was certainly proactive and reactive in execution - your example of Israel and Palestine being a good example of proactive, his Afghanistan policy being an even better one of being reactive - I haven't yet seen anyone quote a proactive foreign policy goal of Clinton's foreign policy. I mean, I pretty much know what Bush is trying to accomplish...what was Clinton trying to accomplish? Again, not meant to bash Clinton per se...and I have strong disagreements with the execution of Bush's foreign policy. But the contrast between the two does serve to illustrate the difference between proactive and reactive policy goals.

When people actually try to say something and others act like they're paying attention, there's no need to shout into the partisan wind.

I like the way they specifically call for draining the water.

No. What's truly oxymoronic is that the anarchists have a ".org" web site.

Where's "reunification of the peninsula" fall under all this? It IS an option, after all...

More Syrians died fighting in the invasion than Iraqis, according to open military sources. The reason they know that is because the dumbass Syrians went into battle with their passports. There was no love lost between the Iraqis and Syrians either. After one of the battles in Baghdad (for overpasses named "Moe", "Larry", and "Curly"), the Iraqis took away and buried the Iraqi corpses, but left the Syrian bodies out to rot as a sign of disrespect.

I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. The key point, I think, has to be that your foreign policy goals shouldn't be reactive. If they are, the effect is a "no foreign policy" foreign policy. Clinton's administration is, again, a perfect example of this: whether the execution of policy was proactive or reactive, the foreign policy goals were largely, maybe even universally, reactive.

You know...it's amazing what kind of discussion you can generate when your topic isn't "William F. Buckley sucks".

I always liked that idea from the "friends close, enemies closer perspective". Fundamentally, there's no real reason the US and Iran shouldn't pursue closer relations... ...except for the Israeli question. Everyone tends to forget that...as though US-Iran (or -Iraq, or -Pakistan, or what have you) relations exist in a vacuum.

They used to bring me a beer. Ever since the little monsters figured out how to open them, all they bring me is empties.

Ed, Ed, Ed... You're STILL a pansy-ass hypocritical coward. You just changed extremes.

Does "nuke it and start over" fall under #4 or #6? I...honestly don't have an answer. Three years ago I might have (and it would have been: "Treat Muslims like Muslims, not horribly misguided Americans in need of remedial reeducation.") Now? We're !@#$ed if we leave, and !@#$ed if we stay. Either one's ultimately a drag on the economy and going to kill Americans...the real difference is the certainty of the immediate impact if we stay balanced against the abstraction of future impact if we leave now. And one of the big problems in analysis is: Iraq policy doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum. Whatever we do there directly impacts the attitudes of Europe and the Middle East and has long-term repercussions most of us (and most anyone in the media, outside of maybe Tom Friedman) don't really comprehend (quick: of all the options you listed, tell me how each one affects North and South Korean attitudes towards North Korea's nuclear program. And given the fashionable European anti-Americanism and Chirac's continuing attempts to drive the EU and China closer together, what are the implications for Taiwan 10-15 years from now?) It's easy to complain about "Iraq". It's a lot harder to realize that Iraq is a small part of a greater whole, and consider it accordingly.

He used to be one of you liberal nut-jobs. Please take him back. Please.

You know, the question about what we should do in Iraq is a really good topic for discussion. Someone ought to start a thread on that... ...rather than on Bill Buckley.

How in the hell does your post fit that definition?

The moral of the story being: initial tests are designed to err on the side of caution, hence give lots of false positives.

Can't be. Not when they've still got Cindy Sheehan as a standard-bearer. Maybe when he gets to "get the military out of occupied New Orleans" levels, the theory will have something.

And let's review the original post... Funny...I don't see you offering any opinions or discussion about Iraq. I see you offering them about Buckley and conservatives in general. You didn't even attempt to discuss Iraq in the original post...you used Iraq as the context to discuss Buckley and present your partisan viewpoint. Of course, in later posts, you did try to discuss Iraq...which is just typical of your posting style of "bait and switch" martyrdom: you start with discussing one topic in a given context (Buckley and his views on Iraq), and the very moment you're called out on your idiocy, you swap topic and context (Iraq in the context of Buckley) and play the innocent victim. It may not have been your intent...but it is what you did. And I have a very hard time believing it wasn't your intent, considering you do it ALL THE !@#$ING TIME. Though I will admit it's at least possible - though unlikely - you haven't the slightest idea what the meanings of "topic" and "context" are. Either way, the end result's the same: it's impossible to discuss anything with you, because ultimately you'll "bait and switch" any discussion you're involved in. But it's everyone else's fault. Sure...

I know I told you that typing in caps wouldn't make people take you seriously. But not typing in caps won't make people take you seriously either. Content does count for something.

Mickey's statements ARE pure partisanship, however. Mickey discusses issues only in that they are partisan. Hell, this thread is a perfect example. Mickey chose the topic "William F. Buckley". He intentionally made the subject not the occupation of Iraq, not the ultimate outcome of the occupation, not ANYTHING about Iraq. He chose to make the subject a conservative columnist espousing a "liberal" point of view..."and how do you like them apples, evil neo-cons!" in an effort to once again demonstrate that he's not only "smarter" than everyone else, but more of a victim than everyone else as well. Partisanship in and of itself isn't that bad...hell, Johnny Coli's probably one of my favorite posters, and he's as partisan as they come. KTFABD isn't exactly "fair and balanced", despite his screen name. You're no paragon of centrism yourself. But all three of you can distinguish between issues and partisan sniping and actually discuss things like rational human beings; Mickey digressed from that a long time ago, and he's well into "tennesseeboy" land now.

Professionalism.

He's not a hypocrite. He's a lawyer.

Give him a little while. He has to have a hissy fit every so often, it seems...but they usually don't last more than a couple weeks.