Crap Throwing Monkey

The people? They'd be up in arms over it. There is a slight possibility that they'd collectively shrug and say "So what? They're Shi'ias.", but I doubt it, as public opinion is pretty much filtered through either the idea that the US is an Israeli stooge, or that Israel is a US stooge, which has a definite unifying effect between Islamic factions. Their governments would express public outrage, but privately would probably be thankful (save probably the Syrians, who'd look at such things as a distinct threat to their own CW program). It's hard to believe that anyone in the region would want to see a nuclear Iran (particularly when they already have a nuclear Israel to worry about), and most of the governments tend to be at least somewhat realistic in world politics. Given the whole Arab-Israeli conflict is now relatively stable, Iranian nukes could only destabilize things, which no one else I can think of is really crazy enough to want...but they still have to placate their populations, thus will at least publicly express outrage. The economic ramifications...basically, it drives the price of oil up, at the very least for taking Iranian oil off the market (Which is the best case. Worst case is that the plan is implemented stupidly, leaving Iranian shore-based anti-shipping installations intact, and the Iranians start lobbing missiles at everybody else's tankers and close the Straits of Hormuz. That's unlikely...the people who do the operational planning aren't that stupid.) Ultimately, though, anyone who's a net importer of oil gets their economy smacked around some by increased energy prices (though consistent supply isn't likely to be a problem...maybe for Europe or China, but we get a small enough portion of our oil from Iran that our biggest problem will likely be pricing, not supply.) But I'm not much of an economist...and things usually have a nasty habit of unrolling in ways nobody expects...

Untrue, actually. Just because they're not published or marketed, doesn't mean they didn't happen. The threat against Wall Street from about a year or so ago, for instance...listening to the media reports you got the impression that it was suddenly uncovered but found to be a false alarm within a week of being announced; the truth was that it was being worked for months before it ever became public knowledge and was pretty much stopped cold. In fact, you're far more likely to hear about attacks that succeed than those that are stopped, simply because no one wants to go public about a stopped attack (the terrorists don't want to admit failure, the government doesn't want to risk means and methods being publicly announced), but a successful attack is out in the open for all to see.

And despite FISA, there is still a practical gray area that has been used by past presidents yada yada yada... The real issue isn't "Bush bad"...or "Clinton bad", or "Echelon bad", or whatever. The real issue is an awkward, half-assed, patchwork set of laws that fail to address real national security concerns combined with a patchwork set of national security practices that fail to consistently meet the constitutional standards this country is founded on. But no one wants to discuss the real issue, because it's hard...

Sometimes I'm on...and sometimes I'm my normal unfunny self.

Actually, there is and HAS BEEN a practical gray area where international activities is concerned...a gray area that's only been exacerbated by the PATRIOT Act and general paranoia post-9/11. I happen to agree that warrants should be gotten in ANY cases of domestic surveillence...but the fact is that past presidents have not only used warrantless surveillence and search and seizure in cases involving cooperation with foreign agents, but have successfully argued for the legitimacy of the evidence in court and got it admitted in criminal cases. Wrong though it may be, there's ample precedent for the Bush administration to fall back on in this case.

"First Letch".

I'd say after Bush I, people were right...

No. His policy towards central Asia, for example, was to promote stability by encouraging exploitation of the gas and oil reserves to boost their economies, while simultaneously supporting the groups who promoted instability (i.e. the Taleban) to secure the exploitation of the oil and gas...until he found out the Taleban mistreated women, after which his Central Asian policy turned on a dime... Or there's the classic of craven and cowardly example African policy: "indications of genocide-like activity" in Rwanda...reason being that if the State Department had said "indications of genocide", which would have committed us under international law to intervention, and Bill couldn't possibly intervene after tucking tail and running from the Somali misadventure and establishing the policy of "sub-Saharan Africa is a cesspool, just leave it alone". Or there's his brilliant North Korean policy: "If we give you a nuclear program, do you promise not to do bad things with it and keep quiet during my term?" No explanation necessary, I believe, as to how whacked a policy THAT was. Or his counter-terrorism policy: "You bombed our embassies (in sub-Saharan Africa, which is a cesspool we prefer to disengage ourselves from anyway, which is part of the reason you were able to get away with bombing our embassies). So here's some cruise missiles. That'll keep you quiet for a little while." Or his Balkan policy...which was apparently just random synapse firings. I can't even begin to describe his Balkan policy. That's by far the number one reason I wouldn't vote for her; much as Curious George inherited his foreign policy from the hard-liners in President Dad's administration, Hillary couldn't help but inherit the Mickey Mouse head-in-the-sand opinion-poll driven electioneering at its worst foreign policy of her husband's administration. It's the main reason by far that I didn't vote for Kerry - his foreign policy was a rehash of Clinton's "no foreign policy" foreign policy.

Land marines on the islands and platforms along Iran's Persian Gulf coast and disrupt the hell out of their economy with a de-facto blocade. Though I forget if the source I got the from was a credible one or not. Bombing the sh-- out of their nuclear sites is an option as well...particularly in combination with IAEA, which I'd suggested in lieu of invading Iraq (simply, back up inspections with some teeth. "Anything you don't let us inspect will be bombed to destruction. Complete transparancy or complete annihilation.") It's very easy to underestimate the US military...but the truth is, we have some really scary capabilities, particularly when it comes down to precisely targeted destruction. The current capabilities of even one upgraded stealth bomber are pretty spectacular.

I think the proper solution is to treat them with compassion and kindness, with an emphasis on joy and humor. That'll solve the problem. This public service announcement was brought to you by CODEPINK.

Which is completely beside the point. Your punishment for a crime ending with your sentence is a principle of the justice system. If you want to punish them for life, amend the law so they can be sentenced to life by a judge. If you don't, there's NO constitutional basis for continuing to punish them after their time is served. Personally, I agree with you in that I have little problem seeing such people killed. But the sexual predator lists are 1) usually poorly considered and implemented, and 2) almost universally unconstitutional, and 3) basically flawed anyway, in the sense that if someone is enough of a threat to society that they have to be tracked and hounded for the rest of their lives, why aren't they still locked up???

Oh, yeah. THESE are the people I want dictating foreign policy. "Hey, Kim Jong-Il...got your nose! "

Not to digress too much from the topic of the thread...but yes, I know. Usually, when a stock I own drops precipitously in price, I'll get as many as five offers to join a class action suit against the management ("The stock went down! It wasn't supposed to! Management's a bunch of crooks! You deserve restitution!" Uhhh...no, sometimes sh-- just happens. C'est la vie.) And then there's the Providian suit...Providian used to be one of the most crooked and dishonest credit card companies out there (they charged my brother $100 to close his account. They kept holding my payments past the due date and charging me late fees and interest, until I started sending the payments return receipt. ) Conservatively, they stole about $75 from me. I was happy to see them get sued and be part of the class-action suit. And years later...I've gotten about five dollars out of the suit. Maybe. Biggest check I ever got was for $1.28. The lawyers got yachts. And to fully expect to see this happen as a result of unconstitutional government activity that is nonetheless effectively not illegal because of the poorly designed set of knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering laws and precedents governing it...

Yeah...but I've never heard of pro-bono work on a class-action suit. I'm sure it happens, but the vast majority of class-action suits are 1) bull (wait a week and see how many class-action suits are filed because Google took a bullet after the close today, and people were dumb enough to buy at $400), and 2) for a hideous portion of the settlement. It's a question of what's involved, too...note that the EFF story did NOT say it was a class-action suit or they were seeking monetary damages. That does not, of course, prohibit a half-dozen ambulace chasers from suing AT&T as well for monetary damages...which I wouldn't be surprised to see. Hell, I'll talk to my sister tomorrow, maybe she'll be interested.

Was that in reference to "alcohol" or "revolution"?

What are you babbling about? Yeah...because they're not part of the problem.

Emigration. Revolution. Or immense quantities of alcohol.

Let's say your ass was your elbow. Would you still ask this stupid question?

Doesn't look too bad in the text. Looks like his speechwriters catering to his homey "aw, shucks" portrayl he usually has. Of course, then the writers ask him to pronounce words like "rostrum". You'd think they know by now not to give Curious George any hard words...

Every time I start to think that, I remind myself that, while I disagree with some aspects of Bush's foreign policy (not all that many...Iraq, basically), Bill's was orders of magnitude worse. Plus, there's the distasteful fact that if Hilary runs and wins, our presidents from 1988 on will have been Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and Clinton. A quarter-century of being ruled by one of two families, more if she gets two terms. May as well burn the Constitution and declare a friggin' monarchy if she runs and wins.

But second-order effects are hard...

I don't. I think you bash Bush because you're basically a hateful and bitter person like me. I bash Bush because...he's an idiot. I've talked to people in the White House (senior people, whom I can't name for what will soon be obvious reasons) that have told me "My boss is a really nice guy...but he's an idiot." And as soon as I saw "rostrum" in the text, I thought "He's going to butcher that one, for sure." Credit Bush for at least trying to address the problem. You and I will never see dime one of what we're putting into Social Security right now. Congress' constant "We can't do this!" refrain on the issue would have gone over better with me if they'd offered anything resembling an alternative. Social Security as an issue is the US Government in a microcosm: sheer unadulterated idiocy run amok.

I WOULD HAVE DISAGREED, BUT THE CAPITAL LETTERS CHANGED MY MIND......

Neeeever gonna happen. At least, not until the oil runs out. And while it may SEEM like a good geopolitical strategic move, weakening our dependence on our unreliable Arab "allies"...the Arabs will have to court even closer ties with Europe and China to maintain their cash flow. A Sino-Islamo-European "axis" that US interests are increasingly removed from? Bad things, man...

Those CODEPINK lunatics had their own State of the Union address? I have GOT to get the !@#$ out of this country.