Tartarin wrote:Oh, that reminds me of a piece I heard on the radio this morning (no citation). The White House already has a series of Bush responses to every possible thing which might happen during an invasion. Script is written. PR is in place. That's not really surprising BUT about half way between Michael Moore and George Orwell.
Are you laboring under the misconception that this is any different than the Clinton White House or many administrations before that? Being prepared for any eventuality is not something bad--unless you spend your days hoping the government will fall flat on its face.
perception wrote:Dys wrote:
i wonder how much we paid for the endorsement?
Can I send you enough money to buy a new songbook????
non sequitor or could just not find anything else cute to say?
I do not think that it is necessary to pay even 1ยข to Japan. They will need American assistance in coping with the North Korean threat. Quid pro quo...
French leaders, maybe, think that they will never need U.S. help in future...
Sometimes I really seem to be a litlle bit desorienated: I didn't know, Japan was a member of the Security Council.
perception: while i realize you would never (over and over and over) take a statement i make about an issue and turn it into a personal statement about me, i cant help but wonder what your motive is for it certainly does not pertain to the issue presented.
Japan is not a member. But it is an influential country in the Far Eastern region. Besides this, some day it may become such a member.
Walter, Japan is not a member of the Security Council for the same reasons Germany is not. They are members of the United Nations, however, as is Germany. c.i.
Here's a link that lists the country membership of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
c.i.
dyslexia wrote:trespassers will: while i realize you would never (over and over and over) take a statement i make about an issue and turn it into a personal statement about me, i cant help but wonder what your motive is for it certainly does not pertain to the issue presented.
Have I made some comment to you with which you take offense? Can you share it with me? I am at a loss to understand to what specifically you are trying to elude. (I've scrolled back through over 100 posts, and frankly don't even see a post from me that is a direct response to you.)
Perhaps you've confused someone else's post with being from me?
(I'm not feigning ignorance here; I really have no idea what you mean.)
Anyone popping corn? I love this stuff!
typing perception turned into trespassers (must be my keyboard)
Well, Germany is a member of the Security Council (although not a permanent).
And Germany doesn't have veto power.
Tres
This white house must be perceived by you as different from the previous Clinton white house or you would have no reason to support it. The suggestion Tartarin makes is a sound one, and your easy dismissal is undiscerning.
You've read, I trust, DiIlio's account of his time in this white house pertaining to the overarching reach and control by the folks involved in PR. That's entirely relevant. You'll have to find some comparable observations by Clinton staffers to make any case of identical operations.
You also, perhaps for the sake of rhetorical gain, seem quite unwilling to acknowledge in any manner that this particular president is very poorly equipped to extemporize in debate or in question/answer sessions with reporters. Will you really insist he has been simply too busy (even pre 9-11) to spotlight himself in a town hall meeting?
I refuse to answer, on the grounds that I fear my brain is turning into an angry mush.
Now, that's more than just a little edgey ... I won't delete the comment, but c'mon, you know better than that
timber
blatham - I understood the issue in question to be the practice of having contingency plans in place to deal with every foreseeable eventuality. The poster seemed to suggest this was a thing to be derided. I was pointing out that it is simply a sign of good planning, and something done by any good administration facing such a crisis.
This has nothing to do with whether the Bush White House is fundamentally different than the Clinton White House.
c.i., there is still considerable logic to a Mar 18/19 start-date, despite the illumination provided by the moon. There is also military logic to waiting for the end of the month, for the dark of the moon, but I somehow doubt the wait will be that long. Both keeping our forces at their "Jump off" points and allowing Iraqi forces to further improve their defenses is imprudent. The only thing I can think of that would make a wait untill then practical would be a breaktyhrough in the next few days regarding Turkish Deployment.
It appears The Vote won't happen before Friday. Either way it goes has no practical effect on US warplans. Allow the weekend for additional diplomatic dithering and handwringing, then look for an announcemen from Bush The Younger on Monday. Something like a 72 Hour Warning would not surprise me. Barring some unexpected hostile move on the part of Iraq or some third party, or a breakthrough in Turkey, I figure Thursday, maybe Friday of next week, depending on weather.
Oh, and I want to thank the folks who didn't let a flame war break out there a few posts ago. I know it was tough, and I appreciate the effort. Everyone does. Thanks a lot.
timber
