Diogenes: It's not a true democracy if we in the US don't like the winners.

But I'm not clear on who's drawing the comparison here in TFA between Hamas' allegedly new identity and what Bush said.

Yeah how are those two quotes related? They share similar a rhetorical style but I'm not seeing exactly what the fark this idiot is trying to say.

Democracy is complicated and doesn't necessarily result in friendly US regimes. True story Bro!

I think Clemons is trying to make the point that Bush facilitated and legitimated the rise of Islamists.

Correlation / causation needs more timecube.

TofuTheAlmighty: I think Clemons is trying to make the point that Bush facilitated and legitimated the rise of Islamists.

I don't see that from the article, while it does contain a grain of truth. Possibly also a beach of truth.

PonceAlyosha: Diogenes: It's not a true democracy if we in the US don't like the winners.

But I'm not clear on who's drawing the comparison here in TFA between Hamas' allegedly new identity and what Bush said.

Yeah how are those two quotes related? They share similar a rhetorical style but I'm not seeing exactly what the fark this idiot is trying to say.


Does Jim Pinkerton mean nothing to you?

I have no comment about whether it's a stupid article. However, this quotation from Bush jumped out at me:

By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well--a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

I understand that all presidents use speech-writers. But doesn't the speech have to be something that the speaker could plausibly come up with given enough time? Something that you hear and think to yourself, "Hey, I like what this guy is saying." Because Bush could sit down in the library for the next decade and never, ever pen something even remotely close to that. It never really occurred to me until now just how utterly absurd he looked when giving speeches like this. When my daughter tries reading a book that's far beyond her reading level it's funny and cute; when the President of the United States does essentially the same thing, it's just embarrassing.

DarnoKonrad: PonceAlyosha: Diogenes: It's not a true democracy if we in the US don't like the winners.

But I'm not clear on who's drawing the comparison here in TFA between Hamas' allegedly new identity and what Bush said.

Yeah how are those two quotes related? They share similar a rhetorical style but I'm not seeing exactly what the fark this idiot is trying to say.


Does Jim Pinkerton mean nothing to you?

Yes, I have no idea who the fark that is. Apparently some GOP tool.

Ah, yes. The Washington Post. Where both Charles Krauthammer and Paul Krugman write, meaning it is simultaneously the liberalest liberal rag ever and a bastion of Bush administration-humping conservatism.

If these countries truly have free and fair elections, it's a victory for freedom.

If they have Reagan-style "elections" (featuring the US' favorite strongman-du-jour), it's a victory for "freedom".

Knowing which style of "election" and "freedom" is important. Define your terms, people.

Don't you see?! It's the Illuminati!!!11eleventy

well, it's not really freedom if the wrong bloody wogs win, is it?

So, a headline and two quotes with no description or explanation counts as an "article" these days? Sheesh. I thought The Atlantic was supposed to be reputable.

The connection is:

By "liberating" Iraq Bush was saying that we would give people a taste of freedom and set things in motion for democracy to take root throughout the Middle East - this was the root of Neoconservative theory.

What actually happened: we stirred things up, pissed everybody off, and people overthrew their regimes and the Islamists are taking over.

Wake me when it says "Marble cake also the game".

Edsel: What actually happened: we stirred things up, pissed everybody off, and people overthrew their regimes and the Islamists are taking over.

Frankly grouping all "islamists" together is rather idiotic. Our government couches itself in religious symbols but we're not [generally] considered "Christianists."

Edsel: What actually happened: we stirred things up, pissed everybody off, and people overthrew their regimes and the Islamists Islamic Fundamentalists are taking over.

Are they? I know they are trying and probably will succeed in some places, but for every story I hear about fundamentalists gaining power there is another one from a woman or a student wanting the swing to be more progressive.

Dr Dreidel: Ah, yes. The Washington Post. Where both Charles Krauthammer and Paul Krugman write, meaning it is simultaneously the liberalest liberal rag ever and a bastion of Bush administration-humping conservatism.

Since when does Krugman write for the Post?

/Unless they're buying his articles from the Times or something...

Arkanaut: Dr Dreidel: Ah, yes. The Washington Post. Where both Charles Krauthammer and Paul Krugman write, meaning it is simultaneously the liberalest liberal rag ever and a bastion of Bush administration-humping conservatism.

Since when does Krugman write for the Post?

/Unless they're buying his articles from the Times or something...

I don't know who I was thinking of, but the answer we're presenting is Ezra Klein.

Ezra Klein. Please update your scorecards accordingly.

Thanks for the reminder of the profoundly stupid things that cretin used to say.

imaconnect4guy: So, a headline and two quotes with no description or explanation counts as an "article" these days? Sheesh. I thought The Atlantic was supposed to be reputable.

Also, journalists are no longer required to call out politicians when they spout nonsense. It's part of their whole "our viewers are idiots, give us money" mentality.

[wtfamireading.jpg]

Obligatory

The Dog Ate My Homework: I have no comment about whether it's a stupid article. However, this quotation from Bush jumped out at me:

By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well--a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

I understand that all presidents use speech-writers. But doesn't the speech have to be something that the speaker could plausibly come up with given enough time? Something that you hear and think to yourself, "Hey, I like what this guy is saying." Because Bush could sit down in the library for the next decade and never, ever pen something even remotely close to that. It never really occurred to me until now just how utterly absurd he looked when giving speeches like this. When my daughter tries reading a book that's far beyond her reading level it's funny and cute; when the President of the United States does essentially the same thing, it's just embarrassing.

If you picture him taking it literally and meaning the US was going to immolate its detractors and sell their bodies (for fuel) and possessions on the global market, it makes it easier to believe he (or Cheney or Rumsfeld) came up with it.