TenuredVulture wrote:I know we shouldn't start another thread, but I'd really like to talk about those in your own party you'd like to throw under a bus.

TenuredVulture wrote:I know we shouldn't start another thread, but I'd really like to talk about those in your own party you'd like to throw under a bus.

I'll start.

Blanche Lincoln

Not just a conservative democratic, an ineffective, not very bright conservative democrat. She's done little for the state as a whole, except when it benefits her wealthy farmer friends in East Arkansas.

Woody wrote:ZOMG

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=YyxM3qwVXvs[/youtube]

dajafi wrote:Wiz, my guess is that in the case of the drones, one objective of the Obama administration is to motivate Pakistan a bit more to take the lead role themselves. Without knowing a lot about the specifics here, if the premise is "either you guys will go after these guys, or we will, using the drones," I at least see the reasoning.

A spokesman for the US embassy in Pakistan told The Times: “Shamsi is not the final destination.” However, he declined to elaborate and denied that the US was using it as a base.

“No. No. No. No. No. We unequivocally and emphatically can tell you that there is no basing of US troops in Pakistan,” he said. “There is no basing of US Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, none, on the record and emphatically. I want that to be very clear. And that is the answer any way you want to put it. There is no base here, no troops billeted. We do not operate here.”

He said that he could not comment on CIA operations.

Paul Smyth, head of operational studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said that 730,000 gallons of F34, also known as JP8, was not enough to supply regular Hercules tanker flights but was sufficient to sustain drones or helicopters.

Other experts said that Shamsi’s airstrip was too short for most aircraft, but was big enough for Predators and ideally located as there were few civilians in the surrounding area to witness the drones coming and going.

Wizlah wrote:
Or the policy of the pakistani government could be plain ol' plausible denial.

drsmooth wrote:

Wizlah wrote:
Or the policy of the pakistani government could be plain ol' plausible denial.

this one would satisfy william of ockham

allentown wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I know we shouldn't start another thread, but I'd really like to talk about those in your own party you'd like to throw under a bus.

I'll start.

Blanche Lincoln

Not just a conservative democratic, an ineffective, not very bright conservative democrat. She's done little for the state as a whole, except when it benefits her wealthy farmer friends in East Arkansas.

Murtha from PA, Burris, the Jr. Jackson

While Afghans likely will welcome a new strategy, they’re far cooler on new troops: Contrary to Washington’s plans, just 18 percent say the number of U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan should be increased. Far more, 44 percent, want the opposite – a decrease in the level of these forces. (ISAF stands for International Security Assistance Force, the U.N.-mandated, NATO-led multinational force in Afghanistan.)

more Afghans now blame the country’s strife on the United States and its allies than on the Taliban. Thirty-six percent mostly blame U.S., Afghan or NATO forces or the U.S. or Afghan governments for the violence that’s occurring, up by 10 points from 2007. Fewer, 27 percent, now mainly blame the Taliban, down by 9 points.

There’s a similar pattern in support for retribution against U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces. While 25 percent of all Afghans now say violence against such forces can be justified, that jumps to 44 percent among those who report air strikes or shelling in their area. It’s a similar 45 percent in the South and East, where the fighting has been most intense.

Werthless wrote:We're not really winning in Afghanistan, and I'm not sure that Obama has all the right answers. Hereis an old, short piece about the problems Obama faces.

And here is some of the latest polling datafrom the Afghan people:

They want fewer troops.

While Afghans likely will welcome a new strategy, they’re far cooler on new troops: Contrary to Washington’s plans, just 18 percent say the number of U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan should be increased. Far more, 44 percent, want the opposite – a decrease in the level of these forces. (ISAF stands for International Security Assistance Force, the U.N.-mandated, NATO-led multinational force in Afghanistan.)

Our overwhelming initial lead in the PR battle is gone.

more Afghans now blame the country’s strife on the United States and its allies than on the Taliban. Thirty-six percent mostly blame U.S., Afghan or NATO forces or the U.S. or Afghan governments for the violence that’s occurring, up by 10 points from 2007. Fewer, 27 percent, now mainly blame the Taliban, down by 9 points.

And in the areas that the US has been fighting, the people there now increasingly say that Taliban's actions are justified.

There’s a similar pattern in support for retribution against U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces. While 25 percent of all Afghans now say violence against such forces can be justified, that jumps to 44 percent among those who report air strikes or shelling in their area. It’s a similar 45 percent in the South and East, where the fighting has been most intense.

kruker wrote:How long until PA senate and general assembly candidates stop constantly touting that they won't raise their own pay during campaigns? This issue is what 3-4 years old already? Some of us would like to hear about, you know, pertinent issues.

WASHINGTON, DC—On Wednesday, Congress approved the Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA), sweeping new legislation that provides benefits and protection for more than 135 million talentless Americans. The bill is being hailed as a valuable addition to the broad stimulus effort.

The act, signed into law by President Obama shortly after its passage, is being hailed as a major victory for the millions upon millions of U.S. citizens who lack any real skills or uses.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans—through no fault of their own--do not possess the talent necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Obama, a longtime ANA supporter. "Their lives are futile hamster-wheel existences of unrewarding, dead-end busywork: xeroxing documents written by others, fulfilling mail-in rebates for Black & Decker toaster ovens, and processing bureaucratic forms that nobody will ever see. Sadly, for these millions of nonabled Americans, the American dream of working hard and moving up through the ranks is simply not a reality."

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million important-sounding "middle man" positions will be created in the white-collar sector for nonabled persons, providing them with an illusory sense of purpose and ability. Mandatory, non-performance-based raises and promotions will also be offered to create a sense of upward mobility for even the most unremarkable, utterly replaceable employees.

The legislation also provides corporations with incentives to hire nonabled workers, including tax breaks for those who hire one non-germane worker for every two talented hirees.

Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act also contains tough new measures to prevent discrimination against the nonabled by banning prospective employers from asking such job-interview questions as, "What can you bring to this organization?" and "Do you have any special skills that would make you an asset to this company?"

Republicans were predictably opposed to the bill, calling it a "mockery and political giveaway." Fortunately for them, many of the their political organizations and supporters will benefit from the bill.