The only problem with your logic is that Clinton did provide the US with a budget surplus, and did get a blowjob that sent your party into a spastic paroxysm; but go ahead and keep trying to lie your way into credibility.

It’s worked out so well for Bush, Cheney et al, you might as well give a go yourself.

Then ya think maybe someday we’ll stop hearing about how Clinton single-handedly gave us a surplus and that his only transgression was lying about a blowjob because it was they could come up with after spending $60mm on this otherwise perfect President?

Neither do I.

It was both, at different times, and you know it.

The very fact that Cons continue to believe in the fantasy of Reagan single handedly bringing the Soviet Union to its knees is yet another sign of their inability to match facts with history.

‘Reagan smash!’

Reagan couldn’t even unzip his own fly by himself; challenging Gorbachev to tear down this wall was about as successful at doing so as Reaganomics; in other words, not successful at all.

But keep the wet dream alive; and don’t forget to re-animate his corpse for Palin’s running mate in 2012.

It’s consistently amazing how Conservatives herald ‘freedom’ in Iraq, but never mention the dictator they’ve been ‘freed’ from was installed and supported by the US for decades.

First you implant and foster the tyrant, then you destroy him and his country and call it ‘freedom.’

How dare those ungrateful Iraqis decry the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their own people when they should be bowing down and thanking the altruistic Bush cabal for ‘freeing’ them.

BTW, only another series of bombs went off today in Iraq; more freedom on the march.

Really? Try shouting that to the crowds in Baghdad and see how much agreement it garners.

I’m not the reincarnation of anybody; this is my one and only handle; try and make a point without revealing your amazing lack of tact.

Grenada?

Somebody else’s.

I can see you haven’t changed a bit, Pedro.

But back to South Africa….you were then in favor of not mentioning anything about apartheid, so as not to interfere with the internal workings of that country?

Yeah, let’s talk about South Africa. US, you wanna remind us all of Reagan’s awesome republican leadership on apartheid and South Africa?

Nor does the right wing “usualsuspect” have any sense of history or of how history changes over time.

Republican President Reagan armed the Iraqi dictatorship AND the Iranian dictatorship.

Republican President Reagan was giving the Iranian dictatorship military weapons secretly even while he was also giving the Iraqi dictatorship weapons secretly.

Republican President Reagan was arming both sides.

It’s one of the reasons the Iranians are so quick to blame the Americans for anything they can. But that also goes back to Republican Eisenhower’s toppling of the democratically elected Iranian leader back in the 50’s.

Republican Eisenhower destroyed the democratically elected Iranian leader and replaced him with a dictator, the Shah, whose brutality led to the Islamic revolution.

Unlike the “usual ‘Republican’ suspect(s)”, Iranians remember their history even while Republicans have Orwellianly rewritten history.

That’s one for the Coalition of the Utterly Insane.

You’d have to explain to me how Obama’s latest statements about the situation in Iran is appeasement in any way, shape or form.

When doing a lengthy cut and paste googled after the fact to bail yourself out, you really ought to give a cite. If you were a pro it’s called plagiarism. This ain’t the bigs but that’s not your prose.

Yeah, well I felt that anyone with half a brain and extensive experience of the internet toobs would’ve realized where my excerpts came from, what with the numbered references exactly as in the style used in the Wikipedia, but then I forgot you were commenting on this thread.

Plus, I didn’t indicate in any way that I wrote it, Sherlock, but then as you pointed out and are now demonstrating, “this isn’t the bigs”.

Anyway, it’s a well-documented fact that it was the Conservative fear of Communism that led them favor the Nazis, while it was the other way around with the Liberals of the time, whose opinion was a minority opinion at the time Chamberlain made his famous statement.

Your charactorization of Israeli comments as saber rattling in a respose to Iranian claims to wipe Israel off the map as they actively pursue a bomb and the missle capacity to deliver it is, to put it charitably, a bit myopic. It does fit in well with the Chamberlain appeasement cowardice meme touched on earlier though. You’d fit right in.

Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the US, it has been reported.

Officials in the Israeli Defence Ministry told the Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the US, they were preparing plans that would allow them to act in isolation.

“It is always better to coordinate,” a senior Defence Ministry official told the newspaper. “But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination.”

However defence officials played down the reports today, telling The Times that an attack by Israeli forces alone would probably fail to take out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which experts say are scattered across several sites, some deep underground.

Link

and some folks at the Pentagon, they demonstrated the same cowardly appeasement mentality that you so righteously excoriate:

Senior Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.

A senior defense official told ABC News there is an “increasing likelihood” that Israel will carry out such an attack, a move that likely would prompt Iranian retaliation against, not just Israel, but against the United States as well.

But then, some folks, unlike you didn’t make any damn sense at all:

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush’s successor is sworn in.

Published: 7:25PM BST 23 Jun 2008

The Arab world would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

You brought up apartheid-era South Africa in the context of oppression and whether it was right to intervene. In other words, you’re mixing your hypotheticals here – do you want to talk about stolen elections or oppression of a subset of the population? Was your chief complaint about South Africa that their elections were unfair?

However, if you include only representative democracies and other freely elected governments, turns out everyone pretty much is in agreement.

That stealing elections is wrong? Unsurprising. However I think if you tallied the numbers regarding intervention (either hard or soft), I think you’d find they come up more in the President’s favor than your own. And even if, say, the Chancellor of Germany were to comment on the situation, that carries different weight than words spoken by the president of the United States, because Germans don’t have that negative quasi-colonial history with Iran that the United States has earned (and which you seem so studiously intent on ignoring).

So if your assertion is that there is consensus for a regime change in Iran, or intervention in Iran’s electoral politics, I’d like to see a cite, please.

In fact if the US showed even a modicum of leadership, rather than the bury your head in the sand foreign policy that our Chief Executive Yellow-Belly is showing, we might actually LEAD the consensus statement. That is what we republicans call leadership.

1) What is it you think the president should do?
2) What do you believe will occur if he were to follow your recommendation?
3) Can you think of any reason why even soft intervention might have the opposite effect you desire? Any reason at all? You seem like a thoughtful enough chap.

But back to South Africa….you were then in favor of not mentioning anything about apartheid, so as not to interfere with the internal workings of that country?

Negative. The strategy of consensus economic pressure, diplomatic isolation and a domestic political insurgency worked beautifully. They have their problems, to be sure, but if our own country has taught us anything it’s that you don’t erase the effects of institutional discrimination by simply eliminating the ‘institutional’ part.

However: Do you see a little hyperbole in comparing Iran to South Africa? Just a little? You’re not one of those nutters that calls the president ‘Adolf’ Achmedinejad, are you?

mw…mwuhu….mwhuhuhuhu….mwAAAhahhAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!

However, if you include only representative democracies and other freely elected governments, turns out everyone pretty much is in agreement. In fact if the US showed even a modicum of leadership, rather than the bury your head in the sand foreign policy that our Chief Executive Yellow-Belly is showing, we might actually LEAD the consensus statement.

That is what we republicans call leadership.

But back to South Africa….you were then in favor of not mentioning anything about apartheid, so as not to interfere with the internal workings of that country?

Actually, that’s a wonderful example of building international consensus for regime change through a combination non-military economic means and a rising domestic political revolution.

Obviously no such consensus exists on Iran, which is no more systematically oppressing a subset of its population than our ally Saudi Arabia is.

“While a Liberal as a young man, Churchill abandoned the Liberals and rejoined the Conservatives. Chamberlain was thrown out by the Conservatives in favor of Churchill.”

You left a little bit off, possibly for effect.

“All of which misses the point that appeasement is a form of weakness no matter who does it or what thier affiliation.”

When doing a lengthy cut and paste googled after the fact to bail yourself out, you really ought to give a cite. If you were a pro it’s called plagiarism. This ain’t the bigs but that’s not your prose.