We do not like NAFTA, CAFTA, the DLC, and the ‘third way’.

“We” in this house concur.
*G*

And honey is Canadian, via Nova Scotia.

I hear they have GREAT seafood, and pubs with lots of my kind of music. Wonder if she can get me in . . ;-)

Unfortunately, the British experience in the South is probably a harbinger of what awaits us when we finally decide to withdraw. It ain’t gonna be pretty, but due to BushCo incompetence, it really can’t be avoided.

Bush’s strategy isn’t really to win; on some level, even he understands that. What he doesn’t want is to lose badly, especially not on his watch. Its going to come down to Vietnam all over again.

So he & Cheney are planning right now on how to blame the final conflagration on the Democrats. This is what the Blue Dogs fear the most.

Bob in HI

Sounds like something my buddy Tanbark has been saying for a few years . . . I’m finally coming on board with it . . . we HAVE to make sure the PetroTurds eat this debacle. Every last drop and byte of if.

Blub @ 181

‘for me, it’s because he’s an economic isolationist, who’s just wrong.

Opposing NAFTA or CAFTA is not economic islationism. Both these FTAs work to favour the US arms twisting others to open up their economies for US’ benefit. The way it works across in Canada is this: a lot of primary products are exported to the US (much not paid for promptly) to be value added and the finished product reimported back into Canada which does not promote economic development in Canada itself. The consequences have proved to be particularly dire for the Atlantic provinces of Canada which are the poorer eastern areas in the country. For FTAs to work, you must have free movement of labour too as happens across the EU but the USA isn’t really interested in much else besides hegemonic control, politically and economically.

Yep… NAFTA and CAFTA are designed to work in favor of the U.S. of A. Otherwise, they won’t play.

America is only getting uglier and uglier by the day.

-GSD

You’ve got that right! Disgusting behavior towards one of your allies.

Marshhen, this is internet comedy, right?

She can’t even admit straight-up, that she made a mistake when she voted to authorize the invasion. Which is why she can’t say the invasion ITSELF was a mistake.

Do you think that she can get elected 15 months from now, if she won’t pronounce what’s going on in Iraq a mistake?

A few months before the mid-terms, When Bush was initially floating an escalation trial balloon, she spoke in favor of it.

As I’ve been saying, she only discovered her REAL inner antiwar self, when she took a look at the polls just before the mid-terms.

She also merrily supported Joe Lieberman when he lost in the Connecticut primary to Ned Lamont. I know, she finally offered tepid support for Lamont, in the general election, when he lost, but she had zippo choice in that; staying with Jolting Joe would have been political suicide.

BTW, Do we need to remind you that Lieberman makes Trent Lott look like Jane Fonda?

Obama has spoken out consistently against the war.

John Edwards had already unequivocally eaten HIS authorization vote, 3 times, when I saw him in Georgetown, S.C. a couple of weeks ago. He did it again, saying: “I was wrong. Just wrong”

No farting; no tapdancing. Just “wrong”.

If you go see Hillary speak, ask her if her vote was a mistake, and then ask her if the invasion was a mistake…

And after she answers, ask YOURSELF, why you’re supporting her.

The Holy Writ-Shreik of:

“BILL CLINTON’S DICK!!!”

won’t cut it for this one.

The Brits seem to be showing a fair degree of reluctance to kill their troops and Iraqis, in order to validate bloodyhanded bullshit, and to try to keep the bush administration from having to eat their murderous loon-crusade, instead of taking the responsibility for it.

AW.Com had a piece on a few weeks ago, in which the writer talked about CentCom’s being very pissed that the Brits wouldn’t go out every day to mix it up with the militias down there, and instead, were pulling back “behind the wire” at the Basra Airport.

With them scheduled to reduce their level by another 500 (at least) before the end of the year it’s not going to get any better.

I’m not sure what effect they have on keeping the Kuwait-to-Baghdad highway open, which is the lifeline for the occupation of Iraq, but when they leave, the Shiites in the south will be a lot more rambunctious about expressing their new-found “freedom”, and if they decide to go after that lifeline, it’s going to take a substantial number of americans to protect it.

Plus, the symbolism of the Brits leaving will initially be worse than the real reduction in troops there.
I don’t see how Gordon Brown can keep them there long enough to allow bush and his administration to hang on and ooze out of office after the elections.

One more headache-in-waiting for goatboy.

Bush overtly and explicitly denied Pakistan any help in further developing their nuclear capacity. The deal with India refers to civilian nuclear capacity in return for UN inspections of civilian sites. No, the USA did not sell either Pakistan or India nuclear technology. AQ Khan stole Pakistan’s knowhow from Europe and he is free as far as I can make out. India did not acquire it from the Russians either – it was genuinely homegrown – technological knowhow is not limited to white peoples! Also, the USA had very little choice because India was pursuing using thorium in preference to uranium because the country has plenty of it. Also, it cannot be reprocessed for military nukes.