Well thanks, Al, but we knew that already. Of course his fellow demmerkrats are still trying to dump another $8 billion into this failed idea, but what price votes in Iowa? Ed Krummeich? JHR?
Filed under Uncategorized
This is a bipartisan boondoggle. It was part of the tax deal. Put not your trust in [Republican] princes.
You’re repeating yourself – might be time for that neurological check-up. : )
It can’t be repeated often enough.
Ethanol was a mistake? Gore is a mistake on many levels..his record makes ethanol look like solid gold.
Funny how 100-year flood/storm/whatever gets repeated a little more often than it should too.
I’ve written before on this blog that ethanol and almost all agriculture subsidies are wasteful and ought to be done away with. But you’re just wrong when you try to make it sound like ethanol is some pet Democratic issue. This is about farm state senators and non-farm state senators, and has got nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, or progressives or conservatives.
Gore’s whole existence was a mistake. Ask Tipper.
Corn ethanol is a scandal. Gore either fell for it or was part of the scam. And Obama whored himself for farm-state votes, well after the findings were conclusive that corn ethanol is worse than nothing. No excuses need to be offered.
I don’t suppose it’s surprising that you feel the need to repeat your anti-Dem taunts, even while you say such outrageous things as “Miss him yet?” about war criminal George Bush.
It’s ‘the hottest year on record’, as long as you don’t take its temperature…Much of the data cited to support warmist claims is pure conjecture:
u mean the very same al gore that was co-leader of the free world,… just made shit up to secure political brownie points? I wonder how much more of the Al Gore political ajenda is motivated by personal profit.
ethanol and all the rest of the global warming scam dollars would have been nothing compared to the cottage industry gore built around trading carbon credits.
Al gore is the pied piper of the chicken littles, only difference is, al gore marches to the bank.
If Bush is a “war criminal,” then what should we call his sucessor for continuing the Iraq War at the same level of intensity and tripling the US troop comittment to Afghanistan?
Inagua — I won’t speak for LLS, but it’s safe to say he’s not referring to the war in Afghanistan. The war crime was personally directing U.S. personnel to use techniques that our own laws recognize as torture. These are laws that our Congress has passed and that our government has used to prosecute, among others, Japanese officials in post-WWII trials. Waterboarding is torture, legally and morally speaking.
I misunderstood. I thought LLS was referring to the wars themselves as being a criminal mistake (a position I agree with.) Thank you for the correction.
Any time JRH wants to speak for me, I have no objection–clear-headedness abounds from that quarter.
As JRH surmised, I wasn’t referring to Afghanistan. I didn’t agree with Bush’s decision on that one, either, but there was at least SOME rationale for it.
No, what I consider utterly despicable was the invasion of Iraq, which represented an arrogant disregard for international law on the flimsiest and most dishonest of pretenses, as well as the “anything goes” morals that allowed for and encouraged torture. It’s no excuse that post-9/11 America was scared, confused, angry, vengeful, and easily persuaded. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the rogues waged an unnecessary, vastly expensive (in every sense), poorly planned, and illegal war against Iraq. They’ll burn in Hell a lot longer than Ethanol Al and Corndog Barry ever will.
You say there was “SOME rationale” for Afghanistan. Please explain the rationale for our being there for over nine years, with particular reference to the recent decision to triple down.
one thing is for certain. Black ops should remain forever black ops and not part of dinnertime conversations. Cheney bush were a holes for letting the cat out of the bag and should bare full responsibility …ollie north poindxter style
The original decision to invade Afghanistan was Bush’s, not Obama’s. The reasoning was that al qaeda was training terrorists there, and when the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to the U.S. Government (late September ’01), we went in. I didn’t agree with the decision to invade, but there was at least that rationale.
When you ask for “the rationale for our being there for over nine years,” how can I provide it? Blame Bush for starting it and then for doing such a half-assed job of pursuing it, and blame Obama for being unable to disengage sooner than he’s doing. I think he’s mistaken for keeping us there so long, but I have no idea how he could get us out without being called a quitter, a weakling, and a disgrace. Shades of LBJ and Nixon.
Still, Bush’s crime(s) in Iraq qualify him for a deep circle in Hell.
I understand your opinion of Bush, but I am amused that go light on Obama for continuing the Bush policy. You remind me of my Republican friends who rail against Obama’s spending, but don’t criticize Bush for No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Benefit, TARP, or the auto loans.
FWIW, I see Bush and Obama as a seemless expansion of big government.
We simply disagree. Starting a war, especially an unnecessary and dishonest one, is not the same as figuring out how to extricate a country from a war already begun. But I will grant you this: Obama has been much less “different” than I had hoped.
It is very easy end a war of invasion. All the invader has to do is leave. We finally did that in Vietnam, and I suppose some day we will finally do that in Iraq and Afghanistan. But right now Obama is in Nixon mode, continuing the mistakes of his predecessor.
I assume you are aware of how NOT easy it was to get out of Vietnam. For years and years and years, through Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, the reports came in with the same message: We’re not winning, and the outlook is no brighter than it was last year. . . . And each year the president would make pronouncements about progress, and eventually “peace with honor.” But no one wanted to be the man in charge when the United States actually lost a war, so we stayed on and stayed on.
Similarly, if Obama were to just leave Iraq and/or Afghanistan, there’d be a deafening chorus asking, “What was all this FOR? Why did all these thousands of people die or have their lives ruined?”
Personally, I wish men like LBJ, Nixon, or Obama could muster up the backbone to just do it. And apparently you would approve, as well. But presidents are political animals; what seems easy to you is anything but easy to them.
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 274 other followers