November 08, 2004

The Liberal Case for Bush, Yet Again

Norman Geras has a question for his friends on the left.

The victims of a terrible, murderous oppression in the Kurdish area of Iraq, and those now yearning for a democratic breakthrough against theocratic tyranny in Iran, do not look for solidarity and support to the massed ranks of the marching left, the 'peace' movement, as it flatters itself to be; no, they look to a right-wing Republican president.

By your own lights, friends and comrades, is that not a truly extraordinary state of affairs? If it doesn't cause you some troubling doubts, will anything ever?

I’m being a bit flip when I write these titles. My real intention here isn’t to get American liberals into the Republican tent. That is completely beside the point. What I’d like to see is a little international solidarity between the American left and the oppressed in the Middle East. When Middle Eastern liberals cheerlead Republicans instead of Democrats they know exactly what they are doing and why. The lefties in Paris don’t need your help, folks. Those in Iran and Iraq really do.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 8, 2004 08:27 PM

Comments

the American left supports the oppressed in the Middle East. They support the Palestinians. And thaaaaaaats about it.

Posted by: Glenn at November 8, 2004 08:51 PM

I really do wonder where the liberals, and in particular the feminists are on this stuff. The feminists (if I understand their approach) should have been calling for action throughout the ME a decade ago. I mean, how could things for women in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan etc. get any worse?

As for the liberals, well, I've seen good faith and philosophical consistency from a large number of them. Just not the most vocal.

Look, it is arguable whether we should have gone into Iraq. But now that we are there, how can ANYBODY, but especially liberals, not root for a democratic, liberal (by ME standards) Iraq which causes ripple effects throughout the Islamic world?

Put it this way, I'd gladly trade a Republican electoral debacle in both 2006 and 2008 if it meant success in Iraq and major human rights ripple effects throughout the ME. If I'm willing to do that, how can self-professed liberals and/or feminists NOT be willing to do that?

Posted by: spc67 at November 8, 2004 09:30 PM

spc67: I'd gladly trade a Republican electoral debacle in both 2006 and 2008 if it meant success in Iraq and major human rights ripple effects throughout the ME.

I'm with you, brother. A democratic Iraq would have me beaming with joy even through two terms of President Rodham.

spc67: If I'm willing to do that, how can self-professed liberals and/or feminists NOT be willing to do that?

Many of them believe, or at least claim to believe, that the US can't or won't foster genuine democracy in Iraq.

Posted by: MDP at November 8, 2004 10:56 PM

It's the spoiled rotten Left -- all about ME: "I want abortion, therefore the Christians who oppose it are actually evil; I want gay marriage, those who oppose it are evil; I want more gov't cash (taxed from the RICH!) for the poor, the homeless, the uninsured, the undereducated (but especially a better cushy job for ME), those who want less gov't cash used are evil; and BTW, Christians who talk about good and evil are too simplistic."

There was a huge 1999 spam letter by feminists DEMANDING that "something" be done against the Taliban and their oppression of women. I think most signers (replies swamped that university's mail system) did NOT support Bush -- who actually DID do "something".

The Left wants agreements that FORCE dictators to act with more human rights respect. Agreements don't work at forcing much, unless there is real military force backing them up -- ENFORCING agreements.

Watch the Left on Sudan, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or the Ivory Coast (that great French example???). Failures.

Bush succeeded in Afghanistan. Prolly will succeed in Iraq (though boycott by Sunnis is possible, and then breakup into 3 -- with Sunnis having no oil). The Left hates Republican success more than it wants the good of the world.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 9, 2004 12:06 AM

“What I’d like to see is a little international solidarity between the American left and the oppressed in the Middle East.”

That will never happen. The American Left does not truly believe in the values of Western Civilization. It is nihilistic and self absorbed. Also, our Islamic militant foes are usually of a darker complexion. Only white people are deemed truly evil. Brown skinned human beings can only be perceived as victims. Any violence committed by them is justified. We have only ourselves to blame.

What about the oppressed in the Middle East? They simply do not count. Only those who torture and murder are deemed authentic and truly representative of the dispossessed the earth. The others are members of the bourgeoisie and sell outs to Western imperialism.

Posted by: David Thomson at November 9, 2004 02:17 AM

The Left cares about winning or retaining power as its top priority. Recall the rationalization of Clinton's extra-marital wanderings? It was "only sex". Compare and contrast to the rhetoric from the same folks in regards to Ms. Hill's charges about Clarence Thomas.

Not to paint with too broad a brush but it is obvious from mainstream liberal writing that they are against whatever Bush is for and for whatever he is against.

I'm no slave to consistency but the lack of same among the Left is stunning.

Posted by: too many steves at November 9, 2004 04:43 AM

This should be broadcast nationwide, even worldwide. I fear, however that Big War Media will keep liberals in the dark about anything good. Balance is attained through discipline. Maybe the blogosphere should take up the other side of the war, the one that Big War Media refuses to cover. This is broad enough in scope so that everyone interested could contribute something of their expertise - even our non-commissioned and commissioned 'journalists'.

Posted by: robert at November 9, 2004 05:17 AM

What I’d like to see is a little international solidarity between the American left and the oppressed in the Middle East.

That would require the discarding of the Anti-Americanism that gives the American Left its solidarity. Until the oppressed acquire the brains to pull the party line, I'm afraid such solidarity will be as illusory as a Christmas In Cambodia.

And let's face it, you don't have much time to worry about the fate of the great foul-smelling herds of the Middle East when you're busy painting posters telling Middle America to "Fuck Off".

Priorities, Michael, priorities.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at November 9, 2004 05:40 AM

okay - so let's do Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: larebil at November 9, 2004 05:57 AM

no, we have to invade Iran first, the great human rights advocate Michael Ledeen said so

but seriously: where are (and have been) all the rightwing NGOs that can match the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

Posted by: novakant at November 9, 2004 07:03 AM

The American Feminist is far to indulged in the plight of it's own micro-examined vigina to even bother with the plight of female oppression around the world.

I am an American SWF who is sickened by the self-indulgent American Feminist movement. I will no longer associate myself in any way to the likes of Eve Enslers and their over-rated viginas. They smell of rotten fish.

Posted by: syn at November 9, 2004 07:05 AM

The left is the party of contradiction. The only thing they agree on is that America is evil and has messed up the whole world. But they can fix it because they believe they can not because they ever do anything to try.

The most horrible thing the left has done to this country and its people is welfare and other programs for the poor that don't address the actual problem. We have had these programs for over 40 years and the numbers of people that have gotten off these systems is minute. We have the same poverty level we have always had. You can not improve people by paying them to be lazy.

With this welfare system they also control education which is terrible. They dumb America down which does not bring the poor up so the cycle continues.

The Middle East didn't just get screwed up, it has always been screwed up. I love hearing we made it instable by going into Iraq what was it before Iraq?

The problem is the left embraces the oppressed when it suits them but never helps them. But, the truth is the oppressed in these countries are to blame for letting someone oppress them and never fighting against it. 25 million Afghani's sat on their asses waiting for someone else to save them while 47,000 taliban a-holes ran them. All the Middle East countries are like this also except for Israel.

Feminist only stand for the right to kill babies as proven by their overwhelming support of Bill Clinton who treated women like sh*t.

I hope the left continues it's whining and BS because they will be as extinct as the dinosaurs.

Posted by: Barney at November 9, 2004 07:26 AM

I'm not sure why the Left's reaction is surprising. Americans in general tend to view foreign affairs through a partisan parochial lens. When Clinton was restoring democracy in Serbia and Bosnia I don't remember a lot of Republicans cheering him on. I don't remember a lot of anti-Taliban sentiment on the Right during the 1990s either. In fact when Clinton was President it was NPR and the Nation who used to complain about how in Afghanistan we were reaping the whirlwind of CIA trained anti-Soviet activity. Now the Left is committing exactly the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stupidity as the Right in the 1990s, aggravated in this case by far too much sympathy with the European Left, which long ago abdicated a commitment to democracy (probably about 1910). In a two party state it is apparently very difficult to stick to one's principles.

Posted by: Vanya at November 9, 2004 07:29 AM

Novakent, re: Right-wing human rights NGOs.

The Left has evolved into world-class kvetchers; they're good at it, and kvetching is often an extremely useful service.

Unfortunately, the Left seems to have decided that kvetching is sufficient to solve the world's problems, somehow ignoring 40 years of data. (And these are supposed to be the smart folks?)

Traditionally the Right didn't give much of a squirrel's ass about what happened outside our borders, or at least outside the borders of the "civilized" world, as long as it didn't cause us tangible problems.

We saw how well that works on 9/11.

So the Right (or at least a big portion of it) stepped back and got a new perspective. The Left, not so much. And that's a problem.

Posted by: Mark Poling at November 9, 2004 07:36 AM

novacant, although they are not NGOs, I do know of several US-based organizations that easily trump your examples in terms of changing our world for the better. And they are all bastions of conservatism:

USN, USMC, USCG, USArmy, USAF.

Oh, sorry. By "the good work of" you didn't mean actually changing facts on the ground, but rather deriding and blaming U.S./Israel for all the world's ills. My examples don't do that. I guess that's why they tend to not have a lot of "left-wingers" in them.

Posted by: Zymurgist at November 9, 2004 07:45 AM

You won Michael. Your favored candidate won. His talk of democracy promotion will continue. It will continue to be used to justify invasion, and to be ignored when inconvenient. If you actually want to have any positive effect on the world, I suggest you stop lecturing liberals who are completely powerless and who believe you are either deliberately overlooking what Bush does or forgot what "liberal" means.

We have no power over the government at any level. None. If you want your words to have any chance to do any good, I suggest you direct them at the illiberal tendencies of the administration you helped put back into power. An end to extraordinary rendition. A real investigation of Abu Ghraib. An end to excessive government secrecy. An end to attempts to narrow the 14th amendment as far as gays and lesbians. An end to the fiscal policy that will bankrupt the government.

Posted by: Katherine at November 9, 2004 07:50 AM

I mean, take a look at your comments. People who only talk about "the Left" in capital letters, and make completely fictional descriptions of what it stands for, and criticize "feminazis" for their obsessions with their own "viginas." You are not persuading liberals. You are helping conservatives tell a nice fairy tale that allows them to feel virtuous and portray liberals as evil.

Is that really the best use of your time? I guess you think so, but I really don't see it.

Posted by: Katherine at November 9, 2004 07:54 AM

Katherine: Just post "Abu Ghraib" over and over sweetie. It shows how smart and annointed you are over the hillbillies and fascist Jeebuslanders. Thanks for all your help and we hope you can work with us again in 2008!

Love and kisses -

KR

Posted by: Karl Rove at November 9, 2004 08:00 AM

but seriously: where are (and have been) all the rightwing NGOs that can match the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

Well given the way bigots have pentrated them (according to many lefties), I'd argue the right wing NGO's that have done the most humanitarian good, and completely leave Amnesty etc. in the dust are Christian Churches and missionaries around the world.

I suggest you stop lecturing liberals who are completely powerless and who believe you are either deliberately overlooking what Bush does or forgot what "liberal" means.

WAAAAA, the poor oppressed powerless liberals, WAAAA, Look out Michael, they apparently still have enough power to try and run you out! :)

Posted by: spc67 at November 9, 2004 08:02 AM

Kudos Michael

You hit the nail directly on its head. While we should listen all sides, (it is a free country after all) we need action not words at the end. I am very tired of all the USA bashing. Shucks, we do some things right. Nay sayers will always be with us, just think of them as the half empty glass people who would not be happy with any result.

Posted by: gene at November 9, 2004 08:11 AM

Barney,

"25 million Afghani's sat on their asses waiting for someone else to save them while 47,000 taliban a-holes ran them."

There was a continual low-grade civil war going of in Afghanistan the entire time the Taliban were in power. There may have only been 47,000 Taliban members, but there were also various warlords who supported them which bulked up their numbers. Some of these warlords switched sides when the US moved in and are still in power.

The Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban and their allies, but didn't have the resources to make the kind of attacks neccesary to win the war. Once the US supplied air support they were in Kabul pretty quickly.

The Afghanis were not just sitting on their asses, okay.

Posted by: sam at November 9, 2004 08:15 AM

but seriously: where are (and have been) all the rightwing NGOs that can match the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

match the work? oh, you must mean match the TALK. No work, no results, nothing. Just empty rhetoric.

Fascist chimpy Bush and the U.S. military has liberated more people than Amnesty would in ten thousand years of talk.

Posted by: David in Jesusland at November 9, 2004 08:16 AM

The notion that the Iranians or anyone else outside the US is cheering Bush on is a joke.
Warbloggers like Geras are forced to use the most ridiculous sources - even LGF rejects this one!

Fisherblog sorts Norm out at http://fisherblog.typepad.com/fisherblog/2004/11/norm_iran_criti.html

Not that it'll persuade you lot. By all means have fun in your alternate universe...

Posted by: Herb at November 9, 2004 08:34 AM

Good lord above, Michael, the tone in your comment section is really deteriorating. The name-calling and snark are shouting down any serious discourse.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 08:38 AM

The Left (as opposed to "liberals") is, in fact, being consistent - consistent in its signature position that "the people" should not make their own decisions; rather, they must be told how to live by those more enlightened than they are. This is an updated version of Marxism for the new century.

Katherine -

Your comment sounds petulant. For the good of the nation (and the people of Iraq), you should continue to speak out - not with bitterness, but in an attempt to be helpful. I believe that one of the reasons that the Democrats lost this election is because of the bitterness and pessimism in their message. (As for the substantive issues you raised, I see things differently, for the most part, but there is no point in arguing about them).

Posted by: Ben at November 9, 2004 08:46 AM

I doubt that Bush's policies will have an positive impact on the Middle East (apart from Afghanistan, where, I believe, Gore would have done that same thing as Bush). And, even if they do have a positive impact, even a big one, I am, as an American living in America, much more concerned about the horrific effect of Bush's far-right, evangelical agenda in America than I am on their effect on the rest of the world. There is no liberal case for Bush and if Michael thinks there is one (hey, Mike: what is the liberal case for Bush in his war against gay people? Or do you just write me off? And women?) he needs to switched to bottled water and take a long rest.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at November 9, 2004 08:50 AM

The Left (as opposed to "liberals") is, in fact, being consistent - consistent in its signature position that "the people" should not make their own decisions; rather, they must be told how to live by those more enlightened than they are. This is an updated version of Marxism for the new century.

It's gratifying, at long last, to see that the right wing is finally thinking that democracy in the third world is an important issue. It was, after all, the left that pushed for years to get sanctions against nations like South Africa, and left-wing or liberal institutions like AI and HRW that have done the groundwork in identifying and documenting thje plight of people suffering under oppressive regimes. And it has been the right wing that has traditionally not been concerned with these issues. As I said, gratifying. Although it would be nice to have a little less chest-thumping from the right about how anti-democratic the other side is. It's kind of like someone who just quit smoking getting all self-righteous about it. Please remember that there were some of us who were alarmed by the Taliban when they were being armed by the Reagan adminsitration.

But I have to wonder about whether this newfound concern about liberty might be somewhat partisan in nature, and dropped when democracy becomes inconvenient.

For example, it looks like an election in Iraq, if held in January, offers an excellent chance of resulting in an anti-American government.

Another example - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration holds both these nations as valuable allies, despite Pakistan being, in my opinion at least, the most dangerous nation on earth at the moment. And despite all the talk about "dealing" with Saudi Arabia, most of you just voted for the guy least likely to do anything other than maintain the status quo in Saudi Arabia.

It might be worthwhile mentioning that many of us opposed the Iraq war not because we are opposed to democracy in the region, but because we felt that Bush would fuck it up and it would result in less democracy, not more. But we'll have to wait and see how that works out.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 09:07 AM

Just a note, Christopher Hitchens' new piece in Slate is one of his better ones, which of course means it's great. (And it complements Michael's post nicely, too.)

Posted by: Mark Poling at November 9, 2004 09:16 AM

++UG

I don't think the Right is really concerned about bringing democracy to the third world. I think what we are seeing is the third world trying to violently bring their system to the U.S. and the Right isn't buying it. The Right feels the best way to stop it is on their turf not ours. An opinion I agree with.

Congratulations on being one of the few on either side in this blog that is adding to the content with any sort of intelligence. All you Righties (and I are one) need to lay off the "winner juice" and rejoin the conversation. All you Lefties need to stop calling us Righties ignorant, it ain't gonna change our weak liddle minds.

Semper Fi

Posted by: RickM at November 9, 2004 09:34 AM

"But I have to wonder about whether this newfound concern about liberty might be somewhat partisan in nature, and dropped when democracy becomes inconvenient."

Uzbekistan, righties? I hear that being boiled alive is very liberating. It certainly gets you $$ to fight your own people in the name of terrorism.

Fucking hypocrites.

Posted by: larebil at November 9, 2004 09:42 AM

Good lord above, Michael, the tone in your comment section is really deteriorating. The name-calling and snark are shouting down any serious discourse.

I wuv 'oo, Stu! ;)

Anyhow, I think Michael assumes that leftism has something to do with championing the rights of the oppressed. Leftists have said that that's what they're interested in, but they too often act like their interested in grabbing power and committing murder. After a hundred a fifty years, it's time to believe how they act, not how they say they act.

Michael, why make overtures to leftists? They seem to share many of your values but they really share few. Ignore them. Repair your party without them. Think about what a viable Democratic Party would champion, in detail. Then make it happen. It won't resemble leftism.

Posted by: Jim at November 9, 2004 09:43 AM

Sam,

Although what you say is true about the warlords, the people should of fought and if they lost isn't dying for a greater good better than starving or being beaten to death. You see in America we fought to be free and we still fight to remain free. Although some in this country think you can talk your way out of it, which never works for very long.

So I still maintain they sat on their lazy asses and did nothing for themselves, their women, or especially for their children most of them died of starvation. I would die fighting before my wife or child starved to death, but then again I'm an American not a victim.

Posted by: Barney at November 9, 2004 09:51 AM

Jim ... love you too, man.

Leftists have said that that's what they're interested in, but they too often act like their interested in grabbing power and committing murder.

Yeah, but you're looking at the extreme end of a political spectrum that you disagree with, and ignoring the extreme end of your own. The right wing has also been responsible for exactly the the same things (grabbing of power and committing murder). If that's your justification of your disagreement with the left, it's seriously weak stuff.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 09:59 AM

Stu, read what you just wrote. To heck with both extremes.

Posted by: Jim at November 9, 2004 10:01 AM

To heck with both extremes.

I agree.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 10:03 AM

It is clear Michael is seen an apostate, a heretic to the Leftist "liberals."

That is far far worse than merely being infidel wingnut from Jeebusland.

Posted by: KR at November 9, 2004 10:07 AM

It is clear Michael is seen an apostate, a heretic to the Leftist "liberals.

Actually, no.

That is far far worse than merely being infidel wingnut from Jeebusland.

Wrongest thing I've ever heard. Brings astounding new levels of wrongness to the concept of wrong.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 10:18 AM

Katherine: You won Michael. Your favored candidate won.

I wish I could make you understand that he is not my ideal candidate. Not even close. You should have been able to produce my ideal candidate. See if you can next time. I'd rather team up with you than with someone who complains about "feminazis." I think you should be able to understand why, but some things are more important than other things. Priorities, as Dennis the Peasant says above...

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 9, 2004 10:45 AM

Without HRW and AI, and the UN, too, the Sudan would have been the scene of unimaginable human tragedy. Thank God for the Left and their NGOs!

Oh, wait...

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at November 9, 2004 10:49 AM

Seymour: hey, Mike: what is the liberal case for Bush in his war against gay people? Or do you just write me off?

I didn't write you off. I voted against Oregon's gay marriage ban.

John Kerry is against gay marriage, too. 80 percent of the country is against it, but I'm not, so you're complaining to the wrong guy.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 9, 2004 10:49 AM

OK, lets stop the partisan "But your party did (X)". Lets talk about actual threats to our society, not pretend threats that Parties make up to divide us and garner votes.

Bin Laden has made clear that he plans on bankrupting the US, just as he did with the USSR. He pointed to the national debt, the poor ecconomy etc to indicate that he was succeeding. What do you think? Could an attempt to bankrupt the US work? Did Bin Laden (and/or his operatives) plant suspicion about Iraq's involvement, their weapons capabilites etc., in order to tempt the US into spending money on a war that doesn't impact the actual Al Queda network?

I think its reasonable to assume from his tone, that the next attack (and we should all expect one) will likely hit another economic target, as opposed to the typical political/millitary targets of times before. Do you agree, disagree, why?

Can we maintain a long term gurillia war in Iraq (and thats what we're facing), while still chasing Al-Q and facing another potential attack on our economic system? Any ideas on how we do this?

Here's hoping for real conversation,
Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 10:54 AM

I think that when the left’s passion became multiculturalism, it lost its way. The left used to be anti-fascist, but that was long, long ago in WWII. Now so many are lost in the maze of moral relativity and the ridiculous notion that all cultures are equally valid. With no moral compass they are left with nothing but fear and loathing of those who have one.

It seems to me to be reasonable to expect the left to rediscover the courage to oppose real fascism, i.e. Islamofascists, rather than pretending to themselves that they are moral beings by opposing faux fascism, i.e. conservatives in America. The excesses of the Patriot Act are trivial things to become enraged over when the world is populated by people who cut off the heads of filmmakers who show the oppression of women by the Islamofascists.

I would so welcome the left once again on the side of America in the world wide fight against fascism.

Posted by: thedragonflies at November 9, 2004 10:55 AM

D the P: Without HRW and AI, and the UN, too, the Sudan would have been the scene of unimaginable human tragedy. Thank God for the Left and their NGOs!

After running this through the snark filter, what I get is a contention that because the UN, AI, and HRW have not prevented the Sudan crisis, they are worthless.

Leaving aside the fact that the mandate of AI and HRW is to PUBLICIZE human rights abuses, and that they actually have no troops, I'd have to wonder that, given the US inaction on Sudan and its inability to prevent this tragedy, does the same reasoning applies?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 10:57 AM

A democratic Iraq would have me beaming with joy even through two terms of President Rodham.

I'm in agreement, but surely that thought could have been expressed without causing me to swallow my tongue...

Posted by: Ron at November 9, 2004 11:15 AM

True the Left were anti-fascist in the past, but they were also pro-Stalin, pro-Communism, pro-Totalitarianism, etc.

Never forget.

Liberal is not Left.

Posted by: HistoryLesson at November 9, 2004 11:16 AM

"Bin Laden has made clear that he plans on bankrupting the US, just as he did with the USSR."

The US not guerrillas in Afghanistan caused the USSR to go bankrupt, the arms race was about conducting a global nuclear war not winning one at the edge of humanity. We out spent them and there crumbling communist economic distribution system couldn't withstand the onslaught. End of story.

The US has been growing at a 3.4% GDP clip, 2.2 million jobs have been added in the past 13 months, home ownership is at an all time high, institutional investors and banks are more hungry for American assets than I've ever seen in my years of banking (ie-demand is outpacing supply), our deficit mapped against our GDP is lower than the Reagan years etc, interest rates are still extremely low, capital is easily excessible. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the doomsday scenarios the democrats where spinning before the election do not match with reality.

I think OBL would like nothing better to take out the NYSE, OPEC HQ etc. I tend to believe that given the systems we now have in place along with the checks and balances that were established after the Great Depression, it would take a global nuclear meltdown to take us offline.

However, to say that a war that on inflation adjusted basis will cost less than Vietnam will somehow bankrupt the US is absurd and partisan Rat. We have only 12% of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands are still pinned up in Germany, S. Korea, and eastern Europe. We've lost 1,100 troops in 18 months of fighting, Britian in contrast during Operating Market Garden lost 8,000 in a little over a week. I think its time we start to step away from the 24/7 doomsday cycle and have some perspective, OBL is not counting on a terror attack bringing down our economy, he is concerned about eroding the will of the American people. Toe to toe he cannot win a military victory, it is impossible given the relative strengths we have in comparison. However, the media barrage of constant negative news concerning our "failing" economy and "quagmire" in Iraq have assited him in placing into the minds, people such as yourself, that we are somehow not up to task. In that regard he is succeding, very sad indeed.

Posted by: gibs. at November 9, 2004 11:17 AM

Almost all my friends are leftists or liberals, some more or less moderate than others. I am always amazed at what could only be called their Bush Derangement Syndrome, their black-and-white view of politics, their DEMONIZATION of the other side. Well, they don't have anything over on most of the comments on this blog. Most of you are the mirror-image of them. Think about that. All this ranting and raving about liberals and the left on this blog is the equivalent of moveon.org and Alexander Cockburn. It is all projection. Look in the mirror for a change.

Posted by: miriam at November 9, 2004 11:19 AM

Uh, pardon me, Mike: You did vote for the anti-gay marriage platform of the RNC. You voted for Bush and you get everything Bush stands for, like it or not. By voting for Bush, you wrote people like me off. You can pretend, if it makes you feel better, more, dare I say, liberal, that you voted against some state anti-gay amendment, but when you vote for Bush (or Kerry) you get everything they stand for. You've made a choice, Mike, that gay people are expendable (as women who do not want to be a slave of the state). That's not a problem; just don't pretend you are something different from the Mike Savages and Rush Limbaughs, Gary Bauers, etc. of the world. Those are you buddies now, Mike.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at November 9, 2004 11:21 AM

++UG,

Why isn't Sudan the problem of Don Kofi and the Blue Hats? Why isn't it a problem for the EUnuchs? How about the OAU/AU?

Surely the mighty tranzi forces of these organizations are more than sufficient to overcome a Fourth World thugocracy. Or is the cause of their inaction an inability to turn a brother out of the common bed?

If talk were not so incredibly cheap, the NGO's might have a smidgen of value.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at November 9, 2004 11:23 AM

gibs,

I'm not saying that those are the facts on the ground, I'm saying that's apparently BL's plan and figured it was worth discussing. Anytime your enemy tells you something about their goals, you do well to listen and think.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 11:24 AM

Paine go cry a river, you sound like a selfish whino.

Mike made a decision based upon things he held higher than so-called "gay rights", ie-his nation's security. You obviously made your decision based upon one trivial issue in comparison, an issue I might add will still be on the table come 2008.

Posted by: gibs. at November 9, 2004 11:27 AM

rat,

Yeah especially when he's using Michael Moore's playbook.

Posted by: gibs. at November 9, 2004 11:28 AM

RB: Why isn't Sudan the problem of Don Kofi and the Blue Hats?

I never said it wasn't.

Surely the mighty tranzi forces of these organizations are more than sufficient to overcome a Fourth World thugocracy. Or is the cause of their inaction an inability to turn a brother out of the common bed?

If one condemns the UN as worthless because it has not prevented the Sudan crisis, then one may also make the same conclusion, using the same logic, about the role of the US as the world's policeman.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 11:29 AM

You've made a choice, Mike, that gay people are expendable (as women who do not want to be a slave of the state). That's not a problem; just don't pretend you are something different from the Mike Savages and Rush Limbaughs, Gary Bauers, etc. of the world. Those are you buddies now, Mike.----S.P.

Another of the 'old friends'from the hood checks in to provide yet more details into why the journey into 'moral and intellectual'bankruptcy is invariably a one-way trip.
If it is any consolation,Michael,that VRWC membership is still yours for the asking.It will get very lonely there in the virtually non-existent middle at some point as it is now self-evidently clear that you really can't go home again,if only because there is no longer any there,there,to go home to.
These creatures are just pathetic in a superficial and effete kind of way.The whole left has been Dowdified amd is now nothing but an echo chamber of paranoids.How this can be a good thing is a mystery to me.If this revolting display continues,this will turn very ugly at some point.VERY UGLY.

Posted by: dougf at November 9, 2004 11:36 AM

++UG,

then one may also make the same conclusion, using the same logic, about the role of the US as the world's policeman.

Only thing missing is an assertion by me or the government stating that the role of the US is to be the world's policeman. The US neither can nor should involve itself in solving the world's problems. Many of those problems are not amenable to solution through any means and the very best thing that can be done is to provide some level of aid to those who suffer. That aid should be delivered directly, without the use of NGO's or any other tranzi institution. We certainly have the means and manpower to do so and there is no reason in the world to think that we would be less efficient than the UN or the Eurothieves.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at November 9, 2004 11:39 AM

gibs,

Do you think that Moore understood Bin Ladens thinking, or that Bin Laden just made up what he said, based off of Moore's polemics? Why?

(I'm interested in this, if you're not, feel free to tell me to shove off ;-) )

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 11:56 AM

The later Rat. OBL in my estimation is using the Moorecrats as his 21st century "useful idiots", spinning their talking points to erode our will. Much like F9/11, although as evidenced by our recent election, it didn't have the effect Moore wanted it to.

Posted by: gibs. at November 9, 2004 12:02 PM

Interesting, what are you basing that guess on? I'm unsure myself, it seems like a decent enough plan, one thats been used by insurgents for centuries.

I heard an interview with Colonel Tom Hammes (one of the Marine Corps’ leading intellectuals), he just finished a book called "The Sling and The Stone" which is the first millitary work on Insurgency since the 50's. He made the statement that the War on Terror is actually a worldwide counter-insurgency. What do you think of that label? If this is a counter-insurgency, should we change our attack strategy, since standard warfare doesn't usually work against insurgencies?

I plan on picking up the book this weekend, it was an interesting enough interview that I'd like to hear more from the fellow.

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 12:07 PM

Actually no????

Read Seymour Paine. Then read what I wrote:

"It is clear Michael is seen an apostate, a heretic to the Leftist "liberals.

That is far far worse than merely being infidel wingnut from Jeebusland."

Posted by: KR at November 9, 2004 12:21 PM

Well I'd place myself as one of those individuals that believes we've been in this war since the early 80s but just began to fight it, the first attack being the events in Tehran.

I'd agree that we need to change tactics, but those efforts are underway. We've filled in holes in our intelligence services and will continue to, ie--more middle eastern agents, our military under Rumsfeld is becoming more mobile, more cqb based, strike and go squads with air support.

The War in Iraq is theater of the global WoT, in conjuction with our efforts there we need to continue to hunt down Al Queda and other terrorist factions that threaten our security. However, we also need a long-term goal to keep the peace and in my mind this goal is best served by enabling people to embrace democracy by any means necessary. Democracies and free societies are not in military strife towards one another and to a larger degree free societies do not churn out terrorists (see the recent Harvard study on the relationship btw poverity and terrorism).

Posted by: gibs. at November 9, 2004 12:25 PM

KR - Read Seymour Paine. Then read what I wrote:

1) Where does Seymour say that this make Michael "... far far worse than merely being infidel wingnut from Jeebusland?"

2) I'm a leftist, and I neither see Michael as an hertitic or apostate, nor worse than an I.W.F.J.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 12:32 PM

Insurgents is a leftist word for terrorists. The people chopping peoples heads off in Iraq are terrorists. Terrorists would not kill their own to get someone to leave. The sooner you people understand that the fight terror ione must be willing to terrorize.

All this would of been done had we dropped a small nuke on tora bora on Sept. 12th. We would only have hurt terrorists in an area that is not fruitful. The terrorist would have learned the measures we are willing to take when you kill 3000 unarmed innocent civilians.

Most leftists think the WoT is over since we haven't been hit since 911 kinda reminds me of the time before 911. If America got behind America we would be closed to finish by now. America only can lose from within, let's not help this along.

A vote for either man in the election would of had the same effect on gays so get over it. If you went for civil unions you would of had them by now but those aren't in your agenda. No matter how gay marriage goes my child and many others will be taught to be tolerant but not accepting of your behavior as normal, so don't look to the law for acceptance, forced acceptance is no acceptance at all.

Posted by: Barney at November 9, 2004 01:40 PM

Seymour: don't pretend you are something different from the Mike Savages and Rush Limbaughs, Gary Bauers, etc. of the world.

Oh, sure. Those guys are in favor of gay marriage just like me! Whatever, Seymour.

Your own candidate opposed gay marriage. You can't possibly expect the Republicans to support it if the Democrats won't even do it. I do support it, however, unlike 80 percent of the country. And if you're unwilling to recognize who is on your side and who isn't, well, that's your problem. I suggest you appreciate the friends you do have and say "thank you." Because you have precious few of them.

I'm an atheist, Seymour. Not a liberal Christian but a full-blown atheist. Gary Bauer can go fuck himself. And so can you if you insist in painting me as a Christian fundamentalist.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 9, 2004 01:52 PM
From Wikipedia:
Insurgent: An Insurgent is a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against a constituted authority. This can include any irregular armed force that rises up against an enforced or established authority, government, or administration. Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition.
Also from Wikipedia:
Terrorism: Terrorism refers to the methodology of using violence to incite a fearful reaction from a civilian population, for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or social goal. Terrorist acts can be carried out by individuals, groups, or governments.
Not from Wikipedia:
Debating With a Sock Puppet: A cheap debating tactic popular, wherein a dubious or false statement is made in a knowing fashion by someone with an opposing viewpoint in order to make debating less intellectually challenging. EG - Making a false statement like "Insurgents is a leftist word for terrorists," and then going on to argue the point.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 01:55 PM

Barney,

1. I am not a leftist.
2. I do not think the WoT is over.
3. Insurgent describes the type of fighter we are facing, armed rebels against an existing authority.
4. Terrorism describes a type of warfare, a method of attack.
5. Terrorist describes anyone who is commiting an act of terrorism.

In this case, we are talking about Insurgents, some of whom use acts of terrorism (making them Terrorists) to fight a rebelion against existing authority.

Let's stick with real English words and not wander off into the world of made up terms and meanings that seem to inundate the blogsphere.

If you are referring to Al-Queda, Bin Laden etc. then it is appropriate to call them terrorists. If you are talking about unknown persons in Iraq, currently firing on our troops in Fallujah, then is is appropriate to call them insurgents. Got it?

As for the Marine Colonel, he used the words "Worldwide Insurgency" to describe the worldwide, loosely confederated groups of terrorists. They may commit acts of Terror, but their warfare methodology, and, more importantly, their mentality/psychology is that of an insurgency. It is very important to understand this, because fighting an Insurgency is much different than fighting a national army.

There are terrorists who are not insurgents. For example Tim McVeigh. There are insurgents who are not terrorists... for example Americans who took up arms against the British circa 1776.

And then there are people who cross both sides, Al-Queda, for example, or even the Americans in the Deep South during the War (acts of Terrorism against the Torries).

Got it?

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 02:16 PM

Seymour -

So ..... if Michael is Gary Bauer because he voted for Bush, you must be Saddam Hussein because you voted for Kerry.

If the logic of both comparisons doesn't seem bizarre and offensive to you, you are a nut.

Posted by: Ben at November 9, 2004 02:44 PM

Rat,

And what authority are they fighting American or Iraqi. The way insurgency is being used is as though they are all people from Iraq who don't like the way things are going which dismisses the fact they are from other places and aligned with Zarqawi that is aligned with AL-Q or with UBL. This would indicate by your word that they are terrorist using terrorism in their fight. They attack those they claim to be fighting for aka.Iraqis this is terrorism not a common insurgency. So quit pounding your sock puppet.

Posted by: barney at November 9, 2004 03:10 PM

Rat,
Most of that shoulded have been aimed at double-plus-ungood.

Posted by: barney at November 9, 2004 03:13 PM

And what authority are they fighting American or Iraqi.

Both, I would imagine.

The way insurgency is being used is as though they are all people from Iraq who don't like the way things are going which dismisses the fact they are from other places and aligned with Zarqawi that is aligned with AL-Q or with UBL.

Uh. Okay.

This would indicate by your word that they are terrorist using terrorism in their fight.

What word? And yes, there are obviously terrorists in Iraq. Is that what you meant?

They attack those they claim to be fighting for aka.Iraqis this is terrorism not a common insurgency.

Um, what?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood at November 9, 2004 03:26 PM

Barney,

Since you seem to be confused, I'll help.

There are Insurgents in Iraq. Even the millitary has recoginized that we are in a gurillia insurgency. Some of the insurgents, indeed some of the people helping fund and incite the insurgency are sponsers of terrorist acts and even terrorists themselves. Just because Zarqawi commits acts of terror, it doesn't mean that the people fighting in the city where he 'is/was/might have been' are also terrorists.

Painting things with a broad brush is a sure way to cover over important details.

sigh

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 04:28 PM

Double-

After running this through the snark filter, what I get is a contention that because the UN, AI, and HRW have not prevented the Sudan crisis, they are worthless.

Run it through the "reading the thread" filter instead:

Novakant's "...but seriously: where are (and have been) all the rightwing NGOs that can match the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

Just putting the AI/HRW hype in perspective.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at November 9, 2004 05:54 PM

Seymour-

Not that you would give a big rat's ass, but this singularly unrepentant Republican voted for George W. Bush and against Ohio's Issue 1 (banning gay marriage). So if you're done acting the drama queen, let's get down to brass tacks and take a look at who is responsible for what in Ohio with regards to the gay pogroms being unleashed on you and the rest of the boys in the band.

Seven years ago, conservative Republicans introduced legislation to ban gay marriage in the state of Ohio via a constitutional amendment. Over those seven years what did happen was a coalition of liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans stalled on acting on such legislation by arguing it was unnecessary. Now for your greater understanding it should be noted that during most, if not all of those seven years, the Republicans controlled both the State House of Representatives, the State Senate and the office of the Governor. Had we Republicans been of the mind, open season on the likes of you could have been declared during The Clinton Years.

Well, the court decision in Massachutsetts last year blew everyone's cover, and brought this legislation to the fore. But it is worth noting, before we all get to ragging on all those Jesus-wheezing Rednecks in Ohio, what the gay community did during those seven years to advance the cause of gay marriage via outreach, education and advocacy. Are you ready for it? Here it is:

Diddly Squat.

That's right. Not a friggin' thing. Every gay 'advocacy' group in the state chose to sit on its ass for a full seven years, not because it was right, prudent or proper, but because they were too lazy and to arrogant to do the heavy lifting themselves by going out and making the case to the straights who weren't already with them (and you). Why get your little hands dirty when you can get the courts to do the hard part for you? Well, look at how its turned out...there's your answer as to why.

So get off your horse. Had you been doing the work you were supposed to be doing instead of being bitchy and self-righteous, the idea that gay marriage could be a reality in this country would be a lot further along. You have real enemies out there, but people like Totten (and myself, and a lot of other Republicans) are not among them. If you are serious about winning this fight, you need to grow up and start acting like you mean business.

You're losing this fight and it isn't because of George Bush's intolerance or Mike Totten's treachery or my ignorance. It's because it is very obvious in a very public way that you, the gay community and your declared 'friends' don't know what the fuck you are doing.

Keep it up and you'll never get what you want.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at November 9, 2004 06:27 PM

Seymour,

I totally disagree with Michael about the war and Bush but I think you're being totally unfair to him, especially since he voted AGAINST the gay marriage ban. The man voted his conscience. If he looks at the two candidates and decides one is better than the other based on what he believes are the most important issues, you ought to respect that. Regardless of where you stand on it, gay marriage is NOT the most important issue in America. Besides, HE'S ON YOUR SIDE. Give him a break.

Posted by: flipster at November 9, 2004 07:22 PM

Seymour Paine -- "gay people ... expendable"? Women as "slaves of the state"? Get a grip, man. Don't have a hissyfit.

Posted by: Notary at November 9, 2004 09:44 PM

The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. Harlan Ellison (1934 - )

Posted by: new jersey mortgage at November 20, 2004 05:39 PM

I show you doubt, to prove that faith exists. Robert Browning (1812 - 1889)

Posted by: bondage fetish at November 20, 2004 09:37 PM

Every time I think I know where it's at, they move it.
Payday Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Payday Loan at December 16, 2004 03:47 AM

This fortune is inoperative. Please try another.
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

Posted by: Payday Loans at December 17, 2004 05:51 AM

Internetowa oferta telewizorów odtwarzaczy i nagrywarek DVD Kamer i aparatów cyfrowych wież kolumn i amplitunerów HiFi pralek lodówek kuchnii piekarników zmywarek okapów kuchennych odkurzaczy i kuchenek mikrofalowych sony panasonic philips minolta olympus jvc canon thomson yamaha pioneer whirlpool bosch siemens amica electrolux aeh aged gorenje falmec faber liebherr lg samsung. Strefa Niskich Cen.
Kamery Cyfrowe CanonKamery Cyfrowe JvcKamery Cyfrowe PanasonicKamery Cyfrowe SamsungKamery Cyfrowe SonyAparaty Cyfrowe CanonAparaty Cyfrowe FujiAparaty Cyfrowe HpAparaty Cyfrowe KodakAparaty Cyfrowe MinoltaAparaty Cyfrowe NikonAparaty Cyfrowe OlympusAparaty Cyfrowe PanasonicAparaty Cyfrowe Sony

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at March 6, 2005 01:20 AM

odszkodowania
praca za granicą
tłumaczenia
biuro podróży
okna

Posted by: at June 20, 2005 06:00 AM
cool blog - thanks for the service

online casino

Posted by: casino at June 28, 2005 02:58 AM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 7, 2005 12:53 AM

usługi hydrauliczne
hydraulik

Posted by: at August 22, 2005 11:56 AM

viagra
cialis
levitra
meridia
xenical
propecia

Posted by: online casinos at October 7, 2005 09:39 AM

kosmetyki naturalne
kosmetyki
mieszkania w Warszawie
agencja reklamowa

Posted by: ap at December 1, 2005 09:13 AM

freetimes
jidds
fabrykapoe
sfworks

Posted by: artse at December 23, 2005 02:38 AM

freetimes
jidds
fabrykapoe
sfworks

Posted by: artse at December 23, 2005 02:39 AM

讓您更容易適應新環境的方法【入厝 習俗】﹕
1.在搬家(特別是搬入曾經有人居住過的房子)時﹐請準備一個便當(暫時)和拜地基主用的金紙 (可詢問販賣金紙的店家)。而一定要在入厝的當天下午三至五點(15-17)之間祭拜地基主。
2.地基主一般沒有供奉神位或神像﹐民眾祭拜時只要在房屋的前門或後門擺設供品﹐向屋內祭拜即可。
馬英九;搬家;吉日;f88.myweb.hinet.net;搬運;發票;搬家公司;入厝;Piano movers;虐童;台北;入宅;家暴中心;台北;鋼琴;搬家;家暴中心;搬家服務;入厝習俗;王金平;貨車;服務;郝龍斌;搬運鋼琴;piano;家暴;鋼琴;

Posted by: 88 at April 20, 2007 11:21 AM

liming 07年08月30日

wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level

rolex replica
rolex replica
beijing hotels
beijing hotels
shanghai hotels
shanghai hotels
rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
great wall
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
china tour
china tour
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
猎头
猎头
货架
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家公司
北京律师
营养师
营养师培训
喷码机
铸造模拟软件
激光快速成型机

搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
google排名
google排名
监控
监控
激光打标机
软件工程硕士
集团电话
集团电话
激光打标机
激光打标机
打包机
打包机
拓展训练
塑钢门窗
网站设计
机票
机票
网站建设
数据采集卡
美国国家大学
在职研究生
呼叫中心
交换机
激光打标机
激光打标机

磁控溅射台
磁控溅射台
淀积台
淀积台
镀膜机
镀膜机
匀胶机
匀胶机
溅射仪
溅射仪
刻蚀机
刻蚀机
pecvd
pecvd
去胶机
去胶机
康王
康王
康王
康王
康王
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健

Posted by: 三红西水 at August 29, 2007 11:46 PM

上海网站优化
上海网络公司
上海网站建设
复印机租赁
复印机出租
上海复印机租赁
上海复印机出租
硼氢化钠

消防泵
自吸泵
液压控制阀
柴油机泵
控制箱
循环泵
无负压供水设备
上海水泵
上海阀门
二手压路机
二手吊车
二手装载机
吊车
装载机
压路机
上海 日本語 通訳 病院
真空泵
真空泵厂
上海真空泵厂
旋片式真空泵
真空设备
旋片真空泵
同步轮
同步带
同步带轮
聚氨酯带(PU带)
聚氨脂带(PU带)
化工
化工试剂
试剂
化工网
试剂网
化学试剂
试剂
化学
大众搬场
上海大众搬场
铁艺
制服
工作服
衬衫
夹克
T恤
促销服
西服
上海赛迪化工

http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.jx-net.net
http://www.jx-net.net
http://www.shjxwl.cn
http://www.shjxwl.cn
http://www.shjxwl.cn
http://www.shjxwl.cn
http://www.oameibang.com
http://www.oameibang.com
http://www.kuanhao.cn
http://www.chinasongjin.com
http://www.chinasongjin.com
http://www.shlutong.com.cn
http://www.shlutong.com.cn
http://www.pujiangvacuum.com
http://www.pujiangvacuum.com
http://www.pujiangvacuum.com
http://www.longzhaobelt.com
http://www.longzhaobelt.com
http://www.longzhaobelt.com
http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.ce-r.cn
http://www.cesupp.com
http://www.dzbc114.com
http://www.china-glare.com
http://www.kangking.com
http://www.kangking.com
http://www.021wjjj.com

Posted by: W-J-X at November 8, 2007 09:24 PM

货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架公司
货架公司
货架公司
货架厂
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
仓储笼
钢托盘
堆垛架
钢制料箱
物流台车
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼   
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
仓储货架 
重型货架 
货架公司 
轻型货架 
堆垛架 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
托盘 
铁托盘 
铁制托盘 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
求购货架 
货架求购 
货架制造 
贯通货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
货架公司 
中型货架 
仓储货架 
轻型货架 
仓储货架
轻型货架 
角钢货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
货架公司 
中型货架 
货架制造 
悬臂货架 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
求购货架 
货架求购  
货架公司 
轻型货架  
仓储货架 
中型货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
货架 
模具货架 
托盘 
钢托盘 
托盘 
钢制托盘 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
堆垛架 
钢制托盘 
仓储笼 
模具货架 
仓库货架 
货架厂 
仓储货架 
货架公司 
货架   
仓储笼 
登高车 
手推车 
塑料托盘 
货架  
货架 
货架 
轻型货架 
货架 
中型货架 
货架 
重型货架 
货架
阁楼货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
货架 
模具货架 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
钢制托盘 
仓储笼 
货架
货架 
货架公司 
货架厂 
仓储货架 
货架厂家 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
木托盘 
轻型货架 
中型货架 
重型货架 
模具架 
中型货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼

Posted by: huojia at November 14, 2007 06:54 PM

货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架公司
货架公司
货架公司
货架厂
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
仓储笼
钢托盘
堆垛架
钢制料箱
物流台车
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼   
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
仓储货架 
重型货架 
货架公司 
轻型货架 
堆垛架 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
托盘 
铁托盘 
铁制托盘 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
求购货架 
货架求购 
货架制造 
贯通货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
货架公司 
中型货架 
仓储货架 
轻型货架 
仓储货架
轻型货架 
角钢货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
货架公司 
中型货架 
货架制造 
悬臂货架 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
求购货架 
货架求购  
货架公司 
轻型货架  
仓储货架 
中型货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
货架 
模具货架 
托盘 
钢托盘 
托盘 
钢制托盘 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
堆垛架 
钢制托盘 
仓储笼 
模具货架 
仓库货架 
货架厂 
仓储货架 
货架公司 
货架   
仓储笼 
登高车 
手推车 
塑料托盘 
货架  
货架 
货架 
轻型货架 
货架 
中型货架 
货架 
重型货架 
货架
阁楼货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
货架 
模具货架 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
钢制托盘 
仓储笼 
货架
货架 
货架公司 
货架厂 
仓储货架 
货架厂家 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
木托盘 
轻型货架 
中型货架 
重型货架 
模具架 
中型货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼

Posted by: huojia at November 14, 2007 07:02 PM

货架
货架
货架
货架

Posted by: secret at November 24, 2007 09:24 PM


鲜花订购速递网
北京鲜花订购速递网
上海鲜花订购速递网
广州鲜花订购速递网
深圳鲜花订购速递网
济南鲜花订购速递网
厦门鲜花订购速递网
东莞鲜花订购速递网
重庆鲜花订购速递网
天津鲜花订购速递网
合肥鲜花订购速递网
杭州鲜花订购速递网
西安鲜花订购速递网
成都鲜花订购速递网
昆明鲜花订购速递网
武汉鲜花订购速递网
长沙鲜花订购速递网
南昌鲜花订购速递网
南京鲜花订购速递网
太原鲜花订购速递网
郑州鲜花订购速递网
石家庄鲜花订购速递网
沈阳鲜花订购速递网
长春鲜花订购速递网
哈尔滨鲜花订购速递网
拉萨鲜花订购速递网
银川鲜花订购速递网
南宁鲜花订购快递网
海口鲜花订购速递网
兰州鲜花订购速递网
贵阳鲜花订购速递网
开业花篮
鲜花花篮
花篮

鲜花订购速递网
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
聚氨酯
软发泡聚氨酯
建筑保温材料
建筑保温
聚氨酯
软发泡聚氨酯
建筑保温
建筑保温材料
北京鲜花速递网
北京鲜花订购网
北京鲜花快递网
北京鲜花预订网
北京鲜花店

感恩节鲜花
平安夜鲜花
圣诞节鲜花
师长鲜花
朋友鲜花
同事鲜花
客户鲜花
祝寿鲜花
爱情鲜花
生日鲜花
开业花篮
花篮
友情鲜花
歉意鲜花
婚庆鲜花
哀思鲜花
商务鲜花
探望鲜花
探病鲜花
上海鲜花速递网
上海鲜花订购网
上海鲜花快递网
上海鲜花预订网
上海鲜花店
广州鲜花速递网
广州鲜花订购网
广州鲜花快递网
广州鲜花预订网
广州鲜花店
深圳鲜花速递网
深圳鲜花订购网
深圳鲜花快递网
深圳鲜花预订网
深圳鲜花店
济南鲜花速递网
济南鲜花订购网
济南鲜花快递网
济南鲜花预订网
济南鲜花店
厦门鲜花速递网
厦门鲜花订购网
厦门鲜花快递网
厦门鲜花预订网
厦门鲜花店
东莞鲜花速递网
东莞鲜花订购网
东莞鲜花快递网
东莞鲜花预订网
东莞鲜花店
重庆鲜花速递网
重庆鲜花订购网
重庆鲜花快递网
重庆鲜花预订网
重庆鲜花店
天津鲜花速递网
天津鲜花订购网
天津鲜花快递网
天津鲜花预订网
天津鲜花店
合肥鲜花速递网
合肥鲜花订购网
合肥鲜花快递网
合肥鲜花预订网
合肥鲜花店
杭州鲜花速递网
杭州鲜花订购网
杭州鲜花快递网
杭州鲜花预订网
杭州鲜花店
西安鲜花速递网
西安鲜花订购网
西安鲜花快递网
西安鲜花预订网
西安鲜花店
成都鲜花速递网
成都鲜花订购网
成都鲜花快递网
成都鲜花预订网
成都鲜花店
昆明鲜花速递网
昆明鲜花订购网
昆明鲜花快递网
昆明鲜花预订网
昆明鲜花店
武汉鲜花速递网
武汉鲜花订购网
武汉鲜花快递网
武汉鲜花预订网
武汉鲜花店
长沙鲜花速递网
长沙鲜花订购网
长沙鲜花快递网
长沙鲜花预订网
长沙鲜花店
南昌鲜花速递网
南昌鲜花订购网
南昌鲜花快递网
南昌鲜花预订网
南昌鲜花店
南京鲜花速递网
南京鲜花订购网
南京鲜花快递网
南京鲜花预订网
南京鲜花店
太原鲜花速递网
太原鲜花订购网
太原鲜花快递网
太原鲜花预订网
太原鲜花店
郑州鲜花速递网
郑州鲜花订购网
郑州鲜花快递网
郑州鲜花预订网
郑州鲜花店
石家庄鲜花速递网
石家庄鲜花订购网
石家庄鲜花快递网
石家庄鲜花预订网
石家庄鲜花店
沈阳鲜花速递网
沈阳鲜花订购网
沈阳鲜花快递网
沈阳鲜花预订网
沈阳鲜花店
长春鲜花速递网
长春鲜花订购网
长春鲜花快递网
长春鲜花预订网
长春鲜花店
哈尔滨鲜花速递网
哈尔滨鲜花订购网
哈尔滨鲜花快递网
哈尔滨鲜花预订网
哈尔滨鲜花店

Posted by: gfgftrrg at November 28, 2007 06:41 PM

火狐浏览器

Posted by: a at November 29, 2007 09:50 PM

烘箱烘箱工业电炉工业电炉工业电炉干燥设备干燥设备制药机械制药机械电阻炉电阻炉电阻炉臭氧设备臭氧设备臭氧设备干燥机干燥机干燥机混合机混合机混合机安哥拉机票
装修装修装修家装装修公司装修公司监理办公室装修办公室装修办公室装修办公室装修别墅装修别墅装修别墅装修装修监理装修监理监理公司发电机发电机发电机car wash systemscar wash systemscar wash equipmentcar wash equipmentautomatic car washautomatic car washcar washing machinecar washing machinecar washcar wash自动洗车机自动洗车机洗车机洗车机自动洗车设备自动洗车设备全自动洗车机全自动洗车机新托福新托福英语培训英语培训Chinese antique furniture螺杆泵螺杆泵螺杆泵三螺杆泵三螺杆泵双螺杆泵双螺杆泵

品牌服装服装加盟服装代理服装经销品牌男装品牌女装男装加盟女装加盟服装厂北京服装租赁
美术培训美术培训画室画室北京画室北京画室美术高考货架美术高考展柜汽车装饰汽车美容贵州网络购物网站建设搬家公司深海鱼油风水起名北京火车票塑料袋手提袋出会い系出会い系出会い系ブーツ結婚 情報株式情報マリッジリング美容室美容院香港六合彩论坛賃貸搬家公司医師 求人東京 ビジネスホテル音响租赁Caustic Soda Flak电磁流量计电磁流量计涡街流量计涡街流量计液位开关液位开关流量开关流量开关压力变送器压力变送器超声波液位计超声波液位计液位计流量计搬家公司工作服音响搬家公司租地音响医師 転職医師 募集スピリチュアル话筒软胶囊加工软胶囊北京钢构北京彩钢独立 音响XylitolSodium Sulphate AnhydrousCaustic Soda FlakeCalcium chloride香港六合彩论坛sit find other good site to link
螺杆泵压痕机

Posted by: dfsgdf at November 30, 2007 12:56 AM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn