Jay Bookman

By AJC/DNC Management

February 2, 2009 7:52 AM | Link to this

Always the gloom and doom.

~~~~~

{{{{When a stimulus bill easily passes without Republican participation, they regard it as a major defeat. Their toadies in the media join forces to denounce and taunt the Republicans for refusing to cooperate. Ignoring these catcalls and insults to their maternal heritage, the Republicans emerge ever cleaner and stronger. It’s clear what’s going on. No junkie likes to inject himself. Better if a handsome young stranger does the trick. Sorry guys. Compassionate conservatism moved back to Texas on January 20. -AmSpec}}}}

Damn, but let’s not forget Susan Collins and McBushie are still around.

Maybe they’ll give the libs a reach around or whatever we call bipartisanship nowadays.

ew

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 2, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this

The Iraqi’s have truly achieved American-style democracy

The day was free of election-related violence, but thousands of Iraqis were unable to vote because their names were inexplicably missing from voter lists. Some confused Iraqis even wandered neighborhoods looking for a polling place that would accept their vote.

Ain’t it grand!

By Copyleft

February 2, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this

Hey, if their turnout rate keeps dropping, they truly WILL have copied the American model of democracy.

By JAY BOOKMAN

February 2, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this

Now, this is interesting, and telling. A post on the Iraqi elections draws all of three comments in two hours.

If a tree falls in the forest, but no one gives a damn, did it really fall?

By You Stink, Bookman!

February 2, 2009 9:30 AM | Link to this

You Stink, Bookman!

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 2, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

Honestly, about the subject matter—I was going to post that “it’s still not prominent enough to suit our Mikey”, but thought that wouldn’t be helpful.

Perhaps a blogging ethics convention is in order.

By AJC/DNC Management

February 2, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this

Superbowl party hangovers?

By three comments in two hours?

February 2, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this

“…three comments in two hours.” That’s generous. as usual, the 1st poster is off topic and lacks any value to the dialogue. his ignorance on the topic is no surprise.

By Bud Wiser

February 2, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this

Great game last night. Jay, you may have missed your true calling; your score line was pretty darn good.

So how many days after the Iraqi election are we finally getting some ‘news’ about it trickling its way in? And with the silent hope of violence to prove yet again that democracy just won’t work with ‘those people’? A scent of racism or assumed superiority touches the air?

Of course, we all know that democracy has finally proven to be a failure anyway - that is why America is now going to try socialism on for a fitting. The leader is in place, as well as his minions, so its time for whips to the back, handouts from the government, and gloom and doom that can only be continued, I mean ELIMINATED, by keeping those Democrats rolling on in to office.

And speaking of smells, I smell a confrontation in the future for the young president versus the House Speaker Pelosi. She has her hands on the reins (or something), and she likes how it feels. Obama better start doing a better job of running his agenda across her desk first for approval, or there’s going to be trouble.

By getalife

February 2, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this

Super Bowl hangover Jay. The NFL put on a great show when Americans really needed one.

I think most Americans are trying to put Iraq behind them and happy the troops are withdrawing.

The Pentagon brought the Afghanistan plan to the President today and hope it has an exit strategy.

By Disgusted

February 2, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this

The Iraqi elections mirror American elections. They’re all about which group gets to stick it to the other group. Aside from the secular vs. religious dichotomy, I see nothing to indicate that Iraqis are really thinking about their future. And the quota systems in place practically ensure that the will of the majority will go unheeded. I can’t imagine how Americans would react if they were told that they must elect at least 25% women or that certain parties must have representation in the administration.

By cubalibre

February 2, 2009 9:58 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jay. I don’t think it’s that no one cares about Iraq’s elections, but that many of us are more focused on our economic woes; there are other things most of us care more about right now. Echoing Mrs. Godzilla’s post, I believe it’s clear that Bush, et. al were clueless as to the kind of “democracy” that would settle in once Saddam was gone— but they shouldn’t have been (see, e.g., Iran post-Shah). If we’re not more careful in mopping up the mess in Afghanistan, no doubt it will happen there, too. Well, back to work! Hope everyone’s day goes well.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2009 9:59 AM | Link to this

If you got your news from the websites of the AJC, WaPo, NYT, or from ABC, NBC, SeeBS, MSNBC, or CNN you probably didn’t even know Iraq had elections. Couple that with the hangover from Wipeout Bowl I and the big Groundhog Day celebrations and it’s no wonder commenting is light.

Gotta love the chutzpa of the writer, though, that he insists it has to be that nobody cares about Iraq and it couldn’t possibly be they don’t care about him flogging his dead horse of Iraqi failure again.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this

Jay made the claim that the AJC.com’s ignoring of the Iraqi elections was due to their local focus and a movement away from international news.

I guess that rule is broken for really important stories like today’s home page story about snow storms in London. Of course, the Iraqi elections are nowhere near as important as London’s snow storm, so Jay’s explanation makes a lot of sense. At least it makes as much sense as any of his defenses of the AJC’s journalistic integrity.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this

RW -

To be fair, almost all of the outlets you mentioned did give prominent coverage to the Iraqi elections.

That is what makes AJC.com’s utter ignoring of the story even more egregious. Their partisan biases are even worse than that of the Times and MSNBC.

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 2, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

RW sniffed: “If you got your news from the websites of the AJC, WaPo, NYT, or from ABC, NBC, SeeBS, MSNBC, or CNN you probably didn’t even know Iraq had elections.”

Funny, I had to do an “Iraq” keyword search to find a story buried in the FoxNoise site’s homepage just now. They’re a lot more interested in hyping the Most Important Story on the Planet, Punxsutawney Phil.

Is Roger Ailes part of the vast left wing media conspiracy now, too?

By Texpayer

February 2, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this

The best part of waking up…is the Republicans whining in their cups. Is that what you Republicans call trickle down — down your cheeks into your coffee cup. You whining Republicans need to get out there and start stimulating this economy because us retired folks might have to tap into Social Security when we get old enough and we’re going to need more than lip service from you. We need cash so we can get out and consume and trickle…down.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 10:18 AM | Link to this

DB -

Well actually Fox has a story about the elections as their second headline today.

“WASHINGTON — President Obama said Sunday that the peaceful elections in Iraq are “good news” for U.S. troops and their families, and he agreed with the suggestion that a substantial number of those troops could be home within a year.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/01/substantial-number-troops-iraq-return-year/

But hey don’t let facts get in the way of your mindless partisanship. No reason to change behavior now.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this

“Texpayer”

Yes, anytime conservatives have a gripe, it is “whining”, yet when liberals have a gripe they are “speaking truth to power”.

Maybe someday, you will present an argument based on facts instead of petty and useless characterizations of those who don’t share your narrow views. Maybe, but I doubt it.

By Paul

February 2, 2009 10:22 AM | Link to this

Jay

I came on at 8am and there was one post. I thought “wow” - what has happened. Then I clicked over to MoveOn and read their 2009 goals. Care to guess what one of them was? Yup - “End the Iraq War.” Talk about being a day late and a dollar short (I thought that sounded more polite than ‘clueless.’ I’d hoped to find a headline similar to yours about the elections. Nawwww.

I’ll posit MoveOn and others weren’t really all that outraged about civilians being killed, religious repression, etc etc etc as long as American military aren’t being killed or wounded in too great a number. Pull the casualties out of the mix and interest plummets. Some would say MoveOn and other groups may simply be too embarrassed, considering their past pronouncements and the current reality, but their 2009 goal shows embarrassment is incompatible with cluelessness.

getalife

[[The Pentagon brought the Afghanistan plan to the President today and hope it has an exit strategy. ]]

I’m really, really, really looking forward to something here (this isn’t directed to you, but your comment provided an opportune gateway). It is: taking all the questions, criticisms, challenges and such written by the Left (loosely referred to as the “get out of Iraq Now” group) to the Right (loosely referred to as the “the danger of a precipitous withdrawal is greater than seeing through the new strategy), such as:

• what is the mission?!!?

  • what is the exit strategy (altho getalife’s taken the nonpartisan approach by applying this question to both conflicts)

  • what are your measures of success?

  • why are we at war with a country that never attacked us? (I like this one - Afg didn’t attack us, AQ is a nonstate entity - and if people say “they enabled the terrorists” we can list all the countries where AQ gets support and ask “well, why don’t we attack them, huh, huh, huh?”)

  • and finally - (I wonder if bold and italics work at the same time to show the appropriate level of caring, indignant outrage) “How many more Americans need to die in this futile effort? It is not worth one more American life!!!”

As I said, I’m really looking forward to the answers… excuses…. but, that’s different…. well, okay - silence.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2009 10:24 AM | Link to this

Mike,

I’m not a media analyst so I don’t have tapes of all the broadcasts to back up my claim and possibly you do have the tapes to back yours, but I try to catch some of each outlets news each day. I saw story after story about Rush Limbaugh and the b******* quote the media was using most of the week and toward the end of the week and through the weekend I saw these same outlets trying to marginalize Michael Steele as some sort of token.

The web sites I mentioned are hit and miss when you go to them and it’s entirely possible they had Iraqi election stories prominently displayed on their main pages except whenever I went to them.

One exception may have been the Sunday talk shows. I rarely miss them, but didn’t see any of them this week.

Jay B.,

Perhaps you could fall back on the old standby of putting up a post on Super Bowl commercials. What I’d especially like to know is if we’re in “the worst economy since the great depression” how NBC was able to sell out every single commercial spot at an all time record high price.

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 2, 2009 10:26 AM | Link to this

Mike, that FoxNews story is entitled “Obama Sees Many Troops Home by Next Year”.

In the midst of your days-long sh!t fit, you… have actually checked similarly sized metro newspapers all this time to monitor how many of them have featured the Iraq elections on their homepages, yes?

What did you find?

By Paul

February 2, 2009 10:26 AM | Link to this

Let me clarify: taking all the comments made about Iraq, having the Right substitute “Afghanistan” for “Iraq” and asking the same questions to the Left and reading the responses.

By TN Gelding

February 2, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

The real test will be how long anything left when U.S. troops withdraw lasts.

By AmVet

February 2, 2009 10:30 AM | Link to this

For me, Iraq is about one thing almost exclusively.

And that is how many body bags are coming back to Dover AFB.

Because that number has slowed from the days when dozens were every week, I am thankful.

As far as the deadly, bungling, neo-con colonialists and BushCo’s Crusades/Grand Experiment to export western values and “democracy” (sort of and as the fifth, or was it sixth, reason?) to the sand — one word.

Rubbish.

I’ll never forgive the lying chickenhawks for the lives they ended and the others they ruined needlessly.

No matter how many more years we are occupiers.

And our new CIC looks to get more GIs killed by escalating Quagmire, Part Deux.

Great…

By Texpayer

February 2, 2009 10:31 AM | Link to this

Speaking of Iraq, I see that Bush originally estimated spending 2.4 billion in reconstruction efforts there while, in reality (a notion that seems to escape Republicans), we have spend over 100 billion. Bush should have stayed awake during that class on estimating a realistic budget.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this

ragger,

I distinguished between web sites of “news”papers and broadcasts of broadcast outlets. Fox News had several broadcast reports about the Iraqi elections leading up to them, during them, and after the polls closed.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 2, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

HOT DAMN

Poor folks, can’t make their mortgage payments, buying Campbells Soup, Mickey Burgers and Spam….and still have enough money left to buy reduced price commercial air time during the Super Bowl!

Rich Folks, running companies into the ground, taking mega bonuses out of TARP Money, ordering then refusing 50M airplanes unders pressure….

Damn those poor folks, NO MORE COMMERCIALS FOR YOU!

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 2, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this

The liberal media will do all that it can to throw mud on the Iraqi elections. However; here is one indisputable fact, Iraq has held more democratic elections during the four most recently past years than have been held in all eternity through the rest of the middle east. We thusly begin to see the rehabilitation of President Bush’s reputation which was wrongly muddied by the far left.

On another front Geithner and Dascle show why the dems have no problem in raising taxes as, on their individual accounts, they actually do not pay taxes. No wonder that in less than three weeks POTUS’ approval rating has fallen from 80%+, through the 70s and 60s, to somewhere in the 50s.

Also, the Chicago PD reports that a large number of mugshots feature individuals in Obama tshirts and that there are no mugshots on file in which the perp is wearing a Bush\Cheney tshirt. The liberals thought it was cute when ACORN was rounding up the scum to vote for then Sen. Obama, but it isn’t so funny now that proff is emerging that the reason that Obama is President is the large number of votes he received from the uninformed, incorrible miscreant class.

Sent from my luxurious vacation villa overlooking the Pacific and great gold courses in Makena, HI.

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

Mike,

Come on whiny. If you are going to start your day whining to me about what I post, the least you could do is get your “facts” straight. If you would kindly refer again to the post that you presumably referred to when whining to me, you will note that I said “Republicans” — not “conservatives”. Now, you may continue with your trickle down in your beer or whatever you have to perc yourself up with in the morning.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this

DB -

Not certain what your post has to do with anything that you are I were discussing.

You said:

“Funny, I had to do an “Iraq” keyword search to find a story buried in the FoxNoise site’s homepage just now.”

And I pointed out that there was a story about the Iraq elections on the front page of FoxNews and posted a link.

Can’t you just admit that you made an error? It’s not that big a deal

Taxpayer -

Stop your whining. See I can be an intellectual like you ;)

I hope that you were fortunate enough to retire in your teens. I’d hate to think that a person of advanced years is still calling people childish names like “whiny.”

By Paul

February 2, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

AmVet

I just spoke with a friend who went to Wilford Hall Medical Center (where they treat wounded GIs, particularly burns and amputees) to do some service work. He said he was struck by how few were from Iraq - Afg. He said many were from nontheater accidents (the military really is a dangerous profession). What got him was one very attractive female soldier missing a leg. As he said that I thought “IED.” Nope - she was texting while driving and had an accident. Military ought to use her in a safety commercial.

Also this weekend - got a call from a years-long friend. Turns out he was on a layover headed to Afg for a year. That personalizes it - I have to ask, is losing him (or part of him) ‘worth it’? Well, if anyone can tell me what the ‘mission’ is I may be able to answer it. But as it now stands, I don’t really have that good an idea what Pres Obama hopes to accomplish - aside from pouring another 30,000 troops in to continue doing what they’ve been doing.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this

AmVet -

Are Obama, Biden, Bookman and the rest of the supporters of the Afghan war chickenhawks too?

You are pretty consistent in your views on war, holding both sides accountable. I am just curious if this also extends to the “chickenhawk” name calling. (Which BTW is the liberal corollary to partisan conservatives questioning the patriotism of those who do not support the wars.)

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this

Mike,

Now, that’s much better Mike. I always appreciate a little humor. Unfortunately, I was not able to retire in my teens. I had to wait until my late fortys. So, I have quite a few years to go before I can start collecting all that money that I dumped into Social Security. Finally, I do agree with your assessment that “whiny” is a childish state. Republicans need to work on that aspect of their personalities.

By AJC/DNC Management

February 2, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this

Jay: Share your feelings with us on the subject that Duhzilla is raising this morning, less advertising dollars being spent.

You on board for this liberal nannyism?

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 2, 2009 11:05 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer 11:01 AM

“Retired” and “unemployed” are not the same thing; even though given the Obama Administrations efforts, if you are in your late 40s, it may well have the same effect upon you.

By Mrs. Godzilla

February 2, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

How DID NBC sell out all its’ spots?

You and I bought and paid for them, that’s how.

Not to mention this lil’ turd.

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 2, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this

Mike @ 10.49, you are correct about that foxnews.com story; its focus is indeed about Obama’s take on what the Iraq elections mean. My bad.

But the point I was trying to make (and which Jay had made) about the AJC being a mid-sized metro newspaper and its affiliated website not generally thought of as a destination for international hard news stories still stands. Did the Miami Herald feature the Iraq election prominently? The Star Tribune? The Denver Post? I hadn’t checked over the weekend, but a quick look today shows coverage similar to that found in the AJC.

It just seems you’re looking for Iraq Good News-denyin’/suppressin’ boogeymen where none exist.

Put another way—given that the AJC doesn’t have a vast overseas correspondent network like CNN or the NYTimes, I wouldn’t think to look to the AJC for stories on the Iraq election anyway. I don’t think most people would.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer -

I am honest enough to recognize that we are all whiners to some degree on this board. That being said, making the claim that only those with an R in front of their name are whiners is just silly.

If Republicans are “whiners”, how do you characterize the Democrats on this board who are complaining about something?

I guess my point is that one should be judged by their behavior, not by their party affiliation. But hey, I am just one man, and clearly I am in the minority here among the partisans who believe deep in their heart that Republicans or Democrats are really better people than their ideological opposites.

PS - At least you have a shot at getting some SS money. As a person in my thirties, I have given up on any notion that I will ever see a penny of the SS money that I continue to throw down the money hole :)

By Dusty

February 2, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

Well, I hope Iraq develops one of the most outstanding democracies in the world. Since we live with the finest government(which many do not appreciate) we should realize the fact that Iraqis love freedom just like we do. Whether or not the rest of the world is interested, the birth of freedom has come to Iraq and for that I am thankful.

This is one of the accomplishments of George W. Bush. Not only did he understand the total meaning of freedom, he established it at the risk of character assassination. He also understood that a free country is seldom a risk to other countries, including ours.

For those whose only interest in our fight is the “body count”, I hope they are NOT still counting the “body bags” of those who died to keep us from the empire builders of Japan and Germany. I belive it is better to appreciate the great sacrifices made for our country than to cry over the dedication of those who fought and died for it.

Go to the memorials and cry but let the living continue the stand for freedom. The Iraqis are taking their first steps on a long road. Encourage them to continue their yearning and secure it, just like we did.

That means the “news” people also, Jay Bookman.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

DB -

Fair enough, but those lack of resources don’t prevent the AJC running AP stories about bad news coming from Iraq or important stories like today’s snow storm in London which somehow made t to the home page.

For example, the Fox News story on Obama’s positive outlook on Iraq is an AP story that the AJC could have run, but chose not to. Regardless, coverage of the American President’s statements does not require an overseas correspondent.

Also, your claim that I want to deny or suppress bad news from Iraq is baseless and a knee-jerk response. I expect responsible news outlets to report the good news and the bad news so we can be informed citizens. The AJC has spent a lot of time hyping the bad news and I am just questioning their decision to suppress the good news. I have received many first hand accounts from troops in Iraq over the past years and know full well that the majority of the news has been bad.

By Chad Harris

February 2, 2009 11:18 AM | Link to this

Despite elections and more elections, after 7 years of “Mission Accomplished”, power is not on, cholera is systemic in the water, there are about 3 million refugees who can’t work who are single mothers, the US has taken less than 900 Iraq refugees, 60,000 American soldiers paralyzed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, 5000 American lives wasted, and in 2011 there will be 90,000 troops at the minimum there.

The tough decisions on oil division have not been made. Not one penny of oil revenues has been applied to the US cost of Iraq about 15 billion a month. When I last checked the US was in a recession or as Frank Rich wrote yesterday:

Herbert Hoover Lives

“HERE’S a bottom line to keep you up at night: The economy is falling faster than Washington can get moving. President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math.

The abyss is widening. Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial index, 22 have announced job cuts since October. Unemployment is up in all 50 states, with layoffs at both high-tech companies (Microsoft) and low (Caterpillar). The December job loss in retailing is the worst since at least 1939. The new-home sales rate has fallen to its all-time low since record-keeping began in 1963.

What are Americans still buying? Big Macs, Campbell’s soup, Hershey’s chocolate and Spam — the four food groups of the apocalypse.

HERE’S a bottom line to keep you up at night: The economy is falling faster than Washington can get moving. President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math.

The abyss is widening. Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial index, 22 have announced job cuts since October. Unemployment is up in all 50 states, with layoffs at both high-tech companies (Microsoft) and low (Caterpillar). The December job loss in retailing is the worst since at least 1939. The new-home sales rate has fallen to its all-time low since record-keeping began in 1963.

What are Americans still buying? Big Macs, Campbell’s soup, Hershey’s chocolate and Spam — the four food groups of the apocalypse.”

Great Job Bushie and Cheney!

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 11:23 AM | Link to this

Wyld Byll,

First, I said that I retired in my late forties. I’m older now. In fact, I’m in my mid-fifties and still retired. Although, I must admit that I did work for a few weeks under contract a few years back to help out an old friend. Now, did you have a point that you were trying to elucidate.

By RW-(the original)

February 2, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G @ 11:08,

Are you reverting back to your days as In The News? Neither of those links have anything to do with the commercial spots sold during the Super Bowl broadcast, but if we ever expect to see our money back we better hope those companies can become successful. They aren’t going to do that by becoming invisible to the public.

Off to the forest!

See y’all upstairs at happy hour for the big Groundhog Ball.

By Paul

February 2, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this

Hey Mrs Godzilla

Is this the reference you meant for how Republicans want to raise taxes in the stimulus bill?

[[Republicans will seek to lower the current 15 and 10 percent income tax rates by 5 percentage points each.

Married couples pay a 10 percent tax on income up to $16,700. Reducing that rate would save about $500 per couple.

Republicans would also lower the 15 percent rate levied on couples earning between $16,700 and $67,900, saving working couples $1,100 more, according to Republican estimates. Single filers would get similar reductions either way, and, said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, “everyone who works and pays income tax would see an immediate increase in pay.”

Democrats have resisted such cuts, saying the bill already consists of about 30 percent tax cuts]]

Wait, you said Reps wanted to raise taxes. This says Reps want to lower rates on the lowest wage-earners and Democrats resist it.

oops… wrong cite… sorry

By mm

February 2, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this

More of the same from the right. ACORN, MOVEON, liberal media. Even RW (no surprise) insinuating there is no economic crisis.

Is there help for these people?

By Chad Harris

February 2, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this

The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Recovery just testified on Capitol Hill that “We can’t account for the $32 billion that’s been alotted for reconstruction in Iraq.” That’s not only par for the course, but just like Tice’s revelastions from NSA that every American is illegally wiretapped, none of the print media including Cox newspapers have reported on the hundreds of billions thrown away in Iraq that are unaccounted for.

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 2, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer 11:23 AM

That which I earlier wrote speaks for itself.

By AmVet

February 2, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

Mike,

Obama - no. (he was staunchly against BushCo’s crusades but has now inherited them)

Biden - yes.

Bookman - don’t know (seriously). Demand an answer from him if you must.

I said I would never vote for anyone who gave you know who the power to do you know what in Iraq. That includes Edwards, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden among many other Democrats and EVERY SINGLE STINKING Republican in Congress (for all practical purposes).

And that of all those losers that the GOP trotted out to replace the Hero of the Texas ANG, McCain was the ONLY one up there with any honor and who was worthy of my consideration.

Though I fundamentally disagreed with him about the occupation, he is NO chickenhawk. And I’ll respectfully try to stop his efforts inthis regard.

Like Hagel, Webb and quite a few other Democrats, he’s put his money where his mouth is.

Starting to get the picture, Mike?

And guess what? Surprise! He ultimately embarrassed every one of those chickenhawk candidates. (Paul of course is not one and was the other guy who got any real broad based support).

And I nether supported nor advocated for nor voted for any of the chest pounders.

And if, after all of these years, you really refuse to understand what a chickenhawk is, I’m sure I can’t help you. Try wiki.

Here are two things, out of many, to mull, while I’m out helping pay for the occupation.

Hint: It almost always involves beating on some war drums and fear mongering.

2nd hint: It almost always involves people who not only have no combat experience, they usually avoided an AFEES station like it had the plague.

You (as in the general sense) wanna go save the world on behalf of THESE guys, their lies and the corporate paybacks?

Get your head shot off for all I care.

Sell tickets.

Just don’t send American kids into a no-win sh!thole to make yourself feel better about it…

Duh,

Did you really resort to the double secret probation anti-jinx last night on behalf of the Cardinals?

Man, you are a bookies wet dream.

Pray for rain…

By Paul

February 2, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

Chad

[[“We can’t account for the $32 billion that’s been alotted for reconstruction in Iraq.]]

That’s ‘cause the Swiss keep their banking records private -

I read one report about a senior Army civilian in the finance/contracting area. Refused to authorize payment of hundreds of millions to contractors because of missing documentation. His superiors told him to authorize it or face unspecified action. He kept quiet, went on a few years, retired, then went public.

Ah, yes, “the finest military in the world… all heroes…”

Maybe if you take the civilians out of the mix…

By Chad Harris

February 2, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this

Nice job Amvet. You nailed a lot of points I’ve tried to make.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this

AmVet -

Thanks for the explanation. Don’t know why you have to be so angry towards me, as I asked a respectful question and even complimented you on the consistency of your positions.

One difference I would have is pointing out that the Afghan War is more than something Obama inherited. A fundamental plank of his campaign rhetoric was pointing out that resources had been diverted to the real battlefield in Iraq. He is just as much a touter of the Afghan War as anyone else, if not more so.

Not certain why I am the shouter, as you are the one shouting in caps, ceaselessly name calling and needlessly using vulgarity.

By Dusty

February 2, 2009 11:45 AM | Link to this

Chad Harris,

Why don’t you put on sackcloth and ashes and sit under a tree and cry? Moaning, groaning, and complaining is your specialty.

You must get the same info as Ms. Godzie as she too was crying tears over the POOR PEOPLE who signed for bad mortgages, Campbell soup and Spam. You declare that the food people eat is a sign of the apocalypse. If you believe that, you should believe that such lamentations often come from a twisted mind.

Ah, but what liberal could miss a chance to declare George W. Bush as the cause of everything from Jr. Whoppers (my favorite) to Spam. The least you could do would be to mention chicken franks and the the giveaway peanut butter. You insist on your unoriginal and outdated lib cry of BUSH DID IT!

Relax! You’ll survive if your despondency doesn’t get you. Hang in there, fellow, BUT QUIT COMPLAINING!

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 11:49 AM | Link to this

Wyld Byll,

Are you trying to call me out. Put up or shut up, William. Now, do Tell. I’ll make you an offer similar to the one I made Commie some time back. We work through Jay by providing him information that he deems necessary to prove our claims and the loser has to make a donation to a charity that Jay chooses and in an amount that he chooses. I’m game. How about you and Jay.

By mm

February 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this

Yep, that wingnut capitalism at work.

Major U.S. banks sought government permission to bring thousands of foreign workers into the country for high-paying jobs even as the system was melting down last year and Americans were getting laid off

Disgusting. Naw, we don’t need no stinkin regulation.

By Dusty

February 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this

Yes, AmVet,

You can make the same points as Chad Harris mentioned. Two peas in a pod, two libs on the loose, two downers in a doldrum.

Have a bad day, boys,and enjoy it as usual.

By AJC/DNC Management

February 2, 2009 11:52 AM | Link to this

It’s called humor, Amwet, try it out sometime.

By mm

February 2, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

It’s high time you did some research to find out what percentage of Americans face foreclosure. The majority is pretenders like you who bought more house than they could afford. You know, to impress their families and friends.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

AmVet -

You said:

“Obama - no. (he was staunchly against BushCo’s crusades but has now inherited them)”

Barack Obama said:

“And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support “a dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq. I worried about a ” U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences” in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we “finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.”

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/thewarweneedto_win.php

Now that you know that Obama was a “strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan”, I ask again:

Is Obama a chickenhawk?

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

When will these Republican quit asking for more tax breaks for their masters. I mean, we fed Wall Street’s elite 18 billion in bonuses and Exxon had another record-breaking quarter and now they want tax breaks on top of that. Where does this Republican idiocy end.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer -

You do know that the overwhelming majority of Wall Street’s elite supported Obama right?

“With $32.8 million in campaign contributions last quarter, Barack Obama, the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate, easily surpassed his rivals in both parties. And it seems Wall Street money had something to do with it.

Employees of three big investment banks and one major hedge fund were among the leading sources of cash for Mr. Obama, according to data filed Sunday with the Federal Elections Commission. His contributors during the three-month period ended June 30 included Richard S. Fuld Jr., the chief executive of Lehman Brothers, and Kenneth C. Griffin, president of the Citadel Investment Group.”

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/obama-donations-show-strong-wall-st-support/

I share your anger with Wall Street, but the notion that they are all Republicans flies in the face of documented fact.

By AmVet

February 2, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this

Mike,

My bad, if you think I’m angry at you. I’m not. You have some good points to make and I’m willing to listen.

But, you have unquestionably been very personally accusatory to many here, including me, but seem to want to back off of that a bit.

Now if you’d give up the incessant attempts to change my writing style. I yam what I yam. Sometime vulgar. Occassionally rude, crude and socially unacceptable.

I try my best NOT to make this stuff personal, and avoid personal attacks and insults. Others here don’t feel the same. C’est la vie.

But I’ve never been politically correct and if that bothers you, well….

This situation in Iraq is very compelling to me and I have very strong feelings about it.

STOP THE WAR.

As for Afghanistan, it is a horse of a different color. I was completely in support of Bush’s “response” to the Taliban. And was thrilled he killed a bunch of those b@stards.

But escalation and staying for years on end is not something I advocate.

There are better ways in my useless opinion to deal with them.

Obama is as I’ve said before, a political Zelig. And I’ve warned the libs to prepare to be greatly disappointed in him.

We’ll see if he is a Quagmire, Part Deux, chickenhawk-come-lately. It’s sure looking that way.

Dusty, sell tickets…

Til later…

By Dusty

February 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this

Dear mm the greater lib,11:56

I don’t need to know the percentage of Americans facing foreclosures. The Real Estate booklets at the grocery store are filled from one end to the other with huge homes and a very few small homes in big trouble and giveaway prices.

These were homebuyes with less sense than money and believed you could pay for something that cost more than they were making. Perhaps they were fooled or perhaps they thought SOMEBODY would back them up. Wonder where they got that idea?

My home has been paid for so long I can hardly remember the days of mortgage payments. My husband and I knew what we could afford and paid if off in ten years. I am sorry for anyone losing their home for any reason but I can’t help but wonder (without mentioning stupidity): WHY DID THEY BUY A HOME THEY OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT AFFORD?

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this

Why does it seem that the angrier a partisan you are, the less likely you are to know facts that are commonly known by most who follow the news even a little bit?

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 2, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer 11:49 AM

I am not calling anyone out, least of all you and I won’t share my information with Jay. It seems to have hit a nerve on you, but, as for me, I have nothing to prove. I must take leave to attend to a late afternoon nine holes.

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this

Mike, please read what I write and comment on that if you must. Now, I clearly made no claim whatsoever regarding party affiliations of those on Wall Street. Further, I’m fully aware that some of the nation’s brightest have made their billions on Wall Street. Warren Buffet comes to mind and I do recall him donating to the Democrat party.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this

AmVet -

I’m not trying to get you change anything. I was simply pointing out that not only is your accusation that I am a “shouter” unfounded, but that it is you who are a shouter. If you don’t like that form of debate, you shouldn’t engage in it. If you do like that form of debate, don’t falesly accuse others of it and don’t complain about it. To do otherwise is hypocritical.

Apart from that, I will criticize your needless vulgarity and name calling. It is uncivil behavior and I would make the same complaint if you were standing in front of me. Vulgarity is vulgarity, whether you are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet or not.

Your claim that “I try my best NOT to make this stuff personal, and avoid personal attacks and insults” flies in the face of your frequent posting and your claim that others do it more sounds like the excuse of my young children.

On Obama, you claim that he was not a chickenhawk because he inherited the war. As his own quotes demonstrate, he was a supporter of the war from the beginning. Your refusal to label him a chickenhawk is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Perhaps you should read that Wikipedia article you cite and apply it to who all you consider deserve it, even if that means criticizing people you respect as well as the rest of us.

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this

Wyld Byll,

I see you also cower at the prospect of backing up your loose phalanges. Coward.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer -

Oh please. Your comments are right above. You statements clearly tie the “Wall Street elite” to Republicans and your denial of your own posts is bizarre.

I have similar debates with folks on conservative sites and they are equally myopic in their mindless hatred of Democrats. You have far more in common with these people than you would care to know.

By DB, Gwinnettian

February 2, 2009 12:42 PM | Link to this

“I must take leave to attend to a late afternoon nine holes.”

In Makena, HI? where it’s 7.41am?

By Chad Harris

February 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

Dusty—

Your ramblings are so stupid no one with a brain would take a second to respond to them. I don’t read them and don’t care what you write. Time is short and when you encounter an imbecile, you have to get past them as soon as possible.

On Jan. 19 the Bush dead enders (soon leaving the DOJ because they are forced out or know their is no future for them and their lying) in DOJ filed a brief in favor of State Secrets—a position that the Bush administration tried to use to block over 30 law suits that would force them to cough up info like illegal wiretaping, and Condi’s decision to keep state department translators from translating documents that had detailed 911 information until it was too late on 3/12.

Holder (not my choice) will be confirmed by the Senate in a couple hours.

It will be interesting to see if Obama reverses this idiot state secrets stance by the Bush dead enders once his DOJ is in place. Come 2/23 it will be interesting to see what decision Obama DOJ makes on Rolly Polly Rove’s claim of Absolute Immunity.

By mm

February 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

So you agree with the fact that there are more large, expensive houses being foreclosed. so why do wingnuts keep blaming the poor?

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

February 2, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer 12:36 PM

Not so. Persons in my position must be careful not to let “nutcases” into our lives. Your unbalanced rants, lack of knowledge, profound ignorance, and diassociation from truth lead me to believe that you are one from whom I should distance myself.

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this

Oh please, Mike. Quit whining and just accept what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote. You are really getting pathetic.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this

“By Chad Harris February 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this Dusty—

Your ramblings are so stupid no one with a brain would take a second to respond to them.”

Then Chad goes on for four paragraphs responding with his usual mix of hateful name calling and ad hominem attacks.

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this

So, Wyld Byll resorts to name calling. Isn’t that cute. At least the name I have for you is based on fact, Coward. Put up or shut up, Coward. I know you will not because that is what cowards do, Coward.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer -

Your “whine” crutch is lame, as it can be applied to any on this board, including yourself..

Let me ask again:

You deem any who don’t share your views as a “whiner”. How do you characterize the posters who do share your views?

A simple response will suffice. The continued lack of a response provides its own answer, oh brave one.

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

I deem you to be whining, Mike. Is that simple enough for you. Further, if someone shares my views, why would I interpret that as whining — unless they started whining about sharing my views.

Time to step out for a while. So, feel free to whine at someone else for a while, Mike.

Have a good day.

By Mike

February 2, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer -

You call Wyld Bill a “coward” for not signing up for your bizarre plan for a debate moderated by Bookman and you can’t answer a simple question?

Rock on, tough guy. LOL

By Taxpayer

February 2, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this

Wyld Byll, you left your Mike on at 1:02. You might want to turn that thing off before it blurts out something embarrassing. Oops, too late.

By Dusty

February 2, 2009 3:16 PM | Link to this

Chad Harris,12:44

Unfortunately, I read some of your junk mail to see what the delirious have to say. You know. Those poeple still trying to find something illegal with the Bush administration and they are going to investigate and dig and dig and tra la la and hi de ho. Take a powder, lost one. You need it.

mm@12:44

The poor people were the ones trying to buy the big houses. If they were not poor in money matters, they were poor in brain power. Most “poor” people with small homes still own them.

By Two Shoes

February 2, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

The Iraquis thanked Bush along with the other Americans with a shoe oops two shoes. Only in a democracy….Yeah

By AmVet

February 2, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

Uh, Mike,

Where and when exactly did I call you a shouter?

You’re simultaneously fighting so many liberal “demons” in your own mind, you’re losing track of them!

Are you the new self-appointed Blog Nanny nee Grand Inquisitor of Bookman’s blog? Virtually all you have done since you arrived is to demand answers, justifications and clarifications ad nauseum from anybody who doesn’t toe your political line.

Even Bookman!

What next? Forced confessions, Torquemada?

If you are so turned off by my use of caps, etc…(or is it just the choice of unsavory words now?)…………………don’t read it. Start an English class for sensitive bloggers.

I’m serious, I’m not at all interested in your validation, your “compliments” or your inconsistent observations based apparently on ideology.

And for you assertion that “Your refusal to label him a chickenhawk is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical”, is unsupportable by the facts.

I proffered that he did not at all support the bungled invasion of Iraq like 99% of the GOP chickenhawks did. That is incontrovertible.

In regards to Afghanistan, I said “We’ll see if he is a Quagmire, Part Deux, chickenhawk-come-lately. It’s sure looking that way.”

And this entire paragraph (Your claim that “I try my best NOT to make this stuff personal, and avoid personal attacks and insults” flies in the face of your frequent posting and your claim that others do it more sounds like the excuse of my young children.) makes no sense to me whatsoever. Do you have ANY credible evidence where I have attacked/insulted others here personally? As Dusty did with me?

I demand a clarification!!!

It would appear that it is of the utmost importance for you to win these tiny parsing skirmishes and lose the war of ideas.

And you say I’m the one with a credibility problem?