Mike Luckovich

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 07:03 AM | Link to this

Look at the Bush Stalking Psycho Queen cartoonist whining about the “lack of partisanship,” how quaint.

Cut

What was that slogan, the culture of, umm, shees, I can’t remember, the culture of:

Washington, DC - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW, George Soros, Ha!) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. Rep. Murtha was listed in CREW’s report Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep, Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha.

Cut

It should be of no consequence whether this outrage occurs immediately before, during, or after the actual “birth” of the child. It is abhorrent throughout. In terms of the continuum of the child’s existence, which begins with conception and ends with death, birth is an entirely arbitrary, fleeting moment in time, a non-event in terms of the child’s inherent worth. What in God’s name is the principle of science, law, or morality which dictates that a human being is worthless one moment, before birth, and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the very next, that is, after birth?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 07:45 AM | Link to this

A Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war gives some rock solid advice:

John McCain says we need more troops to crush the Mahdi Army and militias, and achieve victory.

Remember, a veteran has spoken so everyone else should STFU, at least that’s how it works with the liberals.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this

I wonder if the libs will be quoting Pat Buchanan this week:

Arabs are not ignorant of history. They know that when we pulled out of South Vietnam, a Democratic Congress cut off aid to the Saigon regime, and every Cambodian and Vietnamese who had cast his lot with us wound up dead, in a “re-education camp” or among the boat people in the South China Sea whose wives and children were routinely assaulted by Thai pirates. In that first year of “peace” in Southeast Asia, 20 times as many Cambodians perished as all the Americans who died in 10 years of war. In Iraq, a collapse of the government and army in the face of an American pullout, followed by a civil-sectarian war, the break-up of the country and a strategic debacle for the United States — emboldening our enemies and imperiling our remaining friends in the Arab world — is a real possibility.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

The first salvo, courtesy of President George W. Bush on November 8, 2006:

“Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. “

By REAL Conservatives Ain't Republican

November 14, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It(AKA Filthy) November 14, 2006 07:03 AM: Look at the Bush Stalking Psycho Queen cartoonist whining about the “lack of partisanship,” how quaint.

^^^Maybe the Bush Stalking Psycho Queen cartoonist is whining about the anticipated “lack of [BI]-partisanship” once the honeymoon is over in January?

Really, Filthy, you oughta lay off the sauce first thing in the mornin’, or are you still comin’ out of the deleriums after the election stampede?

Oh, I forgot….it was those nasty ole’ Hillarycopters that have been buzzing in Filthy’s head for so long. They done shot him with their dastardly pinko ray. The noise, the noise…….Help!…Arrrgghhh the Hillarycopters got Filthy. Now they’re gonna impregnate the poor ba$$tard with some GOP elephant sperm, force him to smoke meth and grope some congessional pages, and then strap him down on a board and rip his baby oughta his womb. ‘Filthy’ liberal babykillers ! ! !

By Eric

November 14, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

69 percent disapproval rating for Dubya. His numbers keep inching up! Miss Andy must be so proud.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla,

Do you care to tell us what you find objectionable about that statement by our President?

By @@

November 14, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

Well ml, our table has been set with our most fragile Democratic china, delicate Democratic linens, and the Democratic silver-spoon politicians.

What’s the main course? Probably Turduckin or Squab-bull you turkey.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

The Dems should do the same thing Newt and the gop did when they got the majority

Karma.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

By REAL Conservatives Ain’t Republican (This may or may not be Spammie, Queen AntiR of Yahoo!, who knows with these psycho liberals)November 14, 2006 08:32 AM Oh, I forgot….it was those nasty ole’ Bushcopters that have been buzzing in cartoon boy’s head for so long. They done shot him with their dastardly wingnut ray. The noise, the noise…….Help!…Arrrgghhh the Bushcopters got Luckovich. Now they’re gonna impregnate the poor ba$$tard with some lib jacka-ss anti American sperm, force him to smoke meth and grope some public school children, and then strap him down on a board and rip his baby oughta his womb. ‘Filthy’ liberal babykillers ! ! !

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

By Eric November 14, 2006 08:35 AM 69 percent disapproval rating for Dubya. His numbers keep inching up! Miss Andy must be so proud.

Maybe our country would be better served by politicians that were more concerned with the well being of America instead of their poll numbers, huh, huh?

Bill Clinton had a 70% approval and brought us 9/11.

31% and no large American cities on fire works for me.

I guess you got some issue with it.

By REAL Conservatives Ain't Republican

November 14, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

The Dems should do the same thing Newt and the gop did when they got the majority

Yeh, after all the nasty shenanigans from the GOP it is tempting but if the Democrats are smart they’ll forego vengenance for the good of the country and the electorate will reward them accordingly.

The people are sick and tired of wasting time with all the partisan witch hunts. The party that takes the high road and addresses the country’s real problems and doesn’t get distracted by wedge issues will now prevail.

By Mrs. Godzilla

November 14, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish…..

I have no desire to steal your thunder. Go for it!

By ed lorenzo

November 14, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

WHERE THERE IS SMOKE…

“Nancy, are you sure you wish to promote Jack Murtha?”

“What is the matter Paul? Since when are you getting your fine nose in my business? Didn’t we agree that night under the Golden Gate some years ago that you would mind your own business while I would save the Democrats, the City of San Francisco and the civilized world?”

“Yes we did my love, but I want you to proceed with caution about Murtha”

“How so, Wise Paul?”

“Listen, where there is smoke there is fire. There are too many reports about ‘arrangements’ he has made in favor of lobbyists, one of which happens to be his brother and another a company presided by one of his former aides who spent 27 years at his side. To me it just sounds as too much coincidence, collusion, pre-mediation, conjuring, maneuvering, plotting and all those suspicious practices that seem to be the rule in political life!”

“And what do you want me to do about it?”

“First, find one without a questionable record.. Then, make it your main personal crusade to eliminate lobbying from government. If you accomplish the latter, the name Pelosi will be remembered alongside George Lincoln and Abe Washington”

“Is that all, Paul?”

“”Not quite, on your next trip to the White House can you see if any one is interested in subscribing to the golf magazine I represent?”

By getalife

November 14, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

BS. The people want accountability.

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

Karma.

By Will Jones

November 14, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

“Our enemies” funded Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party after the Roman Catholic Church approved voting for the Nazis. Google “Prescott Thyssen Auschwitz” to know just who “Our” enemy is. N.B. Bushes have fronted for the Vatican-banker Rockefellers for four generations…since they built Standard Oil on unredressed murder and arson in 1870’s Cleveland. “Our enemies” assassinated John Kennedy six weeks after his NSAM 263 “Vietnam withdrawal” order was issued. 58,000 of “us” died in THAT false war. George H.W. Bush is on public record that he was near Dallas and in the CIA - which the Hunt v. Liberty Lobby Fed’l DistCt Jury determined committed the crime - yet claims to be “unable to recall” his whereabouts upon hearing of JFK’s death. “Our enemies” falsely claimed N.Vietnamese gunboats fired on U.S. warships to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Admiral James Stockdale (MOH) was witness to the fact that no “enemy” vessels fired on “us.” 58,000 American G.I.’s died for that lie…and untold millions of innocents. LBJ was given the phony Gulf of Tonkin story by the CIA. “Our enemies” committed 9-11. Read Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor,” watch “Loose Change,” see former SecyTransportation Mineta’s sworn eyewitness testimony of Cheney’s stand-down order on youtube.com, or watch Physics professor Steven Jones, of BYU, prove the three World Trade Center towers were dropped by preplaced controlled demolition. “Our enemies” lied to us and Congress of Iraq WMD. Bush’s Tory faction is the enemy. He represents the bipartisan, false-elite fascist plutocracy America’s Whig Founders named “the real Anti-Christ.” Nancy Pelosi is a Roman Catholic from a Mafia-tainted political family. If she fails to bring to justice the traitors who committed 9-11, who promote illegal immigration, and lied us into false war in Iraq…immediately, WE can know with an absolute certainty that she is one of THEM…not of US.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

“Bill Clinton had a 70% approval and brought us 9/11.”

Andy— you lying sack of shi’ite… we all know that 9/11 is entirely on Dubya’s administration and their failure to act, react, or do anything with the warnings they were given in 2001!

By stu pidashols

November 14, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Our country would be better served by non neo-cons that are more concerned with the well being of America instead of trying to corrupt pages huh, huh?

George W. Bush has a 30% approval and allowed 9/11 to happen on his watch.

70% disapproval and no Osama Bib Laden works for neo-cons, but not America.

I have issues.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

That’s entirely correct - 9/11 was entirely on Pres Bush’s watch. They were given “warnings” that were accumulated over 8 years. What more did they want? Hey, embassies were blown up, hundreds of people killed, US territory was attacked and hey, Bush & Co. got these warnings passed on! The fact they couldn’t get anything done, let alone change the mindset of the government bureaucracy, is a testament to their lack of ability. More than that, it shows the amazing competence of the terrorists - they could plan, organize, train, put assets in place, obtain funds, pass them on, formulate a plan, and execute a plan - all beginning Jan 20,2000. Wow. Wait, “some” of that took place before Jan 20. How many more warnings could have been passed on?

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G 8:09,

The quote you copied is a very rational and important statement from the President. Have you suddenly become a supporter of his?

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

Paul,

Are you Clinton bashing with that crack about Jan. 20, 2000. Didn’t you know that all was sweetness and light in the world and there was no such thing as terrorism until Jan. 20, 2001.

Also the Clintomistas had a plan in place to arrest the ashes immediately after any suicide attack just in case a peaceful goat farmer should be overtaken by Republicanism and blow himself up.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

So much info given to this administration very early in 2001— just one example:

two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year. Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism — which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying — while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

By Rich

November 14, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Goldie - The problem, as I see it, is the dems have wasted too much time working for OBL and not enough time working for America.

By Mark Kelly, Jasper, TN

November 14, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Mike, I enjoy your work very much but the Thanksgiving theme has been WAY overdone this year. True, the Republicans have been revealed as the true turkeys many of us knew they were; however, I’d like to see a little more creative diversity.

Even with my criticism, I still consider you the best in the business. I hope you and yours have a great holiday season.

By SarahConnah

November 14, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Impeach the Bush Reich!

By getalife

November 14, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Mike,

After Pelosi’s brave words, I think most of us were hopeful the new group of rascals we just placed in power would have the good sense to heed their electorate. What the country craves after six years of obfuscation, commented on in several of the posts already today, is openness of government with the sense that there is a plan and that the plan has some hope of success. I think your cartoon is closer to the reality with which we are faced. The same obfuscation, only different.

By Sailor

November 14, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

The Sailor said Andi/e, you’re a fine girl (such a fine girl)

Zup girlfriend? You still fantasizing about President Clinton?

You look just like Paula Jones to me, baby.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Early warnings in 2001 regarding domestic airliner hijackings:

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a “threat assessment” by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. “There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines,” an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Goldie The point is what, exactly? Of course warnings were passed on - because the previous administration accumulated them and the problem still existed! If there wasn’t an ongoing problem there would have been nothing to “pass on.”

Consider, for a moment, the logical extension of what seems to be your point - the Bush Administration was inept and permitted 9/11 to happen. The government bureaucracy - State Dept, intel agencies, military, Justice - had all been operating for 8 years (and more, really, roots go farther back) in a mode that treated “terrorists” as pretty much a low-level threat. Most all actions took place overseas, radicals didn’t have any cool aircraft, ships or means to land large numbers of troops on the continental US, and besides that, we’d pretty well honed the procedures for monitoring, surveillance, arrest and trial procedures - all in accordance with US criminal law, protecting the Constitutional rights of the suspects.

Now, according to you, the Bush Administration should have done, what? Condi Rice should have called in heads of CIA, NSA, military intel, FBI, etc and said “What’s the matter with you idiots? I just met with Richard Clarke - he’s been here like, forever and he just gave me warnings! And a plan! Why haven’t you all listened to him?” Then mabye VP Cheney could call in the head of Justice, FBI, JCS and yelled “you people are asleep! The previous administration - which includes most of you and practically all of the people who work for you - just passed on warnings! You guys got it wrong. This isn’t law enforcement, it’s war. How do you expect to intercept information, break the cells and protect American lives? You guys have been all about “probable cause” and “rights.” And JCS - don’t you know a threat when you see one? You’ve had warnings! Now get out there, change gears, don’t do what you’ve been doing and get these guys!”

Is that what you’d expect shoulda woulda coulda happened, Goldie? And your response would have been, let me guess… “Yea!!! Go Bush!!!!”

All on Jan 21, 2001.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Goldilocks,

Great link. Um, who was President in 1999?

“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday’s horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers — that’s a quote (from the commission’s Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.”

Clinton didn’t want to do anything, and if not for Newt Gingrich there would have been no commission:

It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in ‘94 and ‘95, but Clinton didn’t act until 1998, prompted by politics. “He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate,” Hart says.

Hart had no idea what would happen:

Three days ago, if asked to predict what the first major foreign terrorist attack on America soil would involve, Hart says he would have guessed small nuclear warheads simultaneously unleashed on three American cities.

They would not have been ready by 9/11:

The commission handed down its recommendations just eight and a half months ago, he said, and they’ll take years to fully enact.

Anything else you’d like to share with us?

Sheesh.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

A leader for the Grand Old Perverts emerges:

After keeping his plans close to the vest since Election Day, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) formally declared his bid for minority whip on Monday evening

This 2-year term may not only be very productive for the Dems, but also very entertaining!

By Huge

November 14, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Look peeps,

We all know that in spite of our sometimes somewhat uniquely American head in the sand approach to problems like terrorism, there were indications for many years that BIG problems were brewing.

So it’s easy for the extremists in the gop to blame everything that has happened on the Clinton administration and even easier for the far left dems to pin the everything on W.

Neither position is nowhere completely accurate and neither of those positions does one damn thing to help minimize the future risks, because it indicates an intractability to working together for the common good.

Both parties are about equally to blame, the fact that it happened under a republican white house notwithstanding.

It makes me laugh when the gop tries to make political hay out of more fear mongering though, when some believe the terrorists and Iran when they say they are happy that the dems won congress last week.

With that stellar reasoning, they must have believed the teerrorists were ecstatic back in 2001 when the gop took over the white house.

America comes first. The political parties are sometimes an obstacle to that. Free your minds from republican and democratic control…

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

What do you know?

Mrs. Godzilla is now supporting the president and the country. About time.

By @@

November 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Goldie:

You should examine your David Irving AR (Action Report) guy as closely as you examine the Bush. Same guy?

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Here’s your chance, Andy, to put your body where your potty-mouth is — in with McCain’s suggestion for additional new recruits… McCain needs you, Andy!

A majority of Americans now say they think invading Iraq was a mistake and would like to see the withdrawal of at least some of the nearly 150,000 troops there, polls say. Only one in seven Americans agrees with Mr. McCain that the United States should send more soldiers and marines

Andy, Rich, Danish-donut, and various other trolls— all a part of McCain’s resounding support from 1 in 7 Americans! I’m sure the recruitment centers are waiting for you and your families all with open arms!1

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

“Great link. Um, who was President in 1999?”

Um, Danish-donut— what was Congress’s focus in 1999? And who could give our president approval to wipe out Al-Qaida? Geez!!!!

By Paul

November 14, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Huge Pretty good analysis. Some just cannot stop looking in the rear view mirror - and I think, many on the far left have such antipathy for Pres Bush they’d oppose nearly any of his proposals or actions. That complicates minimizing future risks.

Re: Iranian assessment of the election. I have to disagree.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/plnm/usaelectionsirandc_1

An article that’s been discussed here. Expanded quotes are available elsewhere. Point is, I believe the Iranian leadership looks at any Bush setback as a victory - rather like the ultra-left in this country. Not to say that’s valid - just that that is what they believe, so for them it’s valid and is factored into their actions.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Huge (1013),

Your comment, “Neither position is nowhere completely accurate and neither of those positions does one damn thing to help minimize the future risks, because it indicates an intractability to working together for the common good.

Both parties are about equally to blame, the fact that it happened under a republican white house notwithstanding” is pretty accurate.

Thus, we as the American voting public need to demand a bipartisan solution to this little fracas in Iraq. Mike’s cartoon is accurate on that score. Our political parties are so busy striving for personal aggrandizement or personal gain that the rest of us are repeatedly disappointed, much like Falcons fans.

By @@

November 14, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Huge: The greatest detriment to our cause has been radical left-wing blogsites which perpetuated conspiracy theories against our government as well as those who read them, and pass conspiracies on as fact.

Despicable.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish

What we have here is a great example of an ideologue - take a view of the world, then interpret facts to fit the view - not vice-versa.

This is the closest she’s come to meaningful followup on an issue. Most of the time it’s like a “fire and forget” missile - take a shot, don’t wait for the impact or assessment - just change view, pick a new target and fire again. In this instance, the ideology is “Clinton/Dems good, Bush/Republicans bad” so the same arguments about Presidential responsibility fall by the wayside and the comment is directed to the Republican Congress - it’s their fault.

It’s kinda fun if you don’t take it seriously.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

By Goldie November 14, 2006 10:16 AM Here’s your chance, Andy, to put your body where your potty-mouth is — in with McCain’s suggestion for additional new recruits… McCain needs you, Andy!

Goldilocks: How are you so sure that I’m not already in Iraq?

Are you some sort of pinko “god,” all seeing and all knowing, according to what you say?

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Ole Joe loves the Repugnants:

Four days after calling his party affiliation a “closed issue,” U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman said Sunday he was “not ruling it out” that he could turn Republican

Joe’s about as good a prize as Zig-Zag Zell, yes?

By getalife

November 14, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Supporting the worst President ever who had to call Daddy to learn how to cut and run is pathetic, disgusting and just plain ignorant.

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By Truthman

November 14, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

“Bill Clinton brought us 9/11.”

You must mean the national 9-1-1 emergency system was created during the Clinton Administration.

9/11 attacks were during W’s administration. The Chimperor was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001. September 11, 2001 is AFTER Jan. 20, 2001.

Glad I could clear up your chronological error.

So, yes, it is a good thing that the 9-1-1 emergency alert system came to being during Clintons terms.

By Huge

November 14, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Huge: The greatest detriment to our cause has been radical left-wing blogsites which perpetuated conspiracy theories against our government as well as those who read them, and pass conspiracies on as fact.

The GREATEST detriment? @@, that is one of the sillier things posted here today.

Obviously you don’t buy into MY theory that both parties, the mistakes and oversights of both of the past two administrations and their fanatical supporters who put their ideology first are more of a problem facing how we move forward and resolve these issues.

“How are you so sure that I’m not already in Iraq?”

Too funny, I can already imagine the posts this will generate…

By Pedro

November 14, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Get a life,

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

I, I, I, I, sounds like a typical Dem. You’re more interested in your own personal gratification than in any by-partisan effort to unify our fractured government. ML got this cartoon right, and you’re the poster child.

By @@

November 14, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

No Huge, I don’t discount your theory of both parties contributions.

However, when it comes to getting out the facts, they are either based in reality or not.

My, my you’re a little overly defensive today, aren’t you?

By bon scott

November 14, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

By Diogenes - November 14, 2006 10:29 AM - Our political parties are so busy striving for personal aggrandizement or personal gain that the rest of us are repeatedly disappointed, much like Falcons fans.

Gene, take a victory lap. While some wingnuts are drooling over the appearance of Democratic party discord, the GOP is continuing it’s post-election implosion:

Just ask Michelle Malkin

“Oh, well. Michael Steele has been passed up for Sen. Mel Martinez. Yes, a squish on border security is now the RNC chair. Has the GOP learned anything? ..are there any out there who are listening to conservatives and who will oppose Martinez?…A RedState blogger calls Martinez “the Harriet Miers of RNC chairs”

MeeeeYOWW!!!!!

I’d say ml’s ‘toon could apply to intra as well as inter party squabbling.

By I Voted For The War Because I Love Sending Others To Die In It - November 14, 2006 10:30 AM - Goldilocks: How are you so sure that I’m not already in Iraq?

It seems like you’ve been promising forever to go, Andy. But you’re long on promises and short on action… sort of like your favorite President.

I bet you’re still in your basement.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Pedro,

Supporting the worst President ever who had to call Daddy to learn how to cut and run is pathetic, disgusting and just plain ignorant.

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

{{By Goldie

November 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

“Great link. Um, who was President in 1999?”

Um, Danish-donut— what was Congress’s focus in 1999? And who could give our president approval to wipe out Al-Qaida? Geez!!!!}}

Goldilocks,

It’s terribly tedious to rehash all this stuff, but I can’t let that stand without responding.

Assuming hypothetically that Clinton needed to wait for Congressional approval, can you show me where Clinton asked for permission to wipe out Al Qaeda, and was denied permission by Congress?

???????????????????????????????????????

By boring

November 14, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

You guys are going to have a heart attack sitting aroung bitc@ing about all this crap. Get a life & live it!

By Pedro

November 14, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Get a life, you seem to lean toward spouting vitriol instead of either reading or listening to anything other than your pathetic, vengeful, tunnelvision. You have labeled me a supporter of the worst president simply because I find your attack mentality sad. My support is for my country, not any party. You’re obviously only interested in the satisfaction you think you’ll enjoy by continued partisan witch hunts. Too many sheep blindly following party shepherds of various ilk. Your bleating is unmistakable.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

I see General Seeker got all dressed up to do battle with his Andy demons:

By bon scott November 14, 2006 11:03 AM It seems like you’ve been promising forever to go, Andy. But you’re long on promises and short on action… sort of like your favorite President. I bet you’re still in your basement.

Eeeewwwwww, I’m in the basement!!

Gosh, he stuck me right in the heart with his plastic play sword.

Glad I could help with your fantasies this morning, finch.

By Huge

November 14, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

“My, my you’re a little overly defensive today, aren’t you?”

Not really, but sorry if I offended.

“However, when it comes to getting out the facts, they are either based in reality or not.”

And there’s the rub. BOTH sides are very selective with the “facts”, aren’t they?

You post a lot of great stuff from time to time, but I’ve sensed that with the events of last week, you’ve moved a little farther right, that’s all.

And that’s OK with me…

By getalife

November 14, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Pedro,

Not even close but if you look at the archives of this blog, you will see I choose my country.

I do not support any party and if the Dems do not investigate, indict, impeach and lock up these criminals, you will see me bash them worse than I bashed the gop.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

By the way:

By One of the Majority’s Voices November 13, 2006 07:13 PM Andy, If you had read any actual Puritan literature you would realize that they were loons on the order of scientologists. The fact that you look to them as shining examples of your “America” is telling. They hung witches, or in other words innocent people who townspeople had beefs with. They also began the genocide perpetrated upon the Indians, wiping out almost 98% of them over the next couple hundred years. On second thought, that does sound like your kind of Christianity to me.

Look at this chicken sh-it.

The biggest atrocity of Christianity your boy could find was the harassment of a few old biddies 400 some years ago.

The horror!!

Meanwhile, back on Earth, communism and socialism continue TO THIS VERY DAY to rack up millions upon millions of real tangible victims.

With this Majority’s Wanker bitc-h cheering them on.

Christianity has done nothing but good for the world, lifting billions of people out of poverty, curing their sicknesses and giving them hope.

All these pervert degeneracy pushing liberals can focus on are the failings of INDIVIDUALS, why? What are you perverts trying to prove?

You don’t care about our kids, if you did you’d be all over the real molesters, the 150,000 public school teachers that you say nothing, NOTHING about.

You don’t care about the killing of innocents, show me one time that you denounced Islam for their continued murder of DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN WITH YOUR FULL COOPERATION.

You are full of sh-it, period.

You hate good, with every fiber of your sick being, that’s what it is all about.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Lazy Danish— it’s really too easy to find numerous links to help with your education:

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

And what exactly did Dubya, Condi and Cheney do when given info to follow up on, Hmmmm?

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Danish-Troll, more info that you’re too lazy to look for before slinging the mud:

CLINTON: Well, it’s interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.

As President Clinton said on Fox News, “at least I tried!”, and tell us again, what is it that your guy Dubya did with his info about Al-Qaeda?

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Ah-hah!:

That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn’t raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway. “You cannot solve the nation’s fiscal problems without increased revenues,” declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party’s leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday.

Fiscal problems?

Anybody mind telling me just one fiscal problem?

Do the libs consider solid economic growth, low unemployment, high stack prices and low interest rates to be a problem?

Or are these sickos looking for a reason, ANY REASON, to rip your wallet out of your pocket?

Remember what Hillary said; You ain’t smart enough to handle your own money.

You good with that?

By Office Worker On The 99th Floor Of WTC 2

November 14, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

Great. Clinton Tried. Wonderful.

Thanks for all your help, Billy.

By @@

November 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Huge:

I’m not that easy Huge. After watching you profess your moderate stance, and then seeing you display full-blown liberal ideaology on more than one occasion, it’s just too damn easy to know who you really are.

You do, however, seem to be moving a little to the left of center. I’d have to ask myself why that is?

I haven’t budged. I’m seeing the abortion issue a little more clearly now with Andy’s help. Thank you Andy.

My reference to conspiracy theories was the one that Goldie linked to @ 9:54. A little checking here, a little checking there, and you find out that Irving is a communist sympathizer. The theory (?) put forth that Ashcroft was advised of a threat sounds a lot like the theory (?) that Jews were told to stay home from work the day of 9/11. All the while, leaving the rest of the victims in the dark. Puuuhhhleeeeze.

You see Huge, I don’t mind figuring these things out on my own. Doing my own research. Searching out motives.

Sometimes, they just don’t add up. Anybody can put forth theories. You’ve just gotta make sure they aren’t for the purpose to conspire.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Didn’t you tell us just the other day that nothing, NOTHING in Newsmax could be trusted?

By bon scott

November 14, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

By I Voted For The War So I Could Send Others To Die In It - November 14, 2006 11:18 AM - Eeeewwwwww, I’m in the basement!! Gosh, he stuck me right in the heart with his plastic play sword.

So you admit it. You’re not in Iraq.

The real question is why? Is it because (in the spirit of another of your heroes, Darth Cheney) you’re more important than your sacred war?

Walk the walk, Andy. Go. You promised.

While you’re there, get others to think long term. As in beyond next week. Lack of planning seems to have been a chronic problem in this fiasco:

As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during the lead-up to the war, outgoing Commandant of the United States Marine Corps General Mike Hagee was in charge of planning for the Marines’ original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion — why there was no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell from power.

Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities. He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV — military terminology for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations. Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after “mission accomplished.” Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command, as they say in the military — and never heard back.

The Iraq campaign was micromanaged by civilians who had no clue. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

With responsibility comes accountability. It’s time.

By SwiftVoter

November 14, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Culture of ….. what is it now? Nov 14, 2:47 AM EST

Jury convicts GOP fundraiser at center of scandal

By JOHN SEEWER Associated Press Writer

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — Less than a week after Republicans lost their grip on state politics, a former GOP fundraiser who played a big role in the party’s Election Day defeat was convicted of stealing from a state investment in rare coins.

Tom Noe, accused of taking at least $2 million, was found guilty of theft, corrupt activity, money laundering, forgery and tampering with records.

Voters fed up with government corruption scandals broke the GOP’s 12-year lock on state government, electing Democrats to the governor’s office, a U.S. Senate seat and three of four other key statewide offices.

Democrats say Noe was picked to manage the state’s investment fund because of his political connections.

The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation gave Noe $25 million in 1998 to invest in rare coins, followed by $25 million in 2001. At the same time, he began his rise to prominence in state politics.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

By bon scott November 14, 2006 12:04 PM Walk the walk, Andy. Go. You promised.

I’ll tell you what, finchie, why don’t you make some plane noises and see if maybe play Andy, your demon, will hop aboard.

There’s always a chance, eh?

By Pedro

November 14, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Getalife…read your own writings. “if the Dems do not investigate, indict, impeach and lock up these criminals…”

As if the GOP have a monopoly on corruption and the Dems are beyond reproach? Are Murtha, Pelosi, or others to be the squeaky clean investigators, prosecutors, judge, and jury? Give me a break that you’re not a partisan horn tooter. Both parties are lying crooks and you’re a doof to even suggest that you’re non-partisan. Do you really think that “the Dems” will clean the house? Like with a manure spreader and chain saw? LOL. You’re a Hypocrite. I’d suggest you try focusing on the positive, but that would go against the grain of a diehard Democrat shill.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Stalker Boy,

~A brief history of Witch Hunts in America Part 1~

It was the result of a period of factional infighting and Puritan witch hysteria which led to the deaths of 20 people (14 women, 6 men) and the imprisonment of 150 more people.

Then we have the Witch Hunt in Wenatchee, which despite the perverse religious imagery used by the accusers, had nothing to do with religion at all, but involved over-zealous child protection officer looking after “The Children”.

Between 1992 and 1995, 43 adults were arrested and charged with roughly 30,000 counts of sex abuse against scores of children. Eighteen adults were eventually convicted, and sent to prison. Dozens of children were removed from their homes; some were sent to foster care, and others were placed for adoption.

[(In a)nightmare akin to Communist China’s Cultural Revolution - According to government documents and child interviews, children who failed to cooperate with the inquisition were threatened with arrest; removed from school, neighborhoods, churches, and all extendedfamily; medicated; placed in “recovered memory” therapy; or locked for extended periods in mental facilities where for twenty-four hours a day they were surrounded by professionals who unconditionally believed thatthey were victims. Not surprisingly,”confessions proliferated and the circle of “abusers” grew as children and vulnerable adults were encouraged to name others in order to save themselves. Those who dared to speak out on behalf of the accused were suspected, sometimes charged.] (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=FZ0NXKGnX7ZyDm9rJL5np2JCT9yJ52lszKbDw3KzhGNhVNYyfWfy!-182286938!-1935465573?a=o&d=5002548916)

[Also see “No Crueler Tyrannies” by Dorothy Rabinowitz who tells the tale of The Amiraults, who were prosecuted by a Democrat from massachussetts] (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005141)

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

OK— none of you trolls want to admit that it was the Neo-Cons in Congress who hindered President Clinton in taking down OBL — here’s a memory flashback for you:

FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton’s Attacks Against Osama As ‘Wag the Dog’

A bunch of panty-waisted wussies, huh, who gave the problem to your guy Dubya in 2000?!! And again, what did your guy do with all the information given to him?

C’mon, you really don’t have to think too hard at this point…

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Poor Researcher Goldilocks,

Before I finish my little history lesson for Stalker Boy, you still have not found an instance where CONGRESS denied CLINTON the ability to go after Al Qaeda - which is what you charged.

Google away!

By Jenn

November 14, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

RW, I think that was Midori that said that. I believe she said that she wouldn’t line her cat’s litter box with it. Are they the same people?

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

We all know that Billy Jeff was a weakling that would stop doing something at the first hint of criticism lest it harm his precious legacy, but I’m kind of surprised to see you piling on him.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Jenn,

They almost all do it and some have their “most hated” list of publications. finch apparently got fired by the Washington Times so he mostly hates that one. Newsmax seems to be on all of their lists, unless they seem to think it backs them up. In that case any of these publications become gospel.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Pedro,

You will see many investigations of the gop and many will be shocked, shocked of the outcome.

The trolls here are so pathetic, you just have to laugh at their lack of credibility. They never admit mistakes even though their cheerleader is the worst President ever and their party are pathetic failures.

They ignore the fact that the American people fired their sorry as-ses and they continue to spew like nothing happened.

It just frigging hilarious. No point in arguing with these fools, just laugh at them.

By Jenn

November 14, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229360,00.html

Don’t shutter guy’s it’s from Fox News.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Now that the Democrats have elected Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer their message seems to have changed a little.

Last week they were saying the American people voted for change and now that they didn’t change they say the American people voted to reject the President.

Chuck Schumer did say one thing interesting. He said “We will never take our eye off the American people,” that’s probably the most honest thing he’s ever said, how else is he going to know where your wallet is?

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Is the warning paper you cite titled {{{{“Bin Laden preparing to hijack U.S. aircraft and other attacks.”}}}}?

That does sound fairly specific.

By Midori

November 14, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Nice try Jenn, but I wish I were half as sharp as Goldie.

To further address the issue: Are you and RW the same people?

Seems you two also travel in pairs.

I was reading this blog, and was not going to comment until I ran into your attempted slur.

I want to say that I think it’s funnier than heck that you and your moron “like minded” ones are still stuck on stupid and keep trying to rewrite History.

Bill Clinton did NOT bring us 9/11; however, I just love Truthman’s explanation to you wingnuts.

I must add that after trying to sell that defective bill of goods to the American people, they firmly and decisively rejected it — along with your other straw men and fairy tales.

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

By getalife November 14, 2006 12:36 PM They ignore the fact that the American people fired their sorry as-ses and they continue to spew like nothing happened.

getagrip: You were a “fired” a-ss for over twenty years, save for one fluke president that never won a majority vote, and don’t remember one day that you ever STFU.

You should have led by example, loud mouth little whiner.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Don’t underestimate yourself, you’re at least half as sharp as Goldie.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Let’s try those links again for Stalker Boy and add some more:

In a nightmare akin to Communist China’s Cultural Revolution - According to government documents and child interviews, children who failed to cooperate with the inquisition were threatened with arrest; removed from school, neighborhoods, churches, and all extendedfamily; medicated; placed in “recovered memory” therapy; or locked for extended periods in mental facilities where for twenty-four hours a day they were surrounded by professionals who unconditionally believed thatthey were victims. Not surprisingly,”confessions proliferated and the circle of “abusers” grew as children and vulnerable adults were encouraged to name others in order to save themselves. Those who dared to speak out on behalf of the accused were suspected, sometimes charged.

Also see “No Crueler Tyrannies” by Dorothy Rabinowitz who tells the tale of The Amiraults, who were prosecuted by a Democrat from massachusetts

Or how about -

False imprisonment courtesy of Janet “Waco” Reno. “The Prosecutors - A little sunshine on Janet Reno’s pre-Clinton”-legacy”.

Or what about Grant Snowden?

Seeing a pattern here OOTMVOD?

More to come…

By @@

November 14, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

After further research to find a site I could link to, we have a coming together of Sunni and Shia. Why?

The goal was what it always was. No amount of negotiations was ever going to change that fact. The Ayatollah Khomeini’s dream fulfilled.

Although….my personal opinion, for what’s it worth….progress is being made in Palestine and Lebanon. Albeit slow and unpredictable.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Midori,

The trolls here would make a great tv show on Comedy Central.

“Luckovich’s Losers” starring Andy and friends will premier after the “Colbert Report”.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Getalife, I’ve been laughing everyday for a week now! :>)

By getalife

November 14, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

Me too and it is getting better everyday.

From Andy,

“getagrip: You were a “fired” a-ss for over twenty years, save for one fluke president that never won a majority vote, and don’t remember one day that you ever STFU.

You should have led by example, loud mouth little whiner.”

Hilarious.

This idiot will be the biggest whiner of the “Luckovich’s Losers”.

Whaaaaaaaaa!

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

So who will it be for the Grand Old Perverts in ‘08 — Guiliani the so-called “moderate”, or Newt the Neo-Con (and Andy’s boyfriend)?

Rudolph W. Guiliani, the former mayor of New York City, has taken the first step to mounting a presidential candidacy, forming an organization in New York State on Friday to explore a White House run.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

The other day someone mentioned an ultraliberal viewpoint is “we have to do it for you ‘cause you’re too stupid.” Give some of the rhetoric regarding personal savings accounts re. Social Security that sounds pretty on target.

In other areas, it’s not. It’s what’s good for the “country” vs. what individuals want. For example - we’re involved in the Middle East because of — oil. Our economy depends on a steady supply. (Jihadists would still want to kill us even if we ran cars on water - we’re still infidels, they’re still the have-nots and you have to have an enemy to blame). So - people act out of economic self-interest - particularly with vehicles. The theory goes, I can afford it, I like it, I get it and no one can tell me otherwise.

I’ve run the numbers so I’ll use notional numbers here (pick your source, do your own research). After the 1973 oil embargo Congress passed CAFE standards - one standard for cars, another for light trucks (minivans, SUVs, trucks). They’ve been increased once. Congress defeated a 2002 attempt to increase them. Nationwide fuel economy is 7 percent lower than in 1988.

So, take a look at oil consumption in 1974. Compute portion from Middle East. Look at vehicles’ share. Compute oil consumption if all vehicles had the same standard (cars). Adjust for the one increase. Factor in the defeated standard. Now recompute total barrels required. Compute the difference from current consumption. Compare to Middle East imports. Care to guess the answer?

I’ve heard the arguments “oil is a worldwide commodity, decreasing our consumption won’t materially affect imports because blah blah blah. Fact is, we could have reduced our reliance on (and reason for involvement with) the Middle East. And after all the death, destruction, etc. we still reserve the right to buy a 350hp, 2 1/2 ton, commuter. And if it uses twice the gas as another (safe) vehicle - well, tough. It’s only one car/truck/SUV, right?

But it’s more fun to yell “Bush lied and he’s an idiot, my congressman is swell.” Besides, it doesn’t cost anything.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

~Brief History of Witch Hunts. Last chapter.~

Stalker Boy,

This one is right up your alley. Get out your pom poms!

A Scientist with two PhDs in Biology is persecuted by the Smithsonian and has his career destroyed because - this is shocking, so hold on tight - he dared publish an article that happened to be the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for… Intelligent Design.

That is heresy and the heretic must be destroyed!

Here’s the damnable article by Stephen C. Meyer for Darwiniacs and skeptics alike.

Stephen Meyers curriculam vitae is:

Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle.

Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.

Burn him at the stake!

~finis~

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

By getalife November 14, 2006 12:59 PM Midori, The trolls here would make a great tv show on Comedy Central. “Luckovich’s Losers” starring Andy and friends will premier after the “Colbert Report”.

getagrip: Careful what you wish for.

We would render Stewart and Colbert null and void with our wit and biting commentary.

They would be out in the cold with the rest of you moonbats.

See how Murtha’s getting thrown under the bus?

You’re next.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

“Give some of the rhetoric regarding personal savings accounts re. Social Security that sounds pretty on target.”

Paul thinks they will not rob Social Security.

Too funny Paul.

“Bush lied and he’s an idiot”

True.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Goldie,

For someone who cares so much about Gay Rights and abortion, you sure are a nosy, gossipy b*** when it comes to the private lives of others - who in the case of Guiliani should be someone you appreciate as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights kinda guy.

Guiliani is a truly heroic figure, but he doesn’t happen to have a (D) after his name, so he needs to be sneered at by Goldie the poor researcher and snide gossip.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

getalife -

Your grasp of the theme of a post is amazing.

Ideologues -

By WashingtonState

November 14, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Are you advocating for the abolishment of child protective services? The instance of insanity you cited in Wenatchee was echoed by a similar and more famous incident in Olympia, Washington. Only here the driving force was a fundamentalist Christian church who believed that some of its members were involved in a satanic cult of child sexual abuse. If you have a more perfect system for protecting children from abusive parents, I would like to hear about it. When I was in the army in the ‘70’s, I was faced with an epidemic of child abuse which the brass was choosing to ignore, with disastrous consequences. Now they have active investigation and support for troubled families. Children should only be removed from their families as a last resort to protect them from imminent harm. And there are plenty of situations children where are in imminent danger. Please don’t make this a partisan issue, because it isn’t. Spend a day with any pediatrician and you will see at least one child with brains damage from being shaken or “dropped” as an infant.

By Jenn

November 14, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Midori, Apologies. I did not mean to insult.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Apparently if you point out blatant abuse of power you are advocating for the removal of all child protective services. Unfreakingbelievable

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

“who in the case of Guiliani should be someone you appreciate as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights kinda guy.”

‘Scuse me, Danish-donut— when exactly did I “sneer at” Guiliani?!! All I did was post a link to the NYTimes article… geez, aren’t you a happy person with a lust for life!! You nosy, sneering b!tch.

MEOOOWWWW!

By ballyhoo for yahoo

November 14, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

getalife sounds like a broken record playing on Air America. If no one hears it, is it still really playing?

By WashingtonState

November 14, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

RW-(the sophist)

Let Buy Danish speak for herself. I asked her a question.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Paul (109),

If I recall correctly, the Bush administration has done very little to fund research on alternative fuels, which would at least be a start on letting us withdraw from Iraq (I must be getting old, I almost typed Vietnam). Your comments, please.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

WashingtonState

Buy Danish will not be shy in answering you, with or without my input, and if you want to have a private conversation with her I suggest you don’t do it on a public blog.

By WashingtonState

November 14, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

RW-(the sophist),

My question is a serious one. How do you balance the rights of the parents, protecting them from the kinds of abuse Buy Danish (and myself) pointed out, while protecting children at risk. Abolishing child protective services is not a solution. What is? I hate to see this become a partisan issue.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

So who will it be for the Grand Old Perverts in ‘08 — Guiliani the so-called “moderate”, or Newt the Neo-Con (and Andy’s boyfriend)?

Gosh Goldilocks,

I can’t imagine where I got the idea you were sneering and taking interest in their private lives.

I guess you must have meant that Guiliani’s heroics on 9/11 and Newt’s “Contract with America” were perversions.

My bad.

Washington State,

I don’t have time to read, nor respond to your post right now. Suffice it to say that I can guess without reading it that you have completely missed the point.

BTW, it is quite something to see you complain to RW for posting to me about something you said, while you jumped in on a post that was directed to Stalker Boy.

Unless you are Stalker Boy?

later…

By Frank

November 14, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Do any of you neocon hillbillies ever keep up with the real news? These past years, months, weeks, days, hours. Ever notice the gigantic rate at which the various Iraq factions are kidnapping, torturing, slaughtering, beheading each other? Know what caused all that to begin in earnest? Only Bush, his intellectual thugs and supporters. Their need to play “soldier boy” in a country 5000 years old. Certainly something for which you morons should be proud. Democracy, eh. Very revealing of our militar too. Think it’ll be awhile before the U.S. starts such games again. But how shall we punish Bush, et al? Not worth the price of a bullet. A rope - that can be used again and again.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

WashingtonState,

Why are you asking me? I thought you were having a private conversation with Buy Danish.

I’m fairly certain that neither she, nor anyone else is saying to disband all child protective services, but your imaginary line goes both ways. How far down the slippery slope do you want to go in the other direction? Do you want parents and children to be submitted to state run psychological evaluations and no knock police checks at the home, in the name of assuring that a child somewhere hasn’t been abused?

It would be great if no children were ever in the position of being abused and one of the places it happens most often is right in our government run public schools, so is a more intrusive government really the answer?

The argument you are making could be made for almost any law or regulation that is designed to protect any segment of the population.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

Careful there, Goldie. You keep talking to our precious Danish like that, and they’ll all accuse you of being anti-woman. Because, obviously, all womanhood is represented by Danish.

Just a friendly warning.

By sal

November 14, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Let’s get real. We need to simply pull our feeble troops out of Iraq, allow the end to come as it inevitably will - and just let the world watch and feast on what Bush has done.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

That’s my impression, also. The 2002 Congressional defeat of CAFE had bipartisan support, if I recall. Michigan votes, states with vehicle factories, lobbied in, autoworker support all played a part.

Last I heard was a proposal for hydrogen research. Don’t know what the federal funding level was. Honda just announced hydrogen fuel cell production in 3-4 years. Quite an article in the paper. Evidently their proposal is to bypass the “gas station” infrastructure and fit components to a home’s natural gas lines and use that. Here’s a condensed version:

Link: http://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060108FCX/

Ford/GM are behind. Of course, they put their eggs into the high-profit, short-term SUV/truck basket and skimped on research and development.

I know free marketers (are there any really free markets?) will say no gov’t intervention. But, remember when the head of Exxon Mobil (the guy with the modest pension) testified before Congress, was asked about alternate fuels research, he responded, in effect, “we’re in the petroleum business.” So I’m not opposed to some gov’t funding - millions gets funneled into universities for plenty of other things.

As I said, people make individual decisions for vehicles without regard for the national interest. Strikes me as a classic case justifying top-down direction. There are plenty of options. Europeans used (pre -01, I believe it’s changed) to tax vehicles based upon engine displacement. You’d see some 1.8 liter cars screaming down the motorway - they got a lot of output from small engines. ‘Course, those taxes should go to energy-related programs, not to the general Treasury fund, as Congress would like.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Frank,

Interesting comments,”Their need to play “soldier boy” in a country 5000 years old. Certainly something for which you morons should be proud. Democracy, eh. Very revealing of our militar too. Think it’ll be awhile before the U.S. starts such games again”

Do you really believe that? We cannot keep our nose out of peoples’ business. I am not an isolationist, but I am tired of our refusal to learn that wars of ideology will always make fools of us unless we learn how to wage them. The Brits, God love ‘em, are so much more skilled than we. Give us ten years and we’ll again be embroiled in a situaion we shouldn’t be in pitting conventional forces against a war of ideas, trying to win hearts with awesome weaponry and Hershey bars.

By WashingtonState

November 14, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

RW,

I want a system that works. Right now, there is no real accountability and children can be removed from their home for trivial reasons while those at real risk are left with abusive parents despite multiple complaints from emergency departments, neighbors, schools, etc. It isn’t a question of more or less government intrusion, but rather of effective intervention. Most child abuse occurs in the home. This might not be as sensational as the cases that occur in school, but it is a far bigger problem. How do you intervene in these cases without being intrusive?

By Midori

November 14, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

Jenn,

the entire time I’ve spent on this blog has been mostly dedicated to fighting off Andy’s smears and lies accusing me of name jacking or posing as someone else.

which is telling as that’s his main claim to fame - that and showing the world what an unhinged drunken hypocrite he is.

I’ve conditioned myself not to let a hint of a smear go by……

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Then please tell me what our course of action should be in Iraq. Is the war about oil or not? If it’s about oil, then we have no choice but to occupy the country for as long as it takes to establish a friendly government. If it’s not about oil, then why are we not pumping tons and lakes of money into alternative energies? Someone once said that “consistency is the hobgobin of small minds,” but I don’t think he ever anticipated such a conundrum.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

So, how many of you trolls are ready to sign-up for McCain’s request for “additional troops” to “win the war”?

Beuller, Bueller…

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

WashingtonState,

If I’m a bank robber and you arrest me for robbing a bank, I’ll think you are intrusive but hardly anyone else will.

By Jenn

November 14, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Midori, Like I said before. Apologies. I did not intend to smear, or point fingers.

By ed lorenzo

November 14, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

A CHAT WITH ALLMIGHTY GOD

“God, please excuse me for interrupting your siesta but I have some urgent questions to ask you”

“Never mind. By now we are used to listening to you bipeds raise more Cain than the fellow downstairs. It’s gotten so that even old Pete is thinking of turning your miserable little planet into fossil fuel. Now, what bothers you?”

“Is it true that you agreed, or advised, or tacitly approved our President’s plan to invade Iraq? He claims that you were consulted and that you gave him the green light. Is that true?”

“Not again! Is the cowboy from New Haven telling stories again? I have never talked to him. The last Bush I talked to was about 100 years ago and, if I remember correctly his name was Anhauser. Great bartender. We really hit it off!”

“You see dear God, he has made such a mess of things that a few million of our citizens are planning to move to Canada, Mexico or Costa Rica. If that should happen we shall have to build another wall but this time to keep them from escaping. What can we do, other than praying?”

God smiled with that unique charm of his and started to laugh loudly. In between spasms of laughter he replied:

“Why ask me? Ask four freaking doctor!”“

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

By Midori November 14, 2006 02:45 PM Jenn,the entire time I’ve spent on this blog has been mostly dedicated to fighting off Andy’s smears and lies accusing me of name jacking or posing as someone else. which is telling as that’s his main claim to fame - that and showing the world what an unhinged drunken hypocrite he is. I’ve conditioned myself not to let a hint of a smear go by……

Skank: I called you the name jacker because while finch was the one doing it, you squawked like a parrot the whole time, called him a “genius” and said you would blow him or what ever.

I figured that was close enough.

P.S. Most normal people condition themselves to IGNORE a smear not prowl around waiting for them.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 14, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

After listening to the whiningly-delivered talking points by your alleged political analysts and commentators, I just wanted to set the record straight on a few points you’ve been blabbering about.

“The Democrats didn’t win – the GOP lost.” No, the Democrats won, and won BIG – and they didn’t even have to cheat to do it. Get over it.

“The only position the Democrats had was being anti-Bush.” It’s kind of hard to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room – especially when it’s an incompetent, ill-tempered, idiot of a gorilla who lied the country into an unwinnable war.

If the Republicans wanted their own president to be a plus for their side, instead of an albatross around their political necks, they should have put somebody else in the White House – like maybe someone who hadn’t proven himself to be a failure in every other job he’d ever had.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 14, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

“The Democrats managed to outwit Rove’s political genius.” If you call advising your pet project (GWB) in such a way that his approval rating keeps going lower and lower ‘political genius’, I guess you’re right. In that area of expertise, Rove is an undisputed genius.

“The Democrats are too disorganized to be effective in government.” Take a few hours and re-run your own Katrina footage. Then come back and we’ll talk about organizational skills, okay?

“The Democrats have no message.” Actually, they do – and the voters heard it loud and clear. If you spent more time listening and less time running off at the mouth spewing absolute gibberish, you might have heard it, too.

“The Democrats have no plan for success in Iraq.” In case you haven’t noticed, it’s the president who has no plan for success – unless the plan was hundreds of thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars spent in order to achieve chaos and civil war, in which case the plan is succeeding beyond all expectations.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 14, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

“The lack of progress in Iraq hurt the Republicans.” Leaving millions of Iraqis worse off than they were before we arrived to liberate them isn’t a lack of progress; it’s an abysmal failure.

Fishing all day without a single catch is a lack of progress. Ramming your boat into the rocks and drowning your fellow fishing buddies is something else entirely.

“The Democrats don’t support the troops.” Do you mean things like voting to cut military pensions and benefits while sending troops into combat without body armor? Or do you mean giving them sub-standard food and fetid water while the no-bid company contracted to supply those things makes obscene profits?

If so, you’re right on that one. The Democrats do not want to give the troops that kind of support, now or ever.

“But do the Democrats know how to wage the War on Terror?” Well, it starts with keeping the country safe. That means not posting the instructions for making an A-bomb on the internet, not waging wars that actually create more terrorists, and spending money on cargo inspections as opposed to personnel to confiscate skin moisturizer at airports.

And if I might answer a question with a question: Where is Osama Bin Laden?

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 14, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

“Voters ousted individual Republicans to send a message to Bush.” No, voters ousted individual Republicans to send them this unmistakable message: “You’re fired.”

Bush didn’t single-handedly plunge the country into debt, hand over billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil and pharmaceutical industries, gut education and social programs, etc. He had a lot of eager help from his enablers – that’s why they’re packing up their offices even as we speak.

If the voters wanted to send a message to Bush personally, they would have sent him a postcard – using block letters and simple words, so that he could read it all by himself.

“Diebold was vindicated as an accurate voting mechanism.” So accurate that days after an election in the most powerful nation on earth, we still don’t know who some of the winners are in individual races. Heck of a job there, eh?

“The Democrats wouldn’t have won were it not for GOP corruption and hypocrisy being exposed.” Yeah, funny thing that. Given a choice between bribe-taking, money-laundering hypocrites and honest folk, the voters went with the party that wasn’t up to its eyeballs in criminal activity.

Of course, the Republicans could avoid such tragedy in future; e.g. getting rid of their pedophiles instead of urging them to run for re-election.

“The GOP failed to stress their past accomplishments strongly enough.” No need, really. Every voter who had their job outsourced, their health coverage cancelled, or lost their home in the past few years, is well-acquainted with the GOP’s past accomplishments. No reiteration was necessary.

“The Republicans let the Democrats win as part of their strategy to retain the White House in ‘08.” Yeah, it’s a lot like baseball — where letting the other team outscore you in every game is part of the strategy to win the World Series.

Maybe you guys should forget about politics and focus on the things you’re actually almost competent at covering – like Britney’s divorce.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Diogenes

I like that word - “conundrum.”

Let me back up. I meant our strategic interest in the Middle East is because of oil. Take that away and we’d be about as interested as we are in Africa. Oil is crucial to our economy - my earlier point is that by taking forceful steps regarding vehicles we could greatly reduce oil consumption.

My take on Iraq? It was an effort to take out a regime that was problematic, establish a representative government that could lead to pressure on similar despotic regimes in advance of al Qaeda efforts to overthrow them. Would also serve as a counter to Iran - flanked by Iraq on the west and Afghanistan on the east. WMD threat was perceived as real, angst over how those weapons could be employed, became public basis for major reason for war. BTW - ever notice how often the Bush-bash crowd refers to the Clinton goal of “regime change” in Iraq? Just an interesting aside -

But we got along without Iraqi oil before the war, they are not yet producing much. So “oil” isn’t a reason for this war. You are correct - it’s the juxtaposition of oil and terrorism that makes this such a difficult situation.

Why aren’t we pumping money into alternate technologies? Because Congresspersons want to get reelected. Look at the howls that accompany proposals to raise the gas tax a nickel. Now talk about hundreds of millions. It’d be a death sentence. It has to get rough and personal before many people will give up comfort or habit.

As far as an exit strategy - we’re seeing it. What we’re not seeing is much discussion from leaders regarding plausible scenarios and what we should be prepared to do to deal with them. Worse case? We leave, Iran fractures, Iran allies with Iraqi Shiites, exerts same type of influence/control Soviet Union exerted over central Europe, then feels emboldened to move from rhetoric to action.

By RW (the oravaginal)

November 14, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

RW: Dont you have to register as a sex-offender when you visit a blog?

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Washington State,

The subject of my posts to Stalker Boy was “Witch Hunts”. It was a response to his assertions yesterday that Christians are no better than mass-murdering Islamists, and he cited the Puritans as proof of his wild claims.

After demonstrating that very few people were affected by the Salem Witch trials (which Andy pointed out happened 400 years ago) I went on to cite modern day witch hunts which coincidentally involved Janet Reno, among others. Lurid and tragic as the Wenatchee case was, it differed only in degree from many similar episodes that erupted across the country between 1983 and 1998.

I cited Wenatchee as an example of mass hysteria, the shameless manipulation of children, the forced retrieval of false confessions by out of control CPS interrogations, and other abuses of government power. 30,000 counts of sex abuse added up to a big fat NOTHING.*

My theme, as it relates to witch hunts, was what happens to parents and child care providers of children who had NOTHING happen to them, and the horrible destruction these government agencies and over-zealous prosecutors can wreak on families, and indeed entire towns.

If you want to discuss how to handle abused children, knock yourself out, but that is not the purpose of my posts today, and quite frankly I don’t have the energy to get into it with you.

*While we’re at it, we should compare this to the “abuses” at Abu Ghraib or the so-called “torture” of terrorist butchers.

Where was the New York Times on the Wenatchee story and others like it? The Wall Street Journal has done yeomans work, and IMHO Dorothy Rabinowitz deserves a Pulitzer Prize for her moving accounts of these tragic prosecutorial abuses.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

I love the statement “Repubs lost this year so as to win in 2008”. Now why would they do that, one asks? Why lose now to win in ‘08? Oh, right, give Congress to Democrats so that in 2 years the horrendous mess that Bush has made of this country can be at least partially dumped onto someone else. Saying “we lost now to win in ‘08” is tantamount to admitting that the Bush administration (and the Republican Congress) are such a thorough disaster that there is no chance in hell to clean it up even a little in 2 years.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

There’s still some Dubya-appeasers who want to claim that our occupation of Iraq is not about “oil”. However, Dubya himself admitted it was true just a couple of weeks ago:

As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday’s elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq

Don’t you appeasers just hate it when Dubya actually speaks some truth in his rhetoric?

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Proud Pink Liberal spammer,

While your manifestos may cite what some Americans are discussing somewhere, to the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything you claim they have said here at this particular blog.

That being the case you are just squawking to yourself like a damned fool.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 14, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Thank you Buy Danish. I love you too. Sorry your side lost so terribly.

By Proud Pinko Liberal

November 14, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish - I have to wonder if you’ve ever called Andy a damned fool? He tends to submit manefestos mush more frequently than I. But then I assume you agree with him. Therein lise the difference. Please be more accepting of the winning side in the future.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Sigh. Goldie, Goldie, Goldie. You really must exert a bit of care when Googling. It doesn’t put it into context.

The article was correct - we didn’t go into Iraq for oil. There was an embargo. Three and a half years later (circumstances do change on the world stage) a possible ill effect of abandoning Iraq is that those with whom we are at war could gain access to the funds generated by a rebuilt oil industry. So both statements are correct.

BTW, I believe you mean Bush “apologists” vs. Bush “appeasers.”

By I Voted For The War Before I Cut And Run From It

November 14, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

Andy this Andy that, blah, blah, blah.

What an angry bunch of “winners.”

Speaking of which, even the moonbats don’t want Murtha:

Hoyer’s people informed the advisers that Hoyer had commitments from 20 or 21 of the 41 incoming Democrat members, as well as the majority of the caucus, seemingly locking up the leader job. “They [Hoyer’s people] seemed to think it was strong enough majority for it not to shift too much because of the letter either way,” says a Democrat leadership aide. “Hoyer’s people were taking this in stride, that this was something Pelosi had to do to help herself with the MoveOn and Cindy Sheehan types, not because she really wants Murtha in that chair.”

Misses Moonbat tosses Filthy Mouth over the side, hehehehe.

Gloat all you want but even the hardcore pinkos know that they have to act like Conservatives if they want to stay in power.

Hehehehe.

Tell me again who “won?”

By Abe

November 14, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Big, big happenings today in Iraq. But our troops’ve got it all covered! Stay the course. We’re winning. Thanks be to Bush. God bless Merca! Freedom on the march!

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Paul, the fact that there was an embargo actually lends credence to the “went there for oil” theory. Embargo meant we we had no access to oil from one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world. Whether or not it was the primary motivation, we did gain access to that oil as a direct consequence of the invasion. So that certainly fits. And it’s still entirely possible that oil was one of the primary motivators for the invasion. Of course that, much like everything else, failed to live up to the hype.

And yes, those with whom we are at war ($10 if you can tell who they are, short of simply “Muslims”) could wind up controlling the oil reserves and the funds that come from selling it. Right now we are averaging 2+ dead per day since the beginning of the war, and about 35+ wounded per day. Is that worth the extra oil? I’m not entirely convinced of that, Paul.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

No, I posted “Dubya-appeasers” and I meant it.

By Goldie

November 14, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Andy, you need to tell us again who LOST — you’re the troll here.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Proud Pinko Liberal,

What you did was spam the board with made up statements and then refuted them yourself which makes you look very much like the damned fool Buy Danish said you were. The only one that looks even remotely as foolish is rushncap who decided to jump into your strawman parade.

When you can point to Andy doing that even once I’ll take a look at whether there is any comparison.

By happy hermes

November 14, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Come Goldie, come back to psychopomp.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

rushncap

We were not in a critical oil situation before the war. Yeah, we gained access, but production is zilch. And I do think even if Iraq was stable, producing full bore, we’d find a way to use it all. I do not mean that in a good way. That was the point of my earlier posts. I don’t buy the Bush - Oil - Texas - etc - etc theory.

Who are we at war with? Worldwide - jihadists. Iraq - pick your enemy. Jihadists? Sunnis? Nationalists? We’re in the middle of a civil war and that isn’t a nice place to be. So “enemies” or “those shooting at us” doesn’t make much difference. We’re targets.

Save the tenner. Follow RW’s example and make Buffalo Wings this weekend. Use the ten for the beer.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Paul, first of all we did not know that the production would be zilch. I’m sure Bush was hoping it would be above that. In fact I can, if need be, dig up quotes by either Cheney, Rummy or both saying that the war would not cost us a dime, it would all be financed by oil. Either they were lying, or they clearly were hoping for that.

Second of all, the point of the “Iraq because of oil” theory has nothing at all to do with the U.S. being supplied with surplus of oil. The point of the theory is that Bush wanted his buddies and his family to gain the huge profits to be reaped from owning the Iraqi oil resources. The theory isn’t about Bush going to war to solve our energy shortage. It’s about Bush going to war to add to his, and his friends’, bank accounts. As such, there is nothing that you have said that would logically contradict this idea. The article mentions Iraq exporting 1.6 million barrels of oil per day right now. This is far below what was hoped for. So, say, Bush Inc. was hoping for 5 mil per day. At even $50 per barrel, that’s over $90 billion a year. At a profit margin of 9% that’s a tidy chunk of pure profitable change - about $9 billion a year. Mind you, this is an extremely conservative, lowball estimate. With data like this who needs solutions to energy problems?

By Paul

November 14, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

Rushncap

I’m familiar with the “oil will pay for the war” quotes. There was a bit of that batted around.

Nice distinction on “Iraq because of oil” vs “surplus of oil.” I don’t agree Bush family would have profited - will likely be a nationalized industry, you can make the point his associates would profit from the reconstruction, but I do not accept the “going to war to personally profit” theory. Especially after 9/11 - I’m sure in Pres Bush’s mind we were at war and opening another front for personal profit just isn’t credible.

But, as you say in your last line, there are many Americans who say, “energy problems? Gas is down to two bucks a gallon. Time to trade for a HumVGuzzoMatic and enjoy it while I can.” If you can get it when you pull up to the pump then there’s no problem - and that attitude is the problem.

By Paul

November 14, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

Just saw this headline:

“Iran Says Nuke Program is Near Complete.”

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/aponremiea/irannuclear6

Woulda been nice to have a credible nuclear bunker buster (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) by now.

By Red Tide

November 14, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Paul (331),

Thanks for the explanation. that’s sound reasoning. I’ve seen good stuff recently on the state of research for ethonol and for clean coal-burning power plants. Nuclear is another option.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Paul, a “nationalized” industry can go a long way towards personal profit when the nation is under a puppet government. I have no doubt in my mind that if it had come to it the oil companies would have figured out how to profit handsomely from any nationalized industry in Iraq. I’m not saying I’m completely sold on the “Iraq for oil” theory, but I am yet to see anything that would really put a dent in it either.

And, again, I’m sure Bush would find a way to profit from a windfall that could have resulted if the oil revenue of Iraq started flowing at least partially into U.S. companies’ pockets. He has way way too many ties to them, and he would have gotten they way way too much money to be cut out of the deal.

I’m also not sure that 9/11 was what got Bush to thinkin’ about invadin’ them thar Iraqis. He seemed to switch his attention to Iraq awfully fast in the aftermath of that tragic day. My guess (which is as good as yours) is that he wanted Iraq mounted above his mantle since he got elected, and figured 9/11 was an amazingly perfect opportunity to exploit national paranoia to carry out that plan. I have an awfully hard time crediting him with noble reasons for the invasion considering just how much out-and-out lying he had to do to coax our nation into that quagmire.

I completely agree with your assessment of the major problem that we have in this nation.

By Diognese

November 14, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Sorry. Got the wrong name on that last post. Thank you for your 331 explanation.

By Al

November 14, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

What wonderful things we’ve done in Iraq. These are proud, proud moments in our history. Let’s have some more Iraq Victory parties. Brought to you by our Worst Generations.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 06:08 PM | Link to this

Paul,

The very idea that the Bush family would take us into Iraq to personally profit is frankly not even worthy of a serious discussion.

If both 41 and 43 were interested in money (which they don’t need) there are plenty of other places they could go to make it that are far more profitable than the Presidency.

Both father and son have given a lot to this country and I’m tired of people giving credence to these ridiculous conspiracy theories hatched by Rushncap and his effete Socialist comrades.

To impugn the character of either President Bush by suggesting that they would be willing to sacrifice the lives of our military men and women, and put our entire country at risk for profit is a charge that is completely without merit and is nothing but poisonous propaganda.

The fact that Socialist Democrats have historically chosen tyrants like Stalin, Castro, and Mao for role models should be an indication of where THEIR character lies.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

rushncap (5:57)

Are you, contrary to Paul, stating that the war is about oil, or, at least, about Bush family profits?

By @@

November 14, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

I’ve been cookin’ all day. Just sat down to take a break. It’s good to see them mulling it over in Washington.

As to newly empowered Democrats, he said, “What’s interesting is they’re beginning to understand that with victory comes responsibility, and I’m looking forward to working with the Democrats to achieve common objectives.”

Might have been posted already, but for some strange reason I’ve been chillin’ here lately.

Paul says Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than anticipated.

Oops, that reminds me, I’ve gotta nuke a casserole.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 06:13 PM | Link to this

Danish, do you ever quit whining? I’m sorry to have assaulted your High Almighty Lord and Personal Savior George Chimpansee Bush, but take a breather. For crying out loud!

By Paul

November 14, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

BD - As I said, I don’t find it credible. I stated my reasons. Rushncap has his. I tend to think our President and his father are basically honorable people.

But Margaritas are waiting -

By Dye Brainless

November 14, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Hey, Dye Brainless, you’re supposed to register as a sex offender when you visit a blog. I have to report you. I dont like being a dirty rat, but you give me no choice.

You’re not wholesome and children should not be exposed to you!

By Andy

November 14, 2006 06:21 PM | Link to this

I just realized that an anagram of RW is (o) And an anagram of @@ is c=3

If you put the two together you get goat porn.

That’s like so illegal. I’m reporting the both of you horrid trolls.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this

Diogenes, I don’t know. It’s not something I’m discounting out of hand. The problem is, if it’s not about oil, I don’t know what it’s about. It’s obvious that the war had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism (I knew Saddam did not support Islamists a decade ago, hard to argue that Cheney didn’t), and it almost certainly was not about WMDs since we know that the intelligence was nowhere near the level needed for a war. If it was not about that, what was it about? Personal glory? Securing place in history? Oil? We went to war for some reason. We have not been told what that reason is. Thus “oil” is as viable an option as there is.

Paul — I don’t know if Shrub the Jr. is “honorable”. I don’t think so, but I don’t know. I also very strongly believe that, despite his transcendent oratory, he is not in fact “the Decider”. Rove, Cheney et al certainly wield more power than him, and I have far graver doubts about their honor than his.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 06:36 PM | Link to this

“The fact that Socialist Democrats have historically chosen tyrants like Stalin, Castro, and Mao for role models should be an indication of where THEIR character lies.”

Hilarious

“I tend to think our President and his father are basically honorable people.”

Too funny.

Highlights from the “Luckovich Losers” show.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

The Vietnam free trade bill failed.

There is hope for American workers.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 06:42 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I realize that you disagree, the point is that you are indulging some dangerous ideas.

Rushncap,

It has nothing to do with them being “high and mighty”. You are making serious and outrageous charges against a sitting President and his father at a time of war.

You are (intentionally in my view) feeding into Anti-American sentiment around the world and you are accomplishing nothing but weakening our position in the world at a time when strength is essential if we are to keep the many threats we face at bay.

You need to make up your mind what side you’re on in this battle. I’m pretty sure that you’re hoping for a glorious Revolution.

Prove me wrong.

By Qwackers

November 14, 2006 06:43 PM | Link to this

rushncap by admission doesn’t know what he knows, but gosh darnit, it’s got to be oil and Bush’s pocket book.

By bon scott

November 14, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

By @@ - November 14, 2006 12:57 PM - After further research to find a site I could link to, we have a coming together of Sunni and Shia. Why?

On the contrary, Sunni and Shia are farther apart than ever. And angry divisions among Sunnis are growing.

They’ll soon be too busy killing eachother to even come close to establishing any kind of “Caliphate”.

The notion of a unified Islamic front against the West is dangerously simplistic. Warring theologies, factions, tribes and families are the unpleasant reality.

By Paul - November 14, 2006 03:31 PM - Worse case? We leave, Iran fractures, Iran allies with Iraqi Shiites, exerts same type of influence/control Soviet Union exerted over central Europe, then feels emboldened to move from rhetoric to action.

How true, Paul. And that could lead to a pan-Persian Gulf conflict. $10/gallon gasoline will be the least of our problems. On the bright side, Sunnis and Shias won’t have the time or the resources to attack the West, since they’ll be too busy killing eachother.

The only thing that can possibly defuse this is an international force. But for that to be created, the US will have to leave. Yes, things will get worse. But only then will the world admit that this isn’t just a US or an Iraqi “problem”, and that they ignore it at their peril

By I Voted For The War So I Could Send Other Americans To Die In It - November 14, 2006 12:14 PM - why don’t you make some plane noises and see if maybe play Andy, your demon, will hop aboard. There’s always a chance, eh?

I’m just asking you to keep your word, you obsessive poser! Go. Leave.

Heh!

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

You know it would help if you occassionally backed up your guffaws with an actual argument based on the truth.

The New York Times gave a Pulitzer Prize to Walter Duranty who sang the praises of Stalin. Do your own research.

Every freaking “peace march” includes all sorts of Maoist, Communist propaganda, and I personally recall copies of his Little Red Book selling like hotcakes in the elite conclave of New York City.

The adulation of Castro is an easily proven fact. Chavez is a hero, as was Che Guevara.

Heck, just yesterday RW found a bit at Kos which claimed that Iran was really quite a groovy place to live.

By Buy Danish

November 14, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

PoFo,

Maybe its just me, but when Harry Reid talks he sounds like the kind of guy who makes breathy obscene phone calls.

Go for it.

By Biatchslaap

November 14, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish and bff Andy, Pinko’s Worst Nightmare,

I haven’t had the time to visit since the election, but… HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Thank you for your kind, yet skewed, attention.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Paul is often quoting from O’Reilly and in one way he reminds me of why I can’t stand O’Reilly most of the time. If it’s an issue he isn’t passionate about BO will try to find the middle of the argument. That would be fine except he doesn’t care where the poles are. If one end is loopy left and the other is a moderate position, why go half loopy just to get in the middle?

In your remark to Paul you’re just cutting through the BS to say the Bush’s are honorable men serving their country and rushncap is saying they have basically sold out the country for personal gain and Paul tries to find the center of that.

If you said President Bush belonged on Mt. Rushmore and rushncap was spewing his tin foil hat theories, then the center might make sense. In this case it doesn’t yet Paul is doing his best O’Reilly imitation and lending credence to rushncap’s unsubstantiated and malicious charges.

By Huge

November 14, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

Thought I’d check out bigot’s hysterical hyperbole in that ridiculous 1:16. As usual, turns out her “facts” are not quite so truthful. That’s what happens when she finds one source to confirm an existing belief of hers and then fails to croos-reference or find ANY other sources, favorable or not. Tsk, tsk. Sounds like junk science to me.

Peer-reviewed? Hardly. Read more here:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/6/510

“Recycling substitutes for novelty in this intelligent design creationist offering. DDPE is not a new book but rather an anthology consisting largely of warmed-over essays from a 1998 issue of Michigan State University Press’s journal, Rhetoric and Public Affairs. Neither of the book’s editors is a scientist. John Angus Campbell, who also serves on the journal’s editorial board, is a rhetorician. Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher who serves as director of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), the creationist subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle. Campbell is a longtime CSC fellow. Although a Discovery Institute-owned website (www.darwinanddesign.com) falsely advertises DDPE as a “peer-reviewed science book,” it was published as part of MSU Press’s Rhetoric and Public Affairs Series. Despite a Discovery Institute press release announcing that the book “features new scientific arguments for design based on evidence in paleontology and comparative anatomy,” it offers no new scientific arguments and cannot be reviewed as a science book since intelligent design (ID) science is nonexistent.”

Imagine me being suspicious of anything these neo-cons flat-earthers have to assert regarding scientific matters, but an op-ed piece from opinionjournal.com?

By getalife

November 14, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

BD,

Wow, you are way out there on your take of the Dems.

There are nuts on both sides.

The American people voted for the Dems and they are not like you described.

Take your own advice:

“You need to make up your mind what side you’re on in this battle. I’m pretty sure that you’re hoping for a glorious Revolution.

Prove me wrong.”

Get with the American people who voted for change.

By nuff-said

November 14, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

Bye Jack! Jack Abramoff Republican party big-wig and monied gad-fly of the Houston Set is off to the slammer. Jack will spend the next 70 months in the hoosgaoul. “Today’s peacocks, tomorrows feather dusters”

By Qwacker

November 14, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

getalife, maybe rushcap can take you on a nice snipe huntin’ trip.

By rushncap

November 14, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

Dear Danish:

—-It has nothing to do with them being “high and mighty”. You are making serious and outrageous charges against a sitting President and his father at a time of war.—-

Yeah, so? You gonna arrest me?

—- You are (intentionally in my view) feeding into Anti-American sentiment around the world —-

a) I’m not delusional enough to think “the world” reads this blog, and b) I’ve said it a billion times, neither you nor Shrub are “America”. You are one three hundred millionth part of it, and so is he. Get used to it.

—- You need to make up your mind what side you’re on in this battle. —-

The one which has the truth. Which ain’t yours, that’s for damn sure.

—- I’m pretty sure that you’re hoping for a glorious Revolution. Prove me wrong. —-

I need to “prove you wrong” a little less than a fish needs a bicycle. You are a nobody, I don’t need to go around proving anything to you.

But what I AM hoping for has half-way happened last Tuesday (happy 1 week anniversary of the as-swhooping, btw). The other half comes in 2 years.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

But Harry Reid might be a much wealthier heavy breather now that we know he owned the 165 acres on the Arizona side of the bridge from Laughlin over the Colorado River, that he got all of us to pay for.

Your Welcome Harry, I hope you’ll at least send a card since the bridge we bought you just made your land about 60 times more valuable.

By RW-(the original)

November 14, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Let’s see a show of hands of all the people that believe rushncap spouts his anti-American BS here and is Joe Patriot everywhere else he goes.

By Will Jones

November 16, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

The Bushes have no integrity to impune.

41 “can’t remember” where he was when he heard JFK had been shot…even though two FBI memos place him in the CIA - which a jury determined committed the crime - and in the area of the assassination.

43 cheated to get into the closed, “Vietnam-free” Guard, via his Congressman-father, and received 202 visits from homosexual prostitute “Jeff Gannon” at the White House while persuing a policy to foist the wedge issue of gay marriage onto the electorate while lying of WMD after having committed 9-11.

Death for treason.