Mike Luckovich

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Why wouldn’t Bush be pleased by this news? The Iranian thug-theocracy is the closest mindset to his own that can be found across the globe.

Except for a few trivial details, they’re basically brothers, and all the neocon drones who support Bush should be delighted to find allies in theocratic Iran.

By Mike

January 22, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

What’s funny is that the real leadership in Iran has reacted to Bush’s plan by unleashing a bunch of criticism on their wacko President this past week.

In addition, after the new plan resulted in the arrest of one of his top aides, Al-Sadr has rejoined the political process.

Of course Mikey is probably ignorant of these facts because he gets his news from partisan rags like the AJC.

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Another spot on toon ML!

In view of the events over the weekend, with some 30 plus US soldiers killed, everyone should go back and take another long look at a recent ML toon re: the ‘SURGE.’

Looks like that one too was frighteningly prescient…

By Shawny

January 22, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

I think the Iranian military would support Bush much more if he were to pull out completely and allow Iraq to collapse. yeah, that would make them happy.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

G’morning, Mike, Shawny (others, too, but you may not care for the link)-

Check out the 11th - also the 17th. I guarantee the 22nd will come up this week, too.

Link:http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp#

By Peter

January 22, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

I think Mike is showing Duh-bya in proportion to his approval rating. If things get any worse he’ll be a dot with ears.

(I wonder if he’ll be in town this weekend as the citizens voice their concerns … expect he’ll be traveling on “business” or vacation.)

By getalife

January 22, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Great toon Mike.

OBL loves w too.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

This cartoon is beyond absurd.

Al Qaeda uses Democrat talking points as propaganda, and the Useful Idiot leftists want us to get out so they can be free to build their Islamic caliphate.

Al Qaeda, and Iran’s Hezbollah, will indeed cheer if we cut and run like the Luckovich parrots recommend.

By @@

January 22, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Good gawd ml. I’m seeing things from a different perspective.

The mounting criticism is fuelling speculation that the President is politically doomed, and that he might even be impeached and removed from office.

There’s going to be a gathering of world leaders this week somewhere. Iran will be among the topics. The world’s not pleased with Mammoud.

Forget mammoud, let’s talk about your mood.

Are you the “mouse” or the “mouthpiece” in Ahmadinejad’s pocket?

By gadem

January 22, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

BD, cut-n-run is so last year…please come up with another catch phrase that you neocons can spew..get with the times sister.

By ed lorenzo

January 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Kids, cheer up. Do I hear impeachment? If it should happen (miracles still occur; for instance, my cousin Racchel went to. visit . . )But I digress. Guess who will be running the shop after GW is sent back to Texas?”

By Paul

January 22, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Pls check the earlier link I cited - sometimes I wonder if he gets ideas from blogs like this -

By getalife

January 22, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Ed,

President Pelosi.

By getalife

January 22, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

BD,

Yes, please pay attention to Paul so he will STFU.

Geez.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

@@, you really are getting denser as the time goes on. Are you telling us that opposing the Shrub is tantamount to supporting Ahmadinejad?

And if I believed in God I would pray that this President gets impeached. As it stands, however, I can only hope that Congress has the guts to go through with it.

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

So if the Iranian Islamofacists see themselves in a position of strength because of Bush policies, perhaps they would be so kind as to send all their troops across Iraq’s border to attack the United States army?

Pretty please?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Not that I am naive enough to think that we’re not already in a shooting war with Iran, as long as we’re killing bunches of them, I’ll pretend I don’t notice that simple fact just like you pinkos do.

From the link at 11:12- “Countdown to dismissal of Iran’s President has begun”

@@: It’s amazing what having an aircraft carrier pointed at you will do.

By Nomad

January 22, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

How long ago do you think Hillary recorded her ‘I am in, and in to win’ speech? Did anyone notice that there were leaves on the trees outside her office?

Now that Hillary has thrown her hat into the race, do you think that she has a chance? There is speculation that Obama’s decision to run forced her hand. I can tell you that things are going to be very interesting on the Democratic side of the next presidential election.

Take a look at Hillary and Obama. I think that Obama is overflowing with charisma that Hillary lacks, and I think that Hillary knows it. I have read that some feel that Hillary is an extremely vindictive and angry person.

The thing that I believe that could hurt or help Obama is his lack of political experience. Historians will tell you that it is hard for senators to get elected president. Look at those who were on their respective party’s ticket coming from the senate: Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, John Kerry (you might also consider Al Gore, but I didn’t list him since he was VP first). Obama’s decision to run now could have been influenced by a record, or lack of one, that could one day become a liability if he waited.

When it comes to financing, Hillary has in her pocket one thing that Obama could only wish for………….Bill Clinton. He is a great asset in some ways and a detriment in others. I don’t think she will be giving him carte blanche to say whatever he wants. He is a strategic piece, and I think he will behind the scenes in this one.

On stance, and by this I mean how far to the left of center they stand. I think Obama is more moderate than the Democratic leaders wish he was, but I think that this is a positive for him. Hillary is someone who is trying to shed the liberal label and portray herself as a centrist. I think her past will come to haunt her and conservatives will come out of the wood work to remind her of her past. I would watch out for the rehashing of socialized medicine and the Rose Law Firm accounts to get flung out again.

I think that nominating Hillary will get you another four years of Republican presidency. She is such a polorizing candidate that conservatives will pull out all the stops so that she does not follow her husband into the oval office. I think it will take more of a moderate (on either side) to win this one.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Gawrsh Mickey!

The neonuts still don’t get it. Iraq was a failure from day one. Any country brazen enough to think they can go into a muslim country, overthrow it’s leader, and expect the people of that country to willingly become Capiltalistic, Christian, Democratic, citizens, has been wearing those rose colored glasses for far too long. Their brains are fried from Rose garden rose burn.

In the military, when your assault fails, then you must retreat to prevent even more casualties. Pity this Prez’ and his adoring fans can’t see that.

All lemmings — absoulutly stay the course neocon lemmings.

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Nomad,

If the rank and file of Republican voters held their candidates to even the lowest standard of competence and accountability you wouldn’t have to be so scared about ‘08…

Instead of focusing on what might happen in a couple of years, here’s a thought…

Tell us what Republicans (after 12 years of a Congrssional majority combined with the last 6 plus with a Republican President) have done to earn our vote in ‘08.

By getalife

January 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Dumba$$ Dull,

They are not stupid like you.

The bombing in Iraq is sectarian with Shiites being killed.

Do you read or just run your ignorant mouth. The real leaders in Iran are not happy with Iamanutjob.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

getalife

Another brilliant comment from someone whose entire prior contribution consisted of “Osama loves President Bush.”

You are consistently predictable, I’ll give you that -

By Paul

January 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Nomad -

I’d offer that people on both sides of the aisle - Democrat and Republican (omitting, of course, the uberlibs) are pretty fed up with “politicians with experience.” I’m coming around to the viewpoint that maybe, just maybe, “experience” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Bush’s record of conciliation and energy conservation went out the window when he got to the White House. So if Obama lays out some guiding principles, indicates the kinds of people he’ll select as advisors, keeps making faith-oriented comments and decrying partisanship, well, the Democratic field could winnow pretty quickly.

By getalife

January 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Yes, Paul.

I am staying the course against w along with the majority of real Americans.

By Dubya

January 22, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

I done toll you n toll you. See, my new surge strategy’s workin quickern I thot. Killed 30 o them sum mitches jest oer the weekend. Oh, ours? Well we got ta make them sacrefises ta bring freedom n mocracy to 30 mill folks who dont want hit. Bless me, bless Murcuh.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Your link doesn’t work…

Getalife,

Cun ‘n’ run is so last year? Really? What’s this year’s plan?

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

By getalife January 22, 2007 11:50 AM Dumba$$ Dull, They are not stupid like you. The bombing in Iraq is sectarian with Shiites being killed.

Yawn.

Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization that has been trying to use minority Sunni anxiety in Iraq to build support.

Gosh, I wonder where I heard that name before, Al Qaeda, that sounds so familiar, let me think…

You and Sylvester Reyes, eh getalife?

Is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite? Which sect dominates Hezbollah? Silvestre Reyes, the Democratic nominee to head the House Intelligence Committee, failed to answer both questions correctly last week when put to the test by Congressional Quarterly. He mislabeled Al Qaeda as predominantly Shiite, and on Hezbollah, which is mostly Shiite, he drew a blank.

Al Qaeda is killing Shiites to gin up sectarian violence.

So is Iran.

“Dumb” is not seeing this.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Slim

January 22, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Paul, you mindless moron. Just what contributions to you make here? You babble day and night but say absolutely nothing. Quick, back under one of your rocks. Stay your course.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Not a bad comment, getalife, until I got to the “real American” part - sounds like a neocon from the ’60s, there.

So much for predictability! Progress!

By Truthman

January 22, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

It seems the Taliban have their own version of “No insurgent left behind” as they open schools in Southern Afghanistan…you know, the country whose government actually attacked the U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/aponreas/afghantaliban_schools

Great job in subduing our REAL enemies, W, you stupid dumbass!!

By Paul

January 22, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Let’s try this again -

Link:http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoon.asp

Without the # sign -

It’s to Investors Business Daily, Ramirez -

The guy has a wicked intellect -

By Huge

January 22, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/22/ceos.climate.ap/index.html

“The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.”

“Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach.”

“In the letter they urged Congress to enact legislation “to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Jeez, what a bunch of cry-baby mamby pambies and members of the leftist lunatic fringe!

“The officials, expected to elaborate on their plan at a news conference later Monday, include the chief executives Alcoa Inc., PB America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.”

Excuse me for being cynical about these people, but I’ll put my trust in better informed sources like bd,rw and andy, thank you very much!!!

By Paul

January 22, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Slim

The schizos are out again!

By Caterpillar Exec

January 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Change all of our engine models because of “global warming,” again?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

O.K. You bet!

By The Watcher

January 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

BEATING THE DEAD HORSE TODAY:

Buy Danish with this old gem

” Al Qaeda uses Democrat talking points as propaganda…”

Holy cow, could she say anything more stupid?

By Midori

January 22, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Impeach this fool. The only question he’s capable of deciding is: Do you want fries with that?

FWIW: Those are not my words, but rather a poster’s from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Now THIS really shows the mood of the country.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Andy Dull (dumb as usual).

So Andy what are you saying when you say Al Queda is Sunni? Are you saying Sunni is bad and Shiite is good? Are you claiming that the Taliban are not the problem, that it was their Sunni religion all along that made the Al Queda Terrorist?

So are we to now say that Sunni should be destroyed and Shiites placed in power?

Just curious since you seem to be so wise.

By Midori

January 22, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

I can’t wait to visit the George W. Bush Presidential Library

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Those are very good! Wish they had “slide show” so I could view them easier like Town Hall’s system.

I liked the one for Jack Bauer…

By Nomad

January 22, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

LHU - I wasn’t talking about republicans in my 11:38 post, but you try to take it and turn it into another “Republicans are bad” rant. Do you think of anything else?

I am not going to argue with you about Republican control or the president’s approval ratings because nothing I say will get through to your badly fried liberal brain. I asked some simple questions.

They were: 1. How far ahead was the tape actually made? 2. Did anyone else notice the leaves on the trees outside her office? 3. Do you think Hillary has a chance?

If you don’t want to answer, that is fine. Just don’t bother me with your mindless blather. Thanks :)

Paul - I agree. I think Obama is very Kennedesque (read: much like JFK was in his run). I think he has got a chance just as long as he lays it out straight and doesn’t lower himself into some mud slinging match with the other candidates. Edwards may give him a run for his money just because of the youth factor. However, both may be overshadowed by Bill Richardson and his Hispanic background. However, I feel that he would need to avoid or atleast he needs to publicly state his stand on immigration or immigration reform before he would get any swing voter attention.

Thanks for your input Paul.

NOMAD

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Nomad,

On questions 1 and 2, excuse me, but, WHO CARES!!!

ALL Politicians play these announcements to their greatest PR benifit.

The fact that you are concerned about something so ridiculously irrelevant is quite illuminating, however…

On 3, Hillary may well prove a formidable candidate. You are naive in your analysis about the people that will be gunning for her if she gets the nomination.

Your ‘friends’ have a history of gunning for anyone in their way with ‘Swiftboat’ lies and unethical propaganda…(see McCain, Kerry, Gore, Murtha, Plame, Bill Clinton, etc.)

I think there are better candidates for sure. Heck, I’d go with Giuliani, Biden or Richardson long before Obama or Hillary!

The greatest thing about the ‘08 election will be watching the Republican candidates repudiate the Bush administration. (You heard it here first…)

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

{{{By The Watcher

January 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

BEATING THE DEAD HORSE TODAY:

Buy Danish with this old gem

” Al Qaeda uses Democrat talking points as propaganda…”

Holy cow, could she say anything more stupid?}}}

Watcher,

Contrast and compare Ayman al Zawahiri and the Democrats.

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

By The Wanker for a Islamic Fundamentalist America! January 22, 2007 12:39 PM So Andy what are you saying when you say Al Queda is Sunni? Are you saying Sunni is bad and Shiite is good? Are you claiming that the Taliban are not the problem, that it was their Sunni religion all along that made the Al Queda Terrorist? So are we to now say that Sunni should be destroyed and Shiites placed in power?

Dullard: Man, this can’t be made anymore simpler, this now rests on your ability to reason-

Al Qaeda wants civil war, so they kill Shiites.

Iran wants civil war, so they kill Sunnis.

See a pattern here?

Now, for the tough part, well tough for you pinkos, anyway-

Who should America kill?

Ummm, Al Qaeda and Iranians?

Ding, ding, ding, give that man a cigar!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By @@

January 22, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

Nomad:

I’ve got Bill Richardson under my microscope. Not because I’m prepared to return to the other party at this juncture, but to see how democrats in Washington and America respond to him.

He definitely has experience in foreign relations and energy. I view him as the most moderate of the group. He’ll be a weathervane that will determine which way the wind is blowing.

Will it come as an updraft or from the leftcoast?

rushncap:

Thanks for the warm greeting:

{{{By rushncap}}}

{{{January 22, 2007 11:36 AM}}}

{{{you really are getting denser as the time goes on.}}}

Right backatcha…

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this

So Andy the Dullnard?

You want Amerika’s Troops to kill both Sunni and Shiites (Iran and Al Qaeda). Mmmmm Love it!

So the whole purpose of Bush’s invasion of Iraq was to throw the whole mideast and all of the mideast countrys into a sectarian civil war. Of course considering the majority of Muslims are Sunni I guess in the end the Sunni will come out on top.

Sounds good! I’m with you Andy!

But what happens to our troops with all these bullets flying?

Send More Cops! (and ambulance drivers)

By Nomad

January 22, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this

LHU - Same blather, no content as usual. You are the naive one if you think that Hillary is untouchable. You couldn’t hold a legit discourse on political issues if it came up and slapped you in the face. All you preach is hate, hate, hate.

However, I will gladly continue reading your garbage for my daily laugh.

NOMAD

By Midori

January 22, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

Lord Help Us: This is where all the hoopla over some stupid leaves are coming from. They are foaming at the mouth over there

By Huge

January 22, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

Interesting read.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012207Lindorff.shtml

New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is calling President Bush’s invasion of Iraq a “stark blunder” and says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess he created is just digging the hole deeper.

I wonder though.

It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder at all.

People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of intelligence on the president’s part, and to hubris on the part of his key advisers. I won’t argue that the president is a lightweight in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his gang never really cared whether they actually would “win” in Iraq. In fact, arguably, they didn’t really want to win.

What they wanted was a war.

So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq’s army and most of the country’s civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence.

I mean, we expect a measure of idiocy from our elected leaders and their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!

This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been orchestrated.

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Lucko-Andrew,

You are so stupid. If Al Qaeda and Iran are our targets - WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ!!!

We know where the Iranian leadership is, but, it seems the Al Qaeda leadership is in their new safe haven - Pakistan! (You do remember our ‘partners’ in the war on terror?)

Give it up, you are too stupid to blog (or vote)…

By Jesus

January 22, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

@@, I’m sorry, consider all the appropriate, socially-acceptable greetings that your local custom dictates uttered by me. Now on to the meat of the matter: you still have not answered my question. Are you saying that opposing the Shrub is tantamount to supporting Ahmadinejad?

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this

Nomad, Where the heck did I say Hillary was ‘untouchable!!’

I said she may be a formidable candidate AND I said I’d go for Giuliani, Bidan or Richardson before Obama or Hillary.

Man, either you can’t read or you’re just a wimp…

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

Dah Dum!

Huge,

This sort of back you up. It also reinforces my previous post to Andy Dullard.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0604a/iraqsunnishiite.html

And if any of these neoicons had a brain between them they would know that Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheeney and the PNAC Bowrey Boys had this war outlined this Iraq strategy 7 years before Dubya’ was dah’ Prez.

Same crew talked (groomed) Dubya into leaving his (newly elected) Guvner career to become their puppet Prez.

Of course the faithful believe and thats all that counts (when PNAC wants to pull the wool over their eyes)

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

Huge, I agree with you. I still am trying to figure out whether this administration (Cheney, Rummy, Rove, Wolfie, Perle etc) are a bunch of optimistic idiots or a gang of sublimely evil manipulators. Then I’m trying to figure out which is worse.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

Huge Conspiracy Theorist,

That tin foil hat has attracted too much of the sun’s rays and fried your brain, and the spinning of the junk scientists who peddle global warming has put a wobble in your orbit.

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

Midori,

Thanks for the link. These morons freak out over the most irrelevant BS! (and of course ignore material incompetence, corruption, lies, etc.)

According to your link this was played up over at the ol’ ‘Fair and Balanced’ network.

I also saw a piece somewhere about some school Obama went to when he was SIX. It was portrayed as a Wahhabi school (again on the ‘fair and balanced’ network) and attributed to the Clinton campaign (again on the ‘fair and balanced’ network). Quite cunning, but, apparently completely false…oh well, the ‘fair and balanced’ network still has its fans…

By Nomad

January 22, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

LHU - I stand corrected. You did say formidable. My mistake.

Wimp? Yeah right, keep dreaming.

NOMAD

By Truthman

January 22, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

How cum you Rs LOVE Guiliani when he cheated on his wife, but you HATE Bill because he did the same thing?

I guess your version of god says it’s OK to commit adultery as long as you have an “R” before your name.

Maybe the Newter can answer, or one of his ex-wives.

By Midori

January 22, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

LHU,

Those troops sure get around.

Maybe, like the pic above, those dastardly troops put up the trees/shrubbery outside Hillary’s window.

By Huge

January 22, 2007 02:09 PM | Link to this

REAL DEAL?!!!

That is cute. Meaningless and moronic, but cute.

Got off the toilet long enough to add your two cents worth?

Please quit wasting everyone’s time here and write those CEOs and explain to them scientifically why they are conspiracy theorists. I’m sure you’ll provide them with lots of info that they and their advisors have never seen!

You’re getting left further and further and further behind, fool. Pretty soon, you won’t even be visible in people’s rear view mirrors.

Please close the door when you are the very last of the idiots to leave.

Thank you.

Peoples for a Nuked Amerika’ Century! and rushncap,

I’m sure that many of us Americans speculate about the primary reasons for this fiasco/fvckup in Iraq.

Is it that the key members of this administration are really blindingly (UH OH! I think I just p!ssed off BD with that choice of words!!) stupid? Plausible, but I’m not convinced.

Is it a deadly arrogance on a scale seldom seen by our elected leaders? Unquestionably, but again is this why they sent these young men over there to die?

Is GWB really a religious maniac that get his directives from the christian god? Again, believable, but it is probably only a smaller factor.

Somehow I think rescuing the legacy of hsi daddy is involved. And his brainless reliance on the Reagan castoffs and henchmen involved adds some credence to that suspicion.

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Ouch Baby, very ouch…

The poll also found that the public trusts congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict -Iraq- by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent.

Some of you posters here need to get away from the radical fringe and join the mainstream…

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Well,

I am not sure that I want to follow up on all the liberal “presentations” for today. Let’s see.

Cheney & crowd had plans made 7 years earlier and elected a puppet prez…???

Bush WANTED a war???

The President is “Shrub” while rushncap presents himself as genius.oooooo

Al-queda is not in Iraq.

Let’s see. Did liberals miss “revenge for father” and millionaire President want to get rich with Iraqi oil?

I guess the next thing that we read will be something like this… the President was influenced by the tooth fairy and a full investigation of his dental records is necessary. Impeach the tooth fairy!

Our liberal Lucko loonies are at it again. It is sad that their material is so outlandish or stale.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

Truthyman,

People do not “hate” Bill because he “cheated on his wife”.

Read the articles of impeachment which have to do with perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

That’s just for starters, and does not include Campaign finance scandals, Whitewater, Pardongate, and a host of other “problems” with Slick Willie’s presidency.

By Tower

January 22, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this

Tower to Bomber Pilot, tower to Bomber Pilot. Acknowledge, Bomber Pilot. What is your position??

By TBF

January 22, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Always good to see Gonad back and brain active.

By Midori

January 22, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Breaking - John Warner (R-VA) to introduce anti-surge resolution

well, well, well………..

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Man,

I wish Bill Clinton was back in office…

More broadly, Bush will be speaking on Tuesday night to a nation that is deeply pessimistic, with just 26 percent of Americans saying the country is heading in the right direction and 71 percent saying the country is seriously off track. That is the worst these ratings have been in more than a decade.

Jeez, at this point in the previous administration, Clinton’s job approval was in the mid-sixties!

I wonder if some of the posters here were radical extremists then too…

By Edwin Williams

January 22, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

Luckovich just loves to hate America!

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this

Tower

We heard that Bomber Pilot’s last known position was co-pilot with Bail Out Bush. Over!

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

Can it get any worse for the Bushbots…

Democrats generally receive positive marks from the public, at least relative to the president. By better than 2 to 1 (57 percent to 25 percent), Americans prefer Democrats to set the direction for the country. And by similar margins, the public trusts Democrats in Congress over Bush to deal not only with Iraq, but also with terrorism, the economy and the federal budget.

You Bushbots must be feeling like you’ve been taken to the woodshed…

But, really, (sincerely) how does it feel to unequivocally support an Administration that is this incompetent?

By @@

January 22, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

Likewise on the revised greeting.

I was going to address the meat of the issue. After seeing you respond to Huge’s unfounded conspiracy theory, I’ll have to place the two of you in “the Vegan category” and believe me when I say I find nothing wrong with that.

Gone till later.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

Muffin, none of the supposed “gates” you listed for Clinton amounted to anything. And certainly none of those gates killed 3,000 of our men and women in uniform.

Dusty, honey, I’m not a genius. Not even close. Yes, I’m smarter than the Shrub, but that’s not saying much. And yes, he did lie to us to get us into the war. The fact that you refuse to face the truth does not alter it in the least.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

My name change is temporary and was necessitated by your nickjacking friends who have been using my name to post their pathetic garbage.

“Real deal” means it’s really me.

Got that?

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

@@, this is not a “conspiracy theory”. Bush is either borderline retarded or there are some Machiavellian forces at work behind him. Pick your poison. These are the only 2 possible explanations for why he lead us into this disaster.

I have no idea what the “Vegan category” is, but I’ll just assume that you think it’s witty and leave it at that.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

Yes Danish, because no nick-jacker will EVER think of adding ” (the real deal)” when trying to nick-jack you. It’s foolproof!

By Shawny

January 22, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Truthman asked, “How cum you Rs LOVE Guiliani when he cheated on his wife, but you HATE Bill because he did the same thing?”

For the most part, Guiliani is a fairly honest guy. Bill is sneaky and not trustworthy at all. Frankly I like Billy boy, and I feel for him that he has to live with the missus. He should get sympathy points for that alone. No R really thinks Bill should have been impeached for his marital misdeeds. They think he should have been slapped on the wrist (I think impeachment is a bit too far) for his lying under oath. Just listening to him try to ask for a definition of “is” just rubs you the wrong way.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

Midori 2:25

That post was worth a good laugh! Legislation being introduced by John Warner - Republican! Geez. From Virginia, no less. I doubt if there’s a state in the Union with more military bases and personnel per square foot than that state. Keeps things lively, doesn’t it?

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

By Lord Help Us January 22, 2007 01:29 PM You are so stupid. If Al Qaeda and Iran are our targets - WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ!!!

By The Wanker for an Islamic Fundamentalist America! January 22, 2007 01:23 PM You want Amerika’s Troops to kill both Sunni and Shiites (Iran and Al Qaeda). Mmmmm Love it!

Al Qaeda, our sworn enemies= Sunni.

Iranians, our sworn enemies= Shiites.

Not all Shiites and Sunnis are our enemies just as sure as not all pinkos are dumber then a brick like these two bozos^^ are.

The ones that kill innocent civilians in service of trying to start a civil war, that they believe will hurt America’s effort to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, those are the ones we should kill.

This is not that hard to follow.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

Midori 2:25

That post was worth a good laugh! Legislation being introduced by John Warner - Republican, no less! Geez. From Virginia, no less. I doubt if there’s a state in the Union with more military bases and personnel per square foot than that state. Keeps things lively, doesn’t it?

By Truthman

January 22, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

Shawny,

Good post. I don’t think Bill is any more or less sneaky than the next pol, but I agree with the rest of your post.

None of us on this blog would pass the “smell” test if our lives were opened to that level of public scrutiny!

By Buy Danish

January 22, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I keep change my name back and forth when conditions warrant. In fact I am changing it again, as a pre-emptive strike. What do you suggest I do, oh Scientific one?

As for the Clinton culture of corruption, what does that have to do with the Iraq War? A whole lot of nothing?

Unless you want to count all the statements Clinton made about Saddam being a threat, WMDs, and all.

btw, you interrupted a conversation between another blogger and myself. I thought that was against the “Rushncap Theory of Blogging”.

Am I going to have to resort to sending messages to you through an interloper again, with the “”CC: rushncap” meant for you?

By reebok

January 22, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

ML, I think you make a good point that Bush’s increasingly irrational behavior…including wiping out our ability to take action anywhere else in the world, should things flare up…must be making Iran very happy. I don’t know, even now, if the US would be able to respond to Iran, North Korea, or anyone else who acts to threaten our interests. Every American soldier who dies in Irag is one less soldier available to counter Iran’s potential aggression.

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

I can say say BUSH DID NOT LIE just as easily as you can say he did. You did not see the intelligence information that he and Congress saw. I did not either. So it is a draw.

As to deaths in wartime, they always seem useless and bring grief to Americans. I, at least, have confidence that this war will bring the freedoms and protection for which we are trying.

You don’t have any belief that your government is the best and is worth fighting for. That must be depressing even when you find numerous excuses for your disbelief.

By Lord Help Us

January 22, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

The ones that kill innocent civilians in service of trying to start a civil war, that they believe will hurt America’s effort to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, those are the ones we should kill. This is not that hard to follow.

Lucko-Andy…Didn’t know if you noticed, but the war in Iraq is not going well. In fact, the Baker commission, many active and retired Generals, the previous commanders on the ground, along with, a growing number of Republicans (Warner, Coleman, Hagel, Snow, Collins, etc.) are ALL repudiating your hero.

For some reason, you and Bush think that US soldiers need to die to help solidify the Maliki/Al-Sadr gov’t in Iraq.

You are simply too stupid to put forth a lucid justification…

By More funny bumper stickers

January 22, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President.

Impeachment: It’s Not Just for Bl0wj0bs Anymore

America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It

No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

Bush: God’s Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language.

We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

Impeach Cheney First

The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

One Nation Under Clod

Bush Never Exhaled

At Least Nixon Resigned

2008: The end of an error!

George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

By More funny bumper stickers

January 22, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.

If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President.

Impeachment: It’s Not Just for B10wj0bs Anymore

America: One Nation, Under Surveillance

They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It

No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq?

Bush: God’s Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language.

We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

Impeach Cheney First

The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

One Nation Under Clod

Bush Never Exhaled

At Least Nixon Resigned

2008: The end of an error!

George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

By Midori

January 22, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I know all about Virginia, as I am a native Virginian.

Glad I could give you a laugh.

I suppose there is a further point you’re trying to make. Third times a charm, eh?

By Blackadder

January 22, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

If a kid says asks for cookies and the cookie jar ends up empty one could put two and two together and assume that the kid took the cookies.

It stands to reason that since Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq before 9/11 that he would find a way to massage the intelligence after 9/11 to get what he wanted. You say that “Congress saw the same intelligence as Bush” but you don’t admit that the intelligence was cooked before Congress saw it.

I still haven’t heard one of you neocons show a good reason for invading Iraq when we did.

By Blackadder

January 22, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

Gonzales thinks he can pick and choose which American citizens have the right of habeas corpus.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

By Truthman

January 22, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

Another funny bumper sticker:

“Honk if you’re Jesus!!”

By Buy Danish

January 22, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

Truthyman,

How many people that you know or know of who lie in front of a federal grand jury, are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and have their law licenses taken away from them?

“Sneaky” Bill Clinton and…?

By More funny bumper stickers

January 22, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the double post.

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

reebok,

“Bush’s increasingly irrational hehavior”?? You are obviously giving the liberal point of view which is “Any Republican president is irrational.”

It would be observant if you noticed that Bush leads our troops in the fight for freedom in Iraq and the security of our country.

The fact that you can’t recognize that reflects more on you than the President. But it certainly pleases our enemies.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Midori

Points could go all over the place on that one - rather like a Seurat, don’t you think?

No escalation/surge legislation - introduced by a Republican, comes to mind. Add to it he’s Armed Services, vet, no Democrats have introduced similar legislation (as far as I know), well, golly gee, maybe we’ve entered a new bipartisan age!

What’s really going to get interesting is, this legislation’s being introduced. If it gets far enough, Senators will have to go on record. The surge will still take place. Then, 12 or 18 months down the road, the situation in Iraq will either be better, or it won’t. Now the Senators (read: candidates) will have a vote to defend - or proclaim. This just keeps getting better and better.

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

Blackadder,

You wouldn’t think there was a good reason to fight terrorists if they were knocking on your front door.

There are others who had rather fight terrorists before they get to your front door. Don’t put out your white flag yet. Our troops are fighting the enemy in Iraq (yes, Iraq) before they get here as they did once before.

By gadem

January 22, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

Poor pitiful Dusty…Bush could not lead his way out of a closet and you think he is leading the troops…are you senile?

By Midori

January 22, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

Paul,

another story you might like. oh, wait. you only like these type stories when you are ALLEGING that Democrats “fell back on their promise of a 5-day work week”:

During a Friday morning debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, the Republican leadership complained that the five-day work week imposed by the new majority was unnecessary and created problems for Members of Congress. But House Democrats are holding firm and plan to continue the current schedule.

Speaking for the House Republican leadership, Roy Blunt, the Republican Whip, complained during the floor debate that the five-day work week was making life harder for Members of Congress from both parties. He also described the schedule as “a disservice to the institution,” because “It is like assuming that a surgeon only does the surgeon’s work when they are in the operating room.”

In an e-mail response to RAW STORY, a Democratic Leadership aide stated unequivocally that no changes to the five-day work schedule were planned.

Blunt complained about the tone of discussions regarding the longer work week dictated by House Democrats, saying that “the majority has had the better of this argument so far because it is a lot of fun to talk about Members of Congress that don’t work.” He also mentioned that “The late night comedians love the idea that Congress was suddenly going to work 5 days a week.”

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

gadem,

Nope, I’m not senile. If I were, I’d be a run away Democrat like you.

By Buy Danish

January 22, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

Watcher and friends,

Newsflash…

Ayman Zawahiri JUST released some new Democrat talking points.

And…

Another Newsflash…

No reason to be in Iraq. Nope, no Islamofascist terrorists worth killing over there.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

Midori

Of course there’s “no change” to the 5-day work schedule - college football season is over!

Look, the schedule under Republican leadership was less than stellar. It’s another of those “define work” subjects - but by laying out conditions there is at least something to measure against. My disappoint - make that cynicism - is that after getting into power both parties begin a fast backtracking. Student loan interest legislation is a good example - as I know you like stories that embarrass only Republicans (back atcha - I assume you’re a Democrat,if that matters at all) you may want to read how the current system was written - by a Republican wined, dined and recipient of contributions (what is the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe, anyone?) from the loan industry. The rules were terrible - limits on refinancing, interest rate adjustments, etc. It was a terrible burden on graduates. Then the Dems state they’re going to clean it up - and then come the exemption, adjustments and changes.

I’d just like to see any of ‘em stick to their stands - granted, there has to be compromise - but the difference here is Speaker Pelosi shut out the normal committee/compromise process - and we still got items voted out that were not exactly what many of the voters expected. I suppose I should be glad - if it would have gone through the normal process there’s not telling what we’d have seen.

By Truthman

January 22, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

All Cigarette manufacturers!

Duke Cunningham.

Bob Ney.

Bill Frist.

William Jefferson (rep. from Louisiana).

Karl Rove about bugging his own office during the Texas governor’s race.

W, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and Powell lied to the American people and the U.N. But, I guess that’s OK with you, eh!?!

Your bias is showing!!

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

Attention ANTI-RAD,

This may be a wild guess but I think you might be able to give some advice to a blogger named Charlotte over on Wooten’s blog. She posted a piece about her daughter at 3:50 today. Just thought you might be able to help.

By Huge

January 22, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

“Real deal” means it’s really me.

Got that?

Oh. I see. As if anybody could fail to recognize your cogent, expressive masterpieces without that clue…

Speaking of well-thought out positions, how is that letter to the CEOs coming along? You know. The one accusing them of wearing tin-foil hats, I believe it was?

Yet, more bad news for you neo-con lackeys on that front, from today’s AJC:

Leading scientists and evangelical “Christian leaders have agreed to put aside passionate differences over the origin of life and work together to curb alarming levels of global warming that threaten the survival of life on Earth.”

“Representatives met recently in Georgia and agreed on the need for urgent action to drive down growing environmental degradation. Details on the talks will be unveiled in Washington on Wednesday, according to a joint statement.”

“scientists and evangelicals have discovered that we share a deeply felt common concern and sense of urgency about threats to life on Earth, and that we must speak with one voice to protect it.”

“In February 2006, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement to fight global warming, saying human-induced climate change is real, its consequences will hit the poor the hardest and Christian moral convictions demand urgent response to the problem.”

Oh those pesky moral convictions. Why don’t you flat-earth nuts who care nothing about the future of this planet,get some?

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 04:44 PM | Link to this

Muffin - I don’t suggest you do anything. I’m just amused that you think that by spinning the wheels faster you’ll get somewhere different.

I don’t have a “theory of blogging”. You’re either drunk, confused or lying. Don’t care enough to sort out which. And feel free to do whatever you want to: “CC”, “QQ”, any other letters.

Dusty — you can say anything you want. It’s a free country. You can say Bush did not lie. You can say the sky is pink at noon. You can say shrimp whistles. I don’t care. I’m stating a pretty solid fact here. You are saying things because you can. Therein lies the difference.

You can believe that this war will bring us “freedoms and protection for which we are trying”, in much the same way children believe in Santa. The only difference is that you should know better since you’re supposedly no longer 5.

And, no, I don’t believe our government is “the best and is worth fighting for”. Our COUNTRY is worth it. Obviously you cannot tell the difference. Must be nice and simple to be a sheep.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

Of course there are terrorists in Iraq, Muffin. We made ‘em! Bush should be so proud.

Great bumper stickers, btw.

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

right, rushncap

I can say anything I want and you only say something based on “pretty solid fact”.

Unfortunately the only solid fact that you seem to know and articulate is “I HATE BUSH”.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

Dusty, dear, where are those WMDs? Where is that “imminent threat”? Where is that yellowcake? Where are those mobile bioweapons labs? Where are those flowers that all our soldiers are to be adorned with?

Should I go on, or has your head exploded by now?

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

Dusty, this is the STUPIDIST comment you have EVER made:

“There are others who had rather fight terrorists before they get to your front door. Don’t put out your white flag yet. Our troops are fighting the enemy in Iraq (yes, Iraq) before they get here as they did once before.”

Look, you have made hundreds of stupid comments that I have read, but this one takes the cake.

The headquaters of the terrorists who have claimed to have destroyed the Twin Towers is in Pakistan. The current corrupt administration has done nothing to get them.

I haven’t waved a “white flag” at Ossama bin-Laden. Your corrupt, frat-rat president and his “president in charge of vice” are the cowards who won’t face Ossama. And YOU are a witless lackey of those two spineless wonders.

By bon scott

January 22, 2007 05:02 PM | Link to this

I see the usual tiny gang of necon idiots is bleating the same, and I mean EXACTLY the same “arguments” they were bleating last week, and last month, last year….. Bush is the liberator; Iraq is (almost) liberated, a few more thousand dead (Americans and Iraqis) will change the world, Bush is the deciderer, and he’s smarter than all the West Point grads who questioned both his stratergies (sic) and motivation even before the wholly misplanned $2 BILLION a week Iraq “walk in the park” began.

Keep it up sheeple. Your powers of delusion will earn many an academic a wall-full of well deserved degrees… all based on their proof of Einstein’s principle that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result”.

Morans.

BTW - Hi rushncap, Midori, etc,,,

By Paul

January 22, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Huge 4:43:

Huge!! You’re citing evangelical Christian leaders as a source!??! Sure am glad I was sitting down!

Seriously - this could be an interesting shift. So far the ECR (Evangelical Christian Right - no offense with the acronym - less typing) has been identified with the Republican right. Now along comes these groups - the reports I read identified them as more “mainstream” Christians - calling for a practical application of their theology’s instruction to care for the earth. Will Republicans scramble to attract and keep this “new” special-interest group? Or will Democrats see an in in attracting mainstream Christians? Or even, heaven forbid, evangelical Christians?

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this

By rushncap January 22, 2007 04:47 PM Of course there are terrorists in Iraq, Muffin. We made ‘em!

rushncap: I know I’m going beyond your intellect here and because of it you will throw some non answer back at me but do you realize you just gave your blessings to Timothy McVeigh blowing up OK City because Clinton killed all those children at Waco and “created” him?

Are you out of your mind?

Terrorism is never justified no matter how much you libs approve of it.

Sicko.

By Huge

January 22, 2007 05:11 PM | Link to this

So tomorrow is the beloved State of the Union address. Talk about a waste of time!

State of the Union? Under this president? I can sum it up in three words: “It’s a mess”. There. That saved everybody from countless cliches and empty promises.

Speaking of which, I understand that W is going to make some comments on the global warming conspiracy. Perhaps he has pulled his head out of the sand just enough to finally see.

That might be the final straw for BD! Watch out!!! She’s gonna blowwwww!!!!!

Last year he gave lip service to our “addiction to petroleum”, but I’ve yet to have anyone answer my question of “What has the White House done in the ensuing year to help in that matter?”

Bueller?…….Bueller?………..Bueller?

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 05:17 PM | Link to this

Uh oh,

rushncap is posting that which he has NO hard cold facts. He has never seen the intelligence reports on WMD, yellow cake or mobile bioweapons labs. Perhaps rushncap should have checked with Colin Powell when he presented those facts to the UN and they also believed. Then he might know a few facts.

Sorry, rushie, but you lose. You somply don’t have the facts, just your supercilious overburdened leftist imagination.

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 05:20 PM | Link to this

“…will Democrats see an in in attracting mainstream Christians? Or even, heaven forbid, evangelical Christians?”

Paul, some of the severest critics of the policies (or lack thereof) of the current corrupt administration have been evangelical Christians. Does the name Jim Wallis ring a bell?

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

Oh, I have the facts Dusty. They lied. Sorry that your whole world is collapsing about you. Denial is not a particularly healthy way of dealing with it, however.

Just trying to help. I’m sure you’ll persist in your “Maybe Cheney et al are complete morons” delusion, but I honestly don’t think even you believe that the Cheney White House is this stupid.

By Huge

January 22, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

“You’re citing evangelical Christian leaders as a source!”

Sure, Paul.

If they repent and forswear allegiance to the dark side of Christianity, why not? /sarc off

As for who will court these new enlightened “mainstream” Christians, that is a good question. I hope nobody. There was a time when your faith didn’t make you a democrat or a republican or whatever.

I’m hopeful that people of all faiths, and no faiths, are beginning to see duplicitous and corrupt political leadership for what it is and reject it.

I believe that is what started happening last November.

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

hterrya aka blackadder aka ???,

Would you be so kind as to tell our military where your buddy Osama is hiding in Pakistan? You seem to know exactly where his cave is located. Don’t send the white flag. Our troops don’t use them.

On, in case you haven’t noticed. We won the war in Afghanistan. They have their own government now. Thought you might like to know that.

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 05:28 PM | Link to this

“rushncap is posting that which he has NO hard cold facts. He has never seen the intelligence reports on WMD, yellow cake or mobile bioweapons labs. Perhaps rushncap should have checked with Colin Powell when he presented those facts to the UN and they also believed. Then he might know a few facts.”

Dusty YOU have never seen the intelligence reports, either. Colin Powell has acknowledged that the intelligence on the material he presented to the UN was flawed.

You statements of “facts” just get more and more STUPID!

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 05:36 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Ossama belongs to you and your love objects, the current corrupt president and his cowardly crew. They haven’t looked for him. And you support their lack of interest in finding him like the obedient little NeoCon lackey you are.

By @@

January 22, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

rushncap:

I’ve got a minute to seriously address the meat of the issue.

Oppose the policies if you must, but don’t discredit the CIC during war, by applying absurd conspiracies as his motivation to invade. When I see that kind of crap posted here, I’m compelled to write all leftists off as loons. Congressional leaders, along with pandering politicians from both parties have chosen, not only to recede, but to deny any possibility for success. These are dangerous choices, that embolden Iran.

I don’t really find nobility in the cause of the anti-war crowd. It usually centers around needs not being met here at home. They’re willing to sacrifice Israel and Iraqis, and moderate Arab states to a nuclear Ahmadenijad. He becomes stronger only when we allow ourselves to appear weakened in our desire to see this through.

Everyone’s concern for our soldiers is valid, but our soldiers’ concern for us, the Iraqi people, Israel and the greater Middle East is what defines noble in my opinion.

I have choices just like everyone else. I’m lucky, I live in the U.S.

By Bill

January 22, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this

Tower, I think you’ll find that Bomber Pilot’s position is always the same. Bent over, holding his ankles.

By RW-(the original)

January 22, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

More proof that Bush lied!

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

@@:

Surely you are not implying that the current corrupt president did not have plans to invade and occupy Iraq before the tragedy of 9-11?

I would not be calling him the “current corrupt president” if he had gotten some courage and admitted that 9-11 and the presence, or absence, of WMD’s was not the issue. He could have admitted that his desire to invade and occupy Iraq had been his intention before he actually took the oath of office.

I would have still opposed the invasion of Iraq (because the first priority was to find bin-Laden), but I wouldn’t have carried the anger I now carry at having been lied to.

By @@

January 22, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this

Oh, before I leave. This conspiracy theory could be a moonshot for moonbats.

Too funny, and if you try real hard, you can throw Bush into the mix somewhere.

The only problem is, you’ll have to explain why George Soros, who publicly promotes the “New (One) World Order” hates George Bush with every fiber of his being, and works relentlessly against him.

I have a problem with Rockefeller’s treasonous visit to Syria before the Iraq invasion, but only fools buy into conspiracy theories like this one.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this

@@, then what IS his motivation to invade? If it’s not conspiracy it’s gross, gargantuan incompetency. I’m still not sure why you think the latter is significantly better than the former.

I don’t care about “nobility”. Nobility is often stupidity. Nobility in sending men to a useless war is lower on my scale than the “nobility” of taking down an airplane with yourself in it. You care about slogans, about nice words. I care about people’s lives.

And, by the way, our ability to deal with a real threat - Iran - has been severely hamstrung by this Iraq fiasco. Even you should be able to see that. Ahmadinejad knows full well that the U.S. would not go into another Middle East invasion after the disaster that the Shrub initiated in Iraq. He also knows full well that the Shrub managed to drive away all of our allies, so no one would help us or stand with us. So you think THIS is noble? Death is not noble by default, as you seem to think. Death is noble when it’s for a good cause. Otherwise it’s just tragic.

And there never was a “possibility of success”. That’s a mirage that you keep telling yourself is real. You still don’t get it: not everything can succeed. I know it’s unamerican to suggest that something is doomed to fail, but that’s the reality. This was doomed from the start. From its very inception. And those who were thinking at all clearly beforehand saw that.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 06:04 PM | Link to this

Huge

I reread your first post on the Christian/earth topic (I was dashing back and forth with an assembly of chile verde) and misread - didn’t see “evangelical” there. Which dovetails nicely with your comment about “mainstream.” I’m not sure I’d call it “newly enlightened” - maybe “fed up and speaking out.”

I believe we had a discussion once before about how the Administration/Republican right became aligned with the evangelical movement (abortion/no abortion) and things went from there. Amazing how an entire religious movement gets associated with one “social” issue.

Anyhow, it’d be nice if peoples’ religious affiliation wouldn’t get associated with a branch of Christianity. Hmmm. Who do you suppose will embrase Mitt Romney? I know he’s a Republican, but Massachusets, with a statewide healthcare plan a newspaper article I read described as “quintesentially Mormon” and support could come from all over.

hterrya - my read is some of the harshest critics of the Administration are evengelicals because the Administration hasn’t gone far enough with supporting their moral/social positions. But they also do not see they have any other party to turn to - Democratic power brokers will not just shun them, but push against them.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 06:10 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original) 5:49

Gasp!! You mean, under the Clinton Administration… we had a law enacted… Congress passed it (Democrats too???) and the President signed it… and it said regime change in Iraq?!!!?? So “regime change” wasn’t just a Clinton policy, but was grounded in law?!!?

Ohmygosh. Clinton lied?

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 06:10 PM | Link to this

Lies lies and more lies

Dubya lied when he spoke these words.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Does the PATRIOT act “Preserve” our constitutional rights?

PNAC I’m not a mad scientist. A little angry maybe, but not mad.

By @@

January 22, 2007 06:17 PM | Link to this

Oh, thanks for reminding me rushncap. I had every intention of including in my post that what we conservatives call “noble”, leftists call “stupid”.

Who does that sound like?

That anti-war activist NOBLE JOHN KERRY.

Thanks for reminding me, I couldn’t have done it without you.

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 06:17 PM | Link to this

Paul, as I suspected, you have never heard of the well-known evangelical Christian, Jim Wallis. It is the evangelical Christians who blindly follow the current corrupt president or criticize him because he “hasn’t gone far enough with supporting their moral/social positions,” with whom Jim Wallis parts company. He has indicated they don’t read enough of the Bible and have a very narrow and slanted version of what is “moral.”

You need to read some of his articles. He is an evangelical Christian who truly believes in the “evangel.” If all those who call themselves “evangelical Christians” took ALL of the evangel seriously, their would be fewer “evangelical Christian” followers of the current corrupt president.

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 06:18 PM | Link to this

In Video, Al Qaeda No. 2 Al-Zawahiri Taunts President Bush’s New Iraq Plan- Much of the speech is dedicated to inciting Muslims, urging them to join the jihad or at least to support those conducting jihad in war zones such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Somalia, and Algeria.

Huh, I thought the war was only in Iraq.

What’s Algeria upset about?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 06:24 PM | Link to this

Great dodge, @@. Artfully done. Maybe if you ignore facts long enough, they’ll go away. Way to go.

Not everything you call noble I call stupid. But when you tell someone else’s kid to kill and die for no reason, that’s stupid. Since you have to feel better about yourself for supporting this needless death and destruction you call it noble. I’m not fooled. Neither are you. But you keep saying it.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 06:26 PM | Link to this

hterrya

You’re right, I do not recognize the name Jim Wallis. My comments did not, obviously, refer to him - but to the politicized evanelical leaders. Thanks for the offer, but I’m not too much into the religious persuasion leading to a specific path of political viewpoint - so I’ll pass on your offer. I’m more interested in topics such as the article I cited earlier - Mitt Romney as Mormon, also Harry Reid, also a Republican from Arizona who’s been leading the fight against earmarks since he got there. Same faith (in a faith they portray as one faith, not factions) yet wildly different political paths. That, I believe, is what Huge was getting at.

By RW-(the original)

January 22, 2007 06:28 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Are still trying to peddle that LIE that President Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat? How about a link to that one?

What do you think about “Boosh” being responsible for Natalie Holloway disappearing?

By Huge

January 22, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

Romney does pose a bit of problem for the Christian right. Not exactly a bastion of tolerance, it will be interesting to see how they feel about his being LDS.

If Bush was elibible to run again, I’ll bet you Rove would leak a story about Romney’s 15 wives!!!

Seriously, as most know, he’s acclaimed for the healthwide insurance coverage he help create in Mass.

And from what I can tell he’s pretty solidly right-leaning with a few centrist balances.

But in regards to his campaign, this may be the most damaging little detail I found: #8 on Human Events’ list of Top Ten RINOs.

He’s probably just not quite rabid enough for the religious right-wing of party faithful.

By Buy Danish

January 22, 2007 06:31 PM | Link to this

Blowhard,

Let me look up into the atmosphere and see if I “get” the drift of your predictably long-winded attack.

You think I should just keep my name as “Buy Danish” even when I’m being jacked by your wanking friends?

Or is it that you don’t like that particular (and not in the least bit deceptive) I.D. which I chose that added “the real deal” to my name in order to differentiate between me and the wanker?

You are suddenly on board with evangelicals who foolishly support the junk science of global warming?

Was there another point in there that I missed?

Lying rushncap,

Maybe this will refresh your memory. Scroll up. Scroll down. Enjoy the trip down memory lane.

CC: Rushncap.

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 06:34 PM | Link to this

“The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.” (George W. Bush)

By Huge

January 22, 2007 06:39 PM | Link to this

“Are still trying to peddle that LIE that President Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat? How about a link to that one?”

http://www.narsil.org/waroniraq/bushoctober7_2002.html

“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” - President George W. Bush

Monday, October 7, 2002

CINCINNATI, OHIO

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 06:39 PM | Link to this

Paul, since you are “not too much into the religious persuasion leading to a specific path of political viewpoint,” perhaps eveyone in this thread should ignore ANYTHING you post about matters of faith, since you are DELIBERATELY ignorant of them!

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this

Yes, RW: here you go. You want more, or will only 1 do?

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 06:43 PM | Link to this

When Dusty gets confronted with the stupidity of his statements, he disappears.

Way to follow your love object, the current corrupt president, Dusty! He would be so proud of your cowardice (almost as disgusting as his own cowardice).

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 06:44 PM | Link to this

I don’t know what’s sadder, my Muffin: the fact that you keep track of my posts from November of last year or that you have misinterpreted my attempt to help you out as some sort of a “theory”. I’ll leave it up to the board to decide. For the record my vote is for the former.

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 06:45 PM | Link to this

By rushncap January 22, 2007 06:00 PM And, by the way, our ability to deal with a real threat - Iran - has been severely hamstrung by this Iraq fiasco. Even you should be able to see that. Ahmadinejad knows full well that the U.S. would not go into another Middle East invasion after the disaster that the Shrub initiated in Iraq. He also knows full well that the Shrub managed to drive away all of our allies, so no one would help us or stand with us.

Yawn.

Dariush Zahedi, who teaches in the departments of political economy and peace and conflict studies at the University of California-Berkeley, and Omid Memarian, an award-winning Iranian journalist, write: “The Bush administration’s decision to step up pressure against Iran by going after Iranian agents inside Iraq, coupled with the Islamic Republic’s increasing economic and diplomatic isolation, have pushed conservatives inside Iran to further distance themselves from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” “Coupled with the country’s deteriorating economy, these developments could push Ahmadinejad’s opponents to replace him with a less doctrinaire politician,” according to the two experts.

By hterrya

January 22, 2007 06:46 PM | Link to this

Thaks, Huge! So, as I suspected, it was RW (the un-original) who was LYING (again!)!

By Paul

January 22, 2007 06:51 PM | Link to this

Huge at 6:30

Sadly true. Much will be made of his “changing positions” on a couple of issues. I know, changing your mind, or coming to a new understanding and adjusting your position is not to be tolerated. Nope, gotta hold the same position from when you first run for office to when you die. At least, that’s what I gather from a few around here.

Another point for Obama. Don’t have much of a record and it makes it harder for a “gotcha.” Plus if you say up front you’re open to new ideas… whoa… so just how does that differ from changing your mind on an issue?

By Dusty

January 22, 2007 06:54 PM | Link to this

Poor ol’ hterrya

I really did retreat!! Yes, indeed, right to the dinner table. I was rewarded with pot roast, mashed potatoes, broccoli and almond nut cake. I tell you, these “retreats” are great. Much better than that white flag YOU carry.

By LuckoDull

January 22, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

The only other person I know that cares a whit about Mitt Romney, besides Huge, is Mitt Romney.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

By Paul

January 22, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

hterrya 6:39

Yup, your real name is becoming clearer.

Let me be a little bit clearer/blunter. I’m not too much interested in pursuing to any great degree faiths that want me to believe as they do and then set out a political path for me to follow.

I hope that’s clear enough. Have you decided who you’ll be tomorrow?

By The Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century!

January 22, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

?????

When has Bush Lied??

I think the bigger question is when has Dubya’ ever told the truth? When has he been open and honest with America?

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#Iraq

If NeoCon Nanny, Rove Wannabe(RW), and Dust In My Ear, says that Bush never lied again with a straight face after reading this post, then just ignore them as the super Kool-Aid sap suckers that they are. Completly Brain Dead.

PNAC ( -W- is the first letter of War, Wimp, Wino, Wolf, Whelp, Weasel, Weirdo, Wussie, and Waste. Got it!)

By rushncap

January 22, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

I swear, Dusty and her “white flag”. Just when you think you’ve heard of every fetish out there, along comes a new perv like our Dusty here…

By RW-(the original)

January 22, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

You better try for more since the only thing about an imminent threat is in the headline writer’s dream. Nothing in that story shows the President claiming Iraq was an imminent threat. It actually says exactly the opposite.

I give you libs this advice all the time, please try to heed it this time.

READ PAST THE HEADLINE

OK?

By Huge

January 22, 2007 07:00 PM | Link to this

Sure, hyterra.

I have butted heads with RW for a long while now and though I find him utterly misguided at times, I don’t think he’s a liar.

And unlike Danish and Dusty, who are clearly twits, RW is not dumb.

But his unwavering support of all things Bush, all things neo-con and all things far right-wing make most of his positions completely suspect.

And the blunder that he posted above will not likely produce any sort of meaningful correction, just more spin…

Paul, Yes it is madening that to be politically effective anymore, one must be a slave to his ideas as Jefferson called it.

By Buy Danish

January 22, 2007 07:03 PM | Link to this

Lying rushncap,

Err, your “gotcha” for RW is a big fat nothing. Bush does not use the word “imminent”, Kennedy and the authors of the piece do. Any more “proof” you’d like to offer?

I don’t keep files on you, the archives so, and I have a fairly good memory so I was able to retrieve the record.

Maybe you should file a complaint with the A.J.C.?

By RW-(the original)

January 22, 2007 07:08 PM | Link to this

Did rushncap ever answer the question about Tim McVeigh or was he too busy accusing others of dodging questions?

LuckoDull,

I like Mitt Romney. He sure beats the hell out of getting stuck with McCain.

By Buy Danish

January 22, 2007 07:13 PM | Link to this

Correction! Make that “the archives DO” not SO.

Blowhard,

Why don’t you try putting some meat in your 2500 character bloviations?

Prove that I’m a “twit”, just as I prove every day that you’re a blowhard.

By Huge

January 22, 2007 07:13 PM | Link to this

Hey the irrelevant luckodull unknowingly gave me an idea for a new slogan!

I give a whit about Mitt!

Shades of an Eisenhower slogan?

But alas, no retort from RW or BD on the Cincy quote. Typical gutless neo-con obfuscation.

By RW-(the original)

January 22, 2007 07:15 PM | Link to this

What “lie” or “blunder” are you dimwits accusing me of now?

Huge,

Since I have virtually no use for President Bush’s government expansion or his amnesty plan for illegals it would seem you’re the one propagating a “blunder.”